SUBSTRATE PREFERENCES OF THE GERMINATION AND GROWTH OF

Sonneratia caseolaris SEEDS UNDER NURSERY CONDITIONS

WILHELM HEINRICH V. CABE

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Fisheries
Mindanao State University
General Santos City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Bachelor of Science
in Marine Biology

June 2017
 APPROVAL SHEET

The thesis hereto entitled “SUBSTRATE PREFERENCES OF THE

GERMINATION AND GROWTH OF Sonneratia caseolaris SEEDS UNDER

NURSERY CONDITIONS” prepared and submitted by Wilhelm Heinrich V. Cabe in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Marine

Biology is hereby approved.

THESIS COMMITTEE

PROF. GAILY JUBIE S. HONTIVEROS PROF. JULIUS V. MINGOC

Member Member
_________________________ ___________________________
Date Date

PROF. ARIEL T. ORTIZ

Adviser
_______________________
Date

Accepted in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of

Science in Marine Biology.

PROF. ARIEL T. ORTIZ PROF. RONALD P. SOMBERO

Chairman, Marine Biology Department Dean
________________________ ________________________
Date Date

II
 CURRICULUM VITAE

The researcher came into existence on the 17th day of the 8th month of year 1997 in

the quaint little municipality of Polomolok, South Cotabato. His current residence in his

19 years of living has been his family’s home in Blk. 7, Tuazon Subdivision, Polomolok,

South Cotabato. He is the middle child and only son of Samuel D. Cabe and Flordelisa V.

Cabe, and has been the middleman between his elder sister Anna Czarina V. Cabe and

younger sister Hazel Faith V. Cabe.

He spent his kindergarten and elementary years in Southern Baptist School of

Polomolok, and eventually graduated as Salutatorian in their batch. He then took his high

school education in San Lorenzo Ruiz Academy of Polomolok, finishing it by the year

2013. Afterwards, he began his life as a college student as a BS Marine Biology student

in Mindanao State University - General Santos City.

III
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher would like to express his sincere gratitude to:

 His own self for making it this far. He owes himself too for persisting and trying

to do his best all this time.

 His Dad, Samuel D. Cabe, and Mom, Flordelisa V. Cabe, for making out one

night in 1996 and ended up with him being born without the researcher’s

permission in 1997. He thanks them for raising him to the best of their ability.

They fed him, dressed him, taught him things like how to take a bath, took care

of his number twos, gave him life lessons and invaluable experiences, and

eventually banished him to a 15 year struggle known as “school”. Thankfully,

they still spoiled the researcher until college, no wonder he got so fat. The

researcher expresses a lot of gratitude for their love and support. His parents can

definitely be quite strict and nosy on his business, but the researcher knows they

just worry about him a lot.

 His scary overbearing elder sister Anna Czarina V. Cabe, who gave him some

sound advice and became the listening ear for his grievances during his college

days. He is also grateful to his annoying loud little sister, whose amusing antics

and short fuse manages to give him a laugh and a smile each day. He also

appreciates the words of encouragement offered by his cousins, whose names are

too many to write down in this page.

 His teachers for everything they taught him. Obviously he can’t remember all

their names, deal with it. He is thankful that they taught him tons of stuff, life
IV
 stories, important lessons, and whatever essential stuff he forgot to write down

here that made the researcher ready now to face whatever future’s ahead of him.

He thanks all of his teachers who have no doubt helped him reach where he is

today, and he knows their lessons will continue to guide him in the future.

 That crazy bunch of people who had been his classmates ever since he was a

college freshman. They have shared many unforgettable memories, made new

friends, lost old ones, hanged out together, and did crazy stuff together. Thanks to

his classmates, the researcher learned new things. They reminded him that life is

not always an arms’ race to be the best, because life offers so much more than

mere honors and excellence.

 The various people who know him and gave him their greetings and smiles, from

the jeepney drivers and conductors, the vendors in school, and other random

people who managed to brighten up his day with a smile, an offer for help, or an

act of kindness. Such unexpected blessing had always cheered him up. He may

not know their names, but the researcher is truly grateful for your actions.

 The Man Upstairs for making things as one giant coincidence which ultimately

helped the researcher reach where he is now. He is thankful for Him for always

putting up with his mental conversations, and for Him always surprising the

reeacher in more ways than one. God knows how He does it, but those surprises

have been more than enough to keep him going.

The Researcher
V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET II

CURRICULUM VITAE III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IV

LIST OF TABLES VII

LIST OF FIGURES VIII

LIST OF IMAGES IX

LIST OF APPENDICES X

ABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 5

MATERIALS AND METHODS 19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33

SUMMARY 46

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47

LITERATURE CITED 49

APPENDICES 53

VI
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 - A TABLE CLASSIFYING SOIL PARTICLES. 24

TABLE 2 - COLOR-CODED TABLE OF THE TREATMENTS. 28

TABLE 3 - THE SEED VIABILITY SETUP USED IN THE STUDY. 28

TABLE 4 - THE SEEDLING’S EXPERIMENTAL SETUP. 31

VII
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - A MAP OF THE STUDY SITE. 20

FIGURE 2 - A SOIL TEXTURE TRIANGLE. 23

FIGURE 3 - SIEVE ANALYSIS SETUP USED IN THE EXPERIMENT. 25

FIGURE 4 - THE RESULTS OF THE SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST. 33

FIGURE 5 - A LINE GRAPH SHOWING THE GERMINATION RATE. 35

FIGURE 6 - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF GERMINATION RATE. 36

FIGURE 7 - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF DAYS TO SEEDLING

EMERGENCE. 37

FIGURE 8 - A LINE GRAPH SHOWING THE SHOOT HEIGHT. 39

FIGURE 9 - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF SHOOT HEIGHT. 41

FIGURE 10 - A LINE GRAPH SHOWING THE NUMBER OF LEAVES. 42

FIGURE 11 - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF LEAVES. 43

FIGURE 12 - STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF STEM DIAMETERS. 44

VIII
 LIST OF IMAGES

IMAGE 1 - THE DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES OF S. CASEOLARIS. 12

IMAGE 2 - THE FINISHED MANGROVE NURSERY. 21

IMAGE 3 - ROTTEN S. CASEOLARIS FRUITS. 26

IMAGE 4 - SINKER SEEDS. 27

IMAGE 5 - A SEEDLING TRANSPLANTED USING A TROWEL. 30

IMAGE 6 – DRIED MUD FROM SEGUIL RIVER ESTUARY. 34

IX
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 - RESULTS OF THE SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST FOR THE "FINE

SAND" SUBSTRATE. 53

APPENDIX 2 - RESULTS OF THE SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST FOR THE "SILT

SAND" SUBSTRATE. 53

APPENDIX 3 - RESULTS OF THE SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST FOR THE "COARSE

SAND" SUBSTRATE. 54

APPENDIX 4 - THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST MONITORING PERIOD FOR

GERMINATION RATE. 54

APPENDIX 5 - THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND MONITORING PERIOD FOR

GERMINATION RATE. 55

APPENDIX 6 - THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD MONITORING PERIOD FOR

GERMINATION RATE. 55

APPENDIX 7 - THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD FOR

GERMINATION RATE 56

APPENDIX 8 - THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST MONITORING PERIOD FOR DAYS

TO SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 56

APPENDIX 9 - THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND MONITORING PERIOD FOR

DAYS TO SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 57

APPENDIX 10 - THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD MONITORING PERIOD FOR

DAYS TO SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 57

X
APPENDIX 11 - THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD FOR

DAYS TO SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 58

APPENDIX 12 - THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST MONITORING PERIOD FOR

SHOOT HEIGHT. 58

APPENDIX 13 - THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND MONITORING PERIOD FOR

SHOOT HEIGHT. 59

APPENDIX 14 - THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD MONITORING PERIOD FOR

SHOOT HEIGHT. 59

APPENDIX 15 - THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD FOR

SHOOT HEIGHT. 60

APPENDIX 16 - THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST MONITORING PERIOD FOR

NUMBER OF LEAVES PER SEEDLING. 60

APPENDIX 17 - THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND MONITORING PERIOD FOR

NUMBER OF LEAVES PER SEEDLING. 61

APPENDIX 18 - THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD MONITORING PERIOD FOR

NUMBER OF LEAVES PER SEEDLING. 61

APPENDIX 19 - THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD FOR

NUMBER OF LEAVES PER SEEDLING. 62

APPENDIX 20 - THE RESULTS OF THE AVERAGE STEM DIAMETER OF

SEEDLINGS PER TREATMENTS. 62

APPENDIX 21 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' GERMINATION

RATE. 63

XI
APPENDIX 22 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' DAYS TO

SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 64

APPENDIX 23 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' SHOOT HEIGHT

ON THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD. 65

APPENDIX 24 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' NUMBER OF

LEAVES. 66

APPENDIX 25 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' STEM

DIAMETERS. 67

APPENDIX 26 - AN IMAGE OF THE RESEARCHER 68

APPENDIX 27 - A CLOSE-UP OF THE NURSERY SETUP. 68

APPENDIX 28 - A S. CASEOLARIS SEEDLING GROWING IN SILT SAND

SUBSTRATE. 69

APPENDIX 29 - A S. CASEOLARIS SEEDLING GROWING ON FINE SAND

SUBSTRATE. 69

APPENDIX 30 - A S. CASEOLARIS SEEDLING GROWING ON COARSE SAND

SUBSTRATE. 70

APPENDIX 31 - SEEDLINGS FROM THE GERMINATION SETUP. 70

APPENDIX 32 - MIXING OF SILT SAND SUBSTRATE. 71

APPENDIX 33 - ROTTEN S. CASEOLARIS FRUITS READY TO BE SQUEEZED IN

BRACKISH WATER. 71

APPENDIX 34 - EMERGING S. CASEOLARIS SEEDS IN SILT SAND. 72

APPENDIX 35 - DRYING OF SOIL SAMPLES. 72

APPENDIX 36 - THE RESEARCHER'S TOOLS. 73

XII
 ABSTRACT

CABE, WILHELM HEINRICH V. College of Fisheries, Mindanao State University,

General Santos City, June 2017. Substrate Preferences of the Germination and Growth of
Sonneratia caseolaris Seeds under Nursery Conditions.

