Content uploaded by Kas Kodikara
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kas Kodikara on Aug 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Title: Have mangrove restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri
Lanka
Running head: Evaluation of mangrove restoration in Sri Lanka
Authors and addresses:
Kodikara K.A.S.1,2*, Mukherjee N.3,4*, Jayatissa L.P.1, Dahdouh-Guebas F.2,4 **, Koedam N.2 **
1Department of Botany, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Matara, Sri Lanka
2Laboratory of Plant Biology and Nature Management, Ecology and Biodiversity, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - VUB,
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
3Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB23EJ, UK
4Laboratory of Systems Ecology and Resource Management, Department of Organism Biology, Faculty of Sciences,
Université Libre de Bruxelles - ULB, Av. F.D. Roosevelt 50, CPI 264/1, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Corresponding author: sunandaruh@gmail.com
*co first-authors
**co-last authors
Author contributions
KKAS, NK, FDG, LPJ designed the research; KKAS performed the fieldwork; NK, FDG, LPJ
supervised the research; NK, FDG, KKAS analyzed the data; NM, KKAS wrote the paper; NK,
LPJ, FDG edited the manuscript.
Abstract
The study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of mangrove planting initiatives in Sri Lanka.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
All the lagoons and estuaries in Sri Lanka were included in the study. We documented the all
agencies, locations, the extent, mangrove planting efforts, major drivers of the planting
initiatives, and the possible causes of success/failure of planting. An adapted three-step
framework and a field survey consisting of vegetation and soil surveys and questionnaires were
used to evaluate the objectives. We found that about 1000-1200 ha of mangroves, representing
twenty-three project sites with sixty-seven planting efforts, have been under restoration with the
participation of several governmental and non-governmental organizations. However, about 200-
220 ha showed successful mangrove restoration. Nine out of twenty-three project sites (i.e.,
36/67 planting efforts) showed no surviving plants. The level of survival of the restoration
project sites ranged from 0-78% and only three sites i.e., Kalpitiya, Pambala, and Negombo
showed a level of survival higher than 50%. Survival rate was significantly correlated with post-
care. Planting of mangrove seedlings at the incorrect topography often entails inappropriate soil
conditions for mangroves. Survival rates showed significant increase with soil parameters except
soil pH. Disturbance and stress caused by cattle trampling, browsing, algal accumulation, and
insect attacks, that may also find their origin in a choice of inappropriate site topography with
ecologically non suitable hydrology (for mangroves), were common to most sites. The findings
of this study are a sharp pointer to the mismatch between purported aims of restoration initiatives
and the realities on the ground.
Keywords: Climate zones, field survey, Indian Ocean tsunami, level of survival, mangrove
restoration, Sri Lanka
Implications
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
•This detailed study can be used as a baseline for future studies on mangrove restoration in
Sri Lanka and in the South East Asian region
•The outcomes of the study provide a strong scientific basis and can easily be used as a
baseline for guiding future mangrove planting with special attention to appropriate site
topography with ecologically suitable hydrology
•Findings of the study hold a key to identify the precious resources that need to be
divested in enhancing probability of planting success
Main text
Introduction
Mangrove ecosystems are primarily tropical, subtropical, and warm temperate (30°N to 37°S)
coastal wetlands occurring in 123 countries (Feller et al. 2010; Spalding et al. 2010; Mukherjee
et al. 2015). They are amongst the most productive ecosystems per unit area, having been
reported to contain up to 1023 Mg carbon.ha-1 (Donato et al. 2011). In addition, mangroves
continue to be widely used by coastal communities (e.g., for livelihood like food, fuel,
subsistence, shelter, and tourism) throughout most of their geographic distribution (Walters et al.
2008; Lee et al. 2014; Mukherjee et al. 2014).
In spite of their ecological and socio-economic importance, mangrove conservation has not been
able to match the rate of mangrove destruction and loss (Duke et al. 2007; Polidoro et al. 2010;
Richards & Friess 2016). In the last few decades, mangrove loss has been an issue of growing
concern, with several authors urging for stronger measures to stem this loss (Valiela et al. 2001;
Duke et al. 2007; Giri et al. 2011).
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Though calls for restoration and conservation of mangroves are not new and date back at least to
the 1970s (Teas 1977), the effect of mangrove loss on coastal protection was most widely noted
recently after several cyclonic and tsunami events in South and South East Asia (e.g., Cyclone
Haiyan in November 2013, Cyclone Aila in May 2009, and the Indian Ocean tsunami in
December 2004). The Indian Ocean tsunami forms a watershed in this context due to its massive
effect on human lives and property and the subsequent range of initiatives for mangrove
restoration which were launched as a consequence (Mukherjee et al. 2015). Projects of mangrove
restoration that had already been launched in some nations since the 1950s (e.g., China, India) or
1960s (e.g., Bangladesh) (FAO 2007) gained momentum after the Indian Ocean tsunami and
were replicated in several nations across the South Asian region after 2004 (ITTO/ISME 2008).
For the sake of clarity we will use the word ‘restoration’ irrespective of previous existence of
mangroves in particular sites, because the planting efforts usually claim that objective.
Given the considerable amount of funding and international attention that mangrove restoration
projects have received over the last decade (Primavera & Esteban 2008; Biswas et al. 2009;
Mukherjee et al. 2009), it is critical to evaluate the success (or failure) of restoration
interventions (Ellison 2000) for three main reasons: a) to document what proportion of planting
projects have led to establishment success of mature mangrove stands b) to understand the
restoration of ecosystem functions in restored planted sites and c) to serve as a guideline for
mangrove restoration projects in the future. Evaluating the success of mangrove restoration
projects is also critical from a financial and risk-assessment perspective since human lives may
depend on the coastal protection claimed to be offered by these planting initiatives.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of mangrove restoration initiatives in Sri Lanka,
which have almost all taken place in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Survival of
planted seedlings for at least five years was used as the proxy for success in this study. This
criterion was used for Rhizophora mucronata in studies that were carried out in Sri Lanka by
Ranasinghe (2012). Sri Lanka is an important study area to analyse restoration success rates for
the following reasons: a) Sri Lanka was severely affected by the 2004 tsunami. This was
followed by substantial investment, i.e., about 13 million USD, for planting of mangroves over
the past decade (IUCN 2009), b) compared to other tsunami-affected nations in south Asia, there
has been considerable research on mangroves in Sri Lanka. This provided a baseline for this
study (Pinto 1986; Amarasinghe 1996; Dahdouh-Guebas et al. 2002, 2005, 2006; Jayatissa et al.
