TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 23 May 2023 DOI 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 Assessing the scientific value and OPEN ACCESS vulnerability of paleontological EDITED BY Marcelo Cohen, Federal University of Pará, Brazil sites: a new analytic operational REVIEWED BY Gloria Cuenca-Bescos, procedure University of Zaragoza, Spain Paulo Pereira, University of Minho, Portugal Andrea Faggi 1, Saverio Bartolini-Lucenti 1,2* and Lorenzo Rook 1,3* 1 *CORRESPONDENCE Paleo[Fab]Lab, Earth Science Department, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degli Studi di Saverio Bartolini-Lucenti, Firenze, Firenze, Italy, 2Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de saverio.bartolinilucenti@unifi.it Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain, 3NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, Palermo, Italy Lorenzo Rook, lorenzo.rook@unifi.it RECEIVED 10 February 2023 ACCEPTED 09 May 2023 Introduction: Paleontological heritage rarely receives the same legislative PUBLISHED 23 May 2023 attention as archeological heritage. Part of the problem seems to be, at least in CITATION some contexts (e.g., Italy), the difficulty of acknowledging fossils as distinct assets Faggi A, Bartolini-Lucenti S and Rook L (2023), Assessing the scientific value and from other cultural heritage objects and the lack of expertise among the vulnerability of paleontological sites: a administrative functionaries. This study aims to describe and test an objective new analytic operational procedure. analytic operational procedure that could allow for the assessment of the Front. Earth Sci. 11:1163280. doi: 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 relevance of any fossiliferous site and its potential vulnerability in its present state. COPYRIGHT Methods: The estimations were obtained using several quantitative and qualitative © 2023 Faggi, Bartolini-Lucenti and parameters that could describe the probability of fossil recovery for each site (Pr) Rook. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the and the scientific and cultural interest of the locality (In). Each parameter has Creative Commons Attribution License subcategories for better defining. The product of probability and interest results in (CC BY). The use, distribution or the scientific value (S), generally expressed as a percentage (S*). The vulnerability reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) index (V) of productive and active sites considers the use of the land (U) and the and the copyright owner(s) are credited natural erosion (E). The parameters were thought to apply to any type of fossil and that the original publication in this locality. We tested the indexes on 22 localities (7 of which were with journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, paleoichnological records and 15 with direct body-fossil evidence), all different distribution or reproduction is permitted from one another. which does not comply with these terms. Results: The results show that the proposed indexes well describe and characterize each locality. Most of the sites are moderately vulnerable (V between 1 and 3) except for large quarry sites (e.g., Pirro Nord, Italy and Solnhofen, Germany) whose vulnerability indexes fell in the maximum degree of risk. Discussion: The operational procedure presented here is a simple, objective, and remotely applicable method allowing paleontologists and non-expert personnel to categorize localities and, therefore, act as a base to plan actions in paleontological heritage management relative to territorial development and land use. KEYWORDS geopaleontological heritage protection, vulnerability assessment, site ranking indexes, fossil sites, preventive paleontology, geodiversity, biodiversity through time Frontiers in Earth Science 01 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 1 Introduction protection for proper conservation and management in a cost- effective way. Every year, around the world, thousands of square kilometers of In the past, several models concerning the evaluation of the land are affected by development projects such as quarries, highways, paleontological heritage have been proposed (Alcalá and Morales, and new agricultural fields (Hurtt et al., 2011; Merril and Leatherby, 1994; Morales, 1996; Morales et al., 1999; Oheim, 2007; Hayward, 2018; Ellis, 2021). Cultural heritage managers and administrative 2009; Mampel et al., 2009; Endere and Prado, 2015; Canudo et al., personnel, thus, must deal with the complex process of overseeing 2021; Morey and Pons, 2021; García-Ávila et al., 2022). However, heritage asset spread (e.g., archeological, paleontological, or they were all designed to be applied to specific countries or specific environmental ones) across the territory and safeguard and protect fossil-rich regions, thus resulting in them often being too specific possible new findings. With the 1992 European Convention on the and/or not useful to be extended to a broader set of different Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (also known as the “Valletta situations/conditions. Treaty” or “Malta Convention”), most European countries have set the This research paper describes a new and innovative analytic protection, preservation, and scientific research of archaeological operational procedure to measure the potentiality of fossil recovery heritage on top of their political agenda. One major consequence in one site and, at the same time, assess the risk to which such a site has been the flourishing of collaborative preventive archeology is, or might be, subject. Furthermore, this operational procedure projects (Hofman and Hoogland, 2016), the designing of numerous could promote paleontological heritage, raising awareness of its archeological site evaluation tools (Ólafsdóttir and Dowling, 2009; relevance and value and, by doing so, favoring its protection. To Kavčič and Peljhan, 2010; Bujok et al., 2015; Goemaere et al., 2015; define the analytic operational procedure, we selected a number of Sellier, 2016; Lukić et al., 2021), and the theorization of predictive significant parameters that allow the synthetic yet objective models (Anschuetz et al., 2001; Stančič et al., 2001; Kamermans et al., description and estimation of the importance of the 2009; Danese et al., 2013; Danese et al., 2014). The effort is not limited to paleontological heritage (specifically the scientific, educational, Europe but is also applied globally in extra-European countries and historical values). Furthermore, the parameters were (Nikami, 2007; Hadjimitsis et al., 2013). subdivided into data categories easily retrievable by consulting Unlike archeological patrimony, the paleontological heritage is often relevant bibliography and through the use of GIS software. Two overlooked by the legislation of many countries. The main reason for this sets of parameters were defined to differentiate between track sites neglect is strictly linked to the complex dichotomous nature of (indirect fossil evidence) and localities with body-fossil remains paleontological heritage. According to the 1970 UNESCO Convention (direct evidence). A value was assigned to each parameter based on of the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of predefined categories to characterize the selected fossiliferous Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO, 1970), the term cultural locality. The parameters were then merged to calculate four heritage encompasses several main categories of heritage, such as “rare different indexes to make a quick, objective, and comprehensive collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals, anatomy, and objects evaluation of the relevance and vulnerability of the site. of paleontological interest.” On the other hand, the term “natural The aim of this project was to define an operational procedure heritage” includes “natural sites with cultural aspects such as cultural applicable to any fossil locality from anywhere in the world; the landscapes and physical, biological, or geological formations” (UNESCO, parameters were adjusted to be easily evaluated by paleontologists as 2022). Since the fossil record is tightly connected and inseparable from well as non-specialized technical personnel, thus minimizing the the geological environment, it can be argued that the protection of fossil subjective component in the evaluation process. With this operational resources could be framed as part of the natural heritage because fossils procedure, it is possible to have a simple and objective starting base to are natural objects, and not created by humans (Prado, 2008). evaluate a site’s relevance and take actions on paleontological heritage Nevertheless, based on the statements within the 1970 UNESCO management relative to territorial development. convention (UNESCO, 1970), many countries’ legislations consider paleontological heritage as included under the definition of “cultural heritage.” For this reason, in legal terms, paleontological resources are 2 Materials and methods equated to objects with different origins and nature, like archeological and historical artifacts (Alcalà and Morales, 1994; Prado, 2008; Guerrero- 2.1 Experimental base Arenas et al., 2020). In addition to the complex nature of fossils and the old-fashioned The necessity of designing an analytic operational procedure to legislation of many countries (e.g., Italy), we need to add that among the evaluate the importance and vulnerability of each fossil locality arose administrative personnel and the heritage managers, professional within a larger project granted by the Regione Toscana and the Università experts in paleontology are missing (and in most cases, there are degli Studi di Firenze aiming at the valorization of the Tuscan not even experts in biological or Earth sciences), thus, the personnel paleontological heritage and, in particular, the Grosseto province, responsible for the site is often unable to manage the paleontological selected as a test case for its diversity of sites in a single, limited area. heritage with the appropriate attention and scientific background. All Managing a sizable database to obtain direct