Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration

of mangrove forests
Roy R. Lewis III ∗
Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., P.O. Box 5430, Salt Springs, FL 32134, USA

Received 2 January 2004; received in revised form 22 September 2004; accepted 29 October 2004

Abstract

Great potential exists to reverse the loss of mangrove forests worldwide through the application of basic principles of ecological
restoration using ecological engineering approaches, including careful cost evaluations prior to design and construction. Previous
documented attempts to restore mangroves, where successful, have largely concentrated on creation of plantations of mangroves
consisting of just a few species, and targeted for harvesting as wood products, or temporarily used to collect eroded soil and
raise intertidal areas to usable terrestrial agricultural uses. I document here the importance of assessing the existing hydrology
of natural extant mangrove ecosystems, and applying this knowledge to first protect existing mangroves, and second to achieve
successful and cost-effective ecological restoration, if needed. Previous research has documented the general principle that
mangrove forests worldwide exist largely in a raised and sloped platform above mean sea level, and inundated at approximately
30%, or less of the time by tidal waters. More frequent flooding causes stress and death of these tree species. Prevention of such
damage requires application of the same understanding of mangrove hydrology.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mangrove forests; Restoration of mangrove forests; Ecological restoration; Mangroves

1. Introduction 1990 (FAO, 2003). These losses represent about 2% per

year between 1980 and 1990, and 1% per year between
Mangrove forests are ecologically important coastal 1990 and 2000.
ecosystems (Lugo and Snedaker, 1974) composed Examples of documented losses include combined
of one or more of the 69 species of plants called losses in the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and
mangroves (Duke, 1992). These ecosystems currently Malaysia of 7445 km2 of mangroves (Spalding, 1997).
cover 146,530 km of the tropical shorelines of the In Florida, approximately 2000 km2 remain from an
world (FAO, 2003). This represents a decline from estimated historical cover of 2600 km2 (Lewis et al.,
198,000 km of mangroves in 1980, and 157,630 km in 1985). Puerto Rico has just 64 km2 of mangrove re-
maining from an original mangrove forest cover esti-
∗ Tel.: +1 352 546 4842; fax: +1 352 546 5224. mated to have been 243 km2 (Martinez et al., 1979).
E-mail address: [email protected]. These figures emphasize the magnitude of the loss,

0925-8574/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.10.003
404 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

and the magnitude of the opportunities that exist to detail as it pertains to mangrove forests (Detweiler et
restore areas like mosquito control impoundments in al., 1975; Ball, 1980; Lewis, 1982a,b, are the few ex-
Florida (Brockmeyer et al., 1997), and abandoned ceptions), and thus restoration has, unfortunately, em-
shrimp aquaculture ponds in Thailand and the Philip- phasized planting mangroves as the primary tool in
pines (Stevenson et al., 1999), back to functional man- restoration, rather than first assessing the reasons for
grove ecosystems. the loss of mangroves in an area and working with the
Restoration of areas of damaged or destroyed man- natural recovery processes that all ecosystems have.
grove forests has been previously discussed by Lewis The term “restoration” has been adopted here to
(1982a,b, 1990a,b, 1994, 1999, 2000), Crewz and specifically mean any process that aims to return a sys-
Lewis (1991), Cintron-Molero (1992), Field (1996, tem to a pre-existing condition (whether or not this was
1998), Turner and Lewis (1997), Brockmeyer et al. pristine) (sensu Lewis, 1990c), and includes “natural
(1997), Milano (1999), Ellison (2000), Lewis and restoration” or “recovery” following basic principles of
Streever (2000) and Saenger (2002). Saenger and Sid- secondary succession. Secondary succession depends
diqi (1993) describe the largest mangrove afforestation upon mangrove propagule availability, and I suggest
program in the world, with plantings of primarily one a new term, “propagule limitation” to describe situa-
species (Sonneratia apetala) over 1600 km2 on newly tions in which mangrove propagules may be limited
accreting mud flats in Bangladesh. This was a multi- in natural availability due to removal of mangroves by
purpose planting with the prime objective of “. . . pro- development, or hydrologic restrictions or blockages
viding land sufficiently raised and stabilized to be used (i.e. dikes) which prevent natural waterborne transport
for agricultural purposes . . .” through encouraged ac- of mangrove propagules to a restoration site. Such sit-
cretion of sediments by the plantings. It is estimated uations have been described by Lewis (1979) for the
that 600 km2 of raised lands have now been converted U.S. Virgin Islands, Das et al. (1997) for a mangrove
to such uses. Blasco et al. (2001) estimate survival of restoration site in the Mahanadi delta, Orissa, India, and
these plantings to presently cover about 800 km2 af- by Hong (2000) for similar efforts at Can Gio, Vietnam.
ter about a 50% loss due to cyclones and insect pest “Ecological restoration” is another important term
outbreaks. to include in this discussion and has been defined by
In spite of the success in Bangladesh, most attempts the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER, 2002) as
to restore mangroves often fail completely, or fail to the “process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem
achieve the stated goals (Lewis, 1990a, 1999, 2000; that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed”. The
Erftemeijer and Lewis, 2000). This paper is intended goal of this process is to emulate the structure, function-
to review those factors that can be applied by ecologi- ing, diversity and dynamics of the specified ecosystem
cal engineers and ecologists to insure successful man- using reference ecosystems as models.
agement without damage, and successful restoration Ecological engineering, which involves creating and
if damage has or does occur. In addition, following restoring sustainable ecosystems that have value to both
the suggestions in Weinstein et al. (2001), emerging humans and nature (Mitsch and Jørgensen, 2004) has
restoration principles will be stated. been characterized as having two primary goals: (1) the
restoration of ecosystems that have been substantially
disturbed by human activities . . . and (2) the devel-
2. Key terms and principles opment of new sustainable ecosystems that have both
human and ecological value, to which I would add a
Restoration or rehabilitation may be recommended third, which is to accomplish items (1) and (2) in a cost
when an ecosystem has been altered to such an ex- effective way. Engineers are routinely asked to gener-
tent that it can no longer self-correct or self-renew. Un- ate engineer’s estimates for construction projects, of-
der such conditions, ecosystem homeostasis has been ten oversee actual construction, and approve payments
permanently stopped and the normal processes of sec- based upon successful completion of construction. As-
ondary succession (Clements, 1929) or natural recov- sociated materials purchase and installation, such as
ery from damage are inhibited in some way. This con- plants in a wetland restoration project, are other items
cept has not been analyzed or discussed with any great reviewed, approved and paid for. Projected costs are
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 405

