Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Overview of Wetland Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A Brief History of Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Basic Concepts and Principles of Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Mangrove Restoration Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What Are Mangroves? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Importance of Mangroves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Basic Factors in Mangrove Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Overview and Status of Mangrove Restoration in the Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Overview Cost of Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Techniques of Mangrove Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Preliminaries Mangrove Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Pro and Cons of the Direct Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Seeding or Planting Mangrove Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mangrove Health Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Concept of Monitoring and Evaluation: Why Monitoring? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Usefulness of Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Monitoring Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Monitoring Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Data Management, Analysis, and Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Conclusion and Way Forward in Mangrove Restoration in the Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix 1 Principles of Restoration (Prepared from USEPA 2000; Ajonina
and Tata 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Abstract
Growing awareness of the protective, productive, and social functions of the
tropical mangrove ecosystem has highlighted the need to conserve and manage
them sustainably. The majority of these efforts with community implication are
oversimplified planting projects, largely attempts to force mangroves to grow in
intertidal mud flats, usually below mean sea level, where mangroves simply do
not grow due to poor understanding of the ecological and requirements of
mangroves, and the processes which lead to their establishment and early growth.
Restoration principle and methods have been applied mindful of the challenges of
development projects and their impacts and the difficult terrain.
This chapter while promoting active and passive restoration approaches focus
of this “how-to-do” to bring community animators or practitioners through the
major steps of a mangrove rehabilitation project. It is organized as follows: gives
an overview of wetland restoration and a general overview of restoration of
wetlands with the viewpoint on basic concepts, principles, and the reason for
restoration and existing methods and case studies of restoration, dwells on
restoration issues dealing with aspects of mangrove dispersal and propagation
and its limits, and involves community in mangrove replanting and potential cost
for restoration. And finally it covers relevant aspects and techniques of
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 3
monitoring mangrove nurseries and plantations for health and growth necessary
for evaluating mangrove restoration projects and programs.
In structuring an appropriate response to manage mangrove sustainably
through restoration, within an integrated context in the Gambia, it is necessary
to recognize that there are yet many information gaps (technically, financially,
etc.) and constraints.
Keywords
Acrostichum aureum · Avicennia germinans · Care · Coastal · Communities ·
Conservation · Control · Coppicing · Creation · Degradation · Diaspores ·
Ecological character · Ecosystem · Engineering · Environment · Eocological ·
Equipment · Estuarine · Evaluation · Gambia · Geo-referenced · Guide ·
Guidelines · Health · Knowledge · Lacustrine · Laguncularia racemosa,
Conocarpus erectus · Management · Mangrove · Marine · Mitigation · Monitor ·
Monitoring · Nursery · Outplanting · Palustrine · Plantation · Planting ·
Pneumatophores · Potting · Preparation · Principles · Propagule · Protection ·
Ramsar Convention · Reconstruction · Rehabilitation · Replanting: Restoration ·
Rhizophora · Rhizophora harrisonii; R. mangle; R. racemosa · Riverine ·
Salinity · Sensitisation · Space · Species · Species · Stilt root · Sustainable use ·
Technique · Tidal · Vantage point · Water · Wetland
Introduction
Background
Gambia has lost more than 17.5% of its mangrove between 1980 (70,400 ha) and
2006 (58, 100 ha) to a range of human-accelerated factors such as population
growth, infrastructural development, and other human activities (CBD 2006;
UNEP 2007; Spalding et al. 2010). Many factors have been blamed for the decline
mostly human induce especially urbanization, infrastructural development, rice
agriculture, etc. with the manifested consequences of massive mangrove dieback
and decline especially in Tanbi Wetland Complex, Niumi National Park, Gambia
Mouth, and Bintang Bolon tributary. Most efforts have been made to restore these
mangroves especially through the community-based organizations (WABSA and
CONFORA) with communities and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, most man-
grove rehabilitation efforts being targeted, only Rhizophora genus easily regenerated
from harvesting and pricking of propagules thus failing to reestablish the required
mixed species mangrove forests. The majority of these efforts are oversimplified
planting projects, largely attempts to force mangroves to grow in intertidal mud flats,
usually below mean sea level, where mangroves simply do not grow due to poor
understanding of the ecological requirements of mangroves, and the processes which
lead to their establishment and early growth. This manual takes the reader through a
process of assessment, design, implementation, and reflection around social, eco-
nomic, and ecological factors which contribute to the failure or success of a
4 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
the natural phenomenon like climate change renders most ecosystem worldwide
vulnerable.
The Gambia ecosystem is not exempted from adverse climate change impacts.
Many initiatives to curb the degradation of the ecosystem especially that of the
mangrove are ongoing. But most of the replanting actions triggered by local NGOs
are gradually failing to yield desirable and healthy mangrove environment. The
reasons not exhaustive include poor spacing between and within rolls, planting
approach at somewhat very poor tides, and practically no monitoring plantation
success even with the direct planting adopted.
Conscious of these facts, the Gambian government through the UNDP/CO
undertook a project termed “enhancing resilience of vulnerable coastal areas and
communities to climate change project,” and its component studies mangrove
dieback. It is worth mentioning that the UNDP program funds practical field
experience and scientific training opportunities for promising scientists and conser-
vationists worldwide. By providing these opportunities, UNDP supports the Gam-
bian government to address a key need cited in the Convention on Biological
Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Millennium Development Goals: the need
for conservation goal and career development in emerging countries. This project
has many deliverable among which is the production of a “Training Manual for
mangrove planting and Monitoring of health of Mangrove.”
