Sani 2019

International Journal of Remote Sensing
ISSN: 0143-1161 (Print) 1366-5901 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20
Recent advancement on estimation of blue carbon

biomass using satellite-based approach
Dalhatu Aliyu Sani, Mazlan Hashim & Mohammad Shawkat Hossain
To cite this article: Dalhatu Aliyu Sani, Mazlan Hashim & Mohammad Shawkat Hossain (2019):
Recent advancement on estimation of blue carbon biomass using satellite-based approach,
International Journal of Remote Sensing
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1601289
Published online: 16 Apr 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tres20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1601289
Recent advancement on estimation of blue carbon biomass

using satellite-based approach
Dalhatu Aliyu Sania,b,c, Mazlan Hashim a,b
and Mohammad Shawkat Hossain d
a
Geoscience & Digital Earth Centre (INSTEG), Research Institute for Sustainable Environment (RISE),
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia; bFaculty of Built Environment and Surveying,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia; cDepartment of Geography, Yusuf Maitama
Sule University, Kano, Nigeria; dInstitute of Oceanography and Environment (INOS), Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu (UMT), Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

History revealed that people had been discharging a large propor- Received 26 September 2018
tion of carbon into the atmosphere through fossil fuel consump- Accepted
tion and the marine environment. These have prompted
atmospheric carbon fixations that have proved to be larger than
at any other point throughout the human survival. Due to the
critical role of blue carbon in the ocean carbon cycle, it is essential
to pay extra attention to these habitats (mangrove, seagrass mea-
dows, salt marshes, and coral reefs). Hence, this article reviews the
recent developments in blue carbon biomass estimation using
a geospatial approach and highlighted the blue carbon compo-
nents achievements and gaps. Biomass and soil carbon estimation,
using change detection analysis, were reviewed. Analysis of the
carbon conversion factors, used in converting biomass to carbon,
was demonstrated. The review shall act as support for the realiza-
tion of the target 14.2 and 14.5 of the 14th sustainable develop-
ment goal established by the United Nations, to fast track the
achievement of the 2020 agenda.
1. Introduction
Since 1850, people have discharged roughly 480 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere via fossil
fuel consumption and changes in land use (Aaheim et al. 2015). These have prompted
atmospheric CO2 fixations that are larger than at any other point throughout the
previous twenty million years (Crutzen and Andreae 2016). Fossil fuel emissions are
one of the critical types of global carbon emissions, which are generated from defor-
estation, and forests fire (Bond 2018). The category of carbon stored in the coastal
vegetated ecosystems typically, mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes are termed
‘blue carbon.’
Blue carbon habitats play a critical part in the global carbon cycle as estimated according
to the sequester roughly 11.5 billion tons of carbon (approximately 42 billion t CO2e) from
the world’s atmospheric carbon stocks (Thomas 2014). In addition, about 50% of this carbon
CONTACT Mazlan Hashim mazlanhashim@utm.my Geoscience & Digital Earth Centre (INSTEG), Research
Institute for Sustainable Environment (RISE), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. A. SANI ET AL.
is stored as biomass or cycled into the sediment. Indeed, these habitats represent one of the
essential global carbon storage (Pendleton et al. 2012). Information on the quantity of
carbon stored by the coastal ecosystems specifically seagrass and marshes are scanty, even-
though literature reports that the ecosystems are regarded as globally essential surface
reserves (Atwood et al. 2015; Pendleton et al. 2012). A comprehensive understanding of
their carbon pools is crucial for controlling the effects of the carbon released into the ocean
environment and atmosphere (Fourqurean et al. 2012; Lewis et al. 2018; Vierros 2017). In
these regards, precise estimations of biomass, and other biophysical parameters of these
habitats are necessary for better comprehension of the global carbon cycle as well as global
warming. Similarly, information on blue carbon biomass and, the soil is expected to help in
realizing sustainable coastal resource management.
There are several studies on carbon pool detection that categorized the potential
carbon pools based-on the following components (Schile et al. 2017; Davis et al. 2015):
such as above-ground living biomass, found in seagrass meadow and salt marshes; and
woody, found in mangroves (Schile et al. 2017; Johnson, Lovelock, and Herr 2016;
Bhomia, Kauffman, and McFadden 2016). The above-ground dead biomass, mainly leaf
debris, can be found in all the three habitats or wood in mangroves, and other organic
remains as macro-algae (Phang, Chou, and Friess 2015) while the below-ground living
biomass (BGLB) are roots and rhizomes dominant (Congdon, Wilson, and Dunton 2017).
Similarly, the below-ground carbon (BGC) constitutes soil organic matter and dead plant
tissues (Schile et al. 2017). Mangrove store more carbon in below-ground (about 75%),
whereas seagrass meadows store mostly (>90%) (Alongi 2014). However, there are
challenges in field survey on below-ground biomass (BGB) made researchers to con-
centrate more on above-ground biomass (AGB) estimation (Tang et al. 2018).
To study blue carbon biomass effectively, and to monitor changes over time and
space, require accurate, and useful mapping techniques. These methods supposed to
cover national and local scale biomass estimations. Factors that prevented effective
monitoring include: 1) often imprecise due to the little part of the habitats that are
sampled; 2) suitable data are hard to gather, mainly because of the cost and time. For
precise estimations of biomass and carbon sequestration rates, numerous plots must be
built-up (Kauranne et al. 2017), this is particularly true in locations with exceptionally
different habitats, for instance, mangrove forest (Kelleway et al. 2017).
The use of remote sensing (RS) data and technique offer many advantages, which
overcomes the sample size limitations, timeliness, expenditure, and access that can
conceivably be addressed at a sequence of scales (Dierssen 2016; Musa et al. 2018;
Musa, Hashim, and Reba 2017). Consequently, RSbased AGB estimation has progressively
attracted scientific interest (Hashim et al. 2014; Hossain et al. 2015a; Misbari and Hashim
2016; Lu et al. 2016; Winarso et al. 2017; Greaves et al. 2016; Goïta, Mouloungou, and
Bénié 2017). However, the accuracy of the produced map is influenced by the capacity of
a classification approach, which discriminates between various vegetation types. Biomass
estimation using optical RS data is usually realized through discovering the correlation
between biomass and spectral responses or potential vegetation indices acquired from
multispectral images. Early works in this field are limited (Pham and Brabyn 2017; Hossain
et al. 2015b; Roelfsema et al. 2015a; Zolkos, Goetz, and Dubayah 2013).
Optical RS techniques have been widely utilized to predict blue carbon biomass since
the spectral responses recorded in optical images are mostly associated with the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 3
interaction between solar radiance and standing seagrass or tree canopies (Penner et al.
2014). Trunk and branch biomass (Van Stan II and Pypker 2015). Similarly, Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR) RS, have also been utilized mainly in regions with frequent cloud
cover (Perennou et al. 2018), this is due to its penetration capacity that enables detec-
tion of target objects.
Previous studies have reviewed and demonstrated the capability of satellite based-RS
in estimating biophysical parameters of habitats, specifically AGB and soil carbon (Gao
et al. 2016; Karan, Samadder, and Maiti 2016; Adams et al. 2017). However, they
remained silent, particularly on reviewing carbon conversion factors used for converting
biomass into carbon. Similarly, spatiotemporal analysis of biomass and soil carbon
estimation within the blue carbon habitats were equally ignored. Likewise, it is con-
firmed that all the previous reviews on blue carbon biomass mapping and evaluation
using satellite-based techniques only documented one or two significant habitats, with-
out taking the three habitats into account (seagrass, mangrove and salt marshes). This
created a vacuum on comprehending blue carbon biomass mapping and estimation.
Therefore, this review compliments the researches, by evaluating some recent develop-
ments on biomass and soil carbon estimation using satellite-based techniques. The
specific objectives include: 1) reviewing the latest developments on biomass estimation;
2) investigating and reporting of some research gaps in blue carbon habitats; 3)
evaluating relevant scientific literature on biomass and soil carbon estimation through
the use of change detection analysis; and 4) analysing the carbon conversion factors/
values for highlighting the regional coverage of the published knowledge.
2. Methodology and scope of the review

2.1. Literature searching and selection criteria
The bibliographic search was conducted via the Scopus engine, IEEE Xplore Digital
Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Elsevier databases. Eligibility criteria incor-
porated only articles published from 2007 to 2019 (more than decade) with the sub-
sequent terms in their title, abstract, and keywords: (‘“blue carbon ecosystem”’ or
‘“mangrove biomass” or ‘salt marshes biomass’ or “seagrass biomass”’) and (‘“time-
series”’ or ‘“carbon stock”’ or ‘“change detection”’ or ‘“geospatial”’). The summed-up
results were 386 articles that without duplication became 247 articles. Non-English
publications are excluded in the search.
Some publications addressed coastal ecosystems or coastal habitats, which qualified
them to be blue carbon ecosystem studies, despite their failure to mention ‘“blue
carbon”’. These were not incorporated in our search as the scope of the critical review
is to ‘“investigate recent advancements in blue carbon biomass and carbon estimation
publication”’ and, consequently, the search focused was on articles that are solely
geospatial-based (carbon stock estimation, change detection, and time-series analysis).
The process of selecting articles to be included in this review commenced with the
screening of 386 abstracts as mentioned in the previous stage. This first selection gave
a general description of the literature with blue carbon and geospatial techniques in
their title, abstract, or keywords. The selection criteria adopted in the screening of the
abstract were the article topic and the ecosystem type. Articles excepted if they were:
4 D. A. SANI ET AL.
● Not related to blue carbon, a total of 45 articles.

● Mentioned the term ‘coastal ecosystems’ for justification motive without addressing
the subject matter, a total of 34 articles.
● On purely terrestrial ecosystems, a total of 60 articles.
As a result, about 40% of the total articles were excluded at this stage. Accordingly,
only articles that carried out geospatial estimates of biomass and carbon stocks were
reserved for the final phase of the analysis. Finally, 52 articles were critically reviewed.
While the remaining 195, were used for citations in the remaining sections of this review.
2.2. Review architecture

The review commenced by going over the recent development in blue carbon biomass
and carbon estimation using geospatial techniques, investigating the blue carbon
component’s achievements and gaps in a global context. Contemporary methods
employed in estimating biomass in seagrass-mangrove habitats were revised, prominent
spatiotemporal analysis (change detection) used in biomass and soil carbon estimation
were reviewed, carbon conversion factors employed in converting biomass into carbon
were also reviewed, and validation of the results was also observed. Finally, the article
highlights the critical gaps in the present status of the knowledge and suggests direc-
tions for future research. Figure 1 demonstrates the work design of the review article.
While, for a clear understanding of the abbreviations used in this article, Table 1 presents
their full meaning.
3. Recent development in blue carbon biomass estimation using remote

sensing and related approach
The green carbon initiatives under the watch of the United Nations (UN), has grown high
in biomass and carbon mapping as they have produced remarkable results for total
carbon estimations for global terrestrial ecosystems (Crabb 2018). These techniques had
been used in (terrestrial ecosystem) biomass estimation, which expanded to eco-spatial
carbon mapping, including knowledge economy and environment, which means that
the terrestrial ecosystem reached its pick to the level of integrating green carbon
ecosystem services into spatial planning context (Li et al. 2017). But there is
a shortage of blue carbon. However, the advancement in blue carbon studies is not
only limited by the variety of RS systems but also, the different image processing
techniques for the estimation of carbon from biomass (Zhao et al. 2018).
Among the recent techniques that rationalized the geospatial, analysis and methods
include RS, geographical information system (GIS) and global positioning system (GPS).
These are integrated as 3s technology (Kaliraj, Chandrasekar, and Ramachandran 2017;
Yuan, Chu, and Shen 2009). The integration of GIS and RS techniques has resulted as
a potent tool for analyzing substantial biophysical parameters in the context of regional
and global scale (Franklin and Miller 2010). It offers a novel view of the biomass
estimation that could not possibly be achieved with sparse in-situ measurements and
allow the assimilation of many different datasets to understand more of the AGB, BGB,
Figure 1. Workflow of the reviewed literature used in this study.
and soil mapping as well as modeling processes (Kuenzer et al. 2011; Klemas 2010; Rees
et al. 2012).
Spatially, a more reliable technique to produce maps of carbon stock is through
extending the satellite-based measurements into maps, which are carried out through
calibrating them with AGB field estimates and statistical methods such as logistic
regression and “machine learning” approaches, like neural networks (NN) (Kim et al.
2014; Wei et al. 2010; Vafaei et al. 2018). This implies that the techniques make use of in-
situ data (biomass) for “training” the algorithm and developing a set of rules through
which any compounding observations of the satellite (whether LiDAR, radar, optical, or
combination of these) (Davis et al. 2015). The technique is often employed in an iterative
way (Su et al. 2016), passing through the data sets and rules (Zhang et al. 2014). When
the training data are ubiquitous, it operates, optimized rules, which are recognized and
then employed (Rocha de Souza Pereira et al. 2018).
6 D. A. SANI ET AL.
Table 1. Description of acronyms used in this review.

Acronym Description
AGB Above-ground biomass
AGC Above-ground carbon
AGLB Above-ground living biomass
BGB Below-ground biomass
BGC Below-ground carbon
BGLB Below-ground living biomass
CV Conversion value
C2 Carbon dioxide
GHG Geographic information system
GIS Greenhouse gasses
GPS Global positioning system
IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climate change
MTN Metric tons per annum
OC Organic carbon
RISE Research institute for sustainable environment
RS Remote sensing
SDG Sustainable development goals
UN United nations
UNFCCC United nations framework convention on climate change
USD United state dollars
SAR Synthetic aperture radar
Over the years several efforts had been invested in biomass, carbon species mapping,
estimation, and modeling within blue carbon habitats using optical RS (Amran 2017;
Roelfsema et al. 2014); biomass cover detection from leaf area index (LAI) (Wicaksono
2017); and change detection analysis (Kim et al. 2015; Lyons, Roelfsema, and Phinn 2015;
Misbari and Hashim 2016; Otero et al. 2017). Hence, optical RS has become a popular
means of biomass and soil carbon estimation (Franklin and Miller 2010).
Furthermore, SAR technology offers significantly essential data with the capability to image
landscape via cloud cover, in the daytime and nightly that often could be a limitation for
optical RS sensors (Sinha et al. 2015). In recent years, SAR data have successfully, been used in
different blue carbon applications (Pham et al. 2019; Bunting et al. 2018). The European Space
Agency (ESA) recently launched dual twin SAR satellites for continuing the missions of ERS and
Envisat, Sentinel-1A and Sentinel-1B. The two satellites convey a C-band (5.7 cm wavelength)
SAR instrument providing single (HH/VV) or double (HH + VH/VV + VH) data products
polarization (Shao, Li, and Yang 2019). By the commencement of the Sentinel-1 mission,
a journey of a new era for SAR mapping has instigated; therefore, the utilization of C-band
to monitor changes as well as wetlands mapping such as blue carbon habitats has increased.
Satellite-based data have also been useful in providing information on biomass and soil,
which are helpful for spatial mapping distribution of carbon and changes across blue carbon
ecosystems (Barrell 2016; Misbari and Hashim 2016; Castillo et al. 2017; Hamilton and Friess
2018). This has brought rapid development in RS technology. Apart from satellite data, drone
imageries with medium and higher-resolutions (including Landsat, SPOT, IKONOS, QuickBird,
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and LiDAR) have been used for estimating blue carbon
biomass (Yang and Yang 2009; Adams et al. 2017; Amran 2017; Hashim et al. 2014; Amani
et al. 2017). These methods have provided high spatiotemporal resolutions for change
detection analysis in biomass estimation (Yang 2016; Proisy et al. 2017; Giri and Muhlhausen
2008; Miller, Morris, and Wang 2017). Table 2 presents some prime sensors employed for
biomass estimation (Hamdan et al. 2013; Lyons, Phinn, and Roelfsema 2012; Misbari and
Hashim 2016; Pham and Brabyn 2017; Roelfsema et al. 2014, 2015b). While some applied
Table 2. Major satellite sensors used in blue carbon researches.

