Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
KENNETH A. ABUDA
May 2014
Permission is given for the following people to have access to this research:
Students signature:
MARGARITA T. DE LA CRUZ
Research Adviser
ROBERTO E. CAPON
DNSM Chair
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To our thesis adviser, Prof. Margarita de la Cruz for giving us the funds during
the sampling and for her pieces of advice in making this paper better;
To Dr. Jurgenne Primavera for sharing her expertise on mangroves and for her
To Ms. Kristine Flor Renomeron for helping me making the map and to Ms.
To the mangrove team namely, Janine Villamor, Ronnie Esmena, Arvin Agner
and Rudmar Angelo Ecaldre, Aylla Mae Lucero and Mae Jessel Montano, for the moral
To Ms. Ma. Fe Inciso and her cousin for accompanying me and paddling the the
And above all, to our amazing God for being my strength, my guide, my hope,
and my light.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you to all of you and to all whom I may
iii
ABSTRACT
November 2013. Two months after, mangroves along the sea coast and river coast in
Lawaan, Eastern Samar were assessed and compared their responses after the typhoon.
Seventeen plots were laid in three creeks and were sampled once from February 2014
to April 2014. Seedling count and percentage of resprouting trees were noted during
the assessment. Results showed that mangroves in the sea coast of Bolusao Creek and
Cagawcaw Creek were dominated by resprouting Sonneratia alba while the river coasts
including the sea coast of Binacalan Creek had increasing density of seedlings. The
average of the percentage of resprouting trees and seedling density showed that the sea
coast is recovering faster than the river coast. From this, the mangroves in Lawaan are
recovering naturally.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 21
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 25
v
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Shown are the study sites. Plots are indicated by the points. ......................... 9
Figure 2. Sea coast and river coast are compared in terms of mangrove species
diversity index. ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Percentage of resprouting trees are compared in each site during sampling in
February, March, and April 2014 ................................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Seedling density (Count per 100 m2) are compared in each sites during the
sampling in February, March, and April 2014. ............................................................ 15
Figure 5. Comparison of the average percentage of resprouting trees, seedling density,
and species diversity. ................................................................................................... 19
vii
INTRODUCTION
Mangroves are trees, shrubs, palms, herbs, and ferns that grow in the intertidal
areas of tropical and subtropical shorelines. They can tolerate high salt concentrations
and oxygen-poor soils (Primavera et al. 2004). The Philippines holds 35 mangrove
species (Katherisan and Bengham 2001) representing at least half of the world's
mangrove species (Primavera et al. 2004). According to Long and Giri (2011), the
Philippines is one of the 15 mangrove-rich countries in the world. In the 1920s, it was
Primavera (2000) reported its decline to around 120,000 ha. The decline was associated
like salt ponds (Primavera 2000). There are many benefits mangrove can provide
like food, herbal medicine, wood, and forest products (Garcia et al. 2014). They can
also be nesting grounds for birds and nurseries of many invertebrates (Nagelkerkan et
al. 2008).
each year making it prone to storm surges and strong winds (Garcia et al. 2014).
Planting of mangroves has been identified as a strategy to adapt to such climatic events.
In the island of Samar, coconut plantations are protected by mangrove forests from
to forests by changing the forests' structure and composition. Baldwin et al. (2001)
reported the damage in mangrove forests by Hurricane Andrew in the United States.
1
mangrove forests (Smith et al. 1994). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in 2007 stated that future tropical cyclones will become more intense. As an
ecosystem that protects coastal areas, it is important to better understand how they are
the Philippines, mangroves in the coastal areas of Samar and Leyte were affected. Thus,
the main objective of this study is to assess and compare the short-term responses of
mangroves along the coasts: sea and river of Lawaan, Easter Samar. Specifically, the
2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
taxonomically complex plant groups because mangrove species share many common
characteristics that makes its identification difficult. There are two classifications of
mangroves: the true mangroves, which are limited to mangrove habitats, and the
mangrove associates that are mainly found in the terrestrial or aquatic habitat but also
exist in mangrove ecosystem (FAO 2007 and Macintosh & Ashton 2002). Primavera et
al. (2004) listed 35 major and minor mangrove species within 14 families found in the
coastlines in the world that extends up to 36,289 km. It is located along the tropical
band where mangrove thrive (Garcia et al. 2014). Long and Giri (2011) estimated that
estimated that 19% of the country's total mangrove area are in protected area networks.
estimated that 3% of the forest cover in the country is mangrove forest (FMB 2007).
3
Under the Presidential Decree (PD) 705 by the Philippine Government, mangrove area
From the year 1990 to 2010, the Philippines had a decrease in the total gross
mangrove area to 28,172 ha (Long et al. 2014). However, recent estimates from FMB
4
(2007) suggested that there was an increase in mangrove area to 247,362 ha.
