Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
June 2017
APPROVAL SHEET
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Marine
THESIS COMMITTEE
Member Member
_________________________ ___________________________
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
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
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
His own self for making it this far. He owes himself too for persisting and trying
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
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
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
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
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
The Researcher
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IV
LIST OF IMAGES IX
LIST OF APPENDICES X
ABSTRACT 1
INTRODUCTION 2
SUMMARY 46
LITERATURE CITED 49
APPENDICES 53
VI
LIST OF TABLES
VII
LIST OF FIGURES
EMERGENCE. 37
VIII
LIST OF IMAGES
IX
LIST OF APPENDICES
SAND" SUBSTRATE. 53
SAND" SUBSTRATE. 53
SAND" SUBSTRATE. 54
GERMINATION RATE. 54
GERMINATION RATE. 55
GERMINATION RATE. 55
GERMINATION RATE 56
TO SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 56
X
APPENDIX 11 - THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL MONITORING PERIOD FOR
SHOOT HEIGHT. 58
SHOOT HEIGHT. 59
SHOOT HEIGHT. 59
SHOOT HEIGHT. 60
RATE. 63
XI
APPENDIX 22 - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SEEDLINGS' DAYS TO
SEEDLING EMERGENCE. 64
LEAVES. 66
DIAMETERS. 67
SUBSTRATE. 69
SUBSTRATE. 69
SUBSTRATE. 70
BRACKISH WATER. 71
XII
ABSTRACT
1
INTRODUCTION
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
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
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
species grow in specific conditions (Janiola, 1996; Primavera, 2009). With proper
growing and planting techniques, the mortality of initial mangrove plantings can be
2
The Sonneratia caseolaris mangrove is a pioneering species that has been proven to
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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
has been observed between coastal fisheries’ productivity and mangrove areas, with
greater mangrove areas corresponding to better fisheries (Calumpong & Meñez, 1997;
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
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
(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;
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
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.
(GNF, 2007; Primavera et al., 2004). Primavera et al. (2014) suggests a ratio of one
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
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),
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.,
(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
Sonneratia caseolaris
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.).
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.
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,
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,
Bruguiera sexangula, and Kandelia candel have been found to grow underneath the
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
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
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;
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
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,
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.;
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
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
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%
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
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
which ultimately will affect our understanding of how this mangrove’s capability as a
18
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site Description
The study site is the beachfront of the College of Fisheries Laboratory and Research
1). The only true mangrove species naturally occurring in the nearby Seguil River is
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
Image 3 - Rotten S. caseolaris fruits in brackish water before (left image) and after the fruits were
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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,
(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
(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),
survival by ensuring it catches enough sunlight. Among all treatments, FloSS and SinSS
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
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
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
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
45
SUMMARY
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
Seed Viability:
FloC
Parameters FloFS FloSS SinFS SinCS SinSS F-test
S
Seedling Growth:
FloC
Parameters FloFS FloSS SinFS SinCS SinSS F-test
S
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
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
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.
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.
A more thorough study of the ecology and biology of native mangroves is needed if
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
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)
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)
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)
Appendix 3 - The results of the Sieve Analysis Test for the "Coarse Sand" substrate taken from the water's
Germination Rate
Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3
FloFS 5
FloCS 1 4 4
FloSS 30 58 52
SinFS
SinCS
SinSS 41 22 7
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
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
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
FloFS
FloCS
FloSS 5 5 5
SinFS
SinCS
SinSS 5
Appendix 8 - The results of the first monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.
56
Days to Seedling Emergence
FloFS 7 8
FloCS 8 7.6 8
FloSS 5 5 5
SinFS 7.5
SinCS 8
SinSS 5 6 6
Appendix 9 - The results of the second monitoring period for days to seedling emergence.
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
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.
FloCS 9 9 9.25
SinSS 9.75 16 15
Appendix 12 - The results of the first monitoring period for shoot height, 2 days after transplanting.
58
Shoot Height (mm)
Appendix 13 - The results of the second monitoring period for shoot height.
As of May 3, 2017
Appendix 14 - The results of the third monitoring period for shoot height.
59
Shoot Height (mm)
SinFS 18 18.33333333 15
Appendix 15 - The results of the final monitoring period for shoot height.
Number of Leaves
FloFS 2 2 2.25
FloCS 1.75 2 2
SinFS 2 2.666666667 2
SinCS 2 2 2
Appendix 16 - The results of the first monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling, 2 days after
transplanting.
60
Number of Leaves
FloSS 3.25 4 4
SinFS 3 1.666666667 2
SinCS 3 2 2
Appendix 17 - The results of the second monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.
Number of Leaves
FloFS 3 3.333333333 3
FloCS 2.75 3 4
As of May 3, 2017
Appendix 18 - The results of the third monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.
61
Number of Leaves
SinFS 4 3 2.666666667
Appendix 19 - The results of the final monitoring period for number of leaves per seedling.
Diameter (mm)
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
GERMINATION
Dependent Variable: RATE Ft
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
9.12
SEEDLING
Dependent Variable: EMERGENCE Ft
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
18.90
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
3.97
NUMBEROFLEAV
Dependent Variable: ES Ft
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
1.07
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.
68
Appendix 28 - A S. caseolaris seedling growing in silt 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
71
Appendix 34 - Emerging S. caseolaris seeds in silt sand substrate.
72
Appendix 36 - The researcher's tools in monitoring the nursery: A plastic ruler, vernier caliper, pen, and a
notebook.
73