, Volume 803, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

The state of the world’s mangroves in the 21st century under climate change

  • Ilka C. FellerEmail author
  • Daniel A. Friess
  • Ken W. Krauss
  • Roy R. LewisIII


Concerted mangrove research and rehabilitation efforts over the last several decades have prompted a better understanding of the important ecosystem attributes worthy of protection and a better conservation ethic toward mangrove wetlands globally. While mangroves continue to be degraded and lost in specific regions, conservation initiatives, rehabilitation efforts, natural regeneration, and climate range expansion have promoted gains in other areas, ultimately serving to curb the high mangrove habitat loss statistics from the doom and gloom of the 1980s. We highlight those trends in this article and introduce this special issue of Hydrobiologia dedicated to the important and recurring Mangrove and Macrobenthos Meeting. This collection of papers represents studies presented at the fourth such meeting (MMM4) held in St. Augustine, Florida, USA, on July 18–22, 2016. Our intent is to provide a balanced message about the global state of mangrove wetlands by describing recent reductions in net mangrove area losses and highlighting primary research studies presented at MMM4 through a collection of papers. These papers serve not only to highlight on-going global research advancements, but also provide an overview of the vast amount of data on mangrove ecosystem ecology, biology and rehabilitation that emphasizes the uniqueness of the mangrove community.


Biology Deforestation Extent Mangrove expansion Restoration Sea-level rise 


Tropical and sub-tropical mangrove forests are considered a particularly important ecosystem for human coastal communities due to their provision of ecosystem services, such as timber and fuelwood (Palacios & Cantera, 2017), fisheries (Benzeev et al., 2017; Goecke & Carstenn, 2017), sediment trapping (Kamal et al., 2017), coastal defense (Doughty et al., 2017; Sheng & Zou, 2017), and carbon storage (Donato et al., 2011; Kelleway et al., 2016; Yando et al., 2016). Nevertheless, mangrove forests are considered one of the most threatened ecosystems across the tropics (Duke et al., 2007). This is due in large part to anthropogenic impacts on mangroves, including conversion to aquaculture and agriculture, urbanization, and pollution (UNEP, 2014). As a transitional intertidal ecosystem, mangrove forests are also considered to be particularly vulnerable to climate change stressors, such as sea-level rise (Lovelock et al., 2015) and drought (Duke et al., 2017), where changing environmental conditions push mangroves beyond species-specific thresholds of tolerance (Ball, 1988). Mangrove loss may not always be attributable to a single driver like agriculture; instead, many natural and anthropogenic stressors often interact additively or synergistically, leading to rapid and large-scale die-offs in some locales, exemplified by recent (2016) events in Australia (Duke et al., 2017; Lovelock et al., 2017a).

Whereas the general trend for mangroves across the tropics and sub-tropics is one of decline, the broader picture of the true state of the world’s mangroves is more nuanced and complex. Huge efforts are being put into mangrove rehabilitation and creation at landscape scales. While such large-scale efforts are generally unsuccessful due to poor species selection, inappropriate choice of rehabilitation locations, and local governance issues (Lewis, 2005; Primavera & Esteban, 2008; Elliott et al., 2016; Kodikara et al., 2017), some efforts are becoming more successful as elements of species biology and hydrological requirements are incorporated into the design and implementation of rehabilitation projects (e.g., Matsui et al., 2010; Oh et al., 2017). On a larger scale, climate change may promote some positive gains, especially at the northern and southern latitudinal limits of mangroves, as mangroves encroach on and replace saltmarsh species in some localities, which was a major theme of the 4th Mangrove and Macrobenthos Meeting (MMM4) held in St. Augustine, Florida in 2016.

The aim of this article is first to describe the MMM4 conference that was held in 2016 and its focus, and then to assess the true state of the world’s mangroves early in the 21st century, including some of the potentially positive messages discussed during MMM4.

The MMM4 conference

The Mangrove and Macrobenthos Meeting series was first convened in 2000 in Mombasa, Kenya, with the primary goal of developing a community of practice surrounding the role that macrobenthic invertebrates had on the ecology of mangrove ecosystems globally. Through this dedicated focus on faunal and ecological processes occurring in mangroves, the mangrove community as a whole gained a wider stance among marine ecological systems in subsequent years. The MMM series eventually developed a broader focus, with subsequent meetings held in Australia (2006) and Sri Lanka (2012). This venue now amasses the largest collection of mangrove specialists working across disciplines, from benthic invertebrate ecology and soil biogeochemistry to macroclimatic drivers, latitudinal limits, and ecophysiological constraints to regional and local mangrove expansion.

The fourth conference in the series, MMM4, was held July 18–22, 2016 in St. Augustine, Florida, USA, on the campus of Flagler College. MMM4 represented the very first of the MMM series held in the Americas. Approximately 270 scientists from 32 countries attended MMM4. This location along the Atlantic Coast of Florida was chosen because it represents the transition between temperate and tropical zones where the pressures of climate change on mangroves are very visible. This location provided numerous opportunities for conference attendees to witness the consequences of climate change at this dynamic ecotone, as well as a developing story of concurrent faunal shifts with mangrove expansion (Diskin & Smee, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2017; Langston et al., 2017). As a result of decreasingly cold winters and sea-level rise, the distribution of mangroves is expanding northward and landward along this part of the Florida peninsula into coastal wetlands that have historically been dominated by saltmarsh plants. The location also allowed attendees to participate in field trips to local sites of ecotone shifts and to see actual examples of construction of mangrove restoration projects and completed projects on very large scales as described in Rey et al. (2012).

The goals of MMM4 were: (1) to promote interdisciplinary research on mangroves and associated coastal ecosystems; (2) to build and strengthen further linkages and collaboration among mangrove specialists; (3) to advance education of students, scientists, decision-makers, managers, the media, and the general public; and (4) to facilitate communications among all these groups on a global scale. Conference attendees presented original research on mangrove and associated ecosystems covering all elements of the system from the top of the canopy to the bottom of the sea, including the flora, fauna, biogeochemical cycles, climate change, human impacts, economics, and management. Papers published as part of this Special Issue of Hydrobiologia, entitled “Causes and Consequences of Mangrove Ecosystem Responses to an Ever-Changing Climate” highlight specific papers presented at MMM4.

