Study

Restoration of biogeochemical function in mangrove forests

  • Published source details McKee K.L. & Faulkner P.L. (2000) Restoration of biogeochemical function in mangrove forests. Restoration Ecology, 8, 247-259.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reprofile/relandscape: brackish/saline swamps

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Introduce tree/shrub seeds or propagules: brackish/saline wetlands

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Reprofile/relandscape: brackish/saline swamps

    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).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Introduce tree/shrub seeds or propagules: brackish/saline wetlands

    A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 1996–1997 involving two sites planted with red mangrove Rhizophora mangle propagules (after reprofiling) 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 unplanted trees, of planting and reprofiling. 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 (10).

    (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 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