 So we're gonna talk about mangroves today, very unique and diverse tropical forest type. And we talk about mangroves as an ecosystem. Remember it's very important that it rains from things such as Nipah that you see throughout Indonesia such as here in Papua to very, very small mangroves like you might see in the Dominican Republic where they may only be a meter or so in height, but it's the same species. This is Rhizophora mangle, same species as this right here. Of course, Rhizophora piculata such as we would see in Borneo, very tall forest, moderate sized forest. Which one is the laser? Oh, there it is. Moderate sized forest, very important for avian diversity such as in Honduras and of course, even Sonorati, Avacinia, a variety of over 60 species of mangroves globally. But we see though, widely distributed 123 countries, about 0.5% of the total global coastal area, but maybe because they're so productive, they may be sequestering 10 to 15% of the total carbon sequestered in the ocean. Are amongst the most productive plants in the sea, the net primary productivity is very, very close to say a tropical rainforest. And finally globally they range, their ecosystem carbon stocks are very large amongst the largest in the world, averaging about 1,000 tons or megagrams of carbon per hectare. It's a little bit higher. The average from Daniel's recent paper was 1,056 or so, tons per hectare. I don't know if I got that number exactly right, but it's a lot. Indonesia is the largest. And Indonesia does contain more mangroves in Indonesia alone than any continent on the planet. About 32% of the world's mangroves are here in Indonesia. So this is the place to study mangroves on the world. And they provide for all people, all coastal peoples in particular, critical ecosystem services, storm protection, water quality, fisheries, as well as globally important for carbon stocks. So we have been looking at mangroves then because they're high priority for adaptation and mitigation for at least five reasons. They provide these ecosystem services that are vital to humanity. They have very high carbon stocks amongst the highest of any ecosystem on earth. Sad to say rates of land use, land cover change is amongst the highest on the planet. And then the emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions, when these are disturbed far exceed emissions from the upland forest. And that's sort of the, this is sort of the conclusion slide. And of course, as you know, there are potential for carbon sequestration following restorations amongst the highest on the earth. All of these make them very, very important for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. It's also important to remember is that, while Jim was talking about how climate change is going to affect ecosystems, land use is affecting the biodiversity of these ecosystems to a far greater extent currently than climate change. And again, probably the greatest rates of deforestation in the tropics is occurring in these mangroves anywhere from one to 7% of the blue carbon sinks, seagrass as well as mangrove are being lost annually. And this is due to dam and upstream development and coastal development, such as aquaculture, shrimp ponds, salt ponds, rice and agriculture, roads, coastal development. And even in places like Madagascar, very, very impoverished places of the world, even deforestation for charcoal production. So the questions then we'll ask today then is just what are the emissions arising from the conversion of these mangroves for two common land uses, shrimp ponds, the most widely used for land cover change of mangroves in the world, and also for cattle pastures, which is very common in Latin America. And then we also want to talk about how can we communicate the effects of land cover change in a way that'd be comprehensible to the people, to people, everyday people on the street. The SWAMP project is the data that I'm using, this is some of the results of the SWAMP project. We have been sampling now for seven years in many places throughout the world. The data I'll talk about today are coming from Mexico for the shrimp pond or for the cattle pasture, Honduras, Dominican Republic, and of course East Calimantan, the Delta mahogam for the shrimp ponds. Our study is similar to what we're doing to ascertain the carbon stocks. We're using the methods typically right out of the paper, the C4 publication Kauffman and Donato, where at each one of the sites we get six independent samples of total ecosystem carbon stock where soils are measured, trees are measured, and the downed wood debris are measured, as well as above ground, below ground carbon stocks, roots, trees, et cetera, et cetera. If anybody wanted more talk on methods, I'd be happy to talk about that later. But anyway, let me give you a first example of some results of carbon stocks from the Dominican Republic. And here you have a juxtaposition of three mangrove types, tall mangrove greater than 10 meters in height, medium three to 10 meters, and low less than two meters in height. And what you can see is there's no correlation of above ground forest structure and total carbon stock, but they're all in these undisturbed