4.6 Review

A Critical Review on Mathematical Descriptions to Study Flux Processes and Environmental-Related Interactions of Mangroves

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13126970

关键词

carbon storage; carbon dioxide sequestration; mangrove; mathematical model

资金

  1. National Research System of Panama
  2. Panama Research and Integrated Sustainability Model (PRISM) Small Grants of the McGill Sustainability Systems Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trees are important resources that offer multiple benefits, with mangrove forests storing more carbon than other forests, influencing the fight against global warming. Systematic research is crucial in providing justified information on the importance of forests and the benefits of their preservation and regeneration.
Trees are resources that provide multiple benefits, such as the conservation of fauna, both terrestrial and marine, a source of food and raw material, and offering protection in storms, which makes it practical to understand their behavior against different phenomena. Such understanding may be possible through process modeling. Studies confirm that mangrove forests can store more carbon than other forests, influencing the fight against global warming. Thus, a critical and systematic review was carried out regarding studies focusing on mangroves to collect information on the models that have been applied and the most influential variables highlighted by other authors. Applying a systematic search for the most relevant topics related to mangroves (basic as well as recent information), it is possible to group models and methods carried out by other authors to respond to certain behaviors presented by mangroves. Moreover, possible structuring of a mathematical model applied to a species of interest thanks to the analyzed references could provide justified information to the authorities on the importance of these forests and the benefits of their preservation and regeneration-recovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据