Philippine Journal of Science 150 (S1): 271-280, Special Issue on Biodiversity ISSN 0031 - 7683 Date Received: 05 Oct 2020

Vegetation Analysis of Sanctuary and Forest Areas of Kalahan Forest Reserve Nueva Vizcaya and Pangasinan, Philippines

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 Science 3Department of Forest Biological Sciences; 4Institute of Renewable Natural Resources College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna, Philippines 5World Agroforestry Center, College, Laguna, Philippines

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.

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

INTRODUCTION (BMB-DENR 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020). Almost half of these floral and faunal species can only be The Philippines is endowed with rich biological resources. found in the Philippines (BMB-DENR 2019). The country It is host to about 15,000 species of representing 5% occupies the 4th place in the world in terms of hosting the of the total floral species in the world (Lasco et al. 2013), highest number of endemic bird species (BMB-DENR placing the country at the 5th rank globally (BMB-DENR 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020). 2016, as cited by Ani and Castillo 2020). In terms of faunal species, the Philippines is home to a total of 38,000 species In recognition of the biological richness of the Philippines, the country is tagged as one of the 18 megadiverse *Corresponding Author: [email protected] countries. The said countries altogether contain around

271 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

70–80% of the world’s biodiversity (Lasco et al. 2013). METHODOLOGY Through time, however, the biodiversity of the country has eroded putting the Philippines as one of the hotspots Description of the Study Area for biodiversity loss. As of 2019, there are 60 critically The KFR is located in Cluster 1 of Ikalahan-Kalanguya endangered, 61 endangered, 440 vulnerable, and 545 Ancestral Domain in the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and other threatened wildlife species in the Philippines Pangasinan (Figure 1). It covers 14,730 ha of mountainous (DENR 2019). In terms of flora, there are 179 critically land with elevation ranging from 600–1717 m above sea endangered, 255 endangered, 406 vulnerable, and 145 level. The average rainfall recorded is over 4000 mm/yr other threatened species as of 2017 (DENR 2017). and temperatures between 8–24 °C. The erosion of biodiversity is caused by massive KFR was set aside for the Ikalahans through the memorandum deforestation and forest degradation that occurred in the of agreement no. 1 signed on 13 May 1974. It covers six country. From 90% forest cover in the 1900s, it went “barangays” (municipal districts; Brgy.) – namely, Imugan, down to 70% by the end of the 19th century (Lasco et al. Malico, Sta. Rosa, Unib, Bacneng, and Baracbac (Figure 2001; Garrity et al. 1993; Liu et al. 1993). By the year 1). KFR is one of the remaining intact habitats for wildlife 2015, only 23% (7 Mha) of the country is covered with and forest species. The area is characterized by diverse flora forest, which is broken down into closed forest (2 Mha), and fauna ecosystems, as evidenced by the presence of open forest (4.7 Mha), and mangrove forest (0.3 Mha) threatened species of plants and animals. It is also the home (FMB-DENR 2018). of the Ikalahans, a cultural minority group characterized by Loss of biodiversity habitats and degradation is caused by a unique culture and practitioners of sustainable agroforestry a number of factors: “kaingin” (slash-and-burn farming), systems. The reserve mountain contains three major types mining, climate change, typhoons, floods, landslides and of forest – 1) pine forest on the western side, 2) dipterocarp road construction, settlement, conversion into built-up forest on the eastern portion, and 3) mossy forest on the areas/subdivisions, legal and illegal logging, charcoal central part. Within the reserve, sanctuary forests were set making, timber poaching (Carandang et al. 2012), aside for watershed and wildlife protection while other overpopulation, lack of capacities on natural resources portions were composed of agroforestry farm, agricultural, management, under-valuation of ecosystem services and grassland areas. from natural resources, weak integration of biodiversity concerns in landscape planning, and rights overlap with Vegetation Sampling Procedure defined areas for protected areas (PAs) (BMB-DENR A reconnaissance survey was conducted to identify 2019). In addition to the loss of habitats and degradation, the areas in KFR that were included in the vegetation biodiversity is threatened by overexploitation for trade or sampling. Within the reserve, only the sanctuary and leisure, pollution, and the introduction of invasive alien forested areas were surveyed. A modified QSM was species (BMB-DENR 2019). applied. A total of eight 1-km transects with 20-m width Conserving biodiversity is very important as it offers a was established to ensure that a substantial portion of the number of services such as water, food, pharmaceuticals, KFR was sampled (Figure 2). biomass fuels, carbon sequestration and climate Figure 3 shows the sampling scheme used in the study. regulation, crop pollination, cultural, intellectual and The sampling was undertaken in three layers: overstorey, spiritual inspiration, and ecotourism (BMB-DENR intermediate, and understorey. For the overstorey layer, 10 2019). Before biodiversity conservation can be done, plots each measuring 10 m x 10 m, spaced 100 m away baseline information on the diversity of the species from each other, were alternately established in each present in the area is needed. Furthermore, having 1-km transect. Inside each 10 m x 10 m plot, a smaller biodiversity data is important as it can aid in better plot measuring 3 m x 3 m was established to assess the planning and management of the area. Most biodiversity intermediate layer. Inside each 3 m x 3 m plot, a smaller assessments in the Philippines were undertaken plot measuring 1 m x 1 m was constructed to cover the in declared PAs. However, there are a number of understorey layer. A total of 240 plots were established biodiversity-rich areas in the country, one of which is as follows: 80 plots (10 m x 10 m), 80 plots (3 m x 3 m), the KFR, where no assessment has been done. Thus, a and 80 plots (1 m x 1 m). vegetational analysis of the KFR was conducted to help fill such a gap. This paper presents the biodiversity Only trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of > 5 resources present inside the KFR. 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.