Consequently, Garcia and coworkers (2007) said that this increase is insignificant in
comparison with the mangrove's original area back to 1920 having 400,000-500,000
ha.
implemented primarily for wood supply and coastal protection against typhoons
(Samson and Rollon 2008). Also, during the past two decades, more than 44,000 ha of
sandflats, mudflats, and seagrass beds were planted with mangroves almost exclusively
with the genus Rhizophora. This cost the government at least PhP 880 million (Samson
Aside from being nesting grounds of many bird species and nurseries of many
invertebrates (Nagelkerken et al. 2008), large part of the population in the Philippines
depend on mangrove ecosystem for food and livelihood (Garcia et al. 2014). Primavera
(2000) noted that more than half of 1,500 towns and 42,000 villages of the country
typhoon. Mendoza and Alura (2001) noted the island of Samar wherein mangroves play
an important role in the protection of coastlines. They observed that during storms, in
areas without mangroves coconut were uprooted, but in areas with mangroves coconut
were not uprooted. Aside from mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs protect coastlines
5
Camacho and colleagues (2011) suggested that the Banacon Mangrove in Bohol
is probably one of the best in terms of carbon sink potential of mangroves in the
Mangrove loss and destruction became rapid during the recent decades
(Macintosh and Ashton 2002). From 1980-1990, Malaysia has already lost 12% of its
mangroves (Ong 1995). Thailand lost 3,030 km2 from 1961 to 1986 (Aksornkoae 1993).
Saenger et al. (1983) stated that mangrove destruction is due to short-term exploitation
for immediate economic benefit. For example, shrimp farming during the early 1980s
and late 1990s resulted to high profits but also resulted in large scale conversion of
environmental, and social values which lead to massive loss and degradation
(Macintosh and Ashton 2002). Another possibility is the blooming of population, thus
more people use coastal areas as damping sites for sewage, garbage, and toxic wastes
(Ong 1995). Urbanization is also a factor in their degradation through change in water
flow and temperature, siltation and change in salinity (Macintosh and Ashton 2002).
Introduction of new species causes diversity and habitat loss in reference to the situation
in West Africa after Nypa fruticans was introduced (Sunderland and Morakinyo 2002).
Global warming also imposes a significant threat to mangroves like the melting
of ice in the cold regions where water level rises which could drown coastal mangroves
(Macintosh and Ashton 2002). Other phenomena like change in ocean currents, salinity
and surface temperature could affect mangrove species composition and may trigger
6
local and global extinction (McCarthey et al. 2001). That is why, Macintosh and Ashton
(2002) suggested for the government's urgent management and interventions for
mangrove ecosystem.
Forest Regeneration
composition and its location. Responses include regrowth, recruitment, release and
repression.
important mode of recovery in both tropical (Everhan and Brokaw 1996) and temperate
forests (Webb 1999). Whigham et al. (1999) questioned the importance of regrowth
because of wind damage diseases and destabilization of stems. Baldwin et al. (2001)
pointed out the importance of regrowth of mangroves from the Hurricane Andrew. The
paper of Martin and Ogden (2006) suggested more detailed studies on the persistence
of sprouted stems and their relative importance in comparison with release and
recruitment.
Recruitment is defined in many ways, but Marks (1974) and Whigham et al.
(1999) defined it as the establishment of new species that is dispersed to an area prior
a minor importance because its effect depends on the species composition of the
damaged forest (Everham and Brokhaw 1996). However, many studies in tropical
forests including mangrove forests, recover from wind damage by the regrowth of new
7
individuals (Tanner and Bellingham 2006; Burslem et al. 2000). Additionally,
Whigham et al. (1999) suggested that the importance of recruitment where winds cause
Everham and Brokaw (1996) defined release as the increase of plants growth
al. 1999). Wind damage may remove the canopy making the understory more apt for
growth since light can penetrate more freely (Martin and Ogden 2001). The study of
Baldwin and colleagues (2001) pointed out that mangrove seedlings and saplings grew
rate of some species (Martin and Ogden 2001). Light-demanding species are often
released after canopy destruction but sometimes suffer from suppression through root
breakage, branches loss, and leaf defolation. So, species that can resprout easily would
8
METHODOLOGY
Study Sites
Super typhoon Haiyan crossed the Central Philippines on the 8th of November
2013. Mangrove forests along the southern part of Samar Island were affected by strong
winds and high storm tides. Lawaan is a fifth class municipality and the first
municipality of Eastern Samar from the south. It has 16 barangays, 10 in the poblacion
and 6 outside the poblacion. Three study sites were selected based accessibility of the
mangrove area in Lawaan, Eastern Samar. These are the sea coast and river coast of
9
Vegetation Sampling
analysis were adapted from English et al. (1994) with some modifications. Seventeen
plots measuring 10m x 10m were laid in the three sampling sites 9 in Bolusao Creek,
4 in Binacalan Creek, and 4 in Cagawcaw Creek. The locations of the plot were selected
based on the composition of the mangroves. One plot was established for a strip of
mangroves with the same composition, one plot for the other composition, and one for
the strip of where different compositions meet. Plots were sampled once a month from
February 2014 to April 2014. Trees (girth 4cm and height 1m), saplings (girth 4cm
and height 1m), and seedling (height 1m) were noted in each plots. The number of
sprouting trees was also counted. Mangrove species were identified using the Field
Data Analysis
Analyses for mangrove density, basal area, and diversity were determined using
. 10,000 2
=
2 = 0.005
=
2 10,000 2
10
.
= 100
.
= 100
= 100
= + +
= ( ) log ( )
=1
11
RESULTS
Species Composition
Rhizophora apiculata, and Sonneratia alba were found in all the three study sites while
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Rhizophora stylosa were only found in Bolusao. Aegiceras
coast. It is also notable that Excoecaria agallocha and Aegiceras corniculatum were
only observed in Binacalan even if it has the least mangroves species. These are shown
in table 2.
