4.7 Article

Land claim and loss of tidal flats in the Yangtze Estuary

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep24018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB430404]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31572280, 31272334, 31071939]
  3. US NASA Land Use and Land Cover Change program [NNX09AC39G, NNX11AJ35G]
  4. US National Science Foundation EPSCoR program [NSF-0919466]
  5. US National Institutes of Health [1R01AI101028-01A1]
  6. program of the China Scholarship Council
  7. NASA [NNX09AC39G, 120631] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tidal flats play a critical role in supporting biodiversity and in providing ecosystem services but are rapidly disappearing because of human activities. The Yangtze Estuary is one of the world's largest alluvial estuaries and is adjacent to the most developed economic zone in China. Using the Yangtze Estuary as a study region, we developed an automatic algorithm to estimate tidal flat areas based on the Land Surface Water Index and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. The total area of tidal flats in the Yangtze Estuary has decreased by 36% over the past three decades, including a 38% reduction in saltmarshes and a 31% reduction in barren mudflats. Meanwhile, land claim has accumulated to 1077 km(2), a value that exceeds the area of the remaining tidal flats. We divided the Yangtze Estuary into Shanghai and Jiangsu areas, which differ in riverine sediment supply and tidal flat management patterns. Although land claim has accelerated in both areas, the decline in tidal flat area has been much greater in Jiangsu than in Shanghai because of abundant supplies of sediment and artificial siltation in the latter area. The results highlight the need for better coastal planning and management based on tidal flat dynamics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available