DOCSLIB.ORG

Gabriel Akoko Juma.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND CARBON STOCKS IN SEAGRASS MEADOWS WITHIN EASTERN AND WESTERN CREEKS OF GAZI BAY, KENYA GABRIEL AKOKO JUMA A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science of Chuka University CHUKA UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 2019 DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ii COPYRIGHT ©2019 All rights reserved. No part of this Thesis may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means of photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the author or Chuka University. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my parents, Mr. Agustinus Juma and Mrs. Rosemary Atieno who were always very proud of me. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The journey to the development of this thesis has been momentous and challenging but its success is one of the greatest milestones in my academic life. I accord my utmost appreciation to the people who nurtured the dream and passion in me, supported and guided me to see the fulfillment of this academic endeavor. To a greater extent, I am grateful to Prof. Adiel Magana of Chuka University for his mentorship and supervision. The inspiration, in-depth scrutiny of my work and guidance he gave were of great significance. Special appreciation is also accorded to Dr. James Kairo of Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa for his supervision and support during my field work and thesis development. I sincerely thank the panel members of Chuka University at the various developmental stages of this thesis, particularly, the Director of Chuka University Board of Post Graduate Studies, Dr. Moses Muraya and Chair of Chuka University Department of Environmental Studies and Resource Development, Dr. Lemmy Muriuki for the necessary support and insights. Their suggestions and professional comments helped me to maintain focus leading to successful finishing of this work. In a special way, I wish to acknowledge the support of the Field Assistants during data collection in Gazi. Special thanks is to KMFRI team including, Tom Kisiengo, Laitani Suleiman, Peter Musembi, Derrick Omollo, Charles Muthama, George Onduso and Julia Oluoch for assisting in the field sampling and laboratory sample processing. I am also grateful to the community members Hassan Omar and Hassan Amiri for offering boat transportation during the field work. Finally, I am grateful to the National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) for the issuance of the permit (NACOSTI/P/18/52699/24288), to undertake this study. This M.Sc. thesis was funded by Punguza Hewa Kaa: Partners in Carbon Project, awarded to KMFRI by Newton Fund for Institutional Links Grant, to whom am very grateful. v ABSTRACT Seagrass meadows are one of the most important blue carbon ecosystems within the seascape environment providing both ecological and economic benefits. They act as breeding and feeding grounds for fish and other organisms; perform carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and other ecosystem services. Through their carbon capture and storage ability, seagrass can be incorporated in carbon offset schemes. However, they are highly degraded from both anthropogenic and natural factors. Carbon stocks assessment is required in understanding dynamics of seagrass meadows. In Gazi Bay, Kenya, carbon storage in the seagrass meadows has been determined in the open waters of the Bay. The present study aimed at contributing to carbon dynamics of Gazi bay by assessing the distribution, abundance and carbon storage in seagrass within the mangrove fringed creeks. The objectives included assessing distribution and abundance of seagrass in the creeks, determining above and below ground seagrass biomass and comparing sediment carbon stocks between vegetated and un-vegetated sites. Stratified random sampling strategy was used in collecting data within 80 square plots of 0.25m by 0.25m. Five species formation viz; Thalassia hemprichii, Cymodocea rotundata, Cymodocea serrulata, Enhalus acoroides, and Thalassidendron ciliatum were encountered as either single or mixed stand. A total of 480 samples were collected for sediment and biomass determination in the laboratory. The results showed a higher seagrass diversity in the Eastern creek, (H = 1.71), than Western creek, (H = 1.67). There was also a significant difference in the total biomass between the creeks (t= -8.44, df. = 53, p < 0.0001) and among species (F = 14.6, df = 79, p < 0.0001) with a mean of 7.25 ± 4.2 Mg C ha-1, (range: 4.1 - 12.9 Mg C ha-1). Sediment carbon varied between species within the 1.2 km2 creeks area; with a range from 97.6 to 302.4 Mg C ha-1, (mean: 183.4 ± 100.5 Mg C ha-1). This is lower than 236 ± 24 Mg C ha-1, reported in the open bay but within the global range. In all the species, vegetated areas showed significantly higher carbon values than the un-vegetated sites (t = 12.02 p < 0.0001). Based on this study, the total seagrass carbon stocks can be estimated at 21,118.8 Mg C. Using the IPCCC emission value of 7.9 tonnes of C ha-1, values for organic soils for wetlands, conservation of seagrass in these two mangrove fringed creeks will prevent emission of 2,682.13 Mg 1 of CO2 equivalent yr- to the atmosphere. The avoided emission could be bundled with the existing offset scheme in the bay involving mangroves. Inclusion of seagrass in carbon offset scheme has a long term benefits of climate, community livelihood and biodiversity conservation. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................................... ii DEDICATION............................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................. xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Study ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................... 4 1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5 1.3.1 Broad Objective ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 5 1.5 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 5 1.6 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................... 6 1.7 Limitation of the Study ........................................................................................ 6 1.8 Operational Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 9 2.1 Overview of Seagrass Ecology, Species Composition and Adaptations ............. 9 2.1.1 Ecosystem Services of Seagrass ................................................................. 10 2.1.2 Threats to Seagrass ..................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Management Practices ................................................................................ 13 2.2 Seagrass Species Distribution and Abundance .................................................. 14 2.2.1 Seagrass Abundance ................................................................................... 14 2.2.2. Seagrass Distribution ................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Seagrass Composition and Distribution in Kenya ...................................... 20 2.3 Above Ground and Below Ground Carbon Stocks in Seagrass Meadows ........ 22 2.4 Seagrass Sediment Organic Carbon ................................................................... 25 vii 2.4.1 Effects of Habitat Features on Long-term Corg Storage in Soils within the Seagrass Meadows ............................................................................... 26 2.5 Policy gaps and Implications ............................................................................. 34 2.6 Theoretical Framework of the Study ................................................................. 34 2.7 Conceptual Framework of the Study ................................................................. 34 CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................... 37 3.1 The Study Area .................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Global Seagrass Distribution and Diversity: a Bioregional Model ⁎ F

