Vegetation Analysis of Sanctuary and Forest Areas of Kalahan … · 2021. 1. 25. · of Kalahan...

Florencia B. Pulhin1*, Alfie M. Torres2, Nelson M. Pampolina3, Rodel D. Lasco5, and Angela Marie Alducente4

1Forestry Development Center; 2Department of Forest Products and Paper Science3Department of Forest Biological Sciences; 4Institute of Renewable Natural Resources

College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los BañosCollege, Laguna, Philippines

5World Agroforestry Center, College, Laguna, Philippines

Vegetation Analysis of Sanctuary and Forest Areas of Kalahan Forest Reserve Nueva Vizcaya

and Pangasinan, Philippines

Keywords: biodiversity, conservation value, endemic, Kalahan Forest Reserve

Many areas in the country are rich in biodiversity but are not assessed as they are not part of the identified protected areas of the country. One of which is the Kalahan Forest Reserve (KFR) managed by the Ikalahans, a cultural minority group that practices sustainable agroforestry systems. The study used a modified quadrat sampling method (QSM) where a total of eight 1-km transect with 20-m width were established to assess the biodiversity of the area. The sampling was undertaken in three layers: overstorey (10 plots each measuring 10 m x 10 m, spaced 100 m away from each other in each 1-km transect), intermediate (3 m x 3 m inside the 10 m x 10 m plot), and understorey (1 m x 1 m inside the 3 m x 3 m plot). Results of the study show that Benguet pine (Pinus insularis Endl) and brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.) have high importance values of 49.07 and 45.80, respectively. Moreover, the results of the study indicate that KFR has very high biological diversity as manifested by the value of Shannon-Weiner (3.50) and the Shannon diversity index scale of Fernando. In terms of the presence of endemic species, KFR is home to 50 endemic species or has 45% endemism. Based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and DAO 2017-11 KFR has three threatened, two endangered, and three vulnerable species. Considering these results, KFR is worthy to be protected to conserve and enhance its biodiversity.

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTIONThe Philippines is endowed with rich biological resources. It is host to about 15,000 species of plants representing 5% of the total floral species in the world (Lasco et al. 2013), placing the country at the 5th rank globally (BMB-DENR 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020). In terms of faunal species, the Philippines is home to a total of 38,000 species

(BMB-DENR 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020). Almost half of these floral and faunal species can only be found in the Philippines (BMB-DENR 2019). The country occupies the 4th place in the world in terms of hosting the highest number of endemic bird species (BMB-DENR 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020).

In recognition of the biological richness of the Philippines, the country is tagged as one of the 18 megadiverse countries. The said countries altogether contain around

271271

Philippine Journal of Science150 (S1): 271-280, Special Issue on BiodiversityISSN 0031 - 7683Date Received: 05 Oct 2020

70–80% of the world’s biodiversity (Lasco et al. 2013). Through time, however, the biodiversity of the country has eroded putting the Philippines as one of the hotspots for biodiversity loss. As of 2019, there are 60 critically endangered, 61 endangered, 440 vulnerable, and 545 other threatened wildlife species in the Philippines (DENR 2019). In terms of flora, there are 179 critically endangered, 255 endangered, 406 vulnerable, and 145 other threatened species as of 2017 (DENR 2017).

The erosion of biodiversity is caused by massive deforestation and forest degradation that occurred in the country. From 90% forest cover in the 1900s, it went down to 70% by the end of the 19th century (Lasco et al. 2001; Garrity et al. 1993; Liu et al. 1993). By the year 2015, only 23% (7 Mha) of the country is covered with forest, which is broken down into closed forest (2 Mha), open forest (4.7 Mha), and mangrove forest (0.3 Mha) (FMB-DENR 2018).

