Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsase

Technological opportunities for measuring and monitoring blue carbon

initiatives in mangrove ecosystems
Raheleh Farzanmanesh a, Kourosh Khoshelham b, Sebastian Thomas c, *
a
School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
b
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia
c
Sustainable Engineering Group, Curtin University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mangrove forests play a crucial role in the carbon cycle and mitigate climate change by reducing carbon dioxide
Climate change emissions. However, mangrove ecosystems have declined dramatically in most regions due to natural and human
Remote sensing factors, resulting in the release of substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. ‘Blue carbon’ conservation and
Image classification
restoration initiatives seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support adaptation in mangrove areas.
REDD+
Carbon measurement
Various methods are employed to estimate, map, and monitor the extent and dynamics of mangrove biomass and
carbon stocks, and these play a critical role in sustainable management and the climate policy and market in­
struments which can provide financial support for ecosystem conservation and restoration. This paper presents a
comprehensive review of different mapping and monitoring methods applied from 2010 to 2020 for carbon
stocks in mangrove forests, and highlights the limitations of previous studies. Destructive sampling, use of
allometric equations, and remote sensing technologies are described and assessed. Passive and active sensors at
various spatial resolutions (1 m–30 m), and supervised and unsupervised classification methods, are discussed. A
novel aspect of this paper is the assessment of monitoring methods and the uncertainty of carbon stock esti­
mation in mangrove forests. The study discusses the advantages and drawbacks of existing methods for mangrove
carbon stock measurement and provides recommendations for effective application of blue carbon studies in
global markets.

1. Introduction
Mangrove forests are among the most productive biomes on earth in
terms of carbon sequestration and provide other important ecosystem
services at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Adame et al., 2013;
Murdiyarso et al., 2015). Mangroves can protect coastlines against
natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis (Dasgupta et al., 2019;
Hamuna et al., 2019) and are a source of products such as fuelwood and
construction materials for local communities (Barbier, 2016). Fisheries
are also supported by mangroves that provide breeding and nursery
habitats (Nagelkerken et al., 2015). The annual value of mangrove
ecosystem services has been estimated to be in the range of US $475 to
$11,675 per hectare (ha) depending on the approach of the valuation,
geography, and market conditions (Barbier, 2016). Some estimates of
total economic value (TEV) for mangrove ecosystems are as high as US
$900,000 ha− 1, covering tourism and recreation, fisheries, biodiversity,
and shoreline protection (Wells and Ravilious, 2006). Mangrove forests
are culturally significant to many communities, and also vital for many
traditional livelihood activities (Thomas, 2016). As with many envi­
ronmental assets, the ecosystem services provided by mangrove forests
are generally not recognized in legal frameworks or financial mecha­
nisms (Bell-James et al., 2020).
Mangroves are threatened by increasing human exploitation, with an
alarming loss rate of 1–3% per annum in some countries (Duke et al.,
2007; Alongi, 2011; Pendleton et al., 2012; Ghosh et al., 2016; Hamilton
and Friess, 2018). Half of all mangroves globally are projected to
disappear in the next 50 years (Giri et al., 2011; Feller et al., 2017).
These losses are caused by the growing pressure of coastal infrastructure
development, conversion to agriculture and aquaculture uses (especially
shrimp farming), and the extraction of timber for construction and
charcoal (Richards and Friess, 2016). Pressures are aggravated by nat­
ural losses caused by extreme weather events and sea-level rise driven by
climate change (Duke et al., 2007). More than 13% of mangroves
(almost 542,000 ha) are expected to be submerged by rising sea levels by

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sebastian.thomas@curtin.edu.au (S. Thomas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100612
Received 22 April 2021; Received in revised form 15 July 2021; Accepted 16 August 2021
Available online 17 August 2021
2352-9385/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
2100 in the Pacific area (Lovelock et al., 2015).
Mangrove ecosystems play a critical role as carbon sinks in the tro­
pics with an average storage of 1023 Mg C per hectare (Donato et al.,
2011). Organic carbon in mangrove areas is stored in sediments and tree
biomass (Kauffman et al., 2014). Degradation and loss of these ‘blue
carbon’ habitats jeopardizes their ability to accumulate carbon by
reducing sequestration rates and contributes directly to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by releasing accumulated carbon (Thomas, 2014). It is
estimated that 0.15–1.02 billion tons of CO2 is released annually as a
consequence of deforestation and depletion of blue carbon ecosystems
(Pendleton et al., 2012). Although mangroves account for 0.6% of
tropical forests globally their deforestation contributes 12% of forest
greenhouse gas emissions (Kauffman et al., 2020). Thus, monitoring
mangrove forests against land use change and forest degradation is
crucially important. This manuscript is focused on remote sensing
methods for carbon stocks and fluxes in mangroves, which are arguably
the future of forest inventory monitoring (Sasmito et al., 2019).
Management of blue carbon projects like preventing deforestation or
restoration and conservation, can reduce carbon emissions from loss of
mangroves, and provide financial recourses (Vanderklift et al., 2019).
But for managing the blue carbon project, anticipating future carbon
emissions is an important factor to underline the specific management
actions. These management actions will improve mangrove represen­
tation in the Nationally Determined Contributions committed in the
Paris Climate Agreement for carbon market actions (Sasmito et al.,
2019).
The international policy response to climate change has been shaped
by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (UNFCCC, 1992). Since the establishment of the UNFCCC, a
variety of market mechanisms and policy instruments have evolved to
facilitate mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to impacts of global
warming, and positive sustainable development outcomes. These
include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (O’Sullivan et al.,
2012), emissions trading schemes (Siikamäki et al., 2012), and the
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD+) concept (Ajonina et al., 2014). All of these different schemes
and initiatives share a common feature: they determine market out­
comes using carbon – or more specifically, tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent (tCO2e) – as a standard metric (Adame et al., 2013). A variety
of ecosystem-based initiatives operate within these programs, generally
involving terrestrial afforestation, reforestation, or avoided deforesta­
tion and degradation. These different initiatives operate within regu­
lated or voluntary markets, and use carbon sequestration and storage as
the key ecosystem service within a Payment for Ecosystem Services
(PES) approach (Thomas et al., 2010; Locatelli et al., 2014).
To measure the effectiveness of these initiatives in generating
recognized carbon benefits, it is essential to accurately estimate biomass
and carbon stocks in vegetation and soils, and to monitor changes in
biomass extent, land use, carbon emissions, and sequestration rates
(Fatoyinbo et al., 2018; Hickey et al., 2018). Although mangrove forests
have largely been ignored by PES instruments to date, measurement of
carbon storage and sequestration benefits does offer a pathway for
conservation and restoration of mangrove forests to be financed through
global carbon markets and climate policy instruments if barriers can be
overcome (Locatelli et al., 2014; Thomas, 2014; Vanderklift et al.,
2019). This is important because while the carbon sequestration out­
comes from such activities are important, protection of mangrove forests
offers tremendous additional benefits in terms of climate change adap­
tation, biodiversity, and livelihoods (Thomas, 2014).
Measuring and monitoring carbon in coastal ecosystems is techni­
cally challenging, and there are further ecological, financial, regulatory,
and practical constraints on bringing blue carbon projects into inter­
national market schemes (Thomas, 2014; Vanderklift et al., 2019).
There is, however, widespread interest across diverse stakeholder
groups in integrating blue carbon into international policy and market
frameworks because of the potential for blue carbon initiatives to
2
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
provide not only carbon benefits but also support resilience outcomes
and sustainable livelihoods in local communities (Nagelkerken et al.,
2015). Improving carbon stock assessment approaches and reducing
costs through the application of appropriate technologies is, therefore, a
priority for governments, scientists, and the private sector (Vanderklift
et al., 2019).
This paper provides a review of methods applied during the past 10
years to measure and monitor carbon stocks in mangrove ecosystems,
including field measurement, allometric equation models, and remote
sensing techniques. The review is timely for two key reasons. First,
technologies are developing rapidly and recent innovations offer
important and novel opportunities to integrate different measurement
techniques. The paper summarizes recent advances in passive and active
remote sensing systems for quantifying carbon stocks and biomass in
mangroves through previous studies, thereby offering a ‘state-of-the-art’
perspective on technological opportunities for more effectively bringing
blue carbon to global markets. A novel aspect of the analysis is the
assessment of monitoring methods and the uncertainty of carbon stock
estimation in mangrove forests. Second, climate policy is at a critical and
liminal juncture. The Paris Agreement declared in 2015 has come into
force in 2020, and while details of implementation are still being
resolved there is widespread political support for ‘blue carbon’ initia­
tives (Australian Government, 2019; Vanderklift et al., 2019). Australia,
for example, home to 2–8% of the world’s mangroves with approxi­
mately 125 MgC ha− 1 in aboveground biomass, established the Inter­
national Partnership for Blue Carbon with the aim of improving
measurement and management through knowledge exchange and policy
development, and is now working to include blue carbon in national
inventories and emission reduction market mechanisms (Serrano et al.,
2019).
It is also the case that 2020 may represent a watermark in global
environmental and economic history. Impacts of the novel coronavirus
pandemic have included substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions
and calls for an economic recovery to be framed as an opportunity for
green growth and new approaches (Gatti, 2020; Lucchese and Pianta,
2020). In short, it is an unusual time with potential for innovations in
environmental investment and entrepreneurship.
The paper is structured as follows: the next section provides a brief
overview of carbon monitoring technologies, highlighting the strengths
and weaknesses of different approaches. Section 3 then details the
methods applied in conducting the systematic review. Section 4 presents
the results of the analysis, covering destructive core sampling, use of
allometric equations, and a detailed examination of various remote
sensing technologies. Section 5 then discusses the monitoring of blue
carbon initiatives and emerging opportunities to integrate technologies
to achieve lower cost and more efficient and effective carbon monitoring
outcomes. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Technologies for carbon mapping
According to Donato et al. (2011), the belowground carbon content
of mangrove ecosystems is 4–18 times greater than that of tropical
rainforests. Estimation of carbon sequestration, emissions, and storage
can be carried out by quantifying the dynamics of above and below­
ground biomass in which forest ecosystem carbon is stored (Tang et al.,
2018). Understanding the dynamics of mangrove biomass includes
monitoring interactions between different types of vegetation, the sta­
bility of those interactions, and variations in population numbers. Maps
of mangrove biomass and carbon stocks can facilitate understanding of
spatio-temporal biomass and carbon dynamics (Alavaisha and Mangora,
2016). The availability of mangrove carbon stock data over space and
time is highly important for a range of critical governance and man­
agement priorities: greenhouse gas emission reductions and adaptation
to the impacts of climate change that can be funded through interna­
tional carbon market instruments; sustainable management of coastal
areas, a priority for many local and regional governments; natural
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
resource inventories including greenhouse accounts required by the
UNFCCC; and conservation and rehabilitation programs, often sup­
ported by civil society organisations, community groups, and philan­
thropic funding. Robust data of this nature is currently sparse and
existing data sets do not meet user needs.
The most accurate existing method for estimation of forest biomass
draws upon field measurements that are time-consuming and labour-
intensive, and impossible to apply in large geographic areas (Vinh
et al., 2019). Remote sensing technologies make it feasible to observe
and record land surface features over large areas with airborne or sat­
ellite sensors. These technologies are considered to be more efficient and
cost-effective approaches for large-scale biomass estimation due to their
capacity for large-scale data collection, wide spatial coverage, and dig­
ital outputs (Pham et al., 2019a).
Remote sensing is the principal source of spatial information on the
Earth’s surface coverage and cover types, with abundant information
captured by different sensors (Guo et al., 2017). In recent decades
remote sensing technologies have proven to be effective in mapping and
monitoring blue carbon ecosystems with lower costs, faster speeds, and
at wider spatial scales than field measurements (Pham et al., 2019a).
However, applications of these technologies are constrained by atmo­
spheric water vapour (clouds) and the limited coverage of aerial-sourced
datasets (Pham et al., 2019b). Remote sensing is an effective approach to
integrated coastal area management (ICAM) and marine spatial plan­
ning (MSP) at national or regional scales but constrained in its appli­
cability to carbon market activities, because to date there is a lack of
long-term data series focused on carbon stock dynamics in relevant lo­
cations (Pham et al., 2019a, b).
Previous reviews of mangrove remote sensing have primarily
focused on mapping changes in areal extent, distribution, biomass,
species types, and other biophysical parameters (Heumann, 2011;
Kuenzer et al., 2011; Giri, 2016; Rhyma et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2017;
Lucas et al., 2017; Sani et al., 2019). Pham et al. (2019b) provided an
overview of the combination of remote sensing techniques and machine
learning techniques for mapping mangrove species, structure, and
biomass. Their results indicated that machine learning algorithms using
various remotely sensed data provided an overall more accurate esti­
mation of mangrove biomass than using parametric approaches.
Kuenzer et al. (2011) reviewed remote sensing methods that ranged
from aerial photography to multispectral satellite imagery and hyper­
spectral and radar data. Heumann (2011) comparatively investigated
historical and recent advances in remotely sensed data and analysis
techniques for leaf area, species composition, and standing biomass in
mangrove ecosystems.
With the growing understanding and awareness of the effectiveness
of mangroves as an important long-term carbon sink, there is recogni­
tion of the significance of mangrove forests in global carbon dynamics
(Donato et al., 2011). Hence, remote sensing has been increasingly
applied to the estimation of mangrove carbon stocks within the last
decade, emerging as a new branch in mangrove remote sensing studies.
For this purpose, it is necessary to assess mangrove biomass, particularly
the aboveground biomass, for quantification of carbon stocks stored in
any species of mangroves (Sitoe et al., 2014). Estimation of aboveground
carbon (AGC) and belowground carbon (BGC) of mangrove carbon
stocks is required to obtain preliminary estimates of carbon stock (Patil
et al., 2015). Recognising the important role of mangrove forests in
global carbon dynamics, many attempts have been made to protect,
restore and replant mangroves. Unfortunately, very little information is
available on the status and dynamics of mangroves which is crucial for
conservation and restoration planning. This highlights the need for
assessment and monitoring of mangrove forests. Monitoring mangrove
dynamics provides valuable information about the mangrove condition,
health, distribution, population changes. Thus, monitoring techniques
for estimating carbon stock changes in mangroves should be considered
an important topic.
3
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
3. Methods and data
Web of Science, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were
selected as source databases for this study. The systematic review
compiled previous research relating to the question “How do current
methodologies compare in their ability to estimate, map, and monitor
carbon stocks, biomass, and carbon stock changes with accuracy?” The
term methodologies include ground-based measurement, models and
remote sensing data to convert measurements into an estimation of
carbon stocks. The publications included journal papers, conference
articles, book chapters, and reports from 2010 onwards. The objective is
confined to only mangrove ecosystems in relation to biomass and carbon
stock studies. Results were limited by year (2010–2020), document type
(peer-reviewed articles), and language (English). As shown in Table 1,
our research strategy combined the survey population, methods, and
outcomes for carbon and biomass in mangroves (aboveground and
belowground biomass).
A limited number of studies have quantified the carbon stocks or
losses associated with conversion of these ecosystems. Through the
systematic review process, we identified 65 peer reviewed studies that
reported estimation of biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove forests by
allometric models and remote sensing (APPENDIX-I).
We used GIS spatial analysis to show mean carbon stocks and
biomass in mangrove forests based on literature review, presented in
Fig. 1. The maximum and minimum carbon stock distribution is esti­
mated in Northern Gabon, Africa (1063 Mg C ha− 1) and Kerala, India
(12.67 Mg C ha− 1), respectively. Aboveground biomass distribution is
estimated 250 Mg C ha− 1 in Kamphuan River (Southwest Thailand) and
36 Mg C ha− 1 in Akanda Peninsula (Africa).
4. Methods for measuring mangrove biomass and carbon stocks
Estimates of biomass are required to precisely quantify mangrove
carbon stocks and their dynamics (Macreadie et al., 2019), and accuracy
is of great importance. Biomass represents the organic matter in a tree
and can be used to estimate productivity and its effects on carbon
(Istomo et al., 2017). To measure the rate of carbon allocation in
mangrove sites a number of methods have been outlined by Kauffman
and Donato (2012) and Kauffman et al. (2014). Several methods have
been described to measure biomass and carbon stock, but primarily
these include destructive sampling methods and/or non-destructive
methods. The most direct and precise method is to harvest the whole
tree then divide it into separate components (trunk, bark, leaves,
branches). Each component is weighed to obtain the fresh weight and
(after drying) the dry weight and moisture content. Destructive sam­
pling however is labour-intensive and expensive. Further, destructive
sampling is limited to small trees or small sample sizes, and is not
suitable in protected areas or for endangered tree species (Komiyama
et al., 2005). In contrast, the use of allometric equations (regressions
that relate biomass to a range of predictor variables) is a preferred
approach to assess biomass of tree stands (Komiyama et al., 2008).
Extensive destructive sampling is necessary in initial stages to derive the
Table 1
Search terms used in the systematic review.
Key term Corresponding search term
Population Mangrove OR wetland* OR forest* OR species OR tree*
Method (method* OR approach* OR technique* OR model* OR
equation* OR satellite* OR “remote sens*” OR estimate*
OR calculata* OR assessment OR tool* OR measure* OR
simulate*) (compar* OR evaluate* OR review* OR
improve* OR accuracy* OR uncertainty OR error OR
regression)
Outcome carbon OR carbon OR biomass AND (carbon stock* carbon
biomass sequestration) AND (stock* OR stor* OR sequest* OR
biomass)
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
Fig. 1. The distribution of carbon stock and biomass in mangrove forests based on literature review.
appropriate allometric equations, but thereafter the developed equa­
tions provide a non-destructive approach to estimate biomass in the
studied ecosystem (Vinh et al., 2019).
The combination of remote sensing and geographical information
system (GIS) methods has also been applied to estimate the biomass and
carbon stocks in mangrove ecosystems. However, appropriate methods
for the estimation of the aboveground biomass using remote sensing
should be integrated with field measurements to improve the accuracy
of the estimates. The advantage of the remote sensing approach is that it
reduces the labour-intensive data collection phase, which saves time and
cost especially in large areas.
4.1. Destructive sampling method
Direct measurement, which is one of the most widely used methods
across the globe while harvesting the trees, refers to the method of
felling and oven-drying a small sample of trees within a plot until the
weight is constant (Kauffman and Donato, 2012). Felling, dissecting,
and weighing consume a great deal of resources, and are
labour-intensive, particularly when the root system is excavated and
included in the biomass measurement (Gibbs et al., 2009). Therefore,
due to the resource intensiveness of developing a new allometric
equation from destructive sampling, an allometric equation developed
by other researchers has been suggested for areas with the same char­
acteristics and species composition.
4.2. Allometric equation method
Allometric equations are a robust tool for estimating carbon
sequestration in mangrove ecosystems. These equations estimate the
correlation between biomass with diameter at breast height (DBH), tree
height (H), height of the tree trunk, tree species, crown volume, and
wood density (Komiyama et al., 2008). The sum of aboveground and
belowground biomass is taken as total biomass and carbon stock (Mg C
ha− 1) can be obtained by using conversion factors from total biomass to
carbon. The point to be made here is that due to the difficulties associ­
ated with obtaining the necessary point measurement input parameters,
estimating biomass using allometric approaches has certain limitations
when estimates over site, region, national or global areas have to be
made (Hoque et al., 2010). Allometric equation models have so far been
developed for around 17 species of mangroves (Duke et al., 2014; Kus­
mana et al., 2018), mostly being focused on aboveground biomass
(Kangkuso et al., 2016). However, there exist very few allometric
equations with a focus on belowground biomass. Komiyama et al.
(2008) have made a review of useful belowground equations available
for mangroves. The general equation reported by them is:
BTB = 0.199*ρ0.899* (D) 222
4
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
BTB = Tree belowground biomass (kg),
ρ = wood density (g/cm3),
D = tree diameter at breast height (cm).
As already mentioned in mangrove carbon stock protocol (Kauffman
and Donato, 2012), there are now very few allometric models developed
by partial organs and useful for measuring dead standing trees (Kus­
mana et al., 2018). The allometric equation models developed for a
particular region may not necessarily be suitable for other regions. This
is mainly due to the influence of genetic and environmental factors such
as climate conditions and bioclimatic stress on biomass and tree growth
(Chave et al., 2005). The conversion factor is also taken into consider­
ation for mapping carbon stock in mangroves. The conversion factors for
mangrove carbon estimation are shown between 0.46 and 0.5. Table 2
summarizes previous studies that estimated biomass and carbon stocks
using field measurements and allometric equations.
4.3. Remote sensing techniques
Currently, there exist two categories of sensors utilized for measuring
and monitoring biomass and carbon stock in mangroves: passive and
active sensors. A passive sensor detects sunlight reflected from the
planet’s surface and thermal radiation in the visible and infrared ranges
of the electromagnetic spectrum (Toth and Józ’ków, 2016). A passive
sensor does not have any radiation of its own, but receives thermal ra­
diation and light from the Earth’s surface. However, an active satellite
sensor emits artificial radiation and records the reflected radiation from
the earth surface or atmospheric particles (Toth and Józ’ków, 2016).
This review encompasses different platforms, sensors, and spatial reso­
lutions within a range of less than 1 m to 30 m. Aboveground biomass
and carbon stocks estimations are mostly derived from optical images
that are freely available (Shapiro et al., 2015; Hamdan et al., 2019), SAR
data (Castillo et al., 2017; Pham et al., 2018) and/or LiDAR data (Maeda
et al., 2016). LiDAR data are used to obtain a three-dimensional repre­
sentation of the forest structure. LiDAR is used to obtain structural in­
formation, particularly tree height, tree crown sizes, tree distributions,
from which AGB and carbon stock can be estimated (Hickey et al.,
2018). Remote sensing data in the present research was classified into
(1) optical medium spatial resolution, (2) optical high spatial resolution,
(3) optical very high spatial resolution and (4) SAR and LiDAR. Table 3
shows different datasets of estimated biomass and carbon stock in
mangroves classified according to sensor type.
Image classification is the common approach to map mangrove for­
ests and produce carbon stock and aboveground biomass estimates that
are consistent with field measurements. The two widely used methods
include supervised and unsupervised learning methods. The more
common supervised classification methods include the maximum live­
lihood classifier (MLC), decision trees (DT), support vector machines
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 2
Summary of studies for estimation of carbon stock using allometric equations based on diameter at breast height and wood density.
Citation Study Location Mangrove species Equations Source of equation Conversion Carbon stock AGB
factor Mg C ha− 1 Mg C
ha− 1

