4.7 Article

Are we failing to protect threatened mangroves in the Sundarbans world heritage ecosystem?

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep21234

关键词

-

资金

  1. Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, United Kingdom [BDCA-2013-6]
  2. BBSRC [BB/P004202/1, BB/J020567/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. NERC [ceh020004, ceh020002] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J020567/1, BB/P004202/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh020002, ceh020004] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Sundarbans, the largest mangrove ecosystem in the world, is under threat from historical and future human exploitation and sea level rise. Limited scientific knowledge on the spatial ecology of the mangroves in this world heritage ecosystem has been a major impediment to conservation efforts. Here, for the first time, we report on habitat suitability analyses and spatial density maps for the four most prominent mangrove species - Heritiera fomes, Excoecaria agallocha, Ceriops decandra and Xylocarpus mekongensis. Globally endangered H. fomes abundances declined as salinity increased. Responses to nutrients, elevation, and stem density varied between species. H. fomes and X. mekongensis preferred upstream habitats. E. agallocha and C. decandra preferred down-stream and mid-stream habitats. Historical harvesting had negative influences on H. fomes, C. decandra and X. mekongensis abundances. The established protected area network does not support the most suitable habitats of these threatened species. We therefore recommend a reconfiguration of the network to include these suitable habitats and ensure their immediate protection. These novel habitat insights and spatial predictions can form the basis for future forest studies and spatial conservation planning, and have implications for more effective conservation of the Sundarbans mangroves and the many other species that rely on them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据