Comparative Assessment on the Recovery of Mangroves along the

Seacoast and River Coast in Lawaan, Eastern Samar after the

Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda

by

KENNETH A. ABUDA

A research paper submitted to the

Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
University of the Philippines Visayas
Tacloban College, Tacloban City

As partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of
B.S. BIOLOGY

May 2014

Permission is given for the following people to have access to this research:

Available to the general public Yes

Available only after consultation with author/adviser No
Available only for those bound by confidentiality agreement No

Students signature:

Signature of Research Adviser:

 This is to certify that this research paper, entitled: Comparative Assessment
on the Recovery of Mangroves along the Seacoast and River Coast in Lawaan,
Eastern Samar after the Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda and submitted by KENNETH
A. ABUDA to fulfil part of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Biology is hereby endorsed.

MARGARITA T. DE LA CRUZ
Research Adviser

The Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (DNSM) accepts this

research paper in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of
Science in Biology.

ROBERTO E. CAPON
DNSM Chair

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to everyone who contributed

to the success of this study:

To my family, especially to my parents and relatives, for their tireless love,

guidance, and financial support;

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

comments for improvements of this paper;

To Ms. Kristine Flor Renomeron for helping me making the map and to Ms.

Charlotte Mae Chan for lending me her Manifold;

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

support and encouragements during sampling;

To Ms. Ma. Fe Inciso and her cousin for accompanying me and paddling the the

boat during my sampling;

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

have failed to mention.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Super typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda struck the central part of the Philippines on 8

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

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..................................................................... 3

Mangrove Taxonomy in the Philippines .................................................................... 3

Mangrove Status in the Philippines ............................................................................ 3
Importance of Mangroves in the Philippines ............................................................. 5
Mangrove Loss and Destruction ................................................................................ 6
Forest Regeneration.................................................................................................... 7
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 9

Study Sites .................................................................................................................. 9

Vegetation Sampling ................................................................................................ 10
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 12

Species Composition ................................................................................................ 12

Species Diversity Index ............................................................................................ 13
Percentage of Resprouting Trees.............................................................................. 14
Seedling Density ...................................................................................................... 15
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 16

Mangrove Composition and Diversity ..................................................................... 16

Typhoon Effects and Mangrove Responses ............................................................. 16
Regenerative Capacities ........................................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 20

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 21

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 25

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Species of mangroves in the Philippines (Primavera et al. 2004) ................... 4

Table 2. Eleven species of mangroves were found in the study sites. Indicated here are
their presence in each site. ........................................................................................... 12

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

used to be covered with 400,000-500,000 hectares of mangroves, then in 1994,

Primavera (2000) reported its decline to around 120,000 ha. The decline was associated

to overexploitation of coastal dwellers and conversion of mangrove areas to agriculture

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).

As a country in the pacific, the Philippines experiences about 20-30 typhoons

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

typhoons (Mendoza and Alura 2001).

According to Walker and colleagues (1991), typhoons cause major disturbances

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.

Nowadays, systematic patterns are created to assess hurricane-related mortality in

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

affected and how they respond to typhoons.

As super typhoon Yolanda, also known as Typhoon Haiyan internationally, hit

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

study aims to:

1. determine the mangrove composition in each study site;

2. compare the mangrove diversity of the two sites;

3. determine the percentage of resprouting trees; and,

4. determine the recovery or regenerative capacity of the two sites.

2
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Mangrove Taxonomy in the Philippines

Garcia et al. (2014) considered mangrove forest as one of the most

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

Philippines (Table 1).

Mangrove Status in the Philippines

The Philippine archipelago (1300' N 12200' E) has one of the longest

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

66 of 82 provinces in the country is covered with mangroves. Moreover, they also

estimated that 19% of the country's total mangrove area are in protected area networks.

Palawan has the biggest area of protected mangroves.

As of 2003, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

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

is considered as forest land (Garcia et al. 2014).

Table 1. Species of mangroves in the Philippines (Primavera et al. 2004)

Family Philippine Species
Acanthaceae Acanthus ebracteatus
A. ilicifolius
A. volubilis
Avecenniaceae Avecennia alba
A. officinalis
A. marina
A. rumphiana
Bombaceae Camptostemon philippinensis
Combretaceae Lumnitzera littorea
L. racemosa
Euphorbiaceae Excoecaria agallocha
Lythraceae Pemphis acidula
Meliaceae Xylocarpus granatum
X. moluccensis
Myrtaceae Aegiceras corniculatum
A. floridum
Myrtaceae Osbornia octodonta
Palmae Nypa fruticans
Plumbaginaceae Aegialitis annulata
Rhizophoraceae Bruguiera cylindrical
B. gymnorrhiza
B. parviflora
B. sexangula
Ceriops decandra
C. tagal
Kandelia candel
Rhizophora apiculata
R. x lamarckii
R. mucronata
R. stylosa
Rubiaceae Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea
Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia alba
S.caeolaris
S. ovata
Sterculiaceae Heritiera littoralis

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.

