4.6 Article

Using Melaleuca fences as soft coastal engineering for mangrove restoration in Kien Giang, Vietnam

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 256-265

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.031

关键词

Melaleuca fences; Mangrove restoration; Erosion; Kien Giang

资金

  1. AusAID

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Planting mangrove is an important work to respond to mangrove loss and erosion, a serious issue and exacerbated from climatic changes in coastal area of the Mekong Delta. However, the previous efforts have repeatedly been unsuccessful because planted seedlings have suffered complete loss due to the lack of protection from wave action and seasonal sediment movement. Two Melaleuca (Melaleuca cajuputi) fences (wave barrier and silt trap fences) were designed and set up for testing their effectiveness in assisting mangrove restoration in the erosion-prone area of the Kien Giang Province. The wave height of the shoreline behind the Melaleuca fence can reduced by 63% compared to the open coast. After 3 years, they retained from 45 to 47 cm of mud inside the fence line. The survival rate of Avicennia alba (62% and 44%) was much higher than that of Rhizophora apiculata (35% and 14%) in both two fenced treatments. Growth rate of Avicennia seedlings was also much higher than Rhizophora in both treatments. There was a significant statistical difference between live seedlings and growth of Rhizophora and Avicennia in the two fenced treatments. Wild seedlings of Avicennia started colonizing the fenced area after 1.5 years of fence construction and regenerated seedling density varied from 2300 seedlings/ha in to 7100 seedlings/ha after 3 years. Species richness of benthos inside 2 fenced areas approached that in the natural forest area 1.5 years after fence construction. The study demonstrates the high potential of using Melaleuca fences to facilitate regeneration of mangrove and improves coastal protection in Kien Giang Province. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据