Loss of biodiversity habitats and degradation is caused by a number of factors: “kaingin” (slash-and-burn farming), mining, climate change, typhoons, floods, landslides and road construction, settlement, conversion into built-up areas/subdivisions, legal and illegal logging, charcoal making, timber poaching (Carandang et al. 2012), overpopulation, lack of capacities on natural resources management, under-valuation of ecosystem services from natural resources, weak integration of biodiversity concerns in landscape planning, and rights overlap with defined areas for protected areas (PAs) (BMB-DENR 2019). In addition to the loss of habitats and degradation, biodiversity is threatened by overexploitation for trade or leisure, pollution, and the introduction of invasive alien species (BMB-DENR 2019).

Conserving biodiversity is very important as it offers a number of services such as water, food, pharmaceuticals, biomass fuels, carbon sequestration and climate regulation, crop pollination, cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration, and ecotourism (BMB-DENR 2019). Before biodiversity conservation can be done, baseline information on the diversity of the species present in the area is needed. Furthermore, having biodiversity data is important as it can aid in better planning and management of the area. Most biodiversity assessments in the Philippines were undertaken in declared PAs. However, there are a number of biodiversity-rich areas in the country, one of which is the KFR, where no assessment has been done. Thus, a vegetational analysis of the KFR was conducted to help fill such a gap. This paper presents the biodiversity resources present inside the KFR.

METHODOLOGY

Description of the Study AreaThe KFR is located in Cluster 1 of Ikalahan-Kalanguya Ancestral Domain in the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and Pangasinan (Figure 1). It covers 14,730 ha of mountainous land with elevation ranging from 600–1717 m above sea level. The average rainfall recorded is over 4000 mm/yr and temperatures between 8–24 °C.

KFR was set aside for the Ikalahans through the memorandum of agreement no. 1 signed on 13 May 1974. It covers six “barangays” (municipal districts; Brgy.) – namely, Imugan, Malico, Sta. Rosa, Unib, Bacneng, and Baracbac (Figure 1). KFR is one of the remaining intact habitats for wildlife and forest species. The area is characterized by diverse flora and fauna ecosystems, as evidenced by the presence of threatened species of plants and animals. It is also the home of the Ikalahans, a cultural minority group characterized by a unique culture and practitioners of sustainable agroforestry systems. The reserve mountain contains three major types of forest – 1) pine forest on the western side, 2) dipterocarp forest on the eastern portion, and 3) mossy forest on the central part. Within the reserve, sanctuary forests were set aside for watershed and wildlife protection while other portions were composed of agroforestry farm, agricultural, and grassland areas.

Vegetation Sampling ProcedureA reconnaissance survey was conducted to identify the areas in KFR that were included in the vegetation sampling. Within the reserve, only the sanctuary and forested areas were surveyed. A modified QSM was applied. A total of eight 1-km transects with 20-m width was established to ensure that a substantial portion of the KFR was sampled (Figure 2).

Figure 3 shows the sampling scheme used in the study. The sampling was undertaken in three layers: overstorey, intermediate, and understorey. For the overstorey layer, 10 plots each measuring 10 m x 10 m, spaced 100 m away from each other, were alternately established in each 1-km transect. Inside each 10 m x 10 m plot, a smaller plot measuring 3 m x 3 m was established to assess the intermediate layer. Inside each 3 m x 3 m plot, a smaller plot measuring 1 m x 1 m was constructed to cover the understorey layer. A total of 240 plots were established as follows: 80 plots (10 m x 10 m), 80 plots (3 m x 3 m), and 80 plots (1 m x 1 m).

Only trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of > 5 were measured in the 10 m x 10 m plots. Trees with DBH < 5 cm and more than a meter height were sampled inside the 3 m x 3 m plots. In the 1 m x 1 m plots, plants with DBH < 5 cm and less than a meter height were identified.

Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary and Forest Areas of KFR

Philippine Journal of ScienceVol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity

272

Figure 1. Location map of KFR.

Figure 2. Location of transects established in the assessment.