Thesis Adviser: PROF. ARIEL T. ORTIZ

A study was conducted to determine the preferred substrate of S. caseolaris seeds

under nursery conditions, with the objectives to determine if S. caseolaris has a preferred
substrate; to determine possible differences in seed viability between floater seeds and
sinker seeds; and to infer the possible implications of the results in the natural
environment and mangrove nurseries.
The seeds were germinated and grown in a mangrove nursery constructed in the
beachfront of the College of Fisheries Laboratory and Research Station from March 20,
2017 to May 16, 2017. The substrates tested were fine sand, coarse sand, and silt sand;
the seed types used were S. caseolaris seeds that floated (floater) and seeds that sank
(sinker) when the rotten fruits were squeezed in brackish water. Statistical analysis of the
results using a one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test showed that among
the tested substrates, the seeds showed greater preference for the silt sand substrate, and
no apparent significant differences were found between the germination rate of floater
and sinker seeds subjected to the same substrate treatment.

1
 INTRODUCTION

A mangrove is generally defined as a type of woody vegetation that grows in

brackish and marine habitats, and is usually found in the intertidal areas of tropical and

subtropical shorelines (Giesen, Wulffraat, Zieren, & Scholten, 2006). Despite amounting

to less than 1% of all forest areas worldwide, mangroves serve as important natural

nurseries for coastal and offshore fisheries, and are essential habitats for a wide variety

of marine and terrestrial life. People not only benefit from the timber and forest products

provided by these intertidal forests, but their shores are also better protected from wave

action and storms (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997; Environmental Leadership & Training

Initiative [ELTI], 2014).

This important role of mangrove forests has only been recently known by the public.

In the Philippines, it is usually only coastal dwellers who appreciate the mangroves

because they rely on them for food, shelter, and livelihood (Primavera, Sadaba, Lebata &

Altamirano, 2004). Despite this, Philippine mangroves have been declining mainly due

to the exploitation of mangrove lands for logging, agriculture, and fishpond conversion

(Calumpong & Meñez, 1997; ELTI, 2014).

The increased awareness of Filipinos on the role of mangroves has sparked several

mangrove protection and planting programs throughout the country, but the latter ended

up being largely unsuccessful due to lack of scientific knowledge of what mangrove

species grow in specific conditions (Janiola, 1996; Primavera, 2009). With proper

growing and planting techniques, the mortality of initial mangrove plantings can be

reduced to as low as fifty percent (Giesen et al., 2006).

2
 The Sonneratia caseolaris mangrove is a pioneering species that has been proven to

be superior in mangrove afforestation and rehabilitation of brackish waters and even

estuarine coastlines, but it is often ignored in mangrove rehabilitation due to the

convenience offered by Rhizophora propagules (Garcia, Malabrigo & Gevaña,

2013/2014; Zan, Wang, Wang & Li, 2003). This study aims to test what substrate favors

the growth of the Sonneratia caseolaris mangrove from seed to sapling. This knowledge

will be useful for guiding future generations in helping them restore degraded mangrove

forests and hopefully, allow a sustainable exchange between humans and mangrove

ecosystems.

The main purpose of this study is to add knowledge about the biology and ecology

of Sonneratia caseolaris in terms of substrate preference. The results will not only have

implications as to how soil type affects the germination and growth of S. caseolaris

seedlings, but it will also help us understand better how this mangrove is able to colonize

its intertidal habitat, and perhaps even give us insights as to why despite its reputation as

a pioneering species, Sonneratia seedlings are relatively rare in the wild (Garcia et al.,

2013/2014; Primavera et al., 2012). This study will also be helpful to mangrove nurseries

that wish to grow S. caseolaris considering that a seedling’s growth might be affected by

varying soil types used in a nursery (Soni, 2006). Hopefully, the information gathered

from this study will be useful in helping us restore our degraded mangrove forests, so

that future generations can also enjoy the bounty of the mangroves both we and nature

have shared since time immemorial.

The study wishes to achieve the following objectives: ascertain the preferred

substrate of Sonneratia caseolaris seeds grown under nursery conditions. This study also

3
hopes to determine if there are differences between floater seeds and sinker seeds of S.

caseolaris in terms of germination and growth, as current literature seems to only

consider floater seeds as the viable ones (“Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.). This

study also strives to cite the possible real-life implications of the results in the natural

environment.

However, this research is also placed into constraint by the following scope and

limitations: the study raised mangrove seedlings under nursery conditions, and thus the

seeds were grown in a more or less controlled environment, but still subjected to ambient

weather conditions such as winds, sunlight, and rain. Only three substrates were used,

and the substrates used were limited to soils found in the vicinity of the College of

Fisheries Laboratory and Research Station, Barangay Bawing, General Santos City. The

nursery is set like the small-scale nursery described by Primavera et al. (2012), and thus

uses inexpensive and practical materials, with the following exceptions: the nursery site

is located in a sunny beach area with minimal shade and minimal mangroves in the

immediate vicinity, the nursery area is not submerged during spring tide, and the nursery

area is watered by hand with brackish water. Another limitation is that the experimental

setup mimics a real-life nursery setup rather than an experimental design, and finally, the

study was conducted between March 20, 2017 and May 16, 2017.

4
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Definition of a Mangrove

A mangrove’s general definition is any type of vegetation found within tidal forests

in tropical and subtropical regions. Most of them are woody plants that occur in brackish

and marine intertidal habitats (Giesen et al., 2006) along estuaries (Kin, 2005), tidal

streams (Mangrove Action Project [MAP] & Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut [YARL],

2006), deltas, lagoons, bays, and shallow protected shores (Primavera et al., 2004). They

are salt-tolerant plants capable of growing in saline and waterlogged soils, even with a

high concentration of nutrients and heavy metals (Kin, 2005).

True mangroves however are defined as plant species that occur only on intertidal

areas and is usually not found elsewhere (Primavera et al., 2004). Among all the sixty

true mangrove species found worldwide, thirty-eight species are found in the Philippines

(Giesen et al., 2006). Each mangrove species has a specific preference and adaptation for

surrounding environmental factors which includes tidal inundation, salinity level, and

substrate, among others. In effect, this causes particular mangrove species to grow only

in certain areas that match their preferences. The final result of such a setup is mangrove

zonation, where only one or two mangrove species can dominate on a certain section of a

coast or estuary (Primavera et al., 2012).

Importance of Mangroves

Mangroves are unique ecosystems that act as the interface between land and sea, and

nowhere else can one find a habitat shared extensively by both terrestrial and marine life

5
as much as the mangroves (Global Nature Fund [GNF], 2007). They are home to an

astounding variety of wildlife comprising mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes,

and invertebrates in the form of molluscs, crustaceans, and insects (Calumpong & Meñez,

1997; Giesen et al., 2006). These tidal forests play essential roles in the life cycles of

many fish, shrimp, crab, and mollusc species, serving as their breeding, foraging, and

nursery areas. Mangroves provide them with protection from predators and at the same

time provides them with food in the form of organic matter (Clarke & Johns, 2002;

Giesen et al., 2006). In fact, mangroves produce so much organic matter and nutrients

from its leaf litter that it also feeds marine organisms outside the forest itself, and the

mangroves themselves help in the ecological stabilization of coastal and nearby

ecosystems (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997; De Jesus, Diamante-Fabunan, Nañola, White

& Cabangon, 2001; Giesen et al., 2006 ).

Mangroves are capable of sequestering and storing large amounts of carbon,

reducing the effects of global climate change (ELTI, 2014). These forests are key players

in protecting and stabilizing coasts and riverbanks (Kin, 2005; Primavera et al., 2004).

The mangrove trees’ root systems retard water movement, allowing mud and sediment to

accumulate in the bottom (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997). While the mangroves

themselves do not actively “build” new land in this process, they nonetheless stabilize

sediments along the shore, effectively countering erosion (Snedaker, 1987). Mangrove

stands form a protective buffer zone along the coast, working in synergy with nearby

ecosystems such as seagrass beds and coral reefs to provide coastal protection, thereby

lessening the effects of storm surges, flooding, and tsunamis. Mangrove forests also

6
improve water quality by filtering out nutrients and pollutants from storm water (Clarke

& Johns, 2002; ELTI, 2014; Garcia et al., 2013/2014; Snedaker, 1987)

Importance of Mangroves to People

Native coastal dwellers recognize the important role of mangrove forests as they rely

on them for their livelihood, shelter and as a food source, especially during times of

rough weather when fishermen can’t go out at sea (Garcia et al., 2013/2014; Primavera et

al., 2004). These coastal folk not only enjoy the rich faunal diversity of mangroves, but

they also utilize the mangroves themselves. The trees provide them with wood, fuel,

medicine, fishing and construction materials, and sometimes food and cosmetic extracts.

Many commercially valuable species of fish, mollusks, and crustaceans use the

mangroves as natural nurseries, shelters, and foraging areas, and thus mangroves play an

essential role in maintaining the productivity of coastal fisheries. In fact, a correlation

has been observed between coastal fisheries’ productivity and mangrove areas, with

greater mangrove areas corresponding to better fisheries (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997;

Giesen et al., 2006).

Coastal dwellers also benefit from the protection provided by these intertidal forests

against storms, strong winds, and large waves. Numerous observations agree that

shorelines protected by mangrove forests suffer lesser damage from storms and tsunamis,

and many survivors have lived through storm surges by clinging on to the mangroves for

safety (Giesen et al., 2006; GNF, 2007; Primavera et al., 2004).

7
Threats to Mangroves

Many people consider mangroves as ominous smelly sea forests and useless swamps

that are breeding grounds for mosquitoes and hindrances to a picturesque beach (GNF,

2007; Snedaker, 1987). This ultimately has led to the destruction of mangrove forests in

favor of rice paddies (Kin, 2005), aquaculture ponds (De Jesus et al., 2001), agricultural

conversion (Garcia et al., 2013/2014), coastal development (ELTI, 2014), logging

(Calumpong & Meñez, 1997), coconut plantations, human settlements and ironically,

monoculture nipa mangrove plantations. Among all major marine ecosystems in the

Philippines, the mangroves received both the earliest and greatest impact from human

disturbances due to easy accessibility and over-exploitation (De Jesus et al., 2001;

Primavera et al., 2004).

It is estimated that during 1920, the Philippines once had mangrove forests that

covered a total of 500,000 hectares all over the country (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997). In

the course of roughly a century, this total mangrove cover has been reduced to 140,000

hectares. Aquaculture has been considered the major factor in mangrove decline all over

the country. Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, 237,000 hectares of mangrove

were lost to pond construction (Garcia et al., 2013/2014).

A similar situation is seen in Sarangani Province according to the study conducted

by De Jesus et al. (2001). At that time it was estimated that the area had mangrove

forests that covered 267.6 hectares, but this figure is dwarfed by an estimated 670

hectares of fishponds. Unfortunately there was no reliable way of knowing how much of

these pond areas were formerly mangrove forests, but estimates suggest mangrove

8
reclamation went as high as fifty percent which in turn, greatly contributed to the decline

of fishery products.