Mangrove losses due to deforestation

Mangroves have been lost and disturbed due to human use for centuries, though most assessments of mangrove area and rates of change originate from estimates from the second half of the 20th century onwards. Though data quality is highly variable, it has been previously considered that 35% of original mangrove area was lost by the end of the 20th century (Valiela et al., 2001). Mangroves were also considered to be losing 1–3% of their area globally per year, with substantial regional variation (FAO, 2007). Mangrove loss in the early 21st century has declined from expected highs in the mid- to late 20th century (Spalding et al., 2010), with a global-scale remote sensing study showing that annual rates of mangrove deforestation averaged 0.2–0.7% between 2000 and 2012 (Hamilton & Casey, 2016). Some of this apparent reduction may be due to methodological differences between surveys and studies, though improved conservation successes can be an important factor as a number of countries have introduced conservation and sustainable forest-management laws and pursued community-based management (e.g., Chen et al., 2009; Friess et al., 2016), which may explain some of the reduction in deforestation rates.

While the average rate of mangrove loss is lower globally, this masks substantial variation in deforestation rates among regions and countries as well as the continual decline in general mangrove condition through degradation of existing habitats or replacement of mature diverse forests by monospecific plantations. Annual deforestation rates (Table 1; Hamilton & Casey, 2016) between 2000 and 2012 were perhaps not surprisingly highest in nations with small mangrove extent. However, a number of Southeast Asian countries also experienced high percentage rates of mangrove deforestation, particularly Myanmar (the second highest globally), Malaysia, and Cambodia. In terms of absolute loss, Southeast Asian countries are heavily affected, accounting for five of the top 10 countries (Table 2; Hamilton & Casey, 2016). Globally, Indonesia has the highest rate of mangrove loss annually due to its large mangrove area, although both Myanmar and Malaysia also lost approximately 20 km2 of mangrove forest every year.
Table 1

Top 10 countries with the highest annual percentage rates of deforestation between 2000 and 2012

Source Hamilton & Casey (2016)


Annual average deforestation rate: 2000 and 2012 (%)

Total mangrove area in 2012 (km2)

Saint Kitts and Nevis






























Table 2

Top 10 countries with the highest annual total area of mangrove deforestation between 2000 and 2012

Source Hamilton & Casey (2016)


Annual average mangrove loss per year: 2000 and 2012 (km2)

Total mangrove area in 2012 (km2)































Anthropogenic mangrove loss has traditionally been due to aquaculture throughout much of the tropics, especially in Southeast Asia (e.g., Primavera, 2006). The scale of mangrove conversion to aquaculture has been historically dramatic, with an estimated 140,000 ha of mangrove lost to conversion in the 1950s–1980s (Primavera, 2000). A global-scale quantitative assessment of the proximate drivers of mangrove deforestation has only recently been produced (Thomas et al., 2017), and a qualitative survey of 10 mangrove experts by UNEP (2014) suggested that aquaculture is still one of the largest threats to mangroves globally, though other drivers such as overexploitation, pollution and coastal development are also important. All drivers are expected to increase in magnitude in the future (UNEP, 2014). At the regional scale, Richards & Friess (2016) systematically quantified proximate drivers of deforestation for the whole of Southeast Asia. Between 2000 and 2012, aquaculture was still the dominant driver of mangrove loss in the region (30%), although other agricultural commodities such as rice (22%) and oil palm (16%) were also substantial drivers (Richards & Friess, 2016). The latter has not previously been considered a driver of mangrove loss. Similar to the spatial distribution of loss rates, drivers are also spatially heterogeneous in Southeast Asia. National aquaculture and agriculture policies drive patterns of mangrove loss, with aquaculture being the main driver of mangrove loss in Indonesia (49%) due to food export policies. However, rice is the main driver of mangrove loss in Myanmar (88%) due to national-level plans for food security and food redistribution (Richards & Friess, 2016).

Potential mangrove losses due to climate change

Mangrove losses as a result of climate change are attributed mainly to increased rates of sea-level rise, high water events, storms, and precipitation as well as altered ocean circulation patterns, health of functionally linked ecosystems, and socio-economic activities (Field, 1995; Gilman et al., 2008). When mangroves are not able to build surface elevations commensurate with the rate of sea-level rise, they are submerged and subsequently lost (Krauss et al., 2014). For mangroves in the Indo-Pacific, Lovelock et al. (2015) reported that 69% of their sites were not building surface elevations at rates that equaled or exceeded sea-level rise. Additional losses are expected to occur as a result of coastal squeeze, in regions where sea level rises and pushes mangroves landward into areas where the lack of suitable space (e.g., due to natural or anthropogenic barriers) hampers up-slope dispersal and subsequent establishment (Alongi, 2015). Alongi (2015) predicted that the impact of climate change would be felt most acutely by mangroves along arid coasts as salinities increase, freshwater supplies decrease, and critical temperature thresholds are reached. This prediction was recently borne out by large diebacks of mangroves along Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria (Duke et al., 2017) and the coast of Western Australia (Lovelock et al., 2017b) in response to a prolonged drought. Mangroves are also expected to decline along riverine systems as a result of reduced sediment supplies, increased salinities, and higher sea levels (Alongi, 2015), as have already been observed in many mangrove systems (e.g., Lovelock et al., 2015; Woodroffe et al., 2016; Meeder et al., 2017). This impact is already causing coastal erosion in the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean (Lovelock et al., 2015). Mangrove diebacks can also occur in response to freezing temperatures, particularly in the temperate-tropical ecotone (Saintilan et al., 2014), but the extent of persistent losses due to freeze events are currently unknown. The Caribbean islands and parts of Central America and northern Australia are forecast to lose more mangrove species than other parts of the world (Record et al., 2013).

