mangrove soil properties and their carbon pools … soil properties and their carbon pools among...
TRANSCRIPT
Mangrove Soil Properties and their Carbon Pools among Large Islands in
Indonesia
Joko Purbopuspito1,2*, Daniel Murdiyarso1,3, Matthew Warren4, Boone
Kauffman1,5, Haruni Krisnawati6, Sartji Taberima7, Solichin Manuri8, and Sigit
Sasmito1
1. Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR), Bogor Indonesia.
2. Sam Ratulangi University, Manado Indonesia
3. Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor Indonesia
4. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 271 Mast Rd., Durham NH 03824, USA
5. Oregon State University, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife. Nash Hall Rm 104, Corvallis OR 97331, USA
6. Center for Forest Conservation and Rehabilitation Research and Development (CFCRRD-FORDA), Bogor Indonesia
7. University of Papua, Manokwari Indonesia
8. GIZ, Jambi Indonesia
*. Correspondence to: [email protected]; [email protected]
Abstract
Mangroves in Indonesia contribute about a quarter of world’s mangrove area and
are mainly distributed in Sumatera, Kalimantan, and Papua islands. This study
aimed to quantify soil properties and carbon pools of mangrove ecotypes and
among those islands. We sampled mangrove soils at distances of 25, 50, 75,
100, 125, and 150 m from the edge of water body at depth intervals of 0-15, 15-
30, 30-50, 50-100 and >100 cm at Sumatera (6 transects), Kalimantan (7), and
Papua (13) and estimated also their above-ground carbon pools using six of 7m-
radius plots at respective distances. Average of soil depths, soil carbon contents
and carbon pools of riverine ecotype (175.9±33.3 cm, 8.4±1.3 % and 812.0±38.3
Mg C.ha-1, respectively) were significantly smaller (P<0.01) than that of estuarine
ecotype (207.5±20.2 cm, 10.2±2.0 % and 972.8±69.3 Mg C.ha-1, respectively).
Average soil bulk density of riverine ecotype (0.62±0.07 g.cm-3), however, was
significantly larger (P<0.01) than that of estuarine ecotype (0.53±0.10 g.cm-3).
There were no differences among islands on average of soil bulk density and soil
carbon content. Average soil carbon pool down to their soil depth at Sumatera
Island (1033.5±73.0 Mg C.ha-1) was significantly larger (P<0.01) than at
Kalimantan Island (760.1±50.3 Mg C.ha-1), but both were not different from that of
Papua Island (883.7±28.2 Mg C.ha-1). However, average soil depth of Papua
mangrove (214.5±7.8 cm) was significantly deeper (P<0.01) than that of
Kalimantan (171.1±42.0 cm) and both were not different from that of Sumatera
(189.5±18.6 cm). Soil properties (bulk density, carbon content, and carbon pool)
at each distance from the edge of water body landwardly were not significantly
different at all sites for all depth intervals. Mean carbon pools at depth interval of
0-15, 15-30, and 30-50 cm (70.4±7.7 to 96.0±9.2 Mg C.ha-1) were similar, but
significantly smaller than that of deeper soil depth of 50-100 cm (245.0±35.2 Mg
C.ha-1), and >100 cm (365.6±165.2 Mg C.ha-1). Aboveground carbon pools of
riverine and estuarine mangrove were similar (213.2±35.7 and 199.9±15.6 Mg
C.ha-1), but their ecosystem carbon pools were significantly different
(1025.2±68.6 and 1172.7±66.2 Mg C.ha-1, respectively) due to their soil carbon
pools. Estuarine mangrove seems to lodge sediments and nutrients from the
upstream rivers of riverine mangrove as well as accumulating materials of levee
construction from dynamic sea tides, while riverine mangrove tend to be proned
to abrasion and erosion of their terraces. Aboveground carbon pools among
islands were also similar, but their ecosystem carbon pools were significantly
different (Sumatera: 1230.0±67.1, Kalimantan: 944.7±37.6, and Papua:
1104.6±24.7 Mg C.ha-1).
