Thesis Manuscript - UIGAN

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Biomass and Carbon Stock Mapping of the Bued Mangrove Forest in

Alaminos, Pangasinan using Geographical Information System (GIS)
and Remote Sensing
By
MADONNA C. DAQUIGAN
A Master’s Thesis Submitted to the

Department of Biology
College of Science
University of the Philippines Baguio,
Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of
Master of Science in Conservation and Restoration Ecology
June 2020
i
ENDORSEMENT
This is to certify that this master’s thesis entitled Biomass and Carbon Stock Mapping
of the Bued Mangrove Forest in Alaminos, Pangasinan using Geographical
Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing prepared and submitted by Madonna C.
Daquigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Conservation and Restoration Ecology, is hereby accepted.
ROMEO M. DIZON, Ph.D. ROSCINTO IAN C. LUMBRES, Ph.D.

Thesis Adviser Thesis Co-Adviser
ROLAND M. HIPOL, Ph.D.

Thesis Reader
ZENAIDA G. BAOANAN, Ph.D. DYMPHNA N. JAVIER, Ph.D.

Thesis Examiner Thesis Examiner
The Department of Biology endorses acceptance of this graduate thesis as partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Conservation and
Restoration Ecology.
ROCEL AMOR O. INDONG, Dr. rer. nat.

Chair
Department of Biology
This master’s thesis is hereby accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Conservation and Restoration Ecology.
DYMPHNA N. JAVIER, Ph.D.

Dean
College of Science
ii
IPR PAGE
Biomass and Carbon Stock Mapping of the Bued Mangrove Forest in Alaminos,
Pangasinan using Geographical Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing
by Madonna C. Daquigan
MS Thesis, Department of Biology
College of Science
University of the Philippines Baguio
June 2020
Classification* : P
*I – invention or creation, P – publication, C – confidential information
Available to the general public Yes

Available only after consultation with author/adviser for
No
thesis/dissertation
Available only to those bound by nondisclosure or confidentiality
No
agreement
_______________________________ ______________________________
Madonna C. Daquigan Romeo M. Dizon, Ph.D.
Student Thesis Adviser
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
With boundless love and appreciation, I would like to extend my profound gratitude and
appreciation to all the people who helped me bring this study into reality. I would like to
express my sincere thanks to the following:
First of all, I am grateful to our Almighty God for the wisdom he bestowed upon
me, the strength, peace of mind, good health and guidance in order to finish this study.
I would like to express my gratitude to my family for the support and

encouragement. My dearest nephew who helped me a lot in encoding and collating the
data in this study.
I am highly indebted to Philippine APEC Study Center Network for making this
research possible by providing me financial support and guidance in its completion. I
extend the same gratitude to the review committee who gave me constructive comments
and suggestions.
I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to my adviser, Dr. Romeo
Dizon, co-adviser, Dr. Roscinto Ian Lumbres, thesis reader, Dr. Roland Hipol, and
examiners, Dr. Dymphna Javier and Dr. Zenaida Baoanan for imparting their
knowledge and expertise in this study, and also to the sincere and valuable guidance and
encouragement extended to me.
I also thank the staff of Local Government Units and Department of

Environment and Natural Resources of Alaminos City who gave us permission and
assisted us in the collection area and to the author Dr. Pramaditya Wicaksono who shared
the protocol for the sampling and mapping of mangroves and gave me valuable
suggestions.
Lastly, I want to express my sincere thanks to all my colleagues, MS CaRE

classmates and friends who, indirectly and directly, have lent their helping hand in this
study and cheered me on during my writing stage.
iv
ABSTRACT
The Philippines is recognized for its mangrove-rich ecosystems which play a

significant role in promoting biodiversity by serving as habitat for marine organisms and
in mitigating climate change impacts by serving as sinks of atmospheric carbon. This study
assesses the diversity, biomass and carbon stock of the Bued Mangrove Forest Park in
Alaminos, Pangasinan using non-destructive methods namely, the quadrat sampling
technique to facilitate inventory and measurement of trees combined with geographical
information system (GIS) and remote sensing applications. The Shannon-Wiener index,
allometric, and sediment carbon equations were used to determine species diversity,
biomass and carbon storage, respectively, of mangrove species on both reforested and old
stands. Empirical modelling through Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)
were used to obtain an estimation model of biomass and carbon stocks of the area. The
mean species diversity of the area had a very low diversity index value with H’ = 1.67015
(old mangrove stands: H’= 0.32401; reforested stands: H’= 1.34614). Among the species,
the carbon stocks of Avicennia marina, Sonneratia alba and Rhizophora apiculata had the
highest total values of 16.06 t C, 14.81 t C, and 11.30 t C, respectively. The total sediment
carbon obtained among plots was 568.20 t with a mean value of 43.71 t ha-1. The estimation
of carbon stocks using NDVI yielded a mean value of 262.02 t C ha-1 and a total of
137,036.99 t C. Generally, the total carbon, pooling what is in the mangroves and
sediments, in the 5.49-hectare mangrove forest is estimated be about 137,605.19 t C which
is equivalent to 504,552.37 t CO2. This indicates that the area has the potential to sequester
and store substantial amounts of atmospheric carbon and can serve as Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS). Therefore, this study provides an empirical basis, and highlights the need,
for the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of this mangrove ecosystem
through programs and the implementation of policies within the region.
Keywords: mangroves, biomass, carbon stock, Geographical Information System (GIS),

Remote sensing (RS)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………… iv
Abstract………………………………………………………………… v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………… vii
List of Figures………………………………………………………….. ix
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………… 1
Background of the Study………………………………………… 1
Study Problem……………………………………………............ 5
Objectives of the Study…………………………………………… 7
Significance of the Study…………………………………………. 8
Scope and Delimitation…………………………………………… 9
Chapter 2: Methodology……………………………………………….. 10
Conceptual Framework of the Study……………………………… 10
Site Description……………………………………………………. 11
Field Data Collection……………………………………………… 13
Data Analysis……………………………………………………… 14
Mangrove Biodiversity……………………………………. 14
Mangrove Biomass and Carbon Storage…………………... 15
Mapping of Mangrove using Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

and Remote Sensing……………………………………………… 16
Chapter 3: Review of Related Literature……………………………….. 19
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion……………………………………… 34

Mangrove Species Diversity………………………………………… 34
vi
Biomass and Carbon Storage among mangroves species and between
mangrove type using allometric equations…………………………… 45
Sediment Carbon……………………………………………………… 51
Biomass and Carbon Storage of Bued Mangrove Forest using

Geographical Information System (GIS) and remote sensing…………. 54
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation……………………………. 67
References……………………………………………………………....... 69
Appendix A: Raw Data ……………………………………….................. 80
Appendix B: Statistical Analyses………………………………………… 82
Appendix C: Photodocumentation………………………………………... 95
Appendix D: Sample of Permit Letter……………………………………. 100
Appendix E: Result of Soil Analyses……………………………………... 101
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Fernando Categories based on Shannon-Weiner diversity values……….. 14
2. Allometric equations for various mangroves based on DBH (cm)………. 29
3. Vegetation indices used to model mangrove carbon stock ……………… 32
4. Taxonomic identification and species abundance……………………… 35
5. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index between old and reforested mangrove

stands…….................................................................................................. 44
6. Biomass and carbon stock of different species and mangrove type……... 49
7. Soil organic carbon among plots………………………………………... 53
8. Total AGB, BGB, Biomass and Carbon of Bued Mangrove Forest……... 60
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Research Paradigm of the Study………………………………………… 11
2. Map of Bued Mangrove Forest Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan…………… 12
3. Flow Chart of the Methodology on Mapping of Mangroves…………….. 18
4. Species Distribution of Mangroves………………………………………. 41
5. Shannon-Weiner diversity indices in all selected plots…………………... 44
6. DBH, DB and Tree height of the different mangrove species and
mangrove type……………………………………………………………. 46
7. NDVI Map of Bued Mangrove Forest……………………………………. 55
8. Nonlinear regression among selected pixels in the field…………………. 56
9. Map on Above-Ground Biomass (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest……... 58
10. Map on Below-Ground Biomass (tons ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest... 59
11. Map on Total Biomass (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest…….……….. 59
12. Map on Total Carbon (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest……….………. 60
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
One of today’s major environmental concerns is the accelerated accumulation of
greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere (Castillo and Breva, 2012).
The excessive production of these greenhouse gases by both anthropogenic activities and
natural processes affects the world’s climate resulting in what we call the “runaway
greenhouse effect”. This phenomenon causes climate change by increasing the temperature
of the Earth’s surface and causing extreme conditions that can damage and deplete natural
resources both on the terrestrial and marine environments, as well as affect people’s
livelihoods and food security. These observed impacts have the most adverse effects on
both individuals and economies in developing countries like the Philippines in the Asia-
Pacific Region.
The role of plant communities, especially trees, in the ecosystem can help address
problems related to climate change. A primary reason of this would be the ability of plants
to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis, and
then eventually store it as five-carbon pools such as above-ground biomass (AGB), below-
ground biomass (BGB), leaf-litter, dead wood and soil carbon stock in forest ecosystems
(Castillo and Breva, 2012; Sahu et al., 2016). Generally, forests can act as both sinks and
sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are conserved and destroyed, respectively
(Sahu et al., 2016). Therefore, it is not surprising that great attention has been given to
forest ecosystems due to their important role in carbon sequestration from the atmosphere
(Castillo and Breva, 2012).
1
Among the forest ecosystems, mangroves are considered to have the best potential
in controlling the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and, in turn, possibly becoming a great
help in addressing climate change and climate-change related problems. This assertion is
based on mangrove forest ecosystems being biologically complex and highly productive.
Additionally, they also provide a wide array of valuable ecosystem services that coastal
inhabitants depend on, including, but not limited to, ecological services such as protection
from erosion and depocenters for sediment, carbon and other elements primarily in the
carbon sequestration process due to their function as “blue carbon sink” (Alongi, 2014;
Primavera et al., 2012).
Mangroves, relative to other trees, are also considered to be among the densest
carbon pools among vegetated coastal habitats since they can store a large amount of
underground carbon stock (Wicaksono et al., 2016) and can allocate more biomass
underground to support their existence in muddy substrates as compared to other species
(Komiyama et al., 2008). They can store organic carbon in the surrounding soil as well
since mangrove soil can serve as a sink for carbon and other nutrients through the
accumulation of organic material as peat. This sequestered carbon will then remain in the
sediment, not just for decades or centuries but rather for millennia, and is not readily
returned to the atmosphere. This gives mangrove sediments the ability to perform what is
known as “long-term carbon sequestration” (Wicaksono et al., 2016). This ability has been
proven to be 10 to 50 times better than terrestrial habitats (Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009;
Nellenmann et al., 2009) and sequesters 4 times more carbon per unit area compared to
terrestrial forests in the tropics, despite the fact that mangroves account for only 0.7% of
the tropical forest area (Sahu et al., 2016).
2
Globally mangroves, covering 14-15 million ha across 120 countries, are
considered to be diverse. About 50-60 species belong to 16 families, more than 50 of them
occur in the Indo-Pacific (Polidoro et al., 2010; Spalding et al., 2010) and a third of which
is found in Southeast Asia (Polidoro et al., 2010; Spalding et al., 2010; Giri et al., 2011).
The Philippines is considered to have one of the highest numbers of “true”
mangrove species among the South East Asian countries, having about 42 species
representing 18 families (Samson and Rollon, 2011). Out of these 42 mangrove species, 25
have been recorded in the province of Pangasinan, in the northwestern Philippines.
Pangasinan is endowed with productive coastal ecosystems like seagrasses, coral
reefs, and mangroves which provide rich fishing grounds. Over the years, these ecosystems
have been continuously experiencing destruction because of several natural hazards,
anthropogenic activities, and climate change impacts. In addressing such destruction in the
coastal ecosystems, the provincial government has implemented initiatives for the
sustainable management and protection of mangrove forests which include mangrove
reforestation projects involving planting of mangroves in new areas, rehabilitating existing
areas, and reforesting areas that have been severely distressed by natural and man-made
calamities.
Presently, the past several decades of effort have been showing signs of
improvement. One significant initiative was the establishment of 17 Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) in the province which include the Hundred Islands National Park where the
Bued Mangrove Forest Park, the chosen site for this study, is located. The Provincial
Agriculture Office has conducted monitoring and evaluation on the status for both existing
3
and mangrove plantation in the forest park. Recent estimates revealed that the total
coverage of mangroves in the province is about 615.02 ha of which, about 283 ha are old
stand mangroves located along the coasts of Alaminos City and the towns of Bolinao, Bani,
Anda, Dasol, and Infanta.
These mangrove forests in Pangasinan, specifically in Alaminos City, where both
reforested and old-growth mangroves are located, lack data and measures on climate
change mitigation and adaptation that are in place. Thus, these areas should serve as a
priority concern of the provincial government since the quantitative information on
mangrove biomass and carbon stock is still scarce. Estimations of biomass, carbon stock
and diversity of mangroves through field surveys, and modelling of their spatial
distribution using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing data is
considered as an ideal and practical method. This method provides a better understanding
of the spatial and time distribution biomass and carbon dynamics of the mangrove forests.
Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are geospatial
technologies used in estimating mangrove biomass and carbon stock using satellite-derived
datasets in combination with field survey data like diameter at breast height (DBH) and
tree height. These geospatial data sets have been widely used for mangrove monitoring.
Examples of satellite images used by several studies were Worldview-2 Imagery (Candra
et al., 2016), Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Arc-Second Global DEM (Tang
et al., 2018), Landsat (Vicharnakorn et al., 2014), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (NOAA AVHRR) (Iverson
et al., 1993), Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar (InSAR), Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
4
Radiometer (ASTER) (Patil et al., 2013), Advanced Land Observation System Advanced
Visible and Near-Infrared Radiometer-2 (ALOS AVNIR-2), Visible Near-Infrared
(VNIR), Operational Land Imager (OLI), and Hyperion hyperspectral (Wicaksono, 2017).
The use of these remotely sensed data has the following advantages:
1) acquires information over large areas;
2) provides qualitative and quantitative measurements of mangroves via the
electromagnetic spectrum; and
3) provides data on spatial distribution and temporal changes of mangrove
forests (Omar et al., 2019).
Therefore, the use of these technologies is very important in sustainable management,
inventory of natural resources, and conservation of mangrove forests in the Philippines,
particularly in the province of Pangasinan.
The Study Problem
Despite their great importance, mangrove forests face a serious problem that has
been affecting their cover and diversity. In the Philippines, early estimates of the total area
inhabited by mangroves are around 400,000-500,000 ha, but recent surveys reveal that this
number has been tremendously trimmed down to a low estimate of 153,777 ha (Primavera,
2000) or, in other studies, to 256,000-263,000 ha (Giri et al., 2011; Long and Giri, 2011;
Spalding et al., 2010). This decline is likely accounted for by the easy access to mangroves,
resulting in a high risk of exposure to the numerous anthropogenic pressures related to land
development and unsustainable activities such as logging.
5
Pangasinan is one of the Philippine provinces that has experienced severe mangrove
forest destruction over the decades. The total area of 990 hectares recorded in 1978 has
noticeably declined to 615.02 ha with most of the remaining mangrove forests being
secondary growth forests with only a few patches remaining as primary growth (Moya et
al., 2015). This continuous reduction of the density of mangroves potentially reduces the
capacity of the environment to curb the alarming concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere,
thus, sustaining the role of mangrove forests in mitigating the impacts of climate change
should be a primary concern.
Additionally, there are not enough studies on the role of mangroves in sequestering
significant amounts of carbon dioxide and in using them as a means of CO2 capture and
storage (CCS). Most Philippine studies currently focus only on terrestrial vegetation that
have resulted in very little information on the precise amount of biomass and carbon
storage of the country’s coastal vegetation. The small number of studies that have been
done are mostly in Visayas and Southern Luzon, while very few have been carried out in
Northern Luzon. An appropriate response to this imbalance and incomplete picture of CCS
would be to increase efforts in research that target mangrove areas in Luzon and in other
parts of the country so as to figure out how to harness mangroves’ potential as a means of
CO2 capture and storage (CCS).
In relation to this, there is also a lack of studies involving mapping of carbon stock
using geographical information system (GIS) and remote sensing (RS) technology on
mangrove forests in the Philippines. As of yet, the few studies such as those done by Lasco
et al. (2001), Lasco et al. (2002), Lasco and Pulhin (2003), Lasco et al. (2004), Lasco et al.
(2006), Lasco and Cardinoza (2007), Lasco and Pulhin (2009), Patricio and Tulod (2010),
6
Lasco et al. (2012), Lumbres and Lee (2014), Tulod (2015), and Doyog et al. (2018) using
this technology focus only on terrestrial ecosystems, particularly pine forests.
Objectives of the Study
As a response to the need to assess the potential of mangrove forests in mitigating
the effects of climate change, this research seeks to determine the carbon sequestration
ability of mangrove forests in the Bued Mangrove Forest Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan. The
proposed program enactment, including but not limited to conservation and restoration
actions, is optimistic in contributing significantly to the global efforts at mitigating the
impacts of climate change.
By providing ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and adaptation measurements
that result in carbon sinking like CO2 capture and storage, conserving, maintaining and
increasing the areal cover of mangrove forests can serve as an effective way in helping
reduce the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
This study aims to:
1. assess the species diversity of mangrove forests both on old and reforested
mangrove stands (also known as ‘trees’) within the Bued Mangrove Forest Park in
Pangasinan;
2. estimate and differentiate the actual above- and below-ground wood biomass
production, and carbon stock among species of mangroves and among sediment
samples on both old and reforested mangrove stands within Bued Mangrove Forest
Park using allometric equations; and
7
3. construct a map of the initial estimation of mangrove biomass and carbon stock
using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing technology.
The Significance of the Study
The findings of this research provide a basis to quantify and assess the carbon
sequestration ability of mangrove forests in the Bued Mangrove Forest Park in Alaminos,
Pangasinan. The field survey methodology is used to take an inventory of diversity,
biomass, and carbon storage as quantitative data that can serve as an empirical basis for
local government units (LGUs), local communities, and government agencies in the
formulation of a structured management policy within the region. The proposed program
enactment is optimistic in contributing to the mitigation of climate change and to the
assessment of both old and reforested mangrove trees as an essential tool for the protection
of these habitats.
This study also provides a reliable measurement of biomass and carbon stock, and
advanced geospatial mapping data using Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
software and remote sensing technology. These are the data and/or technology used by
many researchers in monitoring possible future changes caused by degradation of
mangrove forests. Additionally, the study also provides a better understanding of the
benefits of the use of these new technologies in carrying out various management activities
for regional development such as determining areas that need to be protected, assisting the
process of mangrove conservation and rehabilitation, and evaluating management impacts.
This study also provides significant quantifiable data that, in turn, gives a broader
understanding of the potential of mangroves in CCS. The conservation and reforestation
8
of mangrove habitats can help reduce greenhouse gases by increasing the capacity and
capture rate of mangroves. Mangrove forests, known as “blue carbon sinks”, function to
store CO2 that result in the offsetting of the carbon emission rate.
Scope and Delimitation
The study was conducted at only one site, namely, the Bued Mangrove Forest Park
in Alaminos, Pangasinan from December 2018 to April 2019. This study focused on the
species diversity, biomass, and carbon storage of selected mangrove species both on the
reforested and old stands in pre-selected quadrats along the coastal edge forest to represent
the entire 5.49-hectare area. Random selection of plots was not carried out as initially
planned due to the inaccessibility of the inner portions of the forest. Additionally,
sediments were also sampled and analyzed from the same quadrats. The study includes the
use of biomass and carbon estimation model through remote sensing images from Sentinel-
2 and one vegetation index, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), in
combination with the field data surveys in order to estimate the total carbon sequestration
potential of Bued Mangrove Forest.
9
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Framework of the Study
This research determined the potential of the mangrove forests at Barangay Bued,
Alaminos City, Pangasinan in sequestering carbon through an inventory of its biomass
content and carbon storage of the mangrove stands and the surrounding sediments. The
species diversity of the mangrove forest was also determined since biomass and carbon
content has been shown to be a function of diversity. Changes in species diversity have
consequent changes in both standing biomass and carbon uptake rates and capacities.
All the data obtained in this study were used in modeling a map for above and
below-ground biomass and carbon stocks of mangroves using Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) and remote sensing software. These maps provide quantitative baseline data
for the area and may serve as a basis and guide in carrying out various management
activities such as conservation and restoration management, policy implementation (e.g.,
determination of protected zones), and provision of adaptation measurements for purposes
of reducing GHG emissions and balancing the economic growth in the Asia-Pacific Region
including the Philippines. The study is optimistic in contributing to the mitigation of
climate change and may serve as a starting point in exploring ways for the reduction of
greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. These endeavors are of
high relevance as they are among the top concerns as identified by the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) as mentioned in the manual of APEC Energy Working
Group (2009).
10
The study follows the outlined research paradigm:
BUED MANGROVE FOREST PARK
Sediments Different Species of

