FLORA SURVEY AND BIODIVERSITY ... - pkp.pcsd.gov.ph Flora Report.pdf · v Title Page 5.11...

FLORA SURVEY AND BIODIVERSITY

ASSESSMENT FOR CORE ZONING MUNICIPALITY OF BUSUANGA

September 2006

Prepared for:

PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Palawan Center for Sustainable Development Sta. Monica Heights, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines 5300

Email: [email protected] Tel.: (63-48) 434-4235, Fax: 434-4234

Funded through a loan from :

JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Prepared by:

PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL in association with

ALMEC Corporation CERTEZA Information Systems, Inc.

DARUMA Technologies Inc. Geo-Surveys & Mapping, Inc.

Photo Credits:

All photos by SEMP-NP ECAN Zoning Component Project Management Office

This report can be reproduced as long as the convenors are properly acknowledged as the source of information

Reproduction of this publication for sale or other commercial

purposes is prohibited without the written consent of the publisher.

Printed by:

Futuristic Printing Press, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines

Suggested Citation:

PCSDS. 2006. Flora Survey and Biodiversity Assessment for Core Zoning Municipality of El Nido. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, Puerto Princesa City.

_________________________________________________________________________ iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page List of Tables

vi

List of Figures ix List of Appendix Tables List of Appendix Figures

x xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xii

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality

1 1

2.0 OBJECTIVES

3

3.0 LIMITATION AND SCOPE

4

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4

4.1 Survey Design 4.2 Variables and Parameters 4.3 Vegetation Description and Analysis 4.3.1 Analytical Framework 4.3.2 Data Analysis 4.3.3 Stand and Stock Table 4.3.4 Identifying Core Zones

4 6 6 7 7 9 10

5.0 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 10 5.1 Bio-physical Features of Busuanga Municipality 5.1.1 Topography 5.1.2 Geology 5.1.3 Climate 5.1.4 River Systems and Drainage 5.2 General Land Uses and Vegetation Cover 5.2.1 Land Uses 5.2.2 Built-up Areas and Road Network 5.3 Land Degradation Problems in the Uplands 5.3.1 Grassland Fires Encroaching into Forested Areas 5.3.2 Timber Poaching 5.3.3 Unmanaged Large Cattle Grazing 5.3.4 Hillside Farming

10 10 11 11 11

11 11 12

12 12 13 13 13

________________________________________________________________________ iv

Title Page

5.3.5 Soil Erosion

5.4 Vegetation Cover 5.5 Physiography of Barangays

5.5.1 Barangay Concepcion 5.5.2 Barangay Sagrada 5.5.3 Yulo King Ranch 5.5.4 Barangay Cheey 5.5.5 Barangay Salvacion 5.5.6 Barangay New Quezon 5.5.7 Barangay New Busuanga 5.5.8 Barangay San Rafael 5.5.9 Barangay Sto. Nino 5.5.10 Barangay Buluang 5.5.11 Barangay Bugtong

5.6 Vegetation Analysis 5.6.1 Primary vis-à-vis Non-Primary Forest 5.6.2 Primary Forest over Ultramafic Soil 5.6.3 Primary Forest over Karst Limestone

5.7 Overall Description of Vegetation Cover and Forest Types

5.7.1 Land Uses in the Uplands 5.7.2 Location of Upland Settlements

5.8 Implication to Reforestation 5.9 Biodiversity Assessment of Flora

5.9.1 The Canopy Layer 5.9.2 The Under Canopy Layer 5.9.3 The Ground Layer Stratum (Undergrowth)

5.10 Vegetation Analysis by Transect

5.10.1 Transect 1 in Barangay Sto. Nino 5.10.2 Transect 2 in Barangay Sto. Nino 5.10.3 Transect 3 in Barangays Concepcion and Sagrada and Yulo

King Ranch 5.10.4 Transect 4 in Barangay Cheey 5.10.5 Transect 5 in Barangays Bogtong, Cheey and Salvacion 5.10.6 Transect 6 in Barangays Cheey and Salvacion 5.10.7 Transect 7 in Barangay Cheey 5.10.8 Transect 8 in Barangays New Quezon, San Rafael, New

Busuanga 5.10.9 Transect 9 in Barangay New Busuanga 5.10.10Transect 10 in Barangay Buluang

13

14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19

19 19 21 21

22 23 24

24 24 25 28 31

33 33 35

37 39 41 43 45

47 50 52

________________________________________________________________________ v

Title Page

5.11 Endangered and Endemic Species of Plants in Busuanga 5.12 Recommended Core Zones for Terrestrial Flora Component

55 59

7.0 ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND THREATS TO CORE ZONES 7.1 Present and Potential Threats 7.2 Proposed Management Prescriptions to Protect Core Zones and

Improve Forest Conditions in Busuanga 7.3 Proposed Measures to Rehabilitate Degraded Ecosystems in

Busuanga 7.3.1 Grasslands 7.3.2 Brushlands 7.3.3 Denuded Forests and Eroded Slopes 7.3.4 Kaingin Areas 7.3.5 Encroachment into Primary and Secondary Forests 7.3.6 Recently Logged Over Areas

62 62

62

63 63 63 64 64 64 64

8.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Significant Findings from the Survey 9.2 Conclusions 9.3 Recommendations

65

65 65 66

REFERENCES

68

ANNEXES Plate 1. The Manconos, Xanthostemon bracteatus and X.

verdugunianus. Plate 2. Malakatmon, Dillenia luzoniensis, found in the Parang

ecosystem of New Quezon, Busuanga Plate 3. The Parang Ecosystem, Habitat of the Malakatmon in New

Quezon, Busuanga Plate 4. The beach forest ecosystem in Sto. Niño, Busuanga, already

a threatened vanishing ecosystem in the Philippines

71

71

71

72

72

APPENDICES 73

________________________________________________________________________ vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page 1

The Fernando Biodiversity Scale (1998)

7

2 Data Collection Sheet for the Stand and Stock Analysis

9

3 Soil Erosion Rates in Various Soil Cover

14

4 Dominant Vegetation in Busuanga by Transect Line

22

5 Summary of the Stand and Stock Table

24

6 Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species in the Canopy Layer

26

7 Similarity Values between Sampling Transects, Canopy Layer

26

8 Plant Forms under Canopy in Busuanga

28

9 Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species for the Under Canopy Layer

29

10 Similarity Values Between Sampling Transects, Under Canopy Layer

30

11 Plant Forms in the Ground Layer or Undergrowth in Busuanga

31

12 Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species in the Ground Layer

32

13 Similarity Values Between Sampling Transects, Ground Layer

32

14 Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 1

34

15 Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 1

34

16 Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 1

35


36

________________________________________________________________________ vii

Table No. Title Page


36


37


38


38


39


40


40


41


42


42


43


44


44


45


46


46


47


48


49


49

________________________________________________________________________ viii

Table No. Title Page


50

39 All Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 9

51

40 All Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 9

51

41 All Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 10

52

42 All Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 10

53

43 All Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 10

54

44 Busuanga Flora Species With Endangered Status, per Transect

57

45 Busuanga Flora Species With Endangered Status, per Barangay

58

________________________________________________________________________ ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page 1

Map of Palawan Showing Location of Busuanga Municipality

2

2 Layout of Transects and Quadrats

5

3 Graphical Presentation of the Stand and Stock Table With Volume and Diameter Classes as Parameters

20

4 Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Canopy Layer

27

5 Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Under Canopy Layer

30

6 Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Ground Layer

33

7 Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy and Ground Vegetation for Busuanga, Northern Palawan

60

8 Recommended Core Zones in Busuanga Muncipality 61

________________________________________________________________________ x

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Appendix Table No.

Title

Page

1

Diversity Index per Canopy Structure per Transect

73

2 Transects of Busuanga Flora Survey Grouop: Shannon-Weiner Biodiversity Indices (20x20)

74


76


78

5 Preliminary Checklist of Angiosperms (Non-monocots Paleoherbs and Dicots) of Busuanga, Palawan

80

6 Preliminary Checklist of Gymnosperms of Busuanga, Palawan

95

7 Preliminary Checklist of Mangrove and Beach Plants of Northern Palawan

97

8 Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status per Transect

103

9 Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status per Barangay in Busuanga

104

10 Coordinates of Transects per Barangay in Busuanga Municipality

105

________________________________________________________________________ xi

LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES

Appendix Figure No.

Title

Page

1

Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy and Ground Vegetation for Busuanga, Northern Palawan

106

2 Timber Volume for Dipterocarps and Non-Dipterocarps in Busuanga

107

_______________________________________________________________________EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Busuanga Island, located at the northernmost part of the province of Palawan, has a total land area of 52,478 ha. However, the Yulo King Ranch (22,268 has) covers more than 50%. Along its coast is 16 barangays accessible to both land and sea transport.

Busuanga has predominantly rough mountainous soils with a rolling and hilly terrain on its western part. The level areas, mostly devoted to rice production and fruit trees, abound in San Miguel loam and Busuanga type of soil. The Salvacion mountain range, the Sinabuyan mountain range between Busuanga and Cheey, and the Naapac mountain range in San Rafael are among the major mountain ranges of the Municipality.

Busuanga is also composed of numerous islets lying mostly in the western portion that greatly contributes to the fishing ventures of the populace and are high potential tourism sites.

The wet season starts from July to October. The rest of the year is dry.

The sampling design of the field survey used the nested quadrats in high forest cover areas. The nested quadrats have dimensions of 20 m x 20 m for trees having 10 cm diameter at breast height and above; 5 m x 5 m for tall shrubs and herbs (e.g. banana, papaya), and other plant forms having less than 4 m in height; 1 m x 1 m for plants less than 1 m high. This includes wildlings, small herbs, grasses, etc. Respectively, the strata represent the canopy layer, the under-canopy or intermediate layer, and the third is the ground vegetation layer.

For other land cover areas, the line intercept method was used. However, computations for this were not done since these other land cover areas inherently have lower biodiversity, which automatically disqualifies them as biodiversity hotspots.

Ten (10) Transect lines were laid from coast to coast with a direction of northeast to southwest for the municipality.

The stand and stock table was also generated.

Discussion of the full report is divided into 2 major parts. One part is the physical characterization per barangay. The other part is the bio-physical characterization per transect, per strata, in each barangay.

Busuanga has an overall flora diversity of 4.21 using the Shannon – Weiner Biodiversity Index, H’. This is quite high according to the Fernando Scale (1998) used. The distribution of species in Busuanga is rather clustered or clumped.

On a per transect basis, transect 6 in Bgys. Cheey and Salvacion had the highest floral diversity at 4.17.

_______________________________________________________________________EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii

All transects have moderately high to very high flora diversity, each transect collectively having more than 2.5. However, on a per sampling site basis, majority of the sites have low to very low diversity. This would mean that as one goes along the transect, there are species that are added in the list. Hence, many rare species are cumulatively listed down to contribute to the high diversity index of each transect.

There are 15 species identified in the IUCN / CITES lists in the Canopy Layer. Some of these are the Mancono (Xanthostemon verdugonianus) and Mapilig (Xanthostemon bracteatus), Molave (Vitex parviflora), Sakat (Terminalia nitens) locally known as Taket, and the Narra (Pterocarpus indicus). Other species are listed in the main report.

The landscape of Busuanga is very fragmented with grasslands, brushlands and forests interspersed and scattered in the island. Buho bamboo clearly dominates the undercanopy growth indicating a disturbed island ecosystem. Discussion on the landscape and its vegetative cover is included with suggested measures on its management.

Much of the soil medium in Busuanga is chert – based, hence, not many but highly specialized species could be found. This adds on to the high diversity of the area.

Recent validation survey found no ultramafic ecosystem and this has been confirmed by the geologist that was interviewed in the area. Most of the land formations are karst limestone having silicon dioxide as one of its major elements.

Grasslands observed seldom have Cogon (Imperata cylindrical). Where they are present, they are in a “parang” type of ecosystem. Forage grasses dominate.

Calauit Island is already a proclaimed sanctuary and considered a core zone.

Other core zones recommended for Busuanga are found in transects 4, 5, 6, and 7. These are located in Bgys Cheey, Bugtong, San Rafael, and Old Busuanga.

________________________________________________________________BACKGROUND 1

1.0 BACKGROUND Environmental characterization is an important and necessary undertaking in order

to sufficiently conceptualize and finalize functional management systems. Simply stated, both qualitative and quantitative data need to be generated as these are the basic requirements in developing and finalizing a natural resource management plan. Foremost of these are updating information on the various plant community types, land uses, extent of vegetation cover, associated wildlife, communities, drainage systems, access network and soil erosion classes. Equally important is the identification of the causes and sources of environmental degradation so that remedial measures could be formulated and put in place to respond to the need. Five bio-physical factors are important considerations when environmental conservation is the very purpose of the surveys. These are vegetation, soil, water, air, and temperature. However vegetation is the most important factor among these as it influences the others.

The stability of the agricultural system, human settlements, industrial systems, coastal, and marine ecosystems greatly depends upon the functionality, productivity, diversity, and stability of the forest (and watershed) ecosystems. Nature tourism, likewise, depends upon the intact and functioning natural environment. The sustainability of nature tourism hinges on the maintenance of the processes inside the forest since it greatly influences all other ecosystems. The surveys are the starting activities towards the development of management systems.

1.1 The Municipality

The Island of Busuanga lies between 12˚00’ – 12˚20’ N latitude and 119˚50’ - 120˚00’ E longitude (Figure 1). It could be accessed in one – hour direct flight from Puerto Princesa, since it has an air strip that handles light planes. Also it could be reached by sea transport for about 9 to 10 hours from Puerto Princesa City. Busuanga Island is only about 45 km away from the Island of Mindoro and is about 240 km away from Manila.

Busuanga has total land area of about 45,000 hectares and has 16 barangays.

The Municipality of Busuanga is composed of plains and valleys with a rolling to hilly land physiography at its central portion. Meander belts adjacent to rivers could also be found within and at the edges of the hilly lands. The topography is generally rolling with steep portions. The central hills have elevations that are less than 700 meters above sea level (masl). It is in these hills that the habitats of the unique flora and fauna could be found.

________________________________________________________________BACKGROUND 2

Busuanga

Figure 1. Map of Palawan Showing Location of Barangay Municipality

_________________________________________________________________OBJECTIVES 3

Ultramafic ecosystems are absent in Busuanga Island, according to a geologist in the area, Eng. Omar Alfonso (Pers.Com. 2004). He mentioned however that the composition of chert soil is basically silicon dioxide (SiO2), aside from the calcium carbonates basic to limestone. On the other hand, Silicon belongs to the metal group in the Chemical Periodic table but is not classified as heavy metal, which ultramafic soil is based. Therefore, associated vegetation of “ultramafic” substrates in Busuanga is actually silicon-based in chert rather than heavy metal – based.

In the flora survey, ten (10) transects were laid out in a northeast-southwest direction covering ten (10) barangays. The transect layout was from shore to shore of the island municipality.

These 10 barangays covered by transects are the following:

• Concepcion • New Busuanga

• Sagrada • Bogtong

• Cheey • Buluang

• Salvacion • Sto. Nino

• San Rafael • New Quezon

Another area covered by transects is the Yulo King Ranch (YKR) in Barangay Cheey in Busuanga and in Coron. It is not a barangay but the size of the YKR makes it a significant place since it straddles two municipalities.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The terrestrial flora survey was carried out in Busuanga to determine the status of the vegetative cover, know where are these located, what factors, existing and potential, influence their stability. The survey is necessary so that a map could be finalized indicating the magnitudes of the various plant community types that are needed in management planning. Flora survey and biodiversity assessment were undertaken to have a reliable characterization of the various plant community types in the Municipality of Busuanga with the following objectives:

1) To generate information on the structure and composition of the varying major

vegetation cover and land uses of uplands in Busuanga.

2) To quantify the plant compositions of the various plant community types.

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 4

3) To make recommendations on: Institutional framework for the ECAN Zoning System in Northern Palawan based on Republic Act 7611, Enhancing the capability of PCSDS and local governments in pursuing sustainable development in Northern Palawan.

4) To describe the plant diversity of Busuanga.

5) To identify and recommend core zones for the Municipality of Busuanga

3.0 LIMITATION AND SCOPE

The flora survey established in-depth sampling sites only in forest and brush lands where most vegetation and habitats of fauna are found. The size of the sampling plots (quadrats) is limited to the dimensions as stated in the Methodology. Therefore, only those species found within the quadrats are recorded; hence the biodiversity indices serve only as an indicator of biodiversity levels. On the other hand, the checklist of species includes those that have been recorded in the validation survey conducted by the Biodiversity Survey Team.

Characterization of plant diversity is done by transect and not according to

barangay since biodiversity does not recognize political boundaries. However, the physiography of the municipality could be done according to barangay because of the fixed nature of landforms. The characterization, however, is based on the data gathered along transects that traverse the barangays and field observations. Areas with high vegetative cover (i.e. forest cover) were selected for the survey. Grasslands were surveyed in a superficial manner through line-intercept method for baseline information only. Grasslands are “homogeneous”, thus, computations for biodiversity were not included.

Areas between transects are not recorded or sampled, hence, there may be habitats

that would be missed.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

Busuanga has been identified as a first priority site, hence, an in-depth survey was required to assess the biodiversity of the area and to identify and delineate core zones.

4.1 Survey Design

Using satellite imagery of the municipality, transect lines were drawn from coast to coast in a NE – SW direction.

Figure 2 shows the lay out of the transect lines in Busuanga. Distance between

transects is 2.5 km.

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 5

For the in-depth survey, nested quadrats were established along transects in areas with high forest cover. To stratify the object of study, i.e. the forest and brush lands, three dimensions of the nested quadrats were made. These are the following:

20 m x 20 m - for sampling of trees with more than 10 cm diameter at breast

height (dbh) and more than 4 m in height (Canopy Layer)

5 m x 5 m – for sampling of small to medium size trees, large herbs (e.g. banana, abaca), and large grasses (bamboo). Small to medium size trees include those having less than 10 cm dbh, less than 4 m in height. (Under Canopy Layer)

1 m x 1 m – for sampling of wildlings (< 1 m ht.), grasses, herbs, ferns, other plant forms that grow close to the ground (Ground Layer / Undergrowth).

The smaller quadrats are established within the larger one, hence, the term “nested

quadrats”. The smaller quadrat is laid out in the lower right corner of the larger quadrat, the smallest quadrat is laid out in the lower right corner of the smaller quadrat.

The following figure shows the layout of the quadrats along transects.

250 m

2.5 km

Figure 2. Layout of Transects and Quadrats

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 6

4.2 Variables and Parameters

Variables and parameters are identified in accordance with the objectives of the survey. Parameters are the “description of a population” while variables are the “logical groupings of attributes or characteristics that describe an object” (Freund 1988). The following are the variables and parameters used in the assessment:

a) Species diversity (variable)

Shannon- Weiner Biodiversity Index H’ (parameter)

Pielou Distribution Index J’ (parameter)

b) Stand-and-Stock table (variable) - contains various species and volume for each. It needs measuring DBH (parameter) and merchantable heights (parameter).

c) Basal Area - circumference at breast height occupied by each species

d) Frequency- Number of nested quadrats or subplots in which a species is found

e) Relative Frequency- the proportion of the frequency of a species relative to all frequencies of all species in the transect

f) Density – the number of individuals of a species in a given area; abundance is the number of individuals of a species regardless of area size

g) Relative Density- Proportion of the number of individuals of one species relative to the total number of individuals of all species

h) Dominance – the average basal area of all individuals of a species

i) Relative Dominance- Proportion of the average basal area of one species relative to the total basal area of all species

j) Importance Value Index- total of all relative values per species, the species with the highest value indicating the dominant species that would exert influence on the ecosystem.

Preparation for field survey, materials and equipment used are found in the Field Survey Manual.

Data collection for the actual field work in the In-Depth survey is done following

the steps in the Field Manual. Plot information is recorded noting down plot numbers, plot coordinates (latitude and longitude), line transect number, and stratum, etc. All data are recorded in the Flora Survey form.

4.3 Vegetation Description and Analysis

Analysis begins by organizing the data into computational form.

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 7

4.3.1 Analytical Framework

All density or abundance data are run through the Biodiversity Professional Beta 2

Data Analysis Program (BD-Pro Beta 2 software, McAleece et.al. 1997; available free in the internet) to compute for the Shannon (H') index of diversity and other required parameters.

The Fernando Biodiversity Scale (1998) is used to determine biodiversity levels (Table 1).

Table 1. The Fernando Biodiversity Scale (1998)

Relative

Values

Shannon (H’)

Index

Pielou (J’)

Evenness Index

Very High 3.5 and above 0.75-1.00

High 3.0-3.49 0.50-0.74

Moderate 2.5-2.99 0.25-0.49

Low 2.0-2.49 0.15-0.24

Very Low 1.9 & below 0.05-0.14

4.3.2 Data Analysis

Data quantified for the flora of the terrestrial ecosystems shall include density/

abundance, frequency, importance value, and other biodiversity indices. The following formulae are used in the said computations:

Density (Den) = total no. of individuals in a species in all sampling plots

Frequency (Freq) = Number of times the species occurred in all plots x 100

Number of plots

Dominance (Dom) = Basal Area of a species

Relative Density ( RDen) = Den X 100 Total Den

Relative Frequency (RFreq) = Freq X 100 Total Freq

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 8

Relative Dominance (RDom) = BA of a species x 100 Total BA of all species

Importance Value (IV) = RA + RF + RDo 3

Obtained values are run in the BD Pro Beta 2 software to determine diversity and evenness indices such as the following:

Shannon-Weiner Index (H’). It is a measure of the average degree of “uncertainty” in predicting to what species an individual chosen at random from a collection of S species and N individuals will belong (Magurran 1988).

S H’ = - Σ [(ni / N) ln (ni / N)] i = 1

Pielou’s Evenness Index (J’) - expresses H’ relative to the maximum value that H’ can obtain when all of the species in the sample are perfectly even with one individual per species (Magurran 1988).

J’ = H' ln (S)

Similarity Between Sites. Similarity indices shall be used in comparing vegetative composition between transects. The Bray & Curtis Dissimilarity Measure is used and transformed into a similarity Index using the formula below and then made into a cladogram (McAleece, et.al. 1997).

B = _Σ ( Xij – Xik )__ ; 1.0 – B = SI

Σ (Xij + Xik)

Where: SI = Similarity Index

B = Bray – Curtis Measure of Dissimilarity

Xij, Xik = the total number of individuals in species i

in each sample

Unique habitats, outstanding terrain features, and scenic spots are also described.

Cluster Analysis. This is a statistical technique for grouping samples (transects) that are similar to one another.

__________________________________________________________________METHODOLOGY 9

The results can be drawn in a cladogram as shown in the report. The use of the BD Pro Beta 2 software (McAleece, et.al. 1997) facilitates the computations and the clustering.

4.3.3 Stand and Stock Table

For the Stand and Stock Table, the data is organized into diameter classes, merchantable heights and volume (Table 2).

Table 2. Data Collection Sheet for the Stand and Stock Analysis.

