Monsoon rains have caused major floods in many parts of Southeast Asia, damaging tourist areas. In Vietnam, the popular tourist destination Da Nang was submerged as torrential rains falling since Let us help you achieve a deeper level of relaxation this with our 3.5-hour Asian-inspired spa package. Enjoy a complimentary green tea martini while you unwind!. Step 1 : Heat. [10 à 20 minutes] The thermal experience starts off in the heat. Contrary to popular beliefs, the water circuit does not start in the hot baths, but rather in the dry SEATTLE, Washington — During the Vietnam War, the United States used a defoliant chemical called Agent Orange to expose the Vietnamese military positioned within thick forests. Between 1961-1971, the U.S. sprayed around 80 million liters of Agent Orange primarily across Vietnam's Southern country-side regions. According to the Los Angeles Almanac there are approximately 27,015homeless people When attacked by much larger predators, honey badger's skin are so thick that predators have difficultly penetrating their skin with their claws. Honey badgers also have the unique ability to "rotate" their skin, meaning if a lion should grab one by the buttocks, the badger can easily turn around and gouge the lion's eyes out. 1.) In Southeast Asian, many forests have been cut down to produce timber and to clear land for farms and industries. The destruction of forests has reduced the living space of wildlife. Much of Asian's wildlife is also threatened by over-hunting. Many people kill animals for food or hunt them to sell to the zoo, medical research, and pet trader. . Which countries are gaining, and which are losing forest? Before we look at trends in deforestation across the world specifically, it’s useful to understand the net change in forest cover. The net change in forest cover measures any gains in forest cover – either through natural forest expansion or afforestation through tree-planting – minus deforestation. This map shows the net change in forest cover across the world. Countries with a positive change shown in green are regrowing forest faster than they’re losing it. Countries with a negative change shown in red are losing more than they’re able to restore. A note on UN FAO forestry dataData on net forest change, afforestation and deforestation is sourced from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Forest Resources Assessment. Since year-to-year changes in forest cover can be volatile, the UN FAO provide this annual data averaged over five-year periods. How much deforestation occurs each year? Net forest loss is not the same as deforestation – it measures deforestation plus any gains in forest over a given period. Over the decade since 2010, the net loss in forests globally was million hectares per However, deforestation rates were much significantly higher. The UN FAO estimate that 10 million hectares of forest were cut down each year. This interactive map shows deforestation rates across the world. A note on UN FAO forestry dataData on net forest change, afforestation and deforestation is sourced from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Forest Resources Assessment. Since year-to-year changes in forest cover can be volatile, the UN FAO provide this annual data averaged over five-year periods. The world has lost one-third of its forests, but an end of deforestation is possible Many people think of environmental concerns as a modern issue humanity’s destruction of nature and ecosystems as a result of very recent population growth and increasing consumption. This is true for some problems, such as climate change. But it’s not the case for deforestation. Humans have been cutting down trees for millennia. How much forest has the world lost? When in history did we lose it? In the chart we see how the cover of the earth’s surface has changed over the past 10,000 years. This is shortly after the end of the last great ice age, through to the present Let’s start at the top. You see that of the billion hectares of land on the planet, only 71% of it is habitable – the other 29% is either covered by ice and glaciers, or is barren land such as deserts, salt flats, or dunes. I have therefore excluded these categories so we can focus on how habitable land is used. The bar chart just below shows the earth’s surface cover just after the end of the last ice 10,000 years ago 57% of the world’s habitable land was covered by forest. That’s 6 billion hectares. Today, only 4 billion hectares are left. The world has lost one-third of its forest – an area twice the size of the United States. Only 10% of this was lost in the first half of this period, until 5,000 years ago. The global population at this time was small and growing very slowly – there were fewer than 50 million people in the world. The amount of land per person that was needed to produce enough food was not small – in fact, it was much larger than today. But a small global population overall meant there was little pressure on forests to make space for land to grow food, and as wood for energy. If we fast-forward to 1700 when the global population had increased more than ten-fold, to 603 million. The amount of land used for agriculture – land to grow crops as well as grazing land for livestock – was expanding. You will notice in the chart that this was not only expanding into previously forested land, but also other land uses such as wild grasslands and shrubbery. Still, more than half of the world’s habitable land was forested. The turn of the 20th century is when global forest loss reached the halfway point half of total forest loss occurred from 8,000BC to 1900; the other half occurred in the last century alone. This emphasises two important points. First, it reiterates that deforestation is not a new problem relatively small populations of the past were capable of driving a large amount of forest loss. By 1900, there were billion people in the world five times fewer than we have today but for most of the previous period, humans were deforesting the world with only tens or hundreds of millions. Even with the most basic of lifestyles compared to today’s standards, the per capita footprint of our ancestors would have been large. Low agricultural productivity and a reliance on wood for fuel meant that large amounts of land had to be cleared for basic provisions. Second, it makes clear how much deforestation accelerated over the last century. In just over 100 years the world lost as much forest as it had in the previous 9,000 years. An area the size of the United States. From the chart we see that this was driven by the continued expansion of land for agriculture. When we think of the growing pressures on land from modern populations we often picture sprawling megacities. But urban land accounts for just 1% of global habitable land. Humanity’s biggest footprint is due to what we eat, not where we live. How can we put an end to our long history of deforestation? This might paint a bleak picture for the future of the world’s forests the United Nations projects that the global population will continue to grow, reaching billion by 2100. But there are real reasons to believe that this century doesn’t have to replicate the destruction of the last one. The world passed peaked deforestation’ in the 1980s and it has been on the decline since then – we take a look at rates of forest loss since 1700 in our follow-up post. Improvements in crop yields mean the per capita demand for agricultural land continues to fall. We see this in the chart. Since 1961, the amount of land we use for agriculture increased by only 7%. Meanwhile, the global population increased by 147% – from to This means that agricultural land per person more than halved, from to hectares. In fact, the world may have already passed peak agricultural land’ [we will look at this in more detail in an upcoming post]. And with the growth of technological innovations such as lab-grown meat and substitute products, there is the real possibility that we can continue to enjoy meat or meat-like foods while freeing up the massive amounts of land we use to raise livestock. If we can take advantage of these innovations, we can bring deforestation to an end. A future with more people and more forest is possible. Global deforestation peaked in the 1980s. Can we bring it to an end? Since the end of the last great ice age – 10,000 years ago – the world has lost one-third of its Two billion hectares of forest – an area twice the size of the United States – has been cleared to grow crops, raise livestock, and use for fuelwood. In a previous post we looked at this change in global forests over the long-run. What this showed was that although humans have been deforesting the planet for millennia, the rate of forest loss accelerated rapidly in the last few centuries. Half of global forest loss occurred between 8,000BC and 1900; the other half was lost in the last century alone. To understand this more recent loss of forest, let’s zoom in on the last 300 years. The world lost billion hectares of forest over that period. That’s an area the size of the United States. In the chart we see the decadal losses and gains in global forest cover. On the horizontal axis we have time, spanning from 1700 to 2020; on the vertical axis we have the decadal change in forest cover. The taller the bar, the larger the change in forest area. This is measured in hectares, which is equivalent to 10,000 m². Forest loss measures the net change in forest cover the loss in forests due to deforestation plus any expansion of forest through To reconstruct this change I have brought together the data from a number of different We’ve also differentiated between temperate forests the sum of boreal’ and temperate’ areas, shown in green, and tropical forests the sum of tropical’ and subtropical’ areas, shown in brown. It’s useful to make this distinction because – as we will see – where the world has lost forests has shifted. The rate of forest loss changed a lot. From 1700 to 1850, 19 million hectares were being cleared every decade. That’s around half the size of Germany. From 1850 to 1920, losses were around 50% higher at 30 million hectares per decade –that’s like losing a forested area the size of Italy every 10 years. It was predominantly temperate forests that were being lost at this time. Population growth meant that today’s rich countries across Europe and North America needed more and more resources such as land for agriculture, wood for energy, and for Moving into the 20th century there was a stepwise change in demand for agricultural land and energy from wood. Deforestation rates accelerated. From the 1920s through to the 1980s, decadal losses quadrupled to almost 120 million hectares. That’s equivalent to the area of South Africa. This increase was mostly driven by tropical deforestation as countries across Asia and Latin America followed the path of Europe and North America. Global deforestation reached its peak in the 1980s. We lost 150 million hectares – an area half the size of India – during that decade. Clearing of the Brazilian Amazon for pasture and croplands was a major driver of this loss. Since then, deforestation rates have steadily declined, to 78 million hectares in the 1990s; 52 million in the early 2000s; and 47 million in the last decade. As we explore in more detail in our related article, countries tend to follow a predictable development in forest cover, a U-shaped They lose forests as populations grow and demand for agricultural land and fuel increases, but eventually they reach the so-called forest transition point’ where they begin to regrow more forests than they lose. Within this global aggregated trend there are many forest transitions at local, national or