mangroves very, very high, ranging from anywhere from 700 to about 1,200 tons of carbon per hectare. Average for this site is about 850, 870 tons of carbon. Now compare and contrast that to abandoned shrimp ponds in this area, and they were down to 80 tons per hectare. So remarkable, like we were saying earlier, it's just evidence of the remarkable loss of carbon that you get when you convert mangrove to shrimp ponds and then abandon them. We lose carbon, even carbon at greater than depths and greater than one meter, you see remarkable losses in this 20 year old abandoned site. And here's just an example of the soil cores. You can see if there's a better color darkness, you can see the healthiness of the soil core in the mangrove here with lots of roots, dark color, and then a similar soil core in an adjacent, these are paired plots here in the shrimp pond. Carbon in the mangrove in this site was 11.29%, only 1% in the shrimp pond. Nitrogen concentration, 3.7 milligrams per gram, and 0.2 in the shrimp pond. So you can see a remarkable loss in productivity. Okay, give you another example, and this is in the Pantanos de Centela in Tabasco, Mexico last year, where we looked at paired plots of, you can see here, this is inside the mangrove and sampling the soils. And here's three students trying their hardest to get a sample out of the pasture. You can see the mangrove in the background is the paired site. We had three of these paired sites. And we have very, very similar type of studies, but here's a good reason for similar two verities to work or why you need to pair your sites. But here's, this is mangrove and pasture, and these are the carbon stocks again, mangrove and pasture, mangrove and pasture. And one can just see that the mean again is about what the global mean is, very, very productive dark water systems of about 1,000 tons of carbon per hectare. But in the past years, ranging in age again from 18 to 20 years, the carbon stock had diminished down to about 250 tons per hectare. And so we see declines in carbon concentration and increases in bulk density at depths of well over two meters in these sites. Now interestingly enough, Imam and his work in the peat swamp forest is finding changes in soil bulk density in the peat swamp forest at depths in the Samach at depths of five meters. So we're seeing this, these very, very deep impacts of land use, land cover change. This underscores the need to sample the entire ecosystem and not just to one meter in depth. So you have to do more work. Okay, our study is just like similar to many, many studies we're looking at a stock change approach to estimate the potential emissions where we just look at the change from either the intact to the degraded site. But we're doing this two ways. One is just a simple stock change of depth, the entire ecosystem. Better is the development of what we're calling as a biomass equivalence approach where we're looking at a similar amounts of the mineral soil at the same depth, say two meter depth in the intact forest is not the same as two meters in a soil that's collapsed. So we do an equivalence of the mineral soil in the two different sites. Okay, just gives you an example then of that, then these are the emissions that arise from the conversion of a mangrove pasture to a two meter depth based on the biomass equivalence. In other words, that's the amount of soil that's in two meters of the mangrove. We compare that to two meters or not two meters, but the mass of the same mass in the pasture. And here we see again, these are the emissions and CO2 equivalents and they range from as high as 4,000 tons per hectare. This would be amongst the highest potential emissions ever measured in any ecosystem. And a mean here of about 2,300 tons per hectare. Now, if we do just a stock change approach, it's even a little bit higher. So the paper we have coming out soon in wetlands ecology and management is using just being more conservative using the two meter depth. But again, just to give you an idea of the comparison now of these emissions, this would be the carbon emissions from land use in upland forest and mangrove. So this is the total amount of CO2 that comes when you convert say, Amazon rainforest to cattle pasture. And what we see here is you don't lose that much soil carbon, that in the wetlands you do lose soil carbon. And so this is the biggest difference. Almost all of the carbon loss in a tropical rainforest converted to cattle pasture on mineral soils comes from the loss of the vegetation. Soils don't do much through time. And this happens, we've done this now in places in Mexico, the Amazon, as well as tropical dry forests, deciduous forest. Now we compare that to the pasture loss in Mexico where we see again where it's 500 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by the conversion of an Amazon rainforest in the Mexican pasture, it's up to 2,500. That Dominican Republic example I gave you again was 3,000 tons of CO2 equivalent. Verne's preliminary work in the Delta Mahakam is showing us that the average here was probably about 1,200 tons of CO2 equivalent with the conversion of the mangroves in the Delta Mahakam. Active ponds and