Table 2. Eleven species of mangroves were found in the study sites. Indicated here are
their presence in each site.
Bolusao Binacalan Cagawcaw Sea River
Mangrove Species
Creek Creek Creek Coast Coast
Acrostichum aureum X X X
Acrostichum speciosum X X
Aegiceras corniculatum X X X
Aegiceras floridum X
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza X X X
Ceriops decandra X X X
Excoecaria agallocha X X X
Nypa fruticans X
Rhizophora apiculata
Rhizophora stylosa X X X
Sonneratia alba
Xylocarpus granatum X X
Total found 10 5 6 6 9
12
Table 2 showed that Bolusao had the highest mangrove species found having
10 out of 12 species, Cagawcaw with six and Binacalan had only five. River coasts had
Figure 2. Sea coast and river coast are compared in terms of mangrove species
diversity index.
Figure 2 showed that river coast mangroves of Bolusao Creek and Cagawcaw
Creek are more diverse than in the seaward but in Binacalan Creek, it is the other way
around.
13
Percentage of Resprouting Trees
Mangrove trees that were standing after the typhoon were all defoliated. They
began resprouting few days after the storm. It is shown in figure 3 that all of the sites
had already resprouting mangroves in February 2014. S. alba was very evident in
Figure 3. Percentage of resprouting trees are compared in each site during sampling in
February, March, and April 2014
14
Seedling Density
Figure 4 shows that the density of seedlings were much higher in the sea coast
of Binacalan Creek. The seedlings were mostly A. floridum. On the other hand, the
1 1 1.00
0 0 0.00
Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14
Figure 4. Seedling density (Count per 100 m2) are compared in each sites during the
sampling in February, March, and April 2014.
15
DISCUSSION
even their limitation to their development (Egler 1952). Mangroves in the sea coast are
found to be less diverse than in the river coast in Lawaan, Eastern Samar. This could
be due to their salt tolerance. Mangrove species differ in salt tolerance so salt-tolerant
species would out-compete the salt-intolerant species (Primavera et al. 2004). The only
salt tolerant species found in Lawaan were S. alba, R. apiculata and A. floridum. That
is why these species dominated the sea coast and the other mangrove species were in
the river coast making the latter more diverse than the former.
Roth (1992) stated that storm disturbances will favor species that can flower
constantly, produce abundant seedlings and sprouts, grow fast in open conditions and
apiculata, R. stylosa, and S. alba can flower all throughout the year (Primavera et al.
2004). S. alba can also resprout vigorously (Kauffman and Cole 2010).
After the defoliation of mangroves due to the typhoon, it was found that in the
study sites, the fastest resprouter were the S. alba in the sea coast. Same result was
Micronesian mangrove forest where S. alba vigorously sprouted both from epicormic
16
(sprouting from meristematic tissues on trunks and mainstems) tissues and basal
sprouting (sprouting meristematic tissues at the base of the trunk or roots) tissues. On
the other hand, R. apiculata in the river coasts were exhibiting crown refoliation or the
regeneration of leaves from surviving apical meristems on small branches but it was
slower.
Seedling densities were more abundant and increasing in the river coasts,
including the sea coast of Binacalan Creek, than in the sea coasts of Bolusao Creek and
Cagawcaw Creek. This could be attributed to leaf area index. Lower leaf area index
makes light penetration easier (Baldwin et al. 2001). The sprouting of R. apiculta is
slower in the river coast favoring seedling growth. On the other hand, in the sea coasts
of Bolusao Creek and Cagawcaw Creek which are dominated by faster sprouting S.
leaf area index. This would result to lesser light penetration that can inhibit the growth
In South Asia, Liew et al. (1977) stated that 0.06 5.00 individuals per 100 m2
are considered abundant for regeneration in naturally grown mangroves. If this can be
applied in the Philippines, then the seedling densities in the study areas would be
enough for Lawaan mangroves to recover. The seedlings also that grew in the plots are
the same species with the trees. This would mean that there will be no new pioneers
like Puerto Rico (Wadsworth 1959) and Venezuela (Luna Lugo 1976), natural
hurricanes.
17
Regenerative Capacities
defined as a forest where resprouting trees and dominating seedlings were restoring the
rain forest directly. Baldwin et al. (2001) stated that the species pool before a typhoon
is the source of regeneration. Yih et al. (1991) also stated that resprouting trees and
release of seedlings contribute to direct generation. From the study sites, mangroves in
the sea coasts of Bolusao Creek and Cagawcaw Creek are recovering through
resprouting of trees, while mangroves in the river coasts including those in the sea coast
regeneration after typhoon is primarily through release rather than resprouting (Baldwin
et al. 2001).
resprouting trees between sea coast and river coast. In terms of recovery rate, the sea
coast is recovering faster than the river coast but is less diverse. One probable reason
for this is the lesser competition that makes the dominating species grow well (Roth
1992).
