2 of 62

Accounting and mapping the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of

Mangrove Forest and Carbon losses arising from mangrove
deforestation in the Philippines

A Re-Entry Action Plan Project

Final Report

Jose Alan Castillo, PhD

August 2021
 3 of 62

ABSTRACT
Mangrove forests provide many ecosystem goods and services, and are an important carbon
(C) sink in the country. However, despite the numerous goods and services provided by mangroves,
they are being depleted at alarming rates. Carbon stocks in biomass and soil as well as the potential C
emissions owing to land use change in mangrove are important parameters to quantify, monitor and
map in the mangrove area, and are vital inputs for assessing the impact of mangrove conversion on
the C budget. While the studies are growing on estimating and mapping the spatial distribution of
Ecosystem Carbon Stock of mangroves and C losses arising from their conversion to other land uses,
very few reports are available at the country level, including in the Philippines. To address these
research gaps, this study was conducted in selected coastal areas of the Philippines, with the following
objectives: 1) to quantify and evaluate the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of mangrove forest; 2) to map
and determine the spatial distribution of the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of mangrove forest; and 3) to
quantify the potential C losses owing to conversion of mangrove forest to other land use. Intensive
field assessments, combined with laboratory analysis, remote sensing and geospatial techniques were
implemented to achieve the above objectives.
Results of this study revealed that the mean Ecosystem C stocks of mangrove forests based on
field plots was 494.12 MgC ha -1 while those predicted from remotely sensed data covering the whole
country was 538.5 MgC/ha. The potential contribution of our Philippine mangroves to global Climate
Change mitigation could translate to about 550 M tCO 2 eq. The province of Palawan had the highest
C stock. The mean decrease in C stock was 176 MgC/ha or 22% - 25% decline in the total/Ecosystem
C stock when mangroves are converted to other land uses.
This study has shown the relatively enormous amount of Carbon stocked and stored in biomass
and soil of mangroves in the country and suggests the need to protect them from human disturbance in
order not to contribute further to the rising GHG emissions to the atmosphere. The decrease in C
stocks indicates C losses and emissions owing to the conversion of mangrove forests to other land
uses. The approach used in this study to predict and map the distribution of Ecosystem Carbon stock
at the country-level, province-by-province with mangroves, would be a useful tool for up-to-date
mangrove C stock estimation and monitoring, especially those in the hard-to-reach coastal zones in
the country, particularly those with peace and order problem, and when manpower and financial
resources are limited. Future studies should endeavor to explore the use of other datasets (e.g. Global
Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) LIDAR-based forest structure measurements, and the
derivative Forest Height Map) in predicting and mapping the spatial distribution of the Ecosystem C
stocks of mangroves in the country.
 4 of 62

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the following institutions and persons for making this Re-Entry
Plan/Project possible:

-The Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau management and staff under the
leadership of Dr. Henry Adornado for providing the fund for this research project; Boss Tolits
Exconde, Chief Danny Sabiniano and Accountant Manny Cuison of the Admin and Finance Division;

-The officials and staff of the Coastal Zone and Freshwater Ecosystems Research Division of
ERDB under the leadership then of Dr. Carmelita Villamor for sponsoring and defending the proposal
of this project for approval; The Mangrove Section staff under the leadership then of Dr. Ma. Lourdes
Moreno for all the support needed;

-The Urban and Biodiversity Research, Development and Extension Center of ERDB headed
by For. Gregorio Santos, Jr based in Pagbilao, Quezon for accepting this project to the Center; Ms
Melody Honorio for helping me in the administrative matters of the project, especially when I was
still assigned at Pagbilao;

-Mr. Sedric Caliwagan, my able and diligent Research Assistant for this project until its
completion; Mr Rommel ‘Butchog’ Mercado for his field assistance;

-My staff at the Mangrove Section, Ms. Marcia Magsanoc for her assistance in the field data
collection and processing the Woody Debris samples; For. John Rommel Manahan for field data
collection and some GIS data work;

-All the researchers of the six Research Centers of ERDB who participated in this project,
especially in the field data collection. I hope I was able to train you all on the field data protocol and
data analysis for mangrove carbon study:
-Darwin Ablang, Boni and Ateng of WWRDEC in Baguio City
-Ian Dotimas of THWRDEC in Quezon City
-Darwin Monilla and Allan Peña of UBRDEC in Pagbilao, Quezon
-Ms Micmic, Sis Wating and Jono of CRERDEC in Cebu City
-Joel, Jun Bacsal, Janrelle, Catherine, Espie and Joy of FWERDEC in Bislig, Surigao
Sur
-Alvin Salting, RJ, Royette, Etong and Manong Barok of ARDEC in Tagum City,
Davao

-Ate Nene, Chemist Rey and other Lab staff for the analysis of our soil samples, and for
accommodating our soil and plant tissue samples for ovendrying;

-All the officials and staff of PENROs and CENROs who assisted us in the site selection and
actual field data collection in Cagayan, Pangasinan, Bulacan, Quezon, Cam Sur, Cebu, Guimaras,
Liangga and Lingig, Surigao del Sur, and Baganga, Davao Oriental.

-All the ERDB drivers who brought our team to and from the study site, and to and from the
airport: Kuya Marte Managat, Kuya Wiliie Abrenilla; Kuya Nelson Condino, Kuya Mio Alforja

-My family for the support and encouragement

-All the names and offices who contributed to this project but were inadvertently missed
 5 of 62

-And finally, to Lord Jesus Christ, for all the wisdom, knowledge, and grace to complete this
study

To all of you, Thank you Very much.

Alan Castillo, 29 August

2021
 6 of 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................
1.1 Background and Rationale........................................................................................................
1.2 Problem Statement....................................................................................................................
1.3 Objectives.................................................................................................................................
1.4 Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.........................................................................................................
2.1 Ecosystem Carbon Stock accounting in mangrove areas......................................................
2.2 Mapping of Ecosystem C Stock of mangrove........................................................................
2.3 Estimation of Carbon losses from deforestation in mangrove..............................................
3. METHODS.......................................................................................................................................
3.1 Study Site..................................................................................................................................
3.2 Plot-Scale Ecosystem C Stock Estimation (Objective 1).......................................................
3.3 Ecosystem C stocks Mapping using Remote Sensing and GIS (Objective 2)......................
3.4 Estimation of C losses arising from mangrove deforestation (Objective 3).........................
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................................
4.1 Ecosystem Carbon Stocks estimation of mangroves.............................................................
4.2 Ecosystem Carbon Stock mapping.........................................................................................
4.3 Carbon losses arising from mangrove deforestation.............................................................
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.................................................................................................
5.1 Summary of Findings..............................................................................................................
5.2 Conclusion................................................................................................................................
5.3 Recommendation.....................................................................................................................
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................
APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................
 7 of 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Characteristics of the study site...................................................................................................

Table 2. Stand characteristics of the sampled mangrove forests..............................................................
Table 3. Biomass allometric equations and wood density values used in the study..................................
Table 4. Aboveground biomass carbon and belowground biomass carbon of the study sites..................
Table 5. Downed woody debris C stock of mangrove study sites..............................................................
Table 6. Downed Woody Debris variables generated and used for the DWD mass computation.............
Table 7. The proportion of various C pools to the Ecosystem C stock of the study mangroves.................
Table 8. Top 20 C rich province (area (ha) based on 2015 Mangrove cover (Phil Forestry Stat. 2019)......
Table 9. Non-mangrove land uses sampled for the study.........................................................................
 8 of 62

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relative locations of the sampling plots for the study................................................................

Figure 2. Plot layout for sampling the biomass, downed woody debris and soil organic carbon..............
Figure 3. Guide to sampling the downed woody debris biomass.............................................................
Figure 4. Soil Organic Carbon Stock of the stud mangrove sites................................................................
Figure 5. Ecosystem Carbon Stock of the study mangrove sites................................................................
Figure 6. Mean proportion of the C pools to the Ecosystem C Stock.........................................................
Figure 7. Modelled Ecosystems Carbon stock spatial distribution.............................................................
Figure 8. Modelled Ecosystem C stock for mangroves in Surigao del Norte province...............................
Figure 9. Distribution of pixel values for the Ecosystems C spatial modelling...........................................
Figure 10. Top 20 mangrove most C dense provinces in the Philippines...................................................
Figure 11. Bottom 10 provinces with lowest ecosystems C stocks of mangrove (MgC/ha).......................
Figure 12. Comparative C stocks of adjacent paired mangrove - former mangrove land uses..................
 9 of 62

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Rationale

Mangroves are highly important ecosystems that harbour diverse flora and fauna critical in
sustaining the food webs that contribute to overall coastal productivity. With mangroves serving as
the spawning ground of aquatic organisms populating adjacent marine ecosystems, it is estimated that
two-thirds of the world’s coastal population depend on them for food and livelihood (FAO 2010).
Mangroves also provide timber and other construction materials, fuelwood, storm protection, fishery
products, sediment regulation and many other ecosystems services to coastal residents (Alongi 2002).
Equally important is their function as carbon sinks, reducing CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere
mitigating global warming - specifically, mangrove ecosystems account for 14% of the total carbon
sequestration of the world ocean (Alongi 2014). Over the last few years, mangroves are increasingly
recognised as among the most carbon (C) dense tropical forests.

Despite their invaluable contribution to coastal protection, productivity, and carbon

sequestration, mangroves have declined in global area by 30-50% in the last 50 years (Murdiyarso et
al. 2013). For instance, in the Philippines, where 40 out of the 73 species in the world thrive
(Fernando & Pancho 1980), mangroves have been cleared on a large-scale from a recorded historical
cover of 500,000 hectares in 1918 (Brown & Fischer 1920) to only 120,000 hectares in 1994 (FAO
2007) with around 37% of the mangrove loss attributed to fish/shrimp pond conversion (Primavera
2000). In recent years, however, the establishment of mangrove plantations has become a very prolific
strategy for mangrove rehabilitation with government, civil society organizations, and private
institutions putting in sizeable contributions to increase the national mangrove cover. The increase in
mangrove cover to 303,381 ha based on 2015 estimate (FMB 2020) could be attributed to those
mangrove rehabilitation/plantation projects.

With the recognised huge potential of mangroves for C storage and sequestration, and the
carbon consequence of land use conversion in the mangrove ecosystem, it is important, therefore, to
monitor the mangroves with the latest tools available that have country-wide coverage and are
updated regularly, in order to evaluate the country-wide C stocks and the potential C losses owing
from mangrove conversion to other land uses.

This study is the author’s Re-Entry Plan Project post his PhD and reporting back to work to
ERDB. This project is an offshoot of his PhD work on mangrove Ecosystem C stock estimation and
mapping, and determination of potential C losses owing to mangrove conversion to other land uses.
 10 of 62

1.2 Problem Statement

Studies are growing on quantifying the Philippine’s C stocks of mangroves (e.g. Gevana and
Pampolina 2009; Camacho et al. 2011; Castillo and Breva, 2012; Castillo et al. 2017; Castillo et al.
2018). These studies dealt on biomass and soil C stocks separately, and dealt on plot-scale C stocks
usually in just one or two mangrove sites but not covering several sites representing the country.

Several studies are available in the literature on combining the biomass and soil C stocks, but
these studies were done mostly on a single site and not on a country-level (e.g. Kauffman et al. 2012;
Kauffman et al. 2016; Kauffman et al. 2018; Donato et al. 2011). The one study available on a
country-level that is closest to the Philippines is for Indonesia (Murdiyarso et al. 2015). While it is
important to have a country-level mangrove C stock assessment for several uses such as REDD+ and
other similar C payment schemes, none has been done so far for the Philippines. These programs
require robust estimates and sound information on baseline ecosystems C stocks of mangroves, both
in the aboveground and belowground C pools (Murdiyarso et al. 2013).