    Global Seagrass Distribution and Diversity: a Bioregional Model ⁎ F

    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 350 (2007) 3–20 www.elsevier.com/locate/jembe Global seagrass distribution and diversity: A bioregional model ⁎ F. Short a, , T. Carruthers b, W. Dennison b, M. Waycott c a Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, Durham, NH 03824, USA b Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD 21613, USA c School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 Queensland, Australia Received 1 February 2007; received in revised form 31 May 2007; accepted 4 June 2007 Abstract Seagrasses, marine flowering plants, are widely distributed along temperate and tropical coastlines of the world. Seagrasses have key ecological roles in coastal ecosystems and can form extensive meadows supporting high biodiversity. The global species diversity of seagrasses is low (b60 species), but species can have ranges that extend for thousands of kilometers of coastline. Seagrass bioregions are defined here, based on species assemblages, species distributional ranges, and tropical and temperate influences. Six global bioregions are presented: four temperate and two tropical. The temperate bioregions include the Temperate North Atlantic, the Temperate North Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Temperate Southern Oceans. The Temperate North Atlantic has low seagrass diversity, the major species being Zostera marina, typically occurring in estuaries and lagoons. The Temperate North Pacific has high seagrass diversity with Zostera spp. in estuaries and lagoons as well as Phyllospadix spp. in the surf zone. The Mediterranean region has clear water with vast meadows of moderate diversity of both temperate and tropical seagrasses, dominated by deep-growing Posidonia oceanica.
  • Whitfield Et Al. 2017.Pdf

