Insect Diversity Assessment in PFLA 1, Mt.

Makiling Forest Reserve (MMFR), CFNR-

1
Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, CFNR-UPLB
2
Forest Biological Sciences, CFNR-UPLB
3
Forest Products and Paper Science, CFNR-UPLB
4
Social Forestry and Forest Governance, CFNR-UPLB

ABSTRACT
In terrestrial ecosystems, the most biologically diverse group of organisms is the arthropods
which include insects, spiders, mites, and other relatives. This group constitutes almost 64 percent of the
described global biodiversity (Wilson, 1987). The species richness of arthropods exceeds that of both
vascular plants and vertebrates. Other than the species richness, they also have higher magnitude (shorter
generation time) of genetic diversity and their biomass also exceeds that of vertebrates within natural
ecosystem (Wilson, 1987). This study aims to assess the diversity of arthropods in Mt. Makiling Forest
Reserve (MMFR) specifically in Permanent Field Laboratory Area 1 (PFLA 1). The class was divided
into groups and each group conducted sampling techniques such as sweep netting and opportunistic
sampling. The findings were then consolidated and it showed that 487 individual insects, classified into
23 species of insects, were present in the sampled area. In assessing the insect diversity, different
biodiversity indices were used. These are Shannon-Weiner’s Index (H’), Simpson’s Diversity Index (D),
and Evenness. With these indices, the computed values are 1.8544, 0.2306, and 0.5914, respectively. As
what have been computed by the Shannon-Weiner Index, the insect diversity in Permanent Field
Laboratory Area 1 (PFLA 1) is very low in terms of species richness. Two parameters were also used to
assess the insect diversity of the area. These are Menhinick’s Index and Margalef’s Diversity Index with
computed values of 1.0422 and 3.5551, respectively. According to the Biodiversity Scale of Dr.
Fernando, the sampled area has very low richness of insects.

KEYWORDS: Arthropods, Insects, Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve, Biodiversity, Species

INTRODUCTION
 Insects are considered as the most diverse species on earth, which comprises more than
half of the entire population of organisms. According to Stork (1988), the high survival rate and
proliferation of insects can be attributed to some of its characteristics, which are its (1) small
size, (2) presence of wings, (3) high reproductive material, (4) wide range of habitats, and (5)
high adaptability. Focusing on the insects’ high adaptability, one notable manifestation of this is
that some insects learned to bury themselves in order to survive the harsh climate, which is
generally during summer or winter. Meanwhile, other species of insect have learned remarkable
defensive abilities, like mimicry and camouflage.

Although insects typically appear to be insignificant organisms, these species are actually
vital players in multiple ecological processes. For instance, insects are valuable components of
the food chain as it serves as secondary and tertiary consumers, and decomposers. Accordingly,
as decomposers, insects contributes to the recycling of soil nutrients through leaf litters, wood
degradation, etc. (Scudder, 2009). Another notable ecological importance of insects is that it
plays as carriers for seed disposals, which facilitates the diversification of the plant community
(Anderson, 2003). In terms of its economic benefits to humans, humans have a long history of
using insect bi-products for their essentials, such as silk, which are widely used for clothing
(Hill, 2012). In some sections of the world, not only insects are considered as food (delicacy)
some are even used for medical practices, mostly for curing necrotizing fasciitis or commonly
known as a flesh eating disease (DeFoliart, 1992).

Despite the proven ecological and economic importance of insects, it still poses some
ecological threats to the balance of an ecosystem. Given the insects ability to be pollinators, it
also acts as a carrier of diseases, which may lead to outbreaks. Moreover, some insects are pest
due to its uncontrollable, high proliferation rate and herbivory and parasitic characteristics
(Reckhaus, 2017). As such, the analysis of insect diversity is vital not only for the understanding
of the ecological patterns in a given ecosystem, but also to assess if measures are needed to be
taken in order to avoid any probable pest infestations.

