Delia Evelina Bruno, Brooke E. Crowley, Jaroslav M. Gutak, Adriana

Transcription

Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 300–312
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Earth-Science Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/earscirev
Paleogeography as geological heritage: Developing geosite classification
Delia Evelina Bruno a,b, Brooke E. Crowley c,d, Jaroslav M. Gutak e, Adriana Moroni f, Olesya V. Nazarenko g,
Kathryn B. Oheim h, Dmitry A. Ruban b,i,j,⁎, Günter Tiess b,k, Svetlana O. Zorina l,m
a
CNR-IRSA, National Research Council, Water Research Institute, Via F. Blasio 5, 70125 Bari, Italy
International Agency for Minerals Policy (“MinPol”), Austria
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
d
Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
e
Division of Geology and Geodesy, Institute of Mining and Geosystems, Siberian State Industrial University, Kirov Street 42, Novokuznetsk, Kemerovo Region 654007, Russia
f
Research Unit of Prehistory and Anthropology, Department of Physical, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Siena, via Laterina, 8, 53100 Siena, Italy
g
Department of Physical Geography, Ecology, and Nature Protection, Institute of Earth Sciences, Southern Federal University, Zorge Street 40, Rostov-na-Donu 344090, Russia
h
Suffolk County Department of Planning, 4th Floor, 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788, USA
i
P.O. Box 7333, Rostov-na-Donu 344056, Russia 1
j
Department of Tourism, Higher School of Business, Southern Federal University, 23-ja linija Street 43, Rostov-na-Donu, 344019, Russia
k
Chair of Mining Engineering and Mineral Economics, Department of Mineral Resources and Petroleum Engineering, University of Leoben, Franz-Josef-Strasse 18, A-8700 Leoben, Austria
l
Central Research Institute of Geology of Industrial Minerals, Zinin Street 4, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan 420097, Russia
m
Deparment of Palaeontology and Stratigraphy, Institute of Geology and Oil-Gas Technologies, Kazan Federal University, Kremljovskaja Street 4/5, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan 420008, Russia
b
c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 October 2013
Accepted 21 June 2014
Available online 27 June 2014
Keywords:
Geological heritage
Paleogeographical geosite
Paleoecosystem
Paleoenvironment
Geodiversity
Geotourism
a b s t r a c t
Geological heritage sites (geosites) are sites that contain information about the state and the dynamics of the
Earth. Paleogeographical (paleoenvironmental) geosites preserve paleoenvironments, paleoecosystems, and
other relevant phenomena. However, the value of these sites can only be fully understood through professional
interpretation of the observed features. Description of paleogeographical geosites in terms of the paleospace and
the geologic time they encompass is challenging, partially because of many uncertainties in the interpretations of
a given geosite and in the paleogeographical, paleobiogeographical, and stratigraphical nomenclature. These
geosites can be classified on the basis of facies, paleoecosystems, ichnological value, taphonomic patterns,
major events and catastrophes, and geoarcheological potential that they exhibit. Some geosites comprise several
subtypes, and some are especially important for construction of paleogeographical maps. Moreover, the paleogeographical geosite type always associates with other types of geosites (20 in total). These combinations form
complex geosites that contribute to geodiversity. If information about the Earth's past is especially valuable for
a given complex geosite, then the paleogeographical type is dominant.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
Paleogeographical geosites: conceptual remarks . .
3.
Towards classification of paleogeographical geosites
4.
Paleogeography in complex geosites . . . . . . .
5.
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
301
301
303
307
308
308
309
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Tourism, Higher School of Business, Southern Federal University, 23-ja linija Street 43, Rostov-na-Donu, 344019, Russia. Tel.: +7 903
4634344.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.E. Bruno), [email protected] (B.E. Crowley), [email protected] (J.M. Gutak), [email protected] (A. Moroni),
[email protected] (O.V. Nazarenko), [email protected] (K.B. Oheim), [email protected], [email protected] (D.A. Ruban), [email protected] (G. Tiess),
[email protected] (S.O. Zorina).
1
For postal communication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.06.005
0012-8252/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D.E. Bruno et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 138 (2014) 300–312
1. Introduction
Adequate recognition, conservation, promotion, and multi-purpose
use of global, national, regional, and local geological heritage have
remained an agenda for geologists, nature conservationists, and
policy-makers for more than two decades (Black, 1985; Lapo et al.,
1993, 1997; Wimbledon et al., 1995, 1998; Wimbledon, 1996, 1999;
Kislov, 1999, 2001; Gray, 2004, 2008; Prosser et al., 2011; Ruban,
2010; Ruban and Kuo, 2010; Henriques et al., 2011; Asrat et al., 2012;
Brown et al., 2012; Gordon, 2012; Fassoulas et al., 2012; Wimbledon
and Smith-Meyer, 2012; Tiess and Ruban, 2013). Additionally, tourism
and recreation based on geological objects have evolved to become an
important industry (Hose, 1996, 2000; Hose and Wickens, 2004;
Doktor and Golonka, 2006; Pajak et al., 2006; Gray, 2008; Dowling and
Newsome, 2010; Ruban and Kuo, 2010; Jin and Ruban, 2011; Bruno
and Perrotta, 2012; Farsani et al., 2012; Gordon, 2012; Hose and
Vasiljević, 2012; Liccardo et al., 2012). Localities with scientifically important, rare, and beautifully preserved fossils and minerals, or other
spectacular geological features and landforms, are of primary
importance for both of these movements. These geological heritage
sites (geosites) frequently incorporate complex phenomena. Available
classification systems distinguish several types of geosites, including
the paleogeographical (paleoenvironmental) type (e.g., Lapo et al.,
1993, 1997; Wimbledon et al., 1998; Kislov, 1999; Ruban, 2005, 2010;
Ruban and Kuo, 2010), which is the focus of this paper.
The heritage value of many globally important geosites (Wimbledon
et al., 1998) and geoparks (http://www.unesco.org/en/natural-sciences/
environment/earth-sciences/geoparks/some-questions-aboutgeoparks/where-are-the-global-geoparks/ and europeangeoparks.org)
is determined by the paleogeographical (paleoenvironmental) information that they exhibit. Reynard et al. (2007) went so far as to propose the
evaluation of paleogeographical value for all existing geosites (see also
Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009), although not all geosites (e.g., exposures
of igneous rocks) necessarily exhibit paleogeographical features.
The objective of this paper is to present a template for evaluating a
broad range of paleogeographical phenomena in terms of geological
heritage. Our three main goals include:
1) Defining paleogeographical geosites and outlining their specific
features;
2) Developing a provisional classification for paleogeographical
geosites (this classification should be specific to geoconservation);
3) Demonstrating the complexity of paleogeographically-important
geosites.
This paper is based on published literature as well as our own field
experience. We focus only on the “in-situ” geological heritage that is preserved in geosites, geoparks, geological reserves, etc. (either designated
legally or not) and do not discuss “ex-situ” geological heritage such as
museum collections and reconstruction exhibitions. Similarly, although
the ideas of so-called “rewilding” (e.g., Martin, 2005; Zimov, 2005;
Allison, 2012; Zimov et al., 2012a,b; Levy, 2013), form (at least theoretically) the basis for a fundamentally new kind of paleogeography-related
geological heritage, their discussion is beyond the scope of the present
paper. We intend to demonstrate to geoconservationists how geological
knowledge can be used to better evaluate geosites, as well as attract the
attention of geologists working with various paleogeographical phenomena to the heritage value of sites they visit and study.
2. Paleogeographical geosites: conceptual remarks
Geosites are “geological objects or fragments of the geological
environment exposed on the land surface, thus, accessible for visits
and studies” (Ruban, 2010, p. 326). They supply information useful for
science, education, and tourism/recreation, and, thus, they bear heritage
value (Ruban and Kuo, 2010). Although many exposed geological objects are potential geosites, evaluation of their heritage value is necessary
301
to designate them as true geosites. This will also help rank their relative
importance (global, national, regional, or local). The heritage value is
linked to geosite uniqueness, which may reflect either rare or, in contrast, typical geological features. Evaluating heritage value is possible
via comparison with other similar geosites (Ruban, 2005, 2006a, 2010).
Esthetic properties of the potential geosite and its landscape context as
perceived by visitors are also important (e.g., Reynard et al., 2007;
Gray, 2008; Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009; Nazarenko and Gorbatcheva,
2009; Ruban, 2011a; Fassoulas et al., 2012), but, of course, they are
only supplementary to the main evaluation procedure. These properties
are chiefly important when the tourism and recreation importance of a
geosite is discussed (Hudson, 2013; Kirillova et al., 2014; van der Jagt
et al., 2014). The simple concept of geosite recognition (Fig. 1) links a
broad spectrum of relevant ideas (e.g., Lapo et al., 1993; Wimbledon
et al., 1995; García Cortés et al., 2000; Prosser et al., 2006; Reynard
et al., 2007; Bruschi and Cendrero, 2009; Fassoulas et al., 2012). In
order for geosites to retain their value to society (e.g., Asrat et al., 2012;
Farsani et al., 2012), they must be protected from negative natural and
anthropogenic influences, including damage from visitors. Sometimes,
debris removal and even restoration are necessary (for more details
see Prosser et al., 2006).
As mentioned above, paleogeographical geosites have been
distinguished by many specialists (Lapo et al., 1993; Wimbledon
et al., 1998; Kislov, 1999; Ruban, 2005, 2010; Ruban and Kuo,
2010). Generally, they can be defined as geological heritage sites
that represent paleoenvironments in general or highlight particular
paleoenvironmental features, which are of special interest for science,
education, or tourism/recreation. Paleogeographical geosites can be
outcrops, roadcuts, quarries, etc. representing preserved elements of
the ancient environment or permitting evaluation of ancient environments through indirect, but valuable geological evidence. An example
is the Oshten Mountain in the Western Caucasus (Fig. 2A), which is a
well-preserved Late Jurassic reefal massif. Such geosites could also be
called “paleoenvironmental geosites”, but the term “paleogeographical
geosite” is preferred here to follow the original classification of geosites
proposed by Ruban (2010) and Ruban and Kuo (2010). A special distinction of the paleogeographical type of geosites is necessary because
some other types of geosites (for example, magmatic or structural
geosites) do not necessarily provide valuable information about the
geological past. And the paleogeographical type may not dominate
complex geosites.
There are different meanings of the term “paleogeography”. Even
some important reference volumes (e.g., Gornitz, 2009) do not clarify
this term. Whereas some specialists often mention the relevant phenomena (e.g., facies) together with sedimentology and stratigraphy,
other specialists (including those from Russia) tend to treat paleogeography as a sub-discipline of the historical geology (cf. Jain, 2014). And
there is yet another complication. Lists compiled by Wimbledon et al.
(1998) indicate only geosites named “paleoenvironmental”. Here we
propose to define paleogeographical geosites as broadly as possible.
We argue that they should include sites that preserve physical
paleoenvironments sensu lato, paleoecosystems sensu lato, and their
dynamics on any time scale. Paleogeographical geosites may also preserve paleoclimatological, paleoceanographical, paleobiological, and
geobiological (sensu Bottjer, 2005) phenomena.
Two specific features of paleogeographical geosites make them very
different from most other geosites. The first is that paleogeographical
geosites exhibit information about ancient phenomena that started and
ended in the more or less remote geological past. The heritage of these
sites includes those features that help visualize something no longer in
existence, as well as the interpretation of this event, environment, or community. Therefore, we need an additional interpretive “lens” for recognition of paleogeographical geosites (Fig. 1). The other specific feature of
paleogeographical geosites is their complexity. Paleoenvironments and
paleoecosystems, as well as modern landscapes and biotic communities
are multi-component systems. Sedimentary, taphonomic, and other
302
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the concept of geosite recognition (for more details see Ruban, 2005, 2006a, 2010; Ruban and Kuo, 2010; Ruban, 2011a; Fassoulas et al., 2012).
geological processes inhibit preservation of all these components and
their relationships in the rock record. This complicates interpretation of
ancient environments and ecosystems. Therefore, each preserved feature
that facilitates our understanding of past environments and ecosystems
becomes precious.
