1
MANGROVES FACING CLIMATE CHANGE: LANDWARD MIGRATION POTENTIAL IN
2
RESPONSE TO PROJECTED SCENARIOS OF SEA LEVEL RISE.
3
4
Di Nitto D.1*, G. Neukermans1, N. Koedam1, H. Defever1, F. Pattyn3,4, J.G. Kairo5 and
5
F. Dahdouh-Guebas1,2
6
7
1 Biocomplexity Research Focus c/o Laboratory of Plant Biology and Nature Management, Mangrove
8
Management Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel - VUB, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.
9
2 Laboratoire d'Écologie des Systèmes et Gestion des Ressources, Département de Biologie des Organismes,
10
Faculté des Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles - ULB, CP 169,Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, B-1050
11
Bruxelles, Belgium.
12
3 Laboratory of Physical Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.
13
4 Unité de Recherche Sciences de la Terre,Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
14
5 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, PO Box 81651, Mombasa, Kenya.
15
16
* Corresponding author: diana.dinitto@gmail.com
1
2
ABSTRACT
3
Mangrove forests prominently occupy an intertidal boundary position where the
4
effects of sea level rise will be fast and well visible. This study in East Africa (Gazi
5
Bay, Kenya) addresses the question whether mangroves can be resilient to a rise in
6
sea level by focusing on their potential to migrate towards landwards areas. The
7
combinatory analysis between remote sensing, DGPS-based ground truth and
8
digital terrain models (DTM) unveils how real vegetation assemblages can shift
9
under different projected [minimum (+9cm), relative (+20cm), average (+48cm) and
10
maximum (+88cm)] scenarios of sea level rise (SLR). Under SLR scenarios up to
11
48 cm by the year 2100, the landward extension remarkably implies an area
12
increase for each of the dominant mangrove assemblages, except for Avicennia
13
marina and Ceriops tagal, both on the landward side. On one hand, the increase of
14
most species in the first 3 scenarios, including the socio-economically most
15
important species in this area, Rhizophora mucronata and C. tagal on the seaward
16
side, strongly depends on the colonisation rate of these species. On the other hand,
17
a SLR scenario of +88 cm by the year 2100 indicates that the area flooded only by
18
equinoctial tides strongly decreases due to the topographical settings at the edge of
19
the
20
assemblages will further decrease as a formation if they fail to adapt to a more
21
frequent inundation. The topography is site-specific; however non-invadable areas
22
can be typical for many mangrove settings.
23
inhabited
area.
Consequently,
the
landward
Avicennia-dominated
1
Keywords: Sea Level Rise – Mangroves – Topography – DTM - Gazi Bay –
2
Inundation – Landward migration – GIS
3
1
2
1. INTRODUCTION
3
4
Inhabiting the interface between land and sea, mangroves are amongst one of the
5
most at-risk ecosystems when sea level rises (McLeod and Salm 2006).
6
Throughout the Quaternary, mangroves have shown high resilience to disruptions
7
from large sea level fluctuations over historic time scales (Woodroffe 1990).
8
However, adaptation probabilities strongly depend on the rates of SLR and
9
sediment supplies in combination with subsurface processes that affect sediment
10
elevation (Gilman E. et al. 2007, Gilman E. L. et al. 2006, McLeod and Salm 2006,
11
Wolanski and Chappell 1996, Woodroffe 1990).
12
suggested that mangroves are stressed by SLRs between 9 and 12 cm over 100
13
years and concluded that faster rates could seriously threaten mangrove
14
ecosystems. This view has been challenged by Snedaker et al. (1994) who cite
15
historical records showing mangrove expansion under relative sea level changes
16
nearly twice that high, however hard scientific data or SLR simulations are not
17
available.
18
As mangrove ecosystems are very dynamic, the ability of these forests to migrate
19
to more landward zones is a very important aspect when considering the effect of
20
SLR on mangroves. If the possibility poses, mangroves will adjust to a SLR by
21
expanding landward or laterally into areas of higher elevation, or even by growing
22
upward in place (McLeod and Salm 2006). However, mangroves areas situated in
23
a physiographic setting that limits landward migration due to obstacles or steep
Ellison and Stoddart (1991)
1
gradients and with a net decrease in sediment elevation or sediment accretion that
2
is insufficient to keep up with SLR, are most vulnerable (Gilman E. L. et al. 2008).
3
On a species level, adaptation can occur through landward migration at different
4
speeds as mangrove species maintain their preferred hydroperiod or by sediment
5
accretion (Gilman E. L. et al. 2008). Mangrove species composition can strongly
6
affect mangrove’s resistance and resilience to SLR given that on the one hand
7
individual species have varying tolerances of the period, frequency, and depth of
8
inundation, and on the other hand different vegetation zones have different rates
9
of change in sedimentation elevation (Krauss et al. 2003, McKee et al. 2007,
10
Rogers et al. 2005). Furthermore, several scientists have also investigated how
11
different functional root types of several mangrove species respond to changes in
12
elevation in order to determine the vulnerability to SLR (Ellison and Stoddart
13
1991, Vincente 1989).
14
Species-specific competition may allow some species to outcompete others and to
15
become more dominant within the newly formed species composition (Lovelock and
16
Ellison 2007). Establishment and dispersal play a significant role in these
17
processes. They are however different for various species and strongly dependent
18
on many biotic factors like buoyancy, period of obligate dispersal, longevity and
19
period of establishment (Allen and Krauss 2006, Clarke et al. 2001, Drexler 2001,
20
Tomlinson 1986), whilst wind and hydrodynamics of tides and currents can be
21
equally important abiotic factors (Stieglitz and Ridd 2001). Additionally, factors
22
like microtopography, top soil type and root structures can also have a significant
23
effect on the fate of propagules once released from their parental tree, as can
24
human induced degradation, like tree cutting (Di Nitto et al. 2008).
1
2
To date, mangroves have been subjected to non-climate related anthropogenic
3
stressors which have accounted for most of the global average annual rate of
4
mangrove loss, estimated to be 1-2%, with losses during the last quarter century
5
ranging from 35 to 86% (Alongi 2002, Duke et al. 2007, FAO 2003, 2007, Valiela et
6
al. 2001). So far, relative SLR has been a smaller threat to mangroves. However,
7
it may constitute a substantial proportion of predicted losses (about 10-20% of total
8
estimated losses) as several studies have already shown that many mangrove
9
areas have not been keeping pace with current rates of relative SLR (Cahoon et al.
10
2006, Gilman E. et al. 2007, McKee et al. 2007). We would like to emphasize the
11
importance of understanding mangrove responses to SLR as these ecosystems
12
provide tremendous social, economic and ecological value (Barbier 2003, Dahdouh-
13
Guebas F. et al. 2005, Mumby et al. 2004, Nagelkerken et al. 2008, Walters et al.
14
2008, Wells et al. 2006).
15
16
This study focuses on the critical factor ‘tidal range’ in order to investigate the
17
potential for landward migration of mangrove vegetation assemblages in Gazi Bay
18
(Kenya) under different SLR scenarios. As mangroves species have their preferred
19
hydroperiod, the vegetation distribution in the different inundation classes at
20
present is extrapolated towards future SLR scenarios based on a static mangrove
21
surface elevation. Digital terrain modelling is derived from differential GPS field
22
measurements and used to simulate water levels in a GIS environment.
23
combination with a mangrove species map, preliminary results are generated
24
regarding the effect of SLR in the study site in Gazi Bay (Kenya). The focus
In
1
resides on individual mangrove species and their possible colonization of back-
2
mangrove areas that become accessible when sea level rises.