This manual therefore serves to build mangrove conservation capacity – the
capacity of individuals and communities to become future mangrove conservation
and restoration leaders in Gambia to be more effective stewards of their country’s
rich and irreplaceable mangrove biodiversity. Hence, this manual is conceived and
prepared to help mangrove custodian and grassroot communities to understand
replanting and M and E mangrove plantation.
Conservation. A general term that implies a wetland will be retained more or less
green wet but without specific exactly how it will be managed. Often a group of
stakeholders will be allowed to choose the future state. (Example: the Atchafalaya
Swamp is still being heavily altered by humans but with the general agreement that
will remain a wetland).
Ecological character. Is the combination of the ecosystem components, pro-
cesses, and benefits/ services that characterize the wetland at a given point in time.
future. There is also the need for well-planned restoration programs involving
relevant stakeholders at all phases. Many tools and methods have been applied to
restore degraded wetland ecosystems scattered within the existing literature.
Methods applied depend largely on wetland types and the underlying factor con-
tributing to the degradation of the wetland type in question. For convenience, these
methods can be grouped into four major categories: replanting, control, engineering,
and management.
The employment of any particular method or combination of methods will largely
hinge on the cost of economic factors such as labor and capital equipment available
as well as time weighed against expected benefit from restoration.
Replanting: This is often used to rehabilitate degraded forested wetlands. Trees
may be planted from established nurseries or direct seeding. Once the collected
seeds/propagules or saplings are hand planted at a given spacing, we termed that
disposition as plantation (an area where tree stands are grown for wood or for other
intentional purposes). Five forest types can be identified according to their origin
(Evans 1982). These include:
1. Afforestation of bare land where there has been no forest for at least 50 years
2. Reforestation of land which has carried forest within the last 50 years but where
the previous crop is replaced by an essentially different one
3. Reforestation of land which has carried forest within the last 50 years by renewal
of essentially the same plant or crop as before
4. Forest established by natural regeneration with deliberate silvicultural interven-
tion and assistance from man
5. Forest which has regenerated naturally without assistance from man. Most natural
forest in the tropics
Mangroves occupy less than 1% of the world’s forested surface (Maniatis 2005).
They are a diverse group of predominantly tropical trees and shrubs growing at
intertidal edges of tropical and subtropical coasts worldwide (Kathiresan and Bing-
ham 2001). It is also termed wetland (Selvam et al. 2003) because it is made up of
mangrove forests and associated water bodies (Frazier 1996; Selvam et al. 2003;
Ramsar 2007), which is predominantly un-drained or saturated at a given season.
Mangroves are usually referred to as “tanda” (sing.) or “matanda” (pl.) in the
Duala language, Cameroon, or either as “egba” or “odo nowe” for Nigerian language
(Letouzey 1968; Vivien et Faure 1985). In the Gambian experience, it is usually
known either as Manko in “Mandinka” or Mangi in “Wolof.” The dominant tree
species in the intertidal zone are characteristic for the West African mangroves. Six
true mangrove species are known to exist in the Gambia (Tomlinson 1986; UNEP
2007; Spalding et al. 2010). This includes Avicenniaceae (Avicennia germinans),
Combretaceae (Laguncularia racemosa, Conocarpus erectus), and Rhizophoraceae
(Rhizophora harrisonii; R. mangle; R. racemosa) (Plate 1) with little or no invasive
mangrove fern Acrostichum aureum (Pteridaceae).
Importance of Mangroves
As illustrated in Fig. 2, mangrove forests are vital for healthy coastal ecosystems in
the regions where they occur, providing vital ecosystem services that support
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 11
Table 1 Methods of restoration of different types of wetlands in Africa. (Adapted from Ajonina
and Tata 2006)
Major Underlying
wetland Wetland factor of
type subtype degradation Restoration method(s) Case studies
Marine Shallow Sedimentation Engineering: dredging Wouri estuary
coastal waters Cameroon by Ports
and shores, Authority Douala,
coral reefs, Cameroon
coastal Inundation Engineering: building Djoudj National
lagoons canals and dikes Park, Senegal
Pollution Control: protection Regulation
Management: available across
pollution control Africa but hardly
policies and laws applied
Invasive Control: mechanical, Control of water
species chemical (herbicides), lily in Lake
biological, integrated Naivasha
pest management
Estuarine Deltas/creeks, Sedimentation Engineering: dredging Wouri estuary
tidal marshes Cameroon
Pollution Control: protection Regulation
Management: available across
pollution control Africa but hardly
policies and laws applied
Invasive Control: mechanical,
species chemical (herbicides),
biological, integrated
pest management
Mangroves Deforestation Control: protection; FAO/World Bank
replanting Mangrove projects
Management: in Guinea Conakry;
policies, laws, IUCN/EU Projects
institutions, and in Senegal; FAO
development of and WWF Projects
alternative sources of in Cameroon
energies for fish
smoking
Shrimp Engineering: Rufiji Delta
aquaculture Canalization and Tanzania
dredging
Invasive Control: mechanical, Nypa palms control
species Nypa chemical (herbicides), project Nigeria
palms (Nypa biological, integrated
fruticans) pest management
Lacustrine Lakes Sedimentation Engineering: dredging Lake Victoria
Inundation Engineering: building Lake Naivasha,
canals and dikes Kenya
(continued)
12 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Major Underlying
wetland Wetland factor of
type subtype degradation Restoration method(s) Case studies
Pollution Control: protection Lake Victoria
Management: Lake Naivasha,
pollution control Kenya
policies and laws
Invasive Control: mechanical, Lake Victoria, Lake
species biological, integrated Naivasha, Kenya
Eutrophication pest management
Riverine Streams, Sedimentation/ Engineering:
rivers/deltas/ inundation of dredging, canalization
creeks, banks
floodplains, Pollution Control: protection
water Management:
catchments/ pollution control
springs/oases policies and laws
Invasive Control: mechanical, Waza Logone in
species chemical (herbicides), Cameroon
biological, integrated
pest management
Deforestation Replanting HELVETAS
Highlands
Watershed Projects
Palustrine Swamps/ Pollution Control: protection Wetlands
marshes Management: Management
pollution control Program, Uganda
policies and laws
Invasive Control: mechanical,
species chemical (herbicides),
biological, integrated
pest management
Mangroves are store houses Mangroves sustaining fisheries & livelihoods Mangroves are bio-shields:
of biodiversity Protecting our dwellings and
cities from storm surges,
strong waves, erosion and
sea level rise helping fight
climate change
livelihood and ecological securities of people living in coastal areas (Bos et al.