regional levels occurring. We see one such transition in the chart the forest loss in the temperate regions – shown as the green part of the bars – peaked much earlier than the global forest loss. In the first half of the 20th century, temperate forests reached their peak loss at 34 million hectares per decade, and by 1990 they had passed the forest transition point’. For the past 30 years, temperate regions have seen a continued increase in forest cover through afforestation you see this as the bars are now positive’ pointing upwards. Across temperate forests the world gained 6 million hectares in the last decade. Tropical forests, on aggregate, have also passed peak deforestation in the 1980s – the longest of all bars – but have not passed the transition to reforestation. Some countries within this group are still far behind peak deforestation without concerted effort to protect these forests it could be many decades before forests in those countries approach the transition point [as we show in a related post].10 The history of deforestation is a tragic one, in which we not only lost these wild and beautiful landscapes but also the wildlife within them. But, the fact that forest transitions are possible should give us confidence that a positive future is possible. Many countries have not only ended deforestation, but actually achieved substantial reforestation. It will be possible for our generation to achieve the same on the global scale and bring the 10,000 year history of forest loss to an end. If we want to end deforestation we need to understand where and why it’s happening; where countries are within their transition; and what can be done to accelerate their progress through it. We need to pass the transition point as soon as possible, while minimising the amount of forest we lose along the way. Forest Transitions why do we lose then regain forests?Globally we deforest around ten million hectares of forest every That’s an area the size of Portugal every year. Around half of this deforestation is offset by regrowing forests, so overall we lose around five million hectares each all – 95% – of this deforestation occurs in the tropics. But not all of it is to produce products for local markets. 14% of deforestation is driven by consumers in the world’s richest countries – we import beef, vegetable oils, cocoa, coffee and paper that has been produced on deforested scale of deforestation today might give us little hope for protecting our diverse forests. But by studying how forests have changed over time, there’s good reason to think that a way forward is countries have lost then regained forest over millennia Time and time again we see examples of countries that have lost massive amounts of forest before reaching a turning point where deforestation not only slows, but forests return. In the chart we see historical reconstructions of country-level data on the share of land covered by forest over decades, centuries or even millennia depending on the country. I have reconstructed long-term data using various studies which I’ve documented here. Many countries have much less forest today than they did in the past. Nearly half 47% of France was forested 1000 years ago; today that’s just under one-third The same is true of the United States; back in 1630 46% of the area of today’s USA was covered by forest. Today that’s just 34%. 1000 years ago, 20% of Scotland’s land was covered by forest. By the mid-18th century, only 4% of the country was forested. But then the trend turned, and it moved from deforestation to reforestation. For the last two centuries forests have been growing and are almost back to where they were 1000 years Forest Transitions the U-shaped curve of forest change What’s surprising is how consistent the pattern of change is across so many countries; as we’ve seen they all seem to follow a U-shaped curve’. They first lose lots of forest, but reach a turning point and begin to regain it again. We can illustrate this through the so-called Forest Transition Model’.14 This is shown in the chart. It breaks the change in forests into four stages, explained by two variables the amount of forest cover a region has, and the annual change in cover how quickly it is losing or gaining forest.15 Stage 1 – The Pre-Transition phase is defined by having high levels of forest cover and no or only very slow losses over time. Countries may lose some forest each year, but this is at a very slow rate. Mather refers to an annual loss of less than as a small loss. Stage 2 – The Early Transition phase is when countries start to lose forests very rapidly. Forest cover falls quickly, and the annual loss of forest is high. Stage 3 – The Late Transition phase is when deforestation rates start to slow down again. At this stage, countries are still losing forest each year but at a lower rate than before. At the end of this stage, countries are approaching the transition point’. Stage 4 – The Post-Transition phase is when countries have passed the transition point’ and are now gaining forest again. At the beginning of this phase, the forest area is at its lowest point. But forest cover increases through reforestation. The annual change is now positive. Why do countries lose then regain forest?Many countries have followed this classic U-shaped pattern. What explains this?There are two reasons that we cut down forests Forest resources we want the resources that they provide – the wood for fuel, building materials, or paper;Land – we want to use the land they occupy for something else – farmland to grow crops; pasture to raise livestock; or land to build roads and demand for both of these initially increases as populations grow and poor people get richer. We need more fuelwood to cook, more houses to live in, and importantly, more food to eat. But, as countries continue to get richer this demand slows. The rate of population growth tends to slow down. Instead of using wood for fuel we switch to fossil fuels, or hopefully, more renewables and nuclear energy. Our crop yields improve and so we need less land for demand for resources and land is not always driven by domestic markets. As I mentioned earlier, 14% of deforestation today is driven by consumers in rich Forest Transition therefore tends to follow a development’ As a country achieves economic growth it moves through each of the four stages. This explains historical trends we see for countries across the world today. Rich countries – such as the USA, France and the United Kingdom – have had a long history of deforestation but are now passed the transition point. Most deforestation today occurs in low-to-middle income countries. Where are countries in the transition today? If we look at where countries are in their transition today we can understand where we expect to lose and gain forest in the coming decades. Most of our future deforestation is going to come from countries in the pre- or early-transition phase. Several studies have assessed the stage of countries across the The most recent analysis to date was published by Florence Pendrill and colleagues 2019 which looked at each country’s stage in the transition, the drivers of deforestation but also the role of international To do this, they used the standard metrics discussed in our theory of forest transitions earlier the share of land that is forested, and the annual change in forest cover. In the map we see their assessment of each country’s stage in the transition. Most of today’s richest countries – all of Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea – have passed the turning point and are now regaining forest. This is also true for major economies such as China and India. That these countries have recently regained forests is also visible in the long-term forest trends above. Across sub-tropical countries we have a mix many upper-middle income countries are now in the late transition phase. Brazil, for example, went through a period of very rapid deforestation in the 1980s and 90s its early transition’ phase but its losses have slowed, meaning it is now in the late transition. Countries such as Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are in the early transition phase and are losing forests quickly. Some of the world’s poorest countries are still in the pre-transition phase. In the coming decades this is where we might expect to see the most rapid loss of forests unless these countries take action to prevent it, and the world supports them in the goal. Not all forest loss is equal what is the difference between deforestation and forest degradation?15 billion trees are cut down every The Global Forest Watch project – using satellite imagery – estimates that global tree loss in 2019 was 24 million hectares. That’s an area the size of the United are big numbers, and important ones to track forest loss creates a number of negative impacts, ranging from carbon emissions to species extinctions and biodiversity loss. But distilling changes to this single metric – tree or forest loss – comes with its own problem is that it treats all forest loss as equal. It assumes the impact of clearing primary rainforest in the Amazon to produce soybeans is the same as logging planted forests in the UK. The latter will experience short-term environmental impacts, but will ultimately regrow. When we cut down primary rainforest we are transforming this ecosystem we treat these impacts equally we make it difficult to prioritize our efforts in the fight against deforestation. Decisionmakers could give as much of our attention to European logging as to destruction of the Amazon. As we will see later, this would be a distraction from our primary concern ending tropical deforestation. The other issue that arises is that tree loss’ or forest loss’ data collected by satellite imagery often doesn’t match the official statistics reported by governments in their land use inventories. This is because the latter only captures deforestation – the replacement of forest with another land use such as cropland. It doesn’t capture trees that are cut down in planted forests; the land is still forested, it’s now just regrowing the article we will look at the reasons we lose forest; how these can be differentiated in a useful way; and what this means for understanding our priorities in tackling forest and seeing the drivers of forest loss Forest loss’ or tree loss’ captures two fundamental impacts on forest cover deforestation and forest degradation. Deforestation is the complete removal of trees for the conversion of forest to another land use such as agriculture, mining, or towns and cities. It results in a permanent conversion of forest into an alternative land use. The trees are not expected to regrow. Forest degradation measures a thinning of the canopy – a reduction in the density of trees in the area – but without a change in land use. The changes to the forest are often temporary and it’s expected that they will regrow. From this understanding we can define five reasons why we lose forests Commodity-driven deforestation is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to other land uses such as agriculture including oil palm and cattle ranching, mining, or energy infrastructure. Urbanization is the long-term, permanent conversion of forests to towns, cities and urban infrastructure such as roads. Shifting agriculture is the small to medium-scale conversion of forest for farming, that is later abandoned so that forests regrow. This is common of local, subsistence farming systems where populations will clear forest, use it to grow crops, then move on to another plot of land. Forestry production is the logging of managed, planted forests for products such as timber, paper and pulp. These forests are logged