Paleogeographical geosites can be characterized spatio-temporally;
they can be attributed to a given paleogeographical domain, given
paleobiogeographical unit (biochore), and given period, epoch, or age.
However, there are two main challenges for spatio-temporally placing
paleogeographical sites:
1) Uncertainties in paleogeographical, paleobiogeographical, and
stratigraphical interpretations, as well as the possibility of reinterpretations at a given geosite;
2) Variation in the nomenclature used to define paleogeographical,
paleobiogeographical, and stratigraphical units on international
and regional scales (Gradstein et al., 2004; Ogg et al., 2008; Ruban,
2009a; Gradstein et al., 2012, stratigraphy.org).
For example, a Late Jurassic paleoreef exposed presently as the Oshten
Mountain in the Western Caucasus (Fig. 2A) can be attributed to the
Caucasian Sea, the Mediterran-Caucasian Paleobiogeographical Subrealm.
However, the true extent and integrity of the Caucasian Sea (proposed as
a paleogeographical unit by Ruban, 2006b) depend on regional
paleotectonic reconstructions that still require some refining. Moreover,
the location of the paleoreef was likely controlled by a long-lived shear
zone (Khain, 1962), which inherited the Gondwana-derived nature of
the Greater Caucasus (Ruban et al., 2007), although the Late Jurassic
Fig. 2. Examples of paleogeographical geosites: A – Oshten Mountain (height — 2804 m) in the Lago-Naki Highlands, Western Caucasus, southwestern Russia – an exposed Late Jurassic
reef (photo by O.V.N.); B – Fisht Mountain (height — 2867 m) in the Lago-Naki Highlands, Western Caucasus, southwestern Russia – an exposed Late Jurassic reef (photo by O.V.N.); C – the
Jaja-Petropavlovskij section in the Kemerovo Region, southern Siberia, Russia – deposits of a Late Devonian catastrophic lake outflow (photo by J.M.G.); D — the sequence of sandstones and
limestones in the marine terraces of ViboValentia, Calabria, southern Italy (photo by D.E.B.).
massif of the region developed on the northern margin of the Neo-Tethys
Ocean (Ruban, 2006b). Even the nature of the Paleozoic Greater Caucasus
terrane (and, consequently, the above-mentioned shear zone) remains
debatable (Ruban, 2013a; Stampfli, 2013). The Mediterran-Caucasian
Subrealm is advocated by Westermann (2000), but this biochore is not
widely recognized by modern paleobiogeographers, who often prefer
to refer to the Western Tethys or the Tethys as a whole. Finally, because
the Upper Jurassic chronostratigraphy of the Western Caucasus
(Rostovtsev et al., 1992) is yet to be improved, the age of the carbonates
that constitute the Oshten Mountain requires further investigation. In
summary, the spatio-temporal scale to which this ancient reef can be attributed varies widely.
3. Towards classification of paleogeographical geosites
Paleogeographical geosites may vary widely in terms of the information they preserve. To objectively discuss what is preserved and the
value of this information requires development of a more or less universal classification for characterizing different types of paleogeographical
geosites. Geoconservationists need a framework to describe the essence
of a particular geosite to avoid oversimplifications or, in contrast, complications. The huge quantity of phenomena that have occurred during the
Earth's history makes this a challenging task. For example, shallow-water
paleoenvironments with abundant carbonate-producing invertebrates
can be described using several classifications of carbonate platforms
(Ahr, 1973; Read, 1982, 1985; Burchette and Wright, 1992; Read, 1998;
Pomar, 2001; Pomar and Hallock, 2008; Jung and Aigner, 2012; Kim
et al., 2012; Pomar et al., 2012).
Here, we propose a provisional classification of paleogeographical
geosites. It is our hope that this template will be further developed by
other researchers who may add subtypes to those discussed below. It
should be stressed that this classification is developed for the purposes
of geoconservation. For instance, it can be employed for brief, but
precise description of a given geosite, measurement of geodiversity
(see below), adequate promotion of a particular geosite, etc.
Geoconservationists need such a classification, because their practical
work requires abridged, but more or less comprehensive synopses of
numerous paleogeographical (paleoenvironmental) issues that are
discussed in the professional geological literature. This classification is
similarly important for other geologists because it will give them a
framework for interpreting the heritage values for research sites.
At least six criteria can be employed to distinguish subtypes of paleogeographical geosites: facies, paleoecosystems, ichnology, taphonomy,
events/catastrophes, and geoarcheological features (Table 1). We
consider each of these in detail below. Several categories can be distinguished within each of these subtypes on the basis of current geological
knowledge and the available classifications of paleogeography-related
phenomena. One should note that a paleogeographical geosite might
have characteristics that could place it in several of these proposed
subtypes. We argue that the most important or unique features should
be used for establishing the dominant subtype(s).
303
The facies subtype of paleogeographical geosites can be distinguished
based on the general characteristics of the rock units that are present in a
given outcrop (Table 2). For example, Paleogene siliciclastic turbidites
(deeper-marine siliciclastic facies) exposed on the Kalipur–Shibpur
coast of the North Andaman Island (Indian Ocean) represent the activity
of gravity flows on an ancient island slope (Bandopadhyay, 2012). Of
course, there are many kinds of facies that are not reflected in common
classifications (Table 2). For instance, deposits (and relevant fossil
communities) interpreted as indicators of ancient rocky shores
(Johnson, 1988; Johnson and Baarli, 1999; Johnson, 2006; Johnson and
Ledesma-Vázquez, 2009; Johnson and Baarli, 2012) or paleoislands
(e.g., Johnson, 2002; Ruban, 2007) are exceptionally rare in the geological record. Their exposures (like Punta Chivato, Punta San Antonio, etc. of
the Baja California Peninsula, northwestern Mexico — see Johnson and
Ledesma-Vázquez, 2009) are unique geological objects that deserve to
be geosites. The Merzhanovo section on the northern shore of the Azov
Sea (southwestern Russia) provides an example of a geosite representing
another unusual facies (Ruban, 2011b). Here, upper Miocene coquinalike deposits accumulated on the cliffed coast of the ancient Tanaiss
Paleobay.
The paleoecosystem subtype demonstrates particular ecosystems
that are known from the geological past, including those with no
modern analogs. No universal classification of paleoecosystems can
be proposed. One can distinguish them by facies (i.e., the same
paleoenvironments discussed above, see also Table 2). It is also possible
to classify paleoecosystems based on the biomes or biochores that they
represent. Rapid paleobiogeographical changes (e.g., Westermann,
2000) have led to re-organizations of paleoecosystems defined by
biochores through geologic time. However, the full diversity of
paleoecosystems cannot be deduced by such approaches. Below, we
give three examples of paleogeographical geosites belonging to different paleoecosystem subtypes: fossil reef communities, petrified forests,
and an early Archean ecosystem.
Ancient reef communities were species-rich and highly complex (e.g.,
Kiessling et al., 2010). The Oshten Mountain in the Western Caucasus
(Fig. 2A), as well as the neighboring Fisht Mountain (Fig. 2B) are exposed
Late Jurassic reefal massives, which represent a rich paleocommunity of
corals, brachiopods and molluscs that populated the warm Caucasian
Sea on the northern periphery of the Neo-Tethys Ocean (Khain, 1962;
Boiko et al., 1977; Boiko, 1982; Lozovoy, 1984; Rostovtsev et al., 1992;
Kuznetsov, 1993; Ruban, 2006b). The Lago-Naki Highlands, which the
Oshten Mountain belongs to, have already been proposed as a geosite
of national rank based on its geodiversity and uniqueness (Ruban,
2010). The second example of a paleoecosystem subtype is petrified
forests, which are reported from a number of regions around the world
(although they remain uncommon objects). Petrified forests reveal
diverse ancient terrestrial ecosystems, their physical environments, and
wood preservation processes. Many petrified forests are not only recognized as geosites, but are also already protected as natural heritage or
exploited as geoparks (Dernbach, 1996; Dernbach and Dernbach, 1996;
Velitzelos and Zouros, 1998; Röβler, 2001; Dernbach and Tidwell, 2002;
Jones et al., 2002; Zouros, 2009, 2010; El-Saadawi et al., 2011; Garcia
Table 1
Principal subtypes of paleogeographical geosites discussed in this work (several categories can be distinguished within each subtype — see text for more information).
Subtypes
Examples (see Fig. 3 for location)
Facies
Paleoecosystem
Ichnological
Taphonomic
Event/catastrophic
Geoarchaeological
Complex (comprised of several subtypes)
Valuable for paleogeographical mappinga
Punta Chivato, Punta San Antonio (Johnson and Ledesma-Vázquez, 2009)
Oshten (Fig. 2A) and Fisht (Fig. 2B) mountains
Altamura Locality (Nicosia et al., 2000)
Solnhofen Fossillagerstätte (Barthel et al., 1990)
Jaja-Petropavlovskij section (Fig. 3C)
Easter Island (Mann et al., 2007; Mieth and Bork, 2010; Rull et al., 2010; Lipo et al., 2013; Mulrooney, 2013)
Gondolin paleocave system (Adams et al., 2007)
Dampier Archipelago (Ward et al., 2013)
a
Special subdivision.
304
Table 2
Common categories of facies/paleoenvironments and relevant paleogeographical geosite characteristics (based partly on Nichols, 2009; Leeder, 2011; Tucker, 2011).
Facies
Terrestrial
Fluvial
Aeolian
Lacustrine
Pedogenic
Glacial
Deltaic
Marine
Shallow-marine siliciclastic
Deeper-marine siliciclastic
Shallow-marine carbonate
Evaporitic (marine)
Pelagic (including deeper-water carbonate)
Karsticf
“Indoor”
“Outdoor”
Volcanic/volcaniclastic
Example of paleogeographical geosite characteristics
Exposure of riverine cross-bedding sandstones with rare fresh-water fossils and woody debris.
Exposure of desert sandstones with fossil-dune structuresa, also aeolianites and miliolitesb.
Exposure of non-marine carbonates with tufa bedsc.
Exposure of paleosols.
Exposure of tillites.
Exposure of ancient deltaic sandstones with fresh-water fossils.
Exposure of well-sorted conglomerates that mark paleoshoreline.
Exposure of flysch with graphoglyptid trace fossils.
Exposure of well-preserved ancient carbonate platformd.
Exposure of salts or gypsum layers.
Explosure of oceanic red clayse.
Carbonate concretions that reflect peculiar environments where they formed; mixed cave sediments.
Exposure of bauxites in soil profiles.
Exposure of well-preserved ancient center of volcanic activity.
a
For example, see characteristics of fossil dunes in Blakey et al. (1988), Glennie (1992, 1998, 1999), Patel and Bhatt (1995), Kocurek (1991, 1996), and Simpson et al. (2002).
These rock types are described by Patel and Bhatt (1995) and Glennie (1999).
Such unusual lacustrine deposits (tufa mark the ancient waterfalls at spillover points) have been recently described in the Mayran Basin system (northeast Mexico) by Amezcua et al.
(2012).
d
Types and general evolution of carbonate platforms are discussed by Ahr (1973), Read (1982, 1985, 1998), Burchette and Wright (1992), Pomar (2001), Pomar and Hallock (2008),
Kim et al. (2012), Jung and Aigner (2012), and Pomar et al. (2012).
e
The nature of oceanic red clays is discussed by Wagreich and Krenmayr (2005), Wang et al. (2011), and Hu et al. (2012).
f
See Fornòs et al. (2009) for more information on karstic facies.
b
c
Massini et al., 2012; Reichgelt et al., 2013). The petrified forests of Arizona
(USA), Chemnitz (Germany), and Lesvos Island (Greece) are among
the most famous (see references above). The third example of a
paleoecosystem subtype is the exposure of the Apex Basalt in the Pilbara
region (Australia). This site preserves evidence of one of the earliest
known “ecosystems” that existed on Earth: A pumice raft in the PaleoArchean ocean appears to have facilitated the development of some of
the first organisms (Brasier et al., 2013).