Vinh et al. Southern Vietnam Rhizophora apiculata AGB = 0.38363 * D2.2348 Vinh et al. (2019) 0.5 230.9
(2019)
Sitoe et al. Sofala Bay, Central Avicennia marina; AGB = 0.251*ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005); AGB = 0.48 218 134.6
(2014) Mozambique Rhizophora mucronate; BGB = 0.199*ρ0.899*D2.22 Kauffman and Donato BGB = 0.39
(2012)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza;
Ceriops tagal;
Xylocarpus granatum;
Hiritiera littoralis
Gao et al. Hainan Island, Sonneratia alba; AGB = 0.251*ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.45 70.58 109
(2018) China BGB = 0.1990.899 * D2.22
Sonneratia caseolaris; AGB = 0.251*ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
BGB = 0.1990.899 * D2.22

Rhizophora apiculate; logAGB = 2.3181 gH1.3–1.671 Ong et al. (2004)

logBGB = 1.5221 g * (D)1.3–1.707

Kandelia candel; AGB = 0.0341 * (D2H)1.03 Hoque et al. (2010)

BGB = 0.745 (AGB)0.810

Aegiceras corniculatum; logAGB = 1.496 + 0.465Log Tam et al. (1995)

(D2*H)
logBGB = 0.967 + 0.303 Log
(D2*H)
Avicennia marina; logAGB = 2.092 + 0.529 Log Tam et al. (1995)
(D2*H)
logBGB = 1.361 + 0.615 Log
(D2*H)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza; AGB = 0.186 * D2.31 Clough and Scott (1989)
logBGB = 1.5541 g (D2 *H)-0.328
Lumnizera racemosa; AGB = 0.102 * D2.50 Fromard et al. (1998)
BGB = 0.1990.899 * D2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Rhizophora stylosa; AGB = 2.4651 g *(D)-0.696 Comley and McGuinness
BGB = 1.8601 g (D)-0.583 (2005)
Kangkuso Southeast Ceriops tagal; AGB = 0.529 * D2.04 Kangkuso et al. (2018) 0.5 235.38
et al. Sulawesi, Rhizophora apiculata; AGB = 0.268 * D2.345
(2018) Indonesia Rhizophora mucronata AGB = 0.143 * D2.52
Kangkuso Southeast Lumnitzera racemosa AGB = 0.056 * D2 *H1.0065 Kangkuso et al. (2016) 0.5 109.77
et al. Sulawesi,
(2016) Indonesia
Kauffman and West-Central Rhizophora mangle; AGB = 0.1282 * D2.6 Fromard et al. (1998) AGB = 0.48 799
Bhomia Africa (Senegal, Rhizophora racemose; BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)2.22 Komiyama et al. (2008) BGB = 0.39
(2017) Liberia, Gabon Avicennia germinans
North, Gabon
South)
Alavaisha and Tanzania (Geza, Avicenniamarina; AGB = 0.251*ρ * (D)2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005); AGB = 0.48 Geza: 414.6
Mangora Mtimbwani) Rhizophora mucronata; BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)2.22 Komiyama et al. (2008) BGB = 0.39 Mtimbwani:
(2016) 684.9
Ceriops tagal;
Sonneratia alba;
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza;
Xylocarpusgranatum
Wang et al. Yingluo Bay, South Avicennia marina; AGB = 0.1848 * D2.3524 Dharmawan and Siregar 0.5 97.32
(2013) China (2008)
Sonneratia apetala; AGB = 0.14 * D2.4 Fromard et al. (1998)
Aegiceras corniculatum
+ Kandelia obovate;
Rhizophora stylosa;
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza
Wang et al. Northeast Rhizophora stylosa; AGB = 0.1050 *D2.6848 Clough and Scott (1989) 0.5 119.26
(2020) Hainan Island in
China
Bruguiera sexangula; AGB = 0.168 * D 2.42 Clough and Scott (1989)
Ceriops tagal; AGB = 0.1885 * D2.3379 Clough and Scott (1989)
Lumnitzera racemosa; AGB = 0.1023 * D2.50 Fromard et al. (1998)
Avicennia marina; AGB = Fan, 2008
0.1012*D2+0.5402*D− 1.5674
Sonneratia spp. AGB = 0.258 * D2.287 Kusmana et al. (2018)
Excoecaria agallocha; AGB = 0.1389* D2.1992 Hossain et al. (2015)
Kandelia candel; AGB = 0.04 (D2 *H)1.0531 Tam et al. (1995)
Rhizophora apiculata; AGB = 0.235 * D2.420 Ong et al., 2004
Sonneratia apetala; AGB = 0.251 *ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al., 2005
(continued on next page)

5
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 2 (continued )
Citation Study Location Mangrove species Equations Source of equation Conversion Carbon stock AGB
factor Mg C ha− 1 Mg C
ha− 1

Aegiceras corniculatum; AGB = 0.4325 (D2 *H)0.465 Tam et al. (1995)

Xylocarpus granatum; AGB = 0.0823*D2.5883 Clough and Scott (1989)
Hymenocallis littoralis AGB = 0.251*ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al., 2005

Rahman et al. Sundarbans, Xylocarpus granatum; AGB = ρ. ℯ{-1.349 + 1.98 In(D)+ Chave et al. (2005) 0.5 360
(2014) Bangladesh 0.207 In (D2)-0.0281 In (D3)}
BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Kauffman Micronesia Bruguiera gymnorrhiza AGB leaf = 0.0679*D1.4914 Clough and Scott (1989) 0.5 Palau: 618.3
et al. (leaf mass); AGB = 0.1282 * (D)2.6 Fromard et al. (1998) Yap: 897.8
(2011) Rhizophora spp BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Ajonina et al. Central Africa Rhizophora racemosa AGB = 0.1282 * D2.6 Kauffman and Donato 0.5 760
(2014) (2012)
Camacho Bohol, Philippines Rhizophora stylosa AGB = 0.247 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)1.23 Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.45 132
et al. BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)2.22 Komiyama et al. (2008)
(2011)
Kauffman Dominican Rhizophora mangle; AGB = 0.1282 * D2.6 Fromard et al. (1998) AGB = 0.48 853
et al. Republic Avicennia germinans; AGB = 0.140 * D2.4 Fromard et al. (1998) BGB = 0.39
(2014) Laguncularia racemose; AGB = 0.1023 * D2.5 Fromard et al. (1998)
BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Adame et al. Sian Ka’an Rhizophora mangle; AGB = 1.731*log10 DR - 0.112 Smith and Whelan (2006) AGB = 0.48 631.33
(2013) biosphere reserve, BGB = 0.196 * (1.050.8999) * Komiyama et al. (2005) BGB = 0.39
Mexico (DR2)1.11

Avicennia germinans; AGB = 1.934*log10 D - 0.395 Smith and Whelan (2006)

BGB = 0.196 * (0.900.8999) * Komiyama et al. (2005)
(D2)1.11

Laguncularia racemosa; AGB = 1.930 * log10 D - 0.441 Smith and Whelan (2006)
BGB = 0.196 * (1.050.8999) * Komiyama et al. (2005)
(D2)1.11

Li et al. Northern Shenzhen Avicennia marina; log AGBstem = 0.544 log (D2H) + Tam et al. (1995); Peng 0.5 93
(2019) Bay, Souch China 1.643 et al. (2016)
log AGBbranch = 0.544 log (D2H) +
1.897
log AGBeaf = 0.287 log (D2H)
+0.690

Kandelia obovate; log AGBstem = 0.869 log (D2H) + Tam et al. (1995); Peng
2.162 et al. (2016)
log AGBbranch = 1.253 log (D2H) +
2.741
log AGBleaf = 0.943 log (D2H) +
1.706

Sonneratia caseolaris; log AGBstem = 0.807 log (D2H) + Peng et al. (2016); Liao
1.451 et al. (1990)
log AGBbranch = 0.951 log (D2H) +
0.321
log AGBleaf = 0.931 log (D2H)-
0.379

Sonneratia apetala; log AGBstem = 0.330 log (D2H) - Peng et al. (2016); Zan
0.959 et al. (2001)
log AGBbranch = 0.388 log (D2H) -
1.393
log AGBleaf = 0.436 log (D2H) -
2.500
Hickey et al. Pilbara Coast in Avicennia marina; AGB = 10.8* H+34:9 Saenger and Snedaker 0.5 45
(2018) north-western (1993)
1.32
Australia Rhizophora stylosa BGB = 0.073 * AGB Mg DW Hutchison et al. (2014)
ha− 1
Bindu et al., Kerala, India Avicennia officinalis; AGB = 0.251 *ρ 0.90 * (D)2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.475 12.67
2020 Rhizhophora BGB = 0.199 *ρ * (D)2.22
mucronate;
Rhizophora apiculate;
Bruguiera cylindrica;
Aegiceras corniculatum;
Excoecaria agallocha;
Acanthus ilicifolius;
Acrostichum aureum
Jones et al. Mahajamba Bay, Avicennia marina; AGB = 0.1848 * D2.3524 Dharmawan and Siregar AGB = 0.5 279.49
(2015) Madagascar Bruguiera gymnorrizha; AGBleaf = 0.0679 * D1.4914 (2008); BGB = 0.39
Cerips tagal; AGB stem = 0.0464 * D0.94275 *ρ Clough and Scott (1989);
(continued on next page)

6
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 2 (continued )
Citation Study Location Mangrove species Equations Source of equation Conversion Carbon stock AGB
factor Mg C ha− 1 Mg C
ha− 1

Heritiera littoralis; AGB = 10− 0.7247 * D2.3379 (D = Kauffman and Donato

Lumnitzeria Racemose; 2–18 cm) (2012), Chave et al., 2005
Rhizophora mucronata; AGB = 10− 0.494 * D2.056 (D = 18–25 and Cole et al. (1999);
Sonneratia alba; cm) Clough and Scott, 1989;
Xylocarpus granatum AGBleaf = 0.0679 * D1.4914 Comley and McGuinness,
AGB stem = 0.0464 * (D2 *H)0.94275 2005;
*ρ Clough and Scott, 1989;
AGB = 0.0214 *(D2 *H)1.05655 *ρ Kauffman and Donato
AGBleaf = 0.0139 * D2.1072 (2012); Chave et al.
AGBroot = 0.0068 * D3.1353 (2005); Cole et al. (1999)
AGB stem = 0.0311 * (D2 *H)1.00741 Kauffman and Donato
*ρ (2012); Chave et al.
AGB = 0.0825 *(D2 *H)0.89966 *ρ (2005); Cole et al. (1999)
AGB = 0.0830 *(D2 *H)0.89806 *ρ Clough and Scott, 1989;
BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22 Clough and Scott, 1989;
Kauffman and Donato
(2012); Chave et al.
(2005); Cole et al. (1999)
Kauffman and Donato
(2012); Chave et al.
(2005); Cole et al. (1999)
Kauffman and Donato
(2012); Chave et al.
(2005); Cole et al. (1999)
Komiyama et al. (2005)
Hamdan et al. Matang, Malaysia Rhizophora apiculata; AGB = 0.235D2.42 Ong et al. (2004) 0.5 81.15
(2013) Avicennia alba AGB = 0.251*ρ * (D)2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Goïta et al. Central Africa, Laguncularia racemosa; AGB = Exp [α0 + α1 In (D)+ α2 Brown et al. (2005) 0.5 36
(2017) Gabon Rhizophoraracemosa (D)2)]
Candra et al. Teluk Benoa, Bali Bruguiera gymnorrhiza; AGB = 0.186 * D2.31 Clough and Scott (1989) 0.47 90.18
(2016) Rhizophora apiculate; AGB = 0.235 * D2.42 Ong et al. (2004)
Rhizophora mucronate; AGB = 0.251*ρ * (D)2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Sonneratia alba AGB = 0.251*ρ * (D)2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Pham, 2020 Ho Chi Minh City, Rhizophora apiculata; AGB = 0.235 *D2.42 Ong et al. (2004) 0.47 106.93
Vietnam
Avicennia alba; AGB = 0.140 *D2.40 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza; AGB = 0.186 *D2.31 Clough and Scott (1989)
Bruguiera parviflora; AGB = 0.168 *D2.42 Clough and Scott (1989)
Sonneratia caseolaris AGB = 0.199*ρ * 0.90* (D)2.22 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Lumnitzera racemosa; AGB = 0.740 * D 2.32 Kangkuso et al. (2016)
Ceriops zippeliana; AGB = 0.208 * D2.36 Binh and Nam (2014)
Xylocarpus granatum AGB = 0.082 * D 2.59 Clough and Scott (1989)
Pham et al., Hai Phong city, Sonneratia caseolaris AGB = a* ρ * (D2H)b Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.47 64.52 55.8
2016 Vietnam BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * (D2)2.22
Wicaksono Karimunjawa Avicennia marina AGB = 0.308 *D2.11 Comley and McGuinness 0.464 55.9
et al. Islands, Indonesia BGB = 1.28 * D1.17 (2005)
(2011)
Xylocarpus granatum AGB = 0.0823 * D2.59 Clough and Scott (1989)
BGB = 0.145 * D2.55 Poungparn et al. (2002)
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza AGB = 0.186 * D2.31 Clough and Scott (1989)
–
Rhizopora apiculate AGB = 0.235 * D2.42 Ong et al. (2004)
BGB = 0.00698 * D2.61
Rhizopora stylosa – Comley and McGuinness
BGB = 0.261 * D1.86 (2005)
Common allometric AGB = 0.251 *ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
equation BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22
Friess et al. Singapore Avicennia officinalis AGB = 0.251 *ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.5 469.3
(2016)
0.899 2.22
Avicennia alba BGB = 0.199 *ρ *D
Avicennia rumphiana
Bruguiera cylindrica
Bruguiera gymnorhiza
Bruguiera sexangula
Excoecaria agallocha
Sonneratia caseolaris
Sonneratia alba
Sonneratia ovata

