what has caused half of the worlds mangrove forests to be destroyed?

• Loading metrics

Open Admission

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Chance and Geographic Areas of Global Concern

• Kent Eastward. Carpenter,
• Lorna Collins,
• Norman C. Duke,
• Aaron M. Ellison,
• Joanna C. Ellison,
• Elizabeth J. Farnsworth,
• Edwino Due south. Fernando,
• Kandasamy Kathiresan,
• Nico E. Koedam,
• Suzanne R. Livingstone,
• Toyohiko Miyagi,
• Gregg Due east. Moore,
• Vien Ngoc Nam,
• Jin Eong Ong,
• Jurgenne H. Primavera,
• Severino G. Salmo III,
• Jonnell C. Sanciangco,
• Sukristijono Sukardjo,
• Yamin Wang,
•  [ ... ],
• Jean Wan Hong Yong
• [ view all ]
• [ view less ]

The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern

• Beth A. Polidoro,
• Kent E. Carpenter,
• Lorna Collins,
• Norman C. Duke,
• Aaron M. Ellison,
• Joanna C. Ellison,
• Elizabeth J. Farnsworth,
• Edwino S. Fernando,
• Kandasamy Kathiresan,
• Nico East. Koedam

x

• Published: April eight, 2010
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0010095

Figures

Abstract

Mangrove species are uniquely adapted to tropical and subtropical coasts, and although relatively depression in number of species, mangrove forests provide at to the lowest degree Us $one.6 billion each yr in ecosystem services and support coastal livelihoods worldwide. Globally, mangrove areas are declining rapidly as they are cleared for coastal development and aquaculture and logged for timber and fuel production. Lilliputian is known nearly the furnishings of mangrove area loss on individual mangrove species and local or regional populations. To accost this gap, species-specific information on global distribution, population status, life history traits, and major threats were compiled for each of the lxx known species of mangroves. Each species' probability of extinction was assessed nether the Categories and Criteria of the IUCN Crimson List of Threatened Species. Eleven of the 70 mangrove species (16%) are at elevated threat of extinction. Particular areas of geographical concern include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Central America, where every bit many every bit xl% of mangroves species present are threatened with extinction. Across the world, mangrove species establish primarily in the high intertidal and upstream estuarine zones, which often accept specific freshwater requirements and patchy distributions, are the virtually threatened because they are often the first cleared for development of aquaculture and agriculture. The loss of mangrove species volition have devastating economic and ecology consequences for coastal communities, especially in those areas with low mangrove diversity and high mangrove area or species loss. Several species at high risk of extinction may disappear well before the next decade if existing protective measures are non enforced.

Commendation: Polidoro BA, Carpenter KE, Collins Fifty, Duke NC, Ellison AM, Ellison JC, et al. (2010) The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Business. PLoS Ane five(4): e10095. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0010095

Editor: Dennis Marinus Hansen, Stanford Academy, The states

Received: October seven, 2009; Accustomed: March 16, 2010; Published: April 8, 2010

Copyright: © 2010 Polidoro et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted utilise, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This inquiry was generously supported by core funding from Tom Haas and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. The funders had no function in study design, data collection and analysis, determination to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

The importance of mangroves for humans and a variety of coastal organisms has been well documented [1]–[7]. Mangrove forests are comprised of unique plant species that class the critical interface between terrestrial, estuarine, and almost-shore marine ecosystems in tropical and subtropical regions. They protect inland human being communities from damage acquired by coastal erosion and storms [8]–[xi], provide critical habitat for a variety of terrestrial, estuarine and marine species [5], [12]–[14], and serve as both a source and sink for nutrients and sediments for other inshore marine habitats including seagrass beds and coral reefs [2], [15]. Mangrove species that class dumbo and often monospecific stands are considered "foundation species" that control population and ecosystem dynamics, including fluxes of energy and nutrients, hydrology, nutrient webs, and biodiversity [16]. Mangroves have been widely reviewed [17] as supporting numerous ecosystem services including flood protection, food and organic thing processing, sediment control, and fisheries. Mangrove forests are the economic foundations of many tropical coastal regions [xviii] providing at least United states$1.6 billion per year in "ecosystem services" worldwide [seven]. Information technology is estimated that almost 80% of global fish catches are direct or indirectly dependant on mangroves [1], [xix]. Mangroves sequester up to 25.5 million tonnes of carbon per twelvemonth [20], and provide more than x% of essential organic carbon to the global oceans [21]. Although the economic value of mangroves can exist difficult to quantify, the relatively small number of mangrove species worldwide collectively provide a wealth of services and goods while occupying only 0.12% of the world's total land surface area [22].

With almost half (44%) of the world'due south population living within 150 km of a coastline [23], heavily populated coastal zones have spurred the widespread clearing of mangroves for coastal development, aquaculture, or resource use. At least 40% of the beast species that are restricted to mangrove habitat and accept previously been assessed nether IUCN Categories and Criteria are at elevated risk of extinction due to extensive habitat loss [12]. It is estimated that 26% of mangrove forests worldwide are degraded due to over-exploitation for fuelwood and timber production [24]. Similarly, clearing of mangroves for shrimp culture contributes ∼38% of global mangrove loss, with other aquaculture accounting for another fourteen% [1]. In India alone, over forty% of mangrove surface area on the western coast has been converted to agriculture and urban evolution [25]. Globally, betwixt twenty% and 35% of mangrove expanse has been lost since approximately 1980 [24], [26], [27], and mangrove areas are disappearing at the rate of approximately ane% per year [26], [27], with other estimates every bit loftier equally ii–8% per year [28]. These rates may be as high every bit or higher than rates of losses of upland tropical wet forests [24], and current exploitation rates are expected to continue unless mangrove forests are protected equally a valuable resource [29].