Honduras a little bit lower but our overall global mean is about 1,650 tons of potential CO2 produced when you convert a mangrove to a cattle pasture. Now what does that all mean? If we look at the gross emission from deforestation our colleagues in the Forest Service tell us it's about one point, the net tropical deforestation emission is about 1.3 pedigrams. A mangrove loss at 1% and this is pretty conservative globally would be about 145,000 hectares times our mean loss from our data at 1.6 or 1,683 tons that would be as much as 8% of the current emission essence from deforestation. And that's very similar to what we originally published even in our paper at Nature Climate Change a few years ago. So it's very, while it's a small fraction the mangroves they're very, very significant contributors to the contribution that forestry makes towards greenhouse gas emissions. So again, then we ask ourselves and when you go talk to your parents tonight ask them what a pedigram is and of course they're gonna look at you like you're crazy, you know reporting greenhouse gas emissions and this is one of the things that we have a difficulty we have in science from deforestation or other land uses or even fossil fuels can be difficult to comprehend. And if the public doesn't understand our results and maybe they're gonna become apathetic and not care. So let's talk then are there ways that we could present how deforestation and land cover change contributes to climate change in a way that people could understand. So let's change the scale from greenhouse gas emissions to pedigrams to perhaps personal scales. And that's what I'd like to talk about for the rest just the last few minutes is can we scale greenhouse gas emissions down to what we eat? And so let's ask ourselves and what would be the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that come from a dinner? And this is a Boulay dinner, okay? This is a steak dinner and a shrimp cocktail big piece of meat, okay? So this would be ask ourselves what would be the greenhouse gas emissions from a piece of beef from a mangrove converted into pasture in Mexico and a shrimp cocktail, say maybe from Vierney site in Delta Mahakam if we converted that to mangrove, okay? So what we have a new definition then and that's we hear about carbon footprints and we don't but one of the things you read about in the literature is you don't see carbon footprints being discussed as land use or the emissions that come from land use, land cover chain and that's what I'm gonna report here is what is the carbon emission that arrives from the conversion of an ecosystem to another land cover type in order to provide that commodity. In this case, how much CO2 comes from the mangroves that like such a Daniel I've been measuring now. So let's talk about the Pantanos de Sintla the Mexico example and how much this is a one pound zero point what four or five kilograms of beef. So a mean emission then from those mangrove in the Pantanos de Sintla the mean emission from cattle pasture conversion was 2,584 tons of carbon per hectare. These pastures are lasting about 30 years. In fact, many of the people, the ranchers in this area the cattle owners are abandoning the plots but if we take that 30 year pasture life and the mean emission of 2,500 that means we're losing on a mean of about 86 tons of CO2 per hectare per year. That's a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide. Cattle produce methane as well. So let's add that two cattle per day. These are very low numbers. We're being very conservative here but again, the carbon dioxide equivalent of two cattle the methane from two cattle would be about 100, 1,470 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per year and then times 30 and adding all that up together the total emissions over the 30 year period would be about 2,628 tons of CO2 equivalents per year. Cattle we know very well from the animal science literature they produce about 146 kilograms of meat usable meat about 50% of the carcass in a year and over 30 year period we would get about 4,380 kilograms of meat being produced from these pastures. And therefore then if we just take these numbers in by mass balance we see the carbon footprint then for every kilogram of meat it's about 600 megagrams or for every ton of meat for every megagram of meat it's about 600 megagrams of CO2 produced remarkably high rates of a greenhouse gas. So the ratio is about 600 grams or 600 kilograms of CO2 for every kilogram of beef that's produced on this site. So if we had the 16 ounce steak that's one pound 0.45 kilograms of meat would be about 600 pounds of CO2. Okay so let's say that you went out to the steakhouse and had that with your American friends and assumed that you were really, really hungry though you've been working in the mangrove all day and you ordered the shrimp cocktail and in the United States or Australia they call that the surf and turf, you know surf from the shrimp and the turf because the cows eat the grass and this is a special combination of steak and shrimp. How much would your carbon footprint be? So mangroves let's talk about the farm raised shrimp a dominant cause probably the dominant