Swath Average
Sensor Spatial resolution (m2) width (km) revisit (days) Citation
Landsat TM 30 185 16 Hamdan et al. (2013); El-Askary et al. (2014)
Landsat MSS 30 185 16 Lyons, Phinn, and Roelfsema (2012)
Landsat ETM+ 30 180 16 Miller, Morris, and Wang (2017)
Landsat OLI 30 180 16 Misbari and Hashim (2016)
SPOT 8 60 1 Pham and Brabyn (2017)
IKONOS 4 11.3 3 Roelfsema et al. (2014)
QuickBird 2.4 16.5 3.5 Roelfsema et al. (2014)
LiDAR 0.3–30 3 - Wannasiri et al. (2013)
SAR Independent of the 8.5 - Fatoyinbo and Simard (2013)
platform height
SAR and LiDAR data specially to map large scale coastal environment (Fatoyinbo and Simard
2013). Although, the high-resolution satellite data is still under-utilized. This creates the need
for more studies on utilizing high-resolution satellite sensors in mapping and estimation of
blue carbon multi-species.
4. Analysing blue carbon components: achievements and gaps

Carbon pools as reservoirs store and emit carbon. Global carbon pools include atmosphere,
vegetation, soil, and ocean (Reda 2017; Macreadie et al. 2017b; Ahmed, Thompson, and Glaser
2017). The dominant blue carbon components/pools comprise of seagrass, saltmarsh, and
mangrove habitats (Pendleton et al. 2012). These components sequester a substantial propor-
tion of carbon in their AGB, BGB, and soil. More so, they are regarded as a cost-effective means
of mitigating the effects of climate change such as global warming.
Thus, detection of carbon pool is essential in determining the total carbon stock in an
investigated area, through mapping and estimating the quantity of biomass and soil carbon
(Sousa et al. 2017; Mishra et al. 2017). Long-living mangroves hold a substantial proportion of
autotrophic carbon compared to seagrasses (Whitfield 2017). Organic carbon can be exported
to adjacent ecosystems to influence the carbon cycle (Thompson et al. 2017a). There are recent
studies that focused attention mainly on a partial estimate of the single component of blue
carbon such as AGB, BGB, or soil (Abd-El Monsef, Hassan, and Shata 2017; Amran 2017;
Congdon, Wilson, and Dunton 2017; Misbari and Hashim 2016). These methods did not take
the three components into account. Therefore, it is essential to investigate achievements and
gaps through this review.
RS can measure and predict only the biophysical characteristics (Duveiller, Hooker, and
Cescatti 2018; Lees et al. 2018). But, a precise estimate of underground soil carbon remains
challenging. These accurate measurements are essential for managing blue carbon stock, to
support the achievements of target 14.2 of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 14th of the
United Nations, scheduled to be terminated in 2020.
Stakeholders involved in the blue carbon researches have pointed out the needs and
the challenges in biomass, carbon stocks mapping, and estimation (Hannigan 2018;
Sanderman et al. 2018). Some of the critical issues are:
(1) Acknowledging the fact those diverse scales of mapping might be suitable for
different determinations;
8 D. A. SANI ET AL.
(2) Informing the policymakers of the need, to a broader picture, for estimating the
carbon stored in each of the components, and the implication of that in financial
terms over a large area;
(3) The need for very fine-scale information for market-based tools at a larger scale;
(4) The less priority is given to the estimation of seagrass, mangrove, and salt marsh
habitats, and their influence on carbon stored regardless of the challenges involved
in it;
(5) Failure to share the knowledge of mapping and modelling of blue carbon
ecosystems with the policymakers;
(6) Knowledge of the appropriate RS tools amenable to monitoring and mapping blue
carbon habitats, which may, in turn, affect the accuracy of carbon stock estimations and
at the same time these tools are needed to be established, and simplified for data
obtainability and easier comprehending; and
(7) The need for incorporating financial values in blue carbon biomass and soil carbon
estimation, along with related ecosystem services in mapping and modelling to encou-
rage conservation and restoration of these crucial blue carbon components.
4.1. Mangrove forest

Mangrove forests are known to be salt tolerant woody floras that form extreme productive
intertidal habitat with equivalent carbon production rates like that of humid tropical forests
(Alongi 2014; Siikamäki et al. 2013; Sani and Hashim 2018). This habitat stores more below-
ground carbon (BGC) than the above-ground carbon (AGC) (Kauffman et al. 2014; Giri and
Muhlhausen 2008; Hayes et al. 2017). They are also, regarded as one of the most carbon-rich
habitats, that covers an average of about 937 tC ha-1, enabling fine particles to accumulate and
facilitating rapid rates of sediment deposit (~5 mm year-1) as well as carbon burial (174
gC m-2 year-1) (Alongi 2012). More so, mangrove accounts for only about 1% (13.5 Gt year-1)
of the world’s forests carbon sequestration (Witt 2016; Giri et al. 2011).
Mapping and estimation of mangrove habitat biomass and carbon are undertaken by
employing geospatial data collection approach such as RS and GIS (Tang et al. 2018, 2016; Kirui
et al. 2013). Combining the geospatial datasets with field observation data offers support for
estimating the mangrove AGB, BGB, and soil carbon (Koedsin et al. 2016; Hossain and Hashim
2019; Pham et al. 2018). In addition, other logistic models and neural networks (NN) can be
used to establish the correlation between mangrove biomass and their drivers, to estimate
biomass and carbon in mangrove at a global level (Yevugah 2017; Carreiras, Vasconcelos, and
Lucas 2012).
Advanced mapping and estimation ability of RS for mangrove carbon stock have created
much progress than in seagrass and salt marshes (Paul, Dennis, and George 2016). The global
extent of mangrove is known (Romañach et al. 2018; Polidoro et al. 2010). These achievements
may also be associated with recognition of mangrove carbon-storing capacity within
‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, plus the sustainable manage-
ment of forests, and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks’ (REDD+) and
other international conservation legacies. Mangrove forests are among the prime habitats for
reforestation and restoration (Ahmed and Glaser 2016; Wylie, Sutton-Grier, and Moore 2016).
Although, there is a wide gap in terms integrating the three variables (AGC, BGC, and soil) to
produced total estimates of carbon stock in the habitat.
4.2. Salt marshes

The increasing recognition of salt marshes as a global important blue carbon compo-
nent has led to the realization of the habitat as an emitter of a large quantity of stored
carbon, which can return back to the atmosphere (as carbon dioxide) (Thompson et al.
2014). This habitat covers about 51,000 km2 of the world, consequently resulting in
about 2 Pg C of the world’s total carbon (Breithaupt et al. 2014). However, the recent
studies are yet to document the actual global extent of salt marshes ecosystem. As such,
the current estimate may not be reliable and is subject to uncertainty (Miteva, Murray,
and Pattanayak 2015). This evidence shows that globally, there are fewer documented
researches on mapping and estimation of salt marshes carbon stocks using RS technol-
ogy. Although, the little existing publications did not report the integration of the three
variables (AGC, BGC, and soil), as in the case of seagrasses and mangroves habitats.
Marshes, as well as serve as essential carbon sinks (Schiebel 2016; Rogers et al. 2016). In
this regard, their conservation and restoration are also needed to mitigate the acceler-
ated climate change.
4.3. Seagrass meadows

Seagrass meadows are also among the most productive blue carbon components
(Cullen-Unsworth and Unsworth 2016), which cover about 319,000 km2 of the globe,
and this record gives a substantial estimate of total carbon stock of 2.3 Pg C (Cullen-
Unsworth and Unsworth 2013; Siikamäki et al. 2013). The habitats sequester a large
proportion of carbon through greater production as well as organic matter burial
(Johnson et al. 2017). Geographically, seagrass information in Southeast Asia is unba-
lanced (Furuya et al. 2018). This lack makes the current estimate of seagrass carbon stock
to be one-sided as most researchers mainly focussed on AGB mapping and estimation
using satellite-based RS (Misbari and Hashim 2016; Hashim et al. 2014; Da Silva, de
Souza, and Marinho-Soriano 2017). While the remaining variables (BGB and soil carbon)
that contain a majority of the carbon stocks have been ignored as earlier stated
(Wicaksono and Hafizt 2013; Hamana and Komatsu 2016; Barillé et al. 2010).
Recently, the advancements in RS technology and support by United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP) also prompted the rapid emergence of researches
on areal coverage and estimation of seagrass meadows (Fortes et al. 2018; Mcleod et al.
2011). Carbon stock data for seagrass is considered to be critical and mainly for effective
seagrass management and conservation. These have become imperative, especially at
the regional level as it gives baselines for comprehending ecosystem trajectories under
natural circumstances or due to environmental change response over long-term. In
considering the seagrass paths global analysis, more efforts should be added in carbon
stocks mapping and estimation to supports conservation and restoration of the seagrass
component as well, for climate change mitigation strategy (Siikamäki et al. 2013; Mcleod
et al. 2011; Petus et al. 2014).
10 D. A. SANI ET AL.
4.4. Coral reefs

Coral reefs are incredibly productive tropical bio-diverse habitats that provide several
services to human (Burns et al. 2015). These habitats are also vulnerable to several
anthropogenic and natural threats (Hughes et al. 2017). In recent decades, it has generally
been confirmed that reefs have globally degraded significantly due to over-fishing, pollu-
tion, coastal reclamation, physical deterioration caused by global warming, hurricanes, and
ocean acidification – these current threats are triggered through increasing concentrations
of atmospheric greenhouse gases (Ampou et al. 2017). Therefore, biomass and soil carbon
estimation are essential for investigating the impacts of the disruption and tracking
recovery or decline on the reefs. Estimating through field observation offers accurate
data but in highly localized scales and not cost-effective for large-scale reef estimation
and mapping on various time points. RS satellite-based approach is a substitute and
complementary approach. While RS cannot offer the details and accuracy level at
a single location than in-situ measurements, the power of statistics for deducing large-
scale patterns benefits in abstaining complete areal coverage is complimentary.
RS imagery commonly in the visible wavelengths is utilized to achieve a mapping of
coral reefs, using multi-spectral or hyperspectral data, acquired through satellite-based or
airborne sensors (Bajjouk et al. 2019) are appropriate technique for assessing the structure
and dynamics of current trends in a coral reef at larger spatial scales (Figueira et al. 2015).
The most commonly applied techniques to detect the extent of changes in land cover have
utilized Landsat multi-spectral images (Hedley et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2019).
However, the sensor’s spatial-resolution (i.e., tens of meters) is not apposite to
capture the dynamic changes in coral reef ecological status. The condition of coral
reef requires the used at fine spatial scales for monitoring in shallow waters, although
recently, at this spatial-resolution, the majority of the studies addressing change detec-
tion are restricted to geomorphological features. Satellite images of WorldView-3 were
also utilized to estimate live coral cover (LCC) employing band ratio-based index
(Bajjouk et al. 2019), this index, however, largely depends on field measurements
LCCs. Furthermore, limitations of the spatial and spectral of these two satellite sensors,
attracted the attention for the issue concerning manual and hence definitions of
a personal boundary on reef flat gradients (Saul and Purkis 2015).
4.5. Accuracy assessments in blue carbon components

Researchers across the globe have different requirements and goals for their investiga-
tions. In numerous studies, accuracy assessment was not considered essential. Besides,
accuracy assessments can be conducted through different techniques as well as
depending on various quality measures (Congalton and Green 2008) as considered an
additional factor, which reduces the comparability among studies. An accuracy assess-
ment is essential when management decisions rely upon investigators’ results; other-
wise, the discoveries could lead to unsuitable as well as cost-intensive user’s actions
(Kuenzer et al. 2011). As per a standardized classification scheme, and for accuracy
assessment, well documentation of all steps is of great importance. A significant number
of researches in blue carbon domain adopts support vector machines in RS, ANN, and
root mean square error (RMSE) accuracy assessments in biomass estimation and change
detection (Wong and Fung 2014; Teodoro 2016).
5. Recent technology used for estimating blue carbon biomass in

seagrass-mangrove habitats
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reports the
live and dead of AGB, BGB, soil carbon, carbon transition, yearly growth rate, geogra-
phical extent, and changes in a location must be estimated for a total reporting of blue
carbon stock in an investigated area (Ni 2012; Pendleton et al. 2012). These motivated
researchers to document on the availability of data, particularly from mangrove habitat
(Kuenzer et al. 2011; Rocha de Souza Pereira et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2018). This data
incorporate carbon storage in biomass and sediment, areal coverage, and decline rates,
but not the carbon flux. Mapping and measuring mangrove biomass, extent, and
changes at the national level might be accomplished by utilizing a combination of RS
and ground-based data, and verification (Berninger et al. 2018). A pertinent summary of
the available RS technology and the costs related with retrieval of data is reported in
Kuenzer et al. (2011), and Wong and Fung (2014). Without really expounding on
accessible RS technology, two technologies are briefly discussed (Hossain et al. 2015b),
which can be employed both on the project and at national levels to quantify areal
coverage/changes in AGC without taking soil carbon and carbon flux into consideration.
Many others sensors like LiDAR, from either spaceborne or airborne platforms, have
been used to map and estimate AGB ranging from high and medium-resolution
(15–60 m) RS images. Similarly, Landsat satellite data which are sourced free from the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) website (Suyadi, Lundquist, and
Schwendenmann 2018; Avtar et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2017), covering the entire globe,
can be incorporated into national inventories (Atwood et al. 2017). In a particular
location, these data are obtainable in every 16 days, on a temporal-resolution fine
sufficient to detect areal cover change over time (Yagci et al. 2017). Additionally, the
inability of RS technology to precisely detect biomass reduction due to forest degrada-
tion is a problem with Landsat (Silveira et al. 2018; Liu 2017). Likewise, Landsat is
location dependent, in which estimator of biomass algorithms established for
a particular region cannot be transported to the other areas without been modified (Li
et al. 2015).
To estimate the vertical structure of a forest for the estimation of AGB, LiDAR airborne
can be employed, as it gives more accurate results when compared with Landsat
satellite, particularly in terms of measuring canopy height, but alone cannot provide
adequate and precise biomass estimations (Chadwick 2011; Hudak et al. 2012). Thus,
scientists recommended combined use of LiDAR and Landsat satellites imagery to
improve accuracy in biomass and carbon estimation (Goetz and Dubayah 2011; Tsui
et al. 2012; Pham et al. 2018).
Theoretically, all airborne and satellite sensors with visible bands on their spectral
bands’ configuration can detect reflectance of seagrass. Satellite sensors’ visible bands of
multi-spectral, as well as hyper-spectral, are usually used in mapping submerged vege-
tated aquatic ecosystem (Hudak et al. 2012; Kutser 2009; Flynn and Chapra 2014; Misbari
and Hashim 2016). The differences in spectral reflectance within the visible wavelength
are utilized to distinguish seagrass species and classify the seafloor substrates (Hossain
et al. 2015b). Separation of this kind of spectral responses turn out to be problematic
with the presence of spectral overlap within submerged aquatic vegetation and any
seagrass habitats component (Geevarghese et al. 2018), such as algal AGB, BGB, soil, and
chlorophyll content (Ozbay, Fan, and Yang 2017; Dekker et al. 2007), which prove
a comparable spectral response. Leaves of seagrass are colonized through epiphytes
(Marco-Méndez et al. 2017). The accompaniment of epiphytes within the seagrass
meadows consequence into a spectral bias since they yield varying seagrass degrees
chlorophyll-like absorption spectra, prompted by mostly blue and red-light absorption
(Zimmerman 2007). Reliable and robust spectral differences are ascertained at the
0.58–0.6 μm, 0.52–0.53 μm, and 0.53–0.58 μm spectral portion of the red edge
0.68–0.70 μm for Halophila ovalis, Zostera capricorni, and Posidonia australis, respectively.
Irrespective of whether the leaves were happening naturally without or with epibionts
for both raw uncorrected.
Seagrass habitat has also been conventionally surveyed via field sampling techniques
(Ganguly et al. 2018; York et al. 2017; Thomson 2017). These techniques are ineffective
for gathering representative data about seagrass diversity in an investigated area
because of inaccessibility; and if by chance accessible, they may not be surveyed as
a result of potential hazards as well as environmental limitations. RS technique offers an
alternative to land-based surveys or traditional boat. For more than a decade, the world
has been witnessing the advancements of various satellite-based sensors with similar
spatiotemporal and spectral characteristics (satellite revisit time). The launch of the first
RS satellite (Landsat-1) as far back as 1972, coupled with the developed moderate
spatial-resolution (MSR) boosts the obtainability of satellite-based data. The obtainability
has been increased with the launched of low, medium and high spatial resolution (LSR,
MSR, and HSR) satellites between 1999 and 2002. These have given room for relevant
applications of multi-spectral satellite sensors to seagrass biomass and spectral, radio-
metric, and temporal characteristics (Hossain et al. 2015b).
Subjectively, RS-based techniques are usually governed through two circumstances:
the sensor spatial resolution in mapping the parameter of seagrass and the ability of the
spectral data to differentiate between the seagrass parameters to be assigned (Bargain
et al. 2012). These techniques have two main themes: 1) the effective utilization of
visible spectral range to excerpt the depth information/water quality and submerged
habitats (seagrass, epiphytes coral reefs, and benthic substrate) by employing the
appropriate image analysis algorithms, such as bottom reflectance index (BRI), and
Depth invariant index (DII); and 2) special image processing techniques essential for
compressing non-target mixing signals, which generally have similar signal strengths as
targets.
Recent development in image processing and satellite-based techniques can improve
upon the conventional approach of photo-interpretation for mapping and estimating
seagrass carbon stock. However, the competence of the satellite-based RS of seagrass
must be considered in connection to other mapping techniques. Generally, airborne
images have a broader application in monitoring seagrass, as it offers HSR imagery,
which is always flexible and free of temporal constraints (such as tide, wind, sun angle,
water, and clarity) if equated with satellite images (Islam et al. 2017; Traganos and
Reinartz 2018). The merits of these techniques include assessing extensive area coverage
of blue carbon that allows regional as well as global estimates of the biomass; and
allowing analyses and interpretations of blues carbon species mapping that have no
limitations on the number of information collected from a single RS sensor. While some
of the demerits of this techniques comprise the inability of the sensor to detect BGB and
sediment; difficulties in defining the suitable procedure for detecting changes in an area;
and issues concerning image registration, sensor hysteresis, and cloud detection pro-
cesses, all these can be due to differences in terms of spatiotemporal and spectral
resolutions of a satellite sensor.
Advances in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) can overcome the challenges of satellite
sensors for blue carbon aerial mapping along the coastal environment (Manfreda et al.
2018). UAVs operating via autopilot, with GPS mounted, and has a potential imaging
system that can substitute traditional aerial surveys, and offer an improved technique for
monitoring blue carbon habitats. Datasets produced through UAV-based RS a high
spatial-resolution of 2–5 cm, can detect changes in blue carbon species compositions
and can be mapped in detailed 2D and 3D (Ventura et al. 2018). However, such small
changes cannot be differentiated at the spatial-resolutions usually acquired using satel-
lite systems and manned-aircraft (Salach et al. 2018). Also, high automation level, ease
repeatability of survey, ease of deployment, and low UAVs running costs in comparison
with some traditional RS techniques, permits frequent missions that offer spatial data-
sets with less than 5 cm resolution and high temporal repetition as a result of the
easiness in survey deployment (Shi et al. 2016).
6. Spatio-temporal analysis in blue carbon biomass mapping and

