The inclusion of Amazon mangroves in Brazil's REDD+ program

Areas to the north of the Amazon River mouth including Sucuriju (a), Araguari, and Bailique (b), and to the east including Curuçá (c), Maracanã (d), and Bragança (e). Shrimp farms (n = 3) and the pasture site (n = 1) were sampled in the Curuçá region (c). Color codes indicate hydrogeomorphic classifications (Open coast, Delta, Estuarine) and circle sizes indicate Total Ecosystem Carbon Stock (TECS) classes. Source data are provided as a Source Data file. Map created using ArcGIS® software by Esri Subscription ID 3968399452. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved.

Results

Amazon mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks

The TECS of Amazon mangroves averages 468 ± 67 Mg C ha−1 with a range between 181 and 903 Mg C ha−1 (Supplementary Table 2). The aboveground mangrove biomass and total soil carbon ranges from 29 to 335 and 90 to 541 Mg C ha−1, respectively. The TECS in estuarine and delta mangroves are similar (486 ± 21 and 478 ± 212 Mg C ha−1, respectively). Mangroves occurring on open-coast hydrogeomorphic settings have 21% less carbon when compared to those in estuarine and delta settings (377 ± 160 Mg C ha−1, PERMANOVA F = 30.72, p = 0.01; Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 3). Total soil carbon is higher in estuarine mangroves (329.3 ± 19 Mg C ha−1) when compared to delta and open coast settings (259 ± 124 and 207 ± 111 Mg C ha−1, respectively; PERMANOVA F = 6.93, p = 0.02; Supplementary Fig. 1). Organic carbon (SOC) of the surface 1-meter soils only accounts for 19-26% of the total soil C (300 cm) in Amazon mangroves. SOC density of the surface-1m soils differs across geomorphic settings, being higher on estuarine and delta mangroves (15.9 ± 1 g.cm−3 and 16.8 ± 3.9 g.cm−3, respectively) when compared to open coast settings (12.1 ± 3.4 g.cm−3; PERMANOVA, F = 13.7; p = 0.01; Fig. 3). The total aboveground carbon stocks are similar across the studied hydrogeomorphic settings and ranges from 129 ± 52 Mg C ha−1 on open coast forests to 133 ± 12 Mg C ha−1 and 181 ± 77 Mg C ha−1 on estuarine and delta mangroves, respectively. Downed wood is higher in estuarine settings when compared to delta and open coast mangroves (PERMANOVA F = 4.21, p = 0.03).

Bars represent studied hydrogeomorphic settings (Delta, delta open coast, and estuarine), and with land-use change (converted to shrimp ponds and pastures) and paired mangroves near converted areas. Error bars are 1 standard deviation. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

a Bulk density; b C (carbon) content and c SOC (Soil organic carbon) density per soil depth range. Boxplots bars represent the lower quartile, median and upper quartile, whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values, and dots indicate data points above or below 1.5× the quartiles. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

We additionally tested for the effects of climate (precipitation), hydrology (soil salinity), latitude, and tree basal area on the mangrove TECS in the Amazon. Among the studied sites, there are limited east-west gradients in precipitation (2000-2300 mm.yr−1), tidal range (4-6 m), and latitude; therefore these variables are not significant to explain the regional variability in TECS. Although we find a significant relationship between tree basal area and mangrove TECS, the model explained about 30% of the variability in carbon stocks on the Amazon coast (F = 3.77, Adj R2 = 0.3071; Supplementary Table 4). We used the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to select the best model explaining mangrove TECS on the Amazon coast, which improved the variation in TECS to 36% by using only tree basal area and soil salinity (F = 8.158, Adj R2 = 0.364; Supplementary Table 5; Supplementary Fig. 2).

The organic matter isotopic signatures in mangrove soils are markedly distinct along the Amazon coast, indicating variable contribution from riverine or marine ecosystems (Supplementary Fig. 3; Supplementary Table 6). Mangrove soils and freshwater riverine tidal forests on the Amazon Delta receive a higher contribution of allochthonous freshwater sources than estuarine mangroves to the east of the Amazon River mouth which have a mixed contribution of freshwater and mangrove (autochthonous) plant sources. Marine organic sources (e.g., phytoplankton) have a minor contribution to the organic matter in soils of open coast mangroves but are typically present in shrimp ponds, indicating a higher contribution of allochthonous organic sources with land use change.

