Mangrove Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation

Abstract

We analyzed current best practices and recommendations used in the implementation of mangrove rehabilitation and restoration (R/R) projects in the Atlantic-East Pacific (AEP) and the Indo-West Pacific biogeographic regions during the last 20 years. Comprehensive literature and World Wide Web searches were performed identifying 90 sites around the world where R/R actions have been implemented. For each site, we analyzed the sources of damage/impact and classified the origin as natural (siltation, erosion, the direct and indirect effect of tropical storms or tsunamis) or anthropogenic (pollution, land use policies, overharvesting, aquaculture, altered hydrology and hydroperiod). In most cases, the causes of damage were a complex mixture associated to erosion, hydrological impairment, deforestation, siltation, and land conversion for aquaculture and other land uses. The area extension of mangrove sites undergoing restoration or just afforestation ranged from few square meters to several thousand hectares. Numerous projects were implemented without an underlying science-based approach and were often ill-prepared and unsuccessful. Although there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to restore or rehabilitate mangrove wetlands, published studies (particularly peer reviewed) provide useful insights into designing R/R projects with clearly defined and prioritized management objectives based on a diagnostic of the source of damage/deterioration. A critical step is to develop a decision tree that serves as a guide to optimize the use of available funding in the development, implementation, and monitoring of R/R protocols to set clear objectives, goals and deadlines. These steps should be part of a robust research agenda based on sound ecological theory and reliable monitoring practices, including the participation of local communities. Any monitoring and reporting program should address spatial and temporal replication that explicitly includes reference sites near the target restoration site. The results of each R/R project, whether successful or not, should be published, as they are critical sources of data and information for further development of mangrove R/R practices and methods within the community of restoration ecology science. We urge the continental level implementation of guidelines to advance international initiatives aimed to protect and conserve one the most productive and threatened coastal ecosystems in the world.

Full text

VictorH.Rivera-Monroy· ShingYipLee
ErikKristensen· RobertR.Twilley
Editors
Mangrove
Ecosystems:
A Global
Biogeographic
Perspective
Structure, Function, and Services

Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Biogeographic
Perspective

Victor H. Rivera-Monroy • Shing Yip Lee
Erik Kristensen • Robert R. Twilley
Editors
Mangrove Ecosystems:
A Global Biogeographic
Perspective
Structure, Function, and Services

ISBN 978-3-319-62204-0 ISBN 978-3-319-62206-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62206-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955833
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional afliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Editors
Victor H. Rivera-Monroy
Department of Oceanography
and Coastal Sciences
College of the Coast and Environment
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Erik Kristensen
Department of Biology
University of Southern Denmark
Odense, Denmark
Shing Yip Lee
School of Environment
Grifth University
Southport, QLD, Australia
Robert R. Twilley
Department of Oceanography
and Coastal Sciences
College of the Coast and Environment
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA, USA

v
Foreword
An international symposium on the biology and management of mangrove ecosys-
tems (Walsh etal. 1975) took place at the East-West Center in Honolulu Hawaii
between October 8 and 11, 1974. Mangrove experts from all over the world and in
different stages of their professional careers were present at this symposium. As I
listened to the comprehensive presentation on mangrove biogeography of
V.J. Chapman, I had no idea of how important this meeting would turn out to be
from the historical perspective of the study of mangrove wetlands. Chapman’s pre-
sentation was based on his soon-to-be published encyclopedic work on mangrove
vegetation (Chapman 1976), which culminated decades of research on mangroves
from a natural history perspective. The proceedings of the meeting also included a
memorial for William Macnae, the South African zoologist who passed away in
1975 and was known for his comprehensive research in the fauna and ora of the
Indo-West Pacic mangrove forests (Macnae 1968). At the time of the Hawaii meet-
ing, Sam Snedaker and I had completed a review that highlighted the application of
ecosystem science to mangrove ecology (Lugo and Snedaker 1974). Cintrón etal.
(1978) applied this systems perspective to mangrove zonation in arid environments
and anticipated the importance of hurricanes to long-term processes in mangrove
forests. Later, I tried to capture the ecosystem-level and ecophysiological challenges
of mangrove zonation in relation to their successional status (Lugo 1980). Also
present in Hawaii was B.J. Thom, who since the 1960s had been interpreting man-
grove ecology in relation to geomorphological settings (Thom 1975). His work
explicitly related mangrove ecosystem function to regional uvial and geomorpho-
logical processes. The focus on mangrove research after Hawaii was clearly expand-
ing to regional landscapes and long-term processes. The dissertations of W.Odum
(1971) and E. Heald (1971) at the University of Miami had the same effect of
expanding mangrove research to ecosystems and communities as close or as far as
the detritus from mangroves could be traced.
Today, almost 50years after the Hawaii meeting, mangrove research activity, the
technology available for conducting mangrove research and social interest in man-
grove environments has exploded. Ernesto Medina, Cathleen McGinley, and I
recently reviewed some of the ecosystem-level and ecophysiological advances in

vi
mangrove research as well as some of the policy measures that best apply to man-
grove ecosystems under Anthropocene conditions (Lugo et al. 2014, see also
reviews in Lugo 2002 and Lugo and Medina 2014). Mangroves were in the past a
scientic curiosity for their capacity to grow in seawater, but today, they are at the
center of the global conservation discussion. This global attention is not due to any
discovery unknown in the 1970s, or to any new functional characteristics of man-
groves. What has changed is public perception of mangroves coupled to the advent
of the Anthropocene, which places mangrove forests at the interface between built
infrastructure, raising sea levels, and human needs.
Mangrove ecosystem research has evolved signicantly since the Hawaii meet-
ing, and there is so much new information available, hence the need for a new syn-
thesis of the many studies that are dispersed in the scientic literature. Recent books
about this ecosystem focus on its global area and distribution (Spalding etal. 2010),
energetics (Alongi 2009), silviculture (FAO 1994, Saenger 2002), and the ecology
of regional mangroves (Yañez-Arancibia and A.L. Lara-Domínguez 1999, Clough
1982). A comprehensive global synthesis is lacking, one that places mangroves in
the context of the Anthropocene that new research tools allow us to assess. Such a
synthesis would represent another step in the progression of mangrove research
from natural history, to ecosystem level, to a landscape context, to ecophysiological
detail, and now the global and biogeochemical levels. The publication of this book
might represent that historic moment when mangrove research takes a turn toward
greater insight and comprehension by exploring new scales of complexity (both
biotic and abiotic). Only time will tell. The title Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global
Biogeographic Perspective certainly ts the bill; it cranks up the global focus.
After the Introduction, Chap. 2 by N.C. Duke is titled Revisiting Mangrove
Floristics and Biogeography. This chapter is one of those works that instantly
become a classic of the mangrove literature due to their in-depth, rich, and authori-
tative content. The chapter is organized around ten generalized factors that mostly
inuence the biogeography of mangroves. Each mangrove taxon gets individual
attention, and its evolutionary history is displayed, as are maps of the distribution of
all the mangrove tree species in the world. In Chap. 3, Biodiversity of Mangroves,
by Lee etal., we learn that the total species richness supported by mangrove ecosys-
tems is two orders of magnitude greater than the number of mangrove tree species.
In Chap. 2, it was reported that in the mangrove hotspot of the Indo-West Pacic, 54
mangrove tree species correspond to 500 coral and 5000 sh species. I was amused
by the statement in Chap. 3 that research in mangroves is hindered by a large num-
ber of dangerous or disturbing wildlife that can bite and kill; they were referring to
biting insects, crocodiles, tigers, and so on, which can make mangrove research an
action adventure when combined with tidal bores, muddy terrain, and dense prop
roots! But of greater concern to scientists is that the majority of entries in the group-
by-group biodiversity tables in this book chapter are “ND,” or no data.
Chapter 4, Spatial Ecology of Mangrove Forests: A Remote Sensing Perspective,
by Lucas etal. reviews examples of remote sensing applications to mangrove forests
worldwide. Authors advocate for the development of mangrove-dedicated remote
sensing approaches and present superb images of mangrove landscapes.
Foreword

vii
Chapter 5, Productivity and Carbon Dynamics in Mangroves, by Twilley etal. is
a comprehensive global review of carbon uxes and storages in mangrove environ-
ments. The review is authoritative and summarizes a large data set. I was surprised
to nd that other book chapters make independent estimates of carbon uxes rather
than using those in Chap. 5. Chapter 6, Biogeochemical Cycles: Global Approaches
and Perspectives, by Kristensen et al. focuses mostly on Australia and North
America, where these kinds of data are collected. It also provides a superb level of
detail on the sediments, a mangrove compartment that is usually treated as a black
box in most mangrove studies. My favorite image of this review is the three-
dimensional view of mangroves, which includes the atmosphere, lithosphere, and
biosphere. I expect that this approach to mangroves will be instrumental to the
future understanding of these ecosystems. Such an approach will require attention
to ecosystem interfaces, especially with sediments, an interface between the hydro-
sphere and lithosphere. Interface work will in turn require studies at smaller molec-
ular and microbial scales. These smaller scales are as challenging as the global scale
and together form the basis of future mangrove research and understanding.
Chapter 7, Climate Change, by Jennerjahn etal. includes all expected anthropo-
genic effects on mangrove environments, but excludes the formation of novel man-
grove forests as a result of global dispersal of mangrove species. The authors expect
a reduction of mangrove services as a result of climate change and identify gaps in
ecophysiological understanding relative to conditions in the Anthropocene.
Chapter 8, Mangroves and People: Local Ecosystem Services in a Changing
Climate, by Huxham etal. explains how mangrove carbon stored in the wood of an
untouched forest is a desirable future for the global community, while for the local
communities, the desirable future is burning that wood to satisfy their energy and
cooking needs. This is the old dilemma between preservation and human needs, one
that was debated when the conservation focus was on moist and dry forests and their
use for fuelwood by needy people. This chapter is important for mangrove conser-
vation because it underscores the usually neglected social-ecological issues, and it
is also independent of other book chapters in relation to anthropogenic effects and
future scenarios of climate change.
The social-ecological focus of Chap. 9 is stronger than in Chap. 8. In Chap. 9,
Anthropogenic Drivers of Mangrove Loss: Geographic Patterns and Implications
for Livelihoods, Chowdhury etal. use regional case studies to illustrate mangrove-
dependent subsistence and poverty traps and relate conservation problems to
large-scale use of mangroves by such industries as the global shrimp trade.
Chapters. 8, 9, and 11, when dealing with problems of mangrove uses, do not
address management solutions that have been documented for mangroves as possi-
ble mitigation avenues (below). It appears that the gap between academic study and
active management remains open in mangroves.
In Chap. 10, Mangrove Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation, López-Portillo
etal. review the experience in 90 sites around the world where mangrove restora-
tions were attempted. My colleague Jack Ewel once said that restoration is the ulti-
mate test for ecological understanding, and judging by the lack of success with
mangrove restorations, our understanding of mangrove ecology must be limited.
Foreword

viii
Alternatively, restoration projects might be ignoring what we know about man-
groves, which is why a signicant portion of Chap. 10 addresses critical ecological
theory and operational processes required for assuring successful mangrove restora-
tion projects. To the recommendations in this chapter, I would add the need to elimi-
nate normative thinking and terminology from this literature (i.e., “damage,”
“impact,” “deteriorated,” “better,” “improved,” “integrity,” “alien,” “exotic,” etc.),
which introduces bias to the evaluation of ecological conditions and ignores direc-
tional change and adaptability to prevailing environmental conditions.
Chapter 11, Mangrove Macroecology, by Rivera-Monroy etal. promotes macro-
ecology as the approach to use to answer large-scale questions in the future. Ideally,
macroecology will encompass all aspects of traditional ecological research: ecol-
ogy, biogeography, paleontology, landscape ecology, and macroevolution. The fact
that only two studies on macroecology of mangroves are available suggests that the
future is wide open for this approach. Further research will determine the desirabil-
ity and effectiveness of this approach.
This book was written at a time when the effects and consequences of the
Anthropocene on mangrove ecosystems remain uncertain. The authors of this book
are generally pessimistic about the future of mangrove forests, probably because
they mostly focus on the areas where mangroves are in retreat. The knowledge that
mangrove forests are expanding their territory (mentioned briey in the book) does
not alleviate the pessimism; it increases as authors also worry about the losing eco-
systems, i.e., salt marshes or some other coastal community. The book focus is
academic (except for Chap. 10) and the integration of the science recorded here with
the management of mangrove stands, which has been partially captured by the FAO
(1994) and Saenger (2002), is still open for synthesis.
A mangrove paradox is the apparent simplicity of the mangrove forest implicit in
the single tree species monoculture zones nicely arrayed over the landscape, when
in fact mangrove forests are very complex systems when viewed in three dimen-
sions and temporal succession along endless gradients operating from the microscale
of redox potentials in sediments to global latitudinal scales delimited by frequency
of frost and strength of wave action on the appropriate substrates. As this book dem-
onstrates, there are still many hurdles and unanswered questions before we can
comfortably say that we understand mangrove ecosystems, and the leap into the
global aspects of mangrove functioning further stretches the limits of our imagina-
tion. This book, however, points the way, much like how the Hawaii meeting led us
into ecosystem level research. One of the lessons from the Hawaii meeting is that
once the scientic engine is pointed and cranked, there is no turning back, nor limits
to the insights to be gained.
USDA Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forestry ArielE.Lugo,
Río Piedras, PR, USA
Foreword

ix
Literature Cited
Alongi DM (2009) The energetics of mangrove forests. Springer, NewYork
Chapman VJ (1976) Mangrove vegetation. J.Cramer, Leutershausen
Cintrón G, Lugo AE, Pool DJ, Morris G (1978) Mangroves of arid environments in Puerto Rico
and adjacent islands. Biotropica 10:110–121
Clough BF (ed) (1982) Mangrove ecosystems in Australia: structure, function and management.
Australian National University Press, Canberra
FAO (1994) Mangrove forest management guidelines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. FAO, Rome
Heald EJ (1971) The production of organic detritus in a south Florida estuary. Miami Sea Grant
Technical Bulletin 6:1–110
Lugo AE (1980) Mangrove ecosystems: successional or steady state? Biotropica 12(supplement
2):65–72
Lugo AE (2002) Conserving Latin American and Caribbean mangroves: issues and challenges.
Madera y Bosques 1:5–25
Lugo AE, Medina E (2014) Mangrove forests. In: Encyclopedia of natural resources: land. Taylor
and Francis, NewYork, pp.343–352. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ENRL-120047500
Lugo AE, Medina E, McGinley K (2014) Issues and challenges of mangrove conservation in the
Anthropocene. Madera y Bosques 20:11–38
Lugo AE, Snedaker SC (1974) The ecology of mangroves. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:39–64
Macnae W (1968) A general account of the fauna and ora of mangrove swamps and forests in the
Indo-West-Pacic region. Adv Mar Biol 6:73–270
Odum WE (1971) Pathways of energy ow in a south Florida estuary. In: Sea grant technical bul-
letin 7. University of Miami, Miami
Saenger P (2002) Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht
Spalding M, Kainuma M, Collins L (2010) World atlas of mangroves. Earthscan, London
Thom BG (1975) Mangrove ecology from a geomorphic viewpoint. In: Walsh G, Snedaker S, Teas
H (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on biology and management of mangroves.
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, pp.469–481
Walsh G, Snedaker S, Teas H (eds) (1975) Proceedings of international symposium on biology and
management of mangroves. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville/Honolulu
Yañez-Arancibia A, Lara-Domínguez AL (eds) (1999) Ecosistemas de manglar en América tropi-
cal. Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa/Veracruz
Foreword

xi
Reviewers
Elizabeth Ashton
Jake Brenner
Benjamin M.Brown
Joseph R.Burger
Kyle Cavanaugh
Pat Dale
Ronald D.Delaune
Gustavo Duque Estrada
Aaron M.Ellison
Temilola Fatoyinbo
Colin Field
Dan Friess
Lucy Gillis
Gerald Alexander Islebe
Eric Keys
Ken Krauss
Ronald Loughland
Catherine Lovelock
Ariel Lugo
Ernesto Medina
Beth Middleton
Essam Yassin Mohammed
Christophe Proisy
Kerrylee Rogers
Peter Saenger
Christian J.Sanders
Martin Skov
Pierre Taillardat
Ludwig Triest

xiii
Acknowledgments
We are enormously grateful to the reviewers who agreed to contribute to this book
with their time and suggestions; their comments and ideas improve the quality and
scope of the book
We also thank Springer and the different Publishing Editors who help us to
advance the preparation and production of this book. Particularly Janet Slobodien
who accepted our initial idea about the need of this book among many other priori-
ties, and for her help and patience to navigate the different steps to complete this
project. We are also thankful to Elaina Mercatoris and Andrea Sandell for their
editorial assistance and expertise.
• Victor H.Rivera-Monroy acknowledges the partial support in the preparation of
the book by the following agencies: Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term
Ecological Research program through the U.S. National Science Foundation
(NSF) grants DEB-9910514, DBI-0620409, DEB-1237517, NASA-JPL (LSU
Subcontract# 1452878) project “Vulnerability Assessment of Mangrove Forest
Regions of the Americas”, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) South
Central-Climate Science Center (SC-CSC) (Cooperative Agreement
#G12 AC00002), and the NSF- Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human
Systems (CNH) Program “Poverty Traps and Mangrove Ecosystem Services in
Coastal Tanzania” (grant #CNH-1518471). Special thanks to Barbara Hasek for
providing invaluable editorial assistance and encouragement throughout this
project.
• Shing Yip Lee thanks his students and collaborators for inspirations and discus-
sions that have contributed to the work presented in this book.
• Erik Kristensen was supported by grants from the Danish Council for Independent
Research (contract # 272-08-0577, 09-071369 and 12-127012) and from the
Danish Council for Strategic Research (contract # 09-063190 and 12-132701).
Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of the NSF,
DOI/SC-CSC, NASA, JPL, the Danish Council for Independent Research or the
Danish Council for Strategic Research.