Given their accelerating rate of loss, mangrove forests may at least functionally disappear in as little as 100 years [2]. The loss of private mangrove species is also of dandy business concern, especially as even pristine mangrove areas are species-poor compared with other tropical establish ecosystems [29]. However, at that place is very fiddling known about the furnishings of either widespread or localized mangrove area loss on private mangrove species or populations. Additionally, the identification and implementation of conservation priorities for mangroves has largely been conducted in the absence of comprehensive species-specific information, as species-specific data have non been collated or synthesized. Species information including the presence of threatened species is of import for refining conservation priorities, such as the designation of disquisitional habitat, no-have zones, or marine protected areas, or to inform policies that regulate resources extraction or coastal development. For the first time, systematic species-specific data have been collated and used to determine the probability of extinction for all 70 known species of mangroves under the Categories and Criteria of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Scarlet List of Threatened Species.

Methods

The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were applied to 70 species of mangroves, representing 17 families. Hybrids were not assessed every bit the IUCN Red Listing Guidelines mostly exclude all plant hybrids for cess unless they are apomicts. Species nomenclature primarily followed Tomlinson [xxx], and family nomenclature primarily followed Stevens [31], with the exception of Pteridaceae.

The definition of a mangrove species is based on a number of anatomical and physiological adaptations to saline, hypoxic soils. These include viviparous or cryptoviviparous seeds adapted to hydrochory; pneumatophores or aeriform roots that allow oxygenation of roots in hypoxic soils; and salt exclusion or salt excretion to cope with high salt concentrations in the peat and pore water in which mangroves grow. Those species that are exclusively restricted to tropical intertidal habitats have been defined as "true mangrove" species, while those not exclusive to this habitat accept been termed "mangrove assembly" [32]. Tomlinson [30] farther subdivided these categories into major mangrove components (truthful, strict, or specialized mangrove species), minor components (non-specialized mangrove species), and mangrove associates (non-exclusive species that are mostly never immersed by high tides). Duke [33] more specifically divers a truthful mangrove equally a tree, shrub, palm, or ground fern generally exceeding 0.v m in height and which normally grows in a higher place mean sea level in the intertidal zone of tropical littoral or estuarine environments. For the IUCN Red List assessments, we defined a mangrove species based on Tomlinson'southward listing of major and minor mangroves, supplemented past a few additional species supported past the expanded definition provided by Duke [33]. It is recognized that the definition used in this study may not strictly apply to all geographic areas. For example, the fern genus Acrostichum, which is included in this study, is considered a mangrove acquaintance in some parts of the world [34].

Data drove and assessments for mangrove species probability of extinction were conducted during 2 IUCN Reddish List Assessment workshops: one in 2007 in Dominica and the second in 2008 in the Philippines. These two mangrove species assessment workshops brought together 25 of the world's leading mangrove experts to share and synthesize species-specific data, and to collectively employ the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria [35]. The IUCN Red Listing Categories and Criteria are the virtually widely accepted system for classifying extinction risk at the species level [36]–[39]. During the Red Listing assessment workshops, species were evaluated 1 at a time by the group of experts present, with outside consultation and follow-up conducted when additional information was needed only not available at the workshop. Information on taxonomy, distribution, population trends, ecology, life history, past and existing threats, and conservation actions for each species was recorded, quantified and reviewed for accurateness. Quantitative species data was then used to determine if a species met the threshold for a threatened category nether at to the lowest degree one IUCN Crimson List Criterion. This IUCN Red Listing process consolidates the near electric current and highest quality data available, and ensures peer-reviewed scientific consensus on the probability of extinction for each species [forty]–[42]. All species information and results of Red List assessments are freely and publicly available on the IUCN Carmine List of Threatened Species [43].

The IUCN Crimson List Categories are comprised of eight dissimilar levels of extinction risk: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC) and Information Deficient (DD). A species qualifies for ane of the iii threatened categories (CR, EN, or VU) by meeting the threshold for that category in one of the 5 different available criteria (A–E). These different criteria form the real forcefulness of the IUCN Scarlet Listing every bit they are based on extinction take chances theory [44] and provide a standardized methodology that is practical consistently to whatsoever species from whatsoever taxonomic group [40]–[42], [45].

Benchmark A measures extinction risk based on exceeding a threshold of population decline (30% for Vulnerable, 50% for Endangered, and fourscore% for Critically Endangered) over a timeframe of iii generation lengths, a measure out of reproductive turnover charge per unit, in the recent past. To determine if a species could exist assessed under Benchmark A, percent decline was calculated for each species based on country-level estimates of mangrove expanse loss betwixt 1980 and 2005 [27] within the species range. Mangrove species generation length, divers equally the median age of a reproducing individual based on the estimated historic period at primeval reproduction and the estimated age at oldest reproduction [35], was conservatively estimated to range between 10 and 40 years based on recent aging techniques developed for Rhizophora, Avicennia and Sonneratia spp. [46]–[48]. As few or no data are available to approximate generation length for all of the mangrove species in this study, the lowest value (10 years) was used uniformly, based on an assumption that mangrove species reproduce throughout their lifetime and can alive to an historic period of at least 15 to 20 years. The two Acrostichum species may be the exception, as stands can live to at to the lowest degree 15 to twenty years, simply not likely private plants. However, this has no bearing on the results for these two species, equally declines over the minimum time menstruation required under Criterion A (10 years) do non meet the threshold for a threatened category.

