Secondary succession impairment in restored mangroves

  • Published source details Rovai A.S., Soriano-Sierra E.J., Pagliosa P.R., Cintrón G., Schaeffer-Novelli Y., Menghini R.P., Coelho-Jr C., Horta P.A., Lewis R.R., Simonassi J.C., Alves J.A.A., Boscatto F. & Dutra S.J. (2012) Secondary succession impairment in restored mangroves. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 20, 447-459.


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 replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2011 in three mangrove forests in southern Brazil (Rovai et al. 2012) reported that planted areas typically contained more, thinner, shorter woody stems than natural forests (both mature and regenerating) – but a similar number of tree species. Statistical significance was not assessed. Planted areas contained 4,500–22,037 woody stems/ha, with a basal area of 4–10 m2/ha, an average diameter of 3 cm, and average height of 2–3 m. Stem density and basal area were greater than in mature forests in at least two of three sites (mature density: 512–861 stems/m2; basal area: 4–7 m2/ha). Diameter and height were less than in mature forests in three of three sites (mature diameter: 9–15 cm; height: 6–9 m). The pattern of results was similar for comparisons with naturally regenerating forests. Planted and natural forests all contained 2–3 tree species. However, in two of three sites, planted areas were dominated by white mangrove Laguncularia racemosa (90–99% of stems) whereas natural areas were co-dominated by white mangrove (36–45% of stems) and siriúba Avicennia schaueriana (54–63% of stems). For data on abundance and structure of individual species, see original paper. Methods: In 2011, trees were counted, identified and measured in three areas in each of three sites: one area planted 10–12 years previously (details not reported), one area naturally regenerating for 10 years, and one mature stand. The planted and regenerating areas had, historically, been damaged by sediment excavation or pollution from a landfill site.

    (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