periodically and allowed to regrow. Wildfires destroy forests temporarily. When the land is not converted to a new use afterwards forests can regrow in the following years. Thanks to satellite imagery, we can get a birds-eye view of what these drivers look like from above. In the figure we see visual examples from the study of forest loss classification by Philip Curtis et al. 2018, published in Commodity-driven deforestation and urbanization are deforestation the forested land is completely cleared and converted into another land use – a farm, mining site, or city. The change is permanent. There is little forest left. Forestry production and wildfires usually result in forest degradation – the forest experiences short-term disturbance but if left alone is likely to regrow. The change is temporary. This is nearly always true of planted forests in temperate regions – there, planted forests are long-established and do not replace primary existing forests. In the tropics, some forestry production can be classified as deforestation when primary rainforests are cut down to make room for managed tree Shifting agriculture’ is usually classified as degradation because the land is often abandoned and the forests regrow naturally. But it can bridge between deforestation and degradation depending on the timeframe and permanence of these agricultural practices. One-quarter of forest loss comes from tropical deforestation We’ve seen the five key drivers of forest loss. Let’s put some numbers to them. In their analysis of global forest loss, Philip Curtis and colleagues used satellite images to assess where and why the world lost forests between 2001 and 2015. The breakdown of forest loss globally, and by region, is shown in the Just over one-quarter of global forest loss is driven by deforestation. The remaining 73% came from the three drivers of forest degradation logging of forestry products from plantations 26%; shifting, local agriculture 24%; and wildfires 23%. We see massive differences in how important each driver is across the world. 95% of the world’s deforestation occurs in the tropics [we look at this breakdown again later]. In Latin America and Southeast Asia in particular, commodity-driven deforestation – mainly the clearance of forests to grow crops such as palm oil and soy, and pasture for beef production – accounts for almost two-thirds of forest loss. In contrast, most forest degradation – two-thirds of it – occurs in temperate countries. Centuries ago it was mainly temperate regions that were driving global deforestation [we take a look at this longer history of deforestation in a related article]. They cut down their forests and replaced it with agricultural land long ago. But this is no longer the case forest loss across North America and Europe is now the result of harvesting forestry products from tree plantations, or tree loss in wildfires. Africa is also different here. Forests are mainly cut and burned to make space for local, subsistence agriculture or for fuelwood for energy. This shifting agriculture’ category can be difficult to allocate between deforestation and degradation it often requires close monitoring over time to understand how permanent these agricultural practices are. Africa is also an outlier as a result of how many people still rely on wood as their primary energy source. Noriko Hosonuma et al. 2010 looked at the primary drivers of deforestation and degradation across tropical and subtropical countries The breakdown of forest degradation drivers is shown in the following chart. Note that in this study, the category of subsistence agriculture was classified as a deforestation driver, and so is not included. In Latin America and Asia the dominant driver of degradation was logging for products such as timber, paper and pulp – this accounted for more than 70%. Across Africa, fuelwood and charcoal played a much larger role – it accounted for more than half 52%. This highlights an important point less than 20% of people in Sub-Saharan Africa have access to clean fuels for cooking, meaning they still rely on wood and charcoal. With increasing development, urbanization and access to other energy resources, Africa will shift from local, subsistence activities into commercial commodity production – both in agricultural products and timber extraction. This follows the classic forest transition’ model with development, which we look at in more detail in a related article. Tropical deforestation should be our primary concern The world loses almost six million hectares of forest each year to deforestation. That’s like losing an area the size of Portugal every two years. 95% of this occurs in the tropics. The breakdown of deforestation by region is shown in the chart. 59% occurs in Latin America, with a further 28% from Southeast Asia. In a related article we look in much more detail at what agricultural products, and which countries are driving this. As we saw previously, this deforestation accounts for around one-quarter of global forest loss. 27% of forest loss results from commodity-driven deforestation’ – cutting down forests to grow crops such as soy, palm oil, cocoa, to raise livestock on pasture, and mining operations. Urbanization, the other driver of deforestation accounts for just It’s the foods and products we buy, not where we live, that has the biggest impact on global land use. It might seem odd to argue that we should focus our efforts on tackling this quarter of forest loss rather than the other 73%. But there is good reason to make this our primary concern. Philipp Curtis and colleagues make this point clear. At their Global Forest Watch platform they were already presenting maps of forest loss across the world. But they wanted to contribute to a more informed discussion about where to focus forest conservation efforts by understanding why forests were being lost. To quote them, they wanted to prevent “a common misperception that any tree cover loss shown on the map represents deforestation”. And to “identify where deforestation is occurring; perhaps as important, show where forest loss is not deforestation”. Why should we care most about tropical deforestation? There is a geographical argument why the tropics? and an argument for why deforestation is worse than degradation. Tropical forests are home to some of the richest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Over half of the world’s species reside in tropical Endemic species are those which only naturally occur in a single country. Whether we look at the distribution of endemic mammal species, bird species, or amphibian species, the map is the same subtropical countries are packed with unique wildlife. Habitat loss is the leading driver of global biodiversity When we cut down rainforests we are destroying the habitats of many unique species, and reshaping these ecosystems permanently. Tropical forests are also large carbon sinks, and can store a lot of carbon per unit Deforestation also results in larger losses of biodiversity and carbon relative to degradation. Degradation drivers, including logging and especially wildfires can definitely have major impacts on forest health animal populations decline, trees can die, and CO2 is emitted. But the magnitude of these impacts are often less than the complete conversion of forest. They are smaller, and more temporary. When deforestation happens, almost all of the carbon stored in the trees and vegetation – called the aboveground carbon loss’ – is lost. Estimates vary, but on average only 10-20% of carbon is lost during logging, and 10-30% from In a study of logging practices in the Amazon and Congo, forests retained 76% of their carbon stocks shortly after Logged forests recover their carbon over time, as long as the land is not converted to other uses which is what happens in the case of deforestation. Deforestation tends to occur on forests that have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Cutting them down disrupts or destroys established, species-rich ecosystems. The biodiversity of managed tree plantations which are periodically cut, regrown, cut again, then regrown is not the same. That is why we should be focusing on tropical deforestation. Since agriculture is responsible for 60 to 80% of it, what we eat, where it’s sourced from, and how it is produced is our strongest lever to bring deforestation to an end. Do rich countries import deforestation from overseas?There is a marked divide in the state of the world’s forests. In most rich countries, across Europe, North America and East Asia, forest cover is increasing, whilst in many low-to-middle income countries it’s it would be wrong to think that the only impact rich countries have on global forests is through changes in their domestic forests. They also contribute to global deforestation through the foods they import from poorer most deforestation occurs in the tropics. 71% of this is driven by demand in domestic markets, and the remaining 29% for the production of products that are traded. 40% of traded deforestation ends up in high-income countries, meaning they are responsible for 12% of take a look at which countries are causing deforestation overseas and the size of this countries are causing deforestation overseas? How much do people in rich countries contribute to deforestation overseas? To investigate this question, researchers Florence Pendrill et al. 2019 quantified the deforestation embedded in traded goods between They did this by calculating the amount of deforestation associated with specific food and forestry products, and combining it with a trade model. In the map we see the net deforestation embedded in trade for each country. This is calculated by taking each country’s imported deforestation and subtracting its exported deforestation. Net importers of deforestation shown in brown are countries that contribute more to deforestation in other countries than they do in their home country. The consumption choices of people in these countries cause deforestation elsewhere in the world. For example, after we adjust for all the goods that the UK imports and exports, it caused more deforestation elsewhere than it did domestically. It was a net importer. Brazil, in contrast, caused more deforestation domestically in the production of goods for other countries than it imported from elsewhere. It was a net exporter. Although there is some year-to-year variability [you can explore the data use the timeline on the bottom of the chart from 2005 to 2013] we see a reasonably consistent divide most countries across Europe and North America are net importers of deforestation they’re driving deforestation elsewhere; whilst many subtropical countries are partly cutting down trees to meet this demand from rich countries. Most deforestation occurs for the production of goods that are consumed within domestic markets. 71% of deforestation is for domestic production. Less than one-third 29% is for the production of goods that are traded. High-income countries were the largest importers’ of deforestation, accounting for 40% of it. This means they were responsible for 12% of global It is therefore true that rich countries are causing deforestation in poorer countries. Are countries importing more deforestation than they’re regrowing domestically? Many rich countries are driving deforestation in other parts of the world, but are regrowing forests domestically. 