Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2024, Vol. 16 Issue (12): 1701-1713    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-024-0111-2    
Research article     
Impact of trimming intensity on the growth of mangrove in Iran
Maryam MOSLEHI1,*(), Akram AHMADI2, Tom PYPKER3
1Research Division of Natural Resources, Hormozgan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Bandar Abbas 7915847669, Iran
2Research Division of Natural Resources, Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Gorgan 4915677555, Iran
3Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops V2C 0C8, Canada
Download: HTML     PDF(602KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Mangrove forests in southern Iran are of high ecological and economic importance. These forests are being threatened because of uncontrolled harvesting to provide fodder for livestock. The objective of this study is to provide recommendations for appropriate harvesting intensities by quantifying the effect of different harvesting intensities on vegetative and vigor characteristics of mangrove trees. This study was conducted using a randomized complete block design comprising four treatments (10.00%, 20.00%, and 30.00% trimming, along with a control) replicated three times. Vegetative characteristics were measured before and after trimming (five-year period) and analyzed using generalized linear model statistical analysis. The growths of the average diameter of canopy, canopy area, canopy volume, canopy height, tree height, and collar diameter in the control treatment were all significantly higher than those in the trimming treatments. In addition, there was a decreasing trend in leaf fresh and dry mass, leaf area index, total area of canopy leaves, and health status of tree in the trimming treatments. For example, the percentage change in fresh and dry leaf mass in the control treatment was positive (29.87% and 38.31%, respectively), whereas the trimming treatments of 10.00%, 20.00% and 30.00% had negative effects (-7.01% and -4.79%, -11.32% and -14.30%, and -15.84% and -17.29%, respectively). In addition, the changes in leaf area index in the control (4.95%) and 30.00% trimming (-24.57%) treatments were the highest and lowest, respectively. The percentage change in soil organic matter in the control, 10.00%, 20.00%, and 30.00% treatments were 22.94%, -9.90%, -16.91%, and -18.68%, respectively. The study demonstrated that gray mangrove trees were highly sensitive to canopy trimming, with even minimal trimming intensities negatively affecting vegetative growth and soil organic matter. Therefore, it is recommended that cutting and trimming of mangrove trees should be prevented even at low intensity to preserve mangrove ecosystem health and resilience against environmental stressors.

Key words： trimming      mangrove ecosystem      vegetative characteristic      harvest intensity      soil organic matter      Khamir Port     
Received: 10 June 2024      Published: 31 December 2024
Corresponding Authors: *Maryam MOSLEHI (E-mail: maryam.moslehi508@gmail.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Maryam MOSLEHI
Akram AHMADI
Tom PYPKER
Cite this article:

Maryam MOSLEHI, Akram AHMADI, Tom PYPKER. Impact of trimming intensity on the growth of mangrove in Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(12): 1701-1713.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-024-0111-2     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2024/V16/I12/1701

Fig. 1 Location of the study area (a) and the distribution range of mangrove forests (b) in Khamir Port, Iran
Fig. 2 Schematic layout of sampling
Grade Score Health indicator
Color of leaf Shape of canopy Density of canopy Number of dry microbranches
Healthy 5 Bright green Symmetrical and healthy Dense <10
Moderate 3 Pale green Relatively symmetrical and average size Semi-dense 10-30
Weak 1 Yellow or brown Asymmetrical, small, or damaged Very sparse >30
Table 1 Rubric for assessing the grade of tree health
Variable Source of variable df Mean square Fisher coefficient
Small diameter of canopy Block 2 0.085 6.23*
Treatment 3 0.363 26.70**
Error 6 0.014
Large diameter of canopy Block 2 0.267 12.40**
Treatment 3 0.293 13.63**
Error 6 0.022
Average diameter of canopy Block 2 0.160 10.57*
Treatment 3 0.320 21.16**
Error 6 0.010
Canopy area Block 2 25.670 28.71**
Treatment 3 42.230 47.24**
Error 6 0.890
Canopy volume Block 2 4415.840 12.73**
Treatment 3 7207.430 20.77**
Error 6 346.880
Canopy height Block 2 0.003 7.06*
Treatment 3 0.017 38.37**
Error 6 0.000
Tree height Block 2 0.004 7.21*
Treatment 3 0.028 57.70**
Error 6 0.000
Collar diameter Block 2 0.020 0.61ns
Treatment 3 2.620 78.86**
Error 6 0.033
Table 2 Analysis of variance for the growth of mangroves across various treatments
Fig. 3 Growth of mangroves across various treatments over a five-year period. (a), growth of small diameter of canopy; (b), growth of large diameter of canopy; (c), growth of average diameter of canopy; (d), growth of canopy area; (e), growth of canopy volume; (f), growth of canopy height; (g), growth of tree height; (i), growth of collar diameter. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level; and bar represents standard deviation.