Despite the seeming contradiction, mangrove-friendly aquaculture is not impossible

(GNF, 2007; Primavera et al., 2004). Primavera et al. (2014) suggests a ratio of one

hectare of fishponds to four hectares of mangroves to maintain ecological sustainability.

In order to support current fish populations and enhance food security in the Philippines,

Garcia et al. (2013/2014) suggests that the Philippines’ mangrove forests must be

restored to their original 500,000 hectares.

Mangrove Protection and Rehabilitation

Typhoons hit the Philippines by about twenty to thirty times per year, and its

shorelines are vulnerable to strong winds and storm surges. Recognizing the important

roles of mangroves for coastal protection, the Philippine Government passed laws to

protect remaining mangrove forests nationwide, and several groups initiated mangrove

planting activities all over the country. While this has increased general awareness of

mangroves among the public, the reality however, is despite the supposed government

protection, many mangrove areas still suffer degradation due to poor law enforcement

and lack of political will. Most of the earlier mangrove planting projects were

unsuccessful due to lack of knowledge of what mangrove species grew under specific

conditions (Garcia et al., 2013/2014; Janiola, 1996; Primavera, 2009; Primavera et al.,

2004).

The Rhizophora mangrove, locally known as bakhaw, is usually the only mangrove

genus used in mangrove planting activities due to it being easy to plant and the

9
availability of its propagules. Survival rate of these planted mangroves however are low

owing to predator attacks (especially by Crassostrea oysters and Cardisoma land crabs),

shading out by Enteromorpha algal blooms, encrustation of barnacles, substrate

incompatibility, and ignorance of mangrove ecology (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997;

Primavera et al., 2004; Primavera et al., 2012). This lack of basic knowledge about

mangroves significantly hinders research and rehabilitation, and wastes both time and

money of mangrove rehabilitation projects (MAP & YARL, 2006; Primavera et al.,

2004). It is now recommended to do multi-species mangrove reforestation instead of

relying on monospecific Rhizophora stands, which are often vulnerable to pests

(Calumpong & Meñez, 1997; Garcia et al., 2013/2014). For mangrove rehabilitation

along the shoreline, it is better to use the natural mangrove colonizers such as Avicennia

or Sonneratia. These two genera contain species that can tolerate harsher conditions (e.g.

longer periods of tidal inundation) than most mangroves. These hardy species are called

pioneer species due to their ability to colonize the pioneer mangrove zone, where waves

and tidal inundation are the highest (Lewis & Brown, 2014). For brackish to freshwater

environments of the lower intertidal portion of a mangrove forest, the pioneering species

is Sonneratia caseolaris (Giesen et al., 2006).

Sonneratia caseolaris

The Sonneratia caseolaris mangrove, commonly known as the crabapple mangrove

and locally known as pagatpat/pagatpat-sa-tubig/pedada, is a pioneering species

belonging to Family Lythraceae of Kingdom Plantae. It is often found co-occurring with

Nypa fruticans in the almost freshwater parts of an estuary. Its natural distribution from

west to east starts in Sri Lanka, throughout Southeast Asia, to tropical Australia, the

10
Solomon Islands, and the New Hebrides. Although not part of its native range, it was

introduced in Southern China (Garcia et al., 2013/2014; Giesen et al., 2006; “Sonneratia

caseolaris”, n.d.).

S. caseolaris is a small to medium-sized evergreen tree, up to 15 meters, and rarely

up to 20 meters in height. It can be distinguished from other Sonneratia species by its

very strong vertical pneumatophores up to 1 m long, a lax, round, and spreading canopy

similar to a weeping willow (Salix babylonica), elongate leaves, reddish petioles and

pom-pom shaped flowers that have red petals and numerous stamens that are pink at the

bottom and white on top (Giesen et al., 2006; “Mangrove Trees and Shrubs, n.d.;

Primavera et al., 2004; Tan, 2013-a). In Australia, as well as Seguil River, the S.

caseolaris flowers have numerous red stamens instead (Duke, 2006). An illustration of S.

caseolaris’ diagnostic features is shown in Image 1.

Its leaves are simple, dark green in color, have an opposite arrangement, and the

rounded apex of the leaves has been observed to have a prominent recurved tip. Leaves

from the same S. caseolaris tree can exhibit variations in size from oval to drop-shaped.

The leaves can change their inclination from horizontal to vertical during periods of

heavy rains (Giesen et al., 2006; “Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d. ;“Sonneratia

caseolaris”, n.d.). Its bark has a rough texture and and can range from light to

dark-brown in color. Younger barks are lenticellate and are a smooth waxy brown, and

older barks show a “cracked” appearance (Primavera et al., 2004; Tan, 2013-a). Like

other Sonneratia species, its flowers open at evening and bloom for only one night. The

blooming flowers smell like butter or sour milk, and contain abundant nectar. This

attracts its pollinators such as bats and moths in the night, and bees and nectar-feeding

11
birds by dawn. It flowers and fruits throughout the whole year, producing large numbers

of fruits. Its green, leathery, shiny, and fleshy fruits are flattened-round in shape,

measuring 3-4 cm by 5-7.5 cm. The buoyant seeds embedded in the fruit’s fleshy pulp

are irregularly shaped and can be 7 mm long. The buoyancy of these seeds allows them

to be dispersed through water. The seeds exhibit epigeal germination. (Duke, 2006;

Giesen et al., 2006; Kin, 2005; Primavera et al., 2004; “Sonneratia caseolaris”, n.d.; Tan,

2013-a).

Image 1 - The diagnostic features of S. caseolaris (left to right): An open drooping canopy similar to a

weeping willow, elongate leaves, pompom-like flowers with numerous stamens that are either pure red or

pink on the bottom and white on top, and a green, leathery, shiny fruit. Photo credits from Tan (2014) and

Duke (2006).

12
 S. caseolaris is the most inland of all Sonneratia species. They occur on the less

saline parts of mangrove forests, preferring deeply muddy soils or along tidal creeks with

slow moving water, and never on coral banks. S. caseolaris is often found along rivers,

occurring upstream where the effects of the tides can still be felt, but can also be found in

predominantly freshwater areas. It has great range of salinity tolerance from as low as

0ppt (freshwater) to saltwater (35ppt). True to its pioneering nature, S. caseolaris is one

of the first mangrove species to colonize riverbanks and mudflats in new habitats.

However, it is shade-intolerant, and will only grow in areas with adequate light (Duke,

2006; Giesen et al., 2006; Primavera et al., 2004; “Sonneratia caseolaris”, n.d.; Tan,

2013-a; Zan, et al., 2003)

Ecological and Economical Importance of S. caseolaris

S. caseolaris mainly grows on the tidal flats of riverbanks, where it is often found in

the fringes of a natural forest. In this setting, S. caseolaris changes the environment by

shading, raising the ground level, and stabilizing the soil. This in turn, promotes the

growth of other mangrove species underneath its canopy. In Wenchang, Hainan Island,

seedlings of Avicennia marina, Aegiceras corniculatum, Rhizophora apiculata,

Bruguiera sexangula, and Kandelia candel have been found to grow underneath the

canopy of S. caseolaris (Zan, et al., 2003).

Sonneratia mangroves are important food sources for bats like Eonycterus spelaea,

which also pollinate other commercially valuable plants such as bananas and durian trees.

(Tan, 2013-b) The tree’s leaves are the main food source of various fauna such as

13
proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) and moth caterpillars (“Sonneratia caseolaris”,

n.d.).

Sonneratia mangroves as a whole are often called firefly trees because the insects

congregate on the trees by night, particularly on S. caseolaris. The insects’ exact

relationship with the trees are unknown. Some propose that the adult fireflies either feed

on the tree’s sap, young leaves, flower nectar, or scale insects only found in S. caseolaris

trees. The tree’s open canopy is probably preferred because it allows the fireflies’ glow

to be seen from long distances. The firefly larvae are carnivorous and amphibious, living

on the vegetation below the tree and preying on aquatic snails (Cyclotropis carinata) and

nematode worms (Tan, 2013-b). Kin (2005) reports how boatmen in Kampung Kuantan

in Malaysia have relied on Sonneratia caseolaris trees along the riverbanks of Selangor

River for their firefly watching tours. Such unique displays have caused the area to

become a renowned tourist destination by both locals and foreigners (“Kampung

Kuantan”, n.d.).

The tree has various uses: its leaves, fruits, and flowers are edible and can be used as

medicine. Its lumber, while of poor quality, is hard and heavy, resistant to pests, and

used in boat-building, construction, bridges, posts, and poles. The naturally high mineral

content of the wood however will corrode metal. It can be used as firewood if no better

alternatives are available. The pneumatophores, once boiled, can be used as an inferior

substitute for cork. The pneumatophores can also be used for making the wooden soles

of shoes and floats for fishing nets. Its bark contains a moderate amount of tannin, and

local knowledge states that its leaves can be fed to goats (Giesen et al., 2006;

“Sonneratia caseolaris”, n.d.)

14
 Young fruits are sour and are used to flavour curries and chutnies. Upon ripening,

the fruits taste like “cheese” and is eaten raw or cooked. The fruit is savored by both

children and adults, and in certain countries, the fruits are even sold in the market or used

to make vinegar. The fruits can also be used for treating hemorrhage and coughs, and the

tree’s sap was once used as a cosmetic (“Mangroves Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.; Primavera

et al., 2004; Tan, 2013-a)

Nursery Problems with Sonneratia Mangroves

Sonneratia mangroves are clearly one of the best choices for nursery mangroves to

be used for rehabilitation (Garcia et al., 2013/2014), but despite several mangrove

nurseries throughout the country, only a relative few cultivate Sonneratia saplings. For

example, for the case of Sonneratia alba, germination tests for these mangroves are few,

and current growing techniques are underdeveloped. Collection of naturally-growing

Sonneratia saplings for transplanting to rehabilitation areas is impractical due to the

rarity of such saplings in the wild. This is probably due to the seeds’ need for a suitable

substrate to germinate, unlike the viviparous Avicennia and Rhizophora. This ultimately

makes S. alba an unfavorable candidate in mangrove nurseries (Buduan & Ballon, n.d.;

Primavera et al., 2012).

Current Methods for Cultivating Sonneratia caseolaris

Current literature has differing opinions on how to grow Sonneratia caseolaris seeds.