estimation
Blue carbon coastal components have the capabilities to reflect on worldwide climate
change (Huang et al. 2017; Dai et al. 2018) as biomass mapping and estimation have
gathered remarkable attention in current studies at local, regional and global levels
(Ben-Romdhane et al. 2018; Ghasemi, Sahebi, and Mohammadzadeh 2011). Locally, blue
carbon biomass and related biophysical (aquatic environment) components are utilized
for evaluating changes in mangrove, seagrass, and salt marshes abundance and asso-
ciated species to understand the impacts of climate change at global and regional levels
(Liquete et al. 2013). Thus, the components are utilized as a proxy to comprehend
coastal health and development of coastal management plans (Halpern et al. 2014).
Previous documents have highlighted the use of spatiotemporal analysis in biomass and
carbon estimation (Gao et al. 2013; Shoko et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2017; Hiratsuka et al.
2018; Tripathi, Patel, and Kushwaha 2017). The most common studies used include time-
series analysis, where statistical tools were used for change detection analysis.
It is worthwhile to evaluate the capability of RS sensor, data, and methods in
measuring blue carbon biophysical components (one-time analysis) and change detec-
tion (multi-temporal). The spatiotemporal analysis is an evolving research domain due to
the advancements and application of new computational techniques permitting the
considerable spatiotemporal investigation (Rossiter 2018; Padarian, Minasny, and
McBratney 2015). Spatiotemporal models ascend when data are gathered across time
and space (Chatziantoniou, Psomiadis, and Petropoulos 2017). Several spatiotemporal
studies on land use and biomass using change detection techniques have been utilized
in blue carbon researches (Misbari and Hashim 2016; Lyons, Phinn, and Roelfsema 2011;
Lu, Li, and Moran 2014).
6.1. Time series analysis using change detection in blue carbon biomass
mapping and estimation
Statistically, time-series refers to the gathering of observations that are quantitatively in
nature and are equally spaced-based on time and measured successively (Cressie 2015).
The analysis is usually used when the data point in a series reached up to 50 points or
exceed (Martin-Platero et al. 2018). As a statistical tool used in change detection analysis,
the time-series analysis requires careful consideration of several factors including the
degree of change detection problems, pre-processing of satellite imageries, selection of
the appropriate variables, and algorism (Holloway and Mengersen 2018). The analysis
measures a clear framework of data and thematic information to guide more on
substantial insights into underlying procedure relating to biomass estimation and the
information derived from continuous change (Son et al. 2015).
Digital change detection processes assist in determining the dynamics associated to
the components of blue carbon, land use, and land cover changes with geo-registered
multi-temporal RS data (Fagan et al. 2015; Hermosilla et al. 2015). For instance, change
detection analysis involves continuous monitoring of biomass and soil carbon on
annually or monthly bases (DeVries et al. 2016). This analysis gains its stands in the
blue carbon research area, where several studies on biomass and soil carbon estimations
were conducted (Lyons, Roelfsema, and Phinn 2015; Traganos and Reinartz 2018; Proisy
et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2016; Miller, Morris, and Wang 2017). These are realized mainly
due to its advantages, which include descriptiveness, explanatory, forecasting, interven-
tion analysis, and quality control (Blakey, Melesse, and Hall 2015; Cunha-Lignon et al.
2011; Giri and Muhlhausen 2008; Roelfsema et al. 2014).
Additionally, change detection analysis has also been contributing in describing
changes between two or more dates, which is uncharacterized normal variation
(Frazier, Coops, and Wulder 2015; Cissell et al. 2018). The analysis is useful in numerous
applications such as soil carbon monitoring, land use changes, the rate of deforestation,
coastal change, and habitat fragmentation among others (Cissell et al. 2018; Liu et al.
2008; Chen et al. 2016; Yang and Yang 2009). AGB and BGB mapping (Misbari and
Hashim 2016; Cissell et al. 2018; Petus et al. 2014; Kanniah et al. 2015; Monzon et al.
2016b; Rahman 2010; Reddy and Roy 2008).
Despite the mentioned strengths of this analysis, It still has some limitations, among
which are: 1) complex nature, as each observation, is somewhat dependent on the
previous ones; 2) often influenced through more than one preceding view; 3) challenges
in the extraction of the autocorrelation data elements (Garamszegi 2016; Giri and
Muhlhausen 2008; Lyons, Roelfsema, and Phinn 2015); and, 4) difficulty in determining
the most suitable technique for detecting changes in an area under investigation
(Tewkesbury et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2016; Petus et al. 2014). These are mainly due to
the differences in the physical characteristics of the interest features, such as 1) issues
related to image registration; 2) sensor hysteresis; 3) cloud detection, and 4) insufficient
knowledge about the approach (Hamylton 2017; Crommelinck et al. 2016). Thirty-one
articles were reviewed on blue carbon components using change detection analysis, the
summary of the reviewed articles with their strengths, limitations, and various sensors
utilized are shown in Table 3(a–c).
These Tables presents publications conducted in mangrove, seagrass, and salt
marshes habitats using change detection analysis; fourteen of the articles were on
mangrove, thirteen on seagrass, and the remaining four on salt marshes, forming 27%,
25% and 8% of the total reviewed articles respectively. Similarly, various regions and
durations of the analyses were highlighted. The outcome of the review, based on the
Tables, shows that there are less proportion of publications on salt marshes habitat
using satellite-based-RS, which informed the need for more future studies in that area.
7. Carbon stock and conversion factors used in converting biomass to

carbon
Carbon stock is the quantity of organic carbon (OC) that is stored within the blue carbon
habitats, usually stated as mega-grams of OC per each hectare over an identified soil
depth (Macreadie et al. 2017a; Greene 2017). Relevant carbon pools are added to
determine the total stocks in an investigated area (Yando et al. 2016). Global carbon
pool reservoirs include soil, flora, ocean, and atmosphere, store and emit carbon as well
(Thompson et al. 2017b; Avelar, Voort, and Eglinton 2017). The worrisome issue of this
carbon emission triggered most nations across the globe to endorse the UNFCCC
conventions, which in turn directed them to report all the greenhouse gas inventories
of their countries comprising land use change and forested areas (Li, Du, and Huisingh
2017; Castro-Nunez, Mertz, and Sosa 2017).
Participating nations usually utilize the data of national forest inventories in mapping
and estimation of blue carbon biomass and soil (Penman et al. 2016). The estimates are
obligated to be a consistent, transparent, comparable among parties and adequately
documented (Rosenqvist 2017; Domke et al. 2017). To assist in achieving these required
targets, several researchers utilized RS technology and data ranging from medium and
high spatial-resolution satellite imageries across regional and global scale (Dube and
Mutanga 2015; Omar et al. 2014; Wicaksono et al. 2011). To that reason, twenty-one
geospatial-based articles (40% of the total article reviewed) on blue carbon biomass,
carbon mapping, and estimation using conversion factor were considered in this review
article.
These conversion factor have been used to convert biomass into carbon (Benson
et al. 2017; Hamilton et al. 2017; Hamdan et al. 2013; Githaiga et al. 2017; Camacho et al.
2011; Hamilton and Lovette 2015; Candra and Wicaksono 2016; Wicaksono, Hartono, and
Nehren 2016; Maeda et al. 2016; Stringer et al. 2015). Among the conversion factors 0.5,
(a default by United Nations (UN)) is generally applied for mangrove carbon estimation
as presents in Table 4(a,b) and (Wicaksono 2017; Pham and Yoshino 2017; Hamilton and
Friess 2018; Githaiga et al. 2017; Adame et al. 2015). It also shows the proportion of the
existing conversion values usage among the blue carbon habitats, as they are essential
for carbon estimation.
The summary of the reviewed articles together with their geographical distributions
are presented, to assist researchers to select the appropriate conversion value suitable
for their study area. This revealed that mangrove habitat has the most substantial
proportion of publications with 81% of the total Table. Similarly, seagrass and marshes
16
Table 3. Some selected change detection analyses conducted in blue carbon research publications for: (a) mangrove; (b) seagrass; (c) salt marshes, and (d) coral
reef.
Duration
Type of study Citation Satellite/Maps (years) Strength Limitation Region
(a) Change detection Kanniah et al. (2015) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 25 ● Descriptiveness, explana- ● Complex, as Malaysia
applied in Monzon et al. (2016b) Radar 5 tory, forecasting, interven- each observa- Philippines
mangrove forest Rahman (2010) Landsat TM, MSS and ETM+ 37 tion analysis and quality tion is rather Bangladesh
Otero et al. (2017) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 30 control. dependent on Malaysia
D. A. SANI ET AL.
Proisy et al. (2017) Maps 15 the previous Indonesia

Ghosh and Mishra (2017) MODIS/TIMESAT 15 observation. Louisiana (USA)
Zhang et al. (2016) Landsat TM and LiDAR 26 Florida
Reddy and Roy (2008) Landsat TM, MSS and ETM+ 11 India
Cunha-Lignon et al. (2011) Landsat TM 13 Brazil
Sirikulchayanon, Sun, and Oyana Landsat TM, ETM+ and 35 Thailand
(2008) IKONOS
C Giri et al. (2008) Landsat TM, MSS and ETM+ 30 Bangladesh and India
Cissell et al. (2018) Landsat TM, and OLI 18 Mexico
Liu et al. (2008) Landsat TM 3 Pearl River Estuary/Asia
Dan et al. (2016) Landsat TM and ETM+ 26 Senegal, Gambia, Guinea
Bissau, Bangladesh & India
(b) Change detection M. Lyons, Roelfsema, and Phinn Thematic maps/Landsat TM 22 ● Describe changes between ● Difficulty in Australia
applied in seagrass (2015), and ETM+ two or more dates that are defining suita-
meadow uncharacterized normal ble procedure
● Determine the dynamics for detecting
associated to the proper- changes in an
ties of blue carbon. area.
● Issues concern-
ing image
registration,
sensor hyster-
esis, cloud
detection.
Lyons, Roelfsema, and Phinn (2013) Landsat TM and ETM+ 22 Australia
Roelfsema et al. (2014) WorldView-2, IKONOS and 10 Australia
Quickbird-2
Lyons, Phinn, and Roelfsema (2012) Landsat TM, MSS and ETM+ 38 Australia
Blakey, Melesse, and Hall (2015) Landsat TM 5 Florida
Traganos and Reinartz (2018) RapidEye 6 Mediterranean
Misbari and Hashim (2015) Landsat TM and OLI 6 Malaysia
Misbari and Hashim (2016) Landsat TM and OLI 6 Malaysia
Chen et al. (2016) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 20 Vietnam
Hossain et al. (2015a) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 14 Malaysia
(Continued)
Table 3. (Continued).
Duration
Type of study Citation Satellite/Maps (years) Strength Limitation Region
Petus et al. (2014) MODIS 5 Australia
Mo, Kearney, and Riter (2017) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 14 Louisiana (USA)
Yang and Yang (2009) QuickBird, and Landsat TM 15 China
(c) Change detection Kanniah et al. (2015) AVIRIS images 2 ● Capable of presenting ● Often influ- Mexico
applied in marshes endeavors in blue carbon enced through
ecology. more than one
preceding
observation.
Ramsey et al. (2014) Landsat TM 2 Mexico
G. J. Miller, Morris, and Wang (2017) Landsat TM, and ETM+ 2 South Carolina
(d) Change detection El-Askary et al. (2014) Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI 26 ● Offer an essential data set ● Challenges in Egypt
applied in coral for understanding the the extraction
reef dynamics of blue carbon of the autocor-
habitats Stocks. relation data
elements.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
17
18
Table 4. Some carbon conversion values adopted in blue carbon research domain: (a) mangrove; (b) seagrass and (c) marshes.
Type of study Citation Conversion factor Satellite/Maps Region
(a) Conversion factor used for Benson et al. (2017) 0.5 and 0.39, for AGB & Landsat ETM+ Madagascar (East Africa)
D. A. SANI ET AL.
mangrove BGB Landsat OLI