273

Taxonomic CharacterizationAll specimens observed within the established transect were collected and labeled using their local names. Local names were verified based on the morphological and vegetative characters of the specimens in the Kalahan Educational Foundation and the University of the Philippines Los Baños – College of Forestry and Natural Resources herbaria. The 1999 Revised Lexicon of Philippine Trees was also used for further verification of species identity.

Quantitative AnalysisThe important quantitative analysis such as density, dominance, and frequency of tree, shrub, and herb species was determined, as per Curtis and McIntosh (1950).

Density. Density is an expression of the numerical strength of a species where the total number of individuals of each species in all the plots is divided by the total number of plots sampled. Density is calculated by the equation:

(1)

Frequency. Frequency refers to the degree of dispersion of individual species in an area. It was examined by sampling the study area at several places at random and recorded the name of species that occurred in each sampling unit. Frequency is calculated by the equation:

(2)

Dominance. Dominance measurements denote which species is the largest in terms of presence. The dominance of a species is determined by the value of its basal cover. Dominance is calculated by the equation:

(3)

Importance value index. Importance value is a measure to assess the overall significance of a species since it takes into account several properties of the species in the vegetation. In calculating this index, the percentage values of relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance are summed up together (Curtis 1959).

(4)

Relative density. Relative density is the study of the numerical strength of a species in relation to the total number of individuals of all species. It can be calculated by the equation:

(5)

Relative frequency. This refers to the degree of dispersion of individual species in an area in relation to the number of all the species that occurred. It can be calculated by the equation:

(6)

Relative dominance. Relative dominance is the coverage value of a species with respect to the sum of coverage of the rest of the species in the area. It can be calculated by the equation:

(7)

Species diversity index. The number of species and number of individuals in a community is a measure of species diversity, which depends on the stability of habitat. The vegetation of the study area was assessed using the Shannon-Weiner diversity index:

(8)

Figure 3. Transect and plot designs.



274

H’ = index of species diversityS = species richnessPi = proportion of total samples belonging to the ith speciesln = natural log

(9)

Conservation values. The conservation status of flora in the area was determined using the DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) Administrative Order 2017-11 (Establishing the National List of Threatened Philippine Plants and Their Categories and the List of Other Wildlife Species) and the IUCN 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Floristic CompositionFigure 4 shows the number of plant species and the frequency of occurrence in the sample plots established in KFR. Among the sample plots established, the 3 m x 3 m sample plots contain the highest number of individual plants and plant species. Inside the said sample plots, there are 4973 individual plants belonging to 176 species from 46 families. The 1 m x 1 m plots host the second-highest number of plants with a total of 2929 individual plants from 119 species belonging to 38 families. In the 10 m x 10 m plots where only the trees with DBH of 5 cm and above are identified and counted, there are 111 different species from 37 families found with a total count of 652. It is worthy to note that there are trees inside the 10 m x 10 m plots that have DBH of 50 and above. However, since there are only 19 trees that have such diameter, the mean diameter of the trees inside the 10 m x 10 m plots is 14.43 cm. On average, there are eight individuals in each

plot or a density of 0.08 trees/m2. This value is higher than the density of the natural forest, which is 0.04–0.05 tree/m2 (Malabrigo et al. 2015).

In the eight established transects, the highest frequency was recorded in Transect 4, which is located in Brgy. Malico while Transect 3 in Brgy. Sta Rosa contains the lowest number of plants. Transect 4 has a total of 119 individuals due to an abundance of “binoloan” (Acmena acuminatissima) or locally known as “baltik.” Generally, the common species in the plot were brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.; locally known as “tikleg”), Benguet pine (Pinus insularis Endl), “Rob. banitan” (Glochidion sp.; locally known as “pedped”), and “kamog” (Clethra lancifolia Turcz.; locally known as “amoweg”). The remaining transects are in the following ranking in terms of frequency of occurrence of individual plants: Transect 1 (2nd), Transect 7 (3rd), Transect 8 (4th), Transect 6 (5th), Transect 5 (6th), and Transect 2 (7th) (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of individual plants in the different sizes of plots.