Keywords: riverine, estuarine, mangrove ecotype, soil carbon, carbon pool
1. Introduction
Mangroves in Indonesia that lies between 11°S and 6°N, and between 95°E and
141°E, has around 3.1 million hectares (Mha) mangrove forests, are mainly
distributed in Sumatera, Kalimantan, Papua and Jawa islands and contributes
almost 23% of the world’s mangrove area (FAO 2007, Saputro et al. 2009,
Ministry of Forestry - Gov. of Indonesia 2009, Giri et al. 2011, Kauffman and
Donato 2012). Indonesia, however, has lost more than 1.2 Mha of its mangroves
since 1980 where its mangrove forest cover was about 4.2 Mha (FAO 2007, Giri
et al. 2011). In the climate change context, mangroves have huge potentials for
carbon sequestration and its storage in their ecosystem (Donato et al. 2011).
However, Ellison (2009) mentioned that mangroves which occur between a high
tide and a mean sea level are particularly sensitive to sea-level rise and other
factors that influence hydrology of the intertidal zone.
Cowardin et al. (1997) used geomorphologic settings for classifying wetlands in
the United States inventories including mangroves, which based on plants, soils,
and frequency of flooding. They defined wetland system into marine, estuarine,
riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Marine and estuarine systems each have two
sub systems: sub tidal and intertidal; the riverine system has four sub systems:
tidal, lower perennial, upper perennial, and intermittent. However, Kauffman and
Donato (2012) classified mangrove ecosystems into four major associations of
differing structure, corresponding to physical, climatic and hydrologic features of
the environment in which they exist: fringe or coastal mangroves, riverine or
estuarine mangroves, basin mangroves and 4) dwarf or scrub mangroves.
Due to the effect of river discharges and sea currents and waves, mangroves
may trap sediments carried in the water. Mechanism of an ecosystem that
makes mangroves as an important C-storage is addition of sediment-associated
carbon from outside system boundaries, i.e. riverine mangroves had a more
homogeneous distribution of sediments at rate of 0.64 mg cm-2 spring tide-1 than
tidal mangroves at rate of 0.90 mg cm-2 spring tide-1 (Adame et al. 2010). An
accumulation rate of approximately 1.7 mm y-1 was found in a maritime ecotype
of an island in Brazil (Sanders et al. 2008). Riverine mangroves with a stronger
inland influence will be more susceptible to terrestrial pollutants and nutrient run-
off, while estuaries mangroves have different spatial patterns for sedimentation
and their terrestrial carbon fluxes in the impacts of climate change.
Mangroves play important roles in biogeochemical cycles in the coastal zone
where photosynthetic products are allocated to all part of carbon pools. The
mangrove aboveground biomass pool is divided into two parts, top and root,
whose ratio is generally low allowing mangrove trees stand steadily in muddy
soils (Komiyama et al. 2008). Kauffman and Donato (2012) furthermore
mentioned for the quantification of mangrove forest ecosystem, aboveground
pool consists of trees, palms, shrubs, seedling, downed wood, while belowground
pool consists of roots and soils.
This study is focused on relatively undisturbed mangrove forests which are facing
continued threats from land-use change. We assess belowground C (soil
carbon) and aboveground C (tree, prop roots and woody debris). The study
aimed to understand the ecosystem carbon in relations to mangrove ecotypes
and their carbon properties in the area as well as their differences among islands
in Indonesia.
2. Material and Methods
We used six 7m-radius circular plots in perpendicular transect of 25, 50, 75, 100,
125, and 150 m distance intervals from the edge of water body and sampled soils
in each plot of mangrove forests at Sumatera (4 riverine transects and 2
estuarine transects), Kalimantan (5 riverine and 2 estuarine), and Papua (9
riverine and 4 estuarine) islands during our campaign workshops in July and
September 2011 as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1. Selected sites during campaign workshops
Islands Location Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Dominant species No. of transects
(tree count at site) Riverine Estuarine
Sumatera Sembilang 02o04'28" 104
o28'09" Rhizophora apiculata 4 2
Kalimantan Kubu Raya 00o40'33" 109
o21'41" Rhizophora apiculata 5 2
Papua Bintuni 02o10'12" 133
o32'09" Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 5 -
Papua Teminabuan 01o37'24" 131
o48'35" Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 2 2
Papua Timika 04o51'41" 136
o47'18" Rhizophora apiculata 2 2
Utilizing protocol for the measurement, monitoring and reporting of structure,
biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove forests (Kauffman and Donato, 2012),
we cored at each plot using a 6.4-cm open-face auger and systematically sliced
into 5 depth intervals of 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-50 cm, 50-100 cm, and >100 cm,
and soil subsamples of 5-cm solum thickness were collected from each interval.