2006): provisioning services (tangible goods/resources – fuel wood, fish, oysters,
crabs, shrimps, salt, sand, medicines, etc.), regulatory services (carbon sequestration
(blue carbon) mitigating climate change where they sequester more carbon per ha
than tropical forests, shoreline protection against storms and surges, and other
natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis), supporting services (habitat and
nursery grounds for fish and other aquatic faunas, e.g., the oysters and fish you eat),
and cultural services (ecotourisms, recreation, research, education, etc.).
In regions where the forest has been destroyed or lost as in current trends through
pressures from unsustainable exploitation of mangrove resources, encroachments
from urbanization, and development infrastructure, local coastal communities are
left with marginal or unproductive fisheries and loss of traditional livelihoods.
Fig. 3 Photoplate (a) cigar-shaped propagule and (b) growing seedling of the Rhizophora spp.; (c)
bark-fissured seeds of the parental tree Conocarpus erectus; (d) fruit ellipsoid and (e) seedling
surrounded by pneumatophores of the Avicennia germinans; (f) flowering whitish bell shape of the
L. racemosa
14 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
rhizome or recumbent stems. Rhizophora and other genera do not coppice because
they lose the ability to produce reserve meristems at a very early stage. Although
some species (A. germinans and L. racemosa) (Fig. 3d, e, f) can resprout from
stumps (coppicing), this process is not equivalent to propagation.
Mangroves exhibit two relatively unique reproductive strategies: hydrochory and
vivipary. Hydrochory (dispersal by water) is a major means by which mangrove
spreads seeds, fruit, and/or propagules. Tidal action can carry mangrove diaspores
great distances from their point of origin. Vivipary refers to the condition in which
the mangrove embryo germinates while still attached to the parent tree. A number of
mangrove species, including R. mangle, for example, propagules (Fig. 3a), may
remain attached to the parent tree for 4–6 months and attain lengths of 25–35 cm at
“maturity,” and they fall to the ground or into the water where they are dispersed by
the tides. Once it detaches, the seed established into a suitable substrate and grows
(Fig. 3a, b). The embryo of A. germinans breaks through the seed coat (Fig. 3d, e)
but remains enclosed in the fruit wall until detachment. Upon falling into the water,
the thin pericarp is quickly shed, leaving the seedling, which is composed of two
folded cotyledons. Laguncularia racemosa is not considered to be viviparous
(Fig. 3f), but germination often occurs during dispersal. Vivipary increases the
chances of successful establishment in an unpredictable environment where germi-
nation of seeds would typically be inhibited.
(a) Inundation with saltwater helps exclude most other vascular plants and reduces
competition.
(b) Tides bring saltwater up estuaries against the outflow of freshwater and extend
mangrove development inland.
(c) Tides transport sediment, nutrients, and clean water into the mangrove environ-
ment and export organic carbon and reduced sulfur compounds.
(d) Where evaporation is high, tides help flush soils and decrease salinity.
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 15
The effect of this “tidal subsidy” can be seen on two landscape scales: a regional
or geographic scale (mangroves reach their greatest development around the world
in low-lying regions with large tidal ranges (Tomlinson 1986)) and a local scale –
trees closest to the edges of land masses, which are subject to the largest fluctuations
of the tide, are obviously larger and more productive than trees in the interior. The
latter is the situation in the Gambia mangrove. In the then Gambia, most roads
crossing the wetland aren’t eco-friendly with mangrove ecosystem, the conse-
quences are visible, but the underlying causes have not been addressed accordingly.
The mangroves aren’t fed with tidal water as required; hence there is dieback of
some mangrove stands.
Sediment and wave energy. Mangroves grow best in a depositional environment
with low wave energy according to Tomlinson (1986). High waves prevent propa-
gule establishment, expose the shallow root systems, and prevent accumulation of
fine sediments.