    Whitfield Et Al. 2017.Pdf

    Biological Conservation 212 (2017) 256–264 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Life-histories explain the conservation status of two estuary-associated MARK pipefishes ⁎ Alan K. Whitfielda, , Thomas K. Mkareb,1, Peter R. Teskeb, Nicola C. Jamesa, Paul D. Cowleya a South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB), Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa b Molecular Zoology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Johannesburg, Aukland Park 2006, South Africa ABSTRACT Two endemic southern African pipefish species (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) co-occur in estuaries on the southeast coast of South Africa. The larger longsnout pipefish, Syngnathus temminckii, is abundant and has a wide range that comprises coastal and estuarine habitats in all three of the region's marine biogeographic provinces. In contrast, the smaller estuarine pipefish S. watermeyeri is critically endangered, and confined to a few warm- temperate estuaries. Here, we explore reasons for these considerable differences in conservation status. Fecundity is related to fish size, with large live-bearing S. temminckii males carrying up to 486 developing eggs/ embryos, compared to a maximum of only 44 recorded for S. watermeyeri. Loss of submerged seagrass habitats due to episodic river flooding appears to be correlated with the temporary absence of both species from such systems. Prolonged cessation in river flow to estuaries can cause a collapse in estuarine zooplankton stocks, a food resource that is important to pipefish species. The greater success of S. temminckii when compared to S. watermeyeri can be attributed to the former species' wider geographic distribution, fecundity, habitat selection and ability to use both estuaries and the marine environment as nursery areas.
  • The Botanical Importance Rating of the Estuaries in Former Ciskei / Transkei

    The Botanical Importance Rating of the Estuaries in Former Ciskei / Transkei

    THE BOTANICAL IMPORTANCE RATING OF THE ESTUARIES IN FORMER CISKEI / TRANSKEI B.M. COLLOTY, J.B. ADAMS AND G.C. BATE FINAL REPORT TO THE WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY UNIVERSITY OF PORT ELIZABETH WRC REPORT NO. TT 160/01 Obtainable from: Water Research Commission PO Box 824 Pretoria 0001 The publication of this report emanates from a project entitled: The Botanical Importance rating of Estuaries in former Ciskei and Transkei (WRC Project No K5/812) DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute ensoresement or recommendation for use. ISBN 1 86845 790 7 Printed in the Republic of South Africa ii The Jujura Estuary, one of several unique estuaries observed in this study. This small estuary had an above average depth of 2.8 m, remained open for extensive periods and was colonized by Zostera capensis. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION FOR THE RESEARCH There are an increasing number of people utilising the South African coastline. This is creating a need to evaluate estuary and coastal resources and to identify sensitive areas where careful planning and management must take place. Management tools such as importance rating systems and state or condition assessments have become necessary to summarise and express scientific information. The botanical importance rating system is one such method and was developed in a previous Water Research Commission Project (Adams et al.
  • Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Jimlters

    Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Jimlters

    Sdence for Solutions NOAA'S COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM Decision Analysis Series No. 12 Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent JiMlters Mark S. Fonseca, W. Judson Kenworthy, and Gordon W. Thayer November 1998 • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Coastal Ocean Office DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES The Decision Analysis Series has been established by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) to present docu­ ments for coastal decision makers which contain analytical treatments of major issues or topics. The issues, topics, and principle investigators have been selected through an exten­ sive peer review process. To learn more about the COP or the Decision Analysis Series, please write: NOM Coastal Ocean Q.fcfice . 1315 East-West Higqway. SilverSpring, Mar)iland •.. 20~10 . ,,_:_:~;::>> . ~-!,,,· () .:;:·"' ...... ' phoQe: 301-7;,J 3-333$·;:'':' ·· ' ' · ···.·. J~x: 30.1~ 713~4044 ·•··.. "fxf3b:··Ji{tp:tf)N~.cop[noaa:gov ' _;,·· ·,;-, ' " ' .. •.'·~ '' :~-·. Gover photographs (clockwise from top right): Propeller scarring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (courtesy C. Kruer); 250 -day old eelgrass (Zostera marina) plantings on a wave-swept shoal near Beaufort, NC (M. Fonseca); Alaskan eelgrass bed adjacent to a restoration site (courtesy US Army Corps of Engineers); eelgrass planting in San Diego Bay, California (courtesy G. Robilliard). • OTHER TITLES IN THE DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES No. 1. Able, Kenneth W. and Susan C. Kaiser. 1994. Synthesis of Summer Flouder Habitat Parameters. No.2. Matthews, Geoffrey A. and Thomas J. Minello. 1994. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation and Enhancement of Spartina Alterniflora Marshes in the United States.
  • The Global Distribution and Status of Seagrass Ecosystems