We also measured tree diameter at breast height of each tree within six circle-
plots of 7m-radius, and collected woody debris in a planar intercept within cross-
sectional line transect.
Figure 1. Location sites of ecosystem carbon study in Indonesia
Soil C content was determined using an automatic CN dry combustion machine
from soil subsamples at different soil depths that were previously dried to
constant mass. Common allometric equation derived by Komiyama et al. (2008)
was used to convert tree diameter into their aboveground biomass. Prop-root
biomass was also estimated using common equation of Komiyama et al. (2005).
Dead wood volume was converted to necromass using collected woody debries
by size- and decay-class and determined specific wood density during the study.
Both biomass and necromass were converted to C mass using conversion factor
for mangrove of 0.464 (Kauffman and Cole, 2010).
The soil properties, soil C pool, and C pools of aboveground biomass were
transect’s averaged for their ecotypes, islands and plots, then analyzed by
employing two-way factorial design of variance analysis (ANOVA) without
replicates. The first factor was the distance of plots from the water body and the
second factor was the ecotype, island or soil depth. If the effect was significant,
the least significant difference (LSD) test was performed on the mean values of
each factor.
3. Soil Properties
Dahdouh-Guebas and Koedam (2008) stated that various settings of deltaic-
estuarine geomorphology influence development of mangrove forests along
shores, bays, estuaries, deltas and river banks which often indicate changed
environments. Figure 2 showed some similarities and differences of the
observed soil properties between riverine and estuarine mangrove ecotypes and
Figure 4 showed soil properties among islands along the distance from the water
edge to inland, while Figure 3 and 5 showed their soil C belowground pools.
Figure 2. Soil properties according to mangrove ecotypes in the study area
Between Mangrove Ecotypes: Solum depths, soil carbon contents (Figure 2)
and their carbon pools (Figure 3) of riverine mangrove ecotype (175.9±33.3 cm,
8.4±1.3 % and 812.0±38.3 Mg C.ha-1, respectively) were significantly smaller
(P<0.01) than that of estuarine ecotype (207.5±20.2 cm, 10.2±2.0 % and
972.8±69.3 Mg C.ha-1, respectively). Average soil bulk density of riverine
ecotypes (0.62±0.07 g.cm-3), however, was significantly larger (P<0.01) than that
of estuarine ecotypes (0.53±0.10 g.cm-3). As it was found in many other
estuarine mangroves, estuarine mangroves may have higher deposition and
sedimentation rate but lower erosion rate due to high wave and tidal amplitude
(McIvor et al. 2012)
Figure 2 showed also that in riverine ecotype, their soil bulk densities (0.53 – 0.55
g cm-3) and carbon contents (8.07 - 8.31 %) were not different within the top 100
cm of solum. However, they are significantly different from the deeper solum
depth interval of 100-300 cm, which is higher in its soil bulk density (0.64 g cm-3)
and lower in its carbon content (6.57 %). The carbon densities and pools were
strongly dependent to the thickness of solum. Similar situation was also occured
in estuarine ecotype, the solum thickness down to 100 cm solum were not
different in their soil bulk densities (0.42 – 0.49 g cm-3) and carbon contents
(11.18 – 11.77 %). Compare to that of deeper solum in estuarine ecotype,
however, they were significantly different, where the deeper solum layer has soil
bulk density of 0.57 g cm-3 and carbon content of 8.95 %.
Figure 3. Belowground carbon pools according to mangrove ecotypes in the
study area
Figure 4. Soil properties according to islands in the study area
Among Islands: Figure 4 showed there were no differences among islands on
their properties of soil bulk densities (0.57±0.09 - 0.60±0.04 g.cm-3) and soil
carbon content (8.9±1.7 – 9.7±1.0 %). However, the average soil depth of
mangrove at Papua (214.5±7.8 cm) was significantly deeper (P<0.01) than that at
Kalimantan (171.1±42.0 cm) and both were not different from that at Sumatera
(189.5±18.6 cm). Figure 5 showed carbon pools down to soil depths of
mangroves at Sumatera Island (1033.5±73.0 Mg C.ha-1) was significantly larger
(P<0.01) than at Kalimantan Island (760.1±50.3 Mg C.ha-1), but both were not
different from that of Papua Island (883.7±28.2 Mg C.ha-1). In their geologic and
geomorphological settings, Sumatera island was currently more active volcanic
island in contrast to Papua and Kalimantan islands where is presumbaly richer in
nutrients compared to the other two islands as indicated by the measured carbon
content in our study.