Chan & Baba (2009) suggests planting portions of the fruit with enclosed seeds may be

worth a try. Giesen et al. (2006) proposes keeping the mature fruits in wet sand until they

are rotten before releasing the seeds. Mature fruits often have a “cracked” skin

15
(Primavera et al., 2012). The newly-released seeds should be dried for a few hours

before sowing into seedbeds or special germination trays filled with pure sand,

preferably sand with as little humus content as possible to prevent fungal development.

Once the seedlings grow and develop their second pair of leaves, they can be transferred

to polybags containing original mangrove soil for further rearing. These polybags should

be at least 20 cm in diameter as this provides optimal conditions for development with

least damage to the mangrove’s complicated root system (Giesen et al. ,2006; Primavera

et al., 2012).

Another source (“Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.) provides a different way of

propagating S. caseolaris. The fruits can be gathered during low tide and kept in a heap

for a few days to allow the fruit’s outer skin to rot. The seeds can then be easily

separated by squeezing the fruit in water. The viable seeds are those that float. These are

then kept in brackish water for about five days. After two days, most of the seeds will

sink, and by the fifth day, the seeds will float again with extended roots. These

germinated seeds can then be sown in a nursery. After five to six months, the seedlings

will be about 30 to 40 cm in height and ready for outplanting.

Zan et al. (2003) doesn’t provide an exact protocol to follow, but their paper does

provide important clues to the propagation of S. caseolaris. The seeds’ germination rate

can be enhanced by washing out the fruit pectin with freshwater. They mentioned that

the seeds required light to germinate, and the seedlings are shade-intolerant, and thus

won’t grow well under the canopy of other mangroves. They also found that S.

caseolaris seeds will only germinate at a salinity of less than 10 ppt, with most ideal

salinity being 2.5 ppt. Increasing salinity will cause root tips to turn brownish red,

16
extended roots to become depressed, and the roots to eventually wither away. Kin (2005)

observed that increasing salinity inhibits germination, and at seawater salinity, only 2%

of the seeds will germinate.

Green Coast (n.d.) adds that Sonneratia seeds germinate within two weeks, and can

be stored for four weeks. In order to reduce palatability for predators, the seeds should be

stored in high moisture containers for more than three days under natural shade. The

planting methods for Sonneratia involve either broadcasting seeds or transplanting them

from the wild and planting them in polythene bags. S. caseolaris is best planted in upper

reaches of estuaries, supra-tidal areas that can be flooded with freshwater or estuaries

with high freshwater discharge.

The Importance of Soil Type

Owing to their natural ecology, S. caseolaris predominantly grows in the muddy

substrates of low salinity riverbanks and low tidal flats (Primavera et al., 2004; Zan et al.,

2003). However, Calumpong & Meñez (1997) has mentioned that S. caseolaris inhabits

the same habitat as S. alba. S. alba’s habitat are the mouths of tidal streams or on the

rocky or sandy muddy soil at the seaward fringe. Depending on particle size and

composition, soils can be classified to three broad categories: sand, silt, and clay. Each of

these soil types contribute to the soil. Clay improves nutrient and water retention, adds

stability to soil, but can be difficult to till. Sand is characterized by good drainage,

aeration, and is easier to till. Silt has properties intermediate to sand and clay (HORIBA,

n.d.). This study wishes to test if S. caseolaris can grow on other substrates besides mud,

as each substrate or soil type has its own particular attributes that may or may not favor

17
optimal growth for plants (Soni, 2006). The results of such a study may have

implications on the growing periods of S. caseolaris in the natural setting or nurseries,

which ultimately will affect our understanding of how this mangrove’s capability as a

pioneering species is affected by the substrate of a coast or estuary.

18
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Description

The study site is the beachfront of the College of Fisheries Laboratory and Research

Station [CFLRS]. It is located at GPS Coordinates 5°57'36.85"N 125° 6'21.36"E (Figure

1). The only true mangrove species naturally occurring in the nearby Seguil River is

Nypa fruticans, Rhizophora apiculata and Sonneratia caseolaris, where it is locally

known as pagatpat-sa-tubig. Some Rhizophora apiculata saplings can be found growing

nearby, but they were planted and not native to the area. The intertidal substrate along

the beachfront is predominantly sand. However, most of the intertidal portion of the

shoreline is littered with boulders, stones and pebbles of various sizes. From general

observation, the shoreline is a beach, and can be quite dynamic. The shoreline can

change dramatically after a span of few days. The slope of the beach can change, and

sandy landscapes can become beds of pebbles. Very high tides wash up various litter

along the shore ranging from natural driftwood to various human garbage that may or

may not be carried away during the next high tide. The waves and currents along the

shore change with the prevailing winds. The shoreline vegetation is typical of beach and

dune forests and not mangrove communities, as proven by the presence of plant species

like Canavalia rosea, Ipomoea pes-caprae, Terminalia cattapa, and Vigna marina (Chan

& Baba, 2009).

19
Figure 1 - A map of the study site. The yellow polygon indicates the boundaries of CFLRS (Google Earth

Pro, 2017).

The chosen site was the sandy beach area adjacent to a natural brackish water pond

(3 ppt) at the edge of CFLRS. This area was chosen because the water from this pond is

reached by seawater during the spring tides. A 12’ x 12’ x 8’ nursery was constructed

with a cocolumber skeleton. While Primavera et al. (2012) has advised that mangrove

nurseries should be shaded, Zan et al. (2003) warns that Sonneratia seeds need light to

germinate. Thus, this nursery’s only protection from sunlight was a black net with 1 cm

mesh size forming the “walls” and “roof” of the nursery. However, some coconut fronds

were later added as roofing material to help alleviate the heat during midday, but still

allowed light to filter to the bottom. The spring tides occasionally raise the water levels

high enough for the seawater to flow through the nursery, but this is only shallow and is

20
not enough to submerge the seedlings in their polybags. Nevertheless, during these high

water periods, the waves also carry various trash pieces that get swept towards the shore.

In order to help the black-net walls prevent the intrusion of trash within the nursery, a

little “wall” made of large stones was placed as a barrier on the sides of the nursery

fronting the shoreline (Image 2).

Image 2 - The finished mangrove nursery holding the seedlings. Note the cocolumber framework of the

nursery and its black-net walls, roof, and door, as well as the line of stones arranged on the seaward

portion of the nursery.

Preparation of Substrate Treatment

In accordance with the objectives of the study, only the substrates found on the

intertidal area of the study site were used. All substrates used for this study were taken

from the exposed intertidal area during the neap low tide (Primavera et al., 2012). The

21
native substrates were initially characterized with an ocular inspection. These tentative

identifications were used to mark areas in the intertidal zone that were ideal soil sources

for the experiment’s different soil treatments. Initial survey of the shoreline revealed

three substrates present in the intertidal zone: “fine sand” in the beachfront, “coarse

sand” along the water’s edge at low tide, and “silt sand” taken from the nearby Siguel

River’s estuary. These were tentative names given to the identified substrates.

Once the soil sources were fixed, soil was taken from them to serve as the soil

treatments to be used in the experimental setup. However, to maintain soil homogeneity

for each substrate treatment, each collected soil type was thoroughly mixed to ensure a

uniform soil composition for seeds subjected to the same substrate treatment. For every

substrate treatment, a total of 30 7’’ x 7’’ x 11’’ polybags were filled. This polybag size

was chosen because when the polybag is filled, its diameter roughly matches the

minimum diameter of 20cm required by Giesen et al. (2006) to allow optimal mangrove

growth without damaging the root system. Only 3/4 of the polybags’ volume was filled

with soil, and the filled polybags were then watered with brackish water from the nearby

pond to stabilize the soil.

Sieve Analysis Test

One polybag was taken from each substrate type by the end of the study period to

undergo a sieve analysis test to confirm the substrate’s true identity (“Sieve Analysis

Test”, n.d.). The samples were sun-dried for 8 hours underneath the midday sun until

they became dry and ready for sieve analysis (Ijaz, Ali, Room, Rana & Aleem, 2014).

While the sand substrates had no problems in drying, the “silt sand” formed clumps

22
during the drying process. The soil clumps had to be manually ground with stones to

break down the aggregated soil. Once the samples were finished drying, they were stored

inside empty 3-Liter Selecta Ice Cream containers until the sieve analysis setup was

prepared.

Figure 2 - A soil texture triangle that uses a soil sample’s components and their respective percentages to

determine the soil type of the soil sample (HORIBA, n.d.).

The basis for calling soil as “clay”, “silt”, or “sand” depends on the soil’s particle

sizes and their respective components. While different standards are set worldwide in

determining soil type through particle sizes (Davison & Springman, 2000), HORIBA

(n.d). provides a table (Table 1) and a triangle (Figure 2) in helping to determine the soil

type.

23
 Soil Particle Particle Size

Very coarse sand 2.0 - 1.0 mm

Coarse sand 1.0 - 0.5 mm

Medium sand 0.5 - 0.25 mm

Fine sand 0.25 - 0.10 mm

Very fine sand 0.10 - 0.05 mm

Silt 0.05 - 0.002 mm

Clay <0.002 mm
Table 1 - A table classifying soil particles according to their sizes (HORIBA, n.d.).

The sieve analysis test takes advantage of this, as the test employs sieves of various

mesh sizes to separate a soil sample’s components depending on their grain sizes. In

effect, by determining which grain sizes are present in the soil and which grain sizes are

dominant in terms of mass, one can determine the soil type of the soil sample (Davison

& Springman, 2000). The sieve analysis setup employed a 600 μm sieve (for separating

coarse sand) and 150 μm sieve (for separating fine sand) mesh sizes. Whatever soil that

passed through the two sieves and landed on the bottom pan was considered silt.

Compared to the table provided by HORIBA (n.d.), the sieves used in this sieve analysis

test did not exactly correspond to the needed sieve sizes (e.g. 500 μm and 100μm) due to

the needed sieves being unavailable, and thus the sieve mesh sizes closest to the two

were used instead. Before beginning the test, the two sieves and pan were weighed with

a digital weighing scale with an accuracy of ±0.05 kg (“Sieve Analysis Test”, n.d.). The

setup (Figure 3) starting from the top was composed of the 600 μm sieve, the 150 μm

24
sieve in the middle, and the pan at the bottom caught the soil particles that managed to

pass through.

Figure 3 - The sieve analysis setup used in the experiment.