2008; Kodikara & Jayatissa 2010; Dissanayake et al. 2014; Madarasinghe et al. 2015, 2016) c)
the geographical extent of Sri Lanka is conducive for an in-depth nation-wide survey of
restoration projects. Several studies on mangrove restoration and success have been reported in
Sri Lanka (IUCN 2011; Ratnayake et al. 2012). However, only 3-4 planting sites were subjected
for the study and no detailed data on total planting initiatives, the planted extent, the total
surviving area, planting agencies involved, and major drivers. Therefore we believe that the
causes for the failure and recommendations that have been given are not strong enough in
extrapolating to country level. Further, several similar investigations on the failure of mangrove
planting after the 2004 tsunami have been reported in different countries, such as in Aceh,
Indonesia, Philippine, and Thailand in the Asia, Brazil, and the USA. In these studies, different
aspects of mangrove restoration e.g., topography of mangrove planting (Primavera & Esteban
2008; Samson & Rollon 2008), causes for mangrove restoration failure (Samson & Rollon 2008;
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Brown et al. 2014a, 2014b), technical guidance and recommendations (Lewis 2000, 2005;
Primavera & Esteban 2008; Lewis & Brown 2014; Asaeda et al. 2016) and socio-economic
aspects of mangrove restoration (Stevenson et al. 1999) have been discussed. Many studies
discussed on mangrove restoration of such countries based on some selected dimensions.
Therefore, we intended to carry out our study to extensive extent covering many dimensions on
mangrove planting (e.g., agencies, the locations, the extent etc.), the major drivers of these
planting, the success of the planting projects as that gives higher validation for mangrove
planting on country level.
Hence the key objectives of this study were to: 1) document the agencies involved, the locations,
the extent, and number of mangrove planting initiatives along the Sri Lankan coastline; 2)
calculate the rate of survival of seedlings in these planting projects (as a measure of success of
planting effort); 3) identify the drivers of these planting projects. In addition, attention must be
paid to soil conditions since according to previous studies, mangrove plants are frequently
subjected to poor soil conditions as the result of planting at unsuitable topographical position
(Field 1996; Elster 2000; Lewis 2000, 2005; Samson & Rollon 2008; Brown et al. 2014a).
Therefore, investigating the causes of success/failure of planting initiatives including soil
parameters in planting sites was also included as one of the objectives.
Methods
Study site: Sri Lanka is located in the Indian Ocean between 05°55’ and 09°51’ N latitude, and
079°41’ and 081°53’ E longitude. Its area is approximately 65,610 km2 with a coastline of about
1,620 km. The country has been divided into four major climatic zones namely wet, dry,
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
intermediate, and arid zones (Pemadasa 1996). The wet zone is mainly confined to the
southwestern region, the dry zone to the northern and the eastern part of the country. These two
zones are separated by the intermediate zone. The arid zone on the other hand is found in the
northwestern and the southern parts of the country and climatic conditions are very different in
the climatic zones (Table 1). According to CZMP (2003), 5009 ha of mangrove cover is found in
the dry and arid zones, 644 ha in intermediate zone and 430 ha in the wet zone. However,
mangrove cover between 2003 and 1983 was reduced by about 2450 ha in the dry and arid zones
(CZMP 2003).
Framework for evaluation: To address the objectives we use an adapted version of the
framework given in Mukherjee et al. (2015), (Figure 1). This framework consists of three parts
namely ecological (e.g., species planted), social (e.g., drivers of planting initiatives), and
economic (e.g., funding agency of the intervention). Though there is a plethora of frameworks
currently available in the literature (e.g., Costanza et al. 1997; Balmford et al. 2002) we chose
this framework owing to its ecocentric approach as opposed to an anthropocentric one (sensu
Binder et al. 2013).
Questionnaire survey: Using the above three-step framework, a preliminary field survey and
interviews, we designed a questionnaire to evaluate the mangrove restoration planting in Sri
Lanka (Appendix S1). The survey was conducted between October 2012 and February 2014. The
key stakeholders were identified through a combination of methods: expert knowledge elicitation
and preliminary field survey that was carried out before October 2012. We used the snowball
sampling technique (Atkinson & Flint 2001) to identify further resource persons engaged in
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
mangrove planting. In total, 105 people including 16 community leaders participated in the
survey individually. Site-specific data such as regarding planting agencies, planting objectives,
age of planted trees, and major disturbances that occurred before and current experiences,
technical guidance and post-planting monitoring schemes, were collected through the
questionnaire (Appendix S1). In addition, data from the questionnaire were cross-checked with
secondary literature on restoration planting through an online search on government and donor
agency websites and field surveys.
Field survey: All brackish water body complexes including lagoons and estuaries along the Sri
Lankan coastline (1620 km) that have been described (Ranasinghe 2012) were surveyed between
2012 and February 2014 in order to evaluate survival of planted seedlings.
i) Vegetation survey: The degree of survival was estimated in two ways. When the number of
seedlings in planting sites was around 200 or less and sparsely distributed (non-homogeneous)
they were counted individually. If there were more than 200 plants, at least three vegetation plots
of 20×20 m² were monitored. Three more representative plots were used for the monitoring when
the total area of the planting site exceeded about 0.5 ha. Survival was recorded and afterwards
the findings were extrapolated to the total prevailing area of mangrove seedlings, saplings, or
shrubs. The number of mangrove species used in restoration, major detectable stress factors,
disturbances, and status of post-planting monitoring were recorded. The current total surviving
planted area was calculated only using those sites where survival was greater than 50%. For the
rest, due to poor survival, surviving plants were scattered sparsely and it was not possible to
estimate the area covered.