There have been positive responses worldwide. In West Africa, efforts are ongoing
since 1993 with over four hundred and fifty (450) hectares of mangrove forests
plantations were established within the coastal regions of Benin, Guinea, and
Senegal (AMN 2009). In the Gambia replanting mangrove is recent. Most of these
initiatives or trials restored close to 300 ha between 2000 and 2014. Hence, in the
year 2000, direct sowing of seed or propagules pricking from the Rhizophora
parental tree were used and at irregular spacing (1 1 m; 2 1 m; 2 1.5 m).
All these efforts are done through community participation, NGOs (KOMFFORA,
WABSA, and TRY Oyster Women Association), CBOs, and donors and partners like
GEF, WWF, UNDP, etc. While such efforts are very commendable for the situational
dieback trees, they are some important shortcoming. Monitoring on the many
plantations is ad hoc or complete absence even with claimed 95% of success rate.
There is no adequate silvicultural organization and process in place for replanting.
Among these, there are no clear understanding of the flowering and fruiting behavior
of most mangrove species, badly appreciated hydrologic system for site selection
restored, absence of nursery operations and best practices.
Consequences to these shortcomings include the preferential choice for
Rhizophora spp. at the expense of other species like Avicennia sp., and Laguncularia
racemosa leads to monoscultural stand and poor or difficult scientific follow-up and
monitoring, making it difficult to assess growth parameters (diameters, height,
number of branches, etc.). In the absence of this dynamics, most, if not all, of the
biodiversity of the mangrove ecosystem is comprised. A good mastering of the
silvicultural organization and its subsequent implementation will further enhance
mangrove restoration projects. This manual will help ameliorate most of these
shortcomings and produce scientific monitoring mangrove endeavor.
16 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
Efforts have been made worldwide over the past decade by nationals and multina-
tionals like UNDP-GEF, IUCN, ITTO-ISME, WWF, AMN, and CWCS (Cameroon)
and KOMFFORA and WABSA (Gambia) to reverse mangrove loss through a
number of restoration projects and initiatives and other research programs. Every
restoration project or initiative is unique and depends on conditions specific to
individual and the area to restore persuaded by its goal(s) and objective(s) and so
is the costs of mangrove restoration (Lewis and Streever 2000), influenced by the
type of method involved and the species considered. Contrary to political, cultural,
and economic priorities, restoration necessitates time (Alongi 2002). In an early
review of restoration of mangrove habitats, Lewis (2000) and Gilman and Ellison
(2007) reported that the price of labor and the extent of necessary earthwork also
vividly affect the costs. Moreover, Lewis (op. cit.) noted that the price differs if it is
the private sector or government attempting mangrove restoration.
In Asia, for example, more precisely in Bangladesh and Vietnam, the World Bank
(in 1990) funded projects worth US$ 81.4 million (35.8 billion Fr. CFA), with 39.1%
and 60.9% for each country, respectively. Lewis (op. cit.) reported that eight projects
in Biscayne Bay, Florida, USA, ranged in cost from about US$ 5,300 to
200,000 ha 1 (2.3–88 million Fr. CFA ha 1). While Karieva (2002) reported that
Columbia’s government spent over US$ 25 million (11 billion Fr. CFA) around the
Magdalena River to restore the normal hydrology in model estuarine wetland and
mangrove forests between 1995 and 1998. Recent tsunami-hit countries (India, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia) spent US$ 4.5 million (2 billion Fr. CFA)
to restore degraded coastal areas. Restoration of comparable areas of abandoned
shrimp aquaculture ponds and tsunami-hit areas back to mangroves would take
about 3 years and cost averagely US$ 9 million (4 billion Fr. CFA).
According the AMN (2014), in some West Africa countries especially in Benin,
mangrove planting costs that include propagule collection and sell by the local
communities and planting were estimated at up to 400,000 FCFA (US$ 8000)/ha
at rate of 16 (US$0.032) FCFA per propagule. Maintenance cost was estimated at
100,000–125,000 FCFA per ha.
Generally, a first thought that comes to our mind about mangrove restoration is
raising mangrove nursery and planting mangrove propagule or seedling in coast
(Ellison 2012). These two methods have been used before in the tropics to restore
mangrove-degraded areas (Ochsner 2001; Choudhury 1996; Clarke and Johns 2002;
Lewis et al. 2006).
Natural regeneration: It uses naturally occurring mangrove propagules as the
source for regeneration by protecting the forest. The species composition of the
areas depends on the species composition of the natural sources (wild seedling) of
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 17
Potting of propagules/seeds
Nursing
Monitoring (diseases, diameter, etc.)
Selection of seedlings
Direct
seeding Outplanting and field monitoring
Fig. 4 Chart of possible stages toward direct or indirect mangrove replanting. (Adapted Moudingo
2010)
Advocates of natural regeneration argue that such silvicultural systems are more in
tune with the natural indigenous forest ecologies (FAO 1994). The pros and cons of
natural versus artificial regeneration are described in Table 2 (FAO 1994; Ochsner
2001; Primavera et al. 2012).
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 19
Site Preparation
With the decision made following a meeting with the communities, the selected site
to be prepared will depend on previous use of the area and the method of seeding.