Diameter Classes (cm)

Merchantable Height (m)

Volume (cu m)

110 - 120

100 - 109

90 - 99

80 – 89

70 - 79

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

30 – 39

20 – 29

10 - 19

The general formula used in the computation of volume is: Volume = 0.7854 D2L

Where: D = diameter at breast height

L = length of the merchantable height

0.7854 = standard coefficient of a circle

For Palawan, however, a coefficient has been developed by the DENR that is being used. The formulae are as follows:

Non-dipterocarps: 0.00004874 D2 L

Dipterocarps : 0.0004649 D2 L

__________________________________________________________________RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 10

The coefficients are already converted to the unit cubic meters.

Data is presented in graphical form. The graph could be interpreted strictly as a

volume data, or, by using ecological inferences, much information could be deduced in the graph.

4.3.4 Identifying Core Zones

Transects with the highest biodiversity indices are identified and located on the map. Plots with high values are also identified and located in the map by GPS coordinates.

Criteria for the identification of core zones for the flora component are:

a) vegetative cover with high biodiversity index values, b) with high forest cover, c) critically endangered/threatened habitats of endangered species, and d) presence of rare and endemic Palawan species.

A satellite image is then overlain on the map with identified high biodiversity values and other criteria as stated above. The plots on transects with high values are then connected by drawing lines following the boundaries shown on the satellite image using tree lines, ecotones, and watershed divides (i.e. ridges) in-between transects.

The result is a map with “circled” core zones.

5.0 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

5.1 Bio-Physical Features Of Busuanga Municipality

The island of Busuanga together with Coron and Culion towns belong to the

Calamianes Group of Islands in the northern tip of Palawan. Geographically, Palawan is classified under the Sunda Subregion while the rest of the Philippines is under the Wallace Subregion (Provincial Physical Framework Plan of Palawan 2001). The flora and fauna in Palawan are closely related to that of Borneo Island.

5.1.1 Topography

The Island of Busuanga is hilly with portions reaching elevations of about 500 meters above sea level. Barangays Cheey and Sto. Nino have large land area that are relatively flat and considered as the rice granary of Busuanga. Relatively large sloping lands are situated in the central southwest portion of Busuanga while about 30,000 ha are moderately sloping to steep (PPFPP 2001).


5.1.2 Geology

The geology of Busuanga consists of King Ranch Formation, Liminangcong Formation, Quarternary Alluvium, and Malajon Limestone. The Liminangcong Formation dominates the area and is characterized by bedded chert while the Quarternary Alluvium consists of unconsolidated floodplain deposits accumulated at the foot of the hills and can be found in the low – lying coastal areas and along the river channels of most of the barangays in Busuanga (PPFPP 2001).

The Malajon Limestone is typified by creamy to dark gray massive coralline,

marbleized limestone and is basically situated in Elet and Kalampisauan Island northwest of the municipality (PPFPP 2001).

5.1.3 Climate

Busuanga has two distinct climatic types; six months dry from December to May and rainy from June to November. The highest recorded rainfall occurred in July. Busuanga Island has temperature similar to mainland Palawan, which is considered warm but uniform. Generally, the warmest months are March, April, and May while the coldest are December, January, and February (PPFPP 2001).

5.1.4 River Systems and Drainage

Busuanga has several river systems. The major ones are Busuanga River in Old Busuanga, Binalayan River in Cheey, Dipuyal River in Sto. Nino, Lele River in New Busuanga, Malabnas River in San Rafael, Ditapec River in Calawit, and Kiwit River in Sagrada (PPFPP 2001).

Separate river systems traverse Barangay Buluang, New Busuanga and New Quezon, while Old Busuanga and Salvacion are traversed by one river system. A river system traverses three barangays namely Bugtong, Sagrada and Concepcion near the boundary with Coron. Barangay Concepcion, because of its waterfalls, has been identified as potential site of a hydro-power plant (PPFPP 2001).

5.2 General Land Uses and Vegetation Cover of the Municipality of Busuanga

5.2.1 Land Uses

Although limited, there are lowland agricultural farms adjacent to barangays or communities. Agriculture is the main source of livelihood of several municipalities. Although the agricultural sector in Busuanga is still undeveloped it provides major employment to about 53% of the labor force in the municipality. The remaining area for agriculture in Busuanga is only 3,500 ha since most of the areas with agricultural potential were taken by the Yulo King Ranch with a total area of 28,380 ha (PPFPP 2001).


Most of the prime irrigated lands and with potential for irrigation are protected from conversion to other uses by RA 8435, otherwise known as the “Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act”. Such areas are located in Barangay Old Busuanga, Sto. Nino, and Cheey. There are upland or hillside farms where constant soil cultivation is practiced to raise annual crops. These are also the starting points of wild fires. Several cashew plantations were seen in Bgy. Cheey (PPFPP 2001).

The Yulo King Ranch is an unmanaged pasture. Residents in every barangay in

Busuanga mentioned that cattle from YKR roam freely in the island. Cattle browse, trample, and cause abrasions to young plants. Soil compaction resulting to severe erosion is among the unwanted effects of an unmanaged cattle production system (PPFPP 2001).

5.2.2 Built – up Areas and Road Network

Road network is equated to accessibility and ease of travel within the island. The productivity of the agricultural sector is hampered by inadequate farm-to-market roads and insufficient farm inputs. The road or access system development seems to have been concentrated in the southern part in Busuanga. Agricultural facilities and support systems are limited. The nine barangays found in the south is the main reason of the concentration of roads (PPFPP 2001).

There are a total of about 52 km national all-weather road, about 2 km provincial roads, 15 km municipal roads, and 182 km barangay roads. The presence of the Yulo King Ranch (YKR) covering the whole north-eastern side prevented settlements. Cheey, the biggest barangay is covered by YKR. Agricultural areas and fishponds are found mostly in the southern side but these are relatively limited in magnitude (PPFPP 2001).

5.3 Land Degradation Problems in the Uplands

There are five major land degradation problems in the uplands of Busuanga: a) grassland fires spreading into forested lands, b) timber smuggling, c) uncontrolled/ unmanaged large cattle grazing, d) soil erosion, and e) hillside farming.

5.3.1 Grassland Fires Encroaching into Forested Areas

This is the most destructive form of upland degradation. It reduces dry organic matter (dead trees, branches, leaves, others) to soluble ash and releases phosphorus, calcium, potassium, and other inorganic elements that are easily washed down into waterways by rains. Fire volatizes nitrogen depriving the plants of this precious element.

Fires heat the soil and kill the roots of plants and change the composition of the soil fauna community. Fires destroy existing vegetation. Light to moderate fires may destroy only the undergrowth, kill thin-barked and fire- sensitive trees by heating the cambium. As grasslands expand into the uplands, nearby forests are burned by uncontrolled fire.


5.3.2 Timber Poaching

Although the destruction caused by poaching is less compared to fire, nevertheless, it reduces the diversity of forest species. The mother trees of environmentally and economically important species are removed from the uplands. This reduces the capability of the forest to regenerate. During timber felling, young trees are also damaged and even associated epiphytes and lianas are likewise affected.

5.3.3 Unmanaged Large Cattle Grazing.

Unmanaged pasture lands or grazing lands result to upland ecosystem degradation. Unmanaged pastures almost always use fire (burning) to produce grass shoots for the cattle. Trampling of tree seedlings by cattle prevents the progressive development of vegetation from grasslands to secondary forest and eventually to mature forest stands. Soil compaction by cattle results to the formation of rill erosion after heavy rain.

5.3.4 Hillside Farming

Like the unmanaged pasturelands or grazing lands, hillside farmers use fire in their operation. The effects of burning to the nearby forests are previously discussed. Hillside farms usually last for only 5 years. Due to erosion, the productivity of the land significantly decreases so that the hillside farmer abandons the site and transfer to new sites. This is one of the causes why the Philippines have millions of hectares of grasslands.

5.3.5 Soil Erosion

The alternating long and dry summer months with equally prolonged heavy rainfall in the Philippines impacting on exposed sloping areas cause severe soil erosion. Movement of soil from the uplands to the lowlands is a result of excessive vegetation loss and directly affects the productivity of agricultural systems, human settlements, coastal areas, and spawning grounds of marine fishes, crustaceans, shells, and other marine life. The decline in the productivity of these ecosystems results to impoverishment of human settlements.

The soil erosion also affects infrastructures during flooding, destroying roads and bridges. Lowland farms are eventually abandoned due to silt deposition during floods. Fishing becomes less productive because spawning grounds of marine life will be covered with silt.

All of the above problems in Busuanga are accelerating due to unregulated human

exploitation of the forests and incompatible land uses in the uplands. Nature provided trees as soil binder and sponge to retard surface water flows in the sloping terrain. When rains fall on the exposed soil, erosion occurs removing the top soil and deposits them into rivers, gullies, rice fields and settlements.


Grasslands under Philippine conditions and all over Southeast Asian countries are constantly burned to the exclusion of all other vegetation. Grassland plant community type is also considered a wasteland and characterized as follows:

• Impoverished soil (infertile) • Acidic soil • High temperatures during dry season compared to forested areas. • Strong winds • Draughty conditions • Fire is a constant element in the area Observations in many parts of the Philippines or studies conducted to quantify the

amount of soil erosion in various land cover show that overgrazed lands and kaingin making resulted to high soil erosion rates.

Soil erosion rates measured in disturbed watershed are useful information (Table 3).

Table 3. Soil Erosion Rates in Various Soil Cover

SOIL COVER

SOIL LOSS (TON/HA/YR)

Annual crop – pasture combination 105 Overgrazed range and new kaingin hillside farm 480 Combination of perennial crops- pasture area 26 Combination of agro forestry and annual crops 45 Reforestation – agro forestry 9 Reforestation – well managed pasture areas 19

Source: Pantabangan – Magat Watershed Feasibility Studies, National Irrigation Administration Note: Any crop production with constant soil cultivation especially in sloping areas induces soil erosion.

The absence of a well-formulated protection system that is site-and-situation-specific contributed to the worsening environmental conditions in Busuanga. A protection system is more than apprehending, enforcing “police” action.

5.4 Vegetation Cover Boho – grasslands with intermixed brush lands in the lower and middle elevations

comprise the largest plant community type in Busuanga. The areas being used as grazing lands have become perennial grass plant community type. There are intact patches of closed canopy forest in the higher elevations in Bugtong (825 ha) and between Old Busuanga and Cheey (2,163 ha).


Mangrove stands were observed along the coastal areas in Bugtong, Sagrada, Old

Busuanga, San Rafael and Buluang.

5.5 Physiography of Barangays The following is a baseline characterization of the physical environment of the 10 barangays that the in-depth survey has sampled. Discussion revolves around the physiographic features of the landscape such as; Land Form, Elevation, Terrain, Slope, Aspect, Land Use, Stratum, Forest Type, and Stand Condition.

Definitions of the above are found in the Flora Field Survey Manual.

5.5.1 Barangay Concepcion

Seven (7) sampling plots were established in this barangay but only in one transect – Transect 3.

The barangay is composed of rolling lands having elevations of up to 100 m. It

also has plains and valleys with hilly lands having elevations of up to 500 meter above sea level (masl). The rolling lands comprise 71.42% of the sampling while the hilly lands comprise only 14.28%. The plains and valleys likewise comprise 14.28% of the sampling. The elevations of the area sampled range from flat to about 500-masl. Of the 7 transects found therein, 4 transects were established in areas with 0 – 20-masl, with the rest being established above 300-masl.

Samplings have been done in rolling to hilly areas especially in the lower slopes, mid- and upper- slopes, and the hilltops. Inclinations of slopes range from zero, i.e. flat, to as steep as 45%.

Aspect is the orientation of the slopes in relation to the four (4) cardinal directions. The sampling areas have been noted to face southwest and northeast with one sampling plot-facing northwest. There are equal number of sampling plots facing northeast and southwest. This has implications on vegetative growth in the area. South-facing slopes are prone to high exposure of solar energy, hence, plant forms in this aspect would generally tend to be sunlight – loving plants and belong to the pioneer species category.

Most of the land uses in this barangay has been categorized as “other land uses” but only in one sampling site has a lowland forest been sampled. Another land use sampled is kaingin or farm lot. Most of the sites sampled are in secondary forests with one plot established in “primary forest”. Two plots have been established in brush lands.

The forest type sampled is mostly the semi-evergreen/lowland semi-deciduous type, meaning that the forest vegetation usually shed their leaves as a water-conservation adaptation to drier conditions and season. This also implies that the climate in this barangay has distinct dry and wet seasons. This could be verified in the climatology of the island. The forest type is classified under secondary growth with low, medium, and high


density stands. Mostly, it is medium to high density with an outlying “old growth” having 6-10 m of merchantable height.

5.5.2 Barangay Sagrada

This barangay has been traversed by Transect 3 also but only two sampling sites were established. The sampling sites were in hilly lands having elevations of more than 100 m but less than 500-masl. However, the exact elevations where the sampling sites are located are between 100 – 199-masl. Although low elevations have been recorded, the sites are in a hilltop and the slope gully. Being on a hilltop and a gully, the slope is steep between 26 – 45%. The slopes face north and northeast, implying that the area faces away from the sun and is expected to have more moisture than the other slopes facing the other direction.

The area is categorized in the “other land use” classification, but one sampling site is under lowland forest. The sampling sites are recorded to be in “primary forest” and are identified as lowland semi-deciduous / semi-evergreen forest. The forest sampled is classified as “old growth” with 6-10 m of merchantable height. However, the area is also heavily logged from past years.

5.5.3 Yulo King Ranch

The YKR, as it is commonly called, is one of the biggest sites in terms of land area. Again Transect 3 traverses this barangay. Twelve (12) sampling sites were established.

The YKR is foremost a ranch for cattle livestock production. This would equate to a general grassland area with patches of forest cover in higher elevations.

The general feature of the area is rolling land to hilly lands having elevations

reaching not more than 500-masl. The sampling sites however are located below 400-masl. The terrain of the sampling sites varies from the lower slopes of the hilly lands to gullies and rock slides. The presence of these indicates a more or less unstable geology of the area. The slopes range from slightly inclined at 9 – 15%, to a very steep slope of 46-70%. With steep slopes, the area is more prone to erosion and soil slippages.

General direction of the slopes is east with slight deviations to northeast and

southeast. One site is recorded as northwest. This implies a varied topography that has implications on the distribution and composition of vegetation in the area.

The general land use is for cattle grazing in the lowlands. However, the sampling

sites are established in lowland forests in the hilly lands. A large portion of the YKR is grassland, but since its closure, there are other land uses identified. These may be in the form of agricultural lands, built-up areas as in the airport and settlements, and some wetlands.

It has been identified in the flora survey that the sampling sites are “primary

forest” types. This could be disputed however by the succeeding findings in this report that “no primary forest” exists in Busuanga. On the other hand, vegetation over karst and limestone formations could be termed as “primary” if these have not been logged over.


Forest cover is located in the hilly areas. Some grow over karst/limestone formations. Generally, the forest cover type is lowland evergreen to semi-deciduous types. This implies that some parts of the barangay have even distribution of rainfall while some parts have distinct dry seasons. Generally, this has medium to high density “old growth” and second growth forest types. The old growth high-density vegetation may be in karst/ limestone areas since they have the characteristics of such. These usually have short, crooked boles measuring less than 6 m of merchantable height.

5.5.4 Barangay Cheey

Bgy Cheey is probably the largest among the barangays in terms of land area. In

fact, four (4) transects run through it. These transects are 4, 5, 6, & 7. Transects 4 and 7 have complete sampling plots whereas Transects 5 & 6 have half of their sampling sites inside Cheey and the other half fall inside adjacent barangays.

There are several land forms identified in the barangay and those are the rolling to

hilly lands, meander belts in flat areas adjacent to rivers, plains and valleys. This means that the highest point in the barangay could be less than 500-masl and lowest points are in the plains and valleys. With such a varied landform, the data indicates that there is much diversity in habitats. There are also wide spaces between hills because of the meandering belts.

Most of the sampling sites fall below the 200 m elevations. However, a site or two

fell above this at the 300-masl mark. Sampling sites are on terrain features such as hilltops, ridges, mid-slopes, slope gullies, and rock slides. Having rockslides suggest an unstable geologic environment and the rockslides usually are adjacent to rivers. Many habitats could be described here since each land feature has different environmental conditions inherent to it. For example, ridges and hilltops have different temperature regimes than the mid-slopes and lower slopes. Slope features, on the other hand are quite steep in the hilly lands. Sampling sites fell on slopes ranging from 16 – 25% to almost 100%. The slopes have a general aspect of southwest and northeast. Transect 7 has a little variation having southeast and northeast in the slope aspects.

Land-use type is generally a dry, lowland forest type with one sampling on wetlands. The stratum is identified to be generally brushland with secondary forest type. The survey also identified a “primary forest”. Having low elevations, the actual forest types range from lowland evergreen rainforest to lowland semi-deciduous forest. The forest is classified as second growth, with old growth or remnants in the sampling area. The old growth is suspected to be vegetation within the Karst limestone formations.

5.5.5 Barangay Salvacion

The barangay has half of transects 5 & 6 established in the area where the end of both transects are found in it. One portion of the barangay is rolling land with meander belts found in the tributaries. Another portion is hilly land. The barangay has elevations less than 500-masl. Sampling plots however, never went above the 300-masl mark. The terrain along the transects follow a “roller coaster” continuum wherein the sampling sites are located in gullies, rockslides, slopes and hilltops. Slope inclinations range from 0 –


45%, which is rather flat, rolling to steep. All sampling sites on slopes have an aspect of northeast.

The land use of the area is dry lowland forest with a patch of bare ground or rocks

in the matrix of forest. The vegetation is generally secondary forest, lowland semi-deciduous, with patches of vegetation over ultramafic soil. The forest is second growth with evidences of logging.

5.5.6 Barangay New Quezon

Only transect 8 traverses this barangay and only two sites have been established. Terraces have been recorded suggesting an agricultural land use in rolling lands of up to 100-masl. The terrain is rolling. As such, the sampling sites have been established in lower and mid-slopes. Orientation of the slopes is southwest. The forest present in the barangay is of the dry, lowland type, semi-deciduous, second growth and has been logged over in past years.

5.5.7 Barangay New Busuanga

The barangay has the continuation of transect 8 and the start of transect 9. Again, only two sites have been established. As in Barangay New Quezon, terraces have been observed suggesting an agricultural use in rolling and hilly lands under 300-masl. Sampling sites have been established in the lower and mid-slopes with 9 – 45% inclinations and facing southwest and northeast.

The vegetation found in the barangay is dry, lowland forest with wetlands in the

lower elevations. It is also a secondary forest, semi-deciduous, with “limestone vegetation” found herein. It is also recorded to be lightly logged over.

5.5.8 Barangay San Rafael

The remaining sampling sites of transect 8 are in this barangay. The area is generally rolling lands of up to 100-masl. All sites are in the upper slopes of the rolling area and all slopes face southwest.

The vegetation type sampled is dry, lowland forest, secondary, and Karst. Since

this is Karst, it may suggest that it could be old growth since most species in this habitat are physically undesirable for commercial uses. The stand condition is rather lightly logged suggesting some extraction activities.

5.5.9 Barangay Sto. Nino

Two transects have been established in this barangay (Transects 1&2). The area has rolling and hilly lands of up to 500-masl. This barangay is slightly higher than the nearby barangays. Sampling sites have been established below 300-masl on hilltops, ridges with a few flat/undulating terrains. Slopes face East and northeast.


The vegetation sampled is basically dry, secondary lowland forest, semi-deciduous with karst forms, and evergreen – meaning they do not shed their leaves during dry periods.

5.5.10 Barangay Buluang Transect 10 is the only transect established in this barangay. All sampling sites fall in the rolling lands with 700-masl as its highest point. This barangay has the highest point compared to the rest of Busuanga. The terrain is rolling wherein most sampling sites are on ridges and one is established on a hilltop at 700-masl but is flat and / or rather undulating. Slopes have an inclination of 45% and below, which is quite steep; and faces a northeast direction.

Vegetative cover is dry, lowland forest and brush land over Karst conditions. The habitat is lightly logged over suggesting some extraction of resources.

5.5.11 Barangay Bugtong

Only transect 5 with 6 sampling sites have been established in this barangay. Most of the area sampled is rolling, gradually going to hilly lands of less than 500-masl, as the transect progresses. However, the elevations of sampling sites never went above 300-masl. Terrain of the sites are in mid-slopes and hill tops with steepness of slopes ranging from steep to very steep as one goes along the transect. All slopes in the transect faces northeast.

5.6 Vegetation Analysis

5.6.1 Primary vis-à-vis Non - Primary Forest

The issue on whether there still exists a primary forest cover in Busuanga could be

settled in the following discussion. Figure 3 shows the stand and stock table with volume and diameter classes in graphical form.

A primary forest is characterized as having large diameters of trunks, almost

always having closed canopies, and it typically epitomizes what a climax tropical rainforest is. The mainstay of the tropical rainforest is the family Dipterocarpaceae. It has associates that grow under the canopies of the Dipterocarps.

The age of the trees could be estimated by the size or diameter of the boles / trunks

and the species name. This is important because each species has its own rate of growth. For example, a dipterocarp, Red Lauan (Shorea negrosensis), having 120 cm diameter could be estimated to be more than 250 years old, whereas, a non-dipterocarp e.g. Mimosaceae: Rain Tree (Samanea saman) could have 100 cm diameter but only 50 years old.

In referring to Figure 3, the dipterocarps are shown to have no more entries beyond

the 60 cm diameter mark. The last entry is recorded at the 50 – 60 cm diameter range with a volume of less than 3.20 cu m. Most of the dipterocarps are recorded in the 20 – 40 cm


diameter range. This means that the age of the remaining dipterocarps is quite young, estimated to be less than 100 years old. Rough “guesstimate” would be in the range of 50 – 75 yrs old.

In other words, the old growth dipterocarps of Busuanga have been taken/extracted/ logged over. What remains are what is called “second growth” dipterocarps, the next generation trees – those that were not logged because of their small diameter and volume during the height of logging activities, which now are gaining size in girth.

As mainstays of the tropical rainforest, there now remain the second generation dipterocarp trees. “Primary” trees have been removed through logging. There is even no presence of “residuals” – old growth trees not logged for later extraction. Hence, as far as the lowland dipterocarp rainforest of Busuanga is concerned, there is no “primary” forest left in the Municipality.

On the other hand, the non-dipterocarps have fairly large populations also in the 20

– 40 cm diameter range, as shown by their volume in Figure 3. There are, however, remnants of large diameter trees in the 90 - 120 cm diameter range. As to species, the tree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

volu

me

(cu.

m.)

10-19cm

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90-99

100-109

110-119

120

DBH Classes

Timber volume for Dipterocarps and Non Dipterocarps in Busuanga

Diptero

NonDipt

Figure 3. Graphical Presentation of the Stand and Stock Table with Volume and Diameter Classes as Parameters


with the 120 cm dbh is Ipil (Instia bijuga), whereas Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) is the species in the 90 cm dbh mark. This means that there should have been large diameter trees of non-dipterocarps present in this diameter range if they were not also extracted. However, as shown in Figure 3, there are none. The absence of these large diameter non-dipterocarps means that they also have been logged over along with the dipterocarps. Therefore, this strengthens further the argument that “there is no primary forest” left in Busuanga. What remains are the “secondary forest” attested to by the presence of the trees in the 20-40 cm diameter classes.