Mangroves
Biomass and Carbon

Storage
Biomass and Carbon Stocks Map (GIS

and Remote Sensing)
Potential for carbon sequestration (CO2

capture and storage)
Quantitative data for Management Activities:

regional and national  Conservation and restoration
development
 Policy implementation
 Adaptation measurements
Climate Change Mitigation
Figure 1. Research Paradigm of the Study
Site Description
This research was conducted at the Mangrove Forest Park in Barangay Bued,
Alaminos City, Pangasinan in northwestern Luzon. Alaminos is situated at the northern
part of the province and is flanked by the coastal municipalities of Sual, Bani, and Mabini.
The city lies on the western margins of the Lingayen Gulf (Figure 2) and is also known for
11
one of the most visited tourist destinations in the Philippines, the Hundred Islands National
Park.
The Bued Mangrove Forest Park, as shown in Figure 2, is located at latitude
16o10’20.22” N and longitude 120o00’39.93” E and has a total area of 5.49 ha inclusive of
old and reforested mangrove stands, and a mangrove nursery grounds. This area was
selected due to its accessibility, the presence of both old and reforested mangroves trees,
and the healthy condition of the mangrove stands because of the active protection and
monitoring of the provincial agriculture office and the Department of Environmental
Natural Resources (DENR).
Figure 2. Map of the Bued Mangrove Forest Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan
12
Field Data Collection
The mangrove field survey protocol was adopted from the study of Wicaksono et.
al. (2016), and Kauffman and Donato (2012). The survey utilizes environment-friendly
methods such as allometry and remote sensing because these are non-destructive as no
collection of plant samples is involved. The protocol is also time- and cost-effective as it
requires less effort and man-hours in the field and laboratory than others.
In the sampling of mangrove trees, 13 plots of size 20 m x 20 m were established,
covering both the old and reforested mangrove stands. Old mangrove stands are usually
found on the side of plots near seaward or in between the plots while reforested stands were
found in the middle of each plot or on the side of plots near the landward edge. In each
plot, different tools were used to measure individual mangrove trees within each sampling
plot. These measurements include the diameter at breast height (DBH) that was determined
using a tape measure at 1.37 m above the ground, except for species that have prop roots
like Rhizophoraceae which were measured at 30 cm above ground level (Kauffman and
Donato, 2012); the diameter at the height of the lowest living branch (DB); the tree height
that was estimated using a clinometer; species composition and diversity of mangroves.
Species were identified using the field manual by Primavera (2009) and were verified using
the existing data of Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and Department
of Agriculture. The coordinates of the location of each mangrove tree were recorded using
a Garmin 78S Marine Handheld GPS.
In addition to the mangrove stands, sediments were also collected randomly from
undisturbed portions of each sampling plot using a corer (dia: 5 cm, length: 10 cm) to
determine the near-surface sediment carbon storage of the area. Samples (n=3 per plot)
13
were collected from haphazardly selected spots in each plot. Each sample was stored
separately in labeled and sealed plastic bags for transport to the laboratory for analysis.
Fresh and dry weight determination, bulk density, and organic matter content analyses were
carried out at the Soil Science Laboratory at the Benguet State University in La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Data Analysis
Mangrove Biodiversity
To assess the biodiversity of mangroves, the Species Diversity Index that was used
by Tang et al. (2007), Gevaña & Pampolina (2009), and Lumbres et al. (2012) was adopted
for this study. Also known as the Shannon-Wiener’s Index, this species diversity index
indicates the quantitative description of the mangrove habitat in terms of species richness
and abundance. It is calculated using the following formula:
H’ = -Ʃ pi ln pi (1)
where H' is the diversity index, pi is the proportion of ith individual species to total species
individuals, and ln is the natural logarithm. These Shannon-Weiner diversity values were
classified based on the scale developed by Fernando (1998) as cited by Gevaña &
Pampolina (2009) and is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Fernando categories based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity values

Relative values H’ Values
Very high > 3.500
High 3.0000 – 3.4999
Moderate 2.5000 – 2.9999
Low 2.0000 – 2.4999
Very Low < 1.9999
14
Mangrove Biomass and Carbon Storage
To determine the carbon storage in mangrove ecosystems, three pools of carbon
were measured, namely, above-ground biomass (e.g., branches and leaves), below-ground
biomass (i.e., the roots), and the sediment.
Above-ground biomass (AGB) and below-ground biomass (BGB) were calculated
for each individual tree, pole or sapling using allometric equations, specifically the species-
specific allometric formulas used by Komiyama et al. (2008) and a common allometric
formula, developed by Komiyama et al. (2005) shown in Equations 2-4.
The sediment carbon, on the other hand, was measured based on the obtained data
from laboratory analyses following the methodology of Walkley & Black (1934, in Abino
et al., 2014b). Values of biomass for both above- and below-ground obtained in this
research were standardized to t per hectare and converted into carbon stock following the
conversion value of 0.464g C per 1g dry weight biomass (Murdiyarso et al., 2009). The
conversion equations are as follows:
Above Ground Biomass (kg) = 0.251p (DBH)2.46; Dmax = 49 cm (2)
Leaf Biomass (kg) = 0.135p(DB)1.696; Dmax = 49 cm (3)
Below Ground Biomass (kg) = 0.199 p0.899 x (DBH)2.22; Dmax = 45cm (4)
where p is the wood density of the corresponding mangrove species (kg m−3), DBH is the
diameter of the tree at breast height (cm), DB is the diameter of the tree at the height of the
lowest living branch (cm), and Dmax is the maximum diameter at breast height.
The non-parametric Kruskal Wallis Test (using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20
software) was used to test if there were significant differences in the above- and below-
ground biomass, and carbon stock among species of mangroves in both old and reforested
15
mangrove stands. This test is used in place of the parametric one-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) since the assumptions of normality of data and homoscedasticity were not met,
most likely due to unbalanced replication.
Mapping of Mangrove using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Remote

Sensing
The mangrove distribution and carbon stock were modeled and mapped using the
remote sensing images developed by Sentinel-2 satellites, as recommended by Candra et
al. (2016), Wicaksono et al. (2016), and Wicaksono (2017). Two open-source software,
namely, Quantum Geographical Information System (QGIS) and Sentinel Application
Platform (SNAP) were used in this study. The multispectral Sentinel-2 image, with a
resolution of 10 m x 10 m, for 15 February 2019 was selected as it was a cloud-free and
clear image. This satellite image consists of 12 spectral band coverage including red, green
and near-infrared (NIR) band. Generally, the information about vegetation index was
collected at Band 4 (Red) and 8 (NIR). Empirical modelling and vegetation index models
are generally used to estimate biomass and carbon stock following the methods of
Kattenborn et al. (2015), Wicaksono et al. (2016), Wicaksono (2017) and Bindu et al.
(2018).
The following methods, shown in Figure 3, consist of five main steps: (1) image
input using remote sensing images, (2) image data pre-processing including geometric and
atmospheric correction, (3) image processing using Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI), (4) species classification used to improve the empirical model of mangrove
carbon stock, and (5) empirical modelling using regression analysis.
16
Mangrove carbon stock modelling using regression analysis was subjected to
further analysis to confirm a significant correlation and F test or model test (Umarhadi and
Muammar, 2018). The F test or model test was used to determine if the independent
variable can be used as a predictor in the model. Both the correlation and regression
analysis were used to establish the key relation between the mangrove carbon stock value
in the field and the vegetation index such as NDVI. This in turn was used to transform the
mangrove pixel NDVI value into mangrove carbon stock value. The NDVI is one of the
most widely used and implemented index that is calculated from multispectral information.
It is often used to assess regional and global vegetation (Xue and Su, 2017). Additionally,
it can also be used as a tool to analyze remote sensing measurements, primarily the intensity
of live green vegetation (Bindu et al., 2018).
From the NDVI values, the satellite data above-ground biomass (AGB) can be
calculated using the equation 5 (Bindu et al., 2018) below:
AGB = a ∗ 𝑒 (NDVI ∗ b) (5)
where a is the initial value of function, b is the fixed base, and e is the constant irrational
number approximately equal to 2.718.
Below-ground biomass (BGB) is calculated by multiplying the satellite-derived
AGB and an established field data ratio of BGB to AGB. In the field, the ratio of AGB to
BGB was calculated separately for each species and then the average value was derived.
This average value of the ratio of BGB to AGB, obtained from the different species of
mangroves, is 0.78. The Total Biomass, therefore, was taken as the sum of satellite data-
derived values of AGB and BGB. Carbon content (i.e., Total Carbon Stock), on the other
hand, was obtained by multiplying the Total Biomass by the conversion value of 0.464g C
17
per 1g dry weight biomass (Murdiyarso et al., 2009). All the values in the AGB, BGB,
Total Biomass and Total Carbon Stock were expressed as tons per hectare (t ha-1).
1 IMAGE INPUT Remote Sensing

Satellite Images
Geometric Correction
2 IMAGE DATA PRE-
PROCESSING
Atmospheric Correction Color composite
Visual Interpretation
3IMAGE PROCESSING Vegetation Principal Component IMAGE mask

