Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 972–978 | Cite as

Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) reproduction and seedling colonization after hurricane charley: Comparisons of Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay

  • C. Edward Proffitt
  • Eric C. Milbrandt
  • Steven E. Travis


Reproductive aspects of life history are known to be important in recovery following disturbance in many plant species although this has not been well studied in mangroves. Hurricane Charley devastated large areas of mangroves in Charlotte Harbor, Florida, in August 2004. We surveyed 6 forests in Charlotte Harbor (2002, 2003, and 2005) and 16 in Tampa Bay, Florida (2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005) for total numbers of reproducing trees and trees heterozygotic for albinism that produce both normal and albino propagules. Tree size (estimated height and diameter at breast height) was also recorded for sentinel heterozygotic trees. Total number of reproducing trees km−1 was used as an index of reproductive output of the population, and deviation from the 3∶1 (normal:albino propagules) ratio on heterozygotic trees expected with 100% selfing was used to estimate outcrossing. Numbers ofRhizophora mangle reproducing trees km−1 of shoreline in Charlotte Harbor were reduced by an order of magnitude following Hurricane Charley, while numbers of reproducing trees in Tampa Bay were similar to those of previous years. Reduced reproduction in Charlotte Harbor was accompanied by fewer new recruits in plots on Sanibel and Captiva Islands. Numbers of new recruits after the storm also tended to be fewer in plots where canopy loss was greater. More new recruits occurred in sites that had higher densities of pre-stormRhizophora seedlings and greater relative dominance byRhizophora. Outcrossing of sentinel trees was 2.5 times greater, in Charlotte Harbor (mean site−1=33.6±6.7%; with 17% of forest sites completely selfing) than in Tampa Bay (mean site−1=13.4±4.7%; with 40% of sites completely selfing), although the implications for seedling recruitment of this difference are not known.