Potential mangrove gains due to climate change

Although climate change is generally considered to pose a threat to mangroves across the tropics and sub-tropics, interactions with climate change processes may also lead to increases in mangrove area through at least two mechanisms. Firstly, mangroves may respond to sea-level rise in at least three ways: by submerging, by building vertically, and if vertical building is sufficient and corridors exist, by migrating into adjacent wetlands (Krauss et al., 2014). Transgression or loss among coastal wetlands with sea-level rise and fall has been described in numerous studies (Woodroffe & Davies, 2009; Meeder et al., 2017). As the rate of global average sea-level rise decreased progressively during the late Holocene (Lambeck et al., 2014), the capacity of mangroves to build vertically by trapping sediments and increasing root biomass in situ overcame the need for inland migration in some Caribbean wetlands (McKee, 2011). For example, it was once thought that sea-level rise involved gains associated with inland encroachment of mangroves in the Everglades region of Florida that balanced appreciably by losses along the seaward fringe from submergence (Egler, 1952). Rather, mangroves moved inland and adjusted vertically along the fringes, resulting in a 35% increase in total mangrove coverage in some portions of the Ten Thousand Islands region of Florida (Krauss et al., 2011). Such sea-level-rise induced expansion has also been documented along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, southeast Australia, and the Pacific coast of Mexico (Rogers et al., 2006; Saintilan et al., 2009; López-Medellín et al., 2011). While it is true that mangroves have the ability in some cases to migrate landward and invade adjacent wetlands in response to sea-level rise, net loss or gain of mangrove area has been shown to vary by region as a function of the local rates of sea-level rise and coastal subsidence (Ellison & Strickland, 2015), landform slope and tidal forcing (Doyle et al., 2010), vertical accretion (Lovelock et al., 2015), sedimentation rates (Krauss et al., 2010), and the absence or presence of actual migration corridors (Enwright et al., 2016).

Secondly, evidence is mounting that climate change is affecting the latitudinal range of mangroves, including recent observations of mangrove expansion at or near their poleward range limits on at least five continents (Saintilan et al., 2014). Based on 28 years of Landsat imagery coupled with gridded climate data, Cavanaugh et al. (2014) showed that a doubling in mangrove abundance in northeastern Florida was closely tied to a decrease in the number of freeze events, but not to changes in sea-level rise, precipitation, or other hypothesized drivers. Based on species-specific cold tolerances coupled with climate models, Cavanaugh et al. (2015) predicted that this increase would continue and result in a dramatic expansion of mangroves up the east coast of the USA over the next 50 years. However, in an analysis of historical aerial photographs and recent satellite imagery of the coastal marshes near the range edge of mangroves in northeast Florida from 1942 to 2014, Rodriguez et al. (2016) determined that mangroves have both expanded and contracted over the past 70 years, resulting in recurrent shifts from saltmarsh to mangrove and back again multiple times. Such changes in habitat composition were related to large infrequent disturbances, including hurricanes and severe freeze events (Rodriguez et al., 2016), both of which have been linked to regime shifts from one ecosystem state into another (e.g., Michener et al., 1997). In Florida, rare severe freeze events have led to large-scale contractions of the mangrove range edge and killed mangroves as far south as the Everglades (Bidlingmayer & McCoy, 1978; Wade et al., 1980). Mangrove species, seedling age, salinity, and the presence/absence of marsh grass can influence mangrove survival outcomes to such events (Coldren & Proffitt, 2017). Mangroves are also expanding into coastal saltmarshes along the Gulf of Mexico (Comeaux et al., 2012; Osland et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2017; Yando et al., 2016) and throughout the Americas with historical evidence of similar large-scale contractions in the past as a result of severe freeze events (Sherrod & McMillan, 1985; Everitt & Judd, 1989).

In addition to sea-level rise, climate change is expected to result in increased frequency and intensity of rainfall and associated flooding that can discharge massive amounts of sediment into nearshore environments, which then provide favorable new substrate for rapid seaward expansion of mangroves, as has been observed in Northern Australia along the Gulf of Carpentaria (Ashbridge et al., 2016). However, this expansion of mangrove area may be short-lived if it is followed by a large-scale drought, as has more recently occurred along the Gulf of Carpentaria (Duke et al., 2017). The rapid mangrove expansion and growth documented by Ashbridge et al. (2016) following the sedimentation event may have made the mangroves along that coast more sensitive to the drought conditions that followed (Lovelock et al., 2009). Although several studies have documented poleward range expansion by mangroves at their latitudinal limits in response to global warming, more evidence is needed to show whether mangrove forests in the tropics may experience range contraction in response to increasing temperatures and drought. The climate-driven expansion of mangroves has been hypothesized to reduce gene diversity and cause founder effects or a genetic bottleneck at the range edge (Triest, 2008; Pil et al., 2011; Sandoval-Castro et al., 2012). Genetic studies are becoming much more common in mangrove ecology to elucidate processes that promote or inhibit mangrove dispersal (Ngeve et al., 2017). Yet, contrary to expectations, dramatic increases in the genetic diversity of mangrove trees colonizing the northeast coast of Florida have been observed as a result of increased long-distance dispersal of propagules by strong poleward-flowing ocean currents (Kennedy et al., 2016). This pattern is contrasted with mangroves from Florida’s west coast where low genetic diversity was caused by the lack of strong ocean currents and limited local propagule dispersal and migration rates, resulting in founder effects (Kennedy et al., 2016).

As climate change is driving the encroachment of mangroves into saltmarsh habitat around the world, the ability of mangroves to displace saltmarsh is likely due to a combination of biotic and abiotic factors in addition to increases in temperature (Coldren & Proffitt, 2017). For example, recent studies have reported an increase in the occurrence of precocious reproduction by mangrove seedlings and saplings at the leading edge of their ranges, which can accelerate population growth and hasten the expansion of mangroves into saltmarshes (Dangremond & Feller, 2016). For Avicennia germinans along the northern Gulf of Mexico, Langston et al. (2017) found that propagules and seedlings experienced mild to fatal herbivory, which suggested that biotic interaction may also play an important role in the ability of mangroves to expand into saltmarshes. Simpson et al. (2013) documented that greater phenotypic plasticity in mangroves compared to saltmarsh in response to increased nutrient availability allowed mangroves to outcompete co-occurring saltmarsh plants in the mangrove-saltmarsh ecotone. In addition, the ability of mangroves to encroach on saltmarshes depends on their ability to successfully disperse and establish, which depend on hydrologic forces and species-specific tolerances to light levels and floatation times (Alleman & Hester, 2011; Simpson et al., 2016). Using models that incorporated both coastal hydrodynamics and mangrove species characteristics, Hamilton et al. (2017) predicted that the rates of spread for mangroves were <1 km y−1 for the >200 km-long Indian River Lagoon (IRL) along Florida’s east coast, which were less than half the expansion rate predicted by general circulation models that incorporated climate and species-specific freeze tolerances (Cavanaugh et al., 2015). However, the rate of spread varied significantly among the five inlets to the IRL as a function of hydrodynamics, habitat distributions, and species-specific traits (Hamilton et al., 2017).