Figure 5. Belowground carbon pools according to islands in the study area
Among Solum Intervals of Soil Depth: Average carbon pools for mangrove
ecotypes (Figure 3 and Table 2) at solum depth intervals of 0-15 cm (riverine, R:
70.7±4.6 Mg C.ha-1; estuarine, E: 66.3±2.6 Mg C.ha-1), 15-30 cm (R: 70.8±2.3 Mg
C.ha-1; E: 66.8±3.0 Mg C.ha-1), and 30-50 cm (R: 94.8±4.7 Mg C.ha-1; E:
91.9±11.0 Mg C.ha-1) were similar, but significantly smaller than that of deeper
soil depth intervals of 50-100 cm (R: 238.4±12.8 Mg C.ha-1; E: 245.6±25.5 Mg
C.ha-1), and >100 cm (R: 337.3±27.1 Mg C.ha-1; E: 502.2±66.5 Mg C.ha-1).
Estuarine mangrove seems to lodge sediments and nutrients from the upstream
rivers of riverine mangrove as well as accumulating materials of levee
construction from dynamic sea tides, while riverine mangrove tend to be proned
to abrasion and erosion of their terraces.
Figure 5 and Table 3 showed mean soil carbon pools among islands at solum
depth intervals of 0-15 cm (Sumatera, S: 77.3±5.1 Mg C.ha-1; Kalimantan, K:
63.8±7.5 Mg C.ha-1; and Papua, P: 64.2±2.3 Mg C.ha-1), 15-30 cm (S: 75.4±7.4
Mg C.ha-1; K: 61.8±5.4 Mg C.ha-1; P: 69.4±2.9 Mg C.ha-1), and 30-50 cm (S:
103.1±6.2 Mg C.ha-1; K: 88.5±7.1 Mg C.ha-1; P: 88.5±10.1 Mg C.ha-1) were also
similar, but significantly smaller than that of deeper soil depth intervals of 50-100
cm (S: 283.6±23.4 Mg C.ha-1; K: 218.7±27.4 Mg C.ha-1; P: 223.8±16.7 Mg C.ha-
1), and solum depth >100 cm (S: 494.1±69.3 Mg C.ha-1; K: 327.3±81.6 Mg C.ha-1;
P: 437.8±34.8 Mg C.ha-1). Similar argument can be proposed based on the
geologic-geomorphological setting of the islands, where Sumatera is more active
and richer compared to the other two islands.
Table 2. Average values of ecosystem carbon pools according to their
mangrove ecotype in the study area
Table 3. Average values of mangrove ecosystem carbon pool according to
their island in the study area
Among Distances from Edge of Water Body: Soil properties (bulk density,
carbon content, and carbon pool) were not significantly different from the edge of
Properties unit riverine (18) estuarine (8)
CV(%) P-value Note X ± sd
Number of trees in plots (tree.ha-1
) 68 ±10 a 76 ±11 a 13.2 0.220 ns Tree basal area (m
2.ha
-1) 28.8 ±5.5 a 27.3 ±2.1 a 12.0 0.478 ns
Aboveground C pool Trees (T) (Mg C.ha
-1) 143.1 ±28.2 a 134.0 ±11.8 a 10.9 0.343 ns
Prop roots (R) (Mg C.ha-1
) 42.7 ±8.3 a 40.8 ±3.1 a 11.2 0.510 ns Woody debris (W) (Mg C.ha
-1) 27.4 ±4.1 a 25.1 ±5.1 a 11.2 0.242 ns
sub-total Abg C pool T+R (Mg C.ha
-1) 185.8 ±36.6 a 174.8 ±14.8 a 10.9 0.377 ns
T+R+W (Mg C.ha-1
) 213.2 ±35.7 a 199.9 ±15.6 a 10.0 0.317 ns Belowground C pool
0-15 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 70.7 ±4.6 a 66.3 ±2.6 a 5.2 0.085 ns 15-30 cm (Mg C.ha
-1) 70.8 ±2.3 a 66.8 ±3.0 b 2.7 0.013 *
30-50 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 94.8 ±4.7 a 91.9 ±11.0 a 9.6 0.587 ns 50-100 cm (Mg C.ha
-1) 238.4 ±12.8 a 245.6 ±25.5 a 10.5 0.643 ns
>100 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 337.3 ±27.1 b 502.2 ±66.5 a 10.9 0.002 ** sub-total Bwg C pool
0-to-depth cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 812.0 ±38.3 b 972.8 ±69.3 a 7.1 0.007 ** Total C Pool