3
adopt a reductionistic approach by taking abstraction of alterations in
4
sedimentation and elevation and to other consequences of global change such as
5
increases in temperature, CO2 concentration and storm frequency and possible
6
shifts in seasonal periods (Pernetta 1993, UNEP 1994, Woodroffe 1990, Woodroffe
7
and Grime 1999). However we feel that, in this context, relevant conclusions can
8
be made. First of all, this study represents the first attempt to simulate the effect
9
of SLR based on a large amount of detailed information on topography and
We deliberately
10
vegetation covering the whole bay.
11
gathered valuable information within this study area on diverse subjects like
12
regeneration, vegetation structure dynamics, human impacts and
13
dispersal (e.g. Abuodha and Kairo 2001, Bosire J. O. et al. 2003, Bosire J. O. et al.
14
2008b, Dahdouh-Guebas Farid and Koedam 2006, Dahdouh-Guebas F. et al.
15
2002a, Di Nitto et al. 2008, Kairo J. G. et al. 2001, Kirui et al. 2008, Neukermans
16
et al. 2008). The latter gives us the opportunity to draw preliminary conclusions on
17
the potential for landward migration of mangroves in Gazi Bay and to create some
18
views on the future vegetation structure dynamics, which can contribute to their
19
resilience to SLR. Resilience here understood as the survival of the formation, even
20
if displaced in space.
21
Secondly, many researchers have already
propagule
1
2
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3
4
2.1. Study area
5
6
Gazi Bay (4° 26’ S, 39° 30’ E) is a shallow tropical water system situated circa
7
40km south of the historic port (Kilindini) of Mombasa (Figure 1). The mangrove
8
forest covers an area of approximately 6.5 km² and is drained by two tidal creeks.
9
The tidal regime within the bay is semi-diurnal with a macro tidal range of 3.5 m
10
and an ebb dominant asymmetry (Kitheka 1996, 1997).
Ten East African
11
mangrove species are present within this bay fringed with mangrove forests,
12
seagrass beds, and coral reefs, more specifically Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh.,
13
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (L.) Lam., Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C. B. Robinson, Heritiera
14
littoralis Dryand., Lumnitzera racemosa Willd., Rhizophora mucronata Lam.,
15
Sonneratia alba Sm., Xylocarpus granatum Koen, a second yet unidentified
16
Xylocarpus species, and Pemphis acidula Forst. (Gallin et al. 1989) (nomenclature
17
according to Tomlinson (1986)).
18
conducted throughout the western part of the bay during two dry periods (July-
19
August 2003 and 2005).
20
Mangrove species distribution within this study area was obtained by Neukermans
21
et al. (2008).
22
image was performed in combination with ground truthing based on vegetation
23
transects by the Point-Centered-Quarter Method (PCQM+) of Dahdouh-Guebas
Topographical measurements (see 2.2) were
A classification of a Standard QuickBird multispectral satellite
1
and Koedam (2006). The two socio-economically most important species within this
2
study area, R. mucronata and C. tagal (Dahdouh-Guebas F. et al. 2000, Dahdouh-
3
Guebas F. et al. 2004a), are mapped with User’s Accuracies above 85 percent,
4
whereas all four dominant mangrove species (A. marina (on the seaward side (Sw)
5
and the landwards side (Lw)), S. alba, R. mucronata and C. tagal (Sw and Lw)) are
6
mapped with an Overall Accuracy (OA) of 72 percent.
7
8
2.2. Topographical field survey and construction of a DTM
9
10
The aim of the topographical field surveys was to construct a digital terrain model
11
(DTM) in order to simulate water levels at present and for different
12
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios of SLR (for
13
explanation on IPCC scenarios, see 2.3). Measurements were carried out using a
14
Leica GPS-AT302 which is a centimeter-precise differential global positioning
15
system (DGPS) with a fixed reference station and a mobile rover station. Since a
16
dense mangrove cover disrupts the DGPS signal, a stratified design was applied
17
targeting the low-cover mangroves, back-mangrove areas, tidal mudflats and
18
creeks. Resolution of the DTM varies from 1m in the topographically ‘rough’ areas
19
to 50m in areas characterized by a relatively flat and even surface. All DGPS
20
points were post-processed in SKI (Static Kinematic Program) and after converting
21
these geographical coordinates into projected coordinates (WGS 1984, UTM zone
22
37S) and assigning their absolute height, a thorough knowledge of the field was
23
used to add extra points and breaklines in order to eventually optimize the
1
constructed DTM. As the height measurements of these points are relative, we
2
followed the high water line of a chosen spring tide on two consecutive days and
3
collected the X-Y-Z data of 116 points using the DGPS. Based on the Kilindini tide
4
tables (Kenya Ports Authority, KPA) the approximated absolute height of the
5
water was calculated, and the relative elevations in the DTM converted to
6
approximate absolute field topography. We recognize a temporal delay in tides
7
between Mombasa and Gazi Bay, however this does not influence our study.
8
The final coordinates resulting from the topographical measurements were
9
inserted into a geographical information system (GIS) and served as an input to
10
create a triangular irregular network (TIN) of the area. The TIN was based on the
11
(non-constrained) Delauney triangulation of the original set of points by use of
12
Voronoi diagrams, a theory for which we refer to Raper (1990). In this paper it is
13
not the intention to investigate in-depth the impact of these elevation errors
14
through Principal Component Analysis (Lopez 1997) but we give an estimation of
15
the absolute mean error and the standard deviation in densely covered and less
16
densely covered areas. After extracting 30 points respectively from each of the
17
latter areas, the TIN was reconstructed and height values were re-assessed for
18
these particular points.
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2.3. Spatial analyses
2
3
IPCC has predicted several SLR scenarios [+ 9cm (minimum), +20cm (relative),
4
+48 cm (average) and + 88 cm (maximum)] by the year 2100 (IPCC 2001)1 based on
5
atmosphere-ocean general circulation models and emission scenarios incorporating
6
uncertainties regarding changes in terrestrial ice, permafrost and sediment
7
deposition. The main purpose of the spatial analyses is to predict possible changes
8
in vegetation assemblages under these different scenarios of SLR.
9
This modelling exercise mainly focuses on the potential of mangroves to migrate
10
towards landward areas, but it is solely based on sea level rise relative to a static
11
mangrove surface elevation. In this stage, data on sediment related changes are
12
not available, however we do not underestimate the importance of sediment in
13
mangrove vegetation dynamics in view of SLR.
14
The modelling exercise started with an assessment of the current species related
15
zonation or spatial structure present in Gazi Bay. First of all, the height
16
boundaries for each inundation class according to Watson (1928) (Table 1) was
17
defined based on the combination of the tide tables (July 2003-July 2004)
18
published by the KPA and the monthly inundation frequencies per class (Table 1).
19
In further analysis, inundation frequencies higher than those of ‘class 1’ will be
20
referred to as ‘class 0’. Using ArcGIS 8.2, these boundaries were classified into
We based our analysis on SLR scenarios of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) (2001) and
not on those of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007), which respectively forecast a range
from 9cm - 88cm by 2100 and a range from 18cm-59cm by 2090-2099. The reason is the following:
due to lacking of published literature, AR4 models do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon
cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow. The AR4 projections
however include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the
rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. The
AR4 could have similar ranges to those of TAR if uncertainties were treated in the same way.
1
1
inundation classes based on the DTM for the current scenario versus different
2
IPCC scenarios of eustatic SLR. The relative scenario of +20 cm coincides with the
3
current trend of SLR within the long-term dataset (1985-2003) obtained from
4
gauge measurements by the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute at the
5
Kilindini Port in Mombasa.