272 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Figure 1. Location map of KFR.

Figure 2. Location of transects established in the assessment.

273 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Figure 3. Transect and plot designs.

Taxonomic Characterization Importance value index. Importance value is a measure All specimens observed within the established transect to assess the overall significance of a species since it were collected and labeled using their local names. takes into account several properties of the species in Local names were verified based on the morphological the vegetation. In calculating this index, the percentage and vegetative characters of the specimens in the values of relative density, relative frequency, and relative Kalahan Educational Foundation and the University of dominance are summed up together (Curtis 1959). the Philippines Los Baños – College of Forestry and (4) Natural Resources herbaria. The 1999 Revised Lexicon of Philippine Trees was also used for further verification Relative density. Relative density is the study of the of species identity. numerical strength of a species in relation to the total number of individuals of all species. It can be calculated Quantitative Analysis by the equation: The important quantitative analysis such as density, dominance, and frequency of tree, shrub, and herb species (5) was determined, as per Curtis and McIntosh (1950). Relative frequency. This refers to the degree of dispersion Density. Density is an expression of the numerical strength of individual species in an area in relation to the number of a species where the total number of individuals of each of all the species that occurred. It can be calculated by species in all the plots is divided by the total number of the equation: plots sampled. Density is calculated by the equation: (6) (1) Relative dominance. Relative dominance is the coverage Frequency. Frequency refers to the degree of dispersion of value of a species with respect to the sum of coverage of individual species in an area. It was examined by sampling the rest of the species in the area. It can be calculated by the study area at several places at random and recorded the equation: the name of species that occurred in each sampling unit. (7) Frequency is calculated by the equation:

(2) Species diversity index. The number of species and number of individuals in a community is a measure of Dominance. Dominance measurements denote which species diversity, which depends on the stability of habitat. species is the largest in terms of presence. The dominance The vegetation of the study area was assessed using the of a species is determined by the value of its basal cover. Shannon-Weiner diversity index: Dominance is calculated by the equation: (8) (3)