79% of exported deforestation ended up in those countries that had stopped losing domestic forests. How do these two measures compare? Are they causing more deforestation elsewhere than they are regenerating in forests at home? Let’s take an example. Imagine some temperate country was responsible for the deforestation of 25,000 hectares in tropical countries but was restoring its own forests at a rate of 50,000 hectares per year. On balance, it would still have a positive impact on the size of global forests; its net contribution would be increasing forest area by 25,000 However, this country might still be causing more damage than this for a couple of reasons. Not all forest is equal. Tropical forests are often more productive than temperate forests, meaning they store more carbon. They are also richer sites of biodiversity. And, we might place more value on preserving primary, native forests that haven’t yet been deforested over regrowing forests that have lost their previous ecosystems. Hence, we should keep in mind that forest area is not the only aspect that matters – where that forest is and how rich in life it is matters too. It would be good if there was data available that would capture these additional aspects. We manage to capture some of these differences in carbon in our related article on deforestation emissions embedded in trade. Without reliable metrics that capture all of these differences, we will have to stick with total changes in forest area for now. But we should keep these important aspects in mind when comparing forest losses and gains. In the chart we see the comparison between the change in domestic forest area, and deforestation driven by imported On the vertical axis we have the domestic change in forest area this is shown only for countries where the forest area is increasing. Since there is often year-to-year variability in deforestation or reforestation rates, this is shown as the five-year average. On the x-axis we have imported deforestation. The grey line marks where the area of domestic regrowth of forests is exactly equal to imported deforestation. Countries that lie along this line would have a net-neutral impact on global forests the area they are causing to deforestation overseas is exactly as large as the area they are regrowing at home. Countries which lie above the grey line – such as the United States, Finland, China – restore more forest each year domestically than they import from elsewhere. For example, the US imported’ 64,000 hectares of deforested land, but increased its domestic forest area by 275,000 hectares. More than four times as much. On balance, they add to the global forest stock. Countries below the line – such as the UK and Germany – are not growing forests fast enough to offset the deforestation they’re creating elsewhere. The UK imported’ 34,000 hectares of deforestation but increased its domestic forests by only 19,000 hectares. These countries might have high levels of afforestation at home, but they’re still having a net negative impact on the size of the world’s forests. Rich countries need to be more conscious of how they’re contributing to global deforestationAfter seeing this data, people might argue that we should cut back on trade. If poorer countries are cutting down forests to make food for rich consumers, then we should just stop trading these the solution is not so simple. There are other aspects to consider. International trade is important for socioeconomic development. Many farmers rely on international buyers to earn a living and improve their livelihoods. Not only would this be bad for people, it might also be bad for forests. One of the reasons poorer countries clear forest to make room for farmland is that they achieve low crop yields. If you struggle to increase crop yields but want to produce more food, then expanding your agricultural land is the only option. This often comes at the cost of forests. Improvements in agricultural productivity tends to both drive and follow economic growth. International trade plays an important role in this growth, and may allow farmers to see the yield gains they need to produce more food using less what can we do? One option is to adopt stricter guidelines on what suppliers to source from, and implementing zero-deforestation policies that stop the trade of goods that have been produced on deforested land. Another way that richer countries can contribute is by investing in technologies – such as improved seed varieties, fertilizers and agricultural practices – that allow farmers to increase yields. That’s both an economic and environmental first step in doing this is for rich countries to monitor their deforestation impacts overseas more closely. They should keep their domestic reforestation targets in perspective with their net impact on global forests. Sometimes these restoration programmes pale in comparison to the deforestation they’re driving elsewhere. Carbon emissions from deforestation are they driven by domestic demand or international trade?95% of global deforestation occurs in the tropics. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today’s richest countries are increasing tree cover through might put the responsibility for ending deforestation solely on tropical countries. But, supply chains are international. What if this deforestation is being driven by consumers elsewhere?Many consumers are concerned that their food choices are linked to deforestation in some of these hotspots. Since three-quarters of tropical deforestation is driven by agriculture, that’s a valid concern. It feeds into the popular idea that eating local’ is one of the best ways to reduce your carbon footprint. In a previous article I showed that the types of food you eat matter much more for your carbon footprint than where it comes from – this is because transport usually makes up a small percentage of your food’s emissions, even if it comes from the other side of the world. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, reducing meat and dairy intake – particularly beef and lamb – has the largest understanding the role of deforestation in the products we buy is important. If we can identify the producer countries, importing countries, and specific products responsible, we can direct our efforts towards interventions that will really make a of CO2 emissions from deforestation are embedded in international trade In a study published in Global Environmental Change, Florence Pendrill and colleagues investigated where tropical deforestation was occurring; what products were driving this; and, using global trade models, they traced where these products were going in international supply They found that tropical deforestation – given as the annual average between 2010 and 2014 – was responsible for billion tonnes of CO2 per year. That was of global CO2 International trade was responsible for around one-third 29% of these emissions. This is probably less than many people would expect. Most emissions – 71% – came from foods consumed in the country that they were produced. It’s domestic demand, not international trade, that is the main driver of deforestation. In the chart we see how emissions from tropical deforestation are distributed through international supply chains. On the left-hand side we have the countries grouped by region where deforestation occurs, and on the right we have the countries and regions where these products are consumed. The paths between these end boxes indicate where emissions are being traded – the wider the bar, the more emissions are embedded in these products. Latin America exports around 23% of its emissions; that means more than three-quarters are generated for products that are consumed within domestic markets. The Asia-Pacific region – predominantly Indonesia and Malaysia – export a higher share 44%. As we will see later, this is dominated by palm oil exports to Europe, China, India, North America and the Middle East. Deforestation in Africa is mainly driven by local populations and markets; only 9% of its emissions are exported. Since international demand is driving one-third of deforestation emissions, we have some opportunity to reduce emissions through global consumers and supply chains. But most emissions are driven by domestic markets – this means policies in the major producer countries will be key to tackling this problem. How much deforestation emissions is each country responsible for? Let’s now focus on the consumers of products driving deforestation. After we adjust for imports and exports, how much CO2 from deforestation is each country responsible for? Rather than looking at total figures by country [if you’re interested, we have mapped them here] we have calculated the per capita footprint. This gives us an indication of the impact of the average person’s diet. Note that this only measures the emissions from tropical deforestation – it doesn’t include any other emissions from agricultural production, such as methane from livestock, or rice, or the use of fertilizers. In the chart we see deforestation emissions per person, measured in tonnes of CO2 per year. For example, the average German generated half a tonne 510 kilograms of CO2 per person from domestic and imported foods. At the top of the list we see some of the major producer countries – Brazil and Indonesia. The fact that the per capita emissions after trade are very high means that a lot of their food products are consumed by people in Brazil and Indonesia. The diet of the average Brazilian creates tonnes of CO2 from deforestation alone. That’s more than the country’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, which are around tonnes per person. But we also see that some countries which import a lot of food have high emissions. Luxembourg has the largest footprint at nearly three tonnes per person. Imported emissions are also high for Taiwan, Belgium and the Netherlands at around one tonne. The average across the EU was tonnes CO2 per person. To put this in perspective, that would be around one-sixth of the total carbon footprint of the average EU Beef, soybeans and palm oil are the key drivers of deforestation We know where deforestation emissions are occurring, and where this demand is coming from. But we also need to know what products are driving this. This helps consumers understand what products they should be concerned about, but also allows us to target specific supply chains. As we covered in a previous article, 60% of tropical deforestation is driven by beef, soybean and palm oil production. We should not only look at where these foods are produced, but also where the consumer demand is coming from. In the chart here we see the breakdown of deforestation emissions by product for each consumer country. The default is shown for Brazil, but you can explore the data for a range of countries using the “Change country” button. We see very clearly that the large Brazilian footprint is driven by its domestic demand for beef. In China, the biggest driver is demand for oilseeds’ – which is the combination of soy imported from Latin America and palm oil, imported from Indonesia and Malaysia. Across the US and Europe the breakdown of products is more varied. But, overall, oilseeds and beef tend to top the list for most countries. Bringing all of these elements together, we can focus on a few points that should help us prioritise our efforts to end deforestation. Firstly, international trade does play a role in deforestation – it’s responsible for almost one-third of emissions. By combining our earlier Sankey diagram, and breakdown of emissions by product, we can see that we can tackle a large share of these emissions through only a few key trade flows. Most traded emissions are embedded in soy and palm oil exports to China and India; and beef, soy and palm oil exports to Europe. The story of both soy and palm oil are complex – and it’s not obvious that eliminating these products will fix the problem. We therefore look at them both individually in more detail, to better understand what we can do about it. But