Climate change and the temperature-driven displacement of saltmarsh plants by mangrove trees in the mangrove-saltmarsh ecotone are predicted to increase carbon sequestration in coastal wetlands (Megonigal et al., 2016), though results vary. Near the southern edge of the current mangrove-saltmarsh ecotone along the east coast of Florida, a 69% increase in mangrove cover in seven years resulted in a 25% increase in aboveground carbon storage but no difference in belowground storage (Doughty et al., 2016). Based on results from the Gulf of Mexico, Yando et al. (2016) found that mangrove encroachment into saltmarshes caused an increase in belowground carbon sequestration that varied with precipitation, with the greatest impact observed in hypersaline, arid systems. This influence was strongly related to forest structure; it was not until trees matured and built appreciable forest biomass that carbon storage shifted in some regions. In Australia’s Botany Bay, both above- and belowground biomass increased dramatically with mangrove encroachment into saltmarsh over 70 years, with the highest rates of increase in a mesohaline riverine location (Kelleway et al., 2016).

It is currently unknown how ecosystem processes will differ when saltmarshes are replaced by mangroves under a changing climate, which is now a well-documented global phenomenon (Saintilan et al., 2014). Both mangroves and saltmarshes are foundational habitats that are independently valued for their contributions to coastal productivity, buffering capacity, and carbon storage (e.g., Mazumder & Saintilan, 2003; McKee & Rooth, 2008; Nagelkerken et al., 2008; Feller et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2014). Recent expansion of mangroves into saltmarshes is likely to have large impacts on the structure, function and service provisioning of coastal wetlands (Kelleway et al., 2017). Although mangrove encroachment may increase nutrient storage and improve storm protection (Sheng & Zou, 2017), Kelleway et al. (2017) hypothesized that declines will occur in habitat availability for fauna requiring open vegetation structure, as well as in the recreational and cultural activities associated with this fauna. They further project that the impact on provisional services such as fisheries productivity and cultural services will be site-specific and dependent on the species involved (Kelleway et al., 2017).

Mangrove gains due to rehabilitation and natural regeneration

Generally, the success of mangrove rehabilitation is considered to be very low (Primavera, 2000; Lewis, 2005, 2009; Brown & Lewis, 2006; Samson & Rollon, 2008) due to a variety of physical-ecological factors being ignored, such as planting inappropriate species in sub-tidal locations where the physical environment is less suitable for mangroves to colonize and grow (Sharma et al., 2017). This is compounded by a number of socio-political issues, such as land tenure arrangements constraining where mangrove rehabilitation can or cannot be conducted. However, large-scale successes have occurred and are now increasingly documented in the published and grey literature (Rey et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2014a, b). Rey et al. (2012), for example, report successful restoration of 12,000 ha of mangroves and tidal marshes in the IRL, Florida, USA, over 25 years. In the Tampa Bay estuary of South Florida, mangrove creation has been widely successful, with most techniques using a combination of heavy equipment to grade the intertidal platform to an acceptable sea-level datum, followed by planting of nurse species (Lewis et al., 2005; Begam et al., 2017). Similar successes in Indonesia have been reported by Brown et al. (2014b). In both examples, mangrove planting was a secondary concern; instead, these schemes focused on hydrologic restoration methods (Lewis, 2009; Lewis & Brown, 2014; Lewis et al., 2017) using the Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (EMR) model first outlined by Lewis (2005) and later modified as a Community Based Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation (CBEMR) model by Brown et al. (2014a, b) and Lewis & Brown (2014). The future success of restoration attempts over hundreds of thousands of hectares of abandoned fish and shrimp aquaculture ponds around the world may be possible if the basic principles outlined in Brown & Lewis (2006), Brown et al. (2014a), Lewis & Brown (2014), and Lewis et al. (2017) are followed. Cautionary notes are, however, outlined in Lewis et al. (2017) and Oh et al. (2017) regarding the importance of good engineering to achieve these successes.

Much opportunity exists in the natural resource community to facilitate mangrove habitat protection and rehabilitation through various techniques (Begam et al., 2017; Donnelly et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2017), at potentially even larger scales. In Southeast Asia, 15.4% of mangroves that were deforested between 2000 and 2012 ultimately returned back to mangrove, either through natural regeneration or artificial rehabilitation (Richards & Friess, 2016), and some studies have suggested that India and Bangladesh have increased their overall mangrove area due to natural regeneration and artificial rehabilitation (Giri et al., 2008). In Puerto Rico, mangrove area has successively decreased and increased since the 1800s, but has expanded since 1972 as legal protections were given to mangroves (Martinuzzi et al., 2009).

With the advancement of remote sensing technologies (sensu Rogers et al., 2017), it is now also possible to identify large mangrove areas undergoing chronic stress before widespread mortality becomes an acute indicator. Altered river flows, regional water extraction, dykes and berms, and road construction are among the most prominent of such influences, documented the world over. In the future, management might transition to preemptive rehabilitation efforts to contribute to avoided losses (Lewis et al., 2016). However, such techniques would not be responsible for substantial mangrove area gains just yet, but a combination of better protections and rehabilitation efforts have demonstrated some positive gains globally, and greater potential in the future.

