In the watery limbo between sea and river, where salt and fresh water mingle in the roots of mangrove trees, a handful of uniquely adapted species—terrestrial and aquatic—have evolved to fill the novel niche.

But more than 40 percent of the land-dwelling animals that live in mangrove forests are now under pressure from habitat loss, concludes an analysis published this week in BioScience.

"Mangroves are threatened by development, pollution, mariculture and changes in sea level and salinity," wrote David Luther, an ecology researcher at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Russell Greenberg, head of the Smithsonian National Zoo's Migratory Bird Center. The impact on creatures that depend on mangroves remains poorly documented.

Tangled woody mangrove forests cover about 65,637 square miles (170,000 square kilometers) around the world, but they're quickly disappearing. A 2007 United Nations report noted that 20 percent of the globe's mangrove forests had vanished in the 25 years between 1980 and 2005, a rate that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's director called "alarming."

Here's a look at the forests and some of the animals that are now threatened by their rapid disappearance.

Slide Show: Vanishing Animals of the Mangroves

5 Comments

1. 1. P.H. 06:59 PM 7/5/09

   Why do articles like this quote the reactions of officials to statistics? "Alarming?" No kidding. What were you expecting him to say? "That's wonderful?" "Thank goodness we're getting rid of those pesky mangroves?"
   
   "Alarming" is the political answer that is to be expected from a politician. It has no meaning. I can tell for myself that the loss of 20 percent or more of a habitat is alarming. There's nothing newsworthy in printing a statistic and the obsequiously aped concern of a politician.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. OpenToInfo 12:46 PM 7/6/09

   Wha Ta Snoz! Move over Jimmy Durante (whoops, he has already moved under)! Attempt at humor aside, isn't this quote an understatement?
   
   "The impact on creatures that depend on mangroves remains poorly documented."
   
   Is this article an example of science reporting that outgoing Scientific American Editor in Chief John Rennie critiqued elsewhere at this website (see http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=future-of-science-coverage-09-07-06 )? If David Luther and Russell Greenberg aren't just publishing to beat the "publish-or-perish" dynamic of academia (or strategizing-for-funding meme), was this the best point that this paper--and the field of study it represent--has to report (I ask for I would have to pay to find out the answer myself)? Are pictures of 6 animal species (and leaving out homo sapiens) an example of science appealing to the sensibility" of feelings that I commented about at that post?
   
   BTW, P.H. the reason for doing the quote thing is explained in a February 2001 Scientific America article on persuasion. Connecting information with an authority is persuasive (if not all that scientific). My query about the pictures, and this article itself, relates to the role scarcity plays in persuasion. Is a picture of humans not included as that such honesty is something that what is currently validated socially as persuasive (being "positive" with ones message) would be violated and this article would not be as consumable as it would be felt to be otherwise? Is this an in-house example of why science reporting is as it is in our culture?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bluezy_susie 09:29 PM 7/6/09

   Thank you for the beautiful photography.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. yunsi5156 08:14 AM 7/29/09

   <a href="http://www.christian-louboutin-shoes.cc">christian louboutin</a>

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. yunsi5156 09:04 AM 7/29/09

   <a href="http://www.christian-louboutin-shoes.cc/Christian_Loutoutin_Boots.html">Christian Loutoutin Boots</a>
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this