mangroves may die or resprout continuously while well-refoliated trees may also die
(Roth 1992). Furthermore, seedling densities may also change due to differential
growth rates and survival of initial population. The type of substrate can also change
the predominant species. Ball (1980) suggested that there is a continuous change of
18
different species in their relative growth rates. That is why Roth (1992) suggested a
0.6 0.7
80
0.5 0.6
70
0.5
60 0.4
50 0.4
0.3
40 0.3
30 0.2
0.2
20
0.1 0.1
10
0 0 0
Sea Coast River Coast Sea Coast River Coast Sea Coast River Coast
19
CONCLUSION
There are 11 species of mangroves found in the study sites of Lawaan, Eastern
Samar. Mangroves in the river coasts had higher diversity index which is 0.58 than the
mangroves in the sea coasts which is 0.39. Furthermore, the present study showed that
Eastern Samar is through release of seedlings and resprouting of trees. S. alba had the
highest percentage of resprouting. This was observed in the sea coasts of Bolusao Creek
and Cagawcaw Creek. On the other hand, the river coasts including the sea coast of
Binacalan Creek are recovering through the increase in seedling density. The sea coast
of Binacalan Creek has the highest seedling density having 1.66 counts per 100m2 in
April 2014. Averaging the seedling density and resprouting trees, the sea coast is
recovering faster than the river coast. From this, natural regeneration of mangroves in
20
REFERENCES
Baldwin A.H., Platt W.J., Gathen K.L., Lessmann J.M. and Rauch T.L. (1995)
Hurricane damage and regeneration in fringe mangrove forests of southeast
Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Research SI21: 169183.
Boucher D.H. (1989) When the hurricane destroyed the rain forest. Biology Digest
16: 1118.
Burslem, D.F.R.P., Whitmore, T.C., Brown, G.C. (2000) Short-term effects of
cyclone impact and long-term recovery of tropical rain forest on
Kolombangara, Solomon Islands. The Journal of Ecology 88:1063-1078.
Camacho L, D. Gevaa, A. Carandang, S. Camacho, E. Combalicer, L. Rebugio, and
Y. Youn (2011) Tree biomass and carbon stock of a community-managed
mangrove forest in Bohol, Philippines. Forest Sci Tech 7(4):161167
English, S., C. Wilkinson, and V. Baker, (1994) Survey Manual for Tropical Marine
Resources. ASEAN-Australia Marine Science Project: Living Coastal
Resources, Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB No. 3, Townsville
Mail Centre, Australia 4810, 390pp.
Everham E.M. and N.V.L. Brokaw (1996) Forest damage and recovery from
catastrophic wind. Botanical Review 62: 113185.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2007) The worlds mangroves 1980
2005: a thematic study in the framework of the global forest resources
assessment 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 2007, pp 174. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ a1427e/a1427e00.htm.
Accessed 27 March 2014
FMB (Forest Management Bureau) (2007) Philippine forestry statistics: forest cover
within forest lands: 2003. Forest Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City
Garcia K B., P L. Malabrigo, Jr. and D T. Gevaa (2014) Philippines Mangrove
Ecosystem: Status, Threats and Conservation. I. Faridah-Hanum et al. (eds.),
Mangrove Ecosystems of Asia, 5: 82-94
Imbert D., P Labb and A. Rousteau (1996) Hurricane damage and forest structure in
Guadeloupe, French West Indies. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12: 663680.
21
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z,
Marquis M, Avery KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 118
Kathiresan K, B. Bingham (2001) Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems.
Adv Mar Biol 40:81251
Kauffman J. B. and T. G. Cole (2010) Micronesian Mangrove Forest Structure and
Tree Responses to a Severe Typhoon. Society of Wetland Scientists 30:1077
1084
Liew, T. C., M. N. Diah, and Y. C. Wong. (1977) Mangrove exploitation and
regeneration in Sabah. In C. B. Sastry, P. B. L. Srivastava, and A. M.
Ahman (Eds.). A new era in Malaysian forestry, pp. 95-109. Universiti
Peranian Malaysia Press, Serdang, Malaysia.
Long J, and C. Giri (2011) Mapping the Philippines mangrove forests using landsat
imagery. Sensors 2011, 11:29722981.
Long, J., D. Napton, C. Giri, and J. Graesser (2014) A mapping and monitoring
assessment of the Philippines mangrove forests from 1990 to 2010. Journal of
Coastal Research, 30(2), 260271. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
22
Ong, J. E. (1995) The ecology of mangrove conservation and management.
Hydrobiologia 295: 343-351.
Primavera J.H. (2000) Development and conservation of the Philippine mangroves:
institutional issues. Ecol 35:91106
Primavera, J.H. (2009) Field Guide to Mangroves of the Philippines. SEAFDEC
Aquaculture Department (Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines), Pew Fellows Program
in Marine Conservation and Zoological Society of London (Iloilo City,
Philippines)
Primavera, J.H., R.B. Sadaba, M.J.H. Lebata, and J.P. Altamirano (2004) Handbook
of Mangroves in the Philippines Panay. Aquaculture Department Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines 5021
Roth L.C. (1992) Hurricanes and mangrove regeneration: effects of hurricane Joan,
October 1988, on the vegetation of Isla del Venado, Bluefields, Nicaragua.
Biotropica 24: 375384.
Saenger, P., E. J. Hegerl, and J. D. S. Davie (1983) Global status of mangrove
ecosystems. The Environmentalist 3 (3): 1-88.
Samson M.S. and R.N. Rollon (2008) Growth performance of planted mangroves in
the Philippines: revisiting forest management strategies. Ambio 37(4):234240
Smith T.J., M.B. Robblee, H.R. Wanless, and T.W. Doyle (1994) Mangroves,
hurricanes, and lightning strikes. BioScience 44: 256262.