Ceriops tagal AGB = 0.189 * D2.34 Clough and Scott (1989)

BGB = 0.159 * D1.95 Comley and McGuinness
(2005)

(continued on next page)

7
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 2 (continued )
Citation Study Location Mangrove species Equations Source of equation Conversion Carbon stock AGB
factor Mg C ha− 1 Mg C
ha− 1

Rhizophora apiculata AGB = 0.1709 * D2.516 Komiyama et al. (2005)

Rhizophora mucronata BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22 Comley and McGuinness
(2005)

Xylocarpus AGB = 0.0823 * D2.59 Clough and Scott (1989)

moluccensis
Xylocarpus granatum BGB = 0.145 * D2.55 Putz and Chan (1986)
Qiu et al. Hainan Island, Bruguiera sexangula AGB = 0.168 * D 2.42 Cintron and 0.5 148.97
(2019) China Schaeffer–Novelli, 1984
2
Excoecaria agallocha LogAGB = 1.0996 * log D - 0.8572 Clough and Scott (1989)
Rhizophora apiculata AGB = 0.235 * D 2.420 Ong et al. (2004)
Ceriops tagal; AGB = 0.1885 * D 2.3379 Clough and Scott (1989)
Lumnizera racemosa; AGB = 0.18023 * D 2.50 Fromard et al. (1998)
Aegiceras corniculatum; LogAGB = 1.496 + 0.465 * log (D2 Tam et al. (1995)
*H)
Xylocarpus granatum; AGB = 0.0823 * D 2.5883 Clough and Scott (1989)
Kandelia candel; LogAGB = 2.814 + 1.053 * log (D2 Tam et al. (1995)
*H)
Sonneratia spp. AGB = 0.258 * D 2.287 Kusmana et al. (2018)
Others AGB = 0.251 *ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005)
Harishma India Avicennia marina AGB = 0.251 *ρ *D2.46 Komiyama et al. (2005) 0.5 139.82
et al. Avicennia officinalis BGB = 0.199 *ρ 0.899 * D2.22
(2020) Bruguiera cylindrica
Rhizophora apiculata
Rhizophora mucronata
Sonneratia alba;

D = diameter at breast height (m); DR = diameter above highest prop root; H = tree height (m); ρ = wood density of the species; α0, α1, α2 = model coefficients; Bstem:
stem biomass (kg); Bbranch: branch biomass (kg); Bleaf: leaf biomass (kg).

(SVM), and ensemble classifiers, while most unsupervised image clas­
sification methods are based on clustering using vegetation indices (VIs).
In several recent works, supervised learning is used as a regression
method to directly estimate the biomass and carbon stock from image
features. Various vegetation indices have been used as the primary
features for the estimation of aboveground biomass and carbon stock in
mangroves. Each vegetation index is differently sensitive to the bio­
physical and biochemical properties of the different vegetation such as
Leaf Area Index (LAI), canopy cover, chlorophyll and nitrogen content,
fragments of vegetation, biomass, and carbon stock (Zhu et al., 2015).
Vegetation indices such as the normalized difference vegetation index
(NDVI), soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI), enhanced vegetation
index (EVI), and leaf area index (LAI), can produce different levels of
accuracy of the mangrove carbon stock modelling in different locations.
They are used in understanding the region’s vegetation features by using
the red and near-infrared wavelengths. Different vegetation indices have
different capabilities in removing variations in spectral reflectance
caused by atmospheric conditions, soil background and sun view angles.
Table 4 summarizes methods for mangrove mapping as well as remote
sensing data that are used for the estimation of carbon stocks from 2010
to 2020.
4.3.1. Optical remotely sensed data
When it comes to estimating mangrove biomass carbon stock over
large areas, optical remote sensing has certain characteristics (i.e.,
coverage, repetitiveness and cost-effectiveness) which make it poten­
tially a suitable candidate to replace the tedious hand sampling method
(Baloloy et al., 2018). Optical remotely sensed data play a key role in
assessing carbon stocks in mangroves. Recent studies have used optical
data such as Landsat TM/ETM+, SPOT 5, LISS IV, IKONOS, RapidEye,
WorldView-2, and Quick-Bird for biomass and carbon stock mapping in
mangrove ecosystems (Wicaksono, 2017; Baloloy et al., 2018; Bindu
et al., 2020). Spatial resolution of different sensors varies from less than
1 m to hundreds of metres.
Landsat data series are the most broadly used among the existing
optical datasets, because they are freely available for mapping long-term
observations at different spatial scales (Jones et al., 2014, 2015, 2016;
Goïta et al., 2017). Optical remote sensing data can be used to map
carbon stocks in mangroves with different parametric approaches,
including multiple regression models, vegetation indices,
non-parametric machine learning approaches (Jachowski et al., 2013),
and can also be estimated from canopy parameters and mangrove spe­
cies (Zhu et al., 2015; Candra et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018).
Wicaksono et al. (2011; 2016), Hamdan et al. (2013), and Hastuti
et al. (2017) used different vegetation indices derived from optical im­
ages to assess carbon stock and changes in mangrove ecosystems.
Wicaksono et al. (2011) conducted the first study on the carbon stock
mapping of mangrove ecosystems in Indonesia. They calculated
aboveground carbon and belowground carbon using Landsat 7 ETM +
imagery. After a comparison of different vegetation indices and Linear
Spectral Unmixing (LSU), the linear regression with global environment
monitoring index (GEMI) was used and as a result a high accuracy was
achieved. For AGC, 62% variation of carbon stock was reported, with a
standard error of 93.5 Tg C/ha. For BGC, 56.18% variation of carbon
stock was reported, with a standard error of 26.98 Tg C/ha. Following
Wicaksono et al. (2011), regression models from vegetation indices and
parameters have been used in order to map carbon stock and biomass
(Hirata et al., 2014; Friess et al., 2016; Wicaksono et al., 2016; Baloloy
et al., 2018; Muhsoni et al., 2018). Wicaksono (2017) modelled
mangrove aboveground carbon by integrating field data with remote
sensing images at different spatial resolutions (Worldview-2, ALOS
AVNIR-2, ASTER VNIR, Landsat 8 OLI, and Hyperion). Modelling of
mangrove AGC using ALOS AVNIR-2 produced the best result (Wicak­
sono et al., 2016). Goïta et al. (2017) applied a regression model be­
tween AGB and field measurements to estimate carbon stock and
aboveground biomass in Gabon using Landsat 7 ETM+. The model
showed a strong relationship between AGB and forest heights (R2 >
0.85) and provided as estimate of 36 ± 19 Mg C ha− 1 for carbon stock.
Friess et al. (2016) used generalized linear models (GLMs) to predict
AGB and BGB in mangroves across the entire country of Singapore using
2 m Pleiades data and related field measurements. The total carbon
stored in Singapore’s mangroves was estimated at 450 571.7 Mg C in

8
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 3
Remote sensing technologies used for estimation of carbon stocks in mangroves.
Type Platform Sensor Spatial No.of Revisit Operated by Site Launch and
Resolution bands cycle Active Data
(m) (day) (year)

Optical: Landsat 5 TM MS: 30 7 16 NASA https://www.usgs.gov/lan 1984–2011

Medium d-resources/nli/landsat/lan
Spatial dsat-data
Resolution Landsat 7 ETM+ Pan:15 8 16 NASA https://www.usgs.gov/lan 1999- Active
MS: 30 d-resources/nli/landsat/lan
dsat-data
Landsat 8 OLI Pan: 15 9 16 NASA http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ 2013- Active
MS:30
Sentinel-2 MSI MS: 10, 20, 60 13 14 ESA https://sentinel.esa.int/web/s 2015-Active
entinel/sentinel-data-access
ASTER VNIR 15 3 16 NASA https://terra.nasa.gov/data/ast 1999–Active
er-data
Optical: SPOT-4 HRVIR Pan: 10 4 2–3 CNES http://www.geo-airbusds.com/ 1998–2013
High Spatial MS: 20 en/143-spot-satellite-imagery
Resolution SPOT-5 HRG Pan: 2.5 4 1–4 ADS https://earth.esa.int 2002–2015
MS: 10
ALOS AVNIR-2 Pan: 2.5 4 46 JAXA https://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/ 2006–2011
MS: 10
RapidEye Jena-Optronik Pan: 5 5 1.7–5.9 Germany https://earth.esa.int/web/guest 2008-Active
multi-spectral MS: 5 /pi-community/apply-for-data/
imager
Resourcesat-2 LISS IV 5.8 4 24 ISRO https://geoawesomeness.co 2011-Active
m/free-satellite-data-from-indi
an-resourcesat-2-via-inpe/
Resourcesat-2 LISS 4 23.5 4 24 ISRO https://geoawesomeness.co 2011-Active
m/free-satellite-data-from-indi
an-resourcesat-2-via-inpe/
Optical: IKONOS Imaging Spectro Pan: 0.82 4 3–5 DigitalGlobe https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/ 1999–2015
Very High radiometer MS: 4 missions/3rd-party-missions/
Spatial current-missions/ikonos-2
Resolution WorldView-2 – Pan: 0.46 8 1.1 Digital Globe https://www.satimagingcorp. 2009- Active
MS: 2 com/satellite-sensors/wor
ldview-2/
GeoEye-1 Imaging Spectro Pan: 0.41 4 8.3 DigitalGlobe https://www.geoimage.com.au/ 2008- Active
radiometer MS: 1.84 satellite/GeoEye-1
QuickBird Imaging Spectro Pan: 0.61 5 5 DigitalGlobe https://www.geoimage.com.au/ 2001–2015
radiometer MS: 2.64 satellite/QuickBird
SAR and LiDAR TanDEM-X SAR 1.0, 3.0, 16.0 1 – German https://geoint.com.au/productse 2010-Active
Aerospace rvice/satellite-imagery/terrasar-
Center x-and-tandem-x-0-25m/
RADARSAT-2 SAR 8 1 4–6 CSA https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca 2008-Active
/eng/satellites/radarsat2/
TerraSAR-X SAR 0.25, 3.0, 16.0 1 German https://terrasar-x-archive.terr 2007- Active
Aerospace asar.com/
Center
ALOS PALSAR 10–100 1 46 JAXA https://ursa.asfdaac.alaska. 2006–2011
edu/cgi-bin/login/guest/
ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 3–100 1 14 JAXA https://ursa.asfdaac.alaska. 2006–2011
edu/cgi-bin/login/guest/
Sentinel-1 C-SAR 5×5 1 12 ESA https://earth.esa.int/web/gue 2014-Active
st/data-access
ICESat GLAS 2×2 1 8 NASA https://nsidc.org/data/icesat/da 2003–2009
ta.html
ICESat-2 ATLAS – – – NASA https://nsidc.org/data/icesat-2 2018-Active
Airborne/ LIDAR – – – NOAA https://coast.noaa.gov/digita 2000-Active
terrestrial lcoast/

2013. Hirata et al. (2014) used QuickBird and MLC method for the
multispectral data to estimate the AGB in the coastal zone of Southern
Ranong province (Thailand). The regression analysis of biomass esti­
mation based on remote sensing and field data showed a slope of 1.26
(R2 = 0.65).
Candra et al. (2016) showed the use of Worldview-2 to estimate
carbon stock in Teluk Benoa, Bali. Vegetation indices including EVI, DVI
(Difference Vegetation Index), and MRE-SR (Modified Red Edge-Simple
Ratio), as well as field data, were modelled to determine the best
vegetation indices to estimate carbon stocks. The total carbon stock in
the study area was estimated of 35349.87 tons of dominant species
Rhizophora apiculata, Rhizophora mucronata and Sonneratia alba in an
area of 392 ha. Testing the accuracy of carbon models for each species
showed that the regression with MRE-SR achieves the highest accuracy.
Therefore, the use of the MRE-SR index was deemed suitable for esti­
mating carbon stocks at the level of mangrove species in the study area.
Patil et al. (2015) used Resourcesat-2 LISS4 Standard Multispectral
Images to estimate carbon stock in Mumbai. For this aim, they used
NDVI, Light use efficiency (LUE) and Photo-synthetically Active Radi­
ation (PAR) as the most important parameters for carbon stock estima­
tion. In addition, Bindu et al. (2020) used NDVI derived from LISS IV
images to estimate total carbon stock in Kerala, India. Non-linear
regression provided the best estimate of AGB for the NDVI data with a
relatively high R2 value (0.710).
Baloloy et al. (2018) used regression and multispectral bands to show
the best aboveground biomass prediction model from Sentinel-2,

9
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 4
Remote sensing data and methods to estimate and map carbon stock in mangroves.
Citation Location Satellite/sensor Acquisition Methods
date
Analysis Feature Estimation method
level

Bindu et al. India LISS IV Resourcesat-2 18- Jan- 2015 Pixel NDVI Nonlinear Regression
(2020)
Navarro et al. Senegal Sentinel-2 July, August Pixel Spectral bands SVR
(2019) Sentinel-1 2017 Vegetation indices (NDVI, NDI45, RF
UAV SAVI, TCARI, PSSRa, OSAVI,
MCARI
IRECI, GNDVI)
Baloloy et al. Philippines Sentinel-2A 11-Feb-2016 Pixel Visible and Red Edge bands Multivariate Regression
(2018) RapidEye 14-Nov-2015 Vegetation indices (NDVI, GNDVI,
Planetscope 25-Dec-2015 SAVI, SR, SRre)
Muhsoni et al. Indonesia Sentinel-2 27-July-2017 Pixel Vegetation indices (NDVI, NDVI2, Regression
(2018) SVI, MSAVI, RDVI, MSR)
Castillo et al. Philippines Sentinel-1A 2015–2016 Pixel Multi-date SAR VV,VH channels; A variety of machine learning algorithms
(2017) Sentinel-2A 11-Apr-2016 Multispectral bands (Gaussian, Least Square, RBF, SVR, RF,
SRTM DEM Vegetation indices (NDVI, TNDVI, Local weighted)
NDI45, IRECI)
Canopy biophysical variables
Elevation
Bao and Hoa Vietnam Sentinel-2A 17- Dec-2017 Pixel Vegetation indices (NDVI, SAVI) MLC
(2018) Sentinel-1A 16-Dec-2017 VH, VV, VH/VV, VV/VH Regression
Pham et al. Vietnam ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 31- July-2015 Pixel Combination of multi-polarizations SVR
(2018) Sential-2A 10-Aug-2015 (HH/HV, HV/HH, HH-HV, and RBFNN
(HH + HV)/2) MLPNN
Spectral bands RF
Vegetation indices (RVI, NDVI, EVI)
PCA
Pham and Brabyn Vietnam SPOT 4 26-Mar-2000 Object Spectral bands Image segmentation
(2017) SPOT 5 24-Feb-2011 Texture (GLCM) SVR
Vegetation indices (NDVI, NDWI) RF
Vegetation object
PCA
Pham and Vietnam ALOS-2 PALSAR 31-July-2015 Pixel HH backscatter Stepwise multilinear regression (MLR)
Yoshino (2017) HV backscatter
Pham et al. Vietnam ALOS-2 PALSAR 31-July-2015 Pixel HH backscatter MLPNN
(2016) HV backscatter SVR
RF
Vu et al. (2014) Vietnam ALOS PALSAR-2 2010 Object Vegetation indices (NDVI, TRRI, Regression
ALOS PALSAR RVI, GVI, EVI)
SRTM HH, HV
Aslan et al. Indonesia ALOS PALSAR 2013 Pixel HH, HV, RFDI FSEB classification
(2016) Landsat-8 Soil and water indices (NDWI, Quantile regression
SRTM SAVI)
Thapa et al. Indonesia ALOS PALSAR 2006–2009 Object FBD (Fine Beam Dual, i.e., HH + HV Image segmentation
(2015) or VV + VH) Classification (Thresholding)
Multiple Linear Regression
Winarso et al. Indonesia ALOS PALSAR 2013–2014 Pixel HH, HV Regression
(2015) Landsat 8 Vegetation indices (NDVI, EVI)
Hamdan et al. Malaysia ALOS PALSAR 2010–2011 Pixel HH, HV backscatter coefficients Regression
(2014) HH/HV, HV/HH, (HH + HV)/2 and
sqrt(HH*HV)
Peregon and Western ALOS PALSAR 2007–2008 Pixel HH polarization Multiple Linear Regression
Yamagata Siberia SRTM HV polarization
(2013)
Nesha et al. Indonesia ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 22-July-2018 Pixel HH polarization Linear Regression
(2020) HV polarization
Carreiras et al. West Africa ALOS PALSAR 2007–2008 Pixel HH and HV polarization Bagging Stochastic Gradient Boosting
(2012) ENL (BagSGB)
Semi-empirical model
Wicaksono et al. Indonesia Landsat 7 ETM+ 2006–2009 Pixel Vegetation indices (NDVI, LSU) Linear Regression
(2011) Linear Spectral Unmixing (LSU
Wicaksono et al. Indonesia ALOS AVNIR-2 10-Oct-2010 Pixel Vegetation indices (SR, DVI, NDVI, Empirical Modelling Linear Regression
(2016) Worldview-2 (only for ARVI, VARI, TVI, EVI1, EVI2,
geometric correction) MSARVI, GEMI)
PCA
Wicaksono Indonesia Worldview-2 24-May-2012 Pixel Vegetation indices (SR, DVI, NDVI, Empirical Modelling Regression
(2017) ALOS AVNIR-2 10-Oct-2010 EVI, EVI2, FEMI)
ASTER VNIR 6-Sep-2004 PCA
Landsat 8 OLI 27-Aug-2013 MNF
Hyperion 8-Mar-2013
Patil et al. (2015) Mumbai, Resourcesat-2 LISS4 21-Nov-2012 Pixel Vegetation indices (NDVI, LUE, Linear Regression
India PAR)
Thailand 14-Dec-2011 Pixel SVR
(continued on next page)