Take note to remove any identified disturbances in site. Consult the calendars to
select a suitable date and time.
wildings. The following are descriptions of the mangrove species recommended for
propagation in the nursery:
The red mangrove is an evergreen tree, which grows to about 25 m in height and
40 cm in diameter at breast height. A single seed germinates inside the conical fruit
forming a long narrow first root (radicle), which is green except for the brown
enlarged and pointed end up to 1.25 cm in diameter. It can grow up to 30 cm in
length before it gets detached from the mother tree and falls. The root systems
stabilize the trees and act as a first line of defense against wave action, in line with its
position on the seaward edge of the system. The species normally grows in soft
muddy soils along sheltered river banks and estuarine margins. Flowering and
fruiting occurs during the entire year (Hussain 1990).
The black mangrove is the most important and dominant mangrove species in the
open mud flats of the Gambia. It is tolerant to high saline conditions and the tree
grows in the form of isolated groups or woodland formations. The tree is fairly large
and may grow up to 10–15 m in height and 20–40 cm in diameter at breast height.
The species flowers and fruits all year round. This species regenerates and coppices
well and can be managed under a coppice system (Hussain 1990).
Propagules are produced at any time of the year. However, it was the most prolific
production commences in early September and may be available for 3 months. The
first ripe seeds of the season are the best. The earlier they are picked, the better the
chances for the new plant, as this gives the longest optimal conditions for growth
during the period of warm weather ensuring good sized, sturdy young seedlings
ready for planting time. For Avicennia sp. the best time to pick the seed is when they
are slightly yellow and fat. Small seeds will produce small plants. Fallen seeds are
okay to be collected, but if they are starting to germinate, take care not to damage the
fragile roots. Shaking the trees can make ripe seeds fall. A plastic bucket will hold
about 2,000 seeds.
It is important to note that during this period, there are also many unripe seeds
which do not come off the branches easily. While it is tempting to gather as many as
possible, it is a waste of time to pick small or unripe seeds as they will not germinate.
They will simply go black and eventually rot. Small seeds produce smaller plants.
Polythene bags filled with mud should be prepared. The hypocotyls (root) of
the propagule should be inserted to a depth of about 7–8 cm in the bags. In
some cases small sticks are to be tied to the hypocotyl to provide support.
Irrigation
Tidal water usually flows in twice daily.
Pest and Disease Control
Same like for Avicennia sp.
Selection of Seedlings for Outplanting
The recommended specifications of the seedlings areas are follows:
1. Height: 35 cm
2. No. of leaves: four to six leaves
3. Duration in the nursery: 3 months
4. The germination period: 20 days
• Direct: Seeding or Propagule Planting (Sowing the Propagules)
Rhizophora spp. propagules can be sown by hand into the mud at most 2/3 of the
propagule. Usually, radicals are pushed gently into soft mud to about 5–8 cm deep
depending on the Rhizophora species. The seeds are placed more exactly in the
ground where it is expected to grow. Interval between and within row is 2 2 m
(ideal for monitoring) based on management objective.
Manual method is dibbling, where a small hand tool is used to punch a hole in
the muddy ground into which the seedling or saplings are placed. Dibbling is
commonly used where there is little competition from weeds and when the soil is
not too muddy.
Aftercare Operations
Intensive care should be given to the young seedlings in a plantation for the first
2–3 years. The following aspects are appropriate to be taken care of to establish a
successful mangrove plantation.
Algal growth All algae (seaweeds) that are entangled with the transplanted seedlings/
propagules should be removed by hand during low tide to reduce seedling
mortality
Effect of algae can also be prevented by using seedlings that are 1–2 years
old, so that their leaves would be held above water level
Siltation Silt may get deposited on leaves of the seedlings (if they get flooded with
tide), and subsequently gastropods (mollusks) may damage the leaves. This
damage can be avoided by using 1–2-year-old seedlings
Predation Plants predated by crabs or cattle should be replaced. Planting propagules in
the hollow of a piece of bamboo or PVC pipe, for example, will keep the
crabs out of reach of the delicate parts of the seedling that are eaten by crabs
Cattle grazing Planted area should be demarcated with a mesh/barbed wire/bamboo fence to
keep the cattle and goats away. Regular patrolling the area for presence of
cattle
Erosion Mud flats that can experience erosion with tidal water movement can be
stabilized first with an appropriate species of grass that can consolidate the
mud before planting the seedlings
Human Community should be educated of the importance of restoration efforts and
intervention should be made part of the team of monitors/protectors
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 23
This area is
acceptable
The choice of area should be where mangrove already grow before (or have
already pushed). Be careful mangrove don’t strive on any kind of soil.
24 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
Site selection-Continue)
Tide is down!
Please! Record
the time
It should be sandy or
compacted
Good
substrat
Suitable tidal
elevation !
Yes! The tides
follow the moon
more closely than
the sun do
Tide withdrawal
26 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
Please don't
pick up those
eaten by crabs
Warning!!!
Once harvest is completed, if the propagules cannot be transplanted the same day, the
rest is kept in a bag close the top and the bags must be stored well especially under a
shad where sea water reaches.
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 27
5. Sorting of propagules
Yes Yes
NO NO NO
Key note
Working in small groups of 10 to 15 people with a team leader. There can be many of
these small groups with an overseer, and this will allow you to be much more effective
if you are too large.
28 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
Two method can be implored. Each zone can create its own strategy to mark the soil
and plant. But here are some tips.