    The Global Distribution and Status of Seagrass Ecosystems

    The global distribution and status of seagrass ecosystems ^^ ^^^H Discussion paper prepared for tlie UNEP-WCWIC Global Seagrass Workshop St Pete's Beach, Florida, 9 November, 2001 Prepared by: Mark D. Spalding, Michelle L. Taylor, Sergio Martins, Edmund P. Green, and Mary Edwards WA.. WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2010 witii funding from UNEP-WCIVIC, Cambridge Iittp://www.archive.org/details/globaldistributi01spal The global distribution and status of seagrass ecosystems Discussion paper prepared for tlie UNEP-WCIVIC Global Seagrass Workshop St Pete's Beach, Florida, 9 November, 2001 Prepared by: Mark D. Spalding, Michelle L. Taylor, Sergio Martins, Edmund P. Green, and Mary Edwards With assistance from: Mark Taylor and Corinna Ravilious Table of Contents Introduction to the workshop 2 The global distribution and status of seagrass ecosystems 3 Introduction 3 Definitions 3 The diversity of seagrasses 3 Species distribution 4 Associated Species 6 Productivity and biomass 7 The distribution and area of seagrass habitat 8 The value of seagrasses 13 Threats to seagrasses 13 Management Interventions 14 Bibliography; 16 29 Annex 1 : Seagrass Species Lists by Country Annex 2 - Species distribution maps 34 Annex 3 - Seagrass distribution maps 68 74 Annex 4 -Full list of MPAs by country ; /4^ ] UNEP WCMC Introduction to the workshop The Global Seagrass Workshop of 9 November 2001 has been set up with the expressed aim to develop a global synthesis on the distribution and status of seagrasses world-wide. Approximately 20 seagrass experts from 14 counu-ies, representing all of the major seagrass regions of the world have been invited to share their knowledge and expertise.
  • 1 Phylogenetic Regionalization of Marine Plants Reveals Close Evolutionary Affinities Among Disjunct Temperate Assemblages Barna

    1 Phylogenetic Regionalization of Marine Plants Reveals Close Evolutionary Affinities Among Disjunct Temperate Assemblages Barna

    Phylogenetic regionalization of marine plants reveals close evolutionary affinities among disjunct temperate assemblages Barnabas H. Darua,b,*, Ben G. Holtc, Jean-Philippe Lessardd,e, Kowiyou Yessoufouf and T. Jonathan Daviesg,h aDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Harvard University Herbaria, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA bDepartment of Plant Science, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa cDepartment of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot SL5 7PY, United Kingdom dQuebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada eDepartment of Biology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada; fDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida campus, Florida 1710, South Africa gDepartment of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada hAfrican Centre for DNA Barcoding, University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa *Corresponding author Email: [email protected] (B.H. Daru) Running head: Phylogenetic regionalization of seagrasses 1 Abstract While our knowledge of species distributions and diversity in the terrestrial biosphere has increased sharply over the last decades, we lack equivalent knowledge of the marine world. Here, we use the phylogenetic tree of seagrasses along with their global distributions and a metric of phylogenetic beta diversity to generate a phylogenetically-based delimitation of marine phytoregions (phyloregions). We then evaluate their evolutionary affinities and explore environmental correlates of phylogenetic turnover between them. We identified 11 phyloregions based on the clustering of phylogenetic beta diversity values. Most phyloregions can be classified as either temperate or tropical, and even geographically disjunct temperate regions can harbor closely related species assemblages.
  • The Genus Ruppia L. (Ruppiaceae) in the Mediterranean Region: an Overview