information on these factors contribute to hindering the proper tutelage of the paleontological aspects of the various fossil localities required the “immovable” paleontological heritage, both historically known fossil definition of a series of parameters capable of arranging and sites or newly discovered fossiliferous localities. analyzing the increasing amount of available data and In this sense, it is fundamental to provide government agencies geographical information. The parameters for the scientific value with an operational procedure capable of operatively categorizing index were selected (Tables 1, 2) taking into consideration the sites according to their paleontological relevance and thus offering previous experiences of inventory and classification of Frontiers in Earth Science 02 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 1 Variables for the calculation of the site relevance index (R) of sites with fossil remains. Definition Acronym 0 1 2 3 4 Numerical P1 — Low: ≤20 Medium: 20 < X ≤ 100 High: >100 — consistency of fossils recovered Numerical P1i — Low: ≤50 Medium: 50 < x ≤ 200 High: >200 — consistency of fossils recovered (invertebrate-only sites) Site extension P2 — Punctual site: The site is Medium areal site: the site Areal site: The site covers a — represented by a small is represented by a wide very large area. Big quarries outcrop or a small cave. surface. Can be a big and extensive outcrops (Mines are included in this outcrop, a big cave category) complex, or a quarry front Total taxa diversity I1 — Low: ≤10 Medium: 10 < x ≤ 20 High: 20 < x ≤ 30 Very high: >30 Relative taxa diversity I2 — One group Two groups, of which one Two groups with similar Three groups represents more than 75% taxa diversity (50%–50%) of the taxa diversity Citation frequency I3 — Low: ≤10 Medium: 1130 — Knowledge level I4 — Low: The site is almost Local: The site is known Regional: The site is known International: The site unknown to the scientific only in the local scientific nationally or trans-national is internationally community community level for its scientific recognized due to its relevance scientific relevance Taxa rarity I5 — Common: The species Uncommon: At least one Rare: At least one taxon can — recovered are all very taxon can be found quite only be rarely found in this common abundantly only in this locality/at least one taxon is locality/at least one taxon is extremely rare from very rarely found in few other few other localities localities Presence of valid and/ I6 No holotypes One holotype recovered More than one holotypes More than one holotype — or historic types recovered from this locality recovered from this locality recovered from this locality from this belonging to different locality taxonomic groups (vertebrates, invertebrates, plants) Tourist and I7 None Low: Site interest is Scientific tourism: The site High: Site with materials on Site currently opened educational Potential restricted to paleontologists has already been excavated, the spot exposed or being to visitors and experts no relevant fossils left excavated but the site is not suitably arranged for visitors archeological and paleontological heritage (Alcalá and Morales, Despite applying a similar methodology to evaluate track and 1994; Morales, 1996; Morales et al., 1999; Hayward, 2009; body-fossil sites, the variable list (Tables 1 and 2) shows some Mampel et al., 2009; Ólafsdóttir and Dowling, 2009; Kavčič and differences in parameters between the two types of fossiliferous Peljhan, 2010; Bujok et al., 2015; Endere and Prado, 2015; Goemaere localities. Sites yielding skeletal remains differ from those with et al., 2015; Sellier, 2016; Canudo et al., 2021; Lukić et al., 2021; trace fossils in terms of some of the discovery probability and site Morey and Pons, 2021; García-Ávila et al., 2022) but were also based interest parameters. Each parameter is, in turn, characterized by a on the requirements identified during the data collection and the number, usually an integer, that defines the characteristics of the survey carried out for this study. selected fossil site. The parameters that make up the discovery probability (Pr) are the numerical consistency of fossils recovered (P1) and the site extension (P2). For localities with fossil traces, the 2.2 Proposed methodology P1 parameter is modified as the numerical consistency of traces recovered (Pt1). The proposed methodology for the estimation of the scientific As the name implies, numerical consistency (P1) is simply the value and vulnerability of fossil sites (Figure 1) is composed of number of single fossil elements or traces recovered from a site. 13 different parameters grouped into three different categories Unidentifiable bone fragments and unidentifiable plant matter are (Tables 1–3): discovery probability (Pr), site interest (In), and not included in the calculation. The threshold values established to vulnerability (V). These parameters were combined to calculate separate the different categories of this parameter were defined in four different indexes. previously published studies (Mampel et al., 2009; Endere and Frontiers in Earth Science 03 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 2 Variables for the calculation of the site relevance index (R) of sites with footprints. Definition Acronym 0 1 2 3 4 Numerical Pt1 — Low: ≤20 Medium: 20 < X ≤ 100 High: >100 — consistency of traces recovered Site extension P2 — Punctual site: The site is Medium areal site: The site Areal site: The site covers a — represented by a small is represented by a wide very large area. Big quarries outcrop or a small cave surface. Can be a big and extensive outcrops (mines are included in this outcrop, a big cave category) complex, or a quarry front Variety of It1 — Low: 1/not defined Medium: 2 High: 3 Very high: ≥4 ichnogroups and/ or ichnotypes Number of It2 No trackways Low: From 1 to 3 Medium: From 3 to 10 High: >10 Very high >20 trackways Citation frequency I3 — Low: <1 Medium: 1 ≤ x < 3 High: 3 ≤ x < 5 Very high: ≥5 Knowledge level I4 — Low: The site is almost Local: The site is mostly Regional: The site is known International: The site unknown to the scientific known only in the local nationally or trans-national is internationally community scientific community level for its scientific recognized due to its relevance scientific relevance Length of It5 No trackways Short: No trackways with Medium: At least one Long: At least one trackway — trackways (for more than 5 steps trackway with 5–10 steps with more than 10 steps vertebrates) Length of It5i No trackways Short: No trackways with Medium: At least one Long: At least one trackway — trackways (for more than 30 cm trackway between 30 cm longer than 150 cm invertebrates) and 150 cm Presence of valid I6 No ichnotypes One ichnotype recovered More than one ichnotype More than one ichnotype — and/or historic recovered from from this locality recovered from this locality recovered from this locality types this locality belonging to different taxonomic groups (vertebrates, invertebrates, plants) Public educational I7 None Low: Site interest is Scientific tourism: The site High: Site with potentially Site currently open to Potential restricted to paleontologists has already been excavated, educational material on the visitors and experts no relevant fossils left spot but not suitably arranged for visitors Prado, 2015). In the case of a fossiliferous locality bearing solely Pr  P1 + P2 (1) invertebrate remains, doubling the threshold values of each category (P1i) was deemed better, thus avoiding giving too much value to the For localities with fossil tracks, the equation simply becomes common shell beds we can often find in marine/lacustrine Pr  Pt1 + P2 (2) formations while not belittling truly important invertebrate sites. The site extension (P2) parameter defines the areal extension Through the discovery probability (Pr), investigators can of the fossiliferous locality. Since it is often difficult to truly easily elaborate on the richness and extension of the quantify the area covered by a site, we did not define the fossiliferous locality. categories using areal units, but we preferred giving a brief The site interest (In) category is composed of seven different and easy-to-interpret description of the different types of fossil parameters (Table 1): total taxa diversity (I1), relative taxa diversity localities that can be normally found. Therefore, we described (I2), citation frequency (I3), knowledge level (I4), taxa rarity (I5), punctual sites as very small outcrops not extending over a few presence of valid and/or historic types (the site is a type locality of square meters; very small caves also fall into this definition. some taxa) (I6), and tourist and educational potential (I7). For Medium-sized outcrops, small quarry fronts, and big cave localities with fossil traces, the parameters are (Table 2) variety of complexes belong to the second category, the medium areal ichnogroups and/or ichnotypes (It1), number of trackways (It2), site. We included mines in this second category. The third citation frequency (I3), knowledge level (I4), length of trackways category, called areal site, includes only very large (It5), presence of valid and/or historic types (I6), and tourist and fossiliferous localities that can be easily mapped in large-scale educational potential (I7). maps, such as huge quarries or extensive outcrops. The total taxa diversity (I1) defines the number of different taxa These two parameters add up to calculate the discovery identified in a site. Less-specific identifications (e.g., “Cheloniidae probability index (Pr): index”) are also included in the count. Similarly, the variety of Frontiers in Earth Science 04 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 FIGURE 1 Schematic representation of the methodological proposal to assess the scientific value and vulnerability of paleontological sites. For abbreviations, see the text. Caption: in normal characters - the conceptual objectives of the estimations (i.e., the relevance and the vulnerability of each site); in italics - parameters and discriminants (ovals) and indexes (double-lined rectangles); and the rhombus represents a