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
In addition, the state and morphology of seedlings, saplings, and shrubs was inspected visually
for signs of departure from normal leaves (leaf yellowing, browning, wilting, dwarf growth,
deformation, and biotic invasion e.g., insect attacks). Above a 50% threshold of signs of seedling
damage (per seedling), seedlings were considered “dead” (Figure 2). These results were
aggregated at the site level based on the dead/alive criterion. The map that shows the mangrove
planting project sites was created with Arc GIS 10.1 software.
ii) Soil survey: Soil pH and redox potential were measured with a Multimeter (18.52.01.
Eijkelkamp). The pH was measured at 30 cm depth for the seedlings/saplings and 50 cm depth
for the shrubs of the project sites established beyond the intertidal zone by direct insertion of a
glass electrode through a wide-enough hole into the soil. Redox potential was also measured at
30 cm and 50 cm depth by immediate insertion of the electrode through a hole made by using a
hollow PVC (polyvinyl-chloride) pipe, into the soil. When the planting had been done in the
intertidal area, readings of soil slurries that were collected at 30 cm and 50 cm using scale-up
PVC pipe, were taken during the exposure of the soils at low tides. We used a plastic pipe to
collect soil samples under submerged conditions. Soil bulk density (SBD) was measured using
three inch diameter ring-drive method. A three inch diameter ring (7.62 cm), beveled edge down,
was driven into the soil to a depth of 8 cm by using a hand sledge. Three samples from each site
were collected. Soil samples were weighed and each sample was taken into a known-weight
ceramic crucible and it was dried until a constant weight was obtained by the oven-drying
method (temperature = 80 °C) until stable weight. Soil bulk density (g/cm³) was calculated using
the following equation (1). (NRCS, Department of Agriculture, USA, 2014). The average value
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
of three soil samples was obtained for each site.
SBD = oven dry weight of soil/ volume of soil of 7.62 cm diameter ring………………(1)
Salinity for each site was measured with the help of a hand-held refractometer (Atago S/Mill-E,
Japan) using 5 ml aqueous solutions under submerged conditions (soil slurry extracted with
interstitial water under non-submerged conditions) that were collected into a vial and mixed
thoroughly before taking the readings. Average salinity of six readings i.e., in both dry and rainy
seasons was calculated (Pers. communication GBM Ransara). Geo-coordinates were recorded
with a hand-held GPS (Garmin e TREX 10). Hydrological data (tidal amplitude and freshwater
input) were obtained from the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency
(NARA), and the Irrigation Department (ID) respectively. The accuracy of demarcation of the
climate zones was cross-checked with the Department of Meteorology, Sri Lanka.
Statistical Analysis
Mean and standard deviation of the age of planting initiatives, planted trees, and soil parameters
were calculated and all statistical analyses were performed using R-3.2.2 statistical package.
Correlation and regression analyses were performed between survival rate and soil bulk density,
pH, redox at 30 cm, redox at 50 cm, technical guidance for planting and post-care. Normality
was tested using the Shapiro test. Data were not normally distributed. Therefore, Spearman
correlation test was conducted. Afterwards, non-linear transformation was performed and
multiple regression was conducted for the variables. Variation of rate of survival with respect to
post-care and technical guidance were illustrated using box and whisker plots.
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Results
1) Mangrove planting projects along the Sri Lankan coastline
Twenty three restoration/planting project sites were identified in this study (Figure 3, Table S2 &
S3). Since the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, approximately 1000-1200 ha of mangroves have
been planted. However, the current total surviving planted area is only about 200-220 ha. The
projects are situated in all four different climate zones i.e., wet, dry, intermediate, and arid zones.
However, the proportion of sites was different in these four zones: 52% of the planted sites were
situated in the dry and arid climatic zones, 30% in the wet zone and the rest, i.e., 18%, are in the
intermediate zone (Table 2). We observed multiple planting initiatives by different agencies in a
same site. Sixty seven planting initiatives were recorded within these 23 sites (Table 2). Many
planting attempts could be observed in tsunami-affected areas (Figure 4 & Table 3).
The key actors involved in planting initiatives can be broadly categorised as governmental
organisations or non-governmental organisation (national and international). The governmental
organisations include the Coastal Conservation Department, regional Forest Departments, the
University of Ruhuna, the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency.
IUCN and Mericarp are the international NGOs, while Galle project, Sewalanka, Turtle
Conservation Project, Saviya Development Foundation, and Small Fishers Federation of Lanka
are local NGOs. In addition, there were five unidentified internationally affiliated NGOs that
have attempted mangrove restoration in Sri Lanka in the past decade.
2) Survival of seedlings and age of the planting projects
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
The use of Rhizophora spp. for planting was significantly higher, i.e., 97%, of the total planted
propagules and seedlings (Figure 5 & Table S2), compared to nursery-maintained Bruguiera
spp., Excoecaria sp., and Sonneratia caseolaris (i.e., 3%). Thirty six (36) planting attempts out
of 67 (54% of the total), showed no surviving plants. Two-thirds of them (21) were recorded in
the dry and arid zones. In total, for all the project sites, the level of survival (based on the
dead/alive criterion) varied from 0–78% (Table S2). Even after several planting attempts 40% of
the sites had failed (9 out of 23 had no surviving plants). Further, the level of survival for 16 of
the project sites was lower than 10% (Table S2). Only three sites, i.e., Kalpitiya (arid zone),
Pambala (intermediate zone), and Negombo (wet zone), had a level of survival higher than 50%.
Mannar (arid zone) had the fourth highest survival level at 33%. Many failed mangrove
restoration project sites could be observed in the tsunami-affected areas (Figure 4). However, all
successful sites mentioned above are located in areas that were less affected by the 2004 tsunami
(Figure 4 & Table 3).
The average height of planted mangroves in Thambalangama, Rekawa, Galle, Negombo,
Pambala, and Kalpitiya was found to be 4-6 m (Figure 3) in eight to ten years. However, stunted
growth and crooked saplings were observed in the project sites situated in Panama, Panakala, and
Halawa (Figure 3 & 6).
Most of the restoration projects were initiated after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. However,
some of the attempts like those of the University of Ruhuna in Galle and of the Small Fishers
Federation of Lanka in Pambala and Kalpitiya, were initiated in the 1990’s and are about 17-20
years old. The average time after planting was 9.5 (SD ±0.8) years as of 2016.