Paleoecosystems can be studied in detail in the so-called
“Fossillagerstätten” (e.g., Wyse Jackson, 2010; Ruban, 2011c). Although
Fossillagerstätten are essentially of paleontological heritage (Ruban,
2011c), they also reflect the diversity and the complexity of fossil
communities and permit evaluation of paleoenvironmental and preservation conditions (e.g., Cherns et al., 2008; Retallack, 2011). Therefore,
it seems reasonable to assign them to the paleoecosystem subtype
of paleogeographical geosites (however, they may also be assigned
to the taphonomical subtypes mentioned below). Examples of
Fossillagerstätten include the Eocene Messel Pit Fossil Site in Germany
(Rose, 2012; Schaal, 2012), the Late Pleistocene Rancho La Brea tar
pits in the USA (McHorse et al., 2012; Prothero et al., 2012), and the
mid-Holocene bone bed at Mare aux Songes swamp on the island of
Mauritius (Rijsdijk et al., 2009).
The ichnological subtype of paleogeographical geosites includes geologic localities containing trace fossils. Our knowledge of the latter has
not only grown spectacularly during the past decade, but it has also
been updated (Bertling et al., 2006; Hasiotis, 2006; Seilacher, 2007;
Buatois and Mangano, 2011; Callow and McIlroy, 2011; Knaust and
Bromley, 2012; Plotnick, 2012). Generally, ichnology provides important evidence of organism–sedimentary environment relationships.
Every exposure containing trace fossils should be considered a valuable
paleogeographical geosite. An example is the Yutsa locality in the
Southern Ciscaucasus (southwestern Russia), where trace fossils occur
in Paleocene diagenetically-altered diatomite, which indicates a deepmarine paleoenvironment dominated by accumulation of siliceous
material (this leads to a serious update of the earlier regional interpretations). This site has already been proposed as a geosite (Martchenko
et al., 2008; Kopenok et al., 2009). A second example is the locality of
Altamura in the Apulia Region of southern Italy, known for the high
number (~ 30,000) of dinosaur footprints preserved in an area of
15,000 m2. This is one of the most important and spectacular geosites
in the world (Nicosia et al., 2000). The 50-m thick “Altamura
Limestone”, in which the footprints occur, was formed in a subtidal
and intertidal flat environment. Algal carpets on this marshy tidal flat
may have facilitated preservation of the footprints (Nicosia et al.,
2000). The other internationally known example of a paleogeographical
geosite with ichnological value is Laetoli in East Africa. This site is famous for its hominid and other animal footprints preserved in Pliocene
volcanic ash (Leakey and Hay, 1979; Leakey, 1987; Musiba et al., 2008;
Buatois and Mangano, 2011; Meldrum et al., 2011; Reader, 2011). Finally, the Komati river locality in the Barberton Greenstone Belt (South
Africa) is undoubtedly a geosite of outstanding importance. Fliegel
et al. (2010) reported the oldest known trace fossil (3.34 Ga) from this
site.
The taphonomic subtype of paleogeographical geosites embraces
localities that record fossil formation under the influence of various
biotic and abiotic processes. Diverse taphonomic processes have been
responsible for the preservation of paleontological material through
time (e.g., Fernández-Jalvo et al., 2011). Categories of this subtype can
be distinguished based on the mode of preservation (Fernández-López,
1991, 1995, 2000). Some of the previously mentioned geosites (e.g., petrified forests and Fossillagerstätten) bear distinctive taphonomic
features. In a recent study, Chang et al. (2012) discussed the amazing discoveries of Early Cenozoic magnetotactic bacteria preserved as giant
magnetofossils from the New Jersey coastal plain (USA) and offshore
Antarctica. Aside from providing micropaleontological information,
magnetofossils can be used to reconstruct ancient magnetic fields,
hyperthermal global climatic events, and other parameters of the ancient
environment (Chang et al., 2012; Reinholdsson et al., 2013; Yamazaki
and Shimono, 2013). This stresses the paleogeographical heritage value
of sites with giant magnetofossils, although the relevant geoconservation
activities are yet to be considered.
The Solnhofen limestones of Bavaria (Germany) provide another
excellent example of a taphonomic paleogeographical geosite (as well
as ichnological subtype and Fossillagerstätte) (Barthel et al., 1990).
These limestones were deposited in a quiet, hypersaline lagoon during
the Tithonian Age (Jurassic). The lagoon was home to a diversity of
vertebrate and invertebrate marine fauna. Some terrestrial plants and
animals, including Archaeopteryx, are also preserved in these limestones
(Barthel et al., 1990; Bottjer, 2002). Fully articulated skeletons, soft
tissue impressions, phosphatized soft tissues and even the stomach
contents remain for some of the preserved individuals (Barthel et al.,
1990; Wilby and Briggs, 1997; Bottjer, 2002). Such exceptional preservation allows detailed study of the anatomy and, in some cases, diet of
the organisms that inhabited this ancient ecosystem. Intriguingly, the
hypersaline environment appears to have had some desiccating effects
on the preserved organisms. For example, remains from teleost fish
and terrestrial vertebrates have severely bent vertebral columns, crustaceans are arched, and crinoid arms are curled (Barthel et al., 1990;
Bottjer, 2002).
The event/catastrophic subtype of paleogeographical geosites exhibit
features important for understanding peculiar long-term and shortterm events in global, regional, or local geologic history, as well as
time-specific facies (sensu Brett et al., 2012). These geosites are crucial
for understanding large, possibly catastrophic phenomena including
mass extinctions, major biotic radiations, glaciations, greenhouse conditions, fluctuations in atmospheric oxygen, and ancient tsunamis (e.g.,
Bostrom and Ćirković, 2008; Prothero, 2011; Gutak and Ruban, 2013).
The transitional Cretaceous–Paleogene deposits that outcrop along the
Brazos River in Texas, USA are a typical example of potential event/
catastrophic geosite. These deposits shed some light on events that
took place approximately 66 Ma (see stratigraphy.org for the new absolute age of the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary). They provide evidence
of extraterrestrial impact, but prior to the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary and the mass extinction event (Keller et al., 2007, 2009).
Another remarkable geosite that exhibits deposits of a regional-scale
event is the Jaja-Petropavlovskij section in Southern Siberia (Russia)
(Fig. 2C). Approximately 250 m of coarse red-colored cross-bedding
siliciclastics of Late Devonian age exposed in this section was formed
as a result of overfilling and catastrophic outflow of water from the
Minusa Paleolakes to the Kuznetsk Paleosea (Gutak and Antonova,
2006a,b; Gutak et al., 2009). Late Devonian strata in the neighboring
outcrops contain fossil plants, fish, and arthropods (Gutak and
305
Antonova, 2006a,b; Gutak et al., 2009). The Jaja-Petropavlovskij section
has already been proposed as a complex geosite for the Kemerovo
Region (Gutak et al., 2009). Lightning can act as a significant geomorphic agent in exceptionally small-scale and short-term events (Knight
and Grab, 2014). Lightning-related geological objects may preserve
information about past local climate conditions, and, therefore, they
have important paleogeographical heritage value (general considerations of the lightning phenomenon by Cancio (2013) and Middleton
and Sternberg (2013) stimulate diverse thoughts on how this hazard
can be interpreted with regard to the ancient environment).
Importantly, events do not have to have been catastrophic to be included in the event/catastrophic subtype of paleogeographical geosites.
“Ordinary” (but important) events can be represented at geosites of
this subtype. For instance, geosites that provide evidence of Cretaceous
global sea-level changes (Haq, 2014), the Paleocene planetary-scale
transgressions and regressions (Ruban et al., 2010, 2012), or Neogene climatic shifts (Zachos et al., 2001), have paleogeographical heritage value.
Also the interaction between Quaternary sea-level fluctuations and regional trend of tectonic uplift (Fig. 2D) has characterized Mediterranean
coasts with a sequence of marine and fluvial terraces (Carobene, 1980;
Miyauchi et al., 1994; Filocamo et al., 2009) leaving paleogeographical
evidence for today.
Closely related to the event/catastrophic subtype are those geosites
that provide information that facilitates strong scientific debates. For
instance, precise dating of some discovered impact craters has not confirmed a link between these craters and mass extinctions (see general
critical remarks given by Erwin, 2006; Prothero, 2009, 2011; Racki,
2012). Of course, it cannot be excluded that some impacts triggered biotic catastrophes (Alvarez, 2008; Schulte et al., 2010; Renne et al.,
2013). Similarly, an examination of Valanginian (Lower Cretaceous)
sections in the Vocontian Basin (southeast France) led Kujau et al.
(2012) to conclude that widespread anoxia during the Valanginian did
not appear in this basin, and that this anoxic event was less extensive
than earlier believed.
Fig. 3. Geographical location of examples of paleogeographical geosites mentioned in Table 1.
306
Finally, the geoarcheological subtype refers to paleogeographical
geosites that provide information about human–environment interactions in the geological, prehistorical, or historical past. Such geosites
may differ in their essence, scale, or age from other paleogeographical
geosites. The paleolake at Ljubljansko barje (Slovenia) is an example
of a geoarcheological paleogeographical geosite. Late Quaternary changes in vegetation documented on the basis of palynological analysis of
the lacustrine sediments are thought to have resulted from human
impact on the local environment (Andrič et al., 2009). Easter Island
(Isla de Pascua or Rapa Nui), which is situated in the midst of the Pacific
Ocean, provides another example of ecosystem collapse that most likely
resulted from human impact, although this scenario remains debatable
(Mann et al., 2007; Mieth and Bork, 2010; Rull et al., 2010; Lipo et al.,
2013; Mulrooney, 2013).
Caves are of special geoconservation importance, because of their
archeological and paleogeographical records. For example, the Middle
Paleolithic coastal site of Cala dei Santi Cave (Monte Argentario, Tuscany,
Italy) yielded several Neandertal “living floors”, and this cave contains a
Quaternary deposit, which is crucial for studying regional coastal evolution, climatic events and paleoenvironments during the last 120 ka
(Moroni et al., 2010). The Uluzzian archeological sites of Italy
(e.g., Grotta del Cavallo and Grotta di Fumane) are important from the
paleogeographical point of view because they shed light on the
paleoenvironmental and paleoecological contexts of interactions
between anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, as well as
human dispersal routes in prehistorical times (Palma di Cesnola,
1989; Benazzi et al., 2011; Boscato and Crezzini, 2012; Moroni et al.,
2013; Tagliacozzo et al., 2013). The “Hermit caves” of Amendolara
(Southern Italy) provide an example of a geosite (Bruno and Perrotta,
2012) of geoarcheological subtype of paleogeographical type that is
also characterized by structural and geomorphological features. These
caves were probably excavated by humans during the transition from
the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, and they are also thought to have played
an important role during Byzantine times as places of hermitage. The
natural Romito cave in Southern Italy contains one of the oldest examples of prehistoric art in Italy: the visualization of Bos primigenius
(Martini and Lo Vetro, 2011). This depiction of the prehistoric environment by eyewitnesses increases the significance of this locality as a paleogeographical geosite. The Paglicci Cave (Apulia, Italy) is of the same
importance, because of the only instance of Paleolithic rock paintings
(two horses and a few hands) in Italy (Palma di Cesnola, 2001).