Furthermore, most of the C stock mangrove studies in the country were done on plot-scale. In
order to understand the country-level C stock, there is a need to determine its spatial distribution and
variability. The availability of new-generation free-of-charge satellite imagery such as those from
Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8, that have global coverage and periodically provide up-to-date
data, and global biophysical datasets (e.g. soilsgrid), offers enormous opportunities for country-level
prediction and mapping of various biophysical variables such as biomass and soil datasets. Areas that
are difficult to access such as those with peace and order problems and very dense Rhizophora
mangrove stands, that are usually not covered in field data collection, can now be included in the
prediction, estimation and mapping. Knowing these sets of information is important to better
understand the variations of C stocks and help refine the local and national estimates. However,
despite its importance in planning and decision-making, no studies have been done so far to map the
ecosystem carbon stocks (soil and biomass C stocks) in mangrove, more so on a national scale, as
existing studies are either on biomass carbon mapping or soil carbon mapping.

Finally, determining the size and magnitude of C losses owing to mangrove conversion to
other land uses would allow us to calculate the carbon consequence of mangrove conversion. Limited
studies have so far integrated the measurement of changes in C stocks across biomass and soil C pools
of mangroves side by side with the land uses that replaced them (e.g. Kauffman et al. 2017; Kauffman
et al. 2016). The findings from such studies are necessary to estimate the potential C emissions due to
land use/land cover change in mangroves (Murdiyarso et al. 2013). While the Philippines also
experience mangrove conversion to other land uses, albeit only on a limited scale in recent years,
 11 of 62

these kinds of studies have been only in Mexico, Dominican Republic and Indonesia, and none for the
Philippines.

1.3 Objectives
This study aims to evaluate and quantify the C stocks in mangrove forests and estimate the
potential C losses arising from mangrove conversion to other land uses. Specifically, the study has the
following objectives:
1. to quantify and evaluate the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks (biomass + soil carbon stocks) of
mangrove forest
2. to model the spatial distribution of the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of mangrove forest; and
3. To estimate the Carbon losses arising from mangrove deforestation

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study provides scientific information on the size of C stocks from aboveground and
belowground C pools of several mangrove sites in the country, and the potential C losses owing to
land use change in mangrove. The generated information can be a valuable input to DENR, other
government institutions and the academe: 1) for their studies and program formulation related to
valuation of the country’s mangrove ecosystem, 2) It can also be used as an empirical basis to
estimate emissions from land use change in mangrove; and 3) the results of the study could be used
for the following applications:

 The country-level estimate of C stocks and C decline could be used for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 GHG Inventory

 The approach used to predict and map the spatial distribution of mangroves in the
country could be used for timely and periodic mangrove monitoring and management
of C stocks

 The generated country-level map of Ecosystem C stock of mangrove could be used as

baseline information for which to base the impacts of future mangrove enhancement
efforts and other interventions

 The generated C stock values, both measured (from the field plots observed from the
10 mangrove sites in the country) and predicted (from the satellite imagery and GIS
techniques) could be used as a baseline and initial dataset for future refinements of C
stock values through more plot addition
 12 of 62

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Ecosystem Carbon Stock accounting in mangrove areas

Whole-ecosystem C stock assessments in mangroves, which include aboveground C pool,
belowground biomass C pool and soil C pool, are continuously growing in the literature; however,
very few were done on a country-level scale, and none has been reported so far in the Philippines.
This critical information gap in the mangrove literature will be addressed in Objective 1 of this study.

Alongi (2014) reviewed a number of published studies and showed a consolidated mean
global whole-ecosystem C stock of mangrove of 956 MgC ha -1, 2 to 4 times higher than terrestrial
forests such as rainforests (241 MgC ha -1) and peat swamps (408 MgC ha-1). About 75% of total C
stock in mangroves is stored in the soil compared to rainforests (44%) and peat swamp (70%).
Mangrove roots store approximately 13-15% of the Ecosystem C stock, just like rainforests.

Ecosystem C stock in mangroves increase from high salinity/seaward fringe to low

saline/interior/landward zone (Kauffman et al. 2011; Mizanur Rahman et al. 2014; Tue et al. 2014)
and is strongly related to tree basal area and height but has a weak correlation with tree density and
crown cover (Mizanur Rahman et al. 2014). Total biomass generally decreases from upstream to
downstream as with soil elevation (Wang et al. 2014). Belowground C storage has a positive but weak
correlation to aboveground C storage (Donato et al. 2011).

The values of whole ecosystem C stock range from 1023 tC ha-1 for few Indo-Pacific sites,
937 tC ha-1 for mainland Southeast Asia, and 381 to 987 MgC ha-1 in Caribbean Mexico (Murdiyarso
et al. 2013) with the C stored in soils accounting for 49 - 98% of the total mangrove C stocks (Donato
et al. 2011; Adame et al. 2013).

Biomass C Stock

Most mangrove biomass studies were done using allometric equations due to labour-intensive
and prohibition in mangrove destructive sampling. Biomass values from undisturbed mangrove
forests in the world were reported in the literature to include 453.8 MgC ha -1 in Kosrae, Micronesia
(Donato et al. 2011), 340.6 MgC ha-1 in Mozambique (Stringer et al. 2015), 382 MgC ha-1 in West
Papua, Indonesia (Murdiyarso et al. 2015), 339.7 MgC ha-1 in Sumatra, Indonesia (Murdiyarso et al.
2015) and 334.8 MgC ha-1 in Yap, Micronesia (Kauffman et al. 2011).
 13 of 62

However, values from disturbed mangrove forests in Java, Indonesia was only 21.2 MgC ha -1
(Murdiyarso et al. 2015). Very few studies have been conducted in secondary mangrove forests
especially in data-poor developing countries in the tropics where this mangrove type is common
(Fortes 2004).

Soil Organic Carbon

Studies in mangrove soil C stock have been fairly recent as compared to mangrove biomass
studies. Soil C stock values from individual mangrove studies ranged from a low of 155 MgC ha -1 for
a depth of 152 cm in India (Bhomia et al. 2016) to a high of 1255 MgC ha -1 for a 300 cm depth in
Borneo (Donato et al. 2011). Individual measurements of soil C ranged from 49 % to 98 % of the
Ecosystem C stock (e.g.(Donato et al. 2011; Kauffman et al. 2011; Kauffman et al. 2016; Vien et al.
2016).

The amount of soil C increases with forest age (Alongi 2012) and with distance from the
seaward edge/downstream to landward/upstream (Donato et al. 2011; Kauffman et al. 2011; Wang et
al. 2014) with decreasing salinity and increasing soil elevation. Soil C concentration (% C) is
positively correlated with tree biomass (Wang et al. 2014) and generally decreases with depth
(Kauffman et al. 2011; Adame et al. 2013).

2.2 Mapping of Ecosystem C Stock of mangrove

There is a paucity of reports on mapping the Ecosystem C Stock of mangroves. While the
studies are growing on mangrove C stock mapping, available reports dealt separately on mapping the
biomass and mapping the soil C stock. This gap is addressed in Objective 2 of the study.

Studies have been growing on the use of satellite imagery to retrieve and map the
aboveground biomass in the mangrove ecosystem. Global mangrove biomass map (Hutchison et al.
2014; Simard et al. 2019) have been produced and a number of site-specific mangrove biomass maps
derived from space-borne optical (Li et al. 2007; Proisy et al. 2007; Jachowski et al. 2013; Wicaksono
et al. 2016) and radar (Simard et al. 2006; Li et al. 2007; Fatoyinbo et al. 2008; Thapa et al. 2015;
Aslan et al. 2016) imagery data.

The literature Is growing on the use of Sentinel imagery for mapping the spatial distribution
of mangrove biophysical variables such as cover/extent and biomass. Castillo et al. (2017) and
Baloloy et al. (2020) were the first to use this free imagery for mangroves in the country. Baloloy et
al. (2020) used Sentinel imagery data to map the country-level mangrove cover in 2019 while Castillo
 14 of 62

et al. (2017) utilised the imagery for mangrove biomass mapping in southern Honda Bay, Palawan,
and developed several models for mangrove biomass prediction and mapping.

For Soil Carbon Stock, there is also a paucity of reports on country-level mapping in
mangroves although global mangrove soil C stock maps have been produced (Jardine & Siikamäki,
2014; Sanderman et al. 2018). Mapping the soil C stock will increase our understanding of the spatial
distribution and variability of soil C stocks in the coastal zone and can help improve our estimates of
soil C stocks in the country.

2.3 Estimation of Carbon losses from deforestation in mangrove

Very few studies are available on the potential C losses owing to the conversion of mangroves to
other land uses. The few available studies are limited to mangrove and abandoned aquaculture ponds
as well as mangrove and cattle pasture. The whole-ecosystem C stock of abandoned shrimp ponds
was only 11 % (Kauffman et al. 2013), 25 % (Bhomia et al. 2016) and 57 % (Duncan et al. 2016) of
the C stock of their neighbouring mangroves. Likewise, C stocks of cattle pasture that replaced
mangroves in Mexico was only 34 % of the adjacent mangrove forest (Kauffman et al. 2016;
Kauffman et al, 2017).

We have limited knowledge if the same magnitude is true in the Philippines when mangrove
forests are converted into non-forest land uses and for other land uses such as rice fields and perennial
agriculture. Such knowledge is important for accurately estimating the impact on C stocks owing to
land use change. This gap is addressed in Objective 3.
 15 of 62

3. METHODS

3.1 Study Site

The study sites included both the forested and deforested mangrove areas in selected coastal
areas of the Philippines, covering as many kinds and quality of mangroves in the country as possible
(natural stand, plantation, intact, secondary, degraded and converted mangroves) to capture the
variability in C stocks, both in the biomass and soil C pools. To have a good estimate of ecosystems
C stock and emissions for the whole county, mangrove areas in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao,
covering the northern, central, southern, western and eastern seaboards of the country, were selected
for the study (Figure 1). The aim was to have two to three sites in each of the six ERDB Research
Centre (which are located 3 in Luzon, 1 in the Visayas, and 2 in Mindanao), each site had one
mangrove forest and a deforested mangrove area now occupied by non-forest land use (e.g abandoned
aquapond, etc.). The minimum area of the forested/intact and deforested mangroves that were studied
was one ha each. The characteristics of the study sites are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study site.

Climate Philippine Distance to

Site Dominant Species Type* Seaboard Manila (km)
Luzon
San Fabian, Pangasinan Bruguiera cylindrica I Western 180.9
Pagbilao, Quezon Avicennia marina, II Eastern 104.9
Excoecaria agallocha
Sonneratia II Northern 431.1
Abulug/Pamplona, caseoralis/Kandelia
Cagayan candel
Bulakan, Bulacan Avicennia marina I Western 37.7
Lagonoy, Camarines II Eastern 290.9
Rhizophora apiculata
Sur
Visayas
Bantayan Island, Cebu Rhizophora stylosa III Central 484.2
Taklong Island, Rhizophora III Central 497.4
Guimaras mucronata
Mindanao
Liangga, Surigao del II Eastern 866.2
Rhizophora apiculata
Sur
Lingig, Surigao Sonneratia caseoralis II Eastern 936.5
Baganga, Davao Rhizophora apiculata IV Eastern 984.5
*each Type is defined in the Appendix (Climate Map of the Philippines)
 16 of 62

Figure 1. Relative locations of the sampling plots for the study

Of the total 10 mangrove sites that were studied, five were dominated by Rhizophora species
while two were dominated by Sonneratia caseolaris, two sites also for Avicennia marina and one site
for Bruguiera cylindrica. The sites with Rhizophoras were either natural stands that were subjected to
 17 of 62

enhancement planting in the past or planted mangroves as in the case of Bantayan Island. The rest of
the sites (n = 5) are natural mangrove stands, albeit only Pagbilao and Bulakan mangroves can be
considered as intact (Table 2). The average estimated area of these mangrove stands is 45 ha, and
ranges from 2.2 ha for Pangasinan site to as high as 179 ha for Davao Oriental.