Sunderland, T. C. H., and T. Morakinyo (2002) Nypa fruticans, a weed in West
Africa. Palms 46:154-155.
Tanner, E.V.J. and P.J. Bellingham (2006) Less diverse forest is more resistant to
hurricane disturbance: evidence from montane rain forests in Jamaica. Journal
of Ecology 94:1003-1010.
Thomas L. and R. Margesson (2014) Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda): U.S. and
International Response to Philippine Disaster. Congressional Research
Services.
Walker L.R., D.J. Lodge, N.V.L. Brokaw, and R.B. Waide (1991) An introduction to
hurricanes in the Caribbean. Biotropica 23: 313316.
Webb, S.L. (1999) Disturbance by wind in temperate-zone forests. In: Walker, L.R.
(Editor), Ecosystems of the World 16: Ecosystems of disturbed ground. First
Edition, pp. 187-222. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Whigham, D.F.; Dickinson, M.B.; Brokaw, N.V.L. (1999) Background canopy gap
and catastrophic wind disturbances in tropical forests. In: Walker, L.R.
(Editor), Ecosystems of the World 16: Ecosystems
Wilcox, B. H. R. (1985) Angiosperm flora of the mangrove ecosystem of the Niger
Delta. In: The Mangrove Ecosystems of the Niger Delta. Wilcox, B. H. R. and
Powell, C. P. (Eds.) Proceedings of a workshop, University of Port Harcourt,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria, pp.34-44.
23
Yih K., D.H. Boucher, J.H. Vandermeer, and N. Zamora (1991) Recovery of the rain
forest of southeastern Nicaragua after destruction by Hurricane Joan.
Biotropica 23: 106113.
24
APPENDIX
Total AA AF NF RA SA XG
Total SBA 18.04 3.00 0.04 12.00 - 1.00 2.00
Tree SBA 266.58 - - - - 161.14 105.44
Sapling SBA - - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.04 - 0.04 - - - -
plot 1
Stems/ha 3,800 300 2,000 1,200 - 100 200
Tree Density 300 - 1,200 - 100 200
Sapling Density - - - - - -
Seedling Density - 2,000 - - - -
Total SBA 0.00 - - - 0.00 - -
Tree SBA - - - - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.00 - - - 0.00 - -
plot 2
Stems/ha 2,600 - - 2,500 100 - -
Tree Density - - 2,500 - - -
Sapling Density - - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - 100 - -
Total SBA 11.50 - - - 11.50 - -
Tree SBA 11.47 - - - 11.47 - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.03 - - - 0.03 - -
plot 3
Stems/ha 2,200 - - - 2,200 - -
Tree Density - - - 600 - -
Sapling Density - - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - 1,600 - -
Total SBA 14.29 - - - 1.81 12.48 -
Tree SBA 14.27 - - - 1.79 12.48 -
Sapling SBA - - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.02 - - - 0.02 - -
Seaward
Stems/ha 1,800 - - - 1,300 500 -
Tree Density - - - 300 500 -
Sapling Density - - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - 1,000 - -
25
Tree count 3 12 1 2
Tree BA 161.144 105.44
plot 1
Sapling count
Seedling count 20
Tree count 25
Tree BA
plot 2
Sapling count
Seedling count 1
Tree count 6
Tree BA 1147.27
plot 3
Sapling count
Seedling count 16
Tree count 3 5
Tree BA 179.05 1,247.77
Seaward
Sapling count
Seedling count 10
Total
log (Ni/N) (1.36) (1.00) (0.72) (0.65) (0.55) (0.80)
Ni/N 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.22 0.28 0.16
Rel Dominance 100 - 0.01 - 4.55 59.37 36.06
Rel Density 100 2.97 19.80 36.63 32.67 5.94 1.98
Rel Frequency 100 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
Frequency 0.59 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.06
17 1 1 2 3 2 1
average 2,525 75 500 925 825 150 50
plot 1 300 2,000 1,200 - 100 200
plot 2 - - 2,500 100 - -
plot 3 - - - 2,200 - -
plot 4 - - - 1,000 500 -
26
Site Lawaan Cagawcaw Date 41693
Plot no 1 girth (cm)
Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA
XG 1 30 10 2 79.57729
2 10 15 2 25.86262 105.4399
SA 1 45 1 161.144
SEAWARD
27
Cagawcaw Overall Total AC EA NF RA SA
Total SBA 7.62 0.05 1.42 0.00 2.57 3.59
Tree SBA 7.57 - 1.42 - 2.56 3.59
Sapling SBA 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - -
Seedling SBA 0.05 0.05 0.00 - 0.00 0.00
Stems/ha 4,783 2,667 139 1,700 220 57
Tree Density 1,933 - 133 1,667 100 33
Sapling Density 67 33 - 33 - -
Seedling Density 2,783 2,633 6 - 120 24
Species Diversity Index 0.69 (0.15) (0.11) (0.15) (0.14) (0.14)
IV (Importance Value) 300 72.09 37.94 67.81 57.75 64.42
Total AC EA NF RA SA
Total SBA 2.81 - - 0.00 2.81 -
Tree SBA 2.79 - - - 2.79 -
Sapling SBA 0.00 - - 0.00 - -
Seedling SBA 0.02 - - - 0.02 -
plot 1
Stems/ha 1,200 - - 100 1,100 -
Tree Density - - - 300 -
Sapling Density - - 100 - -
Seedling Density - - - 800 -
Total SBA - - - - - -
Tree SBA - - - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 2
Stems/ha 5,000 - - 5,000 - -
Tree Density - - 5,000 - -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
Total SBA 48.63 0.16 24.06 - - 24.41
Tree SBA 48.47 - 24.06 - - 24.41
Sapling SBA 0.00 0.00 - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.16 0.16 - - - -
plot 3
Stems/ha 8,500 8,000 400 - - 100
Tree Density - 400 - - 100