10
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Table 4 (continued )
Citation Location Satellite/sensor Acquisition Methods
date
Analysis Feature Estimation method
level

Jachowski et al. GeoEye-1 Spectral bands

(2013) ASTER GDEM Band ratio
NDVI
Minimum/Maximum/Average
elevation
Jones et al. Madagascar Landsat 7 (L7) ETM+ 9-Jun-2010 Pixel Spectral bands Image classification (MLC, ISOCLUST)
(2016) Landsat 5 (L5) TM 29-July-2011
Landsat 8 OLI 28-July-2014
Hastuti et al. Bali Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS 13-Sep-2015 Pixel NDVI Linear Regression
(2017) Spectral bands Image classification
Zhu et al. (2015) China WorldView-2 11-Nov-2010 Object Vegetation indices (NDVI, SRI, DVI, OBIA
Red Edge) ANN
Candra et al. Bali WorldView-2 18-May-2016 Pixel Vegetation indices (EVI, DVI, MRE- Non-linear Regression
(2016) SR)
Hirata et al. Thailand Quick-Bird 15-Oct-2006 Pixel watershed (to calculate crown area) MLC
(2014) Elevation Linear Regression
Tang et al. (2016) West Africa ICESat/GLAS 2000–2014 Pixel Elevation Linear Regression
SRTM
Fatoyinbo and Africa Landsat 7 ETM+ 1999–2002 Pixel LiDAR/InSAR ISODATA
Simard (2013) ICESat/GLAS Linear Regression
SRTM DEM
Pereira et al. Brazil Airborne LiDAR 12-Nov-2012 pixel NDVI RF
(2018) PLS
Hickey et al. Australia Airborne LiDAR 1-Oct-2015 Pixel NDVI Linear Regression
(2018) Landsat 8 OLI DSM, DEM, CHM
Fatoyinbo et al. Mozambique Airborne LiDAR (ALS) May 5–6- Pixel DSM, CHM Regression analysis (Linear and Power)
(2018) 2014
Stringer et al., Mozambique ICE Sat/GLAS 2012–2013 Pixel Canopy height Use predefined and referenced equations
2015 SRTM for carbon and biomass estimation based
on canopy height
Feliciano et al., USA LiDAR (ALS) 17-Nov-2012 Pixel Spectral bands Supervised classification
2017 TanDEM-X 2011–2013 HH backscatter Pol-InSAR inversion
WorldView-2 2010–2012 Digital Canopy Model (DCM = DSM Regression analysis
– DTM)
Li et al. (2019) South China UAV-based RGB August 2017 Pixel CHM metrics RF
Spectral vegetation indices (Visible, ANN
GRRI, GLI, EXG, ExGR, VARI) SVM
Texture features (GLCM)
Qiu et al. (2019) China WorldView-2 5-Oct-2018 pixel Spectral bands Pan-sharpening
UAV LiDAR Mar-2018 DSM, DEM, CHM RF

RapidEye and PlanetScope. The results indicated a high accuracy for
both Sentinel-2 (R2 = 0.92) and RapidEye data (R2 = 0.91) and better
performance for multivariate regression model than the linear regres­
sion models with R2 ranging from 0.62 to 0.92.
MLC and ISOCLUST classification methods were performed on
Landsat 7 ETM+ and 8 OLI images to estimate carbon stock and loss
rates of mangroves in the arid region of southwest Madagascar by
Benson et al. (2017). Their analysis demonstrated a net loss of 3.18%
between 2002 and 2014 with total estimated carbon stock of the 1507 ha
of mangroves as 5.84 ± 0.35 (Mg × 105), with the 95% confidence in­
terval equivalent to ±0.70 × 105 of the overall mean. Using similar
methodologies, Jones et al. (2014, 2015, 2016) estimated total carbon
stock for the Ambaro-Ambanja Bays and Mahajamba Bay in Madagascar
at 356.36 (±16.96) Mg C ha− 1 and 100.96 (±10.49) Mg C ha− 1
respectively. Hastuti et al. (2017) used MLC to discriminate mangrove
and non-mangrove regions from extracted vegetation areas, using NDVI
derived from Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS in Bali. The total carbon stock was
estimated 22.18 ± 11.76 ton C ha− 1 and CO2 sequestration 81.41 ±
43.18 ton C ha− 1 in 2015. Jachowski et al. (2013) used GeoEye-1 and a
machine learning algorithm in combination with ASTER GDEM eleva­
tion data to estimate and map AGB and BGB in Southwest Thailand with
a statistically significant result (p < 0.0001 and R2 = 0.66).
These previous studies highlight the value, challenges, limitations,
and potential of satellite remote sensing. The key limitation of passive
sensors is their sensitivity to weather conditions. Optical systems that
rely on emitted thermal energy or reflected sunlight, are affected by
clouds, smoke, and fog, and cannot be used at night (Lechner et al.,
2020). However, as we discuss further below, these limitations are now
being overcome.
4.3.2. SAR, LiDAR, and multisource data
SAR as an active sensor has several capabilities that optical sensors
do not, such as the ability to acquire data under all weather conditions,
the ability to penetrate through vegetation canopy, and sensitivity to
moisture, wave polarization, and surface roughness (Sinha et al., 2015).
SAR data is useful for mapping and modelling aboveground biomass but
it is influenced by saturation and land cover conditions. SAR data are
capable of operation at different wavelengths (X, C, L or P bands) with
different polarizations (HH, VV, HV, or VH) in a variety of range and
resolutions. The polarization of SAR is crucial to understand interactions
between electromagnetic waves and reflectors. There are two ways of
emitting a signal in horizontal (H) or vertical (V) polarizations. Previous
studies showed that longer wavelengths (L and P bands) have greater
penetrating capability in forest canopies than C-band data (Thapa et al.,
2015; Pham et al., 2018). There are two widely methods to estimate
aboveground biomass in mangrove studies using SAR data: 1) back­
scatter coefficient extraction and 2) interferometry technique along with
polarimetric analyses. Only a few studies have been used L-band SAR
data to estimate biomass and carbon stock in mangrove areas (Peregon
and Yamagata, 2013; Hamdan et al., 2014; Thapa et al., 2015). In West
Africa, ALOS L-band PALSAR (HH and HV polarizations) and a machine
learning algorithm based on bagging stochastic gradient boosting

11
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
(BagSGB) used to estimate AGB and carbon stock (Carreiras et al., 2012).
The integration of ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-2A imagery with SVM
model to estimate the aboveground biomass of mangrove plantation in
Hai Phong city, Vietnam was compared with other machine learning
models (MLPNN, RBFNN, GP, and RF) (Pham et al., 2018). The results
illustrated that the support vector regression model achieved the best
performance (R2 = 0.596, RMSE = 0.187 and MAE = 0.123) and the
average of AGB was estimated 87.67 Mg ha− 1. The RF model had the
lowest performance in this study (R2 = 0.030), while this model pro­
vided the highest accuracy for optical remote sensing data in Cangio,
Vietnam (Pham and Brabyn, 2017). The capability of MLPNN model was
also evaluated for the estimation of aboveground biomass and carbon
stock of S. caseolaris using ALOS-2 PALSAR in the same area (Pham et al.,
2016). The MLPNN model estimated aboveground biomass (55.8 Mg
ha− 1); belowground biomass (81.47 Mg ha− 1), and total carbon stock
(64.52 Mg C ha− 1). Moreover, the multilinear regression (MLR) model
was conducted to show a satisfactory correlation between model esti­
mates and field-based measurements of AGB, with R2 = 0.51, 0.64 and
RMSE = 35.5 Mg ha− 1, 41.3 Mg ha− 1 for S. caseolaris and K. obovata,
respectively.
Castillo et al. (2017) used Sentinel SAR and Sentinel-2 multispectral
imagery to develop mangrove AGB prediction models in the Philippines
through conventional linear regression and machine learning algo­
rithms. The combination of dual-date SAR VH and VV channels, red and
red edge bands, red edge-based vegetation indices and leaf area index,
respectively, provided high correlation values (r = 0.84) between
biomass and Sentinel imagery data. The combination of Sentinel-2A,
Sentinel-1A and UAV was used by SVR models and illustrated the
value ranging between 6.04 and 9.12 Mg ha− 1 for aboveground biomass
in Senegal (Navarro et al., 2019). The integration of SAR and optical
remote sensing data for estimation aboveground biomass and carbon
stock was found in the study of Aslan et al. (2016). In this research, the
quantile regression models were used in combination with ALOS PAL­
SAR, Landsat 8 OLI and SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data
in Papua, Indonesia where mean standing aboveground biomass esti­
mated 237.52 ± 98.2 Mg ha− 1 and 353.52 ± 98.43 Mg ha− 1 for Avi­
cennia, Sonneratia species and Rhizophora stands, respectively.
LiDAR is also an active sensor that utilizes a pulsed laser to measure
range and elevation of the surface of the Earth (Chadwick, 2011; Wan­
nasiri et al., 2013). LiDAR pulses can penetrate vegetation canopies and
the resulting data are therefore valuable in estimating aboveground
biomass. LiDAR-derived metrics correlate with aboveground biomass
and carbon stock (Hickey et al., 2018). Estimation of AGB and carbon
stock using LiDAR can offer greater accuracy since LiDAR characterizes
both horizontal and vertical canopy structures (Simard et al., 2008).
Fatoyinbo et al. (2018) integrated airborne LiDAR with height
stratified field measurements and multiple allometric models to estimate
the total AGB density of mangrove forests in the Zambezi Delta,
Mozambique with R2 values between 0.80 and 0.88 and total AGB stock
1350902 Mg. The effectiveness of LiDAR data for AGB and carbon stock
estimation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil was tested by Pereira et al. (2018).
The partial least squares (PLS) regression model used to map the
mangrove AGB in this area presented the best performance with R2 =
0.80. Feliciano et al. (2017) used LiDAR and TanDEM-X datasets to es­
timate mangrove aboveground biomass in Everglades National Park in
the United States. Analysis of both datasets indicated that the height of
mangrove canopy can reach up to ~25 m and AGB can reach up to ~250
Mg ha− 1 during 2011 and 2013. Hickey et al. (2018) used a combination
of LiDAR data and Landsat 8 OLI to derive an estimation of biomass and
carbon stock and mangrove height in north-west Australia. The esti­
mation of AGB, BGB and carbon stock shows 70 Mg ha− 1, 20 Mg ha− 1
and 45 Mg C ha− 1, respectively. The results show that declination of
living biomass and carbon stock with increasing distance from hydro­
logical features.
LiDAR technologies including airborne laser scanners and terrestrial
laser scanners have been utilized to generate large-scale forest
12
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
inventories with rapid sampling, high spatial resolution and accuracy
(Qiu et al., 2019). However, they are expensive, and often the processing
of data can require specialized software and technical skills (Wang et al.,
2020).
In West Africa, Tang et al. (2016) applied SRTM and ICESat/GLAS
(Geoscience Laser Altimeter System) data to estimate mangrove biomass
and carbon. The regression analysis results showed the total biomass and
carbon to be 272.56 and 136.28 Tg respectively, which was 15.02%
higher than biomass and carbon stock reported in Fatoyinbo and Simard
(2013). ICESat/GLAS and SRTM data also used in Mozambique for
estimation of carbon stock for REDD + by Stringer et al. (2015). For
estimation mangrove extent and carbon stock, they uased canopy height
classification. The total carbon stock in this area ranged from 373.8 Mg
ha− 1 to 620.8 Mg ha− 1.
Owers et al. (2018) used terrestrial laser scanners to estimate
aboveground biomass and carbon stock of coastal wetland vegetation in
Southeast Australia. Results show that this method can be unsuitable for
mapping biomass and carbon in mangrove forests due to the difficulty of
data collection in dense canopies and the costs of the required tools.
There is an obvious need for an easy-to-use and relatively cheap
method of collecting high resolution spatial data on mangrove forests.
Such an approach could help site-level assessments and monitoring of
mangrove biomass and carbon stocks for blue carbon market purposes
(Lechner et al., 2020). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have provided
cost-effective sensors to map and monitor aboveground carbon stocks
over the past decade (Jones et al., 2020). Using UAVs along with
Structure-from-Motion and Multi-View Stereo (SfM-MVS) photogram­
metric procedures makes it possible to carry out field data collection
more quickly, more cheaply, and at times at zero cost (Otero, V et al.,
2018; Navarro et al., 2020). Drones mounted with LiDAR are inexpen­
sive tools with high spatial resolutions for mapping and monitoring
mangrove structures compared to passive sensors and piloted airborne
LiDAR. In addition, they are easy to use and could therefore be useful in
the field of REDD+ and other schemes (Lechner et al., 2020). In terms of
disadvantages, their limited capabilities to cover larger areas as well as
their vulnerability to weather conditions (e.g., strong winds and uneven
sunny conditions) are considered the main drawbacks (Gao et al., 2020).
Otero, V et al. (2018) utilized lightweight UAV RGB images and SfM
data to retrieve tree height and aboveground biomass information for
plantations and natural sites in Malaysia. The results showed that AGB in
the productive zone using UAV and ground inventory data were 217 mg
ha− 1 and 238 mg ha− 1, respectively, whereas, AGB was estimated at
210 mg ha− 1 by UAV data and 143 mg ha− 1 by ground inventory data in
the natural zone. This methodology was also used by Navarro et al.
(2020) in Southeastern Australia, showing high accuracy for mapping
and monitoring aboveground biomass in mangrove areas. The UAV-SfM
described in this study provided a faster and more cost-effective method
by saving of AU$50,000 ha− 1 in comparison with traditional field work
for monitoring mangroves over larger areas. In contrast, Jones et al.
(2020) evaluated the potential of using drone imagery to estimate
aboveground biomass in gey mangrove trees (A. marina) in South
Australia. Their results indicated a lower accuracy of prediction of
mangrove aboveground biomass by UAV.
Technology is advancing rapidly and remote sensing techniques are
becoming more sophisticated, comprehensive, and inexpensive every
year. For example, the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) or
NISAR mission is a multi-disciplinary radar mission planned to launch in
2022 to measure aboveground biomass (annually at the 1 ha scale res­
olution) and carbon cycles in wetland ecosystems. NISAR will be a
suitable method for monitoring and measuring AGB in future because of
its ability to collect L-band and S-band data day and night in any
weather conditions. NISAR will be used to inform conservation and
sustainable management actions in coastal ecosystems by providing
access to free data for future studies (NISAR Science Users’ Handbook,
2018).
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

5. Methods for monitoring mangrove carbon stock dynamics
Monitoring mangroves involves systematic data collection, process­
ing, and analysis to provide useful information on the spatial extent and
biophysical condition of mangrove forests. Monitoring provides an un­
derstanding of forest dynamics over space and time which allows
managers to assess the drivers of mangrove ecosystem processes and
distinguish between natural and anthropogenic changes, and therefore
determine what interventions or actions may be appropriate (Duke
et al., 2014). Regular monitoring can determine the effectiveness of
management actions such as planting operations and identify changes in
forest area and land use. As protection of mangrove ecosystems becomes
an increasingly important priority in marine and coastal management
the availability of robust, comprehensive data is critical to scientists,
policy makers, coastal communities, and the private sector.
Over the years, mangrove restoration and rehabilitation projects
with the objectives of building sustainability and mitigating climate
change have been a topic of coastal ecosystem research (Herr et al.,
2019; Macreadie et al., 2019). Estimation and monitoring of biomass,
carbon stocks and their changes with high accuracy are needed to assess
the success of blue carbon projects and their implementation. The
monitoring of carbon stock degradation, biomass changes by remote
sensing are challenging tasks because small changes will be subtle and
difficult to detect. However, a time series of satellite data can provide an
invaluable information on mangrove spatial extent, temporal changes,
and distribution. In principle, reliable monitoring of mangrove biomass
and carbon stock changes requires the measurement of changes in the
horizontal extent of the mangrove forest, changes in the biophysical
parameters of mangroves (e.g. height, DBH, LAI), and the uncertainty of
the measured changes. Table 5 summarizes previous studies on moni­
toring changes in mangrove biomass and carbon stock.
Since 2010, most studies have focused on mangrove extent by
change detection using Landsat data (Kanniah et al., 2015; Otero, V
et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2019). Cissell et al. (2018) assessed mangrove
cover change along Campeche’s coast, Mexico during 1999 and 2016
using unsupervised classification of Landsat satellite data. The authors
used four images to show the decrease in mangrove areas (14.1%) and
the losses were attributed to urban development in the region. Despite