5.6.2 “Primary Forest over Ultramafic Soil”

This is a type of vegetative cover that grows in soil with large amounts of heavy metals such as nickel, iron, zinc, chromium, etc. The effect of these heavy metals on the physiology of the plants, especially tree species, is to stunt its growth either in its girth and / or its height. This would then make it difficult to estimate the age of the plant species. Dipterocarps are not the dominant species in this habitat, hence, their absence.

What is present though are the non-dipterocarps, which also have species having

large diameters but, in this habitat, would have a diameter range of 1 cm to 5 cm, sometimes up to 20 cm, at most to 40 cm, e.g. Balete (Ficus sp.). Height would be either up to 10 m, or to a minimum of only a meter or two, depending on the type of ultramafic vegetation.

Since this is the case, the trees in this habitat is not attractive in terms of their

commercial value, hence they would not be logged over. They may be extracted in small numbers for domestic or community consumption, but not as heavily as the lowland forest. Being relatively untouched, the ages of the plant species would be old growth and hence could be termed as “primary” growth forest minus the large diameters. Therefore in this habitat, the forest cover could be termed as “primary forest over ultramafic” soil.

However, as mentioned in the first part of the report, there are no ultramafic soils

in Busuanga.

5.6.3 “Primary Forest over Karst Limestone”

Another habitat that could be found in Busuanga is the “forest over karst limestone”. A similar argument could be applied for this type of habitat / vegetative cover. The limestone substrate also influences the physiology of the plants and would affect its diameter and height growth. They, however, are taller than the forest over ultramafic soil.

As mentioned earlier, the Karst substrate has silicon dioxides that are also essential in the growth of bamboo. The intermediate or under canopy layer is dominated by the Buho (Schizostachyum lumampao) in Busuanga. Also found in the municipality are two species of the Mankono (Xanthostemon bracteatus, and X. verdugonianus), a tree species associated with ultramafic soils, but since only Silica is found, the tree absorbs this element and incorporates it in its growth, hence the very hard texture of the wood.


It also would be difficult to estimate the age of the species in this habitat. The same argument applies however that they are not commercially attractive and remains relatively unextracted; hence, their age could be categorized under old growth, thence, “primary forest over karst limestone”.

Therefore, in determining the type of forest, several factors have to be considered

before one could declare a forest as “old growth” or “primary”: 1. The species 2. The age 3. The substrate 4. The degree of disturbance 5. Volume of trees per hectares

5.7 Overall Description of Vegetation Cover and Forest Types

There are three major plant community types observed in Busuanga (Table 4):

Boho species (Schizostachyum lumampao) dominates the lower elevation in most parts in Busuanga. It is an extensive and distinct plant community type. It manifests extensive forest exploitation

Above the extensive boho plant community types are mixtures of brush-

boho-trees.

Forest stands above the boho-brush mixture. Table 4. Dominant Vegetation in Busuanga by Transect Line

Transect

Line

Barangay Covered

Dominant Vegetation and Land Use

1 and 2 Sto. Niño Extensive boho plant community type even in higher elevation, wide boho – brush mixtures, and patches of forested areas.

3 Conception and Sagrada

Lowland agriculture, hillside farms, thick secondary forests in the upper slopes surrounded by wide areas covered by boho. Grasses and boho dominate the entire length of the transect.

4 Sagrada and Bugtong Wide tract of lands are covered by boho reaching until the higher elevations. At midpoint of the transect, secondary forest stands were encountered until Cheey in the North.


Transect

Line

Barangay Covered

Dominant Vegetation and Land Use

5 Bugtong A good forest stand was encountered which is proposed to be core zone. It is surrounded by river tributaries. Extensive boho stands were encountered; at the watershed divide is a Dipterocarp forest dominated by Apitong. Below the Apitong forest stand is extensive area dominated by boho.

6 and 7 Salvacion and Old Busuanga

Lowland agriculture near the shoreline. As survey crew went uplands, several hillside farms were encountered. Significant stands of more or less intact forest stands were encountered. All around those forest stands are large areas covered with boho. A core zone is proposed in those sites. Cashew plantations were encountered in Cheey.

8 San Rafael Wide tracts of land dominated by boho – grass plant community type, a secondary forest exist at the higher slopes, towards Cheey are wide tracts of boho areas. A secondary forest was encountered at the end of the transect line in Cheey.

9 New Busuanga Except for a small patch of secondary forest found in the higher elevation along the transect line, boho – grass species dominated transect 9.

10 Between New Busuanga & Buluang

Boho – grasslands covered about 85% of the whole transect. A small patch of secondary forest is found along a river flowing towards Calauit.

11 Buluang Almost pure boho –grass plant community type. There were no forest stands encountered.

Vegetation cover and land use pattern were observed as follows: Firstly, lowland

agriculture; secondly, boho – grass areas; then secondary forest. At the northern side of Busuanga a similar pattern of vegetation is influenced by elevation, exposure, soil fertility, and available moisture.

5.7.1 Land Uses in the Uplands

There were two distinct or significant land uses encountered during the terrestrial flora survey in Busuanga. These are upland or hillside farming and grazing that covers the entire Busuanga municipality. Several cattle from Yulo King Ranch (YKR) roamed freely from Cheey in the northeastern side to the southwestern part of Busuanga. Both land uses employ burning in its land management. The practice by YKR to burn wide grasslands is to induce grass regrowth for cattle


5.7.2 Location of Upland Settlements

There were no upland settlements encountered during the survey.

5.8 Implication to Reforestation In Table 5, the volume is computed taking the parameters of diameter and number of individuals. Equating it with the “stocking” of the forest, it can be concluded from the results of the computations whether the forest could use some silvicultural interventions (e.g. reforestation) or not.

For the dipterocarps, it is an imperative to conduct interventions such as enrichment planting, and maybe reforestation in some parts of the Municipality. Results show (Table 5) that the dipterocarps have only a total of 45.05 cu m for the whole of Busuanga. On a per hectare basis, this would translate to only 6.32 cu m / ha, way below that of an adequately stocked forest. Also as shown in Figure 3, there are no records of regenerants for the species for diameters of 10 – 19 cm. No sampling has been done in this category, but according to the data as discussed further, there are no second generation dipterocarps in Busuanga. This also suggests that for the past several years there has been no fruiting of the species, hence, wildlings that are supposed to be the next generation to the current population, are absent.

On the other hand, the non-dipterocarps have a total volume of 1,048.58 cu m or

147 m3/ha. This means that the area is more than adequately stocked, hence, no reforestation or other interventions are needed. Table 5 further suggests that the lowland forest of Busuanga is no longer dipterocarp – dominant but rather a non-dipterocarp forest.

Table 5. Summary of the Stand and Stock of Both Dipterocarp and Non-

Dipterocarp, Busuanga, Municipality

Species Total no. of Individuals Total Volume Volume / hectare

Non-dipterocarps 1,842 1,048.58 147

Dipterocarps 62 45.05 6.32

Total 1,904 1,093.63 153.32

5.9 Biodiversity Assessment of Flora

Stratification of the vegetative cover of Busuanga has been done to better characterize or describe different habitats. Under this stratification, three layers of the forest have been sampled. These are a) Canopy Layer; b) Under Canopy Layer; and c) the


Under Growth or Ground Layer. The canopy layer consists of the emergents (those that over-top other tall trees) and the general canopy of the forest. The under canopy is the trees and other plant forms that thrive under shaded conditions right beneath the canopy layer. The ground layer or the under growth are those plants thriving close to the ground. They consist of wildlings of the large trees, the grasses, herbs, ferns, low-level vines, and mosses if any.

To describe the biodiversity levels of these different strata, the Fernando (1998)

Biodiversity Scale is used (Table 1).

5.9.1 The Canopy Layer

This stratum consists of trees with at least 10 cm diameter with total height of 4 m and above. In Figure 3, the highest diameter recorded is in the 120 cm range. Total number of individuals sampled is 1,491. Total species recorded is 191.

Busuanga has an overall flora biodiversity of H’ = 4.21 in this stratum. This is very

high according to the Fernando scale. The distribution of the species within the sampling sites is also very high at J’ = 0.81. However, the J’ index also indicates that the distribution is not uniform but rather clustered or clumped.

On a per transect basis, transect 6 in Barangays Cheey and Salvacion has the

highest floral diversity having H’ = 4.17 (Annex Table 1). The distribution of species is highly evenly distributed as indicated by J’ = 0.94. This means that there are more rare species in these two barangays as compared with other transects traversing the other barangays.

Of the twenty (20) sampling sites in transect 6, there are 5 sites that have

moderately high diversity (i.e. above H’ = 2.5) as compared to Transects 1 & 4, its nearest rival, having only one site each with H’ = 2.58 in Barangays Sto. Niño and Cheey, respectively.

All transects have moderately high to very high flora diversity, each collectively

having more than H’ = 2.5. However, on a per sampling site basis, majority of the sites have low to very low diversity (Annex Table 1). This would suggest that enrichment planting is necessary to increase the plant diversity of a particular area.

Table 6 shows the top five species and their relative values in the stratum. The

dominant species is the Katpai, a palm species belonging to the family Arecaceae, which is ranked as number 1 having a computed importance value of 14.53. This is followed by Taket (Syzygium squamiferum) as the second most dominant having an importance value of 11.29. Taluto (Pterocymbium tinctorium) is third ranked with an I.V. = 11.16.

The following is a summary of the top ranked species found in this stratum.


Table 6. Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species in the Canopy Layer

Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq Dom RDom I.V.

Katpai 191 12.81 5 1.27 443.63 0.46 14.53 Taket 130 8.71 8 2.03 521.46 0.54 11.29 Taluto 134 8.98 8 2.03 139.97 0.14 11.16 Ekoyan 113 7.57 4 1.01 1037.48 1.07 9.66 Katol 109 7.31 6 1.52 678.86 0.7 9.53

Standard deviation of the densities of the species is 2.04 while the coefficient of

variation is 103.03. This means that the number of individuals in the transect is highly variable since there is a higher scatter of values around the mean. This would coincide with the Pielou Distribution Index J’ that indicates the species distribution therein is clustered or quite uneven.

Similarity Index and the Matrix

The similarity index is used to compare two sites and how similar / dissimilar they

are in terms of species composition. They could also be used in plant community type mapping by marking similar plant communities and laying them out in the maps. In this case, it is the transects that would be compared.

Shown in Table 7 are the similarity values comparing the transects with each other.

Table 7. Similarity Values between Sampling Transects, Canopy Layer

Trans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 X 17.68 18.64 97.62 16.80 13.85 18.66 4.17 5.08 5.48 2 X X 19.10 17.84 14.19 38.62 16.49 14.94 28.22 29.733 X X X 18.12 11.40 14.12 39.71 9.15 19.66 12.854 X X X X 16.93 12.80 18.81 4.21 5.13 5.53 5 X X X X X 15.67 12.27 25.55 3.80 14.516 X X X X X X 12.37 12.55 16.15 12.247 X X X X X X X 12.45 25.22 15.818 X X X X X X X X 15.93 12.249 X X X X X X X X X 22.9810 x x X x x X x x x X


Although transects 1 and 4 are kilometers apart, their vegetative composition are 97.62% similar. Transects 7 & 3 are the next most similar having 39.71%, and transects 6 & 2 also have near 40% similarity with one another. The rest of the transects have insignificant similarities. However, since they belong to only one biogeographic region, it could not be helped that some species would be found in the other transects. This means that those species have a wider distribution in Busuanga than the other species, which could be considered as rare because of their limited distribution. It also indicates that the lower the similarity, the more rare species there are because of high dissimilarity. Cluster Analysis

This statistical analysis is done to establish community types and thus could be mapped out spatially. The cluster analysis also is used to “detect relations between communities and the environment by analysis of the groups formed with respect to the environmental variables.” (Jongman et.al. 1987).

The result of the analysis is a cladogram grouping similar sites together. Figure 4

shows this clustering of transects.

There are three groupings or clusters that have been identified in the analysis. However, it is only transects 1 & 4 that have the highest similarities. The groupings identified are Transects 8 & 5; transects 10, 9, 6 & 2; and transects 7, 3, 4 & 1. Transects 1 & 4 have high similarities because of their similar environmental factor, which only tolerant species could survive. This environmental factor is the substrate in which the plants grow in. Identified in the two transects are karst limestone forest cover, and it is in this habitat that similar species thrive, thus explaining the high similarity of species composition.

Figure 4. Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Canopy Layer


5.9.2 The Under Canopy Layer

Plants in this stratum consist of tree species with less than 10 cm diameter or with height less than 4 m, shrubs, large herbs and grasses (such as the bamboo). Included also are the palms, pandan, lianas and epiphytes.

Table 8 shows the distribution of these plant forms under the canopy.

Table 8. Plant Forms Under Canopy in Busuanga

Plant Form

Number Percentage (%)

Tree 150 85 Palm 11 6.286 Grass 2 1.143 Vine 5 2.857 Herb 2 1.143 Epiphyte 4 2.286 Pandan 1 0.571

Total 175 100 Non – tree species 25 15

Vegetation under the canopy is dominated by tree species composing 85%. Non-tree species compose only 15%. Palms have the next most number of species. The palm species are mostly crawling, therefore, for this plant form; it is mostly composed of rattan species.

Epiphytes, pandan, herbs, and vine can also be found under the canopy layer. Grass

species are also present but these are mainly bamboo. This can be shown later that although there are only two grass species, the bamboo Buho (Schizostachyum lumampao) dominates the ecosystem.

Overall, the under canopy ecosystem has an index of H’ = 4.23. This is very high. The distribution of the species within transects are clustered (J’ = 0.82). In Appendix Table 3, it shows that of the ten (10) transects, transects 5 (in Barangays Bugtong, Salvacion and Cheey) & 6 (in Barangays Old Busuanga and Cheey) have the highest values, H’ = 3.62 and 3.46 respectively despite their having less sampling sites, than transect 4 (H’ = 2.91). This means that the forest ecosystem in transect 4 in the middle of Barangay Cheey is more disturbed than the other transects with many sampling sites. Comparatively, transects 1 & 2 in Barangays Sto Nino and Concepcion have higher diversity (H’ = 3.06 & 3.17, respectively) with lesser number of sampling sites than transect 4. The closest in terms of diversity index is transect 10 (H’ = 2.81) in Buluang, but only having 5 sampling sites compared to transect 4 having 38 sampling sites. This supports the argument that transect 4 is more disturbed than most of the other transects.


In terms of species dominance, Buho (S. lumampao) dominates the under canopy ecosystem. This is attested to by its importance value of 26.69. Two rattan species, Palasan (Calamus merrillii) and Nanga (Calamus sp.), follow as ranked 2 & 3 in dominance in the ecosystem. The following table summarizes the top 5 overall dominance of species in the under canopy of Busuanga. Table 9. Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species for the Under Canopy Layer

Species


Buho 157 15.09 100 2.97 477.56 8.62 26.69 Palasan 5 0.48 50 1.49 520.04 9.38 11.35 Nanga 5 0.48 40 1.19 302.29 5.45 7.12 Katol 44 4.23 70 2.08 27.03 0.49 6.8 Ekoyan 43 4.13 40 1.19 26.34 0.47 5.8

There is high variation of values around the means of the density parameter. Its

standard deviation is computed to be 2.37 with a coefficient of variation as 138.01. The inference of this is that individuals of species are in wide distribution but the species tend to be clumped.

Similarity Indices, Matrix and the Cluster Analysis

Table 10 shows the similarity indices between transects in matrix form. The similarities of transects are significant in the sense that there are few species that could be found in any pair of transects. In other words, the transects are very different from each other. Only transect pairs 2 & 6; 1&10; 2&10; and 7&9, have modest similarity in species composition since the index is above 25. The second ranked transect is only 37.93 in transects 2 and 10. There are 4 transect pairs that are below 30 but over 25 indicating low similarities. All other transects have indices below 25 suggesting a highly dissimilar forest composition.


Table 10. Similarity Values between Sampling Transects, Under Canopy Layer

Transect

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 X 27.45 25 19.94 17.84 27.08 12.24 26.01 15.68 35.652 X X 21.53 18.47 16.40 41.34 20.89 18.18 22.47 37.933 X X X 22.22 16.72 23.93 21.16 12.12 18.05 19.884 X X X X 19.83 20.63 9.39 7.10 6.31 18.605 X X X X X 21.69 12.8 17.70 9.75 18.106 X X X X X X 15.03 13.42 14.06 27.107 X X X X X X X 19.23 31.32 16.368 X X X X X X X X 13.56 23.259 X X X X X X X X X 21.5310 X X X X X X X X X X

The pair that has the highest dissimilarity / lowest similarity is transects 4 & 9. Environmental and social factors may be the cause of these dissimilarities / similarities. They are found in Bgys Cheey and New Busuanga.

Subjecting the Similarity indices to cluster analysis, only two groupings have been

identified. These are transects 7, 8, 9 in the first cluster, and the rest belong to the second cluster. Because of the low similarity values, there is a “vague clustering” of the second grouping. This is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Under Canopy Layer


5.9.3 The Ground Layer Stratum (Undergrowth)

The undergrowth is composed of herbs, small grasses, ferns, seedlings, and all other plant forms having less than 1 m in height. The overall diversity index of plant species for this stratum is H’ = 4.54, which is very high. This also means that there have been recent flowering and fruiting of trees such that the ground vegetation is covered with these wildlings. On the other hand, the distribution of these ground vegetation is not so even, J’ = 0.88.

There are 7 plant forms identified in the stratum. Tree species make up the

majority of the undergrowth having 127 species identified (72.99%). Palms come in second with 14 species (8.04%) identified. Most of these palm species are rattan palms. Table 11 shows the distribution of these plant forms. Table 11. Plant Forms in the Ground Layer or Undegrowth in Busuanga

Plant Form

Number of Species Percentage (%)

Trees 127 72.99 Palm 14 8.046 Grass 3 1.724 Vine 11 6.322 Herb 9 5.172 Epiphyte 5 2.874 Fern 5 2.874

Total 174 100

Vines are also a dominant plant form in this stratum since they make up 6.32% of the plant forms found in the area. Presence of many vine species indicates a disturbed ecosystem.

The ground vegetation may be high in diversity overall but in a per transect basis,

the diversity index ranges from 2.01 in transect 9 to 3.85 in transect 5 (Appendix Table 4). The appendix table also shows that certain transects have no values because of entries being too small for computations. This means that the plots in transects 3, 7 & 9 have small number of species found therein. In sum however, the transects have 2.22, 3.08, and 2.01, as their indices, respectively. This is from low to high diversity.

On the other hand, diversity is very low in most plots. Values range from as low as H’ = 0.349 to 2.4. Distribution of species range from highly even (J’ = 1) to a clumped distribution (J’ = 0.279).


Dominant species in the ground vegetation is Malulandit (Syzygium sp.) having an importance value of 8.83, ranked as 1. Dildil (Cynometra inaequifolia) is ranked number 2 with an importance value of 5.48. This is followed by some unidentified species with different plant forms and the fourth is a rattan palm. Palomaria (Calophyllum sp.) is ranked 5th. Table 12 summarizes the values of the top 5 species in the ground vegetation.

Table 12. Relative Values of the Top Five (5) Species in the Ground Layer

Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq I. V.

Malulandit 57 8.47 10 0.37 8.83 Dildil 27 4.01 40 1.48 5.48 Baid 29 4.31 30 1.11 5.41 Bogtong 21 3.12 60 2.21 5.33 Palomaria 17 2.52 50 1.85 4.37

Standard deviation of the density values is 1.117 and its coefficient of variation is 96.52. These values are lower than the other two strata; therefore, there is less variation in this stratum. This is inferred to have an even distribution of individuals in the transect. Similarity Indices, Matrix and the Cluster Analysis

Similarities between transects are quite low in most of them. Others are completely dissimilar having zero values. Table 13 shows the matrix of similarities between transects. Table 13. Similarity Values between Sampling Transects, Ground Layer

Trans

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 X 28.57 17.39 16.7 8.205 16.67 0 2.299 0 12.822 X X 0 9.13 12.09 46.32 0 8.108 0 12.313 X X X 5.3 0 0 14.29 0 7.407 0 4 X X X X 20.16 7.14 0 3.861 0 12.8 5 X X X X X 10.05 0 19.1 0 16.576 X X X X X X 0 8.79 0 9.75 7 X X X X X X X 0 13.79 0 8 X X X X X X X X 0 13.119 X X X X X X X X X 0 10 X X X X X X X X X X


Result of Cluster Analysis has identified 3 clusters or groupings of transects using

the similarity values. One group is composed of transects 3, 7, 9; the second grouping is composed of transects 4, 5, 8, 10; and the last group is made up of transects 1, 2, & 6.

Figure 6 shows the cladogram of the cluster analysis.

5.10 Vegetation Analysis by Transect 5.10.1 Transect 1 in Barangay Sto. Niño

Canopy Layer

In this transect, 62 species were recorded. Of the 62 species, the dominating tree is the Tarab (Diospyros sp.), a tree belonging to the Ebenaceae family of which Kamagong (Diospyros discolor) is also a member, having an importance value of 19.78. Although there is only 1 individual in the whole transect, its basal area more than makes up the difference such that it dominates over the other species. Katpai (Ficus sp.), Taluto (Pterocymbium tinctorium), Ekuyan (Madhuca leerii), Taket (S. squamiferum), and Katol (Ficus glandulifera) are the other species that dominate the forest ecosystem (Table 14).

Figure 6. Cladogram of the Cluster Analysis for the Ground Layer


Overall transect diversity is H’ = 3.45 (Appendix Table 1), which is high already. Species distribution is somewhat clumped / clustered (J’ = 0.835). Table 14. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 1

Species

Dens RDens Freq Rfreq Dom RDom I.V.

Tarab 1 0.15 1 0.28 7539.84 19.35 19.79 Katpai 59 8.98 27 7.69 745.78 1.91 18.59 Taluto 56 8.52 20 5.70 1115.21 2.86 17.08 Ekuyan 55 8.37 23 6.55 387.65 0.99 15.92 Taket 46 7.00 21 5.98 226.92 0.58 13.57 Katol 37 5.63 21 5.98 734.68 1.89 13.5

Under Canopy Layer

According to plant form, grass is not the dominant plant in the under canopy. However, Table 15 shows that the ecosystem in this stratum is dominated by Buho (S. lumampao), a bamboo species classified as grass, having an importance value of 57.01. Salobagyo (Euphorbia sp.) and some unidentified species are ranked second and third with importance values of 23.67 and 15.28, respectively. Binunga (Macaranga tanarius), a pioneer species, is fourth ranked with an I.V. of 14.64. The presence of this species indicates a harsh environment brought about by the dominating Buho bamboo. The presence also of the bamboo is an indication of a much disturbed ecosystem. Table 15. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 1.

Species

Dens RDens Freq Rfreq Dom RDom I.V.