Sapling Density 100 - - - -
Seedling Density 7,900 - - - -
Total SBA - - - - - -
Tree SBA - - - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 4
Stems/ha - - - - - -
Tree Density - - - - -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
28
Total SBA 0.26 - - - 0.26 -
Tree SBA 0.26 - - - 0.26 -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 5
Stems/ha 100 - - - 100 -
Tree Density - - - 100 -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
Total SBA - - - - - -
Tree SBA - - - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 6
Stems/ha 4,000 - - 4,000 - -
Tree Density - - 4,000 - -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
Total SBA 22.33 - - - 22.33 -
Tree SBA 22.33 - - - 22.33 -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 7
Stems/ha 1,700 - - 1,000 700 -
Tree Density - - 1,000 700 -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
Total SBA 0.00 - - - - 0.00
Tree SBA - - - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.00 - - - - 0.00
plot 8
Stems/ha 600 - - 500 - 100
Tree Density - - 500 - -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - 100
Total SBA 0.26 - - - 0.26 -
Tree SBA 0.26 - - - 0.26 -
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - - - -
plot 9
Stems/ha 200 - - - 200 -
Tree Density - - - 200 -
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - - -
29
Total SBA 36.61 - - - 0.01 36.60
Tree SBA 36.60 - - - - 36.60
Sapling SBA - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.01 - - - 0.01 -
SEAWARD
Stems/ha 2,000 - - - 400 1,600
Tree Density - - - - 1,600
Sapling Density - - - - -
Seedling Density - - - 400 -
Total SBA - - - -
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - -
plot 11
Stems/ha - - - -
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - -
Seedling Density - - -
Total SBA 0.00 - 0.00 -
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.00 - 0.00 -
plot 12
Stems/ha 100 - 100 -
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - -
Seedling Density - 100 -
Total SBA 0.00 - - 0.00
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.00 - - 0.00
plot 13
Stems/ha 200 - - 200
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - -
Seedling Density - - 200
Total SBA - - - -
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - -
plot 14
Stems/ha - - - -
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - -
Seedling Density - - -
30
Total SBA - - - -
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA - - - -
Seedling SBA - - - -
plot 15
Stems/ha - - - -
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - -
Seedling Density - - -
Total SBA 3.41 3.41 - -
Tree SBA 3.37 3.37 - -
Sapling SBA 0.04 0.04 - -
Seedling SBA - - - -
plot 16
Stems/ha 2,300 2,300 - -
Tree Density 1,100 - -
Sapling Density 1,200 - -
Seedling Density - - -
Total SBA 0.01 - - 0.01
Tree SBA - - - -
Sapling SBA 0.01 - - 0.01
Seedling SBA 0.00 - - 0.00
plot 17
Stems/ha 400 - - 400
Tree Density - - -
Sapling Density - - 300
Seedling Density - - 100
Tree count 3
Tree BA 279.3958
plot 1
Sapling count 1
Seedling count 8
Tree count 50
Tree BA
plot 2
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 4 0 1
Tree BA 2406.497 2440.635
plot 3
Sapling count 1
Seedling count 79
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 4
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 1
Tree BA 25.78304
plot 5
Sapling count
Seedling count
31
Tree count 40
Tree BA
plot 6
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 10 7
Tree BA 2232.541
plot 7
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 5
Tree BA
plot 8
Sapling count
Seedling count 1
Tree count 2
Tree BA 25.86262
plot 9
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 16
Tree BA 3660.396
Seaward
Sapling count
Seedling count 4
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 11
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 12
Sapling count
Seedling count 1
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 13
Sapling count
Seedling count 2
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 14
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 15
Sapling count
Seedling count
Tree count 11
Tree BA 336.77
plot 16
Sapling count 12
Seedling count
32
Tree count
Tree BA
plot 17
Sapling count 3
Seedling count 1
Total
log (Ni/N) (0.62) (0.90) (0.65) (0.72) (0.67)
Ni/N 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.19 0.21
Rel Dominance 100 0.69 18.57 0.01 33.65 47.07
Rel Density 100 54.73 2.70 34.46 7.43 0.68
Rel Frequency 100 16.67 16.67 33.33 16.67 16.67
Frequency 0.35 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.06
17 1 1 2 1 1
average 4,933 2,700 133 1,700 367 33
plot 1 - - 100 1,100 -
plot 2 - - 5,000 - -
plot 3 8,100 400 - - 100
33
Site Lawaan Binacalan Date 41693
Plot no 1 girth (cm)
Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA
RA 1 27 25 31 3 184.2214
2 14 18 2 41.38019
3 26 1 53.79424
279.3958
SEAWARD
34
AA AS AF BG NF RA RS SA XG