Variable Source of variable df Mean square Fisher coefficient
Leaf fresh mass (LFM) Block 2 22.190 0.64ns
Treatment 3 1316.560 38.27**
Error 6 34.390
Leaf dry mass (LDM) Block 2 20.450 0.58ns
Treatment 3 1993.890 57.02**
Error 6 34.960
Leaf area index (LAI) Block 2 40.250 2.56ns
Treatment 3 570.640 69.70**
Error 6 27.920
Total area of canopy leaves (TAL) Block 2 82.370 3.14ns
Treatment 3 2251.250 64.56**
Error 6 32.290
Health status of tree Block 2 167.990 1.44ns
Treatment 3 530.640 20.43**
Error 6 36.960
Table 3 Analysis of variance for percentage changes in leaf characteristics and health status of tree across various treatments
Fig. 4 Comparison of percentage change in leaf characteristics and health status of tree across various treatments over a five-year period using Duncan's multiple range test. (a), leaf fresh mass (LFM); (b), leaf dry mass (LDM); (c), leaf area index (LAI); (d), total area of canopy leaves (TAL); (e), health status of tree. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level; and bar represents standard deviation.
Variable Source of variable df Mean square Fisher coefficient
SOM Block 2 22.960 1.32ns
Treatment 3 11.320 64.72**
Error 6 17.490
Table 4 Analysis of variance of the percentage change in soil organic matter (SOM) across various treatments
Fig. 5 Comparison of percentage change in soil organic matter (SOM) across various treatments over a five-year period using Duncan's multiple range test. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level; and bar represents standard deviation.
[1]   Abd Latif Z, Blackburn G A. 2008. Forest microclimate modelling using gap and canopy properties derived from LiDAR and hyperspectral imagery. SilviLaser, 17: 151-158.
[2]   Aheto D W, Kankam S, Okyere I, et al. 2016. Community-based mangrove forest management: Implications for local livelihoods and coastal resource conservation along the Volta estuary catchment area of Ghana. Ocean & Coastal Management, 127: 43-54.
[3]   Akram H, Hussain S, Mazumdar P, et al. 2023. Mangrove health: A review of functions, threats, and challenges associated with mangrove management practices. Forests, 14(9): 1698, doi: 10.3390/f14091698.
[4]   Barbier E B, Hacker S D, Kennedy C, et al. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2): 169-193.
[5]   Bosire J O, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Walton M, et al. 2008. Functionality of restored mangroves: a review. Aquatic Botany, 89(2): 251-259.
[6]   Bussotti F, Grossoni P, Bottacci A. 1997. Sclerophylly in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) trees: its relationship with crown transparency, nutritional status and summer drought. Forestry, 70(3): 267-271.
[7]   Carlton J M. 1974. Land-building and stabilization by mangroves. Environmental Conservation, 1(4): 285-294.
[8]   Danehkar A, Jalali S G. 2005. Investigating the structure of gray mangrove forests in Khamir and Qeshm basins (Hormozgan Province) using transect statistics. Research and Construction in Natural Resources, 67: 18-24. (in Persian)
[9]   Dehghanipour M, Mashaikhizadeh A. 2015. Investigating the current situation and threats to the largest forest reserve and threats to the largest mangrove forest reserve in Iran. In: The Third National Conference of Student Scientific Associations of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Student Scientific Associations of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Karaj, Iran. (in Persian)
[10]   Donato D C, Kauffman J B, Murdiyarso D, et al. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4(5): 293-297.
