![Figure][1] Since 2016, when this photo was taken, much of Kulhudhuffushi island's small mangrove patch has been destroyed. PHOTO: EYEWELL PORTRAIT Mangroves provide crucial services to humanity, including food, coastal protection, fisheries support, and carbon sequestration ([ 1 ][2]). However, up to 35% of mangrove area has been lost since the 1980s, primarily due to coastal development ([ 2 ][3]). Mangroves are protected under a plethora of international agreements, and they are key to meeting commitments of the Paris Climate Agreement and mitigating the impacts of a changing climate on coastal communities ([ 3 ][4]). Despite warnings about the ramifications of losing mangroves ([ 4 ][5]), conversion and degradation still occur ([ 5 ][6]), especially for smaller mangrove patches. The global disdain for small mangrove patches is exemplified by the 2017 decision by the Maldivian government to construct a new local airport on the regionally significant mangrove patch (12 ha) on Kulhudhuffushi island ([ 6 ][7]). This decision was made despite the socioeconomic importance of the mangrove to the local community, the viable alternative solutions that were identified ([ 6 ][7]), the island's high risk for cyclones and tsunamis ([ 6 ][7]), and the substantial funding the Maldives received for climate change mitigation and adaptation [e.g., ([ 7 ][8])]. Despite assurances that only 30% of the mangrove would be directly affected by this project, nearly 70% may have already been destroyed ([ 8 ][9]). The loss of relatively small patches of mangrove may seem less concerning than large-scale deforestation. However, these patches are especially important to low-lying island nations vulnerable to climate change and sea-level rise ([ 1 ][2]). Their interconnectedness with adjacent habitats, such as coral reefs, allows them to provide substantial ecosystem services relative to their size ([ 9 ][10]). The continued loss of mangrove patches further fragments mangrove habitat, which creates barriers to species movement and dispersal ([ 10 ][11]). The loss also drastically erodes local coastal resilience and pushes key mangrove ecosystems toward collapse. Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections ([ 11 ][12]), we simply cannot afford to lose more mangrove forests, irrespective of their size. We call on governments to move away from policy decisions that prioritize large areas and short-term local political gains and instead adopt a more holistic long-term vision ([ 12 ][13]), whereby the value of smaller mangrove patches is better appreciated and safeguarded. 1. [↵][14]1. S. Y. Lee et al ., Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 726 (2014). [OpenUrl][15] 2. [↵][16]1. B. A. Polidoro et al ., PLOS ONE 5, 10.1371/journal.pone.0010095 (2010). 3. [↵][17]1. P. Taillardat, 2. D. A. Friess, 3. M. Lupascu , Biol. Lett. 14, 20180251 (2018). [OpenUrl][18][CrossRef][19][PubMed][20] 4. [↵][21]1. N. C. Duke et al ., Science 317, 41 (2007). [OpenUrl][22][CrossRef][23][PubMed][24][Web of Science][25] 5. [↵][26]1. S. E. Hamilton, 2. D. Casey , Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 729 (2016). [OpenUrl][27] 6. [↵][28]1. Z. Hameed , “Environmental Impact Assessment for the airport development project at Haa Dhaal Kulhudhuffushi” (2017). 7. [↵][29]Green Climate Fund (2018); [www.mv.undp.org/content/maldives/en/home/operations/projects/environment\_and\_energy/GreenClimateFund.html][30]. 8. [↵][31]Transparency Maldives (2018); . 9. [↵][32]1. S. J. Pitmann 1. E. B. Barbier , in Seascape Ecology, S. J. Pitmann, Ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, NY, 2017), pp. 465–481. 10. [↵][33]1. L. Triest , Aquat. Bot. 89, 138 (2008). [OpenUrl][34][CrossRef][35] 11. [↵][36]1. V. Masson-Delmotte et al. 1. O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al ., in “Global warming of 1.5°C,” V. Masson-Delmotte et al., Eds. (2018); [www.ipcc.ch/sr15/][37]. 12. [↵][38]1. A. A. Amir , Science 359, 1342 (2018). [OpenUrl][39][FREE Full Text][40] [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #ref-6 [8]: #ref-7 [9]: #ref-8 [10]: #ref-9 [11]: #ref-10 [12]: #ref-11 [13]: #ref-12 [14]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [15]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGlob.%2BEcol.%2BBiogeogr.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.spage%253D726%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [16]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [17]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [18]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBiol.%2BLett.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1098%252Frsbl.2018.0251%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F30355678%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [19]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1098/rsbl.2018.0251&link_type=DOI [20]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=30355678&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F363%2F6424%2F239.atom [21]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [22]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.volume%253D317%26rft.spage%253D41%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.317.5834.41b%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17615322%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [23]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1126/science.317.5834.41b&link_type=DOI [24]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17615322&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F363%2F6424%2F239.atom [25]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000247776700016&link_type=ISI [26]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [27]:...