The mean DBH of trees is 10.9 cm while the average height is 6.1 m and the stem density per
plot of 7m radius is 22 individuals, suggestive of the secondary forest condition of the studied
mangrove stands (Table x). The site in Pangasinan has the lowest mean DBH of 4.8 while the highest
is in Bulacan with 18.4cm. Most of the sites have mean heights of at least 5m.

Table 2. Stand characteristics of the sampled mangrove forests

Average Estimate
Average Average stem d Area
DBH Height Density (ha)
Site (cm)* (m) (n/plot) Dominant Species
San Fabian,
Bruguiera cylindrica
Pangasinan 4.8 3.2 65 2.2
Avicennia
Pagbilao, Quezon marina/Excoecaria
11.6 6.3 12 agallocha 113
Abulog/Pamplona,
Sonneratia caseoralis
Cagayan 13 5.4 11 3.48
Bantayan Island,
Rhizophora stylosa
Cebu 8.8 4.4 2.6 18.3
Liangga, Surigao
Rhizophora apiculate
del Sur 7.7 3.2 11.5 94.3
Baganga, Davao
Rhizophora apiculate
Oriental 11.7 6.4 20.5 179
Bulakan, Bulacan 18.4 8.8 14.2 Avicennia marina 20
Taklong Island,
Rhizophora mucronata
Guimaras 10.64 9.13 38 6.78
Lagonoy,
Rhizophora apiculate
Camarines Sur 10.14 9.47 16 11.2
Lingig, Surigao 11.84 4.7 29 Sonneratia caseoralis 6.21
*Diameter at breast height ** plot is 7m radius
 18 of 62

3.2 Plot-Scale Ecosystem C Stock Estimation (Objective 1)

To address Objective 1 of the proposed study, the protocol developed by Kauffman and Donato
(2012) for the measurement, monitoring and reporting of ecosystem carbon stocks in mangrove
forests was adopted (Figure 2). In each mangrove site, a line transect about 120m long and marked
every 25m was established perpendicular to the coast/water to cover the natural environmental
gradient in a mangrove ecosystem, following Kauffman and Donato (2012). The 25m marking was
used as the centre of each circular plot (radius is 7m) where measurements and sampling of plants and
soil will be done. A total of six plots, at the most, were established per transect to sample the biomass,
downed woody debris and soil organic carbon. The geographic coordinates of each plot were
determined using a handheld GPS receiver.

Figure 2. Plot layout for sampling the biomass, downed woody debris and soil organic carbon

Source: Kauffman and Donato (2012)

 19 of 62

Aboveground and Belowground Biomass

In each plot, all standing trees were identified to species and their diameter at 1.3m height or
30cm above highest prop root and height measured. Trees (5cm in DBH) were measured within the
main plot, 7m radius, while those below 5 cm and wildings/saplings were measured in 2m radius
nested within the main plot.

Published allometric equations for aboveground and belowground biomass of mangroves from
Southeast Asian countries were used to calculate the tree biomass (Table 3). The tree biomass data
were converted to its C equivalent using C fraction value (47% for AGB and 39% for BGB) based on
Kauffman and Donato (2012).

Table 3. Biomass allometric equations and wood density values used in the study
Species Aboveground Belowground+ References for Wood
aboveground Density
biomass equations (g cm-3)
Aegiceras floridum Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.71a
0.251**D2.46 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Biomass (kg) = 0.186 Biomass (kg) = Clough and Scott 0.85b
D2.31 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (1989)
B. parviflora Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Clough and Scott 0.89b
0.168D2.42 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (1989)
B. sexangula Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Clough and Scott 0.87b
0.168D2.42 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (1989)
Camptostemon philippinense Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.71a
0.251**D2.46 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Ceriops tagal Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.89b
0.251**D2.46 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Cocos nucifera Biomass (kg) 0.25c
Biomass (kg) = =0.7845*D2*H**1.6 Brown (1997);
0.7854*D2*H**1.6 *0.04 (Zamora 1999) Zamora (1999)
Heritiera littoralis Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0..84a
2.46
0.251**D 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Lumnitzera racemosa Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.71a
0.251**D2.46 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Rhizophora apiculata Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Ong et al. (2004) 1.04b
0.235D2.42 + 0.199* 0.899D2.22
Biomassstilt (kg) =
0.0209D2.55
R. mucronata Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Ong et al. (2004) 0.98b
2.42 0.899 2.22
0.235D + 0.199* D
Biomassstilt (kg) =
2.55
0.0209D
R. stylosa Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Ong et al. (2004) 0.98b
0.235D2.42 + 0.199* 0.899D2.22
Biomassstilt (kg) =
0.0209D2.55
Sonneratia alba Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.83b
0.251**D2.46 0.199* 0.899D2.22 (2005)
Xylocarpus moluccensis Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.66b
2.46 0.899 2.22
0.251**D 0.199* D (2005)
X. granatum Biomass (kg) = Biomass (kg) = Komiyama et al. 0.66b
2.46 0.899 2.22
0.251**D 0.199* D (2005)
a
Howard et al., 2014 bBrown and Fisher, 1920 cBrown 1997; Zamora, 1999 +Equations from Komiyama et al. (2005) unless stated
otherwise

Soil Organic Carbon

 20 of 62

Moreover, the soil C stock was quantified using the same plots for biomass. Soil measurements
and collection were done in each of the plots established for biomass C sampling, following the
method of Kauffman and Donato (2012). Soil core was taken in each plot in an undisturbed spot
nearest the plot centre using a metal auger of known volume up to 300 cm depth when possible. Each
core was divided in five layers (0-15, 15-30, 30-50, 50-100, 100-300 cm) and a sample of about 5cm
thick was taken in the middle of each layer for analysis.

The samples were stored in a labeled container and brought to the laboratory for oven drying,
bulk density (BD) determination and total C (%C) analysis. Soil C stock was computed as the sum of
the product of BD, soil depth and % C in each soil layer.

Downed Woody Debris

Furthermore, the mass of down woody debris (DWD) on the forest floor was also measured in
each plot using the planar intercept technique as described in Kauffman and Donato (2012). The
DWB material consisting of fallen twigs, branches, and stems were classified by diameter as fine
(<0.6 cm), small (0.6-2.5 cm), medium (2.6-7.6 cm) and large (>7.6 cm). In the centre of each 7m-
radius plot, four 12-m sub-transect lines were laid down, the first being 45 0 off the direction of the
main transect line and the remaining three established clockwise, 90 0 off from the previous sub-
transects. In each sub-transect, the large woody debris was recorded at the entire length of the sub-
transect (i.e. 0-12 m) while fine, small and medium debris were sampled at 10 m-12 m, 7 m-10 m, 2
m-7 m marks of the sub-transect line, respectively (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Guide to sampling the downed woody debris biomass

Source: Kauffman and Donato (2012)

For each large debris, the diameter was measured while for the rest of the debris classes, the
number of pieces was classified by diameter class using a metal fuel gauge and was tallied. Samples
 21 of 62

of debris in each class were collected for calculations of site-specific mean diameter, quadratic mean
diameter and wood specific density of each debris class.

Prior to oven-drying, the volume of each wood debris sample was determined using the water
displacement method as suggested by Kauffman and Donato (2012) and Howard et al. (2014). The
same samples were then oven-dried until constant weight at 100 0C. The specific gravity/wood density
of each woody debris sampled in each class was then determined by dividing the oven-dry weight of
each sample with its fresh volume.

The volume per hectare for each debris class was computed using scaling equations discussed
in Kauffman and Donato (2012) and Howard et al. (2014), and given as:

a. large DWD class: v = pi2 * ((d1 2 + d2 2 + dn 2)/(8*L)) (Equation 1)

b. other DWD classes: v = pi2 * ((Ni QMDi2) /(8*L)) (Equation

2)

where:

v = volume (m3 ha-1)

d = diameter of piece (cm)
L = length of sampling line (m)
Ni = count of intersecting woody debris in debris size class i
QMD = quadratic mean diameter of debris size class i (cm)

The volume of each woody debris class was multiplied by its wood density value to obtain
DWB mass. The mass was then multiplied to 50% to get the DWD C stock based on Kauffman and
Donato (2012).

Ecosystems C stock

The C stock values of the aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, downed woody debris
biomass and soil organic carbon was added together to determine the Ecosystem C stock value. The
value was converted to their CO2-equivalent based on the protocol of IPCC to monitor the C stock
changes (Pendleton et al. 2012).
The means of C stocks in the biomass, DWD, soil pools as well as the total Ecosystems C
stock were tested for significant differences using the Analysis of Variance, post - symmetry,
normality and homogeneity of variance considerations.
 22 of 62

3.3 Ecosystem C stocks Mapping using Remote Sensing and GIS (Objective 2)

The method used by Castillo et al. (2017) to map the biomass of mangroves in southern
Honda Bay, Palawan was used. Among the models studied, the one based on the Inverted Red Edge
Chlorophyll Index (IRECI), in tandem with elevation data, was used in mapping the mangrove
biomass for this study. The cloud-free 2018-2020 image collection from Sentinel 2 was first
processed using the .median() command and converted to IRECI. Then the IRECI map was used in
tandem with elevation data from STRM Digital Elevation Model (30 m) to derive the AGB map.
Prior to raster operations, the IRECI and SRTM maps were first subsetted using the 2019 Philippine
mangrove cover produced by Baloloy et al. (2020).

The equation developed by Castillo et al. (2017) of the form below was applied to the clipped
images to predict and map the biomass value and distribution in the study site. This model has an
observed : predicted agreement (r ) of 83% and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 28.02 MgC ha -1.
These remote sensing and GIS operations were all performed in the cloud-computing platform Google
Earth Engine (GEE). The model is of the form below (Castillo et al. 2017):

Above-ground Biomass (Mg/ha) = -12.7514 + 36.0378 * IRECI + 8.0015 * elevation (m)

where:
IRECI = (Band 7 - Band 4)/(Band 5 / Band 6) of Sentinel 2 image
elevatio n = SRTM digital elevation model

The belowground : aboveground biomass ratio of tropical trees of 0.37 based on Fittkau and
Klinge (1973) as cited by IPCC (2006) was used to derive the below-ground biomass map. The values
from the two maps were converted to C value using 47% for AGB and 39% for BGB, and were added
together to generate the Total Biomass C stock map.
The soil C stock map was generated using the global mangrove soil carbon map produced by
Sanderman et al. (2018). The global soil C map was also first subsetted using the 2019 mangrove
cover layer of Baloloy et al. (2020). The resulting map was calibrated with the results of soil C stock
values from this study.

The Ecosystems C density map was generated by adding the total biomass map and the soil C
map. The map was assessed for accuracy using the Leave-one-out cross-validation technique
implemented using the WEKA software. The provincial Administrative boundary layer from the
 23 of 62

NAMRIA was used to compute the mean C density per province from the generated Ecosystem C
stock map using the Zonal function of the ArcGIS. Finally, the 2015 mangrove area per province (ha)
published in the 2019 Philippine Forestry Statistics (FMB 2020) was used to compute the total C
stock per province.

