Reprofile/relandscape: brackish/saline swamps

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reprofiling/relandscaping to restore or create brackish/saline swamps. Three studies were in the USA. Two of these shared a study site. There was one study in Singapore and one in Thailand.

VEGETATION COMMUNITY

  • Overall extent (1 study): One study of a coastal site in the USA reported that the area of mangrove vegetation increased between 6 and 14 years after reprofiling (and planting propagules).
  • Relative abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the USA and Singapore reported that areas of reprofiled coastal land (sometimes also planted with propagules) supported a different relative abundance of tree species to natural forests, after roughly 3–15 years.
  • Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Singapore reported that an area of reprofiled coastal land colonized by mangrove vegetation had higher plant species richness, after three and a half years, than an adjacent mature mangrove patch.
  • Tree/shrub richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA, reported that where mangrove forests developed on reprofiled (and planted) sites, they contained a similar number of tree species to nearby mature forests after 7–30 years. One study in a former shrimp pond in Thailand simply reported the number of mangrove tree species that spontaneously colonized in the six years after reprofiling (along with other interventions).

VEGETATION ABUNDANCE

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Singapore reported that an area of reprofiled coastal land colonized by mangrove vegetation had a higher density of individual plants, after three and a half years, than an adjacent mature mangrove patch.
  • Tree/shrub abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA, reported that where mangrove forests developed on reprofiled (and planted) sites, they contained a greater density of trees than nearby mature forests after 17–30 years. One study in a former shrimp pond in Thailand simply reported the number of mangrove trees that spontaneously colonized in the six years after reprofiling (along with other interventions).
  • Individual species abundance (1 study): One study in a former shrimp pond in Thailand reported the number of mangrove trees, by species, that spontaneously colonized in the six years after reprofiling (along with other interventions).

VEGETATION STRUCTURE

  • Overall structure (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that where mangrove forests developed on reprofiled (and planted) sites, they had a different overall structure to nearby mature forests after 17–30 years.
  • Height (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA, reported that where mangrove forests developed on reprofiled (and planted) sites, they had a shorter canopy than nearby mature forests after 17–30 years. One site comparison study in Singapore reported that in an area of reprofiled coastal land colonized by mangrove vegetation, most plants were in a similar height category to those in an adjacent mature mangrove patch, but that the maximum plant height was lower. Vegetation was surveyed three and a half years after reprofiling.
  • Diameter/perimeter/area (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the USA reported that mangrove forests that developed on reprofiled (and planted) coastal areas contained thinner trees, on average, than mature natural forests, after 7–18 years.
  • Basal area (3 studies): Three site comparison studies in the USA compared mangrove forests that developed on reprofiled (and planted) coastal areas to mature natural forests. Two of the studies reported that restored forests had a smaller basal area than mature natural forests, after 7–18 years. The other study reported that restored forests had a similar basal area to mature natural forests, after 17–30 years.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 1996–1997 involving two reprofiled sites (also planted with mangrove propagules) in Florida, USA (McKee & Faulkner 2000) reported that they supported a different tree density, structure and community to mature natural mangrove forests after 7–15 years. Statistical significance was not assessed. Restored sites contained 6,830–27,700 trees/ha (vs natural: only 1,840–2,131 trees/ha) but had a basal area of only 3–18 m2/ha (vs natural: 26–28 m2/ha). Accordingly, trees in restored sites were all <10 cm in diameter (average: 2.1–2.7 cm) whereas natural sites contained trees both <10 cm and ≥10 cm in diameter. Restored sites contained two or three tree species (vs natural: three), but in different proportions (e.g. 48–75% of trees in restored sites were white mangrove Laguncularia racemosa, vs natural: 17–26%; similar pattern for relative density, dominance and importance). Methods: Between November 1996 and December 1997, trees were surveyed in two pairs of restored and natural mangrove forests. Restoration, completed in 1982 or 1990, involved removing previously dumped sediment and excavating tidal channels, then planting red mangrove propagules. The study does not distinguish between the effects, on non-planted trees, of reprofiling and planting. Trees ≥2 m tall and ≥2 cm in diameter were recorded at 21 points/site. One pair of sites in this study was also used in (3).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A site comparison study in the early 1990s on the coast of Singapore (Lee et al. 1996) reported that an area reprofiled to the same elevation as a neighbouring remnant mangrove forest was colonized by mangrove vegetation within 42 months, but with greater plant species richness and fewer, shorter plants than the remnant mangrove. Statistical significance was not assessed. After 42 months, the reprofiled area contained 9 plant species and 241 individual plants along an 80-m2 transect (vs natural: 7 species and 487 individuals). Most plants in the reprofiled area were ≤2 m tall (75%) and the tallest were ≤6 m. In the remnant mangrove, most plants were also <2 m tall (77%) but some were >8 m. The reprofiled area was dominated numerically by smallflower bruguiera Bruguiera parviflora (50% of individuals, but mostly saplings) whereas the remnant mangrove was dominated numerically by Avicennia alba (67% of individuals, but mostly saplings). Methods: In 1988, a 1-ha plot between a remnant patch of mangrove forest and a tidal river was reprofiled to allow tidal inundation around 40–50 times/month (as in the remnant mangrove). Forty-two months later, vegetation was surveyed along a 2 x 40 m transect in the reprofiled plot and the remnant mangrove. All individual plants were identified and measured.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A site comparison study in 1989–2000 in Florida, USA (Proffitt & Devlin 2005) reported that after reprofiling a coastal site (and planting mangrove propagules) mangrove forest stands developed, but that these contained more trees with a greater basal area than natural forest after 18 years. Tall mangrove stands occupied 74% of the restored area after six years, then 95% after 14 years. Two of three mangrove species present in nearby natural forest had colonized the restored site: black mangrove Avicennia germinans and white mangrove Laguncularia racemosa. Overall, trees in the restored site were thinner (restored: 3 cm; natural: 13 cm diameter) but had a greater basal area (restored: 43 m2/ha; natural: 16–19 m2/ha). Statistical significance was not assessed. Methods: Between 1989 and 2000, vegetation was surveyed in a restored area and adjacent natural mangrove. Restoration, in the early 1980s, involved removing previously dumped sediment and excavating a tidal channel, then planting red mangrove propagules. The study does not distinguish between the effects, on non-planted trees, of reprofiling and planting. Surveys involved taking aerial photographs to estimate overall mangrove area, and counting/measuring trees within 25-m2 plots or 1-m2 quadrats (see original paper for details). This study monitored one of the sites from (1).