important to determine if a project is affordable, and Colombia, have been killed by alterations of hydrology
final costs have to be controlled in the construction due to road and dike construction in the 1950s. Similar
process. deaths of mangroves in a protected area due to modi-
As noted by Spurgeon (1999) “[I]f coastal habi- fied hydrology are reported in Turner and Lewis (1997).
tat rehabilitation/creation is to be widely implemented, Rubin et al. (1999) describe the destruction of the man-
greater attempts should be made to: find ways of reduc- grove forests of the Volta River Estuary in Ghana due
ing the overall costs of such initiatives; devise means to two dams on the Volta River, and local timber har-
of increasing the rate at which environmental benefits vesting. Ellison (2000) notes that “[D]espite repeated
accrue; and to identify mechanisms for appropriating claims that mangrove forests can be managed sustain-
the environmental benefits”. It is the role of an ecolog- ably . . . managed (and unmanaged) mangal continues
ical engineer, working in tandem with an ecologist, to to degrade and disappear at rates comparable to those
see that such actions occur. seen in tropical wet forests (∼1.5% per year) . . .”
Clearly, mangrove forests have not been managed
very well, even if left alone in terms of direct dredg-
3. Ecology of mangrove forests ing and filling for coastal development (Lewis, 1977),
or conversion to aquaculture ponds (Stevenson et al.,
Mangroves are intertidal trees found along tropical 1999). In case, after case disruption of the existing hy-
shorelines around the world. They are frequently inun- drology of a forest is enough to kill it. One might as-
dated by the tides, and thus have special physiological sume that all of these cases involved the old misunder-
adaptations to deal with salt in their tissues. They also standing that mangroves were worthless swamps, and
have adaptations within their root systems to support today we know how to manage them better. The exam-
themselves in soft mud sediments and transport oxygen ple of Clam Bay in Naples, FL, USA, however, (Turner
from the atmosphere to their roots, which are largely in and Lewis, 1997) shows that even modern day manage-
anaerobic sediments. Most have floating seeds that are ment ignores the realities of mangrove hydrology.
produced annually in large numbers and float to new The issue appears to be that both ecologists and en-
sites for colonization. gineers (and ecological engineers) do not understand
Mangrove forests provide a number of ecologi- mangrove hydrology. Although a number of papers
cal benefits including stabilizing shorelines, reducing discuss the science of mangrove hydrology (Kjerfve,
wave and wind energy against shorelines, and thus 1990; Wolanski et al., 1992; Furukawa et al., 1997),
protecting inland structures, supporting coastal fish- their focus has been on tidal and freshwater flows
eries for fish and shellfish through direct and indirect within the forests, and not the critical periods of inun-
food support and provisions for habitat, and support dation and dryness that govern the health of the forest.
of wildlife populations including a number of wading Kjerfve (1990) does discuss the importance of topogra-
birds and sea birds. phy and argues that “. . . micro-topography controls the
Mangrove forests also support timber production for distribution of mangroves, and physical processes play
construction materials and supply some special chemi- a dominant role in formation and functional mainte-
cals for industry, and medicinal products for local use. nance of mangrove ecosystems . . .”. Hypersalinty due
to year to year variations in rainfall can produce natural
mangrove die-backs (Cintron et al., 1978), and disrup-
4. Ecological management of mangroves tion of normal freshwater flows that dilute seawater in
more arid areas can kill mangroves (Perdomo et al.,
As noted by Field (1998), “[T]he most common 1998; Medina et al., 2001). What is less understood is
method of conserving mangrove ecosystems is by the the role of tidal inundation frequency, and modifica-
creation of protected areas in undisturbed sites . . .” tions to that factor, that can also stress and kill man-
National parks, wildlife preserves and internationally groves.
protected sites are mentioned. However, as reported A series of papers beginning with Nickerson and
by Perdomo et al. (1998), 70% of the Cienaga Grande Thibodeau (1985) and Thibodeau and Nickerson
de Santa Marta, a 511 km2 mangrove forest reserve in (1986), and continuing with McKee and Mendelssohn
406 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

(1988), McKee (1993, 1995a,b), and McKee and cent ocean or estuary, and not interrupt essential upland
Faulkner (2000a,b) have clearly shown that differen- or riverine drainage into the mangrove forest. Failure
tial survival and growth of mangrove species studied to properly account for these essential inputs and ex-
to date are related to the depth, duration and frequency change of water will result in stress and possible death
of flooding and soil saturation. The processes involved of the forest.
are complicated and no single factor applies to all man-
grove zones, but observations and data collection across
transects through mangroves from low to higher eleva- 5. Ecological restoration of mangroves
tions in Belize “. . . indicate that the higher-elevations
sites were infrequently flooded over the soil surface, It has been reported that mangrove forests around
whereas the lower elevation sites near the shoreline the world can self-repair or successfully undergo sec-
were inundated twice daily. Tidal amplitude and wa- ondary succession over periods of 15–30 years if: (1)
ter velocity decrease strongly with increasing distance the normal tidal hydrology has not been disrupted and
from the shoreline and lead to restricted water move- (2) the availability of waterborne seeds or seedlings
ment and incomplete drainage of interior areas . . .”. In (propagules) of mangroves from adjacent stands is
examining the correlations of measured environmen- not limited or blocked (Lewis, 1982a; Cintron-Molero,
tal variables across transects with different dominant 1992; Field, 1998).
species of mangroves, three factors were examined for Ecological restoration of mangrove forests has only
correlations with mangrove zonation. Within the three received attention very recently (Lewis, 1999). The
factors, flooding “had a high negative loading of rel- wide range of types of projects previously considered
ative elevation and a high positive loading of sulfide. to be restoration, as outlined in Field (1996, 1998), re-
Sulfide tends to accumulate in waterlogged soils, a pro- flect the many aims of classic mangrove rehabilitation
cess that is promoted in low elevation areas where water or management for direct natural resource production.
levels may not fall below the soil surface during a tidal These include planting monospecific stands of man-
cycle . . .”. groves for future harvest as wood products. This is not
As noted by Koch et al. (1990) “sulfide toxicity ecological restoration as defined above.
has been implicated as a causative factor in the die- It is important to understand that mangrove forests
back of European and North American salt marshes occur in a wide variety of hydrologic and climatic con-
. . .” and Mendelssohn and Morris (2000) in reporting ditions that result in a broad array of mangrove commu-
on the ecophysiological controls on the productivity nity types. In Florida, Lewis et al. (1985) have identi-
of smooth cordgrass further define the toxic effects of fied at least four variations on the original classic man-
sulfide as reducing ammonium uptake that “result in a grove zonation pattern described by Davis (1940), all
plant nitrogen deficiency and lower rates of growth and of which include a tidal marsh component dominated
primary production for poorly drained, inland Spartina by such species as smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterni-
marshes”. A similar effect is likely in mangrove forests. flora) or saltwort (Batis maritima). Lewis (1982a,b)
The point of all of this is that flooding depth, du- describes the role that smooth cordgrass plays as a
ration and frequency are critical factors in the sur- “nurse species”, where it initially establishes on bare
vival of both mangrove seedlings and mature trees. soil and facilitates primary or secondary succession to
Once established, mangroves can be further stressed if a climax community of predominantly mangroves, but
the tidal hydrology is changed, for example by diking with some remnant of the original tidal marsh species
(Brockmeyer et al., 1997). Both increased salinity due remaining. This has been further generalized by Crewz
to reductions in freshwater availability, and flooding and Lewis (1991) (Fig. 1) as the typical mangrove forest
stress, increased anaerobic conditions and free sulfide for Florida, where tidal marsh components are nearly
availability can kill existing stands of mangroves. always present.
For these reasons, any engineering works con- Finn (1996, 1999) describes the construction and
structed near mangrove forests, or in the watershed that operation of a mixed estuarine mesocosm as part of the
drains to mangrove forests, must be designed to allow Biosphere 2 experiment. Several of the subunits within
for sufficient free exchange of seawater with the adja- the mesocosm contained mangroves transplanted from
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 407

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the six components of the tropical coastal shelf ecosystem (modified from Crewz and Lewis, 1991).