274 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

H’ = index of species diversity plot or a density of 0.08 trees/m2. This value is higher than S = species richness the density of the natural forest, which is 0.04–0.05 tree/ Pi = proportion of total samples belonging to the ith m2 (Malabrigo et al. 2015). species ln = natural log In the eight established transects, the highest frequency was recorded in Transect 4, which is located in Brgy. (9) 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 Conservation values. The conservation status of flora in acuminatissima) or locally known as “baltik.” Generally, the area was determined using the DENR (Department the common species in the plot were brown oak (Quercus of Environment and Natural Resources) Administrative semecarpifolia Sm.; locally known as “tikleg”), Benguet Order 2017-11 (Establishing the National List of pine (Pinus insularis Endl), “Rob. banitan” (Glochidion Threatened Philippine Plants and Their Categories and sp.; locally known as “pedped”), and “kamog” (Clethra the List of Other Wildlife Species) and the IUCN 2017 lancifolia Turcz.; locally known as “amoweg”). The and 2019. 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). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Floristic Composition Figure 4 shows the number of 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 Figure 5. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of species from 37 families found with a total count of 652. individual plants in the 10 m x 10 m plots. 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 In terms of taxa, Transect 1 – which is located in Brgy. mean diameter of the trees inside the 10 m x 10 m plots is Landingan – has the highest recorded number of plant 14.43 cm. On average, there are eight individuals in each 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 Figure 4. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of of species: Transect 4 (660), Transect 3 (555), Transect 6 individual plants in the different sizes of plots. (504), and Transect 1 (395).

275 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Importance Value Among 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.

Figure 6. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of Importance values of Benguet pine (Pinus insularis Endl) individual plants in the 3 m x 3 m plots. and brown oak (Quercus semecarpifolia Sm.) are 49.07 and 45.80, respectively (Table 1). The results indicate that As regards the number of species present, plots in both these two species have occupied a large portion of the area Transects 5 and 6 contain the highest number of different and are densely populated. Relative frequency and relative species (73). The remaining transects are arranged in the density of Benguet pine are 0.78 and 4.45, respectively, following order in terms of number of species present in while relative dominance is 43.84. For brown oak, the the 3 m x 3 m plots: Transect 7 > Transect 1 > Transect 8 values derived are as follows: relative frequency (2.35), > Transect 2 > Transect 4 > Transect 3. relative density (11.04), and relative dominance (32.41). It is worthy to note that brown oak is an exotic species Within the 1 m x 1 m plots, “bulak manok” (Agerantina while Benguet pine is a native species. adenophora) and “kulape” or “hakatti” mainly cover the plots. Plots inside Transect 8 contains the highest Other species like “binoloan” (Acmena acuminatissima number of individual plants (472), closely followed by (Blume) Merr. & Perry), “Rob. banitan” (Glochidion sp.), plots in Transect 3 (451). Plots in Transect 7 occupy the and “kamog” (Clethra lancifolia Turcz. ) have also been 3rd rank while plots in Transects 5 and 4 are in ranks 4 frequently encountered in the area but have importance and 5, respectively. Plots in Transect 1 follow next while values of less than 10. Moreover, “bulak manok” plots in Transects 6 and 2 occupy the 7th and 8th ranks, (Agerantina adenophora) is identified to be the densest respectively (Figure 7). species among the plants with DBH of less than 5 cm. Figure 7 further shows the number of species present Diversity Index inside the 1 m x 1 m plots in the transect. Results of the The composition and structure of a plant community can assessment show that the plots in Transect 6 have the be measured mathematically by determining the diversity highest number of species (46) while those in Transect 3 index. In quantifying the biological diversity of the have the least (27). Other transects are in the following area, both Simpson’s and Shannon-Weiner indices were order: Transect 5 > Transect 1 > Transect 7 > Transect 4 computed for the study. Simpson’s values of different > Transect 8 > Transect 2. 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 Figure 7. Number of plant species and frequency of occurrence of (60%), according to Merril’s Enumeration of Philippine individual plants in the 1 m x 1 m plots. 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 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Table 1. Computed importance values of all tree species with > 5 cm DBH. Common name Scientific name Family Importance value Benguet pine Pinus insularis Endl. Pinaceae 49.07 Brown 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” variegata Blume var. sycomoroides (Miq.) Corner 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 3.30 Tree 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 2.86 Alder, 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. 1.69 “Batikuling surotan” Litsea odorifera Valeton 1.67 “Kalapat kahoy” Ficus virgata Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae 1.46 Octopus 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” grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm. Rosaceae 0.72 “Palitpit” Smilax china L. Smilacaceae 0.72 “Lubalub” Bridelia stipulares (L.) Blume. Phyllanthaceae 0.71 “Kalingag” 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 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Table 2. Diversity indices of the established plots. Madre Mountain Range (20%) (Villegas and Pollisco 2008) and in La Mesa Watershed, which is only 15.22% Parameter Plots (Malabrigo et al. 2015). Considering this result, KFR 10 x 10 3 x 3 1 x 1 is worth preserving as it hosts a substantial number of Dominance_D 0.029 0.036 0.065 endemic species in the Philippines. Simpson_1-D 0.971 0.964 0.935 Shannon_H 4.100 3.954 3.535 Conservation Value Based on the DENR Administrative Order 2017-11 (Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Plants Table 3. Fernando’s Shannon diversity index scale. and their Categories), there are three threatened, two Relative values Shannon (H’) index endangered, and three vulnerable species present in Very high ≥ 3.50 KFR. Threatened species are Canarium ovatum Engl., High 3.00–3.49 Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal, and Ziziphus hutchinsonii Moderate 2.50–2.99 Merr. while endangered species are Cyathea contaminans (Wall. & Hook.) Copel and Litsea leytensis. Merr. The Low 2.00–2.49 three vulnerable species include Litchi chinensis ssp. Very low ≤ 1.90 philippinensis, Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm., and Prunus subglabra (Merr.) Kalkman.