3.4 Estimation of C losses arising from mangrove deforestation (Objective 3)

The C stock of plots of former mangroves (abandoned fish ponds, rice fields, perennial
agriculture) adjacent the mangroves studied was quantified using the same procedure implemented for
mangroves. A transect each for non-forest land uses was established. Each transect had three circular
plots, 7 m in radius, established about 25m apart.

The potential carbon emission from mangrove land use change was computed as the difference
between the C stocks of the deforested mangrove area (e.g. aquaculture pond, coconut plantation) and
the adjacent mangrove stand based on IPCC’s Stock Difference Approach (2006). The difference was
converted to potential CO2 emissions using the molecular weight ratio of CO 2 to C (i.e. 3.67)
conversion factor.
 24 of 62

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Ecosystem Carbon Stocks estimation of mangroves

Biomass Carbon Stocks

The mean biomass C stock of all sites was 97.09 Mg C ha -1 and ranged from 23.90 to 167.13
Mg C ha-1, p < 0.05). The study site in Bulacan has the highest biomass C stock with a total of 167.52
MgC ha -1 (range: 89.30 to 238.60 MgC ha -1), probably due to its highest mean DBH (18.4cm) among
the sites, translating to bigger biomass. The mangrove forest in Lianga, Surigao del Sur recorded the
lowest biomass C stock that had only 23.90 MgC ha -1 (range: 2.80 to 66.50 MgC ha -1) most likely due
to its fairly lower DBH (7.7cm) and lower stem density of 11 as compared to other sites. The DBH is
the main variable input in the equation for computing the biomass.

Of all the 10 sites, mangrove forests in Pagbilao, Davao, Bulacan, Guimaras and Lingig,
Surigao del Sur had above average values. The study sites from Pangasinan, Cagayan, Cebu, Lianga,
Surigao and Camarines Sur had a total value lower than the average (Table 4). When grouped by
major islands, the mangrove sites located in Luzon had a mean biomass C stock of 75.88 MgC ha -
1
(range: 5.3 to 182.5 MgC ha-1) while the mean from those in the Visayas was 56.14 MgC ha -1 and
ranged from 10.5 to 209.5 MgC ha-1. Furthermore, study sites in Mindanao had an average of 67.78
MgC ha-1(range: 1.9 to 390 Mgc ha-1).

Table 4. Aboveground biomass carbon and belowground biomass carbon of the study sites

Sites with common letters are not significantly different at 0.05.

SITE TREE ROOT TOTAL
ac
PANGASINAN 68.38 ± 15.6 28.13 ± 5.3 96.50 ± 20.1
ac
PAGBILAO 82.16 ± 14.9 24.70 ± 3.9 106.81 ± 28.7
ac
CAGAYAN 55.93 ± 13.9 17.36 ± 4.1 73.28 ± 19.2
ab
CEBU 32.17 ± 9.9 12.56 ± 3.4 44.72 ± 9.8
a
LIANGA,SURIGA
O 17.30 ± 4.8 6.60 ± 1.7 23.90 ± 5.3
ac
DAVAO 94.10 ± 45.7 27.50 ± 12.0 121.60 ± 33.3
c
BULACAN 127.12 ± 10.3 40.40 ± 3.0 167.52 ± 43.3
ac
GUIMARAS 86.97 ± 26.4 31.74 ± 9.7 118.71 ± 27.6
ac
CAMARINES
SUR 43.22 ± 6.4 15.47 ± 2.2 58.68 ± 13.8
bc
LINGIG,
SURIGAO 125.25 ± 1.7 41.88 ± .6 167.13 ± 41.6
 25 of 62

There are very limited reports in the literature on the country-level C stock assessment for
mangroves. Previous studies (e.g. Bouillon et al. 2008; Alongi 2012, 2014) accounted for the
variation in biomass as being due to the differences in anthropogenic influence, stand age,
composition, climate and geomorphology, among many other factors. The mean biomass C stock
value obtained in this study is lower than the value reported by Murdiyarso et al. (2015) for
mangroves in Indonesia of 211 MgC/ha, and those reported by Donato et al. (2011) for the Indo-
Pacific mangroves and Kauffman and Cole (2011) for Micronesia. These works measured mostly
primary mangrove forests and therefore the difference is expected.

Downed Woody Debris

The average downed woody debris (DWD) C stocks of all the mangrove forests was 4.93 Mg
C ha (range: 0.85 to 13.90 Mg C ha -1, p <0.05). The study site from Davao had the highest mean C
-1

stock of downed woody debris of 17.84 MgC ha -1(range: 0.2 to 61 MgC ha-1) while the mangrove
forest in Camarines Sur had the lowest downed woody debris stock with only 0.85 Mg C ha -1(range
0.17 to 2.3 MgC ha-1). Of all the sites, only the mangrove forests in Davao and Guimaras had a DWD
value higher than the average. Study sites in Pangasinan, Pagbilao, Cagayan, Cebu, Lianga, Surigao,
Bulacan, Camarines Sur and Lingig, Surigao recorded had values lower than the average (Table 5).

Mangrove sites located in Luzon had an average downed woody debris c stock of 1.97 MgC
ha (range: 0.01 to 9.2 MgC ha-1) while those in the Visayas had a mean downed woody debris c stock
-1

of 6.67 MgC ha-1(range: 0.11 to 60 MgC ha-1). Furthermore, Mangrove sites located in Mindanao had
a downed woody debris c stock average of 7.07 MgC ha-1(range: .2 to 61 MgC ha-1).
 26 of 62

Table 5. Downed woody debris C stock of mangrove study sites

Sites with common letters are not significantly different at 0.05.

Downed Woody
SITE Debris Carbon
(MgC ha-1)
ab
PAGBILAO 6.79 ± 1.9
a
CAGAYAN 1.31 ± .5
a
CEBU 1.62 ± .3
a
LIANGA,SURIGA
O 1.60 ± .5
b
DAVAO 17.84 ± 7.5
a
BULACAN 1.45 ± .3
ab
GUIMARAS 13.90 ± 7.9
a
CAMARINES SUR 0.85 ± .3
ab
LINGIG, SURIGAO 1.84 ± .2

Prior to computing the DWD mass, variables such as Quadratic Mean Diameter and Wood
Density are required to be generated (Table 6). These newly generated variables for each can now be
used by other studies estimating the DWD in those areas. Values for the rest of the study sites are
found in the Appendix.

Table 6. Downed Woody Debris variables generated and used for the DWD mass computation.

Very few of the mangrove C stock studies report the DWD C stock, albeit this is a significant
C pool. This is probably due to the fact that it was very laborious to implement the estimation of the
DWD C stock. The reported DWD C stock value is within the range of values reported from previous
studies in mangroves (e.g. (Allen et al. 2000; Adame et al. 2013; Stringer et al. 2015; Kauffman et al.
 27 of 62

2016). There is no clear trend in the data that the DWD in the Eastern Seaboard is higher than the
other seaboards of the country since it is in the east that the typhoons are usually entering the country.
Surprisingly, the mangroves in Davao, which is in the Eastern Seaboard, have the highest DWD C
stock. However, Lingig and Lianga, both in Surigao Sur area and in the Eastern Seaboard, had one of
the lowest DWD stocks. Indeed, previous studies (e.g. Castillo et al. 2018; Allen et al. 2000) found
out that DWD is not related to the Aboveground Biomass, indicating the difficulty in predicting the
DWD. Future studies on DWD should fill in this knowledge gap.

The first report of DWD C stock of mangroves in the Philippines is from Castillo et al. (2018)
for Palawan mangroves. This present study is the first to report this country-level DWD for the
Philippines, given the different mangrove sites included in the study. The table on the QMD and wood
density would be useful to future studies to estimate the DWD without the labour-intensive part of
preparing the field samples for laboratory works and generating the QMD and wood density. Future
mangrove studies can just use the QMD and the wood density values generated from this study to
compute the DWD mass and DWD C stock.

Soil Organic Carbon

The average soil organic carbon stocks of all the study sites was 402.01 MgC ha -1(range:
54.91 o 1322.03 MgC ha-1, p < 0.05, Figure 4). The mean soil C stock of mangrove forest in
Camarines Sur had the highest value of 1322.03 MgC ha-1(range: 905.15 to 1556.73 MgC ha-1) while
the lowest was in Lianga, Surigao with only 54.91 Mg C ha -1(range: 2.99 to 288.11 MgC ha -1). The
total soil organic carbon in Pagbilao, Guimaras and Camarines Sur were higher than the average.
Those in Pangasinan, Cagayan, Cebu, Lianga Surigao, Davao and Bulacan were lower than the mean.

Futhermore, the study sites located in Luzon had the highest mean soil C stock of 576.19
MgC ha-1(range: 86.38 to 1556.73 MgC ha-1) followed by the study sites located in the Visayas with
an average of 395.48 MgC ha-1(range: 39.77 to 1300 MgC ha-1). The study sites in Mindanao has the
least mean soil C stock of 139.86 MgC ha-1(range: 2.99 to 440.39 MgC ha-1).
 28 of 62

Figure 4. Soil Organic Carbon Stock of the stud mangrove sites

Sites with common letters are not significantly different at 0.05.

The site in Lianga had the lowest soil C stock since the substrate is mostly of coralline type.
The Camarines Sur site had the highest soil C stock probably because of its deeper sediment
compared to other sites owing to its location, which is at the river mouth where sediments are being
deposited regularly.

The mean reported here of 402 MgC/ha is within the range of values reported in the
mangrove soil literature (e.g. Adame et al. 2013; Del Vecchia et al. 2014; Hossain 2014; Jones et al.
2014; Thompson et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2014; Adame et al. 2015; Phang et al. 2015; Vien et al.
2016). However, the mean is lower than in Indonesia (849 MgC/ha) as reported by Murdiyarso et al.
(2015) and the global average of 471 Mg C ha -1 as reported by IPCC (Hiraishi et al. 2014), probably
due to differences in soil depth and %C of the soil.

Ecosystems Carbon Stocks

The mean C stock of all the mangrove forests was 494.12 MgC ha -1 (range: 65.29 to 1381.56
MgC ha-1, p < 0.05, Figure 5). The Camarines Sur mangroves registered the highest total C stock of
1381 MgC ha-1, followed by Guimaras and Pagbilao mangroves. These three sites had total C stocks
that are above the average. The rest of the sites had total C stocks below the mean. The mangroves of
Lianga, Surigao del Sur with 65 MgC ha-1 registered the least.
 29 of 62

Figure 5. Ecosystem Carbon Stock of the study mangrove sites

Sites with common letters are not significantly different at 0.05.

Of all the 3 major carbon pools (Table 7, Figure 6), soil organic carbon has the highest
proportion of C stock with 72% (range: 50 – 95%), followed by 27% for the biomass C stock (range:
4% - 44%) and only 1% on downed woody debris C stock (range: < 0.01 – 6%).
 30 of 62

Table 7. The proportion of various C pools to the Ecosystem C stock of the study mangroves

SITE Biomass (%) DWD (%) Soil (%)

PANGASINAN 44.29 55.70

PAGBILAO 15.41 < 0.01 84.69
CAGAYAN 19.85 < 0.01 79.00
CEBU 24.22 < 0.01 74.89
LIANGA,SURIGAO 29.71 1.98 68.28
DAVAO 43.7 6.41 49.87
BULACAN 34.38 < 0.01 62.31
GUIMARAS 13.25 1.55 85.19
CAMARINES SUR 4.23 < 0.01 95.69
LINGIG, SURIGAO 38.2 0.4 61.34

C stock percentage

27%
biomass
downed woody debris
1% soil organic carbon

72%

Figure 6. Mean proportion of the C pools to the Ecosystem C Stock

 31 of 62

Among the 10 mangrove sites studied, the Camarines Sur mangrove was the highest
principally due to its high soil organic Carbon stock. Conversely, the Lianga mangroves had the
lowest total C stock since it has the lowest soil C stock among the sites studied. This highlights the
role of the soil C stock, which in this study is 72% on average, to the overall total, Ecosystem C stock
of the site.