Please! Let us
move in a
straight line to
avoid
irregularity
spacing in the
plantation
then a step
forward then
plant
a
Seedling will need
The first (the cons-a) is to put a team down room to grow well.
on the field with a guide to move on a So avoid planting
straight line to plant. The actors are too tight propagules.
separated by 2 meters. It is recommended
The second method is the most accurate. It to plant 5 000 plants
will allow you to accurately assess the per hectare (ideal 2
number of trees planted. meter x 2 meter).
Two method can be implored. Each zone can create its own strategy to mark the soil
and plant. But here are some tips.
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 29
7. Outplanting of seedlings
Planting should done timely because the tide will soon raise and propagules must be
planted. With the propagules in the hand or in a bag, planters moving in the
predetermining lines inserts the propagules not more 2/3 and progresses through the
mud built along the predetermining lines.
When the area is replanted, it is important to return regularly see the growth of
young mangroves. Every 2 to 3 months, team (5-10 personnel), should tour
the area and take stock of survival.
There is distinction between monitoring and evaluation (Tuxill and Nabhan 1998;
Davis-Case 1990). Monitoring refers to the regular collection and analysis of
information to determine whether or not activities are working and explain why
(SNV 1997; Keddy 2010). Common factors to measure include water depth,
dissolved nutrients, and number of calling amphibians or birds. The challenge in
monitoring is to choose the minimum number of variables that will produce the
maximum amount of information (Keddy 2010). Monitoring is usually done at
regular intervals (daily, weekly, or seasonally) so that over a cumulative time period
(a month, a year, or longer), trends in a particular situation become evident and
measurable. Without monitoring, it is impossible to be aware whether or not
restoration has occurred. Adaptive environmental assessment allows one to change
the restoration project while it is in progress to respond to unexpected events.
Evaluation is an opportunity for participants in a conservation effort to step back,
review information, and look at whether their work has met the desirable goals and
objectives (Davis-Case 1990). It is chance to take stock of the effects, positive and/or
negative, expected and unexpected, created by the project actions and activities.
Evaluation and monitoring are often part of the same process. For instance, the
information obtained by monitoring the reproductive success of plant population can
be indispensable for evaluation management designed to maintain habitat favored by
the plant. Overall, evaluation tends to take place less frequently than monitoring,
which is more of a continual process. Evaluation also offers an ideal opportunity for
debating and modifying the direction of a project or management effort or for
addressing problems that have arisen during implementation.
Usefulness of Monitoring
1. To record how the actual replanting compares to earlier designs. This is accom-
plished through an as-built survey and a site and Time-Zero Monitoring Report,
which provides a benchmark to assess change over time.
2. To quantify the recruitment, establishment, and early growth of mangroves in an
initial period after restoration (usually 2–5 years).
3. To identify, early on, potential issues inhibiting establishment of mangrove
seedlings and to inform midcourse corrections.
4. To increase community involvement, knowledge, and understanding of the entire
restoration process.
5. To inform future management strategies of mangrove area (facilitating the for-
mulation and the implementation of mangrove conservation legislation and
policies based on the informations provided).
6. To contribute to international knowledge bank of restoration project successes,
failures, and lessons learned.
7. To develop nature-based tourism.
Monitoring Levels
It is generally understood that there are two distinct types of monitoring: ecological
monitoring and performance monitoring (Abbot and Guijt 1998). Performance
monitoring refers to the assessment of management effectiveness, examining the
outputs of laws, policies, community initiatives, donor projects, and spatial planning.
Performance monitoring is thus linked inextricably to socioeconomic aspects and
impacts of mangrove management. Most mangrove restoration initiative don’t
inform sufficiently both the perception of communities and the success rate of
mangrove replanting so far. For the Gambian mangrove monitoring, incorporating
performance aspects into our monitoring system (is recommended) involves consid-
ering factors such as local perceptions to mangrove conservation and restoration,
community participation and management, revenues, and institutional arrangements.
In many cases, the mere numbers of propagules or seedlings planted are considered
indicators of success. Yet subsequent investigation demonstrates that very few plants
have survived because either the site or species selection has been inappropriate and
limited community participation. Hence, possible pathway for mangrove restoration
and monitoring with community involvement should be ensured and will in due cost
and time combine scientific (calculation of survival rate) or simple (visible health
problem, indigenous knowledge is strongly used) methods.
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 33
Monitoring Techniques
Ecological Monitoring
First Approach – Transect-/quadrat-based survey recording mangrove locations,
species zones, mangrove condition, and identifying pressures. This is quick to do
and is a suitable exercise for capacity building with community groups.
Second Approach – Vegetation plots in each zone recording community struc-
ture, height and diameter of trees, and density of seedlings. This takes about a day
per transect and is better carried out by project staff, though can be done with
community groups assisting.
The two different approaches build upon each other, hence rather than being
alternatives. You can start with the first and then add in second as capacity and
experience builds in the team or country.
According to Primevera et al. (2012), there are four steps to set up a fixed quadrat
where growth rate and survival rate are calculated. These include:
• Step A – Plant an area at least 100 m2 with mangrove seedlings and make a note
of the date.
• Step B – Measure a 100 m2 plot within your planted area which may be square
(10 10 m) or rectangular (20 5 m) depending on the planted area. If the area
has varying substrate, elevation, etc., set up more than one quadrat in these micro-
sites.