Table 4. List of Philippine endemics recorded in KFR. 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. Aceraceae 4. “Galamay-amo” Schefflera elliptica (Blume) Harms. Araliaceae 5. “Pugahan” Caryota cumingii Lodd. Arecaceae 6. “Sayong-banguhan” Radermachera fragrans (Elmer) Steenis Bignoniaceae 7. “Pili” Canarium ovatum Engl. Burseraceae 8. “Kamog” Clethra lancifolia Turcz. Clethraceae 9. “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. Cyatheaceae 14. “Balanti” Omalanthus populneus (Geisel.) Pax Euphorbiaceae 15. “Lingo-lingo” Viticipremna philippinensis (Turcz.) H. J. Lam. Lamiaceae 16. “Bagarilau” Cryptocarya ampla Merr. Lauraceae 17. “Batikuling” Litsea leytensis Merr. Lauraceae 18. “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 multifloraJuss. Malvaceae 23. “Lansones bono” Lansium dubium Merr. Meliaceae 24. “Antipolo” Artocarpus blancoi (Elmer) Merr. Moraceae 25. “Upling gubat” Ficus ampelas Burm. f. Moraceae 26. “Aplas” Ficus irisana Elmer Moraceae 27. “Tibig” Ficus nota (Blanco) Merr. Moraceae 28. “Niog-niogan” Ficus pseudopalma Blanco Moraceae 29. “Hauili” Ficus septica Burm. f. Moraceae 30. “Marabotum” Ficus subcordata Blume Moraceae 31. “Dolalog” Ficus variegata Blume var. sycomoroides (Miq.)Corner Moraceae 32. “Kalapat kahoy” Ficus virgata Reinw. ex Blume Moraceae 33. “Binoloan” Acmena acuminatissima (Blume) Merr. & Perry Myrtaceae 34. “Midbit” Syzygium melliodorum (C.B.Rob.) Merr. Myrtaceae 35. 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. Pentaphyacaceae 39. “Lumuluas” Ziziphus hutchinsonii Merr. Rhamnaceae 40. “Lago” Prunus grisea (C. Muell.) Kalkm. Rosaceae 41. “Kanumog” Prunus subglabra Merr. Kalkm Rosaceae 42. “Malakape” Canthium diococcum (Gaertn.) Merr. Rubiaceae 43. “Bangkal” Nauclea orientalis (L.) L. Rubiaceae

