Relative effectiveness of a radionuclide (210Pb), surface elevation table (SET), and LiDAR at monitoring mangrove forest surface elevation change

Sea-level rise (SLR) is one of the greatest future threats to mangrove forests. Mangroves have kept up with or paced past SLR by maintaining their forest floor elevation relative to sea level through root growth, sedimentation, and peat development. Monitoring surface elevation change (SEC) or accretion rates allows us to understand mangrove response to SLR and prioritizes resilient ecosystems for conservation or vulnerable ecosystems for restoration. We compared three methods to measure SEC and accretion in mangrove forests: ²¹⁰Pb, surface elevation tables (SETs), and a terrestrial light detection and ranging system (compact biomass LiDAR—CBL). Lead-210 accretion rates were not significantly different than SET SEC rates and differences between the two methods (− 2 to 2 mm/year) were within the error of our measurements. Lead-210 only measures accretion in the upper meter of sediment and cannot capture deeper subsurface processes (e.g., subsidence, compaction) that SETs can. The lack of differences suggests the following: (1) surface processes in the active root zone are influencing forest floor elevation more than subsurface processes, (2) subsurface processes were not large enough to effect elevation, or (3) the SETs were not installed deep enough to capture subsurface processes. CBL SEC rates did not differ significantly from SET SEC rates. The larger spatial scale of the CBL scans resulted in significantly different SEC rates from some of the plots. This was due to the CBL measuring areas missed by the SET. The greater number of points measured by CBL (~ 30,000 vs 36) increased precision and lowered standard error. The traditional SET/rSET method is currently 3–10 × cheaper than the ²¹⁰Pb or CBL method, respectively, and can accurately track changes in forest floor elevation. Costs of the use of LiDAR are likely to decrease in the future with the advent of newer and more cost-effective technology.