LULCC effects in Amazon mangroves

Pristine (paired) estuarine mangroves near shrimp farms and pastures in the Amazon have TECS of 457 ± 82 Mg C ha−1, whereas the converted sites (N = 4) average 123 ± 79 Mg C ha−1 (PERMANOVA F = 19.59, p = 0.01; Supplementary Table 7). We observe a complete loss of the aboveground stocks, and 71% to 83% decrease in TECS when mangroves are converted to shrimp ponds and pastures, respectively (Table 1). The TECS loss of mangrove-converted areas (shrimp ponds and pastures) in the Amazon average 351 Mg C ha−1. The SOC density on the top-1m decreases from 20.1 ± 3.5 g.cm−3 in estuarine mangroves to 5.5 ± 1.2 g.cm−3 in converted shrimp ponds and pastures (PERMANOVA F = 21.96, p = 0.04; Supplementary Fig. 4). Soils in converted sites have also higher average bulk density (1.7 ± 0.22 g.cm−3) when compared to paired (pristine) mangrove forests (0.8 ± 0.23 g.cm−3; PERMANOVA F = 19.29, p = 0.02). The conversion of mangroves in the Amazon has a mean potential greenhouse gas emissions of 1228 ± 146 Mg CO2e ha−1. The emissions from mangroves in the Legal Amazon is 3-20-fold higher than land use emissions in Brazilian upland biomes, including the Amazon rainforest (331 Mg CO2e ha−1), the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes (55-131 Mg CO2e ha−1; Table 2).

Amazon mangrove reference emissions

We estimate from satellite land cover mapping that the Legal Amazon has 795,637 ha of mangrove forests. The mean annual mangrove deforestation in the Legal Amazon between 2016 and 2021 was 751 ± 248 ha (FREL; Supplementary Table 8). The rate of mangrove deforestation in the Amazon are limited (<0.1% of the total mangrove area), but over 94% of the annual deforested area is due to conversion to pastures or grasslands, suggesting that protection measures are necessary to avoid emissions through LULCC in the future. Based on the 2016-2021 mangrove FREL, we estimate annual emissions of 0.9 Tg CO2e ha−1 from the conversion of mangroves to pastures and grasslands in the Amazon (Table 2). The Brazilian national FREL for its six upland biomes5 (i.e., Amazon, Cerrado, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, and Pantanal) is set at 461 Tg CO2e ha−1, based on a mean annual deforestation of 2 million ha yr−1 (Table 2). The annual mangrove LULCC emissions correspond to 0.2% of Brazil's FREL from an area of less than 0.05% of the annual loss from upland biomes. Mangrove deforestation in the Amazon has decreased recently (2016-2021), which is an opposite trend of an increasing deforestation from Brazilian upland biomes5. Considering a best-case scenario, actions to avoid mangrove loss from land-use change in the Legal Amazon could potentially avoid emissions of 9.2 ± 0.11 Mt CO2e over a period of 10 years, which can be developed in projects used under the REDD+ framework, suggesting they are of great value to mitigate emissions from the forestry sector and finance biodiversity conservation.

Discussion

Based on a comprehensive forest stock assessment, we find that Amazon mangroves hold total ecosystem carbon stocks of 468 Mg C ha−1 (range of 180-902 Mg C ha−1), which are 40% lower than the global average of 856 Mg C ha−1 but within the range of mangrove forests globally (79-2208 Mg C ha−1)7. Our dataset supports a strong role of soil depth as a key component of mangrove TECS, explaining the lower stocks of fringe/open coast mangroves which had shallower soil depths (<100 cm). Our data does not support differences in mangrove TECS among hydro-geomorphological settings including estuaries, delta and open cost mangroves in the Amazon coast28,29. The mean TECS of Amazon mangroves cannot be attributed to the proximity of sediment sources such as the Amazon River mouth, even though soil salinity and tree basal area partially correlated to the variability of mangrove TECS in the Amazon coast. The high regional variability in mangrove TECS within estuaries and other hydro-geomorphological settings suggest localized effects on carbon sequestration, which could result from the interplay of soil mineralogy, sea level rise, and coastal dynamics processes29,30,31,32. Organic carbon accumulation rates in estuarine mangroves to the east of the Amazon Delta are markedly lower (30-59 g m−2 yr−1 33) when compared to other Brazilian mangroves17,18 and to the global average of 138 g m−2 yr−1 34. Carbon accumulation rates and the relative contribution of allochthonous sources of carbon are of additional interest in areas with large intact forests such as the Brazilian Amazon coast as preserved mangroves may contribute to climate mitigation by removing carbon from the atmosphere9,17. Further assessment of C accumulation rates in mangroves of the Amazon Delta will be key to understand the potential effects of high riverine (allochthonous) mineral input on carbon stabilization at those sites as vertical accretion rates are positively correlated with sediment supply30,33. It is also possible that mechanisms that accelerate organic matter decomposition or mechanisms behind SOC interactions with soil minerals within Amazon soils may be a key factor to soil C stocks in the region32,35,36.