Mangrove
Index Analysis TRANSFORMATIO
N
Color composite
4 SPECIES
5 EMPIRICAL MODEL
CLASSIFICATION EMPIRICAL
Visual Mangrove MODEL
mask
6 ACCURACYPCA)
ASSESSMENT
MANGROVE CARBON
STOCK MAP
Figure 3. Flow Chart of the Methodology on Mapping of Mangroves
18
CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
When the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, there were no oceans. As
the surface water accumulated and pooled, however, the existence of ocean basins has since
served as the reaction chamber for the development of life on Earth and played a
fundamental role in the ongoing evolution of the Earth’s climate. As we know, the world’s
climate is continuously changing and will likely continue to evolve throughout the 21st
century and beyond.
The Earth’s climate trend today is that it is getting warmer. This is observed as the
relatively rapid increase in temperature documented during the past century both at oceans
and at the surface of the Earth. The average temperature of Earth’s surface, as mentioned
by Johnson and Moghari (2009), has ascended by 0.8°C since 1850 and may continuously
increase if emission rates of greenhouse gases increase. Models indicate that Earth will
likely become warmer by 3 to 5°C by 2100 compared to 1990.
Greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide traps heat
inside the Earth’s atmosphere but the amounts being released have increased significantly
since the Industrial Revolution (Johnson and Moghari, 2009). Carbon dioxide has been
noted to increase at about 35 percent since 1850, while methane and nitrous oxide levels
have increased by 150 percent and more than 20 percent, respectively. As a whole, the
continuous increase in the levels of these greenhouse gases has been the cause of what we
know as “global warming or global climate change”.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), global
warming likely results from natural variability and from human activities like the burning
19
fossil fuels for energy. APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) economies, in
particular, account for 60% of world energy consumption, industrial processes,
transportation, agriculture, and exploitation of forests. This also has resulted in the rise of
seawater levels, detrimentally causing extreme conditions that deplete and damage natural
resources, affect human life and livelihood, food and environmental security both for
individuals and economies. Additionally, there is a complex effect on the water supply and
demand, changes in precipitation patterns, increase in ocean acidity, changes in nutrient
loads, and other effects that have already impacted many parts of human society and the
natural world.
Aside from this, both marine and terrestrial ecosystems are being affected,
transforming them at an extraordinary scale and pace. Even small changes are not exempt
as each species comprising an ecosystem can be affected either as individuals or in its
interactions with the physical world and the organisms around it. This change may also
trigger a cascade of impacts throughout the entire ecosystem.
These impacts include two important iterations that have been observed across the
United States, the shifts in species ranges and phenology (Johnson and Moghari, 2009;
Brierley & Kingsford, 2009). Species’ ranges refer to the physical extent where organisms
can live and reproduce. This is detrimentally affected by the Earth becoming warmer as
many species have begun to shift their ranges to areas that have more tolerable climatic
conditions. According to Johnson and Moghari (2009), about 40% of wild plants and
animals that have been studied have been relocating to stay within their tolerable ranges of
climatic conditions. Some organisms are at a disadvantage with this shift, however,
especially those that cannot move fast or those whose ranges are actually shrinking, like
20
polar bears and seals that are left with no place to go while their habitats continue to shrink
and become more unsuitable for them to live in.
Species phenology, on the other hand, refers to the timing of biological activities
that take place seasonally. Climate change has affected phenology in such a way that the
timing of activities based on seasonal cues has shifted. Studies found that the seasonal
behaviors of many species such as the migrant European pied flycatcher, butterflies, and
plants have started to occur 15–20 days earlier in terms of arrival from migration, emerging
from their chrysalis, blooming compared with their timing several decades ago (Johnson
and Moghari, 2009). These shifts might not be problematic for species that have simply
adjusted their seasonal behavior with the changing climate. The problem lies with other
species that are dependent on these species for survival. As one species changes its timing,
a consequent disruption of important ecological interactions (e.g., predator-prey dynamics)
can cause a population decline or worse, a species extirpation.
In addition, other ecological impacts on climate change include changes in growth
rates, in the relative abundances, in biogeochemical processes (e.g., nutrient and water
cycling), and in the susceptibility to disturbance from insect pests, fire, and invasive
species. Some plant species might be able to adapt to climate change by exploiting the
increase of CO2 concentrations and high temperature to increase their growth rates.
Consequently, less adaptable species can be competitively edged out in the same
environment. Such fluctuations in plant communities, and even in their associated insect
assemblages, could lead to biodiversity reduction and even the extinction of many rare
species while increasing the population of species that are adaptive.
21
In the marine environment, corals are being affected by climate change-related heat
stress which manifests as coral bleaching, and by ocean acidification that leads to growth
rates of corals. These ecological impacts are happening globally but vary from place to
place. As such, different mitigating actions appropriate to each situation is necessary.
The Kyoto Protocol, for example, was developed by the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the regionally established CO2 Capture and
Storage Project, and the APEC Energy Working Group and the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to balance the economic growth in the
Asia-Pacific region, especially in developing countries. The establishment and
management of stable plant communities in the ecosystem such as forests to enhance the
removal, capture, and storage of CO2 from the atmosphere is recognized as a key step to
offset the increase of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and reduce the rate of global
warming. There is clear evidence that the role of forests in regulating the global
atmospheric CO2 is by serving as the biggest reservoirs of carbon (Stone and Mario, 2010;
Whitehead, 2011). They do this by their ability to photosynthetically sequester atmospheric
carbon dioxide and then eventually store them in five storage pools, namely, above-ground
biomass (AGB), below-ground biomass (BGB), leaf litter, dead wood, and soil carbon
stock (Castillo and Breva, 2012; Sahu et al., 2016). Densely vegetated forests, therefore,
have the ability to be a natural means of CO2 capture and storage in addition to man-made
technologies developed by several global and regional organizations including the World
Bank (WB), United Nations (UN), APEC, Association of South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN), and ADB. Under the protocol, programs such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and forest Degradation) that help prevent large emissions of CO2 in
22
both terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Alongi, 2011; Whitehead, 2011) have been
proposed.
In addition to the carbon stock of terrestrial ecosystems, Nellemann et al. (2009)
and Candra et al. (2016) provided new evidence suggesting that carbon can also be stored
in the biomass and sediments of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes, and
seagrass beds. The carbon captured by coastal vegetation, known as the “blue carbon,”
represents more than 55% of the green carbon from terrestrial ecosystems (Nellemann et
al., 2009).
Among coastal ecosystems, mangroves are considered to have the best potential in
controlling the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and potentially providing substantial help
in addressing climate change and climate-change related problems. This assertion is based
on the fact that mangrove ecosystems are biologically complex and highly productive.
Mangrove species are the only known woody halophytes that have the unique structural
and functional adaptation that enable them to survive in extreme conditions. Additionally,
they also provide a wide array of valuable ecosystem services that coastal inhabitants
depend on including, but not limited to, ecological services such as protection from erosion,
natural barriers against tropical storms and depocenters for sediment, carbon and other
elements primarily in the carbon sequestration process, and a climate change mitigation
and strategy (Primavera et al., 2012; Alongi, 2014; Bhomia et al., 2016).
Mangroves are also considered to have the densest carbon pools among vegetated
coastal habitats since they can store a large amount of underground carbon stock
(Wicaksono et al., 2016) and can allocate more biomass underground to support their
existence in muddy substrates relative to other species (Komiyama et al., 2008). They can
23
store organic carbon in the surrounding soil as well since mangrove sediment layers can
serve as a sink for carbon and other nutrients via the accumulation of organic material as
peat. This sequestered carbon remains in the sediment for a long time and is not readily
returned to the atmosphere, which gives mangrove sediments the ability to perform what
is known as “long-term carbon sequestration” (Wicaksono et al., 2016). This ability has
been proven to be 10 to 50 times better than that of terrestrial habitats (Laffoley and
Grimsditch, 2009; Nellenmann et al., 2009), capable of sequestering 4 times more carbon
per unit area compared to terrestrial forests in the tropics and, if destroyed, can generate
emissions up to 10% of the total global deforestation despite the fact that mangrove forests
account for only 0.7% of the tropical forest area (Sahu et al., 2016).
Despite their importance, mangrove forests are facing a serious decline in diversity.
Globally, mangroves are considered to be diverse with about 50-60 species belonging to
16 families. More than 50 of these are found in the Indo-Pacific (Polidoro et al., 2010;
Spalding et al., 2010) and a third of which are native to Southeast Asia (Polidoro et al.,
2010; Spalding et al., 2010; Giri et al., 2011). In addition, 4.9 million ha exist in the region
which comprises a third of the global coverage of 14-15 million ha, occurring in 120
countries.
Among countries in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is considered to be among those
with the highest number of “true” mangrove species, having about 42 species representing
18 families (Samson and Rollon, 2011). To date, however, the diversity and areal cover of
these mangrove species have continuously declined as a direct consequence of
deforestation and habitat conversion in the Philippines and the rest of the Southeast Asian
region.
24
Early estimates of the total areal cover of mangroves in the Philippines put it around
400,000-500,000 ha, but more recent ones reveal that this number has been tremendously
trimmed down. Spalding et al. (2010), Giri et al. (2011), Long and Giri (2011) estimate it
within the range of 256,000-263,000 ha while Primavera (2000) provides a more
conservative estimate of 153,777 ha. This decline is due to the relatively easy accessibility
of mangroves to human exploitation. Habitat conversion and unsustainable anthropogenic
activities like agriculture, industrial sewage disposal, human settlements, and
overexploitation by coastal dwellers (Primavera et al., 2012; Abino et al., 2014b) expose
these ecosystems to increasing environmental stress and population decline that will
eventually affect other organisms that are dependent on mangroves.
Pangasinan has experienced the severe destruction of mangroves over the years due
to illegal logging for biofuel use and land conversion for human use. Early estimates of the
total area of mangrove cover in 1978 peg it at around 990 ha, however, a recent estimate
reveals that this has decreased to 615.02 ha (Moya et al., 2015). Additionally, most of the
remaining mangrove forests are secondary growths or found in plantations due to coastal
resource management and the mangrove reforestation project being implemented by the
provincial government agency. Only about 283 ha located along the coasts of Bolinao,
Bani, Alaminos City, Anda, Dasol, and Infanta remain as primary growth mangrove
forests.
Due to the continuous degradation of these mangroves, the forest biomass that
serves as the instrumental tool in sequestering atmospheric carbon is also affected.
Globally, according to Clark and Clark (2000), the estimates of mangrove biomass reported
ranges from 7 to 440 t ha-1. In the Philippines, mangrove forests are estimated to have a
25
mean biomass of around 401.8 t ha-1 with roughly 176.8 t ha-1 of carbon stored (Lasco and
Pulhin 2004). This value that is near the upper limit of the global estimate suggests that
mangroves in the Philippines have a potential role in the carbon sequestration process. As
carbon sequestration and storage is expectedly different among species, the species
richness of mangrove forests can enhance the forest biomass and carbon uptake. Thus, a
change in mangrove species diversity can potentially affect both the biomass and carbon
stocks. Different species also have varying responses to climatic fluctuations, thus, a high
biodiversity is able to buffer carbon uptake and storage of the ecosystem against climatic
variation. Simply put, the “higher the biodiversity, the higher the carbon storage” (Mensah
et al., 2016).
Sustaining and restoring mangrove forests, especially in the current situation of
declining cover and diversity, would greatly help in mitigating the impacts of climate
change. Conservation and rehabilitation of these mangrove forests are, therefore, aimed at
mitigating and reducing GHGs that affect further deforestation and degradation of arboreal
habitats.
There is a need to continue studying the role of mangroves in sequestering a
significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in their biomass.
Most of the studies on carbon storage and sequestration conducted in the Philippines only
center on the terrestrial vegetation such as second-growth forests, plantation forests, and
agroforests such as the studies done by Andulan et al. (2017) on mango trees and coconut
trees, Patricio and Tulod (2010) on Pinus kesiya, and Guingab (2011) on C4 plants, because
the first product of carbon fixation is a 4-carbon compound. Despite the Philippines being
a mangrove-rich country, the lack of studies focusing on mangroves has yielded very little
26
information on the precise amount of biomass, carbon sequestration and storage of
mangroves at the species and ecosystem level.
Philippine coastal vegetation, in general, and mangrove forests, in particular, are
mostly studied in portions of Visayas and Southern Luzon (e.g., Codilan et al., 2009;
Gevaña and Pampolina, 2009; Camacho et al., 2011; Abino et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Altogether, data on carbon stocks obtained from the studies mentioned observe them to be
high and therefore comparable to the studies done in other countries in the Asian-Pacific
region. Some benchmarking studies that are worth taking note of are those from North
Sulawesi, Indonesia with 968 t C ha-1 (Murdiyarso et al., 2009), Okinawa, Japan with 80.50
t C ha-1 (Khan et al., 2009), Sarawak Mangrove Forest, Malaysia with 116.8 t C ha-1
(Chandra et al., 2011), Micronesian coastal fringes of Yap with 1,062 t C ha-1 and Palau
with 718 t C ha-1 (Kauffman et al., 2011), and the estuarine complex along the Bay of
Bengal, India with 67.47 t C ha-1 (Kathiresan et al., 2013). This in contrast to other forest
types like old growth forests with 1.3± 0.5 gigatonnes C per year (Luyssaert et al., 2008),
a pine forest in Sagada, Mountain Province with 112.35 t C ha-1 (Doyog et al., 2018) and
in La Trinidad, Benguet with 240.46 t ha-1 (Lumbres and Lee, 2013), plantations in
Pantabangan-Carranglan Wastershed with > 200 t C ha-1(Lasco et al., 2005) and Leyte
Geothermal Reservation with 10.09 t C ha-1 per year (Lasco et al., 2001), a secondary forest
in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve with 418 t C ha-1 (Lasco et al., 2004), a dipterocarp
forest in the Philippines with 258 t C ha-1 (Lasco et al., 2005), grasslands in Pantabangan-
Carranglan Wastershed with > 20 C ha-1(Lasco et al., 2005), a brushland in the Leyte
Geothermal Reservation with 4.2 t C ha-1 per year (Lasco et al., 2001) and in the
Pantabangan-Carranglan Wastershed with > 200 t C ha-1 (Lasco et al., 2005), a natural
27
forest in Leyte Geothermal Reservation with 0.92 t C ha-1 per year (Lasco et al., 2001) and
in the Pantabangan-Carranglan Wastershed with 300 t C ha-1 (Lasco et al., 2005), coconut
trees in the Leyte Geothermal Reservation with 4.78 t C ha-1 per year (Lasco et al., 2001),
mango trees in India with 285.05 megatonnes C (Ganeshamurthy et al., 2019) and in
Southern Philippines with 122.34 t ha-1 (Mark et al., 2016), tropical forests in Asia such
as a closed broadleaf forest with 196.3 t ha-1, a closed conifer forest with 144.9 t ha-1, and
an open forest with 79 t ha-1 (Lasco and Pulhin, 2009), and santol trees in Southern
Philippines with 203.62 t ha-1 (Mark et al., 2016).
Studies on carbon sequestration in Pangasinan have not yet been established, with
only the municipality of Bani having data on carbon storage (Garcia et al., 2015). This
study aims to contribute to the database for the province to establish the importance of
mangroves in climate change mitigation and to help initiate support for mangrove research
in the province and in other areas in the country.
The methodology that was used to compute for forest biomass includes the
allometric method by Komiyama et al. (2008) to estimate the whole or partial weight of a
tree from measurable tree dimensions, including trunk diameter and height using allometric
equations. This method is known to be non-destructive and useful in estimating the
temporal changes in forest biomass from past to present by means of subsequent
measurements.
Over the decades, two sets of allometric equations for mangroves have been
developed, namely, the species-specific allometric equations compiled from Komiyama et
al. (2008) shown in Table 2 and a common allometric formula developed by Komiyama et
al. (2005) previously shown in Equations 2-4.
28
Table 2. Allometric equations for various mangroves based on DBH (cm) from Komiyama
et al., (2008). Wtop is weight of above-ground (top portion) in kg; WR is weight
of below-ground (root portion) in kg; Dmax is maximum diameter at breast height.
Above-ground tree weight (Wtop in kg) Below-ground tree weight (WR in kg)
Avicennia germinans Avicennia marina
Wtop=0.140DBH2.40 r2 = 0.97, n = 45, WR= 1.28DBH1.17 r2 = 0.80, n = 14,
Dmax = 4 cm, Formard et al. (1998) Dmax = 35 cm, Comley and
2.54 2
Wtop=0.0942DBH r = 0.99, n = McGuinness (2005)
21, Dmax = unknown, Imbert and
Rollet (1989)
A. marina Bruguiera spp.

Wtop=0.308DBH2.11 r2 = 0.97, n = 22, WR= 0.0188(D2H)0.909 r2 = unknown, n
Dmax = 35 cm, Comley and = 11,
McGuinness (2005) Dmax = 33 cm, Tamai et al. (1986)
c.f., H = DI (0.025D + 0.583)
Laguncularia racemosa Bruguiera exaristata
Wtop=0.209DBH2.24 r2 = 0.99, n = 17, McGuinness (2005)
Dmax = unknown, Imbert and Rollet
(1989)
Rhizopora apiculata Ceriops australis

Dmax = 28 cm, Ong et al. (2004) Dmax = 8 cm, Comley and
McGuinness (2005)
Rhizopora mangle R. apiculata

Dmax = unknown, Imbert and Rollet Dmax = 28 cm, Ong et al. (2004)
(1989) c.f., Wstilt = 0.209DBH2.55 r2 = 0.84, n =
4
Rhizopora spp. Rhizopora stylosa

McGuinness (2005)
29
Wtop=0.105DBH2.68 r2 = 0.99, n = 23,
Dmax = 25 cm, Clough and Scott
(1989)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Rhizopora spp.
Wtop=0.186DBH2.31 r2 = 0.99, n = 17, WR= 0.00974(D2H)1.05 r2 =
Dmax = 25 cm, Clough and Scott unknown, n = 16,
(1989) Dmax = 40 cm, Tamai et al. (1986)
c.f., H = DI(0.02D + 0.678)
Bruguiera parviflora Xylocarpus granatum

Dmax = 25 cm, Clough and Scott Dmax = 8 cm, Poungparn et al. (2002)
(1989)
Ceriops australis
Wtop=0.189DBH2.34 r2 = 0.99, n = 26,
Dmax = 20 cm, Clough and Scott
(1989)
Xylocarpus granatum
Wtop=0.0823DBH2.59 r2 = 0.99, n =
15, Dmax = 25 cm, Clough and Scott
(1989)
Common equation Common equation

Wtop=0.251pD2.46 r2 = 0.98, n = 104, WR= 0.199 p0.899 D2.22 r2 = 0.95, n =
Dmax = 49 cm, Komiyama et al. 26, Dmax = 45 cm, Komiyama et al.
(2005) (2005)
Wtop=0.168pDBH2.47 r2 = 0.99, n =
84, Dmax = 50 cm, Chave et al. (2005)
In combination to the allometric methods mentioned, remote sensing and
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) were also utilized. These technologies have been
increasingly used in mangrove forestry worldwide in order to assist the collection and
analyses of images acquired from aircraft and satellites (Kairo et al., 2002). The satellite
data images obtained from numerous sources such as Landsat, Laser Imaging Detection
30
and Ranging (LIDAR), Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), Advanced
Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) (Patil et al., 2013),
RADARSAT, ALOS, Quickbird, IKONOS, and ICESat (Candra et al., 2016) are the most
suitable for biomass estimation when spectral responses, texture information, and
regression models are developed. The image corrections like geometric and radiometric
correction were also used to minimize the spatial displacement from atmospheric
conditions or sun illumination between images and the corresponding location in the field.
Additionally, the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and vegetation indices were
necessary to improve the performance of the remote sensing image in modeling the carbon
stock of mangroves.
There are two types of vegetation indices used in several international studies:
simple vegetation indices that include Simple Ratio (SR), Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index (NDVI), and Difference Vegetation Index (DVI), and indices that rely
heavily on visible bands including Atmospherically Resistant Vegetation Index (ARVI),
Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index (VARI), and Modified Soil and Atmospherically
Resistant Vegetation Index (MSARVI), and robust indices include Triangular Vegetation
Index (TVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index-2 (EVI2), and
Global Environment Monitoring Index (GEMI). These indices have the ability to normalize
the variation in background soil reflectance, atmospheric disturbance, and biomass
variation (Wicaksono et al., 2016; Wicaksono, 2017). The following formula of the
vegetation indices used is shown in Table 3 below.
31
Table 3. Vegetation indices used to model mangrove carbon stock. Ƿ is reflectance whose
subscript is the wavelength region: green, red, and blue, NIR is near-infrared and rb
is a combination of red and blue bands (Wicaksono et al., 2016; Wicaksono, 2017).
Index Algorithm Coefficients References

Birth and McVey
Ƿred (1968)
SR
ǷNIR Schlef, Atzberger,
and Hill (2005)
Richardson and
DVI ǷNIR - Ƿred Everitt (1992)
Edwards (2004)
Huete et al. (2002)
ǷNIR - Ƿred
NDVI Kiage and Walker
ǷNIR + Ƿred (2009)
Rouse et al. (1973)
(ǷNIR - Ƿrb)
Kaufman and Tanre
(ǷNIR - Ƿrb)
ARVI 𝛾=1 (1992)
Where Liu et al. (2004)
Ƿrb = Ƿred – 𝛾 (Ƿblue - Ƿred)
Gitelson et al.
(Ƿgreen - Ƿred) (2002)
VARI
(Ƿgreen + Ƿred - Ƿblue) Viña and Gitelson
(2011)
1
Broge and Leblanc
(120 (ǷNIR - Ƿgreen)) – 200(Ƿred - Ƿgreen) (2000)
TVI 2
Wamunyima (2005)
C1 = 6
ǷNIR − Ƿred C2 = 7.5
EVI1 Huete et al. (2002)
G 1+L L=1
ǷNIR + (C1 x Ƿred) − (C2 𝑥 Ƿblue) G = 2.5
ǷNIR − Ƿred
EVI2 2.5 x Jiang et al. (2008)
ǷNIR + (2.4 x Ƿred) + 1
2 ǷNIR - Ƿred - Huete et al. (1992)