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Soil pH for the study sites ranged from 7.1 to 5.8 (Table S4). The sites in the wet zone showed
significantly lower pH values (P= 0.0003; sig. level 0.001) as compared to the rest. SBD ranged
from 1.22 to 1.89 g/cm³. The bulk densities were significantly lower (P=0.03; sig. level 0.05) in
the arid zone. Redox potential at 30 cm and 50 cm ranged from +6 to -146 mV and -43 to -171
mV respectively. Redox potential at 30 cm was relatively higher in the intermediate and wet
zones than in the dry and arid zones. Below a depth of 30 cm, redox potential varied between
-100 and -200 mV. However, there was no significant difference of redox potential at 30 and 50
cm between the different climate zones.
3) Drivers of these planting projects
According to the data obtained from the questionnaire survey, the main planting objective of 20
restoration sites that were established after the tsunami, 2004 was coastal protection and the rest
which were initiated before the tsunami was for mangrove regeneration (e.g., some planted sites
in Pambala, and Galle). We observed that the mixed planted sites which were established before
and after the tsunami 2004 were found in only five sites including Galle, Pambala,
Kaluwamodara, Maggona, and Kalpitiya, thus representing both the above objectives (Table S2).
4) Causes of success/failure of planting initiatives
The choice of topographic positioning for mangrove planting showed a remarkable variation.
Some planting efforts were established at the higher intertidal area and even beyond, like in
abandoned swamps, and meadows e.g., Komari, Palandi, Helawa, and Panakala while some were
at the low intertidal zone e.g., Rekawa, Medilla, Meegama, and Ittapana. Due to this
inappropriate topographic positioning, mangrove seedlings are subjected to several stress factors
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
and disturbances. Indications of stress factors and disturbances (drought, smothering, high
irradiance, flooding, algal accumulation, infestation by barnacles, browsing, and cattle
trampling) (Figure 6) were observed in all restoration sites. Cattle trampling and browsing were
ubiquitous (Table S2). In addition, algal accumulation through flotsam collection (i.e., 77%) and
insect attacks (i.e., 95%) were also frequent for most of the sites (Table 2). The occurrence of
some stress factors and disturbances were further coupled with the climate zone. For instance,
mangrove seedlings/propagules planted at the low intertidal area exposed to long-term
submergence due to heavy rains in the wet zone while mangrove seedlings/propagules at the
higher intertidal area suffered due to drought and high irradiance (average 79524.48 (SD ±
1630.2) Lux between 11.45-14.30 hrs) in the dry and arid zones. Post-care has not been observed
for all the sites (Table S2). Even though technical guidance and consultation are one of the key
elements in mangrove restoration success, only for six sites (Kalpitiya, Pambala, Negombo,
Mannar, Galle, and Rekawa) restoration was reported by respondents to have followed some
restoration principles. There were 10 sites with a post-planting monitoring process while we
were unable to find any evidence from the respondents and on-site observations for the other
ones. Removing flotsam, debris, and attached barnacles, up-righting the fallen
seedlings/propagules, avoiding cattle trampling, and secured fencing and frequent site visits, and
replacing dead seedlings/propaguels were observed and identified as post-planting monitoring
processes. Survival rate was significantly correlated with post-planting care (Figure 7) and soil
parameters except soil pH.
Discussion
This study reports that 54% of planting attempts have resulted in complete failure and roughly
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
40% of the sites chosen for planting had no success (survival rate of saplings after five years). Of
the 14 sites that had some recruitment, 50% (i.e., 7 sites) had survival rate of less than 10%.
These figures are of much concern given that 13 million USD were invested in such planting
efforts and the trend of investing in mangrove planting is still growing (Mukherjee et al. 2009).
Only three project sites (Negombo, Puttalam, and Kumana) had high survival rates (70%, 65% ,
and 53.5% respectively) and such survival rates are comparable to those of the other studies
carried out on mangrove species like Rhizophora mucronata (Toledo et al. 2001; Ratnayake et al.
2012). In this study, a minimum of 5-year survival rate was used in evaluating the success of the
mangrove restoration sites. We realize that a survey of vegetation structure including plant
diversity, density, biomass, and faunal recruitment as well as nutrient cycling as ecological
processes would add to the understanding of effective ecological restoration (Ruiz-Jaen & Aide
2005; Bosire et al. 2008). However, we intended to have a country-wide appraisal of survival
rates as a key indicator of success. Applying all criteria to evaluate ecological restoration in all
sites along the 1620 km coastal belt with more than sixty restoration initiatives demands
intensive scrutiny, for which more research is needed.