6
Observing System’ (GLOSS) founded by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
7
Commission (IOC) of the UNESCO.
8
Secondly, an overlay between the vegetation map and the current inundation
9
classes (Figure 2-B) gives an estimation of the vegetation surface of each species
This initiative is part of the ‘Global Sea Level
10
within each inundation class.
11
classification of the vegetation, it is important to investigate whether the
12
distribution of the species within the inundation classes deviate from a random
13
distribution. To perform the statistical analyses, the complete area was divided
14
into 10 equally sized blocks.
15
calculated of each species in all inundation classes of the current situation.
16
Secondly, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to compare the observed
17
cumulative distribution function to a theoretical normal distribution, whereafter
18
Kruskal-Wallis tests were completed to investigate if the vegetation distribution
19
within the inundation classes is random. Since the species concerned are not
20
randomly distributed, extrapolations of the vegetation structure towards future
21
IPCC scenarios of SLR were performed. The area increase (%) of each inundation
22
class within each scenario was calculated in relation to the current situation where
23
after these percentages were multiplied by the current vegetation area (ha).
24
To review the accuracy of the DTM and/or the
Within each block the areal coverage (ha) was
1
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
2
3
A source of uncertainty in the input data is the DTM’s absolute height which was
4
calibrated using Kilindini port gauge measurements. To address the sensitivity of
5
the model to the absolute height uncertainty of the DTM, we investigated the
6
impact of changes in the height boundaries of the inundation classes. Upper and
7
lower height boundaries are slightly altered at a time and in a systematic manner,
8
more specifically by an increase and decrease of these boundary intervals with 5,
9
10 and 15% corresponding to 4, 6 and 8cm. The comparison between the reference
10
map (Figure 2-C1) and the output maps after altering the height boundaries was
11
assessed with an error matrix, giving Overall (OA), User’s (UA) and Producer’s
12
Accuracies (PA) (calculations see Appendix A).
13
3. RESULTS
14
15
3.1. Construction and validation of the Digital Terrain Model
16
17
The DTM of the study area is shown in Fig. 2-A. After post-processing in SKI, 4105
18
points were accepted with an average error on X, Y and Z of respectively 1.16 cm,
19
2.08 cm and 0.89 cm, whereafter several breaklines and 82 extra points were
20
manually added to optimize the DTM.
21
however crucial and had to be added as estimates (based on measurements within
22
the creek) due to high mangrove coverage. Absolute mean error and standard
Breaklines along the creek banks are
1
deviation for densely covered and less densely covered areas are respectively
2
0.013m ± 0.106 and 0.089m ± 0.374.
3
4
3.2. Simulation of Sea Level Rise scenarios
5
6
The current situation covers a total (studied) area of 423.43ha, of which the
7
regularly flooded area and the non-flooded area respectively encompass 386.53ha
8
and 36.90ha.
9
scenarios (Figure 2-C1 to C5), we can conclude that there is an overall trend of
10
transgression into the terrestrial areas. Especially the maximum scenario (+88cm)
11
represents a significant area increase of ‘class 0’ and ‘class1 (AHT)’ (for
12
abbreviations see Figure 2-C). More specifically, the % area increase of these 2
13
classes from the current situation towards the maximum scenario of SLR is
14
respectively 245 and 103%. After calculating the extent of each mangrove species
15
within each current inundation class, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were completed
16
with results showing significance values < 0.05 for each species. The vegetation
17
distribution is therefore not normal and nonparametric techniques have to be used
18
for further analyses.
19
distribution of the vegetation within the inundation classes is not random; all
20
significance values are < 0.05. Each species evaluated within the area has a
21
preference for certain inundation classes confirming the occurrence of a specific
22
zonation or spatial structure in Gazi Bay and therefore also an adequate accuracy
23
of the field measurements.
24
When looking at the inundation classes within the different
The following Kruskal-Wallis test proved that the
1
Due to the errors on the classification of the vegetation map (see 2.1 and
2
Neukermans et al. 2008)and the topographical measurements, the total area (ha)
3
occupied by each mangrove species within the whole study area (TMA) does not
4
fully coincide with the total area (ha) occupied by each mangrove species within
5
the inundation classes at present (TMAI). This however does not exceed values
6
between 2 and 12 (Table 2), except for Sonneratia alba which mainly occurs in
7
‘class 0’ (38%) & ‘class 1 (AHT)’ (35%), consequently being the only species with a
8
high difference between TMA and TMAI of 61%. The high discrepancy between
9
TMA and TMAI for S. alba could be explained by a possible lower accuracy of the
10
DTM at the breaklines marking the creek bank.
11
All other species appear to have an adequate distribution within the whole study
12
area: Avicennia marina Sw (seaward) mainly resides in ‘class 1 (AHT)’ (26%) &
13
‘class 2 (MHT)’ (45%), Rhizophora mucronata mainly appears in respectively ‘class
14
2 (MHT)’ (53%) and ‘class 3 (NHT)’ (22%), whilst Ceriops tagal, which is an inner
15
mangrove, occupies the areas in several mid classes. A. marina Lw (landward)
16
dominates the landward classes with 35% ‘in class 4 (SHT)’. An extrapolation of
17
changes in vegetation assemblages towards future scenarios (Figure 3-A)
18
demonstrates that, in comparison to the average scenario of SLR (+48cm), all
19
species will decrease in the maximum scenario (+88cm), resulting in a decline of
20
13% in 100 years.
21
scenario most species show a possible area increase, this is not the case for A.
22
marina Lw as this species will diminish throughout all scenarios with a highest
23
decrease of 60% in the maximum scenario.
24
economically most important species R. mucronata and C. tagal in the most
Although throughout the minimum, relative and average
When considering the two socio-
1
probable relative scenario of +20cm SLR, an area increase of 15% occurs in
2
comparison to the current situation. Finally, the area proportions between the
3
total mangrove area, the non-flooded area and ‘class 0’ are shown in Fig. 3-B as %
4
increase or decrease compared to the current situation. The maximum scenario
5
shows a considerable decrease in total mangrove area of 13% whereas for the
6
relative scenario this area increases with 4%. Most remarkable increase is for the
7
area ‘class 0’, namely 245% in comparison to the current situation.
8
9
10
3.3. Sensitivity analysis and error matrix for map comparison or accuracy
assessment
11
12
Table B.1. (see Appendix B) shows the results of the error matrices for map
13
comparison or accuracy assessment. When comparing the vegetation distribution
14
within adjusted height boundaries for each inundation class, the outcome appears
15
to be relatively sensitive to an increase or decrease of 15%. The overall accuracy,
16
with a comparable outcome for Khat , fluctuates between 87.34 to 65.88 % when
17
considering an increase or decrease up to 10 %, yet strongly declines towards 53.61
18
to 48.02% when height boundaries of each inundation class are adjusted with 15%.
19
As the applied vegetation classification confirms the occurrence of a specific
20
zonation or spatial structure in Gazi Bay, which is highly related to inundation
21
patterns, we can conclude that sensitivity to alterations in topography can be
22
significant from a certain limit and should therefore be aligned to vegetation
23
distributions when data is available.
24
1
4. DISCUSSION
2
3
This study was to investigate whether mangrove assemblages in Gazi Bay have
4
the potential to migrate to more landward areas, which can contribute to their
5
resilience to SLR (Figure 4), understood as the survival of the formation within the
6
site. Although the focus of this study was mainly on tidal range, we emphasize the
7
importance of sediment supply, especially for scenarios of SLR higher than
8
20cm/100y (relative scenario).