Our dataset offers a critical step forward to refinement of global models of blue carbon, and highlight the unparallel value of field assessments to support carbon crediting offsets. For example, we found that SOC density was generally lower (range 8.6-22.9 mg C cm−3; Table 3) than model estimates for mangrove forests along the Amazon coast22,28. Our dataset additionally indicates lower (<50%) soil organic carbon stocks in Amazon mangroves when compared to current global models for the Brazilian territory. As a result, our study supports an important refinement of global models using mangrove TECS losses from land use change in the Amazon region. The IPCC Tier 2 emission factors of conversion of mangroves to pastures and shrimp farms in the Legal Amazon were 71-78% of TECS, which is higher than previous emissions for the Brazilian territory (Table 3)8,25. Emissions arising from mangrove conversion are the highest of any terrestrial Brazilian biome and over 3-fold those from deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, which reveals the critical importance of protecting mangrove forests from deforestation.

Limited sampling within countries have commonly resulted in the omission of mangroves and other coastal wetlands for international INDC's and regional estimates (IPCC Tier 2) of GHG emissions arising from land use. In countries that hold extensive wetlands and potentially high C stocks, mangroves can have a far higher implication to national climate change frameworks10,21,37. In Indonesia, while mangroves correspond to 2% of the country's forest area, they account for 10% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation21. The conversion of mangroves to pastures in the Legal Amazon accounted for over 93% of the total area loss (Supplementary Data). Our dataset reveals an important pressure of agricultural land-use change in Amazon mangroves, which is also a major driver of loss to Amazon upland forests14. Based on the historical deforestation of mangroves in the Amazon (0.12% annually) and total GHG emissions from LULCC, we could determine a regional Forest Reference Levels that could be submitted under the Paris Agreement. Assuming future Business as Usual conversion rates, the potential annual avoided emissions if mangrove conversion to pastures in the Legal Amazon were mitigated under a REDD+ program are 0.9 ± 0.3 Tg CO2e yr−1. This climate mitigation potential is nearly 50% higher than previously estimated by global models38, and could potentially generate a significant market value to support an enhanced governance and protection of mangroves in the Legal Amazon. The low deforestation rates and high market value through conservation of mangroves in the Amazon are in contrast to all upland Brazilian biomes which are experiencing an increased or a continued rate of deforestation and GHG emissions from land use change during the last decade2. Conserving mangroves in the Legal Amazon can offer additional natural net sinks and mitigation of GHG emissions through forest productivity, carbon burial, and co-benefits to coastal communities such as fisheries, coastal protections, wildlife habitat, and increasing local climate resilience39.

Although some uncertainties exist with our upscaled results due to our study representing a limited number of land-use sites from estuarine mangroves, our estimates of TECS loss in the Amazon coast should be considered conservative. This is because the emission factor ratios from land use on the Amazon coast (73%) are within the range of global assessments (82%)25, which for many areas adopted Tier 1 data12 (IPCC standards) to estimate emissions given the difficulty in obtaining site-specific information (Table 3). In addition, our results are also within the range of emissions from land use in upland dry and evergreen forests, which results in 29-80% of carbon losses after pasture establishment40. Increasing field assessments in mangrove-converted areas to pastures and agricultural lands would be an important step to incorporate natural and human effects on these estimates. The use of forest carbon offsets globally have received some criticism concerning double-accounting of credits between voluntary carbon markets and INDC's, and with many doubts concerning recent REDD+ project's effectiveness41. Problems with double-accounting and better practices to monitor REDD+ project's success will need to be addressed by the UNFCCC and in international carbon markets.