Once the setup was in place, a soil sample was added on the top sieve just enough to

fill half of the sieve’s volume. The sieve setup was then manually shaken in a circular

manner for around five minutes to begin the soil sieving. Afterwards, each of the sieves

and pan were weighed individually in a weighing scale to determine their new mass with

the added soil. By subtracting the soil + sieve/pan mass with the original sieve’s/pan’s

mass, one can derive the mass of the soil samples from the sieve/pan in question. These

soil mass measurements from each soil sieve/pan served as the reference in determining

the soil’s composition, and in effect, the soil’s identity (“Sieve Analysis Test”, n.d.). Due

to the amount of soil present in one polybag per substrate treatment, the sieve analysis

25
had to be conducted either three to four times per substrate to fully analyze all the soil

within the polybag.

Preparation of Sonneratia caseolaris Seeds

Seven S. caseolaris fruits were gathered from the S. caseolaris grove growing

along the nearby Seguil River. The fruits were stored in a plastic sack and kept in a dim

place inside a cabinet for 48 hours to allow the fruits to rot (Giesen et al., 2006).

Afterwards, the fruits were taken to the nursery site in CFLRS. Using the brackish water

from the nearby pond, the fruits were squeezed in a pail full of brackish water (Image 3) to

separate the seeds that float (floater seeds) from the seeds that sink (sinker seeds)

(“Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.).

Image 3 - Rotten S. caseolaris fruits in brackish water before (left image) and after the fruits were

squeezed to release the seeds (right image)

In order to prevent possible bias by favoring one type of seed, this study shall

subject the two types of the seeds to the experiment. The setup was allowed to stand a

few minutes before all the floater seeds were gathered with the help of a ice cream

container lid and placed in an empty ice cream container. The pail was then drained

26
slowly onto a used cloth to filter out the sinker seeds, fruit pulp, and fruit skin on the

bottom (Image 4). The sinker seeds were then picked individually with the help of

tweezers.

Image 4 - Sinker seeds, along with fruit pulp and fruit skin, filtered out of the water using an old cloth.

Experimental Setup

Data was analyzed in the form of a Completely Randomized Design subjected to a

One-way Analysis of Variace (ANOVA) using SPSS Statistical Package, and Duncan’s

Multiple Range Test was used as a test comparison. In order to make the study

applicable to mangrove nurseries, especially for small-scale backyard nurseries for local

planting, practical and inexpensive materials were used to rear the seedlings, (Primavera

et al., 2012).

27
 Seed viability will serve as the basis for the comparison between the floater S.

caseolaris seeds versus the sinker S. caseolaris seeds. Each seed type will be subjected

to the three substrates, totaling 6 treatments in the experimental setup. Table 2 presents the

treatments as follows:

T1 (FloFS) Floater seeds in “Fine Sand”

T2 (FloCS) Floater seeds in “Coarse Sand”

T3 (FloSS) Floater seeds in “Silt Sand”

T4 (SinFS) Sinker seeds in “Fine Sand”

T5 (SinCS) Sinker seeds in “Coarse Sand”

T6 (SinSS) Sinker seeds in “Silt Sand”

Table 2 - Color-coded table of the treatments and their codes and descriptions.

Each treatment will have three replications. For seed viability, 100 seeds per

replicate will be subjected to each treatment. The seed viability setup is shown in Table 3.

R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1

R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2

R3 R3 R3 R3 R3 R3

Table 3 - The seed viability setup used in the study. Each cell represents one polybag containing 100 seeds.

The seeds were planted on the surface soil of the filled polybags so that they’ll be

exposed to light (Zan et al., 2003). The seeds were watered twice a day with the brackish

water from the nearby pond (MAP & YARL, 2006), preferably flooding the polybags

28
with water. Seed viability will be determined by germination rate and days to seedling

emergence, and will be defined accordingly:

 Germination Rate - A seed is considered to be germinated when it already sprouts a

root and its first leaf (Gummert & Rickman, 2010). In this experiment, a seed is

considered to have germinated when it already sprouts a root. Germination rate will

be calculated from each replicate. According to Simpao (2006), germination rate is

calculated with the formula: (Seeds germinated/Number of seeds sown) x 100.

 Days to Seedling Emergence - the number of days before the first seedling begins to

emerge, and was taken from the averages of the first 3 seedlings to emerge per

replicate. The plant shall be considered an “emerged” seedling if it already sprouts

its first pair of true leaves (Buduan & Ballon, n.d.; Simpao, 2006).

These parameters were monitored every five days to gather data and possibly

monitor a trend in the seedlings. After roughly 20 days, there were enough emerged

seedlings from each treatment to be transplanted. It is also during this period that a final

measurement of seed viability parameters was conducted. This final measurement was

then subjected to statistical analysis to find possible significant differences between

treatments.

The seedlings to be transplanted were randomly chosen per treatment and dug out

with their roots and soil intact (Primavera et al., 2012) using a trowel to be transferred to

individual polybags containing their corresponding substrate treatment (Image 5).

29
Image 5 - A seedling transplanted with its roots and soil intact using a trowel.

Once transplanting was over, the newly-moved seedlings were watered with

brackish pond water. For the transplanted seedlings, the experimental setup is slightly

modified. Each treatment still holds three replicates, but unlike the earlier germination

setup which held 100 seeds per replicate, the transplanted seedling setup now holds four

seedlings per replicate (Table 4).

30
R1 R1 R1 R1 R3 R3 R2 R2

R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R3 R3 R3

R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3

R1 R1 R1 R1 R3 R3 R2 R2

R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R3 R3 R3

R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3

R1 R1 R1 R1 R3 R3 R2 R2

R2 R2 R2 R2 R3 R3 R3 R3

R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R2 R3 R3

Table 4 - The experimental setup for the transplanted seedlings. Each cell represents one polybag

containing one seedling.

. The four seedlings per replicate rule was done to minimize data losses in case of

unexpected mortality. Two days later, measurement of growth parameters began. The

growth parameters measured per seedling were:

 Shoot Height - This is the length measured from the cotyledon scar to the tip of the

stem’s terminal bud or growing tip (Haase, n.d.). In this experiment, the shoot height

was measured from the base of the stem touching the ground up until the stem’s

terminal bud or growing tip (Primavera et al., 2012). This parameter was measured

with a ruler and recorded in millimeters.

31
 Stem Diameter - This is the diameter of the seedling’s stem just below the cotyledon

scar (Haase, n.d.). This definition was modified in this experiment, and stem

diameter means the diameter of the seedling’s stem just below the first pair of leaves

closest to the ground. This parameter was measured with a vernier caliper and was

recorded in millimeters.

 Number of Leaves - The expanded leaves of the seedling are counted. Only fully

expanded leaves are counted as a leaf (Wao, 2005).

Shoot height and number of leaves were measured once every two weeks. The girth

was only measured during the end of the study period due to the stems being too thin for

accurate measurement and possible danger of injury for growing seedlings.

32
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Substrate types

Figure 4 - The results of the sieve analysis test of the three substrate treatments.

The “Fine Sand” substrate, as well as the “Coarse Sand” substrate was sourced from

the intertidal area of the beachfront of the nursery. The “coarse sand” component was not

only composed of sand, but also broken seashells and sometimes smooth pebbles.

HORIBA (n.d.) has described that sand increases soil aeration, drainage, and is easier to

till. However, sand particles cannot hold water or nutrients (Educational Web

Adventures, n.d.). This means that the two substrates “Fine sand” and “Coarse sand” will

unlikely promote the optimal growth of plants.

The “Silt Sand” was sourced from Seguil River Estuary. The sieve analysis test

showed that the “Silt Sand” is predominantly fine sand, but this is likely to be wrong.

The “Silt Sand” substrate was originally a wet mud material derived from the river

estuary, and it was not as loose and gritty as sand. Educational Web Adventures (n.d.)

33
has mentioned that silt is the soil component responsible for mud. The drying process of

the muddy soil may have compromised the soil particles and caused them to clump

together (Image 6).

Image 6 - Mud from Seguil River Estuary that formed clumps upon sun-drying. The clumped particles

made it difficult to properly ascertain the silt substrate's true soil components using the Sieve Analysis test.

This soil clumping was remedied with the help of flat stones to grind the clumps, but

it seems that the grinding wasn’t thorough enough (HORIBA, n.d.; “Sieve Analysis”,

n.d.) Nevertheless, silt soils have been described as the best soils for farmlands, but silt

easily erodes and often ends up being blown away as dust or carried downstream by

floods (Educational Web Adventures, n.d.).

34
Germination Rate

Figure 5 - A line graph showing the germination rate of S. caseolaris seedlings in different treatments

through time.

A seed is considered to be germinated when it already sprouts a root and its first leaf

(Gummert & Rickman, 2010). In this experiment, a seed is considered to have

germinated when it already sprouts a root. From Figure 5, we can see that among the

treatments, FloSS and SinSS had the highest germination rate observed compared to the

other treatments. However, we can also observe that treatments FloCS and SinCS had a

comparable germination period with the two earlier treatments (i.e. FloSS and SinSS),

despite their very low germination rate. The treatments involving fine sand (FloFS and

SinFS) had both the lowest germination rates and the most delayed germination period.

35
Figure 6 - A statistical comparison of the different treatments' germination rate after roughly 20 days.

Statistical analysis has revealed that there are no significant differences between

treatments FloSS and SinSS in terms of germination rate. However, the remaining

treatments exhibit highly significant differences (F>Ft at 1%) when compared to either

treatments FloSS and SinSS. This shows that even the substrate can affect the

germination rate of S. caseolaris seedlings, and not just light or salinity (Kin, 2005; Zan

et al., 2003). The highest germination rate recorded was from Treatment 3 at around 68%.

This is lower than the reported rate of Kin (2005) at around 90% germination rate or Zan

et al. (2003) at around 75.5%. Nevertheless, the lack of significant differences between

floater (Flo) and sinker (Sin) seeds subjected to the same substrate treatment (SS)

implies that viable seeds aren’t limited to the buoyant seeds of the ripe fruits as stated in

literature (“Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.) Despite the lack of significant differences,

it can be observed in Figure 6 that between fine sand (FS) and coarse sand (CS) substrates,

both floater (Flo) and sinker (Sin) seeds appear to have a better germination rate and

germination period at the latter substrate rather than the former.

36
Days to Seedling Emergence

Figure 7 - A statistical comparison of the different treatments' days to seedling emergence 20 days after

planting.