Information based on mangrove area declines from 1980 to 2005 [27] fall within the maximum time frame of iii generation lengths estimated for mangroves (30 years) immune under Criterion A. Notwithstanding, the relationship betwixt mangrove area loss and species range and population reduction is rarely linear, as mangrove area loss can occur in areas of lower or higher population density, and therefore tin can represent a slower or faster decline of the actual population size [49]. In some cases, area loss can be preceded by impoverishment, due to general decrease in the quality of the wood, or due to specific harvesting of highly prized species like Rhizophora spp, which tin can pb to an underestimation of the rate of disappearance of certain species. Similarly, equally the margin-to-area ratio in mangroves is high, not only tin deterioration occur quickly, but changes can occur before areal decreases are detectable [fifty], including species declines or changes in customs limerick. Past contrast, some species are pioneering or are able to re-colonize rapidly after disturbance. For this reason, skillful noesis and information on the life history traits of each mangrove species, including growth rate and propagation rate, generalized abundance, and where possible, data on pre-1980 declines or connected severity of threats within a restricted geographic distribution were used in combination with mangrove area decline within a species range to estimate and quantify a species' global population decline under Benchmark A.

Criterion B measures extinction run a risk based on a modest geographic range size (extent of occurrence <20,000 km² or area of occupancy <ii,000 kmⁱⁱ to run across the lowest threshold for Vulnerable) combined with continued decline and habitat fragmentation. The majority of species assessed nether Benchmark B for case, had an area of occupancy estimated to exist less than ii,000 km² due to very specific habitat requirements, such as freshwater-dominated river margins or patchy distributions. However, as many mangrove areas are ofttimes patchily distributed over considerable distances, estimations of area of occupancy or extent of occurrence for mangrove species were conservative. Criterion C is applied to species with small population sizes estimated to be less than ten,000 mature individuals, with continued pass up. Although not used to assess mangrove species in this study, Criterion D is practical to species with less than ane,000 mature individuals or those with an area of occupancy of less than twenty km^two, and Benchmark E is applied to species with extensive population data that allows for population declines to be appropriately modeled over fourth dimension. A category of Near Threatened is assigned to species that come shut to but exercise not fully run into the all the thresholds or weather required for a threatened category under Criterion A, B, C, D or E.

Results and Discussion

Of the 70 species of true mangrove species, 11 (xvi%) qualified for one of the iii Cherry List categories of threat: Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable (Tabular array 1). Heritiera is the genus with the almost threatened mangrove species with 2 of the 3 species (66%) in threatened categories. Vii species (10%) only partially met the thresholds for a threatened category and were therefore listed as Nearly Threatened. Four species (6%) were listed as Data Deficient primarily due to critical gaps in cognition of the extent of the species distribution east.m., Acanthus xiamenensis from the extensively developed and heavily polluted estuaries of the Jiulong River in Fujian Province, China [53]. A listing of Data Deficient does not preclude future listing of the species when more information are gathered. Forty-eight species (68%) were assessed every bit Least Concern. Even though mangrove area continues to be lost where the majority of these "To the lowest degree Concern" species are found [27], the global population decline over the past 30 years for each of these species was estimated to be below the threshold required for consignment to a threatened category. Some of the "Least Concern" species besides are considered to be common, fast-growing, early-successional species.

Table 1. Mangrove species, Red List Categories and Criteria, and summary of supplemental data (CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Nigh Threatened, LC = To the lowest degree Business concern, DD = Data Deficient).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010095.t001

Of special concern are the 2 species that are listed equally Critically Endangered, the highest probability of extinction measured by the IUCN Red Listing. The rare Sonneratia griffithii is distributed in parts of India and southeast Asia, where a combined lxxx% loss of all mangrove expanse has occurred within its patchy range over the by 60 years, with significant losses in Malaysia [54], primarily due to the clearing of mangrove areas for rice farming, shrimp aquaculture, and coastal development [55]. This species is already reported to exist locally extinct in a number of areas inside its range, and less than 500 mature individuals are known from India. Bruguiera hainesii is an even rarer species and is but known from a few fragmented locations in Republic of indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar [56], Singapore and Papua New Republic of guinea. It has very depression rates of propagation and low rates of germination. It is estimated that there are less than 250 mature individuals remaining. For these species, urgent protection is needed for remaining individuals equally well as research to determine minimum viable population size.

All simply two species that were listed in threatened categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) or as Well-nigh Threatened are rare or uncommon, and/or take pocket-size population sizes. The ii Nigh Threatened species, Sonneratia ovata and Brownlowia tersa, are common throughout their relatively wide range, but take experienced severe loss at their range margins. It is well established that rare species (species with very small population or range size, low affluence, and/or associated specialist blueprint of resources use [57]), have a higher intrinsic gamble of extinction [58], [59]. As the IUCN Carmine List Criteria are based on extinction adventure, the quantitative thresholds for each threatened category are designed to capture these rare or uncommon species with small ranges and/or low population sizes.

Being uncommon, nevertheless, is not e'er a precursor to being threatened. At to the lowest degree five of the species listed every bit Least Concern are considered uncommon. Full general abundance was only one factor that was used to interpret global population condition for a species in combination with overall area loss in a species range and other life history traits. For example, a species with a low risk of extinction tin be uncommon, but can grow over a very big range with little or low mangrove area loss. Alternately, information technology can exist uncommon and be in a smaller range or degraded area, but be fast-growing, hardy and easily propagated, (due east.k., more of a habitat generalist). Withal, mangrove species abundance mostly is non the aforementioned across the unabridged range of a given species, equally mangrove species tend to be less common at their range margins and can be locally arable where salinity or other environmental factors are closer to each species' optimum [51].

Many mangrove forests showroom singled-out zones of species that are controlled past the height of the substrate relative to mean body of water level and the associated variation in frequency of elevation, salinity and wave activity [51]. Such zonation is non always apparent [60] and may be disrupted by anthropogenic disturbance. Seven of 16 (44%) mangrove species found primarily in the upstream estuarine or high intertidal region are in threatened or Near Threatened categories. These species have very specific freshwater-dominated habitat requirements, are often patchily distributed, and are oftentimes occupy areas that are cleared start for the construction of shrimp or fish ponds, or for agriculture. For case, populations of the Endangered Heritiera fomes and Heritiera globosa in Southeast Asia take been severely reduced due to coastal development, the cosmos of ponds, reduction of freshwater from the cosmos of dams, and expansion of palm and timber plantations. Iii of 10 (30%) of mangrove species institute primarily in the downstream estuarine and low intertidal region are in threatened or Near Threatened categories. Many of these fringe species, such as the Almost Threatened Aegiceras floridum, have loftier salinity requirements, and are but establish along beaches and in rocky or sandy substrate [61]. In these mangrove areas, populations are experiencing astringent declines due to littoral development and the conversion of tidal wetlands to fish ponds or other land uses.

The primary threats to all mangrove species are habitat destruction and removal of mangrove areas for conversion to aquaculture, agriculture, urban and coastal development, and overexploitation. Of these, clear-felling, aquaculture and over-exploitation of fisheries in mangroves are expected to be the greatest threats to mangrove species over the adjacent 10–fifteen years [29]. Climate change is also considered a threat to all mangrove species, particularly at the edges of a species range where ocean temperature and other ecology changes may exist greatest. With a rise in sea level, the habitat requirements of each species will exist disrupted, and species zones will suffer mortality in their nowadays tidal zones and effort to re-plant at higher elevations in areas that were previously landward zones [62]. Mangrove species with a habitat on the landward margin are particularly vulnerable to bounding main-level rising if, owing to coastal evolution, their movement inland is blocked. Species that occur at the landward border, or upstream in tidal estuaries include Brownlowia tersa, Bruguiera sexangula, Nypa fruticans, Phoenix paludosa, Lumnitzera racemosa, Lumnitzera littorea, Sonneratia caseolaris, Sonneratia lanceolata, and Xylocarpus granatum. Species that are easily dispersed, and grow or reproduce rapidly, such equally Rhizophora spp may cope amend than those which are slower growing and slower to reproduce such equally Bruguiera spp, Ceriops spp, or Xylocarpus spp.

Geographic Areas of Concern

Range declines for all mangrove species from habitat loss and localized threats are occurring in all tropical coastal regions of the earth [27]; yet, some regions show greater losses than others. Unlike many other forests, mangrove forests consist of relatively few species, with thirty to forty species in the near diverse sites and merely ane or a few in many places [51]. Globally, mangrove biodiversity is highest in the Indo-Malay Philippine Archipelago (Figure 1), with between 36 and 46 of the lxx known mangrove species occurring in this region. Although less than 15% of species present in this region are in threatened categories (Figure ii), the Indo-Malay Philippine Archipelago has one of the highest rates of mangrove area loss globally, with an estimated 30% reduction in mangrove surface area since 1980 [27]. Mangroves in this region are primarily threatened past clearing for the creation of shrimp and fish ponds [63], for example, approximately half of the 279,000 ha of mangroves in the Philippines lost from 1951 to 1988 were developed into fish/shrimp culture ponds [64]. Camptostemon philippinense, listed every bit Endangered, has an estimated 1200 or less individuals remaining due to the extensive removal of mangrove areas for both aquaculture and fuelwood within its range. The Endangered Heritiera globosa has the most restricted distribution in this region (extent of occurrence<5,000 km²) as information technology is only known from western Kalimantan, where its patchily distributed, primarily riverine habitat has been extensively cleared by logging activities and for the cosmos of timber and oil palm plantations.

Figure 1. Mangrove Species Richness: Native distributions of mangrove species.

Not shown are introduced ranges: Rhizophora stylosa in French Polynesia, Bruguiera sexangula, Conocarpus erectus, and Rhizophora mangle in Hawaii, Sonneratia apelata in China, and Nypa fruticans in Republic of cameroon and Nigeria.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0010095.g001

Geographic areas with a high numbers of mangrove species at elevated risk of extinction are likely to exhibit loss of ecosystem function, especially in areas of low mangrove diversity. Globally, the highest proportion of threatened mangrove species is found along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Central America (Effigy 2). Four of the x (40%) mangrove species nowadays along the Pacific coasts of Republic of costa rica, Panama and Colombia are listed in one of the iii threatened categories, and a fifth species Rhizophora samoensis is listed as Nearly Threatened. Three of these species, Avicennia bicolor, Mora oleifera and Tabebuia palustris all listed as Vulnerable, are rare or uncommon species only known from the Pacific coast of Cardinal America. All-encompassing clearing of mangroves for settlement, agriculture and shrimp ponds are the major causes of mangrove pass up in Latin America [65], even though there is little compensating economical return from conversion of mangrove areas to agriculture [66].