Ecosystem (Mg C.ha-1
) 1025.2 ±68.6 b 1172.7 ±66.2 a 7.6 0.027 * Notation: ns: not significantly different; *: significantly different; **: highly significantly different The letters next to the X±sd numbers in each row denote the differences between ecotypes
Properties unit Sumatera (6) Kalimantan (7) Papua (13)
P-value NoteX ± sd
Number of trees in plots (tree.ha-1
) 76 ±15 a 60 ±19 a 74 ±7 a 0.091 ns Tree basal area (m
2.ha
-1) 27.7 ±4.6 a 23.9 ±8.8 a 31.0 ±3.6 a 0.108 ns
Aboveground C pool Trees (T) (Mg C.ha
-1) 139.6 ±27.2 a 118.8 ±38.8 a 152.2 ±25.3 a 0.138 ns
Prop roots (R) (Mg C.ha-1
) 42.3 ±7.8 a 36.0 ±11.9 a 45.3 ±6.8 a 0.155 ns Woody debris (W) (Mg C.ha
-1) 14.6 ±4.6 b 29.8 ±8.0 a 23.4 ±7.8 a 0.014 *
sub-total Abg C pool T+R (Mg C.ha
-1) 181.9 ±35.0 a 154.8 ±50.7 a 197.5 ±32.1 a 0.141 ns
T+R+W (Mg C.ha-1
) 196.5 ±36.7 a 184.6 ±46.6 a 220.9 ±25.4 a 0.186 ns Belowground C pool
0-15 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 77.3 ±5.1 a 63.8 ±7.5 b 64.2 ±2.3 b 0.003 ** 15-30 cm (Mg C.ha
-1) 75.4 ±7.4 a 61.8 ±5.4 b 69.4 ±2.9 ab 0.011 *
30-50 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 103.1 ±6.2 a 88.5 ±7.1 b 88.5 ±10.1 b 0.006 ** 50-100 cm (Mg C.ha
-1) 283.6 ±23.4 a 218.7 ±27.4 b 223.8 ±16.7 b 0.002 **
>100 cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 494.1 ±69.3 a 327.3 ±81.6 b 437.8 ±34.8 a 0.003 ** sub-total Bwg C pool
0-to-depth cm (Mg C.ha-1
) 1033.5 ±73.0 a 760.1 ±50.3 c 883.7 ±28.2 b 1.E-05 ** Total C Pool
Ecosystem (Mg C.ha-1
) 1230.0 ±67.1 a 944.7 ±37.6 b 1104.6 ±24.7 c 2.E-06 ** Notation: ns: not significantly different; *: significantly different; **: highly significantly different The letters next to the X±sd numbers in each row denote the differences among islands
water body landward at all sites for all depth intervals (Figure 2 to Figure 5).
They indicated there was no variation across the 150 m span of sampling plots.
4. Aboveground Mangrove and Ecosystem Carbon Pools
Between Mangrove Ecotypes: There is no significant difference in the mean
total C-pools between riverine and estuarine ecotypes of 213.2±35.7 Mg C ha-1
and 199.9±15.6 Mg C.ha-1 respectively (Figure 6). The development of prop
roots seems to be highest near the edge and significantly different compared with
the remaining plots as they are away from the waterline. This may be related to
defense mechanism by anchoring the trees against sea waves and high tides.
As a result, C-pool within prop roots contributes quite significantly to the total
aboveground C-stocks.
The ecosystem C pools of riverine ecotype was significantly different from that of
estuarine ecotype, (1025.2±68.6 and 1172.7±66.2 Mg C.ha-1, respectively, Figure
7 and Table 2) due to their soil carbon pools. Our data was similar to that of
Donato et al. (2011) concluding mangroves are the richer among forest carbon
pools, which contained most their carbon in the soils. Our data not only showed
that riverine ecotypes were constructed by more mature stand of trees than the
estuarine ecotypes, but also with the soil carbon pool of riverine ecotype was less
than that of estuarine ecotype.