decision affecting the estimation of vulnerability, i.e., depending on the parameters active/inactive (a) and productivity (p). “˅” and “˄” represent logical connectors. The scale below vulnerability (V) schematically expresses the intensity of the vulnerability index, from 0–1 (low concern) to 4–5 (extreme vulnerability). ichnogroups and/or ichnotypes (It1) defines the number of ichnotaxa localities. When the study is too old to be found correctly cited in identified on the site. Google Scholar or Scopus (e.g., Solnhofen fauna was described in For the parameter relative taxa diversity (I2), we divided the the 19th century), the most cited research paper or the most fossil remains into invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants and representative one can be used instead. considered their relative abundance in each site. We decided to Knowledge level (I4) considers the scientific and public outreach attribute higher values to localities that present two or more of these of a fossil site, factoring in the number of articles in national and/or groups as they can offer a better ecological insight into the international journals, documentaries, books, or articles in local paleoenvironment and, thus, have a higher scientific relevance. newspapers. The citation frequency (I3) was used to define how relevant a Taxa rarity (I5) is used to report the occurrence of rare and/or site is for the scientific community. To do so, a simple and very rare taxa, supporting the cultural and scientific value of the site. effective way is to use the Google Scholar database. Launched Similarly, the presence of valid and/or historic types (I6) allows giving in 2004, this search engine is a useful tool, helping researchers credit to localities that have produced type specimens and are, locate in seconds relevant research papers from billions of pages therefore, historically relevant. across the Web and in many cases directly retrieve the full text of Finally, tourist and educational potential (I7) evaluates the those studies (Hightower, 2010; Giustini and Kamel Boulos, tourist attractiveness of the site, factoring in the accessibility to 2013). A reliable objective figure of the number of studies the site, the presence of guided tours, and the overall public interest focused on the site was obtained using online article in the locality. repositories (e.g., Google Scholar, Web of Science, and In the case of localities with fossil traces, relative taxa diversity Scopus). These websites report the number of references citing (I2) and taxa rarity (I5) are substituted by the number of trackways each paper; here, we used the first and/or most representative (It2) and length of trackways (It5). This choice was made following published research paper on the selected locality, divided by the specific scientific literature: the wider the representation and the number of years that have passed since the publication of that variety of trackways, the easier it is to establish comparative trends paper. The obtained estimation is the frequency of citation of that and reach more solid and proven conclusions (Mampel et al., 2009; paper and, as a result, how much the scientific interest for a Falkingham et al., 2016). This, in turn, reflects the scientific and specific locality fluctuated through time. Using a ratio instead of cultural value of the site. the sheer citation number, we avoided the clear “advantage” that The length of trackways (It5) is calculated differently according renowned fossiliferous localities have over recently discovered to the nature of the organism that has produced the tracks, following Frontiers in Earth Science 05 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 3 Variables for the calculation of the vulnerability index. Definition Acronym 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 Site use U Musealized: — Protected area: Untended field: Rock wall/riverbed: Medium High The site is The site is included The site is in an The site is located anthropic use: anthropic preserved in a protected area; abandoned area, along a steep slope The site is use: The site inside a no land there are no law or in a riverbed. subjected to is subjected building or development restrictions that can There are no law reduced to severe covered by project can be avoid future land restrictions that can anthropic use, anthropic tents executed in the development avoid future land such as land use, such as area project development cultivation quarrying projects (abandoned quarries belong to this category) Natural E Protected: The Low/unknown: Active and weak: Active and Severe: The — — erosion site is protected Natural erosion of The fossiliferous moderate: The fossiliferous from any type the site unknown/ formation is fossiliferous formation is of erosion the fossiliferous actively being formation is constantly subject formation is eroded with actively being to strong erosive subject to almost reduced rock eroded with agents no erosive agents erosion rates moderate rock erosion rates Productivity p The site has — The site is still — — — — been potentially completely productive exploited Active/inactive a The site cannot — The site can be — — — — be reached easily reached common practices of ichnologists (among others, Melchor and productivity (p), active/inactive (a), site use (U), and natural Cardonatto, 2014; Moreau et al., 2021). For vertebrate trackways, erosion (E). These parameters do not change between sites with the length is based on the number of steps preserved, whereas for body-fossil remains and those with fossil traces. invertebrates, the length is based on the metric length of the track. Productivity (p) and active/inactive (a) are discriminants as they The threshold values for the vertebrate trackways were taken from can only assume values of 0 or 1. They are needed in the final the work of Mampel et al. (2009), while the quantitative evaluation calculation of the vulnerability index score cases as sites that are no of the invertebrate trackway length was based on extensive related longer productive or accessible. In the case of fossil localities that literature (Buta et al., 2005; Minter et al., 2007; Melchor and were completely exploited, while they still maintain historical and Cardonatto, 2014; Moreau et al., 2021). scientific value, they do not require any specific protection. The sum of these seven parameters produces the site interest Similarly, a fossiliferous locality that, for an anthropic or natural index: cause, can no longer be reached (e.g., a disused and collapsed mine, In  I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 + I5 + I6 + I7 (3) an outcrop covered by a landslide, and/or a site already lost due to an urban development project) does not require protection. For localities with fossil tracks, the equation becomes Site use (U) defines the actual use of the land where fossiliferous In  It1 + It2 + I3 + I4 + I5 + It6 + I7 (4) remains or traces have been found and how much its use could affect the integrity and preservation of the fossil remains contained in the The site interest index could summarize the characteristics of a site. The value of this parameter varies from 0, in the case of a site fossiliferous locality with a few simple and easy-to-answer completely musealized, to 5 for sites subjected to high anthropic use, questions. such as quarrying or urbanization. Intermediate values refer to sites The combination of the discovery probability index and the site located in areas with different degrees of anthropization (see Table 3 interest index defines the scientific value index as a more for the complete list). comprehensive and exhaustive parameter to evaluate the Natural erosion (E) is used to describe the intensity of erosion to significance of a site. The maximum value obtainable with the which the site is subject. Land erosion is often influenced by many scientific value (S) in our method is 156, but it is usually different contributing factors, such as lithology, land cover, soil expressed as a percentage (S*): susceptivity, topography, etc.) (Zachar, 1982; Renschler and Harbor, 2002), often resulting in peculiar local effects. In the last decades, Pr × In × 100 S*  (5) several models were developed to assess erosion in different parts of 156 the world, even at different spatial and temporal scales (Tangestani, The final category contains all the parameters that contribute to 2006; Sheik Mujabar and Chandrasekar, 2013; Panagos et al., 2015; defining, together with the indexes defined above, the vulnerability Borrelli et al., 2017; Nearing et al., 2017; Uddin et al., 2018; Alewell index (Table 3). The parameters included in this index are et al., 2019; Bhattacharya et al., 2019; Ciampalini et al., 2020; Frontiers in Earth Science 06 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 4 Ranges of vulnerability calculated with Eq. 6. Based on all the aforementioned and defined parameters and indexes, the vulnerability index (V) can be computed as follows: 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5+ S* × a × p × (U + E) Vulnerability Low Medium–low Medium High Extreme V (6) 100 The vulnerability scale is subdivided into five different intervals Wuepper et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2022), especially considering its (Table 4) and ranges from 0 for protected and musealized sites to profound socio-economic impact (Panagos et al., 2018; Tsegaye, 5 in the case of highly vulnerable sites. The vulnerability index 2019). Such evaluation procedures are based on the possibility of equation can produce values slightly higher than 5, but they are all retrieving reliable data from third-party, official, and often reconducted to the maximum range of the vulnerability scale, as all institutional services. One example is the United Nations Inter- values higher than 4 represent high-risk situations that require Governmental Technical Panel on Soils of the Global Soil immediate intervention. Partnership (https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/itps/en/), a working group made of top experts representing all the regions of the world. Despite the challenges, advantages, and distinctions of 2.3 Case studies the