© W. Bulach - CC BY-SA 4.0
Zoogeomorphosite: A concept for, and example of, linking geoheritage and biodiversity heritage
François BétardUniversité de Paris, UMR 8586 Prodig, [email protected]
EGU General AssemblyvEGU21: Gather Online | 19–30 April 2021
Session GM12.8 ‘Visages of Geoheritage’
1. Definition and typology of zoogeomorphosites
1.1. Definition: A concept to fill the missing links between geoheritage and bioheritage
Zoogeomorphosites can be defined as geomorphological sites of special interest for animal biodiversity
and conservation. They appear as ideal places for linking geoheritage and biodiversity heritage because of the
reciprocal effects and interactions between landforms and animals (Butler, 1995). A zoogeomorphosite must
combine a high geomorphological value and a high ecological (zoological) value.
ZOOGEOMORPHOSITEGeomorphological Value Zooecological Value
GEO
HER
ITA
GE B
IOH
ERITA
GE
Interactions and reciprocal effectsbetween landforms and animals Conception © F. Bétard
1. Definition and typology of zoogeomorphosites
1.2. Typology: passive and active zoogeomorphosites
This typology differs from that ofReynard (2005, 2009) who has proposedto distinguish active and passivegeomorphosites with a differentmeaning. In the definition proposed bythis author, passive geomorphositescorrespond to inherited landforms orprocesses derived from past climates orenvironments. In our proposed typology,passive zoogeomorphosites maycorrespond either to active or inheritedlandforms which passively constitutehabitats supporting animal species orcommunities. In the same way, activezoogeomorphosites in our typologymay correspond either to active orinherited landforms resulting fromanimal activity.
Some French examples of passive zoogeomorphosites: Landforms as valuable habitats for animal species or communities
© J. Aihartza
© F. Bétard
Alpine ibex(Capra ibex)
Ecrins National Park
Saulges Karstic Caves © F. Bétard
Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum)
© PN France
© baiedesomme.org
© A. Trepte
National Nature Reserveof the Bay of Somme
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)
© RNN Sept-Iles
© LPO
Atlantic Puffin (Fraterculaarctica)National Nature Reserve
of Sept-Îles
Some worldwide examples of active zoogeomorphosites: Landforms as a result of animal activity
© Hector Garcia Serrano /
Shutterstock.com
Okavango delta WHS,Botswana
Mound-building termite (Macrotermesmichaelseni)
© iNaturalistAU
Yellow meadow ant(Lasius flavus)
© Aiwok
© National Trust /
Hugh Mothersol
Pocket gopher(Thomomystalpoides)Mima Mounds Natural
Area Preserve, USA © CC BY-SA 4.0
© Ty Smedes
© the-shift.org
Various coralspecies andcommunities
Coombe Hill SSSI,UK
Great Barrier Reef,Australia
© Toby Hudson
1. Definition and typology of zoogeomorphosites
1.2. Typology: passive and active zoogeomorphosites
ZOOGEOMORPHOSITES
Active Zoogeomorphosites
Passive Zoogeomorphosites
Continental /Terrestrial
Continental /Terrestrial
Littoral /Marine
Littoral /Marine
EXAMPLES
Ecrins National Park
Saulges Karstic Caves
National Reserve of Bay of Somme
National Reserve of Sept Îles
Okavango Delta WHS
Mima Mounds NAP
Great Barrier Reef
Coombe Hill SSSI
Conception © F. Bétard
2. Example of zoogeomorphological survey
2.1. Materials and methods
Study site
Location and topographic map of the study site
Ypresian paleovalley
Atlantic dry heath
© F. Bétard
© F. Bétard
Granite boulderA graniticgeomorphosite of high
ecological interest(ZNIEFF), composed of
two hills with small tors and boulders
outcropping at 230-260 m a.s.l.
