Back

Laser scanning identifies large trees as a major source of uncertainty in mangrove carbon accounting

Jackson, T. D.; Feyen, J.; Lozano-Arias, L.; Caicedo-Garcia, J.-P.; Sierra-Correa, P. C.; Montes-Chaura, C. C.; Sanjur, A. A.; Hoyos-Santillan, J.; Castillo, D.; Castillo, Y.; Wortel, V.; Ouboter, M. P.; Tjong-A-Hung, N. S.; Amiemba, D. L.; Rambharos, C. S.; Paloeng, C. P.; Moe Soe Let, V. A.; Hardin, R.; Porter, F. R.; Kerr, O. O.; Rodriguez Hernandez, D. I.; Digby, M. A.; Jucker, T.; Fischer, F. J.; Calders, K.; Price, C. A.; Mathura, F.; Asmath, H.

2026-06-16 ecology
10.64898/2026.06.12.731900 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMangrove forests are crucial ecosystems which support biodiversity, protect coastlines and store vast amounts of carbon. Mangrove conservation and protection rely on accurate carbon accounting to unlock investment. However, the allometric equations underpinning these carbon estimates remain poorly constrained, particularly for the large trees. MethodsWe used terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) to estimate the biomass of 187 mangrove stems across Suriname, Panama, Colombia and Jamaica, including 84 stems >20 cm DBH. TLS-derived biomass estimates were used to evaluate local, regional and pantropical allometric equations. ResultsMost diameter-based allometric equations underestimated biomass by 8-65%. Equations additionally incorporating tree height performed better, but still underestimated biomass by 12-16% on average. Applying alternative allometries to a representative mangrove inventory from Panama produced biomass estimates ranging from 80 to 200 Mg ha-{superscript 1}, demonstrating that allometric uncertainty alone can generate more than a two-fold difference in estimated carbon stocks. ConclusionsCurrent allometric equations systematically underestimate the biomass of large mangrove trees and are therefore likely to underestimate mangrove carbon stocks. TLS provides a practical, non-destructive approach for expanding biomass datasets and improving allometric equations. Reducing allometric uncertainty should be a priority for strengthening blue carbon accounting and mangrove conservation.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.9%
2
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
3
Journal of Environmental Management
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
4
Forest Ecology and Management
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
5
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
5.0%
6
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.5%
7
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
9
Biotropica
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
10
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.2%
12
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
13
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
14
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Ecosphere
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
16
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
17
Remote Sensing
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
18
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
19
Journal of Ecology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
20
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
21
Landscape Ecology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
22
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
23
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
24
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
25
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
26
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
27
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
28
Conservation Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
29
Conservation Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
30
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%