One can also distinguish paleogeographical geosites that are valuable for paleogeographical mapping. These may include (but are not
limited to) sections representing paleoenvironments and specific
paleoecosystems, such as paleoreefs (Fig. 4). Geological objects, which
indicate the location of ophiolites, hot spots, orogens, etc. are valuable
for paleogeographical mapping. Categories of such geosites depend on
the methods of paleogeographical reconstructions (Golonka et al.,
1994; Golonka, 2004, 2007; Golonka and Ford, 2000; Golonka and
Krobicki, 2004). A typical example of a geosite with paleogeographical
mapping value is the Dampier Archipelago in northwestern Australia,
where late Cenozoic transgressions and regresisons, as well as the general chronology of landscape change were reconstructed on the basis of
the exposed geological objects (Ward et al., 2013). However, two cautions have to be pointed out. First, as many geological objects as possible
should be used for construction of paleogeoghraphical maps (this is
especially the case of high-resolution maps). However, it is impossible
to recognize all included objects as geosites unless they demonstrate
significant heritage value. A typical example is shown in Fig. 4. Reconstruction of Early Toarcian paleoenvironments of the central part of
Mountainous Adygeja required information from dozens of outcrops
distributed on this territory. But only four relatively small exposures
could be judged geosites. The other objects are not so valuable with
regard to their heritage value. Second, it is evident that structural, igneous, and other types of geosites may provide critical information for
paleogeographical mapping.
Fig. 4. Example of a simple paleogeographical reconstruction: the Early Toarcian paleoenvironments in the central part of Mountainous Adygeja (Western Caucasus, southwestern Russia).
Geological objects established as geosites represent the principal paleoenvironments (outlined tentatively by D.A.R.). Essential information for this reconstruction (partly summarized by
Rostovtsev et al., 1992) was obtained from many sections and outcrops, not shown on this figure.
4. Paleogeography in complex geosites
Many paleogeographical geosites exhibit features that require assignment to several subtypes of the paleogeographical type simultaneously.
In each of these cases, the dominant subtype is difficult to establish
because the various subtypes are of relatively equal importance. An
example is the Petchitschi section (in the vicinity of the city of Kazan in
Russia), where one can observe a late Roadian (Permian) sabkha and
shallow-marine facies, dynamics of the ancient shoreline, products of
ancient explosive volcanic eruptions, and fossils and ichnofossils
representing rich terrestrial and shallow-marine paleoecosystems
(Larotchkina, 2007; Silant'ev et al., 2010; Zorina et al., 2011). This geosite,
which is planned for inclusion in a future geopark (Vdovets et al., 2010),
can be attributed to facies, paleoecosystem, ichnological, and taphonomic subtypes of geographical geosites. Another example is the Gondolin
paleocave system in South Africa, which is valuable from the facies,
paleoecosystem, and taphonomic points of view; the same geosite also
provides evidence of regional hominin presence (Adams et al., 2007).
Finally, the spectacular radiolarite outcrop of La Pietra (Tuscany, Italy)
located in the La Pietra natural reserve (Gambassini and Marroni, 1998;
Moroni et al., in press) could be attributed to both facies and
geoarcheological subtypes. The Tuscan Regional Government is considering including this location in the Regional Geo-sites Archive. Undoubtedly, such complex paleogeographical objects are of utmost importance
for preserving geological heritage.
As noted above, one needs to study rocks, fossils, minerals, other
visible features, and chemical anomalies in order to reconstruct a particular paleoenvironment or paleoecosystem (Fig. 1). As a result, the most
valuable paleogeographical geosites are complex and contain several
other types (Table 3; e.g., Ruban, 2010). Therefore, the potential complexity of paleogeographical geosites is determined, on the one hand,
by combination of subtypes of the paleogeographical type (internal
complexity; see above for details), and, on the other hand, by the combination of the paleogeographical type with the other types of geosites
(external complexity).
The importance and quality of information that complex geosites
contain should be used to classify these sites. However, because some
307
types may be more valuable than others within the same geosite, a
dominant type should be established (Lapo et al., 1997; Ruban,
2009b). For example, the ancient coral reef exposed at the Oshten
Mountain in the Western Caucasus (Fig. 2A) is a complex geosite that
is valuable from multiple points of view including geomorphological
(it is a well-developed and peculiar landform), engineering/applied
geomorphological (slope and karstic processes are active), sedimentological (limestones and dolostones constitute this mountain), paleontological (corals and other Late Jurassic fossils are reported from there),
and, of course, paleogeographical (a coral reef paleoecosystem is
preserved). Because the most unique features of this geosite are linked
to the noted peculiar paleoecosystem, it is sensible to attribute the
paleogeographical type as dominant in this case. Of course, paleogeographical type is not necessarily the dominant type in all geosites
containing a paleogeographic component.
On the basis of the above-presented considerations, an algorithm of
analysis of the paleogeographical heritage value in geosites is proposed
(Fig. 5). Its application is demonstrated by the example of the Oshten
Mountain (Fig. 2A). As this is a large Late Jurassic reef, which is unique
for the territory of the Western Caucasus, paleogeographical heritage
value is present in this geosite. The paleogeographical type dominates
(the other types include geomorphological, sedimentary, paleontological, stratigraphical, and some less important), because the uniqueness
of this geosite is determined chiefly by the exposure of paleoreef, and
not by the mountain shape, lithological peculiarities of limestones and
dolostones, and other features of this geological object. According to
the classification proposed in this work, the Oshten Mountain geosite
can be attributed to the facies subtype (category: shallow-marine
carbonate paleoenvironments) and the paleoecosystem subtype
(category: paleocommunity of corals, brachiopods, and molluscs). It is
logical to conclude that the latter subtype dominates, because it was
the activity of reef-building organisms that shaped this carbonate buildup exposed as a modern mountain. Therefore, this geosite shows both
external and internal complexity.
One of the central concepts in modern geoconservation is
geodiversity, which reflects the wide spectrum of geological objects
and processes that can be observed in a given territory (Wimbledon
Table 3
Types of geosites found in combination with paleogeographical geosites.
Geosite typesa
Potential combination with paleogeographical type
Frequency of type combination
with the paleogeographical typeb
Stratigraphical
Paleontological
Sedimentary
Igneous
Metamorphic
Mineralogical
Economical
Geochemical
Seismical
Structural
Cosmogenic
Geothermal
Geocryological
Geomorphological
Hydrological and hydrogeological
Engineering/applied geomorphological
Radiogeological
Neotectonical
Pedological
Geohistorical
Fossil reef with age-diagnostic fossils
Petrified forest
Oceanic red clay
Magmatic massif that was exposed as paleoisland
Precambrian schists with primitive fossils
Glaucony-rich bed
Coal deposit
Cretaceous/Paleogene section with Iridium anomaly
Seismite bed
Fault-controlled cliffed paleoshoreline
Ancient impact crater
Fossilized hydrothermal vent community
Ancient permafrost
Presently-exposed reefal massifc; caves and paleokarst
Waterfall on exposed reefal massif
Modern landslides in Jurassic continental-slope shales
Fish-bone beds with radioactive anomaly
Seismites linked to deglaciationd
Paleosol horizon
“Classical” localities of Ediacaran ecosystems; prehistoric mining and salt production sitese
Frequently
Always
Always
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Frequently
Rarely
Always
Frequently
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
a
See classification in Ruban (2005, 2010) and Ruban and Kuo (2010). There are different classifications of geosite types — e.g., see Lapo et al. (1993), Wimbledon et al. (1995, 1998),
Kislov (1999, 2001), Massoli-Novelli et al. (1999), García Cortés et al. (2000), Gray (2004, 2008), Prosser et al. (2006), and Bruschi and Cendrero (2009).
b
Based partly on Ruban (2013b).
c
See examples in Fig. 2.
d
Example of soft-sediment deformation structures resulted from ancient earthquakes linked to regional deglaciation has been reported recently from the locality of Siekierki (Poland)
by van Loon and Pisarska-Jamrozy (2014).
e
Riddiford et al. (2012) have shown recently how salt production via evaporation of salt water from naturally occurring brine springs affected the local paleoenvironment.
308
Fig. 5. Algorithm for classifying geosites that contain paleogeographical information.
et al., 1998; Nieto, 2001; Stanley, 2001a; Gray, 2004; Kozlowski, 2004;
Zwolinski, 2004; Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño, 2007; Gray, 2008; Serrano
and Ruiz-Flaño, 2009; Ruban, 2010; Knight, 2011; Ruban, 2011d;
Brown et al., 2012; Burek, 2012; Crawford and Black, 2012; Hart,
2012; Pereira et al., 2013; Solarska et al., 2013). At the very elementary
level, geodiversity can be measured as the number of geological
phenomena, or geosite types, that constitute the geological heritage of
a given region (cf. Ruban, 2010). This idea has been developed into a
broader concept (Stanley, 2001b; Gray, 2004, 2008; Knight, 2011).
Taking into account the essential complexity of paleogeographical
geosites, it is possible to conclude that all of them preserve substantial
within-site geodiversity, irrespective of which concept of geodiversity
is preferred.
4) Paleogeographical geosites always associate with other types of
geosites. Consequently, they are complex and preserve substantial
within-site geodiversity.
As researchers, our goal should be to share the information
preserved at paleogeographical geosites with the general public and
decision makers rather than confining this information to those with
specialized academic interests. Increasing awareness of the importance
and heritage value of paleogeographical geosites will help support
proper planning and management decisions as well as promote laws
for the protection of geological heritage in private areas. Ultimately, increased awareness will reduce the destruction of geological heritage
that would result in an enormous loss to future generations.
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
In this manuscript we have attempted to briefly outline the main
characteristics and classifications of paleogeographical geosites. Our
main points are summarized below.
1) Paleogeographical geosites exhibit a broad range of features that
preserve paleoenvironments, paleoecosystems, and other relevant
phenomena.
2) Two specific features of paleogeographical geosites are the impossibility to perceive paleogeographical information directly and their
high complexity.
3) At least six subtypes of paleogeographical geosites can be distinguished (facies, paleoecosystem, ichnological, taphonomic, event/
catastrophic, and geoarcheological). Geosites that comprise several
subtypes and those valuable for construction of paleogeographical
maps should be also noted. Categories can be established within
each of these subtypes.
The authors gratefully thank the journal editor and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful recommendations and constructive criticism.
J.W. Adams (Australia), D. Barettino (Spain), N.I. Boiko (Russia), K.W.
Glennie (UK), P.G. Eriksson (South Africa), S.R. Fernández-López
(Spain), N.M.M. Janssen (Netherlands), M.E. Johnson (USA), E.V. Kislov
(Russia), G.A. Kocurek (USA), A.V. Lapo (Russia), G. Racki (Poland), J.F.
Read (USA), W. Riegraf (Germany), R. Rössler (Germany), A.J. van
Loon (Netherlands/Poland), W.A.P. Wimbledon (UK), and many other
colleagues are acknowledged for their generous help with literature
and/or useful communications. D.A.R. thanks his present/former
colleagues and students from the Southern Federal University (Russia)
for field assistance and fruitful discussions. A part of this work (contribution by S.O.Z.) was funded by the subsidy of the Russian Government
to support the Program of Competitive Growth of the Kazan Federal
University among the World's Leading Academic Centres.
References
Adams, J.W., Herries, A.I.R., Kuykendall, K.L., Conroy, G.C., 2007. Taphonomy of a South
African cave: geological and hydrological influences on the GD 1 fossil assemblage
at Gondolin, a Plio-Pleistocene paleocave system in the Northwest Province, South
Africa. Quat. Sci. Rev. 26, 2526–2543.
Ahr, W.M., 1973. The carbonate ramp: an alternative to the shelf model. Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 23rd Annual Convention,
pp. 221–225.
Allison, S.K., 2012. Ecological Restoration and Environmental Change: Renewing
Damaged Ecosystems. Routledge, London (245 pp.).
Alvarez, W., 2008. T. rex and the Crater of Doom. Princeton University Press, Princeton
(185 pp.).