Realizing the great decline in mangrove communities, several efforts were

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

and Rollon 2008).

Importance of Mangroves in the Philippines

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

depend on marine habitats for food and services.

Mangrove planting has been identified as a strategy to lessen destruction due to

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

by buffering storms and floods (Garcia et al. 2014).

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

Philippines. It can store large amount of carbon.

Mangrove Loss and Destruction

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

mangroves. Mangal communities have been underestimated in terms of economic,

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

Everham and Brokaw (1996) described some characteristics of a forest in

response to wind damage. Furthermore, responses differ according to species

composition and its location. Responses include regrowth, recruitment, release and

repression.

Regrowth or resprouting from damaged stems has been identified as an

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

to catastrophe. As a regeneration pathway, recruitment has often been regarded to have

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

high rates of mortality would be greater.

Everham and Brokaw (1996) defined release as the increase of plants growth

rate due to the removal of its competitors. It is considered as an important mode of

regeneration in temperate countries (Webb 1999) and tropical countries (Whigham et

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

more after the Hurricane Andrew.

Catastrophes can also result to suppression characterized by a decline in growth

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

suppress the growth of other species (Martin and Ogden 2006).

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

Bolusao Creek, Binacalan Creek and Cagawcaw Creek (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Shown are the study sites. Plots are

indicated by the points.

9
 Vegetation Sampling

General methodology of plot establishment, data collection, processing and

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

Guide to Philippine Mangroves by Primavera (2009).

Data Analysis

Analyses for mangrove density, basal area, and diversity were determined using

the following formulas computed in a Microsoft Excel 2013:

. 10,000 2
=

2 = 0.005

=
2 10,000 2

10
 .
= 100
.

= 100

= 100

= + +

= ( ) log ( )

=1

Ni = importance value of a species

N = sum of importance value of all the species
S = total number of species in the sample

11
 RESULTS

Species Composition

Eleven species of mangroves were found in Lawaan. These are Acrostichum

aureum, Acrostichum speciosum, Aegiceras corniculatum, Aegiceras floridum,

Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Excoecaria agallocha, Nypa fruticans, Rhizophora apiculata,

Rhizophora stylosa, Sonneratia alba, and Xylocarpus granatum. Nypa fruticans,

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

corniculatum, Excoecaria agallocha, and Rhizophora stylosa were absent in river

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

nine species while the sea coasts had only six.

Species Diversity Index

Species Diversity Index

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Bolusao Binacalan Cagawcaw

Sea coast River Coast

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

sprouting in the sea coasts of Bolusao Creek and Cagawcaw Creek.

Bolusao Creek Cagawcaw Creek Binacalan Creek

120
120 120
100 100 100
80 80 80
60 60 60
40 40 40
20 20 20
0 0 0
Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14

Sea Coast River Coast

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

seedling present in the other sites were mostly R. apiculata.

Bolusao Creek Cagawcaw Creek Binacalan Creek

1.5 1.5 1.50

1 1 1.00

0.5 0.5 0.50

0 0 0.00
Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14

Sea Coast River Coast

Figure 4. Seedling density (Count per 100 m2) are compared in each sites during the
sampling in February, March, and April 2014.

15
 DISCUSSION

Mangrove Composition and Diversity

Periodic typhoons in the tropics characterize mangrove extent (Roth 1992). It is

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.

Typhoon Effects and Mangrove Responses

Roth (1992) stated that storm disturbances will favor species that can flower

constantly, produce abundant seedlings and sprouts, grow fast in open conditions and

reproduce at early maturity. From the species found, B. gymnorrhiza, N. fruticans, R.

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

found by the work of Kauffman and Cole (2010) on responses to typhoons of

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.

alba, there is a more-shaded below canopy environment which corresponds to higher

leaf area index. This would result to lesser light penetration that can inhibit the growth

of seedlings (Baldwin et al. 2001)

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

to appear (Roth 1992).

Given the densities of seedlings and the percentage of resprouting trees,

mangroves in Lawaan are not threatened as a community. Countries in Latin America

like Puerto Rico (Wadsworth 1959) and Venezuela (Luna Lugo 1976), natural

regeneration was proven effective to replace harvested portion of mangroves stands by

hurricanes.

17
 Regenerative Capacities

Direct Regeneration Hypothesis was first coined by Boucher (1989) which he

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

of Binacalan Creek are recovering by release of seedlings. Mangrove forests direct

regeneration after typhoon is primarily through release rather than resprouting (Baldwin

et al. 2001).