Figure 5. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of individual plants in the 10 m x 10 m plots.

In terms of taxa, Transect 1 – which is located in Brgy. Landingan – has the highest recorded number of plant species at 45. Transect 8 closely follows Transect 1 with 40 species while Transects 5, 6, and 7 contain almost the same number of plant species. Transects 4 and 2 have 29 and 24 plant species, respectively, while Transect 3 contains 13 species only.

In the 3 m x 3 m plots, the dominant species are “bulak manok” (Agerantina adenophora), “cogon” (Imperata cylindrica), and brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.). Among the 3 m x 3 m plots established, plots inside Transect 8 contains the highest number of individual plants while plots inside Transect 2 contains the least (Figure 6). Plots inside Transect 7 and 5 contain 785 and 732 individual plants, respectively. The remaining 3 m x 3 m plots inside the transects have the following number of species: Transect 4 (660), Transect 3 (555), Transect 6 (504), and Transect 1 (395).



275

As regards the number of species present, plots in both Transects 5 and 6 contain the highest number of different species (73). The remaining transects are arranged in the following order in terms of number of species present in the 3 m x 3 m plots: Transect 7 > Transect 1 > Transect 8 > Transect 2 > Transect 4 > Transect 3.

Within the 1 m x 1 m plots, “bulak manok” (Agerantina adenophora) and “kulape” or “hakatti” mainly cover the plots. Plots inside Transect 8 contains the highest number of individual plants (472), closely followed by plots in Transect 3 (451). Plots in Transect 7 occupy the 3rd rank while plots in Transects 5 and 4 are in ranks 4 and 5, respectively. Plots in Transect 1 follow next while plots in Transects 6 and 2 occupy the 7th and 8th ranks, respectively (Figure 7).

Figure 7 further shows the number of species present inside the 1 m x 1 m plots in the transect. Results of the assessment show that the plots in Transect 6 have the highest number of species (46) while those in Transect 3 have the least (27). Other transects are in the following order: Transect 5 > Transect 1 > Transect 7 > Transect 4 > Transect 8 > Transect 2.



Importance ValueAmong the identified species in KFR, Benguet pine (Pinus insularis Endl) and brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.) have the highest importance values. Importance value is a parameter used in determining the dominant species in an ecosystem as well as the abundance and distribution of species. It is computed by adding the relative frequency, relative density, and relative dominance. In this case, the basal area was measured only in plants with > 5 cm DBH; hence, importance values are available for the 10 m x 10 m plot only.

Importance values of Benguet pine (Pinus insularis Endl) and brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.) are 49.07 and 45.80, respectively (Table 1). The results indicate that these two species have occupied a large portion of the area and are densely populated. Relative frequency and relative density of Benguet pine are 0.78 and 4.45, respectively, while relative dominance is 43.84. For brown oak, the values derived are as follows: relative frequency (2.35), relative density (11.04), and relative dominance (32.41). It is worthy to note that brown oak is an exotic species while Benguet pine is a native species.

Other species like “binoloan” (Acmena acuminatissima (Blume) Merr. & Perry), “Rob. banitan” (Glochidion sp.), and “kamog” (Clethra lancifolia Turcz. ) have also been frequently encountered in the area but have importance values of less than 10. Moreover, “bulak manok” (Agerantina adenophora) is identified to be the densest species among the plants with DBH of less than 5 cm.

Diversity IndexThe composition and structure of a plant community can be measured mathematically by determining the diversity index. In quantifying the biological diversity of the area, both Simpson’s and Shannon-Weiner indices were computed for the study. Simpson’s values of different plots were nearly 1.00, which implies that there was a high probability that two individuals belong to different species (Table 2). In addition, the values of Shannon-Weiner were found to be greater than 3.50, which is indicative of the very high level of diversity based on the Shannon diversity index scale of Fernando (Table 3).