Florida. No specific measurements of tidal inundation It is possible to restore some of the functions of a
depth, duration and frequency at the source site of the mangrove forest, salt flat or other systems even though
mangroves were made, and the initial management of parameters such as soil type and condition may have al-
tidal effects in the mesocosm are not described in detail. tered and the flora and fauna may have changed (Lewis,
The mesocosm and adjacent mesocosms exchanged 1992). If the goal is to return an area to a pristine pre-
water to simulate tides, but this was discontinued, and development condition, then the likelihood of failure is
Finn (1996) indicates that the mangrove mesocosm had increased. However, the restoration of certain ecosys-
operated for 3 years without tides. The amount of in- tem traits and the replication of natural functions stand
undation is not described in the non-tidal mesocosm, more chance of success (Lewis et al., 1995).
but Finn (1996) states that the experiment may be a Because mangrove forests may recover without ac-
useful tool for characterizing the effect of impounding tive restoration efforts, it has been recommended that
mangroves. Finn (1999) describes the lack of under- restoration planning should first look at the potential
story vegetation in the mesocosm and notes that this existence of stresses such as blocked tidal inundation
compares favorably with natural systems. The trans- that might prevent secondary succession from occur-
planted mangroves have grown well in the mesocosm ring, and plan on removing that stress before attempt-
but most of the animals in the system, including fid- ing restoration (Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984; Cintron-
dler crabs, periwinkles and coffee snails disappeared Molero, 1992). The next step is to determine by obser-
from the system between 1991 and 1993. There were vation if natural seedling recruitment is occurring once
restocked in 1994 but their fate is not reported in Finn the stress has been removed. Only if natural recovery
(1999). is not occurring should the final step of considering
408 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

assisting natural recovery through planting be consid- Many of these failures result from afforestation at-
ered. tempts, which are an attempt to plant mangroves in
Unfortunately, many mangrove restoration projects areas that previously did not support mangroves. Of-
move immediately into planting of mangroves without ten mudflats in front of existing or historical stands of
determining why natural recovery has not occurred. mangroves are proposed restoration sites. Aside from
There may even be a large capital investment in grow- the problem of frequent flooding greater than the tol-
ing mangrove seedlings in a nursery before stress fac- erance of mangroves, it is questionable whether the
tors are assessed. This often results in major failures widespread attempts to convert existing natural mud-
of planting efforts. For example, Sanyal (1998) has re- flats to mangrove forests, even if they succeeded, rep-
cently reported that between 1989 and 1995, 9050 ha resent ecological restoration. In their review article on
of mangroves were planted in West Bengal, India, with this matter, Erftemeijer and Lewis (2000) have com-
only a 1.52% success rate. In the Philippines, the Cen- mented that planting mangroves on mudflats would
tral Visayas Regional Project I, Nearshore Fisheries represent habitat conversion rather than habitat restora-
Component, a US$ 35 million World Bank Project tar- tion, and strongly caution against the ecological wis-
geted 1000 ha of mangrove planting between 1984 and dom of doing this.
1992. An evaluation of the success of the planting in Similar efforts in the Philippines, as reported by
1995–1996 by Silliman University (Silliman Univer- Custodio (1996), under “Threats to Shorebirds and
sity, 1996; de Leon and White, 1999) indicated that their Habitats”, state that “{H}abitat alteration in the
only 18.4% of the 2,927,400 mangroves planted over wake of unabated increase in human population is still
492 ha had survived. Another planned 30,000 ha plant- the most important threat to shorebirds in the Philip-
ing effort funded by a US$ 150 million loan from the pines. Some of the alteration, however, has been due to
Asian Development Bank and Overseas Economic Co- activities, which were of good intention. An example of
operation Fund of Japan (Fisheries Sector Program, this is the mangrove ‘reforestation’ programme which
1990–1995) was cut short after only 4792 ha were covered the feeding grounds of shorebirds in Puerto
planted do to similar problems (Ablaza-Baluyut, 1995). Rivas (Bataan) and parts of Olango Island” (p. 166).
Platong (1998) in reporting on efforts at mangrove With these words in mind, it is worthwhile to note that
restoration in Thailand states that the Royal Forest De- Tunhikorn and Round (1996) state that “. . . Thailand is
partment of Thailand (RFD) reported 11,009 ha planted a major wintering and passage area for Palaeartic wa-
in Southern Thailand. Platong (1998) notes that RFD terbirds. Large numbers of shorebirds are found both
“is unable to justify the success of the plan because the along its coastline, in mudflat and mangrove habitat
replanted mangrove areas are just in seedling stage. . . .” and describe the intertidal mudflats, onshore prawn
There is no report that replanting mangroves are sur- ponds, salt-pans and some remaining areas of man-
vived [sic] or destroyed by natural factors and human. groves along the Gulf of Thailand as “(P)robably the
The data being recorded are only the planted area and single most important site for shorebirds in the country”
the amount of areas planned to be replanted” (p. 59). (p. 123). Finally, they describe the major threat to win-
In addition “the Agriculture Department joined with tering shorebirds at Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
the private sector in a mangrove replanting project for in Prachuap Khiri Khan province as modifications to
the King’s 50th anniversary jubilee . . .. The target was “the hydrology and topography of coastal areas . . . by
31,724 rai [5076 ha] in 57 areas. The Petrolium [sic] intensive prawn farming during 1988–1993” (p. 124).
Authority of Thailand (PTT) replanted mangrove for- Natural recruitment of mangrove seedlings, re-
est in Southern Thailand . . . between 1995 and 1997 flected in the careful data collection of Duke (1996)
about 11,062 rai [1770 ha] . . .. It is not easy to com- at an oil spill site in Panama showed that “. . . densi-
pare the success of mangrove replanting . . . because ties of natural recruits far exceeded both expected and
they are not the same scale, e.g. species, number of observed densities of planted seedlings in both shel-
areas, location, timing and budget for maintenance af- tered and exposed sites” (emphasis added) in restora-
ter replanting”. Platong (1998) also refers to planting tion attempts at a previously oiled mangrove forest.
of mangrove seeds or seedlings in areas that have not Soemodihardjo et al. (1996) report that only 10% of a
previously been forested. logged area in Tembilahan, Indonesia (715 ha) needed
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 409