The days to seedling emergence is the number of days before the first seedling

begins to emerge, and was taken from the averages of the first 3 seedlings to emerge per

replicate. Simpao (2006) describes a fully-emerged seedling as a seedling with two

fully-expanded pair of leaves. However, from both observation and literature (Parolin,

Ferreira, and Junk, 2003), pioneering species often have epigeal and foliaceous/leaf-like

cotyledons, and the same applies to S. caseolaris. This makes the “emerged” seedling in

this paper refer to a “standing germinated seedling without the seed coat, thus exposing

the green leafy cotyledons.” The results show that among all treatments, it was the sinker

seeds in fine sand substrate (SinFS) and sinker seeds in coarse sand substrate (SinCS)

that have the longest days to seedling emergence, at around 13 to 15 days. On the other

37
hand, both floater (Flo) and sinker (Sin) seeds subjected to silt sand (SS) showed the

least days to seedling emergence, at around 5 to 6 days.

The SinFS and SinCS treatments exhibit significant differences (F>Ft at 5%) when

compared to treatments FloSS and SinSS (Figure 7). This was expected due to muddy

substrates being the favored choice of seeds. Parolin et al. (2003) has mentioned that fast

germination and cotyledon opening is an adaptation of certain seedlings in the Amazon

floodplains against flooding. This might hold true as well for Sonneratia caseolaris. Due

to S. caseolaris’ pioneering nature (Zan et al., 2003), they are the mangroves most

exposed to longer periods of tidal inundation. A quick germination period might help in

the seedlings becoming established in such rough conditions, thus the need for a shorter

seedling emergence. This implies that in the natural environment, the delayed seedling

emergence of S. caseolaris seeds in sandy substrates can prevent its establishment in

such habitats, particularly for sinker seeds.

Surprisingly, floater seeds (Flo) and sinker seeds (Sin) subjected to the same

substrate treatment (i.e. coarse sand: CS) also exhibited significant differences (F>Ft at

5%). This is evident in how the mean seedling emergence of FloCS is at 7.87 days, while

the mean seedling emergence of SinCS is around 14.67 days (Figure 7). Current literature

suggests that floater seeds are the viable ones (Buduan & Ballon, n.d.; “Mangrove Trees

and Shrubs”, n.d.). There seems to be no literature available as of yet to truly explain

why there is such a distinction, but perhaps the answer lies on the seeds’ need for light

(Zan et al., 2003). From observation, during watering periods, the floater seeds float on

water, and when the water recedes, the seeds are deposited on top of the soil surface

where they are exposed to light. For sinker seeds on the other hand, their tendency to

38
stay in the surface of the ground even when the polybag was flooded implied they had a

greater chance of being buried by soil disturbance due to flooding. This makes the sinker

seeds prone to being exposed to lesser sunlight than their floater counterparts, ultimately

leading to delayed germination and longer seedling emergence. This scenario might help

explain why there is such a discrepancy between the days to seedling emergence

between floater and sinker seeds.

Shoot Height

Figure 8 - A line graph showing the shoot height of S. caseolaris seedlings in different treatments through

time.

Shoot height is the length measured from the cotyledon scar to the tip of the stem’s

terminal bud or growing tip (Haase, n.d.). In this experiment, the shoot height was

measured from the base of the stem touching the ground up until the stem’s terminal bud

or growing tip. Shoot height is among the most common parameters used to measure

39
plant growth (Primavera et al., 2012). Taller plants can indicate better genetics and

greater competitive advantage. However, tall seedlings can suffer from greater water loss

through transpiration, and very tall seedlings can be hard to plant, difficult to balance,

and prone to wind-damage (Haase, n.d.).

Figure 8 shows that while generally, the seedlings in different treatments had similar

growth rates through time, treatments FloSS and SinSS had taller shoot heights. This can

be explained if we take into account the transplanting period of the seedlings and the two

treatments days’ to seedling emergence. From Figure 7, we can see that it was treatments

FloSS and SinSS that had the shortest days to seedling emergence at about 5 to 6 days

after planting compared to the other treatments. If we further consider the 20-day waiting

period between planting and transplanting, we can easily see that among all treatments, it

was the treatments FloSS and SinSS that had the most days to grow its seedlings before

transplanting, implying that they will have a head-start in growth parameters compared

to the other seedlings.

If one looks closely in Figure 8, it can be observed that the shoot height of FloFS (as

shown by the light blue line) and FloCS (as shown by the orange line) have at some

point shown a downward trend in growth. This seemingly “negative” growth can be

explained by the seedlings’ substrate treatments. The sandy nature of the substrate means

that plants growing on it will have a hard time gaining a foothold on the soil due to the

large spaces between sand particles (Educational Web Adventures, n.d.). From

observation, this loose nature of sand makes the substrate unstable, and can be clearly

seen when watering the plants. As the sand particles are disturbed, the soil surface

changes. Some portions of the sand may raise in ground level after watering, while the

40
other portions recede. This “raising” and “receding” effect of the sand substrate makes

the seedlings’ apparent shoot height prone to changes. If the sand raised in ground level

right where the seedling was growing, it can effectively bury portions of the stem,

making it seem that the seedlings became shorter when measuring their shoot height. The

reverse also holds true, and should the sand substrate beneath the seedling recede, it can

make the seedling appear “taller” by a few millimeters. In extreme cases, this receding of

the sand substrate can cause the seedling to lean due to instability.

Figure 9 - A statistical comparison of the different treatments' shoot height, 37 days after transplanting.

Statistical analysis shows that there are no significant differences between

treatments FloSS and SinSS in terms of shoot height (Figure 9). The duo however, show

highly significant differences (F>Ft at 1%) when compared to other treatments. Again,

this can be explained by the species’ preference to mud according to literature

(Primavera et al., 2004). Moreover, what Figure 8 also shows is that S. caseolaris can also

41
survive and grow in other substrates besides mud, but at the cost of stunted growth due

to unfavorable substrate.

Number of Leaves

Figure 10 - A line graph showing the average number of leaves per seedling of S. caseolaris seedlings

under different treatments through time.

The number of leaves is another plant parameter used in measuring growth

(Primavera et al., 2012), and is defined as the number of fully expanded leaves in a

seedling (Wao, 2005). For a species that is pioneering, shade-intolerant and quickly

relies on the sunlight to feed its growing seedling (Parolin et al., 2003; Zan et al., 2003),

the number of leaves no doubt play an important factor in a S. caseolaris seedling’s

survival by ensuring it catches enough sunlight. Among all treatments, FloSS and SinSS

treatments display the highest number of leaves (Figure 10).

42
Figure 11 - A statistical comparison of the different treatments' number of leaves/seedling, 37 days after

transplanting.

Similar to the results of the earlier statistical analysis (i.e. Figure 9), there are no

significant differences between FloSS and SinSS treatments in terms of number of leaves,

but when compared to the other treatments, the two exhibit highly significant differences

(F>Ft at 1%), as shown in Figure 11. From personal observation, the leaves of the FloSS

and SinSS seedlings tended to be rounder in shape, while the seedlings grown in sandy

substrates had smaller leaf sizes and more elongated leaf blades. The muddy nature of

the silt substrate seems to favor the seedlings’ optimal growth as it is their preferred

habitat (Primavera et al., 2004). The better qualities of silt compared to sand’s inability

to hold water and nutrients (Educational Web Adventures, n.d.) might have also played a

factor as to why seedlings planted in silt had more leaves and better development than

seedlings in sandy substrates.

43
Stem Diameter

Figure 12 - A statistical comparison of the different treatments' stem diameters, 37 days after transplanting.

Stem diameter refers to the diameter of the seedling’s stem just below the cotyledon

scar (Haase, n.d.). This definition was modified in this experiment, and stem diameter

means the diameter of the seedling’s stem just below the first pair of leaves closest to the

ground. Among all the plant parameters measured in nurseries, stem diameter is

considered the best predictor of whether the seedling survives out in the field. The bigger

the diameter, the better. A larger diameter is indicative of a larger root system and a

larger stem volume (Haase, n.d.)

Statistical analysis has revealed that there are no significant differences among

treatments (F<Ft at 5%), as is shown in Figure 12. This can imply that the stem diameter of

seedlings isn’t affected by substrate. This means that even when growing in less favored

44
substrates, the seedlings focus on the stability provided by a sturdy stem before

prioritizing other growth parameters such as shoot height or number of leaves.

Nevertheless, it is observable that among the stem diameters of the different treatments,

stem diameters of seedlings grown in silt sand (SS) had slightly bigger diameters.

Mortality

Out of the 72 seedlings transplanted, and through the end of the study period, 9

seedlings died. 6 seedlings died in the fine sand (FS) substrate, and surprisingly, 3

seedlings died in the silt sand (SS) substrate. No mortality was recorded in any of the

seedlings in the coarse sand (CS) substrate. For the fine sand substrate, it didn’t retain

water very well, and quickly dries up and becomes hot in the midday sun, despite the

nursery’s shelter. The seedlings in the “Silt sand” had a different problem. During the

rains, the seedlings grown in polybags filled with silt sand became waterlogged.

Mangroves can tolerate inundation, but not too long (Primavera et al., 2012). The same

probably held true to seedlings whose polybags didn’t drain the water fast enough and

“drowned” the seedlings.

45
 SUMMARY

The germination and growth of S. caseolaris seedlings was monitored throughout a

two-month study period using a nursery setup; two seed varieties: floater seeds (Flo) and

sinker seeds (Sin); and three substrates, namely: fine sand (FS), coarse sand (CS) and silt

sand (SS). The study gave the following results:

Seed Viability:

FloC
Parameters FloFS FloSS SinFS SinCS SinSS F-test
S

Germination Rate (% 5 9.67 48 5.33 8 44 F>Ft at

seeds sprouted) 1%
b b a b b a

Days to Seedling 8.67 7.87 5 12.83 14.67 5.67 F>Ft at

Emergence (Days) 5%
abc bc c ab a c

Seedling Growth:

FloC
Parameters FloFS FloSS SinFS SinCS SinSS F-test
S

Shoot Height (mm) 17.08 15 25.61 17.11 15.42 23.19 F>Ft at

b b a b b a 1%

Number of Leaves 3.56 3.58 4.89 3.22 3.75 4.83 F>Ft at

(No. of leaves per
b b a b b a 1%
seedling)

Stem Diameter (mm) 1.04 1.10 1.18 0.96 1.01 1.14 F<Ft at
ab ab a c ab ab 5%

46
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The experiment shows that in terms of substrate preference, S. caseolaris seedlings

preferred silt sand substrates. This was observed when the seedlings growing in silt sand

showed a better germination rate, lesser days to seedling emergence, higher shoot height,

and more number of leaves as compared to fine sand or coarse sand substrates. Overall,

in terms of seedling growth, the seedlings’ substrate preference can be shown in this

trend: Silt sand>Coarse sand>Fine sand.