Similar to mangroves throughout the world, protecting Amazon mangroves would be far more efficient in offsetting GHG emissions, in terms of per unit area, when compared to terrestrial forests, savannas, and grasslands of Brazil. For example, the potential annual mangrove mitigation in the Legal Amazon (751 ha yr−1) is equivalent to the annual net carbon accumulation in 82,400 ha of secondary forests42. Mangrove reforestation in Brazil where deforestation and conversion to aquaculture is quite significant could offer additional mitigation benefits24,43. Although the mangrove mitigation scenarios are highly optimistic considering the challenges to control deforestation and difficulties in setting forest reference levels4, they support an IPCC Tier 2 assessment for an extensive mangrove area in the Legal Amazon with detailed regional C stocks and activity data. In this way, Amazon mangroves may offer a similar mitigation potential to other preserved wetlands or in areas such as SE Asia where underpinning restoration programs are being implemented37,43.

Methods

Study sites and field sampling

The Amazon River delta receives the largest global freshwater and sediment discharge of any coastal oceans, which may create wide environmental variability to the flux dynamics and consequently in mangrove TECS and organic sources over time, which has not been assessed to this day. Considering this broad regional variability, we attempted to sampled mangroves across estuarine (or riverine), delta, and delta/open coast hydrogeomorphic settings within the Brazilian Legal Amazon (Supplementary Table 1; Fig. 1). Within each site, ecosystem carbon stocks (aboveground and belowground) were measured following standard methods outlined by Kauffman and Donato44. At each mangrove and shrimp pond or pasture site, six plots were established 20 m apart along a 100 m transect positioned in a perpendicular direction from the mangrove/estuary or coast ecotone. Due to the limited accessibility to private land, we sampled four shrimp ponds and one pasture site within the Legal Amazon. Control undisturbed mangrove plots were sampled next to these sites in order to remove the regional variability in stocks from LULCC emission factors (see below). At each plot, we collected data necessary to calculate total carbon stocks derived from standing tree biomass, downed wood (deadwood on the forest floor), and soils to the depth of an indurated horizon composed of marine sands.

Biomass of trees and shrubs

The typical species of mangroves for the Brazilian biogeographic province, including Rhizophora mangle L. (Rhizophoraceae), Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn (Avicenniaceae), Laguncularia racemosa (L.) Gaertn., (Combretaceae) were present at sampled sites. However, a unique feature of mangroves in the Amazon delta was a mix of freshwater and varzea plants, including Buriti and Acaí palms (Euterpe oleracea) and Cortiça trees (Pterocarpus sp.)27. In each plot we recorded the composition, tree density, and basal area of the mangroves and other plants. Tree diameter was obtained at 1.3 m height (diameter at breast height, dbh) of all trees within each plot of each transect within an area of 154 m2 (7 m radius) for trees over 5 cm dbh, and a 2m-radius nested plot for trees with a dbh of less than 5 cm. The diameter R. mangle was measured at 30 cm above the main branch on the highest prop root.

The biomass of trees was determined using allometric equations based on preliminary work developed for mangrove species encountered in this study. The equations utilized were species-specific, from similar environmental conditions, and included the range in tree diameters measured in our plots. The allometric equations used represent a range of mangrove species and sizes found in this study45,46. We also used allometric equations to derive tree mass for the varzea trees measured in the Amazon delta47,48.

Mangrove belowground root biomass was calculated based on equations developed by Komiyama, et al.49. The tree carbon content (C) was estimated by multiplying 0.48 and 0.39 for aboveground and belowground biomass, respectively44. We included the standing dead trees into the aboveground biomass calculations, where their dbh was measured and given one of three decay classes: 1 (dead trees without leaves), 2 (dead trees without secondary branches), and 3 (dead trees without primary or secondary branches). Biomass of class I dead trees was estimated to be 97.5% of a live tree, class II—80% of a live tree, and class III—50% of a live tree44.