Boho 8 9.76 27.27 5.66 433.72 41.60 57.01 Salobagyo 10 12.20 45.45 9.43 21.31 2.04 23.67 Balanigan 6 7.32 36.36 7.55 4.37 0.42 15.28 Binunga 7 8.54 18.18 3.77 24.38 2.34 14.64 Katol 4 4.88 27.27 5.66 34.47 3.31 13.84 Luboy 7 8.54 18.18 3.77 11.68 1.12 13.43

Diversity index is H’ = 3.17, considered as high with a distribution index of J’ = 0.91, considered as highly even.


Ground Layer

As shown in Table 16, included in the top 6 species is again the Binunga (M. tanarius). This indicates that the tree has fruited recently in the past year or two because of the presence of wildlings recorded in this stratum.

An unidentified species dominates the ground stratum. Included also in the dominating species is Nanga (Calamus sp.), a rattan palm. Table 16. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 1.

Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq I.V.

Agpoi 8 15.38 45.45 14.29 29.67 Loboy 9 17.31 18.18 5.71 23.0 Nanga 6 11.54 27.27 8.57 20.11 Salobagyo 3 5.77 27.27 8.57 14.34 Katol 3 5.77 18.18 5.71 11.48 Binunga 3 5.77 18.18 5.71 11.48

Diversity is moderately high, the index showing a H’ = 2.66. The distribution of species in this stratum is rather even at J’ = 0.9 (Appendix Table 4).

5.10.2 Transect 2 in Barangay Sto. Nino

Canopy Layer

Overall diversity in this transect for the canopy layer is H’ = 3.02. According to the scale, this is considered high. The index of distribution of species J’ = 0.87 suggests a fairly even distribution.

On a per plot basis, the sampling sites have low diversity, ranging from a very low H’ = 1.38 to a low 2.27. However, the aggregate of species for the whole transect results to a high diversity in the barangay.

Table 17 shows the most dominant species found in the transect. Most dominant is

Taluto (Pterocymbium tinctorium), followed by Katol (Ficus sp.), Taket (S. squamiferum), Baid (Euphorbia plumerioides), Palomaria (Callophyllum sp.) and Luboy (Syzygium sp.).


Table 17. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 2

Species


Taluto 1 0.01 1 1.23 2290.27 26.24 27.49 Katol 16 0.18 8 9.88 18.44 0.21 10.27 Taket 13 0.15 7 8.64 28.11 0.32 9.11 Baid 13 0.15 7 8.64 13.40 0.15 8.94 Palomaria 2 0.02 1 1.23 962.21 11.02 12.28 Luboy 8 0.09 5 6.17 39.66 0.45 6.72

Under Canopy Layer

Diversity in transect 2 under canopy is a bit higher than the Canopy layer, which is H’ = 3.17. Distribution of species is more or less even, J’ = 0.91.

Again, in this layer, the Buho bamboo (S. lumampao) dominates the ecosystem. It could be deduced that the Buho under canopy growth is quite extensive in the area since the bamboo also dominates the under canopy vegetation of transect 1. There is a distance of 2 km between transects, hence, there is extensive growth. Table 18. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 2

Species


Buho 11 15.71 63.64 11.48 11.72 1.66 28.85 Butyal 6 8.57 45.45 8.20 18.35 2.60 19.37 Nalig 4 5.71 36.36 6.56 17.72 2.51 14.78 Katol 4 5.71 27.27 4.92 28.27 4.01 14.64 Baid 3 4.29 27.27 4.92 34.91 4.95 14.15 Dularog 3 4.29 27.27 4.92 27.65 3.92 13.12

Ground Layer

The ground layer vegetation has less diversity in this area, having only 2.61 as the index. This is considered moderately high. Since the under growth has lower diversity than the two layers, this indicates that mature plants in the area have not recently fruited and dispersed their propagules. If there are, very few have done so but not contributing significantly to affect the diversity index.


The Pielou distribution index J’ = 0.92, which means that the species found therein are evenly distributed.

Table 19 shows the dominant species in this layer. Table 19. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 2

Species


Bugtong 7.00 17.95 54.55 16.22 34.16 Butyal 5.00 12.82 45.45 13.51 26.33 Baid 4.00 10.26 36.36 10.81 21.07 Palasan 3.00 7.69 27.27 8.11 15.80 Luboy 3.00 7.69 27.27 8.11 15.80 Litsik 3.00 7.69 27.27 8.11 15.80

5.10.3 Transect 3 in Bgys Concepcion and Sagrada, and Yulo King Ranch

Canopy Layer

The plots along the transect have diversity indices ranging from zero (values too small to calculate) to a low 2.05. The index values are quite low along the transect. However, in totality, the overall index is 2.93, considered as moderately high. The J’ distribution is very low indicating species distribution is quite clustered.

Having low diversity along the transect indicates that the area has been subjected

to disturbances thus creating a highly clustered distribution of species. It may be said that in clustered populations of trees in this layer, it may be a closed canopy. However, between clusters, it may be open canopy.

Table 20 shows the 6 most dominant species in the transect. One tree species, the Ikuyan (Madhuca leerii), ranked as number 3.



Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq Dom Rdom I.V.

Katpay 41 16.80 28.57 6.38 1071 7.29 30.48 Malapu 18 7.37 38.09 8.51 555 3.78 19.66 Ikuyan 19 7.78 38.09 8.51 349 2.37 18.67 Bungan 4 1.63 14.28 3.19 1870 12.73 17.56 Maladuhat 16 6.55 33.33 7.44 492 3.35 17.35 Tamisan 21 8.60 28.57 6.38 234 1.59 16.58

Under Canopy Layer

For transect 3 under canopy layer, the most dominant species is again Buho (S. lumampao). The distribution of the bamboo is quite extensive already covering three transects, which are kilometers apart. Two rattan species also are found in this layer that is the Palasan (Calamus merrillii), and the Nanga (Calamus sp.) (Table 21). Table 21. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 3.

Species Dens RDens Freq RFreq Dom RDom I.V. Boho 14.00 11.11 52.38 13.10 1306.49 22.43 46.63 Palasan 1.00 0.79 4.76 1.19 2463.01 42.28 44.27 Nanga 2.00 1.59 9.52 2.38 1089.79 18.71 22.68 Malugay 16.00 12.70 38.10 9.52 16.44 0.28 22.50 Tamisan 10.00 7.94 23.81 5.95 23.76 0.41 14.30 Malapu 7.00 5.56 19.05 4.76 16.72 0.29 10.60

Plant diversity is high at 3.29, higher than the canopy layer. Distribution is a little even. Having a grass species, i.e. the bamboo, in this layer and a high indication of diversity suggests an open canopy of the first layer and is a disturbed ecosystem. The open canopy would allow more sunlight to penetrate to the under canopy thus providing growing conditions for other plants. This would explain the higher diversity index.

Well distributed sunlight in this layer would mean a more or less even distribution

of species. Hence, the J’ index shows this at 0.88. As shown along the transect, there are plots that have high evenness distributions, the J’ index having 1 values (Appendix Table 3).


Ground Layer A different condition exists in this layer. Since the under canopy growth has high diversity, and the growth of Buho is dominating, less sunlight now penetrates to the ground layer, effectively suppressing growth of ground vegetation. Hence, overall diversity for this layer is low at H’ = 2.22. As shown in Appendix Table 4, values are too small for calculation per plot.

Small plants mean difficult to identify, hence, the dominant species in this layer is an unidentified species. Its density is high compared to the next ranked species (Table 22).

Table 22. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 3.

Species Dens RDens Freq RFreq I.V. Anagas 14.00 35.00 50.00 25.00 60.00 Tamisan 5.00 12.50 28.57 14.29 26.79 Katpay 6.00 15.00 14.29 7.14 22.14 Siksik 2.00 5.00 14.29 7.14 12.14 Kanumay 2.00 5.00 14.29 7.14 12.14 Daat (grass) 1.00 2.50 7.14 3.57 6.07

5.10.4 Transect 4 in Barangay Cheey

Canopy Layer

Transect 4 has one of the highest number of plots. It is also one of the longest transect. Because of this high number, there are more species sampled, hence, higher diversity. Therefore, the diversity for transect 4 is near borderline high of 3.438. Distribution of trees in this transect is a bit clustered, at J’ = 0.83. The transect is located near the middle of the island, bisecting it along with transects 5 and 6.

In terms of dominance, Katpay (Ficus sp) is ranked 1 having an importance value

of 10.25. This is followed by Taluto (P. tinctorium), Ekuyan (Madhuca leerii), Taket (S. squamiferum), and the rest in Table 23. Taluto and Ekuyan are both pioneer species indicating the ecosystem as a disturbed one since they have grown in the area.



Species


Katpai 60.00 0.18 71.05 7.80 745.78 2.27 10.25 Taluto 56.00 0.17 52.63 5.78 1075.73 3.27 9.22 Ekuyan 48.00 0.15 50.00 5.49 579.27 1.76 7.40 Taket 46.00 0.14 55.26 6.07 217.16 0.66 6.87 Katol 41.00 0.12 60.50 6.65 64.14 0.19 6.97 Laho 30.00 0.09 47.37 5.20 418.00 1.27 6.56

The immediate area around plot 6 in the transect stands out to have a moderately high diversity compared to the other plots, which have low to very low diversity (Appendix Table 1).

Under Canopy Layer

Although Buho (S. lumampao) still dominates this transect (Table 24), the under canopy growth have lower diversity compared to the first three transects. Its diversity index here is 2.91 despite having more plots to sample. Reason for this is that the canopy layer has high diversity indicating a more even and denser species distribution, hence allowing lesser sunlight to penetrate. Such conditions would suppress sunlight loving plants in the under canopy. This also would indicate a rather closed canopy layer. Because of the patches of sunlight that goes through the upper canopy, the distribution of plants in the lower layer would tend to cluster around the sources of sunlight. Therefore, the distribution of plants in this layer is J’ = 0.76, which supports the preceding discussion. Table 24. Dominant Six (6) species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 4 .

Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq Dom Rdom I.V.

Buho 63.00 21.14 57.89 9.73 800.96 34.24 65.11 Katol 28.00 9.40 63.16 10.62 34.55 1.48 21.49 Ekuyan 30.00 10.07 55.26 9.29 40.64 1.74 21.10 Taket 29.00 9.73 57.89 9.73 31.28 1.34 20.80 Katpai 27.00 9.06 60.53 10.18 31.50 1.35 20.58 Bintang 16.00 5.37 34.21 5.75 37.94 1.62 12.74


In addition, the dense growth of bamboo would also tend to suppress growth of other species, thus, limiting the number of species in the area.

Ground Layer

Appendix Table 4 shows the low diversity of the ground vegetation on a per plot basis. Indices range from 0.501 to 1.61, both very low values. Distribution on a per plot basis is quite even, some plots having the highest value of 1.

Overall, however, the diversity index of transect 4 is a high 3.18. The distribution index overall tends to be clustering at 0.812.

In terms of dominance, Table 25 shows the top ranked 6 species of the transect.

Table 25. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 4

Species


Malulandit 57.00 25.33 15.79 4.20 29.53 Dildil 21.00 9.33 34.21 9.09 18.42 Sik-sik 11.00 4.89 28.95 7.69 12.58 Ekuyan 8.00 3.56 21.05 5.59 9.15 Amugis 7.00 3.11 18.42 4.90 8.01 Palumaria 9.00 4.00 13.16 3.50 7.50

Accordingly, wildlings of Amugis (Koordersiodendron pinnatum) have been recorded and they are ranked at no. 5. This indicates a recent fruiting of the tree species, as early as 1 – 2 years back.

5.10.5 Transect 5 in Barangays Bogtong, Cheey, and Salvacion

Canopy Layer

The presence of Yakal (Shorea astylosa) indicates that this area was once an expanse of dipterocarp forest. As ranked number 2, it is one of the most dominant species influencing this ecosystem in terms of species composition. Ipil (I. bijuga) and Taluto (P. tinctorium) are both medium to large trees in the same category as the dipterocarps.

Duguan (Myristica philippinensis) is an endemic species in the Philippines and it is usually a resident of the tropical forest. This tree species is not a pioneer species, but it indicates a favorable growing condition normal to climax forests. However, as seen in Figure 3, the lowland forests in Busuanga are secondary forests already.



Species


Ipil 7.00 0.02 6.00 4.03 1810.63 5.93 9.98 Yakal 23.00 0.08 9.00 6.04 536.81 1.76 7.87 Taluto 6.00 0.02 6.00 4.03 973.14 3.19 7.23 Duguan 8.00 0.03 7.00 4.70 344.30 1.13 5.85 Kulotkulot 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1541.33 5.05 5.72 Malapo 10.00 0.03 7.00 4.70 265.61 0.87 5.60

The diversity in this stratum is very high at H’ = 3.66. It has an index of species distribution at J’ = 0.88, which is more or less even.

Under Canopy Layer

As with the previous transects, the dominating species in this stratum is again the Buho (S. lumampao). Although the Canopy layer registers species belonging in the climax forest, the presence of Buho as a dominant plant indicates a highly disturbed forest ecosystem. The data also identified this area as heavily logged over.

Table 27. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 5.

Species

Dens

RDens

Freq

RFreq

Dom

RDom

I.V.

Boho 21.00 11.29 85.00 13.28 25.22 2.10 26.67 Kalantunay 2.00 1.08 10.00 1.56 122.72 10.20 12.84 Amaha 11.00 5.91 30.00 4.69 12.45 1.04 11.64 Palomarya 9.00 4.84 20.00 3.13 32.57 2.71 10.67 Yakal 10.00 5.38 20.00 3.13 18.86 1.57 10.07 Bogtong 8.00 4.30 35.00 5.47 1.74 0.14 9.91

Diversity in this stratum is very high at H’ = 3.62. Being logged over, the forest is open canopy hence high penetration of sunlight that would increase the growth of light-loving species in the under canopy stratum. Distribution is even at J’ = 0.89.

In this stratum, there is a population of Yakal (S. astylosa) as shown in Table 27.

This is the next generation dipterocarp species. It also indicates that the last fruiting of Yakal has been several years ago. There is no latest fruiting of the tree species. This is indicated in the next stratum where it is not recorded.


Ground Layer

The ground layer has a high plant diversity at H’ = 3.85. In Table 28, there seems to be a high species richness of rattan species. Bogtong, (Calamus subinermis), and Siksik, (Calamus microsphaerion), are all rattan species and they dominate the ground vegetation. Fruiting of the rattan palms may have been recent, hence the dominating ranks.

Talahib (Saccharum spontaneum) is a pioneer grass species ranked number 2 in the stratum. This further indicates the high disturbance condition of the ecosystem. Table 28. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 5.

Species

Dens

RDens

Freq

RFreq

I.V.

Bogtong 9.00 6.29 40.00 6.96 13.25 Talahib 8.00 5.59 40.00 6.96 12.55 Amaha 10.00 6.99 25.00 4.35 11.34 Banga 7.00 4.90 20.00 3.48 8.37 Rattan 5.00 3.50 25.00 4.35 7.84 Siksik 4.00 2.80 20.00 3.48 6.28

Distribution of the species in the ground vegetation is J’ = 0.92, which is quite even.

5.10.6 Transect 6 in Barangays Cheey and Salvacion

Canopy Layer

The canopy stratum has many uncommon indigenous species dominating the

ecosystem. As shown in Table 29, the top 6 species are uncommon; hence, one would not be familiar with the trees. On the other hand, the number 5 ranked species, Lanete (Wrightia pubescens), is a medium size tree and is included in the IUCN Red Data List of endangered plant species. This would indicate that the forest here is of medium height, that is, about 20 m or so.



Species

Dens

RDens

Freq

RFreq

RDom

I.V.

Butyal 11.00 5.26 45.00 4.39 0.79 10.44 Taket 9.00 4.31 45.00 4.39 0.93 9.62 Luboy 9.00 4.31 45.00 4.39 0.86 9.55 Baid 7.00 3.35 35.00 3.41 1.30 8.06 Lanete 7.00 3.35 35.00 3.41 0.55 7.31 Tarab 6.00 2.87 30.00 2.92 2.31 8.10

The diversity of this layer is H’ = 4.17, which is very high. The distribution of species is also high or very even at J’ = 0.94. In Appendix Table 1, there are six plots that have moderately high diversity values and the rest are classified as low diversity. Furthermore, the distribution of these species along the transect is highly even, many having the value 1. Such high diversity in sections along the transect would indicate some favorable environmental conditions for the proliferation of species. Probable environmental conditions would be good soil substrate with good fertility and high moisture availability.

The ecosystem is classified as a lowland semi-deciduous forest meaning that the

area has distinct wet and dry season, that is, during the dry season, the tendency of the trees would be to shed their leaves to conserve water in their biomass.

Under Canopy Layer

Again, Buho dominates the under canopy vegetation (Table 30). The same discussion as in previous transects apply here.

On the other hand, the associated species that also dominate belong to secondary

forests (e.g. Butyal (Arcangelisia sp); Luboy (Syzygium sp.). Banato (Mallotus philippinensis) also belongs in secondary forests but it is more a pioneer species that have its habitat in fringes of disturbed forests and near grasslands.

Table 30. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 6

Species


Buho 18.00 16.51 65.00 12.50 17.10 1.63 30.65 Luboy 6.00 5.50 30.00 5.77 14.75 1.41 12.68 Butyal 5.00 4.59 25.00 4.81 18.10 1.73 11.12 Banato 4.00 3.67 20.00 3.85 28.27 2.70 10.21 Tarab 4.00 3.67 20.00 3.85 26.65 2.54 10.06 Sahing 4.00 3.67 20.00 3.85 20.63 1.97 9.48


The next generation of Butyal is assured in this forest, as shown in Table 30 where

the species is recorded in this stratum. Sahing (Canarium asperum) is an indigenous species that has many uses for the local people. Its rank in the ecosystem (no. 6) ensures that there would be the next generation Sahing.

Diversity in this layer is a very high H’ = 3.46 with a distribution index of J’ = 0.91

that is quite even. Appendix Table 3 shows that there are also high values in distribution along the transect plots.

Ground Layer

The ground vegetation has a highly even distribution of species in the plots of the transect. All plots have the value 1. Appendix Table 4 shows the diversity index and distribution index per plot.

Overall diversity is a high 3.2 with a distribution index of 0.91.

Table 31. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 6. Species


Bugtong 12.00 17.65 65.00 12.75 30.39 Butyal 5.00 7.35 30.00 5.88 13.24 Luya-luya 4.00 5.88 25.00 4.90 10.78 Baid 4.00 5.88 25.00 4.90 10.78 Luboy 3.00 4.41 20.00 3.92 8.33 Litsik 3.00 4.41 20.00 3.92 8.33

Dominant vegetation is a palm (Bugtong: C. subinermis) and some Herbs (e.g. Luya luya (Zingiber sp.) and tree species (Butyal). The mature trees of Butyal recently fruited thus giving wildlings in this stratum.

5.10.7 Transect 7 in Barangay Cheey

Canopy Layer

Most of the species dominating the ecosystems are indigenous with Katpay (Ficus sp.), leading the dominants. One large tree is included. This is the Taluto (P. tinctorium).


Table 32. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 7.

Species


Katpay 30.00 16.76 80.00 12.12 566.96 2.28 31.16 Bikan 17.00 9.50 53.33 8.08 219.91 0.89 18.46 Laho 12.00 6.70 60.00 9.09 604.21 2.43 18.23 Maladuhat 13.00 7.26 53.33 8.08 660.52 2.66 18.00 Taluto 10.00 5.59 33.33 5.05 1288.25 5.19 15.82 Taho-tahong babae 11.00 6.15 26.67 4.04 430.39 1.73 11.92 Katul 2.00 1.12 13.33 2.02 1742.34 7.02 10.15

Diversity of this transect is high at 3.19 with a distribution index of 0.84, which is a bit clumped. On a per transect basis, the indices range from a very low 1.1 to low 2.34. Although the aggregate diversity is high, and the indices on a per transect basis is very low to low, the trend indicates that species are not being repeated along the transect in the samples. These accumulations of species contributed to the high diversity of the overall transect.

Under Canopy Layer

Buho remains the dominant plant form in this stratum as shown in the table below. It is ranked as number 1 with an importance value of 82.19. The taxonomic family of Myrtaceae is also common in this stratum as represented by Maladuhat (Syzygium sp.), which is ranked as no. 3 having an I.V. = 15.64. One requirement of the bamboo grass is that there should be adequate amount of silicon in the soil. It is this element that makes the bamboo’s epidermis hard. So it goes that the karst soil is silicon-based as discussed earlier. The family Myrtaceae is associated with karst limestone and ultramafic soil.

Table 33. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 7.

Species


Boho 4.00 6.25 26.67 8.33 1216.13 67.61 82.20 Bikan 11.00 17.19 33.33 10.42 21.76 1.21 28.81 Maladuhat 4.00 6.25 26.67 8.33 19.05 1.06 15.64 Bintang 3.00 4.69 20.00 6.25 16.62 0.92 11.86 Petkan 3.00 4.69 20.00 6.25 10.95 0.61 11.55 Lambunaw 4.00 6.25 13.33 4.17 15.55 0.86 11.28


In terms of biodiversity, the whole transect has an aggregate index of 3.05, considered as high (Appendix Table 3). But on a per plot basis, the diversity indices show very low values. This means that the species in the plots are very different from each other and they contribute to the species richness of the whole transect.

The distribution index is a high 0.92 suggesting a very even distribution of species

in the plots and along the transect.

Ground Layer

Seen in Table 34, Ulawan (Lithocarpus sp.) is the dominant species in the ground vegetation. This is followed by the Kamagong (Diospyros discolor.), suggesting a recent fruiting of the tree. Malaruhat is ranked at par with Kamagong. Hence, along this transect, the next generation of trees and other plants are the Ulawan, Kamagong, Malaruhat (Syzygium sp.), and the Katul (Ficus glandulifera). Table 34. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 7

Species


Ulawan 5 11.36 38.46 14.71 167.11 Kamagong 3 6.82 15.38 5.88 40.11 Malaruhat 3 6.82 15.38 5.88 40.11 Katul 5 11.36 7.69 2.94 33.42 Yeket-yeket 2 4.55 15.38 5.88 26.74 Katpay 2 4.55 15.38 5.88 26.74 Tahotaho lalake 2 4.55 7.69 2.94 13.37

Appendix Table 4 shows the diversity indices of the ground level vegetation for transect 7. All plots have too small values for adequate computation hence the zero index per plot. However, as an aggregate of all species in the transect, the index is a high 3.08 with a distribution index of 0.94 of which is also high.

5.10.8 Transect 8 in Barangays New Quezon, San Rafael, New Busuanga

Recent field validation survey to the sites revealed a mountain range with healthy cover of forest between these barangays. Unfortunately, the forest cover, which is identified by the GIS team as a “primary forest”, lies between transects 7 & 8. Therefore, this mountain was by-passed by the flora survey team. It is this “primary forest” cover that has been identified as one of the core zones (please see accompanying map).


As for it being identified as a “primary forest” cover, this may be considered as such despite small – medium diameter trees (Figure 3) because of the karst nature of the soils in the area that prevents trees from attaining large dimensions. As such, they are commercially unattractive for extraction up until now.