Conclusions and future research directions

Mangrove forests require urgent research, management, public attention, and rehabilitation; although when estimating the true state of the world’s mangroves, it is important that scientists present a balanced viewpoint of mangrove loss that includes solutions to these global problems. On the whole, mangroves are still highly threatened in many locations, but rates of deforestation are lower than they once were in many locations (with substantial variation among countries). As a counter-balance, some successful large-scale rehabilitation initiatives are apparent, as well as natural regeneration from up-slope migration and climate range expansion. While these potential gains do not nearly balance out continued anthropogenic losses, they tell us that the true state of the world’s mangroves is more nuanced than scientists, managers, and policy makers sometimes communicate. Continued research on the basic biology and hydrology of mangroves is critical (Contreras et al., 2017; Lovelock et al., 2017b; Pérez et al., 2017), as well as the provisioning (Benzeev et al., 2017; Palacios & Cantera, 2017) and regulating ecosystem services (Doughty et al., 2017; Kamal et al., 2017; Sheng & Zou, 2017) they provide, because the interplay between mangrove expansion and biological requirements can manifest at very small spatial scales. There is a particularly active research community focusing on the role of mangrove invertebrates and their biology (Bakkar et al., 2017; Castellanos-Galindo et al., 2017; Fusi et al., 2017; Hendy & Cragg, 2017; Pestana et al., 2017; Raw et al., 2017; Saintilan & Mazumder, 2017). Modeling theoretical expansion and discerning drivers on a large scale are important, but local site adaptability is ultimately dictated by many other attributes (e.g., hydrology, biogeochemical condition, substrate, migration barriers, salinity). No doubt, future MMM themes will continue to tackle human and climate-change influences on mangroves through well-grounded biological studies.



We would like thank the major sponsors of MMM4; U.S. Geological Survey, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s Institute for Coastal and Water Research, USDA Forest Service, China Green, Indian River Lagoon Program, Unisense, Scheda Ecological Associates, and Flagler College, as well as Tamar Ditzian, Beth Miller-Tipton, Todd Osborne, Mike Shirley, Nikki Dix, Gary Raulerson, Jessica Veenstra, Valerie Paul, and the late Glenn Graham, whose tireless effort brought MMM4 to St. Augustine. We also thank the mangrove scientists who volunteered their time during MMM4 to work the registration and information desks, serve as guides, arrange poster sessions, lead field trips, and run errands during the main conference and workshop. Funding was provided by NASA’s Climate and Biological Response Program (NNX11AO94G, NNX12AF55G) and New Investigator Program (NNX16AN04G), and NSF (EF 1065821). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