xv
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Victor H. Rivera-Monroy, Shing Yip Lee, Erik Kristensen,
and Robert R. Twilley
2 Mangrove Floristics andBiogeography Revisited: Further
Deductions fromBiodiversity Hot Spots, Ancestral Discontinuities,
andCommon Evolutionary Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Norman C. Duke
3 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
S.Y. Lee, E.B.G. Jones, K. Diele, G.A. Castellanos-Galindo,
and I. Nordhaus
4 Spatial Ecology ofMangrove Forests: ARemote
Sensing Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Richard Lucas, Alma Vázquez Lule, María Teresa Rodríguez,
Muhammad Kamal, Nathan Thomas, Emma Asbridge,
and Claudia Kuenzer
5 Productivity andCarbon Dynamics inMangrove Wetlands . . . . . . . 113
Robert R. Twilley, Edward Castañeda-Moya,
Victor H. Rivera-Monroy, and Andre Rovai
6 Biogeochemical Cycles: Global Approaches andPerspectives . . . . . . 163
Erik Kristensen, Rod M. Connolly, Xose L. Otero, Cyril Marchand,
Tiago O. Ferreira, and Victor H. Rivera-Monroy
7 Mangrove Ecosystems under Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
T.C. Jennerjahn, E. Gilman, K.W. Krauss, L.D. Lacerda,
I. Nordhaus, and E. Wolanski

xvi
8 Mangroves andPeople: Local Ecosystem Services
inaChanging Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Mark Huxham, Amrit Dencer-Brown, Karen Diele, Kandasamy
Kathiresan, Ivan Nagelkerken, and Caroline Wanjiru
9 Anthropogenic Drivers ofMangrove Loss: Geographic
Patterns andImplications forLivelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Rinku RoyChowdhury, Emi Uchida, Luzhen Chen,
Victor Osorio, and Landon Yoder
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Jorge López-Portillo, Roy R. Lewis III, Peter Saenger,
André Rovai, Nico Koedam, Farid Dahdouh-Guebas,
Claudia Agraz-Hernández, and Victor H. Rivera-Monroy
11 Advancing Mangrove Macroecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Victor H. Rivera-Monroy, Michael J. Osland, John W. Day,
Santanu Ray, Andre Rovai, Richard H. Day, and Joyita Mukherjee
Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
About theEditors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Contents

301© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V.H. Rivera-Monroy et al. (eds.), Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global
Biogeographic Perspective, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62206-4_10
Chapter 10
Mangrove Forest Restoration
andRehabilitation
JorgeLópez-Portillo, RoyR.Lewis III, PeterSaenger, AndréRovai,
NicoKoedam, FaridDahdouh-Guebas, ClaudiaAgraz-Hernández,
andVictorH.Rivera-Monroy
10.1 Introduction
The historical loss of mangrove wetland distribution is on a worldwide scale
approximately 35–50% of the current area with a variable loss rate of 1–3% per year
(i.e., ~150,000ha/y) (Valiela etal. 2001; Wilkie and Fortuna 2003; Giri etal. 2011).
The most recent global coverage estimate for 2014 is 163,925km2 down from
173,067km2 in 2000, providing an annual loss during that period of 0.4% (Hamilton
and Casey 2016). The ongoing wetland loss has triggered an increasing interest in
implementing a better management of existing healthy mangrove areas (Ong and
Gong 2013). Such management includes the return of key ecological functions in
J. López-Portillo ()
Instituto de Ecología, A.C. (INECOL), Red de Ecología Funcional,
Carretera antigua a Coatepec 351, Xalapa, Veracruz 91070, Mexico
e-mail: jorge.lopez.portillo@inecol.mx
R.R. LewisIII
Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., P.O.Box 5430, Salt Springs, FL 32134-5430, USA
P. Saenger
Centre for Coastal Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia
A. Rovai
Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, SC 88040-900, Brazil
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, College of the Coast and Environment,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
N. Koedam
Plant Biology and Nature Management (APNA), Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
VUB l, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
F. Dahdouh-Guebas
Laboratoire d’Écologie des Systèmes et Gestion des Ressources, Département de Biologie
des Organismes, Faculté des Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles– ULB,
Campus de la Plaine, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

302
coastal areas where wetland mortality is widespread and where these valuable eco-
systems and their goods and services are beginning to show deterioration because of
increasing human activities (Field 1999a, b; Ellison 2000; Lewis etal. 2005, 2009).
Ecosystem restoration is dened as the return from a deteriorated condition to a
state similar to a preserved reference site that represents the structural and func-
tional variability within habitats before a devastating natural or human-induced dis-
turbance (Kaly and Jones 1998). For mangrove wetlands, Lewis (1990) dened
restoration as “return from a disturbed or totally altered condition by some action of
man” underscoring the more active alternative, as opposed to passive restoration
through natural secondary succession; the speed of which depends on the ecosystem
resilience capacity, past land-use history, and health of the surrounding landscape
matrix (Holl and Aide 2011). In contrast, rehabilitation is not dened as a return to
previously existing conditions, a view characterized as “the myth of carbon copy”
(Hilderbrand etal. 2005), but to a dened “better” or improved state (Lewis 1990).
It has been proposed that rehabilitation is aligned with restoration as both manage-
ment strategies generally take a culturally acceptable original (preanthropogenic
era, sensu Crutzen and Stoermer 2000) or historic ecosystem/landscape as a refer-
ence for planned initiatives to halt degradation and initiate more sustainable ecosys-
tem trajectories (Aronson etal. 2007). Indeed, there is a recent consensus based on
the historical usage of the terms “restoration” and “rehabilitation” in mangrove wet-
land management programs, where “the use of the term ‘rehabilitation’ would
reduce confusion as it encompasses the widest range of remedial actions for man-
grove degradation” (Dale etal. 2014). However, it is also acknowledged that the
term “restoration” has a strong ascendancy in the published literature and therefore
we maintain this term in our discussion of the state of mangrove restoration/reha-
bilitation (R/R) approaches (Primavera etal. 2012; Lewis and Brown 2014).
Similarly to the usage and denitions of “restoration” and “rehabilitation”, there
is also some confusion regarding the meaning of other related terms such as “fores-
tation”, “reafforestation”, “replanting”, and “plantation”. For example, the initial
planting of mangrove propagules or seedlings is often called “replanting” where it
implies that a rst planting may have failed and a second one is taking place.
Although this might be a minor detail in describing the type of action and timing to
initiate a restoration program, such critical steps must be clearly documented when
assessing the success or failure of either a mangrove initial planting effort or
repeated plantings in a location or set of locations. Thus, clarity on the type of
action can help identify problems with site selection that could, as a consequence,
C. Agraz-Hernández
Instituto de Ecología, Pesquerías y Oceanografía del Golfo de México (EPOMEX).
Universidad Autónoma de Campeche– UAC,
Av. Héroe de Nacozari #480. Campus 6 de Investigaciones, 24029 San Francisco de
Campeche, Campeche, Mexico
V.H. Rivera-Monroy
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, College of the Coast and Environment,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
J. López-Portillo et al.

303
potentially increase the costs of restoration programs. Well-dened actions become
critical indicators of the applicability of any method of restoration, particularly
when planting has been proposed as an alternative after natural seedling recruitment
during secondary succession is insufcient to promote mangrove regeneration
(Lewis etal. 2005, 2009; Lewis and Brown 2014). Therefore, we encourage the
provision of detailed descriptions and implementation of management strategies to
be as specic as possible within the context of the denition of both restoration and
rehabilitation, especially the description of the actions selected to remedy or
improve a specic environmental condition (e.g., geomorphic setting, such as del-
taic vs. karstic) in a mangrove wetland.
In this chapter, we explore the main motivations to implement mangrove restora-
tion projects and evaluate R/R projects across latitudinal gradients in the AEP (West
Africa and America; Fig.10.1a–c) and the Indo-West Pacic (IWP: East Africa,
Asia, and Australasia; Figs.10.1d and 10.2a, b) regions. We also identify research
gaps and delineate a strategy to improve the implementation of R/R projects using
lessons learned in different environmental and social contexts through case studies.
Our synthesis contributes to recent analyses aimed at developing best practices
when implementing urgently needed science-based mangrove restoration projects.
10.2 Original Motivations andPlans forImplementation
Mangrove resource management should rely on R/R approaches to enhance the full
potential of sites, either with complete or cryptic impairment (sensu Dahdouh-
Guebas etal. 2005a, 2005b), for the conservation and community-based participa-
tion in projects. One of the main attributes of these projects is relying on the
knowledge of key ecosystem properties and on documented successes or failures
from other R/R endeavors (Primavera and Esteban 2008; Zaldívar-Jiménez etal.
2010). Following on the wealth of data and information, several institutions have
developed technical reports with guidelines for restoration programs in mangrove
wetlands, which have improved the communication of technical details to evaluate,
at least in the short term, project success and/or failures (e.g., Pulver 1976; Field
1995; Saenger 2002; Agraz Hernández etal. 2007; Primavera et al. 2012, 2014;
Lewis and Brown 2014).
As a result of the increasing recognition of valuable direct (e.g., wood, carbon,
shoreline protection) and indirect (e.g., sheries maintenance, water quality, carbon
storage/sequestration) ecosystem services provided by mangroves (see Chaps. 5, 8,
and 9), we identied several R/R projects throughout tropical and subtropical
regions. A web search using the ISI Web of Knowledge platform for publications
from 1995 through 2015 with the keywords “mangrove”, “restoration”, “rehabilita-
tion”, “reforestation”, “forestation”, and “recovery” in the title produced 136 refer-
ences with 2273 citations. From this search, supplemented with results from the
Google search engine, we selected references that included specic project location
data. This combined publication search produced 65 references that provided infor-
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

304
mation for our analysis (Table10.1) and included 90 sites around the world where
R/R actions have been implemented (Figs.10.1 and 10.2). We included each site in
a Google Earth KMZ le (available upon request). Given the volume of information
in the “gray” literature and other publications not included in the search engines, we
acknowledge that this search might not be exhaustive and encourage readers to con-
sult published reports in other coastal regions around the world.
10.2.1 Sources ofMangrove Wetland Damage
The source of damage to mangrove wetlands might be of natural origin (e.g., silt-
ation, erosion, the direct and indirect effect of tropical storms or tsunamis) or
induced by anthropogenic activities (e.g., pollution, land use policies, overharvest-
ing, aquaculture, or altered hydrology and hydroperiod; see also Chap. 9). Thus, to
Fig. 10.1 Mangrove R/R projects implemented in the AEP Region (a–c) and the Africa sector of
the IWP (d). Numbers indicating location in each panel are included Tables 10.2 and 10.3. See text
for explanation on site identication and selection
J. López-Portillo et al.

305
be effective and efcient, each mangrove wetland project requires a specic R/R
approach (i.e., restoration, rehabilitation, or afforestation). There are many causes
for mangrove impairment, and because they are frequently mixed and complex, we
only assess them according to their frequency in 14 general categories (Table10.1;
percentage [%] of site reports): exposed shores [25%]; impaired hydrological
regime [19%]; deforestation [19%]; siltation [11%]; shrimp or sh aquaculture
[11%]; conversion to other soil uses, such as palm oil [8%]; blocking of inlets after
strong storms such a cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes and tsunamis [7%]; exposure to
dredge spoils [5%]; mosquito-preventing dikes [2%]; pollution [2%]; water logging
[1%]; soil collapse [1%]; drought [1%]). The quantitative evaluation of the impact
by each cause in impairing mangrove wetlands and associated variability in struc-
tural and functional properties requires further work at a global scale.
Fig. 10.2 Mangrove R/R projects implemented in the Asia and Australasia sectors of the IWP (a,
b). Numbers indicating location in each panel are listed Tables 10.2 and 10.3 for further informa-
tion about the sites. See text for explanation on site identication and selection
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

306
Table 10.1 Mangrove restoration or rehabilitation projects and associated ameloration procedure across Biogeographic regions
Biogeographic
region Project site/country Cause of impairment Amelioration procedure References
Atlantic-East- Pacic
(AEP)
Windstar, Florida, USA Dredge spoil blocked normal
tidal ushing
Hydrologic restoration by restoring
elevation, Forestation
Stephen (1984), McKee and
Faulkner (2000), Proftt and
Devlin (2005)
West Lake, Florida, USA Filled wetlands Excavation of historical ll in
mangroves, hydrologic restoration,
no planting of mangroves
Lewis (2005), Lewis and
Gilmore (2007)
Florida East Coast, USA Diked wetlands for mosquito
control
Dredged deposits removed, diked
mosquito control impoundments
breached, very little forestation,
natural recovery predominantly
Lewis etal. (1985),
Brockmeyer etal. (1997), Rey
etal. (2012)
Rookery Bay, Florida, USA Incomplete tidal ushing,
elevated salinity,
waterlogging
Restoring original elevation,
excavation of water outlets;
Forestation
McKee and Faulkner (2000)
Bahía de Navachiste,
Sinaloa, Mexico
Accumulation of dredging
spoils
Channel digging on dredge material
terraces and afforestation of nursery
plants
Benítez-Pardo etal. (2015)
Laguna Balandra, Baja
California, Mexico
Deforestation Forestation, natural regeneration Vovides etal. (2011)
Laguna de Enfermería, Baja
California, Mexico
Block of feeder channel by
road
Hydrologic restoration, natural
regeneration
Vovides etal. (2011)
El Mogote, Baja California,
Mexico
Hurricane-caused blocking of
outlet with a sand dune
Hydrologic restoration Bashan etal. (2013)
Huizache-Caimanero,
Sinaloa, Mexico
Accumulation of dredging
spoils
Forestation with nursery plants Benítez Pardo etal. (2015)
Laguna Nichupté, Quintana
Roo, Mexico
Hurricane damage, probably
including blocking water
outlets
Afforestation, Hydrologic
restoration
Adame etal. (2014)
Tampamachoco, Veracruz,
Mexico
Water ow obstruction by
power line embankments
Hydrologic restoration López-Portillo etal. (2014)
J. López-Portillo et al.