Table 5
Monitoring mangrove carbon stocks dynamics.
Citation Location Sensor Parameter Estimated change Uncertainty Duration
(year)

Thomas et al. (2018) Globally JERS-1 SAR Mangrove extent and change Total area = 2 529 760 ha Not reported 1996–2010
ALOS PALSAR in 2010
Increase = 127 990 ha
Decrease = 76 890 ha
Kanniah et al. Iskandar, Malaysia Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent and change Increase = 710 ha Not reported 1984–2014
(2015) Landsat 7 ETM+ Decrease = 6030 ha
Landsat 8 OLI
Mondal et al. (2018) Sierra Leone, West Africa Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent and change Decrease = 60050 ha Not reported 1990–2016
Landsat 7 ETM+
Landsat 8 OLI
Cissell et al. (2018) Campeche, Mexico Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent and change Decrease = 2841 ha Not reported 1999–2016
Landsat 8 OLI
Jia et al. (2015) China Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent Total area = 20778 ha in Not reported 2009–2010
Landsat 7 ETM+ 2010
Liao et al. (2019) Hainan Island, China Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent and change Total area = 4278 ha in Not reported 1987–2017
Landsat 7 ETM+ 2017
Landsat 8 OLI Decrease = 438 ha
Islam et al. (2019) Bangladesh Landsat MSS 2 Mangrove change Increase = 58140 ha Not reported 1976–2015
Landsat 4 TM
Landsat 7 ETM+
Landsat 8 OLI
Kovacs et al. (2013) Mexican Pacific ALOS-PALSAR Biophysical parameters (LAI, Not reported 2007–2009
Stem height,
Stem, DBH
Stem density,
Basal area)
Pham and Brabyn Cangio, Vietnam SPOT 4 Biomass Increase = 820 136 Mg Not reported 2000–2011
(2017) SPOT 5
Shapiro et al. (2015) Zambezi Delta, Mozambiqe Landsat 5 TM Mangrove extent Total area = 37 034 ha in Not reported 1994–2013
Landsat 7 ETM+ Carbon stock 2013
Landsat 8 OLI Increase = 691 032 Mg C
Lagomasino et al. Asia and Africa Landsat 8 OLI Mangrove change Decrease = 12 270 ha Not reported 2000–2016
(2019) Sential-1C Aboveground biomass carbon AGC = 792 423 Mg C
SRTM
TerraSAR-X
Maeda et al. (2016) South Sumatra state, RapidEye Carbon stock CS = 1.25 million Mg C Not reported 1989–2012
Indonesia Landsat airborne
LiDAR
Hamdan et al. Matang Mangroves, Landsat 5 TM Mangrove change Decrease = 830 ha 69.89 ± 7.56 t C 1991–2011
(2013) Malaysia SPOT- 5 Carbon stock CS = 81.15 t C ha-1 ha− 1
Hamdan et al. Pahang, Malaysia Landsat 5 TM Mangrove change Decrease = 2953.42 ha Not reported 1995–2014
(2016) Landsat 7 ETM+ Carbon stock CS = 1.5 million Mg C
Landsat 8 OLI
Hamdan et al. Malaysia Landsat 5 TM Mangrove change Decrease = 21 417 ha Not reported 1990–2017
(2019) Landsat 7 ETM+ Carbon stock CS = 181 t C ha− 1
Landsat 8 OLI
Benson et al. (2017) Helodrano Fagnemotse, Landsat 7 ETM+ Mangrove extent Total area = 1507 ha 5.84 ± 0.35 2002–2014
Madagascar Landsat 8 OLI Carbon stock CS = 686 174.77 Mg C Mg×105
Bolivar et al. (2018) Colombia MODIS Aboveground biomass AGB = 14.95 Tg C 14.95 ± 2.72 TgC 2011–2013

13
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
this, they did not quantify gains and losses of mangrove areas and land
cover classes to show mangrove forest dynamics. Kanniah et al. (2015)
and Mondal et al. (2018) analysed land cover changes in Iskandar,
Malaysia and Sierra Leone in Africa using Landsat images. Both studies
used different classification techniques and machine-learning algo­
rithms to identify the sources of mangrove losses and gains over time.
The limitations of the change detection methods include the sensitivity
of vegetation reflectance to atmospheric conditions and topographic
effects and the low spatial resolution which is too coarse for individual
species differentiation and parametrization in a small area and makes it
challenging to classify mangrove from water/wetland.
Zhang et al. (2016) used 150 Landsat TM images from 1985 to 2011
to monitor the seasonal changes and the effects of hurricanes and
chilling events on biophysical parameters of mangroves in South Flor­
ida. They compared different vegetation indices including normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI), normalized difference moisture
index (NDMI), soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) and enhanced
vegetation index (EVI). Their analysis demonstrated that NDMI is more
sensitive to the damage and dead trees than other indices. NDMI pro­
vides the important information about vegetation moisture content,
canopy cover and changes in biomass and LAI by exploiting the short
wave infrared (SWIR) spectra and NIR band, respectively (Otero, V et al.,
2018).
In Australia, Lymburner et al. (2019) used Landsat sensor data at 25
m resolution for the first time to show mangrove extent, canopy cover
type and dynamics for the period 1994–2017. The areal extent of
mangroves in Australia increased between 1994 and 2010 (from 10,715
± 36 km2 to 11,388 ± 38 km2), followed by a period of contraction
between 2011 and 2016 (11,142 ± 57 km2).
In Vietnam, Pham and Brabyn (2017) used SPOT 4 and 5 images and
an object-based approach in conjunction with Random Forest regression
algorithms to monitor biomass changes during 2000–2011. The Random
Forest model shows the highest accuracy (R2adj = 0.73) with different
variables (spectral, vegetation association type, texture, and vegetation
indices) for calculating mangrove biomass. Carbon dynamic was
observed by Hamdan et al. (2013) in Matang, Malaysia for a period of 20
years. The authors used Landsat TM and SPOT-5 satellite images and
various vegetation indices (NDVI, SAVI, OSAVI) to indicate a proxy for
carbon stock changes and correlate with forest inventory information
through regression. This study suggested that the NDVI is relevant and
viable in vegetative studies (R2 = ~0.72) compare to others. Total
carbon stocks in this area were estimated at 74.14 Mg C ha− 1 in 1991
and 52.43 Mg C ha− 1 in 2011. Three different Landsat data (Landsat-5
TM, Landsat-7 ETM+, and Landsat-8 OLI) were also used in Pahang,
Malaysia to show the rate of carbon stock (181 Mg C ha− 1) and carbon
loss (7.5 MgC ha− 1) during 1995–2014 and (Hamdan et al., 2016). The
carbon stock changes can be estimated by combination of canopy height
model and mangrove cover change map using Landsat data and
Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) (Shapiro et al., 2015). This tech­
nique was applied to map carbon stock in Zambezi delta and showed a
net increase of 691032 Mg C during 2000–2013.
To reduce uncertainties in biomass and carbon estimation, some
studies used SAR or LiDAR data and reported promising results (Sinha
et al., 2015; Hickey et al., 2018; Vafaei et al., 2018). Kovacs et al. (2013)
studied the relationship between backscatter from dual (HH–HV), single
(HH & VV) and quad polarization L-band ALOS PALSAR and various
mangrove biophysical parameters (LAI, stem height, DBH, BA and stem
density) collected from a degraded black mangrove (Avicennia germi­
nans) dominated forest of the Mexican Pacific. They developed multiple
regression models of texture parameters derived from the grey level
co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) of the ALOS data. Results showed a strong
relationship of backscatter (HH and VV) with LAI and stem height when
the dead stands were excluded, while BA, stem DBH and stem density
were observed to have a weak relationship with backscatter. From the
evidence of this research, ALOS PALSAR provides suitable data for
14
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
monitoring mangrove biophysical parameters.
Maeda et al. (2016) estimated biomass and the amount of carbon
stock changes in the South Sumatra state, Indonesia with high accuracy
by combining LiDAR data with the tree species classification based on
satellite imagery. The high accuracy was achieved for monitoring
biomass and carbon stock changes with the combination of airborne
LiDAR data and the tree species type classification by satellite imageries.
The amount of carbon stock in 1989 and 2012 was estimated as 3,672,
634 Mg C and 2,847,339 Mg C, respectively. The development of new
technologies (e.g. ICESat-2) that can be used to estimate ground surface
height, canopy height, and canopy cover offers a pathway for more
accurate carbon stock assessments in mangrove forests at lower cost.
ICESat data used SRTM data to provide mangrove canopy height
information.
Studies of biomass and carbon stock changes mostly address the
change detection and parameter estimation without mentioning the
uncertainty of the measured changes. Methodologies for estimating the
uncertainty of carbon stock either measure standard error or standard
deviation between the estimated values and ground truth (Cohen et al.,
2013; Pereira et al., 2018) or apply Monte Carlo simulation techniques
(Urbazaev et al., 2018). For carbon dynamics assessment the uncertainty
is often reported at a 95% confidence interval (CI). Suyadi et al. (2018)
tested an improved image analysis approach to estimate the accuracy
and uncertainty for temperate mangrove forests in New Zealand. They
used Landsat images and field data for mapping and Monte Carlo for
quantify uncertainty. Their results illustrated that image misclassifica­
tion, water column and positional errors are the largest sources of un­
certainty for tall and dwarf temperate mangrove forests. The results
reported reduced uncertainty in mapping long-term mangrove cover by
improved image analysis.
6. Discussion and conclusions
A recent survey of 35 scientists working on blue carbon topics
identified key research questions in their fields (Macreadie et al., 2019).
These largely focused on biophysical issues, including:
• how climate change affects carbon accumulation in mature blue
carbon ecosystems and during their restoration;
• how anthropogenic disturbances affect carbon burial rates;
• the global extent and temporal distribution of blue carbon
ecosystems;
• how organic matter sources can be estimated in sediments; and
• factors that influence burial rates.
Answering these questions requires improved monitoring ap­
proaches, and the emerging technological opportunities discussed in this
paper offer increasing analytical depth, precision, and cost effectiveness.
Practical considerations. Blue carbon projects and initiatives to date
have been hampered by data scarcity and poor data quality. There is
little robust evidence that can facilitate participation of blue carbon
projects in international market mechanisms or national inventories.
The existing and emerging remote sensing technologies discussed here
will provide robust, long-term data series that will overcome these
critical challenges. Reducing uncertainties in the valuations of blue
carbon will facilitate engagement in market mechanisms, and improving
management actions to maintain and promote blue carbon sequestration
will support national mitigation and adaptation goals.
Future research should investigate how to successfully combine and
integrate different sensors to measure vertical and horizontal mangrove
structure (canopy height, canopy vertical structure, and surface eleva­
tion) to estimate biomass with ever-increasing accuracy. The integration
of optical data and space-based missions such as ICESat-2, GEDI improve
the accuracy for measuring full coverage ABG carbon stocks. ICESat-2
with the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS) and
the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation LiDAR (GEDI) missions
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

launched in 2018 that produce high resolution 3D mangrove forest pa­ • Authorship
rameters and play an important role in management and monitoring • Originality and plagiarism
aboveground biomass carbon. In addition, because of their potential to • Data access and retention
outperform parametric models, non-parametric statistical models such • Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
as random forest (RF), artificial neuron networks, support vector ma­ • Acknowledgement of sources
chines (SVMs), and k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) have become more • Disclosure and conflicts of interest
common tools for estimating biomass with remote sensing datasets. The • Reporting standards
investigation of these machine learning approaches for biomass esti­ • Hazards and human or animal subjects
mation is therefore further important priority. In the near future, the • Use of patient images or case details
combination of Landsat and Sentinel-2 with new Landsat 9 and novel
machine learning algorithms will offer much greater certainty in carbon CRediT authorship contribution statement
stock estimation.
Mangroves provide valuable ecosystem services from carbon Raheleh Farzanmanesh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
sequestration to biodiversity conservation. Estimation of carbon stock in – original draft. Kourosh Khoshelham: Supervision, Writing – review &
mangrove ecosystems can support management strategies for climate editing. Sebastian Thomas: Supervision, Conceptualization, Method­
change mitigation and adaptation and also improve the understanding ology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
of mangrove spatio-temporal variability. These are critical priorities for
governments and climate-oriented environmental market mechanisms. Declaration of competing interest
The analysis and insights presented in this paper should contribute to
improved scientific research agendas and policy processes at national The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
and regional scales. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Ethical statement

We hereby confirm that this work meets the standards of ethics in

academic and scientific research and publishing, including:

APPENDIX-I

Citation Title Journal

1 Adame M.F., Kauffman J.B., Medina I., Gamboa J.N.,
Torres O., Caamal J.P., Reza M., Herrera-Silveira J.A.
(2013).
2 Ajonina G.N., Kairo, J., Grimsditch G., Sembres T.,
Chuyong G., Diyouke E. (2014).
3 Alavaisha E., Mangora M. (2016).
4 Aslan A., Rahman A.F., Warren M.W., Robeson S.M.
(2016).
5 Baloloy A.B., Blanco A.C., Candido C.G., Argamosa R.
J.L., Dumalag J.B.L.C., Dimapilis L.L.C., Paringit E.C.
(2018).
6 Bao T.Q., Hoa L.S. (2018).
7 Benson L., Glass L, Jones T.G.,
Ravaoarinorotsihoarana L., Rakotomahazo C.
(2017).
8 Bindu G., Rajan P, Jishnu E.S., Joseph K. (2020).
9 Bolivar J.M., Gutierrez-Velez V.H., Sierra C.A.
(2018).
10 Camacho L.D., Gevana D.T., Carandang A.P.,
Camacho S.C., Combalicer E.A., Rebugioco L.R.,
Youn Y.C. (2011).
11 Candra E.D., Wicaksono P., Harjo H. (2016).
12 Carreiras J.M.B., Vasconcelos M.J., Lucas R.M.
(2012).
13 Castillo J.A.A., Apan A.A., Maraseni T.N., Salmo S.G.
(2017).
14 Fatoyinbo T.E., Simard M. (2013).
15 Fatoyinbo T., Feliciano A.E., Lagomasino D., Lee S.K.,
Trettin C. (2018).
Carbon stocks of tropical coastal wetlands within the Karstic
landscape of the Mexican Caribbean.
Assessment of mangrove carbon stocks in Cameroon, Gabon, the
Republic of Congo (RoC) and the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) including their potential for reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+).
Carbon Stocks in the Small Estuarine Mangroves of Geza and
Mtimbwani, Tanga, Tanzania.
Mapping spatial distribution and biomass of coastal wetland
vegetation in Indonesian Papua by combining active and passive
remotely sensed data.
Estimation of mangrove forest aboveground biomass using
multispectral bands, vegetation indices and biophysical variables
derived from optical satellite imageries: Rapideye, Planetscope and
Sentinel-2.
Usinge Sentinel satellite image to estimate biomass of mangrove
forest in Vinh Quang Commune, the Lang district, Hai Phong City.
Mangrove Carbon Stocks and Ecosystem Cover Dynamics in
Southwest Madagascar and the Implications for Local
Management.
Carbon stock assessment of mangroves using remote sensing and
geographic information system.
Carbon stocks in aboveground biomass for Colombian mangroves
with associated uncertainties.
Tree biomass and carbon stock of a community-managed mangrove
forest in Bohol, Philippines.
Above Ground Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Forest Using
Worldview-2 Imagery in Teluk Benoa, Bali. 2nd International
Conference of Indonesian Society for Remote Sensing (ICOIRS).
Understanding the relationship between aboveground biomass and
ALOS PALSAR data in the forests of Guinea-Bissau (West Africa).
Estimation and mapping of above-ground biomass of mangrove
forests and their replacement land uses in the Philippines using
sentinel imagery.
Height and biomass of mangroves in Africa from ICESat/GLAS and
SRTM.
Estimating mangrove aboveground biomass from airborne LiDAR
data: a case study from the Zambezi River delta.
PLoS ONE 8(2): e56569. https://doi.org
/10.1371/journal.pone.0056569
In The Land/Ocean Interactions in the Coastal
Zone of West and Central Africa (pp. 177–189).
Springer, Cham.
International Journal of Forestry Research
(2068)283, 1–11.
Remote Sensing of Environment 183: 65–81.
ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences 4:
29–36.
Journal of Forestry Science and Technology 5:
71–79.
Forests 8: 190.
The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and
Space Science 23: 1–9.
Regional Studies in Marine Science 18:
145–155.
Forest Science and Technology 7(4):161–167.
Earth and Environmental Science 47: 012014.
Remote Sensing of Environment 121: 426–442.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing 134: 70–85.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 34:
668–681.
Environmental Research Letters 13: 025012.
(continued on next page)