replanting because “The rest of the logged over area common problem is the failure to understand the nat-
. . . had more than 2500 natural seedlings per ha” (em- ural processes of secondary succession, and the value
phasis added). of utilizing nurse species like smooth cordgrass in sit-
Lewis and Marshall (1997) have suggested five crit- uations where wave energy may be a problem.
ical steps are necessary to achieve successful mangrove As an example of the problem, Kairo et al. (2001)
restoration: in a recent paper with a title similar to this paper be-
gin their section on “[H]istory of mangrove restoration
1. Understand the autecology (individual species ecol-
and management” with this statement: “[M]angrove
ogy) of the mangrove species at the site, in particular
planting and management has a long history . . .” (em-
the patterns of reproduction, propagule distribution
phasis added). Spurgeon (1999) does the same thing.
and successful seedling establishment.
Under his section on “Costs”, for mangrove rehabilita-
2. Understand the normal hydrologic patterns that con-
tion/creation it begins “[C]osts for mangrove planting
trol the distribution and successful establishment
can range . . .” (emphasis added). Although Kairo et al.
and growth of targeted mangrove species.
(2001) later have a section on “natural regeneration” the
3. Assess the modifications of the previous mangrove
emphasis throughout their paper is on planting. Thus,
environment that occurred that currently prevents
for the majority of papers written on mangrove restora-
natural secondary succession.
tion, there is an immediate assumption that mangrove
4. Design the restoration program to initially restore
restoration means mangrove planting. This leads then
the appropriate hydrology and utilize natural vol-
to ignoring hydrology and natural regeneration via vol-
unteer mangrove propagule recruitment for plant
unteer mangrove propagules, and many failures in at-
establishment.
tempts to restore mangroves (Erftemeijer and Lewis,
5. Only utilize actual planting of propagules, collected
2000).
seedlings or cultivated seedlings after determin-
The single most important factor in designing a suc-
ing through Steps 1–4 that natural recruitment will
cessful mangrove restoration project is determining the
not provide the quantity of successfully established
normal hydrology (depth, duration and frequency, and
seedlings, rate of stabilization or rate of growth
of tidal flooding) of existing natural mangrove plant
of saplings established as goals for the restoration
communities (a reference site) in the area in which you
project.
wish to do restoration. Both Vivian-Smith (2001) and
Callaway (2001) lists seven similar steps in order to Sullivan (2001), similarly recommend the use of a ref-
design the best hydrology and geomorphological de- erence tidal marsh for restoration planning and design.
velopment of tidal marshes in California. The normal surrogate for costly tidal data gathering or
These critical steps are often ignored and failure in modeling is the use of a tidal benchmark and survey
most restoration projects can be traced to proceeding in of existing healthy mangroves. When this is done, a
the early stages directly to Step 5, without considering diagram similar to that in Fig. 1 will result. This then
Steps 1–4. Stevenson et al. (1999) refer to this approach becomes the construction model for your project.
as “gardening”, where simply planting mangroves is Fig. 1 is a typical cross section through a reference
seen as all that is needed. The successful plantings of mangrove forest site. Actual survey data is generated
large areas with one or two species, as described by to locate the existing topographic elevations within the
Saenger and Siddiqi (1993), in Bangladesh, may seem forest. This figure is a synthesis of all the topographic
a success story, but one must question whether large information generated by Crewz and Lewis (1991).
monotypic stands of mangroves are a worthwhile goal. Table 1 modified from Detweiler et al. (1975) is ac-
Remembering the principles of ecological restoration, tual data from a single mangrove forest on Tampa Bay,
one should ask whether the results produce a mangrove Florida. Both Fig. 1 and Table 1 show that the man-
forest similar in species composition and faunal use to grove forests in Florida typically exist on a sloped plat-
the native mangrove forests of the area. Another issue form above mean sea level, with typical surveyed el-
is competition from large-scale plantings may prevent evations for mangrove species in the range of +30 to
natural colonization by volunteer mangroves, and re- +60 cm above mean sea level. Likewise, Twilley and
duce the final biodiversity of the planted area. Another Chen (1998) report the topography of a basin mangrove
410 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

Table 1
Elevation ranges and mean elevation (NGVD datum) of 10 plant species found in the control transect of an undisturbed mangrove forest
community near Wolf Branch Creek, Tampa Bay, FL, USA (modified from Detweiler et al., 1975)
Species Number of quadrats Range (ft) Range (m) Mean elevation (ft) Mean elevation (m)
Rhizophora mangle 35 +0.2 to +1.6 +0.06 to +0.49 +1.0 +0.30
Avicennia germinans 49 +0.4 to +2.5 +0.12 to +0.76 +1.5 +0.46
Laguncularia racemosa 47 +0.7 to +2.5 +0.21 to +0.76 +1.5 +0.46
Spartina alterniflora 4 +1.6 to +1.7 +0.49 to +0.52 +1.7 +0.52
Salicornia virginica 10 +1.6 to +1.9 +0.49 to +0.58 +1.7 +0.52
Sesuvium portulcastrum 2 +1.7 +0.52 +1.7 +0.52
Limonium carolinianum 6 +1.6 to +1.7 +0.49 to +0.52 +1.7 +0.52
Batis maritima 14 +1.6 to +2.2 +0.49 to +0.67 +1.8 +0.55
Borrichia frutescens 2 +1.9 +0.58 +1.9 +0.58
Philoxerus vermicularis 5 +1.6 to +2.2 +0.49 to +0.67 +1.9 +0.58

forest at Rookery Bay had a “. . . bowl shape with a cen- full stage is only inundated 9% of the time. Specific
tre low of 45 cm > msl”. A similar profile section from locations within the wetland at higher elevations are
Whitten et al. (1987) for a different group of mangrove flooded less frequently, and the system as a whole is
species in Sumatra shows a similar pattern (Fig. 2). Fi- only inundated 1% of the time”.
nally, in Fig. 3, four sites in Australia are illustrated In an early review of percent tidal submergence and
from Kenneally (1982). All show a similar location, at emergence for tidal marshes, Hinde (1954) reported
the upper third of the tidal range. Kjerfve (1990) reports that the tidal marsh in Palo Alto, California, had zones
that within the Klong Ngao creek-mangrove system in of tidal marsh vegetation that varied in their percent of
Thailand “. . . the mangrove wetland area above bank- time submerged from 20% for the highest Salicornia

Fig. 2. Mangrove zonation related to tidal datums in Sumatra, Indonesia (modified from Whitten et al., 1987).
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 411

Fig. 4. The topographic position of mangroves on Tampa Bay, FL,

USA (i.e. +0.3 to +0.6 m) in relationship to the percent time of sub-
mergence (modified from Lewis and Estevez, 1988).

mangroves are typically inundated by high tides is very

restricted. Figs. 4 and 5 show two illustrations of the
actual period of time that mangrove forests on Tampa
Bay, FL, USA (Fig. 4 from Lewis and Estevez, 1988)
and Gladstone, Queensland (Fig. 5 from Hutchings and
Saenger, 1987) are inundated with tidal waters. Both
sets of inundation curves relative to topography show
that total time of inundation throughout a typical year is
30% or less. Fig. 4 shows the topographic zone within
which mangroves occur on Tampa Bay (+0.3 to +0.6 m)
and how frequently that zone is likely to be flooded
based upon tide curves. Detailed studies of the Rookery
Fig. 3. Zonation of mangroves in western Australia (modified from Bay mangroves (Twilley and Chen, 1998) show similar
Kenneally, 1982). Line added to emphasize mean sea level datum.
data, with 152–158 tides per year recorded in two basin
mangrove forests out of a potential of 700+ high tides
to 80% for the lowest Spartina. Thus, tidal marshes per year in a system with mixed diurnal tides. Cahoon
appear to have a range of tolerance for submergence and Lynch (1997) report data for continuous water level
greater than that of mangrove forests. monitoring in three red mangrove (Rhizophora man-
The implications of these data are significant, and gle) forests, and one basin forest in southwest Florida.
often overlooked. First, it appears, based on the data The mean total hours of flooding over a 2-year-period
generated to date that mangrove forests around the for the red mangrove forest was 6055 or 35.3% of the
world have a similar pattern of occurrence, regardless potential total for the three sites. The mean number
of species composition, on a tidal plane above mean of flooding events was 1184 or 1.65 tides per day. In
high water and extending to high water spring eleva- contrast, the single basin forest site was flooded just 88
tions. Second, this means that the time during which times in 2 years, yet total hours of flooding were 10,182
412 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