0.00 - 0.01 0.45 - 2.52 0.08 6.84 6.92
- - 0.01 0.45 - 2.51 0.08 6.84 6.92
- - 0.00 - - - - - -
0.00 - 0.00 - - 0.00 - 0.00 -
170 30 50 20 2,200 330 30 180 40
100 30 10 20 2,200 130 30 170 40
- - 10 - - - - - -
70 - 30 - - 200 - 10 -
(0.04) (0.03) (0.04) (0.06) (0.16) (0.13) (0.04) (0.14) (0.13)
8.67 6.10 6.91 13.39 105.09 48.39 8.06 56.90 46.49
AA AS AF BG NF RA RS SA XG
- - - - - 2.32 - - -
- - - - - 2.31 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 0.01 - - -
- - - - 3,000 900 - - -
- - - - 3,000 300 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 600 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - 5,000 - - - -
- - - - 5,000 - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - 3.90 - - - - -
- - - 3.90 - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - 100 7,000 - - - -
- - - 100 7,000 - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - 0.58 - 0.02 - 31.83 -
- - - 0.58 - - - 31.83 -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 0.02 - - -
- - - 100 1,500 1,000 - 100 -
- - - 100 1,500 - - 100 -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 1,000 - - -
- - - - - 0.26 - - -
- - - - - 0.26 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 100 - - -
- - - - - 100 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
1,000 300 - - 4,000 - - - -
1,000 300 - - 4,000 - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 22.33 - - -
- - - - - 22.33 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - 1,000 700 - - -
- - - - 1,000 700 - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
35
0.01 - - - - - - 0.00 68.22
- - - - - - - - 68.22
- - - - - - - - -
0.01 - - - - - - 0.00 -
700 - - - 500 - - 100 300
- - - - 500 - - - 300
- - - - - - - - -
700 - - - - - - 100 -
- - - - - 0.26 - - 0.97
- - - - - 0.26 - - 0.97
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - 200 - - 100
- - - - - 200 - - 100
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - 0.12 - - 0.01 0.84 36.60 -
- - 0.11 - - - 0.84 36.60 -
- - 0.00 - - - - - -
- - 0.01 - - 0.01 - - -
- - 500 - - 400 300 1,600 -
- - 100 - - - 300 1,600 -
- - 100 - - - - - -
- - 300 - - 400 - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
30 3
230.7741
6
50
1 70
389.9287
1 15 1
57.61 3,183.09
10
1
25.78304
10 3 40
10 7
2232.541
5 3
6,821.76
7 1
2 1
25.86262 97.48
36
1 3 16
11.45913 84.1139 3660.396
1
3 4
37
Bgy Bulosao
Mangrove Species Sea River No. of Species Density Total Density DBH Basal Area Total basal Area Relative Density Relative Dominance Frequency Relative Frequency Importance Value of a Species Shannon Diversity Index
Acrostichum aureum 0 10 10 111.111111 3444.444444 0.3 0.0015 221.5 3.215434084 0.06772009 0.032258065 3.225806452 6.54121869 0.048580693
Acrostichum speciosum 0 3 3 33.3333333 0.4 0.002 0.964630225 0.090293454 0.009677419 0.967741935 2.032343034 0.020252633
Aegiceras corniculatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegiceras floridum 19 0 19 211.111111 2.3 0.0115 6.109324759 0.519187359 0.061290323 6.129032258 12.8188347 0.076475979
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0 1 1 11.1111111 70 0.35 0.321543408 15.8013544 0.003225806 0.322580645 16.44870426 0.089225857
Ceriops decandra 0 3 3 33.3333333 31 0.155 0.964630225 6.997742664 0.009677419 0.967741935 8.939792244 0.060330303
Excoecaria agallocha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nypa fruticans 0 220 220 2444.44444 30 0.15 70.73954984 6.772009029 0.709677419 70.96774194 149.1889782 0.094953754
Rhizophora apiculata 0 29 29 322.222222 40 0.2 9.324758842 9.029345372 0.093548387 9.35483871 27.80249131 0.119126208
Rhizophora stylosa 7 0 7 77.7777778 34 0.17 2.250803859 7.674943567 0.022580645 2.258064516 12.20639259 0.07411982
Sonneratia alba 16 1 17 188.888889 200 1 5.466237942 45.14672686 0.05483871 5.483870968 56.15167448 0.154885209
Xylocarpus granatum 0 1 1 11.1111111 35 0.175 0.321543408 7.900677201 0.003225806 0.322580645 8.548027061 0.058518259
total 310 2.215 1 300.6784566 0.501603249
Binacalan
Mangrove Species Sea River No. of Species Density Total Density DBH Basal Area Total basal Area Relative Density Relative Dominance Frequency Relative Frequency Importance Value of
Shannon
a Species
Diversity Index
Acrostichum aureum 0 0 0 0 4300 0 0 143.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acrostichum speciosum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegiceras corniculatum 81 0 81 2025 4 0.02 26.04501608 0.902934537 0.470930233 47.09302326 74.5119041 0.159755137
Aegiceras floridum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ceriops decandra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Excoecaria agallocha 4 0 4 100 73 0.365 1.286173633 16.4785553 0.023255814 2.325581395 20.11356615 0.100320526
Nypa fruticans 0 57 57 1425 30 0.15 18.32797428 6.772009029 0.331395349 33.13953488 58.57091354 0.156193397