This exercise aims to achieve the following objectives, which are (1) to familiarize the
students of FBS 101 with the two types of sampling methods for insect diversity, (2) to identify
and classify the insects according to their family, and (3) to assimilate the findings into a
conclusive data, which will determine species richness, evenness and the relative abundance and
frequencies of each species in PFLA 1, Mt. Makiling.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Site Description.

The sampled area for the diversity assessment of insects is Permanent Field Laboratory
Area 1 (PFLA 1). This is within the domain of Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (MMFR), which is
specifically situated at 14°8′ north and 121°12′ east. PFLA 1 approximately encompasses a land
with a total land area of 4,244 hectares. During the exercise, it was observed that the weather
was mostly clear with an
average
temperature of 30°C
(Accuweather, 2018).

Figure 1. Map of the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (MMFR) derived from the Makiling Center
for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME).

Sampling Method.
 In the analysis for insect diversity in PFLA 1, the section was divided into four groups,
wherein group 1 and 2 conducted the opportunistic method, while group 3 and 4 was assigned to
the net sweeping method. The materials used for this method are plastic straws, killing jars, bamboo
pegs, insect net, compass, camera, data sheet, and meter tape. A quadrat with a dimensions of 15m x 20m
for an entire section was established. Upon the establishment of the 15m x 20m quadrat, it was then
divided into the four groups, wherein the groups tasked to use the opportunistic method of sampling
covered 15m x 10m subplot for the analysis of insect diversity (Refer to Figure 2). Meanwhile, the groups
assigned to the net sweeping method established a transect line within the center of the 15m x 10m

subplot (Refer to Figure 3).

Figure 2. Illustration for the establishments of the 15m x 10m subplots

In conducting the opportunistic sampling method, each group assigned to this task will
simply walk around their respective subplots and look for insect specimens. Accordingly, the
encountered specimens are identified and captured manually if possible. Afterwards, the
captured specimens are then photoed for documentation purposes and placed within a killing jar.

Applying the net-sweeping method, the assigned groups used a net, which was swept
back and forth in a zigzag pattern along the transect line (Refer to Figure 4). The standard motion
of one sweep is a 180° back and forth swing. After twenty (20) repetitive swings, the captured
insects within the net are then placed within the killing jar, wherein it was identified. This
technique was done five (5) times all throughout the transect line.
 Figure 4. Illustration of the net-sweeping motion.

Data Analysis.

The consolidated findings for the arthropod assessment of insects in PFLA 1 to PFLA 3
is then analyzed using various biodiversity indices. Accordingly, the parameters used are
Shannon-Wiener’s Diversity Index, Species Evenness, Simpson’s Dominance Index, Simpson’s
Diversity Index, Margalef’s Index and Menhinick’s Index were used for the evaluation of
sampled area’s insect diversity (Refer to Table 1 for the formulas).
 Table 1. The parameters used for the analysis of the Insect Diversity Indices of PFLA 1 to PFLA 3

Upon the computation for the values of the aforementioned parameters, the calculated
values for Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index (H’) and Evenness (E) parameters were interpreted
using Dr. Fernando’s Biodiversity Scale (Refer to Table 2). Meanwhile, for Simpson’s Diversity
Index (D), as the computed values approaches 1, it implies a higher diversity since the range of
values will only fall within 0-1. Lastly, since the range of values for both Margalef’s Diversity
Index (Ri) and Menhinick’s Index (DME) reaches up to positive infinity, the higher the value of Ri
and DME entails a higher diversity of insects.

Table 2. Tabulated Biodiversity Scale of Dr. Fernando

Upon the consolidating of the findings of the entire B-3L section, it was discovered that
there are a total of four hundred eighty seven (487) individual insects observed in the sampled
area, which are classified under twenty-three (23) species of insects. As what can be inferred
from Figure 4, the most prevailing species observed in the area is the termites, which has a
frequency of 202. The high frequency of the termites can be attributed to the fact that their
mound was discovered. On the other hand, the least observed species of insects in PFLA 1 are
Butterfly C, Locust A, Moth A, Moth B, Moth C, Species A, Species C, Species D, Species E,
True Bug A, and Wasp A, which were only observed once in the entire duration of the sampling.

Figure 4. Graph depicting the percentage distribution of the twenty-three (23) insects in PFLA 1 identified
by section B-3L.
 Applying the various biodiversity indices for the assessment of the insect diversity in
PFLA 1, the computed values for Shannon-Weiner’s Index (H’), Simpson’s Diversity Index (D),
and Evenness (E) are 1.8544, 0.2306, and 0.5814 respectively. With accordance to the
Biodiversity Scale of Dr. Fernando, these imply that there is a very low richness of insects in the
area. Despite its very low richness of species, the findings revealed that there is a high evenness
of species distribution in PFLA 1. Meanwhile, the computed values for the last two parameters,
namely Menhinick’s Index and Margalef’s Diversity Index are 1.0422 and 3.5551 respectively.
Given that the ranges of values for these two parameters reaches up to positive infinity, this
entails that there is a low species richness of insects in the area. Accordingly, the calculated
values for the various biodiversity indices is consolidated in Table 3.

Table 3. Tabulated computed values using the multiple biodiversity parameters.

DISCUSSION

The insect diversity assessment in Permanent Forest Laboratory Area 1 (PFLA 1)

For abiotic, temperature is the leading element influencing the arthropods. Aside from
affecting the metabolic activities, temperature also determines the cycle stages and development
of these insects. During the conduction of the exercise, the observed temperature was 31͒/23͒ C.
Tropical areas such as the Philippines are believed to possess the greatest climatic and micro-
climatic variations which cause the high risk to insects thriving within (Khaliq et.al, 2014).

Though species richness was observed to be very low, the evenness index of these insect
species recorded in the sampled area in PFLA 1 was computed as high. This implies a high
diversity in terms of even abundance or distribution of the species within the area. When both
richness and evenness were considered, following the Simpson’s diversity index formula, the
value computed which is 0.23 was deducted from 1, resulting to 0.77. This value represents the
probability of getting two different individuals belonging to different species when selected
randomly. In this case, 77%.

CONCLUSION

Upon the analysis of the findings, it was discovered that there is a very low richness
count in terms of Dr. Fernando’s Biodiversity Scale; and Menhinick’s Index and Margalef’s
Diversity Index also showed a low level of species richness in the area. With the given results,
we can say that there may be a few factors as to what may have caused the data to yield such
result. Such factors may be overexploitation, an introduction of an invasive species, and
pollution. Although yielding a low to a very low richness count, no adverse effect of this result
can be clearly seen in the area.
REFERENCES

Accuweather. (2018). Batong Malake, Laguna, Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.accu

Anderson, S. H. (2003). The relative importance of birds and insects as pollinators of the New
Zealand flora. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 83-94.

DeFoliart, G. R. (1992). Insects as human food: Gene DeFoliart discusses some nutritional and
economic aspects. Crop protection, 11(5), 395-399.

Finnamore, A. et al. (2002). A Framework for Assessment and Monitoring of Arthropods in a

Hill, D. S. (2012). The economic importance of insects. Springer Science & Business Media.

Reckhaus, H. D. (2017). Insects as Pests. In Why Every Fly Counts (pp. 41-75). Springer, Cham.

Scudder, G. G. (2009). The importance of insects. Insect biodiversity: Science and society, 1(1),
7-32.

Stork, N. E. (1988). Insect diversity: facts, fiction and speculation. Biological journal of the
Linnean Society, 35(4), 321-337.

Wilson, E. O.: 1987, ‘The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of
invertebrates)’, Conserv. Biol. 1, 344–346.
APPENDIX

Table 4. Table 4. Tabulated record of the observations during the arthropod assessment in PFLA 1 to
PFLA 3 conducted by B-3L.
Table 5. This illustrates the computation for Shannon-Weiner’s Diversity Index.
Table 6. This is the tabulated values for the computation of Simpson’s Index.