Fig. 5. Integration of vegetational boundaries with gradient-related and tidally induced boundary conditions based on data collected from study
areas in Gladstone, Queensland, 1975–1983 (modified from Hutchings and Saenger, 1987).

or 59.4% of the potential time reflecting the trapping of found in an adjacent reference forest and checked care-
both tidal waters and rainfall. This is not the prevailing fully by survey during and at the completion of con-
understanding of mangrove tidal hydrology. struction. Crewz and Lewis (1991) in examining the
For example, Watson (1928) created five inunda- critical issues in success and failure in tidal marsh and
tion classes ranging from Class 1, “inundated by all mangrove restoration in Florida found that the hydrol-
high tides”, to Class 5, occasionally inundated by ex- ogy, as created or restored by excavation to the correct
ceptional or equinoctial tides”, and placed all the man- tidal elevation, was the single most important element
groves at his location in Malaysia in Classes 2–5 with in project success. This is similar to the recommen-
distinct zonation based upon the nature of the tide that dations of Rozas and Zimmerman (1994) (as cited in
inundates an area rather than the number of times or to- Streever, 2000) for smooth cordgrass marsh creation on
tal period of inundation. Field (1998) makes reference dredged material. Similar focused attention to the to-
to topographical and hydrological changes to mangrove pographic grade relative to adjacent natural mangroves
sites as a key to understanding rehabilitation needs, but in constructed mangrove wetlands was shown to be the
provides no specific information. Perdomo et al. (1998) key to success in a project at Brisbane International
states that “[M]angroves may grow at sites which are Airport in Australia (Saenger, 1996).
permanently covered by shallow water . . .” without McKee and Faulkner (2000a) report that two man-
providing data to support this statement. grove restoration sites were constructed respectively to
Although many authors note that mangroves appear grades of +45 cm (Site WS) and +43 cm (Site HC) rela-
to be limited to certain ground elevations relative to tive to National Vertical Geodetic Datum (NGVD). No
flooding frequency (Watson, 1928; Field, 1996; Elli- mention is made of how these elevations were deter-
son, 2000), few have ever quantified it, as noted above, mined. One of the referenced sites (WS) is described
and fewer still recognize the importance of this issue by Stephen (1984) as actually having variable final to-
relative to mangrove management and restoration. pographic elevations ranging from +24 cm to +190 cm
Options for restoration, as discussed before, include at the time of completion of construction, with the
simply restoring hydrologic connections to impounded +45 cm elevation being the original target elevation
mangroves (Brockmeyer et al., 1997). Another is the based upon surveys of the surrounding mature man-
construction, by excavation of fill or backfilling of an groves. Stephen (1984) noted that the best observed
excavated area, to create a target restoration site with growth of mangroves was at +39 cm. Both Stephen
the same general slope, and the exact tidal elevations (1984) and McKee and Faulkner (2000a) suggested the
relative to a benchmark as the reference site, thus in- value of creating tidal creeks as part of these mangrove
suring that the hydrology is correct. The final graded restoration projects in order to improve flushing. This
topography of a site needs to be designed to match that is a predominant theme also in Zedler (2001) related to
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 413

tidal marsh restoration. Stephen (1984) also notes that

consideration should be given to intentional variation
of grade and creation of permanent ponded areas to
provide habitat for small fish, wading birds, algae and
oysters.
Fig. 6A–C show a time sequence over a period
of 78 months from the completion of a portion of a
hydrologic restoration at a 500 ha mangrove restora-
tion site at West Lake near Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Lewis (1990a) describes the details of the work, but
again success resulted from using a reference site, and
targeting final constructed grades as the same as the
adjacent undisturbed forest. This resulted in a final
sloped grade from +27 cm to + 42 cm MSL. Exten-
sive constructed tidal creeks were also added to the
original plans, which had been designed without them.
No planting of mangroves took place or was neces-
sary. All three of the Florida species of mangroves (red
mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove (Avi-
cennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia
racemosa). volunteered on their own. Another form of
this hydrologic restoration is to reconnect impounded
mangroves to normal tidal influence (Turner and Lewis,
1997; Brockmeyer et al., 1997).
Both of these typical options require detailed review
and discussion between an ecological engineer and a
mangrove restoration ecologist. Further inputs may be
needed from a surveyor, hydrologist, a geologist and
finally the client paying the bills.

6. Controlling the costs of restoration

Lewis (submitted for publication) reports that the

range of reported costs for mangrove restoration was
US$ 225–216,000 ha−1 without the cost of the land.
Brockmeyer et al. (1997) was able to keep restora-
tion costs to US$ 250 ha−1 with careful placement
of culverted openings to impounded mangrove wet-
lands along the Indian River Lagoon, USA. Similar
types of this hydrologic restoration are reported in
Turner and Lewis (1997). Milano (1999) described
Fig. 6. Time series photographs of a hydrologic mangrove restora- in some detail the planning and construction pro-
tion project at West Lake Park, Hollywood, FL, USA (A) Time Zero, cess for ten wetland restoration projects in Biscayne
July 1989, (B) Time Zero + 28 months, November 1991 and (C) Time Bay, FL, USA (Miami), of which eight were man-
Zero + 78 months, January 1996. No planting of mangroves occurred.
grove restoration projects. Careful planning to achieve
All vegetation derived from volunteer mangrove propagules.
success was emphasized, as were methods of insur-
ing cost control. The eight projects ranged in cost
414 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