    The Genus Ruppia L. (Ruppiaceae) in the Mediterranean Region: an Overview

    Aquatic Botany 124 (2015) 1–9 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aquatic Botany journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquabot The genus Ruppia L. (Ruppiaceae) in the Mediterranean region: An overview Anna M. Mannino a,∗, M. Menéndez b, B. Obrador b, A. Sfriso c, L. Triest d a Department of Sciences and Biological Chemical and Pharmaceutical Technologies, Section of Botany and Plant Ecology, University of Palermo, Via Archirafi 38, 90123 Palermo, Italy b Department of Ecology, University of Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain c Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics & Statistics, University Ca’ Foscari of Venice, Calle Larga S. Marta, 2137 Venice, Italy d Research Group ‘Plant Biology and Nature Management’, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium article info abstract Article history: This paper reviews the current knowledge on the diversity, distribution and ecology of the genus Rup- Received 23 December 2013 pia L. in the Mediterranean region. The genus Ruppia, a cosmopolitan aquatic plant complex, is generally Received in revised form 17 February 2015 restricted to shallow waters such as coastal lagoons and brackish habitats characterized by fine sediments Accepted 19 February 2015 and high salinity fluctuations. In these habitats Ruppia meadows play an important structural and func- Available online 26 February 2015 tional role. Molecular analyses revealed the presence of 16 haplotypes in the Mediterranean region, one corresponding to Ruppia maritima L., and the others to various morphological forms of Ruppia cirrhosa Keywords: (Petagna) Grande, all together referred to as the “R. cirrhosa s.l. complex”, which also includes Ruppia Aquatic angiosperms Ruppia drepanensis Tineo.
  • 10 Lockyear.Qxp

    10 Lockyear.Qxp

    African Journal of Aquatic Science 2006, 31(2): 275–283 Copyright © NISC Pty Ltd Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved AFRICAN JOURNAL OF AQUATIC SCIENCE EISSN 1727–9364 The distribution and abundance of the endangered Knysna seahorse Hippocampus capensis (Pisces: Syngnathidae) in South African estuaries Jacqueline F Lockyear1, Thomas Hecht1, Horst Kaiser1* and Peter R Teske2 1 Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa 2 Molecular Ecology and Systematics Group, Botany Department, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Received 7 July 2005, accepted 23 March 2006 The occurrence, distribution and abundance of the endangered Knysna seahorse Hippocampus capensis in 10 estuaries on South Africa’s warm temperate south coast, were investigated. Seahorses were found only in the Knysna, Swartvlei and Keurbooms estuaries. Sex ratios were even and, in most cases, more adults were found than juveniles. During the first year of study, seahorse densities were higher in the Swartvlei and Keurbooms estuaries than in the comparatively larger Knysna Estuary but, during the second year, seahorses were absent from the Keurbooms estuary, and the population size in the Swartvlei Estuary had decreased by more than 80%. These results suggest that, although the two smaller estuaries are able to support comparatively high densities of seahorses, population sizes may fluctuate considerably. Population size estimates for the Knysna Estuary were similar to those obtained in a previous study, suggesting that this estuary may represent a more stable environment and may thus be particularly important for the survival and conservation of this species.
  • Thesis Sci 2020 Lawrence Cloverley Mercia.Pdf

    Thesis Sci 2020 Lawrence Cloverley Mercia.Pdf

    Ecology and Ecophysiology of Zostera capensis: Responses and Acclimation to Temperature Cloverley Mercia Lawrence Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Biological Sciences Faculty of Science University of Cape Town 2019 University of Cape Town Supervisors Dr Deena Pillay, Professor Astrid Jarre, Emer. Professor John Bolton The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town This thesis is dedicated to my parents. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Declaration I, hereby declare that all the work presented in this thesis is my original work in both concept and execution (except where otherwise indicated), and that this thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part for another degree in this or any other university. Cloverley Mercia Lawrence Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………….iii Summary.…………………………………………………………………………………………….…v Chapter One General overview and background ……………… ……... ………………………………. .. 1 1.1. Seagrass Ecosystems…………………………………………………………… …… …... 3 1.1.1. Glo bal importance and distribution of seagrasses…………………… ……... 3 1.1.2. Biodiversity in seagrass ecosystems ……………………………… ….… ….…. 6 1.2. Threats to seagrasses………………………………………………………… ….. .…. …. 8 1.2.1. The influenc e of temperature on seagrasses……………………… ……….. .. 9 1.2.2. Epiphytes and fou ling in seagrass ecosystems……………………… …….. .. 12 1.3. Respo nses of seagrasses to threats………………………………………… ….. ….. …. 12 1.3.1. Acclimations in seagrasses…… .. ………………………………… …… ….. …… 12 1.3.2.
  • Extinction Risk Assessment of the World's Seagrass Species

