A geomorphodiversity map of the Soutpansberg Range, South Africa

• Autorzy: Kori Edmore , Onyango Odhiambo Beneah Daniel , Chikoore Hector

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12657/landfana-038-002

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Within the emerging broad science of geodiversity, geomorphological diversity (geomorphodiversity) assesses the form of surface features of a place or region. This paper uses SRTM data and GIS techniques to assess geomorphological diversity of the Soutpansberg range, in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Suitable factors to assess geomorphological diversity were identified as geology, slope position, soil erodibility, landform position, relative heights, insolation, hydrography and ruggedness. Each factor was normalised to five classes by applying natural breaks. All the eight factors were weighted before overlaying. The weighting reveal that respectively, geology, slope and soils carry more weight. Ruggedness, relative height and insolation carry the least weight, in that order. The final geomorphodiversity map reveals that almost half of the Soutpansberg range has high to very high geomorphological diversity. We conclude that factor specific research can add more information to geomorphodiversity research and education.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

geomorphological diversity; Soutpansberg; variable; geodiversity; geomorphology

• Wydawca: Stowarzyszenie Geomorfologów Polskich
• Czasopismo: Landform Analysis
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 38
• Strony: 13--24
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 51 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Kori Edmore

• Department of Geography and Geo-Information Sciences, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa

autor

Onyango Odhiambo Beneah Daniel

• Department of Geography and Geo-Information Sciences, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa

autor

Chikoore Hector

• Department of Geography and Geo-Information Sciences, University of Venda, Thohoyandou, South Africa