MSARVI √[(2ǷNIR + 1 − γ(ǷNIR − Ƿrb)] Huete and Liu
2 (1994)
32
Ƿred − 0.125
GEMI = 𝑛 (1 − 0.25𝑛) − ( ) Pinty and Verstraete
1 − ǷNIR (1992)
GEMI where Van Der Meer et al.
2 (ǷNIR 2 − Ƿred 2 ) + 1.5ǷNIR + 0.5Ƿred (2000)
𝑛=
ǷNIR + Ƿred + 0.5
Remote sensing and GIS have notable advantages in terms of rapid information
update and are helpful in undertaking comparative analytical work, making information
available as required, in addition to the data also helping acquire higher spatial resolution.
Studies on mangrove carbon stock combined with remote sensing techniques in the
Philippines are still scant. Most of the studies that are currently available have been done
elsewhere like those by Wicaksono et al. (2016) and Wicaksono (2017) in Karimunjawa
Islands, Indonesia; Candra et al. (2016) in Teluk Benoa, Bali, Indonesia; Ibrahim and
Ngigi (2017) in Kenya; Vicharnakorn et al. (2014) in Lao PDR; Fatoyinbo et al. (2008) in
Mozambique; Jachowski et al. (2013) in Southwest Thailand; Kattenborn et al. (2015) in
Germany; and Hai Hoa and Duy Binh (2016) in Vietnam.
33
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mangrove Species Diversity
The sample area of the study covering 5,200 square meters is composed of 1,641
individual mangrove trees. These mangrove trees are classified into seven (7) families,
namely, Avicenniaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Sonneratiaceae, Combretaceae, Euphorbiaceae,
Myrsinaceae, and Meliaceae. Under these families, there were nine (9) genera, namely,
Avicennia, Rhizophora, Bruguiera, Ceriops, Sonneratia, Lumnitzera, Excoecaria,
Aegiceras, and Xylocarpus comprising thirteen (13) species of mangroves as presented in
the Table 4. Among these species, the old mangrove stands were dominated by the two
species of Rhizophora and are usually found on the side of the plots near the sea or in
between the plots. These old mangroves were observed to have, or were characterized by,
dead, rotting, or fallen trees. On the other hand, the remaining 11 species belonging to the
genera Avicennia, Bruguiera, Ceriops, Sonneratia, Lumnitzera, Excoecaria, Aegiceras,
and Xylocarpus were found in the reforested zone. This zone usually found in the middle
of each plot or on the side of plots near the landward edge.
34
Table 4. Taxonomic identification and species abundance (f) of mangrove trees at the
Bued Mangrove Forest.
Scientific
Name
Family f Field photo
(common
name)
Avicennia
776
Avicenniaceae marina
(bungalon)
35
Avicennia
84
Avicenniaceae rumphiana
(api-api)
Rhizophora
apiculata 262
Rhizophoraceae
(bakawan
lalaki)
36
Rhizophora
mucronata
Rhizophoraceae 10
(bakawan
babae)
Bruguiera
cylindrical
Rhizophoraceae 35
(pototan
lalaki)
Bruguiera
Rhizophoraceae gymnorrhiza 3
(busain)
37
Ceriops
Rhizophoraceae decandra 117
(malatangal)
Ceriops tagal
Rhizophoraceae 36
(tangal)
Sonneratia
Sonneratiaceae alba 212
(pagatpat)
38
Lumnitzera
Combretaceae racemosa 92
(kulasi)
Excoecaria
Euphorbiaceae agallocha 9
(buta-buta)
39
Aegiceras
corniculatum
Myrsinaceae 3
(saging-
saging)
Xylocarpus
Meliaceae granatum 2
(tabigi)
Total 1641
The species distribution of mangroves from the 13 plots with 20 m x 20 m transect
plot are shown in Figure 4. Out of the thirteen mangrove species recorded and identified,
the Avicennia marina had the highest relative abundance of 47.29% followed by
Rhizophora apiculata (15.97%), Sonneratia alba (12.92%), Ceriops decandra (7.13%),
Lumnitzera racemosa (5.61%), Avicennia rumphiana (5.12%), Ceriops tagal (2.19%), and
Bruguiera cylindrica (2.13%). On the other hand, there are five species that had the lowest
relative abundance, namely, Rhizophora mucronata (0.61%), Excoecaria agallocha

40
(0.55%), Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Aegiceras corniculatum (0.18%), and Xylocarpus
granatum (0.12%).
Figure 4. Species distribution of mangroves sampled at the Bued Mangrove Forest Park,
Alaminos, Pangasinan.
With regards to species diversity as shown in Table 5, the calculated overall diversity index
using Shannon-Weiner index was H’ = 1.67015. The old mangrove stands had H’= 0.32401
while the reforested stands had H’= 1.34614. In terms of diversity indices among plots, as
presented in Figure 4, the Plot 10 has the highest index value of H’= 1. 95670 while Plot 2
has the lowest index of H’= 0.58006. The distribution of species diversity values among
other plots followed the decreasing trend: Plot10 > Plot5 > Plot8 > Plot9 > Plot6 > Plot11
> Plot7 > Plot12 > Plot3 > Plot13 > Plot1 > Plot4 > Plot2 (Figure 5). This overall diversity
value obtained in this study is considered very low based on the diversity scale developed
41
by Fernando (1998) as cited by Gevaña and Pampolina (2009), Cañizares and Seronay
(2016), and Dimalen and Rojo (2018).
A similar finding was reported by Abino et al. (2014a) in Samar (H’= 1.6365),
Abino et al. (2014b) in Palawan (H’=0.9918), Cañizares and Seronay (2016) in Barangay
Imelda, Dinagat Island (H’= 1.856), Gevaña & Pampolina, (2009) in San Juan, Batangas
(H’=1.4185), and Pototan et al. (2017) in two municipalities of Davao del Norte (Tagum:
H’= 1.968 and Panabo: H’= 1.906). The primarily reason for this would be due to lack of
species variation in the mangrove stands (Abino et al., 2014a) and this also attributed to
dominance of some species particularly A. marina (776 individuals), R. apiculata (262
individuals) and S. alba (212 individuals) over the other species in terms of abundance
(Abino et al., 2014b). Aside from that, there are several studies like those by Gevaña &
Pampolina, (2009), Gevaña et al. (2009), Kovacs et al. (2011), Abino et al. (2014a), and
Macintosh and Ashton (2002) who similarly concluded that mangroves have lean diversity
indices due to their unique stand formation or zonation pattern compared to other tropical
forest ecosystems. According to Primavera et al. (2012), these different areas of mangrove
forests are dominated by certain species forming unique zones. The zonation pattern can
be detected by moving from inland to the seaward edge. This can be distributed vertically
from low, middle and high tidal elevation level, and horizontally from downstream,
intermediate, and upstream. The low to middle tidal elevation species are usually species
found in the seaward edge such as Avicennia, Sonneratia and Rhizophora, while the high
tidal elevation species like Bruguiera, Lumnitzera, Ceriops, Xylocarpus, and Heritiera are
usually found farther inland. This characteristic of the zonation pattern results from
differences in the rooting and growth of seedlings of each species, frequency of inundation,
42
soil and water salinity which varies from place to place or country to country. In the study,
the species of Avicennia, Sonneratia and Rhizophora were found near seaward zone while
near the landward were the species of Bruguiera, Ceriops, Lumnitzera, Xylocarpus,
Excoecaria, and Aegiceras. This is quite similar to the zonation pattern observe in Shoal
Bay Creek, India where in Rhizopora species were found throughout the seaward side and
the species of Bruguiera, Ceriops and Xylocarpus (Eswaran et al., 2017), in Ajuy and
Pedada Bays, Panay Island where Avicennia, Sonneratia and Rhizophora where near the
seaward edge while the Excoecaria, Bruguiera, and Ceriops (Sinfuego and Buot, 2014),
and in Puerto Princesa Bay, Palawan where Avicennia, Sonneratia and Rhizophora were
found in seaward zone while Lumnitzera and Xylocarpus were located in the high tidal
zone. (Dangan-Galon et al., 2016)
All thirteen species recorded in the mangrove forest of Bued, Alaminos are among
the 35 mangrove species flourishing in the Philippines (Primavera et al., 2012). Based on
the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species, all
belong to the least-concern category except for Avicennia rumphiana which is identified
as vulnerable and Ceriops decandra as nearly threatened. The least concern category is
evaluated as not being a focus of species conservation, vulnerable category is considered
to be at high risk of unnatural like human-caused extinction without further human
intervention, and nearly threatened is close to being at high risk of extinction in the near
future.
43
Table 5. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index between old and reforested mangrove stands at
the Bued Mangrove Forest Park.
MANGROVE TYPE SPECIES pi ln pi
Rhizophora mucronata 0.03108
OLD GROWTH
Rhizophora apiculata 0.29293
H’ 0.32401
Avicennia marina 0.35415
Sonneratia alba 0.26438
Bruguiera cylindrica 0.08207
Avicennia rumphiana 0.15214
Ceriops decandra 0.18829
REFORESTED Lumnitzera racemosa 0.16153
Xylocarpus granatum 0.00818
Excoecaria agallocha 0.02855
Ceriops tagal 0.08379
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0.01153
Aegiceras corniculatum 0.01153
H’ 1.34614
Overall Diversity Index (H’) 1.67015
2.50
2.00
DIVERSITY INDEX (H')
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
PLOT
Figure 5. Shannon-Weiner diversity indices in all selected plots that were sampled at the
Bued Mangrove Forest Park in Alaminos, Pangasinan.
44
Biomass and Carbon Storage among mangroves species and between mangrove type
using allometric equations
Trunk diameter, also known as the diameter at breast height (DBH), is used as
variable in determining the mangrove biomass and carbon stock through allometric
equations (Kirui et al., 2006; Kridiborworn et al., 2012; Abino et al., 2014b). Figure 6
shows the DBH, DB, and tree height of the different mangrove species and mangrove types
present in the sampled area that ranged from 0.64 to 55.0 cm, 0.95 to 33.74 cm, and 0.77
to 73.74 cm, respectively. S. alba had the largest DBH of 15.32 cm and DB of 16.08 while
both X. granatum and B. gymnorrhiza had the smallest DBH of 1.59 and the X. granatum
had the smallest DB of 1.59. In terms of tree height, the B. cylindrica had the highest mean
value of 11.38 m and S. alba was the shortest species at a mean of 5.10 m. As for the
mangrove type, reforested mangroves shown to a larger DBH mean value of 7.95 cm and
DB mean value of 8.79 cm while the old mangroves were on average taller at 7.94 m.
45
20
19
18
Mean Measurement
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Species Name Mangrove Type

DBH (cm) Tree Height (m) DB (cm)
Figure 6. Mean DBH (diameter at breast height), DB (diameter at the lowest living branch)
and Tree height of the different mangrove species and mangrove types. Y-axis
is in cm for DBH and DB and in m for height.
Vegetation biomass can be divided into above-ground and below-ground biomass.
The roots are considered as the below-ground biomass while the upper vegetative parts are
considered as the above-ground biomass. The stored organic carbon is undeniably
proportional to the biomass of mangrove vegetation and therefore, it can be used to estimate
the carbon stock (Hong et al., 2017).
Table 6 provides the results on above-ground biomass (AGB), below-ground
biomass (BGB), total biomass and total carbon stock of the different mangrove species.
Among the mangrove species, the mean value of above-ground biomass (AGB), below-
ground biomass (BGB), total biomass and total carbon stocks were significantly different
from each other based on Kruskal Wallis Test at a p-value of <0.0001.
46
Results revealed that S. alba had the highest AGB mean value of 0.20 t ha-1 but A.
marina had the highest total AGB of 23.60 t followed by S. alba (22.20 t) and R. apiculata
(10.95 t). As for the BGB observed, R. apiculata had the highest BGB mean value of 0.098
t ha-1, and a total BGB of 13.41 t followed by A. marina (11.01 t), and S. alba (9.71 t).
In terms of total biomass, S. alba had the highest total mean biomass value of 0.29
t ha-1 but A. marina shown to have the highest total biomass of 34.60 t followed by S. alba
(31.91 t) and R. apiculata (24.36 t). Carbon stocks of the different mangrove species
revealed that S. alba had the highest carbon stock mean value of 0.13 t ha-1 but A. marina
obtained the highest total carbon of 16.06 t C followed by S. alba with 14.81 t C and R.
apiculata with 11.30 t C.
Biomass and carbon stock vary greatly among species of mangroves depending on
the geographical location, plant density and ecology (Sahu et al., 2016). In addition, this
observation is highly attributable to different factors like large girth of the trees measured,
species composition, community structure, growth forms, age of the plant community, and
biophysical settings (Gevaña et al., 2009; Alongi, 2009; Abino et al., 2014b; Sahu et al.,
2016, Vinod et al., 2018; Cameron et al., 2019). In this study, for example, the S. alba
obtained the highest mean AGB, total biomass and total carbon. This is primarily accounted
for by their thicker trunks. Whereas, A. marina had an individual that had the largest AGB,
total biomass and total carbon, and this is due to their high relative abundance within the
area. The primary reason for the high mean and total value in terms of BGB of R. apiculata
might be due to the presence of stilt roots in the Rhizophora-dominated mangrove stands
which contribute on their below-ground biomass (Gevaña et al., 2009).
47
Both the dominance and stem density of A. marina, S. alba, and R. apiculata
contributed significantly to the high values of biomass and stored carbon estimated in the
area. The estimated values from this study were comparable to the findings of Gevaña et
al. (2009) where A. marina has the highest biomass and carbon density values with 3.66 t
and 16.47 t C; Sahu et al., (2016) where A. marina (71.3 t ha-1), R. apiculata (10.4 t ha-1)
and S. alba (about 8% of the total biomass and carbon) are among the top five species that
contributed to most of the AGB; Cameron et al. (2019) where most of the biomass (75.5%)
is contained within large, mature Rhizophora spp. and S. alba; Chen et al. (2018) where R.
apiculata noted to have higher AGB and BGB; Chandra et al. (2016) where S. alba has a
stock carbon of 4.207 t higher than other species; Liu et al. (2017) with higher AGB value
in A. marina of 108.63 t ha-1 ; and Thant et al. (2012) where S. alba and A. marina obtained
a carbon stock value of 43 t C ha-1 and 21 t C ha-1, respectively. The wide distribution and
large in size of A. marina, R. apiculata and S. alba can be attributed to the ability of these
species to tolerate a wider range of salinity as compared to other species (Joshi and Ghose
2003, Njana et al., 2017). There is also an indication that these three species are less
preferred for cutting due to their thicker trunks and larger prop roots, and therefore end up
growing into large trees (Alavaisha and Mangora, 2016).
48
Table 6. Biomass and carbon stock of different species and mangrove forest types.
MEAN TOTAL
TOTAL TOTAL
Total C- Total C-
SPECIES AGB BGB Biomas STOCK AGB BGB Biomass STOCK
NAME (t ha-1) (t ha-1) s (t ha-1) (t ha-1) (t) (t) (t) (t)
Avicennia
0.059 0.027 0.086 0.040 23.59 11.01 34.60 16.06
marina
Rhizophora
0.080 0.098 0.18 0.083 10.95 13.41 24.36 11.30
apiculata
Sonneratia
0.20 0.088 0.29 0.13 22.20 9.71 31.91 14.81
alba
Bruguiera
0.0054 0.0032 0.0086 0.0040 0.098 0.058 0.16 0.072
cylindrica
Rhizophora
0.0027 0.0018 0.0044 0.0021 0.014 0.0092 0.023 0.011
mucronata
Avicennia
0.13 0.056 0.19 0.087 5.75 2.44 8.19 3.80
rumphiana
Ceriops
0.0074 0.0039 0.011 0.0052 0.45 0.24 0.68 0.32
decandra
Lumnitzera
0.030 0.015 0.046 0.021 1.44 0.74 2.18 1.01
racemosa
Xylocarpus
0.00057 0.00098 0.0016 0.00071 0.00059 0.0010 0.0016 0.00075
granatum
Excoecaria
0.0052 0.0031 0.0083 0.0038 0.024 0.015 0.039 0.018
agallocha
Ceriops tagal 0.0023 0.0015 0.0038 0.0018 0.044 0.028 0.072 0.033
Bruguiera
0.0014 0.00095 0.0023 0.0011 0.0021 0.0015 0.0036 0.0017
gymnorrhiza
Aegiceras
0.0048 0.0030 0.0078 0.0036 0.0075 0.0046 0.012 0.0056
corniculatum
p-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
MANGROVE
TYPE
Old 0.078 0.095 0.17 0.080 21.09 25.80 46.89 21.76
Reforested 0.075 0.034 0.11 0.051 103.10 46.60 149.70 69.46
p-value 0.325 <0.001 0.265 0.265
On mangrove types, there were no significant differences in the AGB, total biomass
and total carbon stock between the old and reforested mangrove stand based on Kruskal
Wallis test with p-value of 0.325, 0.265, and 0.265, respectively (Table 6). Contrary to this,
there was a significant difference in the BGB between the old and reforested mangrove
stands where p-value was <0.001. The old stand was observed to have a higher BGB mean
49
value of 0.95 t ha-1. This might be due to the fact that more biomass is allocated in the root
portion specifically those species having stilt roots like R. apiculata and R. mucronata
comprising the old mangrove stands in the area (Castillo and Breva, 2012). Aside from
that, these old mangrove stands had also the highest mean value in terms of AGB, total
biomass and total carbon. This can be attributed to their large girth, tree height and growth
form since, based on the information given by the local government units (LGUs), these
are species comprising mostly of old growth stands in the area.
The total biomass and carbon of reforested stands were observed to be much higher
as compared to the old stand with a value of 149.70 t and 69.46 t, respectively. This
observation is quite similar to the findings of Camacho et al. (2013) and Sahu et al. (2016)
where greater biomass and carbon stock are stored in the plantations rather than in natural
stands. One of the reason on this would be the very dense spacing of trees as mentioned by
Camacho et al. (2013) since the area is well-protected by the local government units
(LGUs) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Another reason
might be the presence of silvicultural management or activities in the plantation stands
which properly allow the tidal water during nutrient cycling to provide enough water on
mangrove trees in order for them to grow in a good condition, and also to improve the
timber stock for hastening the accumulation of tree biomass (Camacho et al., 2013; Sahu
et al., 2016). Thus, this highlights the need for propagating and protecting mangrove
plantations in Bued Mangrove Forest Park.
50
Sediment Carbon
Addition to mangrove stand, sediment carbon was included in determining the
carbon sequestration potential of the area. Table 7 presents the results of the analysis of
soil collected from Bued Mangrove Forest. Based on the findings, the amount of Organic
Carbon (OC) determined in the area varies among sampling plots and follows an increasing
gradient of OC: Plot4 > Plot1 > Plot5 > Plot10 > Plot9 > Plot2 > Plot6 > Plot8 > Plot12 >
Plot3 > [Plot11=Plot13] > Plot7. The highest percentage of OC stored in the soil was
observed in Plot 5 with 5.96% OC. This is relatively higher as compared to the findings of
Barrientos and Apolonio (2017) wherein the highest organic carbon obtained was 2.16%
OC. The result was significantly influenced by the amount of bulk density (1.015 g/cm3)
which was confirmed by Abino et al. (2014b), and Barrientos and Apolonio (2017). They
stated that the lower the bulk density of the soil, the higher the organic matter, organic
carbon and other nutrients. The low bulk density indicates to have a high soil porosity, soil
permeability and soil structure which are ideal for a good plant growth, therefore increase
accumulation of soil organic carbon (Gao et al., 2019).
In this study, the estimated mean soil carbon stock of the area was 43.71 t C ha-1
with a total of 568.20 t C. This finding is much higher than those reported in San Juan,
Batangas with 15.92 tons ha-1 (Gevaña et al., 2009) and 11.96 t ha-1 (Gevaña and
Pampolina, 2009) but lower than the values obtained in North Sulawesi with 61.4 t ha-1
(Murdiyarso et al.,2009); Okinawa, Japan with 80.50 t ha-1 (Khan et al., 2009); Bengal,
India with 60.0 with t ha-1 (Kathiresan et al., 2013); Southern China with 55.0 t C ha-1
(Chen et al., 2012), South-west coast of India with 63.87 t ha-1 (Vinod et al., 2018), and
Mahanadi Mangrove Wetland, India with 57.6 t C ha-1 (Sahu et al., 2016).
51
The distribution and dynamics of the soil organic carbon content across regions
may differ because of the influence of several factors such as tide, vegetation biomass and
productivity, species composition and sedimentation (Sherman et al., 2003). Aside from
that, the OC present in the soil could be autochthonous which pertains to in situ mangrove
production or allochthonous which is brought from other water bodies or from adjacent
water bodies (Bouillon et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2012). The main source usually of OC in
the soil is the litter production and dead wood debris from the plant (Liu et al., 2017). This
decomposition of the organic material by the bacteria would increase the accumulation of
organic carbon in the sediment (Forrester et al., 2013). Thus, higher organic carbon is
stored. In this study, low value of sediment carbon was observed as compared to the
findings of other countries.
One of the major factors in explaining this large geographical variation is the fact
that Bued Mangrove Forest is located both in a tidal-dominated and river-dominated
settings as shown in Figure 2. This hydro-geomorphics settings probably influenced the
variations of soil organic carbon in the area which also reported from other studies
(Kuramoto and Minagawa, 2001; Saintilan et al., 2013; Kusumaningtyas, 2019). The
mangrove sediment in river-dominated areas receive large allochthonous mineral sediment
inputs from the river discharge which dilute the carbon content and result in lower carbon
stocks (Kusumaningtyas, 2019). In tidal-dominated settings, it is implied that not all
mangroves sediment in this area accumulate high organic carbon despite little or no dilution
from river discharge. This low-level accumulation can be accounted for by the rapid water
circulation that prevents the buildup of autochthonous organic matter. Furthermore, a large
amount of allochthonous non-organic matter (e.g., mineral sediment) might have delivered
52
from the sea water that can dilute the autochthonous organic matter (Bouillon et al., 2008;
Ranjan et al., 2011; Kusumaningtyas, 2019). Therefore, this dilution happens in both river-
and ocean-influenced settings that can partly explain the relatively low sediment carbon
stocks in the area. Additionally, soil carbon content may also be attributed to the
differences in the vegetation and dominant species present in an area that would have
different capabilities of soil carbon sequestration and different carbon stock contribution,
and this may also influence the amount of carbon deposits along soil depths (Gao et al.,
2019). For example, the dominant species in this study are A. marina, R. apiculata and S.
alba while it was Kandelia obovata in the study done by Khan et al. (2009). Chen et al.
(2012) reported a dominance of Sonneratia caseolaris, while the dominant species in the
study of Vinod et al. (2018) are A. officinalis, R. mucronata and B. cylindrica.
Table 7. Soil Organic Carbon values among the 13 plots sampled.
% Organic % Organic Bulk Density Soil Organic