Leaf litter and its breakdown products represent an important input of organic matter and nutrients to mangrove sediments and adjacent coastal ecosystems. It is commonly assumed that old-grown stands with mature trees contribute more to the permanent sediment organic matter pool than younger stands. However, neither are interspecific differences in leaf decay rates taken into account in this assumption nor is our understanding of the underlying mechanisms or drivers of differences in leaf chemistry sufficient. This study examines the influence of different plant species and ontogenetic stage on the microbial decay of mangrove leaf litter. A litterbag experiment was conducted in the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Malaysia, to monitor leaf litter mass loss, and changes in leaf litter chemistry and microbial enzyme activity. Four mangrove species of different morphologies were selected, namely the trees Rhizophora apiculata and Bruguiera parviflora, the fern Acrostichum aureum and the shrub Acanthus ilicifolius. Decay rates of mangrove leaf litter decreased from A. ilicifolius to R. apiculata to B. parviflora to A. aureum. Leaf litter mass, total phenolic content, protein precipitation capacity and phenol oxidase activity were found to decline rapidly during the early stage of decay. Leaf litter from immature plants differed from that of mature plants in total phenolic content, phenolic signature, protein precipitating capacity and protease activity. For R. apiculata, but not of the other species, leaf litter from immature plants decayed faster than the litter of mature plants. The findings of this study advance our understanding of the organic matter dynamics in mangrove stands of different compositions and ages and will, thus, prove useful in mangrove forest management.

Mangrove is classified as an important ecosystem along the shorelines of tropical and subtropical landmasses, which are being degraded at an alarming rate despite numerous international treaties having been agreed. Iskandar Malaysia (IM) is a fast-growing economic region in southern Peninsular Malaysia, where three Ramsar Sites are located. Since the beginning of the 21st century (2000–2019), a total loss of 2907.29 ha of mangrove area has been estimated based on medium-high resolution remote sensing data. This corresponds to an annual loss rate of 1.12%, which is higher than the world mangrove depletion rate. The causes of mangrove loss were identified as land conversion to urban, plantations, and aquaculture activities, where large mangrove areas were shattered into many smaller patches. Fragmentation analysis over the mangrove area shows a reduction in the mean patch size (from 105 ha to 27 ha) and an increase in the number of mangrove patches (130 to 402), edge, and shape complexity, where smaller and isolated mangrove patches were found to be related to the rapid development of IM region. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) products were used to inspect the impact of fragmentation on the mangrove ecosystem process. The mean LAI and GPP of mangrove areas that had not undergone any land cover changes over the years showed an increase from 3.03 to 3.55 (LAI) and 5.81 g C m⁻² to 6.73 g C m⁻² (GPP), highlighting the ability of the mangrove forest to assimilate CO₂ when it is not disturbed. Similarly, GPP also increased over the gained areas (from 1.88 g C m⁻² to 2.78 g C m⁻²). Meanwhile, areas that lost mangroves, but replaced them with oil palm, had decreased mean LAI from 2.99 to 2.62. In fragmented mangrove patches an increase in GPP was recorded, and this could be due to the smaller patches (<9 ha) and their edge effects where abundance of solar radiation along the edges of the patches may increase productivity. The impact on GPP due to fragmentation is found to rely on the type of land transformation and patch characteristics (size, edge, and shape complexity). The preservation of mangrove forests in a rapidly developing region such as IM is vital to ensure ecosystem, ecology, environment, and biodiversity conservation, in addition to providing economical revenue and supporting human activities.