Bois-des-Jarries (southern Armorican Massif, NW France)Coordinates: 46°51'32.7"N, 0°54'10.2"W
Leucomonzogranite
Leucogranite
Hornfels
Sandstones
SchistsAerial photograph Topographic map Geological map
Protection statusEnvironmental zoning
ZNIEFF TYPE 1
ZNIEFF TYPE 2
© IGN - Géoportail © IGN - Géoportail © BRGM - InfoTerre
© DREAL PDL - Carmen © ONF, 2019200 m 200 m
200 m
Facilities and amenities
GR hiking trail
Forest path
Parking
Viewpoint
Panel© ONF, 2019200 m
BOIS-DES-JARRIESNATURAL PROTECTED
AREA AS AZOOGEOMORPHOSITE
Geomorphological Value Zooecological Value
GEOHERITAGE BIOHERITAGE
Paleovalley-side scarps
Ypresian fluvial sediments
Granites and gneissSchists and micaschists
Study site
© Bouton, 2008
Europeannightjar(Caprimulguseuropaeus)
Atlanticdry heath(Gomphocerippusarmoricanus)
© F. Bétard © F. Bétard
© P. Gourdain
© M. Kukla
Red wood ant(Formica rufa)
Bedrockgranite
landforms
Ypresianfluvial
paleovalley
Biogenicmicrolandforms
Landforms as valuable habitats for animals
Landforms as a result of animal activity
© F. Bétard
© IGN - Géoportail
Relationships between landforms, soil humidity, vegetation structureand Orthoptera communities in the Bois-des-Jarries zoogeomorphosite
Hilltop Hillslope Valley floor
Photos © F. Bétard
© F. Bétard
Gomphocerippus armoricanus
Ephippiger diurnus
Phaneroptera falcata
Aiolopus strepens
Nemobius sylvestris
Meconema thalassinum
Cyrtaspis scutata
Pholidoptera griseoaptera
Gryllus campestris
Stenobothrus stigmaticus
Gomphocerippus biguttulus
Tessellana tessellata
Stethophyma grossum
Conocephalus dorsalis
Pteronemobius heydenii
Chrysochraon dispar
2. Example of zoogeomorphological survey
2.1. Materials and methods
Methods
A zoogeomorphogical survey carried out in summer 2020 on Red wood ant (Formica rufa) mounds involving a two-stage methodology:
(1) linear surveys along forest paths, in order to calculate mound densities and to proceed with a general inventory of ant mounds;
(2) morphometric measurements of mounds using strip transects in 13 representative habitat types, in order to calculate mound volumes and to evaluate their evolution on a 5-years period (adapted from Torossian, 1979, and Vogt, 2007).
From Lempérière et al. (2002) Sampling strategy using strip transects in the forest plan
REGULAR HIGH FOREST
Scots pines over chestnut
Atlas cedar
Native oaks
Oaks and chestnuts
Chestnuts
Chestnuts and oaks
Native oaks
Oaks and chestnuts
Chestnuts
Chestnuts / mar. pines
Chestnuts / scots pines
Dry heath and stunted copse on rocky soil
Forest path
COPSE
HIGH FOREST WITH STUMPS
200 m
2. Example of zoogeomorphological survey
2.2. First results
Ant mound inventory and densities
119 ant mounds have been inventoried in summer 2020 along theforest paths. Formica rufa being an edge species, we consider thatthe major part of the mounds (>50%) were inventoried thanks to thislinear survey. Compared to the surface of the forest (62 ha), thisnumber indicates a minimum density of 1.9 nests ha-1. Taking intoaccount the mounds located inside the forest plots, we estimate thatthe overall density of Formica rufa anthills is comprised between 2and 4 nests ha-1 on the zoogeomorphosite.
Estimations of linear densites of ant mounds along paths
REGULAR HIGH FOREST
Scots pines over chestnut
Atlas cedar
Native oaks
Oaks and chestnuts
Chestnuts
Chestnuts and oaks
Native oaks
Oaks and chestnuts
Chestnuts
Chestnuts / mar. pines
Chestnuts / scots pines
Dry heath and stunted copse on rocky soil
Forest path
COPSE
HIGH FOREST WITH STUMPS
Linear densites(nb of mounds / hectometer)
Some examples of antmound morphologies inventoried along the
forest paths. A: Simple dome-shaped mound; B:
Cone-shaped mound witha wood frame; C: Half
dome leaning against a pile of wood; D:
Dissymetric dome made of maritime pine needles.
Photos © F. Bétard.
200 m
2. Example of zoogeomorphological survey
2.2. First results
Ant mound morphometry and biovolumes
First results of the morphometric measurements indicate that the highestbiovolumes are found in mixed-pine forest habitats, and that thegeomorphology of the granitic hills (slope, aspect, height above drainage, etc.) isof major influence on their distribution and shape.
Comparing biovolumes of ant mounds in broadleaf and mixed-pine forest habitats
N° Transect N° Forest plot Forest habitat type Total nb of
mounds
Nb of
S.M.
Nb of
M.M.
Nb de
B.M.