Several causes can be attributed to the failure which we observed. Firstly, the degree of damage
caused by the tsunami of 2004 was a major factor in selecting restoration project sites. More sites
were selected in the dry and arid zones than a careful scrutiny could have warranted (Feagin et
al. 2010). Not surprisingly, the restoration failure rates were proportionately higher in these two
zones especially along the east coast of the island. Most of the projects which sprang after the
2004 tsunami were largely donor-driven projects. The implementing parties had a mandate to
rapidly plant some vegetation, intended to lead to the establishment of a green belt in the
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
tsunami-affected areas (IUCN 2009). This was further confirmed by some of the signboards that
denote “ghost planting initiatives” as no surviving mangrove saplings could be observed during
our field survey in the planting sites with such signboards. Due to this unscientific approach and
intervention, many failed mangrove restoration sites could be observed in the tsunami-affected
areas. From the ecological point of view, ignorance of the major ecological drivers of mangrove
health such as ecological requirements for salinity, hydrology, and appropriate species
composition were the main causes for mangrove restoration failure (Elster 2000; Primavera &
Esteban 2008; Ahmad 2012). In fact, inappropriate site selection that violates the basic technical
aspects, and lack of preliminary research on mangrove restoration can be highlighted as root
causes of failure. Further, the placement of plants at an inappropriate topography which subjects
them to too short or too long periods of depth, duration, and frequency of inundation, either from
local rainfall or local tides, or a combination of both, has been the key factor. In addition, crucial
factors for planting success such as awareness of the history of the sites including species
composition, hydrological requirements, optimum depth of substrate, and freshwater input
(Elster 2000; Bosire et al. 2008; IUCN 2009; Lewis 2009; Kathiresan 2011) were ignored in
most of our study sites. This was a direct consequence of selection of inappropriate topographic
positions for planting. Due to such situation, the mangrove seedlings, saplings were subjected to
severe stress conditions such as prolonged submergence, soil water deficit (Field, 1998; Hoppe-
Speer et al. 2011). Prolonged submergence and soil water deficit play a crucial role in reducing
the survival potential of mangrove seedlings and saplings especially in the dry and the arid
climate zones in Sri Lanka. Therefore, according to the data collected, such basic ecological
requirements and technical guidance have been ignored. The situation was similar along the Sri
Lankan context as we observed that in Thambalangama, Halawa, Panama, and Panakala project
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
sites, mangroves were planted beyond the limits of the intertidal zone (i.e., at higher intertidal
zone) which caused restoration failure in such sites. Only 3 planting initiatives (established by
the University of Ruhuna in Galle and SFFL in Pambala and Kalpitiya) had followed technical
guidelines of mangrove restoration. These were also established in the neighbourhood of a
natural mangrove forest and were about 20 years old (in sharp contrast to the ad hoc planting
sites established after the tsunami of 2004). However, some technically guided project sites (e.g.,
Rekawa lagoon) also showed little evidence of survival due to lack of maintenance and
monitoring. Cattle trampling and browsing were the common disturbance factors for all the
project sites. The observed symptoms in the field could be due to the stress factors like prolonged
submergence, high irradiance etc., or nutrient deficiency/imbalance in soil (Bergmann 1992;
Vollenweider & Gunthardt-Goerg 2005). However, it is evident that mangrove seedlings
experience poor soil conditions due to improper positioning at the planting sites. Such conditions
directly affect nutrient availability, soil organic matter, and porosity (Boto & Wellington 1984;
Kidd & Proctor 2001; IPNI 2010; Tokarz & Urban 2015) which ultimately determines the
survival of mangrove plants.
Selection of unsuitable species like Bruguiera spp., Sonneratia caseolaris (as indicated by
species composition in respective reference forests nearby, e.g., in Meegama, Maggona, and
Kaluwamodara) was another cause of restoration failure. In contrast, planting organized by the
Small Fishers Federation of Lanka that has a Mangrove Re-plantation Advisory Board, had the
highest survival rates. Rhizophora mucronata has been used for restoration and the reasons for
the selection given by the practitioners were: ease of access, ease of handling both in nursery
condition (as nursery seedlings used for some sites e.g., Pambala, Kalpitiya, and Mannar) and
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
planting, larger propagules hence higher survival rate, and better establishment at the lagoon
water edge. The planting agencies did not survey which species occur naturally in the area nor
did they use nearby natural forests as reference sites as recommended in restoration guides
(Bosire et al. 2008; Lewis 2009). In this case, actual topographic surveys combined with
hydrologic characterization of reference sites over a period of months during wet and dry seasons
is essential (Lewis 2000, 2005; Samson & Rollon 2008). However, such preparatory
investigation has not been recorded during our survey.
Secondly the governance structure of restoration projects was found to be of major concern.
Lack of coordination between institutions implementing restoration projects e.g., Forest
Department and Coastal Conservation Department, was observed in our study sites and is also
reportedly one of the major causes for mangrove restoration failure in Sri Lanka (Primavera &
Esteban 2008; IUCN 2009; Mangora 2011). For example, interviewed officials in the FD and
CCD had no awareness of the planting efforts established by them even though the government
records and our field observations stated otherwise.
Conversion of mangroves and potential planting sites to shrimp farming had been traced as the
major socio-economic issue in Sri Lanka (Dahdouh-Guebas et al. 2002). As far as we observed,
no political support for mangrove planting while shrimp farming extends under political
patronage.
Mangrove restoration projects in Sri Lanka have not been successful in restoring mangroves
despite the good intentions which fueled them in the first place. The findings of this study are a
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
sharp pointer to the mismatch between purported aims of restoration initiatives and the realities
on the ground. The need to conserve and restore mangroves is critical and our results should not
be used as a motivation to stop investing in mangrove conservation. Well prepared and well
managed mangrove planting with post-care can lead to successful restoration, as has been amply
shown, e.g., in Kenya, East Africa (Bosire et al. 2008) to the benefit of multiple stakeholders.
Rather, our findings hold a key to identify where precious resources need to be divested such that
future projects have a higher probability of success. It might also be worthwhile to conduct
similar nationwide evaluations of planting initiatives in the South East Asian region, where the
bulk of global mangroves occur, and where most mangrove restoration has taken place to
compare the findings of this study. One such area is Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, which
has been reafforested in 30-year cycles and managed since 1902 (Goessens et al. 2014).
As a precautionary principle mangroves should be protected where they still occur. In addition,
mangroves can be replanted in areas where they have been degraded as far as the environmental
conditions (particularly the hydrography) are still conducive for hosting mangroves (Lewis 2005;
Lewis & Brown 2014). However, planting mangroves in areas that have undergone major
changes or in areas where mangroves were never reported should be preceded by a scientific
assessment of whether or not mangrove can grow there. For Sri Lanka, Feagin et al. (2010)
demonstrated that >90% of the Sri Lankan coastline is vulnerable to ocean surges (e.g., tsunami)
while mangroves can only grow along less than one-third of it. Unfortunately this has not been
respected as this study documented. Particular attention has to be given to identify alternative
bioshields or other means of coastal protection for the two-third of the coastline where
mangroves cannot grow.
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the VLIR-UOS-funded “Green Dyke project” (VLIR
Ref.ZEIN2008PR347, Flemish Interuniversity Council – University Development Cooperation),
University Grant commission, Sri Lanka (UGC/DRIC/UGC/DRIC/PG/2014AUG/RUH/02) and
Faculty of Science, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka (RU/SF/RP/2015/02). NM was
funded by the Fondation Wiener Anspach grant for her post-doctoral research.
References
Ahmad IU (2012) Status of mangrove plantations in the living delta: an overview of the coastal
afforestation experience of Bangladesh. Pages 81-93. In: Sharing Lessons on Mangrove
Restoration, Proceedings and a Call for Action from an MFF Regional Colloquium,
Mamallapuram, India
Amarasinghe MD (1996) Mangroves in Sri Lanka. Mangrove Information Centre of Small
Fishers Federation, Pambala, Sri Lanka
Asaeda T, Barnuevo A, Sanjaya K, Fortes MD, Kanesaka Y, Wolanski K (2016) Mangrove
plantation over a limestone reef – Good for the ecology? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
173:57-64
Atkinson R, Flint J (2001) Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research
strategies. Social Research Update, 33. Retrieved from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ SRU33.pdf
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P,
Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S,
Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.
Science 297:950-953
Bergmann W (1992) Colour Atlas: Nutritional Disorders of Plants. Gustav Fischer, New York
Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18:26
Biswas SR, Mallik AU, Choudhury JK, Nishat A (2009) A unified framework for the restoration
of Southeast Asian mangroves bridging ecology, society and economics. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 17:365–383
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Walton M, Crona BI, Lewis III RR, Field C, Kairo JG, Koedam
N (2008) Functionality of restored mangroves: A review. Aquatic Botany 89:251–259
Boto KG, Wellington JT (1984) Soil characteristics and nutrient status in a Northern Australian
mangrove forest. Estuaries 7:61-69
Brown B, Yuniati W, Ahmad R, Soulsby I (2014a) Observations of natural recruitment and
human attempts at mangrove rehabilitation after seismic (tsunami and earthquake) events in
Simulue Island and Singkil Lagoon, Acheh, Indonesia. Pages 311-327. In: V. Santiago-Fandino,
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
YA Kontar and Y Kaneda (eds), Post-Tsunami Hazard Reconstruction and Restoration, Springer
Brown B, Fadilla R, Nurdin Y, Soulsby I, Ahmad R (2014b) Community based ecological
mangrove rehabilitation (CBEMR) in Indonesia. SAPIENS 7:53-64
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S,
O’NeillR V, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Suttonk P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
CZMP (Coastal Zone Management Plan) (2003) Revised Coastal Zone Management Plan
(Draft), Sri Lanka. Coast Conservation Department, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Zetterström T, Rönnbäck P, Troell M, Wickramasinghe A, Koedam N
(2002) Recent changes in land-use in the Pambala-Chilaw Lagoon complex (Sri Lanka)
investigated using remote sensing and GIS : conservation of mangroves vs. development of
shrimp farming. Environment, Development and Sustainability 4:185-200
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Jayatissa LP, Di Nitto D, Bosire J, Lo Seen, Koedam N (2005) How
effective were mangrove as a defence against the recent tsunami? Current Biology 15:443-447
Dahdouh-Guebas F (2006) Mangrove forests and tsunami protection. Pages 187-191. In:
McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science & Technology
Department of Census and statistics, 15 Maitland Cres, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
486
487
488
489
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/tsunami/maps/Map_afftected%20DS%20division.html (Accessed in
8-January 2015)
Dissanayake NP, Madarasinghe SK, Kodikara KAS, Jayatissa LP, Perera AJD, Koedam N,
Dahdouh-Guebas F (2014) Preliminary study on the propagule dependency of Rhizophora
seedlings. Journal of Department of wildlife conservation 2:141-151
DM (Department of Meteorology), 383, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 00700, Sri Lanka.
http://www.meteo.gov.lk/ (Accessed in 3 March 2015)
Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiuarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, Kanninen M (2011)
Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience 4:293–297
Duke NC, Meynecke JO, Dittmann S, Ellison AM, Anger K, Berger U, Cannicci S, Diele K,
Ewel KC, Field CD, Koedam N, Lee SY, Marchand C, Nordhaus I, Dahdouh-Guebas F (2007) A
world without mangroves? Science 317:41-42
Ellison AM (2000) Mangrove restoration: do we know enough? Restoration Ecology 8:219-229
Elster C (2000) Reasons for reforestation success and failure with three mangrove species in
Colombia. Forest Ecology and Management 131:201–214
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2007) The World’s Mangroves
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153. Forest Resources Division, FAO, Rome
Feagin R, Mukherjee N, Shanker K, Baird AH, Cinner J, Kerr AM, Koedam N, Sridhar A, Arthur
R, Jayatissa LP, Seen DL, Menon M, Rodriguez S, Shamsuddoha MD, Dahdouh-Guebas F
(2010) Shelter from the storm? The use and misuse of ‘‘bioshields’’ in managing for natural
disasters on the coast. Conservation Letters 3:1–11
Feller IC, Lovelock CE, Berger U, McKee KL, Joye SB, Ball MC (2010) Biocomplexity in
mangrove ecosystems. Annual Review Marine Science 2:395-417
Field CD (ed.) (1996) Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems. International Society for Mangrove
Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan, p. 250
Field CD (1998) Rehabilitation of Mangrove Ecosystems : An Overview. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 37:383–392
Giri C, Ochieng E, Tieszen LL, Zhu Z, Singh A, Loveland T, Masek J, Duke N (2011) Status and
distribution of mangrove forests of the World using earth observation satellite data. Global
Ecology and biogeography 20:154-159
Goessens A, Satyanarayana B, Van der Stocken T, Quispe Zuniga M, Mohd-Lokman H, Sulong I,
Dahdouh-Guebas F (2014) Is Matang mangrove forest in Malaysia sustainably rejuvenating after
more than a century of conservation and harvesting management? PLoS ONE 9:e105069
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Hoppe-Speer SCL, Adams JB, Rajkaran A, Bailey D (2011) The response of the red mangrove
Rhizophora mucronata Lam. to salinity and inundation in South Africa. Aquatic Botany 95:71–
76
ID (Irrigation Department), 230, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka.
http://www.irrigationmin.gov.lk/ (Accessed in 4 March 2015)
ITTO/ISME (2008) In: Chan, H.T., Ong, J.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Meeting and Workshop
on Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Mangroves and Other Coastal Forests Damaged by
Tsunamis and Other Natural Hazards in the Asia-Pacific Region
IUCN Sri Lanka (2009) An Assessment of Post Tsunami Restoration and Conservation Initiatives
in Coastal Stretch of Matara, Sri Lanka
IUCN Sri Lanka (2011) An appraisal of mangrove management in micro-tidal estuaries and
lagoons in Sri Lanka. IUCN and MFF, Colombo
IPNI (International Plant Nutrient Institute) (2010) Plant Nutrition. No.2. 3500 Parkway Lane,
Suite 550, Peachtree Corners, Georgia 30092-2844 U.S.A.