international markets alone cannot fix this problem. Most tropical deforestation is driven by demand for products in domestic markets. Brazil’s emissions are high because Brazilians eat a lot of beef. Africa’s emissions are high because people are clearing forests to produce more food. This means interventions at the national-level will be key this can include a range of solutions including policies such as Brazil’s soy moratorium, the REDD+ programme to compensate for the opportunity costs of preserving these forests, and improvements in agricultural productivity so countries can continue to produce more food on less land. Explore more of our work on Forests and Deforestation Most tropical rainforest in Asia is found in Indonesia on scattered islands, the Malay peninsula Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos and Cambodia. Forest once covered a much greater area in Asia, but logging and clearing of forests for agriculture has destroyed much of the region's rainforests. The loss of rainforests has caused many problems in Asia. For example, during the 2004 tsunami disaster damage was worse in areas that had suffered heavy deforestation. The burning of forests for land clearing also causes air pollution. Southeast Asia's rainforests are some of the oldest on Earth. Some scientists believe that forests in present-day Malaysia may have existed over 100 million years ago. Some southeast Asian forests are known for their orangutans, tigers, and elephants. On the island of Sumatra, rhinos, tigers, orangutans, and elephants can be found living in the same forest Ὰ the only place on Earth where this is the case. Map showing the Asian rainforests. Click to enlarge. Statistics on tropical forest cover and loss in Asia-Pacific including Australia CountryPrimary forest extent2020million hectaresPrimary forest loss2010-2019Tree cover extent2020million hectaresTree cover change2010-2019 Papua New Sri Solomon Annoyed by these ads? Use the advertising-free version of Mongabay-Kids. Previous Next Review questions Additional resources New research has found that the tropical forests in the mountains of Southeast Asia are losing trees at an accelerated rate, deepening a wide range of ecological concerns. Southeast Asia is home to about 15% of the world’s tropical forests and help sustain plant and animal biodiversity. The trees also store carbon, keeping it out of the atmosphere where it would further contribute to warming global temperatures. But clearing the forests of trees has reduced the ecosystem’s capacity for carbon storage, according to a study recently published in Nature Sustainability. In many parts of the world, people have cleared out forests to make space for subsistence agriculture and cash crops. In Southeast Asia, illegal logging is also responsible for a huge amount of deforestation. As forests shrink, their ability to counteract human carbon emissions dwindles. “We know there is substantial deforestation on mountains [in Southeast Asia], but we didn’t know if it was increasing and how it affected carbon,” said Zhenzhong Zeng, an earth system scientist at Southern University of Science and Technology in China and a co-author of the study. “Now, we find that it’s increasing.” The researchers used satellite images to track forest loss over time and carbon density maps to calculate corresponding reductions in carbon storage capacity. Their results showed that Southeast Asia has lost 61 million hectares of forest over the last 20 years. In the 2000s, the annual loss was about an average of 2 million hectares a year. Between 2010 to 2019, that number doubled to about 4 million hectares a year. “I think what’s surprising is just the rate that it’s occurring at, and not the fact that it is occurring,” said Alan Ziegler, a physical geographer at Mae Jo University in Thailand and another co-author of the study. About a third of trees cleared were in mountainous regions such as northern Laos, northeastern Myanmar and the Indonesian islands Sumatra and Kalimantan, the study found. Experts previously thought that these trees, protected by rugged mountain landscape, would be less affected by human intervention compared to trees found in flatter lowlands. But the study found that with cultivatable lowlands growing more limited, forest clearance has expanded into the mountains. In 2001, mountain trees made up about 24% of all trees cleared that year. By 2019, it was over 40%. FILE - A view of Khao Yai National Park, 130 kilometers north of Bangkok, Thailand, March 22, 2021. “I think it’s innovative, the way they look at how [forest loss] shifts from lowland areas to the mountain areas,” said Nophea Sasaki, who studies forest carbon monitoring at Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand and was not involved in the study. “I think that’s a great concern.” Forests at higher elevation and on steeper slopes tend to store more carbon than lowland forests, according to the study. If people are clearing out more mountain trees, then the forests could lose even more carbon than current climate change models predict. If land is set aside, trees can regrow and restore their carbon stocks. But the natural habitats forests support and the great biodiversity they contain may be lost forever. Species unique to the region could disappear. The forests’ protection of watersheds and flood prevention capacity may also vanish. “It’s not only about carbon. In terms of environmental destruction on a long-term basis, it would destroy nature. It would destroy all biodiversity,” Sasaki said. Complicating the picture is inconsistent monitoring and enforcement of forest protection between countries and states. Experts say advances in technology, such as the satellite data used in this study, and public attention on the issue will be important for closer monitoring and prevention of forest loss. “We should be obligated to protect the forest because without these forests, we cannot survive,” Sasaki said. TEST 1 Read the passage, then choose the correct answers In Southeast Asia, many forests have been cut down to produce timber and to clear land for farms and industries. The destruction of forests has reduced the habitat of wildlife. Much of Asia’s wildlife is also threatened by poaching. Many people kill animals for food or hunt them to sell to zoos, medical researchers, and pet traders. Because of habitat destruction and poaching, many large Asian animals, including elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers, have become endangered. In China, people have cut down most of the forests for wood, which has caused serious soil erosion. The soil is deposited in rivers and streams, which lowers the quality of the water. The Hwang Ho, or Yellow River, is so named because the light-coloured soil gives the water a yellowish colour. The soil has also raised the riverbed. As a result, the Hwang Ho often floods, causing great property damage and loss of life along its banks. Câu 1 The habitat of wildlife in Southeast Asia A. has been reduced when forests are cut down B. is near farms and industries C. is rebuilt when people destroy forests D. is a threat to farmers Câu 2 Rhinoceroses and elephants are mentioned as examples of …………………… A. animals attracted to medical researchers B. endangered animals in Asia C. animals traders want to have D. large animals kept in zoos Câu 3 The HwangHo…………………… A. has its name from the colour of its water B. is a deep river in China C. received soil which betters the quality of water D. runs between forests Câu 4 The Hwang Ho often floods because …………………… A. water from many streams flows into it B. the soil is deposited on its banks C. of its water colour D. the river is shallow due to the raised riverbed Câu 5 The word “poaching” has the closest meaning to…………………… A. raising animals B. illegal hunting C. studying animals D. legal hunting Choose the word whose underlined part is pronounced differently from the rest Câu 6 A. extinct B. destroy C. endanger D. respect Câu 7 A. service B. transfer C. subscribe D. noisy Câu 8 A. nature B. spacious C. danger D. capture Choose the word whose stress pattern is different from that of the others Câu 9 A. conservation B. population C. environment D. entertainment Câu 10 A. condition B. animal C. survival D. pollutant Câu 11 A. facsimile B. telegram C. particular D. capacity Choose A, B, C, or D that best completes each unfinished sentence Câu 12 Water power gives us energy ……………………… pollution. A. of B. in C. with D. without Câu 13 Geothermal energy is produced from the heat stored in ……………………… earth’s core. A. a B. no article C. the D. an Câu 14 Laws should be ……………………… to stop people from cutting trees for wood. A. encouraged B. released C. introduced D. established Câu 15 In Vietnam, many species have become ……………………… due to the irresponsible activities of people. A. dangerous B. danger C. endanger D. endangered Câu 16 The woman ……………………… we are talking is a professor. A. whom B. who C. about whom D. from whom Câu 17 This is the bus. ………………………we’ll go to school. A. from which B. in that C. by which D. on which Câu 18 The mother ……………………… son was caught by the police was very sad. A. whom B. which C. whose D. who Câu 19 Peter, ……………………… lives about three miles away, was my former teacher. A. whose B. who C. whom D. that Câu 20 The woman ……………………… you mentioned is our director. A. why B. whose C. whom D. which Câu 21 He is the youngest athlete ………………………the prize in this field. A. to win B. won C. winning D. to be won Câu 22 Listener is a person ……………………… to the concert or music program. A. listened B. listening C. being listened D. to listen Câu 23 A new drug ……………………… at a British university may give the patients hope for life. A. developing B. developed C. to develop D. being develop Choose the one answer A, B, C, or D which best fits the space Câu 24 Nam Personally, I believe wind power is cheap, clean and safe. Hoa ………………………………, but if the wind doesn’t blow, there is no wind energy. A. That’s might be true B. No matter what C. Don’t mention it D. You’re welcome Câu 25 “Could you tell me how to get to the post office?” “………………………………” A. Excuse me. Is it easy to get there? B. Sorry, it’s not very far. C. Yes, I could D. It’s at the end of this street, opposite the church Choose the most suitable option to complete the passage By 1984, nonrenewable 26 ……………… fuels, such as oil, coal and natural gas, provided over 82 percent of the commercial and industrial energy 27……………… in the world. Small amounts of energy were 28 ……………… from nuclear fission, and the remaining 16 percent came from burning direct perpetual and renewable fuels 29.