Total biovolume
(m3)
Necrovolume(m3)
Mean biovolume
(m3)
Necrotic index
1 1 Copse of chestnuts
and maritime pines
0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
2 2 High forest of Atlas
cedra
3 1 2 0 0,05 0,12 0,05 2,27
3 1-3 Copse of oaks and
chestnuts
2 0 1 1 0,52 0,00 0,26 0,00
4 3 Dry heath 1 0 1 0 0,10 0,00 0,10 0,00
5 5 Copse of chestnuts 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
6 2 Copse of chestnuts
and scots pines
7 0 0 7 5,89 0,67 1,18 0,11
7 6 High forest of scots
pines over chestnuts
5 0 2 3 3,22 0,12 0,80 0,04
8 11 Copse of oaks 6 0 4 2 1,58 0,59 0,53 0,38
9 13 Stunted copse of oaks
on rocky soil
5 1 2 2 2,40 0,19 0,80 0,08
10 9-13 High forest of
chestnuts and oaks
3 0 1 2 0,44 0,00 0,44 0,00
11 9 High forest of oaks 0 0 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
12 9 High forest of oaks
and chestnuts
3 1 0 2 1,01 0,00 0,34 0,00
13 8 High forest of
chestnuts
3 0 1 2 1,32 0,00 0,44 0,00
S.M.: small mound (<32 dm3); M.M.: medium mound (32 dm3 to 256 dm3); B.M.: big mound (256 dm3 to 2,048 dm3).
Concluding remarks
✓ Zoogeomorphosite: an integrated concept for linking geoheritage and biodiversity heritage and promoting them together on a same site.
✓ Importance of landforms in supporting habitats for wild animals => passive zoogeomorphosites.
✓ Importance of animals in shaping landscapes and landforms => active zoogeomorphosites.
✓ Ant mounds as a remarkable example of biogeomorphological heritage, hybrid and evolutionary in nature, but highly sensitive to environmental and human-induced changes (e.g., forest clear cuts, tourism pressure)
=> in the study site, monitoring of morphometric changes of Formicarufa ant mounds on a 5-years period as a management tool.
✓ Because ant mounds are an integral component of natural heritage and a key provider of ecosystem services, their inventory and protection as zoogeomorphosites – just like that of termite mounds – are of prime relevance in the wider scope of integrating geodiversity and biodiversity in nature conservation policies and strategies.
© F. Bétard
© F. Bétard
Recent forest clear cut (<5 years)unfavorable to Formica rufa
Formica rufa workers dragging prey (Geotrupes sp.) towards the anthill
References
Barbier, S., Dulac, P. (2018). ZNIEFF n°520012258, Bois des Jarries, tourbières et alentours. INPN, SPN-MNHN, Paris, 29 p.
URL : https://inpn.mnhn.fr/zone/znieff/520012258.pdf
Bétard, F. (2021). Insects as zoogeomorphic agents: An extended review. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 46(1), 89-
109. PDF
Bouton P. (2008). La trouée de Saint-Mars-la-Réorthe. Patrimoine géologique vendéen, fiche n°27, Conseil général de la
Vendée, 4 p.
Butler, D.R. (1995). Zoogeomorphology: animals as geomorphic agents. Cambridge University Press.
Godard, G., Chevalier, M., Bouton, P., Mouroux, B. (1994). Un fleuve Yprésien du Berry à la Vendée, témoin de l’évolution
paléogéographique et tectonique du Centre-Ouest de la France au Cénozoïque. Géologie de la France, 4, 35-56.
Lempérière, G., Bourbon, G., Buray, A., Franchini, S. (2002). Étude des populations de fourmis rousses dans cinq sites du
bassin de Gap-Chaudun (Hautes-Alpes). Revue forestière française, 54(5), 419-428.
ONF (2019). Aménagement de la forêt départementale du Bois des Jarries 2019-2038. Office National des Forêts, Agence
des Pays de la Loire, 28 p.
Reynard, E. (2005). Géomorphosites et paysages. Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 11(3), 181-188.
Reynard, E. (2009). Geomorphosites: definitions and characteristics. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.),
Geomorphosites, Mnichov, Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, pp. 9-20.
Torossian, C. (1979). Méthode d'étude quantitative des fourmis du groupe Formica rufa. Bulletin SROP, 2(3), 215-240.
Viles, H.A., Goudie, A.S., Goudie, A. (2021). Ants as geomorphological agents: A global assessment. Earth-Science Reviews,
103469.
Vogt, J.T. (2007). Three-dimensional sampling method for characterizing ant mounds. Florida Entomologist, 90(3), 553-558.