15
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

(continued )
Citation Title Journal

16 Feliciano E.A., Wdowinski S., Potts M.D., Lee S.K., Estimating mangrove canopy height and above-ground biomass in Remote Sensing 9: 702.
Fatoyinbo T.E. (2017). the everglades national park with airborne LiDAR and TanDEM-X
data.
17 Friess D.A., Richards D.R., Phang V.X.H. (2016). Mangrove forests store high densities of carbon across the tropical Urban Ecosystem 19: 795–810.
urban landscape of Singapore.
18 Gao T., Ding D., Guan W, Liao B. (2018). Carbon Stocks of Coastal Wetland Ecosystems on Hainan Island, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 27(3):
China. 1061–1069.
19 Goïta K., Mouloungou J., Bénié G.B. (2017). Estimation of aboveground biomass and carbon in a tropical rain Geocarto International. 34: 243–259.
forest in Gabon using remote sensing and GPS data.
20 Hamdan O., Muhamad A.M.,Valeria L. (2019). Characterizing and monitoring of mangroves in Malaysia using IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Landsat-based spatial-spectral variability. Environmental Science 169.
21 Hamdan O., Chuah N.M., Parlan I., Musa S. (2016). Assessing Rate of Deforestation and Changes of Carbon Stock on The Malaysian Forester 79: 174–179.
Mangroves in Pahang, Malaysia.
22 Hamdan O., Khali Aziz H., Mohd Hasmadi I. (2014). L-band ALOS PALSAR for biomass estimation of Matang Remote Sensing and Environment 155: 69–78.
mangroves, Malaysia.
23 Hamdan O., Khairunnisa M.R., Ammar A.A., Mohd Mangrove Carbon Stock Assessment by Optical Satellite Imagery. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 25(4):
Hasmadi I., Khali Aziz H. (2013). 554–565.
24 Harishma K.M., Sandeep S., Sreekumar V.B. (2020). Biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove ecosystems of Kerala, Ecological Processes. 9:31.
southwest coast of India.
25 Hastuti A.W., Suniada K.I., Islamy F. (2017). Carbon Stock Estimation Of Mangrove Vegetation Using Remote International Journal of Remote Sensing and
Sensing In Perancak Estuary, Jembrana District, Bali. Earth Sciences 14(2): 137–150.
26 Hickey S.M., Callow N.J., Phinn S., Lovelock C.E., Spatial complexities in aboveground carbon stocks of a semi-arid Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 200:
Duarte C.M. (2018). mangrove community: A remote sensing height-biomass-carbon 194–201.
approach.
27 Hirata Y., Tabuchi R., Patanaponpaiboon P., Estimation of aboveground biomass in mangrove forests using Journal of Forest Research 19: 34–41.
Poungparn S., Yoneda R., Fujioka Y. (2014). high-resolution satellite data.
28 Jachowski N.R.A., Quak M.S.Y., Friess D.A., Mangrove biomass estimation in southwest Thailand using Applied Geography 45: 311–321.
Duangnamon D., Webb E.L., Ziegler A.D. (2013). machine learning.
29 Jones T.G., Glass L., Gandhi S., Madagascar’s Mangroves: Quantifying Nation-Wide and Ecosystem Remote Sensing 8(2): 30.
Ravaoarinorotsihoarana L., Carro A., Benson L., Specific Dynamics, and Detailed Contemporary Mapping of
Cripps G. (2016). Distinct Ecosystems.
30 Jones T.G., Ratsimba H.R., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana The Dynamics, Ecological Variability and Estimated Carbon Stocks Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 3
L., Glass L., Benson L., Teoh M., Roy P.F. (2015). of Mangroves in Mahajamba Bay, Madagascar. (3): 793–820.
31 Kangkuso A., Sharma S., Jamili J., Septiana A., Trends in allometric models and aboveground biomass of family Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37: 691–711.
Sahidin I., Rianse U., Rahim S., Nadaoka K. (2018). Rhizophoraceae mangroves in the Coral Triangle ecoregion,
Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.
32 Kangkuso A., Jamili J., Septiana A., Raya R., Sahidin Allometric model and aboveground biomass of Lumnitzera Forest Science and Technology 12: 43e50.
I., Rianse U., Rahim S., Alfirman., Sharma S., racemosa Willd. Forest in Rawa Aopa Watumohai National Park,
Nadaoka K. (2016). Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.
33 Kauffman J.B., Bhomia R.K. (2017). Ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across broad environmental PLoS ONE 12(11): e0187749.
gradients in West-Central Africa: Global and regional comparisons.
34 Kauffman J. B., Heider C., Norfolk J., Payton F. Carbon Stocks of Intact Mangroves and Carbon Emissions Arising Ecological Applications 24 (3): 518–527.
(2014). from Their Conversion in the Dominican Republic.
35 Kauffman J.B., Heider C., Cole T., Dwire K. A., Ecosystem C pools of Micronesian mangrove forests: implications Wetlands 31:343–352.
Donato D. C. (2011). of land use and climate change.
36 Lagomasino D., Fatoyinbo T., Lee S., Feliciano E., Measuring mangrove carbon loss and gain in deltas. Environmental Research Letters 14. 025002.
Trettin C., Shapiro A., Mangora M.M. (2019).
37 Li Z., Zan, Q., Yang Q., Zhu D., Chen Y., Yu S. (2019). Remote Estimation of Mangrove Aboveground Carbon Stock at the Remote Sensing 11: 1018.
Species Level Using a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System.
38 Maeda Y., Fukushima A., Imai Y., Tanahashi Y., Estimating carbon stock changes of mangrove forests using satellite The International Archives of the
Nakama E., Ohta S., Kawazoe K., Akune N. (2016). imagery and airborne LiDAR data. Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences 41: 705–709.
39 Muhsoni F.F., Sambah A., Mahmudi M., Wiadnya D. Comparison of different vegetation indices for assessing mangrove International Journal of Geomate 14: 42–51.
(2018). density using sentinel-2 imagery.
40 Navarro J.A., Algeet N., Fernández-Landa A., Esteban Integration of UAV, Sentinel-1, and Sentinel-2 data for mangrove Remote Sensing 11: 77.
J., Rodríguez-Noriega P., Guillén-Climent, M.L. plantation aboveground biomass monitoring in Senegal.
(2019).
41 Nesha M.K., Hussin Y.A., Leeuwen L.M., Sulistioadi Modeling and mapping aboveground biomass of the restored International Journal of Applied Earth
Y.B. (2020). mangroves using ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Observation and Geo-information 91: 102158
42 Patil V., Singh A., Naik N., Unnikrishnan S. (2015). Estimation of Mangrove Carbon Stock by Applying Remote Sensing National Institute of Industrial Engineering
and GIS Techniques. Center for Environmental Studies. (NITIE), Mumbai, India.
43 Peregon A., Yamagata Y. (2013). The use of ALOS PALSAR backscatter to estimate above-ground Remote Sensing of Environment 137: 139–146.
forest biomass: A case study in western Siberia.
44 Pereira F.R., Kampel M., Soares M.L.G., Estrada C.D., Reducing Uncertainty in Mapping of Mangrove Aboveground Remote Sensing 10 (4): 637.
Bentz C., Vincent G. (2018). Biomass Using Airborne Discrete Return LiDAR Data.
45 Pham T.D. (2020). Estimating Mangrove Above-Ground Biomass Using Extreme Remote Sensing12: 777
Gradient Boosting Decision Trees Algorithm with Fused Sentinel-2
and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 Data in Can Gio Biosphere Reserve,
Vietnam.
46 Pham T.D., Yoshino K., Le N., Bui D. (2018). Estimating aboveground biomass of a mangrove plantation on the International Journal of Remote Sensing.
Northern coast of Vietnam using machine learning techniques with
an integration of ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-2A data.
47 Pham T.D., Yoshino K. (2017). Aboveground biomass estimation of mangrove species using ALOS- Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 11: 026010.
2 PALSAR imagery in Hai Phong City, Vietnam.
48 Pham L.T.H., Brabyn L. (2017). ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing 128: 86–97.
(continued on next page)

16
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

(continued )
Citation Title Journal

Monitoring mangrove biomass change in Vietnam using SPOT

images and an object-based approach combined with machine
learning algorithms.
49 Pham T.D., Yoshino K., Bui D.T. (2016). Biomass estimation of Sonneratia Caseolaris (l.) Engler at a coastal Remote Sensing 54: 329–353.
area of Hai Phong city (Vietnam) using ALOS-2 PALSAR imagery
and GIS-based multi-layer perceptron neural networks.
50 Qiu P., Wang D., Zou X., Yang X., Xie G., Xu S., Zhong Finer Resolution Estimation and Mapping of Mangrove Biomass Forests, 10, 871
Z. (2019). Using UAV LiDAR and WorldView-2 Data.
51 Rahman M., Islam Khan M.d., Fazlul Hoque A.K., Carbon stock in the Sundarbans mangrove forest: spatial variations Wetlands Ecology and Management 23:
Ahmed I. (2014). in vegetation types and salinity zones. 269–283.
52 Shapiro A., Trettin C., Küchly H., Alavinapanah S., The Mangroves of the Zambezi Delta: Increase in Extent Observed Remote Sensing 7: 16504–16518.
Bandeira S. (2015). via Satellite from 1994 to 2013.
53 Sitoe A.A., Mandlate L.J.C., Guedes B.S. (2014). Biomass and Carbon Stocks of Sofala Bay Mangrove Forests. Forests 5: 1967–1981.
54 Stringer C.E., Trettin C.C., Zarnoch S.J., Tang W. Carbon stocks of mangroves within the Zambezi River Delta, Forest Ecology and Management 354: 139–148.
(2015). Mozambique.
55 Tang W., Feng W., Jia M., Shi J., Zuo H., Trettin C.C. The assessment of mangrove biomass and carbon in West Africa: a Ecology and Management 24(2): 153–171.
(2016). Wetlands spatially explicit analytical framework.
56 Thapa R.B., Watanabe M., Motohka T., Shimada M. Potential of high-resolution ALOS–PALSAR mosaic texture for Remote Sensing of Environment 160: 122–133.
(2015). aboveground forest carbon tracking in tropical region.
57 Vinh T.V., Marchand C., Linha T.V., Vinhc D., Allometric models to estimate above-ground biomass and carbon Forest Ecology and Management 434: 131–14.
Allenbach M. (2019). stocks in Rhizophora apiculata tropical managed mangrove forests
(Southern Vietnam).
58 Vu T.D., Takeuchi W., Van N.A. (2014). Carbon stock calculating and forest change assessment toward Transcactions of the Japan Society for
REDD + activities for the mangrove forest in Vietnam. Aeronautical and Space Science, Aerospace
Technology Japan 12: 23–31.
59 Wang D., Wan B., Liu J., Su Y., Guo Q., Qui P., Wu X. Estimating aboveground biomass of the mangrove forests on International Journal of Applied Earth
(2020). northeast Hainan Island in China using an upscaling method from Observation and Geo-information 85: 101986.
field plots, UAV LiDAR data and Sentinel-2 imagery.
60 Wang G., Guan D., Peart M.R., Chen Y., Peng Y. Ecosystem carbon stocks of mangrove forest in Yingluo Bay, Forest Ecology and Management 310: 539–546.
(2013). Guangdong Province of South China.
61 Wicaksono P. (2017). Mangrove above-ground carbon stock mapping of multi-resolution International Journal of Remote Sensing 38(6):
passive remote-sensing systems. 1551–1578
62 Wicaksono P., Danoedoro P., Hartono., Nehren U. Mangrove biomass carbon stock mapping of the Karimunjawa International Journal of Remote Sensing 37(1):
(2016). Islands using multispectral remote sensing. 26–52
63 Wicaksono P., Danoedoro P., Hartono., Nehren U., Preliminary Work of Mangrove Ecosystem Carbon Stock Mapping Remote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems,
Ribbe L. (2011). in Small Island Using Remote Sensing: Above and Below Ground and Hydrology XIII, Proc. of SPIE. 8174
Carbon Stock Mapping on Medium Resolution Satellite Image. 81741B-1, Czech Republic.
64 Winarso G., Vetrita Y., Purwanto A.D., Anggraini N., Mangrove Above Ground Biomass Estimation Using Combination International Journal of Remote Sensing and
Darmawan S., Yuwono D.M. (2015). of Landsat 8 and ALOS PALSAR Data. Earth Sciences 12 (2): 85–96.
65 Zhu Y., Liu K., Liu L., Wang S., Liu H. (2015). Retrieval of mangrove aboveground biomass at the individual Remote Sensing 7: 12192–12214.
species level with Worldview-2 images.

References Barbier, E.B., 2016. The protective service of mangrove ecosystems: a review of valuation
methods: marine Pollution Bulletin special issue: “Turning the tide on mangrove
loss”. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 109, 676–681.
Adame, M.F., Kauffman, J.B., Medina, I., Gamboa, J.N., Torres, O., Caamal, J.P.,
Bell-James, J., Boardman, T., Foster, R., 2020. Can’t see the (mangrove) forest for the
Reza, M., Herrera-Silveira, J.A., 2013. Carbon stocks of tropical coastal wetlands
trees: trends in the legal and policy recognition of mangrove and coastal wetland
within the Karstic landscape of the Mexican Caribbean. PloS One 8 (2), e56569.
ecosystem services in Australia. Ecosystem Services 45, 101148. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056569.
10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101148.
Ajonina, G.N., Kairo, J., Grimsditch, G., Sembres, T., Chuyong, G., Diyouke, E., 2014.
Benson, L., Glass, L., Jones, T.G., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Rakotomahazo, C., 2017.
Assessment of mangrove carbon stocks in Cameroon, Gabon, the Republic of Congo
Mangrove carbon stocks and ecosystem cover dynamics in Southwest Madagascar
(RoC) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) including their potential for
and the implications for local management. Forests 8, 190.
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). In: The
Binh, C.H., Nam, V.N., 2014. Carbon sequestration of Ceriops zippeliana in can gio
Land/Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone of West and Central Africa. Springer,
mangroves. In: Studies in Can Gio Mangrove Biosphere Reserve, Ho Chi Minh City,
Cham, pp. 177–189.
Viet Nam. ISME, Okinawa, Japan, p. 51.
Alongi, D.M., 2011. Carbon payments for mangrove conservation: ecosystem constraints
Bindu, G., Rajan, P., Jishnu, E.S., Joseph, K., 2020. Carbon stock assessment of
and uncertainties of sequestration potential. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 462–470.
mangroves using remote sensing and geographic information system. The Egyptian
Alavaisha, E., Mangora, M., 2016. Carbon stocks in the small estuarine mangroves of
Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science 23, 1–9.
geza and Mtimbwani, Tanga, Tanzania. Int. J. Financ. Res. 2068283, 1–11. https://
Bolivar, J.M., Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., Sierra, C.A., 2018. Carbon stocks in aboveground
doi.org/10.1155/2016/2068283.
biomass for Colombian mangroves with associated uncertainties. Regional Studies in
Aslan, A., Rahman, A.F., Warren, M.W., Robeson, S.M., 2016. Mapping spatial
Marine Science 18, 145–155.
distribution and biomass of coastal wetland vegetation in Indonesian Papua by
Brown, S., Pearson, T., Moore, N., Parveen, A., Ambagis, S., Shoch, D., 2005. Impact of
combining active and passive remotely sensed data. Rem. Sens. Environ. 183, 65–81.
selective logging on the carbon stock of tropical forests: republic of Congo as a case
Australian Government, 2019. Towards an Emissions Reduction Fund Method of Blue
study. Technica 6. Winrock International. http://www.winrock.org.
Carbon. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at. https://publications.
Camacho, L.D., Gevana, D.T., Carandang, A.P., Camacho, S.C., Combalicer, E.A.,
industry.gov.au/publications/climate-change/system/files/resources/fb1cbdf3-3c2f
Rebugioco, L.R., Youn, Y.C., 2011. Tree biomass and carbon stock of a community-
-46ea-a259-d53d7568c9d2/files/erf-blue-carbon-2019.pdf.
managed mangrove forest in Bohol, Philippines. For. Sci. Technol. 7 (4), 161–167.
Baloloy, A.B., Blanco, A.C., Candido, C.G., Argamosa, R.J.L., Dumalag, J.B.L.C.,
Candra, E.D., Wicaksono, P., Harjo, H., 2016. Above ground carbon stock estimates of
Dimapilis, L.L.C., Paringit, E.C., 2018. Estimation of mangrove forest aboveground
mangrove forest using Worldview-2 imagery in Teluk Benoa, Bali. 2nd international
biomass using multispectral bands, vegetation indices and biophysical variables
conference of Indonesian society for remote sensing (ICOIRS). Earth and
derived from optical satellite imageries: rapideye, planetscope and sentinel-2. ISPRS
Environmental Science 47, 012014.
Annals of Photogrammetry. Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences 4, 29–36.
Carreiras, J.M.B., Vasconcelos, M.J., Lucas, R.M., 2012. Understanding the relationship
Bao, T.Q., Hoa, L.S., 2018. Usinge Sentinel satellite image to estimate biomass of
between aboveground biomass and ALOS PALSAR data in the forests of Guinea-
mangrove forest in Vinh Quang Commune, the lang district, Hai Phong City. Journal
bissau (West Africa). Rem. Sens. Environ. 121, 426–442.
of Forestry Science and Technology 5, 71–79.
Castillo, J.A.A., Apan, A.A., Maraseni, T.N., Salmo, S.G., 2017. Estimation and mapping
of above-ground biomass of mangrove forests and their replacement land uses in the