Plot No. Matter Carbon (g/cm3) Carbon (t C ha-1)
Plot 1 8.93 5.18 1.105 57.23
Plot 2 6.49 3.76 1.219 45.89
Plot 3 4.08 2.37 2.32 54.90
Plot 4 10.28 5.96 1.015 60.52
Plot 5 7.85 4.55 1.213 55.23
Plot 6 5.41 3.14 1.221 38.31
Plot 7 2.96 1.72 2.155 37.00
Plot 8 4.93 2.86 1.099 31.42
Plot 9 6.57 3.81 1.09 41.54
Plot 10 6.9 4.00 1.088 43.54
Plot 11 3.94 2.29 1.231 28.13
Plot 12 4.27 2.48 1.67 41.36
Plot 13 3.94 2.29 1.45 33.14
MEAN 43.71
TOTAL 568.20
53
Biomass and Carbon Storage of Bued Mangrove Forest using Geographical
Information System (GIS) and remote sensing
Modelling of biomass and carbon stocks performed in Bued Mangrove Forest used
a vegetation index known as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). The NDVI
is among the most widely used and implemented indices calculated from multispectral
information. It is often used by several research to assess regional and global vegetation
(Xue and Su, 2017). Additionally, it can also be used as tool to analyze remote sensing
measurements primarily to assess the intensity of live green vegetation (Bindu et al., 2018).
Figure 7 represents the NDVI values generated from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery.
The NDVI was calculated by arithmetical operations as shown in equation 5 using 4th band
and 8th band of the satellite image. In the study area, the computed NDVI values ranges
from 0.120305 to 0.819466 and divided into three classification of low (0.120305-
0.353359), moderate (0.353360-0.586414), and high (0.586415-0.819466). The NDVI
values obtained in this study were relatively high as compared to the values noted in study
of Bindu et al. (2018) which ranged from 0.022934 to 0.417395.
54
Figure 7. NDVI Map of Bued Mangrove Forest
From the NDVI measurements, the correlation and regression analyses were used
to construct a model to predict the value of biomass and carbon content in the satellite
image. This was done to determine the influence of the predictor or independent variable
(vegetation index) to the dependent variable (biomass or carbon stock). Moreover, the
magnitude and direction of effect of this predictive power equation were expressed by the
coefficient of determination, R2, and the correlation coefficient, r. An F test or the model
test was also applied to determine the effect of independent variable. A p-value less than
0.05 indicates that this variable can be used to predict the model. In this study, AGB data
from the selected pixel (10 m x 10 m) in the field were standardized to kg/pixel.
Subsequently, a correlation coefficient (r) value of 0.66 and F test with p-value of <0.001
were obtained. The value of the correlation indicates a strong or high correlation based on
55
the ranges of correlation (± 0.60 to ±0.79) used by Evans (1996) and Nelson (2020) while
the value of F test was much less than 0.05 indicating that the independent variable can be
used to predict the model. Therefore, both of these tests fulfilled the requirement necessary
in order to proceed in regression analysis.
A regression equation was developed with NDVI values as independent variable
and AGB (kg/pixel) as the dependent variable. Figure 8 shows the model wherein nonlinear
regression, and the best estimate of AGB to the NDVI values were observed with R2 value
of 0.436. The AGB for the entire area is calculated using the equation 6 shown below where
the constants a and b from the regression are 0.0031 and 12.298, respectively.
𝐀𝐆𝐁 = 0.0031𝑒 𝑁𝐷𝑉𝐼∗12.298 (6)
Figure 8. Nonlinear regression among selected pixels in the field
With regards to below-ground biomass (BGB), the ratio of AGB to BGB in the
field is calculated separately for each species and then average value was taken. The
average value obtained in the ratio of BGB to AGB from the different species of mangroves
56
is 0.78. This value was noted to be higher with the root to shoot ratios of 0.38 as reviewed
by Ziegler et al. (2012), Yuen et al. (2013), and Bindu et al. (2018) but lower than the value
of 1.14 and 1.73 obtained by Santos et al. (2017) and Tran et al. (2016), respectively. The
BGB of the entire area is calculated using AGB and the ratio obtained in BGB to AGB.
The sum of the AGB and BGB is the total biomass and is then converted into carbon stock
following the conversion value of 0.464g C per 1g dry weight (Murdiyarso et al., 2009).
As shown in Figure 9, the AGB values were categorized as low (0.136114-246.1114 t ha-
1), moderate (246.1115-492.0866 t ha-1), and high (492.0867-783-0619 t ha-1) while the
BGB values were divided into low from 0.106017 to 191.6912 t ha-1, moderate from
1916213 to 383.2764 t ha-1, and high from 383.2765 to 574.862 t ha-1 (Figure 10). As for
the total biomass, values were classified as low (0.242131-437.8026 t ha-1), moderate
(437.8027-875.3631 t ha-1), and high (875.3632-1312.924 t ha-1) (Figure 11). The carbon
stock, as shown in Figure 12, obtained values on low from 0.112349 to 203.1404 t ha-1,
moderate from 203.1405 to 406.1685 t ha-1, and high from 406.1686 to 609.1965 t ha-1. All
the 13 sampling plots found to have a low categorized values AGB (Figure 9), BGB (Figure
10), total biomass (Figure 11), and total carbon (Figure 12) but with exception on some
portion of the Plot 2 where medium values were also observed.
57
Figure 9. Map of the AGB (Above-Ground Biomass in t ha-1) of the Bued Mangrove Forest
58
Figure 10. Map of the BGB (Below-Ground Biomass in t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest
Figure 11. Map of the Total Biomass (t ha-1) of the Bued Mangrove Forest
59
Figure 12. Map of the Total Carbon (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest
All these values in the AGB, BGB, total biomass and total carbon stock were
converted into t per hectare. Table 8 shows the total amount of AGB, BGB, total biomass
and total carbon stock of Bued Mangrove Forest covered with an area of 5.49 hectare.
Table 8. Total AGB, BGB, Biomass and Carbon of Bued Mangrove Forest.
TOTAL (t) MEAN (t ha-1)
AGB 166024.88 317.45