The mean Ecosystem C stock value (494 MgC/ha) generated in this study is well within the
values reported in the literature (Adame et al. 2013; Thompson et al. 2014; Tue et al. 2014; Duncan et
al. 2016; Vien et al. 2016). However, it is lower than the value reported for Indonesia (1,082 MgC/ha)
reported by Murdiyarso et al. (2015).

With this national average, albeit only from 10 sites, the potential contribution of our
Philippine mangroves to global Climate Change mitigation can be highlighted. Given our national
total for Philippine mangroves of 303,381 ha from the 2019 Philippine Forestry Statistics (FMB,
2020), this mangrove C stock translates to about 149.8 M tC or 550 M tCO 2 eq. The enormous
amount of carbon stocked and locked in the country’s mangrove forests, especially in its soil pool,
highlights the need to protect it from human disturbance.
 32 of 62

4.2 Ecosystem Carbon Stock mapping

The distribution of the Ecosystems Carbon Stock (MgC/ha) of mangrove forests in the country
is shown in Figure 7. The mean Ecosystems C stock was computed at 538.5 (SD = 108.6) MgC/ha.
The minimum estimate was 36 MgC/ha while the maximum was 828 MgC/ha. A zoom-in of biomass
prediction and mapping for the provincial level is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 7. Modelled Ecosystems Carbon stock spatial distribution

 33 of 62

Figure 8. Modelled Ecosystem C stock for mangroves in Surigao del Norte province

Most of the predicted values belong to C density classes 500-700 MgC/ha (64%) and 300-500
MgC/ha (29%, Figure 9). This is followed by 700-828 MgC/ha class (4.3%) and 100-300 MgC/ha
class (2%). The 36-100 class has the least number of values (0.7%).

Figure 9. Distribution of pixel values for the Ecosystems C spatial modelling

Using the country’s provincial administrative map as a mask to extract the C density value per
province, a total of 68 provinces were recorded that have mangrove cover, consistent with the 2019
Philippine Forestry Statistics (FMB 2020), except for Zamboanga City, which was included in the
 34 of 62

latter. The top 20 provinces with the most mangrove C density value are shown in Figure 10. The top
five provinces were all but one from Mindanao. Topping the list was Tawi-Tawi with 628.6 MgC/ha,
closely followed by Surigao del Norte with 621.5 and Davao Oriental with 617.2 MgC/ha, Camarines
Norte with 613.2 MgC/ha, and Sulu with 608 MgC/ha. Eleven of the 20 provinces are from
Mindanao, with six from Luzon, and three from the Visayas.

Figure 10. Top 20 mangrove most C dense provinces in the Philippines

Including Dinagat Islands (541.8 MgC/ha) in Mindanao, there are 21 provinces with mean C
density above the overall mean of 538.5 MgC/ha. The rest of the provinces have C density that is
lower than the national average (Appendix Table 2).
 35 of 62

On the other hand, the bottom 10 provinces in terms of the mangrove Ecosystems C stocks
were all from Luzon, except for Iloilo and Guimaras, and none from Mindanao (Figure 11). The
bottom three with the lowest C stock were provinces in the Ilocos Region as Ilocos Sur (258.6
MgC/ha), Pangasinan (289.9 MgC/ha) and La Union (292.3 MgC/ha).

Figure 11. Bottom 10 provinces with lowest ecosystems C stocks of mangrove (MgC/ha).

The potential of the country mangrove to mitigate the carbon emissions was estimated using
the area (ha) of mangroves published in the 2019 Philippine Forestry Statistics. The total area of
mangroves published is 303,381 ha as of 2015 (FMB 2020). Given this area, the total C stock
computed is 163.9 M tonnes of Carbon (601.5M tonnes of CO 2eq). This large amount suggests the
need to protect the mangrove forests in the country due to the huge carbon that they store.

The province of Palawan, having the largest area of mangrove in the country, has the highest
C stock with 32.9M tC. This is followed Sulu with 16.1M tC and Quezon with 10.1 M tC (Table 8).
 36 of 62

Table 8. Top 20 C rich province (area (ha) based on 2015 Mangrove cover (Phil Forestry Stat. 2019)

Province Mean C density (MgC/ha) Area (ha) * C stock (MgC)

Palawan 553.9 59,421 32,911,927.8
Sulu 608.0 26,531 16,129,849.4
Quezon 549.8 18,448 10,142,916.9
Tawi Tawi 628.6 14,285 8,978,923.1
Surigao Norte 621.5 13,913 8,646,415.0
Zambo Sibugay 597.7 11,404 6,816,465.5
Bohol 510.4 12,942 6,605,833.5
Surigao Sur 587.9 9,684 5,693,029.4
Basilan 582.4 8,965 5,221,190.3
Northern Samar 563.6 9,139 5,151,015.6
Western Samar 482.8 9,668 4,667,802.9
Eastern Samar 578.0 8,060 4,658,382.8
Cam Sur 545.8 7,349 4,010,976.5
Zambo del Sur 563.8 6,470 3,647,912.7
Zamboanga City 563.8 5,649 3,185,016.8
Leyte 490.7 6,348 3,115,180.9
Cam Norte 613.2 4,596 2,818,374.9
Cagayan 462.0 5,083 2,348,378.3
Masbate 413.7 5,437 2,249,341.2
Sorsogon 527.4 3,883 2,047,923.6
 37 of 62

4.3 Carbon losses arising from mangrove deforestation

In order to estimate the potential Carbon losses owing to land use change in mangrove, the non-
mangrove land use immediately adjacent to the study mangrove site was also studied for Carbon
stocks. These non-mangrove land uses include abandoned fishponds, rice fields and perennial
agriculture as shown in Table 9. They were formerly covered with mangrove forests prior to their
conversion. The mangrove plots nearest the former mangroves were used to compare the changes in C
stocks if any.

Table 9. Non-mangrove land uses sampled for the study

Location Land Use after mangrove conversion

Pangasinan Abandoned Fish Pond
Pagbilao Rice field
Davao Perennial Agriculture
Guimaras Abandoned Fish Pond
Camarines Sur Abandoned Fish Pond

The mean C stock of mangroves adjacent to the above abandoned fishponds and other former
mangroves was 779.8 MgC/ha (range: 290-1280 MgC/ha). In contrast, the mean C stock of former
mangrove land uses was only 603.7 MgC/ha (264-1208 MgC/ha). The mean decrease in C stock was
176 MgC/ha (Figure 12). The decrease in C stocks could indicate C losses and emissions owing to the
conversion of mangrove forests to other land uses. The generated figure on C loss could be used as a
basis in computing the loss in Carbon stock for every hectare of mangrove converted to other land
uses.
 38 of 62

Figure 12. Comparative C stocks of adjacent paired mangrove - former mangrove land uses

On average, there was some 22% - 25% decline in the total/Ecosystem C stock when
mangroves are converted to other land uses. The decline could be expected considering the extensive
land preparation necessary during the conversion. The conversion to an aquaculture pond, for
instance, requires excavation as deep as 2m (Ong 2002; Thompson et al. 2014). The value range from
5% to 48%. This decline suggests a potential Carbon emission. The potential mean emission for
converting mangroves to other land uses was computed at 170.75 MgC/ha (626.65 MgCO 2eq/ha) and
ranges from 25.82 (94.75 MgCO2eq/ha) to a high of 272.88 (1001.47 (94.75 MgCO 2eq/ha). The
values obtained on C losses due to mangrove land use change are well within the figures reported in
the literature (e.g. Bhomia et al. 2016; Kauffman et al. 2013; Kauffman et al. 2017).

The C losses estimate here could be less conservative compared to the approach applied by
Kauffman et al. (2017). Therefore, future C losses studies should consider using the approach used by
Kauffman et al. (2017) to compare the results and have a range of C losses estimate that includes both
conservative in the lower limit and liberal in the upper limit.
 39 of 62

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study is the author’s Re-Entry Plan Project post his PhD study and return to ERDB, and an
upscaling of his PhD project on the topic, which was done in a smaller portion in southern Honda
Bay, Palawan province, Philippines. The study aims to estimate the Ecosystem Carbon Stocks (ECS)
of mangroves in selected sites in the Philippines, predict and map the spatial distribution of ECS using
new-generation satellite imagery, and estimate the C losses owing to the conversion of mangroves to
other land uses. Due to time and resources constraints, only 10 mangrove sites were studied, but
covering a whole range of conditions.

5.1 Summary of Findings

a. Ecosystem C stock estimation

 The mean Ecosystem C stock of mangrove forests was 494.12 MgC ha-1 (range: 65.29 to
1381.56 MgC ha-1).

 The mean biomass C stock of all sites was 97.09 Mg C ha-1 and ranged from 23.90 to
167.13 Mg C ha-1

 The average downed woody debris (DWD) C stock of all the mangrove forests was 4.93
Mg C ha-1 (range: 0.85 to 13.90 Mg C ha-1)

 This present study is the first to report this country-level DWD for the Philippines. Future
mangrove studies can just use the QMD and the wood density values generated from this
study to compute the DWD mass and DWD C stock without the hassle of laboratory
preparations.

 The average soil organic carbon stock of all the study sites was 402.01 MgC ha -1(range:
54.91 o 1322.03 MgC ha-1)

 Soil organic carbon had 72% (range: 50 – 95%) of total C stock, followed by 27% for the
biomass C stock (range: 4% - 44%) and 1% on downed woody debris C stock (range: <
0.01 – 6%).

 With this national average, albeit only from 10 sites, the potential contribution of our
Philippine mangroves to global Climate Change mitigation translates to about 149.8 M tC
or 550 M tCO2 eq.

 The enormous amount of carbon stocked and locked in the country’s mangrove forests,
especially in its soil, highlights the need to protect it from human disturbance.
 40 of 62

b. Ecosystem C stock mapping

 For the first time, the Ecosystem C stock of the country was predicted and spatially
modeled.

 The mean predicted Ecosystems C stock was computed at 538.5 MgC/ha. The minimum
estimate was 36 MgC/ha while the maximum was 828 MgC/ha.

 Most of the predicted values belong to C density classes 500-700 MgC/ha (64%) and 300-
500 MgC/ha (29%).

 There were 68 provinces recorded with mangrove cover

 The top five provinces were all but one from Mindanao. Topping the list was Tawi-Tawi
with 628.6 MgC/ha, closely followed by Surigao del Norte with 621.5 and Davao
Oriental with 617.2 MgC/ha, Camarines Norte with 613.2 MgC/ha, and Sulu with 608
MgC/ha.

 Eleven of the top 20 provinces are from Mindanao, with six from Luzon, and three from
the Visayas.

 There were 21 provinces with a mean C density above the overall mean of 538.5 MgC/ha.
The rest of the provinces have C density that is lower than the national average.