307
Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico Water ow obstruction by
closure of inlets after a strong
hurricane
Hydraulic restoration and planting
from nursery
Zaldívar-Jiménez etal. (2010)
Celestún, Yucatán, Mexico Water ow obstruction by
closure of inlets and road
construction
Hydraulic restoration and planting
from nursery
Miyagi (2013)
Términos Lagoon,
Campeche, Mexico
Water ow obstruction by
closure of inlets after a strong
hurricane
Hydraulic restoration and planting
from nursery
Agraz Hernández etal. (2010)
Jaina, Petenes BR,
Campeche, Mexico.
Water ow obstruction by
closure of inlets and road
construction
Hydraulic restoration and planting
with propagules
Agraz Hernández etal. (2015)
Isla Arena, Campeche,
Mexico
Water ow obstruction by
closure of inlets after a strong
hurricane
Hydraulic restoration and planting
from nursery
Tsuruda (2013)
Laguna de Cabildo,
Chiapas, Mexico
Channel excavation and
obstruction of water by bunds
Direct seeding of propagules and
nursery plants
Reyes and Tovilla (2002)
Laguna de Pozuelos,
Chiapas, Mexico
Channel excavation and
obstruction of water by bunds
Direct seeding of R. mangle
propagules and nursery plants
Reyes and Tovilla (2002)
Barra del Río Cahoacán,
Mexico
Siltation from upland erosion Direct sowing of collected
propagules and nursery plants
Tovilla etal. (2004)
Punta Galeta, Panama Deforestation (?), invasion by
Saccharum spontaneous
Forestation Outterson (2014)
Ciénaga Grande de Santa
Marta, Colombia
Interruption of major water
ows by road construction
Hydraulic restoration, forestation Rivera-Monroy etal. (2006),
Twilley etal. (1998),
Ortiz-Ruiz (2004)
Parque Nacional Corales
del Rosario, Colombia
Unspecied Seeding and forestation with R.
mangle
Bohórquez-Rueda and
Prada-Triana (1988)-, for
other experiments,in Colombia
see Álvarez León (2003)
Two sites, Puerto Rico Hurricane effects Natural regeneration by
recolonization of L. racemosa
Wadsworth (1959)
(continued)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

308
Martin Peña Channel, San
Juan, Puerto Rico
Urban detritus and siltation,
deforestation
Urban renewal, removal of debris,
no planting, just natural
recolonization
Cintrón-Molero (1992)
Ajuruteua Peninsula,
Bragança, Brazil
Disturbance of hydrological
regime by road construction
Natural regeneration by
recolonization of A. germinans
Vogt etal. (2014)
Río Jaguaribe, Rio Grande
do Norte, Brazil
Deforestation Seeding and forestation with R.
mangle
Ferreira etal. (2015)
Río las Ostras, Río de
Janeiro, Brazil
Deforestation Forestation and natural regeneration Bernini etal. (2014)
Baixada Santista, Estuário
de Santos, Río Cubatão,
Brazil
Deforestation, pollution,
dredging
Planting seeds and propagules Menezes etal. (2005)
Indo-West-Pacic
(IWP)
Shenzhen Bay, China Urban encroachment and
pollution, increase in siltation
rates
Restoration plan including
integration of rustic shrimp ponds
(gei wei) and mangrove species
communities
Ren etal. (2011)
Qi’ao Reserve, China Deforestation Seeding Chen etal. (2013)
Barisal, Chitta Gong,
Patuakhali, Noakhali,
Bangladesh
Newly accreting mudats Afforestation Saenger and Siddiqi (1993)
Pichavaram, Tamil Nadu,
India
Extensive deforestation, soil
collapse
Hydraulic rehabilitation by
excavating main and secondary
channels, forestation
Selvam etal. (2003)
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation with upland dune plants
and some mangroves but no
distinction is made between the two
at all 18 sites
Mukherjee etal. (2015)
(Eighteen [18] sites are
reported many apparently
without mangrove restoration
activities)
Table 10.1 (Continued)
Biogeographic
region Project site/country Cause of impairment Amelioration procedure References
J. López-Portillo et al.

309
Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Krishna, Andhra Pradesh,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
West Godavari, Andhra
Pradesh, India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
East Godavari, Andhra
Pradesh, India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh, India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Pulicat Lake, Andhra
Pradesh/Tamil Nadu, India
Planting from nursery Trump and Gattenlöhner
(2015)
Kannur, Kerala, India Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Kasargod, Kerala, India Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Thiruvarur, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu,
India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
(continued)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

310
Ramanathapuram, Tamil
Nadu, India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Tutic, Tamil Nadu, India Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Tirunelveli/Kanyakumari,
Tamil Nadu, India
Exposed shores after tsunami
or cyclones
Forestation Mukherjee etal. (2015)
Trapaing Sangke,
Cambodia
Planting from nursery Trump and Gattenlöhner
(2015)
Kien Giang, Cambodia Exposure to wave action and
erosion
Construction of Melaleuca fence
and mangrove planting
Cuong etal. (2015)
Andaman Coast, Thailand Hydraulic restoration and planting
from nursery
Trump and Gattenlöhner,
(2015)
Klong Gnao, Thailand Wood harvesting, tin mining,
aquaculture
Planting of propagules and plants Macintosh etal. (2002)
Philippines Fish/shrimp culture ponds Multispecies planting Primavera and Esteban
(2008), Primavera etal.
(2011, 2012, 2014), Salmo III
etal. (2013), Samson and
Rollon (2008), Stevenson
etal. (1999), Walters (1997)
Thong Nian, Thailand Shrimp culture ponds breaching of banks to rehabilitate
water ow, planting of propagules
and plants
Matsui etal. (2010)
Bolgoda Lake, Sri Lanka Planting from nursery Trump and Gattenlöhner
(2015)
Madampe Lake, Sri Lanka Planting from nursery Trump and Gattenlöhner
(2015)
Pambala-Chilaw lagoon, Sri
Lanka
Shrimp aquaculture pond Remote sensing update, forestation Dahdouh-Guebas etal. (2002)
Table 10.1 (Continued)
Biogeographic
region Project site/country Cause of impairment Amelioration procedure References
J. López-Portillo et al.

311
North Sumatra, Aceh Besar,
Lhok Nga, Indonesia
Deforestation and erosion
due to tsunami
Planting? Alexandris etal. (2013)
Banda Aceh, North
Sumatra, Indonesia
Deforestation and erosion
due to tsunami
Planting? Alexandris etal. (2013)
Tanakeke Island, Sulawesi,
Indonesia
Shrimp aquaculture pond Hydrologic restoration of an
abandoned shrimp aquaculture
pond area followed by limited
planting
Brown and Massa (2013)
Jaring Halus, NE Langkat
Wildlife Sanctuary, North
Sumatera Province,
Sumatra
Shrimp aquaculture pond Hydrologic restoration in 10ha of
an abandoned shrimp aquaculture
pond area followed by limited
planting
Brown and Massa (2013)
Tiwoho Village, North
Sulawesi
Shrimp aquaculture pond Hydrologic restoration in 25ha of
an abandoned shrimp aquaculture
pond area followed by limited
planting
Brown and Massa (2013)
Sungai Haji Dorani,
Malaysia
Exposed shoreline Breakwater construction to induce
natural establishment of A. marina
Tamin etal. (2001), Stanley
and Lewis (2009)
Sungai Haji Dorani,
Malaysia
Exposed shoreline Break water, transplant, natural
regeneration
Kamali and Hashim (2011),
Stanley and Lewis (2009)
Sabah, northern Borneo,
Malaysia
Areas encroached by oil
palms (7 sites) or shrimp
ponds (2 sites); ve sites are
deforested
Forestation in 14 project sites
located in ve mangrove forest
reserves. Additional hydrologic
restoration in areas encroached by
oil palms (7 sites) or shrimp ponds
(2 sites)
Tangah etal. (2015)
Cabrousse, Senegal Deforestation, blockage of
water ows, droughts
Seeding (propagule planting) Alexandris etal. (2013)
Kiunga Marine National
Reserve, Kenya
Deforestation, silting Natural regeneration Kairo etal. (2001)
Mida Creek, Kenya Deforestation, silting Natural regeneration Kairo (Kairo etal. 2001)
(continued)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

312
Tudor Creek, Kenya Deforestation, silting Natural regeneration Bosire etal. (2014)
Gazi Bay and Mwache
Creek, Kenya
Deforestation, silting Natural regeneration Bosire etal. (2003, 2014)
Gazi, Kenya Deforestation, silting Forestation Kairo etal. (2001)
Mamelo Honko,
Madagascar
Deforestation Seeding (Propagule planting) Alexandris etal. (2013)
Ranongga, Salomon
Islands, Melanesia
Deforestation Replanting to replace vegetation
lost after an earthquake
Alexandris etal. (2013)
Brisbane International
Airport, Australia
Filling of main creek and
excavation of other channels
Hydrologic restoration by channel
digging and forestation
Saenger (1996)
Table 10.1 (Continued)
Biogeographic
region Project site/country Cause of impairment Amelioration procedure References
J. López-Portillo et al.

313
10.2.2 Amelioration Procedures
Forestation practices (Table10.1) using individual plants from nurseries was the
main amelioration procedure (n=67) followed by hydrologic rehabilitation (n=29),
although both actions were frequently combined (n=22). Direct seeding or mature
propagule planting (mainly the genus Rhizophora) was also a frequent action
(n=11). Natural regeneration was implemented in 10 sites including cases where it
was coupled with transplants (n=1) and forestation (n=2) techniques. We assume
that there was afforestation in the 17 sites (covering 43,760ha) exposed to wave
energy and described as “bio-shield” plantations in the states of Kerala, Andhra
Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu in peninsular India (Mukherjee etal. 2015).
10.2.3 Spatial Scales oftheAmelioration Procedures
The mangrove sites undergoing restoration or just afforestation encompassed a
range of area extensions from few square meters to several thousand hectares. The
most extensive afforestation sites are located in the Sundarbans, in Bangladesh and
India (120,000ha afforested by 1993, Saenger and Siddiqi 1993), United States
(12,605 ha restored, Rey et al. 2012; 500 ha restored, Lewis 2005, Lewis and
Gilmore 2007), and other coastal regions in Asia (e.g., Pichavaram Province:
>300 ha of restored mangroves, Selvam etal. 2003) and Indonesia at Tanakeke
Island (400 ha), where hydrologic restoration was also part of the R/R strategy
(Brown and Massa 2013; Brown etal. 2014).
The large mangrove extension in the Sundarbans delta region is characterized by
both large spatial scale impacts and management strategies, including erosion,
aggradation (i.e., natural sediment accumulation), deforestation, and mangrove
rehabilitation programs (Giri etal. 2007). For example, 7300ha of mangrove wet-
land were lost to erosion from 1977 to 2000, whereas net aggradation was variable
with gains ranging from 2900ha (1970s) to only 590ha (2000). Recent estimates
show a total loss of 26,200ha and total gain of 24,000ha from 1989 through 2014
(Ghosh etal. 2015). Due to the signicant new land gains as a result of high sedi-
ment deposition, natural mangrove establishment in the newly formed land was
combined with active and intense community-based seeding and planting of seed-
lings to compensate for eroded mangroves (Saenger and Siddiqi 1993; Giri etal.
2007). In contrast to the net gain in mangrove area in this region, a large effort with
propagule planting (79 million distributed throughout 7920 ha) in Cabrousse,
Senegal, West Africa in 2008, showed no evidence of increase in mangrove cover-
age as evaluated by changes at the landscape level using remote sensing images
obtained up to 2010 (Alexandris etal. 2013).
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

314
10.2.4 Mangroves andAquaculture
Over the last three decades of human impact on mangrove wetlands, shrimp aqua-
culture and their associated culture ponds have probably been responsible for the
greatest losses of mangrove wetland area (see Chap. 9). This activity has been
actively encouraged by governments in developing countries (e.g., Brazil, Ecuador,
Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam) interested in the high earning potential of shrimp
as an export product, but also often driven by political patronage (Tobey etal. 1998;
Foell etal. 1999; Dahdouh-Guebas etal. 2006; Oliveira-Filho etal. 2016, Table10.2).
A comprehensive work on the total area of mangrove loss to commercial aquacul-
ture indicates that in the eight countries that host about 45% of total world man-
grove cover, about 52% of their historic mangrove coverage is lost, including 28%
to commercial aquaculture (Hamilton 2013; Hamilton and Casey 2016). Given the
proliferation of shrimp farms around the world, many R/R projects have been under-
taken in countries where shrimp farms were abandoned due to major disease out-
breaks that decimated the industry (e.g., viral diseases) (Stevenson etal. 1999;
Matsui etal. 2010; Primavera etal. 2011, 2014; Brown etal. 2014). In fact, some
studies have used hydrological models to determine which dikes or articial barriers
should be removed to restore the original hydrology and induce natural mangrove
reestablishment and growth (Di Nitto etal. 2013). In other locations, particularly in
developed countries (e.g., the USA or Australia), R/R projects were initially used as
ecological offsets related to land use and mitigation policies (Teas 1977; Snedaker
and Biber 1996; Latif 1996). As an example of this strategy, Brockmeyer etal.
(1997) and Rey etal. (2012) reported an accumulated 12,000ha of successful res-
toration programs mainly due to reconnection and controlled ooding along the east
coast of Florida.
A number of R/R projects have been undertaken to address the problem of exten-
sive abandonment of shrimp ponds due to economic failure in several countries
(e.g., Primavera and Esteban 2008; Brown etal. 2014), and as a result, there is
growing number of peer-reviewed studies that provides useful insights into design-
ing R/R projects with specic management objectives and goals based on the initial
nature of the damage (e.g., Latif 1996; Saenger 1996; Das etal. 1997; Walters 1997;
Table 10.2 Aquaculture
pond areas constructed in
mangroves in major shrimp
producing developing
countries (From Tobey etal.
1998)
Country Pond area (ha) Number of farms
Indonesia 350,000 60,000
India 200,000 10,000
Vietnam 200,000 2000
Bangladesh 140,000 13,000
Ecuador 130,000 1200
China 127,000 6000
Thailand 70,000 16,000
Philippines 60,000 1000
Mexico 14,000 240
Honduras 12,000 55
J. López-Portillo et al.

315
Table 10.3 Geographic information of sites where rehabiliation of restoration projects discussed in the text. Figure10.1 shows the location
Biogeographic region Country/continent Site name Site IDaLatitude Longitude
Atlantic-East-Pacic (AEP) Brazil Pará A1 −0.551398 −47.735251
Ajuruteua A2 −0.8056154 −46.625772
Sapiranga, Fortaleza A3 −3.774106 −38.448555
Sapiranga, Fortaleza A4 −3.774106 −38.448555
Jaguaribe A5 −5.753603 −35.218739
Barra de Mamanguape, Paraíba A6 −6.780058 −34.936283
Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia A7 −12.717753 −38.612231
Estuário do Rio das Ostras A8 −22.506952 −41.94283
Angra dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro A9 −22.733875 −43.018167
Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas, Rio de Janeiro A10 −22.733875 −43.018167
Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro A11 −22.733875 −43.018167
Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro A12 −22.733875 −43.018167
Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro A13 −22.733875 −43.018167
Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro A14 −22.733875 −43.018167
Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro A15 −22.733875 −43.018167
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A16 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A17 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A18 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A19 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A20 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, São Paulo A21 −23.880911 −46.364192
Baixada Santista, Estuário de Santos A22 −23.91419 −46.265168
Baía de Paranaguá, Paraná A23 −25.463458 −48.475563
Costeira do Pirajubaé, Florianópolis A24 −27.652969 −48.539156
Biguaçu, Santa Catarina A25 −27.652969 −48.539156
(continued)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

316
Biogeographic region Country/continent Site name Site IDaLatitude Longitude
Saco Grande, Florianópolis A26 −27.652969 −48.539156
Ratones, Florianópolis A27 −27.652969 −48.539156
Itacorubi, Florianópolis A28 −27.652969 −48.539156
Saco da Fazenda, Itajaí A29 −27.652969 −48.539156
USA Windstar B1 26.1196972 −81.782469
Rookery Bay B2 25.9102556 −81.703361
West Lake B3 26.0384972 −80.119464
Mexico Laguna Nichupté B4 21.099975 −86.793617
Balandra B5 24.3234868 −110.32286
Laguna Enfermería B6 24.2498611 −110.31276
Tampamachoco B7 21.0123861 −97.339694
Laguna de Cabildo B8 14.742925 −92.433219
Laguna de Pozuelos B9 14.6458278 −92.339764
Navachiste B10 25.4980185 −108.79743
Huizache- Caimanero B11 22.9458639 −106.00631
El Mogote B12 24.1636833 −110.3348
Celestún B13 20.8580167 −90.390083
Isla Arena B14 20.7124584 −90.44895
Isla Aguada, Campeche B15 18.6660821 −91.665588
Isla Aguada B16 18.7132933 −91.609765
Panama Punta Galeta B17 9.40270219 −79.862062
Venezuela Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta B18 10.9371278 −74.541131
Africa Cabrousse, Senegal C1 12.4926172 −16.685131
Table 10.3 (continued)
J. López-Portillo et al.