  1. Alleman, L. K. & M. W. Hester, 2011. Reproductive ecology of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) along the Louisiana coast: propagule production cycles, dispersal limitations, and establishment elevations. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1068–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alongi, D. M., 2015. The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Current Climate Change Report 1: 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashbridge, E., R. Lucas, C. Ticehurst & P. Bunting, 2016. Mangrove response to environmental change in Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria. Ecology and Evolution 6: 3523–3539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakkar, T., V. Helfer, R. Himmelsbach & M. Zimmer, 2017. Chemical changes in detrital matter upon digestive processes in a sesarmid crab feeding on mangrove leaf litter. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3319-8.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, M. C., 1988. Ecophysiology of mangroves. Trees 2: 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begam, M. M., T. Sutradhar, R. Chowdhury, C. Mukherjee, S. K. Basak & K. Ray, 2017. Native salt-tolerant grass species for habitat restoration, their acclimation and contribution to improving edaphic conditions: a study from a degraded mangrove in the Indian Sundarbans. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3320-2.Google Scholar
  7. Benzeev, R., N. Hutchinson & D. A. Friess, 2017. Quantifying fisheries ecosystem services of mangroves and tropical artificial urban shorelines. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3299-8.Google Scholar
  8. Bidlingmayer, W. L. & E. D. McCoy, 1978. An inventory of the saltmarsh mosquito control impoundments in Florida. Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory. Vero Beach, Florida. 281 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, B. & R. R. Lewis, 2006. Five Steps to Successful Ecological Restoration of Mangroves. Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut (YARL) and the Mangrove Action Project. Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 64 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B., W. Yuniati, R. Ahmad & I. Soulsby, 2014a. Observations of natural recruitment and human attempts at mangrove rehabilitation after seismic (tsunami and earthquake) events in Simulue Island and Singkil Lagoon, Acheh, Indonesia. In Santiago-Fandino, V., Y. A. Kontar & Y. Kaneda (eds), Post-Tsunami Hazard Reconstruction and Restoration. Springer, New York: 311–327.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, B., R. Fadilla, Y. Nurdin, I. Soulsby & R. Ahmad, 2014b. Community based ecological mangrove rehabilitation (CBEMR) in Indonesia. SAPIENS 7: 53–64.Google Scholar
  12. Castellanos-Galindo, G., J. Cantera, N. Valencia, S. Giraldo, E. Peña, L. C. Kluger & M. Wolff, 2017. Modeling trophic flows in the wettest mangroves of the world: the case of Bahía Málaga in the Colombian Pacific coast. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3300-6.Google Scholar
  13. Cavanaugh, K. C., J. R. Kellner, A. J. Forde, D. S. Gruner, J. D. Parker, W. Rodriguez & I. C. Feller, 2014. Poleward expansion of mangroves is a threshold response to decreased frequency of extreme cold events. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 723–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavanaugh, K. C., J. D. Parker, S. Cook-Patton, I. C. Feller, A. Williams & J. R. Kellner, 2015. Integrating physiological threshold experiments with climate modeling to project mangrove species’ range expansion. Global Change Biology 21: 1928–1938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, L., W. Wang, Y. Zhang & G. Lin, 2009. Recent progresses in mangroves conservation, restoration and research in China. Journal of Plant Ecology 2: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coldren, G. A. & C. E. Proffitt, 2017. Mangrove seedling freeze tolerance depends on salt marsh presence, species, salinity and age. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3175-6.Google Scholar
  17. Comeaux, R. S., M. A. Allison & T. S. Bianchi, 2012. Mangrove expansion in the Gulf of Mexico with climate change: Implications for wetland health and resistance to rising sea levels. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Contreras, L., A. Fierro-Cabo & C. E. Cintra-Buenrostro, 2017. Early drivers of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) leaf litter decomposition in the water column. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3167-6.Google Scholar
  19. Dangremond, E. M. & I. C. Feller, 2016. Precocious reproduction increases at the leading edge of a mangrove range expansion. Ecology and Evolution 6: 5087–5092.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diskin, M. S. & D. L. Smee, 2017. Effects of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) expansion on salt marsh nekton assemblages before and after a flood. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3179-2.Google Scholar
  21. Donato, D. C., J. B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M. Stidham & M. Kanninen, 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience 4: 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donnelly, M., M. Shaffer, S. Connor, P. Sacks & L. Walters, 2017. Using mangroves to stabilize coastal historic sites: deployment success versus natural recruitment. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3155-x.Google Scholar
  23. Doughty, C. L., J. A. Langley, W. Walker, I. C. Feller, R. Schaub & S. K. Chapman, 2016. Mangrove range expansion rapidly increases coastal wetland carbon storage. Estuaries and Coasts 39: 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doughty, C. L., K. C. Cavanaugh, C. R. Hall, I. C. Feller & S. K. Chapman, 2017. Impacts of mangrove encroachment and mosquito impoundment management on coastal protection services. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3225-0.Google Scholar
  25. Doyle, T. W., K. W. Krauss, W. H. Conner & A. S. From, 2010. Predicting the retreat and migration of tidal forests along the northern Gulf of Mexico under sea-level rise. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 770–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duke, N. C., J.-O. Meynecke, S. Dittmann, A. M. Ellison, K. Anger, U. Berger, S. Cannicci, K. Diele, K. C. Ewel, C. D. Field, N. Koedam, S. Y. Lee, C. Marchand, I. Nordhaus & F. Dahdouh-Guebas, 2007. A world without mangroves? Science 317: 41–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duke, N. C., J. M. Kovacs, A. Griffith, L. Preece, D. J. Hill, P. van Oosterzee, J. Mackenzie, H. S. Morning & D. Burrows, 2017. Large-scale dieback of mangroves in Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria: a severe ecosystem response, coincidental with an unusually extreme weather event. Marine and Freshwater Research. doi: 10.1071/MF16322.Google Scholar
  28. Egler, F. E., 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida, and its management. Vegetatio 3: 213–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elliott, M., L. Mander, K. Mazik, C. Simenstad, F. Valesini, A. Whitfield & E. Wolanski, 2016. Ecoengineering with ecohydrology: successes and failures in estuarine restoration. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 176: 12–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellison, J. & P. Strickland, 2015. Establishing relative sea level trends where a coast lacks a long term tide gauge. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20: 1211–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Enwright, N. M., K. T. Griffith & M. J. Osland, 2016. Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Everitt, J. H. & F. W. Judd, 1989. Using remote sensing techniques to distinguish and monitor black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). Journal of Coastal Research 5: 737–745.Google Scholar
  33. FAO. 2007. The World’s Mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
  34. Feller, I. C., C. E. Lovelock, U. Berger, K. L. McKee, S. B. Joye & M. C. Ball, 2010. The biocomplexity of mangrove ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 2: 395–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Field, C. D., 1995. Impact of expected climate change on mangroves. Hydrobiologia 295: 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friess, D. A., B. S. Thompson, B. Brown, A. A. Amir, C. Cameron, H. J. Koldewey, S. D. Sasmito & F. Sidik, 2016. Policy challenges and approaches for the conservation of mangrove forests in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 30: 933–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fusi, M., S. Babbini, F. Giomi, S. Fratini, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, D. Daffonchio, C. McQuaid, F. Porri & S. Cannicci, 2017. Thermal sensitivity of the crab Neosarmatium africanum in tropical and temperate mangroves on the east coast of Africa. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3151-1.Google Scholar