17
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
Philippines using sentinel imagery. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 134,
70–85.
Chadwick, J., 2011. Integrated LiDAR and IKONOS multispectral imagery for mapping
mangrove distribution and physical properties. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 32, 6765–6781.
Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M.A., Chambers, J.Q., Eamus, D., Folster, H.,
Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J.P., Nelson, B.W., Ogawa, H., Puig, H.,
Riera, B., Yamakura, T., 2005. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon
stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145, 87–99.
Cintron, G., Schaeffer–Novelli, S.Y., 1984. Methods for studying Mangrove structure. In:
Snedaker, S.C., Snedaker, J. (Eds.), The Mangrove Ecosystems: Research Methods.
UNESCO, Paris, France, pp. 91–113.
Cissell, J.R., Delgado, A.M., Sweetman, B.M., Steinberg, M.K., 2018. Monitoring
mangrove forest dynamics in Campeche, Mexico, using Landsat satellite data.
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environmen 9, 60–68.
Clough, B.F., Scott, K., 1989. Allometric relationships for estimating aboveground
biomass in six mangrove species. For. Ecol. Manag. 27, 117–127.
Cohen, R., Kaino, J., Okello, J.A., Bosire, J.O., Kairo, J.G., Huxham, M., Mncuccini, M.,
2013. Propagating uncertainty to estimates of aboveground biomass forKenyan
mangroves: a scaling procedure from tree to landscape level. For. Ecol. Manag. 310,
968–982.
Cole, T.G., Ewel, K.C., Devoe, N.N., 1999. Structure of mangrove trees and forests in
Micronesia. For. Ecol. Manag. 17, 95–109.
Comley, B.W.T., McGuinness, K.A., 2005. Above and belowground biomass, and
allometry, of four common northern Australian mangroves. Aust. J. Bot. 53,
431–436.
Dasgupta, S., Islam, M.S., Huq, M., Huque Khan, Z., Hasib, M.R., 2019. Quantifying the
protective capacity of mangroves from storm surges in coastal Bangladesh. PloS One
14 (3), e0214079.
Dharmawan, I.W.S., Siregar, C.A., 2008. Soil carbon and carbon estimation of Avicennia
marina (Forsk). Vierh. Stand at Ciasem. Purwakarta. J. Penelit. Hutan dan
Konservasi Alam. 5, 317–328.
Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., Kanninen, M.,
2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 4
(5), 293–297.
Duke, N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittmann, S., Ellison, A.M., Anger, K., Berger, U.,
Cannicci, S., Diele, K., Ewel, K.C., Field, C.D., 2007. A world without mangroves?
Science 317, 41–42.
Duke, N., Nagelkerken, I., Agardy, T., Wells, S., Van Lavieren, H., 2014. The Importance
of Mangroves to People: A Call to Action. United Nations Environment
ProgrammeWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK.
Fan, K.C., 2008. Population structure, allometry and aboveground biomass of Avicennia
marina forest at the Chishuti river estuary, Tainan county, Taiwan. J. For. Res. 30,
1–15.
Fatoyinbo, T., Feliciano, A.E., Lagomasino, D., Lee, S.K., Trettin, C., 2018. Estimating
mangrove aboveground biomass from airborne LiDAR data: a case study from the
Zambezi River delta. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 025012.
Fatoyinbo, T.E., Simard, M., 2013. Height and biomass of mangroves in Africa from
ICESat/GLAS and SRTM. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 34, 668–681.
Feliciano, E.A., Wdowinski, S., Potts, M.D., Lee, S.K., Fatoyinbo, T.E., 2017. Estimating
mangrove canopy height and aboveground biomass in the everglades national park
with airborne LiDAR and TanDEM-X data. Rem. Sens. 9, 702.
Feller, I.C., Friess, D.A., Krauss, K.W., Lewis, R.R., 2017. The state of the world’s
mangroves in the 21st century under climate change. Hydrobiologia 803, 1–12.
Friess, D.A., Richards, D.R., Phang, V.X.H., 2016. Mangrove forests store high densities of
carbon across the tropical urban landscape of Singapore. Urban Ecosyst. 19,
795–810.
Fromard, F., Puig, H., Mougun, E., Marty, G., Betoulle, J.L., Cadamuro, L., 1998.
Structure, aboveground biomass and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems: new data
from French Guiana. Oecologia 115, 39–53.
Gao, T., Skutsch, M., Paneque-Gálvez, J., Ghilardi, A., 2020. Remote sensing of forest
degradation: a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 103001.
Gao, T., Ding, D., Guan, W., Liao, B., 2018. Carbon stocks of coastal wetland ecosystems
on Hainan Island, China. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 27 (3), 1061–1069.
Gatti, R.C., 2020. Coronavirus outbreak is a symptom of Gaia’s sickness. Ecol. Model.
426, 109075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109075.
Ghosh, M.K., Kumar, L., Roy, Ch, 2016. Mapping long-term changes in mangrove species
composition and distribution in the sundarbans. Forests 7 (12), 305.
Gibbs, H.K., Brown, S., Niles, J.O., Foley, J.A., 2009. Monitoring and estimating tropical
forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (4), 1–13.
Giri, C., 2016. Observation and monitoring of mangrove forests using remote sensing:
opportunities and challenges. Rem. Sens. 8 (9), 8.
Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L.L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J., Duke, N.,
2011. Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth
observation satellite data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 154–159.
Goïta, K., Mouloungou, J., Bénié, G.B., 2017. Estimation of aboveground biomass and
carbon in a tropical rain forest in Gabon using remote sensing and GPS data.
Geocarto Int. 34, 243–259.
Guo, M., Li, J., Sheng, C., Xu, J., Wu, L., 2017. A review of wetland remote sensing.
Sensors 17.
Hamdan, O., Muhamad, A.M., Valeria, L., 2019. Characterizing and monitoring of
mangroves in Malaysia using Landsat-based spatial-spectral variability. IOP Conf.
Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 169.
Hamdan, O., Chuah, N.M., Parlan, I., Musa, S., 2016. Assessing rate of deforestation and
changes of carbon stock on mangroves in Pahang, Malaysia. Malays. For. 79,
174–179.
18
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
Hamdan, O., Khali Aziz, H., Mohd Hasmadi, I., 2014. L-band ALOS PALSAR for biomass
estimation of matang mangroves, Malaysia. Rem. Sens. Environ. 155, 69–78.
Hamdan, O., Khairunnisa, M.R., Ammar, A.A., Mohd Hasmadi, I., Khali Aziz, H., 2013.
Mangrove carbon stock assessment by optical satellite imagery. J. Trop. For. Sci. 25
(4), 554–565.
Hamilton, S.E., Friess, D.A., 2018. Global carbon stocks and potential emissions due to
mangrove deforestation from 2000 to 2012. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 240–244.
Hamuna, B., Kalor, J.D., Tablaseray, V.E., 2019. The impact pf tsunami on mangrove
spatial change in eastern coastal of Biak Island, Indonesia. Journal of Ecological
Engineering 20 (3), 1–6.
Harishma, K.M., Sandeep, S., Sreekumar, V.B., 2020. Biomass and carbon stocks in
mangrove ecosystems of Kerala, southwest coast of India. Ecological Processes 9, 31.
Hastuti, A.W., Suniada, K.I., Islamy, F., 2017. Carbon stock estimation of mangrove
vegetation using remote sensing in Perancak Estuary,Jembrana district, Bali.
International Journal of Remote Sensing and Earth Sciences 14 (2), 137–150.
Herr, D., Blum, J., Himes-Cornell, A., Sutton-Grier, A., 2019. An analysis of the potential
positive and negative livelihood impacts of coastal carbon offset projects. J. Environ.
Manag. 235, 463–479.
Heumann, B., 2011. Satellite remote sensing of mangrove forests: recent advances and
future opportunities. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (1), 87–108.
Hickey, S.M., Callow, N.J., Phinn, S., Lovelock, C.E., Duarte, C.M., 2018. Spatial
complexities in aboveground carbon stocks of a semi-arid mangrove community: a
remote sensing height-biomass-carbon approach. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 200,
194–201.
Hirata, Y., Tabuchi, R., Patanaponpaiboon, P., Poungparn, S., Yoneda, R., Fujioka, Y.,
2014. Estimation of aboveground biomass in mangrove forests using high-resolution
satellite data. J. For. Res. 19, 34–41.
Hoque, A.T.M.R., Sharma, S., Deshar, R., Kangkuso, A., Hagihara, A., 2010. Allometric
relationships for estimating the aboveground mass and leaf area of mangrove
Bruguiera gymnorrhiza trees in Manko Wetland, Okinawa Island, Japan. Singapore.
In: Proceeding of the International Conference on Environmental Science and
Development, vol. 4, p. 441e446, 26e28.
Hossain, M., Siddiques, M.R.H., Saha, S., Abdullah, S.M.R., 2015. Allometrci models for
biomass, nutrients and carbon stock in Excoecaria agallocha of the Sundarbans,
Bangladesh. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 23, 765–774.
Hutchison, J., Manica, A., Swetnam, R., Balmford, A., Spalding, M., 2014. Predicting
global patterns in mangrove forest biomass. Conservation Letter 7 (3), 233e240.
Islam, M., Borgqvist, H., Kumar, L., 2019. Monitoring Mangrove forest landcover changes
in the coastline of Bangladesh from 1976 to 2015. Geocarto Int. 34 (13), 1458–1476.
Istomo, C., Kusmana, B.D., Naibaho, 2017. Biomass potential on several mangrove
planting models in Java Island, Indonesia. AACL Bioflux 10, 754–767.
Jachowski, N.R.A., Quak, M.S.Y., Friess, D.A., Duangnamon, D., Webb, E.L., Ziegler, A.
D., 2013. Mangrove biomass estimation in southwest Thailand using machine
learning. Appl. Geogr. 45, 311–321.
Jia, M., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Ren, C., Song, K., 2015. Landsat-based estimation of
mangrove forest loss and restoration in Guangxi Province, China, influenced by
human and natural factors. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing 8 (1), 311–323.
Jones, A.R., Raja Segaran, R., Clarke, K.D., Waycott, M., Goh, W.S.H., Gillanders, B.M.,
2020. Estimating mangrove tree biomass and carbon content: a comparison of forest
inventory techniques and drone imagery. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 1–13.
Jones, T.G., Glass, L., Gandhi, S., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Carro, A., Benson, L.,
Cripps, G., 2016. Madagascar’s mangroves: quantifying nation-wide and ecosystem
specific dynamics, and detailed Contemporary mapping of distinct ecosystems. Rem.
Sens. 8 (2), 30.
Jones, T.G., Ratsimba, H.R., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Glass, L., Benson, L., Teoh, M.,
Roy, P.F., 2015. The dynamics, ecological variability and estimated carbon stocks of
mangroves in Mahajamba Bay, Madagascar. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 3 (3), 793–820.
Jones, T.G., Ratsimba, H.R., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Gripps, G., Bey, A., 2014.
Ecological variability and carbon stock estimates of mangrove ecosystems in
northwestern Madagascar. Forests 5, 177–205.
Kangkuso, A., Sharma, S., Jamili, J., Septiana, A., Sahidin, I., Rianse, U., Rahim, S.,
Nadaoka, K., 2018. Trends in allometric models and aboveground biomass of family
Rhizophoraceae mangroves in the Coral Triangle ecoregion, Southeast Sulawesi,
Indonesia. J. Sustain. For. 37, 691–711.
Kangkuso, A., Jamili, J., Septiana, A., Raya, R., Sahidin, I., Rianse, U., Rahim, S.,
Alfirman, Sharma, S., Nadaoka, K., 2016. Allometric model and aboveground
biomass of lumnitzera racemosa Willd. Forest in rawa Aopa Watumohai national
park, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. For. Sci. Technol. 12, 43e50.
Kanniah, K.D., Sheikhi, A., Cracknell, A.P., Goh, H.C., Tan, K.P., Ho, C.S., Rasli, F.N.,
2015. Satellite images for monitoring mangrove cover changes in a fast growing
economic region in southern Peninsular Malaysia. Rem. Sens. 7 (11), 14360–14385.
Kauffman, J.B., Adame, M.F., Arifanti, V.B., Schile-Beers, L.M., Bernardino, A.F.,
Bhomia, R.K., Trejo, H.H., 2020. Total ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across
broad global environmental and physical gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 90 (2), e01405
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1405.
Kauffman, J.B., Bhomia, R.K., 2017. Ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across broad
environmental gradients in West-Central Africa: global and regional comparisons.
PloS One 12 (11), e0187749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187749.
Kauffman, J.B., Heider, C., Norfolk, J., Payton, F., 2014. Carbon stocks of Intact
mangroves and carbon emissions Arising from their conversion in the Dominican
republic. Ecol. Appl. 24 (3), 518–527.
Kauffman, J.B., Donato, D.C., 2012. In: Protocols for the Measurement, Monitoring and
Reporting of Structure, Biomass and Carbon Stocks in Mangrove Forests. CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia. Working Paper 86.
R. Farzanmanesh et al.
Kauffman, J.B., Heider, C., Cole, T., Dwire, K.A., Donato, D.C., 2011. Ecosystem C pools
of Micronesian mangrove forests: implications of land use and climate change.
Wetlands 31, 343–352.
Komiyama, A., Ong, J.E., Poungparn, S., 2008. Allometry, biomass, and productivity of
mangrove forests: a review. Aquat. Bot. 89, 128–137.
Komiyama, A., Poungparn, S., Kato, S., 2005. Common allometric equations for
estimating the tree weight of mangroves. J. Trop. Ecol. 21, 471–477.
Kovacs, J.M., Lu, X.X., Flores-Verdugo, F., Zhang, C., Flores de Santiago, F.X., Jiao, X.,
2013. Applications of ALOS PALSAR for monitoring biophysical parameters of a
degraded black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) forest. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry
Remote Sens. 82, 102–111.
Kuenzer, C., Bluemel, A., Gebhardt, S., Quoc, T., Dech, S., 2011. Remote sensing of
mangrove ecosystems: a review. Rem. Sens. 3, 878–928.
Kusmana, C., Hidayat, T., Tiryana, T., Rusdiana, O., Istomo, 2018. Allometric models for
above and belowground biomass of Sonneratia spp. Global Ecology and
Conservation 15, e00417.
Lagomasino, D., Fatoyinbo, T., Lee, S., Feliciano, E., Trettin, C., Shapiro, A., Mangora, M.
M., 2019. Measuring mangrove carbon loss and gain in deltas. Environ. Res. Lett. 14,
025002.
Lechner, A.M., Foody, G.M., Boyd, D.S., 2020. Application in Remote Sensing to forest
ecology and management. One Earth 2 (5), 405–412.
Li, Z., Zan, Q., Yang, Q., Zhu, D., Chen, Y., Yu, S., 2019. Remote estimation of mangrove
aboveground carbon stock at the species level using a low-cost unmanned aerial
vehicle system. Rem. Sens. 11, 1018.
Liao, J., Zhen, J., Zhang, L., Metternicht, G., 2019. Understanding dynamics of mangrove
forest on protected areas of Hainan Island, China: 30 Years of evidence from remote
sensing. Sustainability 11, 5356.
Liao, B.W., Zheng, D.Z., Zheng, S.F., 1990. Studies on the biomass of Sonneratia
caseolaris stand. For. Res. 3, 47–54.
Locatelli, T., Binet, T., Kairo, J.G., King, L., Madden, S., Patenaude, G., Upton, C.,
Huxham, M., 2014. Turning the tide: how blue carbon and payments for ecosystem
services (PES) might help save mangrove forests. Ambio 43, 981–995.
Lovelock, C.E., Cahoon, D.R., Friess, D.A., Guntenspergen, G.R., Krauss, K.W., Reef, R.,
Rogers, K., Saunders, M.L., Sidik, F., Swales, A., Saintilan, N., Thuyen, L.X., Triet, T.,
2015. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature
15538, 559-U217.
Lucas, R., Lule, A.V., Rodríguez, M.T., Kamal, M., Thomas, N., Asbridge, E., Kuenzer, C.,
2017. Spatial ecology of mangrove forests: a remote sensing perspective. In: Rivera-
Monroy, V.H., Lee, S.Y., Kristensen, E., Twilley, R.R. (Eds.), Mangrove Ecosystems: A
Global Biogeographic Perspective: Structure, Function, and Services. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 87–112.
Lucchese, M., Pianta, M., 2020. The coming coronavirus Crisis: what can We learn?
Intereconomics 55, 98–104.
Lymburner, L., Bunting, P., Lucas, R., Scarth, P., Alam, I., Phillips, C., Ticehurst, C.,
Held, A., 2019. Mapping the multi-decadal mangrove dynamics of the Australian
coastline. Rem. Sens. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.004.
Maeda, Y., Fukushima, A., Imai, Y., Tanahashi, Y., Nakama, E., Ohta, S., Kawazoe, K.,
Akune, N., 2016. Estimating carbon stock changes of mangrove forests using satellite
imagery and airborne LiDAR data. Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.
41, 705–709.
Macreadie, P.I., Anton, A., Raven, J.A., Beaumont, N., Connolly, R.M., Friess, D.A.,
Lovelock, C.E., 2019. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–13.
Mondal, P., Trzaska, S., Sherbini, A., 2018. Landsat-derived estimates of mangrove
extents in the Sierra Leone coastal landscape Complex during 1990–2016. Sensors
18, 12.
Muhsoni, F.F., Sambah, A., Mahmudi, M., Wiadnya, D., 2018. Comparison of different
vegetation indices for assessing mangrove density using sentinel-2 imagery.
International Journal of Geomate 14, 42–51.
Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Kauffman, J.B., Warren, M.W., Sasmito, S.D.,
Donato, D.C., Manuri, S., Krisnawati, H., Taberima, S., Kurnianto, S., 2015. The
potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nat.
Clim. Change 5, 1089–1092.
Nagelkerken, I., Sheaves, M., Baker, R., Connolly, R.M., 2015. The seascape nursery: a
novel spatial approach to identify and manage nurseries for coastal marine fauna.
Fish Fish. 16, 362–371.
Navarro, J.A., Young, M., Allan, B., Carnell, P., Macreadie, P., Ierodiaconou, D., 2020.
The application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to estimate aboveground
biomass of mangrove ecosystems. Rem. Sens. Environ. 242, 111747, 2020.
Navarro, J.A., Algeet, N., Fernández-Landa, A., Esteban, J., Rodríguez-Noriega, P.,
Guillén-Climent, M.L., 2019. Integration of UAV, Sentinel-1, and Sentinel-2 data for
mangrove plantation aboveground biomass monitoring in Senegal. Rem. Sens. 11,
77.
Nesha, M.K., Hussin, Y.A., Leeuwen, L.M., Sulistioadi, Y.B., 2020. Modeling and mapping
aboveground biomass of the restored mangroves using ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 in East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 91, 102158.
Ong, J.E., Gong, W.K., Wong, C.H., 2004. Allometry and partitioning of the mangrove,
Rhizophora apiculata. For. Ecol. Manag. 188, 395–408.
O’Sullivan, R., Moore, C., Wolosin, M., Lee, D., 2012. Should REDD+ be included in the
CDM? Analysis of issues and options. Prepared for the CDM policy dialogue. Climate
Focus & Climate Advisers.
Otero, V., Van De Kerchove, R., Satyanarayana, B., Martinez-Espinosa, C., Bin Fisol, M.
A., Bin Ibrahim, M.R., Sulong, I., Mohd-Lokman, H., Lucas, R., Dandouh-Guebas, F.,
2018. Managing mangrove forests from the sky: forest inventory using field data and
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery in the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve,
peninsular Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Managment 411, 35–45.
19
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612
Owers, C.J., Rogers, K., Woodroffe, C.D., 2018. Spatial variation of above-ground carbon
storage in temperate coastal wetlands. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 210, 55–67.
Patil, V., Singh, A., Naik, N., Unnikrishnan, S., 2015. Estimation of Mangrove Carbon
Stock by Applying Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Center for Environmental
Studies, National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India.
Pendleton, L., Donato, D.C., Murray, B.C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W.A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C.,
Fourqurean, J.W., Kauffman, J.B., Marbà, N., Megonigal, P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D.,
Gordon, D., Baldera, A., 2012. Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from
conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PloS One 7 (9), e43542.
Peng, C.J., Qian, J.W., Guo, X.D., Zhao, H.W., Hu, N.X., Yang, Q., Chen, C.P., Chen, L.Z.,
2016. Vegetation carbon stocks and net primary productivity of the mangrove forests
in Shenzhen, China. J. Appl. Ecol. 27, 2059–2065.
Pereira, F.R., Kampel, M., Soares, M.L.G., Estrada, C.D., Bentz, C., Vincent, G., 2018.
Reducing uncertainty in mapping of mangrove aboveground biomass using airborne
discrete return LiDAR data. Rem. Sens. 10 (4), 637.
Peregon, A., Yamagata, Y., 2013. The use of ALOS PALSAR backscatter to estimate
aboveground forest biomass: a case study in western siberia. Rem. Sens. Environ.
137, 139–146.
Pham, T.D., Yoshino, K., Bui, D.T., 2016. Biomass estimation of Sonneratia caseolaris (l.)
Engler at a coastal area of Hai Phong city (Vietnam) using ALOS-2 PALSAR imagery
and GIS-based multi-layer perceptron neural networks. Rem. Sens. 54, 329–353.
Pham, T.D., Yoshino, K., 2017. Aboveground biomass estimation of mangrove species
using ALOS-2 PALSAR imagery in hai phong city, vietnam. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 11,
026010.
Pham, L.T.H., Brabyn, L., 2017. Monitoring mangrove biomass change in Vietnam using
SPOT images and an object-based approach combined with machine learning
algorithms. ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 128, 86–97.
Pham, T.D., Yoshino, K., Le, N., Bui, D., 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. Int. J.
Rem. Sens.
Pham, T.D., Xia, J., Ha, N.T., Bui, D.T., Le, N.N., Tekeuchi, W., 2019a. A review of
remote sensing approaches for monitoring blue carbon ecosystems: mangroves.
Seagrasses and Salt Marshes during 2010–2018. Sensors 19, 1933.
Pham, T.D., Yokoya, N., Bui, D.T., Yoshino, K., Friess, D.A., 2019b. Remote sensing
approaches for monitoring mangrove species, structure, and biomass: opportunities
and challenges. Rem. Sens. 11, 230.
Pham, T.D., 2020. Estimating mangrove aboveground biomass using extreme gradient
boosting decision trees algorithm with fused sentinel-2 and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 data
in can gio Biosphere reserve, vietnam. Rem. Sens. 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs12050777.
Poungparn, S., Komiyama, A., Jintana, V., Piriyayaota, S., Sangtiean, T.,
Tanapermpool, P., Patanaponpaiboon, P., Kato, S., 2002. A quantitative analysis on
the root system of A mangrove, Xylocarpus granatum Koenig. Tropics 12, 35–42.
Putz, F.E., Chan, H.T., 1986. Tree growth, dynamics, and productivity in a mature
mangrove forest in Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manag. 17, 211–230.
Qiu, P., Wang, D., Zou, X., Yang, X., Xie, G., Xu, S., Zhong, Z., 2019. Finer resolution
estimation and mapping of mangrove biomass using UAV-LiDAR and WorldView-2
data. Forests 10, 871. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100871.
Rahman, M., Islam Khan, M.d., Fazlul Hoque, A.K., Ahmed, I., 2014. Carbon stock in the
Sundarbans mangrove forest: spatial variations in vegetation types and salinity
zones. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 23, 269–283.
Rhyma Purnamasayangsukasih, P., Norizah, K., Ismail, Adnan A.M., Shamsudin, I., 2016.
A review of uses of satellite imagery in monitoring mangrove forests. IOP Conf. Ser.
Earth Environ. Sci. 37, 012034.
Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proceeding of the National Academyf Sciences of USA
113, 344–349.
Saenger, P., Snedaker, S.C., 1993. Pantropical trends in mangrove aboveground biomass
and annual litterfall. Oecologia 96 (3), 293e299.
Sani, D.A., Hashim, M., Shawkat Hossain, M., 2019. Recent advancement on estimation
of blue carbon biomass using satellite-based approach. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 40 (20),
7679–7715.
Sasmito, S.D., Taillardat, P., Clendenning, J.N., Cameron, C., Friess, D.A., Murdiyarso, D.,
Hutley, L.B., 2019. Effect of land-use and land-cover change on mangrove blue
carbon: a systematic review. Global Change Biol. 25 (12), 4291–4302. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.14774.
Serrano, S., Lovelock, C.E., Atwood, T.B., Macreadie, P.I., Canto, R., et al., 2019.
Australian vegetated coastal ecosystems as global hotspots for climate change
mitigation. Nat. Commun. 10, 4313. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12176-8.
Shapiro, A., Trettin, C., Küchly, H., Alavinapanah, S., Bandeira, S., 2015. The mangroves
of the Zambezi delta: increase in extent observed via satellite from 1994 to 2013.
Rem. Sens. 7, 16504–16518.
Siikamäki, J., Sanchirico, J.N., Jardine, S.L., 2012. Global economic potential for
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from mangrove loss. Proceeding of the National
Academyf Sciences of USA 109, 14369–14374.
Simard, M., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., Mancera-pineda, J.E., Castañeda-Moya, E., Twilley, R.
R., 2008. A systematic method for 3D mapping of mangrove forests based on Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission elevation data, ICEsat/GLAS waveforms and field data:
application to Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia. Rem. Sens. Environ. 112,
2131–2144.
Sinha, S., Jeganathan, C., Sharma, L.K., Nathawat, M.S., 2015. A review of radar remote
sensing for biomass estimation. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12, 1779–1792.
Sitoe, A.A., Mandlate, L.J.C., Guedes, B.S., 2014. Biomass and carbon stocks of sofala Bay
mangrove forests. Forests 5, 1967–1981.
R. Farzanmanesh et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 24 (2021) 100612

