↓ Skip to main content

An Ecosystem Report on the Panama Canal: Monitoring the Status of the Forest Communities and the Watershed

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, November 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Ecosystem Report on the Panama Canal: Monitoring the Status of the Forest Communities and the Watershed
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, November 2002
DOI 10.1023/a:1020378926399
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Ibáñez, Richard Condit, George Angehr, Salomón Aguilar, Tomas GarcÍa, Raul MartÍnez, Amelia Sanjur, Robert Stallard, S. Joseph Wright, A. Stanley Rand, Stanley Heckadon

Abstract

In 1996, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Republic of Panama's Environmental Authority, with support from the United States Agency for International Development, undertook a comprehensive program to monitor the ecosystem of the Panama Canal watershed. The goals were to establish baseline indicators for the integrity of forest communities and rivers. Based on satellite image classification and ground surveys, the 2790 km2 watershed had 1570 km2 of forest in 1997, 1080 km2 of which was in national parks and nature monuments. Most of the 490 km2 of forest not currently in protected areas lies along the west bank of the Canal, and its management status after the year 2000 turnover of the Canal from the U.S. to Panama remains uncertain. In forest plots designed to monitor forest diversity and change, a total of 963 woody plant species were identified and mapped. We estimate there are a total of 850-1000 woody species in forests of the Canal corridor. Forests of the wetter upper reaches of the watershed are distinct in species composition from the Canal corridor, and have considerably higher diversity and many unknown species. These remote areas are extensively forested, poorly explored, and harbor an estimated 1400-2200 woody species. Vertebrate monitoring programs were also initiated, focusing on species threatened by hunting and forest fragmentation. Large mammals are heavily hunted in most forests of Canal corridor, and there was clear evidence that mammal density is greatly reduced in hunted areas and that this affects seed predation and dispersal. The human population of the watershed was 113 000 in 1990, and grew by nearly 4% per year from 1980 to 1990. Much of this growth was in a small region of the watershed on the outskirts of Panama City, but even rural areas, including villages near and within national parks, grew by 2% per year. There is no sewage treatment in the watershed, and many towns have no trash collection, thus streams near large towns are heavily polluted. Analyses of sediment loads in rivers throughout the watershed did not indicate that erosion has been increasing as a result of deforestation, rather, erosion seems to be driven largely by total rainfall and heavy rainfall events that cause landslides. Still, models suggest that large-scale deforestation would increase landslide frequency, and failure to detect increases in erosion could be due to the gradual deforestation rate and the short time period over which data are available. A study of runoff showed deforestation increased the amount of water from rainfall that passed directly into streams. As a result, dry season flow was reduced in a deforested catchment relative to a forested one. Currently, the Panama Canal watershed has extensive forest areas and streams relatively unaffected by humans. But impacts of hunting and pollution near towns are clear, and the burgeoning population will exacerbate these impacts in the next few decades. Changes in policies regarding forest protection and pollution control are necessary.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 4%
Panama 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 139 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 20%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 14 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 37%
Environmental Science 37 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 22 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2012.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#631
of 3,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,445
of 52,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 52,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.