Improving Soil Carbon Estimates of Philippine Mangroves Using Localized Organic Matter to Organic Carbon Equations

Overview

Journal Carbon Balance Manag

Date 2024 Sep 11

PMID 39259316

Authors

Severino G Salmo 3rd

Sean Paul B Manalo

Precious B Jacob

Maria Elisa B Gerona-Daga

Camila Frances P Naputo

Mareah Wayne A Maramag

Mohammad Basyuni

Frida Sidik

Richard MacKenzie

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Southeast Asian (SEA) mangroves are globally recognized as blue carbon hotspots. Methodologies that measure mangrove soil carbon stock (SCS) are either accurate but costly (i.e., elemental analyzers), or economical but less accurate (i.e., loss-on-ignition [LOI]). Most SEA countries estimate SCS by measuring soil organic matter (OM) through the LOI method then converting it into organic carbon (OC) using a conventional conversion equation (%C = 0.415 * % LOI + 2.89, R = 0.59, n = 78) developed from Palau mangroves. The local site conditions in Palau does not reflect the wide range of environmental settings and disturbances in the Philippines. Consequently, the conventional conversion equation possibly compounds the inaccuracies of converting OM to OC causing over- or under-estimated SCS. Here, we generated a localized OM-OC conversion equation and tested its accuracy in computing SCS against the conventional equation. The localized equation was generated by plotting % OC (from elemental analyzer) against the % OM (from LOI). The study was conducted in different mangrove stands (natural, restored, and mangrove-recolonized fishponds) in Oriental Mindoro and Sorsogon, Philippines from the West and North Philippine Sea biogeographic regions, respectively. The OM:OC ratios were also statistically tested based on (a) stand types, (b) among natural stands, and (c) across different ages of the restored and recolonized stands. Increasing the accuracy of OM-OC conversion equations will improve SCS estimates that will yield reasonable C emission reduction targets for the country's commitments on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.

Results: The localized conversion equation is %OC = 0.36 * % LOI + 2.40 (R = 0.67; n = 458). The SOM:OC ratios showed significant differences based on stand types (x = 19.24; P = 6.63 × 10), among natural stands (F = 23.22; p = 1.17 × 10), and among ages of restored (F = 5.14; P = 0.03) and recolonized stands (F = 3.4; P = 0.02). SCS estimates using the localized (5%) and stand-specific equations (7%) were similar with the values derived from an elemental analyzer. In contrast, the conventional equation overestimates SCS by 20%.

Conclusions: The calculated SCS improves as the conversion equation becomes more reflective of localized site conditions. Both localized and stand-specific conversion equations yielded more accurate SCS compared to the conventional equation. While our study explored only two out of the six marine biogeographic regions in the Philippines, we proved that having a localized conversion equation leads to improved SCS measurements. Using our proposed equations will make more realistic SCS targets (and therefore GHG reductions) in designing mangrove restoration programs to achieve the country's NDC commitments.

References

Worthington T, Zu Ermgassen P, Friess D, Krauss K, Lovelock C, Thorley J . A global biophysical typology of mangroves and its relevance for ecosystem structure and deforestation. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):14652. PMC: 7473852. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-71194-5. View

Stankovic M, Mishra A, Rahayu Y, Lefcheck J, Murdiyarso D, Friess D . Blue carbon assessments of seagrass and mangrove ecosystems in South and Southeast Asia: Current progress and knowledge gaps. Sci Total Environ. 2023; 904:166618. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166618. View

Soeprobowati T, Sularto R, Hadiyanto H, Puryono S, Rahim A, Jumari J . The carbon stock potential of the restored mangrove ecosystem of Pasarbanggi, Rembang, Central Java. Mar Environ Res. 2023; 193:106257. DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106257. View

Osland M, Hughes A, Armitage A, Scyphers S, Cebrian J, Swinea S . The impacts of mangrove range expansion on wetland ecosystem services in the southeastern United States: Current understanding, knowledge gaps, and emerging research needs. Glob Chang Biol. 2022; 28(10):3163-3187. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16111. View

Breithaupt J, Steinmuller H, Rovai A, Engelbert K, Smoak J, Chambers L . An Improved Framework for Estimating Organic Carbon Content of Mangrove Soils Using loss-on-ignition and Coastal Environmental Setting. Wetlands (Wilmington). 2023; 43(6):57. PMC: 10287774. DOI: 10.1007/s13157-023-01698-z. View

Sasmito S, Taillardat P, Clendenning J, Cameron C, Friess D, Murdiyarso D . Effect of land-use and land-cover change on mangrove blue carbon: A systematic review. Glob Chang Biol. 2019; 25(12):4291-4302. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14774. View

Salmo 3rd S, Malapit V, Garcia M, Pagkalinawan H . Establishing rates of carbon sequestration in mangroves from an earthquake uplift event. Biol Lett. 2019; 15(3):20180799. PMC: 6451391. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0799. View

Thorhaug A, Gallagher J, Kiswara W, Prathep A, Huang X, Yap T . Coastal and estuarine blue carbon stocks in the greater Southeast Asia region: Seagrasses and mangroves per nation and sum of total. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020; 160:111168. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111168. View

Pendleton L, Donato D, Murray B, Crooks S, Jenkins W, Sifleet S . Estimating global "blue carbon" emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e43542. PMC: 3433453. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043542. View

10.

Sasmito S, Basyuni M, Kridalaksana A, Saragi-Sasmito M, Lovelock C, Murdiyarso D . Challenges and opportunities for achieving Sustainable Development Goals through restoration of Indonesia's mangroves. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023; 7(1):62-70. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01926-5. View

11.

Beck H, Zimmermann N, McVicar T, Vergopolan N, Berg A, Wood E . Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci Data. 2018; 5:180214. PMC: 6207062. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.214. View

12.

Ahmed S, Sarker S, Kamruzzaman M, Ema J, Saagulo Naabeh C, Cudjoe E . How biotic, abiotic, and functional variables drive belowground soil carbon stocks along stress gradient in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest?. J Environ Manage. 2023; 337:117772. PMC: 10109099. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117772. View

13.

Ouyang X, Lee S . Improved estimates on global carbon stock and carbon pools in tidal wetlands. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):317. PMC: 6965625. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-14120-2. View

14.

Samson M, Rollon R . Growth performance of planted mangroves in the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio. 2008; 37(4):234-40. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[234:gpopmi]2.0.co;2. View

15.

Macreadie P, Anton A, Raven J, Beaumont N, Connolly R, Friess D . The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):3998. PMC: 6728345. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-11693-w. View

16.

Duncan C, Primavera J, Pettorelli N, Thompson J, Loma R, Koldewey H . Rehabilitating mangrove ecosystem services: A case study on the relative benefits of abandoned pond reversion from Panay Island, Philippines. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016; 109(2):772-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.049. View