Afterwards the Indo-Malay Philippine Archipelago, the Caribbean region has the second highest mangrove area loss relative to other global regions, with approximately 24% of mangrove area lost over the past quarter-century [27]. Several surveys of Caribbean mangroves study significant regional declines due to a myriad of threats including littoral development, upland runoff of pollutants, sewage, and sediments, petroleum pollution, storms and hurricanes, solid waste product, pocket-size-scale extraction for fuelwood and minor clearcutting, conversion to aquaculture, conversion to landfills, conversion for terrestrial agronomics, tourism (involving construction of boardwalks and moorings, as well as boat wakes), and prospecting for pharmaceuticals [67], [68]. However, with the exception of the Primal American endemic Pelliciera rhizophorae listed as Vulnerable, the 8 other mangrove species present in the Caribbean region did non qualify for a threatened category considering they are relatively widespread and found in other regions such as Westward Africa or Brazil. After Indonesia, Australia, and Mexico, Brazil has the fourth largest area of mangroves [27], [69], and although some areas are afflicted past aquaculture, human settlement and water pollution [70], [71], there has been very fiddling estimated mangrove area loss in Brazil since 1980 [27].

Mangrove multifariousness is naturally low at the northern and southern extremities of mangrove global range, such as southern Brazil, the Arabian Peninsula, and the northern and southern Atlantic coasts of Africa, also as on islands in the S Pacific [72] and the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Although the bulk of species present at these extremes of mangrove global distribution take very widespread global ranges, and have non been listed in threatened categories, populations are more at adventure from area declines at these extremes of their distribution where mangrove multifariousness is lowest [51].

The Price of Mangrove Species Loss

The loss of individual mangroves species and associated ecosystem services has directly economic consequences for human livelihoods, especially in regions with low mangrove species diversity and low ecosystem resilience to species loss. In the Gulf of California, for example, where there are only 4 mangrove species present (Avicennia germinans, Rhizophora samoensis, Laguncularia racemosa, Conocarpus erectus), it is estimated that one linear kilometer of the species R. samoensis, listed as Nigh Threatened, provides up to 1 ha of essential marine habitat and provides a median almanac value of US$37,000 in the fish and blueish crab fisheries [73].

Nutrients and carbon from mangrove forests provide essential support to other virtually shore marine ecosystems such as coral reefs and seagrass areas, and enrich littoral food webs and fishery production [1], [28]. Avicennia species are dominant in inland or basin mangrove forests in many parts of the world. Notwithstanding, 3 of 8 (38%) species in this genus are in threatened or Near Threatened categories. Loss of these species and the mangrove forests they dominate volition have far reaching consequences for water quality and other near shore ecosystems in coastal communities around the globe. For example, water purification services provided by these mangrove species in the Muthurajawela Marsh, Sri Lanka are valued at more than than $Usa 1.8 million per year [74].

Riverine or freshwater-preferring species, such equally the Endangered Heritiera fomes and Heritiera globosa, buffer coastal rivers and freshwater communities from sedimentation, erosion and excess nutrients. Heritiera globosa is a very rare species bars to western Borneo, while Heritiera fomes is more widespread in south Asia, only has experienced pregnant declines in many parts of its range. Localized or regional loss of these littoral or fringe mangrove species reduces protection for coastal areas from storms, erosion, tidal waves, and floods [6], [ix], with the level of protection as well dependent on the quality of remaining habitat [8]. Ii of iv (fifty%) fringe mangrove species present in Southeastern Asia (Sonneratia griffithii, Aegiceras floridum) are listed in threatened or Near Threatened categories. In other areas, such every bit Brazil, the central Pacific islands, or West Africa, fringe mangrove forests are frequently comprised of just one or 2 species. Fifty-fifty though these species are globally listed equally Least Concern, local and regional loss of mangroves in these areas volition have devastating impacts for coastal communities. The loss of species may indeed be of greatest economic business concern in rural, high-poverty areas where subsistence communities rely on mangrove areas for fishing and for direct harvesting of mangroves for fuel, structure or other economic products [17], [75]–[77].

Finally it is of import to note that the corporeality of mangrove area in some countries is increasing due to reforestation and restoration efforts [27], [29]. Although regeneration of degraded mangrove areas is thought to be a viable option in some areas [17], [78], successful regeneration is generally only achieved by the planting of monocultures of fast-growing species, such as Rhizophora or Avicenna species. Many rare and slow growing species are not replaced [29], and many species cannot be easily replanted with success. In sum, mangrove areas may exist able to be rehabilitated in some regions, but species and ecosystems cannot be effectively restored.

Conclusions and Recommendations

There are currently eleven international treaties and instruments that afford some protection, at least on newspaper, to mangroves in general, some of which have been in force for over l years. These treaties and instruments include the RAMSAR Convention, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution, CITES, the International Tropical Timber Understanding, the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environs of the Wider Caribbean Region and the Convention on Biological Diversity [70], [79]. Even so, these treaties and instruments practise not necessarily confer legal protection to mangrove ecosystems, and none of them address conservation, preservation, or management of detail mangrove species. Similarly, the electric current trend of global pass up of mangrove surface area [27] indicates that exploitation continues unabated despite the presence of these laws and treaties.

With some exceptions, mangrove areas and species of business concern are generally not adequately represented within protected areas. In add-on to legislative actions, initiatives are needed on the part of governments, NGOs, and individual individuals to acquire and protect privately-owned parcels of coastal land, specially those that contain viable populations of threatened mangrove species. National legislation and management plans are in identify in some countries, simply enforcement and further planning are required to protect individual species that may exist locally uncommon or threatened, equally well every bit to protect the entire mangrove areas and important ecosystem functions.