Goïta, Mouloungou, and Bénié (2017) 0.5 Landsat ETM Gabon
Pham and Yoshino (2017) 0.47 ALOS-2 PALSAR imagery Vietnam
Hamilton et al. (2017) 0.464 Landsat ETM South America/Galapagos
Islands.
Wicaksono (2017) 0.464 Landsat OLI Indonesia
Maeda et al. (2016) 0.5 LiDAR Indonesia
Bhomia, Boone Kauffman, and McFadden (2016) 0.47 AGB and 0.39 BGB Google Earth Central America/Pacific and
Caribbean
Hamilton and Friess (2018) 0.45, 0.50 and 0.475 Global Studies
Candra and Wicaksono (2016) 0.47 Worldview-2 Indonesia
Wicaksono, Hartono, and Nehren (2016) 0.494 ALOS AVNIR-2 Indonesia
Stringer et al. (2015) 0.45 LiDAR Zambezi River Delta
Hamilton and Lovette (2015) 0.464 Maps Guayaquil and Galapagos
Islands
Dube and Mutanga (2015) 0.5 Maps South Africa
Adame et al. (2015) 0.48 Maps Mexico
Omar et al. (2014) 0.47 Landsat TM, Landsat ETM+, and Malaysia
Landsat OLI
Hamdan et al. (2013) 0.5 Landsat TM and SPOT Malaysia
Wicaksono et al. (2011) 0.464 Landsat ETM+ Indonesia
Camacho et al. (2011) 0.45 Maps Philippines
(b) Conversion factor used for Githaiga et al. (2017) 0.34 Maps Kenya
seagrass
Hashim et al. (2016) 0.34 Landsat TM and OLI Malaysia
(c) Conversion factor used for Adame et al. (2015) 0.48 Maps Mexico
marshes
have the lowest portion of the articles with 10% per each. While Figure 2 gives the
proportion of the reviewed articles based-on continents, Asia has the largest (50%),
while South America has the lowest ratio of publications (3%). Estimating blue carbon
stocks through biomass and soil is essential for reporting the total carbon stock
(Kauffman and Bhomia 2017; Goïta, Mouloungou, and Bénié 2017).
8. Validation
Key to authentic scientific reporting and experimental repeatability refers to validation
(Yang et al. 2017; Miller 2017), this ensures that service, product, or system reach the
standard (Elgammal et al. 2017; Wilkin et al. 2017). In this regard, the articles reviewed
on biomass and carbon estimation using various sensors imageries were validated and
presented in Figures 2 and 3, and Tables 5 and 6 to enable the reader to have insight
into the review. Analysis of the reviewed articles was presented based on the proportion
of the publication’s distribution (on change detection and conversion values) across the
seven global continents as shown in Figure 2. This connotes Asia had (28%, 20%), North
America (16%, 4%), Australia (10%, 0%), South America (2%, 6%), Africa (4%, 10%),
Europe, and Antarctica (0%, 0%), respectively. Whereas based-on blue carbon habitats’
types, the analysis also revealed that mangrove forest had the largest proportion of
publications (62%), seagrasses (28%), salt marshes (8%), and coral reef (2%), (Figure 3).
The analysis further revealed the proportion of conversion factor (CF) used among
geospatial-based blue carbon publications, where 0.340 (8%), 0.390 (8%),0.450
(12%),0.464 (16%), 0.470 (16%), 0.475 (4%),0.480 (8%), 0.494 (4%), and 0.500 (24%).
While 0.500, is the frequent adopted CF in blue carbon. Whereas 0.494 and 0.475 are
the less adopted as shown in Table 5. The rate of sensors (satellite/drone) utilised in
biomass mapping and estimations were also presented. Where MODIS (2%), SPOT (2%),
IKONOS (3%), LiDAR (4%), QuickBird (4%), Landsat MSS (6%), Landsat OLI (18%), Landsat
ETM+ (26%), and Landsat TM had (35%). These proved that the Landsat TM sensor is
more often utilized, while TIMESAT and MODIS are the least (Table 6). Even though
Landsat is medium-resolution imagery, it appears to be the most employed satellite data
in blue carbon biomass mapping and estimation. This is possible due to its capability for
continuous monitoring of the biomass and soil carbon in large areal coverage, coupled
with its accessibility.
This review article is crucial, as it will bring significant impacts to three key sectors:
environment, society, and industry. It emphasizes on precise estimations of biomass and
other biophysical parameters of blue carbon habitats as the basis for better comprehen-
sion of the global carbon cycle as well as global warming. More so, information on blue
carbon biomass and soil are expected to help in realizing sustainable coastal resource
management. Also, it will be beneficial to researchers, coastal managers, and some
group of people who relied upon the coastal resources comprising fishery, mangrove
forest, as well as tourism on having a holistic understanding of the blue carbon
dynamics in terms of biomass and carbon emission of these critical ecosystems.
Furthermore, coastal authorities at both regional and global level will use the infor-
mation to handle issues related to coastal resources and management. Most impor-
tantly, this will support the realization of the target 14.2 and 14.5 of the 14th sustainable
Figure 2. Global distributions of reviewed articles on change detection analysis and carbon conver-
sion value.
Figure 3. Publications based on major blue carbon habitats: mangroves, seagrasses, salt marshes,
and coral reef.
development goal established by the United Nations, to fast track the achievement of
the 2020 agenda.
9. Conclusion and future outlook

Remote sensing techniques yield a powerful tool for analyzing substantial biophysical
parameters in the context of regional and global scale. It has offered numerous novel
views for biomass estimation that could hardly be achieved with sparse in-situ
Table 5. Conversion factor within blue carbon pub-

lications and the proportion of their utilisation.
Carbon conversion factor Proportion of usage (%)
0.340 8
0.390 8
0.450 12
0.464 16
0.470 16
0.475 4
0.480 8
0.494 4
0.500 24
Table 6. Proportion of sensor utilisation in blue

carbon biomass mapping and estimation.
Sensor Proportion of publications (%)
MODIS 2
SPOT 2
IKONOS 3
LiDAR 4
QuickBird 4
Landsat MSS 6
Landsat OLI 18
Landsat ETM+ 26
Landsat TM 35
measurements as it allows for the assimilation of multiple different datasets, which gives
room for a greater understanding of how to map blue carbon AGB, BGB, and organic
carbon as well as their modeling processes. Furthermore, the estimation of blue carbon
biomass and other biophysical characteristics has been established to be possible via
correlating satellite-based measurements obtained from optical/acoustic with in-situ
biomass measurement, which involves utilizing any statistical-based techniques such
logistic regression or “machine learning” approaches, like neural networks (NN). The
high-resolution satellite images could further serve as additional data for investigating
blue carbon species, but they may be unaffordable when it comes to larger areas due to
cost and logistics. Therefore, preference utilization of newly medium-resolution sensors
such as Landsat OLI and sentinel-2 images for large area spatiotemporal mapping of
blue carbon biomass and cover changes can be very beneficial in researches. The
absence of long-term studies that requires huge project cost and international colla-
borations, a regional project on assessing blue carbon dynamics, and threats have
remained unaddressed. Thus, it is essential to address these issues to improve the
existing global carbon mapping and estimation.
There is a need for future studies to invest efforts, which should focus on: 1)
integration of the 3 variables (AGC, BGC, and soil) together to produce total estimate
of blue carbon stocks in seagrass, mangrove, and salt marshes to comply with the
UNFCCC convention; 2) developing advanced Landsat time-series imagery processing
tools, to attain better results to allow for the identification of tiny blue carbon species
such as changes in seagrass cover for retrospective as well as purposive monitoring of
biomass and other biophysical components; 3) Landsat OLI and LiDAR could be used
together for the estimation of AGB as well as changes within mangroves area, equally to
terrestrial forest environments; 4) TanSat, the first China’s greenhouse gas monitoring
satellite could be used to produced blue carbon maps of the globe; 5) Landsat OLI and
sentinel-2 can be used for blue carbon mapping and estimation, to improve accuracy of
the results; 6) generating more conversion values (factors) for converting biomass to
carbon particularly in seagrass and marshes’ habitats via geospatial approach; 7) adopt-
ing diverse mapping techniques might be suitable for different applications; 8) inform-
ing the policy makers of the need for a broader picture of the quantity of carbon stored
in each component, and the financial implication when it comes to larger area; 9)
utilizing suitable fine-scale information for market-based tools at the larger scale; 10)
establishment of simplified RS tools suitable for monitoring and mapping blue carbon
habitats to enable data to be more obtainable and easier to comprehend; 11) degree of
compliance with the blue carbon estimation methods and guidance by
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other related bodies should
also put to practice, and 12) incorporating financial values in blue carbon biomass and
soil carbon estimation, along with related ecosystem services in mapping and modeling,
to encourage conservation and restoration of the critical blue carbon components.
Thus, this is necessary, as unraveling blue carbon ecosystems complexities will
provide better mapping and estimation of biomass and carbon with satisfactory accu-
racy for planning, and coastal ecosystems management. Additionally, the essential
components of blue carbon stock’s mapping and estimate can be more effective if
scientists will develop novel approaches to provide fresh perceptions on the issue of
blue carbon dynamics towards the realization of SDGs’ target 14.2 and 14.5.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments of research facilities utilised at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, with grant sup-
ports from MOHE grants: Blue Carbon Seagrass Mapping with Remote Sensing (R.
J130000.7809.4F854); and HABs Physiological Ecology Identification using Multi-mission satellite
observations (R.J130000.7809.4L851). The authors also wish to acknowledge the Nigerian federal
government for providing financial intervention to the first author via Tertiary Education Trust
Fund.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) [Project Code: PY/
2016/07225R.J130000.7809.4F854], and the Transdisciplinary ResearchGrant Scheme (TRGS)
[Project Code: PY/ 2016/05999/R.J130000.7809.4L851] by from the Ministry of Higher Education,
Malaysia.
ORCID
Mazlan Hashim http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8284-3332
Mohammad Shawkat Hossain http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1974-7169
References
Aaheim, A., P. Adriazola, G. Betz, O. Boucher, A. Carius, P. Devine-Right, A. T. Gullberg,
S. Haszeldine, J. Haywood, and K. Houghton. 2015. The European Transdisciplinary Assessment
of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE): Removing Greenhouse Gases from the Atmosphere and
Reflecting Sunlight away from Earth
Adame, M. F., N. S. Santini, C. Tovilla, A. Vázquez-Lule, L. Castro, and M. Guevara. 2015. “Carbon
Stocks and Soil Sequestration Rates of Tropical Riverine Wetlands.” Biogeosciences 12 (12):
3805–3818. doi:10.5194/bg-12-3805-2015.
Adams, M. P., C. J. Collier, S. Uthicke, Y. X. Ow, L. Langlois, and K. R. O’Brien. 2017. “Model Fit versus
Biological Relevance: Evaluating Photosynthesis-Temperature Models for Three Tropical
Seagrass Species.” Scientific Reports 7: 39930.
Ahmed, N., and M. Glaser. 2016. “Coastal Aquaculture, Mangrove Deforestation and Blue Carbon
Emissions: Is REDD+ a Solution?” Marine Policy 66: 58–66. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.011.
Ahmed, N., S. Thompson, and M. Glaser. 2017. “Integrated Mangrove-Shrimp Cultivation: Potential
for Blue Carbon Sequestration.” Ambio 47 (4): 441–452.
Alongi, D. M. 2012. “Carbon Sequestration in Mangrove Forests.” Carbon Management 3 (3):
313–322. doi:10.4155/cmt.12.20.
Alongi, D. M. 2014. “Carbon Cycling and Storage in Mangrove Forests.” Annual Review of Marine
Science 6: 195–219. doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-010213-135020.
Amani, M., B. Salehi, S. Mahdavi, J. E. Granger, B. Brisco, and A. Hanson. 2017. “Wetland
Classification Using Multi-Source and Multi-Temporal Optical Remote Sensing Data in
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.” Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 43 (4): 360–373.
Ampou, E. E., S. Ouillon, C. Iovan, and A. Serge. 2017. “Change Detection of Bunaken Island Coral
Reefs Using 15 Years of Very High Resolution Satellite Images: A Kaleidoscope of Habitat
Trajectories.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (Part B): 83–95.
Amran, M. A. 2017. “Mapping Seagrass Condition Using Google Earth Imagery.” Journal of
Engineering Science & Technology Review 10 (1). doi:10.25103/jestr.101.03.
Atwood, T. B., R. M. Connolly, E. G. Ritchie, C. E. Lovelock, M. R. Heithaus, G. C. Hays,
J. W. Fourqurean, and P. I. Macreadie. 2015. “Predators Help Protect Carbon Stocks in Blue
Carbon Ecosystems.” Nature Climate Change 5 (12): 1038–1045. doi:10.1038/nclimate2763.
Atwood, T. B., R. M. Connolly, H. Almahasheer, P. E. Carnell, C. M. Duarte, C. J. Ewers Lewis,
X. Irigoien, J. J. Kelleway, P. S. Lavery, and P. I. Macreadie. 2017. “Global Patterns in Mangrove
Soil Carbon Stocks and Losses.” Nature Climate Change 7 (7): nclimate3326. doi:10.1038/
nclimate3326.
Avelar, S., T. S. Voort, and T. I. Eglinton. 2017. “Relevance of Carbon Stocks of Marine Sediments for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of Maritime Nations.” Carbon Balance and Management 12
(1): 10. doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0077-x.
Avtar, R., P. Kumar, A. Oono, C. Saraswat, S. Dorji, and Z. Hlaing. 2017. “Potential Application of
Remote Sensing in Monitoring Ecosystem Services of Forests, Mangroves and Urban Areas.”
Geocarto International 32 (8): 874–885. doi:10.1080/10106049.2016.1206974.
Bajjouk, T., P. Mouquet, M. Ropert, J.-P. Quod, L. Hoarau, L. Bigot, N. Le Dantec, C. Delacourt, and
J. Populus. 2019. “Detection of Changes in Shallow Coral Reefs Status: Towards a Spatial
Approach Using Hyperspectral and Multispectral Data.” Ecological Indicators 96: 174–191.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.052.
Bargain, A., M. Robin, E. Le Men, A. Huete, and B. Laurent. 2012. “Spectral Response of the Seagrass
Zostera Noltii with Different Sediment Backgrounds.” Aquatic Botany 98 (1): 45–56. doi:10.1016/j.
aquabot.2011.12.009.
Barillé, L., M. Robin, N. Harin, A. Bargain, and P. Launeau. 2010. “Increase in Seagrass Distribution at
Bourgneuf Bay (France) Detected by Spatial Remote Sensing.” Aquatic Botany 92 (3): 185–194.
doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2009.11.006.
Barrell, J. P. 2016. “Quantification and Spatial Analysis of Seagrass Landscape Structure through the
Application of Aerial and Acoustic Remote Sensing.” PhD Thesis, University of Dalhousie,
NovaScotia, Canada.
Ben-Romdhane, H., M. Al-Musallami, P. R. Marpu, T. B. M. J. Ouarda, and H. Ghedira. 2018. “Change