317
Biogeographic region Country/continent Site name Site IDaLatitude Longitude
Indo-West-Pacic (IWP) Africa Mida Creek, Watamu, Kenya D2 −3.3333415 40.0000004
Kiunga Marine National Reserve, Kenya D3 −1.668958 41.4066794
Gazi, Kenya D4 −4.4273752 39.51063
Tudor Creek, Kenya D5 −4.0479108 39.6535163
Mwache Creek, Mombasa, Kenya D6 −4.0502697 39.633712
Mamelo Honko, Madagascar D7 −23.262529 43.6242508
Seychelles Curieuse Island D8 −4.2791955 55.7277429
Roche Caiman Sanctuary D9 −4.6396463 55.4689262
Pakistan Sonmiani, Balochistan E1 25.4890771 66.5182225
Sha Bandar E2 23.9882232 67.84664
Miani Hor E3 25.5282117 66.4561847
Keti Bandar E4 24.1301277 67.4445187
Bangladesh Sundarban E5 22.0026661 89.4464738
Barguna Sadar E6 21.9660641 89.9607137
Char Fasson E7 22.0397962 90.7422427
Hatiya E8 22.2806648 91.1926791
India Pichavaram E9 11.4208443 79.796165
Ahmedabad E10 22.3748974 72.4439145
Bhavnagar E11 21.7631481 72.2441373
Anand E12 22.2613255 72.8892584
Bharuch E13 21.6475722 72.8008261
Surat E14 21.0542686 72.7628816
Valsad E15 20.6380196 72.9119655
Navsari E16 20.9294833 72.79864
Muthupet E17 10.3408316 79.5378549
Chidabaram E18 11.390341 79.8137706
Krishna E19 12.4698823 80.1501882
(continued)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

318
Biogeographic region Country/continent Site name Site IDaLatitude Longitude
Godavari E20 16.6170396 82.2825575
Chilika E21 19.8101156 85.5365084
Sri Lanka Pambala-Chilaw E22 7.50002222 79.8167167
Batticaloa E23 7.73376131 81.6668314
Kumana National Park E24 6.64617297 81.7750119
Rekawa E25 6.05588762 80.852921
Madu Ganga E26 6.31203664 80.0667239
Negombo E27 7.19265861 79.8300512
Arachchikattuwa E28 7.66656578 79.8014598
Puttalam E29 8.00588689 79.832815
Kalpitiya E30 8.21745625 79.7638786
Malaysia Sungai Haji Dorani E31 3.65576667 101.009853
Thailand Matang E32 1.66743216 110.121648
Klong Ngao E33 9.83335833 98.5833611
Thong Nian E34 9.30786852 99.7815087
Vietnam Kien Giang E35 10.5688691 104.230806
Xuan Thuy National Park E36 10.576852 106.846581
China Shenzhen Bay E37 22.5045 113.898844
Reserva Qiao E38 22.4219186 113.622618
Indonesia Jaring Halus, NE Langkat Wildlife Sanctuary E39 3.94296529 98.5650101
Bengkalis Island, Riau Province E40 1.4476312 102.392214
North Sumatra, Aceh Besar, Lhok Nga E41 5.36595278 95.2519
Philipines Filipinas E42 9.60581111 123.128139
Indonesia Tanjung Pasir F1 −6.0227622 106.667057
Segara Anakan F2 −8.4417594 112.669275
Tanakeke Island, South Sulawesi Province F3 −5.4936601 119.307603
Table 10.3 (continued)
J. López-Portillo et al.

319
Biogeographic region Country/continent Site name Site IDaLatitude Longitude
Papua New Guinea Ranongga F4 −7.9369326 156.541642
Madang F5 −5.2000636 145.784309
Motupore F6 −9.5244443 147.285483
Bottless Bay F7 −9.4998877 147.283054
Labu F8 −6.7546354 146.953832
Riwo F9 −5.1321679 145.78296
Wangang F10 −6.7334149 147.016566
Australia Brisbane airport F11 −27.353787 153.107414
Fiji Fiji F12 −17.713372 178.065031
aAs depicted in Fig.10.1
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

320
McKee and Faulkner 2000; Macintosh etal. 2002; Lewis etal. 2005; Darkwa and
Smardon 2010; Matsui etal. 2010; Lewis and Brown 2014). Indeed, specic out-
comes of mangrove R/R implemented on abandoned shrimp farm locations have
been critically reviewed with major emphasis on case studies in the Philippines
(Primavera and Esteban 2008) and Costa Rica (Stevenson etal. 1999) and have
provided essential and useful practical guidelines (e.g., Brown and Lewis 2006;
Lewis and Brown 2014).
10.2.5 Monitoring ofR/R Projects
Most R/R projects consist of planting propagules, wildings, or saplings reared in
nurseries close to or away from the target site. Few of these projects have detailed
monitoring plans, and in most instances, there is no documentation of either posi-
tive/negative outcomes or recommendations for modications of the original plant-
ing design (Lewis etal. 2005; Kodikara etal.2017 ). An exception is the Ciénaga
Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM), Colombia monitoring project (1995–2001),
which was carried out after the construction of box culverts to reestablish hydraulic
ow in a mangrove area representing the largest restoration project in Latin America
(~350km2, including freshwater and mangrove wetlands and natural water bodies).
The hydrological rehabilitation of the area consisted of dredging and reopening
previous tributaries to conduct freshwater from the Magdalena River to the eastern
region of the CGSM system, where mangrove mortality was extensive due to
hypersalinity (>80 ppt) (Botero and Salzwedel 1999). There was a signicant
reduction in soil and water column salinity (<30ppt) in all sampling stations fol-
lowing the hydraulic reconnection, which resulted in a major increase in mangrove
forest regeneration promoting a net gain of 99km2 from 1995 to 1999 (Rivera-
Monroy etal. 2006). Unfortunately, the lack of economic investment in the mainte-
nance of the diversion structures from 2001 to the present has reverted the system
to pre-project ecological conditions causing an increase in soil salinity, which has
negatively affected the already restored vegetation (Elster 2000; Rivera-Monroy
etal. 2006; Rivera-Monroy etal. 2011; Vilardy etal. 2011; Roderstein etal. 2014).
In addition, areas where Avicennia germinans propagules established and devel-
oped into saplings were heavily impacted by the buttery Junonia evarete, further
increasing plant mortality rates; yet, some survived and increased plant density in
areas with previously extensive mangrove mortality (Elster 2000). Overall, her-
bivory has not been explicitly addressed as a negative factor in mangrove R/R, but
it is probably signicant based on reports from other mangrove wetlands
(Nagelkerken etal. 2008; Fernandes etal. 2009). Although there are fewer man-
grove species in the AEP region (West Africa and Americas; see Chap. 2), such R/R
failures still provide essential knowledge on biological, ecological, and hydrologi-
cal variables that should be considered during forestation or afforestation projects,
including the direct impact of trampling, barnacle colonization, and otsam
(Kodikara etal.2017 ).
J. López-Portillo et al.

321
10.3 Geographical Distribution ofR/R Projects inMangrove
Habitats
Assessing the geographical distribution of R/R projects (Figs.10.1 and 10.2) con-
tributes to our understanding of the causes triggering mangrove wetland conversion
and its relative impact and how current R/R practices are related to economic or
social failure. Indeed, there are some geographical differences (and similarities)
concerning the causes of mangrove degradation. In the United States, most of the
damage in mangroves and other wetlands was caused by dikes and draglines (which
include ditching, dredging, lling, and impounding for land development) to control
mosquito and biting midge populations in South East and West Florida and the
Florida Keys (Fig.10.1a). These hydrological modications at the landscape level
had negative consequences by reducing wetland productivity and sheries abun-
dance (McKee and Faulkner 2000; Rey etal. 2012). In mid-latitudes across the AEP
region (Fig.10.1 a–c), mangrove degradation is generally caused by the construc-
tion of highways and embankments that interrupt water (fresh and marine) ow; the
opening of articial inlets, dredging of navigation channels, and deposition of this
dredged materials over or nearby mangrove forests; conversion to shrimp farms and
the pumping of estuarine/coastal water during operations of shrimp aquaculture
(Teas 1977; Twilley et al. 1998; Chargoy Reyes and Tovilla Hernández 2002;
Menezes etal. 2005; Primavera 2006; Rivera- Monroy etal. 2006; Pagliosa etal.
2012; Hamilton 2013; Miyagi 2013; Benítez-Pardo etal. 2015; Ferreira etal. 2015).
In West Africa (Fig.10.1c), the causes of mangrove degradation are related to
expansion of agriculture and aquaculture, construction of embankments and access
roads, unsustainable wood extraction for fuel wood and charcoal, and shing and
hunting, among other causes (Corcoran etal. 2007). Although mangrove extension
and causes of mangrove mortality in these coastal regions are yet to be documented,
extensive R/R efforts are implemented at different stages in several sites where
most of the same causes of degradation are similar to those observed at the global
scale (see Chaps. 8 and 9; Table10.1; Figs.10.1 and 10.2). For example, in the IWP
region (East Africa, Asia, and Australasia), planting efforts in Gazi Bay, Kenya,
were implemented in response to a lack of natural regeneration after the synergetic
impact of clear-cut felling of trees about 40years ago and heavy silting due to
major upland deforestation in the middle and upper river basins. This synergy of
human impacts along river watersheds from upstream to coastal regions seems to be
common for other mangrove forests throughout East Africa (Kairo et al. 2001,
Bosire etal. 2003; Dahdouh-Guebas etal. 2004; Fig.10.1d). Considering man-
grove reforestation as an R/R approach, the Payment for Ecosystem Services and
REDD+ in Gazi Bay through the Mikoko Pamoja project is a prime example of how
important the recognition of mangrove ecosystem services is and how essential it is
to clearly identify the social need and economic value of mangrove wetlands (http://
www.planvivo.org/project-network/mikoko-pamoja-kenya/; Jerath etal. 2016; see
Chaps. 8 and 9).
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

322
Human impacts on mangrove-dominated ecosystems in India also include clear
cutting and deforestation, fresh water diversions and intensive shrimp farming
(Table10.2, Fig.10.2a; see also Chap. 9). Mangrove forests in the Pichavaram and
Muthupet regions of India have been historically affected by major clear-cut log-
ging (Selvam et al. 2003). In contrast, the impacts of land use changes in the
Sundarbans National Park, one of the largest mangrove protected areas in the world
(10,000 km2), seem to be relatively minor; yet, turnover rates “due to erosion,
aggradation, reforestation, and deforestation” are apparently signicantly greater
than the net change estimated using remote sensing techniques (Giri etal. 2007).
The estimated actual mangrove wetland area in the vast Sundarbans ecosystem in
the year 2000 was 5816 km2 (Giri et al. 2007). This value includes an area of
1200km2 that have been afforested from 1973 to 1990 within the park limits, pri-
marily on new accreting mud deposits as a protection against tropical cyclones
(Saenger and Siddiqi 1993). Recent estimates report 1852km2 of mangrove cover
in 2014in the Indian Sundarbans (Ghosh etal. 2015); adding this area to the area
determined for the Bangladesh Sundarbans (3745 km2), a total of 5327 km2 is
obtained, which is slightly lower than it has been previously reported (i.e., 5816km2
for a decit of 489km2; see Giri etal. 2007). Similar patterns in extensive man-
grove loss are also observed in the Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Sumatra, and Java (Macintosh et al.
2012; Alexandris etal. 2013).
Specically, for the Indian Ocean area, the devastating tsunami of 2004 has been
an incentive for mangrove restoration programs through international and national
funding initiatives. Unfortunately, most of the funding opportunities do not translate
into science-based plans and are often ill prepared and unsuccessful (Jayatissa etal.
2016). A colloquium held in the coastal town of Mamallapuram, India, listed 52
sites where restoration efforts have been implemented, especially in the wake of the
tsunami (Macintosh etal. 2012). Similarly, guidelines have been prepared for R/R
projects after the tsunami damage to mangroves and coastal forests in Southeast
Asia (Chan and Ong 2008; Chan and Baba 2009), or following oil pollution recla-
mation and camel grazing in the Middle East (Protection of the Environment of the
Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden; Saenger and Khalil 2011).
10.3.1 Current Motivations fortheR/R projects
Among the main motives identied for the implementation of R/R projects include
ecological problems caused by the operation or abandonment of shrimp ponds,
altered hydroperiod and tidal circulation patterns, water pollution, loss of habitat
(particularly for sheries of local and regional social and economic value), and
signicant decrease of soil pH (acid sulfate). In the latter case, some mangrove
soils contain pyrite (potential acid-sulfate soils), which remain immobile while
waterlogged (see Chap. 6). However, when these soils are used to build pond
walls, where they partially dry out, sulfuric acid is produced, which lowers pond
J. López-Portillo et al.

323
water pH values and releases Al3+ (Saenger 2002; see Chap. 6). As a consequence,
shrimp farms often do not function well in the long term, and shrimp/prawn pro-
duction dramatically declines leading to bankruptcy of aquaculture farms. In the
aftermath of such local/regional socioeconomic failure, soil quality problems are
left behind. Pond water acidity and toxic concentration of Al3+ must be dealt with
before effective restoration or rehabilitation can be implemented, increasing over-
all R/R project costs. More recently, the motives for the implementation of R/R
projects have expanded to include shoreline protection, channel stabilization, sh-
eries and wildlife enhancement, biodiversity conservation, legislative compliance,
or socioeconomic improvement of local communities (Stubbs and Saenger 2002;
Mukherjee etal. 2015).
10.3.2 Effective R/R Projects Goal Setting
Based on the experiences described above, it is essential that R/R project objectives
are clearly dened and prioritized as a rst step. A coastal afforestation project in
Bangladesh, for example, had several objectives that included the production of
commercial timber, acceleration of the accretion rate to form new land areas, and
protection of nearshore agricultural and residential land from storm damage
(Saenger 2011). These objectives were gradually achieved, but in some cases, there
were conicts in achieving success for each specic objective. For instance, in
planting sites where very high sedimentation rates occurred, trees were buried and
timber production was negligible. Thus, when assessing the signicance of high
sedimentation rates at specic sites in such cases, consideration must be given for
both well-prepared and managed production of timber and coastal protection as
those objectives were of highest priority, giving way to best practices for mangrove
restoration and management.
Other examples in the complex implementation of R/R projects include sites in
the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, India (Selvam etal. 2005) and in
Celestún, Campeche, Mexico (Miyagi 2013). In some locations in India, soil col-
lapse was a consequence of extensive forest clear felling (wood revenue) of vast
mangrove wetland extensions from 1935 to 1975 (Selvam etal. 2003; for other
location, see Cahoon etal. 2003). As a result of direct cutting, trough-shaped areas
resulted from soil exposure after tree felling causing water stagnation and high soil
salt concentration. The proposed solution was to excavate articial channels (1m
deep, 1.5m wide at the base and 3m wide at the soil surface) and connect them to
natural adjacent channels (Fig.10.3). Feeder channels (0.75m deep, 0.6 wide at the
base, and 1.5m wide at the soil surface) were also excavated throughout the die-
back mangrove area, following a “sh bone” spatial pattern (Fig.10.3). The exca-
vated sediments were deposited next to the channels, increasing soil relative
elevation. This strategy was designed to reestablish water exchange between the
mangrove die-back areas and the natural channels with the goal of increasing the
survival rate of planted and naturally established seedlings, The technique (i.e.,
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

324
feeder channels) was rst tested around 1996in a pilot study involving 10ha of
dead mangrove wetland and resulted in the recovery of an extensive mangrove for-
est area (Fig.10.3). After it was demonstrated to be successful, it was used in other
areas covering at least 1200ha impacted mangrove sites in the states of Tamil Nadu
and Andhra Pradesh, India (Selvam etal. 2005). One of the main attributes of the
R/R project described above (Fig.10.3) involved an initial diagnostic and a pilot
study to test the proposed solution. The implementation of this approach involved
the acquisition of permits before and after project implementation, as well as secur-
ing funding from government agencies. Additional critical steps included (1) plan-
Fig. 10.3 Hydrological restoration implemented in mangrove wetlands in Pichavaram, Tamil
Nadu, India, showing original main and feeder channels excavated circa 1996. (a): March 3, 2003;
(b): January 29, 2016 (Source: Google Earth Pro; image area: 55.5ha; eye altitude 881m; Latitude:
11°25′59.86″ N, longitude: 79°47′28.89″ E at the center of the images
J. López-Portillo et al.