278 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

Common name Scientific name Family 44. “Daraw” Wendlandia luzonenzis DC. Rubiaceae 45. “Malawisak” Neonauclea reticulata (Havil.) Merr. Rubiaceae 46. “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 CARANDANG AP, BUGAYONG LA, DOLOM PC, vulnerable. Cinnamomum mercadoi Vidal is included in GARCIA LN, VILLANUEVA MMB, ESPIRITU the IUCN Red List 2017-3 while Canarium ovatum Engl. NO. 2012. Analysis of Key Drivers of Deforestation is recorded in the IUCN Red List 2019. and Forest Degradation in the Philippines. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) The presence of threatened, endangered, and vulnerable GmbH. Manila, Philippines. 110p. species in KFR shows that the area is worthy to be protected to ensure conservation and or enhancement of biodiversity. 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 CONCLUSION of Certain Analytic and Synthetic Phytosociological Considering the results obtained from the study, i.e. high Characters. Ecology 31: 434–455. importance value (49.07) of Benguet pine (an endemic [DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Re- species in Luzon), the very high biological diversity of sources. 2017. Administrative Order No. 2017-11: KFR – as manifested by the value of Shannon-Weiner Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Plants (3.50) and the Shannon diversity index scale of Fernando; and Their Categories. Quezon City, Philippines. the presence of many endemic species in the area (45% endemism); and the presence of three threatened, two [DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Re- endangered, and three vulnerable species – it can be sources. 2019. Administrative Order No. 2019-09: inferred that KFR is worthy to be protected to conserve Updated National List of Threatened Philippine Fauna and enhance its biodiversity. KFR is one of the areas and Their Categories. Quezon City, Philippines. in the country that is biodiverse but is not given much FERNANDO ES. 2007. Checklist of Species in FBS 21 attention by the government. It is noteworthy that KFR is ( of Forest Plants). Department of Forest managed by an indigenous community that does not have Biological Sciences, College of Forestry and Natural regular allotment from the government for its protection Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños, and rehabilitation activities and just relies on occasional College, Laguna. funds from donors. [FMB-DENR] Forest Management Bureau – Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2018. Philip- pine Forestry Statistics. Quezon City, Philippines. REFERENCES GARRITY DP, KUMMER DM, GUIANG ES. 1993. The ANI PAB, CASTILLO MB. 2020. Revisiting the State Upland Ecosystem in the Philippines: Alternatives for of Philippine Biodiversity and the Legislation on Ac- Sustainable Farming and Forestry. Washington, DC: cess and Benefit Sharing. FFTC Agricultural Policy National Academy Press. Platform (FFTC-AP). 6p. [IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Na- [BMB-DENR] Biodiversity Management Bureau – De- ture. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, partment of Environment and Natural Resources. Version 2020-2. Retrieved on 24 Sep 2020 from https:// 2019. Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan www.iucnredlist.org (2015–2028): Bringing Resilience to Filipino Com- [IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Na- munities. United Nations Development Programme ture. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, – Global Environment Facility, Foundation for the Version 2018. Retrieved on 24 Sep 2020 from https:// Philippine Environment. www.iucnredlist.org

279 Philippine Journal of Science Pulhin et al.: Vegetation Analysis Sanctuary Vol. 150 No. S1, Special Issue on Biodiversity and Forest Areas of KFR

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