Detection Using Remote Sensing in a Reef Environment of the UAE during the Extreme Event of
El Niño 2015–2016.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 39 (19): 6358–6382.
Benson, L., L. Glass, T. G. Jones, L. Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, and C. Rakotomahazo. 2017. “Mangrove
Carbon Stocks and Ecosystem Cover Dynamics in Southwest Madagascar and the Implications
for Local Management.” Forests 8 (6): 190. doi:10.3390/f8060190.
Berninger, A., S. Lohberger, M. Stängel, and F. Siegert. 2018. “SAR-Based Estimation of
Above-Ground Biomass and Its Changes in Tropical Forests of Kalimantan Using L-And
C-Band.” Remote Sensing 10 (6): 831. doi:10.3390/rs10060831.
Bhomia, R. K., J. Boone Kauffman, and T. N. McFadden. 2016. “Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of
Mangrove Forests along the Pacific and Caribbean Coasts of Honduras.” Wetlands Ecology and
Management 24 (2): 187–201. doi:10.1007/s11273-016-9483-1.
Blakey, T., A. Melesse, and M. O. Hall. 2015. “Supervised Classification of Benthic Reflectance in
Shallow Subtropical Waters Using a Generalized Pixel-Based Classifier across a Time Series.”
Remote Sensing 7 (5): 5098–5116. doi:10.3390/rs70505098.
Bond, P. 2018. “Equitable, Just Access to Natural Resources: Environmental Narratives during
Worsening Climate Crises.” In Factor X. Eco-Efficiencyin Industry and Science, edited by H.
Lehmann, 32 vols. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50079-9_6.
Breithaupt, J. L., J. M. Smoak, T. J. Smith, and C. J. Sanders. 2014. “Temporal Variability of Carbon
and Nutrient Burial, Sediment Accretion, and Mass Accumulation over the past Century in
a Carbonate Platform Mangrove Forest of the Florida Everglades.” Journal of Geophysical
Research: Biogeosciences 119 (10): 2032–2048.
Bunting, P., A. Rosenqvist, R. Lucas, L.-M. Rebelo, L. Hilarides, N. Thomas, A. Hardy, T. Itoh,
M. Shimada, and C. Finlayson. 2018. “The Global Mangrove Watch—A New 2010 Global
Baseline of Mangrove Extent.” Remote Sensing 10 (10): 1669. doi:10.3390/rs10101669.
Burns, J. H. R., D. Delparte, R. D. Gates, and M. Takabayashi. 2015. “Integrating Structure-From-
Motion Photogrammetry with Geospatial Software as a Novel Technique for Quantifying 3D
Ecological Characteristics of Coral Reefs.” PeerJ 3: e1077. doi:10.7717/peerj.1077.
Camacho, L. D., D. T. Gevaña, A. P. Carandang, S. C. Camacho, E. A. Combalicer, L. L. Rebugio, and
Y.-C. Youn. 2011. “Tree Biomass and Carbon Stock of a Community-Managed Mangrove Forest
in Bohol, Philippines.” Forest Science and Technology 7 (4): 161–167. doi:10.1080/
21580103.2011.621377.
Candra, E. D., and P. Wicaksono. 2016. “Above Ground Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Forest
Using Worldview-2 Imagery in Teluk Benoa, Bali.” Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series.
Earth and Environmental Science. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/47/1/012014
Carreiras, J. M. B., M. J. Vasconcelos, and R. M. Lucas. 2012. “Understanding the Relationship
between Aboveground Biomass and ALOS PALSAR Data in the Forests of Guinea-Bissau (West
Africa).” Remote Sensing of Environment 121: 426–442. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.012.
Castillo, J., A. Alan, A. A. Apan, T. N. Maraseni, and S. G. Salmo III. 2017. “Estimation and Mapping of
Above-Ground Biomass of Mangrove Forests and Their Replacement Land Uses in the
Philippines Using Sentinel Imagery.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
134: 70–85. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.10.016.
Castro-Nunez, A., O. Mertz, and C. C. Sosa. 2017. “Geographic Overlaps between Priority Areas
for Forest Carbon-Storage Efforts and Those for Delivering Peacebuilding Programs:
Implications for Policy Design.” Environmental Research Letters 12 (5): 054014. doi:10.1088/
1748-9326/aa6f20.
Chadwick, J. 2011. “Integrated LiDAR and IKONOS Multispectral Imagery for Mapping Mangrove
Distribution and Physical Properties.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 32 (21):
6765–6781. doi:10.1080/01431161.2010.512944.
Chatziantoniou, A., E. Psomiadis, and G. P. Petropoulos. 2017. “Co-Orbital Sentinel 1 and 2 for LULC
Mapping with Emphasis on Wetlands in a Mediterranean Setting Based on Machine Learning.”
Remote Sensing 9 (12): 1259. doi:10.3390/rs9121259.
Chen, C.-F., V.-K. Lau, N.-B. Chang, N.-T. Son, and S.-H. Chiang. 2016. “Multi-Temporal Change
Detection of Seagrass Beds Using Integrated Landsat TM/ETM+/OLI Imageries in Cam Ranh Bay,
Vietnam.” Ecological Informatics 35: 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2016.07.005.
Cissell, J. R., A. M. Delgado, B. M. Sweetman, and M. K. Steinberg. 2018. “Monitoring Mangrove
Forest Dynamics in Campeche, Mexico, Using Landsat Satellite Data.” Remote Sensing
Applications: Society and Environment 9: 60–68. doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2017.12.001.
Congalton, R. G., and K. Green. 2008. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and
Practices. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC press.
Congdon, V. M., S. S. Wilson, and K. H. Dunton. 2017. “Evaluation of Relationships between Cover
Estimates and Biomass in Subtropical Seagrass Meadows and Application to Landscape
Estimates of Carbon Storage.” Southeastern Geographer 57 (3): 231–245. doi:10.1353/
sgo.2017.0023.
Crabb, L. A. H. 2018. “Debating the Success of Carbon-Offsetting Projects at Sports Mega-Events.
A Case from the 2014 FIFA World Cup.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37 (2): 178–196.
doi:10.1080/10549811.2017.1364652.
Cressie, N. 2015. Statistics for Spatial Data. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Crommelinck, S., R. Bennett, M. Gerke, F. Nex, M. Y. Yang, and G. Vosselman. 2016. “Review of
Automatic Feature Extraction from High-Resolution Optical Sensor Data for UAV-based
Cadastral Mapping.” Remote Sensing 8 (8): 689. doi:10.3390/rs8080689.
Crutzen, P. J., and M. O. Andreae. 2016. “Biomass Burning in the Tropics: Impact on Atmospheric
Chemistry and Biogeochemical Cycles.” In Paul J. Crutzen: A Pioneer on Atmospheric Chemistry
and Climate Change in the Anthropocene, 165–188. Springer International Publishing.
Cullen-Unsworth, L., and R. Unsworth. 2013. “Seagrass Meadows, Ecosystem Services, and
Sustainability.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55 (3): 14–28.
Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., and R. K. F. Unsworth. 2016. “Strategies to Enhance the Resilience of the
World‘S Seagrass Meadows.” Journal of Applied Ecology 53 (4): 967–972. doi:10.1111/1365-
2664.12637.
Cunha-Lignon, M., M. Kampel, R. P. Menghini, Y. Schaeffer-Novelli, G. Cintrón, and F. Dahdouh-
Guebas. 2011. “Mangrove Forests Submitted to Depositional Processes and Salinity Variation
Investigated Using Satellite Images and Vegetation Structure Surveys.” Journal of Coastal
Research Special 64: 344– 348.
Da Silva, G. C. M., F. E. S. de Souza, and E. Marinho-Soriano. 2017. “Application of ALOS AVNIR-2 for
the Detection of Seaweed and Seagrass Beds on the Northeast of Brazil.” International Journal of
Remote Sensing 38 (3): 662–678. doi:10.1080/01431161.2016.1268738.
Dai, Z., C. C. Trettin, S. Frolking, and R. A. Birdsey. 2018. “Mangrove Carbon Assessment Tool: Model
Validation and Assessment of Mangroves in Southern USA and Mexico.” Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.036.
Dan, T. T., C. F. Chen, S. H. Chiang, and S. Ogawa. 2016. “Mapping and Change Analysis in
Mangrove Forest by Using Landsat Imagery.” ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 3: 109. doi:10.5194/isprsannals-III-8-109-2016.
Davis, J. L., C. A. Currin, C. O’Brien, C. Raffenburg, and A. Davis. 2015. “Living Shorelines: Coastal
Resilience with a Blue Carbon Benefit.” PloS one 10 (11): e0142595. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0142595.
Dekker, A., V. Brando, J. Anstee, S. Fyfe, T. Malthus, and E. Karpouzli. 2007. “Remote Sensing of
Seagrass Ecosystems: Use of Spaceborne and Airborne Sensors.” In Seagrasses: Biology,
Ecologyand Conservation, 347–359. Dordrecht: Springer.
DeVries, B., A. K. Pratihast, J. Verbesselt, L. Kooistra, and M. Herold. 2016. “Characterizing Forest
Change Using Community-Based Monitoring Data and Landsat Time Series.” PloS one 11 (3):
e0147121. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147121.
Dierssen, H. M. 2016. “Using Imaging Spectroscopy to Assess Global Blue Carbon Budgets:
Assessing Current Approaches and Future Needs.” Paper presented at the AGU Fall Meeting
Abstracts. San Francisco: American Geophysical Union.
Domke, G. M., C. H. Perry, B. F. Walters, L. E. Nave, C. W. Woodall, and C. W. Swanston. 2017.