9
strongly depends on the physiographic setting in which these ecosystems occur,
10
human activities that are carried out in the wetland and on how species-specific
11
competition and adaptation will unfold. There is no clear-cut answer that can be
12
applied to global mangrove coverage, yet by studying this particular mangrove
13
area with a macrotidal regime and a common vegetation zonation along a gentle
14
slope gradient from land to sea, extrapolations can be made to areas with similar
15
characteristics.
16
4.1. Vegetation dynamics of mangrove assemblages under different
17
scenarios of SLR
Whether mangroves can be resilient to SLR
18
19
Bearing in mind the reductionistic approach, the extent of the most common
20
assemblages, apart from Avicennia marina and Ceriops tagal on the landward
21
side (Lw), are forecasted to increase in surface under the different scenarios of SLR
22
(except for the maximum scenario of +88cm). This forecast is in line with a few
23
earlier reports that current sea-level rise rates do not pose a threat to mangrove
1
ecosystems (e.g. McKee et al. 2007, Snedaker et al. 1994, Tan and Zhang 1997),
2
but contradicts many others (e.g. Ellison and Stoddart 1991, Fujimoto and Miyagi
3
1990, Parkinson et al. 1994, Pernetta 1993).
4
uncertainties regarding the impact of global change on mangrove growth and
5
development, such contradictions are not unexpected.
6
reductionistic approach focuses on tidal range and the possible dispersal range of
7
propagules, but it does not take into account the biogeomorphological capacity to
8
maintain or to protect a mangrove forest.
9
Landward migration of mangroves in Gazi Bay appears to be limited under the
10
maximum scenario as the highest intertidal inundation class strongly decreases
11
due to the topographical settings at the edge of the inhabited area. Consequently,
12
the landward Avicennia-dominated assemblages will continue to decrease if they
13
fail to adapt to a more frequent inundation or if competition with other species will
14
prevail. Dahdouh-Guebas et al. (2004a) made a prediction of future vegetation
15
structure in Gazi Bay based on retrospective remote sensing, social surveys and
16
tree distribution and results show that the surface extent of A. marina on the
17
landward side has been reducing since 1972. Furthermore, the current situation
18
in Gazi Bay is characterized by large bare and sandy sites on the landward side
19
which have remained in the same state for a substantial time, at least, no
20
colonization was observed for ca.16 yrs (pers. obs). When landward areas are
21
accessible during SLR, dispersal and early growth become important stages in a
22
plant life that fundamentally determine community structure and population
23
dynamics (Clarke et al. 2001, Sousa et al. 2007).
24
complex. A dense mangrove forest can provide an adequate propagule supply for
However, considering the
In addition, our
These processes are very
1
dispersal towards newly colonisable areas, but (1) as Clarke et al. (2001) stated,
2
establishment of young trees is mainly related to the presence of parental trees
3
while this is not so much the case for juveniles and the hydrochorous dispersal of
4
propagules, and (2) suitability for stranding or self-planting of propagules is
5
strongly dependent on the presence of root structures (which can facilitate the
6
entanglement of propagules) and the compactness of the soil (clay or silt
7
dominated) (Di Nitto et al. 2008).
8
As in other transitional systems, plant establishment and community succession is
9
driven by tolerance to physiological stress and plant-plant interactions (Bertness
10
1991, Milbrandt and Tinsley 2006), hence species-specific competition could signify
11
a natural blockage for landward migration of mangroves. Yet, in several cases
12
facilitation is a common mechanism of succession in terrestrial habitats, meaning
13
that an early colonizer changes the abiotic conditions in a way that allows an entry
14
and finally a displacement of a second species to a previous intolerable habitat
15
(Connell and Slayter 1977). This was f.i. the case for (1) saltwort (Batis maritima
16
L.) as it was identified as an abundant initial colonizer of an extensive black
17
mangrove (Avicennia germinans L.) die-off area (Milbrandt & Rinsley, 2006) and
18
(2) saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora Loisel.) being a potential initial soil
19
stabilizer creating successional stages firstly for Laguncularia racemosa (L.) C.F.
20
Gaertn which is secondly outshaded and replaced by Avicennia schaueriana Stapf
21
& Leechm. ex Mold. (Cunha-Lignon et al. 2009).
22
The reported forecasts can also have an important socio-ecological implication.
23
Although the forest adjacent to the village has long been over-exploited for wood
24
and decreased in area, anthropogenic disturbance has diminished over the last
1
years and some mangrove assemblages have even expanded (Dahdouh-Guebas F.
2
et al. 2004a). An increase in mangrove area under different scenarios of SLR,
3
provided that it does not go at the expense of qualitative degradation, may imply
4
an increase in anthropogenic threats like f.i. traditional utilisation (McLeod and
5
Salm 2006). Clear felling of mangroves species can have severe consequences for
6
future vegetation dynamics. Furthermore, most mangrove creeks (as the case in
7
Gazi Bay) are characterized by the occurrence of time-velocity asymmetry in which
8
ebb flow is more dominant than flood flow (Kitheka 1997, 1998, Kitheka et al.
9
2002).
Sediment trapping occurs during incoming flood tides and there is no
10
significant export of sediments during ebb tide (Furukawa and Wolanski 1996,
11
Wattayakorn et al. 1990), however degradation of mangroves can lower trapping
12
efficiency (Kitheka et al. 2002), consequently increasing vulnerability to sea level
13
rise.
14
15
4.2. Vegetation dynamics of individual species under different scenarios of
16
SLR
17
18
When landward areas become accessible for the migration and colonization of
19
mangrove species, we have to ask the same question as Alongi (p4, 2008): “Are
20
trends in mangrove forest replacement in response to catastrophic disturbances
21
the result of somewhat deterministic sequences as in terrestrial forests, or are they
22
the result of a stochastic, ‘first come, first served’ opportunistic response or
23
neither?”.
24
distinct succession stages, yet early sequences of species replacement are greatly
Empirical data supports the idea that recovery is stochastic with
1
influenced by species present at initial recovery (Alongi 2008, Clarke et al. 2001,
2
Sousa et al. 2007). Within this study the extrapolation of the present vegetation
3
distribution towards scenarios under a rising sea level is based on species-specific
4
preference for certain inundation frequencies. The survival of these species in
5
their shift in a more landward direction is strongly dependent on their colonisation
6
rate and interspecific competition.
7
Sonneratia alba appears in vegetation zones that are daily inundated and are
8
never submitted to large salinity variations (Tomlinson 1986). When sea level
9
rises, this species is forecasted to increase in area (except under the maximum
10
scenario), yet as investigated by Dahdouh-Guebas et al. (2004a) the juvenile layer
11
within these S. alba stands is limited and propagule establishment is hampered by
12
currents that are generally known to be strongest along the seaward side (Diop et
13
al. 2001). The distribution of the young individuals of S. alba is more related to the
14
adult trees, whereas juveniles are generally spread over a wider area (Dahdouh-
15
Guebas F. et al. 2004a). The latter also applies for the species Avicennia marina
16
on the seaward side (Sw). Furthermore, Imai et al. (2006) verified that S. alba
17
seedlings and saplings, which require sunny conditions for their growth, were
18
more abundant in gaps than in the understorey.
19
landward species as Rhizophora mucronata might demonstrate that an area
20
increase of S. alba could be overestimated by our analyses. However, colonisation
21
by S. alba on seaward sand banks has occurred throughout the years.
22
Additionally, bearing in mind the site-specific rates of sea level rise and sediment
23
input rates, Ellison & Stoddart (1991) claimed that mangrove ecosystems can keep
24
pace with SLR of 8-9cm per 100 year making seaward expansion and colonisation
The most seaward mangrove species
Competition with a more
1
of these daily inundated areas possible. Rates of 9-12cm per 100 year cause stress
2
and adjustment to higher rates is unlikely. The minimum scenario of SLR (+9cm)
3
could in fact provide an additional and suitable habitat for S. alba and A. marina
4
(Sw).
5
R. mucronata and Ceriops tagal are two economically valuable pioneer species that
6
will most likely increase as predicted, unless anthropogenic impact rises.
7
Multivariate vegetation structure analysis showed that C. tagal is very abundant
8
in the understorey of assemblages dominated by other mangroves, which could
9
camouflage a dynamic shift (Dahdouh-Guebas F. et al. 2004a). R. mucronata and
10
C. tagal already occupy the mid zone within the mangrove area and knowledge on
11
the dispersal of their propagules indicates that prop roots and pencil roots clearly
12
have the ability to entangle propagules and that preference of propagule dispersal
13
goes to flat areas and substrates with a more compact soil structure (clay, silt) (Di
14
Nitto et al. 2008).
15
represented by a further siltation along the seaward sand bank creating a patch of
16
arid conditions and higher light intensity more favourable for A. marina
17
(Dahdouh-Guebas F. et al. 2004a).
18
Avicennia marina (Lw) will have to adapt to longer inundation frequencies. It is
19
known that this species can tolerate high salinity variation, so could the double
20
zonation of this species on the landward side versus the same species on the
21
seaward side support the idea of dynamic adaptation? Genetic analyses based on
22
48 RAPD (Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA) loci have demonstrated that 4
23
DNA fragments show a slight differentiation in allelic frequency between the two
24
A. marina stands in spite of their short distance separation (Dahdouh-Guebas F. et
One disadvantage for R. mucronata could however be
1
al. 2004b).
This indicates that there is less genetic exchange between the
2
disjunctive stands than within one stand, consequently suggesting that an
3
ecological or physical barrier might exists.
4
dispersal of propagules in both directions however obstruction by complex root
5
structures can prevent this exchange. Additionally, interspecific competition with
6
the adjacent species C. tagal could disadvantage A. marina as McCusker (1977)
7
confirms that a salinity increase causes a reduction in water use efficiency for the
8
seedlings of Rhizophora, but not for Ceriops. Furthermore, an elevated CO2 level
9
will enhance the efficiency of water use (UNEP 1994), however this advantage is
10
lost when salinity becomes too high for instance at low inundation frequency areas
11
at the landward side.
12
temperature, since this species has lowest optimal temperature for leaf
13
development (Hutchings and Saenger 1987).
14
There are several well-established physiologic mechanisms influencing mangrove
15
community composition (Duke et al. 1998, McKee 1995), yet research is needed on
16
interspecies interactions influencing mangrove forest regeneration in post-
17
disturbance mangrove communities.
Tidal range might facilitate the
Another drawback for A. marina is an increase of
18
19
4.3. Recommendation for further research and management strategies
20
21
In the light of mangrove ecosystem stresses caused by climate change, managers
22
face the dual challenge of selecting and implementing conservation strategies in
23
order to maintain and restore resilient mangrove forests.
1
In this study the emphasis resides on tidal range and not on sediment supply,
2
however, we give a preliminary vulnerability assessment of this mangrove area
3
based on a slightly adjusted decision tree (Figure 5) to aid resilient site selection
4
for mangroves by McLeod & Salm (2006). This decision tree was applied after
5
appointing Gazi Bay as a high biodiversity candidate site based on biological and
6
environmental criteria (Table C.1, see Appendix C). Decisions were made based on
7
available literature involving the mangrove area in Gazi Bay and the relative SLR
8
scenario of +20 cm, which coincides with the current trend along the Kenyan
9
Coast.
10
Following this decision tree, the mangrove area in Gazi Bay appears to be
11
adequately resilient for at least 100 years and can most likely be appointed as a
12
Marine Protected Area (MPA). However we do not intend to focus only on MPA’s,
13
yet we want to anticipate to a future scenario of sea level rise and indicate gaps in
14
on the one hand scientific and on the other hand site-specific knowledge that
15
necessitates further research. Given (1) the macrotidal regime and permanent
16
rivers and creeks that provide freshwater and sediment (mainly during wet
17
season), (2) the knowledge that the drainage basin of both Mkurumuji and
18
Kidogoweni rivers, which extend into the coastal ranges of the Nature Reserve
19
‘Shimba Hills’, has limited anthropogenic pressures with respect to the intactness
20
of the hydrological regime, and (3) that landward migration in Gazi Bay is possible
21
under the relative scenario of sea level rise, the decision tree leads us towards the
22
question whether recruitment is strong. The answer is definitely ‘yes’, however we
23
feel that the possibility of a shift in vegetation structure needs to be implemented,
1
rendering Gazi Bay into a site that is ‘Maybe OK for MPA’. According to McLeod &
2
Salm (2006) the decision tree would have led towards ‘Good choice for MPA’.
3
4
The recommendations for further research and management strategies, which can
5
be applied globally, are the following: 1) identifying an early colonizer to promote
6
early establishment of mangrove seedlings, 2) measuring changes in elevation by
7
means of Surface Elevation Tables (SETs), 3) Assuring the possibility of landward
8
migration and (4) investigating propagule dispersal by combined hydrodynamic
9
and ecological behaviour modeling.
10
11
1
Appendix A: Calculation of an error matrix for map comparison or
2
accuracy assessment
3
4
Map 1= raster grid of n classes as a model output
5
6
Map 2= raster grid of n classes from an alternative model or comparison reference
7
layer.
8
9
Producer’s accuracy (PA)
10
11
Takes into account the accuracy of individual classes and therefore indicates the
12
probability of the cell value in Map 2 being the same as in Map 1.
13
14
= xii / x+i * 100%
15
16
xii= total number of correct cells in a class
17
x+i= sum of cell values in the column
18
19
User’s accuracy (UA)
20
21
Takes into account the accuracy of individual classes but indicates the probability
22
of the cell value in Map 1 being the same as in Map 2.
23
1
= xii / xi+ * 100%
2
3
xii= total number of correct cells in a class
4
xi+= sum of cell values in the row
5
6
Overall Accuracy (OA)
7
8
Summarizes the total agreement / disagreement between the maps and
9
incorporates the major diagonal while excluding the omission and the commission
10
errors.
11
12
= D/ N * 100%
13
D= total number correct cells as summed along the major diagonal
14
N= total number of cells in the error matrix
15
16
Khat
17
18
Measure of agreement or accuracy based on KAPPA analysis to compare maps of
19
similar categories in order to determine if they are significantly different
20
21
=N ((Σri=1 xii - Σri=1 (xi+ * x+i)) / (N² - Σri=1 (xi+ * x+i)))
22
23
r= number of rows in the matrix
24
xii= total number correct cells in a class (i.e. value in row i and column i)
1
xi+= total for row i
2
x+i= total for column i
3
N= total number of cells in the error matrix
4
Appendix B
Input parameter
Adjustments in Comparison
input criteria
of
vegetation
distributions
within the adjusted inundation classes
Overall accuracy
K hat
(%)
(%)
Inundation
+5%
87.34
85.34
classes
+10%
76.67
75.3 1
(height
+15%
48.02
49.61
boundaries)
-5%
78.09
75.28
-10%
65.88
65.39
-15%
53.61
50.72
5
6
Table B.1: Results of the error matrices for map comparison or accuracy assessment when
7
comparing the vegetation distribution within adjusted height boundaries for the inundation
8
classes. Values represent the overall accuracy and Khat in percentages.
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
Appendix C: Mangrove resilience factors: Case study: Gazi Bay, Kenya
2
Factors that allow for peat building to keep up with sea-level rise
Association with drainage systems including permanent rivers and
Applicable to Gazi Bay
Literature available
Yes / No
per factor
Yes
creeks that provide
(e.g. Dahdouh-
freshwater and sediment
Guebas F. et al.
2004a, Kitheka
Sediment rich-macrotidal environments to facilitate sediment
Yes
1996, 1997,
Njambuya 2006,
redistribution and accretion
Obade et al. 2004,
Actively prograding coast and delta
Yes
Ohowa et al. 1997)
Natural features (bays, barrier islands, beaches, sandbars, reefs)
that reduce wave erosion and storm surge
Yes
Factors that allow for landward migration
(e.g. Di Nitto et al.
Mangroves backed by low-lying retreat areas (for example, salt
flats, marshes, coastal
No/Yes
2008, Neukermans
in certain places
et al. 2008, Obade et
plains) which may provide suitable habitat for colonization and
al. 2004)
landward movement of mangroves as sea level rises
Mangroves in remote areas and distant from human settlements
and agriculture, aquaculture, and salt production developments
Yes
Mangroves in areas where abandoned alternate land use provides
opportunities for
Yes,
unmanaged coconut plantations
restoration, for example, flooded villages, tsunami-prone land,
unproductive ponds
Factors that enhance sediment distribution and propagule dispersal
Unencumbered tidal creeks and areas with a large tidal range to
Yes
(e.g. De Ryck 2009,
improve flushing, reduce ponding and stagnation, and enhance
Di Nitto et al. 2008,
sediment distribution and propagule dispersal
Kitheka 1996, 1997,
Ohowa et al. 1997)
Areas with a large tidal range may be better able to adjust to
increases in sea level due to stress tolerance
Yes
Permanent strong currents to redistribute sediment and maintain
Yes
open channels
Factors that indicate survival over time
(e.g. Beeckman et
Diverse species assemblage and clear zonation over range of
Yes
elevation (intertidal to dry land)
al. 1989, Bosire J.
et al. 2008a, Bosire
J. O. et al. 2006,
Range in size from new recruits to maximum size class (location
Yes
Dahdouh-Guebas F.
et al. 2002a,
and species dependent)
Dahdouh-Guebas F.
Tidal creek and channel banks consolidated by continuous dense
Yes
mangrove forest (which will keep these channels open)
et al. 2004a,
Dahdouh-Guebas F.
et al. 2002b, Kairo
Healthy mangrove systems in areas which have been exposed to
No
J.G. 2001, Kairo J.
large increases in sea level due to climate induced sea-level rise
G. et al. 2001,
and tectonic subsidence
Neukermans et al.
2008, Tack et al.
1992, Van Tendeloo
2004)
Factors that indicate strong recovery potential
Access to healthy supply of propagules, either internally or from
Yes
adjacent mangrove areas
Strong mangrove recruitment indicated by the presence, variety,
Yes
and abundance of
established mangrove propagules
Close proximity and connectivity to neighbouring stands of healthy
Yes
mangroves
Access to sediment and freshwater
Yes
Limited anthropogenic stress
Yes,
no major residential area in the
vicinity, selected as a fairly pristine
East African site in the EU
PUMPSEA project:
http://www.pumpsea.icat.fc.ul.pt
Unimpeded or easily restorable hydrological regime
Yes
Effective management regime in place such as the control of usual
Yes
threats like dredging and filling, conversion to aquaculture ponds,
construction of dams, roads, and dikes that disrupt hydrological
regime etc.
Integrated
Coastal
Management
Plan
or
Protected
Area
Yes/No
Management Plan implemented
1
Table C.1: Mangrove resilience factors that inform site selection (according to McLeod & Salm, 2006) Case study: Gazi Bay, Kenya
1
2
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
4
Many thanks are due to the people of Gazi Bay, more specifically Latifa S.
5
Ba’alawy and her relatives for the hospitable family environment and R. Abdul for
6
the assistance on the field. This research was funded the Flemish Interuniversity
7
Council (VLIR) and the Fonds David & Alice Van Buuren. D.D. has a VLIR PhD
8
Scholarship. This work was in part presented at (1) the International Symposium
9
of Aquatic Vascular Plants (ISAVP) (January 11–13, 2006, Brussels, Belgium) (2)
10
the 7th International Symposium on GIS and Computer Cartography for Coastal
11
Zone Management (CoastGIS) (July 12–16, 2006, Wollongong, Australia) and (3)
12
MMM3 Meeting on Mangrove ecology, functioning and Management (2-6 July
13
2012, Galle, Sri Lanka).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
6. REFERENCES
Abuodha PAW, Kairo JG. 2001. Human-induced stresses on mangrove swamps along the Kenyan
coast. Hydrobiologia 458: 255-265.
Allen JA, Krauss KW. 2006. Influence of propagule flotation longevity and light availability on
establishment of introduced mangrove species in Hawaii. Pacific Science 60: 367-376.
Alongi DM. 2002. Present state and future of the world's mangrove forests. Environmental
Conservation 29: 331-349.
—. 2008. Mangrove forests: Resilience, protection from tsunamis, and responses to global climate
change. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 76: 1-13.
Barbier EB. 2003. Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemporary
Economic Policy 21: 59-77.
Beeckman H, Gallin E, Coppejans E. 1989. Indirect gradient analysis of the mangal formation of
Gazi Bay (Kenya). Silva Gandavensis 54: 57-72.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Bertness MD. 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt
marsh. Journal of Ecology 72: 125-137.
Bosire J, Kairo JG, Kazungu J, Koedam N, Dahdouh-Guebas F. 2008a. Spatial and temporal
regeneration dynamics in Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B. Rob. (Rhizophoraceae) mangrove forests in
Kenya. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 7: 69-80.
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Koedam N. 2003. Colonization of non-planted mangrove
species into restored mangrove stands in Gazi Bay, Kenya. Aquatic Botany 76: 267-279.
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Wartel S, Kazungu J, Koedam N. 2006. Success rates of
recruited tree species and their contribution to the structural development of reforested mangrove
stands. Marine Ecology Progress Series 325: 85-91.
Bosire JO, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Walton M, Crona BI, Lewis RR, Field C, Kairo JG, Koedam N.
2008b. Functionality of restored mangroves: A review. Aquatic Botany 89: 251-259.
Cahoon DR, Hensel PF, Spencer T, Reed DJ, McKee KL, Saintilan N. 2006. Coastal wetland
vulnerability to relative sea-level rise: Wetland elevation trends and process controls. Wetlands and
Natural Resource Management 190: 271-292.
Clarke PJ, Kerrigan RA, Westphal CJ. 2001. Dispersal potential and early growth in 14 tropical
mangroves: do early life history traits correlate with patterns of adult distribution? Journal of
Ecology 89: 648-659.
Connell JH, Slayter RO. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in
community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119-1144.
Cunha-Lignon M, Mahiques MM, Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Rodrigues M, Klein DA, Goya SC, Menghini
RP, Tolentino CV, Cintrón-Molero G, Dahdouh-Guebas F. 2009. Analysis of mangrove forest
succession using cores: a case study in the Cananéia-Iguape Coastal System, São Paulo - Brazil.
Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 57.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N. 2006. Empirical estimate of the reliability of the use of the PointCentred Quarter Method (PCQM): Solutions to ambiguous field situations and description of the
PCQM+ protocol. Forest Ecology and Management 228: 1-18.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Mathenge C, Kairo JG, Koedam N. 2000. Utilization of mangrove wood
products around Mida Creek (Kenya) amongst subsistence and commercial users. Economic Botany
54: 513-527.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Jayatissa LP, Cannicci S, Koedam N. 2002a. An ordination study to
view vegetation structure dynamics in disturbed and undisturbed mangrove forests in Kenya and
Sri Lanka. Plant Ecology 161: 123-135.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Van Pottelbergh I, Kairo JG, Cannicci S, Koedam N. 2004a. Human-impacted
mangroves in Gazi (Kenya): predicting future vegetation based on retrospective remote sensing,
social surveys, and tree distribution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 272: 77-92.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Verneirt M, Cannicci S, Kairo JG, Tack JF, Koedam N. 2002b. An exploratory
study on grapsid crab zonation in Kenyan mangroves. Wetlands Ecology And Management 10: 179187.
Dahdouh-Guebas F, Jayatissa LP, Di Nitto D, Bosire JO, Lo Seen D, Koedam N. 2005. How
effective were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? Current Biology 15: 1337-1338.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Dahdouh-Guebas F, De Bondt R, Abeysinghe PD, Kairo JG, Cannicci S, Triest L, Koedam N. 2004b.
Comparative study of the disjunct zonation pattern of the grey mangrove Avicennia marina (Forsk.)
Vierh. in Gazi Bay (Kenya). Bulletin of Marine Science 74: 237-252.
De Ryck D. 2009. Moving and settling: Experiments on the dispersal and establishment of
hydrochorous propagules. Master Thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels.
Di Nitto D, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Decleir H, Koedam N. 2008. Digital terrain modelling to
investigate the effects of sea level rise on mangrove propagule establishment. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 356: 175-188.
Diop ES, Gordon C, Semesi AK, Soumaré A, Diallo N, Guissé A, Diouf M, Ayivor JS. 2001.
Mangoves of Africa in De Lacerda LD, ed. Mangrove ecosystems. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Drexler JZ. 2001. Maximum longevities of Rhizophora apiculata and R. mucronata propagules.
Pacific Science 55: 17-22.
Duke NC, Ball MC, Ellison JC. 1998. Factors influencing biodiversity and distributional gradients
in mangroves. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7: 27-47.
Duke NC, et al. 2007. A world without mangroves? Science 317: 41-42.
Ellison JC, Stoddart DR. 1991. Mangrove ecosystem collapse during predicted sea-level rise Holocene analogs and implications. Journal of Coastal Research 7: 151-165.
FAO. 2003. Status and Trends in Mangrove Area Extent Worldwide. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations, Forest Resources Division, Paris. Report no.
—. 2007. The world's mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153, Rome. Report no.
Fujimoto K, Miyagi T. 1990. Late Holocene sea level fluctuations and mangrove forest formation on
Ponape Island, Micronesia. Journal of Geography 99: 507-514.
Furukawa K, Wolanski E. 1996. Sedimentation in mangrove forests. Mangroves and Salt Marshes
1: 3-10.
Gallin E, Coppejans E, Beeckman H. 1989. The mangrove vegetation of Gazi bay (Kenya). Bulletin
de la Société Royal Botanique de Belgique 122: 197-207.
Gilman E, Ellison J, Coleman R. 2007. Assessment of mangrove response to projected relative sealevel rise and recent historical reconstruction of shoreline position. 124: 105-130.
Gilman EL, Ellison J, Duke NC, Field C. 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate change and
adaptation options: A review. Aquatic Botany 89: 237-250.
Gilman EL, et al. 2006. Adapting to Pacific Island mangrove responses to sea level rise and climate
change. Climate Research 32: 161-176.
Hutchings PA, Saenger P. 1987. Ecology of mangroves. St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia: University of
Queensland Press.
Imai N, Takyu M, Nakamura Y, Nakamura T. 2006. Gap formation and regeneration of tropical
mangrove forests in Ranong, Thailand. Plant Ecology 186: 37-46.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Report no.
Kairo JG. 2001. Ecology and restoration of mangrove systems in Kenya. PhD dissertation. Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Kairo JG, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Bosire J, Koedam N. 2001. Restoration and management of
mangrove systems - a lesson for and from the East African region. South African Journal of Botany
67: 383-389.
Kirui BYK, Huxham M, Kairo J, Skov M. 2008. Influence of species richness and environmental
context on early survival of replanted mangroves at Gazi Bay, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 603: 171-181.
Kitheka JU. 1996. Water circulation and coastal trapping of brackish water in a tropical mangrovedominated bay in Kenya. Limnology and Oceanography 41: 169-176.
—. 1997. Coastal tidally-driven circulation and the role of water exchange in the linkage between
tropical coastal ecosystems. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 45: 177-187.
—. 1998. Groundwater outflow and its linkage to coastal circulation in a mangrove-fringed creek in
Kenya. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 47: 63-75.
Kitheka JU, Ongwenyi GS, Mavuti KM. 2002. Dynamics of suspended sediment exchange and
transport in a degraded mangrove creek in Kenya. Ambio 31: 580-587.
Krauss KW, Allen JA, Cahoon DR. 2003. Differential rates of vertical accretion and elevation
change among aerial root types in Micronesian mangrove forests. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf
Science 56: 251-259.
Lopez C. 1997. Locating some types of random errors in Digital Terrain Models. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science 11: 677-698.
Lovelock CE, Ellison J. 2007. Vulnerability of mangroves and associated tidal wetlands of the GBR
to climate change in Johnson J, Marshall P, eds. Climate Change and Great Barrier Reef.
Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
McCusker A. 1977. Seedling establishment in mangrove species. International Journal of Tropical
Geology, Geography and Ecology 1: 23-33.
McKee KL. 1995. Mangrove species distribution and propagule predation in Belize - an exception to
the dominance predation hypothesis. Biotropica 27: 334-345.
McKee KL, Cahoon DR, Feller IC. 2007. Caribbean mangroves adjust to rising sea level through
biotic controls on change in soil elevation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 545-556.
McLeod E, Salm RV. 2006. Managing Mangroves for Resilience to Climate Change Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. Report no.
Milbrandt EC, Tinsley MN. 2006. The role of saltwort (Batis maritima L.) in regeneration of
degraded mangrove forests. Hydrobiologia 568: 369-377.
Mumby PJ, et al. 2004. Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the
Caribbean. Nature 427: 533-536.
Nagelkerken I, et al. 2008. The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: A
review. Aquatic Botany 89: 155-185.
Neukermans G, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo JG, Koedam N. 2008. Mangrove species and stand
mapping in Gazi bay (Kenya) using Quickbird satellite imagery. Journal of Spatial Science 53: 7586.
Njambuya JW. 2006. Sediment characteristics, its origin and stratigraphy of mangrove soils of Gazi
Bay, Kenya. MSc. Environmental Science and Technology thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussels, Belgium.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Obade P, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N, De Wulf R, Tack JF. 2004. GIS-based integration of
interdisciplinary ecological data to detect land-cover changes in creek mangroves at Gazi Bay,
Kenya. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 3: 11-27.
Ohowa BO, Mwashote BM, Shimbira WS. 1997. Dissolved inorganic nutrient fluxes from seasonal
rivers into Gazi Bay, Kenya. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 45: 189-195.
Parkinson RW, Delaune RD, White JR. 1994. Holocene Sea-Level Rise and the Fate of Mangrove
Forests within the Wider Caribbean Region. Journal of Coastal Research 10: 1077-1086.
Pernetta JC. 1993. Mangrove forests, climate change and sea-level rise: hydrological influences on
community structure and survival, with examples from the Indo-West pacific. Gland, Switzerland.
