Sylvatrop 28-1

SYLVATROP
Editorial Staff
Bighani M. Manipula, PhD Melanie N. Ojeda

Editor-in-Chief Editorial Assistant

Adreana Santos-Remo Marilou C. Villones
Managing Editor Circulation Officer/Proofreader

Liberty E. Asis Eduardo M. Tolentino
Adreana Santos-Remo Catalina DM. Aldemita
Editors Gino S. Laforteza
Circulation Assistants
Maria Lourdes Q. Moreno, PhD
Guest Editor Liberato A. Bacod
Printing Supervisor
January - June 2018 Vol. 28 No. 1
SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources is

published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through
the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), College, Laguna. Sylvatrop
is listed in Clarivate Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) Master Journal List.
Subscription rates: Php75 for single issue copy (local); Php150 for combined issues
and US$15 per single issue copy (foreign) excluding airmail cost; US$30 for combined
issues. Re-entered as Second Class Mail CY 2018 at the College, Laguna Post Office
on 23 March 2018. Permit No. 2018-21. Address checks to Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau c/o ERDB Circulation.
For contributions or inquiries, address it to The Editor-in-Chief at the following address:

SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, DENR
Tel. No. (049) 557-1758 Fax: (049) 536-2850
E-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected]
Website: sylvatrop.denr.gov.ph
Cover Photo: The cover photo shows the species [Buceros hydrocorax,
Gallirallus calayanensis, Prionailurus bengalensis heaneyi,
Pithecophaga jefferyi, Pteropus pumilus, Otus megalotis,
Crocodylus mindorensis (top to bottom)] included in the articles
focusing on species conservation.
Photo Credit: R. Sta. Ana, DG. Tabaranza, D. Fernandez, R. Sta. Ana,
DG. Tabaranza, A. Pascua, JC. Gonzalez [from top to bottom]
Cover Layout: Melanie N. Ojeda
Message of the Secretary
Biodiversity plays a very important role in our lives

– for food, medicine, and a myriad ecosystem services.
The Philippines takes pride in being one of the planet’s 17
megadiverse countries, or those with the highest levels of
biodiversity. However, because of habitat loss and other
threats, our country is also regarded as a biodiversity
hotspot. Thus, conservation is imperative.
For our conservation initiatives to succeed, there is

an urgent need to systematically communicate research findings to the scientific
community and the general public. This is where the DENR’s Sylvatrop, the
Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources, proves its
value. Through this publication, the DENR provides scientists, policy makers,
and environmentalists with timely research results that can guide efforts to curb
species decline in our country.
For the eighth time now, Sylvatrop and the Biodiversity Conservation
Society of the Philippines (formerly Wildlife Conservation Society of the
Philippines) pursued this collaboration of publishing scientific findings about
Philippine biodiversity. The articles found in this issue highlight how we
humans can shape our actions to reverse negative trends afflicting Philippine
biodiversity. Of special interest is an article proposing an updated national list
of threatened terrestrial fauna.
Congratulations to the members of the Sylvatrop Editorial Board headed

by the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, for many years of
furnishing peer-reviewed scientific information to our readers and subscribers,
both national and international. May this edition of Sylvatrop inspire us all to
work harder in the protection and conservation of the rich biodiversity that
forms part of our environmental heritage.
Mabuhay!
ROY A. CIMATU
Secretary, DENR
Message from the BCSP President
The Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines (BCSP) is an

organization that aims to advance biodiversity conservation in the Philippines.
Through the BCSP’s programs, we hope to bridge the gaps in research and policy
by bringing together experts and practitioners in the field and developing resources
that can contribute to national and local resource management and governance.
This special issue of Sylvatrop is an example of the BCSP’s commitment

to achieving its goal. The issue presents studies that have great impact to the
management of some of the country’s iconic species such as the conservation
milestones of the Philippine crocodile and the range and ecology of the leopard
cat in the Palawan region. It also brings to light studies of lesser-known species
and ecosystems such as assessing the threats of feral cats to the island endemic
Calayan Rail and understanding of the odonata species in Negros Island—which
have implication to the conservation of these species and habitats.
The issue also presents a significant contribution of the BCSP’s members