Downed wood

The mass of dead and downed wood was calculated by the planar intersect technique44. Four 14-m transects were sampled starting at the center of each plot in a direction that was offset 45° from the azimuth of the main transect. The other three transects followed a 90° clockwise from the previous transect, and in each transect, the diameter of any downed wood intersecting the transect was measured. Downed wood equal o higher than 2.5 cm but with less than 7.5 cm in diameter at the point of intersection were measured along the last five meters of the transect. Downed wood ≥7.5 cm in diameter at the point of intersection were measured from the second meter to the end of the transect. Downed wood was classified as sound or rotten, where the latter was used for wood that were visually decomposed and fragile when impacted. The wood mass was estimated based on the specific gravity of mangrove downed wood50; and converted to C using a factor of 0.5044.

Soil carbon

The soil carbon was sampled at the center of each plot from a fixed-volume soil sample from a peat auger consisting of an open-faced cylindrical chamber with a 6.4 cm radius. Soils were also used to determine soil bulk density. The core was divided into depth intervals of 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-50 cm, 50-100 cm, and >100 cm (if parent materials or an indurated horizon were not encountered before 100 cm depth). We determined the maximum soil depth in all plots using a graduated aluminum probe. The soil carbon pools were calculated to 3 meters when max soil depth was over this limit. All samples collected in the field were dried at 60 °C to a constant mass and then weighed to determine bulk density. Laboratory analysis was conducted at the Southern Cross University Biogeochemistry Lab, Australia. Soil concentration was determined using a Thermo Flash EA 1112 series C-N Soil Analyzer. A total of 914 soil samples were collected in this study and analyzed for total carbon. Soil salinity (range 0 to 100) and pH were measured from a handheld refractometer and pH meter (ATC—QC-PH-02), respectively. We strived to measure the borehole salinity and to avoid mixing with surface water that was usually lower in salinity due to rainfall. We measured salinity and pH sampled at each soil sampling plot (n = 6 in each sampled stand).

Stable isotopes

Soil samples were dried (0.5 mg) and acidified (1% HCl) in tin or silver boats to remove inorganic carbon. Samples were combusted in a Eurovector elemental analyzer and resulting N2 and CO2 gases were separated by gas chromatography and admitted into an IRMS mass spectrometer for determination of 15N/14N and 13C/12C ratios (reproducibility: 70.5% for d15N and 70.2% for d13C). C-isotopic ratios were measured against a Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) standard for δ13C and atmospheric nitrogen for δ15N. Results are expressed as delta (δ) notation, where δX (‰) = [(Rsample/Rstandard) − 1] × 103, where R = 15N/14N or R = 13C/12C.

Amazon mangrove LULCC emission rates

Greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation were estimated based on the difference from the total ecosystem carbon stocks (aboveground, belowground, deadwood, and soils) of shrimp farms and pastures from paired mangroves in the Amazon (IPCC Tier 2). The emission factor (EF) from mangroves accounts for the entire soil profile or a default depth of 3 m when soils exceeded this depth. We calculated the propagated uncertainty in the estimation of total ecosystem carbon stocks considering the confidence interval of each stock estimate (AGB, BGB, Downed wood, and Soil C) following the GOFC-GOLD methods51. Annual emissions were obtained by the product of the mean annual deforested area by the average area-based emission factors (EF) from conversion of mangroves to pastures in the Amazon. The ecosystem losses are reported as potential CO2 emissions, or CO2 equivalents (CO2e) obtained by multiplying C values by 3.67, the molecular ratio of CO2 to C. While reported as the CO2e, these estimates account only for changes in ecosystem C in situ.

Amazon mangrove mitigation potential

The inclusion of Amazon mangroves in Brazil's REDD+ carbon markets require activity data on historical mangrove deforestation and emission factors from land use impacts. Activity data was obtained from the MapBiomas annual Land Use and Land Cover Mapping project52. This project provides annual estimates of deforestation and land use and associated classifications (e.g., pastures, grasslands), which were used to derive mean mangrove loss rates in the Amazon biome. We considered all losses of mangroves to pastures, grasslands, salt flats, and savannas as human-derived, as the removal of mangroves is typically the dominant driver of deforestation23. Over 93% of the mangrove deforestation in the Legal Amazon resulted in pastures establishment. Although the Paris Agreement sets the year of 2013 as a baseline to assess future emissions53, we based the mangrove deforestation reference level in the Amazon as the most recent average annual deforestation between 2016 and 2021.

