Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

A mistake in mangrove species

Posted by gabrielgg on 29 Apr 2010 at 00:17 GMT

In the paper of Polidoro et al. there are a mistake. In the section: The Cost of Mangrove Species Loss, authors mentioned that "In the Gulf of California, for example, where there are only 4 mangrove species present (Avicennia germinans, Rhizophora samoensis, Laguncularia
racemosa, Conocarpus erectus), it is estimated that one linear kilometer of the species R. samoensis, listed as Near Threatened...
The species mentioned, R. samoensis, have no distribution in Mexico. R. mangle is the species distributed in Mexico and it is a different species of that authors mentioned (Duke and Allen 2006)
Duke, N.C. and Allen, J.A., 2006, Atlantic–East Pacific red mangrove: Rhizophora mangle, R. samoensis, R. racemosa, R. × harrisonii (Atlantic-East Pacific red mangrove), Species profiles for Pacific island agroforestry ecological, economic, and
cultural renewal, Agroforestry.

No competing interests declared.

RE: A mistake in mangrove species

bpolidoro replied to gabrielgg on 29 Apr 2010 at 01:49 GMT

Thanks for your comment! In the article you cite, Duke and Allen (2006) provide the distributions for R. mangle and R. samoensis on pg 3. Although the taxonomic status is arguable, Duke and Allen show R. samoensis as present in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (western coast of the Americas) and the southwest Pacific, while R. mangle is considered to be present in the Atlantic, with introduced populations in Hawaii. For our paper, we adopted this approach based on advice from co-author Duke who asserts that the species formerly known as R. mangle in the Eastern Pacific, is now R. samoensis (=R. mangle sensu lato Tomlinson 1986; =R. mangle var.
samoensis Hochr.).

No competing interests declared.