• Step C – Permanently mark the plot by inserting bamboo or wooden poles buried
~1 m deep in each of the four corners. This will then give a permanent reference
area for monitoring. If available, take a GPS reference point of the quadrat, or use
permanent local landmarks or features to reference the plot.
• Step D – Through briefings with the community, ensure that no undocumented or
ad hoc replacement planting is undertaken within the quadrat as this will distort
the results.
Monitoring Equipment
According to Ellison (2012), many equipments are used to collect data. These
include:
Monitoring can be done at the level of the nursery and the plantation within the
technical capability and resources of some trained local monitoring teams, though
interpretation of results can be challenging (Primavera et al. 2012). An expert can be
of assistance. The primary objective of communities involved in mangrove rehabil-
itation projects is to conduct the most resource-effective approaches to start gaining
the resource benefits from recovered mangrove forests.
Existing nurseries and their surface area, survival rates (%), nursery stock (num-
ber of leaves, number of branches, etc.) – seedlings per species; digital photo). At the
nursery monitoring is usually done after three weekly or monthly.
Parameters to know will include planted or reforested area, survival rates (%),
alongside post-planting activities – beating-up, thinning etc. existing nurseries,
nursery stock – seedlings per species; digital photo) and stand dynamics – at the
stage the monitoring is done after 6 2 months in the first years and once after
2 years. The results can be compared to that of the permanent sample plots (PSPs)
later.
Steps to Calculate Survival Rate (SRt)
• Step A: Count the total number of plants within your quadrat on the day it is
established. This initial number will serve as the baseline for your future analyses.
• Step B: Return to the site, make a note of the date, and calculate how many days it
has been since your last visit.
• Step C: Count all of the surviving plants within your quadrat.
• Step D: Calculate the survival rate of all plants.
(Number of survivors/initial number of seedling) 100 = survival rate (%)
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 35
• Step E: Repeat steps B–D every time you monitor your quadrat.
• Step 1: Select at least 30 plants at random (meaning do not choose a particular size
or characteristic, e.g., tallest, smallest) within your quadrat, and measure their
height on the day the quadrat is established. This initial height (H1) will act as the
baseline for your future analyses. Using your meter stick and/or measuring tape,
measure the height from ground level to the highest bud (not the tip of leaves) of
the tallest branch; straighten out plants that are bent (by the weight of algae)
before measuring to ensure the tip of the stem is measured. For plants with dead
branches, measure up to the living portion.
• Step 2: Return to the site, make a note of the date, and calculate how many days it
has been since your last visit.
• Step 3: Select another 30 plants at random (they do not have to be the same plants
as in step 1) within your quadrat and measure their height (H2) as described in
step 1.
• Step 4: Calculate the growth rate as follows: (H2– H1)/ H1 100 = growth rate
(%)
• Step 5: Repeat steps 2–4 every time you monitor your quadrat.
Equally, other parameters can be calculated; these include the number of leaves,
number of nodes and nodal distance, and the number of pneumatophores or stilt root
alive or dead, and document first flowering and fruiting events.
Picture Monitoring
This involves keeping photographic data of image taken periodically from this same
initially chosen vantage point (geo-referenced or marked point) located in the
plantation toward the same direction. Such data gathered from the images or
photographs convey visibly and convincingly changes or evolution in the plantation.
A good high-resolution camera is often needed for such activity.
Socioeconomic Monitoring
It is good to assess the change of community perception on the restoration seed
issues especially through planting methodologies (focus or target group discussions,
combined checklist/data sheet, questionnaire, and key informant interviews). Ques-
tionnaire, for example, can assess the participation of the locals.
The collection of data is only one step in the process of using information collected
from the field to influence management (Ellison 2012). Data storage and analysis
must be carried out in a timely manner in order to ensure that it remains relevant and
useful. Furthermore, careful thought must go into the process of disseminating the
information generated in the right form and to the right people, so as to ensure that
monitoring information will be utilized in the most effective manner (Sriskanthan
et al. 2008).
Recording
Maintaining accurate records is one of the most important activities in the nursery.
Accurate records can help save the nursery unnecessary spending and assist you
making your nursery well-organized. A daily report (activities) is a useful tool that
assists in record keeping and should have the following information (Table 3).
The record keeping can take many forms and should be simple and easily
understood by the nursery operator. This will further assist with the planning process
of nursery management.
Data Storage
All original data inputted should be stored in an acceptable format such as Excel. The
ideal timeframe is within 2 weeks of collecting the data. It is important to ensure that
the names of the recorders are also inputted, so that any potential queries about the
data can be directed to the correct person.
For example, for image files (i.e., digital photos), the names should be in a way
that allows easy reference, including a description of what the photo is depicting, the
date the photo was taken and a location reference if possible.
Example 1
File name: Rh_man_15apr08_SQ3
Information: Rhizophora mangle, 15 September 2014, strip quadrat 3
Example 2
File name: plntd_seedlings_01jan14_nurs
Information: planted seedlings 01January14, nursery
Final monitoring reports containing all photos and original data files in excel
format should therefore be stored in a CD and hard copy accordingly.
Care should be taken to ensure that monitoring information quickly and effec-
tively reaches the individuals who are responsible for management decisions. In
doing so, decision policy-makers will devise best management strategy for the
Gambia mangrove ecosystem and ensure that management approach is both adaptive
and reactive to any changes which are taking place or lessons learned that are
generated. Sharing information in a transparent manner to the larger community
and associated field recorders encourages ownership and interest in management and
monitoring activities.