In 2023, Brazil submitted its National Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL), for the biomes of Amazon, Cerrado, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, and Pantanal5. These FRELs were used to determine the emission targets for the forestry sector and intended to be used in the REDD+ framework for payment based on mitigation of deforestation to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The carbon pools in Brazil's FREL only includes the aboveground and belowground biomass and carbon in litter and deadwood. As we attempted to compare the value of mangroves to that submission, we considered the carbon stocks reported to the UNFCCC. Carbon stocks, activity data (deforestation rates), and associated emissions from Brazil's upland biomes were obtained from the Government report submitted to the UNFCC5.

Statistical analysis

Differences between carbon stocks in mangroves across geomorphic settings and emissions from shrimp ponds and pastures (grouped as "impacted") were tested with a permutation analysis of variance (PERMANOVA54). If the PERMANOVA was significant, a least significant differences test was performed to determine which means were significantly different. Regional and local variability in mangrove carbon stocks (Total soil C, SOC density, downed wood C, TAGC, TBGC, TECS), forest characteristics (tree basal area and density), soil properties (soil salinity and bulk density), and soil δ13C signatures were evaluated by univariate PERMANOVAs (Euclidean distance), testing differences according to hydrogeomorphic settings (estuarine, delta, delta/open coast) and land-use change (pasture, shrimp pond). An α = 0.05 was considered for all the analyses, datasets were log-transformed (log(x + 10) or log(x + 100)) when required to allow multiple comparisons55, and the differences within each group were identified by post hoc pairwise tests.

Multiple linear regressions between climatic (precipitation), hydrological (soil salinity, tidal range), forest structure (tree basal area) and geographic location (latitude, longitude) were fit to assess their degree of influence on mangrove TECS on the Amazon coast. After testing for multicollinearity among variables, we removed longitude and tidal range from the regressions as they both have a strong east-west gradient (Pearson rank correlation > 0.5). Normality tests were run on model's residuals through QQ-plots and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests. After obtaining the multiple linear regression values, we used the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC56), through a stepwise backward model configuration. Graphical and analytical processing were performed in R project environment57, using packages 'stats','vegan'58 and MASS59 for statistics and 'ggplot2' for charts60.

Data availability

Raw data have been deposited in Figshare and accessible at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23634579. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

R code are provided in the Source data with this paper.

References

1. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783-1838 (2019).

   Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

2. Albuquerque, I. et al. SEEG8 Análise das emissões brasileiras de gases de efeito estufa e suas implicações para as metas de clima do Brasil 1970-2019. Preprint at http://seeg.eco.br. (2020).

3. UN-REDD Programme. The UN-REDD Programme Strategy 2011-2015 (United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, Geneva, 2011).

4. West, T. A. P., Borner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24188-24194 (2020).

   Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5. Brazil. Brazil's National Forest Reference Emission Level for Results-based payments for REDD+ under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://redd.unfccc.int. (2023).

6. Donato, D. C. et al. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 4, 293-297 (2011).

   Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

7. Kauffman, J. B. et al. Total ecosystem carbon stocks of mangroves across broad global environmental and physical gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 90, e01405 (2020).

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Kauffman, J. B. et al. The jumbo carbon footprint of a shrimp: carbon losses from mangrove deforestation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 183-188 (2017).

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Jennerjahn, T. C. Relevance and magnitude of "Blue Carbon"storage in mangrove sediments: carbon accumulation rates vs. stocks, sources vs. sinks. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 247, 107027 (2020).