325
ning to excavate during the period of lowest water level, (2) organizing and working
closely in a community-based restoration effort, (3) maintaining nurseries to raise
seedlings of several mangrove species for planting in the modied areas, (4) chan-
nel maintenance (mainly silt dredging) when required, and (5) monitoring the suc-
cess or failure of restored areas by means of GIS and ground truthing (Selvam etal.
2003). A similar success history following essentially the same steps was imple-
mented in Celestún, Campeche, and Mexico (Miyagi 2013).
Prioritized objectives underpin the development and implementation of R/R
projects as they force the operational identication of the processes that must be
included to provide a clear framework that warrant project success. Among other
alternatives to ensure a logical selection of steps and clear objectives, we propose
the implementation of the Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (EMR) protocol as
outlined in Lewis and Brown (2014) that includes monitoring and reporting tasks
(Fig.10.4). For example, if the objective is to restore harvestable sh and shellsh
habitat, the life history of the target species should be fully understood while moni-
toring species-specic requirements to document an actual increase in species pop-
ulation density in the restored area (Lewis etal. 1985; Brockmeyer etal. 1997;
Lewis and Gilmore 2007). A unique design criterion, such as the restoration of the
historical hydrological patterns (e.g., water ow, net volume), and attributes (e.g.,
cross section area, length) of tidal creeks may also be essential to provide accessibil-
ity for migration and reproduction cycles for those targeted species.
An interdisciplinary framework has also been proposed to evaluate coastal “bio-
shield” plantations (some with mangroves) and involves the consideration of several
preplantation, plantation, and postplantation procedures (Mukherjee etal. 2015). In
Fig. 10.4 Decision tree showing recommended steps and tasks to restore a mangrove wetland
based on original site conditions (From Bosire etal. 2008)
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

326
this scheme, one of the major drivers dening the objectives and requirements to
ensure success, but usually neglected, is land tenure rights. This consideration is
especially critical in plantations established on land under the jurisdiction of the
Revenue Department or similar country/regional governance bodies or long-term
land grants where projects could become high economic risks if changes in policy
occur after project implementation (Primavera 2000; Primavera and Esteban 2008;
Mukherjee etal. 2015). In fact, land use change, either in private and public lands, is
perhaps the major threat to the implementation of R/R projects given the uncertainty
in the change of regional and national policies and economic interests associated to
urban and industrial development, particularly in developing countries (see Chap. 9).
10.3.3 Critical Questions: What Were theEcological Services
Sought? What Were theSocietal Priorities?
Mangroves have well-dened economic and social values referred to as “instrumen-
tal values”, “free services”, “ecological functions”, or “ecological services” (see
Chaps. 8 and 9). These values include the provision of habitat and biodiversity con-
servation, food and wood production, shoreline protection, chemical buffering,
water quality maintenance, provision of recreational, aesthetic and education oppor-
tunities, and reservoirs of genetic materials. Indeed, coastal protection and socio-
economic factors are the main drivers of coastal bio- shield projects in India
(Mukherjee etal. 2015). Therefore, in each R/R project it must be decided which of
these ecological functions, goods, and services is (are) the most appropriate to be
sustainable, including the need to make decisions that are congruent with the priori-
ties of both national governments and local communities.
10.3.4 Implementation Plans
In earlier steps in the implementation of R/R projects, a questionnaire survey is a
useful tool for the evaluation of site conditions to compare potential sites. This tool
is also necessary in the development of a detailed implementation plan based on the
natural conditions of each site (Saenger etal. 1996). Furthermore, this assessment
should include a synoptic account of the biotic and abiotic site conditions and, criti-
cally important, practical considerations as access, travel time, and land-use status.
Since the early 1980s, it has been advocated that the planting of mangroves speci-
cally should occur for the environmental services these wetlands can provide (i.e.,
Lewis 1982). One of the requirements to implement such an approach is to avoid, as
much as possible, the monoculture of mangroves that frequently characterizes res-
toration projects devoted to timber production. Despite this limitation, few restora-
tion programs have achieved a degree of ecological functioning similar to natural
mangrove systems (Latif 1996; McKee and Faulkner 2000; Lewis and Gilmore
J. López-Portillo et al.

327
2007; Bosire et al. 2008). Based on these experiences, the following conditions
should be met to increase the success of a specic mangrove R/R project: (1) it
should be viewed by the local people as an economic opportunity and/or offer other
tangible benets; (2) it is compatible with local patterns of resource use and land
tenure; (3) local knowledge and skills relevant to restoration are successfully embed-
ded into the project; (4) local groups and organizations are effectively mobilized to
support and implement restoration activities; and (5) relevant policies and political
factors are supportive of restoration efforts at the local, regional, and national levels
(Walters 1997).
10.4 Major Limitations intheImplementation ofR/R:
Funding Availability andCurrent Ecological Theory
Funding availability for the implementation of R/R project is generally based on the
realization by different countries that a high proportion of mangrove wetlands have
been damaged by a complex interaction of human impacts including aquaculture,
agriculture, livestock, urban/rural/industrial and touristic development, and mis-
guided practices concerning the construction of roads, extensive dredging and the
opening of sand bar inlets along vulnerable coasts. Some of these activities have
caused irreversible damage, requiring the implementation of mangrove R/R proj-
ects, which may be funded by government agencies/departments and/or
Nongovernment Organizations. However, nancial support for most of these coastal
management projects is limited due, in most instances, to the high cost for imple-
mentation. Even when economic resources are available, they are often not appro-
priately allocated and spent (Kodikara etal. in press). Therefore, current ecological
theory and the experience gained through frequent failures, and less frequent suc-
cesses, must be incorporated in current and future R/R projects to help dene the
short- and long-term goals and strategies to promote cost-effective small and large-
scale mangrove R/R projects (Lewis etal. 2005; Primavera and Esteban 2008;
Saenger 2011; Twilley etal. 1998; Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005).
10.4.1 Selection ofEasily Manageable Species
Among the taxonomic selection of individual for R/R projects, the genus
Rhizophora has been the preferred taxon used in planting-oriented restoration proj-
ects (Ellison 2000). The species within this genus have a worldwide distribution
(Tomlinson 1986; Giri etal. 2011; see Chap. 2). Two of the major reasons this
genus is used in planting programs are its large hypocotyl nutrient storage that
increases survival rates at early developmental stages, even for long-term wood
production in natural environments, and its handling versatility (Shamsudin etal.
2008; Goessens etal. 2014).
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

328
10.4.2 Planting Seedlings or Saplings fromLocal or Distal
Genetic Sources
Although much is yet to be understood about the effects of planting Rhizophora
propagules or saplings in a site that is far away from the germplasm source, even
when planting the same species, current studies show that genetic diversity decreases
toward higher latitudes and under isolation conditions (Sandoval-Castro etal. 2014;
De Ryck etal. 2016; Ngeve etal. 2016). This decrease is due to the genetic attenu-
ation (e.g., loss of unique alleles) and an increase in selng. These ndings suggest
that genetic recovery of large impacted wetlands areas in tropical latitudes may
require more than 30years (Arnaud-Haond et al. 2009). Similarly, the effect of
habitat fragmentation might not inuence the genetic makeup of adult populations,
although it can occur in cases of higher inbreeding in smaller populations
(Hermansen etal. 2015). Perhaps a rule of thumb would be to use, if available,
genetic resources from the nearest possible populations, such as transplanting wild-
ings from nearest mangrove wetlands under good or optimal environmental condi-
tions (Ellison and Fiu 2010).
10.4.3 Have Native Species Been Always Used inRestoration
Programs?
R/R projects using exotic species in species-rich biogeographic regions have been
recently reported in the scientic literature. For instance, the mangrove species
Sonneratia apetala (originally from India, Sri Lanka, and the Bengal coastal region)
has been used in the restoration of physically altered environments lacking natural
propagule sources in China (Ren etal. 2008). Over the rst decade, the growth per-
formance of the mangrove species S. apetala was higher than those of the native
species, Rhizophora stylosa and Kandelia candel (now K. obovata); and in some
cases, S. apetala facilitated the recolonization of native mangrove species (Ren
etal. 2008; Peng etal. 2012). However, due to the ecological risk of invasion at
broader spatial scales, recent assessments are now recommending that restoration
efforts should include competitive control mechanisms and removal of alien plant
species once the populations of native species are established (Chen etal. 2013; Ren
et al. 2009, 2014). Moreover, the use of exotic species in restoration programs
started relatively recently (two decades ago) and was restricted to site-specic
experiments. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate monitoring of multilevel perfor-
mance measures makes it extremely difcult to infer whether these actions will
sustain themselves without further human intervention and at higher ecological and
economic cost.
The few experiments designed to assess the effects of exotic species on ecosys-
tem functionality include evaluations of macrobenthic faunal communities (Tang
etal. 2012; Leung and Tam 2013). These studies revealed that although the exotic
J. López-Portillo et al.

329
mangrove species S. apetala seems to be innocuous to the macrobenthic fauna, its
presence and dispersion could have negative impacts on other functional groups.
For instance, afforestation of mudats with alien species reduces the feeding ground
for water birds (Leung and Tam 2013). Due to the lack of data and information
together with an insufcient monitoring timeframe, including the lack of proper
spatial and temporal replication, management plans aiming to regulate the use of
exotic species and prevent adverse impacts to the estuarine ecosystem are yet to be
implemented. Thus, a consensus regarding the use of exotic mangrove species as a
good restoration practice remains to be evaluated.
10.5 Implementing R/R Projects intheContext ofClimate
Change: Carbon Markets andGreenhouse Emissions
R/R projects could be considered a long-term strategy to mitigate carbon emissions
given the current estimates of potential carbon storage (“blue carbon”) in mangrove
wetlands (Donato etal. 2011; Caldeira 2012; Siikamäki etal. 2012). The assess-
ment of carbon stocks in the wide range of mangrove ecotypes (sensu Lugo and
Snedaker 1974) throughout tropical and subtropical latitudes conrm that mangrove
forests are among the ecosystems with the highest C storage capacity per unit area
(e.g., Mcleod etal. 2011; Donato etal. 2011; Alongi 2014; Lovelock etal. 2014;
Adame etal. 2015; see Chap. 5). This storage capacity is due to slow decomposition
and rapid organic matter accumulation through time in ooded soils. For example,
soil carbon sequestration rates in mangroves growing in arid tropical coastal regions
(Pacic coast of Mexico) range from 0.1 and 6.9Mg C ha−1yr.−1 in the last 100years
(Ezcurra etal. 2016). However, actual emission rates of previously stored blue car-
bon into the atmosphere in deforested mangrove areas have not been directly and
comprehensively assessed. For example, Kauffman et al. (2015) indirectly esti-
mated a loss of 1464Mg CO2 equivalents per ha for the top 1m soil depth when
mangrove forests were converted to pastures in Tabasco, Mexico, representing
seven and three times greater emissions than those reported for a tropical dry forest
and a tropical forest in the Amazons, respectively. In that study, the carbon stock
was lower in older (30-year) than younger (7-year) pasturelands previously occu-
pied by mangroves, suggesting continuous loss to the atmosphere through time
(Kauffman etal. 2015), especially when ooded soils are drained and exposed to
fast aerobic decomposition (Couwenberg etal. 2010).
It is assumed that some of the carbon emitted could be sequestered again from
the atmosphere after these impacted sites are restored; this response has been
observed in mangrove forests where supercial soil horizons were similar to pre-
served forests after 35years of mangrove tree planting or natural regeneration
(Lunstrum and Chen 2014; Nam et al. 2016). Although more information is
needed to evaluate the potential sequestration and storage in restored mangrove
wetlands, studies suggest that R/R projects could be an efcient strategy to cap-
ture carbon from the atmosphere at a relatively low cost (Siikamäki etal. 2013;
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

330
Thomas 2014) considering the potentially high estimated economic values of car-
bon sequestration as an ecosystem service (e.g., Estrada etal. 2015; Jerath etal.
2016). However, adequate species selection and suitable (e.g., middle to upper
intertidal) environments must be selected for successful mangrove restoration in
contrast to the selection of unsuitable (e.g., lower intertidal) environments, as it
has been the case in some coastal regions (Lewis etal. 2005; Primavera and
Esteban 2008). Additionally, the economic and social dimension of carbon seques-
tration valuation and carbon market development require not only community-
based mangrove management schemes to achieve restoration goals, but also that
local governments are directly aligned to international economic incentives related
to carbon markets in the context of climate change (Beymer-Farris and Bassett
2012; Jerath etal. 2016).
10.6 Global, Regional, andLocal Perspectives inMangrove
R/R Programs: BeyondPlanting Trees
10.6.1 Factors Controlling Long-Term Sustainability
ofRestored Mangroves
Mangrove R/R strategies have historically been scrutinized to identify both infor-
mation gaps and operational pitfalls. Despite the broad geographic range of imple-
mented mangrove restoration projects, an analysis of project outcomes from the
1800s until 1999 (Ellison 2000) indicated that the methods used are mainly based
on planting of single mangrove species and that the primary focus remained on a
silviculture-oriented approach (e.g., fuelwood, charcoal, Lewis 1982). Recently, a
number of assessments of R/R practices and methods indicate a limited advance in
improving R/R strategies and conrm that planting, rather than eliminating the
stressors and assisting natural regeneration, remains the main strategy used world-
wide (Bosire etal. 2008; Dale etal. 2014).
Effective mangrove restoration can only be achieved by eliminating environmen-
tal stressors, a strategy proposed more than 30years ago (e.g., Cintrón and Schaeffer-
Novelli 1983; Cintrón-Molero 1992). A stressor is any factor or situation that diverts
potential energy ows that could be used for the system’s own maintenance, stabil-
ity, and resilience (Odum 1967; Lugo and Snedaker 1974; Twilley and Rivera-
Monroy 2005). The ecosystem response to a stressor depends on its effect/impact on
the system (e.g., physiological mechanisms, structure, and composition) that inu-
ence the recovery rates depending on the type, persistence, and synergy among
natural and human-induced stressors (Lugo 1978; Lugo etal. 1981). If we consider
that environmental stressors can impair the system’s recovery capacity, it is impor-
tant to prioritize ecological-based restoration strategies over single species planting
(Lewis 2000).
J. López-Portillo et al.

331
Mangroves, as is the case for other wetlands, are ow-through ecosystems. Thus,
an understanding of their ecology and hydrology is a critical step in designing suc-
cessful mangrove restoration plans (Lewis etal. 2005). There are successful wet-
land restoration projects based on hydrologic restoration (Turner and Lewis 1997;
Selvam etal. 2003; Miyagi 2013). In mangrove forests, the hydroperiod (ooding
frequency, duration, and depth) regulates biogeochemical processes such as gas
exchange (O2 and CO2) between plants and the environment, metabolic turnover
rates, and the accumulation of sulde in soil (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005;
Lugo and Medina 2014; see Chaps. 5 and 6). Mangrove forests are very sensitive to
edaphic modications, mainly due to shifts in substrate elevation relative to water
level; and their ability to return to a more complex level of organization is strongly
affected by the intensity and frequency of the stressor (Cintrón and Schaeffer-
Novelli 1983). In fact, regrading sites to previous relative elevation is recommended
for restoration projects and ignoring this step has led to numerous failures (Lewis
etal. 2005 and references therein).
On a mangrove forest scale, the environmental gradient created by the microto-
pography sets ecological patterns relevant to restoration strategies such as species
distribution in response to hydroperiod (Lugo and Snedaker 1974; Twilley etal.
1998; Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005; Flores Verdugo et al. 2007; Flores-de-
Santiago 2017;see Chaps. 6 and 9), as well as to other regulators (salinity, sulde,
pH, redox potential) and resources (nutrients, light, space) (Twilley and Rivera-
Monroy 2005). Moving up one level to the landscape scale, mangrove stands are
nested within environmental settings (e.g., deltas, coastal lagoons, oceanic islands)
and are necessarily subjected to environmental variability as a result of major
changes in hydrology or sediment input and deposition rates (Twilley etal. 1998;
Schaeffer-Novelli etal. 2005). Therefore, restoration strategies should not be lim-
ited to the local site, but also consider the interconnectedness with regional and
global process (Twilley etal. 1998; Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005). This is par-
ticularly important when considering recurrent large-scale climate phenomena (e.g.,
El Niño Southern Oscillation) and changes triggered by events that can affect site-
level management strategies as shown in large mangrove restoration projects in the
Americas (Blanco etal. 2006; Rivera-Monroy etal. 2006; Rivera-Monroy etal.
2011). These hierarchical levels should be considered in mangrove R/R projects to
capture the combined effects of geophysical, geomorphic, and ecological processes
that control the mosaic and development of mangrove wetlands (Twilley etal. 1998).
In the context of adaptive management of natural resources, there is no “one-
size-ts-all solution”. Thus, the studies discussed here underscore the constraints
and opportunities for successful mangrove restoration. A large body of evidence
shows that neglecting ecological baselines is the main factor hindering effective
restoration initiatives worldwide, and when appropriate hydrological conditions are
restored, mangroves can fully develop and function as natural stands with no further
human intervention required (Twilley etal. 1998; Ellison 2000; Lewis etal. 2005;
Rivera-Monroy etal. 2006; Lewis and Gilmore 2007; Bosire etal. 2008; Rovai etal.
2012; Rovai etal. 2013; Dale etal. 2014).
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

332
10.6.2 Monitoring theFunctionality ofRestored Mangroves
A number of variables have been proposed to assess mangrove restoration outcomes
(Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005; Bosire etal. 2008; Dale et al. 2014). Issues
related to monitoring of restoration projects are coupled to the economic priorities,
timeframe, and diversity of methods. In addition to the lack of standardized meth-
ods to monitor mangrove restoration outcomes, assessments often limit their analy-
ses to one specic indicator species or group. This approach does not provide an
overview of the functionality, which should reect the system’s capacity to maintain
an effective energy ow as well as structural and functional properties considering
the multiple pathways and mechanisms by which ecological services are delivered
(see Chaps. 8 and 9). Again, because environmental stressors can affect the target
ecosystem at different levels of organization, it is important to dene and consider
multiple functional indicators as performance measures in mangrove restoration
strategies (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005).
Most projects are short in duration (<3years) and do not devote funding for
adequate maintenance and monitoring periods (Rivera-Monroy et al. 2006;
Lewis etal. 2005; Roderstein etal. 2014). Periods ranging from 2 to 16years
(Bosire etal. 2008 and references therein) and 10 to 50years (Crewz and Lewis
1991; Lugo 1992; Shafer and Roberts 2008; Luo etal. 2010; Rovai etal. 2012,
2013) may be required to fully ascertain mangrove restoration success based on
faunal diversity and vegetation structural (e.g., basal area, species diversity) as
well as functional (e.g., net primary productivity, carbon storage, resilience)
properties. Based on these studies, we recommend that the monitoring and main-
tenance of R/R projects cover at least 5years after project implementation. For
example, one functional ecosystem property might be an assessment of the abun-
dance and diversity of sh populations to ensure that both keystone and of eco-
nomic important species to return to reference condition within 5years (Lewis
and Gilmore 2007). However, depending on the intensity of the damage, ecosys-
tem functionality in wetlands can take over a century to be restored. Moreno-
Mateos etal. (2012) found that only 7 out of the 124 references used in their
analysis corresponded to mangrove ecosystems with restoration ages ranging
from 22months to 14years. Appropriate spatial and temporal replication incor-
porating key and multilevel functional indicators is needed to draw conclusions
at a range of population, community, or ecosystem dynamics.
The key set of functional indicators used as performance measures to evaluate
the success of a mangrove R/R projects should include physiological and structural
attributes as response variables to gradients of environmental factors. These include
resources (light and nutrients), regulators (salinity, pH, soil sulde, redox potential),
and hydroperiod (water depth, frequency and duration of ooding; Twilley and
Rivera-Monroy 2005; Rivera-Monroy etal. 2011) that account for the main stress-
ors to mangrove development and long-term sustainability. The performance mea-
sures should provide information about the restoration trajectory of the ecosystem
at specic sites, thus describing the degree and timing of changes anticipated in both
J. López-Portillo et al.