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, site comparison study in 2005 in Florida, USA (Shafer & Roberts 2008) reported that 12 of 17 mangrove creation/restoration sites (all reprofiled, along with other interventions) contained mangrove forests after 17–30 years – but that these differed from mature natural forests in overall complexity, tree density and canopy height. Statistical significance was not assessed. After 17–30 years, mangrove forests had developed in 12 of the 17 sites. Mangrove forests had not persisted in four sites and been deliberately removed from one. Nine of the sites that developed forests were surveyed in detail. The created/restored forests had a different overall structure to natural forests (data reported as a complexity index and graphical analysis). Created/restored forests contained 16,370 trees/ha on average (vs natural: only 6,594 trees/ha) and had a canopy height of only 3.7 m (vs natural: 6.4 m). Both created/restored and natural forests had a similar average basal area (28–31 m2/ha, and contained 1–3 tree species. Methods: In 2005, vegetation was surveyed in 17 sites (three 2 x 2 m plots/site). Between 1975 and 1987, all of these sites had been reprofiled to appropriate elevations for mangroves. All but one had also been planted with red mangrove Rhizophora mangle seedlings or propagules, and some (precise number not reported) had been planted with smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora. The study does not distinguish between the effects, on unplanted trees, of reprofiling, planting mangroves and planting cordgrass. Comparisons were made with previously published data from seven nearby natural forests.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A study in 1999–2005 in a former shrimp pond in Thailand (Matsui et al. 2010) reported that six years after reprofiling (along with restoring tidal exchange and planting mangrove seedlings), 1,797 unplanted trees of 15 different species were present. The most abundant species were grey mangrove Avicennia marina (842 trees), Bruguiera cylindrica (486 trees) and Ceriops decandra (267 trees). Four species were represented by a single tree. Methods: In June 1999, an abandoned 6,525-m2 shrimp pond was filled in, and tidal exchange was restored by levelling the banks. In September 1999, seedlings of four mangrove species were planted in the pond (500–800 seedlings/species, 1.5 m apart). The study does not distinguish between the effects, on naturally colonizing vegetation, of reprofiling, restoring tidal exchange and planting. In October 2005, mangrove trees that had spontaneously colonized were recorded in a 300-m2 section of the site.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Marsh and Swamp Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions to Conserve Marsh and Swamp Vegetation. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marsh and Swamp Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marsh and Swamp Conservation
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Marsh and Swamp Conservation - Published 2021

Marsh and Swamp Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust