Massive mortality of mangrove forests in Southeast Brazil

Journal
Journalof
ofCoastal
CoastalResearch
Research
SI 64
pg -- pg
1793
1797
ICS2011
ICS2011 (Proceedings)
Poland
ISSN 0749-0208
Massive mortality of mangrove forests in Southeast Brazil (Baixada
Santista, State of São Paulo) as a result of harboring activities
R. P. Menghini†‡, C. Coelho-Jr†∞, A. S. Rovai†§, M. Cunha-Lignon†¥£, Y. Schaeffer-Novelli† and G.
Cintrón*
† Instituto BiomaBrasil (IBB),
Rua Laboriosa, 80, 05434-060,
São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
{ricardo.menghini,
clemente.coelhojr,
marilia.cunha,
yara.novelli}@bioma
brasil.org
‡ Universidade Paulista
(UNIP), Rua Apeninos, 267,
01533-000, São Paulo, SP,
Brasil.
∞ Universidade de Pernambuco
(UPE), Rua Regueira Costa,
75/801, 52041-050, Recife, PE,
Brasil.
§ Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina (UFSC),
Campus Universitário,
Trindade, 88040-900,
Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
[email protected]
¥ National Institute for Space
Research (INPE), São José dos
Campos (SP), 12227-010,
Brazil
[email protected]
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N Fairfax Drive
Rm 11Q, Arlington, VA,
22203-1622 USA.
[email protected]
£ Université Libre de Bruxelles
(ULB) Brussels, 1050 Belgium
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
R. P. Menghini, C. Coelho-Jr, A. S. Rovai, M. Cunha-Lignon, Y. Schaeffer-Novelli and G. Cintrón, 2011.
Massive mortality of mangrove forests in Southeast Brazil (Barnabé Island, Baixada Santista, State of São Paulo)
as a result of harboring activities. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 64 (Proceedings of the 11th International
Coastal Symposium), – . Szczecin, Poland, ISBN 0749-0208.
Since the fifties the Baixada Santista’s landscape has been intensively modified by spreading unplanned and
illegal human settlements, mainly by industrial and harboring activities. On 3 rd September 1998, a portion of the
mangrove forests that surround the Barnabé Island, Santos, State of São Paulo, Brazil (23 o55’23’’S;
46o19’28’’W) was affected by a fire due to the accidental spillage of a flammable chemical substance called
dicyclopentadiene (DCPD). The goals of the current study were to determine the impacts as well as to assess the
initial natural recovery of this mangrove forest. Six permanent plots, were established. Three of them were used
to gather data from the adult individuals that survived after spillage (M1, M2 and M3) and the others to
investigate the recruitments presents in the natural recovery (RN1, RN2 e RN3) using standardized methodology.
Among the adult individuals, Laguncularia racemosa was the dominant species. The densities of dead stems for
these quadrants, especially for M1 and M3, were very high reaching 65.39% and 48.97%, respectively. The RN1
and RN2 plots were also dominated by L. racemosa with 100% of the stems alive. RN3 was dominated by
Avicennia schaueriana but showed a decrease in the proportion of alive stems (89.09%). The magnitude of the
accident is evidenced considering half (M3) or more (M1) out of the total number of stems were found dead. Yet
simple and inexpensive, the methodology applied in the current study showed to be an effective tool to evaluate
impacts over mangrove stands. Finally, we recommend that Baixada Santista’s integrated coastal management
process must incorporate long-term mangrove monitoring.
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Anthropogenic impact, Natural recovery, Structural characterization
INTRODUCTION
Mangrove ecosystems are coastal wetlands dominated by
woody plants that span gradients in latitude (30oN to 37oS),
tidal height (<1m to >4m), geomorphology (oceanic islands to
riverine systems), sedimentary environment (peat to alluvial),
climate (warm temperate to both arid and wet tropics), and
nutrient availability (oligotrophic to eutrophic) (Feller et al,
2010).
In Brazil, mangroves are found from 04o30’N to 28o30’S
latitudes, under a wide range of environmental conditions and
this great diversity in growing conditions are reflected in
variable tree form, spatial arrangements of species, and stand
structural attributes (Schaeffer-Novelli et al., 1990).
As highlighted by Walters et al. (2008), mangrove
ecosystems provide a wide variety of goods and services that
benefit both directly and indirectly coastal communities,
including wood for fuel and construction, medicines, coastal
land stabilization and storm protection and the maintenance of
critical nursery habitat and marine productivity which support
wider commercial fisheries.
Nonetheless, despite playing a unique role in maintenance
of terrestrial and marine food webs, mangroves are
disappearing worldwide by 0.66% per year (FAO, 2007),
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 64, 2011
1793
Massive mortality of mangrove forests as a result of harboring activities
mainly due to aquaculture, urbanization, coastal landfill,
pollution and upstream land use.
Duke et al. (2007) pointed out that losses are occurring in
almost every country that has mangroves, and rates continue to
rise more rapidly in developing countries, where >90% of the
world’s mangroves are located. Brazil has the third largest
mangrove area in the world and is held accountable for
sheltering half the mangrove area of South America’s but,
being a developing country, has lost at least 50.000ha of
mangroves over the last 25 years, mainly along the southern
coast (FAO, 2007; Giri et al., 2010).
In this paper we aimed to assess the impacts as well as the
initial natural recovery (sucessional processes) of mangrove
forests subjected to acute and chronic tensors in southeast
Brazil. Because vegetation’s structural development responds
to subsidiary energies – sunlight exposure, tidal inundation,
freshwater inflow and external/internal nutrient cycling – as
well as to natural and man-induced tensors (Lugo et al. 1981,
1990; Brown and Lugo, 1982), it is considered to be an
effective tool for assessing anthropogenic disturbances on
mangrove ecosystem
and Laguncularia racemosa (L.) Gaetern. f. (Schaeffer-Novelli
et al., 1990).
METHODS
Figure 2. Accident occurred in the study area, the Baixada
Santista region (SE Brazil) Photo taken by Edson Baraçal,
1998.
Study area
The Baixada Santista region is located on the Brazil’s
southeast coastline (24º50’S, 46º45’W and 23º45’S, 45º50’W)
(Figure 1) and nests the biggest harbor of Latin America
(Santos Harbor) and a petrochemical industrial complex
(Cubatão Industrial Complex), also known in the eighties as the
“Death Valley” because of its outrageous pollution rates. It was
estimated that the region has lost about sixty percent of its
mangrove forests mainly due to harboring and industrial
activities (CETESB, 1991).
Sampling design
We replicate the sampling within the study area by
establishing three permanent plots to assess the mature
individuals (remaining ones after the event) and other three to
assess the natural recovery (recruitment following the event).
Structural characterization
Our study took place three years after the accident, in 2001.
Six permanent quadrants with variable sizes, according to stem
density, were established, as proposed by Cintrón & SchaefferNovelli (1984). Three were used to gather data from the adult
individuals that survived after the spillage (identified by the
codes M1, M2 and M3) and the others were dedicated to
investigate the recruitments presents in the natural recovery
(RN1, RN2 and RN3). Within the permanent plots
measurements of the DBH (diameter at breast high) and the
height were taken from all individuals. For RN1, RN2 and RN3
the diameter (also referred as DBH) was taken right below the
first branch shootout. From the data collected we calculated the
(1) the mean DBH and height of the mangrove stands, (2)
density of dead and alive stems per species and per class of
DBH, (3) the basal area (dead and alive), (4) the dominance (in
terms of basal area) of dead and alive stems per species.
Figure 1. Study area location (black arrow), the Barnabé’s
Island at the Baixada Santista region on the southeast coast of
State of São Paulo, Brazil.
It has suffered an intense event in the late nineties
responsible for the vegetation loss and the sediment
contamination. Approximately 80 tons of dicyclopentadiene
(DCPD), a highly toxic and flammable chemical substance,
was spilled on the mangrove that ended up catching on fire
(Figure 2). The stand could be classified as fringe mangrove
(Lugo and Snedaker, 1974).
The mangrove species found at the study area are:
Rhizophora mangle L; Avicennia schaueriana Stapf. e Leech.
RESULTS
The remaining individuals (M1, M2 an M3) presented
mean values of DBH and height ranging from 5.83 to 8.74cm
and 4.23 to 5.13m, respectively (Table 1). The new recruitment
(RN1, RN2 and RN3) showed mean values of DBH and height
ranging from 0.88 to 1.59cm and 1.37 to 1.93m respectively
(Table 2). L. racemosa was the dominant species for RN1 and
RN2 quadrants and RN3 was dominated by A. schaueriana
(Table 2).
M1, M2 and M3 showed a great density of dead stems
(67.31%; 24.44% e 51.02%, respectively), mainly from L.
racemosa (Table 2).
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 64, 2011
1794
Menghini et al.
Table 1: Stand height (inferior, superior and mean) and DBH
mean of mangroves at the study area.
Height Stand (m)
DBH
Permanent
mean
Plots
Inferior
Superior
Mean
(cm)
M1
1.78
7.80
5.13
8.74
M2
1.08
8.00
4.23
5.83
M3
1.70
7.55
4.59
6.49
RN1
1.00
2.00
1.37
1.31
RN2
1.02
2.80
1.59
1.59
RN3
1.15
3.85
1.93
0.88
The distribution of alive and dead stems per DBH class
(Table 2) for M1, M2 and M3 showed a higher proportion of
stems ranging between 2.5 and 10.0cm. For RN1, RN2 and
RN3 the prevailing DBH was smaller than 2.5cm (Table 2).
M1 had the higher structural development with 16.68 m2/ha
of basal area, followed by M3 and M2 with 13.68 and 12.72
m2/ha, respectively (Table 3). The basal area for RN1, RN2 and
RN3 was 9.07, 9.60 and 5.57 m2/ha, respectively.
M3 and M1 were dominants in terms of dead basal area,
answering, respectively, for 61.30 and 59.22% of it while M2
presented a high value of alive basal area, 71.53% (Table 4).
The natural recovery showed high dominance of alive basal
area, reaching 100% for RN1 and RN2 and 99.79% for RN3
(Table 4).
RN1 and RN2 were also dominated by L. racemosa with
100% of the alive stems. RN3 was dominated by A.
schaueriana which accounted for 89.09% of the alive stems.
Table 2: Relative density (%) of alive and dead stems per DBH (diameter at breast high) class and per species for the investigation site.
Rm = Rhizophora mangle; Lr = Laguncularia racemosa; As = Avicennia schaueriana.
Alive Stems
Permanent
< 2,5 cm
> 2,5 cm
< 10,0 cm
Total
Plots
Rm
Lr
As
Rm
Lr
As
Rm
Lr
As
M1
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
19.23
0.00
0.00
7.69
3.85
32.69
M2
0.00
11.11
0.00
11.11
51.11
0.00
0.00
2.22
0.00
75.56
M3
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.08
28.57
12.24
2.04
2.04
0.00
48.98
RN1
0.00
85.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
RN2
5.17
51.72
43.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
RN3
1.82
7.27
87.27
0.00
0.00
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
98.18
Dead Stems
< 2,5 cm
> 2,5 cm
< 10,0 cm
Permanent
Total
Plots
Rm
Lr
As
Rm
Lr
As
Rm
Lr
As
M1
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
53.85
1.92
0.00
9.62
0.00
67.31
M2
0.00
2.22
0.00
2.22
15.55
0.00
0.00
4.44
0.00
24.44
M3
0.00
2.04
0.00
0.00
36.73
2.04
0.00
10.20
0.00
51.02
RN1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
RN2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
RN3
0.00
0.00
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.82
Table 3: Alive and dead basal area (m2/ha) per DBH (diameter at breast high) class and total basal area of mangroves for the
investigation site.
Permanent
Dead basal area (m2/ha)
Alive basal area (m2/ha)
Total basal area
Plots
< 2,5 cm > 2,5 cm >10,0 cm
Total
< 2,5 cm > 2,5 cm >10,0 cm
Total
M1
0.01
2.00
4.80
6.80
0.03
6.18
3.67
9.88
16.68
M2
0.12
8.14
0.83
9.10
0.03
1.55
2.04
3.62
12.72
M3
0.00
4.05
1.24
5.30
0.02
5.14
3.23
8.39
13.68
RN1
9.07
0.00
0.00
9.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.07
RN2
9.60
0.00
0.00
9.60
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.60
RN3
4.67
0.88
0.00
5.56
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.01
5.57
Table 4: Dominance of alive and dead basal area (%) per species for the investigation site. Rm = Rhizophora mangle; Lr = Laguncularia
racemosa; As = Avicennia schaueriana
Permanent
Alive basal área (%)
Dead basal area (%)
Plots
Rm
Lr
As
Total
Rm
Lr
As
Total
M1
0.00
27.30
13.48
40.78
0.00
58.94
0.28
59.22
M2
11.50
60.03
0.00
71.53
0.45
28.02
0.00
28.47
M3
6.06
27.61
5.03
38.70
0.00
60.72
0.58
61.30
RN1
0.00
82.81
17.19
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
RN2
7.48
50.59
41.93
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
RN3
6.02
8.51
85.26
99.79
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.21
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 64, 2011
1795
Journal of Coastal Research
Massive
of mangrove
forests
as a result
of harboring activities
SI 64 mortality pg
- pg
ICS2011
(Proceedings)
Poland
mainly due to aquaculture,
urbanization, coastal landfill,
DISCUSSION
pollution
and upstream
landaccident
use.
The magnitude
of the
is evidenced considering the
Dukemortality
et al. (2007)
pointed
outborder
that losses
arethe
occurring
in
massive
occurred
in the
zone of
fringe, where
almost
has making
mangroves,
and rates to
continue
the treesevery
werecountry
totally that
burned
it impossible
performtothe
rise
more rapidly
in developing
countries,
wherethe>90%
of of
thethe
structural
characterization.
In this
zone, after
losses
world’s
are located.
Brazil
the then
third no
largest
trees, anmangroves
erosion process
took place
andhassince
natural
mangrove
area
in theforworld
and(Figure
is held
recovery was
observed
this area
3). accountable for
sheltering
half thepointed
mangrove
America’slocations
but,
Duke (2001)
out area
that of
in South
more exposed
being
developingvegetation,
country, has
lostdue
at its
least
of
(fringe amangroves)
mainly
root50.000ha
systems, plays
mangroves
over
25 years,
mainly along
southern on
an important
roletheonlastsediment
stabilization
and,thetherefore,
coast
2007; Giri
et al., 2010).
habitat(FAO,
suitability
regarding
the colonization of mangrove
In
this
paper
we
aimed
to assess themechanism
impacts as iswell
as thethe
seedlings. When this self-regulatory
broken
initial natural
(sucessional
processes) of mangrove
system
becomesrecovery
vulnerable
and can collapse.
forests
acute
and chronic
in southeast
Our subjected
results fittothe
massive
mortalitytensors
description
given by
Brazil. Because
vegetation’s
structural
development
responds
Jiménez
et al. (1985),
where such
an event
is characterized
by the
to subsidiary
– sunlight
tidal inundation,
abrupt
removalenergies
of all vegetation
lifeexposure,
stages. Regarding
the event’s
freshwaterweinflow
and external/internal
– as it
intensity
could assume
it was an acutenutrient
impact.cycling
Nonetheless,
well
as to
natural
and area
man-induced
tensors
(Lugoofetother
al. 1981,
is
know
that
the study
is subjected
to a series
chronic
1990; Brown
andfrom
Lugo,
1982),
it is considered
be an
impacts
resulting
several
intermittent
sources ofto pollutants.
effective tool
for assessingofanthropogenic
disturbances
on
Overtime,
the combination
the two or more
impacts could
mangrove ecosystem
compromise
the ecosystem’s abilities to cope with the
environmental fluctuations by forcing the system to constantly
METHODS
dispend energy to maintain
itself in light of recurrent minor
disturbances.
Study area
Lugo
et al. (1981)
observed
thatisa disturbing
have
The Baixada
Santista
region
located onevent
the could
Brazil’s
asoutheast
much more
powerful
impact
if the system
is already
stressed.
coastline
(24º50’S,
46º45’W
and 23º45’S,
45º50’W)
Even
thenests
natural
adapted
to environmental
(Figurethough
1) and
thesystems
biggest are
harbor
of Latin
America
oscillations,
recurrent
disturbances
could
drain
the energy
once
(Santos Harbor) and a petrochemical industrial
complex
used to theIndustrial
system’sComplex),
self-maintenance
(Lugo,
1978).
According
(Cubatão
also known
in the
eighties
as the to
these
capability
of a system
to regenerate
itself
“Deathauthors
Valley” the
because
of its outrageous
pollution
rates. It was
depends upon
energy
quantities
compatible
estimated
that the
the availability
region has of
lost
aboutinsixty
percent
of its
with
the system’s
availability
on the
mangrove
forests needs.
mainlyHowever,
due to this
harboring
and relies
industrial
environmental
conditions
in
which
the
system
exists.
activities (CETESB, 1991).
One factor that lead us believe that the study area still is under
chronic disturbance is that L. racemosa outnumbered A.
schaueriana and R. mangle by far. In a prior investigation,
Schaeffer-Novelli et al. (1990) found that R. mangle dominated
the fringe mangroves of the Santos estuary. Also, Smith III (1992)
found that mangrove stands subjected to frequent disruptions are
generally dominated by either L. racemosa or Avicennia species
rather than by species from the Rhizophoraceae family. This
scenario seems to fit our findings where the reduced contribution
of R. mangle in both plot types (adults and natural recovery)
suggests a shift in the environmental conditions after the accident
favoring L. racemosa and in a minor scale A. schaueriana.
Mangroves, like most forests, are dynamic, ever-growing, and
constantly re-establishing and renewing themselves. They differ
from terrestrial forests chiefly because there are special conditions
and requirements for survival in tidal locations. By using such
features, mangrove plants have been able to occupy, dominate and
stabilize exposed tidal foreshore environments. It has been
essential1.for
mangrove
plants to (black
have regenerative
Figure
Study
area location
arrow), the processes
Barnabé’sthat
are adaptable,
progressive,
dynamic,
successful
Island
at the Baixada
Santista
regionand
on mostly
the southeast
coast(Duke,
of
2001).of São Paulo, Brazil.
State
The dominant natural recovery pattern observed was the
formation
small patches
occupying
formed
by the
It has ofsuffered
an intense
event the
in gaps
the late
nineties
canopy
fragmentation
due
to
the
death
of
the
mature
trees
(Figure
responsible for the vegetation loss and the sediment
3). In this spite,Approximately
gaps are known
provide
suitable habitat for
contamination.
80 totons
of dicyclopentadiene
recruitment
allowsand
direct
passage of
the sunlight
favoring
(DCPD),
a since
highlyit toxic
flammable
chemical
substance,
both
reproductive
and
regenerative
growth.
Though,
that
might
was spilled on the mangrove that ended up catching on firenot
be a universal
Duke
et al.be(2005)
and Duke
(2008),
reporting
(Figure
2). Thelaw.
stand
could
classified
as fringe
mangrove
an
environmental
hazard
on
mangrove
stands
in
NE
Australia,
(Lugo and Snedaker, 1974).
found
significant species
relationship
between
Thea mangrove
found (P<0.035)
at the study
area reduced
are:
Avicennia
and seedlings
health and
the presence
Rhizophoramarina
mangletrees
L; Avicennia
schaueriana
Stapf.
e Leech. of
ISSN 0749-0208
and Laguncularia
(L.) Gaetern.
f. (Schaeffer-Novelli
diuron,
an herbicide racemosa
used in cultures
upstream.
Moreover, these
et al., highlighted
1990).
authors
the fact that fewer healthy seedlings were
observed in plots with higher levels of mangrove dieback which
goes against the usual expectations where greater light availability
under dead trees might normally have contributed to greater
seedling survival. According to these authors, this relationship
therefore demonstrated that inhibition of plant growth (in trees and
seedlings) together occurs in common with increases in the
harmful agent herbicide.
Jimenez et al. (1985) have previously identified this layback
development pattern where secondary succession usually takes a
longer rout after anthropogenic disturbances in comparison with
natural tensors. Those patterns also go along with Menghini’s
(2008) findings that verified that some mangrove stands located
within Santos estuary, including the investigation site, tend to
have lower growth and higher mortality rates. Even though we
have not assessed the sediment chemical composition, with all
other factors taken into account that could influence the
vegetation’s development – erosion, anthropogenic debris, among
others – we have encountered no evidence linking the type of
vegetation responses observed (Menghini, 2008 and current
results) with any other possible factors other than chemical
Figure 2. Accident
the used
studyinarea,
the Baixada
contamination.
Since theoccurred
DCPD isin also
the production
of
Baraçal,
Santista region
Brazil) Photo
taken byonEdson
agrochemicals
and (SE
considering
other findings
the literature
1998. chemical products with losses in leaf area (Lugo et al,
relating
1981) and growth inhibition of mangrove trees and seedlings
(Duke et al., 2005; Duke, 2008) we strongly believe that natural
recovery
at the design
investigation site is still being held down by the
Sampling
event occurred
in the late
We replicate
the nineties.
sampling within the study area by
establishing three permanent plots to assess the mature
individuals (remaining ones after the event) and other three to
assess the natural recovery (recruitment following the event).
Structural characterization
Our study took place three years after the accident, in 2001.
Six permanent quadrants with variable sizes, according to stem
density, were established, as proposed by Cintrón & SchaefferNovelli (1984). Three were used to gather data from the adult
individuals that survived after the spillage (identified by the
codes M1, M2 and M3) and the others were dedicated to
investigate the recruitments presents in the natural recovery
(RN1, RN2 and RN3). Within the permanent plots
measurements of the DBH (diameter at breast high) and the
height were taken from all individuals. For RN1, RN2 and RN3
the diameter (also referred as DBH) was taken right below the
first branch shootout. From the data collected we calculated the
(1) the mean DBH and height of the mangrove stands, (2)
density of dead and alive stems per species and per class of
DBH, (3) the basal area (dead and alive), (4) the dominance (in
terms of basal area) of dead and alive stems per species.
RESULTS
The remaining individuals (M1, M2 an M3) presented
mean values of DBH and height ranging from 5.83 to 8.74cm
and 4.23 to 5.13m, respectively (Table 1). The new recruitment
(RN1, RN2 and RN3) showed mean values of DBH and height
ranging from 0.88 to 1.59cm and 1.37 to 1.93m respectively
(Table
2). L. racemosa
the investigation
dominant species
Figure
3: Schematic
profileswas
of the
site. for RN1 and
quadrants
RN3the
was
dominated
A. schaueriana
A =RN2
mangrove
standand
before
acute
event; Bby
= mangrove
stand
(Table
2). with the massive mortality in the fringe, in 1998;
after
the event
M1, M2 of
and
showed
a great
of the
dead
stems
C = installation
theM3
erosion
process
after density
the loss of
trees;
24.44%
e 51.02%, respectively), mainly from L.
D =(67.31%;
stand features
in 2002.
racemosa (Table 2).
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 64, 2011
1796
Massive mortality of mangrove forests as a result of harboring activities
CONCLUSION
The magnitude of the accident is evidenced considering
the massive mortality occurred in the border zone of the fringe,
where the trees were totally burned and in plots with the
remaining ones, half (M3) or more (M1) out of the total number of
stems were found dead. The methodology used appears adequate
to describe and assess the level of impact and recovery pattern of a
mangrove stand affected by a chemical spill. It is suggested that
more extensive (long-term) monitoring studies on impacted
mangroves must be developed as effective tools helping to
understand the response of systems exposed to natural or maninduced stressors, as well as the processes governing secondary
succession in mangrove forests in Southeast Brazil.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mr. Luis Oshiro, manager of the
Odfjell Terminals facility, and their staff for providing assistance
during the mangrove surveys conducted in the Santos Estuary
(Brazil). This study was undertaken with the financial supports of
the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico – CNPq-Brazil (Process 140090/2005-3).
REFERENCES
Brown, S and Lugo, A.E., 1982. A comparison of structural and
functional characteristics of saltwater and freshwater forested
wetlands, pp. 109-130. In: B. Gopal, R. E. Turner, R.W.
Wetzel & D. F. Whingham (eds.), Proceedings of the First
International Wetlands Conference, Wetlands: Ecology and
Management, New Delhi, India.
CETESB, 1991. Avaliação do estado da degradação dos
ecossistemas da Baixada Santista – SP. CETESB. Relatório
Técnico. São Paulo, São Paulo. 45 p.
Cintrón, G. and Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., 1984. Methods for studying
mangrove structure. In: Snedaker, S.C. AND Snedaker, J.G.
(eds.), The mangrove ecosystem: research methods.
UNESCO, Paris, France, pp. 91-113.
Duke, N., 2001. Gap creation and regenerative processes driving
diversity and structure of mangrove ecosystems. Wetlands
Ecology and Management, 9: 257-269.
Duke, N.C., Bell, A.M., Pedersen, D.K., Roelfsema, C.M. and
Bengtson Nash, S., 2005. Herbicides implicated as the cause
of severe mangrove dieback in the Mackay region, NE
Australia — serious implications for marine plant habitats of
the GBR World Heritage Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51,
308–324.
Duke, N.C.; Meynecke, J.0.; Dittmann, A.M.; Ellison, A.M.;
Aanger, K.; Berger, U.; Cannicci, S.; Diele, K.; Ewel, K.C.;
Field, C.D.; Koedam, N.; Lee, S.Y.; Marchand, C.; Nordhaus,
I. and Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2007. A world without
mangroves? Science, 317: 41-42.
Duke, N. C., 2008. Corrections and updates to the article by Duke
et al. (2005) reporting on the unusual occurrence and cause of
dieback of the common mangrove species, Avicennia marina,
in NE Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (9), 1668–1670.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
2007. The world’s mangroves 1980–2005. FAO Forestry.
Paper 153. FAO, Rome.
Feller, I.C.; Lovelock, C.E.; Berger, U.; McKee, K.L.; Joye, S.B.
and Ball, M.C., 2010. Biocomplexity in Mangrove
Ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci, 2: 395-417.
Giri, C.; Ochieng, E.; Tieszen, L.L.; Zhu, Z.; Singh, A.; Loveland,
T.; Masek, J. and Duke, N., 2010. Status and distribution of
mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite
data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 1-6.
Jiménez, J.A.; Lugo, A.E. and Cintrón, G., 1985. Tree motalility
in mangrove forests. Biotropica, 17(3), 177-185.
Lugo, A. E., 1978. Stress and Ecosystems. pp. 62-98. In: J. H.
Thorp and J. W. Gibbons (eds.), Energy and Environmental
Stress in Aquatic Systems. DOE. Symposium Series. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, USA.
Lugo, A.E. and Snedaker, S.C., 1974. The ecology of mangroves.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 5: 39-64.
Lugo, A.E.; Cintrón, G. and Goenaga, C., 1981. Mangrove
ecosystem under stress. pp. 129-153. In: G. W. Barret and R.
Rosemberg (eds.). Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems. Jonh
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Lugo, A.E.; Brinson, M.M. and Brown, S., 1990. Concepts in
wetland ecology, pp. 53-85. In: A. E. Lugo; M. Brinson and S.
Brown (eds.), Forested wetlands. Ecosystems of the world,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 527p.
Menghini, R.P., 2008. Dinâmica da recomposição natural de
bosques de mangue impactados: Ilha Barnabé (Baixada
Santista, SP, Brasil.. São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo,
Ph.D. thesis, 206p.
Schaeffer-Novelli, Y.; Cintrón-Molero, G; Adaime, R.R. and
Camargo, T.M., 1990. Variability of mangrove ecosystems
along the Brazilian coast. Estuaries. (13) 2: 204-218.
Smith III, T.J. 1992. Forest Structure, pp 101-136. In: A. I.
Robertson and D. M. Alongi (eds.), Coastal and Estuarine
Studies, v. 41, Tropical mangrove ecosystems. American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., 329p.
Walters, B.B., Ronnback, P., Kovacs, J.M., Crona, B., Hussain,
S.A., Badola, R., Primavera, J.H., Barbier, E. and DahdouhGuebas, F., 2008. Ethnobiology, socio-economics and
management of mangrove forests: A review. Aquatic Botany,
89: 220-236.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 64, 2011
1797