Amezcua, N., Gawthorpe, R., MacQuaker, J., 2012. Cascading carbonate lakes of the
Mayran Basin system, northeast Mexico: the interplay of inherited structural geometry, bedrock lithology, and climate. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 124, 975–988.
Andrič, M., Kroflič, B., Toman, M.J., Ogrinc, N., Dolenec, T., Dobnikar, M., Čermelj, B., 2009.
Late quaternary vegetation and hydrological change at Ljubljansko barje (Slovenia).
Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 270, 150–165.
Asrat, A., Demissie, M., Mogessie, A., 2012. Geoheritage conservation in Ethiopia: the case
of the Simien mountains. Quaest. Geogr. 31, 7–23.
Bandopadhyay, P.C., 2012. Re-interpretation of the age and environment of deposition of
Paleogene turbidites in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Western Sunda Arc. J.
Asian Earth Sci. 45, 126–137.
Barthel, K.W., Swinburne, N.H.M., Conway Morris, S., 1990. Solnhofen: A Study in
Mesozoic Palaeontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (236 pp.).
Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Mallegni, F.,
Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., HArvati, K., Weber, G.W., 2011.
Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal
behaviour. Nature 479, 525–528.
Bertling, M., Braddy, S., Bromley, R.G., Demathieu, G.D., Genise, J., Mikulas, R., Nielsen, J.K.,
Nielsen, K.S.S., Rindsberg, A., Schlirf, M., Uchman, A., 2006. Names for trace fossils: a
uniform approach to concepts and procedures. Lethaia 39, 265–286.
Black, G.P., 1985. Geological conservation and the Nature Conservation Council. Geol.
Curator 4, 217–220.
Blakey, R.C., Peterson, F., Kocurek, G., 1988. Synthesis of late Paleozoic and Mesozoic
eolian deposits of the Western Interior of the United States. Sediment. Geol. 56,
3–125.
Boiko, N.I., 1982. O genezise dolomitov verkhnejurskikh karbonatnykh otlozhenij
Zapadnogo Predkavkaz'ja. Litol. Pol. Iskop. 2, 47–53 (in Russian).
Boiko, N.I., Sedletskij, V.I., Shvedov, V.N., 1977. Lotologo-fatsial'nye osobennosti i uslovija
obrazovanija karbonatnykh otlozhenij oksforda v Zapadnom Predkavkaz'e. Litol. Pol.
Iskop. 1, 137–144 (in Russian).
Boscato, P., Crezzini, J., 2012. Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Southern Italy:
Uluzzian macromammals from Grotta del Cavallo (Apulia). Quat. Int. 252, 90–98.
Bostrom, N., Ćirković, M.M., 2008. Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press,
Oxford (554 pp.).
Bottjer, D.J., 2002. Exceptional Fossil Preservation: A Unique View on the Evolution of
Marine Life. Columbia University Press, New York (403 pp.).
Bottjer, D.J., 2005. Geobiology and the fossil record: eukaryotes, microbes, and their
interactions. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 219, 5–21.
Brasier, M.D., Matthewman, R., McMahon, S., Kilburn, M.R., Wacey, D., 2013. Pumice from
the ~ 3460 Ma Apex Basalt, Western Australia: a natural laboratory for the early
biosphere. Precambrian Res. 224, 1–10.
Brett, C.E., McLaughlin, P.I., Histon, K., Schindler, E., Ferretti, A., 2012. Time-specific aspects
of facies: state of the art, examples, and possible causes. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 367–368, 6–18.
Brown, E.J., Prosser, C.D., Stevenson, N.M., 2012. Geodiversity, conservation and climate
change: key principles for adaptation. Scott. Geogr. J. 128, 234–239.
Bruno, D.E., Perrotta, P., 2012. A geotouristic proposal for Amendolara territory (northern
ionic sector of Calabria, Italy). Geoheritage 4, 139–151.
Bruschi, V.M., Cendrero, A., 2009. Direct and parametric methods for the assessment of
geosites and geomorphosites. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.),
Geomorphosites. F. Pfeil, München, pp. 73–88.
Buatois, L.A., Mangano, M.G., 2011. Ichnology: Organism–Substrate Interactions in Space
and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (358 pp.).
Burchette, T.P., Wright, V.P., 1992. Carbonate ramps depositional systems. Sediment. Geol.
79, 3–57.
Burek, C., 2012. The role of LGAPs (Local Geodiversity Action Plans) and Welsh RIGS as
local drivers for geoconservation within geotourism in Wales. Geoheritage 4, 45–63.
Callow, R.H.T., McIlroy, D., 2011. Ichnofabrics and ichnofabric-forming trace fossils in
Phanerozoic turbidites. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 59, 103–111.
Cancio, L.C., 2013. Lightning. In: Bobrowsky, P.T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 625–629.
Carobene, L., 1980. Terrazzi marini, eustatismo e Neotettonica — marine terraces,
eustatism and neotectonics. Geogr. Fis. Din. Quat. 3, 35–41.
Chang, L., Roberts, A.P., Williams, W., Fitz Gerald, J.D., Larrasoana, J.C., Jovane, L.,
Muxworthy, A.R., 2012. Giant magnetofossils and hyperthermal events. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 351–352, 258–269.
Cherns, L., Wheeley, J.R., Wright, V.P., 2008. Taphonomic windows and molluscan
preservation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 270, 220–229.
Crawford, K.R., Black, R., 2012. Visitor understanding of the geodiversity and the
geoconservation value of the Giant's Causeway World Heritage Site, Northern
Ireland. Geoheritage 4, 115–126.
Dernbach, U. (Ed.), 1996. Petrified Forests: The World's 31 Most Beautiful Petrified
Forests. D'ORO, Heppenheim (190 pp.).
309
Dernbach, U., Dernbach, D. (Eds.), 1996. Versteinerte Wälder. Die 30 schönsten
Wersteinerten Wälder der Erde. D'ORO, Heppenheim (187 pp.).
Dernbach, U., Tidwell, W.D. (Eds.), 2002. Secrets of Petrified Forests: Fascination From
Millions of Tears. D'ORO, Heppenheim (231 pp.).
Doktor, M., Golonka, J., 2006. Geotouristic attractions of Europe — field training for
students of Geotourism et the Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental
Protection, AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow. Geotourism 4,
39–62.
Dowling, R., Newsome, D., 2010. Geotourism: a global activity. In: Dowling, R.,
Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives. Goodfellow Publishers,
Woodeaton, pp. 1–17.
El-Saadawi, W., Kamal-El-Din, M.M., Attia, Y., El-Faramawi, M.W., 2011. The wood flora of
the Cairo Petrified Forest, with five Paleogene new legume records for Egypt. Rev.
Palaeobot. Palynol. 167, 184–195.
Erwin, D.H., 2006. Extinction: How Life on Earth Nearly Ended 250 Million Years Ago.
Princeton University Press, Princeton (306 pp.).
Farsani, N.T., Coelho, C., Costa, C., 2012. Geotourism and geoparks as gateways to sociocultural sustainability in Qeshm rural areas, Iran. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 17, 30–48.
Fassoulas, C., Mouriki, D., Dimitriou-Nikolakis, P., Iliopoulos, G., 2012. Quantitative assessment of geotopes as an effective tool for geoheritage management. Geoheritage 4,
177–193.
Fernández-Jalvo, Y., Scott, L., Andrews, P., 2011. Taphonomy in palaeoecological interpretations. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 1296–1302.
Fernández-López, S.R., 1991. Taphonomic concepts for a theoretical biochronology. Rev.
Esp. Paleontol. 6, 37–49.
Fernández-López, S.R., 1995. Taphonomie et interprétation des paléoenvironnements.
Geobios 18, 137–154.
Fernández-López, S.R., 2000. Temas de Tafonomía. Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Madrid 167 pp.
Filocamo, F., Romano, P., Di Donato, V., Esposito, P., Mattei, M., Porreca, M., Robustelli, G.,
Russo Ermolli, E., 2009. Geomorphology and tectonics of uplifted coasts: new
chronostratigraphical constraints for the Quaternary evolution of Tyrrhenian North
Calabria (southern Italy). Geomorphology 105, 334–354.
Fliegel, D., Kosler, J., McLoughlin, N., Simonetti, A., de Wit, M.J., Wirth, R., Furnes, H., 2010.
In-situ dating of the Earth's oldest trace fossil at 3.34 Ga. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 299,
290–298.
Fornòs, J.J., Ginés, J., Gràcia, F., 2009. Present-day sedimentary facies in the coastal karst
caves of Mallorca island (western Mediterranean). J. Cave Karst Stud. 71, 86–99.
Gambassini, P., Marroni, G., 1998. Scoperta di una cava preistorica di diaspro in val di
Farma. Rassegna Archeol. 15, 51–54.
García Cortés, Á., Barettino, D., Gallego, E., 2000. Inventory and cataloguing of Spain's
geological heritage. A historical review and proposals for the future. In: Barettino,
D., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and
Management. ITGE, Madrid, pp. 47–67.
Garcia Massini, J.L., Falaschi, P., Zamuner, A.B., 2012. Fungal–arthropod–plant interactions
from the Jurassic petrified forest Monumento Natural Bosques Petrificados,
Patagonia, Argentina. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 329–330, 37–46.
Glennie, K.W., 1992. Quaternary dunes of SE Arabia and Permian (Rotliegend)
dunes of NW Europe: some comparisons. Zentralbl. Geol. Paläontol. Tiel I 11/12,
1199–1215.
Glennie, K.W., 1998. In: Faure, H., Heine, K., Singhvi, A. (Eds.), Some ancient desert analogues involving climatic change. Palaeoecology of Africa and the Surrounding
Islands, 25, pp. 255–274.
Glennie, K.W., 1999. Dunes as indicators of climatic change. In: Singhvi, A.K., Derbyshire,
E. (Eds.), Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction in Arid Lands. Oxford & IBH Publishing,
New Delhi, Calcutta, pp. 153–174.
Golonka, J., 2004. Plate tectonic evolution of the southern margin of Eurasia in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Tectonophysics 381, 235–273.
Golonka, J., 2007. Late Triassic and Early Jurassic paleogeography of the world.
Golonka, J., Ford, D.W., 2000. Pangean (Late Carboniferous–Middle Jurassic)
paleoenvironment and lithofacies. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 161,
1–34.
Golonka, J., Krobicki, M., 2004. Jurassic paleogeography of the Pieniny and Outer
Carpathian basins. Riv. Ital. Paleontol. Stratigr. 110, 5–14.
Golonka, J., Ross, M.I., Scotese, C.R., 1994. Phanerozoic paleogeographic and paleoclimatic
modeling maps. In: Embry, A.F., Beauchamp, B., Glass, D.J. (Eds.), Pangea: Global
Environment and Resources. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 17,
pp. 1–47.
Gordon, J.E., 2012. Rediscovering a sense of wonder: geoheritage, geotourism and cultural
landscape experiences. Geoheritage 4, 65–77.
Gornitz, V. (Ed.), 2009. Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments.
Springer, Dordrecht (1049 pp.).
Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., Agterberg, F.P., Bleeker, W., Cooper, R.A.,
Davydov, V., Gibbard, P., Hinnov, L.A., House, M.R., Lourens, L., Luterbacher, H.P.,
McArthur, J., Melchin, M.J., Robb, L.J., Shergold, J., Villeneuve, M., Wardlaw, B.R.,
Ali, J., Brinkhuis, H., Hilgen, F.J., Hooker, J., Howarth, R.J., Knoll, A.H., Laskar, J.,
Monechi, S., Plumb, K.A., Powell, J., Raffi, I., Rohl, U., Sadler, P., Sanfilippo, A.,
Schmitz, B., Shackleton, N.J., Shields, G.A., Strauss, H., Van Dam, J., van
Kolfschoten, T., Veizer, J., Wilson, D., 2004. A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (589 pp.).
Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Schmitz, M., Ogg, G. (Eds.), 2012. The Geologic Time Scale 2012.
Vols. 1–2. Elsevier, Oxford (1176 pp.).
Gray, M., 2004. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. J. Wiley, Chichester
(434 pp.).
Gray, M., 2008. Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 119, 287–298.
310
Gutak, J.M., Antonova, V.A., 2006a. Krasnotsvetnye otlozhenija v pribrezhno-morskikh
fatsijakh (model' formirovanija na primere pozdnedevonskikh otlozhenij Kuzbassa).
Izvestija bijskogo otdelenija Russkogo geografitcheskogo obtschestva 26, 95–97 (in
Russian).
Gutak, Ya.M., Antonova, V.A., 2006b. Red-coloured adjournment in seashore facies
(formation model on an example of the Upper Devonian adjournment of Kuzbass).
Proceedings XVIIIth Congress of the Carpathian-Balkan Geological Association,
September 3–6, 2006, Belgrade, Serbia. Belgrade, pp. 193–196.
Gutak, J.M., Ruban, D.A., 2013. Catastrophes versus events in the geologic past: how does
the scale matter? Cadernos Lab. Xeolóxico de Laxe 37, 163–179.
Gutak, J.M., Nadler, Yu.S., Tolokonnikova, Z.A., 2009. Geologitcheskie pamjatniki prirody
Kemerovskoj oblasti (stratigrafitcheskij i paleontologitcheskij tipy). KuzGPA,
Novokuznetsk (150 pp., in Russian).
Haq, B.U., 2014. Cretaceous eustasy revisited. Glob. Planet. Chang. 113, 44–58.
Hart, M.B., 2012. Geodiversity, palaeodiversity or biodiversity: where is the place of
palaeobiology and an understanding of taphonomy? Proc. Geol. Assoc. 123, 551–555.
Hasiotis, S.T., 2006. Continental Trace Fossils. Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa (132
pp.).
Henriques, M.H., Pena dos Reis, R., Brilha, J., Mota, T., 2011. Geoconservation as an
emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3, 117–128.
Hose, T.A., 1996. Geotourism, or can tourists become casual rock hounds? In: Bennett, M.
R., Doyle, P., Larwood, J., Prosser, C.P. (Eds.), Geology on Your Doorstep: The Role
of Urban Geology in Earth Heritage Conservation. Geological Society, London,
pp. 207–228.
Hose, T.A., 2000. European ‘geotourism’ — geological interpretation and conservation promotion for tourists. In: Barettino, D., Wimbledon, W.A.P., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Geological
Heritage: Its Conservation and Management. ITGE, Madrid, pp. 127–146.
Hose, T.A., Wickens, E., 2004. Typologies, tourism locations and images: meeting the real
needs of real tourists. In: Weber, S., Tomljenović, R. (Eds.), Reinventing a Tourism
Destination: Facing the Challenge. Institute for Tourism, Zagreb, pp. 103–114.
Hose, T.A., Vasiljević, D.A., 2012. Defining the nature and purpose of modern geotourism
with particular reference to the United Kingdom and South-East Europe. Geoheritage
4, 25–43.
Hudson, B.J., 2013. Waterfalls, science and aesthetics. J. Cult. Geogr. 30, 356–379.
Hu, X., Scott, R.W., Cai, Y., Wang, C., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., 2012. Cretaceous oceanic
red beds (CORBs): different time scales and models of origin. Earth Sci. Rev. 115,
217–248.
Jain, S., 2014. Fundamental of Physical Geology. Springer, New Delhi (488 pp.).
Jin, Q., Ruban, D.A., 2011. A conceptual framework of tourism crowding management at
geological heritage sites. Natura Nascosta 43, 1–17.
Johnson, M.E., 1988. Why are ancient rocky shores so uncommon? J. Geol. 96, 469–480.
Johnson, M.E., 2002. Paleoislands in the stream: paleogeography and expected circulation
patterns. Geobios 35 (Supplement 1), 96–106.
Johnson, M.E., 2006. Uniformitarianism as a guide to rocky-shore ecosystems in the
geological record. Can. J. Earth Sci. 43, 1119–1147.
Johnson, M.E., Baarli, B.G., 1999. Diversification of rocky-shore biotas through geologic
time. Geobios 32, 257–273.
Johnson, M.E., Baarli, B.G., 2012. Development of intertidal biotas through Phanerozoic
time. In: Talent, J.A. (Ed.), Earth and Life: Global Biodiversity, Extinction Intervals
and Biogeographic Perturbations Through Time. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 63–128.
Johnson, M.E., Ledesma-Vázquez, J. (Eds.), 2009. Atlas of Coastal Ecosystems in the
Western Gulf of California: Tracking Limestone Deposits on the Margin of a Young
Sea. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (189 pp.).
Jones, T.P., Ash, S., Figueiral, I., 2002. Late Triassic charcoal from Petrified Forest National
Park, Arizona, USA. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 188, 127–139.
Jung, A., Aigner, T., 2012. Carbonate geobodies: hierarchical classification and database —
a new workflow for 3D reservoir modelling. J. Pet. Geol. 35, 49–65.
Keller, G., Adatte, T., Berner, Z., Harting, M., Baum, G., Prauss, M., Tantawy, A., Stueben, D.,
2007. Chicxulub impact predates K-T boundary: new evidence from Brazos, Texas.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 255, 339–356.
Keller, G., Abramovich, S., Berner, Z., Adatte, T., 2009. Biotic effects of the Chicxulub impact, K-T catastrophe and sea level change in Texas. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.
Palaeoecol. 271, 52–68.
Khain, V.E., 1962. Rify i tektonika. In: Obut, A.M. (Ed.), Znatchenije biosfery v
geologitcheskikh protsessakh. Voprosy vzaimosvjazi paleontologii i tektoniki.
Gosgeoltekhizdat, Moskva, pp. 162–170 (in Russian).
Kiessling, W., Simpson, C., Foote, M., 2010. Reefs as cradles of evolution and sources of
biodiversity in the Phanerozoic. Science 327, 196–198.
Kim, W., Fouke, B.W., Petter, A.L., Quinn, T.M., Kerans, C., Taylor, F., 2012. Sea-level rise,
depth-dependent carbonate sedimentation and the paradox of drowned platforms.
Sedimentology 59, 1677–1694.
Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X., Cai, L., 2014. What makes a destination beautiful?
Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tour. Manag. 42, 282–293.
Kislov, E.V., 1999. Pamjatniki prirody (na primere Zapadnogo Zabajkal'ja). BNTs SO RAN,
Ulan Ude (180 pp. (in Russian)).
Kislov, E.V., 2001. Pamjatniki prirody Severo-Bajkal'skogo regiona. BNTs SO RAN, Ulan
Ude (104 pp., in Russian).
Knaust, D., Bromley, R.G. (Eds.), 2012. Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary
Environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam (924 pp.).
Knight, J., 2011. Evaluating geological heritage: correspondence on Ruban, D.A. ‘Quantification of geodiversity and its loss’ (PGA, 2010, 121(3): 326–333). Proc. Geol. Assoc.
122, 508–510.
Knight, J., Grab, S.W., 2014. Lightning as a geomorphic agent on mountain summits:
evidence from southern Africa. Geomorphology 204, 61–70.
Kocurek, G., 1991. Interpretation of ancient eolian sand dunes. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet.
Sci. 19, 43–75.
Kocurek, G.A., 1996. Desert aeolian systems. In: Reading, H.G. (Ed.), Sedimentary
Environments: Processes. Facies and Stratigraphy. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp.
125–153.
Kopenok, O.B., Marchenko, A.S., Ruban, D.A., Nielsen, J.K., 2009. Trace fossils from the
Abazinskaya Formation (Upper Paleocene; Southern Ciscaucasus). Stratigr.
Sedimentol. Oil-Gas Basins 1, 69–76.
Kozlowski, S., 2004. Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity. Pol. Geol. Rev.
52, 833–839.
Kujau, A., Heimhofer, U., Ostertag-Henning, C., Greselle, B., Mutterlose, J., 2012. No
evidence for anoxia during the Valanginian carbon isotope event—an organicgeochemical study from the Vocontian Basin, SE France. Glob. Planet. Chang. 92–93,
92–104.
Kuznetsov, V.G., 1993. Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous carbonate platform in the northern
Caucasus and Precaucasus. In: Simo, J.A.T., Scott, R.W., Masse, J.-P. (Eds.), Cretaceous
Carbonate Platforms. American Association of Petroleum Geology, Memoirs, 56,
pp. 455–463.
Lapo, A.V., Davydov, V.I., Pashkevitch, N.G., Petrov, V.V., Vdovets, M.S., 1993.
Metoditcheskie osnovy izutchenija geologitcheskikh pamjatnikov prirody Rossii.
Stratigrafija. Geologitcheskaja korreljatsija 6, 75–83 (in Russian).
Lapo, A.V., Davydov, V.I., Pashkevitch, N.G., Petrov, V.V., Vdovets, M.S., 1997.
Geologitcheskie ob'ekty vsemirnogo znatchenija Evropejskoj tchasti Rossii.
Stratigrafija. Geologitcheskaja korreljatsija 6, 92–101 (in Russian).
Larotchkina, I.A. (Ed.), 2007. Geologitcheskoie pamlatniki prirody Respubliki Tatarstan.
Akvarel'-ART, Kazan (296 pp., in Russian).
Leakey, M.D., 1987. Animals prints and trails. In: Leakey, M.D., Harris, J.M. (Eds.), Laetoli: A
Pliocene Site in Northern Tanzania. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 451–489.
Leakey, M.D., Hay, R.L., 1979. Pliocene footprints in the Laetoli Beds at Laetoli, northern
Tanzania. Nature 278, 317–323.
Leeder, M., 2011. Sedimentology and Sedimentary Basins: From Turbulence to Tectonics.
Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (768 pp.).
Levy, S., 2013. Once & future giants. What Ice Age Extinctions Tell Us About the Fate of
Earth's Largest AnimalsOxford University Press, Oxford (255 pp.).
Liccardo, A., Montesso-Neto, V., Piekarz, G.F., 2012. Urban geotourism — education and
culture. Anu. Inst. Geocienc. 35, 133–141.
Lipo, C.P., Hunt, T.L., Rapu Haoa, S., 2013. The ‘walking’ megalithic statues (moai) of Easter
Island. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 2859–2866.
Lozovoy, S.P., 1984. Lagonakskoe nagor'e. Krasnodarskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, Krasnodar
(160 pp., in Russian).
Mann, D., Edwards, J., Chase, J., Beck, W., Reanier, R., Mass, M., Finney, B., Loret, J., 2007.
Drought, vegetation change, and human history on Rapa Nui (Isla de Pascua, Easter
Island). Quat. Res. 69, 16–28.
Martchenko, A.S., Kopenok, O.B., Ruban, D.A., 2008. Novyj ob'ekt natsional'nogo
paleontologitcheskogo nasledija - “Jutsinskij ikhnokonpleks” (Juzhnoe Predkavkaz'e).
Sovremennaja paleontologija: klassitcheskie i novejshie metody. V shkola molodykh
utchenykh-paleontologov. Moskva, p. 36 (in Russian).
Martin, P.S., 2005. Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of
America. University of California Press, Berkeley (250 pp.).
Martini, F., Lo Vetro, D., 2011. Grotta del Romito: un monumento della Preistoria europea.
Archeologia Viva 146, 1–12.
Massoli-Novelli, R., Burri, E., Petitta, M., 1999. The typology of geosites in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). In: Barettino, D., Vallejo, M., Gallego, E. (Eds.), Towards the Balanced
Management and Conservation of the Geological Heritage in the New Millennium.
SGE, Madrid, pp. 151–154.