Figure 6 compares the average diversity, seedling density, and percentage of

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).

Timing of sampling would affect patterns of growth because poorly refoliated

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

longer sampling monitoring.

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

Percentage of Resprouting Seedling Density Mangrove Diversity

Trees

Figure 5. Comparison of the average percentage of resprouting trees, seedling density,

and species diversity.

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

the primary response of mangroves from the typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in Lawaan,

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

Lawaan would be enough to return to its pre-typhoon structure.

20
 REFERENCES

Aksornkoae, S. (1993) Ecology and Management of Mangroves. IUCN, Bangkok,

Thailand, 176 pp.

Baldwin A, M Egnotovich, M Ford and W Platt (2001) Regeneration in fringe

mangrove forests damaged by Hurricane Andrew Plant Ecology 157: 149
162.

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.

Macintosh D.J., and E.C. Ashton (2002) A review of mangrove biodiversity

conservation and management. Centre for Tropical Ecosystems Research,
University of Aarhus, Denmark
Marks, P.L. (1974) The role of pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) in the
maintenance of stability in northern hardwood ecosystems. Ecological
Monographs 44:73-88.
Martin T. J. and J. Ogden. (2006) Wind damage and response in New Zealand forests:
a review. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30(3): 295-310
McCarthy, J. J., O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, and K.S. White (2001)
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. GRID, Arendal.
Mendoza A, D. Alura (2001) Mangrove structure on the eastern coast of Samar
Island, Philippines (pp 423425). In: DE Stott, RHMohtar, GCSteinhard (eds)
Sustaining the global farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil
Conservation Organization Meeting held May 2429, 1999 at Purdue
University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory
Nagelkerken I, S. Blaber, S. Bouillon, P. Green, M. Haywood, L.G. Kirton, J.O.
Meynecke, J. Pawlik, H.M. Penrose, A. Sasekumar, and P.J. Somerfield
(2008) The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marina fauna: a
review. Aqu Bot 89(2):155185

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

Bolusao Overall Total AA AF NF RA SA XG

Total SBA 73.10 - 0.01 - 3.33 43.41 26.36
Tree SBA 73.08 - - - 3.32 43.41 26.36
Sapling SBA - - - - - - -
Seedling SBA 0.02 - 0.01 - 0.01 - -
Stems/ha 2,600 75 500 925 900 150 50
Tree Density 1,425 75 - 925 225 150 50
Sapling Density - - - - - - -
Seedling Density 1,175 - 500 - 675 - -
Species Diversity Index 0.72 (0.06) (0.10) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.13)
IV (Importance Value) 300 12.97 29.82 56.63 67.23 85.32 48.04

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

Plot no 3 girth (cm)

Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA
RA 1 36 1 103.1322
2 65 18 2 361.9971
3 43 1 147.1384
4 38 22 2 153.425
5 45 13 2 174.5926
6 51 1 206.9805
1147.266

SEAWARD

Plot no 1 girth (cm)

Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA
SA 1 38 37 8 8 4 234.0368
2 43 31 30 36 37 5 507.3052
3 27 25 15 26 4 179.4468
4 28 30 2 134.0081
5 36 27 20 3 192.9749 1247.772
RA 1 15 16 22 3 76.79208
2 22 1 38.51541
3 15 24 2 63.74141 179.0489

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

Plot no 2 girth (cm)

Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA

SEAWARD

Plot no 1 girth (cm)

Sp Plant no 1 2 3 4 5 stems total BA
SA 1 153 69 50 3 2440.635
AC 1 20 6 2 34.6957
EA 1 29 45 68 67 4 953.2563
2 73 44 2 578.129
3 71 1 401.1491
4 66 40 2 473.9623 2406.497

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

(1.54) (1.69) (1.64) (1.35) (0.46) (0.79) (1.57) (0.72) (0.81)

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.35 0.16 0.03 0.19 0.15
0.01 - 0.07 2.66 - 14.97 0.50 40.67 41.12
3.66 1.10 1.83 0.73 75.09 8.42 2.56 6.23 0.37
5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 25.00 5.00 10.00 5.00
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.35 0.29 0.06 0.12 0.06
1 1 1 2 6 5 1 2 1
111 33 56 22 2,278 256 78 189 11
- - - - 3,000 300 - - -
- - - - 5,000 - - - -
- - - 100 7,000 - - - -
- - - 100 - 1,000 - 100 -
- - - - - 100 - - -
1,000 300 - - 4,000 - - - -
- - - - 1,000 700 - - -
- - - - 500 200 - - 100
- - 500 - - - 700 1,600 -

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