Canopy Layer

Table 35 summarizes the canopy layer. Ipil (I. bijuga) dominates the layer. Although there were only two individuals recorded, their sizes make up for the dominance; hence, they are ranked as number 1. Karne Norte or Liusin (Maranthes corymbosa), also a large tree but has smaller diameter in this sample, follows as no. 2. Table 35. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 8

Species


Ipil 2 3.23 33.33 4.65 6361.74 28.43 36.30 Karne Norte 6 9.68 50 6.98 443.63 1.98 18.64 Amaha 5 8.06 50 6.98 644.22 2.88 17.92 Yakal 6 9.68 16.67 2.33 606.98 2.71 14.71 Banato 3 4.84 50 6.98 434.96 1.94 13.76 Santol Gubat 4 6.45 33.33 4.65 501.73 2.24 13.34

It is in this transect that Yakal (S. astylosa), a dipterocarp, is recorded. It is ranked as no. 4. The sample has 6 individuals along the transect, therefore, the environmental conditions for growth of this family of trees is favorable. Primarily, the soil in this area is not limestone but more clayey in texture.

Banato (Mallotus philippinensis) is a pioneer species and is a small tree but it is

ranked as no. 5. Their frequency in appearing in half of the total number of plots along the transect makes up more for them to be included in the top ranked species.

There are many species identified in this transect despite its being a short one with only 6 plots. Therefore its diversity index is a high 3.21. Its distribution index is 0.93 making it highly even in the area (Appendix Table 1).

Under Canopy Layer

Prior to reaching the good “primary forest” cover, large stretches of Buho ring the mountain making access to the forest very difficult. The dominance of Buho is supported by the table below, it being ranked as no. 1 with an I.V. = 25.64. Other shrub species follow such as the Banakitan (Pouteria sp), Batobato (Drypetes littoralis), Pitkan (Sapindus sp.), Binunga (M. tanarius), and Baslayan (Fam: Rubiaceae). Binunga (M.


tanarius) is a pioneer species and thrives in marginal areas. The Buho – dominant ecosystem has a very harsh environment and the Binunga fits in very well.

Table 36. Dominant Six ( 6) Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 8.

Species


Boho 4 10 66.67 12.5 17.72 3.14 25.64 Banakitan 2 5 33.33 6.25 53.46 9.48 20.73 Batobato 2 5 33.33 6.25 45.36 8.04 19.29 Pitkan 4 10 33.33 6.25 9.348 1.66 17.91 Binunga 4 10 16.67 3.13 24.85 4.41 17.53 Baslayan 1 2.5 16.67 3.13 63.62 11.28 16.90

The diversity of the transect is a high 3.03 with a high even distribution of 0.95. The plots support a very low diversity but the cumulative number of species makes the diversity high.

Ground Layer

The ground layer stratum is dominated by the Batobato (Drypetes littoralis) having an importance value of 20.80. An unknown species has been recorded to be the second ranked dominant species. Table 37 lists the 6 dominant species in this transect. As shown in the table, the species that has any relation to the upper strata is the Pitkan that is also shown in the under canopy layer. Otherwise, there is no similarity at all to the canopy species. This implies that the canopy stratum species have not fruited for some time now and that there is no second generation of the canopy species.

Table 37. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 8.

Species


Batobato 4 11.43 50 9.38 20.80 Pinpin 3 8.57 50 9.38 17.95 Checkit 3 8.57 50 9.38 17.95 Dildil 3 8.57 33.33 6.25 14.82 Pitkan 2 5.71 33.33 6.25 11.96 Bagin 2 5.71 33.33 6.25 11.96


Plant diversity in the stratum is a moderate high 2.99 while the distribution index is a very high 0.95.

5.10.9 Transect 9 in Barangay New Busuanga

Canopy Layer

Luboy (S. lineatum) and Katul (F. glandulifera) are the most dominant species in this transect and they have a very small difference in their importance values (Table 38). Laho (Colona subaequalis) is a small to medium tree with fruits that are used for seasoning the food of the local people. Makaasim (Syzygium nitidum) is a large tree and is usually associated with the karst limestone habitat or ultramafic soil.

Table 38. Dominant Six (6) Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 9.

Species


Luboy 8 15.69 75 9.68 691.75 6.93 32.29 Katul 5 9.80 50 6.45 1385.44 13.87 30.13 Laho 4 7.84 75 9.68 303.26 3.04 20.56 Makaasim 3 5.88 50 6.45 749.9 7.51 19.84 Ikuyan 5 9.80 50 6.45 337.83 3.38 19.64 Taket 1 1.96 25 3.23 1219.22 12.21 17.40

The composition of the canopy layer is therefore made up of large and medium sized tree species with a mixture of pioneer and lowland forest species.

Only three plots have been established in this transect because the rest of the area have been homogenous grasslands. The plant diversity is a moderate high 2.86 with plot 3 having the highest value along the transect at 2.51. The distribution is high at 0.91 among the canopy species.

Under Canopy Layer

This stratum, the Buho bamboo again reigns over the other species. Pioneer species of Ikuyan (M.leerii), Inyam-inyam (Antidesma impressinerve), and Pagsahingin (Canarium asperum) compose the under canopy layer. Table 39 lists the species found in this layer with their corresponding importance values.


Table 39. All Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 9.

Species


Boho 6 31.58 75 20 754.77 83.70 135.27 Bikan 2 10.53 50 13.33 10.46 1.16 25.02 Ikuyan 2 10.53 25 6.67 7.79 0.86 18.06 Inyam-Inyam 1 5.26 25 6.67 39.59 4.39 16.32 Tagbak 1 5.26 25 6.67 20.43 2.27 14.19 Ulawan 1 5.26 25 6.67 18.10 2.01 13.934 Katpai 1 5.26 25 6.67 12.57 1.39 13.32 Tibig 1 5.26 25 6.67 10.18 1.13 13.06 Lambunaw 1 5.26 25 6.67 9.62 1.07 13.00 Pagsahingin 1 5.26 25 6.67 7.07 0.78 12.71 Katul 1 5.26 25 6.67 7.07 0.78 12.71 Bintang 1 5.26 25 6.67 4.15 0.46 12.39

Plant diversity is a low 2.23 and a moderate high distribution at 0.89. All indices of

plots along the transect are very low, ranging from 0.64 to 1.47.

Ground Layer

Makaasim (S. nitidum) dominate the ground layer vegetation as shown in Table 40 below. This shows that the mother tree of the species recently fruited and produced wildlings. All other species in this layer are also listed with their corresponding importance values.

Table 40. All Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 9.

Species

Dens RDens Freq RFreq IV

Makaasim 4 28.57 75 27.27 55.84 Kantutay 3 21.43 25 9.09 30.52 Bungan 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Ateten 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Kukuringin 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Bugtong 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Katul 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Ikuyan 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23 Ulawan 1 7.14 25 9.09 16.23


The transect has very low diversity at 2.01 but the distribution of the species is high at 0.91. Values of parameters along the transect are very low hence calculations can not be ascertained (Appendix Table 4).

5.10.10 Transect 10 in Barangay Buluang

Canopy Layer

A small community of plants are recorded in this transect mainly due to the karst condition of the area. Only a few species could tolerate karst conditions. Table 41 shows these species. The dominant species being the Ikuyan (M. leerii), a pioneer species. Composition of the canopy layer is made up of medium to large trees but due to the karst conditions, they would not be attaining their full height and girth. Table 41. All Species in the Canopy Layer for Transect 10.

Species


Ikuyan 4 11.11 3 11.54 195.44 3.95 26.59 Katol 4 11.11 2 7.69 220.35 4.45 23.25 Palomarya 3 8.33 2 7.69 324.71 6.55 22.58 Kayataw 3 8.33 2 7.69 314.16 6.34 22.37 Laho 4 11.11 2 7.69 155.59 3.14 21.94 Bintang 1 2.78 1 3.85 706.86 14.27 20.89 Malapo 2 5.56 1 3.85 551.54 11.13 20.53 Tamisan 3 8.33 2 7.69 173.58 3.50 19.53 Taluto 2 5.56 2 7.69 191.13 3.86 17.11 Bariwas 2 5.56 2 7.69 165.13 3.33 16.58 Balian 1 2.78 1 3.85 490.87 9.91 16.53 Salubagyo 1 2.78 1 3.85 346.36 6.99 13.62 Maluandit 2 5.56 1 3.85 194.82 3.93 13.33 Luboy 1 2.78 1 3.85 319.41 6.45 13.07 Dildil 1 2.78 1 3.85 254.46 5.14 11.76 Impaparay 1 2.78 1 3.85 226.98 4.58 11.21

The diversity of the area is a moderately high 2.69 with a high distribution of 0.95. Only 4 plots have been established (Appendix Table 1).


Under Canopy Layer

Again, due to the harsh conditions of the karst habitat, the Buho bamboo once again dominates in this under canopy ecosystem. The Ikuyan (M. leerii) is next which suggests that the Ikuyan in the canopy layer has been prolific in fruiting and spreading its propagules (seeds), hence the near dominance of the species in this stratum. Other species and their corresponding ranks are listed in Table 42.

The plant diversity is moderately high at 2.81 with a distribution of the species at 0.89, which is considered high. Table 42. All Species in the Under Canopy Layer for Transect 10

Species


Boho 8 17.39 100 15.15 191.75 17.00 49.54 Ekoyan 8 17.39 80 12.12 26.76 2.37 31.89 Katol 3 6.52 40 6.06 35.26 3.13 15.71 Taluto 2 4.35 40 6.06 41.85 3.71 14.11 Malapo 3 6.52 40 6.06 13.85 1.23 13.81 Impaparay 2 4.35 20 3.03 67.20 5.96 13.34 Sahing 2 4.35 20 3.03 47.17 4.18 11.56 Laho 1 2.17 20 3.03 70.88 6.28 11.49 Binunga 1 2.17 20 3.03 70.88 6.28 11.49 Santol gubat 1 2.17 20 3.03 66.48 5.89 11.09 Bawan 1 2.17 20 3.03 63.62 5.64 10.84 Bariwas 1 2.17 20 3.03 63.62 5.64 10.84 Kayataw 1 2.17 20 3.03 56.75 5.03 10.23 Dildil 2 4.35 20 3.03 27.81 2.46 9.84 Palumaria 1 2.17 20 3.03 50.27 4.46 9.66 Natoputi 1 2.17 20 3.03 50.27 4.46 9.66 Kalamunding-Kalamunding 1 2.17 20 3.03 44.18 3.92 9.12

Bintang 1 2.17 20 3.03 38.48 3.41 8.62 kalamping 1 2.17 20 3.03 35.26 3.13 8.33 Luboy 2 4.35 20 3.03 6.42 0.57 7.95 Siksik 1 2.17 20 3.03 23.76 2.11 7.31 Molave 1 2.17 20 3.03 19.64 1.74 6.94 Balanihan 1 2.17 20 3.03 15.90 1.41 6.61


Ground Layer

In this layer, the Ikuyan (M. leerii) is dominant indicating a recent fruiting of the tree species. Eventually, the forest in this transect will be dominated by the Ikuyan since the species actually dominates all strata in this transect.

Table 43 lists all the species found in this layer with their corresponding

importance values and ranked accordingly.

The diversity is a moderately high 2.50 with a high distribution index of 0.92. A mixture of medium – large tree species could be found in this stratum. The medium tree species are the Molave (Vitex parviflora), Sahing (C. asperum), Ekuyan and the Malugai (Pometia pinnata). The large tree species are the Taluto (P. tinctorium) and the Katol (Ficus glandulifera).These species would be the next generation of forest in this ecosystem. Table 43. All Species in the Ground Layer for Transect 10.

Species Dens RDens Freq RFreq IV Ekuyan 5 19.23 60 15 34.23 Siksik 4 15.38 60 15 30.38 An-an 2 7.69 40 10 17.69 Impaparai 3 11.54 20 5 16.54 Sahing 2 7.69 20 5 12.69 Taluto 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Salobagyo 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Molave 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Katol 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Dildil 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Bugtong 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Bato-bato 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Bariwas 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Balanihan 1 3.85 20 5 8.85 Amliren/Malugai 1 3.85 20 5 8.85


5.11 Endangered and Endemic Species of Plants in Busuanga

Based on the Red Data List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2004) and the List of endangered plants of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), the following “endangered” species could be found in Busuanga:

MYRTACEAE: Mankono (Xanthostemon bracteatus) (Rare) and (X. verdugonianus) (Vulnerable)

These two species could be found in the southern area of Bgy Cheey in sitio San

Jose. However, its range reaches down to the Yulo King Ranch and onwards to Coron Municipality near the town proper in Bgy Guadalupe.

Both are very similar to one another and their flowers have the same color and

morphology. From afar, it is very difficult to distinguish one from the other. Only upon closer examination could the difference be seen, but this too is quite difficult to do without comparing it with a sample of the other.

The true Mankono is the X. verdugonianus while the other is a “cousin”. The

difference lies in the flowers and the shape of the leaves. The pistils in the flower of X. bracteatus is thicker and shorter than the X. verdugonianus, whereas the latter’s is thinner, finer and a little longer. The leaves of the former is obovate, or rounded, whereas the latter’s is narrower and more pointed, almost lanceolate. (See Appendix plates for pictures)

VERBENACEAE: Molave (Vitex parviflora) (vulnerable) It was previously thought that Molave thrives on limestone substrates hence the

term “Molave – type forest” over limestone. Due to dispersals by fauna, the Molave could establish itself in substrates / areas other than limestone. In this case however, Busuanga is basically karst limestone and one could find the species in its forest.

The species could thrive under harsh conditions with high intensity sunlight and low moisture. Hence, more often, they could be found in the hill tops, forest fringes, and the Parang ecosystem.

DILLENIACEAE: Malakatmon (Dillenia luzoniensis) (vulnerable) This species was never recorded in the field survey but was encountered during the

validation field trip. The solitary individual was recorded in Bgy New Quezon in a Parang ecosystem standing approximately 10 m high with a diameter of approximately 70 cm. It is already an old tree.

The tree is endemic to the Philippines.


FABACEAE: Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) (vulnerable) The national tree, it is listed as endangered because of its high value in the

furniture market and as ornamental in landscaping. It is a prolific seeder but is classified as vulnerable in the wilds. It is propagated widely in nurseries but its wild population is already depleted.

COMBRETACEAE: Sakat (Terminalia nitens) (vulnerable) Locally known as Saket, depending on where you are in Palawan, the wild

population of this tree is already depleted, hence its vulnerable status. DIPTEROCARPACEAE: Apitong (Dipterocarpus grandiflorus) (Critically endangered) Yakal (Shorea astylosa) (Critically endangered) Both premium species, the dipterocarps are the mainstays of the tropical rainforest

and they are much sought after for their timber. It was in the 1970s that it was the height of logging and the dipterocarps were the focus of extraction.

Other species not in the IUCN / CITES lists but nevertheless also endangered,

vulnerable, rare or threatened, (based on some references and expert’s opinion) are as follows:

CAESALPINIACEAE: Balitbitan (Cynometra ramiflora) (endangered) This species was encountered in the “waterfalls” of Bgy. Sto. Niño, Busuanga.

This plant is popularly cultivated for ornamental purposes and for landscaping, hence, it may be mistakenly labeled as “common”. However, finding it in the wilds is a chance event. Some botanists would claim that this is already extinct in the wilds. That is how rare the species has become, hence, its “endangered” classification.

FABACEAE: Bani (Pongamia pinnata) (vulnerable) LECYTHIDACEAE: Botong (Baringtonia asiatica) (vulnerable)

The two species were encountered in the coastal area of Bgy. Sto. Niño in Busuanga. They are associates of the Beach forest type ecosystem. As an ecosystem, the beach forest is already rare in the Philippines because of the pressures applied on it from anthropological sources. Beach development into resorts and residential areas are part of these pressures. Other species that are endangered are found in the attached check list of species for Busuanga.

5.11.1 Assessment of IUCN / CITES Listed Endangered Species

There are 15 species identified in the IUCN / CITES lists in the Canopy Layer. The Canopy Layer is chosen because it comprises the forest cover of the area. All growth under canopy is considered offspring’s of the species in the Canopy Layer exclusive of other plant forms such as rattan, large herbs and tall grasses (bamboo).


Table 44 shows the distribution of the endangered species recorded in the transects. Table 44. Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status, per Transect

TRANSECT Species*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FrequencyLanete x x 20 Kamagong x x x x 40 Ipil x x x x x x x 70 Sakat x x x x x x x x 80 Akle x x 20 Apitong x x x 30 Malasantol x x x x x x x x 80 Antipolo x x 20 Nato x x 20 Yakal x x 20 Duguan x 10 Narra x x x 30 Molave / Molawin x x 20 Mancono x 10 Kalaum x 10

Total 2 2 4 10 9 6 7 4 1 3 *IUCN; CITES Listed, 2000 (PAWB)

From the table, transects 4, 5, 6, & 7 have the highest number of endangered species. As to the species, Malasantol (Sandoricum vidallii) and Sakat (Terminalia nitens) are the most “common” in Busuanga appearing in 80% of the transects. The distribution of both species ranges from the southern barangay (Sto. Nino) towards the middle of Busuanga (Salvacion, Bogtong, Cheey) and near Buluang area.

Ipil (Intsia bijuga) is the next most “common” endangered species in Busuanga,

appearing in 70% of the transects in the Municipality. Its distribution range is restricted in the middle of the municipality with an out layer located in Bgy. Buluang.

On the other hand, the following table shows the distribution of these species per

barangay.


Table 45. Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status, per Barangay.

BARANGAY

Species*

Chy

Nbu Con Sag YKR Bog Sal NQ SR SN Bul Freq’y

Lanete x x 18.18182Kamagong x x 18.18182Ipil x x x x x x 54.54545Sakat x x x x x x 54.54545Akle x 9.090909Apitong x 9.090909Malasantol x x x x x x x 63.63636Antipolo x x 18.18182Nato x x x 27.27273Yakal x x x x x 45.45455Duguan x x 18.18182Narra x 9.090909Molave / Molawin x x 18.18182Mancono x 9.090909Kalaum x 9.090909Total number

of species 13 1 2 2 2 5 7 3 2 2 3 Note: Chy- Cheey, Nbu-New Busuanga, Con-Concepcion, Sag- Sagrada, YKR- Yulo King Ranch, Bog-Bogtong, Nqu- New Quezon, Sal-Salvacion, SR-San Rafael , SN- San Nicolas, Bul- Buluang

As shown, Bgy. Cheey has the most number of endangered species found within its boundaries. This may be due to its large area. Bgy. Salvacion comes in second with 7 species recorded. Salvacion has good forest cover in its hilly areas.

Most of the other species can be seen clustered around the middle of the Municipality. These barangays are Bogtong and Salvacion, and also YKR.

Species recorded as “singletons” are Mancono, Narra, Apitong, Akle, and Kalaum

(Syzygium ixoides). They may appear to be rare in this table but actually, the populations of these species are still adequate. They are just limited in their distributional ranges. For example, for Mancono, its observed range is in the YKR – Coron area up to only Sitio San Jose in Bgy. Cheey. Hence, the survey teams bypassed them. Kalaum (Syzygium ixoides), Apitong and Akle have lower populations, hence, they are truly rare in Busuanga.

Again, the endangered species that are “common” in the Municipality are

Malasantol, Sakat, Ipil, and Yakal as with their frequency of appearance, 63.63%, 54.54%, and 45.45%, respectively.


5.12 Recommended Core Zones for Terrestrial Flora Component

Criteria for selecting and delineating core zones based on the survey results:

a) The three transects 5,6,7 that are adjacent to each other with 2.5 kms distance in- between are habitats of wildlife, as reported by the fauna survey.

b) Apitong and yakal both dipterocarp species were encountered in higher

elevations along and near transect 5. An intact forest stand considered as closed canopy were found to straddle transects 6 and 7 and believed to be habitat of wildlife species. Furthermore, those proposed core zones are important soil cover of river tributaries. Those intact closed canopy forests, when adequately protected, will enhance natural regeneration of adjacent sites.

c) Transects 5, 6, and 7 have high biodiversity indices. The core zone that is

traversed by transect 5 has an area of about 825 hectares while that core zone along transect 6 and 7 has an area of about 2,163 has. The delineation of protection boundaries of the core zones considered the following criteria:

• Watershed or catchment divides is the primary consideration to protect

headwaters or tributaries. • Inclusion of wide tracts of intact forested areas. • Inclusion of wildlife habitat • To protect the site from further degradation

The map of Busuanga showing the transect lines, delineation of core zones, and

boundaries of the proposed protection area summarizes the results of the flora survey (Figure 8). The total area of the delineated proposed protected area that encompasses the two core zones is about 16, 841 hectares.

Figure 7 summarizes the diversity of the transects, all have very high diversity. On the other hand, on a per plot basis, the indices are either moderately high to very low. What makes the diversity of the transects high is the accumulation of all species within the transects, meaning, there are more species that could be found as one goes along the transect.

As such, the criteria for selecting core zones, as far as the Terrestrial Flora Component is concerned, would be high diversity and not necessarily the extent of forest cover. If this is so, then the following areas are recommended to be declared as core zones (Figure 8):

1. Transect 4 in Bgy Cheey because of its varied ecosystems (Lowland forest

and Karst) and high diversity.

2. Transect 5 in Bgy Bugtong because of Karst ecosystems

3. Transects 6 and 7 in Bgy Cheey, San Rafael and Old Busuanga


Transects have been overlaid on the satellite image, and by “connecting the dots”,

i.e. the transect plots, and following the forest cover of the satellite image, the core zone is then mapped shown as circles.

If the criteria would be high diversity and forest cover, only two areas are selected:

1. Transect 5 in Bgy. Bugtong that corresponds to “primary forest” identified in the satellite imagery

2. Transects 6 & 7 in Bgys San Rafael, New Quezon, and Cheey, also corresponding to “primary forest” in the satellite imagery.

Both recommendations come in with Transects 5, 6, and 7 as the commonality.

Hence, the core zone is finally identified as shown in Figure 8.

The proposed area to be protected is 16,841 has (Figure 8), and the core zones have 2,163 and 825 has, circled areas respectively. The basis for the boundaries of the proposed area for protection are topographic divides of the different watersheds found in the middle of Busuanga. Although the boundaries do not include the coastline (as in actual watershed boundaries), it considers the tree line / brushland / grassland ecotones as the boundaries. On the other hand, if the core zones are selected in terms of the presence of endangered species Transects 4, 5, 6, and 7 stand out. This is still in accordance with the selected core zones as discussed above.

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

Inde

x H

'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Transects

Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy, and Ground Vegetation for

Busuanga, Northern Palawan

GroundUnder Canopy Canopy

Figure 7. Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy and Ground Vegetation for Busuanga, Northern Palawan


A checklist of species that are found in Busuanga is also attached. The checklist contains the taxonomic information in terms of family name, species name (common name, local name, scientific name), its plant form or habit (whether tree, shrub, grass herb, etc.), ecological status (indigenous, endemic, rare, threatened, endangered, etc.), and the uses (economic or ecological) of the species.