McHorse, B.K., Orcutt, J.D., Davis, E.B., 2012. The carnivoran fauna of Rancho La
Brea: average or aberrant? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 329–330,
118–123.
Meldrum, D.J., Lockley, M.G., Lucas, S.G., Musiba, C., 2011. Ichnotaxonomy of the Laetoli
trackways: the earliest hominin footprints. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 60, 1–12.
Middleton, N.J., Sternberg, T., 2013. Climate hazards in drylands: a review. Earth Sci. Rev.
126, 48–57.
Mieth, A., Bork, H.-H., 2010. Humans, climate or introduced rats — which is to blame for the
woodland destruction on prehistoric Rapa Nui (Easter Island)? J. Archaeol. Sci. 37,
417–426.
Miyauchi, T., Day Pra, G., Sylos Labini, S., 1994. Geochronology of Pleistocene marine
terraces and regional tectonics inthe Tyrrhenian coast of south Calabria, Italy. Il
Quaternario 17–34.
Moroni, A., Freguglia, M., Bernardini, F., Boschian, G., Cavanna, C., Crezzini, J.,
Gambogi, P., Longo, L., Milani, L., Parenti, F., Ricci, Sю, 2010. Nuove ricerche
alla Grotta dei Santi (Monte Argentario, Grosseto). In: Negroni Catacchio, N.
(Ed.), L'alba dell'Etruria. Fenomeni di continuità e trasformazione nei secoli
XII–VIII a.C. Ricerche e scavi. Atti del Nono Incontro di Studi “Preistoria e
Protostoria in Etruria”, Valentano (Vt) – Pitigliano (Gr), 12–14 Settembre
2008, pp. 649–662.
Moroni, A., Boscato, P., Ronchitelli, A., 2013. What roots for the Uluzzian? Modern
behaviour in Central–Southern Italy and hypotheses on AMH dispersal routes. Quat.
Int. 316, 27–44.
Moroni, A., Aranguren, B., Casini, A., Costantini, A., Grandinetti, G., Gambassini, P., 2014. The
prehistoric quarry of La Pietra (Roccastrada — Grosseto — Tuscany). Copper age lithic
workshops and the production of bifacial points in Central Italy. Actes du Colloque
“Ressources lithiques, productions et transferts entre Alpes et Méditerranée”, Nice
28–29 Mars 2013. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr. (in press).
Mulrooney, M.A., 2013. An island-wide assessment of the chronology of settlement and
land use on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) based on radiocarbon data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40,
4377–4399.
Musiba, C., Mabula, A., Selvaggio, M., Magori, C., 2008. Pliocene animal trackways at
Laetoli: research and conservation potential. Ichnos 15, 166–178.
Nazarenko, O.V., Gorbatcheva, E.D., 2009. Otsenka effektivnosti i opredelenie prioritetov
upravlenija sistemami okhranjaemykh prirodnykh territorij. Antropogennja
transformatsija prirodnoj sredy. Perm, pp. 117–120 (in Russian).
Nichols, G., 2009. Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (419 pp.).
Nicosia, U., Marino, M., Mariotti, N., Muraro, C., Panigutti, S., Petti, F.M., Sacchi, E., 2000.
The late Cretaceous dinosaur tracksite near Altamura (Bari, Southern Italy). I —
geological framework. Geol. Romana 35, 231–236.
Nieto, L.M., 2001. Geodiversidad: propuesta de una definicion integradora. Bol. Geol. Min.
112, 3–12.
Ogg, J.G., Ogg, G., Gradstein, F.M., 2008. The Concise Geologic Time Scale. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge (177 pp.).
Pajak, J., Golonka, J., Krobicki, M., 2006. Attractions of unanimated nature of the northern
Vietnam as a basis for tourist development. Geotourism 4, 5–26.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 1989. L'Uluzzien: faciès italien du Leptolithique archaïque.
l'Anthropologie 93, 783–812.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2001. Le Paléolithique Supérieur en Italie. Préhistoire d’Europe
9Jérôme Millon, Grenoble.
Patel, M.P., Bhatt, N., 1995. Evidence of palaeoclimatic fluctuations in miliolite rocks of
Saurashtra, Western India. J. Geol. Soc. India 45, 191–200.
Pereira, D.I., Pereira, P., Brilha, J., Santos, L., 2013. Geodiversity assessment of Parana State
(Brazil): an innovative approach. Environ. Manag. 52, 541–552.
Plotnick, R.E., 2012. Behavioral biology of trace fossils. Paleobiology 38, 459–473.
Pomar, L., 2001. Types of carbonate platforms: a genetic approach. Basin Res. 13, 313–334.
Pomar, L., Hallock, P., 2008. Carbonate factories: a conundrum in sedimentary geology.
Earth Sci. Rev. 87, 134–169.
Pomar, L., Bassant, P., Brandano, M., Ruchonnet, C., Janson, X., 2012. Impact of carbonate
producing biota on platform architecture: insights from Miocene examples of the
Mediterranean region. Earth Sci. Rev. 113, 186–211.
Prosser, C., Murphy, M., Larwood, J., 2006. Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good
Practice. English Nature, Peterborough (145 pp.).
Prosser, C.D., Bridgland, D.R., Brown, E.J., Larwood, J.G., 2011. Geoconservation for science
and society: challenges and opportunities. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 122, 337–342.
Prothero, D.L., 2009. Greenhouse of the Dinosaurs: Evolution, Extinction, and the Future of
Our Planet. Columbia University Press, New York (274 pp.).
Prothero, D.R., 2011. Catastrophes! Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, and Other Earthshattering Disasters. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (326 pp.).
Prothero, D.R., Syverson, V.J., Raymond, K.R., Madan, M., Molina, S., Fragomeni, A.,
DeSantis, S., Sutyagina, A., Gage, G.L., 2012. Size and shape stasis in late Pleistocene
mammals and birds from Rancho La Brea during the Last Glacial–Interglacial cycle.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 56, 1–10.
Racki, G., 2012. The Alvarez impact theory of mass extinction; limits to its application and
the “great expectations syndrome”. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 57, 681–702.
Read, J.F., 1982. Carbonate platforms of passive (extensional) continental margins —
types, characteristics and evolution. Tectonophysics 81, 195–212.
Read, J.F., 1985. Carbonate platform facies models. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 69, 1–21.
Read, J.F., 1998. Phanerozoic c aronate ramps from greenhouse, transitional and icehouse worlds: clues from field and modelling studies. In: Wright, V.P., Burchette, T.
D. (Eds.), Carbonate Ramps. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 149,
pp. 107–135.
Reader, J., 2011. Missing links. Search of Human Origins. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(538 pp.).
Reichgelt, T., Parker, W.G., Martz, J.W., Conrad, J.G., van Konijnenburg-van Cittert, J.H.A.,
Kürschner, W.M., 2013. The palynology of the Sonsela member (Late Triassic, Norian)
at Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona, USA. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 189, 18–28.
Reinholdsson, M., Snowball, I., Zillen, L., Lenz, C., Conley, D.J., 2013. Magnetic enhancement of Baltic Sea sapropels by greigite magnetofossils. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 366,
137–150.
Renne, P.R., Deino, A.L., Hilgen, F.J., Kuiper, K.F., Mark, D.F., Mitchell III, W.S., Morgan, L.E.,
Mundil, R., Smit, J., 2013. Time scales of critical events around the Cretaceous–
Paleogene boundary. Science 339, 684–687.
Retallack, G.J., 2011. Exceptional fossil preservation during CO2 greenhouse crises?
Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C., 2007. A method for assessing “scientific”
and “additional values” of geomorphosites. Geogr. Helv. 62, 148–158.
Riddiford, N.G., Branch, N.P., Green, C.P., Armitage, S.J., Olivier, L., 2012. Holocene
palaeoenvironmental change and the impact of prehistoric salt production in the
Seille Valley, eastern France. The Holocene 22, 831–845.
Rijsdijk, K.F., Hume, J.P., Bunnik, F., Vincent Florens, F.B., Baiderg, C., Shapiro, B., van der
Plicht, J., Janoo, A., Griffiths, O., van den Hoek Ostende, L.W., Cremer, H.,
Vernimmen, T., De Louw, P.G.B., Bholah, A., Saumtally, S., Porch, N., Haile, J.,
Buckley, M., Collins, M., Gittenberger, G., 2009. Mid-Holocene vertebrate bone
Concentration-Lagerstatte on oceanic island Mauritius provides a window into the
ecosystem of the dodo (Raphus cucullatus). Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 14–24.
Rose, K.D., 2012. The importance of Messel for interpreting Eocene Holarctic mammalian
faunas. Palaeobiodivers. Palaeoenviron. 92, 631–647.
Der Versteinerte Wald von Chemnitz. In: Röβler, R. (Ed.), Museum für Naturkunde
Chemnitz, Cheminitz (252 pp.).
Rostovtsev, K.O., Agajev, V.B., Azarjan, N.R., Babajev, R.G., Beznosov, N.V., Gasanov, N.A.,
Zasaschvili, V.I., Lomize, M.G., Paitchadze, T.A., Panov, D.I., Prosorovskaya, E.L.,
Sakharov, A.S., Todria, V.A., Toptchischvili, M.V., Abdulkasunzade, M.R., Avanesjan,
A.S., Belenkova, V.S., Bendukidze, N.S., V.Ja., Vuks, Doludenko, M.P., Kiritchkova, A.I.,
Klikuschin, V.G., Krymholz, G.Ja, Romanov, G.M., Schevtchenko, T.V., 1992. Jura
Kavkaza. Nauka, Sankt-Peterburg (192 pp., in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2005. Geologitcheskie pamjatniki: kratkij obzor klassifikatsionnykh
priznakov (Geological monuments: brief review of classification criteria). Izvestija
Vysshikh Utchebnykh Zavedenij. Geologija i Razvedka 4, 67–69 (in Russian).
311
Ruban, D.A., 2006a. Standartizatsija opisanija geologitcheskikh pamjatnikov prirody kak
vazhnykh ob'ektov national'nogo nasledija. Geografija i Prirodnye Resursy 3,
166–168 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2006b. The palaeogeographic outlines of the Caucasus in the Jurassic: the
Caucasian Sea and the Neotethys Ocean. Geološki Anali Balkanskoga Poluostrva 67,
1–11.
Ruban, D.A., 2007. Bazal'nyj lejas bassejna r. Belaja (Severo-Zapadnyj Kavkaz). Nautchnaja
mysl' Kavkaza. Mezhdistsiplinarnye i Spetsial'nye Issledovanija 2, 95–97 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2009a. Regional stages: their types and chronostratigraphic utility. Cadernos
Lab. Xeolóxico de Laxe 34, 59–73.
Ruban, D.A., 2009b. Problemy identifikatsii geologitcheskikh pamjatnikov. Izvestija
Vysshikh Utchebnykh Zavedenij. Geologija i Razvedka 4, 72–73 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2010. Quantification of geodiversity and its loss. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 121,
326–333.
Ruban, D.A., 2011a. Estetitcheskaja attraktivnost' unikal'nogo tsentra georaznoobrazija v
Gornoj Adygee dla turistov. In: Konoplenko, A.A. (Ed.), Aktual'nye problemy
gostinitchno-turistitcheskogo biznesa i servisa 2. Nauka, Saratov, pp. 64–67 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2011d. In: Lisitsyn, A.P. (Ed.), Novye dannye ob otlozhenijakh
meotitcheskogo obryvistogo poberezh'ja Tanaisskogo paleozaliva Vostotchnogo
Paratetisa. Materialy XIX Mezhdunarodnoj nautchnoj konferentsii (Shkoly) po
morskoj geologii, vol. 1. GEOS, Moskva, pp. 237–241 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2011b. Osobo unikal'nye mestonakhozhdenija iskopaemykh organizmov kak
ob'ekty geologitcheskogo nasledija. Izvestija Vysshikh Utchebnykh Zavedenij.
Geologija i Razvedka 5, 83–86 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., 2011c. How diverse should be geodiversity? Reply to Knight “Evaluating
geological heritage” (Proc. Geol. Assoc. (2011)). Proc. Geol. Assoc. 122, 511–513.
Ruban, D.A., 2013a. The Greater Caucasus — a Galatian or Hanseatic terrane? Comment on
“The formation of Pangea” by G.M. Stampfli, C. Hochard, C. Vérard, C. Wilhem and J.
von Raumer [Tectonophysics 593 (2013) 1–19]. Tectonophysics 608, 1442–1444.
Ruban, D.A., 2013b. Geokonservatsionnyj aspekt nedropol'zovanija: ob'ekty
geologitcheskogo nasledija i vzaimosvjaz' ikh tipov. Nedropol'zovanie, XXI vek 2,
pp. 108–113 (in Russian).
Ruban, D.A., Kuo, I., 2010. Essentials of geological heritage site (geosite) management: a
conceptual assessment of interests and conflicts. Natura Nascosta 41, 16–31.
Ruban, D.A., Zerfass, H., Yang, W., 2007. A new hypothesis on the position of the Greater
Caucasus Terrane in the Late Palaeozoic–Early Mesozoic based on palaeontologic and
lithologic data. Trab. Geol. 27, 19–27.
Ruban, D.A., Conrad, C.P., van Loon, A.J., 2010. The challenge of reconstructing the
Phanerozoic sea level and the Pacific Basin tectonics. Geologos 16, 235–243.
Ruban, D.A., Zorina, S.O., Conrad, C.P., Afanasieva, N.I., 2012. In quest of Paleocene globalscale transgressions and regressions: contraints from a synthesis of regional trends.
Proc. Geol. Assoc. 123, 7–18.
Rull, V., Cañellas-Boltà, N., Sáez, A., Giralt, S., Pla, S., Margalef, O., 2010. Paleoecology of
Easter Island: evidence and uncertainties. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 50–60.
Schaal, S., 2012. Messel pit fossil site — the legacy of the environment and life of the
Eocene. In: Talent, J.A. (Ed.), Earth and Life: Global Biodiversity, Extinction Intervals
and Biogeographic Perturbations Through Time. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 225–236.
Schulte, P., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J.A., Barton, P.J., Bown, P.R., Bralower, T.J., Christeson, G.
L., Claeys, P., Cockell, C.S., Collins, G.S., Deutsch, A., Goldin, T.J., Goto, K., GrajalesNishimura, J.M., Grieve, R.A.F., Gulick, S.P.S., Johnson, K.R., Kiessling, W., Koeberl, C.,
Kring, D.A., MacLeod, K.G., Matsui, T., Melosh, J., Montanari, A., Morgan, J.V., Neal, C.R.,
Nichols, D.J., Norris, R.D., Pierazzo, E., Ravizza, G., Rebolledo-Vieyra, M., Reimold, W.U.,
Robin, E., Salge, T., Speijer, R.P., Sweet, A.R., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., Vajda, V., Whalen,
M.T., Willumsen, P.S., 2010. The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the
Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Science 327, 1214–1218.
Seilacher, A., 2007. Trace Fossil Analysis. Springer, Berlin (226 pp.).
Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P., 2007. Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geogr.
Helv. 62, 140–147.
Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flaño, P., 2009. Geomorphosites and geodiversity. In: Reynard, E.,
Coratza, P., Regolini-Bissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. F. Pfeil, München, pp. 49–61.
Silant'ev, V.V., Zorina, S.A., Khasanova, M.N., Khajrullina, E.A., 2010. Ikhnofossilii i rizolity v
stratotipitcheskom razreze verkhnekazanskogo prod'jarusa u sela Petchischi. In:
Karasjova, T.V. (Ed.), Geologija i neftegazonosnost' severnykh rajonov UraloPovolzh'ja. PGU, Perm', pp. 103–106 (in Russian).
Simpson, E.L., Eriksson, K.A., Eriksson, P.G., Bumby, A.J., 2002. Eolian dune degradation
and generation of massive sandstone bodies in the Paleoproterozoic Makgabeng
Formation, Waterberg Group, South Africa. J. Sediment. Res. 72, 40–45.
Solarska, A., Hose, T.A., Vasiljevic, D.A., Mroczek, P., Jary, Z., Markovic, S.B., Widawski, K.,
2013. Geodiversity of the loess regions in Poland: inventory, geoconservation issues,
and geotourism potential. Quat. Int. 296, 68–81.
Stampfli, G.M., 2013. Response to the comments on “The formation of Pangea” by D.A.
Ruban. Tectonophysics 608, 1445–1447.
Stanley, M., 2001a. Geodiversity strategy. ProGeo News 1, 6–9.
Stanley, M., 2001b. Editorial. Geodiversity Update 1, p. 1.
Tagliacozzo, A., Romandini, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Peresani, M., 2013. Animal exploitation
strategies during the Uluzzian at Grotta di Fumane (Verona, Italy). In: Clark, J.L.,
Speth, J.D. (Eds.), Zooarchaeology and Modern Human Origins: Human Hunting
Behaviour During the Later Pleistocene. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 129–150.
Tiess, G., Ruban, D.A., 2013. Geological heritage and mining legislation: a brief conceptual
assessment of the principal legal acts of selected EU countries. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124,
411–416.
Tucker, M.E., 2011. Sedimentary Rocks in the Field: A Practical Guide. Wiley-Blackwell,
Chichester (276 pp.).
van der Jagt, A.P.N., Craig, T., Anable, J., Brewer, M.J., Pearson, D.G., 2014. Unearthing the
picturesque: the validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape
aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 124, 1–13.
312
van Loon, A.J., Pisarska-Jamrozy, M., 2014. Sedimentological evidence of Pleistocene
earthquakes in NW Poland induced by glacio-isostatic rebound. Sediment. Geol.
300, 1–10.
Vdovets, M.S., Silantiev, V.V., Mozzherin, V.V., 2010. A national geopark in the Republic of
Tatarstan (Russia): a feasibility study. Geoheritage 2, 25–37.
Velitzelos, E., Zouros, N., 1998. New results on the petrified forest of Lesvos. Bull. Geol. Soc.
Greece 32, 133–142.
Wagreich, M., Krenmayr, H.-G., 2005. Upper Cretaceous oceanic red beds (CORB) in the
Northern Calcareous Alps (Nierental Formation, Austria): slope topography and
clastic input as primary controlling factors. Cretac. Res. 26, 57–64.
Wang, C., Hu, X., Huang, Y., Wagreich, M., Scott, R., Hay, W., 2011. Cretaceous oceanic red
beds as possible consequence of oceanic anoxic events. Sediment. Geol. 235, 27–37.
Ward, I., Larcombe, E., Mulvaney, K., Fandry, C., 2013. The potential for discovery of new
submerged archaeological sites near the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia.
Quat. Int. 308–309, 216–229.
Westermann, G.E.G., 2000. Marine faunal realms of the Mesozoic: review and revision
under the new guidelines for biogeographic classification and nomenclature.
Wilby, P.R., Briggs, D.E.G., 1997. Taxonomic trends in the resolution of detail preserved in
fossil phosphatized soft tissues. Geobios 30 (Suppl. 1), 493–502.
Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1996. Geosites — a new conservation initiative. Episodes 19, 87–88.
Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1999. GEOSITES — an International Union of Geological Sciences
initiative to conserve our geological heritage. Polish Geological Institute Special
Papers, 2, pp. 5–8.
Wimbledon, W.A.P., Smith-Meyer, S. (Eds.), 2012. Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation. ProGEO, Oslo (405 pp.).
Wimbledon, W.A., Benton, M.J., Bevins, R.E., Black, G.P., Bridgland, D.R., Cleal, C.J., Cooper,
R.G., May, V.J., 1995. The development of a methodology for the selection of british
geological sites for conservation: part 1. Mod. Geol. 20, 159–202.
Wimbledon, W., Ishchenko, A., Gerasimenko, N., Alexandrowicz, Z., Vinokurov, V., Liscak,
P., Vozar, J., Bezak, V., Kohut, M., Polak, M., Mello, J., Potfaj, M., Gross, P., Elecko, M.,
Nagy, A., Barath, I., Lapo, A., Vdovets, M., Klincharov, S., Marjanac, L., Mijovic, D.,
Dimitrijevic, M., Gavrolovic, D., Theodossiou-Drandaki, I., Serjani, A., Todorov, T.,
Nakov, R., Zagorchev, I., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Benvenuti, M., Boni, M., Bracucci, G.,
Bortolani, G., Burlando, M., Costantini, E., D'Andrea, M., Gisotti, G., Guado, G.,
Marchetti, M., Massolli-Novelli, R., Panizza, M., Pavia, G., Poli, G., Zarlenga, F.,
Satkunas, J., Mikulenas, V., Suominen, V., Kananajo, T., Lehtinen, M., Gonggriijp, G.,
Look, E., Grube, A., Johansson, C., Karis, L., Parkes, M., Paudsep, R., Andersen, S.,
Cleal, C., Bevins, R., 1998. A first attempt at a GEOSITES framework for Europe — an
IUGS initiative to support recogniztion of world heritage and European geodiversity.
Geol. Balc. 28, 5–32.
Wyse Jackson, P.N., 2010. Introducing Palaeontology: A Guide to Ancient Life. Dunedin
Academic Press, Edinburgh (152 pp.).
Yamazaki, T., Shimono, T., 2013. Abundant bacterial magnetite occurrence in oxic red clay.
Geology 41, 1191–1194.
Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., Billups, K., 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693.
Zimov, S.A., 2005. Pleistocene park: return of the mammoth's ecosystem. Science 308,
796–798.
Zimov, S.A., Zimov, N.S., Tikhonov, A.N., Chapin III, F.S., 2012a. Mammoth steppe: a highproductivity phenomenon. Quat. Sci. Rev. 57, 26–45.
Zimov, S.A., Zimov, N.S., Chapin III, F.S., 2012b. The past and future of the mammoth
steppe ecosystem. In: Louys, J. (Ed.), Paleontology in Ecology and Conservation.
Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 193–225.
Zouros, N., 2009. Geomorphosites within geoparks. In: Reynard, E., Coratza, P., RegoliniBissig, G. (Eds.), Geomorphosites. F. Pfeil, München, pp. 105–118.
Zouros, N.C., 2010. Geotourism in Greece: a case study of the Lesvos Petrified Forest
Geopark. In: Dowling, R., Newsome, D. (Eds.), Global Geotourism Perspectives.
Goodfellow, Woodeaton, pp. 215–229.
Zorina, S.A., Ruselik, E.S., Il'itcheva, O.M., Netkasova, N.A., Silant'ev, V.V., 2011.
Vetschestnennyj sostav i uslovija obrazovanija pogranitchnykh otlozhenij nizhnego
i verkhnego pod'jarusov kazanskogo jarusa v stratotipitcheskom razreze
Prikazanskogo rajona. Izvestija Vysshikh Utchebnykh Zavedenij. Geologija i Razvedka
1, 11–17 (in Russian).
Zwolinski, Z., 2004. Geodiversity. In: Goodie, A.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geomorphology.
Routledge, London, pp. 417–418.

Delia Evelina Bruno, Brooke E. Crowley, Jaroslav M. Gutak, Adriana

Transcription

Similar documents

4D modelling in the northern part of the Fennoscandian Shield

Xero House

very aware of the importance of the mineral industry

enREDo International Design Network

HAZTURK Için Istanbul`da Deprem Sonrasi Yersel Ivme Dagiliminin

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Geodiversity, Geogrphical Heritage and Geoparks In India - IGU-COG

Geological models, heterogeneities and scale relations

Under the chairmanship of Minister of Energy, Mines, Water and