333
structural and functional characteristics and enabling adaptive management actions.
The integration of multilevel performance measures, including abiotic and biotic
compartments, allows for the identication of cause and effect relationships, docu-
menting the effectiveness of restoration strategies and testing assumptions concern-
ing the stressors that are associated with the system’s degradation (Twilley and
Rivera-Monroy 2005).
The difculty and utility of monitoring performance measures in R/R mangrove
projects can be illustrated by some examples. The trajectories of vegetation and soil
properties of a mangrove rehabilitation project by reconnecting water bodies in the
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta lagoon complex (Colombia), one of the largest
restoration efforts ever implemented (mangrove area: 99km2) in the AEP region,
indicated a reversal of the initial success (Rivera-Monroy etal. 2006). After a suc-
cessful response to the large spatial scale hydrological modications by widespread
natural regeneration in 1996 and 1999, the mangrove forest in the region began to
show potentially irreversible deterioration due to a lack of a long-term economic
strategy that included maintenance of the originally dredged channel to maintain
freshwater exchange between the mangrove die-back areas and the natural creeks
and estuary (Roderstein etal. 2014). Similarly, extensive canal digging toward river
and tidal water sources was carried out in the Pichavaram mangrove area in South
India (Selvam etal. 2003) that resulted in the recovery of an extensive area (~300ha),
visible form space (Fig.10.3) and originally lost due to clear-cutting and soil sub-
sidence. In contrast to the case in Colombia, canal maintenance to avoid siltation is
currently performed in this location with the participation of local communities and
adequate technical and economic support. Another successful hydrological rehabili-
tation implemented at both Términos Lagoon and Jaina Island in Campeche,
Mexico, has promoted a maintenance-free mangrove restoration areas, enhancing
further recovery of vegetation cover and ecosystem services at low investment cost
(Agraz-Hernández and Arriaga 2010; Agraz-Hernández etal. 2015).
Another R/R project in the AEP region (Brazil) coupled structural and physio-
logical properties of mangrove vegetation with edaphic conditions to assess the suc-
cess of different mangrove restoration projects (Rovai etal. 2012, 2013). Those
studies demonstrated that although restoration sites did not differ from reference
stands in terms of forest structural characteristics, there was impaired photosyn-
thetic performance due to stress caused by soil elevation changes and heavy metal
inputs, thus making it difcult to infer possible restoration trajectories. This study
shows the advantage of using hierarchical performance measures in restoration
strategies, since ecological responses at lower levels of organization may anticipate
threats to the system’s structure, and reveal critical trends in ecosystem develop-
ment (Twilley etal. 1998). For example, nitrogen xation, a functional ecosystem
service, has been used successfully as an indicator of success in reforested and natu-
rally regenerated mangroves in Mexico (Vovides etal. 2011)
The mangrove fauna plays indeed a signicant role in the functioning of man-
grove ecosystems and can thus be a useful indicator of integrity of managed man-
groves (Lewis 1982; Lewis and Gilmore 2007; Bosire etal. 2008; Cannicci etal.
2008; Ellison 2008; see Chaps. 3 and 6). The assessment of trends in recolonization
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

334
of epibiotic, macrobenthic, and sediment- infauna communities and the distribution
patterns of benthic macrofauna, sh, and shrimp in R/R stands across the world
show signicant and short-term response (Bosire etal. 2008). Although selected
biota groups seem to be more responsive to mangrove restoration, there are still only
few studies on the spatial and temporal changes in biodiversity in restored man-
groves (see Chap. 3); the scant information on age range, species composition, and
hydroperiod in restored sites make generalizations highly uncertain.
We underscore the premise that there is no “one-size-ts-all” solution in restora-
tion ecology. Mangrove restoration monitoring programs should include as many
indicators as the budget and timeframe allow and may be amended as required by
the specic goals of the initial restoration plan (i.e., adaptive management). An
empirical framework that models mangrove restoration trajectories by integrating
indicators that reect ecological processes at different time and spatial scales is
strongly recommended (Twilley and Rivera-Monroy 2005). This framework should
highlight the opportunities and constraints of monitoring programs and operation-
ally dene the basic performance measures that should assist in the advancement of
mangrove restoration in all biogeographic regions.
10.7 Future Directions: Lessons Learned andResearch
Agenda
To advance mangrove R/R efforts worldwide, data sharing and exchange of experi-
ences should be promoted and orchestrated at a comparative level in different geo-
morphological settings and latitudes within and across the IWP and AEP regions.
Below we discuss four proposed R/R protocols that could be considered as a general
research agenda to be implemented given the inclusion of critical ecological pro-
cesses and operational tasks to improve the success of mangrove R/R projects. A
critical step is to develop a decision tree that could serve as a guide to optimize the
use of available funding in the development, implementation, and monitoring of
R/R projects (Fig.10.4). Future protocols should list clear objectives, goals and
deadlines, a robust research agenda that include specic questions (and hypotheses)
based on sound ecological theory, and reliable monitoring practices that maximize
the usefulness of current and past R/R project experiences (Ellison 2000; Bosire
etal. 2008). We propose that these initial steps could be based on the current avail-
able protocols for mangrove R/R projects that could be further developed under the
specic conditions at each individual location.
The rst, and most commonly used protocol, emphasizes that if natural recoloni-
zation after site selection or improvement (secondary succession) does not occur or
is too slow (Field 1996b; Primavera etal. 2012) a mangrove nursery should be set
up as sites for possible planting or out-planting (sensu Primavera etal. 2012) are
identied primarily based on the current lack of mangrove cover or on evidence of
their historical cover loss. A very large part of this protocol is devoted to successful
J. López-Portillo et al.

335
nursery practices including seed or seedling collection and planting, and the use of
some natural seedlings transplants (i.e., wildlings) from healthy forests (Field
1996a, b; Primavera etal. 2012). However, this approach does not emphasize steps
to clearly identify the drivers causing mangrove mortality in the rst place or factors
hindering the lack of natural mangrove regeneration and growth in the proposed
planting site. Indeed, Samson and Rollon (2008) documented the failure of a similar
mangrove restoration protocol implemented over 40,000ha during a 20-year period
in the Philippines.
The second protocol, called Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (or Restoration)
(EMR, Lewis and Marshall 1998; Stevenson etal. 1999), was initially described as
a ve-step process (Brown and Lewis 2006), and later expanded to six steps (Lewis
2009, which have been implemented at a number of sites around the world (Lewis
and Brown 2014). For example, Rey et al. (2012) described the success of this
“hydrologic restoration” approach (Lewis et al. 1985; Brockmeyer et al. 1997;
Turner and Lewis 1997) when implemented in 12,605 ha out of the original
16,185ha mangrove area that was diked and lled in the East Coast of Florida,
USA.The localities were hydrologically reconnected, breached, or restored for the
rehabilitation of formerly diked mosquito control impoundments. Nursery estab-
lishment and planting of mangroves is only used under this protocol if natural prop-
agule recruitment does not occur after site preparation and monitoring (i.e.,
“propagule limitation”; Lewis etal. 2005). Thus, planting of mangroves is not pre-
cluded under EMR, but is based upon a documented lack of natural establishment
of propagules (i.e., secondary succession).
The six steps of EMR (sensu Lewis and Brown 2014) areas follows.
1. Understand the autecology (individual species ecology) of the mangrove species
at the site, the patterns of reproduction, propagule distribution, and successful
seedling establishment.
2. Understand the normal hydrologic patterns that control the distribution and suc-
cessful establishment and growth of targeted mangrove species.
3. Assess the modications of the previous mangrove environment that currently
prevent natural secondary succession.
4. Select appropriate mangrove restoration sites through application of Steps 1–3.
These steps increase the likelihood of success in restoring a sustainable man-
grove forest ecosystem, and are cost-effective given the available funds and man-
power to implement projects, including adequate monitoring to assess quantitative
goals established prior to restoration. This step includes resolving land owner-
ship/use issues necessary for ensuring long-term access to and conservation of
the site.
5. Design the restoration program at appropriate sites selected in Step 4 to initially
restore the appropriate hydrology and utilize natural mangrove propagule recruit-
ment for plant establishment.
6. Only utilize actual planting of propagules, collected seedlings, or cultivated
seedlings after determining through steps 1–5 that natural recruitment will not
provide the quantity of successfully established seedlings, rate of stabilization,
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

336
or rate of growth of saplings established as quantitative goals for the restoration
project.
In a third protocol proposed for mangrove restoration, Bosire etal. (2008) pres-
ent a ten-step ow diagram that expands even further on the six steps from EMR and
that can be used as a decision tree for restoration programs (Fig.10.4). These steps
integrate the essential procedure of consulting with the local communities (Step 4)
and post-plantation phases, similar to those discussed by Mukherjee etal. (2015).
The step 9in this approach underscores the need to monitor ecological succession
in all main biological groups as well as resource use by local people, which is a
much-desired step toward functional integrity when the goods and services man-
grove forest provide directly benet local communities (see Chap. 8).
The fourth protocol explicitly adds economic and social issues and emphasizes
the use of local ecological knowledge to substitute for baseline information gaps
(e.g., detailed reference site topography and hydrology) (Biswas etal. 2009). This
approach is akin to “community based rehabilitation” (Primavera etal. 2012) or
“community based ecological mangrove rehabilitation” (CBMER) (Brown and
Lewis 2006; Lewis and Brown 2014) and was tested in four R/R projects (Biswas
etal. 2009) with “minimum” success for two projects and “uncertain” success for
the other two. A major problem when relying on community support to implement
R/R project is that funding for the participation of volunteer planting and monitor-
ing is limited, thus “[…] it is not uncommon that the whole effort collapses as soon
as the external support is withdrawn” (Biswas etal. 2009; p.379). This limitation
does not invalidate the general approach, but introduces a potential problem by not
emphasizing enough ecological engineering considerations such as the assessment
of hydrology and topography as important initial step in data gathering efforts
before project implementation. An integrated approach similar to that of CBEMR
have been implemented in Indonesia relying on community-based data gathering on
hydrology and topography, underlining adequate funding and training as key to the
overall success of that rehabilitation project (Brown etal. 2014).
Finally, it is paramount to include in any monitoring and reporting program both
spatial and temporal replication (Underwood 1997), including reference sites within
the restoration site or nearby (see Rovai etal. 2012, 2013 for a detailed spatial and
built-in time sampling strategy). In addition, the program should consider establish-
ment of long-term research plots and multiple sequential research programs when
and where possible. The results, whether successful or not, should be published, as
it is the only sound alternative to learn from past experiences, and further advance
mangrove restoration ecological science based on the actual successes and failures
of the four protocols previously described. We urge the continental level implemen-
tation of these guidelines to advance international initiatives aimed to protect and
conserve one of the most productive and threaten coastal ecosystems in the world.
Acknowledgments JLP was funded by the Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la
Biodiversidad-CONABIO (project nos. HH05 and MN001). The Louisiana Sea Grant College
Program (NOAA) and the CAPES/CNPq Science without Borders Program (grant no.
BEX1930/13-3) provided funding for ASR.VHRM was partially funded by The Florida Coastal
J. López-Portillo et al.

337
Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research program (grant nos. DBI-0620409 and DEB-
1237517), NASA-JPL project “Vulnerability Assessment of Mangrove Forest Regions of the
Americas” (LSU Subcontract no. 1452878), and the Department of the Interior South Central
Climate Science Center through Cooperative Agreement # G12 AC00002. We thank A. F.
Zaragoza-Méndez for help inlocating the R/R sites in Google Earth.
References
Adame MF, Hermoso V, Perhans K, Lovelock E, Herrera Silveira JA (2014) Selecting cost effec-
tive areas for restoration of ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 29(2):493–502
Adame MF, Santini NS, Tovilla C, Vázquez-Lule A, Castro L, Guevara M (2015) Carbon stocks
and soil sequestration rates of tropical riverine wetlands. Biogeosciences 12(12):3805–3818
Agraz Hernández CM, Arriaga V (2010) Restauración del manglar en la laguna de Términos.
In: Carabias J et al (coords). Patrimonio natural de México. Cien casos de éxito. México,
CONABIO, p.151
Agraz Hernández CM, Osti Sáenz J, Reyes Castellano J, Chan Keb C, Expósito Díaz, G, Conde
Medina KP (2015) Restauración ecológica en el ecosistema de manglar en Isla Jaina, medi-
ante el empleo de modelos de circulación hidrodinámica en el Municipio de Hecelchakán,
Campeche en 600ha. First Report, CONAFOR-UAC. 120 p
Agraz Hernández CM; Osti-Sáenz J, Jiménez-Zacarías C, García Zaragoza, Chan-Canul E,
González Durán L, Palomo Rodríguez A (2007) Restauración con manglar: criterios y técnicas
hidrológicas de reforestación y forestación. Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Comisión
Federal de Electricidad, Comisión Nacional Forestal. 132 p
Alexandris N, Chatenoux B, Lopez Torres L, Peduzzi P (2013) Monitoring mangrove restoration
from space. UNEP/GRID-Geneva. 48 p
Álvarez-León R (2003) Los manglares de Colombia y la recuperación de sus áreas degradadas:
revisión bibliográca y nuevas experiencias. Madera y Bosques 9:3–25
Alongi DM (2014) Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Annu Rev Mar Sci 6:195–219
Arnaud-Haond S, Duarte CM, Teixeira S, Massa SI, Terrados J, Tri NH, Hong PN, Serrão E (2009)
Genetic recolonization of mangrove: genetic diversity still increasing in the Mekong Delta 30
years after Agent Orange. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 390:129–135
Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN (2007) Restoring natural capital. Science, business, and prac-
tice. Society for Ecological Restoration International-Island Press. 384 p
Bashan Y, Moreno M, Salazar G, Álvarez L (2013) Restoration and recovery of hurricane-damaged
mangroves using the knickpoint retreat effect and tides as dredging tools. J Environ Manag
116:196–203
Benítez-Pardo D, Flores-Verdugo FJ, Casas-Valdéz M, Hernández-Carmona G, Valdez-Hernández
JI, Gómez-Muñoz V (2015) Forestación de isletas de dragado utilizando dos especies de man-
gles, en una laguna costera del Golfo de California, México. Bot Sci 93:165–174
Bernini E, Cristina de Fátima NRS, Lage-Pinto F, Paiva Chagas G, Rezende CE (2014)
Fitossociologia de orestas de mangue plantadas e naturais no estuário do Rio das Ostras, Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil. Biotemas 27:37–48
Beymer-Farris BA, Bassett TJ (2012) The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s
mangrove forests. Glob Environ Chang 22:332–341
Biswas SR, Malik AU, Choudhury JK, Nishat A (2009) A united framework for the restoration
of Southeast Asian mangroves– bridging ecology, society and economics. Wetl Ecol Manag
17:365–383
Blanco JA, Viloria EA, Narvaez JC (2006) ENSO and salinity changes in the Ciénaga Grande de
Santa Marta coastal lagoon system, Colombian Caribbean. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 66:157–167
Bohórquez-Rueda C, Prada-Triana MC (1988) Transplante de plántulas de Rhizophora mangle
(Rhizophoraceae) en el Parque Nacional Corales del Rosario, Colombia. Rev Biol Trop 36
(2B): 555-557
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