 The province of Palawan, having the largest area of mangrove in the country, has the
highest C stock with 32.9M MgC. This is followed Sulu with 16.1M MgC and Quezon
with 10.1 M MgC.

c. C losses owing to mangrove conversion

 The mean decrease in C stock was 176 MgC/ha.

 On average, there was some 22% - 25% decline in the total/Ecosystem C stock when
mangroves are converted to other land uses.

 The decrease in C stocks indicates C losses and emissions owing to the conversion of
mangrove forests to other land uses.

5.2 Conclusion
Mangroves provide enormous ecosystem goods and services to coastal communities, including
carbon storage and sequestration. The relatively enormous amount of Carbon stocked and stored in
biomass and soil of mangroves in the country suggests the need to protect them from human
disturbance in order not to contribute further to the rising GHG emissions to the atmosphere.

The approach used in this study to predict and map the distribution of Ecosystem Carbon stock
at the country-level, province-by-province with mangroves, would be a useful tool for up-to-date
mangrove C stock estimation and monitoring, especially those in the hard-to-reach coastal zones in
 41 of 62

the country, particularly those with peace and order problem, and when manpower and financial
resources are limited.

The generated 22% - 25% decline in the total/Ecosystem C stock when mangroves are
converted to other land uses indicates C losses and emissions is useful information when estimating
the carbon consequences of mangrove conversion to other land uses.

5.3 Recommendation
The results of the study could be recommended for the following practical applications:

 The C stock estimated in this study could be used as input for mangrove valuation
studies
 The country-level estimate of C stocks and C decline could be used for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 GHG Inventory

 The approach used to predict and map the spatial distribution of mangroves in the
country could be used for timely and periodic mangrove monitoring and management
of C stocks

 The generated country-level map of Ecosystem C stock of mangrove could be used as

baseline information for which to check the impacts of future mangrove enhancement
efforts and other interventions

 The generated C stock values, both measured (from the field plots observed from the
10 mangrove sites in the country) and predicted (from the satellite imagery and GIS
techniques) could be used as a baseline and initial dataset for future refinements of C
stock values through more plot addition

In order to address the limitations of this study, the following are recommended for future
studies:

 Add more sites and field plots in order to refine the estimate

 Future studies on DWD regarding its predictors (variables that affect the size/amount)

 Explore the use of other datasets (e.g. Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation
(GEDI) LIDAR-based forest structure measurements, and the derivative Forest
Height Map) in predicting and mapping the spatial distribution of Ecosystem C
stocks of mangroves in the country

 Use the approach implemented by Kauffman et al. (2017) to have a more

conservative estimate of soil C stock and losses
 42 of 62

REFERENCES

Adame, MF, Santini, NS, Tovilla, C, Vázquez-Lule, A, Castro, L & Guevara, M 2015, 'Carbon stocks
and soil sequestration rates of tropical riverine wetlands', Biogeosciences, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 3805-
18.

Adame, MF, Kauffman, JB, Medina, I, Gamboa, JN, Torres, O, Caamal, JP, Reza, M & Herrera-
Silveira, JA 2013, 'Carbon Stocks of Tropical Coastal Wetlands within the Karstic Landscape of the
Mexican Caribbean', PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 2, p. e56569.

Allen, J, Ewel, K, Keeland, B, Tara, T & Smith, T 2000, 'Downed wood in Micronesian mangrove
forests', Wetlands, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 169-76.

Alongi, DM 2014, 'Carbon Cycling and Storage in Mangrove Forests', Annual Review of Marine
Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 195-219.

Aslan, A, Rahman, AF, Warren, MW & Robeson, SM 2016, 'Mapping spatial distribution and
biomass of coastal wetland vegetation in Indonesian Papua by combining active and passive remotely
sensed data', Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 183, pp. 65-81.

Baloloy, A. B., Blanco, A. C., Ana, R. R. C. S., & Nadaoka, K. (2020). Development and application
of a new mangrove vegetation index (MVI) for rapid and accurate mangrove mapping. ISPRS Journal
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 166, 95-117.

Barbier, EB, Hacker, SD, Kennedy, C, Koch, EW, Stier, AC & Silliman, BR 2011, 'The value of
estuarine and coastal ecosystem services', Ecological Monographs, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 169-93.

Bhomia, RK, MacKenzie, RA, Murdiyarso, D, Sasmito, SD & Purbopuspito, J 2016, 'Impacts of land
use on Indian mangrove forest carbon stocks: Implications for conservation and management',
Ecological Applications, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1396-408.

Bouillon, S, Borges, AV, Castañeda-Moya, E, Diele, K, Dittmar, T, Duke, NC, Kristensen, E, Lee,
SY, Marchand, C, Middelburg, JJ, Rivera-Monroy, VH, Smith, TJ & Twilley, RR 2008, 'Mangrove
production and carbon sinks: A revision of global budget estimates', Global Biogeochemical Cycles,
vol. 22, no. 2, p. GB2013.

Brown, S 1997, Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer, vol. 134, Food
& Agriculture Org.

Brown, WH & Fischer, AF 1920, 'Philippine Mangrove Swamps', in W Brown (ed.), Minor Products
of Philippine Forests Bureau of Printing, Manila, vol. 1.

Campbell, JB & Wynne, RH 2011, Introduction to Remote Sensing, Fifth edn, Guilford Press, New
York.

Castillo, JAA, Apan, AA, Maraseni, TN & Salmo Iii, SG 2017, 'Soil C quantities of mangrove forests,
their competing land uses, and their spatial distribution in the coast of Honda Bay, Philippines',
Geoderma, vol. 293, pp. 82-90.

Castillo, J. A. A., Apan, A. A., Maraseni, T. N., & Salmo III, S. G. (2017). Estimation and mapping of
above-ground biomass of mangrove forests and their replacement land uses in the Philippines using
Sentinel imagery. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 134, 70-85.
 43 of 62

Castillo, J. A. A., Apan, A. A., Maraseni, T. N., & Salmo III, S. G. (2018). Tree biomass quantity,
carbon stock and canopy correlates in mangrove forest and land uses that replaced mangroves in
Honda Bay, Philippines. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 24, 174-183.

Chave, J, Andalo, C, Brown, S, Cairns, MA, Chambers, JQ, Eamus, D, Fölster, H, Fromard, F,
Higuchi, N, Kira, T, Lescure, J-P, Nelson, BW, Ogawa, H, Puig, H, Riéra, B & Yamakura, T 2005,
'Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests', Oecologia,
vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 87-99.

Chen, Y, Li, X, Liu, X & Ai, B 2013, 'Analyzing land-cover change and corresponding impacts on
carbon budget in a fast developing sub-tropical region by integrating MODIS and Landsat TM/ETM+
images', Applied Geography, vol. 45, no. 0, pp. 10-21.

Chmura, GL, Anisfeld, SC, Cahoon, DR & Lynch, JC 2003, 'Global carbon sequestration in tidal,
saline wetland soils', Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. n/a-n/a.

Cintron, G & Novelli, YS 1984, 'Methods for studying mangrove structure', in Mangrove ecosystem:
research methods, Unesco, pp. 91-113.

Clough, BF 2013, Continuing the journey amongst mangroves, International Society for Mangrove
Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan.

Clough, BF & Scott, K 1989, 'Allometric relationships for estimating aboveground biomass in six
mangrove species', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 117-27.

DelVecchia, AG, Bruno, JF, Benninger, L, Alperin, M, Banerjee, O & de Dios Morales, J 2014,
'Organic carbon inventories in natural and restored Ecuadorian mangrove forests', PeerJ, vol. 2, p.
e388.

Donato, DC, Kauffman, JB, Murdiyarso, D, Kurnianto, S, Stidham, M & Kanninen, M 2011,
'Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics', Nature Geosci, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 293-7.

Dube, T, Gara, TW, Mutanga, O, Sibanda, M, Shoko, C, Murwira, A, Masocha, M, Ndaimani, H &
Hatendi, CM 2016, 'Estimating forest standing biomass in savanna woodlands as an indicator of forest
productivity using the new generation WorldView-2 sensor', Geocarto International, pp. 1-11.

Duncan, C, Primavera, JH, Pettorelli, N, Thompson, JR, Loma, RJA & Koldewey, HJ 2016,
'Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: A case study on the relative benefits of abandoned pond
reversion from Panay Island, Philippines', Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 772-82.

Dusseux, P, Hubert-Moy, L, Corpetti, T & Vertès, F 2015, 'Evaluation of SPOT imagery for the
estimation of grassland biomass', International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, vol. 38, pp. 72-7.

Eong, OJ 1993, 'Mangroves - a carbon source and sink', Chemosphere, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1097-107.

FAO 2007, The World’s Mangroves 1980–2005, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.

FAO 2010, 'Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main report', Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN: Rome, Italy, p. 378.

Fatoyinbo, TE, Simard, M, Washington-Allen, RA & Shugart, HH 2008, 'Landscape-scale extent,

height, biomass, and carbon estimation of Mozambique's mangrove forests with Landsat ETM+ and
 44 of 62

Shuttle Radar Topography Mission elevation data', Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences,
vol. 113, no. G2, p. G02S6.

FMB 2005, '2003 Philippine Forestry Statistics', Forest Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources: Quezon City, Philippines, p. 333.

FMB 2014, '2012 Philippine Forestry Statistics', Forest Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources: Quezon City, Philippines, p. 335.

FMB 2020, '2019 Philippine Forestry Statistics', Forest Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources: Quezon City, Philippines, p. 335.

Fortes, MD 2004, 'Chapter 14 - Wetland Conservation and Management in the Philippines: Where are
We Now? The Case of Seagrass and Mangrove', in MH Wong (ed.), Wetlands Ecosystems in Asia,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, vol. 1, pp. 233-62.

Gevaña, D. T., & Pampolina, N. M. (2009). Plant diversity and carbon storage of a Rhizopora stand in
Verde Passage, San Juan, Batangas, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and
Management, 12(2), 1-10.

Giri, C, Ochieng, E, Tieszen, LL, 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, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 154-9.

Hall, M, Frank, E, Holmes, G, Pfahringer, B, Reutemann, P & Witten, IH 2009, 'The WEKA data
mining software: an update', ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 10-8.

Hamilton, SE & 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, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 729-38.

He, Y & Guo, X 2006, 'Leaf Area Index estimation using remotely sensed data for Grassland National
Park', Prairie Perspectives, vol. 9, pp. 105-17.

Hiraishi, T, Krug, T, Tanabe, K, Srivastava, N, Baasansuren, J, Fukuda, M & Troxler, T 2014, '2013
Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands', IPCC,
Switzerland.

Hossain, M 2014, 'Carbon pools and fluxes in Bruguiera parviflora dominated naturally growing
mangrove forest of Peninsular Malaysia', Wetlands Ecology and Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 15-
23.

Howard, J, Hoyt, S, Isensee, K, Telszewski, M, Pidgeon, E & eds 2014, Coastal blue carbon: methods
for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and seagrasses,
Conservation International, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO,
International Union for Conservation of Nature, Arlington, VA, USA.

Howard, J, Sutton-Grier, A, Herr, D, Kleypas, J, Landis, E, McLeod, E, Pidgeon, E & Simpson, S

2017, 'Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation', Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 42-50.

Hutchison, J, Manica, A, Swetnam, R, Balmford, A & Spalding, M 2014, 'Predicting Global Patterns
in Mangrove Forest Biomass', Conservation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 233-40.
 45 of 62

IPCC 2013, 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', in T Stocker, et al.
(eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, p. 1535.

IPCC 2014a, 'Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change', in RK Pachauri &
LA Meyer (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA, p. 151.

