Status of Mangrove Vegetation in Lemery, Batangas, Southern Luzon, Philippines

(A Critique on the Research Paper of Bernardo C. Lunar, 2013)

Summary of the Paper

A descriptive study that determined diversity of mangrove species of Mataas na Bayan
and Palanas Lemery, Batangas. A total of eight (8) 10mx10m quadrats were established along
the low intertidal and mid-intertidal zones of the mangrove forest blocks. Parameters such as
frequency and density were gathered from the said quadrats where a total of 153 mangrove
trees belonging to 13 species were found. Also, the average girth at breast height, average
height, average crown, and average diameter at breast height of the total number of mangrove
trees were obtained. This lead to a conclusion that Palanas mangrove forest is found to have a
relatively higher species richness and diversity index. These diversity results indicate that
Lemery is home to different mangrove species, which justifies the essentiality for mangrove
management, protection and reforestation.

Critique on the Paper

The introduction part established a problem and gave a concrete solution proposal, an
indication of a clear thesis statement. This is shown by the author using “general to specific”
explanation of the problem. He started with the general concepts of mangroves, i.e. its
definition, description, and ecological importance. Which then moved forward to a specific
area at the local level (from national up to CALABARZON level). Problem statement
mentioned clearly as “In the face of the management and conservation efforts being done by
the various sectors of the society, these types of anthropogenic activities still remain rampant
in CALABARZON” which will be answered by a proposed solution through “mangrove
reforestation”. Introduction part ended by stating a brief and concise general objective (“…to
determine the community structure and distribution of mangrove species in 2 villages”).
There seemed to be an error where instead of “Review of Related Literature” the word
“Framework” was used in page 3. The RRL was nicely done, still emphasizing on the “general
to specific” approach of discussion (related literatures were properly introduced from
international down to local level). Very informative analysis of different findings from related
literatures. Author was able to connect data, at the same time discussing what it implies.
In the framework part, the author used a concise phrase “biodiversity monitoring study”
in describing a concrete method on how the study will be done. There is no comment with the
operational framework, better yet to enhance the overall appearance of the diagram.
The word “Methodology” could be appropriate than using the phrase “Materials and
Methods” since the study did not mention any equipment used. It would be ironic to use
“Materials and Methods” when there is no materials mentioned in this part. On the other hand,
the map of the location of the study could still be enhanced including its figure description. The
author may opt to use GIS application software such as QGIS, ArcGIS, etc. or ask help from a
GIS expert.
 In the Results and Discussion (R&D) part, there was nothing wrong with it, all results
and findings were justified and elaborated in the discussion. For the table results presentation
it may be best to Ctrl+L the table descriptions and not Ctrl+E. There is a typo error in Table 1
1st row 3rd column, scientific names should be written all in italics and lowercase letters aside
from its very first alphabet.
Moreover, it was observed that there was no “Conclusions and Recommendations
(C&R)” part emphasized in the later part. Instead it was integrated and included inside the
R&D. This might give an impression to the readers that the author is tired in writing and instead
just integrated the C&R with the R&D portion. It is not bad since still C&R is prevalent and
observable, but then it is more appealing to the readers if they see the C&R portion.
Furthermore, the author successfully stated a conclusion that one of the two (2) area
dominated in terms of its diversity. And put up a suggestive recommendation that mangroves
should be planted and restored in areas where conditions are appropriate, imploring IECs,
creation of nurseries, and formation of a mangrove pro civic group. Meanwhile, the “Literature
Cited” part is not in standard APA style format.
Overall the formatting, sentence construction, grammar and spelling is astonishing.
However, it is suggested that indentions should be increased, and be mindful with the use of
periods especially in between after a sentence and putting a citation. There were also misuse of
commas. Spacing is excellent but it is suggested that table and figure descriptions be drawn
closer to the table or figure.