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

10. Murdiyarso, D. et al. The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 1089-1092 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

11. Hamilton, S. E. & Friess, D. A. Global carbon stocks and potential emissions due to mangrove deforestation from 2000 to 2012. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 240-244 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

12. Adame, M. F. et al. Future carbon emissions from global mangrove forest loss. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2856-2866 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

13. Bunting, P. et al. Global mangrove extent change 1996-2020: global mangrove watch version 3.0. Remote Sens. 14, 3657 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

14. Fearnside, P. M. Global warming and tropical land-use change: greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation. Clim. Change 46, 115-158 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

15. Kauffman, J. B. et al. Carbon stocks of mangroves and salt marshes of the Amazon region, Brazil. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180208 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16. Gomes, L. E. O. et al. Ecosystem carbon losses following a climate-induced mangrove mortality in Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 297, 113381 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

17. Hatje, V. et al. Vegetated coastal ecosystems in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean are an unexploited opportunity for climate change mitigation. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 160 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

18. Bernardino, A. F. et al. Land use impacts on benthic bioturbation potential and carbon burial in Brazilian mangrove ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 2366-2376 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

19. Kauffman, J. B., Sanford, R. L., Cummings, D. L., Salcedo, I. H. & Sampaio, E. V. S. B. Biomass and nutrient dynamics associated with slash fires in neotropical dry forests. Ecology 74, 140-151 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

20. De Castro, E. A. & Kauffman, J. B. Ecosystem structure in the Brazilian Cerrado: a vegetation gradient of aboveground biomass, root mass and consumption by fire. J. Trop. Ecol. 14, 263-283 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

21. Arifanti, V. B., Kauffman, J. B., Ilman, S. M., Tosiani, A. & Novita, N. Contributions of mangrove conservation and restoration to climate change mitigation in Indonesia. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 4523-4538 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22. Atwood, T. B. et al. Global patterns in mangrove soil carbon stocks and losses. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 523-528 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

23. Sanderman, J. et al. A global map of mangrove forest soil carbon at 30m spatial resolution. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055002 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

24. Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Norfolk, J. & Payton, F. Carbon stocks of intact mangroves and carbon emissions arising from their conversion in the Dominican Republic. Ecol. Appl. 24, 518-527 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25. Kauffman, J. B. et al. Shrimp ponds lead to massive loss of soil carbon and greenhouse gas emissions in northeastern Brazilian mangroves. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5530-5540 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

26. Sasmito, S. D. et al. Effect of land‐use and land‐cover change on mangrove blue carbon: a systematic review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 4291-4302 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

27. Bernardino, A. F. et al. The novel mangrove environment and composition of the Amazon Delta. Curr. Biol. 32, 3636-3640 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Rovai, A. S. et al. Global controls on carbon storage in mangrove soils. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 534-538 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

29. Sasmito, S. D. et al. Mangrove blue carbon stocks and dynamics are controlled by hydrogeomorphic settings and land-use change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 3028-3039 (2020).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30. Rogers, K. et al. Wetland carbon storage controlled by millennial-scale variation in relative sea-level rise. Nature 567, 91-95 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31. Kirwan, M. L., Megonigal, J. P., Noyce, G. L. & Smith, A. J. Geomorphic and ecological constraints on the coastal carbon sink. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 393-406 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

32. Ferreira, T. O. et al. Litho-climatic characteristics and its control over mangrove soil geochemistry. Sci. Total Environ. 811, 152152 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33. Passos, T. et al. Low carbon accumulation in a macro-tidal mangrove forest on the Amazon coast. Limnol. Oceanogr. 68, 1936-1948 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

34. Breithaupt, J. L. & Steinmuller, H. E. Refining the global estimate of mangrove carbon burial rates using sedimentary and geomorphic settings. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL100177 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

35. Spivak, A. C., Sanderman, J., Bowen, J. L., Canuel, E. A. & Hopkinson, C. S. Global-change controls on soil-carbon accumulation and loss in coastal vegetated ecosystems. Nat. Geosci. 12, 685-692 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

36. Possinger, A. R. et al. Organo-organic and organo-mineral interfaces in soil at the nanometer scale. Nat. Commun. 11, 6103 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

37. Adame, M. F. et al. The undervalued contribution of mangrove protection in Mexico to carbon emission targets. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12445 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

38. Zeng, Y., Friess, D. A., Sarira, T. V., Siman, K. & Koh, L. P. Global potential and limits of mangrove blue carbon for climate change mitigation. Curr. Biol. 31, 1737-1743 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

39. Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

40. Kauffman, J. B., Hughes, R. F. & Heider, C. Carbon pool and biomass dynamics associated with deforestation, land use, and agricultural abandonment in the neotropics. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1211-1222 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

41. Haya, B. K. et al. Quality assessment of REDD+ carbon credit projects. Berkeley Carbon Trading Project. Preprint at https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/centers/cepp/projects/berkeley-carbon - trading-project/REDD+ (2023).

42. Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530, 211-214 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

43. Song, S. et al. Mangrove reforestation provides greater blue carbon benefit than afforestation for mitigating global climate change. Nat. Commun. 14, 756 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44. Kauffman, J. B., & Donato, D. C. Protocols for the Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting of Structure, Biomass and Carbon Stocks in Mangrove Forests. Working Paper 86, p. 50 (CIFOR, 2012).

45. Smith, T. J. & Whelan, K. R. T. Development of allometric relations for three mangrove species in South Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem restoration. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 14, 409 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

46. Fromard, F. et al. Structure, above-ground biomass and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems: new data from French Guiana. Oecologia 115, 39-53 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Chave, J. et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145, 87-99 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

48. Chave, J. et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob. Chang. Biol. 10, 3177-3190 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

49. Komiyama, A., Poungparn, S. & Kato, S. Common allometric equations for estimating the tree weight of mangroves. J. Trop. Ecol. 21, 471-477 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

50. Adame, M. F. et al. Carbon stocks of tropical coastal wetlands within the karstic oligotrophic landscape of the Mexican Caribbean. PLoS ONE 8, e56569 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51. GOFC-GOLD (Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics). A Sourcebook of Methods and Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals Associated with Deforestation, Gains and Losses of Carbon Stocks in Forests Remaining Forests, and Forestation. (GOFC-GOLD Rep. version COP21 Wageningen University, The Netherlands, 2015).

52. Souza, C. M. et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian Biomes with Landsat archive and earth engine. Remote Sens. 12, 2735 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

53. [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (2006).

54. Anderson, M. J. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2017).

55. Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245-253 (2006).

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Akaike, H. A Bayesian analysis of the minimum AIC procedure. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 30, 9-14 (1978).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

57. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2023).

58. Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. (R package version 2.6-4, 2022).

59. Venables, W. N & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, (Springer, New York, ISBN 0-387-95457-0, 2002).

60. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag New Yor, ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, 2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank many students and local villagers for their support in fieldwork, Martin Gamache for help with maps, and the Brazilian Ministry of Environment ICMBio for research permits. This work was supported by the National Geographic Society and Rolex Perpetual Planet Amazon Expedition (PFA-21-PP031) grant to AFB. AFB and TOF are supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) through PQ fellowships. RFC is supported by a Brazilian Ministry of Education PhD fellowship (CAPES N 88887.481406/2020-00).

Author information

Author notes

1. Ana Carolina A. Mazzuco

   Present address: UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE, Flanders Marine Institute, InnovOcean Campus, Oostende, Belgium

Authors and Affiliations

1. Departamento de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514, Goiabeiras, Vitória-ES, 29075-910, Brazil

   Angelo F. Bernardino & Ana Carolina A. Mazzuco

2. Department of Soil Science, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil

   Rodolfo F. Costa & Tiago O. Ferreira

3. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Macapá, AP, Brazil

   Fernanda Souza

4. Wyss Academy for Nature at the University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

   Margaret A. Owuor

5. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

   Margaret A. Owuor

6. Departamento de Ciências do Solo, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil

   Gabriel N. Nobrega

7. National Marine Science Centre, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 2540, Australia

   Christian J. Sanders

8. Department of Fisheires, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

   J. Boone Kauffman

Contributions

AFB, TOF, and JBK contributed to study design, funding acquisition, sampling, analysis, and interpretation of data and wrote the manuscript; ACAM, RFC., FS, MO., GNN, and CJS contributed to sampling, analysis, and interpretation of data. AFB, ACAM, RFC, FS, MO, GNN, CJS, TOF, and JBK have approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo F. Bernardino.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Valerie Hagger and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bernardino, A.F., Mazzuco, A.C.A., Costa, R.F. et al. The inclusion of Amazon mangroves in Brazil's REDD+ program. Nat Commun 15, 1549 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45459-w

Download citation

• Received: 06 July 2023

• Accepted: 23 January 2024

• Published: 04 March 2024

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45459-w