“Toward Inventory-Based Estimates of Soil Organic Carbon in Forests of the United States.”
Ecological Applications 27 (4): 1223–1235. doi:10.1002/eap.1516.
Dube, T., and O. Mutanga. 2015. “Quantifying the Variability and Allocation Patterns of
Aboveground Carbon Stocks across Plantation Forest Types, Structural Attributes and Age in
Sub-Tropical Coastal Region of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa Using Remote Sensing.” Applied
Geography 64: 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.09.003.
Duveiller, G., J. Hooker, and A. Cescatti. 2018. “The Mark of Vegetation Change on Earth’s Surface
Energy Balance.” Nature Communications 9 (1): 679. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8.
El-Askary, H., S. H. Abd El-Mawla, J. Li, M. M. El-Hattab, and M. El-Raey. 2014. “Change Detection of
Coral Reef Habitat Using Landsat-5 TM, Landsat 7 ETM+ and Landsat 8 OLI Data in the Red Sea
(Hurghada, Egypt).” International Journal of Remote Sensing 35 (6): 2327–2346.
Elgammal, A., M. Papazoglou, B. Krämer, and C. Constantinescu. 2017. “Design for Customization:
A New Paradigm for Product-Service System Development.” Procedia CIRP 64: 345–350.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.132.
Fagan, M. E., R. S. DeFries, S. E. Sesnie, J. Pablo Arroyo-Mora, C. Soto, A. Singh, P. A. Townsend, and
R. L. Chazdon. 2015. “Mapping Species Composition of Forests and Tree Plantations in
Northeastern Costa Rica with an Integration of Hyperspectral and Multitemporal Landsat
Imagery.” Remote Sensing 7 (5): 5660–5696. doi:10.3390/rs70505660.
Fatoyinbo, T. E., and M. Simard. 2013. “Height and Biomass of Mangroves in Africa from ICESat/
GLAS and SRTM.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 34 (2): 668–681. doi:10.1080/
01431161.2012.712224.
Figueira, W., R. Ferrari, E. Weatherby, A. Porter, S. Hawes, and M. Byrne. 2015. “Accuracy and
Precision of Habitat Structural Complexity Metrics Derived from Underwater Photogrammetry.”
Remote Sensing 7 (12): 16883–16900. doi:10.3390/rs71215859.
Flynn, K. F., and S. C. Chapra. 2014. “Remote Sensing of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in
a Shallow Non-Turbid River Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” Remote Sensing 6 (12):
12815–12836. doi:10.3390/rs61212815.
Fortes, M. D., J. L. Sim Ooi, Y. M. Tan, A. Prathep, J. S. Bujang, and S. M. Yaakub. 2018. “Seagrass in
Southeast Asia: A Review of Status and Knowledge Gaps, and a Road Map for Conservation.”
Botanica Marina 61 (3): 269–288. doi:10.1515/bot-2018-0008.
Fourqurean, J. W., C. M. Duarte, H. Kennedy, N. Marbà, M. Holmer, M. A. Mateo, E. T. Apostolaki,
G. A. Kendrick, D. Krause-Jensen, and K. J. McGlathery. 2012. “Seagrass Ecosystems as a Globally
Significant Carbon Stock.” Nature Geoscience 5 (7): 505–509. doi:10.1038/ngeo1477.
Franklin, J., and J. A. Miller. 2010. Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction.
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511810602.
Frazier, R. J., N. C. Coops, and M. A. Wulder. 2015. “Boreal Shield Forest Disturbance and Recovery
Trends Using Landsat Time Series.” Remote Sensing of Environment 170: 317–327. doi:10.1016/j.
rse.2015.09.015.
Furuya, K., M. Iwataki, P. T. Lim, L. Songhui, C.-P. Leaw, R. V. Azanza, H.-G. Kim, and Y. Fukuyo. 2018.
“Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms in Asia.” Ecological Studies 232: 289–308. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-70069-4_7.
Ganguly, D., G. Singh, R. Purvaja, R. Bhatta, A. Paneer Selvam, K. Banerjee, and R. Ramesh. 2018.
“Valuing the Carbon Sequestration Regulation Service by Seagrass Ecosystems of Palk Bay
and Chilika, India.” Ocean & Coastal Management 159: 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2017.11.009.
Gao, T., X. Bin, X. Yang, Y. Jin, M. Hailong, L. Jinya, and Y. Haida. 2013. “Using MODIS Time Series
Data to Estimate Aboveground Biomass and Its Spatiotemporal Variation in Inner Mongolia’s
Grassland between 2001 and 2011.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 34 (21): 7796–7810.
doi:10.1080/01431161.2013.823000.
Gao, Y., Y. Guirui, T. Yang, Y. Jia, H. Nianpeng, and J. Zhuang. 2016. “New Insight into Global Blue
Carbon Estimation under Human Activity in Land-Sea Interaction Area: A Case Study of China.”
Earth-Science Reviews 159: 36–46. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.05.003.
Garamszegi, L. Z. 2016. “A Simple Statistical Guide for the Analysis of Behaviour When Data are
Constrained Due to Practical or Ethical Reasons.” Animal Behaviour 120: 223–234. doi:10.1016/j.
anbehav.2015.11.009.
Geevarghese, G. A., B. Akhil, G. Magesh, P. Krishnan, R. Purvaja, and R. Ramesh. 2018.
“A Comprehensive Geospatial Assessment of Seagrass Distribution in India.” Ocean & Coastal
Management 159: 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.032.
Ghasemi, N., M. R. Sahebi, and A. Mohammadzadeh. 2011. “A Review on Biomass Estimation
Methods Using Synthetic Aperture Radar Data.” International Journal of Geomatics and
Geosciences 1 (4): 776.
Ghosh, S., and D. R. Mishra. 2017. “Analyzing the Long-Term Phenological Trends of Salt Marsh
Ecosystem across Coastal Louisiana.” Remote Sensing 9 (12): 1340. doi:10.3390/rs9121340.
Giri, C., E. Ochieng, L. L. Tieszen, Z. Zhu, A. Singh, T. Loveland, J. Masek, and N. Duke. 2011. “Status
and Distribution of Mangrove Forests of the World Using Earth Observation Satellite Data.”
Global Ecology and Biogeography 20 (1): 154–159. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x.
Giri, C., and J. Muhlhausen. 2008. “Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar
(1975–2005).” Sensors 8 (4): 2104–2117. doi:10.3390/s8042104.
Giri, C., Z. Zhu, L. L. Tieszen, A. Singh, S. Gillette, and J. A. Kelmelis. 2008. “Mangrove Forest
Distributions and Dynamics (1975–2005) of the Tsunami-Affected Region of Asia.” Journal of
Biogeography 35 (3): 519–528. doi:10.1111/jbi.2008.35.issue-3.
Githaiga, M. N., J. G. Kairo, L. Gilpin, and M. Huxham. 2017. “Carbon Storage in the Seagrass
Meadows of Gazi Bay, Kenya.” PloS one 12 (5): e0177001. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0177001.
Goetz, S., and R. Dubayah. 2011. “Advances in Remote Sensing Technology and Implications for
Measuring and Monitoring Forest Carbon Stocks and Change.” Carbon Management 2 (3):
231–244. doi:10.4155/cmt.11.18.
Goïta, K., J. Mouloungou, and G. B. Bénié. 2017. “Estimation of Aboveground Biomass and Carbon
in a Tropical Rain Forest in Gabon Using Remote Sensing and GPS Data.” Geocarto International
1–17. doi:10.1080/10106049.2017.1386720.
Greaves, H. E., L. A. Vierling, J. U. H. Eitel, N. T. Boelman, T. S. Magney, C. M. Prager, and K. L. Griffin.
2016. “High-Resolution Mapping of Aboveground Shrub Biomass in Arctic Tundra Using
Airborne Lidar and Imagery.” Remote Sensing of Environment 184: 361–373. doi:10.1016/j.
rse.2016.07.026.
Greene, A. L. 2017. “Applications of Side Scan and Parametric Echosounders for Mapping Shallow
Seagrass Habitats and Their Associated Organic Carbon“. The University of Texas Rio Grande
Valley.
Halpern, B. S., C. Longo, C. Scarborough, D. Hardy, B. D. Best, S. C. Doney, S. K. Katona, K. L. McLeod,
A. A. Rosenberg, and J. F. Samhouri. 2014. “Assessing the Health of the US West Coast with a
Regional-Scale Application of the Ocean Health Index.” PloS one 9 (6): e98995. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0098995.
Hamana, M., and T. Komatsu. 2016. “Real-Time Classification of Seagrass Meadows on Flat Bottom
with Bathymetric Data Measured by a Narrow Multibeam Sonar System.” Remote Sensing 8 (2):
96. doi:10.3390/rs8020096.
Hamdan, O., M. R. Khairunnisa, A. A. Ammar, I. Mohd Hasmadi, and H. Khali Aziz. 2013. “Mangrove
Carbon Stock Assessment by Optical Satellite Imagery.” Journal of Tropical Forest Science 25 (4):
554–565.
Hamilton, S. E., and D. Friess. 2018. “Global Carbon Stocks and Potential Emissions Due to
Mangrove Deforestation from 2000 to 2012.” Nature Climate Change 8: 240–244.
Hamilton, S. E., and J. Lovette. 2015. “Ecuador’s Mangrove Forest Carbon Stocks: A Spatiotemporal
Analysis of Living Carbon Holdings and Their Depletion since the Advent of Commercial
Aquaculture.” PloS one 10 (3): e0118880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118880.
Hamilton, S. E., J. P. Lovette, M. J. Borbor-Cordova, and M. Millones. 2017. “The Carbon Holdings of
Northern Ecuador‘S Mangrove Forests.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107
(1): 54–71. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1226160.
Hamylton, S. M. 2017. “Mapping Coral Reef Environments: A Review of Historical Methods, Recent
Advances and Future Opportunities.” Progress in Physical Geography 41 (6): 803–833.
doi:10.1177/0309133317744998.
Hannigan, J. 2018. “Another Form of Collaboration? Discovering the Deep Blue.” In Widening the
Scope of Environmental Policies in North America, edited by G. Sosa-Nunez, 171–191. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan, Governance, Development, and SocialInclusion in Latin America.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56236-0_9.
Hashim, M., N. N. Yahya, S. Ahmad, T. Komatsu, S. Misbari, and M. N. Reba. 2014. “Determination of
Seagrass Biomass at Merambong Shoal in Straits of Johor Using Satellite Remote Sensing
Technique.” Malay. Nat. J 66: 20–37.
Hashim, M., S. Misbari, N. N. Yahya, and M. S. Hossain. 2016. “Above Ground Blue Carbon
Sequestration Capacity of Sungai Pulai Estuary Seagrass Meadows - A Satellite Based
Method.” In Proceedings of 37th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, 1 vol., 363–369.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: ACRS.
Hayes, M. A., A. Jesse, B. Hawke, J. Baldock, B. Tabet, D. Lockington, and C. E. Lovelock. 2017.
“Dynamics of Sediment Carbon Stocks across Intertidal Wetland Habitats of Moreton Bay,
Australia.” Global Change Biology. doi:10.1111/gcb.13722.
Hedley, J. D., C. Roelfsema, V. Brando, C. Giardino, T. Kutser, S. Phinn, P. J. Mumby, O. Barrilero,
J. Laporte, and B. Koetz. 2018. “Coral Reef Applications of Sentinel-2: Coverage, Characteristics,
Bathymetry and Benthic Mapping with Comparison to Landsat 8.” Remote Sensing of
Environment 216: 598–614. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2018.07.014.
Hermosilla, T., M. A. Wulder, J. C. White, N. C. Coops, and G. W. Hobart. 2015. “An Integrated
Landsat Time Series Protocol for Change Detection and Generation of Annual Gap-Free Surface
Reflectance Composites.” Remote Sensing of Environment 158: 220–234. doi:10.1016/j.
rse.2014.11.005.
Hesham, A.-E. M., M. A. A. Hassan, and S. Shata. 2017. “Using Spatial Data Analysis for Delineating
Existing Mangroves Stands and Siting Suitable Locations for Mangroves Plantation.” Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture 141: 310–326. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2017.08.002.
Hiratsuka, M., H. Tsuzuki, K. Suzuki, T. Nanaumi, T. Furuta, K. Niitsuma, C. Phongoudome, and
M. Amano. 2018. “Living Biomass of Fallow Areas under a REDD+ Project in Mountainous
Terrain of Northern Laos.” Journal of Forest Research 23 (1): 56–63. doi:10.1080/
13416979.2017.1393605.
Holloway, J., and K. Mengersen. 2018. “Statistical Machine Learning Methods and Remote Sensing
for Sustainable Development Goals: A Review.” Remote Sensing 10 (9): 1365. doi:10.3390/
rs10091365.
Hossain, M. S., J. S. Bujang, M. H. Zakaria, and M. Hashim. 2015a. “Application of Landsat Images to
Seagrass Areal Cover Change Analysis for Lawas, Terengganu and Kelantan of Malaysia.”
Continental Shelf Research 110: 124–148. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2015.10.009.
Hossain, M. S., J. S. Bujang, M. H. Zakaria, and M. Hashim. 2015b. “The Application of Remote
Sensing to Seagrass Ecosystems: An Overview and Future Research Prospects.” International
Journal of Remote Sensing 36 (1): 61–114. doi:10.1080/01431161.2014.990649.
Hossain, M. S., and M. Hashim. 2019. “Potential of Earth Observation (EO) Technologies for
Seagrass Ecosystem Service Assessments.” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation 77: 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2018.12.009.
Huang, Y., T. Zhang, W. Wenting, Y. Zhou, and B. Tian. 2017. “Rapid Risk Assessment of Wetland
Degradation and Loss in Low-Lying Coastal Zone of Shanghai, China.” Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment: an International Journal 23 (1): 82–97. doi:10.1080/10807039.2016.1223536.
Hudak, A. T., E. K. Strand, L. A. Vierling, J. C. Byrne, U. H. Jan, S. M. Eitel, and M. J. Falkowski. 2012.
“Quantifying Aboveground Forest Carbon Pools and Fluxes from Repeat LiDAR Surveys.” Remote
Sensing of Environment 123: 25–40. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.023.
Hughes, T. P., M. L. Barnes, D. R. Bellwood, J. E. Cinner, G. S. Cumming, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas,
I. A. Van De Leemput, J. M. Lough, and T. H. Morrison. 2017. “Coral Reefs in the Anthropocene.”
Nature 546 (7656): 82. doi:10.1038/nature22901.
Islam, S. M. S., S. K. Raza, M. Moniruzzamn, N. Janjua, P. Lavery, and A. Al-Jumaily. 2017. “Automatic
Seagrass Detection: A Survey.” Paper presented at the Electrical and Computing Technologies
and Applications (ICECTA), 2017 International Conference on.
Johnson, B. J., C. E. Lovelock, and D. Herr. 2016. Climate Regulation: Salt Marshes and Blue Carbon.
Johnson, R. A., A. G. Gulick, A. B. Bolten, and K. A. Bjorndal. 2017. “Blue Carbon Stores in Tropical
Seagrass Meadows Maintained under Green Turtle Grazing.” Scientific Reports 7 (1): 13545.
doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13142-4.
Kaliraj, S., N. Chandrasekar, and K. K. Ramachandran. 2017. “Mapping of Coastal Landforms and
Volumetric Change Analysis in the South West Coast of Kanyakumari, South India Using Remote
Sensing and GIS Techniques.” The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science 20 (2):
265–282. doi:10.1016/j.ejrs.2016.12.006.
Kanniah, K. D., A. Sheikhi, A. P. Cracknell, H. C. Goh, K. P. Tan, C. S. Ho, and F. N. Rasli. 2015.
“Satellite Images for Monitoring Mangrove Cover Changes in a Fast Growing Economic
Region in Southern Peninsular Malaysia.” Remote Sensing 7 (11): 14360–14385. doi:10.3390/
rs71114360.
Karan, S. K., S. R. Samadder, and S. K. Maiti. 2016. “Assessment of the Capability of Remote Sensing
and GIS Techniques for Monitoring Reclamation Success in Coal Mine Degraded Lands.” Journal
of Environmental Management 182: 272–283. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.070.
Kauffman, J. B., C. Heider, J. Norfolk, and F. Payton. 2014. “Carbon Stocks of Intact Mangroves and
Carbon Emissions Arising from Their Conversion in the Dominican Republic.” Ecological
Applications 24 (3): 518–527.
Kauffman, J. B., and R. K. Bhomia. 2017. “Ecosystem Carbon Stocks of Mangroves across Broad
Environmental Gradients in West-Central Africa: Global and Regional Comparisons.” PloS one 12
(11): e0187749. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187749.
Kauranne, T., A. Joshi, B. Gautam, U. Manandhar, S. Nepal, J. Peuhkurinen, J. Hämäläinen, V. Junttila,
K. Gunia, and L.-K. Petri. 2017. “LiDAR-Assisted Multi-Source Program (LAMP) for Measuring
above Ground Biomass and Forest Carbon.” Remote Sensing 9 (2): 154. doi:10.3390/rs9020154.
Kelleway, J. J., K. Cavanaugh, K. Rogers, I. C. Feller, E. Ens, C. Doughty, and N. Saintilan. 2017.
“Review of the Ecosystem Service Implications of Mangrove Encroachment into Salt Marshes.”
Global Change Biology. doi:10.1111/gcb.13727.
Kim, K., J.-K. Choi, J.-H. Ryu, H. J. Jeong, K. Lee, M. G. Park, and K. Y. Kim. 2015. “Observation of
Typhoon-Induced Seagrass Die-Off Using Remote Sensing.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
154: 111–121. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2014.12.036.
Kim, Y. H., I. Jungho, H. K. Ha, J.-K. Choi, and H. Sunghyun. 2014. “Machine Learning Approaches to
Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Using GOCI Satellite Data.” GIScience & Remote Sensing 51 (2):
158–174. doi:10.1080/15481603.2014.900983.
Kirui, K. B., J. G. Kairo, J. Bosire, K. M. Viergever, S. Rudra, M. Huxham, and R. A. Briers. 2013.
“Mapping of Mangrove Forest Land Cover Change along the Kenya Coastline Using Landsat
Imagery.” Ocean & Coastal Management 83: 19–24. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.12.004.
Klemas, V. 2010. “Remote Sensing Techniques for Studying Coastal Ecosystems: An Overview.”
Journal of Coastal Research 27 (1): 2–17. doi:10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00103.1.
Koedsin, W., W. Intararuang, R. J. Ritchie, and A. Huete. 2016. “An Integrated Field and Remote
Sensing Method for Mapping Seagrass Species, Cover, and Biomass in Southern Thailand.”
Kuenzer, C., A. Bluemel, S. Gebhardt, T. V. Quoc, and S. Dech. 2011. “Remote Sensing of Mangrove
Ecosystems: A Review.” Remote Sensing 3 (5): 878–928. doi:10.3390/rs3050878.
Kutser, T. 2009. “Passive Optical Remote Sensing of Cyanobacteria and Other Intense
Phytoplankton Blooms in Coastal and Inland Waters.” International Journal of Remote Sensing
30 (17): 4401–4425. doi:10.1080/01431160802562305.
Lees, K. J., T. Quaife, R. R. E. Artz, M. Khomik, and J. M. Clark. 2018. “Potential for Using Remote
Sensing to Estimate Carbon Fluxes across Northern peatlands–A Review.” Science of the Total
Environment 615: 857–874. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.103.
Lewis, C. J., P. E. Ewers, J. S. Carnell, J. A. Baldock, and P. I. Macreadie. 2018. “Variability and
Vulnerability of Coastal ‘Blue Carbon’stocks: A Case Study from Southeast Australia.” Ecosystems
21 (2): 263–279. doi:10.1007/s10021-017-0150-z.
Li, Y., D. Wei, and D. Huisingh. 2017. “Challenges in Developing an Inventory of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Chinese Cities: A Case Study of Beijing.” Journal of Cleaner Production 161:
1051–1063. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.072.
Li, Z., J. Zhong, Z. Sun, and W. Yang. 2017. “Spatial Pattern of Carbon Sequestration and Urban
Sustainability: Analysis of Land-Use and Carbon Emission in Guang’an, China.” Sustainability 9
(11): 1951. doi:10.3390/su9111951.
Li, Z., X. Liu, T. Niu, Q. De Kejia, T. M. Zhou, and Y. Gao. 2015. “Ecological Restoration and Its Effects
on a Regional Climate: The Source Region of the Yellow River, China.” Environmental Science &
Technology 49 (10): 5897–5904. doi:10.1021/es505985q.
Liquete, C., C. Piroddi, E. G. Drakou, L. Gurney, S. Katsanevakis, A. Charef, and B. Egoh. 2013.
“Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem
Services: A Systematic Review.” PloS one 8 (7): e67737. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067737.
Liu, K., L. Xia, X. Shi, and S. Wang. 2008. “Monitoring Mangrove Forest Changes Using Remote
Sensing and GIS Data with Decision-Tree Learning.” Wetlands 28 (2): 336–346. doi:10.1672/06-
91.1.
Liu, L. 2017. “Opportunities of Mapping Forest Carbon Stock and Its Annual Increment Using
Landsat Time-Series Data“. Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview, 2016.
Lu, D., L. Guiying, and E. Moran. 2014. “Current Situation and Needs of Change Detection
Techniques.” International Journal of Image and Data Fusion 5 (1): 13–38. doi:10.1080/
19479832.2013.868372.
Lu, D., Q. Chen, G. Wang, L. Liu, L. Guiying, and E. Moran. 2016. “A Survey of Remote Sensing-Based
Aboveground Biomass Estimation Methods in Forest Ecosystems.” International Journal of
Digital Earth 9 (1): 63–105. doi:10.1080/17538947.2014.990526.
Lyons, M., C. M. Roelfsema, and S. R. Phinn. 2015. Seagrass time-series analysis products, in Moreton
Bay, Australia, with links to GeoTIFFs.
Lyons, M., S. Phinn, and C. Roelfsema. 2011. “Integrating Quickbird Multi-Spectral Satellite and
Field Data: Mapping Bathymetry, Seagrass Cover, Seagrass Species and Change in Moreton Bay,
Australia in 2004 and 2007.” Remote Sensing 3 (1): 42–64. doi:10.3390/rs3010042.
Lyons, M. B., C. M. Roelfsema, and S. R. Phinn. 2013. “Towards Understanding Temporal and Spatial
Dynamics of Seagrass Landscapes Using Time-Series Remote Sensing.” Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 120: 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2013.01.015.
Lyons, M. B., S. R. Phinn, and C. M. Roelfsema. 2012. “Long Term Land Cover and Seagrass Mapping
Using Landsat and Object-Based Image Analysis from 1972 to 2010 in the Coastal Environment
of South East Queensland, Australia.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 71:
34–46. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2012.05.002.
Macreadie, P. I., O. Serrano, D. T. Maher, C. M. Duarte, and J. Beardall. 2017b. “Addressing Calcium
Carbonate Cycling in Blue Carbon Accounting“. Limnology and Oceanography Letters.
doi:10.1002/lol2.10052
Macreadie, P. I., Q. R. Ollivier, J. J. Kelleway, O. Serrano, P. E. Carnell, C. J. Ewers Lewis, T. B. Atwood,
J. Sanderman, J. Baldock, and R. M. Connolly. 2017a. “Carbon Sequestration by Australian Tidal
Marshes.” Scientific Reports 7: 44071. doi:10.1038/srep44071.
Maeda, Y., A. Fukushima, Y. Imai, Y. Tanahashi, E. Nakama, S. Ohta, K. Kawazoe, and N. Akune. 2016.
“Estimating Carbon Stock Changes of Mangrove Forests Using Satellite Imagery and Airborne
Lidar Data in the South Sumatra State, Indonesia.” ISPRS-International Archives of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 705–709. doi:10.5194/isprsarc-
hives-XLI-B8-705-2016.
Manfreda, S., M. McCabe, P. Miller, R. Lucas, V. P. Madrigal, G. Mallinis, E. B. Dor, D. Helman, L. Estes,
and G. Ciraolo. 2018. “On the Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Environmental Monitoring.”
Marco-Méndez, C., L. M. Ferrero-Vicente, P. Prado, and J. L. Sánchez-Lizaso. 2017. “Epiphytes and
Nutrient Contents Influence Sarpa Salpa Herbivory on Caulerpa Spp Vs. Seagrass Species in
Mediterranean Meadows.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 184: 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.
ecss.2016.11.005.
Martin-Platero, A. M., B. Cleary, K. Kauffman, S. P. Preheim, D. J. McGillicuddy, E. J. Alm, and
M. F. Polz. 2018. “High Resolution Time Series Reveals Cohesive but Short-Lived Communities
in Coastal Plankton.” Nature Communications 9 (1): 266. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02571-4.
Mcleod, E., G. L. Chmura, S. Bouillon, R. Salm, M. Björk, C. M. Duarte, C. E. Lovelock,
W. H. Schlesinger, and B. R. Silliman. 2011. “A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Toward an Improved
Understanding of the Role of Vegetated Coastal Habitats in Sequestering CO2.” Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 9 (10): 552–560. doi:10.1890/110004.
Miller, G. J., J. T. Morris, and C. Wang. 2017. Mapping salt marsh dieback and condition in South
Carolina’s North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve using remote sensing.
Miller, S. M. 2017. “Using Multifunctional Green Infrastructure to Address Resilience in Cities.” PhD
Thesis, Drexel University.
Misbari, S., and M. Hashim. 2015. Temporal and Spatial Dynamics of Submerged Seagrass at
Merambong, Johor Using Landsat Data.
Misbari, S., and M. Hashim. 2016. “Change Detection of Submerged Seagrass Biomass in Shallow
Coastal Water.” Remote Sensing 8 (3): 200. doi:10.3390/rs8030200.
Mishra, U., J. D. Jastrow, R. Matamala, and Z. Fan. 2017. “Observational Needs for Estimating
Alaskan Soil Carbon Stocks under Current and Future Climate.” Journal of Geophysical Research
(Biogeosciences) 122: 415–429. doi:10.1002/2016JG003421.
Miteva, D. A., B. C. Murray, and S. K. Pattanayak. 2015. “Do Protected Areas Reduce Blue Carbon
Emissions? A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Mangroves in Indonesia.” Ecological Economics
119: 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.005.
Mo, Y., M. S. Kearney, and J. C. Riter. 2017. “Post-Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Monitoring of
Louisiana Salt Marshes Using Landsat Imagery.” Remote Sensing 9 (6): 547. doi:10.3390/
rs9060547.
Monzon, A. K., S. R. Reyes, R. K. Veridiano, R. Tumaneng, and J. D. De Alban. 2016b. “Synergy of
Optical and SAR Data for Mapping and Monitoring Mangroves.” Paper presented at the XXIII
ISPRS Congress, Commission VI, edited by L. Halounova, V. Safar, J. Gong, V. Hanzl, H. Wu,
A. Vyas, L. Wang, et al., Prague, Czech Republic.
Musa, S. I., M. Hashim, and M. N. Reba. 2018. “Image Enhancement and Change Detection for
Urban Sprawl Analysis of Bauchi Metropolis, Nigeria Using Remote Sensing and GIS
Techniques.” Advanced Science Letters 24 (5): 3802–3808. doi:10.1166/asl.2018.11487.
Musa, S. I., M. Hashim, and M. N. M. Reba. 2017. “A Review of Geospatial-Based Urban Growth
Models and Modelling Initiatives.” Geocarto International 32 (8): 813–833. doi:10.1080/
10106049.2016.1213891.
Ni, R. 2012. Incorporating Blue Carbon as a Mitigation Action under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
Omar, H., N. M. J. Chuah, I. Parlan, and S. Musa. 2014. Assessing Rate of Deforestation and Changes
of Carbon Stock on Mangroves in Pahang, Malaysia.
Otero, V., C. Martínez-Espinosa, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, R. Van De Kerchove, B. Satyanarayana, and
R. Lucas. 2017. “Variations in Mangrove Regeneration Rates under Different Management Plans:
An Analysis of Landsat Time-Series in the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Peninsular
Malaysia.” Paper presented at the 2017 9th International Workshop on the Analysis of
Multitemporal Remote Sensing Images (MultiTemp), Bruges, Belgium.
Ozbay, G., C. Fan, and Z. Yang. 2017. “Relationship between Land Use and Water Quality and Its
Assessment Using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing in Mid-Atlantic Estuaries”. Water Quality 169–
222. InTech.
Padarian, J., B. Minasny, and A. B. McBratney. 2015. “Using Google‘S Cloud-Based Platform for
Digital Soil Mapping.” Computers & Geosciences 83: 80–88. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2015.06.023.
Paul, T. T., A. Dennis, and G. George. 2016. “A Review of Remote Sensing Techniques for the
Visualization of Mangroves, Reefs, Fishing Grounds, and Molluscan Settling Areas in Tropical
Waters.” In Seafloor Mapping along Continental Shelves, edited by C. Finkl, and C. Makowski, 13
vols., 105–123. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25121-9_4.
Pendleton, L., D. C. Donato, B. C. Murray, S. Crooks, W. Aaron Jenkins, S. Sifleet, C. Craft,