Figure 6. Aboveground carbon pools according to mangrove ecotypes in the
study area
Figure 7. Ecosystem carbon pools according to mangrove ecotypes in the
study area
Among Islands: Figure 8 showed aboveground carbon pools of mangrove at
Sumatera Island (196.5±36.7 Mg C.ha-1) was similar to that of Kalimantan Island
(184.6±46.6 Mg C.ha-1), and Papua Island (220.9±25.4 Mg C.ha-1). Figure 9 and
Table 3, however, indicated the ecosystem carbon pool of Sumatera Island
(1230.0±67.1 Mg C.ha-1) was significantly larger than that of Kalimantan Island
(944.7±37.6 Mg C.ha-1), and Papua Island (1104.6±24.7 Mg C.ha-1). This finding
was similar to Donato et al. (2011), Dahdouh-Guebas and Koedam (2008),
Ellison (2009), and Adame et al. (2010) were noting the role of sediment
deposition as well as the geomorphological settings which most probable causes
of these findings.
Figure 8. Aboveground carbon pools according to islands in the study area
Figure 9. Ecosystem carbon pools according to islands in the study area (right)
Among Distances from Edge of Water Body: Comparison between mangrove
ecotype (Figure 6 and Figure 7) as well as among islands (Figure 8 and Figure 9)
based on plot values indicated that aboveground and ecosystem carbon pools
were not significantly different from the edge of water body going inland at all
sites for all depth intervals, meaning there was no significant variation across the
150 m span of sampling plots.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thankfully acknowledge the assistances and helping hands of all
persons which are involved and can not be named one by one in these studies,
as well as the collaborative works and funding of CIFOR-USFS on the Tropical
Wetland Initiative for Climate change Adaptation and Mitigation (TWINCAM)
project.
References
Adame M.F., D. Neil, S.F. Wright, C.E. Lovelock. 2010. Sedimentation within
and among mangrove forests along a gradient of geomorphological
settings. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 86 (2010) 21–30.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown,
ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version
04DEC98).
Dahdouh-Guebas F., and N. Koedam. 2008. Long-term retrospection on
mangrove development using transdisciplinary approaches: A review.
Aquatic Botany 89 (2008) 80–92
Donato D.C., J.B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M. Stidham, and M.
Kanninen. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the
tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4:293-297. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1123.
Ellison, J.C. 2009. Geomorphology and Sedimentology of Mangroves. In:
Gerardo, M., Perillo, E., Wolanski, E., Cahoon, D.R. and Brinson, M.M.
(eds.). Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier,
p.: 565-591.
FAO, 2007. Mangroves of Asia 1980-2005: COUNTRY REPORTS Forest
Resources Assessment Programme Working Paper 137 p 40-49.
Giri C., E. Ochieng, L.L. Tieszen, Z. Zhu, A. Singh, T. Loveland, J. Masek, and N.
Duke. 2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world
using earth observation satellite data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20:154-159.
Kauffman, J.B. and D.C. Donato, 2012. Protocols for the measurement,
monitoring and reporting of structure, biomass and carbon stocks in
mangrove forests. Working Paper 86. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 54p.
Kauffman, J.B. and T.G. Cole. 2010. Micronesian mangrove forest structure and
tree response to a severe typhoon. Wetlands 30:1077-1084. DOI:
10.1007/s13157-010-0114-y.
Komiyama, A., J.E. Ong, and S. Poungparn. 2008. Allometry, biomass, and
productivity of mangrove forests: A review. Aquat.Bot. 89:128-137.
Komiyama, A., S. Poungparn, and S. Kato. 2005. Common allometric equations
for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. J.Trop.Ecol. 21:471–477.
McIvor, A.L., Möller, I., Spencer, T. and Spalding. M. (2012) Reduction of wind
and swell waves by mangroves. Natural Coastal Protection Series: Report
1. Cambridge Coastal Research Unit Working Paper 40. Published by
The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International. 27 pages. ISSN
2050-7941. URL:
http://www.naturalcoastalprotection.org/documents/reduction-of-wind-and-
swell-waves-by-mangroves
Ministry of Forestry, Gov. of Indonesia. 2009. Data Peta Mangrove Indonesia (in
Indonesian, shp file).
Sanders, C.J., J.M. Smoak, A.S. Naidu, and S.R.Patchineelam. 2008. Recent
sediment accumulation in a mangrove forest and its relevance to local
sea-level rise (Ilha Grande, Brazil).Journal of Coastal Research, 24(2),
533–536.
Saputro, G.B., S. Hartini, S. Sukardjo, A. Susanto and A. Poniman (eds.). 2009.
Peta Mangroves Indonesia (in Indonesian). PSSDAL-Bakosurtanal.
329p.