in the development of an updated National List of Threatened Terrestrial Faunal
Species. The experts within the Society, through the Threatened Species Technical
Working Group (TWG), have been involved in reviewing and evaluating species
to be included in the list. BCSP is pleased to present the process employed by
the TWG in coming up with the list that will serve as basis for the national policy
recommendations by the Biodiversity Management Bureau. A great feat in bringing
together various experts and practitioners within the Philippine conservation front!
The BCSP Publications Committee did an exemplary job in putting together

this issue. I applaud the Editorial Board and the reviewers for their commitment
and hard work. I also wish to thank our partners from DENR—the Biodiversity
Management Bureau and the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau—for
continuing to work with the BCSP in our efforts to contribute to advocacies and
policies on Philippine wildlife.
I thank the presenters and authors for sharing their research outputs through
the BCSP. I'm most especially grateful to our partners in organizing the Philippine
Biodiversity Symposium and supporting one of the largest gatherings of biodiversity
researchers and conservationists in the Philippines. With your support, we were
able to stage public fora to deliver meaningful studies and programs dedicated to
Philippine wildlife and engage stakeholders in crafting plans and policies relevant
to our country’s biodiversity.
May this issue inspire us to advocate a culture of partnership and camaraderie
among us who are working for Philippine biodiversity research and conservation.
Maraming salamat!
Cynthia Adeline A. Layusa-Oliveros

President, BCSP
The 25th Philippine Biodiversity Symposium

25 Years of Collaborative Biodiversity Conservation in the Philippines:
Global Relevance, Local Realities
5–9 April 2016 * Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
About the Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines
The Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines

(BCSP), formerly the Wildlife Conservation Society of
the Philippines (WCSP), is a professional organization
of wildlife researchers, managers, scientists, and
conservationists. It aims to advance biodiversity research
and conservation in the Philippines by facilitating Board Members
communication and contributing to improved research and and Officers
conservation capabilities of those working on Philippine (2017–2018)
biodiversity, particularly the members of the association,
and to increase public awareness, appreciation, and President
understanding of Philippine biodiversity. Cynthia Adeline A.
Layusa-Oliveros
Vision
Vice President
A community that appreciates and conserves Philippine
Rainier I. Manalo
biodiversity.
Secretary
Mission Apolinario B. Cariño
Catalyst for effective biodiversity conservation through
science-based research, education, and management Asst. Secretary
anchored on collaboration for the Philippine society. Mae Lowe L. Diesmos
Key Programs Treasurer

Aris A. Reginaldo
• Conservation Awareness: promotes biodiversity and
conservation through information, education and Auditor
public awareness Emerson Y. Sy
• Mentoring: provides capacity building of students
and professionals through short courses and trainings, Members
site visits, and networking Joni T. Acay
• Publication: facilitates exchange of knowledge and Moonyeen Nida R. Alava
research through publications of knowledge products Myrissa V. Lepiten-Tabao
• Policy: contributes to national and local policy Ruth C. Martinez
Nikki Dyanne C. Realubit
development by integrating scientific facts and
Don Geoff E. Tabaranza
experts’ knowledge on key biodiversity issues Willem van de Ven
Edmund Rico (adjunct)
Special Programs Hendrik Freitag (adjunct)
• Annual Philippine Biodiversity Symposium: yearly
gathering of local and international biodiversity Emeritus:
researchers and conservationists Angel C. Alcala
• Philippine Threatened Species Committee: provides Carlo C. Custodio
recommendations on the Philippines’ Red List of Lawrence R. Heaney
Blas R. Tabaranza, Jr.
Threatened Fauna as stipulated in the Wildlife Act of
the Philippines (RA 9147).
About the 25th Philippine Biodiversity Symposium
25 Years of Biodiversity Conservation in the Philippines:

Global Relevance, Local Realities
5–9 April 2016 | Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
The Philippine Biodiversity Symposium is an annual gathering of Filipino

and international researchers and practitioners working in the fields of wildlife studies
and biodiversity conservation in the Philippines. The symposium is organized by the
Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines.
Symposium activities include an institutional exhibit of organizations

involved in biodiversity research and conservation, keynote presentations from
distinguished wildlife scientists and conservation practitioners, concurrent workshops,
and contributed oral and poster presentations.
The symposium draws over 250 participants from the academic and research
institutions, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, independent
researchers, and high school, undergraduate and graduate students.
The 25th Annual Philippine Biodiversity Symposium was organized by the

Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines (BCSP) and co-hosted by the City
Government of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro and the Mindoro Biodiversity Conservation
Foundation, Inc. (MBCFI) in partnership with the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources-Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB), the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office of Oriental Mindoro, and the Provincial
Government of Oriental Mindoro.
For more information, please visit:

Website: www.biodiversity.ph
Email address: [email protected]
Facebook: @biodiversity.conservation.ph
Instagram: biodiversity.ph
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 28 (1): 1-16
Spatial ecology of a male and a female

leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis
heaneyi Groves 1997) in Aborlan,
Palawan, Philippines
Desamarie Antonette P. Fernandez Judeline C. Dimalibot
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
University of the Philippines UPLB
Los Baños (UPLB)
College, Laguna Nathaniel C. Bantayan, PhD
Email address: [email protected] Professor
UPLB
Anna Pauline O. de Guia, PhD
Associate Professor
UPLB
The spatial ecology of Palawan leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis heaneyi)

was studied using live trapping, radio telemetry, and small mammal trapping
from May 2013 to July 2014 in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines. One adult female
and 3 adult male P. b. heaneyi were captured. Radio-collars were attached to
one adult male and one adult female individual then released in their respective
capture sites. Radio telemetry was conducted for 32 days per season. Non-
volant small mammals were captured using box traps and released to determine
prey species availability. Results showed that the habitat types utilized by the
2 P. b. heaneyi include: forest (71.09%), mixed brushlands (25.78%), coconut
plantations (2.60%), and built-up areas (0.52%). The mean 95% minimum
convex polygon (MCP) home range of the male (6.2917 km2) was larger than that
of the female (3.9236 km2). An increase in mean home range size from dry season
(3.5658 km2) to wet season (4.0611 km2) for both sexes could be related to the
decrease in small mammal abundance during wet season. Small mammal species
captured in the area included Rattus exulans, Rattus tanezumi, Sundasciurus
steerii, Maxomys panglima, and Tupaia palawanensis. When prey availability
decreases, leopard cats may be driven to occupy larger ranges in search of food.
Keywords: Spatial ecology, habitat use, home range, leopard cat

2 D. A. Fernandez, et al.
THE LEOPARD CAT IS A SPECIES OF WILD CAT THAT IS SIMILAR IN SIZE TO A

domestic cat but with yellow-orange leopard-like spotted fur. The Palawan leopard
cat (Prionailurus bengalensis heaneyi) is a subspecies occurring in mainland Palawan
(Esselstyn et al. 2004), and in the islands of Busuanga and Culion (Paguntalan et
al. 2015). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of
Threatened Species categorizes the leopard cat as Least Concern because it is
relatively widespread, abundant, and adaptable to disturbed areas (Sanderson et al.
2008). However, there are still threats to this species such as hunting for bush meat,
live pet trade, fur, and traditional medicine (Calawagan 2014; Cruz et al. 2007; Nash
1997).
Among numerous ecological research techniques, radio telemetry has

become one of the most valuable for remotely studying cryptic carnivores such as
wild felids (Fuller and Fuller 2012). Small to medium felid species are generally under-
represented in field studies due to the greater popularity of larger species such as
lions, tigers, leopards, and cheetahs. While many leopard cat radio telemetry studies
have been published, such as those from Thailand (Rabinowitz 1990; Grassman
2000; Grassman et al. 2005; Austin et al. 2007), Malaysia (Rajaratnam et al. 2007),
and Japan (Tajiri et al. 1996; Oh et al. 2010; Nakanashi et al. 2005), none has been
done in the Philippines. Studying the relationship between the leopard cats’ use of
space and the availability of necessary resources in its surrounding environment is
important in determining how this animal’s behavior and survival could be affected by
environmental changes brought about by natural or anthropogenic phenomena. Thus,
the general objective of this research is to study the spatial ecology of leopard cats in
Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines. Specifically, the habitat use and home range size were
determined for a male and a female leopard cat.
Materials and methods
Study area
Palawan province lies on the western edge of the Philippine archipelago