38 J.-H. E. Moudingo et al.
With the projected sea increase alongside anthropogenic activities, the Gambia
mangroves are progressively degrading and losing it services. Ongoing efforts by
individual, NGOs, the Gambia government, and donors geared to reverse this trend
are done by replanting mangrove. Most of these trials proved to be limited and
incomplete in terms of silvicultural practices by local stakeholder.
Hence, this manual demonstrated the different approaches based on scientific and
learning-by-doing approaches in streamlining mangrove conservation for the Gam-
bia vision by 2020. Moreover, in the cause of the production of this manual across a
number of sites where available, mangrove restoration is presented in Fig. 5, so as to
further demonstrate the practical use of these approaches in the Gambia.
The following recommendations can be made:
• Testing and improvement of the manual. There is need for wide testing and
documentation of the experience from the documentation of this manual pointing
out its strengths and weakness geared toward better improvement from which
revised versions can be produced to integrate such gaps.
• Complementing efforts from both PSPs and plantation monitoring schemes.
There is a need to complement monitoring efforts from both natural and artificial
plantations in order to ascertain responses of both system to anthropogenic
pressures and impacts.
• Involvement of the universities and research institutes in monitoring. As
observed during participatory site surveys for PSP location and selection of
restoration sites, there was a conspicuous absence of these important groups of
Foot path
Irrigation canal
Drainage canal
1m
10 m.
Nursery Beds
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 39
Cross-References
References
Abbot J, Guijt I (1998) Changing views on change: participatory approaches to monitoring and
evaluation, SARL discussion paper no. 2. International Institute for Environment and Develop-
ment, London
Ajonina GN (2008) Inventory and modelling mangrove forest stands dynamics following different
levels of wood exploitation pressure in the Douala-Edea Atlantic Coast of Cameroon. PhD
thesis, Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, 215p
Ajonina GN, Tata TF (2006) Wetland assessment, planning, management and monitoring in Africa.
Draft Report, African Development Bank (PSDU). (In press) 67p
Alongi D M (2002) Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environmental
Conservation 29: 331–349
AMN (2009) Newsletter of African Mangrove Network. www.mangrove-africa.net
Bos D, Grigoras I, Ndiaye A (2006) Land cover and avian biodiversity in rice fields and mangroves
of West Africa. A&W-report 824. Altenburg & Wymenga, ecological research, Veenwouden.
Wetlands International, Dakar
CBD (2006) The Gambia: Third national report. Banjul, The Gambia. 145pp (https://www.cbd.int/
doc/world/gm/gm-nr-03-en.pdf retrieved September 2014)
Choudhury JK (1996) Mangrove Forest management: mangrove rehabilitation and management
project in Sulawesi, pp 297
Clarke A, Johns L (2002) Mangrove nurseries: construction, propagation and planting: fisheries
guidelines, Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Fish Habitat Guideline FHG
004, p 32
Davis-Case D (1990) The community toolbox: the idea, the method and tools for community
forestry field manual 2. FAO/UN, Rome
Ellison JC (2007) Manual for mangrove monitoring in the pacific islands region: monitoring
changes in mangrove condition. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program,
Apia, p 37
Ellison JC (2012) Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation planning for mangrove
systems. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Washington, DC
Ellison JC et al (2012) Manual for mangrove monitoring: in the Pacific Islands region. Secretariat of
the pacific regional environmental Programme (SPREP), Apia, p 53
Evans J (1982) Plantation forestry in the tropics. ELBS Clarendon Press, Oxford. 472pp
FAO (1994) Mangrove forest Management guidelines. Forest Service Department of Agriculture
and the FAO forestry department, paper 117, Rome
Feller C-I, Sitnik M (1996) Mangrove ecology: a manual for a field course. Washington,
Smithsonian institution, 135 p
Frazier S (1996) An overview of World’s Ramsar Sites. Wetlands International Publication 39. 58pp
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities: Mangrove. . . 43
Group Asia, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),
Colombo
Spalding M, Kainuma M, and Collins L (2010) World atlas of mangroves. A collaborative project of
ITTO, ISME, FAO, UNEP-WCMC, UNESCO-MAB, UNU-INWEH and TNC, Earthscan,
London, 319 pp
Tomlinson P B (1986) The botany of mangroves. Cambridge University Press. 419 pp
Tuxill J, Nabhan GP (1998) Plants and protected areas: a guide to in situ management. WWF
international/UNESCO/Royal Botanic Gardens. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd, Cheltenham,
pp 134–135
USEPA (2000) Principles for the ecological restoration of aquatic resources. EPA841-F-00-003.
Office of Water (4501F). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. 4 pp
UNEP (2007) Mangroves of Western and Central Africa. UNEP – Regional Seas Programme/
UNEP–WCMC.88pp. Available http://www.unep-U wcmc.org/resources/publications/UNEP_
WCMC_bio_series/26.htm (Retrieved 16 December 2007)
UNEP (2014) The Importance of Mangroves to People: A Call to Action. van Bochove J, Sullivan
E, Nakamura T (Eds). United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitor-
ing Centre, Cambridge. 128 pp
Vivien J, Faure J J, (1985) Arbres des Forêts Denses d’Afrique Centrale. Agence de Cooperation
Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), Paris. pp. 370–371