J. W. Fourqurean, J. Boone Kauffman, and M. Núria. 2012. “Estimating Global “Blue Carbon”
Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems.” PloS one 7 (9):
e43542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043542.
Penman, J., C. Green, P. Olofsson, J. Raison, C. Woodcock, H. Balzter, M. Baltuck, and G. M. Foody.
2016. Integration of remote-sensing and ground-based observations for estimation of emissions
and removals of greenhouse gases in forests: methods and guidance from the Global Forest
Observations Initiative.
Penner, J., P. Blonda, Y. Gavish, B. Kunin, E. Regan, D. Rocchini, C. Secades, and R. Sonnenschein.
2014. “EU BON and Its Challenges on the Use of Remote Sensing for Biodiversity Estimates.”
Paper presented at the Symposium Remote Sensing for Conservation: Uses, Prospects and
Challenges, London.
Perennou, C., A. Guelmami, M. Paganini, P. Philipson, B. Poulin, A. Strauch, C. Tottrup,
J. Truckenbrodt, and I. R. Geijzendorffer. 2018. “Mapping Mediterranean Wetlands with
Remote Sensing: A Good-Looking Map Is Not Always A Good Map.” In Advances in Ecological
Research 58: 243–277. doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2017.12.002.
Petus, C., C. Collier, M. Devlin, M. Rasheed, and M. Skye. 2014. “Using MODIS Data for
Understanding Changes in Seagrass Meadow Health: A Case Study in the Great Barrier Reef
(Australia).” Marine Environmental Research 98: 68–85. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.03.006.
Pham, L. T. H., and L. Brabyn. 2017. “Monitoring Mangrove Biomass Change in Vietnam Using SPOT
Images and an Object-Based Approach Combined with Machine Learning Algorithms.” ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 128: 86–97. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.03.013.
Pham, T. D., and K. Yoshino. 2017. “Aboveground Biomass Estimation of Mangrove Species Using
ALOS-2 PALSAR Imagery in Hai Phong City, Vietnam.” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 11 (2):
026010. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.11.026010.
Pham, T. D., K. Yoshino, N. N. Le, and D. T. Bui. 2018. “Estimating Aboveground Biomass of
a Mangrove Plantation on the Northern Coast of Vietnam Using Machine Learning
Techniques with an Integration of ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-2A Data.” International
Journal of Remote Sensing 39 (22): 7761–7788.
Pham, T. D., N. Yokoya, D. T. Bui, K. Yoshino, and D. A. Friess. 2019. “Remote Sensing Approaches
for Monitoring Mangrove Species, Structure, and Biomass: Opportunities and Challenges.”
Phang, V. X. H., L. M. Chou, and D. A. Friess. 2015. “Ecosystem Carbon Stocks across a Tropical
Intertidal Habitat Mosaic of Mangrove Forest, Seagrass Meadow, Mudflat and Sandbar.” Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 40 (10): 1387–1400. doi:10.1002/esp.3745.
Polidoro, B. A., K. E. Carpenter, L. Collins, N. C. Duke, A. M. Ellison, J. C. Ellison, E. J. Farnsworth,
E. S. Fernando, K. Kathiresan, and N. E. Koedam. 2010. “The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction
Risk and Geographic Areas of Global Concern.” PloS one 5 (4): e10095. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0010095.
Proisy, C., G. Viennois, F. Sidik, A. Andayani, J. A. Enright, S. Guitet, N. Gusmawati, H. Lemonnier,
G. Muthusankar, and A. Olagoke. 2017. “Monitoring Mangrove Forests after Aquaculture
Abandonment Using Time Series of Very High Spatial Resolution Satellite Images: A Case
Study from the Perancak Estuary, Bali, Indonesia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 131 (Pt B): 61–71.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.056.
Rahman, M. M. 2010. “Time-Series Analysis of Coastal Erosion in the Sundarbans Mangrove.” Image
XXXIX-B8: 137045.
Ramsey, E., A. Rangoonwala, Z. Chi, C. E. Jones, and T. Bannister. 2014. “Marsh Dieback, Loss, and
Recovery Mapped with Satellite Optical, Airborne Polarimetric Radar, and Field Data.” Remote
Sensing of Environment 152: 364–374. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.002.
Reda, A. G. 2017. “Framework for Carbon Sequestration and Accounting of SLM Practices for
Climate Change Mitigation in Ethiopia.” Int J Environ Sci Nat Res 4 (2): 555631.
Reddy, C. S., and A. Roy. 2008. “Assessment of Three Decade Vegetation Dynamics in Mangroves of
Godavari Delta, India Using Multi-Temporal Satellite Data and GIS.” Research Journal of
Environmental Sciences 2 (2): 108–115. doi:10.3923/rjes.2008.108.115.
Rees, S. E., M. C. Austen, M. J. Attrill, and L. D. Rodwell. 2012. “Incorporating Indirect Ecosystem
Services into Marine Protected Area Planning and Management.” International Journal of
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8 (3): 273–285. doi:10.1080/
21513732.2012.680500.
Rocha de Souza Pereira, F., M. Kampel, M. L. G. Soares, G. C. D. Estrada, C. Bentz, and G. Vincent.
2018. “Reducing Uncertainty in Mapping of Mangrove Aboveground Biomass Using Airborne
Discrete Return Lidar Data.” Remote Sensing 10 (4): 637. doi:10.3390/rs10040637.
Roelfsema, C., M. Lyons, M. Dunbabin, E. M. Kovacs, and S. Phinn. 2015a. ““Integrating Field Survey Data
with Satellite Image Data to Improve Shallow Water Seagrass Maps: The Role of AUV and Snorkeller
Surveys?”.” Remote Sensing Letters 6 (2): 135–144. doi:10.1080/2150704X.2015.1013643.
Roelfsema, C. M., M. Lyon, E. Kovacs, P. Maxwell, M. Saunders, J. Samper-Villarreal, and S. R. Phinn.
2015b. Multi-temporal mapping of seagrass cover, species and biomass of the Eastern Banks,
Moreton Bay, Australia, with links to shapefiles.
Roelfsema, C. M., M. Lyons, E. M. Kovacs, P. Maxwell, M. I. Saunders, J. Samper-Villarreal, and
S. R. Phinn. 2014. “Multi-Temporal Mapping of Seagrass Cover, Species and Biomass: A
Semi-Automated Object Based Image Analysis Approach.” Remote Sensing of Environment 150:
172–187. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2014.05.001.
Rogers, K., P. I. Boon, S. Branigan, N. C. Duke, C. D. Field, J. A. Fitzsimons, H. Kirkman,
J. R. Mackenzie, and N. Saintilan. 2016. “The State of Legislation and Policy Protecting
Australia‘S Mangrove and Salt Marsh and Their Ecosystem Services.” Marine Policy 72:
139–155. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.025.
Romañach, S. S., D. L. DeAngelis, H. L. Koh, Y. Li, S. Y. Teh, R. S. R. Barizan, and L. Zhai. 2018.
“Conservation and Restoration of Mangroves: Global Status, Perspectives, and Prognosis.” Ocean
& Coastal Management 154: 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.009.
Rosenqvist, A. 2017. “Earth Observation Support to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change: The Example of REDD+.” In Satellite Earth Observations and Their Impact on Society and
Policy, edited by M. Onoda, and O. Young, 143–153. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-
10-3713-9_13.
Rossiter, D. G. 2018. “Past, Present & Future of Information Technology in Pedometrics.” Geoderma
324: 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.009.
Salach, A., K. Bakuła, M. Pilarska, W. Ostrowski, K. Górski, and K. Zdzisław. 2018. “Accuracy
Assessment of Point Clouds from LidaR and Dense Image Matching Acquired Using the UAV
Platform for DTM Creation.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (9): 342.
doi:10.3390/ijgi7090342.
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, G. Fiske, K. Solvik, M. F. Adame, L. Benson, J. J. Bukoski, P. Carnell,
M. Cifuentes-Jara, and D. Donato. 2018. “A Global Map of Mangrove Forest Soil Carbon at
30 M Spatial Resolution.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 055002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/
aabe1c.
Sani, D. A., and M. Hashim. 2018. “A Preliminary Work on Blue Carbon Stock Mapping in Mangrove
Habitat Using Satellite-Based Approach.” Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/169/1/012078
Saul, S., and S. Purkis. 2015. “Semi-Automated Object-Based Classification of Coral Reef Habitat
Using Discrete Choice Models.” Remote Sensing 7 (12): 15894–15916. doi:10.3390/
rs71215810.
Schiebel, H. N. 2016. “Dissolved Organic Carbon Fluxes from a New England Salt Marsh“. University
of Massachusetts Boston.
Schile, L. M., J. Boone Kauffman, S. Crooks, J. W. Fourqurean, J. Glavan, and J. Patrick Megonigal.
2017. “Limits on Carbon Sequestration in Arid Blue Carbon Ecosystems.” Ecological Applications
27 (3): 859–874. doi:10.1002/eap.1489.
Shao, W., L. Xiaofeng, and X. Yang. 2019. “Retrieval of Winds and Waves from Synthetic Aperture
Radar Imagery.” In Remote Sensing of the Asian Seas, edited by V. Barale, and M. Gade, 285–303.
Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94067-0_16.
Shi, Y., J. Alex Thomasson, S. C. Murray, N. Ace Pugh, W. L. Rooney, S. Shafian, N. Rajan, G. Rouze,
C. L. S. Morgan, and H. L. Neely. 2016. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for High-Throughput
Phenotyping and Agronomic Research.” PloS one 11 (7): e0159781. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0159781.
Shoko, C., O. Mutanga, T. Dube, and R. Slotow. 2018. “Characterizing the Spatiotemporal Variations
of C3 and C4 Dominated Grasslands Aboveground Biomass in the Drakensberg, South Africa.”
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 68: 51–60. doi:10.1016/j.
jag.2018.02.006.
Siikamäki, J., J. N. Sanchirico, S. Jardine, D. McLaughlin, and D. Morris. 2013. “Blue Carbon: Coastal
Ecosystems, Their Carbon Storage, and Potential for Reducing Emissions.” Environment: Science
and Policy for Sustainable Development 55 (6): 14–29.
Silveira, E. M. O., I. T. Bueno, F. W. Acerbi-Junior, J. M. Mello, J. R. S. Scolforo, and M. A. Wulder.
2018. “Using Spatial Features to Reduce the Impact of Seasonality for Detecting Tropical Forest
Changes from Landsat Time Series.” Remote Sensing 10 (6): 808. doi:10.3390/rs10060808.
Sinha, S., C. Jeganathan, L. K. Sharma, and M. S. Nathawat. 2015. “A Review of Radar Remote
Sensing for Biomass Estimation.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
12 (5): 1779–1792. doi:10.1007/s13762-015-0750-0.
Sirikulchayanon, P., W. Sun, and T. J. Oyana. 2008. “Assessing the Impact of the 2004 Tsunami on
Mangroves Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques.” International Journal of Remote Sensing
29 (12): 3553–3576. doi:10.1080/01431160701646332.
Smith, V., C. Portillo-Quintero, A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, and J. L. Hernandez-Stefanoni. 2019. “Assessing
the Accuracy of Detected Breaks in Landsat Time Series as Predictors of Small Scale
Deforestation in Tropical Dry Forests of Mexico and Costa Rica.” Remote Sensing of
Son, N.-T., C.-F. Chen, N.-B. Chang, C.-R. Chen, L.-Y. Chang, and B.-X. Thanh. 2015. “Mangrove
Mapping and Change Detection in Ca Mau Peninsula, Vietnam, Using Landsat Data and
Object-Based Image Analysis.” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and
Remote Sensing 8 (2): 503–510. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2360691.
Sousa, A. I., D. B. Santos, E. F. Da Silva, L. P. Sousa, D. F. R. Cleary, A. M. V. M. Soares, and A. I. Lillebø.
2017. “Blue Carbon’and Nutrient Stocks of Salt Marshes at a Temperate Coastal Lagoon (Ria De
Aveiro, Portugal).” Scientific Reports 7: 354.
Stringer, C. E., C. C. Trettin, S. J. Zarnoch, and W. Tang. 2015. “Carbon Stocks of Mangroves within
the Zambezi River Delta, Mozambique.” Forest Ecology and Management 354: 139–148.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.027.
Su, Y., Q. Guo, B. Xue, H. Tianyu, O. Alvarez, S. Tao, and J. Fang. 2016. “Spatial Distribution of Forest
Aboveground Biomass in China: Estimation through Combination of Spaceborne Lidar, Optical
Imagery, and Forest Inventory Data.” Remote Sensing of Environment 173: 187–199. doi:10.1016/
j.rse.2015.12.002.
Suyadi, J. G., C. J. Lundquist, and L. Schwendenmann. 2018. “Sources of Uncertainty in Mapping
Temperate Mangroves and Their Minimization Using Innovative Methods.” International Journal
of Remote Sensing 39 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1080/01431161.2017.1378455.
Tang, W., M. Zheng, X. Zhao, J. Shi, J. Yang, and C. C. Trettin. 2018. “Big Geospatial Data Analytics
for Global Mangrove Biomass and Carbon Estimation.” Sustainability 10 (2): 472. doi:10.3390/
su10020472.
Tang, W., W. Feng, M. Jia, J. Shi, H. Zuo, and C. C. Trettin. 2016. “The Assessment of Mangrove
Biomass and Carbon in West Africa: A Spatially Explicit Analytical Framework.” Wetlands Ecology
and Management 24 (2): 153–171. doi:10.1007/s11273-015-9474-7.
Teodoro, A. C. 2016. “Optical Satellite Remote Sensing of the Coastal Zone Environment—An
Overview.” In Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing, edited by M. Marghany, 165–196.
InTech. doi:10.5772/60828.
Tewkesbury, A. P., A. J. Comber, N. J. Tate, A. Lamb, and P. F. Fisher. 2015. “A Critical Synthesis of
Remotely Sensed Optical Image Change Detection Techniques.” Remote Sensing of Environment
160: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.01.006.
Thomas, S. 2014. “Blue Carbon: Knowledge Gaps, Critical Issues, and Novel Approaches.” Ecological
Economics 107: 22–38. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.028.
Thompson, B. S., C. P. Clubbe, J. H. Primavera, D. Curnick, and H. J. Koldewey. 2014. “Locally