Jayatissa LP, Wickramasinghe WAADL, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Huxham M (2008) Interspecific
variations in responses of mangrove seedlings to two contrasting salinities. International Review
of Hydrobiology 93:700-710
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
574
575
576
577
578
579
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Kathiresan K (2011) Conservation and Management Strategies: Restoration Technologies, Pages
609–632. In: Kathiresan, K. Ajmal Khan, S. (eds), Coastal Biodiversity in Mangrove
Ecosystems: UNU-INWEH-UNESCO International Training Course. Online
at:http://ocw.unu.edu/international-network-on-water-environment-and-health/unu-inwehcourse-
1-mangroves/Restoration-technologies.pdf.
.
Kidd PS, Proctor J (2001) Why plants grow poorly on very acid soils: are ecologists missing the
obvious? Journal of experimental botany 52:791–799
Kodikara KAS, Jayatissa LP (2010) A comparison of growth performances of mangrove
seedlings in three contrasting salinities. Page 12. In: National Conference on Identification of
Knowledge Gaps for Sustainable Management of Mangroves in Sri Lanka. 04 - 06 June,
University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
Lee SY, Primavera JH, Dahdouh-Guebas F, McKee K, Bosire JO, et al. (2014) Ecological role
and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A reassessment. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 23:726–743 (doi: 10.1111/geb.12155)
Lewis RR, Brown B (2014) Ecological mangrove rehabilitation – a field manual for
practitioners. Version 3. Mangrove Action Project Indonesia, Blue Forests, Canadian
International Development Agency, and OXFAM
Lewis RR (2000) Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove forest and tidal marsh
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
603
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
restoration in Florida. Ecological Engineering 15:191-198
Lewis RR (2005) Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of
mangrove forests. Ecological Engineering 24:403-418
Lewis RR (2009) Methods and criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. Pages 787–
800. In: G. M. E. Perillo, E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon, and M. M. Brinson, editors. Coastal
wetlands: an integrated ecosystem approach. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Madarasinghe SK, Kodikara KAS, Dissanayake NP, Jayatissa LP (2015) Acacia auriculiformis
(Fabaceae), a threat to mangrove forest in Rekawa lagoon Sri Lanka: A case study. Page 28. In:
Proceeding of the 35th Annual Sessions: ISSN 2012-8924, Institute of Biology, Sri Lanka
Madarasinghe SK, Kodikara KAS, Dissanayake NP, Satyanarayana B, Jayatissa LP (2016) Land-
use changes over past two decades in Rekawa lagoon region, Sri Lanka. Page 10. In: Proceedings
of 3rd Ruhuna International Science and Technology Conference (RISTCON). ISSN 1391-8796,
University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
Mangora MM (2011) Poverty and institutional management stand-off: a restoration and
conservation dilemma for mangrove forests of Tanzania. Wetlands Ecology and Management
19:533–543
Mukherjee N, Balakrishnan M, Shanker K (2009) Bioshields and ecological restoration in
tsunami-affected areas in India. Pages 131–134. In: E. Dahl, E. Moskness, J. Stottrup,
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
editors. Integrated coastal zone management. Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, New Jersey
Mukherjee N, et al. (2014) Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform
decision making and future valuation exercises. PLoS One :e107706
Mukherjee N, et al. (2015) An interdisciplinary framework to evaluate bioshield plantations:
Insights from peninsular India. Acta Oecologica 63:91–100
NARA (National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency). Nara Rd, Colombo
01500, Sri Lanka. http://www.nara.ac.lk (Accessed in 17 June 2015)
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil quality kit: Guides for educators, United
Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.A.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/national/home/ (Accessed in 25 June 2015)
Pemadasa MA (1996) Green mantle of Sri Lanka. Tharangee Printers, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Pinto L (1986) Mangroves of Sri Lanka. Natural Resources Energy and Science Authority of Sri
Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Polidoro BA, Carpenter KE, Collins L, Duke NC, Ellison AM, Ellison JC, Farnsworth EJ et al.
(2010) The loss of species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern.
PLoS One 5:e10095
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Primavera JH, Esteban JMA (2008) A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines:
successes, failures and future prospects. Wetland Ecology Management 16:173–253
Ranasinghe TS (2012) Mangrove restoration efforts in Sri Lanka. Pages 75-81. In: Sharing
Lessons on Mangrove Restoration, Proceedings and a Call for Action from an MFF Regional
Colloquium, Mamallapuram, India
Ratnayake PS, Mapatuna Y, Dayawansa PN (2012) Restoration of deteriorated wetlands in
Kumana (Yala East) National Park, Sri Lanka: a pilot project on mangrove restoration. Pages
115-123. In: Sharing Lessons on Mangrove Restoration, Proceedings and a Call for Action from
an MFF Regional Colloquium, Mamallapuram, India
Richards DR, Friess DA (2016) Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia,
2000–2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:344–349
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration
Ecology 13:569-577
Samson MS, Rollon RN (2008) Growth performance of planted red mangroves in the
Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37:234-240
Spalding MD, Kainuma M, Collins L (2010) World atlas of mangroves. London, U.K. Earthscan
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
673
674
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Stevenson NJ, Lewis III RR, Burbridge PR (1999) Disused Shrimp Ponds and Mangrove
Rehabilitation, an International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation. Springer, Netherlands :
277-297
Teas HJ (1977) Ecology and restoration of mangrove shorelines in Florida. Environmental
Conservation 4:51-58
Tokarz E, Urban D (2015) Soil redox potential and its impact on microorganisms and plants of
wetlands. Journal of Ecological Engineering 16:20
Toledo G, Rojas A, BashanY (2001) Monitoring of black mangrove restoration with nursery-
reared seedlings on an arid coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 444:101–109
Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: One of the World’s threatened major
tropical environments. Bioscience 51:807-815
Vollenweider P, Günthardt-Goerg MS (2005) Diagnosis of abiotic and biotic stress factors using
the visible symptoms in foliage. Environmental pollution 137:455–65
Walters BB, Ronnback P, Koraas J, Crona B, Hussain S, Badola R, Primarera SH, Barbier EB,
Dahdouh-Guebas F (2008) Ethnobiology, socio-economic and adaptive management of
mangrove: a review. Aquatic Botany 89:220-236
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Tables, figure captions and figures
Table 1. Climate data and distribution of true mangrove and associate species with respect to
different climate zone. (Sources: Department of Meteorology, Sri Lanka; Jayatissa et al. 2002;
CZMP 2003; Pers. communication Ransara GBM)
Climate zone Mean annual
rainfall (mm)
Average annual
temperature
(˚C)
Tidal
amplitude
(m)
Average
salinity (ppt)
True
mangrove
species
Mangrove
associates
Dry <1750 31.5 0.4-0.6 13.8±0.7 11 12
Wet >2500 28.5 0.5 5.0±2.5 10 14
Intermediate 1750-2500 30.0 0.5 5.6±0.4 16 14
Arid <1250 32.5 0.4-0.6 13.2±1.9 11 12
Table 2. The number of sites and the number of planting attempts (plantations) in each site with
respect to different climate zones. Failed planting efforts in this table are defined as “zero
survival”.