BGB 129313.46 247.25
TOTAL BIOMASS 295338.33 564.70
TOTAL CARBON 137036.99 262.02
Based on the findings, the AGB mean value of the area is 317.45 t ha-1 with a total
of 166,024.88 tonnes. This is significantly higher than the study of Sahu et al. (2016) with
60
125.0 ± 10.9 t ha-1; Jachowski et al. (2013) with 250 t ha-1; Abino et al. (2014a) with 297.20
t ha-1; Vinod et al. (2018) with 166.63 t ha-1; Hidayah and Andriyani (2019) with 24.40 t
ha-1; Murdiyarso et al. (2009) with 61.4 t ha-1; Khan et al. (2009) with 80.5 t ha-1; Chandra
et al. (2011) with 116.8 t ha-1; and Kathiresan et al. (2013) with 60.0-117.7 t ha-1. Although
comparatively, this is lower than those obtained in the studies of Cohen et al. (2014) with
532 t ha-1; Abino et al. (2014b) with 561.2 t ha-1; and Kauffman et al. (2011) with 363.0 t
ha-1.
The BGB mean value obtained is 247.25 t ha-1 with a total of 129,313.46 tonnes.
The results reveal that this is higher than in the mangrove forest in Bahile with 196.5 t ha-
1 (Abino et al., 2014b), Palau with 171.0 t ha-1 (Kauffman et al., 2011), Mahanadi, East
Coast of India with 53.8 ± 4.5 t ha-1, Botoc, Pinabacdao, Samar with 103.87 t ha-1 (Abino
et al., 2014a), and Kadalundi estuarine with 69.92±8. 61 t ha-1 (Vinod et al., 2018) but
lower than the values noted in Southwest Thailand with 250 t ha-1 (Jachowski et al.,2013)
and Yap with 312.0 t ha-1 (Kauffman et al., 2011).
With regard to total biomass, the mean value observed was 564.70 t ha-1 with a total
of 295,338.33 tonnes. This finding is much higher than the values obtained by Sahu et al.
(2016) with 181.2 ± 32.5 t ha-1, Jachowski et al. (2013) with 345 t ha-1, Castillo and Breva
(2012) with 184.3 t ha-1, Abino et al. (2014a) with 401.07 t ha-1, Camacho et al. (2013)
with 323.6 t ha-1, Vinod et al. (2018) with 236.56 t ha-1, Hidayah and Andriyani (2019)
with approximately 21.59 t ha-1, Gevaña et al. (2017) with 406.6 ± 53.0 t ha–1 but lower
than the values obtained by Abino et al. (2014b) with 757.7 t ha-1,and Dimalen and Rojo
(2019) with 605 t ha-1.
61
The estimated mean value of carbon stock in the area was 262.02 t ha-1 and a total
of 137,036.99 tonnes. Results show that this is higher than the noted values of 147.0 ± 8.1
t C ha–1 in Mahanadi, East Coast of India (Sahu et al., 2016); 146.8 t ha-1 in Northwestern
Madagascar (Jones et al., 2014); 155 t C ha-1 in Southwest Thailand (Jachowski et al.,
2013); 69.89 ± 7.56 t C ha-1 in Matang, Malaysia (Hamdan et al., 2013); 188.50 t ha-1 in
Botoc, Pinabacdao, Samar (Abino et al., 2014a); 115.45 t ha-1 in Verde Passage, San Juan,
Batangas (Gevaña and Pampolina, 2009); 145.6 t ha-1 in Bohol (Camacho et al., 2013);
118.28 t C ha-1 in Kadalundi, south-west coast of India (Vinod et al., 2018); 246.21 t ha-1
C in Peninsular Malaysia (Hong et al., 2017); and 10.80 t ha-1 Paliat Island, East Java
(Hidayah and Andriyani, 2019). Although, this is lower than the obtained amount of 356.1
t C ha-1 in Palawan (Abino et al., 2014b); 491 t C ha-1 in Cotabato City (Dimalen and Rojo,
2019); 408.5 ± 30.0 t C in Bohol (Gevaña et al., 2017); 414.6 t C ha−1 in Geza and 684.9 t
C ha−1 in Mtimbwani, Tanzania (Alavaisha and Mangora, 2016); 426.57 t ha-1 in Hainan
Island, China (Gao et al., 2017), 615 t ha-1 in Berau, Indonesia (Kusumaningtyas et al.,
2019), and 426.05 t ha-1 in Sigogor Mountain Nature Reserve, Indonesia (Waskitho and
Triwanto, 2018).
The differences in biomass and carbon stocks globally might be primarily explained
by the latitudinal zone which controls the growth and distribution of mangroves (Liu et al.,
2014). Several studies like those by Giri et al. (2011), Thant et al. (2012), Liu et al. (2014),
Yessoufuo and Stoffberg (2016), and Estrada and Soares (2017) similarly mentioned that
biomass and carbon stocks increase at lower latitudes or toward the equator. This location
is consistent with exposure to high solar radiation and air temperature, high rainfall input
since they are within the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and have a huge amounts of
62
water and nutrient supply due to the presence of large rivers (Estrada and Soares, 2017).
Therefore, this is why areas found near the equatorial regions like Indonesia, Tanzania, and
in the Philippines (such as Palawan, Bohol, and Cotabato City) had higher carbon stock
than what was quantified in this study. In contrast, those areas which are located at higher
latitudes like India, Thailand, and Madagascar show lower values than those obtained in
this study. Additionally, several factors such as variability in climatic conditions and
disturbances like forest loss may also affect the distribution of carbon stocks at the global
and regional scale (Estrada and Soares, 2017). The best example for this would be the case
of Malaysia in which the carbon stocks was observed lower than the data obtained in the
study. This might be due to the fact that mangrove forests in Malaysia have had the highest
loss among the Southeast Asia countries on record (Hamilton and Casey, 2016).
As shown in Figures 9-12, the distribution of the amount of AGB, BGB, total
biomass and total carbon stock varies significantly within the area. Lower biomass and
carbon stocks were observed at the edges or adjacent to the mainland. This is probably due
to disturbances like anthropogenic activities since the area is surrounded by vendor
establishment, a port for boats, a salt farm, and fishponds (Figure 2). Other anthropogenic
activities such as illegal dumping of wastes, firewood collection, and boating around the
area contribute significantly on the decline of forest cover, and consequently, the biomass
and carbon stock. This result is similar to the findings of Candra et al. (2016) and Patil et
al. (2013) where they concluded an inhibition in the growth of mangroves adjacent to the
mainland because of human activities. In contrast to this, high biomass and carbon stock
value were observed in mangroves near the sea. The primary reason, as mentioned by
Candra et al. (2016), is related to its ecology. Mangroves have better growth near the sea
63
since this area has enough supply of water. Additionally, areas that are least impacted by
anthropogenic activities obtained a relatively high carbon content (Patil et al., 2013).
In general, the total carbon stocks from estimation using GIS and remote sensing
technology of the Bued Mangrove Forest, including the mangrove and soil carbon stock is
estimated to be 137,605.19 t C which is equivalent to 504,552.37 t CO2. These results
suggest a high carbon storage and carbon sequestration potential of the Bued Mangrove
Forest which are comparable to the amounts estimated in Kadalundi in the south-western
coast of India with 2,409.84 t C and 8,844.11 t CO2 (Vinod et al., 2018); in San Juan,
Batangas with 12,858 t C and 47,146 t CO2 (Gevaña et al., 2009); and in Teluk Benoa, Bali
with 35,349.87 t C and 129,616.19 t CO2 (Candra et al., 2016). The species that contributed
the most to these parameters were A. marina, S. alba, and R. apiculata. Despite the low
species diversity in the Bued Mangrove Forest, the significant amounts of stored carbon in
the present study reveal that mangroves here have the potential to be large carbon sinks.
This can lead to evidence-based strategies that can be adopted in the management of
mangrove forests for climate change mitigation. This is an acknowledgment of the
importance of mangroves aside from the known, wide array of ecosystem services and
ecological functions they provide. The data can also be beneficial to the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation in providing an alternative way of reducing the CO2 emissions
through the ability of this mangroves as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The idea of
CCS as mentioned by Fu and Gundersen (2012) have a potential to separate the CO2 from
large point of sources such as fossil fuels used by developing APEC economies, and then
stored it into other sinks like mangrove and sediments. This mechanism can be a good
64
solution to the reduction of emissions rate and promoting environmentally sustainable
growth among APEC countries.
Therefore, conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of this mangrove
forest, particularly A. marina, S. alba, and R. apiculata, are needed to maintain and increase
the carbon stock. Worldwide, as mentioned by Vinod et al. (2018), special attention is now
being paid to the protection and restoration of mangroves due to their importance in storing
significant amounts of carbon, both in their vegetative parts and in the surrounding
sediments, by acting as blue carbon sinks. Furthermore, the window for blue carbon trading
and payment for ecosystem services (PES) are noteworthy mitigation opportunities that
can serve to balance the conservation of mangrove ecosystems and the support of
sustainable livelihood for coastal inhabitants. Furthermore, it is crucial that this stored
carbon should be prevented from returning to the atmosphere by way of burning,
deforestation and sediment quarrying. Therefore, the conservation of mangrove forests will
not contribute further to the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that
has been blamed for global warming and the acceleration of climate change (Castillo and
Breva, 2012). Additionally, the implementation of policies and regulations within the area
is needed to prevent further destruction or degradation which are caused by anthropogenic
activities as the area is usually visited by tourists. There are several possible policies and
regulations as mentioned by Van Lavieren et al. (2012) and Gevaña et al. (2018) that would
be a great help in addressing this stress brought by human impacts especially on the
periphery area where ecotourism is dominant (Figure 2), and low AGB, BGB, biomass and
carbon (Figure 9-12) were observed. Some of the efforts like construction of boardwalk
and wood deck around the trees has been applied and must educate the tourists and tour
65
companies through brief orientation before allowing them to tour, and regulations like
limiting the number of tour boats and tourists per day, properly disposal of garbage, and
restriction on the collection of wood from mangroves. In addition to that, the stronger
incorporation of policy like turning the Bued Mangrove Forest Park into marine protected
areas which exclusive only for conservation and restoration purposes.
66
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This study presented the first carbon stock estimates for the Bued Mangrove Forest.
Findings revealed that this mangrove forest has a very low diversity index (H’= 1.67015)
which was attributed to the dominance of few species, specifically those belonging to the
family of Avicenniaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Sonneratiaceae. Despite this, however, the
estimated biomass and carbon stock measured in the Bued Mangrove Forest demonstrates
that the ecosystem has the potential to sequester and store as high as 262.02 t C ha-1 for
mangrove stands, and 43.71 t C ha-1 in the sediment. The estimated value is higher than the
mean carbon storage of some studies on mangrove forest in the Philippines and other
countries. Therefore, this implies that Bued Mangrove Forest has a potential to be a large
carbon sink for climate change mitigation. In contrast, its vulnerability to unsustainable
anthropogenic activities and natural phenomena continues to threaten its existence.
Therefore, there is a need to balance the conservation of mangrove ecosystem and
continuation of sustainable livelihood for coastal inhabitants such as the establishment of
a sustainable funding and the initiation of concrete incentive systems. Among the emerging
options with favorable opportunities to support ecological conservation and economic
development in the coastal zone of Bued, Alaminos are the recently implemented blue
carbon trading which pertains to the ocean equivalent of REDD+, and payment for
ecosystem/environmental services (PES) which include participation of local communities
for the protection and conservation of mangroves. Additionally, a further study to compare
estimation of carbon stock among different vegetation indices aside from NDVI, to provide
accuracy or validation assessment, to develop modelling on the carbon stocks of the
67
different mangrove species, and to provide additional assessment from the proposed Local
Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) of the LGUs like vulnerability, adaptation and
inventory of greenhouse gases emissions.
68
REFERENCES
Abino, A.C., Castillo, J.A.A., & Lee, Y.J. (2014a). Assessment of species diversity,
biomass and carbon sequestration potential of a natural mangrove stand in Samar,
the Philippines. Forest Science and Technology 10(1): 2-8.
Abino, A.C., Castillo, J.A.A., & Lee, Y.J. (2014b). Species diversity, biomass, and carbon
stock assessments of a natural mangrove forest in Palawan, Philippines. Pak. J. Bot.
46(6): 1955-1962.
Alavaisha, E., & Mangora, M.M. (2016). Carbon stocks in the small estuarine mangroves
of Geza and Mtimbwani, Tanga, Tanzania. International Journal of Forestry
Research. 2016: 1-11.
Alongi, D. (2009). The energetics of mangrove forests. Springer Science & Business
Media, New York, New York, USA.
Alongi, D.M. (2011). Carbon payments for mangrove conservation: Ecosystem constraints
and uncertainties of sequestration potential. Environmental Science & Policy 14(4):
462-470.
Alongi, D.M. (2014). Carbon cycling and storage in mangrove forests. Annual Review of
Marine Science 6: 195-219.
Andulan, E., Cuyugan J., & De Castro, E. (2017). Comparative analysis of carbon
sequestration potential of secondary forest and mango (Mangifera indica) +
coconut (Cocos nucifera) multistorey agroforest stand in Salikneta Farm-De La
Salle Araneta University – Agrivet Science Institute, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan,
Philippines, DLSU Research Congress 2017, De La Salle University, Manila,
Philippines, June 20 to 22, 2017.
APEC Energy Working Group. (2009). Building Capacity for CO2 Capture and Storage in
the APEC Region: A training manual for policy makers and practitioners. Australia:
Cooperative Research Centre Green Gases Technologies.
Barrientos, K.D. & Apolonio, J.W. (2017). Species diversity and soil carbon sequestration
potential of mangrove species at Katunggan It Ibajay (KII) Eco Park in Aklan,
Philippines. Prism 20(1): 1-13.
Bhomia, R.K., Kauffman, J.B., & Mcfadden, T.N. (2016). Ecosystem carbon stocks of
mangrove forests along the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of Honduras. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 24(2): 187-201.
69
Bindu, G., Rajan, P., Jishnu, E., & Joseph, K.A. (2018). Carbon stock assessment of
mangroves using remote sensing and geographic information system. The Egyptian
Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science. doi:10.1016/j.ejrs.2018.04.006
Bouillon, S., Borges, A.V., Castañeda-Moya, E., Diele, K., Dittmar, T., Duke, N.C.,
Kristensen, E., Lee, S.Y., Marchand, C., Middelburg, J.J., Rivera-Monroy, V.H.,
Smith, T.J., & Twilley, R.R. (2008). Mangrove production and carbon sinks: a
revision of global budget estimates. Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 22: 1–12.
Brierley, A.S., & Kingsford, M.J. (2009). Impacts of climate change on marine organisms
and ecosystems. Current Biology 19(14): 1-14.
Camacho, L.D., Gevaña, D.T., Carandang, A.P., Camacho, S. C., Combalicer, E.A.,
Rebugio, L.L., & Youn, Y.C. (2011). Tree biomass and carbon stock of a
community-managed mangrove forest in Bohol, Philippines. Forest Science and
Technology 7(4): 161-167.
Cameron, C., Hutley, L.B., Friess, D.A., & Brown, B. (2019). Community structure
dynamics and carbon stock change of rehabilitated mangrove forests in Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Ecological Applications 29(1): 1-20.
Candra, E.D., Hartono, & Wicaksono, P. (2016). Above ground carbon stock estimates of
mangrove forest using Worldview-2 Imagery in Teluk Benoa, Bali. IOP Conf.
Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 47: 1-11.
Cañizares, L. P. & Seronay, R.A. (2016). Diversity and species composition of mangroves
in Barangay Imelda, Dinagat Island, Philippines. AACL Bioflux 9(3): 518-526.
Castillo, J. A. & Breva, L.A. (2012). Carbon stock assessment of four mangrove
reforestation/plantation stands in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 1st ASEAN
Congress on Mangrove Research & Development. 1: 244-254.
Chandra, I.A., Seca, G. & Abu Hena, M.K. (2011). Aboveground biomass production of
Rhizophora apiculata Blume in Sarawak mangrove forest. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci.6:
469-474.
Clark, D.B. & Clark, D.A. (2000). Landscape-scale variation in forest structure and
biomass in a tropical rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management 137: 185-198.
Chen, L., Zeng, X., Tam, N.F., Lu, W., Luo, Z., Du, X., & Wang, J. (2012). Comparing
carbon sequestration and stand structure of monoculture and mixed mangrove
plantations of Sonneratia caseolaris and S. apetala in Southern China. Forest
Ecology and Management 284: 222-229.
70
Chen, S., Chen, B., Sastrosuwondo,P., Dharmawani, W.E., Ou,D.,Yin,X., Yu,W.,& Chen,
G. (2018). Ecosystem carbon stock of a tropical mangrove forest in North Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Acta Oceeanol. Sin 37(12): 85-91.
Codilan, A.L., Carandang, M.G., Calderon, M.M., & Eslava, F.M. (2009). Aboveground
biomass production of three mangrove species in Real, Quezon Province,
Philippines. USM R&D Journal 17(2): 191-197.
Cohen, R., Mencuccini, M., & Woodhouse, I. (2014). Estimating the above-ground
biomass of mangrove forests in Kenya (dissertation).
Dangan-Galon, F., Dolorosa, R. G., Sespeñe, J. S., & Mendoza, N. I. (2016). Diversity and
structural complexity of mangrove forest along Puerto Princesa Bay, Palawan
Island, Philippines. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures. 5(2):118-125.
Dimalen, F. & Rojo, M.J. (2019). Carbon stock assessment of a mangrove forest in
Cotabato City, Philippines. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences 14:
1-8.
Doyog, N. D., Lumbres, R. I., & Lee, Y. J. (2018). Mapping of the spatial distribution of
carbon storage of thePinus kesiyaRoyle ex Gordon (Benguet pine) forest in Sagada,
Mt. Province, Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 37(7):661-677.
Estrada, G. C., & Soares, M. L. (2017). Global patterns of aboveground carbon stock and
sequestration in mangroves. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciências 89(2):
973–989.
Eswaran, Y., Dharanirajan, K., Subramanian, J., Saravanan, & Balasubramaniam, J.

(2017). Distribution and zonation pattern of mangrove forest in Shoal Bay Creek,
Andaman Islands, India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. 46:597-604.
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove,
CA:Brooks/Cole Publ. Co.
Fatoyinbo, T. E., Simard, M., Washington-Allen, R. A., & Shugart, H. H. (2008).

Landscape scale extent, height, biomass, and carbon estimation of Mozambique's
mangrove forests with Landsat ETM and Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
elevation data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 113(G2).
Fu, C., & Gundersen, T. (2012). Carbon capture and storage in the power industry:
Challenges and Opportunities. Energy Procedia 16: 1806–1812.
Ganeshamurthy, A., Vattem, R., & Rupa, T. R. (2019). Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Mango Orchards in India. Current Science. 117: 2006.
71
Gao, T., Ding, D., Guan, W., & Liao, B. (2018). Carbon stocks of coastal wetland
ecosystems on Hainan Island, China. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
27(3): 1061–1069.
Gao, Y., Zhou, J., Wang, L., Guo, J., Feng, J., Wu, H., & Lin, G. (2019). Distribution
patterns and controlling factors for the soil organic carbon in four mangrove forests
of China. Global Ecology and Conservation 17.
Garcia, M.C.A., Castro, K.M., Lim, A.B., Borromeo, C.M., Gallmann, M.R., Legaspi,
C.G., Pandan, R., Sta. Maria, E., Navarrete, I. & Salmo III, S.G. (2015). Changes
in biomass and carbon stock of mangrove forest in Bani, Pangasinan six years after
Typhoon Chanhom, presented at 13th National Symposium in Marine Science,
General Santos City on October 22-24,2015.
Gevaña, D.T., Pulhin, F.B., & Pampolina, N.M. (2009). Carbon stock assessment of a
mangrove ecosystem in San Juan, Batangas. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 11(1): 15-25.
Gevaña, D. T., Camacho, L.D., & Camacho, S.C. (2017). Stand density management and
blue carbon stock of monospecific mangrove plantation in Bohol, Philippines.
Forestry Studies. 66(1):75–83.
Gevaña, D. T., Camacho, L. D., & Pulhin, J. M. (2018). Conserving Mangroves for Their
Blue Carbon: Insights and Prospects for Community-Based Mangrove
Management in Southeast Asia. Coastal Research Library Threats to Mangrove
Forests. 579-588.
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J., & Duke,
N. (2011). Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth
observation satellite data. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 154-159.
Guingab, MV. D. (2011). Carbon sequestration of selected C4 plants on Isabela,