Assessing the Economic Viability of Blue Carbon: A Case Study from Panay Island, the
Philippines.” Ecosystem Services 8: 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.004.
Thompson, D. R., E. J. Hochberg, G. P. Asner, R. O. Green, D. E. Knapp, B.-C. Gao, R. Garcia,
M. Gierach, Z. Lee, and S. Maritorena. 2017a. “Airborne Mapping of Benthic Reflectance
Spectra with Bayesian Linear Mixtures.” Remote Sensing of Environment 200: 18–30.
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.030.
Thompson, K., K. Miller, P. Johnston, and D. Santillo. 2017b. Storage of Carbon by Marine Ecosystems
and Their Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation.
Thomson, A., and C. Goudie. 2017. The Role of Bioburbators in Seagrass Blue Carbon Dynamics.
Traganos, D., and P. Reinartz. 2018. “Interannual Change Detection of Mediterranean Seagrasses
Using RapidEye Image Time Series.” Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 96. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00096.
Tripathi, P., N. R. Patel, and S. P. S. Kushwaha. 2017. “Estimating Net Primary Productivity in Tropical
Forest Plantations in India Using Satellite-Driven Ecosystem Model.” Geocarto International 1–12.
doi:10.1080/10106049.2017.1323963.
Tsui, O. W., N. C. Coops, M. A. Wulder, P. L. Marshall, and M. Adrian. 2012. “Using Multi-Frequency
Radar and Discrete-Return LiDAR Measurements to Estimate Above-Ground Biomass and
Biomass Components in a Coastal Temperate Forest.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing 69: 121–133. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2012.02.009.
Vafaei, S., J. Soosani, K. Adeli, H. Fadaei, H. Naghavi, T. D. Pham, and D. T. Bui. 2018. “Improving
Accuracy Estimation of Forest Aboveground Biomass Based on Incorporation of ALOS-2
PALSAR-2 and sentinel-2A Imagery and Machine Learning: A Case Study of the Hyrcanian
Forest Area (Iran).” Remote Sensing 10 (2): 172. doi:10.3390/rs10020172.
Van Stan, I. I., T. John, and T. G. Pypker. 2015. “A Review and Evaluation of Forest Canopy Epiphyte
Roles in the Partitioning and Chemical Alteration of Precipitation.” Science of the Total
Environment 536: 813–824. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.134.
Ventura, D., A. Bonifazi, M. F. Gravina, A. Belluscio, and G. Ardizzone. 2018. “Mapping and
Classification of Ecologically Sensitive Marine Habitats Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Imagery and Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA).” Remote Sens 10 (1331): 1–23. doi:10.3390/
rs10091331.
Vierros, M. 2017. “Communities and Blue Carbon: The Role of Traditional Management Systems in
Providing Benefits for Carbon Storage, Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods.” Climatic
Change 140 (1): 89–100. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0920-3.
Wannasiri, W., M. Nagai, K. Honda, P. Santitamnont, and P. Miphokasap. 2013. “Extraction of
Mangrove Biophysical Parameters Using Airborne LiDAR.” Remote Sensing 5 (4): 1787–1808.
doi:10.3390/rs5041787.
Wei, C.-L., G. T. Rowe, E. Escobar-Briones, A. Boetius, T. Soltwedel, M. Julian Caley, Y. Soliman,
F. Huettmann, Q. Fangyuan, and Y. Zishan. 2010. “Global Patterns and Predictions of Seafloor
Biomass Using Random Forests.” PloS one 5 (12): e15323. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015323.
Whitfield, A. K. 2017. “The Role of Seagrass Meadows, Mangrove Forests, Salt Marshes and Reed
Beds as Nursery Areas and Food Sources for Fishes in Estuaries.” Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 27 (1): 75–110. doi:10.1007/s11160-016-9454-x.
Wicaksono, P. 2017. “Mangrove Above-Ground Carbon Stock Mapping of Multi-Resolution Passive
Remote-Sensing Systems.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 38 (6): 1551–1578.
doi:10.1080/01431161.2017.1283072.
Wicaksono, P., and M. Hafizt. 2013. “Mapping Seagrass from Space: Addressing the Complexity of
Seagrass LAI Mapping.” European Journal of Remote Sensing 46 (1): 18–39. doi:10.5721/
EuJRS20134602.
Wicaksono, P., P. Danoedoro, H. Hartono, U. Nehren, and L. Ribbe. 2011. “Preliminary Work of
Mangrove Ecosystem Carbon Stock Mapping in Small Island Using Remote Sensing: Above and
below Ground Carbon Stock Mapping on Medium Resolution Satellite Image.” Paper presented
at the Remote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Hydrology XIII, Prague, Czech Republic.
Wicaksono, P., P. D. Hartono, and U. Nehren. 2016. “Mangrove Biomass Carbon Stock Mapping of
the Karimunjawa Islands Using Multispectral Remote Sensing.” International Journal of Remote
Sensing 37 (1): 26–52. doi:10.1080/01431161.2015.1117679.
Wilkin, J., L. Rosenfeld, A. Allen, R. Baltes, A. Baptista, H. Ruoying, P. Hogan, A. Kurapov, A. Mehra,
and J. Quintrell. 2017. “Advancing Coastal Ocean Modelling, Analysis, and Prediction for the US
Integrated Ocean Observing System.” Journal of Operational Oceanography 10 (2): 115–126.
doi:10.1080/1755876X.2017.1322026.
Winarso, G., Y. Vetrita, A. D. Purwanto, N. Anggraini, S. Darmawan, and D. M. Yuwono. 2017.
“Mangrove above Ground Biomass Estimation Using Combination of Landsat 8 and Alos Palsar
Data.” International Journal of Remote Sensing and Earth Sciences (Ijreses) 12 (2): 85–96.
doi:10.30536/j.ijreses.2015.v12.a2687.
Witt, E. 2016. A Financial and Economic Assessment of the Conservation of Northwestern Madagascar
Mangroves.
Wong, F. K. K., and T. Fung. 2014. “Combining EO-1 Hyperion and ENVISAT ASAR Data for
Mangrove Species Classification in Mai Po Ramsar Site, Hong Kong.” International Journal of
Remote Sensing 35 (23): 7828–7856. doi:10.1080/01431161.2014.978034.
Wylie, L., A. E. Sutton-Grier, and A. Moore. 2016. “Keys to Successful Blue Carbon Projects:
Lessons Learned from Global Case Studies.” Marine Policy 65: 76–84. doi:10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.12.020.
Yagci, A. L., J. A. Santanello, J. W. Jones, and J. Barr. 2017. “Estimating Evaporative Fraction from
Readily Obtainable Variables in Mangrove Forests of the Everglades, USA.” International Journal
of Remote Sensing 38 (14): 3981–4007. doi:10.1080/01431161.2017.1312033.
Yando, E. S., M. J. Osland, J. M. Willis, R. H. Day, K. W. Krauss, and M. W. Hester. 2016. “Salt Marsh-
Mangrove Ecotones: Using Structural Gradients to Investigate the Effects of Woody Plant
Encroachment on Plant–Soil Interactions and Ecosystem Carbon Pools.” Journal of Ecology 104
(4): 1020–1031. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12571.
Yang, C. 2016. “The Empirical Models to Correct Water Column Effects for Optically Shallow Water.”
In Empirical Modeling and Its Applications, edited by M. M. Habib, 29–40. InTech (Open Access).
Yang, D., and C. Yang. 2009. “Detection of Seagrass Distribution Changes from 1991 to 2006 in
Xincun Bay, Hainan, with Satellite Remote Sensing.” Sensors 9 (2): 830–844. doi:10.3390/
s90200830.
Yang, R., Q. Zhang, P. Xiao, J. Wang, and Y. Bai. 2017. “Two Opposite Size Effects of Hardness at
Real Nano-Scale and Their Distinct Origins.” Scientific Reports 7 (1): 16053. doi:10.1038/s41598-
017-14734-w.
Yevugah, L. L. 2017. Spatial Mapping of Carbon Stock in Mangroves in the Ellembelle District, Ghana.
York, P. H., T. M. Smith, R. G. Coles, S. A. McKenna, R. M. Connolly, A. D. Irving, E. L. Jackson,
K. McMahon, J. W. Runcie, and C. D. H. Sherman. 2017. “Identifying Knowledge Gaps in Seagrass
Research and Management: An Australian Perspective.” Marine Environmental Research 127:
163–172. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.06.006.
Yuan, Z.-J., Y.-M. Chu, and Y.-J. Shen. 2009. “The Application of 3S Technologies in Modern
Logistics Information System.” Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference on
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Heibei, China. doi:10.1109/ICMLC.2009.5212637.
Zhang, G., S. Ganguly, R. R. Nemani, M. A. White, C. Milesi, H. Hashimoto, W. Wang, S. Saatchi,
Y. Yifan, and R. B. Myneni. 2014. “Estimation of Forest Aboveground Biomass in California Using
Canopy Height and Leaf Area Index Estimated from Satellite Data.” Remote Sensing of
Zhang, H., T. Wang, M. Liu, M. Jia, H. Lin, L. M. Chu, and A. T. Devlin. 2018. “Potential of Combining
Optical and Dual Polarimetric SAR Data for Improving Mangrove Species Discrimination Using
Rotation Forest.” Remote Sensing 10 (3): 467. doi:10.3390/rs10030467.
Zhang, K., B. Thapa, M. Ross, and D. Gann. 2016. “Remote Sensing of Seasonal Changes and
Disturbances in Mangrove Forest: A Case Study from South Florida.” Ecosphere 7 (6).
doi:10.1002/ecs2.1366.
Zhang, S., R. Zhang, T. Liu, X. Song, and M. A. Adams. 2017. “Empirical and Model-Based Estimates
of Spatial and Temporal Variations in Net Primary Productivity in Semi-Arid Grasslands of
Northern China.” PloS one 12 (11): e0187678. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187678.
Zhao, K., J. C. Suarez, M. Garcia, H. Tongxi, C. Wang, and A. Londo. 2018. “Utility of Multitemporal
Lidar for Forest and Carbon Monitoring: Tree Growth, Biomass Dynamics, and Carbon Flux.”
Remote Sensing of Environment 204: 883–897. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.007.
Zhu, Y., K. Liu, L. Liu, S. W. Myint, S. Wang, H. Liu, and H. Zhi. 2017. “Exploring the Potential of
WorldView-2 Red-Edge Band-Based Vegetation Indices for Estimation of Mangrove Leaf Area
Index with Machine Learning Algorithms.” Remote Sensing 9 (10): 1060. doi:10.3390/rs9101060.
Zimmerman, R. C. 2007. “Light and Photosynthesis in Seagrass Meadows.” In Seagrasses: Biology,
Ecologyand Conservation, edited by A. W. D. Larkum, R. J. Orth, and C. Duarte, 303–321.
Swittzerland: Springer Nature.
Zolkos, S. G., S. J. Goetz, and R. Dubayah. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of Terrestrial Aboveground
Biomass Estimation Using Lidar Remote Sensing.” Remote Sensing of Environment 128: 289–298.
doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.10.017.

Sani 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sani 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Remote Sensing

ISSN: 0143-1161 (Print) 1366-5901 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tres20

Recent advancement on estimation of blue carbon

Dalhatu Aliyu Sani, Mazlan Hashim & Mohammad Shawkat Hossain

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1601289

Published online: 16 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Recent advancement on estimation of blue carbon biomass

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2. Methodology and scope of the review

● Not related to blue carbon, a total of 45 articles.

2.2. Review architecture

3. Recent development in blue carbon biomass estimation using remote

Figure 1. Workﬂow of the reviewed literature used in this study.

Table 1. Description of acronyms used in this review.

Table 2. Major satellite sensors used in blue carbon researches.

4. Analysing blue carbon components: achievements and gaps

4.1. Mangrove forest

4.2. Salt marshes

4.3. Seagrass meadows

4.4. Coral reefs

4.5. Accuracy assessments in blue carbon components

5. Recent technology used for estimating blue carbon biomass in

6. Spatio-temporal analysis in blue carbon biomass mapping and

7. Carbon stock and conversion factors used in converting biomass to

Proisy et al. (2017) Maps 15 the previous Indonesia

mangrove BGB Landsat OLI

9. Conclusion and future outlook

Table 5. Conversion factor within blue carbon pub-

Table 6. Proportion of sensor utilisation in blue

Ben-Romdhane, H., M. Al-Musallami, P. R. Marpu, T. B. M. J. Ouarda, and H. Ghedira. 2018. “Change

Domke, G. M., C. H. Perry, B. F. Walters, L. E. Nave, C. W. Woodall, and C. W. Swanston. 2017.

Pendleton, L., D. C. Donato, B. C. Murray, S. Crooks, W. Aaron Jenkins, S. Siﬂeet, C. Craft,

Phenotyping and Agronomic Research.” PloS one 11 (7): e0159781. doi:10.1371/journal.

Thompson, B. S., C. P. Clubbe, J. H. Primavera, D. Curnick, and H. J. Koldewey. 2014. “Locally

You might also like