………………… biomass. Between 1700 and 1986, a large number of countries shifted from the use of energy from local sources to a centralized generation of hydropower and solar energy converted to electricity. The energy derived from nonrenewable fossil fuels has been increasingly produced in one location and transported to another, as in the case with most automobile fuels. In countries with private, rather than public transportation, the age of nonrenewable fuels has created a dependency on a finite 30 ……………. that will have to be replaced. Câu 26 A. solid B. clean C. fossil D. unleaded Câu 27 A. produced B. supplied C. used D. stored Câu 28 A. extracted B. produced C. released D. derived Câu 29 A. therefore B. for C. such as D. as Câu 30 A. resource B. power C. material D. reserve Choose the underlined part among A, B, c or D that needs correcting Câu 31 Thank you for you letter, in that you invited me to your birthday party. A B C D Câu 32 Many species have become extinction because of the interferences of human beings. A B C D Câu 33 Human beings have a greatly influence on the rest of the world. A B C D Câu 34 They are talking with Mai, her house is next to mine. A B C D Câu 35 The play which we listened on the radio last night was about social crimes. A B C D Choose the correct sentence among A, B, C or D which has the same meaning as the given one Câu 36 We didn’t want to swim in the river. It looked very dirty. A. We didn’t want to swim in the river, in which looked very dirty. B. We didn’t want to swim in the river, that looked very dirty. C. We didn’t want to swim in the river, which looked very dirty. D. We didn’t want to swim in the river, where looked very dirty. Câu 37 Nam refused to go to the cinema with me. He hated action films. A. Nam, that hated action films, refused to go to the cinema with me. B. Nam, whose hated action films, refused to go to the cinema with me. C. Nam, of whom hated action films, refused to go to the cinema with me. D. Nam, who hated action films, refused to go to the cinema with me. Câu 38 The police caught the burglar climbing over the garden wall. A. The burglar who was climbing over the garden wall was caught by the police. B. The police caught the burglar and they climbed over the garden wall. C. The police caught the burglar who is climbing over the garden wall. D. The police were catching the burglar who was climbing over the garden wall. Câu 39 The boy is standing in the yard. He was punished by his teacher. A. The boy who stands in the yard was punished by his teacher. B. The boy punished by his teacher is standing in the yard. C. Standing in the yard, the teacher punished the boy. D. The teacher who punished the boy is standing in the yard. Câu 40 The man wasn’t friendly. I spoke to him yesterday. A. The man to whom I speak yesterday wasn’t friendly. B. The man whom I spoke yesterday wasn’t friendly. C. The man to whom I spoke yesterday wasn’t friendly. D. The man to who I spoke yesterday wasn’t friendly. Identify one underlined word or phrase that is incorrect 41. These pictures, as well as this photograph , brightens the room. A B C D 42. What he said you seems to be of no importance. A B C D 43. Measles are cured without much difficulty nowadays. A B C D 44. If they had left the house early, they wouldn’t have been so late at the play. A B C D 45. Romeo, believing that Juliet was dead, decided to kill him. A B C D Complete the following sentences by filling in each blank with an appropriate relative pronoun who, whom, which, that. there anything………..I can do to help? 47. One of the people………were arrested was Mary. 48. The professor………..I talked to didn’t know the answer to my question. 49. A child …….mother loves him or her will grow up with confidence. 50. Many people just couldn’t keep promises…………require a lot of effort to fulfill. TEST 2 Choose the word that has the underlined part pronounced differently from that of the others. 1. A. facsimile B. transfer C. spacious D. fax 2. A. ready B. friend C. telephone D. speedy 3. A. subscribe B. facsimile C. pride D. provide 4. A. spacious B. courteous C. document D. technology 5. A. commune B. security C. punctuality D. distribute Choose the word or phrase, A, B, C, or D, that best completes the sentence or substitutes for the underlined word or phrase. 6. You can subscribe to your favorite newspapers and magazines...... the nearest post office.. A. in B. on C. from D. at 7. He is very capable...... learning and understanding things. A. with B. of C. at D. about 8. Thanh Ba Post Office provides customers...... the Messenger Call Services. A. with B. for C. of D. to 9. The post office offers the...... Mail Service which is particularly fast. A. Secure B. Efficient C. Express D. Reliable 10. We are proud of our...... staff, who are always friendly and efficient. A. well-done B. well-appointed C. well-behaved D. well-trained 11. The hotel staff are always friendly and courteous. A. efficient B. polite C. helpful D. perfect 12. I need to...... £1,000 to my daughter's account. A. transfer B. transform C. transmit D. transact 13. I'd like to send this parcel express. What's the..... on it? A. cost B. price C. postage D. value 14. We..... to several sports channels on television. A. subscribe B. deliver C. offer D. notify 15. We offer a very..... rate for parcels of under 15 kg. A. competing B. competent C. competitive D. competition 16. If you want to send a document and do not want to lose, its original shape, our..... service will help you. A. express mail B. facsimile C. messenger call D. postal 17...... of all the staff, I would like to wish you a happy retirement. A. On behalf B. In place C. Instead D. On account 18. '..... send this document to my office by fax?' 'Certainly.' A. Would you like B. Would you mind C. Could you D. Why not 19. I'm anxious _______ Tom. His plane is overdue. A. in B. about C. for D. of 20. "I agree that Bob looks ridiculous since he shaved his head, but don't make fun ______ him or you'll hurt his feelings." A. at B. over C. of D. on 21. Students are encouraged to take part _______ the discussion. A. to B. on C. for D. in 22. I'm very interested _________ English literature. A. in B. to C. of D. with the teacher entered the room, all the students stood _________. A. of B. up C. by D. down present, scientists are trying to find out the most suitable energy. a. In b. For c. At d. On 25. Nuclear power can provide us ______great source of energy. a. for b. on c. with d. at 26. Do you know where this kind of energy comes ____? a. up b. from c. on d. in sun releases large amounts _______ energy every day. a. for b. in c. for d. of 28. The solar energy can change _____ electricity. a. to b. for c. with d. into Read the text and do the task that follows. SOLAR LIGHTING Throughout the 1900s, the use of the sun as a source of energy has evolved considerably. Early in the century, the sun was the primary source of interior light for buildings during the day. Eventually, however, the cost, convenience, and performance of electric lamps improved and the 'sun was displaced as our primary method of lighting building interiors. Attempts to use sunlight directly for interior lighting via lens collectors, reflective light-pipes, and fiber-optic bundles were the next step. The most recent technology, hybrid solar lighting, collects sunlight and routs it through optical fibers into buildings where it is combined with electric light in "hybrid" light fixtures. Sensors keep the room at a steady lighting level by adjusting the electric lights based on the sunlight available. This new generation of solar lighting combines both electric and solar power. Hybrid solar lighting pipes sunlight directly to the light fixture and no energy conversions are necessary, therefore the process is much more efficient. It is currently being developed and tested by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in collaboration with the Department of Energy and several industry partners. Choose the most suitable answers. 29. The use of the sun as a source of energy has evolved A. throughout the 19th century B. in 1900 C. for some centuries D. throughout the 20th century 30. In the late 20th century, the sun, our main way of lighting building interiors during the day, was replaced by ____. A. fiber-optic bundles B. electric lamps C. lens collectors D. reflective light-pipes 31. All of the following are mentioned as parts of the most recent technology for using sunlight for interior lighting EXCEPT A. optical fibers B. sensors C. adaptors D. hybrid light fixtures 32. The process of piping sunlight to the light fixture _ A. is direct B. needs an energy converter C. is not very efficient D. is fairly expensive 33. The process is now A. widely used B. sponsored by the Department of Energy C. under the strict control of the Government D. being researched and tested Fill in the blanks with the correct answers. Have you 34_____________used a magnifying glass to make something melt or burn? If yes, you were using solar power! "Solar" is the Latin word for "sun" - and it's a powerful 35________________of energy. 36_____________, the sunlight that shines on the Earth in just one hour could meet world energy demand 37________________an entire year! We can use solar power in two different ways as a heat source, and as an energy source. People 38___________the sun as a heat source for thousands of years. Families in ancient Greece built their homes to get the most sunlight 39_____________the cold winter months. In the 1830s, explorer John Herschel used a solar collector to cook food during an adventure in Africa. You can even try this at home! 40___________we can use solar collectors for heating water and air in our homes. If you've seen a house with big shiny panels 41____________, that family is using solar power. 34. A. wondered B. yet C. never D. ever 35. A. source B. origin C. mine D. root 36. A. In deed B. In fact C. In spite of D. In addition to 37. A. over B. with C. as D. for 38. A. were using B. has used C. have used D. had used 39. A. about B. on C. during D. through 40. A. As a result B. Besides C. Yet D. However 41. A. on the top B. on the roof C. on the bottom D. on the peak Identify one underlined word or phrase that is incorrect 41. The picture of the soldiers bring back many memories. A B C B 42. If the duties of these officers isn’t reduced, there will not be enough time to finish it. A B C D 43. Either Bill nor Mary is going to the play tonight. A B C D 44. A number of reporters was at the conference yesterday. A B C D Complete the following sentences by filling in each blank with an appropriate relative pronoun who, whom, which, that. was invited by the girl……..I met at Ethel’s birthday party. 46. We went to the restaurant…….Jane recommended to us. walls are all………..remain of the city. received an offer of 80,000 USD for the house, ………we accepted. man……..wife you met lives next door. 50. Is there anything………..I can do to help? Article Open Access Published 28 April 2020 Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number 7117 2020 Cite this article 15k Accesses 112 Citations 86 Altmetric Metrics details Subjects AbstractFragmentation is a major driver of ecosystem degradation, reducing the capacity of habitats to provide many important ecosystem services. Mangrove ecosystem services, such as erosion prevention, shoreline protection and mitigation of climate change through carbon sequestration, depend on the size and arrangement of forest patches, but we know little about broad-scale patterns of mangrove forest fragmentation. Here we conduct a multi-scale analysis using global estimates of mangrove density and regional drivers of mangrove deforestation to map relationships between habitat loss and fragmentation. Mangrove fragmentation was ubiquitous; however, there are geographic disparities between mangrove loss and fragmentation; some regions, like Cambodia and the southern Caribbean, had relatively little loss, but their forests have been extensively fragmented. In Southeast Asia, a global hotspot of mangrove loss, the conversion of forests to aquaculture and rice plantations were the biggest drivers of loss >50% and fragmentation. Surprisingly, conversion of forests to oil palm plantations, responsible for >15% of all deforestation in Southeast Asia, was only weakly correlated with mangrove fragmentation. Thus, the management of different deforestation drivers may increase or decrease fragmentation. Our findings suggest that large scale monitoring of mangrove forests should also consider fragmentation. This work highlights that regional priorities for conservation based on forest loss rates can overlook fragmentation and associated loss of ecosystem functionality. IntroductionMangroves are intertidal wetlands found along coastlines in much of the tropical, subtropical and warm-temperate