[11]   Duke N C, Meynecke J O, Dittmann S, et al. 2007. A world without mangroves? Science, 317(5834): 41-42.
doi: 10.1126/science.317.5834.41b pmid: 17615322
[12]   Ellis W L, Bell S S. 2004. Canopy gaps formed by mangrove trimming: An experimental test of impact on litter fall and standing litter stock in Southwest Florida (USA). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 311(2): 201-222.
[13]   FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2003. Status and Trends in Mangrove Area Extent World-wide. [2024-05-18]. http://www.fao.org/4/j1533e/J1533E01.htm.
[14]   Farnsworth E J, Ellison A M. 1996. Sun-shade adaptability of the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle (Rhizophoraceae): changes through ontogeny at several levels of biological organization. American Journal of Botany, 83(9): 1131-1143.
[15]   Friess D A, Rogers K, Lovelock C E, et al. 2019. The state of the world's mangrove forests: past, present, and future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44: 89-115.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302
[16]   Ghosh S, Bakshi M, Bhattacharyya S, et al. 2015. A review of threats and vulnerabilities to mangrove habitats: with special emphasis on East Coast of India. Journal of Earth Science & Climate Change, 6: 270, doi: 10.4172/2157-7617.100270.
[17]   Goudarzi A, Moslehi M. 2020. Distribution of a devastating fungal pathogen in mangrove forests of southern Iran. Crop Protection, 128: 104987, doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104987.
[18]   Hicks R A, Dugas W A. 1997. Estimating ashe juniper leaf area from tree and stem characteristics. Journal of Range Management, 51(6): 633-637.
[19]   Hosseinzadeh Monfared S, Tohidian Far Y, Ahmadnia Motlaq H, et al. 2008. Mangrove forests; its distribution, importance and threats in Iran, the first regional conference on inland aquatic ecosystems of Iran. Bushehr: Islamic Azad University, Bushehr branch, 1-6. (in Persian)
[20]   Houghton R A, Skole D L, Nobre C A, et al. 2000a. Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation and regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature, 403: 301-304.
[21]   Houghton R A, Hackler J L, Lawrence K T. 2000b. Changes in terrestrial carbon storage in the United States. 2: The role of fire and fire management. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 9(2): 145-170.
[22]   Komiyama A, Ong J E, Poungparn S. 2008. Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquatic Botany, 89(2): 128-137.
[23]   Limbong C, Samsuri, Ahmad A G. 2023. Strategy to strengthening forest farming for sustainable mangrove forest management in the coastal area, Deli Serdang, Indonesia. Journal of Sylva Indonesiana, 6(1): 29-43.
[24]   Medina-Irizarry N D, Andreu M G. 2022. The Impacts of Trimming Mangroves. [2024-05-18]. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FR448.
[25]   Middelburg J J, Nieuwenhuize J, Slim F J, et al. 1996. Sediment biogeochemistry in an East African mangrove forest (Gazi Bay, Kenya). Biogeochemistry, 34(3): 133-155.
[26]   Moslehi M, Habashi H, Rahmani R. 2017. Seasonal changes of soil organic carbon storage in managed and unmanaged Fagus orientalis-Carpinus betolus stand. Scientific and Research Quarterly Journal of Forest and Poplar, 25(2): 286-297. (in Persian)
[27]   Moslehi M, Hassanzadeh H. 2020. The effect of different rainfall storage methods on soil moisture and vegetative characteristics of Acacia oerfota (Forssk.) Schweinf seedlings (case study: Dehgin watershed, Hormozgan Province). Desert Ecosystem Journal, 9(26): 72-61. (in Persian)
[28]   Moslehi M, Ahmadi A, Abadeh M, et al. 2023. The effect of different cutting intensities of mangrove grey trees (Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh.) on the reproduction and the growth of stand. Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology, 30(1): 141-156. (in Persian)
[29]   Othman M A. 1994. Value of mangroves in coastal protection. Hydrobiologia, 285: 277-282.
[30]   Page A L, Miller R H, Keeney M. 1992. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Porperties (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1159.