Rhizophora apiculata 0 28 28 700 27 0.135 9.003215434 6.094808126 0.162790698 16.27906977 31.53988403 0.126501729
Rhizophora stylosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonneratia alba 2 0 2 50 153 0.765 0.643086817 34.53724605 0.011627907 1.162790698 36.35475147 0.134597799
Xylocarpus granatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total 172 1.435 1 221.0910193 0.417292925
Lawaan
Mangrove Species Sea River No. of Species Density Total Density DBH Basal Area Total basal Area Relative DensityRelative Dominance Frequency Relative Frequency Importance Value of a Species Shannon Diversity Index
Acrostichum aureum 0 0 0 0 3300 0 0 85.65 0 0 0 0 0 0
Acrostichum speciosum 0 3 3 75 0.3 0.0015 2.272727273 0.06772009 0.022727273 2.272727273 4.635901908 0.037896082
Aegiceras corniculatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegiceras floridum 0 22 22 550 3 0.015 16.66666667 0.677200903 0.166666667 16.66666667 34.1772009 0.131119721
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ceriops decandra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Excoecaria agallocha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nypa fruticans 0 37 37 925 30 0.15 28.03030303 6.772009029 0.28030303 28.03030303 63.11291812 0.158070007
Rhizophora apiculata 11 26 37 925 65 0.325 28.03030303 14.67268623 0.28030303 28.03030303 71.01359532 0.159669984
Rhizophora stylosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonneratia alba 30 1 31 775 43 0.215 23.48484848 9.706546275 0.234848485 23.48484848 56.91109173 0.155319782
Xylocarpus granatum 0 2 2 50 30 0.15 1.515151515 6.772009029 0.015151515 1.515151515 9.817463575 0.064256806
total 132 0.8565 1 239.6681716 0.537316578
1
Sea side
Mangrove Species Bul Bin Law No. of Species Density Total Density DBH Basal Area Total basal Area Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency Importance Value of a Species Shannon Diversity Index
Acrostichum aureum 0 0 0 0 0 5666.666667 0 0 37 0 0 0 #NUM!
Acrostichum speciosum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #NUM!
Aegiceras corniculatum 0 81 0 81 2700 4 0.02 47.64705882 0.054054054 47.70111288 0.148470068
Aegiceras floridum 19 0 0 19 633.3333 3 0.015 11.17647059 0.040540541 11.21701113 0.070170977
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #NUM!
Ceriops decandra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #NUM!
Excoecaria agallocha 0 4 0 4 133.3333 73 0.365 2.352941176 0.986486486 3.339427663 0.029676792
Nypa fruticans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #NUM!
Rhizophora apiculata 0 0 11 11 366.6667 65 0.325 6.470588235 0.878378378 7.348966614 0.052721623
Rhizophora stylosa 7 0 0 7 233.3333 34 0.17 4.117647059 0.459459459 4.577106518 0.03754232
Sonneratia alba 16 2 30 48 1600 43 0.215 28.23529412 0.581081081 28.8163752 0.121229143
Xylocarpus granatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #NUM!
total 170 1.11 103 0.148419277
Lawaan
Mangrove Species Bul Bin Law No. of Species Density Total Density DBH Basal Area Total basal Area Relative Density Relative Dominance Relative Frequency Importance Value of a Species Shannon Diversity Index
Acrostichum aureum 10 0 0 10 71.428571 3171.428571 0.3 0.0015 9.739285714 2.252252252 0.01540154 2.267653792 0
Acrostichum speciosum 3 0 3 6 42.857143 0.4 0.002 1.351351351 0.020535387 1.371886738 0.014841837
Aegiceras corniculatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegiceras floridum 0 0 22 22 157.14286 3 0.015 4.954954955 0.154015402 5.108970356 0.040685199
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza 1 0 0 1 7.1428571 70 0.35 0.225225225 3.593692703 3.818917928 0
Ceriops decandra 3 0 0 3 21.428571 31 0.155 0.675675676 1.591492483 2.267168158 0
Excoecaria agallocha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nypa fruticans 220 57 37 314 2242.8571 30 0.15 70.72072072 1.540154015 72.26087474 0.15974234
Rhizophora apiculata 29 28 26 83 592.85714 65 0.325 18.69369369 3.337000367 22.03069406 0.105527225
Rhizophora stylosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sonneratia alba 1 0 1 2 14.285714 43 0.215 0.45045045 2.207554089 2.658004539 0.024938386
Xylocarpus granatum 1 0 2 3 21.428571 30 0.15 0.675675676 1.540154015 2.215829691 0.021665204
total 444 1.3635 114 0.311873154
Seaward Density Feb March April Feb Density March Density April Density
Bolusao 22 2200 Bolusao Seaward 8 4 5 800 400 500
Binacalan 165 16500 Eastuarine 5 19 62 55.55555556 211.1111111 688.8888889
Cagawcaw 10 1000 Binacalan Seaward 79 165 165 7900 16500 16500
Estuarine Eastuarine 8 11 13 400 550 650
Bolusao 66 733.3333 Cagawcaw Seaward 10 12 10 1000 1200 1000
Binacalan 13 650 Eastuarine 37 40 41 1233.333333 1333.333333 1366.666667
Cagawcaw 41 1366.667
2
Average pH Average Salinity Average Temperature
Estuarine 8.14 25 26.7
Bulosao
Seaward 8.31 33 27.3
Estuarine 7.95 22 27.2
Binacalan
Seaward 8.31 33 27.3
Estuarine 8.37 25 27.2
Cagawcaw
Seaward 8.25 33 27.3