Advertisement

Mangroves and Salt Marshes

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 215–225 | Cite as

A comparison of Riley encased methodology and traditional techniques for planting red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle)

  • Chandra P. Salgado Kent
Article

Abstract

The effectiveness of encasement and traditional techniques for planting red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) in moderate to high wave energy environments was assessed. The three encasement types were the half‐length PVC pipes, full‐length PVC pipes, and bamboo pipes. Plantings were conducted in August, 1997 at two locations in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: Sebastian and Rocky Point. Furthermore, plantings were conducted in November, 1997 using full‐length encasements and conventional planting. Results indicate that seedlings planted within full‐length PVC encasements had the highest survivorship and growth because of their protection from waves and currents. Failure of seedlings within bamboo encasements seemed to be caused by insufficient light exposure. When comparing the two locations, a significantly greater growth was observed at the Sebastian location than at the Rocky Point location for the planting conducted in November, but not for those planted in August. No significant difference was observed in seedling survival when comparing those planted in August and November. However, there was a significantly greater growth in mangroves planted in August. With the exception of width of surf zone, there was no significant difference in the selected environmental parameters between the two locations.

Florida mangroves restoration Rhizophora mangle techniques wetlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnett, R.M. and Crewz, D. 1990. An introduction to planting and maintaining selected common coastal plants in Florida. pp. 1–108. In: SGR-97. The Florida Sea Grant College Program. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida.Google Scholar
  2. Cox, D.R. 1959. The analysis of exponentially distributed lifetimes with two types of failures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 21: 411–421.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D.R. 1972. Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 34: 187–220.Google Scholar
  4. Crewz, D.W. and Lewis III, R.R. 1991. An evaluation of historical attempts to establish emergent vegetation in marine wetlands in Florida. pp 1–76. In: Sea Grant No. NA86AA-D-SGO68. Project No. R/C-E-24. The Florida Sea Grant College Program, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida.Google Scholar
  5. Cusson, M. and Bourget, E. 1997. Influence of topographic heterogeneity and spatial scales on the structure of the neighboring intertidal endobenthic macrofaunal community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 150: 181–193.Google Scholar
  6. Duke, N.C. and Pinzon, Z.S. 1992. Aging Rhizophora seedlings from leaf scar nodes: a technique for studying recruitment and growth in mangrove forests. Biotropica 24: 173–186.Google Scholar
  7. Folk, R.L. 1954. The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62: 344–359.Google Scholar
  8. Goforth, H.W. and Thomas, J.R. 1980. Planting of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle-L.) for stabilization of marl shorelines in the Florida Keys. pp. 207–230. In: Cole, D.P. (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  9. Laegdsgaard, P. and Johnson, C.R. 1995. Mangrove habitats as nurseries: unique assemblages of juvenile fish in subtropical mangroves in eastern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 126: 67–81.Google Scholar
  10. Lin, J. and Beal, J.L. 1995. Effects of mangrove marsh management on fish and decapod communities. Bulletin of Marine Science 57(1): 193–201.Google Scholar
  11. Mantel, N. 1967. Ranking procedures for arbitrarily restricted observations. Biometrics 23: 65–78.Google Scholar
  12. Odum, W.E. and Heald, E.J. 1972. Trophic analyses on an estuarine mangrove community. Bulletin of Marine Science 22: 671–738.Google Scholar
  13. Pyke, D.A. and Thompson, J.N. 1986. Statistical analysis of survival and removal rate experiments. Ecology 67(1): 240–245.Google Scholar
  14. Riley, R.W., Jr. 1995. A red mangrove replenishment methodology. pp. 132–161. In: Webb, F.J. and Cannizzaro, P.J. (eds), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Ecosystems and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson, A.I. and Alongi, D.M. 1992. Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Robertson, A.I. and Duke, N.C. 1987. Mangroves as nursery sites: comparisons of the abundance and species composition of fish and crustaceans in mangroves and other nearshore habitats in tropical Australia. Marine Biology 96: 193–205.Google Scholar
  17. Schneider, C. 1981. The Littoral Environment Observation (LEO) Data Collection Program. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. 81–5. US Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  18. Teas, H.J. 1977. Ecology and restoration of mangrove shorelines in Florida. Environmental Conservation 4(1): 51–58.Google Scholar
  19. Teas, H.J., Jurgens, W. and Kimball, M.C. 1975. Plantings of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle L.) in Charlotte and St. Lucie Counties, Florida. pp. 132–161. In: Lewis, R.R. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Restoration of Coastal Vegetation in Florida. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa Audubon Society and Florida Audubon Society, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  20. Winer, B.J. 1971. Statistical Principles. McGraw-Hill Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandra P. Salgado Kent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations