Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: a case study on the relative benefits of abandoned pond reversion from Panay Island, Philippines

  • Published source details Duncan C., Primavera J.H., Pettorelli N., Thompson J.R., Loma R.J.A. & Koldewey H.J. (2016) Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: a case study on the relative benefits of abandoned pond reversion from Panay Island, Philippines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109, 772-782.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Directly plant trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Directly plant trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands

    A paired, site comparison study in 2014–2015 of mangrove forests in the Philippines (Duncan et al. 2016) reported that replanted mangroves had a smaller basal area with shorter, thinner trees than mature natural mangroves, but had a similar or greater stem density and similar canopy closure. Statistical significance was not assessed. After 7–9 years, planted mangroves had a basal area of 28–33 m2/ha (vs natural: 11–17 m2/ha). On average, trees in planted mangroves were only 3.8–4.6 m tall (vs natural: 6.2–6.7 m) and had a stem diameter of only 2.7–6.9 cm (vs natural: 5.8–18.0 cm). In one site, stem density was similar in planted and natural mangroves (planted: 1,916; natural: 2,152 stems/ha), but in the other site, stem density was greater in the planted mangrove (planted: 11,839; natural: 6,496 stems/ha). Canopy closure was 84–87% in planted mangroves (vs natural: 85–88%). Methods: In 2014–2015, vegetation was surveyed in a replanted and natural mangrove forest at each of two sites on Panay Island (eight 7-m radius plots/forest). One replanted forest (Bakhawan) had been planted with tall-stilt mangrove Rhizophora apiculata in 2006, then colonized by other species. The other replanted forest (Ermita) had been planted with mixed mangrove species in 2007, although only white mangrove Sonneratia alba survived.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

Output references
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 19

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