from US$ 4286–214,285 ha−1 , with a mean of US$ 6. Construction of tidal creeks within restored man-
100,308 ha−1 . King (1998) has updated his 1993 cost groves forests facilitates flooding and drainage, and
estimates (King and Bohlen, 1994) to 1997 cost esti- allows for entree and exit of fish with the tides.
mates for various wetland restoration costs and lists 7. Evaluate costs of restoration early in project design
mangrove restoration at US$ 62,500 ha−1 excluding to make your project as cost-effective as possible.
any land costs. Lewis Environmental and Coastal
Environmental (1996) give cost estimates of US$
62,500 ha−1 for government tidal wetland restoration 8. Conclusions
attempts and US$ 125,000 ha−1 for private efforts,
again without factoring in land costs. It is obvious that Ellison (2000) asks the question “mangrove restora-
at these rates, mangrove restoration can be expensive, tion: do we know enough?” His answer is that
and therefore should be designed to be successful to “[R]estoration of mangal does not appear to be espe-
avoid wasting large amounts of hard-to-get restoration cially difficult . . .” and comments that in contrast to
dollars. the difficulties in restoring inland wetlands, “. . . it is
more straightforward to restore tidal fluctuations and
flushing to impounded coastal systems where man-
groves could subsequently flourish . . .”. Thus, eco-
7. Emerging restoration principles logical restoration of mangrove forests is feasible, has
been done on a large-scale in various parts of the world
1. Get the hydrology right first. and can be done cost effectively. Lewis (2000) how-
2. Do not build a nursery, grow mangroves and just ever, has pointed out that the failure to adequately
plant some area currently devoid of mangroves (like train, and retrain coastal managers (including ecologi-
a convenient mudflat). There is a reason why man- cal engineers) in the basics of successful coastal habi-
groves are not already there or were not there in the tat restoration all too often leads to projects “destined
recent past or have disappeared recently. Find out to fail, or only partially achieve their stated goals”.
why. The National Academy of Science of the United States
3. Once you find out why, see if you can correct the in their report entitled “Restoring and Protecting Ma-
conditions that currently prevent natural coloniza- rine Habitat—The Role of Engineering and Technol-
tion of the selected mangrove restoration site. If you ogy” (National Research Council, 1994) stated that
cannot correct those conditions, pick another site. “the principle obstacles to wider use of coastal engi-
4. Use a reference mangrove site for examining normal neering capabilities in habitat protection, enhancement,
hydrology for mangroves in your particular area. Ei- restoration and creation are the cost and the institu-
ther install tide gauges and measure the tidal hydrol- tional, regulatory and management barriers to using
ogy of a reference mangrove forest or use the sur- the best available technologies and practices” (empha-
veyed elevation of a reference mangrove forest floor sis added).
as a surrogate for hydrology, and establish those It is unfortunate that much of the research into
same range of elevations at your restoration site or mangrove restoration that has been carried out to date
restore the same hydrology to an impounded man- has been conducted without adequate site assessment,
grove by breaching the dikes in the right places. and without documentation of the methodologies or
The “right places” are usually the mouths of his- approaches used, and that it often lacks subsequent
toric tidal creeks. These are often visible in vertical follow-up or evaluation. Unsuccessful (or only par-
(preferred) or oblique aerial photographs. tially successful) projects are rarely documented. Field
5. Remember that mangrove forests do not have flat (1998) reports that after contacting numerous interna-
floors. There are subtle topographic changes that tional organizations to get an overview of mangrove
control tidal flooding depth, duration and frequency. restoration work worldwide, “(T)he response was al-
Understand the normal topography of your refer- most complete silence”. He attributed this to bureau-
ence forest before attempting to restore another cratic sloth, proprietary reluctance to reveal important
area. findings, inadequate dissemination mechanisms and a
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 415

myopic view of the general importance of rehabilita- December, 1994. Wetlands International Asia Pacific, Kuala
tion programmes. I would add that few scientists or Lumpur, Publication No. 116, 163–173.
Davis, J.H., 1940. The ecology and geologic role of mangroves in
organizations wish to report or document failures.
Florida. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pap. Tortugas Lab. No. 32. Publ.
In summary, a common ecological engineering ap- 517, 305–412.
proach should be applied to habitat restoration projects. Das, P., Basak, U.C., Das, A.B., 1997. Restoration of the mangrove
The simple application of the five steps to successful vegetation in the Mahanadi Delta, Orissa, India. Mangroves Salt
mangrove restoration outlined by Lewis and Marshall Marshes 1 (3), 155–161.
de Leon, T.O.D., White, A.T., 1999. Mangrove rehabilitation in the
(1997) would at least insure an analytical thought pro-
Philippines. In: Streever, W. (Ed.), An International Perspective
cess and less use of “gardening” of mangroves as the on Wetland Rehabilitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
solution to all mangrove restoration problems. Those Netherlands, pp. 37–42.
involved could then begin to learn from successes or Detweiler, T.E., Dunstan, F.M., Lewis, R.R., Fehring, W.K., 1975.
failures, act more effectively and spend limited man- Patterns of secondary succession in a mangrove community.
In: Lewis, R.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Annual
grove restoration monies in a more cost-effective man-
Conference on Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities in
ner. Florida. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida,
pp. 52–81.
Duke, N., 1992. Mangrove floristics and biogeography. In: Robert-
References son, A.I., Alongi, D.M. (Eds.), Tropical Mangrove Ecosystems.
American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 63–100.
Duke, N., 1996. Mangrove reforestation in Panama. In: Field, C.
Ablaza-Baluyut, E., 1995. The Philippines fisheries sector pro-
(Ed.), Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems. International Soci-
gram. In: Coastal and Marine Environmental Management. Pro-
ety for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan, pp. 209–232.
ceedings of a workshop, 27–28 March 1995, Bangkok, Thai-
Ellison, A.M., 2000. Mangrove restoration: do we know enough?
land, Asian Development Bank, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 156–
Rest. Ecol. 8 (3), 219–229.
177.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Lewis, R.R., 2000. Planting mangroves on in-
Ball, M.C., 1980. Patterns of secondary succession in a mangrove
tertidal mudflats: habitat restoration or habitat conversion? In:
forest in south Florida. Oecologia (Berl.) 4, 226–235.
Proceedings of the ECOTONE VIII Seminar Enhancing Coastal
Blasco, F., Aizpuru, M., Gers, C., 2001. Depletion of the mangroves
Ecosystems Restoration for the 21st Century, Ranong, Thai-
of continental Asia. Wetland Ecol. Manag. 9 (3), 245–256.
land, 23–28 May 1999. Royal Forest Department of Thailand,
Brockmeyer Jr., R.E., Rey, J.R., Virnstein, R.W., Gilmore, R.G.,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 156–165.
Ernest, L., 1997. Rehabilitation of impounded estuarine wetlands
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2003. New global
by hydrologic reconnection to the Indian River Lagoon, Florida
mangrove estimate. http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/
(USA). Wetland Ecol. Manag. 4 (2), 93–109.
forestry2/index.jsp%3Fgeold=0%26langid.
Cahoon, D.R., Lynch, J.C., 1997. Vertical accretion and shallow sub-
Field, C.D. (Ed.), 1996. Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems. Inter-
sidence in a mangrove forest of southwestern Florida, USA. Man-
national Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan.
groves Salt Marshes 1 (3), 173–186.
Field, C.D., 1998. Rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems: an
Callaway, J.C., 2001. Hydrology and substrate. In: Zedler, J.B. (Ed.),
overview. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37 (8–12), 383–392.
Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Finn, M., 1996. The mangrove mesocosm of Biosphere 2: design,
Florida, pp. 89–117 (Chapter 3).
establishment and preliminary results. Ecol. Eng. 6, 21–56.
Cintron-Molero, G., 1992. Restoring mangrove systems. In: Thayer,
Finn, M., 1999. Mangrove ecosystem development in Biosphere 2.
G.W. (Ed.), Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Mary-
Ecol. Eng. 13, 173–178.
land Seagrant Program, College Park, Maryland, pp. 223–277.
Furukawa, K.E., Wolanski, E., Mueller, H., 1997. Currents and sedi-
Cintron, G., Lugo, A.E., Pool, D.J., Morris, G., 1978. Mangroves and
ment transport in mangrove forests. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 44,
arid environments in Puerto Rico and adjacent islands. Biotropica
301–310.
10, 110–121.
Hamilton, L.S., Snedaker, S.C. (Eds.), 1984. Handbook of Mangrove
Clements, F.E., 1929. Plant Competition. Carnegie Institute of Wash-
Area Management. East West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii.
ington Publications, p. 398.
Hinde, H.P., 1954. The vertical distribution of salt marsh phanero-
Crewz, D.W., Lewis, R.R., 1991. An Evaluation of Historical At-
grams in relation to tide levels. Ecol. Monogr. 24 (2), 210–225.
tempts to Establish Emergent Vegetation in Marine Wetlands in
Hong, P.N., 2000. Effects of mangrove restoration and conservation
Florida. Florida Sea Grant Technical Publication No. 60. Florida
on the biodiversity and environment in Can Gio district, Ho Chi
Sea Grant College, Gainesville, Florida.
Minh City. In: Asia-Pacific Cooperation on Research for Conser-
Custodio, C.C., 1996. Conservation of migratory waterbirds and their
vation of Mangroves, Proceedings of an International Workshop.
wetland habitats in the Philippines. In: Wells, D.R., Mundikur,
The United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 97–116.
T. (Eds.), Conservation of migratory waterbirds and their wet-
Hutchings, P., Saenger, P., 1987. Ecology of Mangroves. University
land habitats in the East Asian-Australasian flyway. Proceedings
of Queensland Press, New York.
of an International Workshop, Kushiro, Japan. 28 November–3
416 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

Kairo, J.G., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Bosire, J., Koedam, N., 2001. II, Coastal Environmental Improvement in Mangrove/Wetland
Restoration and management of mangrove systems—a lesson Ecosystems, 18–23 August 1998, Danish-SE Asian Collabora-
from East African region. S. Afr. J. Bot. 67, 383–389. tion on Tropical Coastal Ecosystems (TCE) Research and Train-
Kenneally, K.F., 1982. Mangroves of Western Australia. In: Clough, ing, Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok,
B.F. (Ed.), Mangrove Ecosystems in Australia—Structure, Func- Thailand, pp. 19–32.
tion and Management. Australian National University Press, Lewis, R.R., 2000. Ecologically based goal setting in mangrove for-
Canberra, Australia, pp. 95–110. est and tidal marsh restoration in Florida. Ecol. Eng. 15 (3–4),
King, D., 1998. The dollar value of wetlands: trap set, bait taken, 191–198.
don’t swallow. Nat. Wetlands Newslett. 20 (4), 7–11. Lewis, R.R., submitted for publication. Mangrove restoration—costs
King, D., Bohlen, C., 1994. Estimating the costs of restoration. Nat. and benefits of successful ecological restoration. Proceedings of
Wetlands Newslett. 16 (3), 3-5+8. the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Universiti Sans Malaysia,
Kjerfve, B., 1990. Manual for investigation of hydrological processes Penang, April 4–8, 2001. Beijer International Institute of Eco-
in mangrove ecosystems. UNESCO/UNDP Regional Project, logical Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Research and Its Application to the Management of the Man- Lewis, R.R., Gilmore Jr., R.G., Crewz, D.W., Odum, W.E., 1985.
groves of Asia and the Pacific (RAS/86/120). Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Florida. In: Sea-
Koch, M.S., Mendelssohn, I.A., McKee, K.L., 1990. Mechanism man, W. (Ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources,
for the hydrogen sulfide-induced growth limitation in wetland Florida Chapter. American Fisheries Society, Eustis, Florida, pp.
macrophytes. Limnol. Ocean 35 (2), 399–408. 281–336.
Lewis, R.R., 1977. Impacts of dredging in the Tampa Bay estuary Lewis, R.R., Kusler, J.A., Erwin, K.L., 1995. Lessons learned from
1876–1976. In: Pruitt, E.L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second An- five decades of wetland restoration and creation in North Amer-
nual Conference of the Coastal Society—Time-stressed Envi- ica. In: Montes, C., Oliver, G., Molina, F., Cobos, J. (Eds.), In:
ronments: Assessment and Future Actions. The Coastal Society, Ecological Basis of Restoration of Wetlands in the Mediterranean
Arlington, Virginia, pp. 31–55. Basin, University of La Rabida(Huelva) Spain, 7–11 June 1993
Lewis, R.R., 1979. Large scale mangrove restoration in St. Croix, U. Junta de Andalucia, Spain, pp. 107–122.
S. Virgin Islands. In: Cole, D.P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Lewis, R. R., Marshall, M. J., 1997. Principles of successful restora-
Annual Conference on Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. tion of shrimp Aquaculture ponds back to mangrove forests. Pro-
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida, pp. 231–242. grama/resumes de Marcuba ’97, September 15/20, Palacio de
Lewis, R.R., 1982a. Mangrove forests. In: Lewis, R.R. (Ed.), Cre- Convenciones de La Habana, Cuba, p. 126.
ation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Lewis, R. R., Estevez, E. D., 1988. The Ecology of Tampa Bay,
Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 153–172. Florida: An Estuarine Profile. National Wetlands Research Cen-
Lewis, R.R., 1982b. Low marshes, peninsular Florida. In: Lewis, R.R. ter, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report No. 85
(Ed.), Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. (7.18), Washington, DC.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 147–152. Lewis, R. R., Streever, W., 2000. Restoration of Mangrove Habitat.
Lewis, R.R., 1990a. Creation and restoration of coastal plain wet- Tech Note ERDC TN-WRP-VN-RS-3. US Army, Corps of En-
lands in Florida. In: Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E. (Eds.), Wetland gineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., Coastal Environmental, Inc.,
Washington, DC, pp. 73–101. 1996. Setting Priorities for Tampa Bay Habitat Protection and
Lewis, R.R., 1990b. Creation and restoration of coastal wetlands in Restoration: Restoring the Balance. Tampa Bay National Estuary
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. In: Kusler, J.A., Kentula, Program, Technical Publication #09-95, St. Petersburg, Florida.
M.E. (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Lugo, A.E., Snedaker, S.C., 1974. The ecology of mangroves. In:
Science. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 103–123. Johnson, R.F., Frank, P.W., Michener, C.D. (Eds.), Annual Re-
Lewis, R.R., 1990c. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement ter- view of Ecology and Systematics, 5, pp. 39–64.
minology: suggestions for standardization. In: Kusler, J.A., Ken- Martinez, R., Cintron, G., Encarnacion, L.A., 1979. Mangroves in
tula, M.E. (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status Puerto Rico: A Structural Inventory. Department of Natural Re-
of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C, pp. 417–422. sources, Government of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Lewis, R.R., 1992. Coastal habitat restoration as a fishery manage- McKee, K.L., 1993. Soil physiochemical patterns and man-
ment tool. In: Stroud, R.H. (Ed.), Stemming the Tide of Coastal grove species distribution-reciprocal effects? J. Ecol. 81, 477–
Fish Habitat Loss, Proceedings of a Symposium on Conservation 487.
of Coastal Fish Habitat, Baltimore, Md., 7–9 March 1991. Na- McKee, K.L., 1995a. Seedling recruitment patterns in a Belizean
tional Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., Savannah, Geor- mangrove forest: effects of establishment ability and physio-
gia, pp. 169–173. chemical factors. Oecologia 101, 448–460.
Lewis, R.R., 1994. Enhancement, restoration and creation of coastal McKee, K.L., 1995b. Interspecific variation in growth, biomass par-
wetlands. In: Kent, D.M. (Ed.), Applied Wetlands Science and titioning, and defensive characteristics of neotropical mangrove
Technology. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, pp. seedlings: response to availability of light and nutrients. Am. J.
167–191. Bot. 82 (3), 299–307.
Lewis, R.R., 1999. Key concepts in successful ecological restoration McKee, K.L., Mendelssohn, I.A., Hester, M.W., 1988. Reexamina-
of mangrove forests. In: Proceedings of the TCE-Workshop No. tion of porewater sulfide concentrations and redox potentials near
 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418 417

the aerial roots of Rhizophora mangle and Avicennia germinans. rine Biological Center, 19–24 January 1998, Phuket, Thailand,
Am. J. Bot. 75 (9), 1352–1359. p. 25.
McKee, K.L., Faulkner, P.L., 2000a. Restoration of biogeochemical Silliman University, 1996. Assessment of the Central Visayas Re-
function in mangrove forests. Rest. Ecol. 8 (3), 247–259. gional Project-I: Nearshore Fisheries Component. Final Draft,
McKee, K.L., Faulkner, P.L., 2000b. Mangrove peat analysis and vol. 1, Dumaguete City, Philippines.
reconstruction of vegetation history at the Pelican Cays, Belize. Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), 2002.
Atoll Res. Bull. No. 46, 45-58. SER International Science and Policy Working
Medina, E., Fonseca, H., Barboza, F., Francisco, M., 2001. Natural Group. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration.
and man-induced changes in a tidal channel mangroves system (www.ser.org/content/ecological restoration primer.asp).
under tropical semiarid climate at the entrance to the Maracaibo Soemodihardjo, S., Wiroatmodjo, P., Mulia, F., Harahap, M.K., 1996.
lake (Western Venezuela). Wetland Ecol. Manag. 9 (3), 233–243. Mangroves in Indonesia—a case study of Tembilahan, Sumatra.
Mendelssohn, I.A., Morris, J.T., 2000. Ecophysiological controls In: Fields, C. (Ed.), Restoration of Mangrove Ecosystems. Inter-
on the productivity of Spartina alterniflora Loisel. In: Wein- national Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan, pp.
stein, M.P., Kreeger, D.A. (Eds.), Concepts and Controversies 97–110.
in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Spalding, M.D., 1997. The global distribution and status of mangrove
pp. 59–80. ecosystems. Intercoast Network Newslett. 1, 20–21, Special Edi-
Milano, G.R., 1999. Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern tion #1.
Florida. Wetland J. 11 (2), 15–24, 29. Spurgeon, J., 1999. The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal
Mitsch, W.J., Jørgensen, S.E., 2004. Ecological Engineering and habitat rehabilitation and creation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37 (8–12),
Ecosystem Restoration. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 373–382.
NJ. Stephen, M.F., 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples, Florida. In:
Nickerson, N.H., Thibodeau, F.R., 1985. Associations between pore Webb Jr., F.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference
water sulfide concentrations and the distribution of mangroves. on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community
Biogeochemistry 1, 183–192. College, Tampa, Florida, pp. 201–216.
National Research Council, 1994. Restoring and Protecting Ma- Stevenson, N.J., Lewis, R.R., Burbridge, P.R., 1999. Disused
rine Habitat-The Role of Engineering and Technology. National shrimp ponds and mangrove rehabilitation. In: Streever, W.J.
Academy Press, Washington, DC. (Ed.), An International Perspective on Wetland Rehabilita-
Perdomo, L., Ensminger, I., Espinosa, L.F., Elster, C., Wallner- tion. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 277–
Kersanach, M., Schnetter, M.-L., 1998. The mangrove ecosystem 297.
of Cienaga Grande de Santa Marta (Colombia): observations on Streever, W.J., 2000. Spartina alterniflora marshes on dredged mate-
regeneration and trace metals in sediment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37 rial: a critical review of the ongoing debate over success. Wetland
(8–12), 393–403. Ecol. Manag. 8 (5), 295–316.
Platong, J., 1998. Status of Mangrove Forests in Southern Thailand. Sullivan, G., 2001. Chapter four. Establishing vegetation in restored
Wetlands International—Thailand Programme. Hat Yai, Thai- and created coastal wetlands. In: Zedler, J.B. (Ed.), Handbook
land, Publication No. 5. for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida,
Rozas, L.P., Zimmerman, R.J., 1994. Developing design parameters pp. 119–155.
for constructing ecologically functional marshes using dredged Thibodeau, F.R., Nickerson, N.H., 1986. Differential oxidation of
material in Galveston Bay, Texas. In: Dredging’94, Proceedings mangrove substrate by Avicennia germinans and Rhizophora
of the second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged mangle. Am. J. Bot. 73, 512–516.
Material Placement, vol. 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Tunhikorn, S., Round, P.D., 1996. The status and conservation
New York, NY, pp. 810–822. needs of migratory shorebirds in Thailand. In: Wells, D.R.,
Rubin, J.A., Gordon, C., Amatekpor, J.K., 1999. Causes and conse- Mundikur, T. (Eds.), Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and
quences of mangrove deforestation in the Volta Estuary, Ghana. Their Wetland Habitats in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway,
Some recommendations for ecosystem restoration. Mar. Pollut. Proceedings of an International Workshop, Kushiro, Japan, 28
Bull. 37 (8–12), 441–449. November–3 December 1994. Wetlands International-Asia Pa-
Saenger, P., 1996. Mangrove restoration in Australia: a case study of cific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Publication No. 116, pp. 119–
Brisbane International Airport. In: Field, C.D. (Ed.), Restoration 132.
of Mangrove Ecosystems. International Society for Mangrove Turner, R.E., Lewis, R.R., 1997. Hydrologic restoration of coastal
Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan, pp. 36–51. wetlands. Wetland Ecol. Manag. 4 (2), 65–72.
Saenger, P., 2002. Mangrove Ecology. In: Silviculture and Conserva- Twilley, R.R., Chen, R., 1998. A water budget and hydrology model
tion. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. of a basin mangrove forest in Rookery Bay, Florida. Mar. Fresh-
Saenger, P., Siddiqi, N.A., 1993. Land from the seas: the mangrove water Res. 49, 309–323.
afforestation program of Bangladesh. Ocean Coastal Manag. 20, Vivian-smith, G., 2001. Box 2.1. Reference data for use in restoring
23–39. Tijuana Estuary. In: Zedler, J.B. (Ed.), Handbook for Restoring
Sanyal, P., 1998. Rehabilitation of degraded mangrove forests of Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 59–63.
the Sunderbans of India. In: Program of the International Work- Watson, J.G., 1928. Mangrove Forests of the Malay Peninsula.
shop on Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems, Phuket Ma- Malayan Forest Records No. 6. Fraser and Neave Ltd., Singapore.
418 R.R. Lewis III / Ecological Engineering 24 (2005) 403–418

Weinstein, M.P., Teal, J.M., Balletto, J.H., Strait, K.A., 2001. Wolanski, E., Mazda, Y., Ridd, P., 1992. Mangrove hydrodynam-
Restoration principles emerging from one of the world’s largest ics. In: Robertson, A.I., Alongi, D.M. (Eds.), Tropical Mangrove
tidal marsh restoration projects. Wetland Ecol. Manag 9 (3), Ecosystems. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp.
387–407. 436–462.
Whitten, A.J., Damanik, S.J., Anwar, J., Hisyam, N., 1987. The Ecol- Zedler, J.B. (Ed.), 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands.
ogy of Sumatra. Gadjah Mada University Press, Indonesia. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.