Endemic Species Table 4 shows the list of species in KFR that are endemic to the Philippines. Out of the 111 tree species present in KFR, 50 species from 29 families are endemic to the Philippines. The percent endemism of KFR (45%) is a little less than the recorded endemism of the country (60%), according to Merril’s Enumeration of Philippine Flowering Plants (1923–1926) (Malabrigo et al. 2015) and a lot higher than the endemism of Laiban Sub-watershed, a microbasin of Kaliwa Watershed located in the Sierra



276

Table 1. Computed importance values of all tree species with > 5 cm DBH.Common name Scientific name Family Importance valueBenguet pine Pinus insularis Endl. Pinaceae 49.07Brown oak Quercus semecarpifolia Sm. Fagaceae 45.80“Binoloan” Acmena acuminatissima (Blume) Merr. & Perry Myrtaceae 9.82“Rob. banitan” Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King & H. Rob. Asteraceae 7.68“Kamog” Clethra lancifolia Turcz. Clethraceae 6.34“Dulitan” Palaquium merrillii Dub. Sapotaceae 6.21“Balanti” Omalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax Euphorbiaceae 5.88“Tignoi-pinus” Antidesma subcordatum Merr. Phyllanthaceae 5.73“Dolalog” Ficus variegata Blume var. sycomoroides (Miq.) Corner Moraceae 5.05“Bakig” Eurya coriacea Merr. Pentaphyacaceae 4.95“Igyo” Dysoxylum gaudichaudianum (A. Juss.) Miq. Meliaceae 4.70“Hauili” Ficus septica Burm. f. Moraceae 4.47“Daraw” Wendlandia luzonenzis Rubiaceae 3.46“Matang-araw” Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr. Rutaceae 3.37“Danglin” Grewia multiflora Juss. Malvaceae 3.30Tree fern Cyathea contaminans (Wall. & Hook.) Copel. Cyatheaceae 3.23“Pili” Canarium ovatum Engl. Burseraceae 3.02“Marabotum” Ficus subcordata Blume Moraceae 2.86“Tibig” Ficus nota (Blanco) Merr. Moraceae 2.86Alder, Nepalese Alnus nepalensis Betulaceae 2.72“Alipasio” Villabrunea rubescens Urticaceae 2.60“Black balakanin” Acer curanii Merr. Aceraceae 2.55“Tabau” Lumnitzera litorea Combretaceae 2.29“Dagwey” Sauraria subglabra Actinidiaceae 2.19“Talanak” Astronia candolleana Melastomataceae 2.17“Tuai” Bischofia javanica Blume Phyllanthaceae 2.15“Bangkal” Neonauclea orientalis (L.) L. Rubiaceae 2.08“Ligas” Semecarpus cuneiformis Blanco Anacardiaceae 2.01“Lansones bono” Lansium dubium Merr. Meliaceae 2.01“Midbit” Syzygium melliodorum (C.B.Rob.) Merr. Myrtaceae 1.84“Alupag” Litchi chinensis var. philippinensis Sapindaceae 1.83“Sayong-banguhan” Radermachera fragrans (Elmer) Steenis Bignoniaceae 1.81“Paguringon” Cratoxylum sumatranum (Jack) Blume Clusiaceae 1.76“Balukanag” Chisocheton cumingianus subsp. cumingianus Meliaceae 1.75“Malatungaw” Melastoma malbathricum L. Melastomataceae 1.72“Misperos” Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. Rosaceae 1.69“Batikuling surotan” Litsea odorifera Valeton Lauraceae 1.67“Kalapat kahoy” Ficus virgata Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae 1.46Octopus tree Schefflera elliptica (Blume) Harms. Araliaceae 1.45“Malawisak” Neonauclea reticulata (Havil.) Merr. Rubiaceae 1.44“Dita” Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. Apocynaceae 1.36“Sutsa” Simplocos cumingiana Symplocaceae 1.32“Paleng” Buchanania platiphylla Merr. Anacardiaceae 1.27“Binukaw” Garcinia binucao (Blanco) Choisy Clusiaceae 1.27“Monpon” Neolitsea intermedia Elmer Lauraceae 1.20“Batikuling” Litsea leytensis Merr. Lauraceae 1.12“Gmelina” Gmelina arborea Roxb. Verbenaceae. 1.10“Lumuluwas” Ziziphus hutchinsonii Merr. Rhamnaceae 1.10“Karimbabui” Wendlandia uvariifolia Hance Rubiaceae 0.88“Bayok-bayokan” Pterospermum celebicum Miq. Malvaceae 0.73“Lago” Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm. Rosaceae 0.72“Palitpit” Smilax china L. Smilacaceae 0.72“Lubalub” Bridelia stipulares (L.) Blume. Phyllanthaceae 0.71“Kalingag” Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal Lauraceae 0.70“Tagpong kitid” Ardisia angustifolia A.DC. Myrsinaceae 0.70“Kanumog” Prunus subglabra Merr. Kalkm Rosaceae 0.70“Niog-niogan” Ficus pseudopalma Blanco Moraceae 0.70“Mangga” Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae 0.65“Luou” Euphorbia stelluta Willd. Euphorbiaceae) 0.56“Lindog bilog” Blumeodendron subrotundifolium (Elmer) Merr. Euphorbiaceae 0.55“Ayasas” Setaria palmifolia (Koenig) Stapf. Poaceae 0.55“Lingo-lingo” Viticipremna philippinensis (Turcz.) H. J. Lam. Lamiaceae 0.55“Mamagon” Fagraea obovate Wall. Gentianaceae 0.55“Arangan babae” Homalium bracteatum Flacoutiaceae 0.55“Guava” Psidium guajava L. Myrtaceae 0.55“Bagarilau” Cryptocarya ampla Merr. Lauraceae 0.55“Antipolo” Artocarpus blancoi (Elmer) Merr. Moraceae 0.55“Pugahan” Caryota cumingii Lodd. Arecaceae 0.55“Upling-gubat” Ficus ampelas Burm. f. Moraceae 0.55“Malakape” Canthium dicoccum (Gaertn.) Merr. Rubiaceae 0.55“Anuyup” Callicarpa platiphylla Lamiaceae 0.55“Alagasi” Leucosyke capitellata (Poir.) Wedd. Urticaceae 0.55“Aplas” Ficus irisana Elmer Moraceae 0.55