Smith, T.J., Whelan, K.R.T., 2006. Development of allometric relations for three above and below ground carbon stock mapping on medium resolution satellite
mangrove species in south Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem image. Remote Sensing for agriculture, ecosystems, and Hydrology XIII. Proc. SPIE, 8174
restoration. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 14, 409–419. 81741B-1, Czech Republic.
Stringer, C.E., Trettin, C.C., Zarnoch, S.J., Tang, W., 2015. Carbon stocks of mangroves Winarso, G., Vetrita, Y., Purwanto, A.D., Anggraini, N., Darmawan, S., Yuwono, D.M.,
within the Zambezi river delta, Mozambique. For. Ecol. Manag. 354, 139–148. 2015. Mangrove aboveground biomass estimation using combination of Landsat 8
Suyadi, J.G., Lundquist, C.J., Schwendenmann, L., 2018. Sources of uncertainty in and ALOS PALSAR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing and Earth Sciences
mapping temperate mangroves and their Minimization using innovative methods. 12 (2), 85–96.
Int. J. Rem. Sens. 39 (1), 17–36. Zan, Q.J., Wang, Y.J., Liao, B.W., 2001. Biomass and net productivity of Sonneratia
Tam, N.F.Y., Wong, Y.S., Lan, C.Y., Chen, G.Z., 1995. Community structure and standing apetala, S. caseolaris mangrove manmade forest. J. Wuhan Bot. Res. 19, 391–396.
crop biomass of a mangrove forest in Futian Nature Reserve, Shenzhen, China. Zhang, K.Q., Thapa, B., Ross, M., Gann, D., 2016. Remote sensing of seasonal changes
Hydrobiologia 295, 193. and disturbances in mangrove forest: a case study from South Florida. Ecosphere 7,
Tang, W., Feng, W., Jia, M., Shi, J., Zuo, H., Trettin, C.C., 2016. The assessment of 23.
mangrove biomass and carbon in West Africa: a spatially explicit analytical Zhu, Y., Liu, K., Liu, L., Wang, S., Liu, H., 2015. Retrieval of mangrove aboveground
framework. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 24 (2), 153–171. biomass at the individual species level with Worldview-2 images. Rem. Sens. 7,
Tang, W., Zheng, M., Zhao, X., Shi, J., Yang, J., Trettin, C.C., 2018. Big geospatial data 12192–12214.
Analytics for global mangrove biomass and carbon estimation. Sustainability 104
(72), 1–17.
Thapa, R.B., Watanabe, M., Motohka, T., Shimada, M., 2015. Potential of high-resolution Glossary
ALOS–PALSAR mosaic texture for aboveground forest carbon tracking in tropical
region. Rem. Sens. Environ. 160, 122–133.
ADS: Airbus Defense and Space
Thomas, N., Bunting, P., Lucas, R., Hardy, A., Rosenqvist, A., Fatoyinbo, T., 2018.
ANN: Artificial Neural Networks
Mapping mangrove extent and change: a globally applicable approach. Rem. Sens.
BagSGB: Bagging Stochastic Gradient Boosting
10, 1466.
CSA: Canadian Space Agency
Thomas, S., 2016. Between Tun Mustapha and the deep blue sea: the political ecology of
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height
blue carbon in Sabah. Environ. Sci. Pol. 55, 20–35.
DT: Decision Tree
Thomas, S., 2014. Blue carbon: knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches.
DVI: Difference Vegetation Index
Ecol. Econ. 107, 22–38.
ESA: European Space Agency
Thomas, S., Dargusch, P., Harrison, S., Herbohn, J., 2010. Why are there so few
EVI: Enhanced Vegetation Index
afforestation and reforestation Clean Development Mechanism projects? Land Use
EVI-2: Enhanced Vegetation Index-2
Pol. 27, 880–887.
EXG: Excess Green Index
Toth, C., Jóźków, G., 2016. Remote sensing platforms and sensors: a survey. ISPRS J.
ExGR: Excess Green Minus Excess Red Index
Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 115, 22–36.
FSEB: Flexible Statistical Expert Based
UNFCCC, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. unfccc.int,
GEMI: Global Environmental Monitoring Index
Germany.
GLI: Green Leaf Index
Urbazaev, M., Thiel, C., Cremer, F., Dubayah, R., Migliavacca, M., Reichstein, M.,
GNDVI: Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
Schmullius, C., 2018. Estimation of forest aboveground biomass and uncertainties by
GP: Gaussian Process
integration of field measurements, airborne LiDAR, and SAR and optical satellite
GVI: Green-Vegetation Index
data in Mexico. Carbon Bal. Manag. 13, 5.
HRG: High Resolution Geometrical
Vafaei, S., Soosani, J., Adeli, K., Fadaei, H., Naghavi, H., Pham, T.D., Tien Bui, D., 2018.
HRVIR: High Resolution Visible And Infrared
Improving accuracyestimation of forest aboveground biomass based on
IRECI: Inverted Red-Edge Chlorophyll Index
incorporation of ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-2A imagery and Machine Learning:
ISRO: Indian Space Research Organization
a case study of the hyrcanian forest area (Iran). Rem. Sens. 10, 172.
ISOCLUST: Unsupervised Iterative Self-Organizing Classification Algorithm
Vanderklift, M.A., Marcos-Martinez, R., Butler, J.R., Coleman, M., Lawrence, A.,
JAXA: Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency
Prislan, H., Steven, A.D., Thomas, S., 2019. Constraints and opportunities for
LSU: Linear Spectral Unmixing
market-based finance for the restoration and protection of blue carbon ecosystems.
LUE: Light Use Efficiency
Mar. Pol. 107, 103429.
MCARI: Modified Chlorophyll Absorption In Reflectance Index
Vinh, T.V., Marchand, C., Linha, T.V., Vinhc, D., Allenbach, M., 2019. Allometric models
MLC: Maximum Livelihood Classifier
to estimate aboveground biomass and carbon stocks in Rhizophora apiculata tropical
MLPNN: Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks
managed mangrove forests (Southern Vietnam). For. Ecol. Manag. 434, 131–14.
MSAVI: Modified Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index
Vu, T.D., Takeuchi, W., Van, N.A., 2014. Carbon stock calculating and forest change
NDI45: Normalized Difference Index 45
assessment toward REDD+ activities for the mangrove forest in vietnam.
NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
Transcactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Science, Aerospace
NDWI: Normalized Difference Water Index
Technology Japan 12, 23–31.
NRCS: Normalized Radar Cross Section
Wang, D., Wan, B., Liu, J., Su, Y., Guo, Q., Qui, P., Wu, X., 2020. Estimating aboveground
OSAVI: Optimized Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index
biomass of the mangrove forests on northeast Hainan Island in China using an
PAR: Photo-Synthetically Active Radiation
upscaling method from field plots, UAV-LiDAR data and Sentinel-2 imagery. Int. J.
PCA: Principal Component Analysis
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 85, 101986.
PLS: Partial Least Squares
Wang, G., Guan, D., Peart, M.R., Chen, Y., Peng, Y., 2013. Ecosystem carbon stocks of
PSSRa: Simple Ratio 800/680 Pigment Specific Simple Ratio (Cholophyll a)
mangrove forest in Yingluo Bay, Guangdong province of south China. For. Ecol.
REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Manag. 310, 539–546.
RF: Random Forests
Wannasiri, W., Nagai, M., Honda, K., Santitamnont, P., Miphokasap, P., 2013. Extraction
RVI: Ratio Vegetation Index
of mangrove biophysical parameters using airborne LiDAR. Rem. Sens. 5,
SAVI: Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index
1787–1808.
SR: Simple Ratio
Wells, S., Ravilious, C., 2006. In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other
SRre: Red-Edge Simple Ratio
Ecosystem Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs. No. 24). UNEP/Earthprint.
SVM: Support Vector Machines
Wicaksono, P., 2017. Mangrove aboveground carbon stock mapping of multi-resolution
SVR: Support Vector Regression
passive remote-sensing systems. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 38 (6), 1551–1578.
TCARI: Transformed Chlorophyll Absorption Ratio Index
Wicaksono, P., Danoedoro, P., Hartono, Nehren, U., 2016. Mangrove biomass carbon
TNDVI: Transformed Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
stock mapping of the Karimunjawa Islands using multispectral remote sensing. Int. J.
TRRI: Total Of Grey-Value Level Index
Rem. Sens. 37 (1), 26–52.
VARI: Visible Atmospherically Resistant Index
Wicaksono, P., Danoedoro, P., Hartono, Nehren, U., Ribbe, L., 2011. Preliminary work of
mangrove ecosystem carbon stock mapping in small Island using remote sensing:

20