338
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Koedam N (2003) Colonization of non-planted man-
grove species into restored mangrove stands in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Aquat Bot 76:267–279
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Walton M, Crona BI, Lewis RR, Field C, Kairo JG, Koedam N
(2008) Functionality of restored mangroves: a review. Aquat Bot 89:251–259
Bosire JO, Kaino JJ, Olagoke AO, Mwihaki LM, Ogendi GM, Kairo JG, Berger U, Macharia D
(2014) Mangroves in peril: unprecedented degradation rates of peri-urban mangroves in Kenya.
Biogeosciences 11:2623–2634
Botero L, Salzwedel H (1999) Rehabilitation of the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, a mangrove-
estuarine system in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast Manag 42:243–256
Brockmeyer RE Jr, Rey JR, Virnstein RW, Gilmore RG, Ernest L (1997) Rehabilitation of
impounded estuarine wetlands by hydrologic reconnection to the Indian River Lagoon, Florida
(USA). Wetl Ecol Manag 4:93–109
Brown B, Lewis RR (2006) Five steps to successful ecological restoration of mangroves. In:
Quarto A, Enright J, Corets E, Primavera J, Ravishankar T, Stanley OD, Djamaluddin R (eds)
Mangrove action project– Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut (YARL), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, p64.
www.mangroverestoration.com
Brown B, Fadilla R, Nurdin Y, Soulsby I, Ahmad R (2014) Case study: Community based ecologi-
cal mangrove rehabilitation (CBEMR) in Indonesia. S.A.P.I.E.N.S. 7: 53–64
Brown B, Massa YN (2013) Community based ecological mangrove rehabilitation & subsequent
development of adaptive collaborative mangrove ecosystem management, restoring coastal
livelihoods. Mainstreaming Mangrove Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta, p35
Cahoon DR, Hensel P, Rybczyk J, McKee KL, Proftt CE, Perez BC (2003) Mass tree mortal-
ity leads to mangrove peat collapse at Bay Islands, Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. J Ecol
91:1093–1105
Caldeira K (2012) Avoiding mangrove destruction by avoiding carbon dioxide emissions. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 109:14287–14288
Cannicci S, Burrows D, Fratini S, Lee SY, Smith TJ III, Offenberg J, Dahdouh-Guebas F (2008)
Faunal impact on vegetation structure and ecosystem function in mangrove forests: a review.
Aquat Bot 89(2):186–200
Chan HT, Baba S 2009 Manual on guidelines for rehabilitation of coastal forests damaged by
natural hazards in the Asia-Pacic Region. International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems and
International Tropical Timber Organization, Okinawa http://www.mangrove.or.jp
Chan HT, Ong JE (eds) (2008) Guidelines for the rehabilitation of mangroves and other coastal
forests damaged by tsunamis and other natural hazards in the Asia-Pacic region. ISME
Mangrove Ecosystem Proceedings Number 5. International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems
and International Tropical Timber Organization, Okinawa http://www.mangrove.or.jp
Chargoy Reyes MA, Tovilla Hernández C (2002) Restauración de áreas alteradas de manglar con
Rhizophora mangle en la Costa de Chiapas. Madera y Bosques, Número especial:103–114
Chen L, Peng S, Li J, Lin Z, Zeng Y (2013) Competitive control of an exotic mangrove species:
restoration of native mangrove forests by altering light availability. Restor Ecol 21:215–223
Cintrón G, Schaeffer-Novelli Y (1983) Introducción a la ecología del manglar. Ocina regional de
ciencia y tecnología de la UNESCO para América Latina y el Caribe-ROSTLAC, Montevideo,
p109
Cintrón-Molero G (1992) Restoring mangrove systems. In: Thayer GW (ed) Restoring the nation’s
marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, Chapter 6, pp223–277
Corcoran E, Ravilious C, Skuja M (2007) Mangroves of Western and Central Africa (No. 26).
UNEP/Earthprint. 88 p
Couwenberg J, Dommain R, Joosten H (2010) Greenhouse gas uxes from tropical peatlands in
south-east Asia. Glob Chang Biol 16:1715–1732
Crewz DW, Lewis RR 1991 An evaluation of historical attempts to establish emergent vegetation
in marine wetlands in Florida. Technical paper no. 60. Florida Sea Grant College, Gainesville
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “Antropocene”. Global Change Newsletter 41:12–13
Cuong CV, Brown S, Huu To H, Hockings M (2015) Using Melaleuca fences as soft coastal engi-
neering for mangrove restoration in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ecol Eng 81:256–265
J. López-Portillo et al.

339
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Collin S, Lo Seen D, Rönnbäck P, Depommier D, Ravishankar T, Koedam
N (2006) Analysing ethnobotanical and shery-related importance of mangroves of the
East-Godavari Delta (Andhra Pradesh, India) for conservation and management purposes.
JEthnobiol Ethnomed 2:24
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Hettiarachchi S, Seen DL, Batelaan O, Sooriyarachchi S, Jayatissa LP,
Koedam N (2005a) Transitions in ancient inland freshwater resource management in Sri Lanka
affect biota and human populations in and around coastal lagoons. Curr Biol 15:579–586
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Jayatissa LP, Di Nitto D, Bosire JO, Seen DL, Koedam N (2005b) How effec-
tive were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? Curr Biol 15:R443–R447
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Van Pottelbergh I, Kairo JG, Cannicci S, Koedam N (2004) Human-impacted
mangroves in Gazi (Kenya): predicting future vegetation based on retrospective remote sens-
ing, social surveys, and distribution of trees. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 272:77–92
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.
Environ Dev Sustain 4:185–200
Dale PER, Knight JM, Dwyer PG (2014) Mangrove rehabilitation: a review focusing on ecological
and institutional issues. Wetl Ecol Manag 22:587–604
Darkwa S, Smardon R (2010) Ecosystem restoration: evaluating local knowledge and management
systems of shermen in Fosu Lagoon, Ghana. Environ Pract 12:202–213
Das P, Basak UC, Das AB (1997) Restoration of the mangrove vegetation in the Mahanadi delta,
Orissa, India. Mangrove Salt Marshes 1:155–161
De Ryck DJ, Koedam N, Van der Stocken T, van der Ven RM, Adams J, Triest L (2016) Dispersal
limitation of the mangrove Avicennia marina at its South African range limit in strong contrast
to connectivity in its core East African region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 545:123–134
Di Nitto D, Erftemeijer PLA, van Beek JKL, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Higazi L, Quisthoudt K, Jayatissa
LP, Koedam N (2013) Modelling drivers of mangrove propagule dispersal and restoration of
abandoned shrimp farms. Biogeosciences 10:5095–5113
Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, Kanninen M (2011) Mangroves
among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci 4:293–297
Ellison AM (2000) Mangrove restoration: do we know enough? Restor Ecol 8:219–229
Ellison AM (2008) Managing mangroves with benthic biodiversity in mind: moving beyond roving
banditry. J Sea Res 59:2–15
Ellison JC, Fiu M (2010) Vulnerability of Fiji’s mangroves and associated coral reefs to climate
change. A review. WWF South Pacic Ofce, Suva, p50
Elster C (2000) Reasons for reforestation success and failure with three mangrove species in
Colombia. For Ecol Manag 131:201–214
Estrada GCD, Soares MLG, Fernadez V, de Almeida PMM (2015) The economic evaluation of
carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case study from south-
eastern Brazil. Int JBiodiv Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 11:29–35
Ezcurra P, Ezcurra E, Garcillán PP, Costa M, Aburto-Oropeza M (2016) Coastal landforms and
accumulation of mangrove peat increase carbon sequestration and storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 113(16):4404-4409
Fernandes MEB, Nascimento AAM, Carvalho ML (2009) Effects of herbivory by Hyblaea puera
(Hyblaeidae: Lepidoptera) on litter production in the mangrove on the coast of Brazilian
Amazonia. JTrop Ecol 25:337–339
Ferreira AC, Ganade G, de Attayde JL (2015) Restoration versus natural regeneration in a neotrop-
ical mangrove: effects on plant biomass and crab communities. Ocean Coast Manag 110:38–45
Field CD (1995) Impact of expected climate change on mangroves. Hydrobiologia 295:75–81
Field CD (ed) (1996a) Restoration of mangrove ecosystems. International Society for Mangrove
Ecosystems, Okinawa, p250
Field CD (1996b) General guidelines for the restoration of mangrove ecosystems. In: Field CD
(ed) Restoration of mangrove ecosystems. International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems,
Okinawa, pp233–250
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

340
Field CD (1999a) Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an overview. Mar Pollut Bull
37:383–392
Field CD (1999b) Mangrove rehabilitation: choice and necessity. Hydrobiologia 413:47–52
Flores Verdugo FJ, Moreno Casasola P, Agraz Hernández CM, López Rosas H, Benítez Pardo D,
Travieso Bello AC (2007) La topografía y el hidroperiodo: dos factores que condicionan la
restauración de los humedales costeros. Bol Soc Bot Mex suppl 80:33–47
Flores-de-Santiago F, Serrano D, Flores-Verdugo F, Monroy-Torres M (2017) Application of a
simple and effective method for mangrove afforestation in semiarid regions combining nonlin-
ear models and constructed platforms. Ecol Eng 103:244–255
Foell J, Harrison E, Stirrat RL (1999) Participatory approaches to natural resource management–
the case of coastal zone management in the Puttalam District. Summary ndings of DFID-
funded research ‘participatory mechanisms for sustainable development of coastal ecosystems’
(Project R6977), School of African and Asian studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, 48 p
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. Glob Ecol
Biogeogr 20:154–159
Ghosh A, Schmidt S, Fickert T, Nüsser M (2015) The Indian Sundarban mangrove forests: history,
utilization, conservation strategies and local perception. Diversity 7:149–169
Giri C, Pengra B, Zhu Z, Singh A, Tieszen LL (2007) Monitoring mangrove forest dynamics of
the Sundarbans in Bangladesh and India using multi-temporal satellite data from 1973 to 2000.
Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 73:91–100
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(8):e105069
Hamilton S (2013) Assessing the role of commercial aquaculture in displacing mangrove forest.
Bull Mar Sci 89(2):585–601
Hamilton S, Casey D (2016) Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of con-
tinuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:729–738
Hermansen TD, Roberts DG, Toben M, Minchinton TE, Ayre DJ (2015) Small urban stands of the
mangrove Avicennia marina are genetically diverse but experience elevated inbreeding. Estuar
Coast 1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-015-9955-1
Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc 10:19
Holl KD, Aide TM (2011) When and where to actively restore ecosystems? Forest Ecol Manag
261:1558–1563
Jayatissa LP, Kodikara KAS, Dissanayaka NP, Satyanarayana B (2016) Post-Tsunami assessment
of coastal vegetation, with the view to protect coastal areas from ocean surges in Sri Lanka. In:
Santiago-Fandiño V, Tanaka H, Spiske M (eds) Tsunamis and earthquakes in coastal environ-
ments, Coastal Research Library. Springer International Publishing, pp47–64
Jerath M, Bhat M, Rivera-Monroy VH, Castaneda-Moya E, Simard M, Twilley RR (2016) The
role of economic, policy, and ecological factors in estimating the value of carbon stocks in
Everglades mangrove forests, South Florida, USA.Environ Sci Pol 66:160–169
Kairo JG, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Bosire J, Koedam N (2001) Restoration and management of man-
grove systems– a lesson for and from the East African region. S Afr J Bot 67:383–389
Kaly UL, Jones GP (1998) Mangrove restoration: a potential tool for coastal management in tropi-
cal developing countries. Ambio 27:656–661
Kamali B, Hashim R (2011) Mangrove restoration without planting. Ecol Eng 37:387–391
Kauffman JB, Trejo HH, García MDCJ, Heider C, Contreras WM (2015) Carbon stocks of man-
groves and losses arising from their conversion to cattle pastures in the Pantanos de Centla,
Mexico. Wetl Ecol Manag:1–14
Kodikara KAS, Mukherjee N, Jayatissa LP, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2017) Have man-
grove restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri Lanka. Restor Ecol. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rec.12492
Latif MA, 1996. An evaluation of mangrove restoration projects in eastern Australia. Unpublished
thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore
J. López-Portillo et al.

341
Leung JYS, Tam NFY (2013) Inuence of plantation of an exotic mangrove species, Sonneratia
caseolaris (L.) Engl. on macrobenthic infaunal community in Futian Mangrove National
Nature Reserve, China. JExp Mar Biol Ecol 448:1–9
Lewis RR 1982 Mangrove forests. pp153–172in RR Lewis (ed), Creation and restoration of
coastal plant communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 219 p
Lewis RR, Gilmore RG Jr, Crewz DW, Odum WE (1985) Mangrove habitat and shery resources
of Florida. In: Seaman W Jr (ed) Florida aquatic habitat and shery resources. Florida chapter.
American Fisheries Society, Kissimmee, pp281–233
Lewis RR (1990) Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: suggestions for stan-
dardization. In: Kusler JA, Kentula ME (eds) Wetland creation and restoration: The status of
the science. Island Press, Washington, pp417–419
Lewis RR, Marshall MJ (1998) Principles of successful restoration of shrimp aquaculture ponds
back to mangrove forests (abstract). Book of Abstracts of the Aquaculture ‘98 Meeting, 15–19
Feb 1998, Las Vegas, p327. World Aquaculture Society
Lewis RR (2000) Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove forest and tidal marsh restoration.
Ecol Eng 15:191–198
Lewis RR (2005) Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove
forests. Ecol Eng 24:403–418
Lewis RR, Hodgson AB, Mauseth GS (2005) Project facilitates the natural reseeding of mangrove
forests (Florida). Ecol Restor 23:276–277
Lewis RR (2009) Methods and criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. In: GME P,
Wolanski E, Cahoon DR, Brinson MM (eds) Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem
Approach. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, pp787–800
Lewis RR, Brown B (2014) Ecological mangrove rehabilitation– a eld manual for practitio-
ners. Version 3. Mangrove Action Project Indonesia, Blue Forests, Canadian International
Development Agency, and OXFAM. p275. www.mangroverestoration.com
Lewis RR, Gilmore RG (2007) Important considerations to achieve successful mangrove forest
restoration with optimum sh habitat. Bull Mar Sci 80(3):823–837
López-Portillo J, Lara-Domínguez AL, Sáinz-Hernández E, Vásquez VM, Rodríguez-Rivera
M, Martínez-García MC, Bartolo-Mateos O, Ortiz-Vela II, Alvarado G (2014) Restauración
hidráulica en la laguna de Tampamachoco en el estado de Veracruz para la rehabilitación
del manglar y de sus servicios ambientales. Instituto de Ecología A.C.Final Report SNIB-
CONABIO, Proyect HH025, Mexico
Lovelock CE, Adame MF, Bennion V, Hayes M, O’Mara J, Reef R, Santini NS (2014) Contemporary
rates of carbon sequestration through vertical accretion of sediments in mangrove forests and
saltmarshes of South East Queensland, Australia. Estuar Coasts 37:763–771
Lugo AE (1978) Stress and ecosystems. In: Thorp JH, Gibbons JW (eds) Energy and environmen-
tal stress in aquatic systems. National Technical Information Service, Springeld, pp62–98
Lugo AE (1992) Comparison of tropical tree plantations with secondary forests of similar age.
Ecol Monogr 62:1–41
Lugo AE, Cintrón G, Goenaga C (1981) Mangrove ecosystems under stress. In: Barret GW,
Rosenberg R (eds) Stress and natural ecosystems. Wiley, Chichester, pp129–153
Lugo AE, Medina E (2014) Mangrove forests. In: Encyclopedia of natural resources: land. Taylor
and Francis, NewYork, pp343–352
Lugo AE, Snedaker SC (1974) The ecology of mangroves. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:39–64
Lunstrum A, Chen L (2014) Soil carbon stocks and accumulation in young mangrove forests. Soil
Biol Biochem 75:223–232
Luo Z, Sun OJ, Xu H (2010) A comparison of species composition and stand structure between
planted and natural mangrove forests in Shenzhen Bay, South China. J Plant Ecol 3:165–174
Macintosh DJ, Ashton EC, Havanon S (2002) Mangrove rehabilitation and intertidal biodiversity:
a study in the Ranong mangrove ecosystem, Thailand. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 55:331–345
Macintosh DJ, Mahindapala R, Markopoulos M (eds) (2012) Sharing lessons on mangrove resto-
ration. Bangkok, Thailand: mangroves for the future and gland. IUCN, Gland, p300
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