Salt Marsh Mangrove Forest Mangrove Species Propagule Size Charlotte Harbor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Baldwin, A., M. Egnotovich, M. Ford, andW. Platt. 2001. Regeneration in fringe mangrove forests damaged by Hurricane Andrew.Plant Ecology 157:149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnette, S. C. H. andB. C. Husband. 1990. The genetics of plant migration and colonization, p. 254–281.In A. H. D. Brown, M. T. Clegg, A. L. Kahler, and B. S. Weir (eds.), Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  3. Bruno, J. F. andM. D. Bertness. 2001. Habitat modification and facilitation in benthic marine communities, p. 201–218.In M. D. Bertness, S. D. Gaines, and M. E. Hay (eds.), Marine Community Ecology. Sinaeur Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Cahoon, D. R., P. Hensel, J. Rybczyk, K. L. McKee, C. E. Proffitt. andB. C. Perez. 2003. Mass tree mortality leads to mangrove peat collapse at Bay Islands, Honduras after Hurricane Mitch.Journal of Ecology 91:1093–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, P. J. andR. A. Kerrigan. 2000. Do forest gaps influence the population structure and species composition of mangrove stands in northern Australia.Biotropica 32:642–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayton, P. K. 1972. Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, p. 81–96.In B. C. Parker (ed.), Proceedings of the Colloquium and Conservation Problems in Antarctica. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  7. Devlin, D. J. 2004. Effects ofCoccotrypes rhizophorae on the population and community structure of forests dominated byRhizophora mangle in Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, K. R., C. E. Proffitt, andS. E. Travis. 2005. Ecological and genetic impacts of a large-scale marsh dieback onSpartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) in the northern Gulf of Mexico.Estuaries 28:204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellison, A. M. andE. J. Farnsworth. 1993. Seedling survivorship, growth, and response to disturbance in Belizean mangal.American Journal of Botany 80:1137–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feller, I. C., D. F. Whigham, K. L. McKee, andC. E. Lovelock. 2003. Nitrogen limitation of growth and nutrient dynamics in a disturbed mangrove forest, Indian River Lagoon, Florida.Oecologia 134:405–414.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwillie, C., S. Kalisz, andC. G. Eckert. 2005. The evolutionary enigma of mixed mating systems in plants: Occurrence, theoretical explanations, and empirical evidence.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 36:47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hensel, P. and C. E. Proffitt. 2003. Hurricane Mitch: Acute impacts on mangrove forest structure and an evaluation of recovery trajectories. Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 03-182, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Lowenfeld, R. C. andE. Klekowski. 1992. Mangrove genetics. I. Mating system and mutation rates ofRhizophora mangle in Florida and San Salvador Island, Bahamas.International Journal of Plant Science 153:394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGuinness, K. A. 1997. Seed predation in a tropical mangrove forest: A test of the dominance-predation model in northern Australia.Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:293–302.Google Scholar
  15. McKee, K. L. 1993. Determinants of mangrove species distribution in neotropical forests: Biotic and abiotic factors affecting seedling survival and growth. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  16. McKee, K. L. 1995. Interspecific variation in growth, biomass partitioning, and defensive characteristics of neotropical mangrove seedlings: Response to light and nutrient availability.American Journal of Botany 82:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKee, K. L., I. A. Mendelssohn, andM. W. Hester. 1988. Reexamination of pore water sulfide concentrations and redox potentials near the aerial roots ofRhizophora mangle andAvicennia germinans.American Journal of Botany 4:1352–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Milbrandt, E. C., J. M. Greenawalt, andS. A. Bortone. 2006. Impact and Response of Southwest Florida mangroves to the 2004 Hurricane Season.Estuaries and Coasts 29:979–984.Google Scholar
  19. Minchinton, T. E. 2001. Canopy and substratum heterogeneity influence recruitment of the mangroveAvicennia marina.Journal of Ecology 89:888–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Proffitt, C. E., R. Chiasson, A. Owens, K. R. Edwards, andS. E. Travis. 2005. Facilitation and suppression of high marsh species bySpartina alterniflora in an early successional salt marsh.Journal of Ecology 93:404–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Proffitt, C. E. andD. J. Devlin. 2005. Long-term growth and succession in restored and natural mangrove forests in southwestern Florida.Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Proffitt, C. E. andS. E. Travis. 2005. Albino mutation rates in red mangroves as a bioassay of contamination history in Tampa Bay, Florida.Wetlands 25:326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Proffitt, C. E., S. Travis, andK. Edwards. 2003. Genotype and elevation influenceSpartina alterniflora colonization and growth in a created marsh.Ecological Applications 13:180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seliskar, D. M., J. L. Gallagher, D. M. Burdick, andL. A. Mutz. 2002. The regulation of ecosystem function by ecotypic variation in the dominant plant: ASpartina alterniflora saltmarsh case study.Journal of Ecology 90:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sengupta, R., B. Middleton, C. Yan Mzuro, andH. Hartman. 2005. Landscape characteristics ofRhizophora mangle forests and propagule deposition in coastal environments of Florida.Landscape Ecology 20:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sherman, R. E., T. J. Fahey, andJ. J. Battles. 2000. Small scale disturbance and regeneration dynamics in a neotropical mangrove forest.Journal of Ecology 88:165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silvertown, J. 1987. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology, 1st edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, III,T. J. 1987. Effects of light and intertidal position on seedling survival and growth in tropical tidal forests.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 110:133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, III,T. J., M. B. Roblee, H. R. Wanless, andT. Doyle. 1994. Mangroves, hurricanes, and lightening strikes: Assessment of Hurricane Andrew suggests an interaction across two differing scales of disturbance.BioScience 44:256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sousa, W. P., S. P. Quek, andB. J. Mitchell. 2003. Regeneration ofRhizophora mangle in a Caribbean mangrove forest: Interacting effects of canopy disturbance and a stem boring beetle.Oecologia 137:436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SYSTAT. 2002. SYSTAT for Windows, version 10.2. SYSTAT Software, Inc., Richmond, California.Google Scholar
  32. Teas, H. andS. Handler. 1979. Notes on the pollination biology ofRhizophora mangle L.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mangrove Biogeography and Evolution in the Southern Hemisphere 2:357–361.Google Scholar
  33. Tomlinson, P. B. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves, 1st edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  34. Travis, S. E., C. E. Proffitt, andK. Ritland. 2004. Population structure and inbreeding vary with successional stage in createdSpartina alterniflora marshes.Ecological Applications 14:1189–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Edward Proffitt
    • 1
  • Eric C. Milbrandt
    • 2
  • Steven E. Travis
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic Universityc/o Harbor Branch Oceanographic InstitutionFort Pierce
  2. 2.Sanibel-Captiva Conservation FoundationSanibel
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyNational Wetlands Research CenterLafayette

Personalised recommendations