    Extinction Risk Assessment of the World's Seagrass Species

    Author version: Biol. Conserv.: 144(7); 2011; 1961-1971. Extinction risk assessment of the world’s seagrass species Frederick T. Short a,*, Beth Polidoro b, Suzanne R. Livingstone b, Kent E. Carpenter b, Salomao Bandeira c, Japar Sidik Bujang d, Hilconida P. Calumpong e, Tim J.B. Carruthers f, Robert G. Coles g, William C. Dennison f, Paul L.A. Erftemeijer h, Miguel D. Fortes i, Aaren S. Freeman a, T.G. Jagtap j, Abu Hena M. Kamal k, Gary A. Kendrick l, W. Judson Kenworthy m, Yayu A. La Nafie n, Ichwan M. Nasution o, Robert J. Orth p, Anchana Prathep q, Jonnell C. Sanciangco b, Brigitta van Tussenbroek r, Sheila G. Vergara s, Michelle Waycott t, Joseph C. Zieman u *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 603 862 5134; fax: +1 603 862 1101. [email protected] (F.T. Short), a University of New Hampshire, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, 85 Adams Point Road, Durham, NH 03824, USA b IUCN Species Programme/SSC/Conservation International, Global Marine Species Assessment, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA c Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Department of Biological Sciences, 1100 Maputo, Mozambique d Universiti Putra Malaysia Bintulu Sarawak Campus, Faculty of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Sarawak, Malaysia e Silliman University, Institute of Environmental and Marine Sciences, Dumaguete City 6200, Philippines f University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD 21613, USA g Northern Fisheries Centre, Fisheries Queensland, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia h Deltares (Formerly Delft Hydraulics), 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands i University of the Philippines, Marine Science Institute CS, Diliman, QC 1101, Philippines j National Institute of Oceanography, Donapaula, Goa-403 004, India k University of Chittagong, Institute of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, Chittagong 4331, Bangladesh l The University of Western Australia, Oceans Institute and School of Plant Biology Crawley, 6009, W.
  • Short Et Al 2011 Redlist

    Short Et Al 2011 Redlist

    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 1961–1971 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Extinction risk assessment of the world’s seagrass species ⇑ Frederick T. Short a, , Beth Polidoro b, Suzanne R. Livingstone b,1, Kent E. Carpenter b, Salomão Bandeira c, Japar Sidik Bujang d, Hilconida P. Calumpong e, Tim J.B. Carruthers f, Robert G. Coles g, William C. Dennison f, Paul L.A. Erftemeijer h, Miguel D. Fortes i, Aaren S. Freeman a,2, T.G. Jagtap j, Abu Hena M. Kamal k,3, Gary A. Kendrick l, W. Judson Kenworthy m, Yayu A. La Nafie n, Ichwan M. Nasution o, Robert J. Orth p, Anchana Prathep q, Jonnell C. Sanciangco b, Brigitta van Tussenbroek r, Sheila G. Vergara s, Michelle Waycott t, Joseph C. Zieman u a University of New Hampshire, Department of
  • Knysna Basin Project Annual Report November 2019

    Knysna Basin Project Annual Report November 2019

    ANNUAL REPORT 2019 0 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Our mission ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Our Year: A rising tide lifts all boats ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2019 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Research ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Marine debris research ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Coastal development research ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Coastal diversity research ............................................................................................................................................