world. These forests provide valuable ecosystem services including preventing erosion1, providing habitat for fisheries species2, protecting coastal communities from extreme weather events3,4 and storing large reserves of blue carbon, thus mitigating global climate change5. The services provided by mangroves are threatened by anthropogenic processes including deforestation6 and sea-level rise7,8. Historically, mangroves were subject to high rates of deforestation of up to per annum9. However, since the turn of the millennium global mangrove deforestation rates have slowed, with annual loss rates of Lower rates of loss are due to near total historical loss of forest patches in some regions, but also improved conservation practices11 and improvements in large scale monitoring techniques that provide more accurate estimates of cover and loss than were available historically10,12. The majority of contemporary mangrove loss occurs in Southeast Asia, where ~50% of the remaining global mangrove forest area is located, with nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar continuing to show losses of and per year, researchers have highlighted that simply reporting mangrove total loss rates is insufficient for prioritising conservation actions11, if there is insufficient knowledge of the quality and spatial arrangement of habitat that remains. It is important to consider the proportional loss of mangroves, as areas with small amounts of mangrove forest will be particularly negatively affected by deforestation and resulting fragmentation, even though such small patches can still provide a disproportionate amount of ecosystem services for local populations13. Similarly, in addition to simply conserving mangrove forests, there is now also a focus on quantifying mangrove connectivity14,15,16. Although measurement of total areal loss is an important step towards informing conservation priorities, other metrics of environmental change, such as fragmentation, are also important indicators of habitat health17,18,19,20, ecological function and resilience of fragmented mangrove forests may be compromised in multiple ways, making fragmentation an important change to monitor22. For example, fragmented forests are likely to have a reduced capacity to ameliorate waves23,24 and so will have higher through-flow of tidal waters leading to greater erosion of sediment substrate25. Increased sediment erosion may affect the capacity of mangroves to accrete and keep pace with sea level rise7,8, so by increasing erosion fragmentation may reduce the ability of mangroves to adapt to sea level rise. In addition, increased mangrove fragmentation may mean forests are more accessible to humans, potentially leading to increased deforestation of mangroves and exploitation of species that use mangroves as habitat26. Finally, the biological integrity of fragmented mangroves is compromised by lower species diversity of both birds27 and estuarine fish28. Thus, the capability for mangroves to provide critical habitat for many fished species may be jeopardised by fragmentation. The biophysical impacts of fragmentation in mangroves are likely to influence the ability of forests to capture and store carbon6,29. Given the number of important ecological changes associated with the fragmentation of mangrove forests, we suggest that fragmentation should be explored as a way to monitor the deterioration of mangrove ecosystems at large compared rates of mangrove fragmentation and deforestation from a high spatial resolution dataset from 2000 to 2012 at a global scale, with ~30 m resolution at the equator10. We used four metrics of fragmentation that represent different aspects of the quality of mangrove forests globally clumpiness, perimeter-area fractal dimension PAFRAC, mean patch area and the mean distance to a patch’s nearest neighbour Supplementary Methods S1. The clumpiness index and PAFRAC assess how patches are dispersed across the landscape, and patch shape, respectively30. These metrics are independent of the areal extent of forests31, making them ideal for assessing shifts in mangrove forest arrangement. The metrics mean patch size and mean distance to nearest patch have the advantage of being immediately comprehensible and describing ecologically relevant shifts in forest arrangement28,32. However, these two metrics can be highly correlated with the extent of forests in the patterns of mangrove fragmentation are related to, but distinct from, patterns in mangrove loss at the global scale. Six of the ten nations with the highest rates of mangrove loss were also in at least one of the lists for the top ten nations for fragmentation rates Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, United States, and the Philippines Table 1. We also identified hotspots for loss that had lower rates of fragmentation, including Brazil, northern Myanmar, Mexico and Cuba Figs. 1, 2 and Supplementary Fig. S1. Although fragmentation is often linked to loss, there is a ubiquitous trend toward fragmentation globally, even in areas with low rates of loss Fig. 2, Supplementary Table S1. Landscapes in regions with both high rates of loss and fragmentation, such as Myanmar, Indonesia and Malaysia, displayed high values for all measures of fragmentation Fig. 3. Hotspots of fragmentation within the top ten for at least two of four fragmentation metrics include Cambodia, Cameroon, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Guinea and the southern Caribbean Aruba, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago. Some of these areas are associated with high deforestation rates; however, areas such as Cambodia, Cameroon, New Guinea and nations with little mangrove area in the southern Caribbean Aruba, Grenada, and Trinidad and Tobago have comparatively low loss 1 The top ten nations ranked by total areal loss and rates of fragmentation for each of the four main metrics. Nation and value are size tableFigure 1A description of similarities and disparities between fragmentation and areal loss of mangroves, with example size imageFigure 2Global distribution of total mangrove loss panel A, proportional mangrove loss panel B and fragmentation, measured as 1 changes in distance to nearest patch Panel C and, 2 shifts in mean size of mangrove patches panel D.Full size imageFigure 3Maps of four landscapes, each demonstrating a notable shift in one of the four metrics of fragmentation employed in this size imageThe spatial distribution of mangrove fragmentation is variable and depends on which metric of fragmentation is considered Table 1, Fig. 2. Generally, there is a fragmentation hotspot centred in Southeast Asia, concomitant with known areas of mangrove loss10. There are other hotspots of fragmentation albeit less severe than in Southeast Asia in the Caribbean, northern South America and the eastern Pacific. These hotspots ranked highly for fragmentation in the metrics of mean distance to nearest neighbour and patch area see Fig. 2, metrics which have high ecological relevance. Western Africa also ranked highly on the sensitive metrics of PAFRAC and clumpiness see Supplementary Fig. S1.Land-use changesFragmentation and loss were highly correlated in Southeast Asia, and this relationship was mediated by the specific land-use transition. Rank correlations indicate a strong relationship between the extent of loss and all fragmentation metrics correlation coefficients ranged from to all correlations had p 0 to 0. Rasters were spatially transformed to the local UTM and exported as GeoTIFF files, resulting in 8,985 landscapes with mangrove presence in 2000. All spatial processing was conducted using R version and the packages raster48, rgeos49, rgdal50 and sp51. Fragstats52 was used to process the landscapes. Fragmentation statistics calculated included CLUMPY, PAFRAC, ENN_MN and AREA_MN. Total mangrove cover in the landscape was calculated using the raw cover values in the cropped raster were assigned to a nation and a biogeographical ecoregion53. The GADM version and ecoregional layers53 were cropped to each landscape, and the nation and ecoregion that was most dominant in the landscape were assumed to be the nation/ecoregion containing the mangroves within the landscape. The majority of landscapes were assigned only one nation Plotting was conducted using the R packages sf54 and of land-use transitionsFor Southeast Asia, dominant land-use transitions were extracted from a previous analysis using remote sensing of Landsat imagery45. In the previous study, all areas of mangrove deforested in Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2012 and larger than hectares in size were classified to identify their land cover in 2012 using a machine learning model45. Data on the prevalence of six types of land-use transition were extracted from this dataset urban developments, rice paddy, oil palm plantations, aquaculture, mangrove regrowth including mangrove forestry, rehabilitation or natural regeneration and other including recent deforestation with no identifiable form of land-use, deforestation caused by erosion, and conversion to non-oil palm terrestrial landscapes. Each landscape was queried for the number of mangrove patches and the total area of mangrove undergoing different land-use transitions. Many landscapes had multiple land-use transitions within their boundaries. Accordingly, the dominant land-use transition for each landscape was assigned. The land-use classification which had both; 1 the highest total area within the landscape, and 2 was present in the most or equal to the most mangrove patches within the landscape was considered dominant. Spearman rank correlations were conducted to identify the relationship between mangrove deforestation loss in hectares and absolute shifts in metrics describing habitat arrangement. The Spearman rank correlation was used because initial analyses with linear regression indicated the residuals did not conform to a normal distribution. We then modelled the correlation coefficient as a function of fragmentation metric and land-use transition using a linear model. The linear model tested the hypothesis that the extent of deforestation and fragmentation would be more strongly linked for some land-use transitions than others. All processing was conducted in R version Data availabilityThe datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available in the dryad repository, WEBLINK. To be made public upon publication.ReferencesKoch, E. W. et al. Non-linearity in ecosystem services temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 29–37 2009.Article Google Scholar Nagelkerken, I. et al. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna A review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 155–185 2008.Article Google Scholar Ouyang, X., Lee, S. Y., Connolly, R. M. & Kainz, M. J. Spatially-explicit valuation of coastal wetlands for cyclone mitigation in Australia and China. Sci. Rep. 8, 3035 2018.Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Hochard, J. P., Hamilton, S. & Barbier, E. B. Mangroves shelter coastal economic activity from cyclones. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 12232–12237 2019.Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Atwood, T. B. et al. Global patterns in mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 523–528 2017.Article ADS CAS Google Scholar Adame, M. F. et al. The undervalued contribution of mangrove protection in Mexico to carbon emission targets. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12445 2018.Article Google Scholar Lovelock, C. E. et al. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature 526, 559–563 2015.Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar Schuerch, M. et al. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561, 231–234 2018.Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar Valiela, I., Bowen, J. L. & York, J. K. Mangrove forests One of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. Bioscience 51, 807–815 2001.Article Google Scholar Hamilton, S. E. & Casey, D. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century CGMFC-21. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 729–738 2016.Article Google Scholar Friess, D. A. et al. The State of the World’s Mangrove Forests Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 89–115 2019.Article Google Scholar Mejía-Rentería, J. C., Castellanos-Galindo, G. A., Cantera-Kintz, J. R. & Hamilton, S. E. A comparison of Colombian Pacific mangrove extent estimations Implications for the conservation of a unique Neotropical tidal forest. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 212, 233–240 2018.Article ADS Google Scholar Curnick, D. J. et al. The value of small mangrove patches. Science 80-.. 363, 239–239 2019.Article ADS CAS Google Scholar Binks, R. M. et al. Habitat discontinuities form strong barriers to gene flow among mangrove populations, despite the capacity for long-distance dispersal. Divers. Distrib. 25, 298–309 2019.Article Google Scholar Hasan, S., Triest, L., Afrose, S. & De Ryck, D. J. R. Migrant pool model of dispersal explains strong connectivity of Avicennia officinalis within Sundarban mangrove areas Effect of fragmentation and replantation. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 214, 38–47 2018.Article ADS Google Scholar Van der Stocken, T., Carroll, D., Menemenlis, D., Simard, M. & Koedam, N. Global-scale dispersal and connectivity in mangroves. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 915–922 2019.Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar Herse, M. R., With, K. A. & Boyle, W. A. The importance of core habitat for a threatened species in changing landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2241–2252 2018.Article Google Scholar Riitters, K. H. & Wickham, J. D. Decline of forest interior conditions in the conterminous United States. Sci. Rep. 2, 653 2012.Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Bregman, T. P., Sekercioglu, C. H. & Tobias, J. A. Global patterns and predictors of bird species responses to forest fragmentation Implications for ecosystem function and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 169, 372–383 2014.Article Google Scholar Oliver, T. H. et al. Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 941–945 2015.Article ADS Google Scholar Jacobson, A. P., Riggio, J., M. Tait, A. & Baillie, E. M. J. Global areas of low human impact Low Impact Areas’ and fragmentation of the natural world. Sci. Rep. 9, 14179 2019.Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 2015.Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar Dahdouh-Guebas, F. et al. How effective were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? Curr. Biol. 15, 1337–1338 2005.Article CAS Google Scholar Horstman, E. M., Dohmen-Janssen, C. M., Bouma, T. J. & Hulscher, S. J. M. H. Flow routing in mangrove forests field data obtained in Trang, Thailand. in NCK-days 2012 Crossing borders in coastal research jubilee conference proceedings 147–151, University of Twente, Department of Water Engineering & Management, 2012.Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J. E., Sinsakul, S. & Panapitukkul, N. Coastal erosion and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 68, 75–85 2006.Article ADS Google Scholar Barber, C. P., Cochrane, M. A., Souza, C. M. & Laurance, W. F. Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 177, 203–209 2014.Article Google Scholar Li, M. S., Mao, L. J., Shen, W. J., Liu, S. Q. & Wei, A. S. Change and fragmentation trends of Zhanjiang mangrove forests in southern China using multi-temporal Landsat imagery 1977–2010. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 130, 111–120 2013.Article ADS Google Scholar Tran, L. X. & Fischer, A. Spatiotemporal changes and fragmentation of mangroves and its effects on fish diversity in Ca Mau Province Vietnam. J. Coast. Conserv. 21, 355–368 2017.Article Google Scholar Atwood, T. B. et al. Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 1038–1045 2015.Article ADS Google Scholar McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A. & Ene, E. FRAGSTATS v4 Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2012.Wang, X., Blanchet, F. G. & Koper, N. Measuring habitat fragmentation An evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 634–646 2014.Article Google Scholar Martin, T. S. H. et al. Habitat proximity exerts opposing effects on key ecological functions. Landsc. Ecol. 33, 1273–1286 2018.Article Google Scholar Polidoro, B. A. et al. The Loss of Species Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern. PLoS One 5, e10095 2010.Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar Webb, E. L. et al. Deforestation in the Ayeyarwady Delta and the conservation implications of an internationally-engaged Myanmar. Glob. Environ. Chang. 24, 321–333 2014.Article Google Scholar Rahman, A. F., Dragoni, D., Didan, K., Barreto-Munoz, A. & Hutabarat, J. A. Detecting large scale conversion of mangroves to aquaculture with change point and mixed-pixel analyses of high-fidelity MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 130, 96–107 2013.Article ADS Google Scholar Proisy, C. et al. Monitoring mangrove forests after aquaculture abandonment using time series of very high spatial resolution satellite images A case study from the Perancak estuary, Bali, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 61–71 2018.Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar Liao, J., Zhen, J., Zhang, L. & Metternicht, G. Understanding Dynamics of Mangrove Forest on Protected Areas of Hainan Island, China 30 Years of Evidence from Remote Sensing. Sustainability 11, 5356 2019.Article Google Scholar Saintilan, N., Wilson, N. C., Rogers, K., Rajkaran, A. & Krauss, K. W. Mangrove expansion and salt marsh decline at mangrove poleward limits. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 147–157 2014.Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar Proisy, C. et al. Mud bank colonization by opportunistic mangroves A case study from French Guiana using lidar data. Cont. Shelf Res. 29, 632–641 2009.Article ADS Google Scholar Bosire, J. O. et al. Functionality of restored mangroves A review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 251–259 2008.Article Google Scholar Bunting, P. et al. The Global Mangrove Watch—A New 2010 Global Baseline of Mangrove Extent. Remote Sens. 10, 1669 2018.Article ADS Google Scholar Hansen, M. C. et al. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 80-.. 342, 850–853 2013.Article ADS CAS Google Scholar Giri, C. et al. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159 2011.Article Google Scholar Heumann, B. W. Satellite remote sensing of mangrove forests Recent advances and future opportunities. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 35, 87–108 2011.Article Google Scholar Richards, D. R. & Friess, D. A. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 344–349 2016.Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar Hamilton, S. E. & Friess, D. A. Global carbon stocks and potential emissions due to mangrove deforestation from 2000 to 2012. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 240–244 2018.R Core Team. R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2018.Hijmans, R. J. raster Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. 2017.Bivand, R. & Rundel, C. rgeos Interface to Geometry Engine - Open Source GEOS’. 2017.Bivand, R., Keitt, T. & Rowlingson, B. rgdal Bindings for the Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library. 2017.Bivand, R. S., Pebesma, E. & Gomez-Rubio, V. Applied spatial data analysis with R, Second edition. Springer, NY, 2013.McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. & Ene, E. FRAGSTATS v4 Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. 2012.Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine Ecoregions of the World A Bioregionalization of Coastal and Shelf Areas. Bioscience 57, 573–583 2007.Article Google Scholar Pebesma, E. sf Simple Features for R. 2018.Wickham, H. ggplot2 Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.Download was supported by a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award DE160101207 from the Australian Research Council, and and by The Global Wetlands Project. FA was supported by an Advance Queensland Fellowship from the Queensland Government, Australia. was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program RTP informationAuthors and AffiliationsAustralian Rivers Institute – Coast and Estuaries, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, AustraliaDale N. Bryan-Brown & Rod M. ConnollyETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, Singapore, SingaporeDaniel R. RichardsAustralian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, AustraliaFernanda AdameDepartment of Geography, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, 117570, Singapore, SingaporeDaniel A. FriessAustralian Rivers Institute – Coast and Estuaries, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, AustraliaChristopher J. BrownAuthorsDale N. Bryan-BrownYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarRod M. ConnollyYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarDaniel R. RichardsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarFernanda AdameYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarDaniel A. FriessYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarChristopher J. BrownYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google and conceived the project. conducted the data management and analysis. suggested project direction and provided support in planning stages. and provided data for land-use changes in Southeast Asia. and interpreted results. drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to editing the manuscript. All authors consented to the manuscript being submitted in its final authorCorrespondence to Christopher J. declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional informationRights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original authors and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit Reprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleBryan-Brown, Connolly, Richards, et al. Global trends in mangrove forest fragmentation. Sci Rep 10, 7117 2020. citationReceived 18 June 2019Accepted 06 April 2020Published 28 April 2020DOI This article is cited by New contributions to mangrove rehabilitation/restoration protocols and practices Alexander Cesar FerreiraLuiz Drude de LacerdaLuis Ernesto Arruda Bezerra Wetlands Ecology and Management 2023 Natural Protected Areas effect on the cover change rate of mangrove forests in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico Laura Osorio-OlveraRodolfo Rioja-NietoFrancisco Guerra-Martínez Wetlands 2023 Genomic population structure of Parkia platycephala Benth. Leguminosae from Northeastern Brazil João Gabriel Silva MoraisMarcones Ferreira CostaAngela Celis de Almeida Lopes Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 2023 Effect of Mangrove Complexity and Environmental Variables on Fish Assemblages Across a Tropical Estuarine Channel of the Mexican Pacific Salvador Santamaría-DamiánCristian Tovilla-HernándezAlejandro Ortega-Argueta Wetlands 2023 Mangrove diversity is more than fringe deep Steven W. J. CantyJohn Paul KennedyJennifer K. Rowntree Scientific Reports 2022 CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

in southeast asia many forests have been