Zone No. of sites Distribution of the
sites (%)
No. of planting attempts
(within 8 yrs)
No. of failed
planting initiatives
Wet 07 30.43 18 11
Dry 06 26.08 18 13
Arid 06 26.08 20 08
Intermediate 04 17.39 11 04
Total 23 67 36
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Table 3. The distribution of the replanted mangrove sites and their extent along the coastline
sectors affected and non-affected by the tsunami of 2004. Figure 4 gives further details on the
affected and non-affected coastline.
Coastline sector Approximate length
of the coastline
sector (km)
No. of
restoration
sites
Approx. coverage
replanted (ha)
Approx.
coverage of
surviving planted
area (ha)
Proportion of
replanted extent (ha)
km-1 of the coastline
Severely affected
by the 2004
tsunami*
1211.2 20 700-800 40-50 0.62
Less affected by
the 2004 tsunami*
512.1 03 300-400 150-200 0.68
Total 1722.4 23 1000-1200 200-220 0.64
708
709
710
711
712
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 1. An interdisciplinary framework for evaluating coastal planting initiatives (source:
Mukherjee et al. 2015).
Figure 2. Scheme of the procedure for estimating the rate of survival using the dead/alive
criterion in the field.
Figure 3. Map showing the restoration project sites along the Sri Lankan coast line with respect
to major climate zones. Black circles show the actual locations of restoration project sites.
Different colours represent the level of success and a yellow triangle shows the status of post-
care in each site. Images refer to 1: Thambalangama; 2: Mannar; 3: Kalpitiya; 4: Rekawa; 5:
Batticaloa; 6: Halawa. (Photos were taken by K.A.S. Kodikara)
Figure 4. A map of Sri Lanka showing tsunami-affected Divisional Secretariat (DS) divisions in
Sri Lanka (Adopted from the official web site of the Department of Census and Statistics;
(http://www.statistics.gov.lk/tsunami/maps/Map_afftected%20DS%20division.htm )
Figure 5. Number of planted and surviving propagules and seedlings of Rhizophora spp. with
respect to the climate zones in Sri Lanka. Black bars: planted propagules and seedlings; Grey
bars: surviving plants
Figure 6. Disturbances and the common symptoms that were observed in the project sites. 1:
browsing (propagule tips grazed by cattle) and algal accumulation; 2: trampling; 3: growth
stunted and crooked stems; 4: insect attacks; 5: infestation by barnacles; 6: leaf yellowing and
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
rust; 7: root rotting; 8: propagule tip die-back and stem browning. (Photos taken by K.A.S.
Kodikara)
Figure 7. Rate of survival (%) with respect to technical guidance and post-care. (Multiple regres-
sion, technical guidance significant at 0.01 level, P=0.0148 and Spearman rank correlation test,
post-care positively correlated at 0.05 level; P=0.0009). A thick black line indicates the second
quartile (median) and small circle data points indicate the outliers.
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 1744
745
746
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 2
A total of “X” surviving seedlings are observed in a restoration site out of “Y” planted seedlings. Basically X
number of plants survive and (Y-X) die. When considering X surviving plants
“a” of them are found to be healthy
(Visually free of signs of damage)
(X-a) of them show signs of damage
(E.g. crooked stem, dead leaves, severe chlorosis, necrosis)
Note: morphological signs of damage represent any symptom/s (mentioned under symptoms in the text), mechanical
damage to leaves and hypocotyls (seedling)/ stem (saplings/shrubs)
“p” of (X-a) show damages to leaves and stem (e.g. necrotic regions, chlorosis, etc.) which is below 50% overall
(>50%)
“q” of (X-a) remain and the level of damage to leaves and stem is above 50% (<50%)
These q seedlings were considered as “Dead” as they show damage greater than the level of 50%
Therefore, the total number of surviving seedlings/propagules/saplings = a+p
The level (or rate) of survival is therefore calculated as [(a+p)/Y] ∙ 100 = Survival %
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Numbe
r
Site
1Thambalanga
ma
2Batticaloa
3Komari
4Palandi
5Ureni
6Pottuvil
7Panama
8Panakala
9Halawa
10 Kumana
11 Kahadamodar
a
12 Rekawa
13 Medilla
14 Galle
15 Ittapana
16 Meegama
17 Yagirala
18 Kaluwamodara
19 Maggona
20 Negombo
21 Pambala
22 Kalpitiya
23 Mannar
Figure 11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Tsunami
Less-affected area
Tsunami affected area
Figure 3
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Site Survival
level
0%
1-10%
11-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
Post care
present
808
809
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 4
Dry
Arid
Intermediate
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Wet
Planted seedlings
Surviving seedlings
Survived plants
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 5825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
Figure 6
Figure 7Used
Used
Not used
Not used
(%)
(%)
-
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
Restoration Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/rec.12492)
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