(Fig. 1). Aborlan is a municipality located in south central mainland Palawan and
is comprised of 19 barangays, one of which is Barangay Cabigaan. This barangay
encompasses 30.91 km2 and has an elevation from 50-600 meters above sea level
(masl) on a terrain with 18%-30% slope. The climate is Type III, in which dry and wet
seasons are not distinct (Aborlan 2012). However, mean precipitation is relatively
lower from November to April, and higher during the rest of the year (Kintanar 1984).
In this study, the dry season was considered as the period from November to April,
while the wet season was from May to October.
Spatial ecology of a male and a female leopard cat 3
Figure 1 Location of Barangay Cabigaan. Insets: (A) Palawan province in the

Philippines and (B) Aborlan municipality in Palawan province
Habitats in the area were mapped in QGIS v. 2.6.1 (Brighton), ground-

truthed, and classified into major land cover and land use types. The 4 most dominant
habitat types were forest, mixed brushland, coconut plantation, and built-up areas
(Fig. 2). The forest area is a tropical lowland evergreen rain forest dominated by
Symplocos odoratissima, Cinnamomum mercadoi, Microdesmis caseariifolia, and
Mallotus miquelianus. The mixed brushland area is composed of shrubs, grasses,
bamboo, fruit trees, and crops such as Colocasia esculenta and Zingiber officinale.
The coconut plantation areas are composed mainly of coconut trees with vegetable
crops or smaller fruit trees sometimes planted within or around the plantations. The
built-up areas are the residential areas where there are roads, small houses, stores,
schools, and barangay facilities. Other minor habitat types in the area include
crop lands dominated by rice, grasslands for grazing animals, and a small oil palm
plantation.
Figure 2 Major habitat types in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines. From top

to bottom: forest, mixed brushland, coconut plantation, and
built-up areas
Trapping and radio telemetry
Trap locations were determined through interviews and transect walks. From
May 20 to 24 and November 24 to 30, 2013, local hunters, residents, and barangay
officials were asked regarding direct sightings and captures of P. b. heaneyi in their
respective localities. Locations showing strong possibility of leopard cat presence
were visited and recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device.
Trapping was conducted in 3 phases: a 5-day preliminary phase from May

20 to 24, 2013, a 12-week dry season phase from December 10, 2013 to March
10, 2014, and an 8-week wet season phase from May 20 to July 18, 2014. Twelve
box traps with a single door opening tripped by a foot treadle were set over a 2-km
transect. Based on the results of the reconnaissance, traps were set purposively at
about 50–100 m apart near or within areas where they are likely to be present (Fig.
3). Live week-old chicks were placed in a separate bait compartment attached to the
end of the trap. Traps were visited twice daily to change the feed and water of the bait
and then transferred to a different location every week. Trap success was computed
as capture per unit effort (CPUE).
Figure 3 Locations of traps used to capture Palawan leopard cats in

Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
Upon capture, each cat received an injection of atropine sulfate by a licensed

veterinarian. After 15 minutes, Zoletil® sedative (Virbac Laboratories, France) was
injected intramuscularly (10 mg/kg). Once completely sedated (5–10 minutes), each
cat was sexed, aged, measured, weighed, and photographed.
Before release, each cat was fitted with a radio transmitter collar around the
neck (148–149 MHz, Advanced Telemetry Systems, USA). Radio telemetry was then
conducted for 32 days in the dry season from January to March 2014, and 32 days
in the wet season from May to July 2014. Approximately 24 hours after each leopard
cat release, tracking with a receiver unit (Advanced Telemetry Systems, USA) and a
3-element yagi antenna commenced. This was conducted at 4 to 6-hour interval, 3 to
5 days per week, with sampling from 00:00 to 23:00. At least 3 azimuths were taken
from different telemetry stations with a total interaction angle of at least 120o within
10–15 minutes.
Prey diversity and abundance
Diversity and abundance of small non-volant mammals were also determined

