4.7 Article

Can Unleveed Agricultural Fields in Deltas Keep Pace With Sea-Level Rise?

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL101733

关键词

Ayeyarwady Delta; Myanmar; sediment dynamics; agriculture; levees; subsidence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective coastal management requires a fundamental understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on sediment dynamics. In this study, the relative resilience to subsidence was compared between an agricultural field and a nearby mangrove-forest preserve in the Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar. The results showed that both sites had net sediment import due to vegetation trapping, and the relative elevations were equivalent, suggesting similar aggradation rates. Unleveed fields may be less vulnerable to subsidence than leveed fields, but the decision to replace mangroves with agricultural fields should consider all the benefits provided by each environment.
Effective coastal management requires a fundamental understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on sediment dynamics, yet it is challenging to isolate individual impacts in heavily altered regions. The Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar has been extensively deforested for agriculture but has few levees/polders. In this study, the relative resilience to subsidence was compared between a 45-year-old agricultural field and a nearby mangrove-forest preserve. At both sites, water velocity and turbidity were measured in tidal channels, topography was mapped, and sediment cores were collected during 2018-2019. There was net sediment import at both sites due to sediment trapping by vegetation. Relative elevations were equivalent, suggesting that the field has aggraded at rates similar to the forest (0.7 cm/year). Unleveed fields may be less vulnerable to subsidence than leveed fields. However, uncertainties remain and the decision to replace mangroves with agricultural fields should weigh all the benefits provided by each environment.

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

4.7
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