Philippines. Cabagan Journal of Research 20(2): 73-79.
Hai Hoa, N.& Duy Binh, T. (2016). Using Landsat Imagery and Vegetation Indices
Differencing to Detect Mangrove Change: A Case in Thai Thuy District, Thai Binh
Province. Journal of Forest Science and Technology 5: 59-66.
Hamdan, O., Khairunnisa, M., Ammar, A., Hasmadi, I., & Aziz, H. (2013). Mangrove
carbon stock assessment by optical satellite imagery. Journal of Tropical Forest
Science 25(4): 554-565.
Hamilton, S. E., & Casey, D. (2016). Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global
database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century (CGMFC-21).
Global Ecology and Biogeography 25(6):729-738.
72
Hidayah, Z., & Andriyani, L. (2019). Carbon Stock Analysis of Mangrove Ecosystems in
Paliat Island Sumenep East Java. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science 276: 1-10.
Hong, L. & Hemati, Z., & Zakaria, R. (2017). Carbon Stock Evaluation of Selected
Mangrove Forests in Peninsular Malaysia and its Potential Market Value. Journal
of Environmental Science and Management 20: 77-87.
Ibrahim, A.S., & Ngigi, T. (2017). Assessment of Mangrove Spatial-Temporal Dynamics

and Biomass by Remotely Sensed Data, Case Study Kilifi County: Kenya. Journal
of Geosciences and Geomatics 5(1): 24-36.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, Hiraishi, T., Krug,
T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., and Troxler, T.G.
(eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland.
Iverson, L., Brown, S., Grainger, A., Prasad, A. & Liu, D. (1993). Carbon sequestration in
tropical Asia: an assessment of technically suitable forest lands using geographic
information systems analysis. Climate Research 3: 23–38.
Jachowski, N.R., Quak, M.S., Friess, D.A., Duangnamon, D., Webb, E.L., & Ziegler, A.D.
(2013). Mangrove biomass estimation in Southwest Thailand using machine
learning. Applied Geography 45: 311-321.
Johnson, A.F., & Moghari, F. (2009). Ecological impacts of climate change. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press. 4-10pp.
Jones, T., Ratsimba, H., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G., & Bey, A. (2014).
Ecological variability and carbon stock estimates of mangrove ecosystems in
Northwestern Madagascar. Forests 5(1): 177–205.
Joshi H, & Ghose M. (2003). Forest structure and species distribution along soil salinity
and pH gradient in mangrove swamps of the Sundarbans. Tropical Ecology 44:
197–206.
Kairo, J.G., Kivyatu, B., & Koedam, N. (2002). Application of Remote Sensing and GIS
in the Management of mangrove forests within and adjacent to Kiunga Marine
Protected Area, Lamu, Kenya. Environment, Development, and Sustainability 4:
153–166.
Kathiresan, K., Anburaj, R., Gomathi, V., & Saravanakumar, K. (2013). Carbon
sequestration potential of Rhizophora mucronata and Avicennia marina as
influenced by age, season, growth and sediment characteristics in southeast coast
of India. Journal of Coastal Conservation 17(3): 397-408.
73
Kattenborn, T., Maack, J., Faßnacht, F., Enßle, F., Ermert, J., & Koch, B. (2015). Mapping
forest biomass from space – Fusion of hyperspectral EO1-Hyperion models.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 35: 359–
367.
Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Cole, T. G., Dwire, K. A., & Donato, D. C. (2011). Ecosystem
carbon stocks of Micronesian mangrove forests. Wetland 31(2): 343–352.
Kauffman, J. B. & Donato, D.C. (2012). Protocols for the measurement, monitoring, and
reporting of structure, biomass, and carbon stocks in mangrove forests. Bogor,
Indonesia: CIFOR.
Khan, M. N. I., Suwa, R., & Hagihara, A. (2009). Biomass and aboveground net primary
production in a subtropical mangrove stand of Kandelia obovata (S., L.) Yong at
Manko Wetland, Okinawa, Japan. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 17(6): 585–
599.
Kirui B., J.G. Kairo and M. Karachi. 2006. Allometric equations for estimating above
ground biomass of Rhizophora mucronata Lamk. (Rhizophoraceae) mangroves at
Gazi Bay, Kenya. West. Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 5: 27-34.
Komiyama, A., Poungparn, S., and Kato, S. (2005). Common allometric equations for
estimating the tree weight of mangroves. J. Trop. Ecol. 21: 471–477.
Komiyama, A., Ong, J. E., & Poungparn, S. (2008). Allometry, biomass, and productivity
of mangrove forests: A review. Aquatic Botany 89: 128-137.
Kridiborworn, P., A. Chidthaisong, M. Yuttitham & S. Tripetchkul. (2012). Carbon

sequestration by mangrove forest planted specifically for charcoal production in
Yeesarn, Samut Songkram. J. Sustain. Energy Environ. 3: 87-92.
Kuramoto, T., & Minagawa, M. (2001). Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic
characterization of organic matter in a mangrove ecosystem on the Southwestern
coast of Thailand. J. Oceanogr. 57: 421–431.
Kusumaningtyas, M.A., Hutahaean, A.A., Fischer, H.W., Pérez-Mayo, M., Ransby, D., &
Jennerjahn, T.C. (2019). Variability in the organic carbon stocks, sources, and
accumulation rates of Indonesian mangrove ecosystems. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 218:310–323.
Laffoley, D.D., & G. Grimsditch. (2009). The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon
Sinks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 53 pp.
Lasco, R., Visco, R., & Pulhin, J. (2001). Secondary forests in the Philippines: Formation
and transformation in the 20th century. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 13.
74
Lasco, R. D., Lales, J. S., Arnuevo, M., Guillermo, I. Q., Jesus, A. C., Medrano, R.,
Bajar, O.F., & Mendoza, C. V. (2002). Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage and
sequestration of land cover in the Leyte Geothermal Reservation. Renewable
Energy. 25(2): 307-315.
Lasco, R. & Pulhin, F.B (2003). Philippine forest ecosystems and climate change: Carbon
stocks, rate of sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol. Annals of Tropical Research.
25.
Lasco, R.D., & Pulhin, F.B. (2004). Philippine forest ecosystems and climate change:
carbon stocks, the rate of sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol. Ann. Tropic. Res.
25(2): 37–51.
Lasco R.D. & Pulhin F.B. (2004). Carbon budgets of tropical forest ecosystems in
Southeast Asia: implications for climate change. In: Sim H.C., Appanah S., Youn
Y.C. Forests for poverty reduction: opportunities with clean development
mechanism, environmental services and biodiversity. RAP Publication; Bangkok,
Thailand. 22:61–75.
Lasco, R., Guillermo, I.Q., Cruz, R., Bantayan, N., & Pulhin, F. (2004). Carbon stocks
assessment of a secondary forest in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines.
Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 16:35-45.
Lasco, R., Macdicken, K., Pulhin, F.,Guillermo, I., Come, R., Cruz, R., Guillermo, F., &
Cruz, R. (2006). Carbon stocks assessment of a selectively logged Dipterocarp
forest and wood processing mill in the Philippines. Journal of Tropical Forest
Science. 18:166-172.
Lasco, R. D., & Cardinoza, M. M. (2007). Baseline Carbon Stocks Assessment and
Projection of Future Carbon Benefits of a Carbon Sequestration Project in East
Timor. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 12(2):243-257.
Lasco, R.,& Pulhin, F. (2009). Carbon Budgets of Forest Ecosystems in the Philippines.
Journal of Environmental Science and Management. 12.
Lasco, R. D., Veridiano, R. K., Habito, M., & Pulhin, F. B. (2012). Reducing emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation plus (REDD+) in the Philippines: Will it
make a difference in financing forest development? Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change. 18(8):1109-1124.
Long, J.B. & Giri, C. (2011). Mapping the Philippines' Mangrove Forests Using Landsat
Imagery. Sensors 11: 2972-2981.
Liu, H., Ren, H., Hui, D., Wang, W., Liao, B., & Cao, Q. (2014). Carbon stocks and
potential carbon storage in the mangrove forests of China. Journal of
Environmental Management 133: 86–93.
75
Lumbres, R.I.C., Palaganas, J.A., Micosa, S.C., Laruan, K.A., Besic, E.D., Yun, C.W. &
Lee, Y.J. (2012). Floral diversity assessment in Alno communal mixed forest in
Benguet, Philippines. Landsc. Ecol.Eng. 10(2): 361-368.
Lumbres, R. I., &Lee, Y. J. (2014). Aboveground biomass mapping of La Trinidad forests

in Benguet, Philippines, using Landsat Thematic Mapper data andk-nearest
neighbor method. Forest Science and Technology.10(2):104-111.
Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E. -., Börner, A., Knohl, A., Hessenmöller, D., Law, B. E., Ciais,
P., & Grace, J. (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature.
455(7210), 213-215.
Mark, D., Janiola, R., & Marin, R. (2016). Carbon Sequestration Potential of Fruit Tree
Plantations in Southern Philippines. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental
Sciences. 8:164-174.
Mayo, D.A., Ugaban, Z.C. & Soriano, A. (2015). Status of the Mangroves in Pangasinan.
Mangrove proceedings V7.
Mensah, S., Veldtman, R., du Toit, B., Glele Kakai, R., & Seifert, T. (2016). Aboveground
biomass and carbon in a South African mistbelt forest and the relationships with
tree species diversity and forest structures. Forests. 7(4): 117.
Murdiyarso, D., Donato, D., Kauffman, J.B., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., & Kanninen, M.
(2009). Carbon storage in mangrove and peatland ecosystem: A preliminary
account from plots in Indonesia. Working Paper. Bogor: Center for International
Forestry Research.
Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C.M., Valdes, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, L., &
Grimsditch, G. (2009). Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment. United
Nations Environment Programme, GRID Arendal, Norway: Birkeland Trykkeki
AS. 15-20 pp.
Nelson, M. (2020). Statistics in nutrition and dietetics. Hoboken, NJ: Chichester, West
Sussex.
Njana, M.A., Zahabu, E., & Malimbwi, R.E. (2017). Carbon stocks and productivity of
mangrove forests in Tanzania, Southern Forests. Journal of Forest Science 2017:
1-16.
Omar, H., Misman, M. A., & Musa, S. (2019). GIS and Remote Sensing for Mangroves
Mapping and Monitoring. In Rocha, J., Geographic Information Systems. Pp 1-15.
Portugal: IntechOpen.
76
Patil, V., Singh, A., Naik, N., & Unnikrishnan, S. (2013). Estimation of Carbon Stocks in
Avicennia marina Stand Using Allometry, CHN Analysis, and GIS Methods.
Wetlands 34(2): 379-391.
Patricio, J.H. & Tulod, A.M. (2010). Carbon Sequestration Potential of Benguet Pine
(Pinus kesiya) Plantations in Bukidnon, Philippines. Journal of Nature Studies.
9(1): 1-7.
Polidoro, B.A., Carpenter, K.E., Collins, L., Duke, N.C., Ellison, A.M., Ellison,
J.C.,Farnsworth, E.J., Fernando, E.S., Kathiresan, K., Koedam, N.E., Livingstone,
S.R., Miyagi, T.,Moore, G.E., Nam, V.N., Ong, J. E., Primavera, J.H., Salmo III,
S.G., Sanciangco, J., Sukardjo, S., Wang, Y., & Yong, J.W.H. (2010). The loss of
species: Mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. PloS
ONE 5(4): 1-10.
Pototan, B.L, Capin, N.C., Tinoy,MR. M., & Novero,A.U. (2017). Diversity of mangrove
species in three municipalities of Davao del Norte, Philippines. AACL Bioflux
10(6): 1569-1580.
Primavera, J.H. (2000). Development and conservation of the Philippine mangroves:

Institutional issues. Ecol. 35: 91–106.
Primavera, J.H., Savaris, J.P., Bagoyo, B.E., Coching, J.D., Curnick, D.J., Golbeque, R.L.,
Guzman, A.T., Henderin, J. Q., Joven, R.V., Loma, R.A., & Koldewey, H.J.
(2012).nManual on Community-Based Mangrove Rehabilitation. (First Edition).
London, UK: Zoological Society of London. 3-8 pp.
Ranjan, R.K., Routh, J., Ramanathan, A.L., & Klump, J.V. (2011). Elemental and stable
isotope records of organic matter input and its fate in the Pichavaram mangrove-
estuarine sediments (Tamil Nadu, India). Mar. Chem. 126: 163–172.
Sahu, S. C., Kumar, M., & Ravindranath, N.H. (2016). Carbon stocks in natural and planted
mangrove forests of Mahanadi Wetland, East Coast of India. Current Science
110(12): 2253-2260.
Saintilan, N., Rogers, K., Mazumder, & D., Woodroffe, C. (2013). Allochthonous and
autochthonous contributions to carbon accumulation and carbon store in
southeastern Australian coastal wetlands. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 128: 84–92.
Samson, M.S. & Rollon, R.N. (2011). Mangrove revegetation potentials of brackish water
pond areas in the Philippines. In B. Sladonja, Aquaculture and the Environment –
A Shared Destiny. Pp 1-21. InTech, DOI: 10.5772/28222.
Santos, D.M., Estrada, G. C., Fernandez, V., Estevam, M.R., Souza, B.T.D., & Soares,
M.L. (2017). First assessment of carbon stock in the belowground biomass of
77
Brazilian mangroves. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciências. 89(3): 1579-
1589.
Sinfuego, K. S., & Buot, I. E. (2014). Mangrove zonation and utilization by the local people
in Ajuy and Pedada Bays, Panay Island, Philippines. Journal of Marine and Island
Cultures. 3(1): 1-8.
Spalding, M., Kainuma, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World atlas of mangroves. Earthscan,
London, UK, and Washington DC, USA.
Stone, S. & Mario, C. (2010). Climate Change and the role of the forest. A community
manual. Published by Conservation International.
Tang, Y., Yu, S., & Wu, Y. (2007). A comparison of macrofauna communities in different
mangrove assemblages. Zool Res. 28(3): 255–264.
Tang, W., Zheng, M., Zhao, X., Shi, J., Yang, J., & Trettin, C. (2018). Big geospatial data
analytics for global mangrove biomass and carbon estimation. Sustainability.
10(2):472.
Thant, Y. M., Kanzaki, M., Ohta, S., & Than, M. M. (2012). Carbon sequestration by
mangrove plantations and a natural regeneration stand in the Ayeyarwady Delta,
Myanmar. Tropics 21(1): 1–10.
Tran, P., Gritcan, I., Cusens, J., Alfaro, A. C., & Leuzinger, S. (2016). Biomass and nutrient
composition of temperate mangroves (Avicennia marina var. australasica) in New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 51 (3): 427–
442.
Tulod, A. (2015). Carbon stocks of second growth forest and reforestation stands in
Southern Philippines: baseline for carbon sequestration monitoring. AES Bioflux 7.
Umarhadi, D. A., & Muammar, A. (2018). Regression model accuracy comparison on

mangrove canopy density mapping. Digital Press Physical Sciences and
Engineering 1: 1-11.
Van Lavieren, H.,Spalding, M., Alongi, D.,Kainuma, M. & Clüsener-Godt, M., & Adeel,
Z. (2012). Securing the Future of Mangroves. A Policy Brief.
Vicharnakorn, P., Shrestha, R., Nagai, M., Salam, A., & Kiratiprayoon, S. (2014). Carbon
Stock Assessment Using Remote Sensing and Forest Inventory Data in
Savannakhet, La PDR. Remote Sensing. 6(6):5452-5479.
Vinod, K., Anasu Koya,V.A., Kunhi Koya, P.G.,Silpa,P.K., Asokan, P.U. Zacharia,
K.,&Joshi, K.(2018). Biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove stands of Kadalundi
estuarine wetland, south-west coast of India. Indian J. Fish. 65(2): 89-99.
78
Waskitho, N. T., & Triwanto, J. (2018). Above-Ground Biomass and Carbon Stocks in
Sigogor Mountain Nature Reserve, Ponorogo, East Java, Indonesia. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 434: 012237.
Whitehead, D. (2011). Forests as carbon sinks--benefits and consequences. Tree

Physiology 31(9): 893-902.
Wicaksono, P., Danoedoro, P., Hartono, & Nehren, U. (2016).Mangrove biomass carbon
stock mapping of the Karimunjawa Islands using multispectral remote sensing.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 37(1): 26-52.
Wicaksono, P. (2017). Mangrove above-ground carbon stock mapping of multi resolution

passive remote sensing systems, International Journal of Remote Sensing. 38(6):
1551-1578.
Xue, J., & Su, B. (2017). Significant Remote Sensing Vegetation Indices: A Review of
Developments and Applications. Journal of Sensors 2017: 1–17.
Yessoufou, K., & Stoffberg, G. (2016). Biogeography, threats and phylogenetic structure
of mangrove forest globally and in South Africa: A review. South African Journal
of Botany 107: 114–120.
Yuen, J. Q., Ziegler, A. D., Webb, E. L., & Ryan, C. M. (2013). Uncertainty in below
ground carbon biomass for major land covers in Southeast Asia. Forest Ecology
and Management 310: 915–926.
Ziegler, A.D., Phelps, J., Yuen, J.Q., Webb, EL., Lawrence, D., Fox, J.M., … Koh, L.P.
(2012). Carbon outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: great
uncertainties and REDD policy implications. Global Change Biology 18(10):
3087–3099.
79
APPENDIX A
RAW DATA
DBH DB
mean Tree Height Tree Height mean
SCIENTIFIC NAME DBH (cm) Range (cm) STD (m) Range STD mean (m) (cm) STD
Avicennia marina 0.64-55.00 7.64 4.14 1.79-23.58 3.64 7.18 8.38 3.76
Rhizophora apiculata 0.95-22.28 6.76 4.35 1.25-39.07 5.74 7.85 7.12 4.43
Sonneratia alba 5.73-21.33 15.32 2.99 1.76-16.93 3.04 5.10 16.08 3.25
Bruguiera cylindrica 0.64-5.73 2.55 1.32 1.15-35.84 7.11 11.38 3.25 1.72
Rhizophora mucronata 1.27-2.86 2.23 0.56 1.17-20.9 6.79 10.31 2.51 1.05
Avicennia rumphiana 0.95-29.60 9.22 6.33 2.53-17.17 3.09 7.40 10.96 7.42
Ceriops decandra 0.64-13.05 2.27 1.94 0.77-73.74 8.71 10.45 3.25 2.16
Lumnitzera racemosa 0.95-9.87 5.03 2.24 4.12-22.2 2.91 8.23 6.03 2.49
Xylocarpus granatum 1.27-1.91 1.59 0.45 4.02-17.23 9.34 10.63 1.59 0.91
Excoecaria agallocha 1.27-6.68 3.71 1.67 5.36-15.26 3.37 8.71 5.02 1.79
Ceriops tagal 0.64-3.82 1.82 0.94 1.25-36.11 8.43 9.49 2.46 1.03
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0.95-2.23 1.59 0.64 5.42-9.31 1.95 7.35 2.33 0.48
Aegiceras corniculatum 1.27-4.46 2.97 1.61 4.64-13.63 4.66 8.42 3.61 1.60
Old 0.95-22.28 6.59 4.35 1.17-39.07 5.78 7.94 6.95 4.44