IPCC 2014b, 'Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects.
Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change', in V Barros, et al. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC 2014c, '2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands', in T Hiraishi, et al. (eds), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Switzerland.

Jachowski, NRA, Quak, MSY, Friess, DA, Duangnamon, D, Webb, EL & Ziegler, AD 2013,
'Mangrove biomass estimation in Southwest Thailand using machine learning', Applied Geography,
vol. 45, no. 0, pp. 311-21.

Jaramillo, VJ, Ahedo-Hernández, R & Kauffman, JB 2003, 'Root biomass and carbon in a tropical
evergreen forest of Mexico: changes with secondary succession and forest conversion to pasture',
Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 457-64, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Core.

Jardine, SL & Siikamäki, J 2014, 'A global predictive model of carbon in mangrove soils',
Environmental Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 104013.

Jones, T, Ratsimba, H, Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L, Cripps, G & Bey, A 2014, 'Ecological Variability

and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar', Forests, vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 177-205, item: doi:10.3390/f5010177.

Kanninen, M, Murdiyarso, D, Seymour, F, Angelsen, A, Wunder, S & German, L 2007, Do trees

grow on money?: the implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD, Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Kauffman, JB & Cole, T 2010, 'Micronesian Mangrove Forest Structure and Tree Responses to a
Severe Typhoon', Wetlands, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1077-84.

Kauffman, JB & Donato, D 2012, Protocols for the measurement, monitoring and reporting of
structure, biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove forests, Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Kauffman, JB, Heider, C, Norfolk, J & Payton, F 2013, 'Carbon stocks of intact mangroves and
carbon emissions arising from their conversion in the Dominican Republic', Ecological Applications,
vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 518-27.

Kauffman, JB, Heider, C, Cole, T, Dwire, K & Donato, D 2011, 'Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of
Micronesian Mangrove Forests', Wetlands, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 343-52.

Kauffman, JB, Hernandez Trejo, H, del Carmen Jesus Garcia, M, Heider, C & Contreras, WM 2016,
'Carbon stocks of mangroves and losses arising from their conversion to cattle pastures in the
Pantanos de Centla, Mexico', Wetlands Ecology and Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 203-16.
 46 of 62

Kauffman, J., Arifanti, V. B., Hernandez Trejo, H., del Carmen Jesús García, M., Norfolk, J.,
Cifuentes, M., ... & Murdiyarso, D. (2017). The jumbo carbon footprint of a shrimp: carbon
losses from mangrove deforestation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 183-188.

Koch, EW, Barbier, EB, Silliman, BR, Reed, DJ, Perillo, GME, Hacker, SD, Granek, EF, Primavera,
JH, Muthiga, N, Polasky, S, Halpern, BS, Kennedy, CJ, Kappel, CV & Wolanski, E 2009, 'Non-
linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection', Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 29-37.

Köhl, M, Lasco, R, Cifuentes, M, Jonsson, Ö, Korhonen, KT, Mundhenk, P, de Jesus Navar, J &
Stinson, G 2015, 'Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: Results from the 2015 UN FAO
Global Forest Resource Assessment', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 352, pp. 21-34.

Komiyama, A, Poungparn, S & Kato, S 2005, 'Common allometric equations for estimating the tree
weight of mangroves', Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 21, no. 04, pp. 471-7.

Komiyama, A, Ong, JE & Poungparn, S 2008, 'Allometry, biomass, and productivity of mangrove
forests: A review', Aquatic Botany, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 128-37.

Kumar, L, Sinha, P, Taylor, S & Alqurashi, AF 2015, 'Review of the use of remote sensing for
biomass estimation to support renewable energy generation', Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 097696-.

Kumar, S, Pandey, U, Kushwaha, SP, Chatterjee, RS & Bijker, W 2012, 'Aboveground biomass
estimation of tropical forest from Envisat advanced synthetic aperture radar data using modeling
approach', Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 063588-.

Lal, R 2005, 'Forest soils and carbon sequestration', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 220, no. 1–
3, pp. 242-58.

Lal, R 2008, 'Carbon sequestration', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, vol. 363, no. 1492, pp. 815-30.

Lam-Dao, N, Le Toan, T, Apan, A, Bouvet, A, Young, F & Le-Van, T 2009, 'Effects of changing rice
cultural practices on C-band synthetic aperture radar backscatter using Envisat advanced synthetic
aperture radar data in the Mekong River Delta', Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
033563--17.

Lasco, R, Veridiano, R, Habito, M & Pulhin, F 2013, '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, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1109-24.

Lasco, RD 2002, 'Forest carbon budgets in Southeast Asia following harvesting and land cover
change', SCIENCE IN CHINA SERIES C LIFE SCIENCES-ENGLISH EDITION-, vol. 45, no.
SUPP, pp. 55-64.

Li, X, Gar‐On Yeh, A, Wang, S, Liu, K, Liu, X, Qian, J & Chen, X 2007, 'Regression and analytical
models for estimating mangrove wetland biomass in South China using Radarsat images',
International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 28, no. 24, pp. 5567-82.

Liu, C 2016, 'Analysis of Sentinel-1 SAR data for mapping standing water in the Twente region',
Masters thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
 47 of 62

Locatelli, T, Binet, T, Kairo, J, King, L, Madden, S, Patenaude, G, Upton, C & Huxham, M 2014,
'Turning the Tide: How Blue Carbon and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Might Help Save
Mangrove Forests', AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 981-95.

Long, J, Napton, D, Giri, C & Graesser, J 2013, 'A Mapping and Monitoring Assessment of the
Philippines' Mangrove Forests from 1990 to 2010', Journal of Coastal Research, pp. 260-71.

Lovelock, CE & McAllister, RRJ 2013, '‘Blue carbon’ projects for the collective good', Carbon
Management, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 477-9, viewed 2015/01/27.

Lu, D, Mausel, P, Brondı́zio, E & Moran, E 2004, 'Relationships between forest stand parameters and
Landsat TM spectral responses in the Brazilian Amazon Basin', Forest Ecology and Management, vol.
198, no. 1–3, pp. 149-67.

Mishra, U, Lal, R, Slater, B, Calhoun, F, Liu, D & Van Meirvenne, M 2009, 'Predicting soil organic
carbon stock using profile depth distribution functions and ordinary kriging', Soil Science Society of
America Journal, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 614-21.

Mizanur Rahman, M, Nabiul Islam Khan, M, Fazlul Hoque, AK & Ahmed, I 2014, 'Carbon stock in
the Sundarbans mangrove forest: spatial variations in vegetation types and salinity zones', Wetlands
Ecology and Management, pp. 1-15.

Murdiyarso, D, Kauffman, JB & Verchot, LV 2013, 'Climate change mitigation strategies should
include tropical wetlands', Carbon Management, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 491-9.

Murdiyarso, D, Kauffman, JB, Warren, M, Pramova, E & Hergoualc'h, K 2012, Tropical wetlands for
climate change adaptation and mitigation: science and policy imperatives with special reference to
Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Murdiyarso, D, Donato, D, Kauffman, JB, Kurnianto, S, Stidham, M & Kanninen, M 2010, Carbon
storage in mangrove and peatland ecosystems: a preliminary account from plots in Indonesia, Center
for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Murdiyarso, D, Purbopuspito, J, Kauffman, JB, Warren, MW, Sasmito, SD, Donato, DC, Manuri, S,
Krisnawati, H, Taberima, S & Kurnianto, S 2015, 'The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for
global climate change mitigation', Nature Clim. Change, vol. advance online publication.

Ong, JE 2002, 'The hidden costs of mangrove services: Use of mangroves for shrimp aquaculture',
International Science Roundtable for the Media, vol. 4.

Ong, JE, Gong, WK & Wong, CH 2004, 'Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove, Rhizophora
apiculata', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 188, no. 1–3, pp. 395-408.

Pendleton, L, Donato, DC, Murray, BC, Crooks, S, Jenkins, WA, Sifleet, S, Craft, C, Fourqurean, JW,
Kauffman, JB, Marbà, N, Megonigal, P, Pidgeon, E, Herr, D, Gordon, D & Baldera, A 2012,
'Estimating Global “Blue Carbon” Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal
Ecosystems', PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 9, p. e43542.

Phang, VXH, Chou, LM & Friess, DA 2015, 'Ecosystem carbon stocks across a tropical intertidal
habitat mosaic of mangrove forest, seagrass meadow, mudflat and sandbar', Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1387-400.

Primavera, JH 2000, 'Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues',

Ecological Economics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 91-106.
 48 of 62

Primavera, JH & Esteban, J 2008, 'A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: successes,
failures and future prospects', Wetlands Ecology and Management, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 345-58.

Proisy, C, Couteron, P & Fromard, F 2007, 'Predicting and mapping mangrove biomass from canopy
grain analysis using Fourier-based textural ordination of IKONOS images', Remote Sensing of
Environment, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 379-92.

Proisy, C, Mitchell, A, Lucas, R, Fromard, F & Mougin, E 2003, 'Estimation of Mangrove Biomass
using Multifrequency Radar Data: Application to Mangroves of French Guiana and Northern
Australia', Mangrove 2003 Conference, Bahia, Brazil.

Richards, DR & Friess, DA 2016, 'Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia,
2000–2012', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 344-9.

Saatchi, SS, Houghton, RA, Dos Santos AlvalÁ, RC, Soares, JV & Yu, Y 2007, 'Distribution of
aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin', Global Change Biology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 816-37.

Salmo, S, III, Lovelock, C & Duke, N 2013, 'Vegetation and soil characteristics as indicators of
restoration trajectories in restored mangroves', Hydrobiologia, vol. 720, no. 1, pp. 1-18.

Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., Fiske, G., Solvik, K., Adame, M. F., Benson, L., ... & Landis, E. (2018). A
global map of mangrove forest soil carbon at 30 m spatial resolution. Environmental Research
Letters, 13(5), 055002.

Sibanda, M, Mutanga, O & Rouget, M 2015, 'Examining the potential of Sentinel-2 MSI spectral
resolution in quantifying above ground biomass across different fertilizer treatments', ISPRS Journal
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 110, pp. 55-65.

Siikamäki, J, Sanchirico, JN & Jardine, SL 2012, 'Global economic potential for reducing carbon
dioxide emissions from mangrove loss', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109,
no. 36, pp. 14369-74.

Simard, M, Zhang, K, Rivera-Monroy, VH, Ross, MS, Ruiz, PL, Castañeda-Moya, E, Twilley, RR &
Rodriguez, E 2006, 'Mapping Height and Biomass of Mangrove Forests in Everglades National Park
with SRTM Elevation Data', Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, vol. 72, no. 3, pp.
299-311.

Simard, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Smetanka, C., Rivera-Monroy, V. H., Castañeda-Moya, E., Thomas, N., &
Van der Stocken, T. (2019). Mangrove canopy height globally related to precipitation,
temperature and cyclone frequency. Nature Geoscience, 12(1), 40-45.

Sinha, S, Jeganathan, C, Sharma, LK & Nathawat, MS 2015, 'A review of radar remote sensing for
biomass estimation', International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 5,
pp. 1779-92.

Sitoe, A, Mandlate, L & Guedes, B 2014, 'Biomass and Carbon Stocks of Sofala Bay Mangrove
Forests', Forests, vol. 5, no. 8, p. 1967.

Stringer, CE, Trettin, CC, Zarnoch, SJ & Tang, W 2015, 'Carbon stocks of mangroves within the
Zambezi River Delta, Mozambique', Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 354, pp. 139-48.