various models, data on factors controlling land erosion are often readily available for many geographic regions (Canuti et al., 2000; To prove the simplicity and effectiveness of the indexes, we Borrelli et al., 2021; Poggio et al., 2021), thus enabling such tested them on a variety of different fossiliferous localities. We estimations even for decision-making personnel (Renschler and selected 15 localities with fossil remains and seven localities with Harbor, 2002; Borrelli et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2022). Models fossil traces, ranging from the Early Paleozoic to the Late Cenozoic even manage to make predictions of future erosion at different scales (Figure 2; Tables 5). Seven of the 22 localities considered here were (Catani et al., 2010; Borrelli et al., 2020; Panagos et al., 2021). personally visited by the authors and contributed to the definition of Therefore, despite the well-known issues of the methodologies the methodology presented. The different localities were selected (Batista et al., 2019), the quantification of erosion remains a key from all around the world, regardless of their paleontological calculable parameter for land-managing and development content, to further test the reliability of the results. All necessary programs. Even in the vulnerability assessment of a data to compile the previous equations were recovered from paleontological site, erosion should not be disregarded. Although, bibliographies and through GIS methodologies and, in some of compared to the aforementioned methods, simpler categorization the case studies, direct visits to the sites (Table 5). The complete list could suffice. Indeed, previous studies in paleontology (Oheim, of the selected localities is reported in Table 5. 2007; Mampel et al., 2009) used data available from local institutional administrations and geologic services reporting erosive potentiality at a local or regional scale (Aragón Territorial 3 Result and discussion Centre of Information and Documentation; Mampel et al., 2009). Such estimations include all different sources of erosion, e.g., water, The use of the proposed parameters and the indexes obtained wind, biological, and anthropogenic. This information was proved consistent and useful to synthesize and organize the converted by these authors into simple qualitative categories. relevance and the deterioration risk of each of the selected In our analysis, we directly surveyed some of the sites considered sites (Tables 6, 7). The results show a wide variety of values, (e.g., Cornate di Gerfalco, Pirro Nord, Dmanisi) and qualitatively correctly gathering the array of characteristics possessed by each evaluated the degree of potential erosion on some considerations site and expressing them and their influence on the obtained (e.g., formation type and climate). Second, we compared our scientific value and vulnerability. On-site observations of some of evaluation with institutional data of the area to refine them. the localities (Table 5) helped with the calibration of several Finally, we contrasted our assessment with that of scientific parameters. literature and established discrete qualitative categories to be used World-renowned localities such as Maotianshan (Chengjiang for the gross assessment of the vulnerability of each site. Non- Biota, Early Cambrian; China), Walcott Quarry (Burgess Shale numerical variables defining erosion also allow adapting different Biota, Middle Cambrian, Canada), Flat Rocks (Early Cretaceous, and non-comparable records: the same amount of erosion per year Australia), Solnhofen (Late Jurassic, Germany), Dmanisi (Early can be considered as a “moderately low” degree of erosion in some Pleistocene, Georgia), Laetoli (Plio-Pleistocene, Tanzania), Pirro regions, while in others, it could be “moderate” or high. For instance, Nord (Early Pleistocene, Italy), and the four Atapuerca sites in the central and southern regions of the Italian Peninsula, we have (early Middle Pleistocene, Spain) have all produced, as expected, this discrepancy: 5–10 tons per acre per year is a “low” erosion very high scientific value indexes despite being sites with very potential in Tuscany, while the same amount is a “moderate” one in different characteristics (Barthel et al., 1990; Gould, 1990; Apulia (Montanarella et al., 2000). This being considered, a Gabunia and Swisher, 2001; Rook, 2013; Hou et al., 2017; qualitative definition of natural erosion (E) prevents this Kooland and Lowery, 2020). The variation among the values of incompatibility. The values of parameter E here adopted range these fossiliferous localities is mostly due to the extension of the site from 0 if the site is protected from natural erosion to 3 for sites and the presence/absence of holotypes. While the musealized site of affected by severe weathering. In the absence of any data for the Maotianshan and the Walcott Quarry are small outcrops, Laetoli, considered locality, we followed Mampel et al. (2009), defining a Solnhofen, and Pirro Nord quarries have an area of a few square minimum value of weathering equal to 0.5. kilometers. The other sites show a broad range of scientific value Frontiers in Earth Science 07 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 FIGURE 2 Location of the selected localities used to test the new analytical procedure. Caption: white circles: localities with fossil remains; white triangles: tracksites. Photos of some of the localities: (A) Dohilla tracksite (modified from the work of Stössel et al., 2016); (B) Dmanisi (photo by Saverio Bartolini- Lucenti); (C) Walcott quarry (Mark A. Wilson, Department of Geology, The College of Wooster, Public Domain); (D) Gran Dolina site in Atapuerca (photo by Mario Modesto Mata, own work, CC BY-SA 3.0); (E) Laetoli site during the 1994 conservation project (modified from the work of Agnew and Demas, 1998); and (F) Maotianshan musealized site (Martin Smith, own work, CC BY-SA 4.0). indexes (Tables 6-7), from the low values of Cornate di Gerfalco Other localities such as Cornate di Gerfalco, CDUE Locality 10, (Early Jurassic, Italy), Al Jissah Caves (Miocene/Pliocene, Oman), Laetoli, and Al Jissah Cave all produced very low vulnerability Gonnesa (Pleistocene, Italy), and CDUE Locality 10 (Early Triassic, indexes as they all have low scientific value (except for Laetoli). Morocco) to the medium–high values of Padène (Carboniferous, The Al Jissah site is located in a cave underneath a cliff on the France), Aliveri (Miocene, Greece), Dohilla (Middle Devonian, Musandam Peninsula (Oman). According to Schulp et al. (2011), Ireland), and Galerìa (Pleistocene, Spain). These sites generally this site is poorly preserved and virtually unreachable if not by a have a lower touristic and educational potential, or they have small boat. Even granting the active/inactive parameter to be 1, the produced a lower variety of fossils/trackways. vulnerability index remained close to 0 due to the reduced extension The scientific value index partially influences the results of the of the site and the low touristic and cultural potential of the site. The vulnerability index since a site with a higher relevance must be, in Cornate di Gerfalco site combines a low scientific value index with principle, more carefully protected. Nevertheless, each site is the fact that the site is already partially protected, as it is included subjected to different risk factors, making their vulnerability vary within a regional natural reserve (the “Riserva Naturale Regionale considerably. Musealized sites such as Maotianshan, Dmanisi, and Cornate e Fosini”), and thus it is characterized by a reduced Atapuerca have already been adequately protected. Therefore, their vulnerability. The on-site observation of the pattern of erosion of vulnerability index drops to 0. For example, the Pleistocene sites in this quarry indicates a low but active degree of weathering of the Sierra de Atapuerca provided exceptional findings for ‘Rosso Ammonitico’ formation (an ammonite-rich limestone). The understanding the first steps of human evolution in Europe geological service of Tuscany (Geoscopio, www.regione.toscana.it/-/ (Ortega et al., 2014). For this reason, in 2000, the site was geoscopio) reports a value of “moderate potential erosion” (~20 t/ha; included in the UNESCO World Heritage Site list, and, in 2002, 3–4 on a scale of 8). This confirms the qualitative on-field the Junta de Castilla y León approved the Guidelines for Using and assessment. Managing the property that included specific measures for Laetoli is probably the most famous tracksite locality in the safeguarding, conservation, research, and promotion of the site world (Greshko, 2016; Wei-Haas, 2021). It is best known for the (UNESCO, 2021). discovery of important fossil remains and ichnological traces of The estimation for Aliveri also produced a vulnerability index of early hominins (White and Suwa, 1987; McNutt et al., 2021), but it 0. Though this is a “positive” figure, this results from the loss of the has also produced thousands of different vertebrate and original fossiliferous outcrop, which was completely covered by the invertebrate traces, including several ichnotypes (Meldrum construction of several buildings in the 1990s (Georgalis et al., 2019). et al., 2011; Genise and Harrison, 2018). The first excavation Given that the site is no longer active, V, thus, drops to 0. campaign in Laetoli footprints ended in 1979, and the Frontiers in Earth Science 08 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 5 List of selected localities to test the proposed methodology. The reference paper column reports the studies used to define the historical relevance parameter of each site. Fossil site Country Epoch Type of site Reference paper/book Maotianshan-type locality China Early Cambrian Site with fossil remains Hou et al. (1991) Walcott Quarry (Burgess shale) Canada Middle Cambrian Site with fossil remains Morris (1989) Killerӧd Quarry Sweden Middle Ordovician Site with fossil remains Nilsson (1951) Boljevici Montenegro Triassic Site with fossil remains Martelli, 1904 Cornate di Gerfalco* Italy Early Jurassic Site with fossil remains Lazzarotto (1967) Solnhofen Germany Late Jurassic