277

Table 3. Fernando’s Shannon diversity index scale.

Relative values Shannon (H’) index

Very high ≥ 3.50

High 3.00–3.49

Moderate 2.50–2.99

Low 2.00–2.49

Very low ≤ 1.90

Table 2. Diversity indices of the established plots.

Parameter Plots

10 x 10 3 x 3 1 x 1

Dominance_D 0.029 0.036 0.065

Simpson_1-D 0.971 0.964 0.935

Shannon_H 4.100 3.954 3.535

Common name Scientific name Family

1. “Ligas” Semecarpus cuneiformis Blanco Anacardiaceae 2. “Dita” Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. Apocynaceae 3. “Black balakanin” Acer curanii Merr. Aceraceae4. “Galamay-amo” Schefflera elliptica (Blume) Harms. Araliaceae 5. “Pugahan” Caryota cumingii Lodd. Arecaceae 6. “Sayong-banguhan” Radermachera fragrans (Elmer) Steenis Bignoniaceae7. “Pili” Canarium ovatum Engl. Burseraceae 8. “Kamog” Clethra lancifolia Turcz. Clethraceae9. “Salingogon” Cratoxylum formosum (Jack) Dyer Clusiaceae

10. “Paguringon” Cratoxylum sumatranum (Jack) Blume Clusiaceae 11. “Binukaw” Garcinia binucao (Blanco) Choisy Clusiaceae 12. “Tabau” Lumnitzera littorea (Jack.) Voigt. Combretaceae 13. “Pakong buwaya” Cyathea contaminans (Wall. & Hook.) Copel. Cyatheaceae14. “Balanti” Omalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax Euphorbiaceae 15. “Lingo-lingo” Viticipremna philippinensis (Turcz.) H. J. Lam. Lamiaceae 16. “Bagarilau” Cryptocarya ampla Merr. Lauraceae17. “Batikuling” Litsea leytensis Merr. Lauraceae18. “Kalingag” Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal Lauraceae 19. “Balukanag” Chisocheton camingianus (C. DC.) Harms. subsp. cumingianus Meliaceae 20. “Igyo” Dysoxylum gaudichaudianum (A. Juss.) Miq. Meliaceae 21. “Bayok-bayokan” Pterospermum celebicum Miq. Malvaceae 22. “Danglin” Grewia multiflora Juss. Malvaceae 23. “Lansones bono” Lansium dubium Merr. Meliaceae24. “Antipolo” Artocarpus blancoi (Elmer) Merr. Moraceae25. “Upling gubat” Ficus ampelas Burm. f. Moraceae 26. “Aplas” Ficus irisana Elmer Moraceae27. “Tibig” Ficus nota (Blanco) Merr. Moraceae28. “Niog-niogan” Ficus pseudopalma Blanco Moraceae29. “Hauili” Ficus septica Burm. f. Moraceae30. “Marabotum” Ficus subcordata Blume Moraceae31. “Dolalog” Ficus variegata Blume var. sycomoroides (Miq.)Corner Moraceae32. “Kalapat kahoy” Ficus virgata Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae33. “Binoloan” Acmena acuminatissima (Blume) Merr. & Perry Myrtaceae34. “Midbit” Syzygium melliodorum (C.B.Rob.) Merr. Myrtaceae35. Benguet pine Pinus insularis Endl Pinaceae 36. “Ayas-as” Setaria palmifolia (Koenig) Stapf. Poaceae 37. “Tuai” Bischofia javanica Blume Phyllanthaceae 38. “Bakig” Eurya coriacea Merr. Pentaphyacaceae39. “Lumuluas” Ziziphus hutchinsonii Merr. Rhamnaceae 40. “Lago” Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm. Rosaceae 41. “Kanumog” Prunus subglabra Merr. Kalkm Rosaceae42. “Malakape” Canthium diococcum (Gaertn.) Merr. Rubiaceae 43. “Bangkal” Nauclea orientalis (L.) L. Rubiaceae

Madre Mountain Range (20%) (Villegas and Pollisco 2008) and in La Mesa Watershed, which is only 15.22% (Malabrigo et al. 2015). Considering this result, KFR is worth preserving as it hosts a substantial number of endemic species in the Philippines.

Conservation ValueBased on the DENR Administrative Order 2017-11 (Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Plants and their Categories), there are three threatened, two endangered, and three vulnerable species present in KFR. Threatened species are Canarium ovatum Engl., Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal, and Ziziphus hutchinsonii Merr. while endangered species are Cyathea contaminans (Wall. & Hook.) Copel and Litsea leytensis. Merr. The three vulnerable species include Litchi chinensis ssp. philippinensis, Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm., and Prunus subglabra (Merr.) Kalkman.

Table 4. List of Philippine endemics recorded in KFR.



278

Common name Scientific name Family44. “Daraw” Wendlandia luzonenzis DC. Rubiaceae45. “Malawisak” Neonauclea reticulata (Havil.) Merr. Rubiaceae46. “Matang-araw” Melicope triphylla (Lam.) Merr. Rutaceae 47. “Alupag” Litchi chinensis Sonn. subsp. philippinensis (Radlk.) Leenh Sapindaceae 48. “Dulitan” Palaquium merrillii Dub. Sapotaceae 49. “Palitpit” Smilax china L. Smilacaceae 50. “Alagasi” Leucosyke capitellata (Poir.) Wedd. Urticaceae

In the IUCN Red List, two species inside KFR are vulnerable. Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal is included in the IUCN Red List 2017-3 while Canarium ovatum Engl. is recorded in the IUCN Red List 2019.