Thapa, RB, Watanabe, M, Motohka, T & Shimada, M 2015, 'Potential of high-resolution ALOS–
PALSAR mosaic texture for aboveground forest carbon tracking in tropical region', Remote Sensing
of Environment, vol. 160, pp. 122-33.
 49 of 62

Thompson, BS, Clubbe, CP, Primavera, JH, Curnick, D & Koldewey, HJ 2014, 'Locally assessing the
economic viability of blue carbon: A case study from Panay Island, the Philippines', Ecosystem
Services, vol. 8, pp. 128-40.

Tue, NT, Dung, LV, Nhuan, MT & Omori, K 2014, 'Carbon storage of a tropical mangrove forest in
Mui Ca Mau National Park, Vietnam', CATENA, vol. 121, no. 0, pp. 119-26.

Vien, N, Sasmito, SD, Murdiyarso, D, Purbopuspito, J & MacKenzie, RA 2016, 'Carbon stocks in
artificially and naturally regenerated mangrove ecosystems in the Mekong Delta', Wetlands Ecology
and Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 231-44.

Wang, G, Guan, D, Zhang, Q, Peart, MR, Chen, Y, Peng, Y & Ling, X 2014, 'Spatial patterns of
biomass and soil attributes in an estuarine mangrove forest (Yingluo Bay, South China)', European
Journal of Forest Research, vol. 133, no. 6, pp. 993-1005.

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, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 26-52.
 50 of 62

APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1. C density per C pool per site.

C Stocks (Mg C ha -1)

Site and Woody Total
Plot Soil Tree Root
Coordinate Debris Ecosystem

Pangasinan
1.1 112.69 34.00 15.80 162.49

16°06.869' N 1.2 54.63 52.40 22.70 129.73

120°22.791' E 1.3 240.11 83.10 36.60 359.81

1.4 77.95 104.00 37.40 219.35

Site mean 121.35 68.38 28.13 217.85

1.1 691.45 48.50 16.50 4.90 761.35

1.2 457.49 10.80 3.70 4.80 476.79

1.3 656.49 172.40 42.30 3.50 874.69

Pagbilao 1.4 437.79 156.70 42.20 1.80 638.49

13°58.123' N
1.5 174.34 174.34
121°44.021' E 2.1 394.79 29.40 12.00 1.40 437.59
2.2 562.61 33.60 11.60 5.40 613.21
2.3 542.14 121.20 33.90 0.80 698.04
2.4 1292.89 50.00 18.50 9.20 1370.59
2.5 934.36 64.90 21.90 4.10 1025.26
3.1 422.08 13.77 5.10 9.99 450.93
3.2 354.08 104.86 33.36 1.40 493.69
3.3 1267.68 93.08 29.03 2.67 1392.45
3.4 125.80 169.71 51.70 24.64 371.86
3.5 490.75 81.27 24.02 20.48 616.53
Site mean 586.98 82.16 24.70 6.79 693.05
1.1 261.85 134.70 44.00 440.55
1.2 166.11 77.20 22.00 265.31
1.3 217.67 59.80 19.00 1.30 297.77
1.4 386.79 22.00 7.50 0.80 417.09
Cagayan 1.5 527.62 5.30 2.00 0.01 534.93
18°29.007' N 2.1 563.77 157.50 45.60 766.87
121°21.665' E 2.2 296.69 10.20 4.30 1.20 312.39
2.3 175.17 50.50 17.50 5.60 248.77
2.4 170.11 63.60 14.20 1.50 249.41
2.5 146.84 42.50 15.70 0.03 205.07
2.6 251.11 5.80 2.00 0.03 258.94
2.7 369.91 42.00 14.50 1.30 427.71
 51 of 62

Site mean 294.47 55.93 17.36 1.31 368.73

1.1 134.21 50.70 16.80 0.11 201.82
1.2 91.22 21.10 8.70 0.54 121.56
1.3 191.44 18.30 7.60 1.09 218.43
1.4 168.49 106.20 38.80 1.04 314.53
Cebu 2.1 197.56 19.20 9.60 1.00 227.36
11°08.862' N 2.2 258.74 3.20 261.94
123°44.934' E 2.3 112.27 22.70 10.10 2.70 147.77
2.4 131.87 19.20 8.10 1.50 160.67
2.5 57.32 10.50 4.40 2.30 74.52
2.6 39.77 21.60 8.90 2.70 72.97
Site mean 138.29 32.17 12.56 1.62 180.16
1.1 20.84 19.20 7.70 1.30 49.04
1.2 20.64 40.30 15.40 1.40 77.74
1.3 24.25 5.30 2.70 0.60 32.85
1.4 9.90 3.60 1.20 14.70
Lianga, Surigao 1.5 49.10 17.40 1.20 67.70
Del Sur 2.1 2.99 1.90 0.90 0.80 6.59
08°40.744' N 2.2 5.48 4.50 2.10 0.90 12.98
126°09.370' E 2.3 22.38 2.90 1.30 1.60 28.18
2.4 54.59 30.40 10.30 0.70 95.99
2.5 288.11 11.10 4.50 303.71
2.6 15.70 6.70 6.30 28.70
Site mean 54.91 17.30 6.60 1.60 65.29
1.1 115.40 16.40 6.10 13.20 151.10
1.2 100.94 36.90 137.84
1.3 100.35 24.50 9.20 10.70 144.75
Davao 1.4 57.63 23.40 8.10 0.20 89.33
07°42.370' N 1.5 59.13 8.90 3.40 0.20 71.63
126°33.457' E 1.6 78.45 31.80 10.60 0.70 121.55
2.1 123.47 121.50 36.60 61.00 342.57
2.2 328.02 390.00 103.60 19.80 841.42
2.3 285.58 136.30 42.40 464.28
Site mean 138.77 94.10 27.50 17.84 262.72
1.1 86.38 112.30 35.80 0.90 235.38
1.2 293.97 182.50 56.10 4.40 536.97
1.3 334.94 66.90 22.40 0.90 425.14
Bulacan 1.4 413.54 134.70 42.80 0.80 591.84
14°45.233' N 1.5 338.56 107.80 35.10 1.90 483.36
120°50.374' E 1.6 418.90 134.70 42.80 1.00 597.40
2.1 316.11 133.30 43.10 1.50 494.01
2.2 499.33 128.80 41.40 1.60 671.13
2.3 161.70 143.10 44.10 0.90 349.80
2.4 0.60 0.60
Site mean 318.16 127.12 40.40 1.45 438.56
1.1 780.52 38.40 13.80 8.10 840.82
 52 of 62

1.2 647.43 93.80 32.00 10.70 783.93

Guimaras 1.3 1189.22 48.00 17.80 14.60 1269.62
10°24.880' N 1.4 1300.00 154.20 56.50 1.40 1512.10
122°30.345' E 2.1 547.40 34.20 12.80 2.00 596.40
2.2 483.38 30.70 11.70 60.00 585.78
2.3 392.42 209.50 77.60 0.50 680.02
Site mean 762.91 86.97 31.74 13.90 895.52
1.1 905.19 39.40 14.00 2.30 960.89
1.2 1083.07 49.90 17.90 0.17 1151.04
Camarines Sur 1.3 1515.46 65.80 23.30 0.68 1605.24
13°55.164' N 1.4 1372.24 21.40 7.90 0.26 1401.80
123°27.570' E 2.1 1499.47 51.40 18.20 0.39 1569.46
2.2 1556.73 31.40 11.50 1.30 1600.93
Site mean 1322.03 43.22 15.47 0.85 1381.56
1.1 440.39 131.90 44.36 1.31 617.96
Lingig, Surigao 1.2 226.01 127.24 42.46 2.61 398.34
del Sur 1.3 158.12 125.64 41.98 2.02 327.77
7.895717128° N 2.1 202.84 125.18 41.79 1.31 371.12
126.359155881°
E 2.2 237.18 121.55 40.57 2.15 401.45
2.3 264.20 119.99 40.10 1.64 425.92
Site mean 254.79 125.25 41.88 1.84 423.76
 53 of 62

Appendix Table 2. DWD variables generated and used for the DWD mass computation.
 54 of 62

Appendix Table 3. Ecosystems C Density (MgC/ha) of provinces in Luzon

Province Mean Density SE

Albay 532.0 2.0
Aurora 591.6 3.7
Bataan 296.1 5.6
Batangas 402.1 3.8
Bulacan 325.5 4.3
Cagayan 462.0 1.1
Camarines Norte 613.2 1.6
Camarines Sur 545.8 1.4
Catanduanes 593.7 2.0
Cavite 318.9 23.4
Ilocos Norte 370.5 10.1
Ilocos Sur 258.6 6.0
Isabela 508.5 2.5
La Union 292.3 8.4
Marinduque 499.7 0.9
Masbate 413.7 1.2
Metro Manila 373.6 15.7
Occidental Mindoro 343.7 1.4
Oriental Mindoro 452.7 1.1
Palawan 553.9 0.4
Pampanga 318.7 4.5
Pangasinan 289.9 3.2
Quezon 549.8 0.8
Romblon 484.8 2.0
Sorsogon 527.4 1.0
Zambales 325.7 3.1
 55 of 62

Appendix Table 4. Ecosystems C Density (MgC/ha) of provinces in the Visayas

Province Mean Density SE

Aklan 424.4 2.4
Antique 439.5 2.5
Biliran 432.1 3.3
Bohol 510.4 0.6
Camiguin 523.6 9.5
Capiz 373.7 1.8
Cebu 437.8 1.4
Eastern Samar 578.0 0.9
Guimaras 326.3 2.9
Iloilo 311.9 1.9
Leyte 490.7 0.9
Negros
Occidental 349.9 1.1
Negros Oriental 397.7 1.9
Northern Samar 563.6 1.6
Western Samar 482.8 0.7
Siquijor 447.8 5.7
Southern Leyte 552.9 2.8
 56 of 62

Appendix Table 5. Ecosystems C Density (MgC/ha) of provinces in Mindanao

Province Mean Density SE

Agusan del Norte 496.3 5.8
Basilan 582.4 1.0
City of Isabela 532.2 2.5
Compostela Valley 559.1 6.0
Cotabato City 413.6 2.2
Davao del Norte 515.7 5.9
Davao del Sur 490.4 5.9
Davao Occidental 571.6 10.8
Davao Oriental 617.2 1.7
Dinagat Islands 541.8 2.4
Lanao del Norte 460.9 1.8
Lanao del Sur 489.8 2.5
Maguindanao 459.6 2.7
Misamis Occidental 455.7 1.4
Misamis Oriental 456.0 4.8
Sarangani 522.4 6.0
South Cotabato 526.4 33.7
Sultan Kudarat 555.2 2.1
Sulu 608.0 0.6
Surigao del Norte 621.5 0.7
Surigao del Sur 587.9 0.9
Tawi-Tawi 628.6 0.9
Zamboanga del Norte 473.4 2.0
Zamboanga del Sur 563.8 1.2
Zamboanga Sibugay 597.7 0.7

Appendix Figure 1. Climate Map of the Philippines

Source: DOST-PAGASA
 57 of 62

Appendix Figure 2. Predicted biomass Carbon stock distribution

 58 of 62

Appendix Figure 3. Predicted soil Organic Carbon stock distribution

 59 of 62

Appendix Photos
 60 of 62

Dr. Castillo collecting soil samples For. Darwin Monilla measuring the
from the mangroves of Pagbilao, DBH of one of the mangroves in
Quezon. Pagbilao, Quezon.
61 of 62
 62 of 62

The team collecting woody debris samples from ERDB team during the coordination meeting with
the mangroves of Liangga, Surigao del Sur. CENR officer of Liangga, Surigao del Sur.