Current literature suggests either to plant only floater seeds (Buduan & Ballon, n.d.;

“Mangrove Trees and Shrubs”, n.d.) or to plant the seeds, with no distinctions between

floater and sinker seeds (Chan & Baba, 2009; Giesen et al., 2006). This experiment

showed that the sinker seeds are also viable, with no significant differences between

floaters and sinkers in terms of germination rate. However, seedling emergence might be

delayed for sinker seeds, especially for coarse sand substrates. Overall, in terms of seed

viability, it can be said that floater seeds perform slightly better than their sinker

counterparts.

This experiment’s results allow us to infer that while S. caseolaris seedlings

certainly prefer silty substrates, it is not impossible for them to establish on low-nutrient

substrates like fine or coarse sand. However, their very low germination rate and delayed

seedling emergence on the latter two substrates implies that it is very difficult for S.

caseolaris seedlings to establish themselves in such substrates in the wild. Their survival

can also be hampered by slower growth in terms of shoot height and number of leaves,

and is also further endangered by the unstable nature of sandy substrates. Thus, it is

47
difficult for S. caseolaris seedlings to establish themselves on fine sand and coarse sand

shorelines, which are a common occurrence in shorelines with strong wave action.

Careful consideration must be taken should one wish to do a mangrove reforestation or

afforestation in a sandy estuary, even with a pioneering species like S. caseolaris.

A more thorough study of the ecology and biology of native mangroves is needed if

we want to propagate them successfully. More germination tests need to be conducted in

S. caseolaris seeds under stricter experimental setups, manipulating various factors such

as pH, inundation, light, or salinity, in more controlled laboratory settings to help lessen

variation in results. A longer study period, as well as more substrates to test, and more

species to utilize, will help us understand better how mangroves are able to colonize their

intertidal habitat, and will definitely help us increase the efficiency of mangrove

nurseries and rehabilitation projects.

48
 LITERATURE CITED

Buduan, E. D. & Ballon, R. A. (n.d.). Seed propagation for Sonneratia alba. Retrieved
from
http://www.ptfcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FINAL_Sonneratia-alba-brochure.
pdf
Calumpong, H. P. & Meñez, E. G. 1997. Field guide to the common mangroves,
seagrasses and algae of the Philippines. Makati City, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc.
Chan, H. T. & Baba, S. (2009). Manual on guidelines for rehabilitation of coastal forests
damaged by natural hazards in the Asia-Pacific Region. Retrieved from
http://www.itto.int/files/itto_project_db_input/2887/Technical/Manual%20PPD134-
07Rev1(F).pdf
Clarke, A. & Johns, L. (2002). Mangrove nurseries: construction, propagation, and
planting. Retrieved from
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/75635/FHG004-Fish-Habitat-
Guideline.pdf
De Jesus, E.A., Diamante-Fabunan, D.A.D., Nañola, C.L., White, A.T. & Cabangon, H.J.
(2001). Coastal environmental profile of Sarangani Bay area. Retrieved from
http://oneocean.org/download/db_files/profile_sarangani.pdf
Duke, N. C. (2006). Australia’s mangroves: The authoritative guide to Australia’s
mangrove plants. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=61L3nLkJEDYC&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq
=sonneratia+with+dark+red+flowers+and+stamens&source=bl&ots=ggGcMxFfJT
&sig=ZQ5Om9P6dNAZw8PUI38Vg0oPBn4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY2p
XHzf7TAhXHu7wKHSsfBkoQ6AEIPjAH#v=onepage&q=sonneratia%20with%20
dark%20red%20flowers%20and%20stamens&f=false
Educational Web Adventures. (n.d.). The dirt on soil. Retrieved from
https://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/soil/name_soil.html
Environmental Leadership & Training Initiative. (2014). Mangrove conservation,
management and rehabilitation training. Retrieved from
http://elti.yale.edu/sites/default/files/rsource_files/mangrove_rehab_training_report.
pdf
Garcia, K. B., Malabrigo, P. L. & Gevaña, D. T. (2014). Philippines' mangrove
ecosystem: Status, threats, and conservation. In I. Faridah-Hanum, A. Latiff. K. R.
Hakeem & M. Ozturk (Eds.), Mangrove ecosystems of Asia: Status, challenges and
management strategies (pp. 81-94). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dixon_Gevana/publication/258925724_Philipp
ines%27_Mangrove_Ecosystem_Status_Threats_and_Conservation/links/569129cd
08aee91f69a4f3f9.pdf?origin=publication_detail (Original work published 2013)

49
Giesen, W., Wulffraat, S., Zieren, M., & Scholten, L. (2006). Mangrove guidebook for
Southeast Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ag132e/ag132e00.htm
Global Nature Fund. (2007). Mangrove rehabilitation guidebook: Published in the
framework of the Eu-Asia Pro Eco II B post tsunami project in Sri Lanka. Retrieved
from
https://www.globalnature.org/bausteine.net/file/showfile.aspx?downdaid=6426&do
mid=1011&fd=2
Green Coast. (n.d.). Best practice guidelines on restoration of mangroves in tsunami
affected areas. Retrieved from
http://archive.wetlands.org/Portals/0/Indonesia%20docs/Best%20practice%20Guide
lines%20on%20Restoration%20of%20Mangroves%20in%20Tsunami%20Affected
%20Areas.pdf
Gummert, M. & Rickman, J.F. (2010). Measuring seed germination. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/index.php?option=com_zoo&view=item&layou
t=item&Itemid=468
Haase, D. L. (n.d.). Understanding forest seedling quality: Measurements and
interpretation. Retrieved from
http://www.forestseedlingnetwork.com/media/15912/Understanding_Forest_Seedlin
g_Quality_-_Measurements_and_Interpretation.pdf
HORIBA. (n.d.). Particle characterization. Retrieved from
http://www.horiba.com/?id=2780
Ijaz, A., Ali, S.A., Room, S., Rana, M.A. & Aleem, M. (2014). Effects of soil and air
drying methods on soil plasticity of different cities of Pakistan. Retrieved from
http://www.ijera.com/papers/Vol4_issue12/Part%20-%203/J0412034953.pdf
Janiola, E. S., Jr. (1996). Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource management in
Cogtong Bay: Addressing mangrove management issues through community
participation. In E. M. Ferrer, L. Polotan-Dela Cruz & M. Agoncillo-Domingo
(Eds.), Seeds of hope: A collection of case studies on community-based coastal
resources management in the Philippines (pp. 49-65). Quezon City, Philippines
Kampung Kuantan fireflies Park Kuala Selangor. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.kuala-selangor.com/kampung-kuantan-fireflies-part-kuala-selangor.html
Kin, L. K. (2005). Biological studies on Sonneratia caseolaris obtained from the
Selangor River, Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/6218/1/FS_2005_16%281-24%29.pdf
Lewis, R.R., III & Brown, B. (2014). Ecological mangrove rehabilitation: A field
manual for practitioners. Retrieved from
http://www.mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Final%20PDF%20-%20Whole%20EMR
%20Manual.pdf

50
Mangrove Action Project & Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut. (2006). Five steps to successful
ecological restoration of mangroves. R. R. Lewis, A. Quarto, J. Enright, E. Corets, J.
Primavera, T. Ravishankar, ..., R. Djamaluddin (Eds.). Retrieved from
http://www.mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/mangrove_restoration.pdf
Mangrove Trees and Shrubs. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai387e/AI387E06.htm
Parolin, P., Ferreira, L. V. & Junk, W. J. (2003). Germination characteristics and
establishment of trees from Amazonian flood plains. Retrieved from
http://tropecol.com/pdf/open/PDF_44_2/44203.pdf
Primavera, J. H. (2009). Field guide to Philippine mangroves. Retrieved from
https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2015-06/Field%20Guide%20to%20Phi
l.%20Mangroves.pdf
Primavera, J. H., Sadaba, R. S., Lebata, M. J. H. L. & Altamirano, J. P. (2004).
Handbook of mangroves in the Philippines - Panay. SEAFDEC Aquaculture
Department, Iloilo, Philippines
Primavera, J.H., Savaris, J.P., Bajoyo, B.E., Coching, J.D., Curnick, D.J., Golbeque,
R.L., ... Koldewey, H.J. (2012). Manual on community-based mangrove
rehabilitation: Mangrove manual series no. 1. Retrieved from
http://www.mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Primavera%20et%20al%202013%20ZS
L-CMRP%20Manual%20incl%20cover.pdf
Sieve Analysis Test. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.uta.edu/ce/geotech/lab/Main/sieve/index.htm
Simpao, H. L. Z. (2006). Evaluating the potential for seedling production of different
varieties of mango (Mangifera indica L.) (Unpublished thesis). Mindanao State
University - General Santos City, General Santos City, Philippines
Snedaker, J. (1987). Mangrove mythology. Retrieved from
http://www.mangroverestoration.com/pdfs/Snedaker%20J%201987%20Mangrove%
20mythology.PDF
Sonneratia caseolaris (L.) Engl.. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://florafaunaweb.nparks.gov.sg/Special-Pages/plant-detail.aspx?id=3343
Soni, M. (2006). Does the type of soil affect the growth rate of plants?. Retrieved from
http://cssf.usc.edu/History/2006/Projects/S1619.pdf
Tan, R. (2013-a). Berembang: Sonneratia caseolaris. Retrieved from
http://www.wildsingapore.com/wildfacts/plants/mangrove/sonneratia/caseolaris.htm
Tan, R. (2013-b). Sonneratia: Sonneratia sp. Retrieved from
http://www.wildsingapore.com/wildfacts/plants/mangrove/sonneratia/sonneratia.htm

51
Tan, R. (2014). Ria Tan | photos: Sonneratia caseolaris. Retrieved from
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Sonneratia+caseolaris&w=54527470%40N00&s
=rec
Wao, F. G. (2005). Producing etiolated seedlings of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus.
Lamk.) using bamboo poles of different length with different duration (Unpublished
thesis). Mindanao State Universtity - General Santos City, General Santos City,
Philippines
Zan, Q.-J., Wang, B.-S., Wang, Y.-J. & Li, M.-G. (2003). Ecological assessment on the
introduced Sonneratia caseolaris and S. apetala at the mangrove forest of Shenzhen
Bay, China. Retrieved from
http://www.eedu.org.cn/Article/UploadFiles/200455231252880.pdf

52
 APPENDICES

Fine Sand
Mass of each Mass of
Sieve Opening Percentage on
Mass of Sieve(kg) sieve + retained retained soil
(micrometer) each sieve
soil (kg) (kg)

600 0.405 0.925 0.52 12.81

150 0.425 3.91 3.485 85.84

Pan 0.38 0.435 0.055 1.35

Total: 4.06 100

Appendix 1 - The results of the Sieve Analysis Test for the "Fine Sand" substrate taken from the

beachfront.