The presence of threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species in KFR shows that the area is worthy to be protected to ensure conservation and or enhancement of biodiversity.

CONCLUSIONConsidering the results obtained from the study, i.e. high importance value (49.07) of Benguet pine (an endemic species in Luzon), the very high biological diversity of KFR – as manifested by the value of Shannon-Weiner (3.50) and the Shannon diversity index scale of Fernando; the presence of many endemic species in the area (45% endemism); and the presence of three threatened, two endangered, and three vulnerable species – it can be inferred that KFR is worthy to be protected to conserve and enhance its biodiversity. KFR is one of the areas in the country that is biodiverse but is not given much attention by the government. It is noteworthy that KFR is managed by an indigenous community that does not have regular allotment from the government for its protection and rehabilitation activities and just relies on occasional funds from donors.

REFERENCESANI PAB, CASTILLO MB. 2020. Revisiting the State

of Philippine Biodiversity and the Legislation on Ac-cess and Benefit Sharing. FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP). 6p.

[BMB-DENR] Biodiversity Management Bureau – De-partment of Environment and Natural Resources. 2019. Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015–2028): Bringing Resilience to Filipino Com-munities. United Nations Development Programme – Global Environment Facility, Foundation for the Philippine Environment.

CARANDANG AP, BUGAYONG LA, DOLOM PC, GARCIA LN, VILLANUEVA MMB, ESPIRITU NO. 2012. Analysis of Key Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Philippines. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Manila, Philippines. 110p.

CURTIS JT. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin, An Ordi-nation of Plant Communities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

CURTIS JT, MCINTOSH RP. 1950. The Interrelations of Certain Analytic and Synthetic Phytosociological Characters. Ecology 31: 434–455.

[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources. 2017. Administrative Order No. 2017-11: Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Plants and Their Categories. Quezon City, Philippines.

[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources. 2019. Administrative Order No. 2019-09: Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Fauna and Their Categories. Quezon City, Philippines.

FERNANDO ES. 2007. Checklist of Species in FBS 21 (Taxonomy of Forest Plants). Department of Forest Biological Sciences, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna.

[FMB-DENR] Forest Management Bureau – Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2018. Philip-pine Forestry Statistics. Quezon City, Philippines.

GARRITY DP, KUMMER DM, GUIANG ES. 1993. The Upland Ecosystem in the Philippines: Alternatives for Sustainable Farming and Forestry. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2020-2. Retrieved on 24 Sep 2020 from https://www.iucnredlist.org

[IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2018. Retrieved on 24 Sep 2020 from https://www.iucnredlist.org



279

LASCO RD, VISCO RG, PULHIN JM. 2001. Secondary Forests in the Philippines: Formation and Transforma-tion in the 20th Century. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 13(4): 652–670.

LASCO RD, PULHIN FB, PULHIN PM. 2013. Guide-book on Mainstreaming Climate Change in Biodi-versity Planning and Management in the Philippines. World Agroforestry Centre, United States Agency for International Development, Philippines, and Depart-ment of Environment and Natural Resources.

LIU DS, IVERSON LR, BROWN S. 1993. Rates and Pat-terns of Deforestation in the Philippines: Application of Geographic Information System Analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 57: 1–16.

MALABRIGO JR PL, TIBURAN CL, JR. GALANG MA, SAIZEN I. 2015. Tree Diversity at La Mesa Watershed in Luzon, a Reforested Urban Watershed. Asian Journal of Biodiversity 6(2): 22–40.

VILLEGAS K, POLLISCO FA. 2008. Floral Survey of Laiban Sub-watershed in the Sierra Madre Mountain Range in the Philippines. Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation 4(1): 1–14.



280

Vegetation Analysis of Sanctuary and Forest Areas of Kalahan … · 2021. 1. 25. · of Kalahan...

Documents

Transcript of Vegetation Analysis of Sanctuary and Forest Areas of Kalahan … · 2021. 1. 25. · of Kalahan...