Calauit

Buluang

New Busuanga

New Quezon

Cheey

San Rafael

Old Busuanga

Salvacion

Bugtong

Sagrada

Concepcion Sto. Niño

Bgy. Boundary

Proposed area for Protection Proposed Core Zones

Figure 8. Recommended Core Zones in Busuanga Municipality

__________________________________________________________________ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND THREATS TO CORE ZONES 62

7.0 ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND THREATS TO CORE ZONES

7.1 Present and Potential Threats

a) The issue on the status of the Yulo King Ranch (YKR) should be resolved. b) The burning in hillside agriculture by farmers to clear their hillside farms

and by YKR to produce forage for their cattle is a serious resource management problem. Hillside farms are becoming more rampant and with constant burning in the uplands the core zones are in danger.

c) The absence of a well-planned and properly executed protection system for

Busuanga. The above issues and problems exist due to lack of functional protection system that is specific to the biophysical, socio – cultural setting in Busuanga.

d) The need to put ground boundary delineation in protected areas

surrounding core zones is highlighted. Knowing the boundaries of areas being managed makes the protection system easier to enforce.

7.2 Proposed Management Prescriptions to Protect Core Zones and

Improve Forest Conditions in Busuanga

• Delineate on the ground a cattle production area with the corresponding management systems for that pasture area. In other words, implement the defined CLUP of Busuanga.

• Develop alternative livelihood or sources of income in the lowlands to

divert the people from their inappropriate hillside farming practices. Those livelihood activities should capitalize on available resources in Busuanga that may include the following:

1) Establish more cashew (Anacardium occidentale) plantations, either

backyard or small, medium to large plantations. 2) Pili (Canarium ovatum) nut production. Few people know that

there is a pili species that bear fruits at age 3 years compared to 7 years as commonly known. Pili nut is also highly in demand in the world market.

3) Ube (Dioscorea sp.) production. The violet variety is highly in

demand locally and in foreign markets. 4) Honey production. The demand for honey is also high.


The four land-based livelihood projects are not soil erosion inducing. The plantations do not need additional new forest clearings. The low, undulating lands around the fringes of Busuanga are ideal for the purpose.

Develop the great potentials of Busuanga for tourism. The production of high value crops in the lowlands of Busuanga should be

encouraged through demonstration farms to motivate people to go down from their hillside farms.

The wide idle YKR areas should be made productive.

It must be emphasized that the development of livelihood projects that are sustainable is among the ingredients of an effective protection system.

7.3 Proposed Measures to Rehabilitate Degraded Ecosystems in Busuanga

7.3.1 Grasslands

Grass plant community types as mentioned earlier are characterized by their acidic or alkaline soils, high temperatures during dry season as compared to forested sites, strong winds, draughty conditions, and fire. All of these are hostile to other plant species. The following approaches may be considered and carried out simultaneously if grassland rehabilitation is to succeed.

• Protect the area from burning • Plant only those species that could compete with grasses. These include some

leguminous species like narra (Pterocarpus indicus) and alibangbang (Piliostigma malabaricum); Verbenaceae species like Molave (Vitex parviflora) and lingo – lingo (Viticipremna philippinensis). Tree species that competes well with cogon and survive in hot and dry areas are Bagalunga (Melia dubia) and Kalumpang (Sterculia foetida). Dapdap (Erythrina orientalis) is also a perfect species in combination with Kalumpit (Terminalia microcarpa), especially in low elevation.

• Plant only during the rainy season – June to August and stop. • Cultural treatments should be sufficient, as follows:

Weeding three times a year Fertilizer application at 30 grams of 14-14-14 once application only has

proved beneficial. Replanting of mortality

7.3.2 Brushlands

Same prescriptions as those in grasslands, the only difference is to use species that are both shade tolerant and grow well in acidic or alkaline and dry sites. Cultural treatments are the same. Some species that perform well in brush lands are: Malapapaya (Polycias nodosa) of the family Araliaceae, Batino (Alstonia macrophylla) of the family Apocynaceae, Kusibeng (Sapindus saponaria) of the family Sapindaceae.


7.3.3 Denuded Forests and Eroded Slopes

For eroded sites, it is a combination of mechanical and vegetative interventions.

Eroded sites are usually infertile since the exposed soils are parent material. Species such as Agoho (Casuarina equisetifolia), Dapdap (E. orientalis), Talisay Gubat (Terminalia foetidissima), Banaba (Lagerstoemia speciosa) could be used. These species adapt well to harsh conditions.

Mechanical interventions to arrest erosion include wattling, small check dams, rip rapping and use of grasses in steep slopes to hold soil in place.

7.3.4 Kaingin Areas

Tree species that are suited to open or dry conditions such as: Molave (Vitex parviflora), Banaba (L. speciosa), Lingo-lingo (V. philippinensis), Bagalunga (Melia dubia), and Kalumpit (T. foetidissima) could be planted in the gully areas. Lamio (Dracontomelon edule) and Dao (Dracontomelon dao) are perfect species in open areas but only in low-lying sites in the kaingin. The cultural treatments are similar to those prescribed for grasslands and brushlands.

7.3.5 Encroachment into Primary and Secondary Forests

The following are recommended which are the objectives of the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development.

• Promote social and intergenerational equity in the utilization of the country’s

natural resources. • Develop management programs to preserve the country’s heritage of biological

diversity. • Promote the technologies of sustainable lowland agriculture and upland agro-

forestry through encouragement of research and development (R and D) and demonstration projects.

• Achieve and maintain acceptable quality of air and water. • Enhance the foundation for scientific – decision – making through the

promotion and support of education and research in ecosystems. • Expand substantially the family planning/ responsible parenthood programs. • Promote and support population concerns and family welfare in development

programs but not to sacrifice ecologically critical areas.

7.3.6 Recently Logged Over Areas

Protection of the newly logged over areas from invasion of kaingineros must be efficiently undertaken so that the remaining trees regenerate the entire area.

It must be made clear that logging does not degrade the forest permanently. Once

logging operations stop, the forest slowly starts to heal. It is the influx of kaingineros in logged over areas that denude existing vegetation.

__________________________________________________________________SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65

8.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Significant Findings of the Survey

• Based on the nested quadrat vegetation sampling in Busuanga, non- dipterocarp tree species are more numerous (1,842 individuals) with total volume of 1,048.58 cu m compared with dipterocarp (62 individuals) species with a total volume of 45 cu m or only 6.32 cu m per ha.

• There are no ultramafic ecosystems in Busuanga. Only karst – limestone forest exists that is characterized by dwarf trees.

• Mancono (Xanthostemon spp.) forest stand was observed during the survey. • The flora biodiversity in Busuanga has an index of 4.21 which is considered

very high based on the Fernando Scale (1998). • The 11 transects indicate the relative locations of the nested quadrats

(observation points) indicating those sites are forested. Those with only few or no quadrats/ observation points are wide boho or grass areas. At a glance, open areas, boho areas and brushlands dominate the landscape in Busuanga. Very little area is occupied by trees. The results of the survey indicate alternating boho-brushlands-small secondary forest in higher slopes.

• Several hillside farms were encountered during the survey. Burning of hillsides were also observed, although these were outside of the transects.

• There were no human settlements in the uplands, only hillside farms of lowland settlers.

• Fifteen (15) tree species with endangered status were encountered in Busuanga. • Katpai, a species that belongs to the Moraceae family dominated the canopy

layer; boho (Schizostachium lumampao) dominated the under canopy layer while Malulandet of the Meliaceae plant family dominated the undergrowth layer.

• Significant timber volume of non- dipterocarp species came from trees with diameters from 25 cm to 45 cm, while the timber volume of dipterocarp species came from trees with diameters from 15cm to 45 cm.

9.2 Conclusions

The landscape of Busuanga is very fragmented with grasslands, brushlands and

forests interspersed and scattered in the island. Buho bamboo clearly dominates the undercanopy growth indicating a disturbed island ecosystem.

Much of the soil medium in Busuanga is chert – based, hence, not many but highly specialized species could be found. This adds on to the high diversity of the area. Recent validation survey found no ultramafic ecosystem and this has been confirmed by the geologist that was interviewed in the area. Most of the land formations are karst limestone having silicon dioxide as one of its major elements.

Grasslands observed seldom have Cogon (Imperata cylindrica). Where they are present, they are in a “parang” type of ecosystem. Forage grasses dominate.


Calauit Island is already a proclaimed sanctuary and is considered as a core zone. Other recommended areas for core zone are located in barangays Cheey, Bogtong, San Rafael and Old Busuanga.

• Based on the results of the data analysis there is no old growth forest in Busuanga. Trees with DBH ranging from 25 cm to 45 cm dominate the forested areas.

• With the abundance of boho (Schizostachium lumampao) species and predominance of small to medium diameter tree, it could be concluded that old and large diameter trees were removed or harvested.

• Non – tree species (grass and brush plant species) cover much wider land area in Busuanga. Forest areas are shrinking.

• The three above findings lead to the conclusion that Busuanga is undergoing rapid forest depletion pointing to serious environmental degradation.

• There are 15 forest species with endangered status found in Busuanga. These are lanete, kamagong, ipil, sakat, akle, apitong, malasantol, antipolo, nato, yakal, duguan, narra, molave, mancono and kalaum.

• There is no ultramatic forest in Busuanga. Only forest on karst – limestone exists.

• The flora survey was a validation of the existing vegetation. Comparing what were observed during the survey with the satellite imagery found significant inconsistency in the magnitude of land cover indicated on the map. The map shows significant secondary forest cover but actually large portions of those are boho and grass areas. This was the reason why no quadrats were established during the survey in those supposedly secondary forest areas as shown in the 2003 satellite imagery.

• Non availability of updated satellite imagery showing vegetation cover before the flora survey handicapped the teams.

• When nothing is done to minimize if not totally stop hillside farming, burning of hillsides, timber poaching and improve the cattle production system of YKR in Busuanga (all contributing to forest depletion), the deterioration of the forest ecosystem will continue and there will come a time that degradation will be irreversible.

9.3 Recommendations

• Make available updated vegetation maps before the actual flora survey starts. The field survey is actually a “ground truthing” activity or a validation – verification of what are indicated on the imagery. The map is highly important in planning the survey. It could significantly reduce cost and duration of survey.

• A field reconnaissance or preliminary survey is important. Observations on the biophysical conditions in the target area will help in adequately planning the flora survey.

• Although the surveys were guided by plans based on secondary information, there is always a possibility that same information used is inadequate or outdated. Figure, schedules, and expectations were all based on assumptions.


• Busuanga Island comprises Busuanga town with an area of about 45,000 hectares and Coron, about 72,000 hectares. Accordingly, Yulo King Ranch (YKR) covers about 28,000 hectares. Soil compaction is extensive and rill erosion is the resultant effect of intensive grazing. The PCSDS should pursue the reversion of portions of YKR area to protection forest and orchard type plantation as livelihood.

• The participation of PCSDS counterpart during the surveys should be a standard operating procedure. The presence of PCSDS counterpart helps validate the reliability of data and information generated during the survey.

• As soon as practicable, a protection system should be put in place in Busuanga if the agents and processes of degradation are to be stopped.

• The time for management plan development is still far. It is highly recommended that the development of a site-and-situation-specific protection system for Busuanga should already be developed as soon as possible and made operational. In this connection, it is worthwhile to emphasize that tourism and ecosystem management can be complementary, ideally and mutually beneficial. But, the success of nature tourism depends on nature, and it is critical for all involved to realize that intact natural resources are the foundation of the ecotourism industry (Boo, 1990).

__________________________________________________________________REFERENCES 68

REFERENCES

Bio-Physical Survey Report for Busuanga. July 2003. ECAN Zoning Component, Palawan

Council for Sustainable Development Carballo, Jose Luis, Lucille Gregorio, Norma A. Villanueva, Rozalinda Villavicencio.

1983. Guide to Grassland Plants. A Resource Material for Biology Teachers: Pundasyun sa pagpapaunlad ng kaalaman sa pagtuturo ng Agham 1pk. SEC. UP NRMC, Ministry of national Resources and UP p.176

Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Busuanga. Undated De Guzman, Enriquito D., Ricardo M. Umali, Malians D. Sotalbo. 1986. Guide to

Philippine Flora and Fauna Vol.111 Dipterocarps and Non Dipterocarps, p.414 Facts and Figures- A Summary, 1997. Municipality of Busuanga

Fernandez, Jose, Fe Fernandez and Edna Imelda Fernandez – Legaspi. 1995. Palawan

Flora and Fauna. Palawan Tropical Forestry Protection Programme Fernando, E.S. et.al. 2004. Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mt. Makiling. ASEAN-Korea

Environmental Cooperation Unit Fernando, E.S. 2000. Checklist of Species in FBS 21 6th Ed. UPLB CFNR 1998. Resource Inventory and Assessment of Biodiversity in the Lowland Forest of the

Subic Bay metropolitan Authority. Terminal Report. UPLB CFNR and DOST - PCARRD

Flora Field Survey Manual. 2002. ECAN Zoning Component, Palawan Council for

Sustainable Development KAUAI Tropical Timber Publication. 2003. P.O. Box 1026, Koloa, Hawaii 96756 Pin22 Kent, Martin and Paddy Coker. 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical

Approach. CRC Press, Belhaven Press London. Ludwig, John A. and J.F. Reynolds, 1988. Statistical Ecology: A primer on methods and

computing. John Wiley and Sons. New York Chichester Brisbane Toronto Singapore.

Madulid, Domingo A. 2002. A Pictorial Guide to the Noteworthy Plants of Palawan.

Palawan Tropical Forestry Protection Programme Madulid, Domingo A. 2000. A Pictorial Cyclopedia of Philippine Ornamental Plants

p .388

__________________________________________________________________REFERENCES 69

Magat-Pantabangan Watershed Feasibility Study Projects. 1980. National Irrigation Administration, Diliman, Quezon City

Magurran, Anne E. 1988. Ecosystems Diversity and Its Measurements. Princeton

University Press McAleece, Neil, PJD Lampshead, GLJ Patterson, JD Gage. BD Professional ver. 2. 1998.

Free software from the internet. Melana, D.M., J. Atchue III, C.E.Yao, R.Edwards, E.E.Melana, and H.I.Gonzales.

Mangrove Management Handbook. CRMP-DENR USAID Mendoza, Valerio B. Undated. General Environmental Situation. Mendoza, Valerio B. Undated. The Productivity and Stability of Agricultural systems and

Human Settlements are Dependent on the Stability of the Watershed Ecosystems Mendoza, Valerio B. Undated. Environmental Interpretation in the La Mesa Watershed

and Revenue Generation System for Sustainable Development: A Research and Development Project.

Moody, K., C.E.Munroe, R.T.Lubigan and E.C. Paller, Jr. 1984. Major Weeds of the

Philippines. Weed Science Society of the Philippines. Mueller-Dumbois, Dieter and Heinz Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation

Ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York Chichester Brisbane Toronto Odum, Eugene P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia

London Toronto PAWB – DENR. 2000. Statistics on Philippine Protected Areas and Wildlife Resources PCARRD DOST. 1987. Manual on Vegetational Analysis for Grassland and Forest

Ecosystems. Book Series No. 50 Philippine Forestry Statistics. 1999. Forest Management Bureau, DENR Provincial Physical Framework Plan. 1993-2002. Comprehensive Provincial Land Use

Plan (Palwan) Rojo, J.P. et.al. 2000. Philippine Erect Bamboos: A Field Identification Guide. FPRDI Rojo, JP. 1999. Revised Lexicon of Philippine Trees. FPRDI DOST. Salvosa, F.M. 1963. Lexicon of Philippine Trees. FPRDI. Santos, Jose V., Enriquito D. De Guzman, Edwino S. Fernando. 1986. Guide to Philippine

Flora and Fauna Vol. I: Bamboos, Grasses and Palms. p. 255

__________________________________________________________________REFERENCES 70

Seeber, G., H.J. Weidelt, and V.S. Banaag. 1979. Dendrological Characters of Important Forest Trees from Eastern Mindanao. GTZ Eschborn Philippine - German Rainforest Development Project.

Seidenschwarz, Franz. 1994. Plant World of the Philippines. An illustrated Dictionary of

Visayan Plant Names with their Scientific, Tagalog and English Equivalents, University of San Carlos, Cebu City Palawan p. 368

Socio-Economic Survey of all Municipalities in Palawan. July 2003. Soil Survey of Palawan Province, Philippines. Soil Report No. 27. Bureau of Soils Dept.

of Agriculture and Natural Resources Terrestrial Survey Plan ECAN Zoning Component, Palawan Council for Sustainable

Development. The La Mesa Watershed Resource Management Framework Plan. 2000. Bantay

Kalikasan, ABS-CBN Foundation, Inc. Mother Ignacia Ave., Diliman, Quezon City

Whitmore, T.C. 1990. An Introduction to the Tropical Rain Forests. Clarendon Press

Oxford Zamora, Precillano M. and Leonardo Co. 1986. Guide to Philippine Flora and Fauna Vol.

II: Economic Ferns, Endemic Ferns and Gymnosperms. p 27

________________________________________________________________________ ANNEXES 71

ANNEXES

PLATE 2. Malakatmon, Dillenia luzoniensis, found in

the Parang ecosystem of New Quezon, Busuanga.

PLATE 1. The Manconos, Xanthostemon bracteatus and X. verdugunianus. Note the shape of leaves and the flowers that differentiate the two.

________________________________________________________________________ ANNEXES 72

PLATE 3. The Parang Ecosystem, habitat of the Malakatmon, in New Quezon, Busuanga.

PLATE 4. The beach forest ecosystem in Sto. Nino, Busuanga, already a threatened vanishing

ecosystem in the Philippines.

________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 73

APPENDICES

Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1. Diversity Index per Canopy Structure per Transect

Transect

Ground

UnderCanopy

Canopy

1 2.66 3.06 3.45 2 2.605 3.17 3.02 3 2.22 3.29 2.93 4 3.18 2.91 3.438 5 3.85 3.62 3.66 6 3.203 3.46 4.17 7 3.08 3.05 3.19 8 2.99 3.03 3.21 9 2.01 2.23 2.86 10 2.501 2.81 2.69

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 74

Appendix Table 2. Transects of Busuanga Flora Survey Group: Shannon-Weiner Biodiversity Indices (20x20) Trans Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 3.45 1.03 2.04 2.32 2.04 2.08 2.58 1.47 2.01 2.16 2.06 2.42 2.27 2.15 2.08 1.89 2.16 2.32 2.12 2.01 2.16 J' 0.835 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.9 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.94

2 3.02 1.38 2.1 1.69 2.27 1.88 1.74 1.49 2.27 2.21 1.47 2.14 J' 0.87 1 0.95 0.94 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.98 0.96 0.91 0.97

3 2.93 1.01 0.93 0.93 1.73 1.21 0 0.53 1.41 1.49 1.52 0.92 1.32 1.24 0 1.08 0.69 2.05 1.04 0.69 1.84 J' 0.837979 0.2889 0.27 0.27 0.495 0.35 0 0.15 0.403 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.38 0.35 0 0.31 0.197 0.59 0.3 0.197 0.53

4 3.438 1.03 2.04 2.23 2.02 1.95 2.58 1.56 2.01 2.17 2.1 2.43 2.26 2.26 2.2 1.89 2.27 2.4 2.11 1.88 2.15 J' 0.833 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.91 0.96 0.93

5 3.66 2.39 2.47 2.14 1.73 1.59 1.38 2.14 1.91 1.91 1.33 1.15 2.19 1.66 2.16 1.74 1.64 1.84 2.16 1.55 0.79 J' 0.886 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.88 0.86 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.83 1 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.96 0.72

6 4.17 1.79 1.61 2.3 2.19 2.39 2.3 2.71 2.37 2.48 2.71 2.3 2.1 2.16 2.48 2.54 2.3 2.4 2.56 2.1 2.1 J' 0.9411 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.98 1 1 1 1 0.98 1 0.99 1 1 1 1 1

7 3.19 1.61 1.18 1.1 2.338 1.41 1.63 1.55 1.2 2.09 2.25 1.76 2.27 2.26 1.33 2.008 J' 0.848 1 0.73 1 0.975 0.88 0.91 0.96 0.865 0.95 0.93 0.8 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.91

8 3.21 2.16 0 2.3 1.86 1.74 1.89 J' 0.934773 0.629 0 0.67 0.542 0.51 0.55

9 2.86 1.27 2.09 2.51 1.21 J' 0.912 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.87

10 2.69 1.61 1.49 2.02 1.99 J' 0.95 1 0.93 0.97 0.95

H' 4.21 Busuanga overall (Canopy Layer) J' 0.81 Biodiversity Scale (Fernando 1998) Relative Values H' J' H' = Shannon - Weiner Biodiversity Index Very High 3.5 above 0.75 - 1 J' = Pielou Distribution Index High 3.0 - 3.49 0.5-0.74 Moderate High 2.5 - 2.99 0.25-0.49 Low 2.0 - 2.49 0.15-0.24 Very Low 1.9 below 0.05-0.14

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 75

Appendix Table 2 (cont’n…)

Trans 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 2.44 2.47 2.35 1.94 1.48 1.28 1.24 2.2 2.12 2.16 2.48 1.93 2.08 2.18 1.93 2.15 2.21 1.89

J' 0.98 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 1 1 2

J' 3 1.88

J' 0.54 4 2.51 2.39 2.39 1.83 1.34 1.29 1.54 2.09 2.12 2.05 2.31 2.07 1.93 2.1 2.14 2.21 1.99 1.89

J' 0.98 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 1 1 1 5 1.91

J' 0.98 6

J' 7

J' 8

J' 9

J' 10

J'

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 76

Appendix Table 3. Transects of Busuanga Flora Survey Group: Shannon-Weiner Biodiversity Indices (5x5) Trans Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 3.06 1 1.27 1.49 1.83 1.05 1.27 1.94 1.33 1.79 1.21 1.46 J' 0.91 0.72 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.92 1 0.96 1 0.87 0.91

2 3.17 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.74 1.74 1.56 1.91 1.79 1.73 1.04 1.91 J' 0.91 1 1 1 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 1 0.96 0.94 0.98

3 3.29 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.04 1.38 1.35 1.83 1.74 2.05 1.83 0.85 1.33 1.01 1.31 0.79 1.61 1.91 0.56 J' 0.88 1 0.96 0.96 0.94 1 0.84 0.94 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.77 0.96 1 0.94 0.72 1 0.98 0.81

4 2.91 1.667 1.561 1.946 1.792 2.079 2.303 1.667 1.973 1.831 1.733 1.748 1.561 1.696 1.523 1.332 1.792 1.733 1.792 1.215 1.972 J' 0.76 0.931 0.97 1 1 1 1 0.931 0.949 0.941 0.967 0.976 0.97 0.946 0.946 0.961 1 0.967 1 0.876 0.948

5 3.62 1.889 1.768 1.633 1.581 1.559 2.043 1.748 1.696 1.561 1.834 1.748 1.906 1.332 1.972 2.164 2.043 0.956 1.003 1.696 1.831 J' 0.89 0.971 0.908 0.911 0.882 0.801 0.983 0.976 0.946 0.97 0.943 0.976 0.98 0.961 0.948 0.985 0.983 0.87 0.723 0.946 0.941