Silt Sand
Mass of each Mass of
Sieve Opening Percentage on
Mass of Sieve(kg) sieve + retained retained soil
(micrometer) each sieve
soil (kg) (kg)

600 0.405 1.385 0.98 25.55

150 0.425 3.14 2.715 70.80

Pan 0.38 0.52 0.14 3.65

Total: 3.835 100

Appendix 2 - The results of the Sieve Analysis Test for the "Silt Sand" substrate taken from the Siguel

River Estuary.

53
 Coarse Sand
Mass of each Mass of
Sieve Opening Percentage on
Mass of Sieve(kg) sieve + retained retained soil
(micrometer) each sieve
soil (kg) (kg)

600 0.405 2.315 1.91 44.06

150 0.425 2.755 2.33 53.75

Pan 0.38 0.475 0.095 2.19

Total: 4.335 100

Appendix 3 - The results of the Sieve Analysis Test for the "Coarse Sand" substrate taken from the water's

edge of the pond outlet at low tide.

Germination Rate
Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 5

FloCS 1 4 4

FloSS 30 58 52

SinFS

SinCS

SinSS 41 22 7

As of March 26, 2017

Appendix 4 - The results of the first monitoring period for germination rate.

54
 Germination Rate
Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 11 1

FloCS 3 6 8

FloSS 36 54 39

SinFS 2

SinCS 3

SinSS 46 51 6

As of March 30, 2017

Appendix 5 - The results of the second monitoring period for germination rate.

Germination Rate
Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 11 2 3

FloCS 6 13 6

FloSS 38 64 37

SinFS 6 1 5

SinCS 5 11

SinSS 67 55 16

As of April 5, 2017

Appendix 6 - The results of the third monitoring period for germination rate.

55
 Germination Rate

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 9 2 4

FloCS 7 14 8

FloSS 38 68 38

SinFS 8 1 7

SinCS 7 13 4

SinSS 67 49 16

As of April 9, 2017

Appendix 7 - The results of the final monitoring period for germination rate

Days to Seedling Emergence

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS

FloCS

FloSS 5 5 5

SinFS

SinCS

SinSS 5

As of March 26, 2017

Appendix 8 - The results of the first monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.

56
 Days to Seedling Emergence

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 7 8

FloCS 8 7.6 8

FloSS 5 5 5

SinFS 7.5

SinCS 8

SinSS 5 6 6

As of March 30, 2017

Appendix 9 - The results of the second monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.

Days to Seedling Emergence

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 7 8 11

FloCS 8 7.6 8

FloSS 5 5 5

SinFS 7.5 12

SinCS 8

SinSS 5 6 6

As of April 5, 2017

Appendix 10 - The results of the third monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.

57
 Days to Seedling Emergence

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 7 8 11

FloCS 8 7.6 8

FloSS 5 5 5

SinFS 7.5 12 19

SinCS 16 8 20

SinSS 5 6 6

As of April 9, 2017

Appendix 11 - The results of the final monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.

Shoot Height (mm)

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 10 9.75 14.5

FloCS 9 9 9.25

FloSS 16.5 17.5 21.5

SinFS 13.5 6.666666667 8.333333333

SinCS 9.25 12.25 10.25

SinSS 9.75 16 15

As of April 11, 2017

Appendix 12 - The results of the first monitoring period for shoot height, 2 days after transplanting.

58
 Shoot Height (mm)

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 9.25 15 19.25

FloCS 12 13.5 12.75

FloSS 20 17.75 25.5

SinFS 16.5 10.66666667 13

SinCS 14.25 11.5 11

SinSS 13.5 13.5 18

As of April 23, 2017

Appendix 13 - The results of the second monitoring period for shoot height.

Shoot Height (mm)

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 15.75 17.33333333 20.5

FloCS 12.25 13.75 13.5

FloSS 21 23.66666667 26.75

SinFS 16.5 15.33333333 14.33333333

SinCS 13.25 13 14.5

SinSS 15.25 22 18.75

As of May 3, 2017

Appendix 14 - The results of the third monitoring period for shoot height.

59
 Shoot Height (mm)

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 14.25 16.33333333 20.66666667

FloCS 13 19.5 12.5

FloSS 24.25 24.33333333 28.25

SinFS 18 18.33333333 15

SinCS 16.25 15.5 14.5

SinSS 19.25 28.33333333 22

As of May 16, 2017

Appendix 15 - The results of the final monitoring period for shoot height.

Number of Leaves

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 2 2 2.25

FloCS 1.75 2 2

FloSS 3.25 3.5 3.5

SinFS 2 2.666666667 2

SinCS 2 2 2

SinSS 2.5 2.75 3

As of April 11, 2017

Appendix 16 - The results of the first monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling, 2 days after

transplanting.

60
 Number of Leaves

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 1.75 2 2.5

FloCS 1.75 2 2.5

FloSS 3.25 4 4

SinFS 3 1.666666667 2

SinCS 3 2 2

SinSS 3.5 3.75 4

As of April 23, 2017

Appendix 17 - The results of the second monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.

Number of Leaves

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 3 3.333333333 3

FloCS 2.75 3 4

FloSS 3.75 3.333333333 4.5

SinFS 4 1.666666667 2.666666667

SinCS 3.5 2.5 3.5

SinSS 5 4.75 4.25

As of May 3, 2017

Appendix 18 - The results of the third monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.

61
 Number of Leaves

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 4 3.333333333 3.333333333

FloCS 3.25 4 3.5

FloSS 4.75 4.666666667 5.25

SinFS 4 3 2.666666667

SinCS 3.5 4 3.75

SinSS 4.5 5.333333333 4.666666667

As of May 16, 2017

Appendix 19 - The results of the final monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.

Diameter (mm)

Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3

FloFS 1.175 1 0.933333333

FloCS 1.125 1.05 1.116666667

FloSS 1.1 1.216666667 1.2125

SinFS 0.925 0.95 1

SinCS 0.9625 1.0625 1

SinSS 1.35 1.05 1.016666667

As of May 16, 2017

Appendix 20 - The results of the average stem diameter of seedlings per treatments.

62
 Germination Rate

REPLICATION

TREATMENT 1 2 3 MEAN

T1 9 2 4 5.00 b

T2 7 14 8 9.67 b

T3 38 68 38 48.00 a

T4 8 1 7 5.33 b

T5 7 13 4 8.00 b

T6 67 49 16 44.00 a

20.00

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

GERMINATION
Dependent Variable: RATE Ft

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 5% 1%

TREATMENT 6152.667 5 1230.533 7.157** 3.106 5.064

Error 2063.333 12 171.944

Total 8216.000 17

Appendix 21 - Statistical analysis of the seedlings' germination rate on the final monitoring period.

63
 Days to Seedling Emergence

REPLICATION

TREATMENT 1 2 3 MEAN

T1 7.00 8.00 11.00 8.67 abc

T2 8.00 7.60 8.00 7.87 bc

T3 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 c

T4 7.50 12.00 19.00 12.83 ab

T5 16.00 8.00 20.00 14.67 a

T6 5.00 6.00 6.00 5.67 c

9.12

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

SEEDLING
Dependent Variable: EMERGENCE Ft

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 5% 1%

TREATMENT 225.692 5 45.138 3.581* 3.106 5.064

Error 151.273 12 12.606

Total 376.965 17

Appendix 22 - Statistical analysis of the seedlings' days to seedling emergence on the final monitoring

period.

64
 Shoot Height (mm)

REPLICATION

TREATMENT 1 2 3 MEAN

T1 14.25 16.33 20.67 17.08 b

T2 13.00 19.50 12.50 15.00 b

T3 24.25 24.33 28.25 25.61 a

T4 18.00 18.33 15.00 17.11 b

T5 16.25 15.50 14.50 15.42 b

T6 19.25 28.33 22.00 23.19 a

18.90

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: SHOOTHEIGHT Ft

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 5% 1%

TREATMENT 291.914 5 58.383 6.143** 3.106 5.064

Error 114.051 12 9.504

Total 405.965 17

Appendix 23 - Statistical analysis of the seedlings' shoot height on the final monitoring period.

65
 Number of Leaves

REPLICATION

TREATMENT 1 2 3 MEAN

T1 4.00 3.33 3.33 3.56 b

T2 3.25 4.00 3.50 3.58 b

T3 4.75 4.67 5.25 4.89 a

T4 4.00 3.00 2.67 3.22 b

T5 3.50 4.00 3.75 3.75 b

T6 4.50 5.33 4.67 4.83 a

3.97

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

NUMBEROFLEAV
Dependent Variable: ES Ft

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 5% 1%

TREATMENT 7.562 5 1.512 8.040** 3.106 5.064

Error 2.257 12 0.188

Total 9.820 17

Appendix 24 - Statistical analysis of the seedlings' number of leaves on the final monitoring period.

66
 Diameter (mm)

REPLICATION

TREATMENT 1 2 3 MEAN

T1 1.18 1.00 0.93 1.04 ab

T2 1.13 1.05 1.12 1.10 ab

T3 1.10 1.22 1.21 1.18 a

T4 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.96 c

T5 0.96 1.06 1.00 1.01 ab

T6 1.35 1.05 1.02 1.14 ab

1.07

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: DIAMETER Ft

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F 5% 1%

TREATMENT 0.103 5 0.021 2.061 ns 3.106 5.064

Error 0.120 12 0.010

Total 0.223 17

Appendix 25 - Statistical analysis of the seedlings' stem diameters at the end of the study period.

67
Appendix 26 - An image of the researcher carrying his trusty watering can in front of the mangrove

nursery.

Appendix 27 - A close-up of the nursery setup.

68
Appendix 28 - A S. caseolaris seedling growing in silt sand substrate.

Appendix 29 - A S. caseolaris seedling growing on fine sand substrate.

69
Appendix 30 - A S. caseolaris seedling growing on coarse sand substrate.

Appendix 31 - Surplus seedlings from the germination setup that were not picked during the transplanting

of seedlings.

70
Appendix 32 - Mixing of silt sand substrate to ensure homogeneity of soil between seedlings subjected to

the same substrate treatment.

Appendix 33 - Rotten S. caseolaris fruits ready to be squeezed in brackish water.

71
Appendix 34 - Emerging S. caseolaris seeds in silt sand substrate.

Appendix 35 - Drying of soil samples for the Sieve Analysis Test.

72
Appendix 36 - The researcher's tools in monitoring the nursery: A plastic ruler, vernier caliper, pen, and a

notebook.

73