  38. Gilman, E. L., J. Ellison, N. C. Duke & C. Field, 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options: a review. Aquatic Botany 89: 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Giri, C., Z. Zhu, L. L. Tieszen, A. Singh, S. Gillette & J. A. Kelmelis, 2008. Mangrove forest distributions and dynamics (1975–2005) of the tsunami-affected region of Asia. Global Ecology and Biogeography 35: 519–528.Google Scholar
  40. Goecke, S. D. & S. Carstenn, 2017. Fish communities and juvenile habitat associated with non-native Rhizophora mangle L. in Hawai’i. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3182-7.Google Scholar
  41. Guo, H., C. Weaver, S. P. Charles, A. Whitt, S. Dastidar, P. D’Odorico, J. D. Fuentes, J. S. Kominoski, A. R. Armitage & S. C. Pennings, 2017. Coastal regime shifts: rapid responses of coastal wetlands to changes in mangrove cover. Ecology 98: 762–772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamilton, S. E. & D. Casey, 2016. Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21). Global Ecology and Biogeography 25: 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hamilton, J. F., R. Osman & I. C. Feller, 2017. Modeling local effects on propagule movement and the potential expansion of mangroves and associated fauna: testing in a sub-tropical lagoon. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3231-2.Google Scholar
  44. Hendy, I. W. & S. M. Cragg, 2017. Rhizophora stylosa prop roots even when damaged prevent wood-boring teredinids from toppling the trees. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3106-6.Google Scholar
  45. Kamal, S., J. Warnken, M. Bakhtiyari & S. Y. Lee, 2017. Sediment distribution in shallow estuaries at fine scale: in situ evidence of the effects of three-dimensional structural complexity of mangrove pneumatophores. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3178-3.Google Scholar
  46. Kelleway, J. J., N. Saintilan, P. I. Macreadie, C. G. Skilbeck, A. Zawadzki & P. J. Ralph, 2016. Seventy years of continuous encroachment substantially increases ‘blue carbon’ capacity as mangroves replace intertidal saltmarshes. Global Change Biology 22: 1097–1109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelleway, J. J., K. Cavanaugh, K. Rogers, I. C. Feller, E. Ens, C. Doughty & N. Saintilan, 2017. What are the ecosystem service implications of mangrove encroachment into salt marshes? Global Change Biology. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13727.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kennedy, J. P., L. G. Aravelli, N. Truelove, D. J. Devlin, S. Box, L. Cherubin & I. C. Feller, 2016. Contrasting genetic effects of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.) range expansion along West and East Florida. Journal of Biogeography 44: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kodikara, K. A., N. Mukherjee, L. P. Jayatissa, F. Dahdouh-Guebas & N. Koedam, 2017. Have mangrove restoration projects worked An in-depth study in Sri Lanka. Restoration Ecology. doi: 10.1111/rec.12492.Google Scholar
  50. Krauss, K. W., D. R. Cahoon, J. A. Allen, K. C. Ewel, J. C. Lynch & N. Cormier, 2010. Surface elevation change and susceptibility of different mangrove zones to sea-level rise on Pacific high islands of Micronesia. Ecosystems 13: 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krauss, K. W., A. S. From, T. W. Doyle, T. J. Doyle & M. J. Barry, 2011. Sea-level rise and landscape change influence mangrove encroachment onto marsh in the Ten Thousand Islands region of Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15: 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krauss, K. W., K. L. McKee, C. E. Lovelock, D. R. Cahoon, N. Saintilan, R. Reef & L. Chen, 2014. How mangrove forests adjust to rising sea level. New Phytologist 202: 19–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lambeck, K., H. Rouby, A. Purcell, Y. Sun & M. Sambridge, 2014. Sea level and global ice volumes from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 15296–15303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Langston, A. K., D. A. Kaplan & C. Angelini, 2017. Predation restricts black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) colonization at its northern range limit along Florida’s Gulf Coast. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3197-0.Google Scholar
  55. Lee, S. Y., J. H. Primavera, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, K. L. McKee, J. O. Bosire, S. Cannicci, K. Diele, F. Fromard, N. Koedam, C. Marchand, I. A. Mendelssohn, N. Mukherjee & S. Record, 2014. Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: a reassessment. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23: 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewis, R. R., 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecological Engineering 24: 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lewis, R. R., 2009. Methods and criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. In Perillo, G. M. E., E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon & M. M. Brinson (eds), Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 787–800.Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, R. R. & Brown, B., 2014. Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation—A Field Manual for Practitioners. Version 3. Mangrove Action Project Indonesia, Blue Forests, Canadian International Development Agency, and OXFAM. 275 p.Google Scholar
  59. Lewis, R. R., A. B. Hodgson & G. S. Mauseth, 2005. Project facilitates the natural reseeding of mangrove forests (Florida). Ecological Restoration 23: 276–277.Google Scholar
  60. Lewis III, R. R., E. C. Milbrandt, B. Brown, K. W. Krauss, A. S. Rovai, J. W. Beever III & L. L. Flynn, 2016. Stress in mangrove forests: early detection and preemptive rehabilitation are essential for future successful worldwide mangrove forest management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 109: 764–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lewis, R. R., B. M. Brown & L. L. Flynn, 2017. Methods and criteria for successful mangrove forest restoration. In Perillo, G. M. E., E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon & M. M. Brinson (eds), Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  62. López-Medellín, X., E. Ezcurra, C. González-Abraham, J. Hak, L. S. Santiago & J. O. Sickman, 2011. Oceanographic anomalies and sea-level rise drive mangroves inland in the Pacific coast of Mexico. Journal of Vegetation Science 22: 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lovelock, C. E., M. C. Ball, K. Martin & I. C. Feller, 2009. Nutrient enrichment increases mortality of mangroves. PLoS One 4: e5600.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lovelock, C. E., D. R. Cahoon, D. A. Friess, G. R. Guntenspergen, K. W. Krauss, R. Reef, K. Rogers, M. L. Saunders, F. Sidik, A. Swales, N. Saintilan, A. X. Thuyen & T. Triet, 2015. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature 526: 559–563.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lovelock, C. E., R. Reef & M. C. Ball, 2017a. Isotopic signatures of stem water reveal differences in water sources accessed by mangrove tree species. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3149-8.Google Scholar
  66. Lovelock, C. E., I. C. Feller, R. Reef, S. Hickey & M. C. Ball, 2017b. Mangrove dieback during fluctuating sea levels. Scientific Reports 7: 1680.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Martinuzzi, S., W. A. Gould, A. E. Lugo & E. Medina, 2009. Conversion and recovery of Puerto Rican mangroves: 200 years of change. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Matsui, N., J. Suekuni, M. Nogami, S. Havanond & P. Salikul, 2010. Mangrove rehabilitation dynamics and soil organic carbon change as a result of full hydraulic restoration and re-grading of a previously intensively managed shrimp pond. Wetlands Ecology and Management 18: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mazumder, D. & N. Saintilan, 2003. A comparison of sampling techniques in the assessment of burrowing crab abundance in saltmarsh and mangrove environments. Wetlands (Australia) 21: 1–15.Google Scholar
  70. McKee, K. L., 2011. Biophysical controls on accretion and elevation change in Caribbean mangrove ecosystems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 91: 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McKee, K. L. & J. E. Rooth, 2008. Where temperate meets tropical: multifactorial effects of elevated CO2, nitrogen enrichment, and competition on a mangrove-salt marsh community. Global Change Biology 14: 971–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meeder, J. F., R. W. Parkinson, P. L. Ruiz & M. S. Ross, 2017. Saltwater encroachment and prediction of future ecosystem response to the Anthropocene Marine Transgression, Southeast Saline Everglades, Florida. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3318-9.Google Scholar
  73. Megonigal, J. P., S. C. Chapman, S. Crooks, P. Dijkstra, M. Kirwan & A. Langley, 2016. Impacts and effects of ocean warming on tidal marsh and tidal freshwater forest ecosystems. In Laffoley, D. & J. M. Baxter (eds), Explaining Ocean Warming: Causes, scale, effects and consequences. IUCN, Gland: 105–120.Google Scholar