6 3.46 1.946 1.748 1.792 1.332 1.609 1.386 1.748 1.099 1.609 1.099 1.609 1.748 1.386 1.906 2.079 1.386 1.609 1.099 1.946 1.792 J' 0.91 1 0.976 1 0.961 1 1 0.976 1 1 1 1 0.976 1 0.98 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 3.05 0 1.242 1.277 0 1.386 0.693 1.733 0.562 1.277 0.95 1.099 0.637 0.637 1.099 1.946 J' 0.92 0 0.896 0.921 0 1 1 0.967 0.811 0.921 0.865 1 0.918 0.918 1 1

8 3.03 1.946 1.154 1.733 1.748 1.561 1.332 J' 0.95 1 0.832 0.967 0.976 0.97 0.961

9 2.23 1.386 1.332 1.475 0.637 J' 0.89 1 0.961 0.917 0.918

10 2.81 1.523 1.677 1.889 1.889 2.025 J' 0.89 0.946 0.936 0.971 0.971 0.974

H' 4.23 Busuanga overall (Under Canopy) J' 0.82

Plant Forms No. %

Plant Forms No. %

Trees 150 85.714 Epiphyte 4 2.2857 Palm 11 6.2857 Pandan 1 0.5714 Grass 2 1.1429 Total 175 100

Vine 5 2.8571 Non-tree species

25 14.3

Herb 2 1.1429

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 77


Trans 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1

J' 2

J' 3

J' 4 1.83 1.61 1.73 1.55 1.48 1.61 1.33 1.56 1.7 1.68 1.83 1.67 1.67 1.73 1.73 1.49 1.49 1.55

J' 0.94 0.9 0.97 0.96 0.92 1 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.96 5

J' 6

J' 7

J' 8

J' 9

J' 10

J'

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 78

Appendix Table 4. Transects of Busuanga Flora Survey Group: Shannon-Weiner Biodiversity Indices (1x1)

Trans Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2.66 0.637 0.5 1.792 1.04 0.693 1.386 1.55 1.099 1.154 0.349 0.693

J' 0.9 0.918 0.72 1 0.946 1 1 0.963 1 0.832 0.503 1 2 2.605 1.099 1.1 1.609 0.637 1.609 1.099 1.386 1.04 1.099 1.386 0.693

J' 0.92 1 1 1 0.918 1 1 1 0.946 1 1 1 3 2.22 Values too small for computations

J' 0.8 4 3.18 1.099 1.56 1.386 1.609 1.099 1.332 1.099 0.501 1.332 1.099 1.099 1.04 0.637 1.386 0.637 1.332 1.04 1.332 1.099 0.637

J' 0.812 1 0.97 1 1 1 0.961 1 0.279 0.961 1 1 0.946 0.918 1 0.918 0.961 0.946 0.961 1 0.918 5 3.85 0.693 2.08 1.673 1.792 1.946 2.146 2.398 1.748 1.748 1.792 1.445 1.099 1.099 1.946 1.946 1.332 1.792 0.377 1.04 1.889

J' 0.925 1 1 0.86 1 1 0.977 1 0.976 0.976 1 0.898 1 1 1 1 0.961 1 0.544 0.946 0.971 6 3.203 0.693 1.39 1.099 1.099 0.693 1.099 1.099 1.386 0.693 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.386 1.099 1.386 1.609 1.099 1.386 1.099 1.386

J' 0.91 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3.08 Values too small for computations

J' 0.945 8 2.99 1.561 1.95 2.079 1.099 1.386 1.55

J' 0.953 0.97 1 1 1 1 0.963 9 2.01 Values too small for computations

J' 0.914 10 2.501 1.748 1.1 1.332 1.332 1.011

J' 0.923 0.976 1 0.961 0.961 0.921 H' 4.54 Busuanga overall (Undergrowth)/Ground Layer J' 0.88

Plant Forms No. %

Plant Forms No. %

Trees 127 72.99 Vine 11 6.322 Palm 14 8.046 Herb 9 5.172 Grass 3 1.724 Epiphyte 5 2.874 Fern 5 2.874 Total 174 100

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 79


Trans Overall 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 2.66

J' 0.9 2 2.605

J' 0.92 3 2.22

J' 0.8 4 3.18 0.95 1.39 1.61 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.33 1.61 1.04 1.24 1.33 1.95 1.56 1.24 1.15 1.33 1.56

J' 0.812 0.87 1 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 1 0.95 0.9 0.96 1 0.97 0.9 0.83 0.96 0.97 5 3.85

J' 0.925 6 3.203

J' 0.91 7 3.08

J' 0.945 8 2.99

J' 0.953 9 2.01

J' 0.914 10 2.501

J' 0.923

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 80

Appendix Table 5. Preliminary Checklist of Angiosperms (Non-Monocots Paleoherbs and Dicots) of Busuanga, Palawan ANGIOSPERMS (NON-MONOCOT PALEOHERBS)

FAMILY SPECIES LOCAL NAME COMMON NAME ECONOMIC/ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE STATUS

PIPERACEAE Peperomia pellucida (L.) HBK. Pansit-pansitan Medicinal Common Piper betle L. Ikmo Medicinal Common Piper interruptum Opiz var. interruptum

Pamintang aso Species Diversity Common Piper interruptum Opiz var. loheri (C.DC.)

Quis.

Litlit Species Diversity Common Piper nigrum L. Paminta Food Additives Common ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTS)

MAGNOLIACEAE *Magnolia coco (Lour.) DC. Magnolia Ornamental Common *Michelia alba DC. Champakang puti Ornamental Rare *Michelia champaca L. Champaka Ornamental Rare Talauma villariana Rolfe Patangis Species Diversity Rare ANNONACEAE *Annona muricata L. Guyabano Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common

*Annona reticulata L. Anonas Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common *Annona squamosa L. Atis Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common Cananga odorata (Lamk.) Hook. f. & Thoms

Ilang – ilang Medicinal, Essential oils Common Goniothalamus amuyom (Blanco) Merr.

Amuyong Light Construction Common Miliusa vidalii Sinc. Takulau Light Construction Rare Papualthia lancealata (Vid.) Merr. Anolang Fences Common Phaeanthus ebracteolatus (Presl,) Merr.

Kalimatas Light Construction Rare Polyalthia flava Merr. Yellow lanutan Light Construction Rare *Polyalthia longifolia Benth. & Hook.f.

Indian lanutan Ornamental Common Mitrephora weberi Merr. Species Diversity Indeterminate

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 81


MYRISTICACEAE Knema glomerata (Blanco)Merr. Tambalau Light Construction Rare Myristica elliptica Wall ex Hook f. &

Thoms.var. simiarum (A.DC.)Sincl.

Tanghas Light Construction Rare Myristica philippinensis Lam. Duguan Light Construction Rare LAURACEAE *Cinnamomum mercadoi Vid. Kalingag Food Additives Rare Litsea perrottetii (Blume) F.-Vill Marang Edible Fruit Rare Litsea sebifera Blume Sablot Light Construction Indeterminate *Persea gratissima Gaertn. Avocado Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common MENISPERMACEAE Arcangelisia flava (L.) Merr. Albutra Medicinal Common VITACEAE (LEEACEAE) Cayratia trifolia (L.) quis. Alangingi Species Diversity Common Leea aculeata Blume ex Spreng Amamali Species Diversity Common Leea guineensis G. Don Mali-mali Species Diversity Common Leea philippinensis Merr. Kaliantan Species Diversity Common Tetrastigma harmandii Planch. Ayo Species Diversity Common Tetrastigma loheri Gagnep. Loher’s ayo Species Diversity Common Allophylus lopezii Merr. Species Diversity Common Cissus simplex Blanco Species Diversity Common Columella geniculata (Blume) Merr. Sampang Species Diversity Common NYCTAGINACEAE *Bougainvillea spectabilis Willd. Bougainvillea Ornamental Common *Pisonia grandis R. Br. Maluko Light Construction Common POLYGONACEAE *Triplaris cumingiana Fisch. & Mey. Palosanto Light Construction Common LORANTHACEAE Loranthus philippinensis Cham & Schlecht.

Dapong kahoy Species Diversity Common OLACACEAE Strombosia philippinensis (Bail.) Rolfe.

Tamayuan Light Construction Rare CELASTRACEAE Euonymus javanicus Blume Malasangki Light Construction Rare ICACINACEAE Gomphandra luzoniensis (Merr.)Merr.

Mabunot Light Construction Rare Gonocaryum calleryanum (Baill.)Becc

Taingang babui Light Construction Rare Rare

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 82


MALPHIGIACEAE Xanthophyllum excelsum (BI.) Miq. Anono, Bagaulan,; Managbak (Tagb.) Banig (Tag.) Common

CLUSIACEAE (GUTTIFERAE)

Calophyllum blancoi Pi. & Tr. Bitanghol General Construction Rare

Calophyllum inophyllum L. Bitaog General Construction Rare Cratoxylum formusum (Jack) Dyer Salingogon Light Construction Common Cratoxylum sumatranum (Jack) Dyer Paguringon Light Construction Common Garcinia binucao (Blanco) Choisy

Binukaw Food Additives, Light Construction Common

Garcinia dives Pierre Pildes Light Construction Rare Garcinia dulcis (Roxb.)Kurz Taklang anak Light Construction Rare Garcinia busuanganensis Merr. Indeterminate Garcinia sulphurea Elm. Indeterminate Garcinia venulosa (Blanco) Choisy Gatasan Light Construction Rare EUPHORBIACEAE Acalypha amentacea Roxb. Bogus Species Diversity Common Antidesma bunius (L.) Spreng Bignai Fruit for Wine Making Rare Antidesma ghaesembilla Gaertn. Binayuyu Species Diversity Common Antidesma impressinerve Inyam Species Diversity Common Antidesma pentandrum (Blanco) Merr.

Bignai pugo Species Diversity Common Antidesma pleuricum Tul. Bignai kalabaw Species Diversity Rare Bischofia javanica Blume Tuai General Construction Rare Bridelia penangiana Hook. f. Subiang Light Construction Rare Drypetes subcrenata (Merr.) Pax & K. Hoffm.

Kari-kari Species Diversity Rare Endospermum peltatum Merr. Gubas Novelties, Pulp and Paper, Rare Light Wood Materials *Hevea brasiliensis (HBK.) Muell. Arg.

Para rubber Source of Rubber Common Homolanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax.

Balanti Species Diversity Common Homonoia riparia Haw Agooi Species Diversity Common Macaranga bicolor Meull. Arg. Hamindang Light Construction Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 83


Macaranga grandifolia (Blanco.)Merr.

Takip asin Light Construction Common Macaranga tanarius (L.) Muell. Arg. Binunga Light Construction Common Mallotus philippinensis (Lam.)Muell. Arg.

Banato Light Construction Rare Mallotus ricinoides (Pers.) Muell. Arg.

Hinlaumo Species Diversity Common Melanolepis multiglandulosa (Reinw.Ex

Blume.) Reichb.f. & Zol.

Alim General Construction Common Neotrewia cumingii (Muell. Arg.) Pax & K.

Hoffm.

Apanang Novelties and Light Construction Rare

Phylanthus debilis Klein & Willd. Sampa-sampalukan Species Diversity Common

Phylanthus reticulatus Poir. Tinta-tintahan Species Diversity Common Reutealis trisperma (Blanco) Airy Shaw

Baguilumbang Species Diversity Common Sapium luzonicum (Vid.) Merr. Balakat gubat General Construction Rare Trigonostemon philippinensis Stapf. Katap Light Construction Common RHIZOPHORACEAE Carallia branchiate (Lour.) Merr. Bakauan gubat Light Contruction Rare PASSIFLORACEAE Passiflora foetida L. Karunggut Edible Fruit Common CHRYSOBALANACEAE Atuna racemosa Raf. Tabon-tabon Light Construction Rare Maranthes corymbosa Blume. Liusin General Construction Rare FLACOURTIACEAE Pangium edule Reinw. ex. Blume. Pangi Light Construction Common Taraktogenos heterophylla (Blume) van

Slooten Magluhi

Batu-bato Species Diversity Indeterminate OXALIDACEAE *Averrhoa bilimbi L.

Kamias Edible Fruit, Food Additives and Medicinal Common

*Averrhoa carambola L. Balimbing Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common

DATISCACEAE Octomeles sumatrana Miq. Binuang Light Construction Common FABACEAE ( LEGUMINOSAE, MIMOSACEAE, CAESALPINIACEAE)

*Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth.

Acacia General Construction Common *Acacia farnesiana ( L.) Willd. Aroma Light Construction Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 84


*Acacia mangiumWilld. Mangium General Construction Common Adenathera favonina Merr. Malatanglin Light Construction Common Afzelia borneensis Harris Malaipil General Construction Rare Afzelia rhomboidea (Blanco.) Vid. Tindalo General Construction Rare Albizia acle (Blanco.) Merr. Akle General Construction Endangered Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth. Akleng parang Light Construction Rare Archidendron scutiferum (Blanco)Nielsen

Anagap Light Construction Rare Archidendron clypearia (Jack.) Nielsen

Tiagkot Light Construction Rare *Bauhinia acuminate L. Kulibangbang Landscape Plant Common Bauhinia integrifolia Roxb. Agpoi Rope Making, Handicraft Common Bauhinia malabarica Roxb.

Alibangbang Light Construction, Food Additives Common

*Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Swartz.

Caballero Ornamental Common *Calliandra haematocephala Hassk. Fireball Ornamental Common * Cassia fistula L. Golden shower Ornamental Common Cassia occidentalis L. Balatong-aso Species Diversity Common Cassia tora L. Maning aso Species Diversity Common *Clitoria ternatea L. Pukinggang baging Species Diversity Common Koompasia excelsa Manggis General Construction Endangered Cynometra ramiflora L. Balitbitan Ornamental Endangered *Delonix regia (Boj. Ex Hook.) Raf. Fire tree Ornamental Common Dioclea reflexa Hook. Bai (Ig.) Species Diversity Common Entalada phaseoloides (L.) Merr. Gogo Soap Making, Handicraft Endangered *Erythrina crista galli L. Dapdap palong Ornamental Common Erythrina orientais (L.) Murr. Dapdap Ornamental Common *Gliricidia sepium (acq.) Walp. Kakauate Light Construction Common Instia bijuga (Colebr.) O. Ktze. Ipil General Construction Endangered Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit.

Ipil-Ipil Light Construction, Fuel Wood Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 85


Moghania strobilifera (L.) St-Hill. ex jacobs.

Payang –payang Species Diversity Common Parkia roxburghii G. Don. Kupang Light Construction Common Peltrophorum pterocarpum (DC.)Back &

Heyne.

Siar Light Construction Rare *Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.

Kamachile Edible Fruit Common Pongamia pinnata (L.) Merr.

Bani Medicinal, Light Construction Common Pterocarpus indicus Willd formaindicus

Smooth narra General Construction Endangered Pterocarpus indicus Willd. forma echinatus

(Pers.)Rojo.

Prickly narra General Construction Endangered *Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr Rain tree

. General Construction Common *Sesbania gradiflora (L.) Pers. Katurai Edible Flowers and Agroforestry Common *Tamarindus indica L.

Sampalok Edible Fruits, Food Additives, Medicinal Common

Wallaceodendron celebicum Steen. Koord.

Banuyo General Construction Endangered CASUARINACEAE Casuarina equisetifolia Forst.

Agoho General Contruction, Ornamental Endangered

Gymnostoma rumphianum (Miq.) L. Johnson

Agoho del monte General Contruction, Ornamental Endangered

FAGACEAE Lithocarpus ovalis (Blanco) Rehd Manggasiriki Light Construction Rare

CELTIDACEAE Celtis luzonica Warb. Magabuyo General Contruction Rare

Celtis philippinensis Blanco Malaikmo General Contruction Rare Trema orientalis (L.) Blume

Anabiong Light Construction Common ROSACEAE Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kal km. Lago General Construction Common Angelesia splendens Korth. Balik (P. Bis.), Dangigan Species Diversity Indeterminate (S.L. Bis.) RHAMNACEAE Zizyphus talanai (Blanco.) Merr. Balakat General Construction Rare CECROPIACEAE Poikilospermum erectum (Blanco) Merr.

Hanopol tindig Species Diversity Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 86


Poikillospermum suaveulens (Blume.) Merr.

Hanopol Species Diversity Common MORACEAE *Artocarpus altilis (Park.) Fosb. Rimas Edible Fruit Rare Artocarpus blancoi (Elm.) Merr.

Antipolo General Construction Common *Artocarpus communis J. R. & G. Forst.

Kamansi Edible Fruit Common Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.

Nangka Edible Fruit, General Construction Common

Artocarpus odoratisimus Blanco. Marang banguhan General Construction Common

Artocarpus ovatus Blanco. Anubing General Construction Common

Artocarpus rubrovenius Warb. Kalulot Light Construction Common

Broussonetia luzonica (Blanco.) Burr.

Himbabao Light Construction Common Ficus benjamina L. Salisi Ornamental Common Ficus botryocarpa Miq.

Basikong Species Diversity Common Ficus botryocarpa Miq.

var.linearrifolia(Elm.)Corner

Basikong kalauang Species Diversity Common Ficus collosa Willd. Kalukoi Ornamental Common Ficus congesta Roxb.

Malatibig Species Diversity Common Ficus gul Laut. & K. Schum. Butli Species Diversity Common Ficus heteropoda Miq.

Alangas Species Diversity Common Ficus irisana Elm.

Aplas Light Construction Common Ficus magnoliifolia Blume.

Kanapai Light Construction Common Ficus minahassae (Tejism & de Vr.)

Hagimit Species Diversity Common Ficus nota (Blanco) Merr.

Tibig Species Diversity Common Ficus orodata (Blanco) Merr.

Pakiling Species Diversity Common Ficus pseudopalma Blanco

Niog-niogan Edible Leaves Common Ficus pubinervis Blume

Dungo Light Construction Common Ficus septica Burm. f. Hauili Species Diversity Common Ficus ulmifolia Lam.

Is-is Species Diversity Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 87


Ficus variegate Blume. Tangisang bayawak Species Diversity Common Ficus variegata Blume.var.sycomoroides

(Miq.)Corner

Dolalo Species Diversity Common Streblus asper Lour. Kalios Ornamental Common URTICACEAE Leucosyke capitellata(Poir.) Wedd.

Alagasi Species Diversity Common *Pilea microphylla (L.) Liebm. Alabong Species Diversity Common Pipturus arborescens (Link) C.B Rob.

Dalunot Species Diversity Common COMBRETACEAE Terminalia catappa L.

Talisai Landscape Plant, Edible Fruits Common Terminalia foetidissima Griff.

Talisai gubat Light Construction Rare Terminalia microcarpa Decne

Kalumpit Edible Fruit Rare Terminalia nitens Presl.

Sakat Light Construction Rare LYTHRACEAE *Cuphea hyssopifolia HBK. Singapore bush Ornamental Common *Lagerstroemia indica L. Melendres Ornamental Common Largerstroemia speciosa (L.) Pers. Banaba Ornamental, Medicinal Rare *Punica granatum L. Pomegranate Ornamental, Medicinal Common MELASTOMATACEAE MYRTACEAE *Psidium guajava L. Guava Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common Syzygium calubcob (C.B.Rob.) Merr.

Kalubkob Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels

Duhat Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common Syzygium nitidum Benth.

Makaasim Light Construction Rare *Syzygium samarangense (Blume) Merr. &

Perry

Makopa Edible Fruit Common Syzygium squamiferum Takut/Taket Taket Syzygium simile (Merr.) Merr.

Panglomboien Light Construction Common MORINGACEAE * Moringa oleifera Lam.

Malungai Edible Leaves and Fruits, Medicinal Common

CARICACEAE *Carica papaya L. Papaya Edible Fruits Common DILLENIACEAE Dillenia luzoniensis (Vid.) Martelli Malakatmon Light Construction Endangered

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 88


Dillenia philippinensis Rolfe Katmon Bundok Katmon

Edible Fruits, General Construction Endangered

Tetracera scandens (L.) Merr. Katmon baging Species Diversity Common

DIPTEROCARPACEAE Dipterocarpus grandiflorus Blanco Apitong General Construction Endangered Hopea plagata (Blanco) Vid Yakal-Saplungan General Construction Endangered Shorea astylosa Foxw. Yakal General Construction Endangered MALVACEAE (STERCULIACEAE, BOMBACACEAE, TILIACEAE)

*Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn.

American kapok Furniture making Common Colona serratifolia Cav. Anilau Species Diversity Common Commersonia bartramia (L.) Merr. Kakaag Species Diversity Common Corchorus acutangulus Lam. Saluyot Edible Leaves, Medicinal Common Grewia acuminata Juss. Bagun, Alagau (Tagb.) Alagat, Danloi (Tag.) Species Diversity Indeterminate Grewia eriocarpa Juss. Baronhasi; Bariwas kanas-kanas (Tag.) Species Diversity Indeterminate Heritiera littoralis Ait. Dungon late Light Construction Rare Heritiera sylvatica Vid. Dungon Light Construction Rare Hibiscus camphylosiphon Turcz.

var.glabrescens (Warb.ex Perk.) Borss.

Vidal’s lanutan Light Construction Indeterminate *Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Gumamela Ornamental Common Hibiscus schizopetalus (M.T.Mast.)Hook.f.

Gumamela de araña Ornamental Common Hibiscus tiliaceus L. Malubago Light Construction Indeterminate Kleinhovia hospita L. Tan-ag Light Construction Common *Muntingia calabura L. Datiles Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common Pterocymbium tinctorium (Blanco) Merr.

Taluto General Construction Common Pterospermum obliquum Blanco Kulatingan Light Construction Rare Pterospermum celebicum Miq. Bayok-bayokan Light Construction Rare Pterospermum diversifolium Blume Bayok Light Construction Rare *Sida acuta Burm. f. Walis-walisan Species Diversity Common *Sida rhombifolia L. Takling baka Species Diversity Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 89


Sterculia crassiramea Merr. Tapinag Light Construction Rare Sterculia foetida L. Kalumpang Light Construction Rare Sterculia montana Merr. Mountain tapinag Light Construction Rare Sterculia oblongata R. Br. Malabuho Light Construction Rare Sterculia philippinensis Merr. Banilad Pulp and Paper Rare' *Theobroma cacao L. Cacao Edible Fruit, Medicinal Common *Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. Kulot-kulotan Species Diversity Common *Urena lobata L. Kollo-kollot Species Diversity Common ELAEOCARPACEAE Elaeocarpus candollei Elm. Impaparai (Tagb.) Impaparai Species Diversity Common Elaeocarpus grandiflorus Sm. Species Diversity Common BIXACEAE *Bixa orellana L. Achuete Food Additives and Coloring Common SAPINDACEAE Allophyllus lopezii Merr. Species Diversity Indeterminate Guioa koelreuteria (Blanco)Merr. Alahan Light Construction Common Litchi chinensis Sonn ssp. philippinensis

Radlk.Leenh.

Alupag Light Construction Common Mischocarpus pentapetalus (Roxb.)Radlk.

Ambalag Light Construction Common Pometia pinnata Forst. & Forst. Malugai Light Construction Rare Pomelia pinnata Forst. & Forst. forma

repanda Jacobs

Malugai liitan Light Construction Rare Sapindus saponaria L. forma microcarpa

Radlk.

Kusibeng Light Construction Rare BURSERACEAE Canarium asperum Benth.