IUCN Cherry List assessments for species can be regularly updated, depending on the availability of better or new data, and whatsoever subsequent changes in a species Cerise List Category can be an important indicator of the success or failure of conservation actions. As the impacts of mangrove area loss on mangrove species can be variable, estimation of species composition, private species decline, or population size in a given surface area can be ameliorate refined by available remote sensing techniques [80]–[85]. Similarly, demographic modeling [86] is needed to establish a minimum viable population size for mangrove species, especially for those that are highly threatened. Every bit ecosystem values tin can be overestimated or underestimated, additional studies and cost/do good analyses are needed to decide the economical and ecological impacts of harvesting, habitat loss, and habitat deterioration on populations of private mangrove species.

At least two mangrove species are at high risk of extinction and may disappear within the side by side decade if protective measures are non enforced. Although not formally assessed by IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, hybrid species face the same threats and provide ecosystem services equivalent to true mangrove species. Their conservation should not exist overlooked, especially as they are important for speciation and can exist significant drivers of diversification over fourth dimension. We maintain that the loss of private species will not only contribute to the rapid loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function, but will also negatively impact human livelihoods and ecosystem function, specially in areas with depression species diversity and/or high area loss.

Acknowledgments

We give thanks the following people and organizations for their aid with the IUCN Mangrove Scarlet List Assessment: Giacomo Abrusci, Moonyeen Alava, Lem Casten, Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, Michael Hoffmann, Sheila McKenna, Roger McManus, Mohamed Omar Said Mohamed, Katrien Quisthoudt, Mike Palomar, Jeremy Raynal, Mia Raynal, Jennifer Smith, Marker Spalding, Annamalai University India, Conservation International, Conservation International Philippines, First Philippine Conservation Incorporated, National Parks Board Singapore, Imperial Caribbean Cruises Ocean Fund, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Writer Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: BP KEC SRL. Performed the experiments: BP KEC NCD AME JCE EF ESF KK NK SRL TM Gem VNN JEO JHP SGSI JS SS YW JWHY. Analyzed the data: BP LC JS. Contributed reagents/materials/assay tools: LC NCD AME JCE EF ESF KK NK TM Precious stone VNN JEO JHP SGSI SS YW JWHY. Wrote the paper: BP.

References

1. one. Ellison AM (2008) Managing mangroves with benthic biodiversity in mind: moving across roving banditry. J Sea Res 59: 2–15.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. ii. Duke NC, Meynecke JO, Dittmann S, Ellison AM, Acrimony Thou, et al. (2007) A world without mangroves. Science 317: 41.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
3. iii. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Printing. 137 p.
4. iv. Mumby PJ, Edwards AJ, Arias-Gonzalez JE, Lindeman KC, Blackwell PG, et al. (2004) Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427: 533–536.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Kathiresan K, Bingham BL (2001) Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems. Advances Mar Biol 40: 81–251.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. vi. Ewel KC, Twilley RR, Ong JE (1998) Different kinds of mangrove forests provide dissimilar goods and services. Global Ecol Biogeog Let 7: 83–94.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, et al. (1997) The value of the world'southward ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. Dahdouh-Guebas F, Jayatissa LP, Di Nitto D, Bosire JO, Lo Seen D, et al. (2005) How effective were mangroves equally a defence confronting the recent seismic sea wave? Curr Biol xv: 443–447.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, et al. (2008) Coastal ecosystem based management with non-linear ecological functions and values. Science 319: 321–323.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. ten. Fosberg FR (1971) Mangroves vs. tidal waves. Biol Conserv 4: 38–39.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
11. xi. Das Southward, Vincent JR (2009) Mangroves protected villages and reduce death price during Indian super whirlwind. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106: 7357–7360.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Luther D, Greenburg R (2009) Mangroves: a global perspective on the evolution and conservation of their terrestrial vertebrates. Bioscience 59: 602–612.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Robertson AI, Duke NC (1987) Mangroves as nursery sites: comparisons of the abundance and species limerick of fish and crustaceans in mangroves and other nearshore habitats in tropical Australia. Mar Biol 96: 193–205.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Primavera JH (1998) Mangroves equally nurseries: shrimp populations in mangrove and non-mangrove habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 46: 457–464.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Dorenbosch M, van Riel MC, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde Chiliad (2004) The human relationship of reef fish densities to the proximity of mangrove and seagrass nurseries. Estuar Declension Shelf Sci threescore: 37–48.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Ellison AM, Banking company MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, et al. (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front end Ecol Environ 3: 479–486.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Walters BB, Rönnbäck P, Kovacs JM, Crona B, Hussain SA, et al. (2008) Ethnobiology, socio-economics and direction of mangrove forests: a review. Aquatic Bot 89: 220–236.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Field CB, Osborn JG, Hoffman LL, Polsenberg JF, Ackerly DD, et al. (1998) Mangrove biodiversity and ecosystem function. Global Ecol Biogeog Let 7: three–xiv.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Sullivan C (2005) The importance of mangroves Available: www.vi_shandwildlife.com/Education/FactSheet/PDF_Docs/28Mangroves.pdf. Accessed 2009 June i.
20. 20. Ong JE (1993) Mangroves – a carbon source and sink. Chemosphere 27: 1097–1107.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Dittmar T, Hertkorn N, Kattner G, Lara RJ (2006) Mangroves, a major source of dissolved organic carbon to the oceans. Global Biogeochem Cycles twenty: GB1012.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Dodd RS, Ong JE (2008) Future of mangrove ecosystems to 2025. In: Polunin NVC, editor. Aquatic ecosystems: Trends and global prospects. Cambridge: Foundation for Ecology Conservation, Cambridge Academy Press. pp. 172–187.
23. 23. Cohen JE, Small C, Mellinger A, Gallup J, Sachs J (1997) Estimates of coastal populations. Science 278: 1209–1213.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: one of the world'south threatened major tropical environments. BioScience 51: 807–815.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Upadhyay VP, Ranjan R, Singh JS (2002) Human-mangrove conflicts: The fashion out. Curr Sci Bharat 83: 1328–1336.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. FAO (2003) Status and trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. In: Wilkie ML, Fortuna Due south, editors. Forest Resources Cess Working Newspaper No. 63. Rome: Forest Resources Sectionalisation, FAO. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j1533e/j1533e00.HTM. Accessed 2009 Baronial 1.
27. 27. FAO (2007) The Globe's Mangroves 1980-2005, FAO Forestry Paper 153. Rome: Forest Resources Segmentation, FAO. 77 p.
28. 28. Miththapala S (2008) Mangroves. Coastal Ecosystems Series Book 2. Colombo Sri Lanka: Ecosystems and Livelihoods Grouping Asia IUCN 28.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Alongi DM (2002) Present state and future of the world'southward mangrove forests. Environ Conserv 29: 331–349.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Tomlinson Atomic number 82 (1986) The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Academy Printing. 413 p.
31. 31. Stevens PF (2001) Angiosperm Phylogeny Website Version 9, June 2008. Available: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/inquiry/APweb/. Accessed 2009 July 25.
32. 32. Lugo AE, Snedaker SC (1974) The ecology of mangroves. Annu Rev Ecol Syst five: 39–63.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Duke NC (1992) Mangrove floristics and biogeography. In: Robertson AI, Alongi DM, editors. Tropical mangrove ecosystems. Washington DC: American Geophysical Union. pp. 63–100.
34. 34. Jayatissa LP, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2002) A review of the floral composition and distribution of mangroves in Sri Lanka. Bot J Lin Soc 138: 29–43.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red Listing Categories and Criteria Version 3.1. Available: http://www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.html. Accessed 2009 Baronial 1.
36. 36. Hoffmann M, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Gascon C, Hawkins AFA, et al. (2008) Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endanger Species Res vi: 113–125.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 71–76.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. De Grammont PC, Cuarón AD (2006) An evaluation of threatened species categorization Systems use don the American continent. Conserv Biol 20: 14–27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Baillie J, Bennun LA, Stuart SN (2005) Using Red Listing Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil Trans Soc B 360: 255–268.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. forty. Schipper J, Chanson JS, Chiozza F, Cox NA, Hoffmann M, et al. (2008) The Condition of the World's Land and Marine Mammals: Variety, Threat, and Noesis. Science 322: 225–230.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Carpenter KE, Abrar One thousand, Aeby Grand, Aronson RB, Banks Southward, et al. (2008) 1-third of reef-edifice corals confront elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560–563.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, et al. (2004) Condition and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783–1786.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. IUCN (2008) IUCN Crimson List of Threatened Species. Bachelor: http://world wide web.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2009 August ane.
