Comparison of CO₂ emissions from land uses linked to tropical forest loss.

<p>Comparison of CO₂ emissions from land uses linked to tropical forest loss.</p

CO₂ efflux from the floors and walls of shrimp ponds in Bali, Indonesia.

<p>The rates of CO₂ efflux from the walls were significantly higher than pond floors (F_1,28 = 25.66, P<0.0001).</p

CO₂ efflux from peat soils that were cleared of forest (cleared 8 months) where peat was disturbed by cutting blocks from the soils (disturbed) and two days after the blocks of peat were cut (2 days post-disturbance).

<p>There was a significant effect of the disturbance treatment (F_2,15 = 25.37, P<0.0001) but after two days there was no significant difference in soil CO₂ efflux between disturbed and undisturbed samples.</p

Estimates of CO₂ efflux from modified mangrove and other habitats with peat soils.

<p>Estimates of CO₂ efflux from modified mangrove and other habitats with peat soils.</p

Variation in CO₂ efflux from peat soils over the time since the mangrove forest was cleared from Twin Cays Belize.

<p>The fitted line is of the form: Log CO₂ Efflux  =  a x exp (-b x time) where a = 0.712 and b = 0.656; R² = 0.51. The model is significant: F_1,30 = 40.4988, P<0.0001.</p

Relationship between wood density and distance from pith and wood density and time in <i>Avicennia marina</i>.

<p>Relationship between A) wood density and distance from pith, slopes between stems were significantly different (<i>p<0.0001</i>), the regression equations were: Wood density (<i>stem 1</i>)  = −4.3×10⁻² distance from pith +1.01, <i>r²</i> = 0.78, <i>n</i> = 57; wood density (<i>stem 2</i>)  = −4.8×10⁻² distance from pith +0.95, <i>r²</i> = 0.83, <i>n</i> = 47; wood density (<i>stem 3</i>)  = −5.5×10⁻² distance from pith +0.86, <i>r²</i> = 0.78, <i>n</i> = 41; wood density (<i>stem 4</i>)  = −5.7×10⁻² distance from pith +0.95, <i>r²</i> = 0.94, <i>n</i> = 51; <i>p</i><0.0001 for all stems (<i>stem 1</i> – <i>stem 4</i>), vertical lines  = 1<b>σ</b>. Relationship between B) wood density and time, slopes between stems were significantly different (<i>p<0.0001</i>), the regression equations were: Wood density (<i>stem 1</i>)  = −5.07×10⁻² time +10.9, <i>r²</i> = 0.78, <i>n</i> = 48; wood density (<i>stem 2</i>)  = −3.1×10⁻² time +7.04, <i>r²</i> = 0.81, <i>n</i> = 72; wood density (<i>stem 3</i>)  = −2.5×10⁻³ time +5.75, <i>r²</i> = 0.76, <i>n</i> = 89; wood density (<i>stem 4</i>)  = −4.7×10⁻³ time +9.93, <i>r²</i> = 0.94, <i>n</i> = 63; <i>p</i><0.0001 for all stems (<i>stem 1</i> – <i>stem 4</i>), vertical lines  = 1<b>σ</b>. C) Detrended wood density and distance from pith, vertical lines  = 1<b>σ</b> and D) Detrended wood density and time, vertical lines  = 1<b>σ</b>.</p

Radiocarbon results, estimated tree ages and growth rates of <i>Avicennia marina</i>.

<p>Values of ¹⁴C are shown in percent modern carbon (pMC). ^(a) Modelled calendar age in year AD at 68.2% confidence level. ^(b) Uncertainty associated with mean growth rate represents the maximum difference between growth rate estimates from the spline curve using upper and lower limits of the calibrated ¹⁴C age range compared with the mean ¹⁴C age <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0080116#pone.0080116-Clarke1" target="_blank">[41]</a>^(c) Outermost samples were collected in 2008 and were not used for ¹⁴C analysis.</p

Growth rates of <i>Avicennia marina</i> mangroves from the Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia.

<p>Values are means ±1<b>σ</b>.</p

Relationship between growth rate and wood density of <i>Avicennia marina</i> collected in Giralia Bay, Western Australia.

<p>A) Relationship between growth rate (dashed grey line) and wood density (solid black line) from four stems (<i>stem 1</i> – <i>stem 4</i>) collected in Giralia Bay, Western Australia, points are at dates established using bomb-pulse dating, values are means ±1<b>σ</b>. B) The line represents the linear regression where: Growth rate  = 11.0 Wood density - 4.32, <i>r²</i> = 0.24, <i>p</i> = 0.006, <i>n</i> = 30. Points are means ±1<b>σ</b> at dates established using bomb-pulse dating.</p

Relationship between growth rate and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index and growth rate and rainfall.

<p>Relationships between A) growth rate and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index (PDO) between 1952 and 2008 and B) growth rate and rainfall between 1961 – 2008. Points are means ±1<b>σ</b>.</p