Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHapsari, KA
dc.contributor.authorAvellaneda, WJB
dc.contributor.authorvan Maanen, B
dc.contributor.authorRestrepo, JC
dc.contributor.authorPolanía, J
dc.contributor.authorCastillo, DJS
dc.contributor.authorVargas, LFG
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez-Rodríguez, JA
dc.contributor.authorUrrego, DH
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-18T13:20:58Z
dc.date.issued2024-05-28
dc.date.updated2024-06-17T13:43:35Z
dc.description.abstractMangroves are under immense anthropogenic pressures globally which are further exacerbated by their accessibility to humans. To minimize human access hence pressures to the ecosystem, establishment of protected areas is often employed. However, the ecological effectiveness of protected areas, which influences their legal durability, is rarely assessed beyond curbing deforestation. Furthermore, little is known about whether protection could still provide a positive ecological impact if the sites are easily accessible, i.e., adjacent to urban areas, near roads, small in area and/or fragmented. To improve our understanding thereon, this study compares anthropogenic disturbance severity, forest structures and ecosystem carbon (C) stocks of protected and unprotected mangroves near Barranquilla, Colombia's largest coastal city. The outcomes suggest that accessible, yet protected mangrove has a mean disturbance index of 5.3, lower than unprotected mangrove (mean 11). Protected mangrove also has higher mean (± SD) tree basal area (26.5 ± 15.6 m2 ha−1), mean densities of tree, sapling and seedling (899 ± 398, 5155 ± 7860, and 68,837 ± 73,899 individual ha−1, respectively) and biomass C stock (mean 89.5 ± 39 Mg ha−1) than those of accessible unprotected mangrove (mean basal area 19.3 ± 5 m2 ha−1; mean tree, sapling and seedling densities 823 ± 215, 749 ± 94, and 33,727 ± 44,882 individual ha−1, respectively; mean biomass C stock 60.2 ± 14.5 Mg ha−1). Results suggest that the current sediment C stocks, that is higher in unprotected than protected mangroves (396.8 ± 552.6 and 142.4 ± 205.7 Mg ha−1, respectively), are not primarily driven by conservation status, but by long-term processes that likely pre-date the protected status designation. Mangrove protection, however, could help maintain carbon stocks in soils and biomass and the potential for further soil carbon sequestration, and thus are pivotal in determining future trajectories of mangrove climate mitigation potential. This study shows that even imperfect protection offers ecological benefits to highly accessible ecosystems. Hence, focus should be placed on optimizing these benefits and minimizing their vulnerability to downgrading, downsizing and degazettement.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Council (NERC)en_GB
dc.format.extent121984-
dc.identifier.citationVol. 564, article 121984en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121984
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/V012800/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/136319
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0001-6115-5362 (van Maanen, Barend)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0001-7938-5529 (Urrego, Dunia H)
dc.identifierScopusID: 10639674700 (Urrego, Dunia H)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11220445en_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.24378/exe.5246en_GB
dc.rights© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectMangroveen_GB
dc.subjectProtected areaen_GB
dc.subjectPADDD risken_GB
dc.subjectUrban ecologyen_GB
dc.subjectForest structureen_GB
dc.subjectCarbon stocken_GB
dc.subjectNeotropicen_GB
dc.titleStructure and carbon stocks of accessible mangroves under different conservation status in the Colombian Caribbean (article)en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-06-18T13:20:58Z
dc.identifier.issn0378-1127
exeter.article-number121984
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability: The research data supporting this publication is available at Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.11220445) and the University of Exeter’s institutional repository.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1872-7042
dc.identifier.journalForest Ecology and Managementen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofForest Ecology and Management, 564
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-05-09
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-05-28
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-06-18T13:06:04Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2024-06-18T13:21:08Z
refterms.panelCen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2024-05-28
exeter.rights-retention-statementno


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).