Site with fossil remains Barthel et al. (1990) Flat Rocks Australia Early Cretaceous Site with fossil remains Rich et al. (1997) Sainte-Eulalie France Early Eocene Site with fossil remains Danilo et al. (2013) Aliveri Greece Miocene Site with fossil remains Doukas, 1986 Pirro Nord* Italy Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Freudenthal (1971) Dmanisi* Georgia Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Džaparidze et al. (1989) Elefante Site* Spain Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Rosas et al. (2001) Gran Dolina Site* Spain Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews (1992) Galerìa Site* Spain Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Gonzàlez et al. (1999) Sima de los Huesos Site* Spain Pleistocene Site with fossil remains Arsuaga et al. (1997) Dohilla Ireland Middle Devonian Tracksite Stӧ;ssel (1995) Padène Quarry France Late Pennsylvanian Tracksite Moreau et al. (2021) CDUE Locality 10 Argana Basin Morocco Early Triassic Tracksite Kleinet et al. (2010) Plješivac Croatia Early Cretaceous Tracksite Dalla Vecchia (1997) Al Jissah cave Oman Miocene/Pliocene Tracksite Schulp et al. (2011) Gonnesa Italy Pleistocene Tracksite Pillola & Zoboli (2017) Laetoli Tanzania Pliocene Tracksite Leaky and Hay (1979) The star (*) indicates localities personally visited by the authors. paleontologist team used the local river sand to rebury the site. The Quarry, Late Pennsylvanian, France; and Plješivac, Early mound of sand was then covered with volcanic boulders to shield it Cretaceous, Croatia. against erosion and the animals. The loose fill and the physical The Walcott Quarry is probably among the most famous protection and moisture retention provided by the boulders Paleozoic fossil localities in the world, having produced the promoted the re-vegetation by acacia trees, which later gave rise world-renowned Burgess Shale biota, beautifully narrated by the to fears over root growth. In 1994, a new conservation project pen of S. J. Gould (Gould, 1990). The site was registered as a World began: the trees and shrubs growing on and near the reburial Heritage Site in 1980, and as an IUGS Geological Heritage Site in mound were cut down, and the trackway was re-excavated, 2022 (IUGS, 2022). However, the site is still exposed to the strong stabilized, and reburied with synthetic geotextile materials Canadian atmospheric phenomena. Thus, it could benefit from a (Agnew and Demas, 1998). The site is, therefore, well-protected covering roof similar to what has been done in the Maotianshan site even if not properly musealized yet. (Hou et al., 2017), which is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Many localities produced intermediate values of Flat Rocks is another site with a good scientific value index for its vulnerability, ranging from 1.1 to 2.9 (corresponding to abundant and diversified Barremian fauna (Rich et al., 1997; medium–low and medium values of V). These values mark Kooland and Lowery, 2020). The fossiliferous locality is included sites that are moderately in danger of destruction. They can in the Bunurong Marine National Park (Intergovernmental be world-renowned localities that are not or cannot be Committee on Surveying and Mapping, 2014) and consists of a adequately protected (e.g., Walcott Quarry, Flat Rocks, and series of ~1 m deep excavations on the coastal, wave-eroded rock Dohilla) or less relevant localities that are subjected to platform (Herne et al., 2019). Due to its peculiar position, the site is stronger natural and/or anthropic erosive phenomena, such as subject to continuous erosional forces by tides, and this makes the Killerӧd Quarry, Middle Ordovician, Sweden; Boljevici, Triassic, site very difficult to preserve. For this reason, since its discovery in Montenegro; Sainte-Eulalie, Early Eocene, France; Padène 1992, every year, Monash University organizes excavation Frontiers in Earth Science 09 frontiersin.org Frontiers in Earth Science Faggi et al. TABLE 6 Site evaluation matrix of the selected test localities with fossil remains. Maotianshan Walcott Killeröd Boljevici Cornate di Solnhofen Flat Sainte- Aliveri Pirro Dmanisi Elefante Gran Galerìa Sima de quarry quarry Gerfalco quarries rocks Eulalie site Dolina los huesos site p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 P1 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 I1 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 I2 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 I3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 10 I4 4 4 2 3 2 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 I5 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 I6 3 3 0 2 0 3 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 I7 4 4 3 1 1 4 3 2 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 U 0 1 3 3 1 5 1 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 3 0.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pr 5 5 5 4 3 6 5 4 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 In 26 26 11 13 10 26 23 13 15 18 22 21 22 16 19 S* 83.3 83.3 35.2 33.3 19.2 100 73.7 33.3 48 69.2 70.5 67.3 70.5 51.3 60.9 V 0 1.25 1.23 1.17 0.38 5+ 2.9 1.17 0 4.15 0 0 0 0 0 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 The results for the scientific value and vulnerability indexes are shown in bold. frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 TABLE 7 Site evaluation matrix of the selected test localities with fossil tracks. Dohilla Padène quarry Plješivac CDUE locality 10 Gonnesa Al Jissah cave Laetoli p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pt1 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 P2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 It1 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 It2 2 2 2 1 0 1 4 I3 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 I4 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 It5 3 3 3 1 0 2 3 I6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I7 4 3 3 1 3 1 4 U 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 E 3 0.5 3 0.5 1 2 0 Pr 5 5 4 3 4 2 6 In 15 14 13 11 11 8 26 S* 48 44.9 33.3 21.1 28.2 10.2 100 V 2.8 1.57 1.33 0.74 1.13 0.6 1.5 The results for the scientific value and vulnerability indexes are shown in bold. campaigns, which follow a detailed annual field report (Monash two sites are characterized by very high scientific value indexes as University, 2023). they are both among the most renowned fossiliferous localities of The other localities, such as Killerӧd Quarry, Boljevici, Sainte- Europe. Eulalie, Padène Quarry, and Plješivac, all have intermediate scientific Pirro Nord lies in the municipality of Apricena (Foggia, value as they all have local or regional relevance, and their touristic southern Italy), in one of the quarries exploiting the Mesozoic and educational potential is quite low. This can produce different “Calcare di Bari” formation. The paleontological record is situations of risk, especially when combined with the fact that preserved inside a karst network at the top of the Mesozoic Killerӧd Quarry and Padène Quarry are abandoned quarries limestones and filled with continental sediments (Abbazzi et al., (Månsson, 1995; Moreau et al., 2021) while Boljevici and Sainte- 1996). The gallery and sinkhole fillings have been extensively Eulalie (Danilo et al., 2013; Ðaković et al., 2015) are outcrops investigated in the last 30 years, and after the pioneering report situated on rockwalls. Moreover, these fossiliferous localities are by Freudenthal (1971) and the study by Beaumont (1976), more not included in protected areas and, therefore, could be subjected to than 100 taxa have been recognized (Pavia et al., 2012), together with urbanization projects in the future. lithic artifacts representing the earliest known human occupation of The Albian Plješivac site is located in the southern part of the Europe (Arzarello et al., 2007; 2009; Arzarello and Peretto, 2010; main Brioni/Brijun Island (southwestern Istria). It is made up of two Pavia et al., 2012). The direct observation of Pirro Nord quarry wide bed surfaces cropping out along the coast and sloping toward pointed out that erosion in the area is fairly low as “Calcare di Bari” the inner part of the island. The site is included in the Brijun Islands Fm. is subject to limited climatic or natural erosive agents except for National Park and most probably was an ancient quarry (Dalla the anthropogenic one (i.e., the quarrying activity). Therefore, we Vecchia, 1997; Mezga and Bajraktarević, 2004). The footprints are opted for a value of E of 1 (“active and low”). When we compared usually submerged during the highest tides, and in summer, the our interpretation with the erosion estimation models applied to the island and its coasts are famous tourist spots. Compared to what area, we found limited erosion potential for the Pirro Nord area happens on the Flat Rock site, due to its peculiar position, the (Montanarella et al., 2000). This confirmed our on-site evaluation. conservation of the site is complicated. However, as Bajraktarević The main quarry area of Solnhofen lies in the surroundings of and Mezga (2004) suggested, the Plješivac site and the other sites on the town of Eichstätt, between the villages of Solnhofen, the Brioni/Brijun island can become an important destination for Langenaltheim, and Mörnsheim in the district of Weißenburg- scientific tourism. Gunzenhausen (Bavaria, Germany). Here, limestone slabs have Finally, only two fossiliferous localities have produced very high been quarried for centuries not only because they are a building values of the vulnerability index: Pirro Nord and Solnhofen. These stone of high quality, but also because of their use as a lithographic Frontiers in Earth Science 11 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 stone and the exceptionally well-preserved fossils they contain methods might produce paleontological vulnerability assessment maps, (Kölbl-Ebert and Cooper, 2020). useful when programming land development projects, or even cultural The fossils of the Solnhofen Limestone have been the object of relevance maps. This could altogether fuel scientific and tourist interest numerous investigations. Among them, the celebrated in and to local and regional communities. Archaeopteryx lithographica played a major role in research on the evolution of birds, while the preserved flight membranes of pterosaurs have provided clues on their physiology (Bennet, 1995; Data availability statement Bennet, 2002; Erickson et al., 2009; Foth et al., 2014; Vidovic and Martill, 2014, and references therein). For this reason, the The original contributions presented in the study are included in International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), in 2022, the article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed included the “Jurassic Solnhofen-Eichstätt Archaeopteryx Serial to the corresponding authors. Site” in its selection of 100 “geological heritage sites” around the world (IUGS, 2022). Despite this important acknowledgment, Solnhofen is still an active quarry (as well as Pirro Nord). Such Author contributions an impactful use of the land threatens the paleontological heritage of these sites. All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Data collection, methodology, and analysis were performed by AF and SB-L. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AF, and all 4 Conclusion authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted In the near future, local, regional, and national version. administrations must increase their attention to paleontological heritage management. Issues to be overcome remain, e.g., the contested attribution of the nature of fossils, Funding which in turn leads to obsolete definitions in regional/national laws. Another unresolved issue is the difficulty of the AF and SB-L were supported by the Tuscany Region funds for young administrative personnel, lacking proper paleontological researchers “Giovanisì” (www.giovanisi.it): “POR FSE 2021/27” funds for expertise, in understanding the value of fossil assets and the the “Dottorato Regionale in Scienze della Terra (Programma Pegaso)” to need for particular actions of tutelage. Objective indexes capable AF and “POR FSC 2014-2020” funds for “Progetti di alta formazione of synthesizing and categorizing fossiliferous localities would be attraverso l’attivazone di Assegni di Ricerca” to SB-L. an effective aid in attenuating these problems. The proposed parameters were selected to be as simple and objective as possible so that administrative personnel and heritage Acknowledgments managers, who cannot always directly visit the fossil localities, could use them, even without geological expertise or background. The The authors thank Matteo Belvedere for his useful suggestions. criteria and indicators proposed here are adequate to be used both The authors acknowledge the support of NBFC to the University of remotely and with direct observations. We found that direct Florence (Earth Sciences Department), funded by the Italian observations of ongoing phenomena, such as natural erosion, are Ministry of University and Research, PNRR, Missione confirmed by bibliographic data. A review of the scientific literature 4 Componente 2, “Dalla ricerca all’impresa,” Investimento 1.4, of the interested area would suffice to score all the parameters, Project CN00000033. estimate the scientific value of each site, and rank them according to their vulnerability. The stepwise methodology proposed here thus becomes a Conflict of interest valuable support tool for the decision-making process to help develop reasonable interventions such as emergency fossil The authors declare that the research was conducted in the excavations, prospecting works, and detecting sites that could be absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be of greater public interest. construed as a potential conflict of interest. The results obtained for the selected localities help quantify the threats affecting them, hopefully prompting actions by local or public administrations to preserve their integrity. Furthermore, Publisher’s note the values obtained for each fossiliferous locality should be constantly updated as the characteristics of a site and its All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and vulnerability can change through time. do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or This new site characterization sets a number of new challenges and those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that opportunities for paleontological heritage protection. The combination may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its of scientific value and vulnerability indexes with data obtained with GIS manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Frontiers in Earth Science 12 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 References Abbazzi, L., Benvenuti, M., Boschian, G., Dominici, S., Masini, F., Mezzabotta, catchments of Great Britain. Sci. Tot. Environ. 749, 141657. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv. C., et al. (1996). The neogene and Pleistocene succession, and the mammal faunal 2020.141657 assemblages of an area between Apricena and Poggio imperiale (foggia, Italy). Ðaković, M., Čađenović, D., and Radulović, N. (2015). Anizijska fauna nautiloida iz Mem. Soc. Geol. It. 51, 383–402. han buloških krečnjaka crmnice (JI crna gora). Anisian nautiloid fauna from han bulog Agnew, N., and Demas, M. (1998). Preserving the Laetoli footprints. Sci. Am. 279 (3), limestones of crmnica (SE Montenegro). Γfpmpzlj [masojl. 16, 95–109. 44–55. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0998-44 Dalla Vecchia, F. (1997). “Terrestrial tetrapod evidence on the norian (late triassic) Alcalá, L., and Morales, I. (1994). “Towards a definition of the Spanish palacontological and cretaceous carbonate platforms of northern adriatic region (Italy, Slovenia and heritage,” in Geological and landscape conservation. Editors D. O’halloran, C. Creen, Croatia),” in Proc. Int. Symp.“Mesozoic vertebrate faunas of central Europe”, sargetia, M. Hartes, M. Síanley, and K. Knill (London: Geological Society), 57–61. ser. Sci. Nat. XVII (Deva, 177–201. Alewell, C., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., and Panagos, P. (2019). Using the USLE: Danese, M., Masini, N., Biscione, M., and Lasaponara, R. (2014). Predictive modeling Chances, challenges and limitations of soil erosion modelling. Int. Soil Water Conserv. for preventive archaeology: Overview and case study. Open Geosci. 6 (1), 42–55. doi:10. Res. 7, 203–225. doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.05.004 2478/s13533-012-0160-5 Anschuetz, K. F., Wilshusen, R. H., and Scheick, C. L. (2001). An archaeology of Danese, M., Masini, N., and Murgante, B. (2013). Archeological risk and spatial analysis. landscapes: Perspectives and directions. J. Archaeol. Sci. 9 (2), 157–211. doi:10.1023/a: How to compare urban sprawl and archaeological sensibility maps. EARSel Proc. 1016621326415 Danilo, L., Remy, J. A., Vianey-Liaud, M., Marandat, B., Sudre, J., and Lihoreau, F. Arsuaga, J. L., Martınez, I., Gracia, A., Carretero, J. M., Lorenzo, C., Garcıa, N., et al. (2013). A new Eocene locality in southern France sheds light on the basal radiation of (1997). Sima de los huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). The site. J. Hum. Evol. 33 (2-3), Palaeotheriidae (Mammalia, Perissodactyla, Equoidea). J. Vert. Paleontol. 33 (1), 109–127. doi:10.1006/jhev.1997.0132 195–215. doi:10.1080/02724634.2012.711404 Arzarello, M., Marcolini, F., Pavia, G., Pavia, M., Petronio, C., Petrucci, M., et al. De Beaumont, G. (1976). Note sur quelques carnivores (Mammifères) du Quaternaire (2007). Evidence of earliest human occurrence in Europe: The site of Pirro Nord ancient de la provincie de Foggia (Italie). Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 74, 217–226. (southern Italy). Naturwissenschaften 94, 107–112. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0173-3 Džaparidze, V. B., Nioradze, M., Pavlenisvili, E., Schminke, H. U., and Sologasvili, D. Arzarello, M., Marcolini, F., Pavia, G., Pavia, M., Petronio, C., Petrucci, M., et al. (1989). Der altpaläolithische fundplatz Dmanisi in georgien (kaukasus). Jahr.Römisch- (2009). L’industrie lithique du site pléistocène inférieur de Pirro Nord (Apricena, italie Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 36 (1), 67–116. du Sud): Une occupation humaine entre 1,3 et 1,7 ma. L’Anthropologie 113, 47–58. Ellis, E. C. (2021). Land use and ecological change: A 12,000-year history. Ann. Rev. doi:10.1016/j.anthro.2009.01.004 Environ. Resour. 46, 1–33. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-010822 Arzarello, M., and Peretto, C. (2010). Out of africa: The first evidence of Italian Endere, M. L., and Prado, J. L. (2015). Characterization and valuation of peninsula occupation. Quat. Int. 223-224, 65–70. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.01.006 paleontological heritage: A perspective from Argentina. Geoheritage 7, 137–145. Barthel, K. W., Swinburne, N., and Conway Morris, S. (1990). Solnhofen: A study in doi:10.1007/s12371-014-0124-x mesozoic palaeontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erickson, G. M., Rauhut, O. W., Zhou, Z., Turner, A. H., Inouye, B. D., Hu, D., et al. Batista, P. V., Davies, J., Silva, M. L., and Quinton, J. N. (2019). On the evaluation of (2009). Was dinosaurian physiology inherited by birds? Reconciling slow growth in soil erosion models: Are we doing enough? Earth-Sci. Rev. 197, 102898. doi:10.1016/j. Archaeopteryx. PLoS One 4 (10), e7390–e7399. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007390 earscirev.2019.102898 Falkingham, P., Marty, D., and Richter, A. (2016). Dinosaur tracks: The next steps (life Bennett, S. C. (1995). A statistical study of Rhamphorhynchus from the Solnhofen of the past). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Limestone of Germany: Year-classes of a single large species. J. Paleontol. 69, 569–580. Fernández-Jalvo, Y., and Andrews, P. (1992). Small mammal taphonomy of gran doi:10.1017/s0022336000034946 Dolina, Atapuerca (burgos), Spain. J. Archaeol. Sci. 19 (4), 407–428. doi:10.1016/0305- Bennett, S. (2002). Soft tissue preservation of the cranial crest of the pterosaur 4403(92)90058-b Germanodactylus from Solnhofen. J. Vert. Paleontol. 