Report no.
Rogers K, Saintilan N, Heijnis H. 2005. Mangrove encroachment of salt marsh in Western Port Bay,
Victoria: The role of sedimentation, subsidence, and sea level rise. Estuaries 28: 551-559.
Snedaker SC, Meeder JF, Ross MS, Ford RG. 1994. Mangrove ecosystem collapse during predicted
sea-level rise - Holocene analogues and implications - discussion. Journal of Coastal Research.
Special Issue 10: 497-498.
Sousa WP, Kennedy PG, Mitchell BJ, Ordonez BM. 2007. Supply-side ecology in mangroves: Do
propagule dispersal and seedling establishment explain forest structure? Ecological Monographs 77:
53-76.
Stieglitz T, Ridd PV. 2001. Trapping of mangrove propagules due to density-driven secondary
circulation in the Normanby River estuary, NE Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 211: 131142.
Tack JF, Vanden Berghe E, Polk P. 1992. Ecomorphology of Crassostrea cucullata (Born, 1778)
(Ostreidae) in a mangrove creek (Gazi, Kenya). Hydrobiologia 247: 109-117.
Tan X, Zhang Q. 1997. Mangrove beaches' accretion rate and effects of relative sea level rise on
mangroves in China. Marine Science Bulletin 16: 29-35.
Tomlinson PB. 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNEP. 1994. Assessment and monitoring of climatic change impacts on mangrove ecosystems.
UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies. Nairobi, Kenya. Report no. 154.
Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK. 2001. Mangrove forests: One of the world's threatened major tropical
environments. Bioscience 51: 807-815.
Van Tendeloo A. 2004. Veranderingen in traditionele en commerciële mens-ecosysteemrelaties in de
mangrovebaai van Gazi (Kenya): etnobiologie, percepties van de lokale gemeenschap en ecotoeristische activiteiten. Lic./MSc. Biologie thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium.
Vincente VP. 1989. Ecological effects of sea-level rise and sea surface temperature on mangroves,
coral reefs, seagrass beds and sandy beaches of Puerto Rico: A preliminary evaluation. ScienceCiencia 16.
Walters BB, Ronnback P, Kovacs JM, Crona B, Hussain SA, Badola R, Primavera JH, Barbier E,
Dahdouh-Guebas F. 2008. Ethnobiology, socio-economics and management of mangrove forests: A
review. Aquatic Botany 89: 220-236.
Watson JG. 1928. Mangrove forests of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest Records 6: 1-275.
Wattayakorn G, Wolanski E, Kjerfve B. 1990. Mixing, trapping and outwelling in the Klong Ngao
mangrove swamp, Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 31: 667-688.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Wells S, Ravilous C, Corcoran E. 2006. In the front line: Shoreline protection and other ecosystem
services from mangroves and coraf reefs. Cambridge, UK: United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Report no.
Wolanski E, Chappell J. 1996. The respons of tropical Australian estuaries to sea level rise. Journal
of Marine Systems 7: 267-279.
Woodroffe CD. 1990. The impact of sea-level rise on mangrove shorelines. Progress in Physical
Geography 14: 483-520.
Woodroffe CD, Grime D. 1999. Storm impact and evolution of a mangrove-fringed chenier plain,
Shoal Bay, Darwin, Australia. Marine Geology 159: 303-321.
1
Table 1: Inundation classes and monthly inundation frequency according to Watson (1928). Height boundaries (m above datum) of present
2
and future inundation classes are presented: a minimum (+9cm), relative scenario (+20cm), average (+48cm) and maximum (+88cm)
3
scenario is based on IPCC eustatic SLR scenarios for the year 2100. In further analysis, inundation frequencies higher than those of ‘class 1’
4
will be referred to as ‘class 0’.
Inundation
Flooded by
classes
Monthly
Present situation
Minimum
Relative scenario,
Average scenario,
Maximum scenario,
inundation
(m)
scenario, +9cm
+20cm
+48cm
+88cm
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
frequency
1
All high tides
56-62
2.10-2.60
2.19-2.69
2.30-2.80
2.58-3.08
2.98-3.48
45-56
2.60-3.10
2.69-3.19
2.80-3.30
3.08-3.58
3.48-3.98
20-45
3.10-3.50
3.19-3.59
3.30-3.70
3.58-3.98
3.98-4.38
2-20
3.50-3.80
3.59-3.89
3.70-4.10
3.98-4.28
4.38-4.68
0-2
3.80-4.20
3.89-4.29
4.10-4.40
4.28-4.68
4.68-5.08
(AHT)
2
Medium high
tides(MHT)
3
Normal high tides
(NHT)
4
Spring high tides
(SHT)
5
Abnormal
(equinoctial tides)
(EHT)
1
Table 2: Presentation of the total area (ha) occupied by each mangrove species with the
2
whole studied area (TMA) and the total area occupied by each mangrove species within the
3
inundation classes at present (TMAI). Sw= seaward side and Lw= landward side.
4
Species
TMA
TMAI
Difference 5%
6
7
Avicennia marina Sw
46.59
41.65
11.86
8
9
Avicennia marina Lw
32.34
29.53
9.52
10
11
12
Ceriops tagal Lw
37.99
36.53
3.99
13
14
Ceriops tagal Sw
13.50
13.27
1.76
15
16
17
Rhizophora mucronata
109.42
105.50
3.71
18
19
Sonneratia alba
7.96
4.95
60.89
20
21
22
23
1
2
Figure 1: Representation of (A) the Kenyan coast (Dahdouh-Guebas F. et al. 2000) and (B)
3
Gazi Bay.
4
research focuses on the western part as encompassed by the overlaid vegetation map. S.
5
alba = Sonneratia alba, R. mucronata= Rhizophora mucronata, C. tagal Lw= Ceriops tagal
6
on the landward side, C. tagal Sw= Ceriops tagal on the seaward side A. marina Lw=
7
Avicennia marina on the landward side and A. marina Sw= Avicennia marina on the
8
landward side. Classification of the mangrove species coverage was obtained by
9
Neukermans et al. (2008).
The satellite image (Quickbird) shows the whole bay of Gazi ; however this
10
11
Figure 2: (A) Presentation of the DTM, (B) 3D presentation of the combination between
12
(B1) inundation classes, (B2) vegetation map and (B3) Quickbird image, (C) Presentation of
13
the inundation classes: (C1) Current situation, (C2) Scenario +9cm, (C3) Scenario +20cm,
14
(C4) Scenario +48cm, (C5) Scenario +88 cm. AHT= all high tides, MHT= medium high
15
tides, NHT= normal high tides, SHT= spring high tides and EHT= equinoctial high tides.
16
Inundation frequencies higher than those of ‘class 1’ will be referred to as ‘class 0’.
17
18
Figure 3: (A) Graph of the total area (ha) per species within the 4 SLR scenarios, (B) Future
19
prediction of the dynamics of mangroves, non-flooded area and ‘class 0’.
20
21
Figure 4: Overview scheme summarizing the discussion on resilience of mangroves facing
22
sea level rise, more specifically concerning the case study in Gazi Bay (Kenya).
23
24
Figure 5:
25
26
Figure 6: Decision tree to aid resilient site selection for mangroves according to McLeod &
27
Salm (2006). The latter can be applied once candidate sites of high biodiversity have been
28
selected using biological criteria f.i. *factors that indicate strong recovery potential (see
1
Appendix, Table A.2). This decision tree was adjusted (**) to implement the possibility of a
2
shift in vegetation structure. MPA= Marine Protected Area.
3
1
Figure 1
1
2
Figure 3
Figure 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure 6
1