Reforested 0.64-55.0 7.95 5.31 0.77-73.74 4.69 7.41 8.79 5.28
80
Raw Data on NDVI values and AGB/pixel
NDVI AGB AGB/pixel 0.663517 2040.963 20.4096282

0.541101 139.7856 1.3978558 0.665786 1233.911 12.3391083
0.544625 171.6269 1.716269 0.667149 1081.53 10.8152977
0.60779 353.7594 3.5375941 0.67086 1889.299 18.8929864
0.632626 1011.961 10.1196112 0.673288 1023.113 10.2311294
0.645037 1567.583 15.6758291 0.675694 909.4794 9.094794
0.648548 1518.814 15.1881386 0.676133 552.5365 5.5253651
0.649149 1859.439 18.5943872 0.677095 1693.956 16.9395597
0.649789 2359.994 23.5999392 0.682277 254.6683 2.5466834
0.652048 1427.562 14.2756214 0.682692 1352.554 13.5255445
0.652174 1044.754 10.4475418 0.687147 1582.288 15.8228831
0.654752 821.4836 8.2148362 0.68866 1064.009 10.6400916
0.654887 1011.996 10.1199631 0.694373 1325.422 13.2542172
0.657858 1135.296 11.3529558 0.705291 2799.574 27.9957351
0.658336 1502.915 15.0291526 0.705416 1491.864 14.9186412
0.660682 1311.339 13.1133931 0.71072 918.9761 9.1897606
81
APPENDIX B
DATA ON STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data among mangrove species

Descriptives
AGB (kg)
95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
Avicennia 776 30.4324026 58.66342779 2.10589433 26.2984695 34.5663357 .12011 1447.82473
marina
Rhizophora 262 41.7974648 58.49239324 3.61367212 34.6818021 48.9131275 .20757 429.55879
apiculata
Sonneratia alba 212 104.7207845 45.70104083 3.13876037 98.5334383 110.9081307 8.73832 221.65873
Bruguiera 35 2.7919029 3.40459664 .57548187 1.6223830 3.9614227 .06271 13.77894

cylindrica
Rhizophora 10 1.3888090 .76366397 .24149175 .8425167 1.9351013 .31677 2.33374
mucronata
Avicennia 84 68.4689694 114.69839484 12.51462087 43.5778918 93.3600470 .13385 632.13044
rumphiana
Ceriops 117 3.8312611 12.88868257 1.19155912 1.4712281 6.1912941 .06347 105.61967

decandra
Lumnitzera 92 15.6383685 13.27029915 1.38352433 12.8901674 18.3865696 .19248 60.98362
racemosa
Xylocarpus 2 .2963350 .20291843 .14348500 -1.5268148 2.1194848 .15285 .43982
granatum
Excoecaria 9 2.6796667 2.61300485 .87100162 .6711333 4.6882000 .14460 8.58566

agallocha
Ceriops tagal 36 1.2077050 1.32975349 .22162558 .7577812 1.6576288 .06246 5.06161
Bruguiera 3 .7020100 .60128027 .34714933 -.7916530 2.1956730 .16571 1.35203

gymnorhiza
Aegiceras 3 2.4999367 2.43098066 1.40352734 -3.5389541 8.5388274 .23046 5.06533

corniculatum
Total 1641 39.3632327 62.98253108 1.55476881 36.3136913 42.4127742 .06246 1447.82473
82
Test Statisticsa,b
AGB (kg)
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Chi- 708.664
Ranks Square
df 12
Species N Mean Rank Asymp. .000
AGB (kg) Avicennia 776 838.53 Sig.
marina a. Kruskal Wallis Test
Rhizophor 262 818.05 b. Grouping Variable:
a Species
apiculata
Sonnerati 212 1416.31
a alba
Bruguiera 35 253.26
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 195.40
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 911.17
rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 217.55
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 654.72
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 60.50
s
granatum
Excoecari 9 264.44
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 147.97
tagal
Bruguiera 3 112.67
gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 257.00
corniculat
um
Total 1641
83
Descriptives
BGB (kg)
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Avicennia 776 14.1913471 9.25845906 .33235931 13.5389159 14.8437783 .75935 139.13433
marina
Rhizophor 262 51.1699156 75.13349499 4.64176282 42.0298449 60.3099863 .18338 571.91306
a
apiculata
Sonnerati 212 45.7950154 18.26697149 1.25458075 43.3218972 48.2681336 4.91252 90.89926
a alba
Bruguiera 35 1.6620506 1.84450662 .31177852 1.0284404 2.2956608 .05698 7.39802
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 .9208900 .46587071 .14732125 .5876262 1.2541538 .24581 1.49034
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 29.0194488 43.79789317 4.77874192 19.5147233 38.5241743 .11303 233.83998

rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 2.0096189 5.83028611 .53901014 .9420414 3.0771964 .05760 46.48695
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 8.0083092 6.32650710 .65958396 6.6981267 9.3184917 .15668 28.30512
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 .5109150 .34532974 .24418500 -2.5917496 3.6135796 .26673 .75510

s
granatum
Excoecari 9 1.6335911 1.45927771 .48642590 .5118910 2.7552913 .12146 4.84157
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 .7832328 .79592488 .13265415 .5139305 1.0525350 .05678 2.99658
tagal
Bruguiera 3 .4923467 .39053790 .22547716 -.4778033 1.4624966 .13695 .91044

gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 1.5346967 1.41259659 .81556302 -1.9743878 5.0437811 .18467 3.00249
corniculat
um
Total 1641 22.9460404 37.26391391 .91988636 21.1417647 24.7503162 .05678 571.91306
84
Test Statisticsa,b
Kruskal-Wallis Test BGB (kg)
Ranks Chi- 744.310

Square
df 12
Species N Mean Rank Asymp. .000
BGB (kg) Avicennia 776 832.32 Sig.
marina a. Kruskal Wallis Test
Rhizophor 262 951.21 b. Grouping Variable:
a Species
apiculata

a alba
Bruguiera 35 196.69
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 154.80
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 837.52
rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 184.05
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 566.66
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 115.00
s
granatum
Excoecari 9 205.22
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 118.64
tagal
Bruguiera 3 96.67
gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 199.67
corniculat
um
Total 1641
85
Descriptives
Total Biomass (kg)

Mean
Avicennia 776 44.6237490 66.64387002 2.39237551 39.9274448 49.3200531 .87946 1586.95907
marina
Rhizophor 262 92.9673813 133.60844230 8.25435713 76.7137702 109.2209923 .39094 1001.47185
a
apiculata
Sonnerati 212 150.5157999 63.96277929 4.39298172 141.8560440 159.1755558 13.65083 312.55798
a alba
Bruguiera 35 4.4539520 5.24786216 .88705061 2.6512483 6.2566557 .11969 21.17696
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 2.3096990 1.22945468 .38878771 1.4302001 3.1891979 .56258 3.82408
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 97.4884175 158.44807758 17.28810260 63.1030768 131.8737582 .24688 865.97042

rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 5.8408797 18.71341032 1.73005540 2.4142870 9.2674724 .12106 152.10661
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 23.6466766 19.59180711 2.04258709 19.5893283 27.7040250 .34917 89.28873
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 .8072450 .54825524 .38767500 -4.1186329 5.7331229 .41957 1.19492

s
granatum
Excoecari 9 4.3132578 4.07133796 1.35711265 1.1837504 7.4427652 .26606 13.42724
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 1.9909361 2.12521557 .35420259 1.2718666 2.7100056 .11924 8.05819
tagal
Bruguiera 3 1.1943533 .99173850 .57258049 -1.2692617 3.6579683 .30266 2.26246

gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 4.0346333 3.84307617 2.21880106 -5.5120971 13.5813638 .41514 8.06782
corniculat
um
Total 1641 62.3092728 93.12149208 2.29877061 57.8004376 66.8181080 .11924 1586.95907
86
Test Statisticsa,b
Kruskal-Wallis Test Total
Biomass
Ranks (kg)
Chi- 718.134
Square
Species N Mean Rank
df 12
Total Avicennia 776 835.91
Asymp. .000
Biomass marina
Sig.
(kg) Rhizophor 262 876.30
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a
apiculata b. Grouping Variable:
Species
a alba
Bruguiera 35 226.54
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 167.00
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 882.49
rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 200.22
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 622.32
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 82.00
s
granatum
Excoecari 9 235.78
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 132.58
tagal
Bruguiera 3 104.67
gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 230.67
corniculat
um
Total 1641
87
Descriptives
TotalCarbon (tonnes)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
Avicennia 776 .0207056 .03092285 .00111007 .0185266 .0228847 .00041 .73635
marina
Rhizophor 262 .0431370 .06199364 .00382998 .0355954 .0506786 .00018 .46468
a
apiculata
Sonnerati 212 .0698389 .02967870 .00203834 .0658207 .0738570 .00633 .14503
a alba
Bruguiera 35 .0020669 .00243459 .00041152 .0012305 .0029032 .00006 .00983
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 .0010700 .00056944 .00018007 .0006626 .0014774 .00026 .00177
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 .0452349 .07352033 .00802173 .0292800 .0611898 .00011 .40181

rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 .0027110 .00868306 .00080275 .0011211 .0043010 .00006 .07058
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 .0109711 .00909112 .00094781 .0090884 .0128538 .00016 .04143
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 .0003700 .00025456 .00018000 -.0019171 .0026571 .00019 .00055

s
granatum
Excoecari 9 .0019989 .00189021 .00063007 .0005459 .0034518 .00012 .00623
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 .0009258 .00098535 .00016423 .0005924 .0012592 .00006 .00374
tagal
Bruguiera 3 .0005533 .00046069 .00026598 -.0005911 .0016977 .00014 .00105

gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 .0018700 .00178261 .00102919 -.0025582 .0062982 .00019 .00374
corniculat
um
Total 1641 .0289116 .04320820 .00106663 .0268195 .0310037 .00006 .73635
88
Test Statisticsa,b
Kruskal-Wallis Test TotalCarb
on
Ranks (tonnes)
Chi- 718.130
Mean
Square
Species N Rank
df 12
TotalCarb Avicennia 776 835.93
Asymp. .000
on marina
Sig.
(tonnes) Rhizophor 262 876.34
a
apiculata b. Grouping Variable:
Species
a alba
Bruguiera 35 226.89
cylindrica
Rhizophor 10 167.00
a
mucronata
Avicennia 84 882.49
rumphian
a
Ceriops 117 198.74
decandra
Lumnitzer 92 622.16
a
racemosa
Xylocarpu 2 81.00
s
granatum
Excoecari 9 235.00
a
agallocha
Ceriops 36 137.08
tagal
Bruguiera 3 104.33
gymnorhiz
a
Aegiceras 3 230.67
corniculat
um
Total 1641
89
Data between mangrove type
Descriptives
AGB (kg)
Mean
Old 272 40.3118524 57.90654466 3.51110000 33.3993521 47.2243527 .20757 429.55879
Reforeste 1369 39.1747561 63.96127312 1.72868306 35.7835992 42.5659130 .06246 1447.82473
d
Total 1641 39.3632327 62.98253108 1.55476881 36.3136913 42.4127742 .06246 1447.82473
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
MangroveType N Mean Rank
AGB (kg) Old 272 795.15
Reforeste 1369 826.14
d
Total 1641
Test Statisticsa,b
AGB (kg)
Chi- .970
Square
df 1
Asymp. .325
Sig.
b. Grouping Variable:
MangroveType
90
Descriptives
BGB (kg)
Mean
Old 272 49.3225250 74.34037813 4.50754752 40.4482623 58.1967876 .18338 571.91306
Reforeste 1369 17.7054241 20.10189118 .54329436 16.6396438 18.7712044 .05678 233.83998
d
Total 1641 22.9460404 37.26391391 .91988636 21.1417647 24.7503162 .05678 571.91306
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
BGB (kg) Old 272 921.93
Reforeste 1369 800.95
d
Total 1641
Test Statisticsa,b
BGB (kg)
Chi- 14.792
Square
df 1
Asymp. .000
Sig.
MangroveType
91
Descriptives
Total Biomass (kg)

Mean
Old 272 89.6343782 132.22963744 8.01759944 73.8496787 105.4190778 .39094 1001.47185
Reforeste 1369 56.8801796 82.18353014 2.22117649 52.5228985 61.2374606 .11924 1586.95907
d
Total 1641 62.3092728 93.12149208 2.29877061 57.8004376 66.8181080 .11924 1586.95907
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
Total Old 272 850.22
Biomass Reforeste 1369 815.19
(kg) d
Total 1641
Test Statisticsa,b
Total
Biomass
(kg)
Chi- 1.240
Square
df 1
Asymp. .265
Sig.
MangroveType
92
Descriptives
TotalCarbon (tonnes)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
Old 272 .0415904 .06135394 .00372013 .0342664 .0489145 .00018 .46468
Reforeste 1369 .0263925 .03813312 .00103062 .0243707 .0284143 .00006 .73635
d
Total 1641 .0289116 .04320820 .00106663 .0268195 .0310037 .00006 .73635
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
Mean
MangroveType N Rank
TotalCarb Old 272 850.26
on Reforeste 1369 815.19
(tonnes) d
Total 1641
Test Statisticsa,b
TotalCarb
on
(tonnes)
Chi- 1.243
Square
df 1
Asymp. .265
Sig.
MangroveType
93
Data between NDVI values and AGB (kg per pixel)
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
NDVI AGB/pixel
Mean 0.659209668 12.40402
Variance 0.001443162 36.86352
Observations 31 31
df 30 30
F 0.00
P(F<=f) one-tail 0
F Critical one-tail 0.543220913
94
APPENDIX C
PHOTODOCUMENTATION
Establishment of sampling plots
95
Measurement of DBH and DB
96
Measurement of Tree Height
97
Recording of Coordinates of each mangrove species
98
Collection of Soil samples
99
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE OF PERMIT LETTER
100
APPENDIX E
RESULT ON SOIL ANALYSIS
101

Thesis Manuscript - UIGAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Thesis Manuscript - UIGAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Manuscript - UIGAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Biomass and Carbon Stock Mapping of the Bued Mangrove Forest in

A Master’s Thesis Submitted to the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

ROMEO M. DIZON, Ph.D. ROSCINTO IAN C. LUMBRES, Ph.D.

ROLAND M. HIPOL, Ph.D.

ZENAIDA G. BAOANAN, Ph.D. DYMPHNA N. JAVIER, Ph.D.

The Department of Biology endorses acceptance of this graduate thesis as partial

ROCEL AMOR O. INDONG, Dr. rer. nat.

DYMPHNA N. JAVIER, Ph.D.

Available to the general public Yes

I would like to express my gratitude to my family for the support and

I also thank the staff of Local Government Units and Department of

Lastly, I want to express my sincere thanks to all my colleagues, MS CaRE

The Philippines is recognized for its mangrove-rich ecosystems which play a

Keywords: mangroves, biomass, carbon stock, Geographical Information System (GIS),

List of Tables…………………………………………………………… vii

Background of the Study………………………………………… 1

Objectives of the Study…………………………………………… 7

Significance of the Study…………………………………………. 8

Scope and Delimitation…………………………………………… 9

Conceptual Framework of the Study……………………………… 10

Field Data Collection……………………………………………… 13

Mangrove Biomass and Carbon Storage…………………... 15

Mapping of Mangrove using Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Chapter 3: Review of Related Literature……………………………….. 19

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion……………………………………… 34

Biomass and Carbon Storage of Bued Mangrove Forest using

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation……………………………. 67

Appendix A: Raw Data ……………………………………….................. 80

Appendix B: Statistical Analyses………………………………………… 82

Appendix D: Sample of Permit Letter……………………………………. 100

Appendix E: Result of Soil Analyses……………………………………... 101

1. Fernando Categories based on Shannon-Weiner diversity values……….. 14

2. Allometric equations for various mangroves based on DBH (cm)………. 29

3. Vegetation indices used to model mangrove carbon stock ……………… 32

4. Taxonomic identification and species abundance……………………… 35

5. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index between old and reforested mangrove

6. Biomass and carbon stock of different species and mangrove type……... 49

7. Soil organic carbon among plots………………………………………... 53

8. Total AGB, BGB, Biomass and Carbon of Bued Mangrove Forest……... 60

1. Research Paradigm of the Study………………………………………… 11

2. Map of Bued Mangrove Forest Park, Alaminos, Pangasinan…………… 12

3. Flow Chart of the Methodology on Mapping of Mangroves…………….. 18

4. Species Distribution of Mangroves………………………………………. 41

5. Shannon-Weiner diversity indices in all selected plots…………………... 44

6. DBH, DB and Tree height of the different mangrove species and

7. NDVI Map of Bued Mangrove Forest……………………………………. 55

8. Nonlinear regression among selected pixels in the field…………………. 56

9. Map on Above-Ground Biomass (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest……... 58

10. Map on Below-Ground Biomass (tons ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest... 59

11. Map on Total Biomass (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest…….……….. 59

12. Map on Total Carbon (t ha-1) of Bued Mangrove Forest……….………. 60

Background of the Study

One of today’s major environmental concerns is the accelerated accumulation of

(Castillo and Breva, 2012).

Primavera et al., 2012).