44. 44. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, et al. (2008) Quantification of extinction hazard: the background to IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22: 1424–1442.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akcakaya Hour, et al. (2004) Measuring global trendes in the condition of biodiversity: Red List indices for birds. PLoS Biol 2: 2294–2304.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Verheyden A, Kairo JG, Beeckman H, Koedam North (2004) Growth rings, growth band formation and age determination in the mangrove Rhizophora mucronata. Ann Bot 94: 59–66.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Duarte CM, Thampanya U, Terrados J, Geertz-Hansen O, Fortes Medico (1999) The determination of the age and growth of SE Asian mangroves seedlings from internodal counts. Mangroves Common salt Marshes 3: 251–257.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Duke NC, Pinzon ZS (1992) Aging Rhizophora seedlings from leaf Scar nodes: a technique for studying recruitment and growth in mangrove forests. Biotropica 24: 173–186.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Rodríguez ASL, Gaston KJ (2002) Rarity and conservation planning across geopolitical units. Conserv Biol 16: 674–682.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Koedam N, Dahdouh-Guebas F (2008) Ecological quality changes precede changes in quantity in mangrove forests. Scientific discipline. 319. : 321–232. Response to Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski Eastward, et al. (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based management with not-linear ecological functions and values.
51. 51. Duke NC, Ball MC, Ellison JC (1998) Factors influencing biodiversity and distributional gradients in mangroves. Global Ecol Biogeog Let seven: 27–47.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Sheue CR, Liu HY, Tsai CC, Rashid SMA, Yong JWH, et al. (2009) On the morphology and molecular basis of segregation of two species Ceriops zippeliana and C. decandra (Rhizophoraceae) from Southeastern Asia. Blumea 54, in press.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Xue Ten, Hon H, Charles T (2004) Cumulative environmental impacts and integrated coastal management: the case of Xiamen, China. J Environ Human being 71: 271–283.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Ong JE (2003) Plants of the Merbok mangrove, Kedah, Malaysia and the urgent need for their conservation. Folia Malaysiana 4: 1–18.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Ong JE (1995) The ecology of mangrove conservation and management. Hydrobiologia 295: 343–351.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Kress WJ, DeFilipps RA, Farr East, Kyi DYY (2003) A checklist of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers of Myanmar. Smithsonian Establishment: Contribution from the Usa National Herbarium 45: ane–590.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Rabinowitz D (1981) Vii forms of rarity. In: Synge H, editor. The biological aspects of rare establish conservation. New York: Wiley. pp. 205–217.
58. 58. Soulé ME (1986) Conservation biology: the science of scarity and diversity. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. 584 p.
59. 59. Simberloff D (1988) The contribution of population and community biology to conservation scientific discipline. Annu Rev Ecol Syst xix: 473–511.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
60. 60. Ellison AM, Mukherjee BB, Karim A (2000) Testing patterns of zonation in mangroves: scale-dependence and environmental correlates in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. J Ecol 88: 813–824.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Primavera JH, Sadaba RB, Lebata MJHL, Altamirano JP (2004) Handbook of Mangroves in the Philippines – Panay. Philippines: SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department and UNESCO Man and the Biosphere ASPACO Project. 106 p.
62. 62. Ellison J (2005) Holocene palynology and sea-level change in two estuaries in Southern Irian Jaya. Palaeogeog Palaeoclim Palaeoecol 220: 291–309.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Armitage D (2002) Socio-institutional dynamics and the political ecology of mangrove wood conservation in Fundamental Sulawesi, Indonesia. Global Environ Change 12: 203–217.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Primavera JH (2000) Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues. Ecol Econ 35: 91–106.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Lugo AE (2002) Conserving Latin American and Caribbean mangroves: issues and challenges. Madera y Bosques 8: 5–25.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Tovilla-Hernandez C, Espino de la Lanza G, Orihuela-Belmonte DE (2001) Touch on of logging on a mangrove swamp in S Mexico: cost/benefit assay. Rev Biol Trop 49: 571–580.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Ellison AM, Farnsworth EJ (1996) Anthropogenic disturbance of Caribbean mangrove ecosystems: past impacts, present trends, and time to come predictions. Biotropica 28: 549–565.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Duke NC, Pinzon ZS, Prada MCT (1997) Big-scale damage to mangrove forests following ii large oil spills in Panama. Biotropica 29: 2–xiv.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Spalding Dr., Blasco F, Field CD (1997) Earth Atlas of Mangroves. Okinawa Japan: International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems. 178 p.
70. 70. Pagliosa PA (2004) The impact of urbanization on biosphere reserves: a comparative study of protected and not-protected coastal areas. Available: http://www.unesco.org.uy/mab/documentospdf/PPAGLIOSA-MABAWARD.pdf. Accessed 2009 August ane.
71. 71. Lamparelli CC, Rodrigues , FO , Moura Exercise (1997) Long-term cess of an oil-spill in a mangrove woods in Sao Paulo, Brazil. In: Kjerfve B, Lacerda LD, Diop EHS, editors. Mangrove ecosystem studies in Latin America and Africa. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 191–203.
72. 72. Ellison JC (2009) Wetlands of the Pacific Islands region. Wetlands Ecol Manage 17: 169–206.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Aburto-Oropez O, Ezcurra E, Danemann G, Valdez V, Murria J, et al. (2008) Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. PNAS 105: 10456–10459.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Emerton L, Kekulandala LDCB (2002) Assessment of the economical value of Muthurajawela wetland. Occasional paper 4. Colombo: IUCN Sri Lanka Country Part. 28 p.
75. 75. Rönnbäck P (1999) The ecological basis for economic value of seafood product supported past mangrove ecosystems. Ecol Econ 29: 235–252.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
76. 76. Glaser M (2003) Interrelations betwixt mangrove ecosystem, local economy and social sustainability in Caete Estuary, Due north Brazil. Wetland Ecol Manage 11: 265–272.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
77. 77. Lopez-Hoffman L, Monroe LE, Narvaez E, Martinez-Ramos M, Ackerly DD (2006) Sustainability of mangrove harvesting: how exercise harvesters perceptions differ from ecological analysis? Ecol Soc 11: xiv.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
78. 78. Saenger, P (2002) Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conservation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 372 p.
79. 79. Farnsworth East J, Ellison AM (1997) The global conservation status of mangroves. Ambio 26: 328–334.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
80. 80. Neukermans Thousand, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo J Grand, Koedam N (2008) Mangrove species and stand up mapping in Gazi Bay (Republic of kenya) using Quickbird satellite imagery. J Spatial Science 52: 75–86.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
81. 81. Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2008) Long-term retrospection on mangrove development using transdisciplinary approaches: a review. Aquat Bot 89: 80–92.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
82. 82. Dahdouh-Guebas F, Van Hiel E, Chan JC-W, Jayatissa LP, Koedam N (2005) Qualitative distinction of congeneric and introgressive mangrove species in mixed patchy woods assemblages using high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery (IKONOS). Syst Biodivers two: 113–119.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
83. 83. Kovacs JM, Wang J, Flores-Verdugo F (2005) Mapping mangrove foliage area index at the species level using IKONOS and LAI-2000 sensors for the Agua Brava Lagoon, Mexican Pacific. Estuar Coastal Shelf Science 62: 377–384.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
84. 84. Wang Fifty, Sousa WP, Gong P, Biging S (2004) Comparing of IKONOS and QuickBird images for mapping mangrove species on the Caribbean area coast of Panama. Remote Sens Environ 91: 432–440.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
85. 85. Green EP, Clark CD, Mumby PJ, Edwards AJ, Ellis Air conditioning (1998) Remote sensing techniques for mangrove mapping. Internat J Remote Sens five: 935–956.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
86. 86. Clarke PJ (1995) The population dynamics of the mangrove Avicennia marina: demographic synthesis and predictive modelling. Hydrobiol 295: 83–88.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

jacksonfinted.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010095

Share this post