cause clearly here in Asia clearly here in Indonesia is the Tambak, the dominant cause for deforestation the mangroves, 50 to 60% of the shrimp ponds are extensive low input operations, no electricity and this is every 100% in Mahakum Delta for example are like this. The productivity range is globally based upon UN and World Bank data about 50 to 500 kilograms of shrimp per hectare. Our interviews and Verne's work with people we talked to in Delta Mahakum again it's about 125 to 200 kilograms of shrimp produced per year so we're really at the low end here and the productive life of these shrimp ponds is only three to nine years before eutrophication largely eutrophication in Delta Mahakum but also diseases such as white spot virus and the strength of shrimp that's meat is very similar to a cow about 50% of the shrimp 45% of the shrimp is raw is edible meat for the total biomass. So if we look at the carbon footprint then of a shrimp our carbon losses based upon our five study sites in Latin America, Indonesia is 1,683 mega grams of carbon per hectare produced. Our shrimp ponds remember ranging from 50 to 500 to the midpoints 275 that we're using here again this is even high for Delta Mahakum. Longevity three to nine years that's about average for Mahakum Delta. So the total shrimp productivity over the life of that shrimp pond is gonna be somewhere ranging from 150 to 4,500 kilograms 4,500 kilograms. Again we're gonna use 45% of the meat's edible so the total production of raw shrimp meat then is gonna be somewhere between 67 and 2025 for these extensive ponds. The midpoint would be about 742 kilograms. So the carbon footprint then of our shrimp therefore is gonna range anywhere from 831 to 2,519 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per hectare for every kilogram of shrimp produced and a mid range again is about 2,268. So then we ask ourselves this premium cooked shrimp and this is actually one from Indonesia you can buy this stuff very, very cheap now in Japan, in Europe and the United States. We didn't have this when I was a little boy shrimp was a very special meal and now it's the most consumed seafood in the United States. A one pound bag of this shrimp though has a land use carbon footprint equal to over a ton of CO2, 2,268 pounds. So the land use carbon footprint from your 100 gram shrimp cocktail that you're having with your friends is 227 kilograms of CO2 per hectare. Okay, but this only includes this is only the land use carbon footprint. It doesn't include the effects of overfishing and the social impacts of overfishing, waste and pollution, spread of diseases, overuse and chemical treatments doesn't include the cost of feeding such as you see here's the food, establishment, management, fertilizers, medicines, the shipping, processing losses, et cetera, et cetera, nor does it cover the loss in ecosystem services. The loss, these are the most important fisheries habitats that we have in coastal ecosystems. Storm protection, water quality, impacts on coral reefs, none of that's included. So let's just find out the carbon footprint of your feast of steak and mangrove. If you and four of your friends, any five of us go out to eat tonight and have this meal, go to the dessert outback steakhouse here in town, you could probably have this. If you and four of your friends go out for dinner and drinks, enjoy a shrimp cocktail, the land use carbon footprint of the appetizers, of your five appetizers, whoops, excuse me, would be 1,135 kilograms, you know. If each of you then have the big steak, the dinner from the mangrove, the carbon footprint would be an extra 3,000 or 1,333 kilograms from the beef, if it was from a mangrove, say if it was from that Mexican beef. So the carbon footprint then of that shrimp cocktail and the steak would be 5,497 pounds of CO2. This is for an American audience, I'm sorry, but it's in pounds. But so this would be the five of you having the shrimp cocktail, the steak, that just was a carbon footprint of that meal was 5,497 pounds of CO2, divide by two if you want kilograms. So this is equivalent to the carbon footprint of burning about 281 gallons of gasoline. So if we were on the West Coast where I live in Oregon, we could drive a car all the way to New York City and have that dinner and our carbon footprint are driving across the North American continent would be lower than this meal, okay? The CO2 emissions, this 5,000 is even more, and we came in a big American pickup truck. The carbon dioxide emissions is heavier than the weight of our truck. A truck, a big, heavy American truck is 4,309 pounds. Our emission was 5,500 pounds. So it's remarkable how just personal interactions and can have impacts on the climate. Just how big is this footprint by comparison? The carbon footprint, and we have very good data from Amazonia of this land use is about 16 fold greater than the carbon footprint of beef produced from the tropical rainforest. It's about 146 is our, and we have really good data here. 146 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of meat produced for the Amazon. That's not good. It's just showing you how bad the mangroves are. With that, thank you very much. Thank you.