Mangrove Soil Properties and their Carbon Pools among Large Islands in Indonesia Joko Purbopuspito 1,2*, Daniel Murdiyarso 1,3, Matthew Warren 4, Boone Kauffman 1,5, Haruni Krisnawati 6, Sartji Taberima 7, Solichin Manuri 8, and Sigit Sasmito 1 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: j.purbopuspito@cgiar.org; jpurbop@yahoo.com 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 7mradius 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 runoff, 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 02 o 04'28" 104 o 28'09" Rhizophora apiculata 4 2 Kalimantan Kubu Raya 00 o 40'33" 109 21'41" Rhizophora apiculata o 5 2 Papua Bintuni 02 o 10'12" 133 o 32'09" Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 5 - Papua Teminabuan 01 o 37'24" 131 o 48'35" Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 2 2 Papua Timika 04 o 51'41" 136 o 47'18" 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 circleplots of 7m-radius, and collected woody debris in a planar intercept within crosssectional 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 deltaicestuarine 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 Properties unit riverine (18) estuarine (8) X ± sd CV(%) P-value Note 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 Table 3. Average values of mangrove ecosystem carbon pool according to their island in the study area Properties unit Sumatera (6) Kalimantan (7) Papua (13) X ± sd P-value Note 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 Among Distances from Edge of Water Body: Soil properties (bulk density, carbon content, and carbon pool) were not significantly different from the edge of
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-andswell-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.