22 (1), 43–48. doi:10.1671/0272- Ferreira, C. S. S., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Destouni, G., Ghajarnia, N., and Kalantari, 4634(2002)022[0043:stpotc]2.0.co;2 Z. (2022). Soil degradation in the European Mediterranean region: Processes, status Bhattacharya, R. K., Das Chatterjee, N., and Das, K. (2019). Multi-criteria-based sub- and consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 805, 150106. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021. basin prioritization and its risk assessment of erosion susceptibility in Kansai–Kumari 150106 catchment area, India. Appl. Water Sci. 9, 76–30. doi:10.1007/s13201-019-0954-4 Foth, C., Tischlinger, H., and Rauhut, O. W. (2014). New specimen of Archaeopteryx Borrelli, P., Alewell, C., Alvarez, P., Anache, J. A. A., Baartman, J., Ballabio, C., et al. provides insights into the evolution of pennaceous feathers. Nature 511 (7507), 79–82. (2021). Soil erosion modelling: A global review and statistical analysis. Sci. Total doi:10.1038/nature13467 Environ. 780, 146494. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146494 Freudenthal, M. (1971). Neogene vertebrates from the Gargano peninsula, Italy. Scr. Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Fleischer, L. R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., et al. Geol. 3, 1–10. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil Gabunia, L. A., Swisher, C. C., III, Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Justus, A., and erosion. Nat. Comm. 8 (1), 2013. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7 Swisher, C. C. (2001). Dmanisi and dispersal. Evol. Anthropol. Issues, News, Rev. 10 (5), Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Lugato, E., Yang, J. E., Alewell, C., et al. 158–170. doi:10.1002/evan.1030 (2020). Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015- García-Ávila, M., Ballesteros, B., and Diez, J. B. (2022). Patrimonio paleontológico 2070). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 21994–22001. doi:10.1073/pnas.2001403117 paleozoico del Geoparque Mundial de la UNESCO Montañas do Courel. Catalogación y Bruijn, H. D., Van der Meulen, A. J., and Katsikatsos, G. (1980). The mammals from puesta en valor. GEOGACETA 71, 19–22. the lower miocene of Aliveri (island of evia, Greece). Proc. Koninklijke Nederl. Akademie Genise, J. F., and Harrison, T. (2018). Walking on ashes: Insect trace fossils from van Wetenschappen Ser. B Phys. Sci. 83, 241–261. Laetoli indicate poor grass cover associated with early hominin environments. Bujok, P., Klempa, M., Jelínek, J., Porzer, M., and Rodriguez Gonzalez, M. A. (2015). Palaeontology 61 (4), 597–624. doi:10.1111/pala.12357 Industrial tourism in the context of the industrial heritage. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 15 (1), 81–93. Georgalis, G. L., Villa, A., Ivanov, M., Roussiakis, S., Skandalos, P., and Delfino, M. Buta, R. J., Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., Rindsberg, A. K., and Martin, A. J. (2005). “Atlas of (2019). Early Miocene herpetofaunas from the Greek localities of Aliveri and Union Chapel Mine invertebrate trackways and other traces,” in Pennsylvanian Karydia–bridging a gap in the knowledge of amphibians and reptiles from the early footprints in the black warrior basin of Alabama. Editors R. J. Buta, D. C. Kopaska- Neogene of southeastern Europe. Hist. Biol. 31 (8), 1045–1064. doi:10.1080/08912963. Merkel, and A. K. Rindsberg (Tuscaloosa: Alabama University Press), 277–337. 2017.1417404 Monograph no. 1. Giustini, D., and Kamel Boulos, B. (2013). Google Scholar is notenough to be used Canudo, J. I., Badiola, A., Belmonte, A., Cardiel, J., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Díaz- alone for systematic reviews. Online J. Public Health Inf. 5 (2), 1–9. doi:10.5210/ojphi. Berenguer, E., et al. (2021). Window onto the Eocene (tertiary): The v5i2.4623 palaeontological record of the sobrarbe-pirineos UNESCO global geopark (huesca, Goemaere, E., Demarque, S., Dreesen, R., and Declercq, P. (2015). The geological and aragon, Spain). Geoconservation Res. 4 (2), 1–12. cultural heritage of the caledonian stavelot-venn massif, Belgium. Geoheritage 8 (3), Canuti, P., Casagli, N., Catani, F., and Fanti, R. (2000). Hydrogeological hazard and 211–233. doi:10.1007/s12371-015-0155-y risk in archaeological sites: Some case studies in Italy. J. Cul. Her. 1, 117–125. doi:10. González, A. P., Aleixandre, T., Pinilla, A., Martínez, A. I. O., and Gallardo, J. C. 1016/s1296-2074(00)00158-8 (1999). “Geología y estratigrafía del relleno de Galería de la Sierra de la Sierra de Catani, F., Segoni, S., and Falorni, G. (2010). An empirical geomorphology-based Atapuerca (Burgos),” in Atapuerca: Ocupaciones humanas y paleoecología del approach to the spatial prediction of soil thickness at catchment scale. Water Resour. yacimiento de Galería (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Res. 46, W05508. doi:10.1029/2008wr007450 Educación y Cultura), 31–42. Ciampalini, R., Constantine, J. A., Walker-Springett, K. J., Hales, T. C., Ormerod, S. J., Gould, S. J. (1990). Wonderful life: The burgess Shale and the nature of history. WW and Hall, L. R. (2020). Modelling soil erosion responses to climate change in three Norton and Company. Frontiers in Earth Science 13 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 Greshko, M. (2016). Newfound footprints stir debate over our ancestors’ sex lives. Meneghini, G. (1855). Nuovi fossili toscani illustrati dal Prof. G. Meneghini. Firenze: Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/oldest-human- Tipografia Nistri. footprints-australopithecus-lucy-tanzania-science. Merrill, D., and Leatherby, L. (2018). Here’s how America uses its land. Guerrero-Arenas, R., Arellano, A., Josefina, F., Alvarado Mendoza, L., and Jiménez- Bloomberg.com. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land- Hidalgo, E. (2020). How is the paleontological heritage of Mexico and other Latin use/#xj4y7vzkg (consulted May 16, 2023). American countries protected? Paleontol. Mex. 9 (2), 93–90. Mezga, A., and Bajraktarevic, Z. (2004). Cretaceous dinosaur and turtle tracks on the Hadjimitsis, D., Agapiou, A., Alexakis, D., and Sarris, A. (2013). Exploring natural island of Veli Brijun (Istria, Croatia). Geol. Carpathica. 55 (5), 355–370. and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS. Minter, N., Braddy, S., and Davis, R. B. (2007). Between a rock and a hard place: Int. J. Digit. Earth 6 (2), 115–142. doi:10.1080/17538947.2011.602119 Arthropod trackways and ichnotaxonomy. Lethaia 40 (4), 365–375. doi:10.1111/j.1502- Hayward, B. W. (2009). Protecting fossil sites inNew zealand. PaleoParks—the 3931.2007.00035.x protection and conservation of fossil sites worldwide. Carnets de Noteb. Geol. Brest Monash University (2023). Field Reports for Dinosaur Dreaming fossil site. Melbourne: Book 3, 49–64. Monash Science Centre. Available at: https://rbh49.com/DD2/fieldReports.php (consulted Herne, M., Nair, J., Evans, A., and Tait, A. (2019). New small-bodied ornithopods May 16, 2023). (dinosauria, neornithischia) from the early cretaceous wonthaggi formation Montanarella, L., Paracchini, R., and Rusco, E. (2000). Indicazione delle aree vulnerabili in (strzelecki group) of the Australian-antarctic rift system, with revision of Puglia. Settore Programmazione Ufficio Informatico e Servizio Cartografico della Regione qantassaurus intrepidus rich and vickers-rich, 1999. J. Paleontol. 93 (3), 543–584. Puglia. Bari: Dipartimento Ambiente, Paesaggio e Qualità Urbana, 34. doi:10.1017/jpa.2018.95 Morales, J., Azanza, B., and Gomes Ruiz, E. (1999). El patrimonio paleontológico Hightower, C., and Caldwell, C. (2010). Shifting sands: Science researchers on Google español. Coloquios Paleontol. 50, 53–62. scholar, Web of science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Iss. Sci. Tech. Librariansh. 63, 76–94. doi:10.29173/istl2545 Morales, J. (1996). “El patrimonio paleontológico. Bases para su definición, estado actual y perspectivas futuras,” in MOPTMA (Madrid): Serie Monografías: El Patrimonio Hofman, C. L., and Hoogland, M. L. (2016). Connecting Stakeholders: Collaborative Geológico Bases para su valoración protección y utilización, 39–51. preventive archaeology projects at sites affected by natural and/or human impacts. Caribb. Connect. 5 (1), 1–31. Moreau, J. D., Gand, G., Fara, E., Galtier, J., Aubert, N., and Fouché, S. (2021). Trackways of arthropleura from the late pennsylvanian of graissessac (hérault, southern Hou, X., Ramsköld, L., and Bergström, J. (1991). Composition and preservation of the France). Hist. Biol. 33 (7), 996–1007. doi:10.1080/08912963.2019.1675055 Chengjiang fauna–a Lower Cambrian soft-bodied biota. Zool. Screen. 20 (4), 395–411. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.1991.tb00303.x Morey, B., and Pons, G. X. (2021). El patrimoni paleontològic de Mallorca: Catalogació, caracterització, valoració i propostes de gestió i de conservació. Boll. Hou, X., Siveter, D. J., Siveter, D. J., Aldridge, R. J., Aldridge, R. J., Cong, P., et al. Soc. Hist. Nat. Balears 64, 101–129. (2017). The cambrian fossils of chengjiang, China: The flowering of early animal life. Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Morris, S. C. (1989). Burgess Shale faunas and the cambrian explosion. Science 246, 339–346. doi:10.1126/science.246.4928.339 Hurtt, G. C., Chini, L. P., Frolking, S., Betts, R. A., Feddema, J., Fischer, G., et al. (2011). Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of Nearing, M. A., Xie, Y., Liu, B., and Ye, Y. (2017). Natural and anthropogenic rates of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary soil erosion. Int. Soil Water Cons. Res. 5 (2), 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.04.001 lands. Clim. Change 109 (1), 117–161. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0153-2 Nikami, K. A. (2007). A stochastic model to simulate and predict archaeological Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (2014). GDA94: landscape taphonomy: Monitoring cultural landscapes values based on an iranian Geocentric datum Australia, technical manual version 2.4: Canberra, Australian survey project. Archeol. Calcolatori 18, 101–120. capital territory, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra: Anzlic committee on Nillson, R. (1951). Till kannedom om Ordovicium i sydostra Skåne. Geol. Fören. surveying & mapping, 52. Stockh. Förh. 73 (4), 682–694. IUGS (2022). The first 100 IUGS geological heritage sites. Spain: International Union Oheim, K. B. (2007). Fossil site prediction using geographic information systems of Geological Sciences. (GIS) and suitability analysis: The Two Medicine Formation, MT, a test case. Kamermans, H., van Leusen, M., and Verhangen, P. (2009). Archeological prediction Palaeogeog. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 251, 354–365. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.04.005 and risk management. Archaeological studies. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Ólafsdóttir, R., and Dowling, R. (2009). Geotourism and geoparks — a tool for Kavčič, M., and Peljhan, M. (2010). Geological heritage as an integral part of natural geoconservation and rural development in vulnerable environments: A case study from heritage conservation through its sustainable use in the Idrija Region (Slovenia). Iceland. Geoheritage 6 (4), 71–87. doi:10.1007/s12371-013-0095-3 Geoheritage 2 (3), 137–154. doi:10.1007/s12371-010-0018-5 Ortega, A. I., Benito-Calvo, A., Pérez-González, A., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Kleinet, H., Voigt, S., Hminna, A., Saber, H., Schneider, J., and Hmich, D. (2010). Early Castro, J. M., and Arsuaga, J. L. (2014). “Atapuerca karst and its palaeoanthropological triassic archosaur-dominated footprint assemblage from the argana basin (Western high atlas, sites,” in Landscapes and landforms of Spain. Editors F. Gutiérrez and M. Gutiérrez Morocco). Ichnos 17 (3), 215–227. doi:10.1080/10420940.2010.510030 (Springer Science and Business), 101–110. Kölbl-Ebert, M., and Cooper, B. J. (2020). Solnhofener plattenkalk: A heritage stone of Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Himics, M., Scarpa, S., Matthews, F., Bogonos, M., et al. international significance from Germany. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 486 (1), 103–113. (2021). Projections of soil loss by water erosion in Europe by 2050. Environ. Sci. Policy doi:10.1144/sp486-2017-324 124, 380–392. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.012 Kooland, L., and Lowery, M. (2020). Cretaceous vertebrate localities in gippsland. Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., et al. Dinosaur dreaming 2020 field report, 6–7. (2015). The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Poicy. 54, 438–447. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012 Lazzarotto, A. (1967). Geologia della zona compresa fra l’alta Valle del Fiume Cornia ed il Torrente Pavone (Prov. di Pisa e Grosseto). Mem. Soc. Geol. It. 6 (2), 151–197. Panagos, P., Standardi, G., Borrelli, P., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., and Bosello, F. (2018). Cost of agricultural productivity loss due to soil erosion in the European Union: Leakey, M. D., and Hay, R. L. (1979). Pliocene footprints in the laetolil beds at Laetoli, From direct cost evaluation approaches to the use of macroeconomic models. Land northern Tanzania. Nature 278 (5702), 317–323. doi:10.1038/278317a0 Degrad. Dev. 29 (3), 471–484. doi:10.1002/ldr.2879 Lukić, D., Petrović, M., Radovanović, M., Syromiatnikova, J., and Demirović Bajrami, Pavia, M., Zunino, M., Coltorti, M., Angelone, C., Arzarello, M., Bagnus, C., et al. (2012). D. (2021). The evaluation of undiscovered archeological geoheritage potential - the case Stratigraphical and palaeontological data from the early Pleistocene Pirro 10 site of Pirro Nord of Rudna Glava Site (Eastern Serbia). Geoj. Tour. Geosites 36 (2), 654–662. doi:10.30892/ (puglia, southeastern Italy). Quat. Int. 267, 40–55. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2010.12.019 gtg.362spl13-695 Pillola, G. L., and Zoboli, D. (2017). Dwarf mammoth footprints from the Pleistocene Mampel, L., Cobos, A., Alcalá, L. L., and Royo-Torres, R. (2009). An integrated system of Gonnesa (southwestern sardinia, Italy). Boll. Soc. Paleontol. Ital. 56 (1), 57–64. of heritage management applied to dinosaur sites in Teruel (Aragón, Spain). Geoheritage 1 (2), 53–73. doi:10.1007/s12371-009-0005-x Poggio, L., De Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E., et al. (2021). SoilGrids 2.0: Producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial Månsson, K. (1995). Trilobites and stratigraphy of the Middle ordovician killeröd uncertainty. Soil 7 (1), 217–240. doi:10.5194/soil-7-217-2021 formation, scania, Sweden. GFF 117 (2), 97–106. doi:10.1080/11035899509546206 Prado, J. L. (2008). “Patrimonio paleontológico,” in Patrimonio, ciencia y comunidad. McNutt, E. J., Hatala, K. G., Miller, C., Adams, J., Casana, J., Deane, A. S., et al. (2021). Un abordaje preliminar en los partidos de Azul, olavarría y tandil: Argentina. Editors Footprint evidence of early hominin locomotor diversity at Laetoli, Tanzania. Nature M. L. Endere (Buenos Aires: INCUAPA/Universidad Nacional del Centro de la 600, 468–471. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04187-7 Provincia de Buenos Aires), 111–141. Melchor, R. N., and Cardonatto, M. C. (2014). Insights on the behavior of late Renschler, C. S., and Harbor, J. (2002). Soil erosion assessment tools from point to paleozoic aquatic Crustaceans (pygocephalomorpha?): Compound trace fossils from regional scales—The role of geomorphologists in land management research and western Argentina. Ichnos 21 (2), 76–99. doi:10.1080/10420940.2013.879868 implementation. Geomorphology 47, 189–209. Meldrum, D. J., Lockley, M. G., Lucas, S. G., and Musiba, C. (2011). Ichnotaxonomy of Rich, T. H., Vickers-Rich, P., Constantine, A., Flannery, T. F., Kool, L., and Van the Laetoli trackways: The earliest hominin footprints. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 60 (1–2), 1–12. Klaveren, N. (1997). A tribosphenic mammal from the Mesozoic of Australia. Science doi:10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2011.01.003 278, 1438–1442. doi:10.1126/science.278.5342.1438 Frontiers in Earth Science 14 frontiersin.org Faggi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1163280 Rook, L. (2013). Special issue: The vertebrate fauna of Pirro Nord (Apricena, Apulia, Tsegaye, B. (2019). Effect of land use and land cover changes on soil erosion in Ethiopia. southern Italy). Palaeontographica abteilung A, band 298, Lieferung, Stuttgart: Int. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 5 (1), 026–034. doi:10.17352/2455-815X.000038 Schweizerbart and Borntraeger science publishers 1–6. Uddin, K., Matin, M. A., and Maharjan, S. (2018). Assessment of land cover change and its Rosas, A., Pérez-Gonzàlez, A., Carbonell, E., van der Made, J., Sánchez, A., Laplana, impact on changes in soil erosion risk in Nepal. Sustain 10, 4715. doi:10.3390/su10124715 C., et al. (2001). Le gisement pléistocène de la «Sima del Elefante å (Sierra de Atapuerca, UNESCO (2021). Archaeological site of Atapuerca. Available at: https://whc.unesco. Espagne). L’anthropologie 105 (2), 301–312. doi:10.1016/s0003-5521(01)80018-2 org/en/list/989/ (consulted april 15th, 2023). Schulp, A. S., Belvedere, M., Nasir, S., and Wheeler, M. (2011). An artiodactyl tracksite UNESCO (1970). Convention on the Means of prohibiting and preventing the Illicit at Musandam peninsula, sultanate of Oman. Ichnos 18 (4), 192–196. doi:10.1080/ Import, Export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Paris: Tratto da UNESCO. 10420940.2011.632659 Available at: https://en.unesco.org/about-us/legal-affairs/convention-means- Sellier, D. (2016). A deductive method for the selection of geomorphosites: prohibiting-and-preventing-illicit-import-export-and. Application to Mont Ventoux (Provence, France). Geoheritage 8 (1), 15–29. doi:10. UNESCO (2022). Natural Heritage. UNESCO Istitute for Statistics. Available at: 1007/s12371-015-0144-1 http://uis.unesco.org/node/3079775. Sheik Mujabar, P., and Chandrasekar, N. (2013). Coastal erosion hazard and Vidovic, S. U., and Martill, D. M. (2014). Pterodactylus scolopaciceps meyer, 1860 vulnerability assessment for southern coastal Tamil Nadu of India by using remote (pterosauria, pterodactyloidea) from the upper jurassic of bavaria, Germany: The sensing and GIS. Nat. Hazards 69, 1295–1314. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9962-x problem of cryptic pterosaur taxa in early ontogeny. PLoS ONE 9 (10), Stančič, Z., Veljanovski, T. O., and Podobnikar, T. (2001). Archaeological predictive 1106466–e110716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110646 modelling for highway construction planning. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Int. Ser. 391, 233–238. Wei-Haas, M. (2021). Ancient footprints hint at mysterious human relative Stössel, I. (1995). The discovery of a new Devonian tetrapod trackway in SW Ireland. with a strange walk. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/ J. Geol. Soc. 152 (2), 407–413. doi:10.1144/gsjgs.152.2.0407 article/ancient-footprints-hint-at-mysterious-human-relative-with-a-strange- walk. Stössel, I., Williams, E. A., and Higgs, K. T. (2016). Ichnology and depositional environment of the Middle Devonian Valentia Island tetrapod trackways, south-west White, T. D., and Suwa, G. (1987). Hominid footprints at Laetoli: Facts and Ireland. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 462, 16–40. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2016. interpretations. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 72 (4), 485–514. doi:10.1002/ajpa. 08.033 1330720409 Tangestani, M. H. (2006). Comparison of EPM and PSIAC models in GIS for Wuepper, D., Borrelli, P., and Finger, R. (2020). Countries and the global rate of soil erosion and sediment yield assessment in a semi-arid environment: Afzar erosion. Nat. Sustain. 3 (1), 51–55. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0438-4 Catchment, Fars Province, Iran. J. Asian Earth Sci. 27, 585–597. doi:10.1016/j. Zachar, D. (1982). Soil erosion. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 547. jseaes.2005.06.002 Frontiers in Earth Science 15 frontiersin.org