  74. Michener, W. K., E. R. Blood, K. L. Bildstein, M. M. Brinson & L. R. Gardner, 1997. Climate change, hurricanes and tropical storms, and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7: 770–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nagelkerken, I., S. J. Blaber, S. Bouillon, P. Green, M. Haywood, L. G. Kirton, J.-O. Meynecke, J. Pawlik, H. M. Penrose, A. Sasekumar & P. J. Somerfield, 2008. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquatic Botany 89: 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ngeve, M. N., T. Van der Stocken, D. Menemenlis, N. Koedam & L. Triest, 2017. Hidden founders? Strong bottlenecks and fine-scale genetic structure in mangrove populations of the Cameroon Estuary complex. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3369-y.Google Scholar
  77. Oh, R. R. Y., D. A. Friess & B. Brown, 2017. The role of surface elevation in the rehabilitation of abandoned aquaculture ponds to mangrove forests, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ecological Engineering 100: 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Osland, M. J., N. Enwright, R. H. Day & T. W. Doyle, 2013. Winter climate and coastal wetland foundation species: salt marsh versus mangrove forests in the southeastern United States. Global Change Biology 19: 1482–1494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Palacios, M. L. & J. R. Cantera, 2017. Mangrove timber use as an ecosystem service in Colombian Pacific. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3309-x.Google Scholar
  80. Pérez, A., D. Gutiérrez, M. Saldarriaga & C. Sanders, 2017. Hydrological controls on the biogeochemical dynamics in a Peruvian mangrove forest. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3118-2.Google Scholar
  81. Pestana, D. F., N. Pülmanns, I. Nordhaus, K. Diele & M. Zimmer, 2017. The influence of crab burrows on sediment salinity in a Rhizophora-dominated mangrove forest in North Brazil during the dry season. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3282-4.Google Scholar
  82. Pil, M. W., M. R. T. Boeger, V. C. Muschner, M. R. Pie, A. Ostrensky & W. A. Boeger, 2011. Postglacial north-south expansion of populations of Rhizophora mangle (Rhizophoraceae) along the Brazilian coast revealed by microsatellite analysis. American Journal of Botany 98: 1031–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Primavera, J. H., 2000. Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues. Ecological Economics 35: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Primavera, J. H., 2006. Overcoming the impact of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Primavera, J. H. & J. M. Esteban, 2008. A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: successes, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16: 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Raw, J. L., R. Perissinotto, M. S. Bird, N. A. F. Miranda & N. Peer, 2017. Variable niche size of the giant mangrove welk Terebralia palustris (Linnaeus, 1767) in a subtropical estuarine lake. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3223-2.Google Scholar
  87. Record, S., N. D. Charney, R. M. Zakaria & A. M. Ellison, 2013. Projecting global mangrove species and community distributions under climate change. Ecosphere 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rey, J. R., D. B. Carlson & R. E. Brockmeyer Jr., 2012. Coastal wetland management in Florida: environmental concerns and human health. Wetlands Ecology and Management 20: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Richards, D. R. & D. A. Friess, 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000-2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113: 344–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rodriguez, W., I. C. Feller & K. C. Cavanaugh, 2016. Spatio-temporal changes of a mangrove-saltmarsh ecotone in the northeastern coast of Florida, USA. Global Ecology and Conservation 7: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rogers, K., K. M. Wilton & N. Saintilan, 2006. Vegetation change and surface elevation dynamics in estuarine wetlands of southeast Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66: 559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rogers, K., L. Lymburner, R. Salum, B. P. Brooke & C. D. Woodroffe, 2017. Mapping of mangrove extent and zonation using high and low tide composites of Landsat data. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3257-5.Google Scholar
  93. Saintilan, N. & D. Mazumder, 2017. Mass spawning of crabs: ecological implications in subtropical Australia. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3150-2.Google Scholar
  94. Saintilan, N., K. Rogers & K. L. McKee, 2009. Saltmarsh-mangrove interactions in Australasia and the Americas. In Perillo, G. M. E., E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon & M. M. Brinson (eds), Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 855–883.Google Scholar
  95. Saintilan, N., N. C. Wilson, K. Rogers, A. Rajkaran & K. W. Krauss, 2014. Mangrove expansion and salt marsh decline at mangrove poleward limits. Global Change Biology 20: 147–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Samson, M. S. & R. N. Rollon, 2008. Growth performance of planted red mangroves in the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37: 234–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sandoval-Castro, E., R. Muniz-Salazar, L. M. Enriquez-Paredes, R. Riosmena-Rodriguez, R. S. Dodd, C. Tovilla-Hernandez & M. C. Arredondo-Garcia, 2012. Genetic population structure of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.) along the northwestern coast of Mexico. Aquatic Botany 99: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sharma, S., K. Nadaoka, M. Nakaoka, W. H. Uy, R. A. MacKenzie, D. A. Friess & M. D. Fortes, 2017. Growth performance and structure of a mangrove afforestation project on a former seagrass bed, Mindanao Island, Philippines. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3252-x.Google Scholar
  99. Sheng, Y. P. & R. Zou, 2017. Assessing the role of mangrove forest in reducing coastal inundation during major hurricanes. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3201-8.Google Scholar
  100. Sherrod, C. L. & C. McMillan, 1985. The distributional history and ecology of mangrove vegetation along the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal region. Contributions in Marine Science 28: 129–140.Google Scholar
  101. Simpson, L. T., I. C. Feller & S. K. Chapman, 2013. Effects of competition and nutrient enrichment on Avicennia germinans in the salt marsh-mangrove ecotone. Aquatic Botany 104: 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Simpson, L. T., T. Z. Osborne & I. C. Feller, 2016. Drivers of mangrove encroachment into saltmarsh ecosystems: the role of propagule flotation and biomass allocation. Journal of Coastal Research. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00108.1.Google Scholar
  103. Spalding, M., M. Kainuma & L. Collins, 2010. Word Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London: 319.Google Scholar
  104. Thomas, N., R. Lucas, P. Bunting, A. Hardy, A. Rosenqvist & M. Simard, 2017. Distribution and drivers of global mangrove forest change, 1996-2010. PLoS ONE 12: e0179302.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Triest, L., 2008. Molecular ecology and biogeography of mangrove trees towards conceptual insights on gene flow and barriers: a review. Aquatic Botany 89: 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. UNEP. 2014. The Importance of Mangroves to People: a Call to Action. United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
  107. Valiela, I., J. L. Bowen & J. K. York, 2001. Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. BioScience 51: 807–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wade, D., J. Ewel & R. Hofstetter, 1980. Fire in south Florida ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-17.Google Scholar
  109. Woodroffe, C. D. & G. Davies, 2009. The morphology and development of tropical coastal wetlands. In Perillo, G. M. E., E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon & M. M. Brinson (eds), Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 65–88.Google Scholar
  110. Woodroffe, C. D., K. Rogers, K. L. McKee, C. E. Lovelock, I. A. Mendelssohn & N. Saintilan, 2016. Mangrove sedimentation and response to relative sea-level rise. Annual Review of Marine Science 8: 243–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Yando, E. S., M. J. Osland, J. M. Willis, R. H. Day, K. W. Krauss & M. W. Hester, 2016. Salt marsh-mangrove ecotones: using structural gradients to investigate the effects of woody plant encroachment on plant-soil interactions and ecosystem carbon pools. Journal of Ecology 104: 1020–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research CenterLafayetteUSA
  4. 4.Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.Salt SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations