Correction: Brandolini et al. The Evolution of Historic Agroforestry Landscape in the Northern Apennines (Italy) and Its Consequences for Slope Geomorphic Processes. Land 2023, 12 , 1054

In the original publication [...]


Error in Figure/Table
In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published.The total soil loss results were not correct due to an error in the conversion of the data from Kg/m 2 •s to t ha −1 yr −1 .The corrected Figure 7 appears below.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected.This correction was approved by the Academic Editor.The original publication has also been updated.
Figure 7. Estimation of the total soil loss (t ha −1 yr −1 ) in the three models (1950, 2020, andAFS).The simulation indicates that replacing current agro-pastoral land management with agroforestry systems would reduce the soil loss by 40%.Images in .tiffformat covering the entire study area are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Error in Figure/Table
In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published.The total soil loss results were not correct due to an error in the conversion of the data from Kg/m 2 •s to t ha −1 yr −1 .The corrected Figure 8 appears below.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected.This correction was approved by the Academic Editor.The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published.The total soil loss results were not correct due to an error in the conversion of the data from Kg/m 2 •s to t ha −1 year −1 .The corrected Figure 8

Error in Figure/Table
In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published.The total soil loss results indicated in Table 2 are not correct due to an error in the conversion of the data from Kg/m 2 •s to t ha −1 yr −1 .Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, 'soil loss' indicates the resulting amount of soil eroded/deposited in the area.Positive numbers indicate depositions, while negative numbers indicate erosion.The corrected Table 2 appears below.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected.This correction was approved by the Academic Editor.The original publication has also been updated.General Clarification: As suggested by the development of r.landscape.evol, the USPED equation is best suited for modeling erosion and deposition on hillslopes and small gullies.However, it tends to significantly overpredict erosion/deposition in channels and streams.Nevertheless, the research goal was to display the trend variation of erosion/deposition processes according to different Land Use/Land Cover scenarios.In this regard, the r.landscape.evolmodule yielded invaluable results regarding the potential benefits of restoring historic agroforestry systems in the area to mitigate soil erosion processes.

Error in Table
In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published.The total soil loss results indicated in Table 2 are not correct due to an error in the conversion of the data from Kg/m 2 •s to t ha −1 year −1 .Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, 'soil loss' indicates the resulting amount of soil eroded/deposited in the area.Positive numbers indicate depositions, while negative numbers indicate erosion.The corrected Table 2 appears below.
Table 2. Simulated soil loss (i.e., the result of erosion and deposition processes) (t ha −1 year −1 ) in the three models ("1950", "2020", and"AFS")  General Clarification: As suggested by the developers of r.landscape.evol, the USPED equation is best suited for modeling erosion and deposition on hillslopes and small gullies.However, it tends to significantly overpredict erosion/deposition in channels and streams.Nevertheless, the research goal was to display the trend variation of erosion/deposition processes according to different Land Use/Land Cover scenarios.In this regard, the r.landscape.evolmodule yielded invaluable results regarding the potential benefits of restoring historic agroforestry systems in the area to mitigate soil erosion processes.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected.This correction was approved by the Academic Editor.The original publication has also been updated.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Estimation of the total soil loss (t ha −1 year −1 ) in the three models(1950, 2020, and AFS).The simulation indicates that replacing current agro-pastoral land management with agroforestry systems would reduce the soil loss by 40%.Images in .tiffformat covering the entire study area are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
appears below.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Estimation of the soil loss (t ha −1 yr − ) in Model "2050LU20" and in Model "2050AFS" considering the rainfall erosivity projections for the year 2050.The simulation indicates that restoring agroforestry systems would reduce the soil loss of rural area by 36%.Images in .tiffformat covering the entire study area are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Estimation of the total soil loss (t ha −1 year −1 ) in Model "2050LU20" and in Model "2050AFS" considering the rainfall erosivity projections for the year 2050.The simulation indicates that restoring agroforestry systems would reduce the soil loss of rural area by 36%.Images in .tiffformat covering the entire study area are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Table 2 .
Simulated soil loss (i.e., the result of erosion and deposition processes) (t ha −1 yr −1 ) in the three models ("1950", "2020", and "AFS") for each land-use type and totals.Positive numbers indicate depositions, while negative numbers indicate erosion.