342
Matsui N, Suekuni J, Nogami M, Havanond S, Salikul P (2010) Mangrove rehabilitation dynam-
ics and soil organic carbon changes as a result of full hydraulic restoration and re-grading of a
previously intensively managed shrimp pond. Wetl Ecol Manag 18:233–242
McKee K, Faulkner P (2000) Restoration of biogeochemical function in mangrove forests. Restor
Ecol 8:247–259
Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH,
Silliman BR (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role
of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ 9:552–560
Menezes GV, Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Poffo IRF, Eysink GGJ (2005) Recuperação de manguezais: um
estudo de caso na Baixada Santista de São Paulo, Brasil. Braz J Aquat Sci Technol 9(1):67–74
Miyagi T (2013) Environmental characteristics of mangroves for restoration in the Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico. ISME Mangrove Ecosystems Occasional Papers No. 4. Tohoku Gakuin
University, Action for Mangrove Reforestation (ACTMANG), Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA), United Mexican States Ministry of the Environment and International Society
for Mangrove Ecosystems (ISME)
Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in
restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10:e1001247
Mukherjee N, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N, Shanker K (2015) An interdisciplinary framework
to evaluate bioshield plantations: Insights from Peninsular India. Acta Oecol 63:91–100
Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, Green P, Haywood M, Kirton LG, Meynecke J-O, Pawlik
J, Penrose HM, Sasekumar A, Somereld PJ (2008) The habitat function of mangroves for ter-
restrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquat Bot 89:155–185
Nam VN, Sasmito SD, Murdiyarso D, Purbopuspito J, MacKenzie RA (2016) Carbon stocks in
articially and naturally regenerated mangrove ecosystems in the Mekong Delta. Wetl Ecol
Manag 24:231–244
Ngeve MN, Van der Stocken T, Menemenlis D, Koedam N, Triest L (2016) Contrasting effects of
historical sea level rise and contemporary ocean currents on regional gene ow of Rhizophora
racemosa in Eastern Atlantic Mangroves. PLoS One 11(3):e0150950
Odum HT (1967) Work circuits and system stress. In: Young HE (ed) Symposium on primary
productivity and mineral cycling in natural ecosystems. University of Maine Press, Orono,
pp81–138
Oliveira-Filho RR, Rovai AS, Menghini RP, Coelho-Jr C, Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Cintron-Molero G
(2016) On the impact of the Brazilian Forest Code on mangroves: a comment to Ferreira and
Lacerda (2016). Ocean Coast Manag 132:36–37
Ong JE, Gong WK (2013) Structure, function and management of mangrove ecosystems. ISME
Mangrove Educational Book Series No. 2. International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems
(ISME), Okinawa, Japan, and International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama,
Japan
Ortiz-Ruiz JJ (2004) Evaluación de la regeneración articial de manglar en cinco zonas de la
Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Thesis, Jorge Tadeo Lozano Univ., Bogotá, Colombia 97 p
Outterson AH (2014) Evaluating the Progress of a Mangrove Reforestation Project on Isla Galeta,
Colon. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. Paper 1997. http://digitalcollections.sit.
edu/isp_collection/1997
Pagliosa PR, Rovai AS, Fonseca AL (2012) Carbon mismanagement in Brazil. Nat Clim Chang
2:764
Peng YG, Xu ZC, Liu MC (2012) Introduction and ecological effects of an exotic mangrove spe-
cies Sonneratia apetala. Acta Ecol Sin 32:2259–2270
Primavera JH (2000) Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues.
Ecol Econ 35:91–106
Primavera J (2006) Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean Coast
Manag 49:531–545
Primavera JH, Esteban JMA (2008) A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: suc-
cesses, failures and future prospects. Wetl Ecol Manag 16:345–358
J. López-Portillo et al.

343
Primavera JH, Rollon RN, Samson MS (2011) The pressing challenges of mangrove rehabilitation:
pond reversion and coastal protection. In: Chicharo L, Zalewski M (eds) Ecohydrology and
restoration. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp217–244
Primavera JH, Savaris JD, Bajoyo B, Coching JD, Curnick DJ, Golbeque R, Guzman AT, Henderin
JQ, Joven RV, Loma RA, Koldewey HJ (2012) Manual on community-based mangrove reha-
bilitation –Mangrove Manual Series 1. Zoological Society of London, London. viii + 240pp.
Primavera JH, Yap WG, Savaris JP, Loma RA, Moscoso ADE, Coching JD, Montilijao CL,
Poignan RP, Tayo ID (2014) Manual on mangrove reversion of abandoned and illegal brack-
ishwater shponds– Mangrove Manual Series 2. Zoological Society of London, London. ZSL.
xii + 108 p
Proftt CE, Devlin DJ (2005) Long-term growth and succession in restored and natural mangrove
forests in southwestern Florida. Wet Ecol Manage 13:531–551
Pulver TR 1976 Transplant techniques for sapling mangrove trees, Rhizophora mangle, Laguncularia
racemosa, Avicennia germinans in Florida. St. Petersburg, FL, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Marine Research Laboratory (Florida Marine Research Publications, 22)
Ren HR, Wu X, Ning T, Huang G, Wang J, Jian S, Lu H (2011) Wetland changes and mangrove
restoration planning in Shenzhen Bay, Southern China. Landsc Ecol Eng 7:241–250
Ren H, Guo Q, Liu H, Li J, Zhang Q, Xu H, Xu F (2014) Patterns of alien plant invasion across
coastal bay areas in southern China. J Coast Res 30:448–455
Ren H, Jian S, Lu H, Zhang Q, Shen W, Han W, Yin Z, Guo Q (2008) Restoration of mangrove plan-
tations and colonization by native species in Leizhou Bay, South China. Ecol Res 23:401–407
Ren H, Lu HF, Shen WJ, Huang C, Guo QF, Li ZA, Jian SG (2009) Sonneratia apetala Buch.
Ham in the mangrove ecosystems of China: an invasive species or restoration species? Ecol
Eng 35:1243–1248
Rey JR, Carlson DB, Brockmeyer RE Jr (2012) Coastal wetland management in Florida: environ-
mental concerns and human health. Wetl Ecol Manag 20:197–211
Reyes Cargoy MA and Tovilla Hernández C (2002) Restauración de áreas alteradas de manglar
con Rhizophora mangle en la costa de Chiapas. Madera y Bosques. Número especial. 103–114
Rivera-Monroy VH, Twilley RR, Mancera E, Alcántara-Egurren A, Castañeda-Moya E, Casas
Monroy O, Reyes P, Restrepo J, Perdomo L, Campos E, Cotes G, Viloria E (2006) Aventuras
y desventuras en Macondo: rehabilitación de la Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia.
Ecotropicos 19:72–93
Rivera-Monroy VH, Twilley RR, Mancera-Pineda JE, Madden CJ, Alcantara-Eguren A, Moser
EB, Jonsson BF, Castañeda-Moya E, Casas-Monroy O, Reyes-Forero P, Restrepo J (2011)
Salinity and Chlorophyll a as performance measures to rehabilitate a mangrove-dominated del-
taic coastal region: the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta-Pajarales Lagoon Complex, Colombia.
Estuar Coasts 34:1–19
Roderstein M, Perdomo L, Villamil C, Hauffe T, Schnetter ML (2014) Long-term vegetation
changes in a tropical coastal lagoon system after interventions in the hydrological conditions.
Aquat Bot 113:19–31
Rovai AS, Baru JB, Pagliosa PR, Scherner F, Torres MA, Horta PA, Simonassi JC, Quadros DPC,
Borges DLG, Soriano-Sierra EJ (2013) Photosynthetic performance of restored and natural
mangroves under different environmental constraints. Environ Pollut 181:233–241
Rovai AS, Soriano-Sierra EJ, Pagliosa PR, Cintrón G, Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Menghini RP, Coelho-Jr
C, Antunes Horta P, Lewis RR, Simonassi JC, Andrade Alves JA, Boscatto F, Dutra SJ (2012)
Secondary succession impairment in restored mangroves. Wetl Ecol Manag 20:447–459
Saenger P (1996) Mangrove restoration in Australia: a case study of Brisbane International Airport.
In: Field C (ed) Restoration of mangrove ecosystems. ISME/ITTO, Okinawa, pp36–51
Saenger P (2002) Mangrove ecology, silviculture and conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, p360
Saenger P (2011) Mangroves: sustainable management in Bangladesh. In: Günter S, Weber M,
Stimm B, Mosandl R (eds) Silviculture in the tropics. Tropical forestry 8. Springer, Berlin/
Heidelberg, pp339–347
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation

344
Saenger P, Khalil A (2011) Regional guidelines for mangrove restoration in the Red Sea and Gulf
of Aden. PERSGA Guidelines No. GD-0010, PERSGA, Jeddah
Saenger P, Sankaré Y, Perry T (1996) Review of selection criteria and ecological guidelines
for mangrove restoration studies. Large Marine Ecosystem Project for the Gulf of Guinea.
UNIDO, UNDP, NOAA and UNEP, Abidjan
Saenger P, Siddiqi NA (1993) Land from the sea: the mangrove afforestation program of
Bangladesh. Ocean Coast Manag 20:23–39
Salmo SG III, Lovelock C, Duke NC (2013) Vegetation and soil characteristics as indicators of
restoration trajectories in restored mangroves. Hydrobiologia 720:1–18
Samson MS, Rollon RN (2008) Growth performance of planted red mangroves in the Philippines:
revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37:234–240
Sandoval-Castro E, Dodd RS, Riosmena-Rodríguez R, Enríquez-Paredes LM, Tovilla-Hernández
C, López-Vivas JM, Aguilar-May B, Muñiz-Salazaret R (2014) Post-glacial expansion and
population genetic divergence of mangrove species Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn and
Rhizophora mangle L. along the Mexican Coast. PLoS One 9:e93358
Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Cintrón-Molero G, Cunha-Lignon M, Coelho-Jr C (2005) A conceptual
hierarchical framework for marine coastal management and conservation: a “Janus-Like”
approach. JCoast Res SI 42:191–197
Selvam V, Ravichandran KK, Gnanappazham L, Navamuniyammal M (2003) Assessment of com-
munity-based restoration of Pichavaram mangrove wetland using remote sensing data. Curr
Sci India 85:794–798
Selvam V, Ravishankar T, Karunagaran VM, Ramasubramanian R, Eganathan P, Parida AK (2005)
Toolkit for establishing coastal bioshield. MS Swaminathan Research Foundation Centre for
Research on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Chennai, p117
Shafer DJ, Roberts TH (2008) Long-term development of tidal mitigation wetlands in Florida.
Wetl Ecol Manag 16:23–31
Shamsudin I, Raja Barizan RS, Azian M, Wan Nurzalia WS (2008) Rehabilitation of mangroves
in Peninsular Malaysia after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. In: Chan HT, Ong JE (eds)
Guidelines for the rehabilitation of mangroves and other coastal forests damaged by Tsunamis
and other natural hazards in the Asia-Pacic Region, ISME-ITTO, pp9–14
Siikamäki J, Sanchirico JN, Jardine S, McLaughlin D, Morris D (2013) Blue carbon: coastal eco-
systems, their carbon storage, and potential for reducing emissions. Environ Sci Policy Sustain
Devel 55(6):14–29
Siikamäki J, Sanchirico JN, Jardine SL (2012) Global economic potential for reducing carbon
dioxide emissions from mangrove loss. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:14369–14374
Snedaker SC, Biber PD (1996) Restoration of mangroves in the United States of America. In: Field
C (ed) Restoration of mangrove ecosystems. ISME/ITTO, Okinawa, pp170–188
Stanley OD, Lewis RR (2009) Strategies for mangrove rehabilitation in an eroded coastline of
Selangor, peninsular Malaysia. J Coastal Devel 12:144–156
Stephen MF 1984 Mangrove restoration in Naples, Florida. In: FJ Webb (ed) Proceedings of the
10th annual conference on wetland restoration and creation. Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, pp201–216
Stevenson NJ, Lewis RR, Burbridge PR (1999) Disused shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabili-
tation. In: Streever WJ (ed) An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp277–297
Stubbs BJ, Saenger P (2002) The application of forestry principles to the design, execution and
evaluation of mangrove restoration projects. Bois et Foréts des Tropiques 273:5–21
Tamin NM, Zakaria R, Hashim R, Yin Y (2001) Establishment of Avicennia marina mangroves
on accreting coastline at Sungai Haji Dorani, Selangor, Malaysia. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci
94:334–342
Tang Y, Fang Z, Chen K, Zhang Z, Zhong Y, An D, Yang X, Liao B (2012) Ecological inuence of
exotic plants of Sonneratia apetala on understory macrofauna. Acta Oceanol Sin 31:115–125
Tangah J, Bajau FE, Jilimin W, Baba S, Chan HT, Kezuka M (2015) Rehabilitation of man-
groves in Sabah − The SFD-ISME Collaboration (2011–2014). Sabah Forestry Department,
J. López-Portillo et al.

345
International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems and Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance
Co., Ltd. 56pp. http://www.mangrove.or.jp/isme/english/books/Rehabilitation-in-Sabah.pdf
Teas HJ (1977) Ecology and restoration of mangrove shorelines in Florida. Environ Conserv
4:51–58
Thomas S (2014) Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches. Ecol Econ
107:22–38
Tobey J, Clay J, Vergne P (1998) The economic, environmental and social impacts of shrimp farm-
ing in Latin America. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island
Tomlinson PB (1986) The Botany of Mangrove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 413pp
Tovilla C, Román AV, Simuta GM, Linares RM (2004) Recuperación del manglar en la Barra del
Río Cahoacán, en la costa de Chiapas. Madera y Bosques, Special no 2:77–91
Trump K, Gattenlöhner U (2015) Mangrove restoration guide: best practices and lessons learned
from a community-based conservation project. Global Nature Fund, Radolfzell, 60pp
Tsuruda K (2013) Silviculture manual for mangrove restoration in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
Mangrove Ecosystems Occasional Papers ISME 4:23–34
Turner R, Lewis RR (1997) Hydrologic restoration of coastal wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 4:65–72
Twilley RR, Rivera-Monroy V (2005) Developing performance criteria using simulation models
of mangrove ecosystem restoration: a case study of the Florida Coastal Everglades. J Coast
Res 40:79–93
Twilley RR, Rivera-Monroy VH, Chen R, Botero L (1998) Adapting an ecological mangrove
model to simulate trajectories in restoration ecology. Mar Pollut Bull 37:404–419
Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analy-
sis of variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: one of the world's threatened major tropi-
cal environments at least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two
decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known
threatened environments. Bioscience 51:807–815
Vilardy SP, Gonzalez JA, Martin-Lopez B, Montes C (2011) Relationships between hydrologi-
cal regime and ecosystem services supply in a Caribbean coastal wetland: a social-ecological
approach. Hydrolog Sci J56:1423–1435
Vogt J, Lin Y, Pranchai A, Frohberg P, Mehlig U, Berger U (2014) The importance of conspecic
facilitation during recruitment and regeneration: a case study in degraded mangroves. Basic
Appl Ecol 15:651–660
Vovides AG, Bashan Y, López-Portillo J, Guevara R (2011) Nitrogen xation in preserved, refor-
ested, naturally regenerated and impaired mangroves as an indicator of functional restoration
in mangroves in an arid region of Mexico. Restor Ecol 19:236–244
Wadsworth FH (1959) Growth and regeneration on the white mangrove Laguncularia racemosa in
Puerto Rico, Caribbean. Forester 20:59–71
Walters BB (1997) Human ecological questions for tropical restoration: experiences from planting
native upland trees and mangroves in the Philippines. Forest Ecol Manag 99:275–290
Wilkie ML, Fortuna S (2003) Status and trends in mangrove area extent worldwide. Forest
Resources Assessment Working Paper 63. Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Zaldívar-Jiménez MA, Herrera Silveira JA, Teutli Hernández C, Comin FA, Andrade JL, Coronado
Molina C, Pérez Ceballos R (2010) Conceptual framework for mangrove restoration in the
Yucatán Peninsula. Ecol Restor 28:333–342
10 Mangrove Forest Restoration andRehabilitation