[31]   Pourhashemi M, Eskandari S, Dehghani M, et al. 2011. Biomass and leaf area index of Caucasian Hackberry (Celtis caucasica Willd.) in Taileh urban forest, Sanandaj, Iran. Iran Forest and Poplar Research Journal, 19(4): 609-620. (in Persian)
[32]   Schrijvers J, Gansbeke D, Vincx M. 1995. Macrobenthic infauna of mangroves and surrounding beaches at Gazi Bay, Kenya. Hydrobiologia, 306: 53-66.
[33]   Sigi Lang'at J K, Kairo G J, Mencuccini M, et al. 2014. Rapid losses of surface elevation following tree girdling and cutting in tropical mangroves. PLoS One, 9(9): e107868, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107868.
[34]   Simon N L, Raffaelli D. 2012. Assessing ecosystem effects of small-scale cutting of Cameroon mangrove forests. Journal of Ecology and Natural Environment, 4(5): 126-134.
[35]   Spalding M, McIvor A, Tonneijck F H, et al. 2014. angroves for Coastal Defense. Guidelines for Coastal Managers and Policy Makers. Amsterdam: Wetlands International and the Nature Conservancy, 42.
[36]   Swanson M E, Franklin J F, Beschta R L, et al. 2010. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(2): 117-125.
[37]   van Laar A, Akça A. 2007. Forest Mensuration. Dordrecht: Springer, 383.
[38]   van Oudenhoven A P E, Siahainenia A J, Sualia I, et al. 2015. Effects of different management regimes on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 116: 353-367.
[39]   Walters B B. 2005. Ecological effects of small-scale cutting of Philippine mangrove forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 206(1-3): 331-348.
[40]   Walters B B, Ronnback P, Kovacs J M, et al. 2008. Ethnobiology, socio-economics and management of mangrove forests: a review. Aquatic Botany, 89(2): 220-236.
[41]   Yaghoubzadeh M, Salman Mahiini R, Mikaili A, et al. 2021a. Prioritization of environmental hazards of mangrove forests in Hormozgan Province. Journal of Natural Environment Hazards, 30(10): 68-82. (in Persian)
[42]   Yaghoubzadeh M, Salman Mahiny R, Mikaeili Tabrizi A, et al. 2021b. Investigation of shrimp farming effluent effects on vegetative and reproductive characteristics of mangrove forests (Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh.). Iranian Journal of Forest, 3(13): 271-284. (in Persian)
[1] GUO Jingwen, SONG Xueshu, WANG Xiao, DU Zhangliu, LU Sen. Afforestation with an age-sequence of Mongolian pine plantation promotes soil microbial residue accumulation in the Horqin Sandy Land, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(4): 567-579.
[2] Samire ROSTAMI, Ahmad ALIJANPOUR, Abbas BANJ SHAFIEI, Hesam AHMADY-BIRGANI, Hadi BEYGI HEIDARLOU. Investigation on biological activities for combating desertification in the western shores of Lake Urmia, Northwest Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(3): 297-309.
[3] ZHOU Qian, DING Jianli, GE Xiangyu, LI Ke, ZHANG Zipeng, GU Yongsheng. Estimation of soil organic matter in the Ogan-Kuqa River Oasis, Northwest China, based on visible and near-infrared spectroscopy and machine learning[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(2): 191-204.
[4] GONG Yidan, XING Xuguang, WANG Weihua. Factors determining soil water heterogeneity on the Chinese Loess Plateau as based on an empirical mode decomposition method[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(3): 462-472.
[5] YANG Han, XIONG Heigang, CHEN Xuegang, WANG Yaqi, ZHANG Fang. Identifying the influence of urbanization on soil organic matter content and pH from soil magnetic characteristics[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2015, 7(6): 820-830.
[6] Amitava CHATTERJEE, George D JENERETTE. Variation in soil organic matter accumulation and metabolic activity along an elevation gradient in the Santa Rosa Mountains of Southern California, USA[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2015, 7(6): 814-819.
[7] YanYun LUO, TingXi LIU, XiXi WANG, LiMin DUAN. Influences of landform as a confounding variable on SOM-NDVI association in semiarid Ordos Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2012, 4(4): 450-456.