Bibliografia

• Anache J.A.A., Bacchi C.G.V., Panachuki E., Sobrinho T.A., 2015. Assessment of methods for predicting soil erodibility in soil loss modeling. Geociências 34: 32–40.
• Araujo A.M., Pereira D.Í., 2018. A new methodological contribution for the geodiversity assessment: applicability to Ceará State (Brazil). Geoheritage 10: 591–605.
• Banta R., Cotton W.R., 1981. An Analysis of the structure of local wind systems in a braod mountain basin. Journal of Applied Meteorology 20: 155–1266.
• Barry R.G., 2008. Mountain Weather and Climate. Cambridge University Press.
• Berger K., Crafford J., Gaigher I., Gaigher M., Hahn N., Macdonald I., 2003. A first synthesis of the environmental, biological and cultural assets of the Soutpansberg. Leach Printers & Signs, Louis Trichardt, South Africa.
• Bouyoucos G.J., 1935. The clay ratio as a criterion of susceptibility of soils to erosion. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 27: 738–741.
• Brandl G., 2003. Geology of the Soutpansberg. In: K.Berger, J.E.Crafford, I.Gaigher, M.J.Gaigher, N.Hahn, I.A.W.MacDonald (eds), A first synthesis of the environmental, biological and cultural assets of the Soutpansberg, Louis Tritchardt: 11–13.
• Brilha J., Gray M., Pereira D., Pereira P., 2018. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environmental Science & Policy 86: 19–28.
• Demek J., Kirchner K., Mackovčin P., Slavík P., 2011. Geomorphodiversity derived by a GIS-based geomorphological map: case study the Czech Republic. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 55: 415–435.
• Foord S.H., Gelebe V., Prendini L., 2015. Effects of aspect and altitude on scorpion diversity along an environmental gradient in the Soutpansberg, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 113: 114–120.
• Foord S.H., Mafadza M., Dippenaar-Schoeman A.S., Van Rensburg B., 2008. Micro-scale heterogeneity of spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) in the Soutpansberg, South Africa: a comparative survey and inventory in representative habitats. African Zoology 43: 156–174.
• Gray M., 2004. Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. John Wiley & Sons.
• Gray M., Gordon J. E., Brown E. J., 2013. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124: 659–673.
• Grey J.N.C., Bell S., Hill R.A., 2017. Leopard diets and landowner perceptions of human wildlife conflict in the Soutpansberg Mountains, South Africa. Journal for Nature Conservation 37: 56–65.
• Hahn N., 2010. Floristic diversity of the Soutpansberg, Limpopo Province, South Africa. University of Pretoria.
• Houshold I., Sharples C., 2008. Geodiversity in the wilderness: a brief history of geoconservation in Tasmania. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 300: 257–272.
• Huggett R., 2007. Fundamentals of Geomorphology. Routledge.
• Jenks G.F., 1967. The Data Model Concept in Statistical Mapping. International Yearbook of Cartography 7: 186–190.
• Jenness J., 2006. Topographic position index (TPI) v. 1.2. Flagstaff, AZ: Jenness Enterprises.
• Jerie K., Houshold I., Peters D., 2001. Stream diversity and conservation in Tasmania: yet another new approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Stream Management Conference, CRC for Catchment Hydrology: 329–335.
• Kabanda T., 2004. Climatology of Long-term Drought in the Nothern Region of the Limpopo Province of South Africa. In: Geography and Geo_Information Sciences. University of Venda: South Africa: University of Venda.
• Kabanda T., Munyati C., 2010. Anthropogenic-induced climate change and the resulting tendency towards land conflict: the case of the Soutpansberg region, South Africa. In: D.A.Mwiturubani, J.Van Wy (eds), Climate change and Natural Resources Conflicts in Africa. Pretoria, Monograph 170: 139–155.
• Karydas C., Petriolis M., Manakos I., 2013. Evaluating alternative methods of soil erodibility mapping in the Mediterranean Island of Crete. Agriculture 3: 362–380.
• Kephe P.N., Petja B.M., Kabanda T.A., 2016. Spatial and inter-seasonal behaviour of rainfall in the Soutpansberg region of South Africa as attributed to the changing climate. Theoretical and applied climatology 126: 233–245.
• Kirchhof S., Krämer M., Linden J., Richter K., 2010. The reptile species assemblage of the Soutpansberg (Limpopo Province, South Africa) and its characteristics. Salamandra 46: 147–166.
• Marques V.S., Ceddia M.B., Antunes M.A., Carvalho D.F., Anache J.A., Rodrigues D.B., Oliveira P.T.S., 2019. USLE K-Factor Method Selection for a Tropical Catchment. Sustainability 11(7) 1840: 1–17.
• Matthews T.J., 2014. Integrating geoconservation and biodiversity conservation: theoretical foundations and conservation recommendations in a European Union context. Geoheritage 6: 57–70.
• Melelli L., Vergari F., Liucci L., Del Monte M., 2017. Geomorphodiversity index: Quantifying the diversity of landforms and physical landscape. Science of the Total Environment 584: 701–714.
• Milton K., 2002. Loving nature: Towards an ecology of emotion. Psychology Press.
• Mostert T. H. C., 2006. Vegetation ecology of the Soutpansberg and Blouberg area in the Limpopo Province. University of Pretoria.
• Musila W., Todt H., Uster D., Dalitz H., 2005. Is geodiversity correlated to biodiversity? A case study of the relationship between spatial heterogeneity of soil resources and tree diversity in a Western Kenyan Rainforest. In: B.A.Huber, B.J.Sinclair, K.-H.Lampe (eds), African Biodiversity – Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems, Springer: 405–414.
• Najwer A., Zwoliński Zb., 2014. The landform geodiversity assessment method – a comparative analysis for Polish and Swiss mountainous landscape. IGU 2014 Book of Abstracts, 1201.
• Nenwiinia S., Kabanda T., 2013. Trends and variability assessment of rainfall in Vhembe South Africa. Journal of Human Ecology 42(2): 171–176.
• Oettli P., Camberlin P., 2005. Influence of topography on monthly rainfall distribution over East Africa. Climate Research 28: 199–212.
• Panizza M., 2009. The geomorphodiversity of the Dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage 1: 33–42.
• Peattie R., 2013. Mountain Geography – A Critique and Field Study. Read Books Ltd.
• Rodrigues C.V., Palma J.M.L.M., Rodrigues Á.H., 2016. Atmospheric Flow over a Mountainous Region by a One-Way Coupled Approach Based on Reynolds-Averaged Turbulence Modelling. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 159: 407–437.
• Sharples C., 1993. A methodology for the identification of significant landforms and geological sites for geoconservation purposes. Forestry Commission, Tasmania: 3–31.
• Sharples C., 1995. Geoconservation in forest management – principles and procedures. Tasforest 7: 37–50.
• Sharples C., McIntosh P., Comfort M., 2018. Geodiversity and Geoconservation in Land Management in Tasmania – A Top-Down Approach. In: E.Reynard, J.Brihla (eds), Geoheritage – Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier: 355–371.
• Smith R.B., 2007. Interacting mountain waves and boundary layers. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 64: 594–607.
• Stoelinga M.T., Stewart R.E., Thompson G., Thériault J.M., 2013. Microphysical Processes within Winter Orographic Cloud and Precipitation Systems. F.K.Chow, S.F.J.De Wekker, B.J.Snyder (eds), Mountain Weather Research and Forecasting: Recent Progress and Current Challenges,, Springer: 345–408.
• Sun W.-Y., Sun O.M., 2015. Bernoulli equation and flow over a mountain. Geoscience Letters 2–7.
• Taylor P.J., Sowler S., Schoeman M.C., Monadjem A., 2013. Diversity of bats in the Soutpansberg and Blouberg Mountains of northern South Africa: complementarity of acoustic and non-acoustic survey methods. African Journal of Wildlife Research 43: 12–26.
• Thomas M., 2012. A geomorphological approach to geodiversity – its applications to geoconservation and geotourism. Quaestiones Geographicae 31: 81–89.
• Uzun O., Kaplan S., Basaran M., Deviren Saygın S., Youssef F., Nouri A., Ozcan A. U., Erpul G., 2017. Spatial distribution of wind-driven sediment transport rate in a fallow plot in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Arid Land Research and Management 31: 125–139.
• Wischmeier W.H., Smith D.D., 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. USDA/Science and Education Administration, US. Govt. Printing Office, Washington (DC): 1–58.
• Zardi D., Whiteman C.D., 2013. Diurnal Mountain Wind Systems. In: F.K.Chow, S.F.J.De Wekker, B.J.Snyder (eds), Mountain Weather Research and Forecasting: Recent Progress and Current Challenges, Springer: 35–119.
• Zwoliński Zb., 2004. Geodiversity. In: A.S.Goudie (ed), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, 1. Routledge: 417–418.
• Zwoliński Zb., 2009. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Landform Analysis 11: 77–85.
• Zwoliński Zb., Najwer A., Giardino M., 2018. Methods for assessing geodiversity. In: E.Reynard, J.Brihla (eds), Geoheritage – Assessment, Protection, and Management, Elsevier: 27–52

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).