Pagsahingin Light Construction, Source of Elemi Rare

Canarium calophyllum Perk. Pagsahingin bulog

Light Construction, Source of Elemi Rare

ANACARDIACEAE *Anacardium occidentale L. Kasoy Edible Fruit Common Buchanania arborescens (Blume) Blume

Balinghasai Light Construction Rare Buchanania nitida Engl. Balitantan Light Construction Rare Dracontomelon dao (Blanco) Merr. Dao General Construction Rare Dracontomelon edule ( Blanco) Skeels.

Lamio General Construction Rare

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 90


Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Blanco) Merr.

Amugis General Construction Rare Mangifera altissima Blanco Pahutan General Construction Rare *Mangifera indica L. Mangga Edible Fruit Common Spondias purpurea L. Sineguelas Edible Fruit Common MELIACEAE Aglaia edulis (Roxb.) Wall. Malasaging Light Construction Rare Aglaia rimosa (Blanco) Merr. Bayanti Light Construction Rare Aphanamixis polystachya (Wall.)R.N. Parker

Kangko Light Construction Rare *Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Neem tree Light Construction Rare Chisocheton cumingianus (C.DC.) Harms.ssp.

cumingianus

Balukanag Light Construction Rare Chisocheton pentandrus (Blanco) Merr.ssp.

pentandrus

Katong matsing Light Construction Rare Dysoxylum arborescens (Blume)Miq. Kalimutain Light Construction Rare Dysoxylum cumingianum C.DC. Tara-tara Light Construction Rare Lansium domesticum Correa Himamao Light Construction Rare Sandoricum vidallii Malasantol Light Construction Common Sandoricum koetjape (Burm.f.) Merr.

Santol Edible Fruits, Novelties, Light Construction Common

*Swietenia macrophylla King Big leaf mahogany General Construction Common Toona calantas Merr. & Rolfe Kalantas General Construction Rare RUTACEAE Citrus grandis (L.) Osb. Lukban Edible Fruit Common Citrus madurensis Lour. Kalamunding Edible Fruit Common Clausena brevistyla Oliv. Kalomata Edible Fruit Rare Evodia confusa Merr. Bugauak Light Construction Rare Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr. Matang-araw Species Diversity Common Murraya paniculata Jack Kamuning Ornamental Rare SIMAROUBACEAE Ailanthus integrifolia Lam. Malasapsap Light Construction Rare EBENACEAE Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh. Ebony General Construction Endangered Diospyros philippinensis (Desr.)Gurke

Kamagong General Construction Endangered Diospyros pilosanthera Blanco Bolong eta General Construction Endangered

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 91


Diospyros pyrrhocarpa Miq. Anang General Construction Endangered MYRSINACEAE Ardisia clementis Presl. Katagpo Species Diversity Common Ardisia pyramidalis (Cav.) Pers. Aunasin Ornamental Common Ardisia squamulosa Elm. Tagpo Species Diversity Common SAPOTACEAE Chrysophyllum cainito L. Caimito Edible Fruits Common Madhuca betis (Blanco)Macbr.&Merr.

Betis Light Construction Rare *Manilkara sapota (L.) Royer. Chico Edible Fruits Common Mimusops elengi L. Bansalagin Light Construction Rare Palaquium foxworthyi Merr. Tagotoi Light Construction Rare Palaquium luzoniense (F.Vill.) Vid. Nato Light Construction Rare Palaquium merrillii Dub. Dulitan Light Construction Rare Planchonella nitida (Blume) Dub. Duklitan Light Construction Rare Pouteria macrantha (Merr.)Baenhi White Nato Light Construction Rare *Pouteria rivicoa (Gaertn.f.) Ducke Tiesa Edible Fruits Common THEACEAE Camelia lanceolata (Blume)Seem. Haikan Species Diversity Rare LECYTHIDACEAE Barringtonia asiatica (L.)Kurz Botong Ornamental Rare Barringtonia racemosa (L.) Blume ex DC.

Putat Ornamental Common SOLANACEAE Cestrum nocturnum L. Dama de Noche Ornamental Common Datura metel L. Talong punay Species Diversity Common Solanum biflorum Lour. Bagan bagan Species Diversity Common Solanum ferox L. Talong gubat Species Diversity Common Solanum torvum Sw. Talong-talungan Species Diversity Common COVOLVULACEAE Ipomea batatas (L.) Lamk. Sweet potato Edible Leaves , Rootcrops Common Ipomea pes-caprae (L.) R.Br. Lambayong Species Diversity Common Ipomea purpurea (L.)Roth Morning glory Ornamental Common Merremia peltata (L.) Merr. Bulakan Species Diversity Common Merremia vitifolia (Burm.f.)Hall.f. Kalalaknit Species Diversity Common APOCYNACEAE Dischidia tonsa Schltr. Species Diversity Indeterminate Alstonia macrophylla Wall.ex DC. Batino Light Construction Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 92


Alstonia scholaris (L.) R.Br. Dita Light Construction Common *Catharanthus roseus (L.)G.Don Chichirica Ornamental, Medicinal Common Ervatamia mucronata (Merr.)Markgr.

Taparak Species Diversity Common Ervatamia pandacaqui (Poir)Pich. Pandakaki Medicinal Common Ichnocarpus volubilis Merr. Hingiw Rope Making, Handicrafts Common Kibatalia gitingensis (Elm.)Woods. Laneteng gubat Light Construction Rare Voacanga globosa (Blanco) Merr. Bayag usa Species Diversity Rare Wrightia pubescens R.Br. ssp. laniti (Blanco)

Ngan

Lanete Light Construction Rare LOGANIACEAE Fagraea cochinchinensis (Lour.)A. Chev. Dolo, Dulo, Uling (Tagb.);

Susulin (Tag.) Dolo Posts, beams, fence posts Endangered RUBIACEAE Anthocephalus chinensis (Lamk.) Rich.ex Walp

Kaatoan bangkal Light Construction Rare Hedyotis asperrima (Merr.) Merr. Species Diversity Common Hedyotis costata (Roxb.) Kurz Species Diversity Common Uncaria insignis DC. Bungkauit Species Diversity Common Myrmeconauclea strigosa (Korth) Merr.

Amontong Species Diversity Rare Gardenia lagunensis Merr. Makaboyo Species Diversity Rare Gardenia merrilli Elm. bagaoi (P.Bis); Niog-niog

(P.Bis); Tayakan (Mang.) Ligad – ligad Species Diversity Rare

Gardenia pseudopsidium (Blanco) F.-Vill. Gilikak, Klapi (Tag.)

Bayag- usa, Species Diversity Rare Prismatomeris obtusifolia Merr. Species Diversity Rare Lasianthus cyanocarpus Jack Maratagata (Neg.) Species Diversity Rare *Coffea Arabica L. Kape Beverages Common Gardenia jasminoides Ellis.

Rosal Ornamental Common Gardenia longiflora Vid. Balanigan (Tagb.);

Balanigan Ornamental Rare Kalmala

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 93


Hedyotis biflora (L.) Lam. Hedyotis Species Diversity Common

*Ixora chinensis Lam. Santan Ornamental Common Morinda bracteata Roxb.

Nino Species Diversity Common Mussaenda philippica A. Rich.

Kahoy dalaga Ornamental Rare Nauclea orientalis (L.) L.

Bangkal Light Construction Common Neonauclea bartlingii (DC.) Merr.

Lisak Light Construction Rare Neonauclea calycina (Bartl.) Merr.

Kalamansanai Light Construction Rare Neonauclea media (Havil.) Merr.

Wisak Light Construction Rare OLEACEAE Jasminum sambac (L.) Ait.

Sampaguita Ornamental, Essential Oils Common BIGNONIACEAE *Spathodea campanulata Beauv. African tulip Ornamental Rare LAMIACEAE (VERBENACEAE)

Clerodendrum intermedium Cham.

Kasupangil Ornamental Common *Gmelina arborea Roxb. Gmelina General Construction Common Premna odorata Blanco

Alagau Medicinal Common *Tectona grandis L.f.

Teak General Construction, Pulp and Paper Common

Vitex negundo L. Lagundi Medicinal Common Vitex parviflora Juss.

Molave General Construction Rare Viticipremna philippinensis (Turcz.) H.J.Lam.

Lingo-lingo General Construction Rare VERBENACEAE *Lantana camara L. Coronitas Species Diversity Common ARALIACEAE *Brassaia actinophylla Endl. Octopus tree Ornamental Common Polyscias nodosa (Blume.) Seem.

Malapapaya Light Contrustion Common *Polyscias ornatum (Bull.) Meer.

Yellow Papua Ornamental Common Schefflera orodata (Blanco) Merr.& Rolfe

Galamay –amo Ornamental Common PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum pentandrum (Blanco)Merr.

Mamalis Light Construction Rare GOODENIACEAE Scaevola frutescens (Mill.) Krause Balak-balak, Balok-balok

Bokabok Species Diversity Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 94


ASTERACEAE *Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M King & H.

Rob.

Hagonoy Species Diversity Common Mikania cordata (Burm.f.) B.L.Rob. Uoko Species Diversity Common Tithonia diversifolia Asa Gray

Wild sunflower Species Diversity Common Vernonia vidalii Merr. Malasambong Species Diversity Common Vernonia pyrrhopappa Schulz- Bip ex Klatt

Species Diversity Common *This Checklist is only partial and exclusive for the whole Busuanga, Palawan Forest Plant Taxonomy. The families and species of this ecosystems can be found distruibutedly in the Municipality. The Classification follow the New Classification System of Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 85: 531 – 553 (1998). Other Information are taken from the various references of Philippine Flora.This intend for the use of ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004

** Biodiversity and Taxonomy Specialist, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004 *** Research Assistant, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 95

Appendix Table 6. Preliminary Checklist of Gymnosperms of Busuanga, Palawan

Family Species Local Name Common name Economic / Ecological Importance Ecological Status CYCADS

CYCADACEAE

*Cycas revoluta Thunb.

Oliva Ornamental Common

Cycas rumphii Miq. Pitogo Ornamental Rare

Cycas edentata de Laub.

Pitogong dagat Ornamental Rare

Cycas circinalis Miq. Pitogo Ornamental, Edible Seeds and Leaves, Medicinal

Rare/ Endemic

CONIFERS

ARAUCARIACEAE

Agathis celebica (Koord.) Warb.

Bagtik (Kuy.), Baltik (Tagb.)

Palawan almaciga Endagered

Agathis philippinensis Warb.

Bagtik (Kuy.), Baltik (Tagb.)

Almaciga Manila Copal, Contruction, Novelties, Pulpand Paper, Veneer

Endagered

*Araucaria columnaris (Forst) Hook.

Auracaria Ornamental Plant Common

*Araucaria heterophylla (Salisb.)Franco

Norfolk Island pine Ornamental Plant Common

CUPRESSACEAE

*Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco

Arbor vitae Ornamental Plant Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 96

Family Species Local Name Common name Economic / Ecological Importance Ecological Status GNETACEAE

Gnetum gnemon L. Bago Fiber for Rope Making, Edible Fruit

and Leaves Rare

PODOCARPACEAE

Podocarpus polystachyus R. Br. ex Endl.

Bantigi (Neg.), Inamagyo (Tagb.)

Common

Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don ex Lamb.

Malaadelfa (Tag.) Ornamental Common

*This Checklist is only partial and exclusive for the whole Busuanga, Palawan Forest Plant Taxonomy. The families and species of this ecosystems can be found distributed in the Municipality. The Classification follows the system of A. Cronquist, The Evolution and Classification of Flowerng Plants. Other Information are taken from the various references of Philippine Flora. This is intended for the use of ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, April, 2004 ** Biodiversity and Taxonomy Specialist, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004 *** Research Assistant, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 97

Appendix Table 7. Preliminary Checklist of Mangrove and Beach Plants of Northern Palawan.

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit

Economic / Ecological Importance

Ecological Status

FERNS PTERIDACEAE Acrostichum aureum L. Lagolo Fern Edible; Medicinal Abundant

ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTS)

ACANTHACEAE Acanthus ebracteatus

Vahl. Tigbau Herb Species Diversity Abundant

Acanthus ilicifolius L. Diluario Herb Species Diversity Abundant

AIZOACEAE Sesuvium

portulacastrum L. Dampalit Creeping Herb Fodders Abundant

APOCYNACEAE Cerbera manghas L. Lipata Baraibai Tree Firewood; Medicinal Common AVINCENNIACEAE Avicennia alba Blume Bungalon puti Tree Firewood; Resin; Medicinal;

Food Source Common

Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh.

Bungalon Tree Firewood Common

Avicennia marina (Forsk.)Vierh. var.rumphiana (Hallier)Bakh.

Piapi Tree Firewood Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 98

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit


Ecological Status

Avicennia officinalis L. Api – api Tree Construction; Source of Organic Compounds

Rare

BIGNONIACEAE Dolichandrone

spathacea (L.f.) K,Schum.

Tañgas Tui Tree Wooden Shoe; Scabbards; Household Implements

Depleted

BOMBACACEAE Camptostemon

philippinense (Vid.) Becc.

Gapas –gapas Tree Pulp and Paper; Hoousehold Implements; Interiors

Not Common

BORAGINACEAE Tournefortia argentea

L.f. Patayud Species Diversity Abundant

CAESALPINIACEAE Caesalpinia crista L. Bayag

Kambing, Dalagdag

Kalumbibit Creeping Vine Species Diversity Abundant

Caesalpinia nuga (L.) Ait.

Bakaig, Kalauinit

Sapinit Creeping Vine Species Diversity Abundant

CASUARINACEAE Casuarina equisetifolia

Forst. Agoho Tree General Construction; Tannin Abundant

CLUSIACEAE Calophyllum

inophyllum L. Dangkalan Bitaog Tree Oil is use for Furniture Making Depleted

COMBRETACEAE Lumnitzera littorea

(Jack.) Voigt. Tabau Tree General Construction; Furniture

Making; Ship Building Depleted

Lumnitzera racemosa Willd.

Kulasi Tree Novelties; Tannin ; Wood Articles

Depleted

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 99

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit


Ecological Status

Terminalia catappa L. Talisai Tree Ornamental Shade Tree; Food Source

Common

CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea pes-caprae

(L.) Roth. Lambayong Vine Species Diversity Abundant

EUPHORBIACEAE Excoecaria agallocha

L. Buta-buta Tree Medicianal; Matchsticks; Pulp

and Paper Common

Glochidion littorale Blume

Kayong Tree Firewood; Fences and Post Common

FABACEAE Cynometra ramiflora L. Balitbitan Tree Ornamental Shade Tree;

Lanscape Plant Rare

Derris trifoliata Lour. Mangasin Shrub Species Diversity Abundant

Erythrina orientalis (L.) Murr.

Dapdap Tree Ornamental Shade Tree; Lanscape Plant

Depleted

Intsia bijuga (Coelbr.) O. Ktze.

Ipil Tree General Construction; Furniture; Medicinal; Household

Implements

Fairly Common

Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre

Bani Tree Medicinal; Contruction Material Not Abundant

GOODENIACEAE Scaevola sericea Vahl. Linu Shrub Ornamental Common

LECYTHIDACEAE Barringtonia asiatica

(L.) Kurz Botong Tree Ornamental Shade Tree Depleted

Barringtonia racemosa (L.) Blume ex DC.

Potat Putat Tree Firewood Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 100

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit


Ecological Status

LYTHRACEAE Pemphis acidula J.R. &

Forst. Bantigi Tree Household Implements;

Novelties Common

MALPHIGIACEAE Tristellateia

australasiae A. Rich. Binusisi Creeping Vine Species Diversity Abundant

MALVACEAE Hibiscus tiliaceus L. Malubago Tree Household Interiors; Musical

Instruments; Novelties Common

Thespesia populnea Soland.

Banalo Tree Scabbarb; household Utensils Common

Thespesia populneoides (Roxb.) Kostel

Malabanalo Tree Scabbarb; household Utensils Common

MELIACEAE Xylocarpus granatum

Koen. Tabigi Tree Tannin; Household Implements;

Oil; Medicinal Abundant

Xylocarpus moluccensis (Lamk.) M. Roem.

Piagau Tree Tannin; Household Implements; Oil; Medicinal

Abundant

MIMOSACEAE Acacia farnesiana (L.)

Willd. Aroma Tree Gum; Essential Oil; Medicinal Exotic; Abundant

MYRSINACEAE Aegiceras corniculatum

(L.) Blanco Saging –

saging Tree Firewood; Tannin Common

Aegiceras floridum Roem & Schult.

Tiduk – tindukan

Tree Firewood; Tannin Common

MYRTACEAE

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 101

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit


Ecological Status

Osbornia octodorta F. Muell.

Tuauis Taualis Tree Boat Caulking; Railroad Ties; Construction

RHIZOPHORACEAE Bruguiera cylindrica

(L.) Blume. Biuas, Banal-babae

Pototan lalake Tree Firewood; Food Source Rare

Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (L.) Lamk.

Busain Tree Furniture; Firewood; Charcoal;Making Food Source

Common

Bruguiera parviflora (Roxb.) W. & A. ex Griff.

Hangalai Langarai Tree Furniture; Firewood; Charcoal;Making Food Source

Common

Bruguiera sexangula (Lour.) Poir.

Balinsasayaw Pototan Tree Furniture; Firewood; Charcoal Making; Food Source; Medicinal

Common

Ceriops decandra (Griff.) Ding Hou

Malatangal Tree Firewood; Tannin; Dye and Wine Making

Fairly Common

Ceriops tagal (Perr.) C.B. Rob.

Pakat Tangal Tree Firewood; Tannin Fairly Common

Rhizophora apiculata Blume.

Bakauan-lalake

Tree Construction; Firewood; Charcoal Making; Tannin; Dye ;

Household Implements

Common

Rhizophora mucronata Lamk.

Bakauan-babae

Tree Construction; Firewood; Charcoal Making; Tannin; Dye ;

Household Implements; Medicinal

Common

Rhizophora stylosa Griff.

Bangkau Tree Construction; Firewood; Charcoal Making; Tannin; Dye ;

Household Implements

Common

SONNERATIACEAE Sonneratia alba L.

Smith Pagatpat Tree General Construction; Novelties Common

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 102

Family

Species

Local Name

Common name

Habit


Ecological Status

Sonneratia caseolaris (L.) Engl.

Pedada Tree Tannin; Shoemaking; Food Preparation; Light Contruction

Common

STERCULIACEAE Heritiera littoralis

Dryand ex W. Ait. Dungon – late Tree Food Sources; General

Construction; Tannin Common

VERBENACEAE Premna intergrifolia L. Alagau dagat Tree Medicinal; Firewood Common

RUBIACEAE Morinda citrifolia L Bangkoro

. Tree Food Source; Species Diversity Common

Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea Gaertn.f.

Nilad Tree Firewood; Dye ; Tannin; Post Common

ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)

ARECACEAE Nypa fruticans

Wurmb. Nipa Palm Nipa Shingles; Wine and

Vinegar Making Abundant

PANDANACEAE Pandanus tectorius

Soland Pandan dagat Herb Ornamental Abundant

*This Checklist is only partial and exclusive for the whole Northern Palawan Mangrove and Beach Forest Plant Taxonomy. The families and species of this ecosystems are few and can be found distruibutedly in each Municipality. The Classification follow the system of A. Cronquist, The Evolution and Classification of Flowerng Plants. Other Information are taken from the various references of Philippine Flora.This intend for the use of ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004

** Biodiversity and Taxonomy Specialist, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004 *** Research Assistant, ECAN Zoning Component-SEMP, PCSDS, January, 2004

________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 103

Appendix Table 8. Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status, per Transect

Species* /Transect

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Freq

Lanete x x 20 Kamagong x x x x 40 Ipil x x x x x x x 70 Sakat/taket x x x x x x x x 80 Akle x x 20 Apitong x x x 30 Malasantol x x x x x x x x 80 Antipolo x x 20 Nato x x 20 Yakal x x 20 Duguan x 10 Narra x x x 30 Molave / Molawin x x 20 Mancono x 10 Kalaum x 10

Total 2 2 4 10 9 6 7 4 1 3 *IUCN; CITES Listed, 2000 (PAWB)

________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 104

Appendix Table 9. Busuanga Flora Species with Endangered Status, per Barangay

in Busuanga

Species*/Bgy

Chy

Nbu

Con

Sag

YKR

Bog

Sal

NQ

SR

SN

Bul

Freq

Lanete x x 18.181818 Kamagong x x 18.181818 Ipil x x x x x x 54.54545 Sakat / taket x x x x x x 54.54545 Akle x 9.0909091 Apitong x 9.0909091 Malasantol x x x x x x x 63.63636 Antipolo x x 18.181818 Nato x x x 27.272727 Yakal x x x x x 45.45455 Duguan x x 18.181818 Narra x 9.0909091 Molave / Molawin x x 18.181818 Mancono x 9.0909091 Kalaum x 9.0909091 Total number of spp. 13 1 2 2 2 5 7 3 2 2 3

________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 105

Appendix Table 10. Coordinates of Transects per Barangay in Busuanga

Municipality

Coordinates Barangay

Transect Number Tie Point End Point

Concepcion 3 N1202.73’ E119058.47’ N1203.97’ E119059.03’

Sagrada 3 N1204.175’ E119059.137’ N1206.483’ E12000.199’

Yulo King Ranch 3 N1206.164’ E12000.263’ N12011.678’ E12002.723’

4 N12014.187’ E12001.986’ N1205.012’ E119059.902’

5 N12011.372’ E119059.25’ N12012.376’ E119059.685’

6 N1208.751’ E119056.586’ N12013.204’ E119058.33’

Cheey

7 N12014.742’ E119058.225’ N12012.324’ E119056.988’

5 N1207.344’ E119057.462’ N12011.285’ E119059.198’ Salvacion 6 N12013.339’ E119058.609’ N12014.149’ E119058.967’

New Quezon 8 N12015.560’ E119056.582’ N12012.865’ E119055.395’

New Busuanga 9 N12013.611’ E119054.11’ N12013.986’ E119054.304’

San Rafael 8 N12012.595’ E119055.277’ N12012.459’ E119055.216’

1 N1204.637’ E12002.275’ N1207.066’ E12003.346’ Sto. Nino

2 N1202.629’ E119059.911’ N1208.076’ E12002.291’

Buluang 10 N12015.006’ E119053.338’ N12015.546’ E119053.576’

Bogtong 5 N1205.918’ E119056.828’ N1207.162’ E119057.383’

_________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 106

APPENDIX FIGURES

Appendix Figure 1. Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy and Ground Vegetation for Busuanga, Northern Palawan.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

Inde

x H'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Transects

Shannon Biodiversity Index for Flora in the Canopy, Under Canopy, and Ground Vegetation for Busuanga, Northern

Palawan

GroundUndrCanopyCanopy

_________________________________________________________________________ APPENDICES 107

Appendix Figure 2. Timber Volume for Dipterocarps and Non-Dipterocarps in

Busuanga.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

volu

me

(cu.

m.)

10-19cm

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109

110-119

120

DBH Classes

Diptero

NonDipt

FLORA SURVEY AND BIODIVERSITY ... - pkp.pcsd.gov.ph Flora Report.pdf · v Title Page 5.11...

Documents

Transcript of FLORA SURVEY AND BIODIVERSITY ... - pkp.pcsd.gov.ph Flora Report.pdf · v Title Page 5.11...