per season by trap-and-release in 2 habitat types, namely, forest and mixed brushland,
located within the known home range of captured cats. Fifteen live traps were opened
for 50 nights per season, for a total of 1500 trap nights. Traps were baited with ripe
banana, earthworms, or roasted coconut with peanut butter, and set 5–10 m apart,
where tracks and burrows were observed. Traps were checked every morning,
rebaited every afternoon, and transferred to a different zone every week.
Analysis of data
The locations of cats were triangulated using the Triangulate plug-in for QGIS
and overlaid on a land cover map. Home range sizes were computed using the Home
Range Analysis and Estimation (HoRAE) for GIS OpenJUMP 1.6.3. Home range areas
were calculated for each cat using 95% Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP), and core
areas were determined using 50% MCP. Home range estimates were exported as
different shapefiles based on percent MCP, gender, and season. Habitat use was
computed for each individual as the number of location points occurring within each
habitat type, and their corresponding percentages. However, due to the inadequate
number of individuals radio-tracked (n=2), statistical analyses were not performed to
definitively establish a correlation between seasonality, prey availability, home range,
and habitat use. However, trends in the ratio of these parameters were observed.
Results and discussion
Trapping success
In a total of 1860 trap nights, one female and 3 male leopard cats were
captured (Fig. 4). Of these, 2 individuals were declared by the attending veterinarian as
unfit for collar attachment due to signs of illness. The 2 healthy individuals chosen for
radio tracking were LC-02, a male, and LC-03, a female. Other species also captured
and released included one Palawan collared mongoose (Herpestes semitorquatus)
and 3 palm civets (Paradoxus hermaphroditus).
Trapping success was 0.215% or one leopard cat per 465 trap nights. This is
comparable to the trapping success of leopard cats in Thailand, which was 0.247%
or one leopard cat per 405 trap nights (Grassman et al. 2005). This shows that the
trapping success for leopard cats is very low and emphasizes the difficulty of capturing
and studying cryptic carnivores. Leopard cats were captured in forest areas that are
Figure 4 Leopard cats caught through live trapping in Aborlan, Palawan,

Philippines
near the edges of mixed brushland habitats in Barangay Cabigaan and in areas with
validated local reports. This underscores the value of conducting ethnobiological
surveys in order to gain helpful indigenous knowledge that may not be available in
published scientific literature.
However, due to the low number of P. b. heaneyi captured, statistically valid

conclusions cannot be made in this study to accurately represent the spatial ecology
of the subspecies. Aebischer et al. (1993) suggest capturing at least 6 individuals per
age, sex, habitat, or season, to be viable for statistical analysis. Nonetheless, this is
the first study focused on P. b. heaneyi, thus providing valuable preliminary insights
regarding their spatial ecology.
Habitat use
A total of 384 location points (Table 1, Fig. 5), with 96 points per animal
per season, were found across 4 different habitat types, namely, forest, mixed
brushland, coconut plantation, and built-up areas. Both leopard cats used forest areas
more frequently (71.09%). Less utilized were mixed brushlands (25.78%), coconut
plantations (2.60%), and built-up areas (0.52%). Use of forest areas was higher
during the dry season while use of the more disturbed mixed brushlands, coconut
plantations, and built-up areas was higher during the wet season.
Forest areas seem to be the most valuable habitat for P. b. heaneyi as

forests provide both prey and cover, which are known from numerous studies to
be the 2 most important resources for leopard cats (Mohd-Azlan and Sharma 2006;
Rajaratnam et al. 2007; Simcharoen et al. 2014; Bashir et al. 2014). However,
P. b. heaneyi also seem to tolerate more disturbed habitats such as mixed brushlands,
coconut plantations, and built-up areas. The same tendency was reported for other
species of leopard cats. The Visayan leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis rabori)
Table 1 Frequency of capture in different habitats and seasons from a male and
female Palawan leopard cat in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
ID No. Habitat Type
Forest Mixed Brushland Coconut Plantation Built-Up
Dry Wet Total Dry Wet Total Dry Wet Total Dry Wet Total
LC-02 61 40 101 32 47 79 2 8 10 1 1 2
(Male)
LC-03 86 86 172 10 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Female)
Total 273 99 10 2
Figure 5 Location points of a male (LC-02) and a female (LC-03) Palawan

leopard cat during different seasons in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
survived massive conversion of forests into sugarcane plantations in Negros Island,

Philippines (Lorica and Heaney 2013) and Bornean leopard cats (Prionailurus
bengalensis borneoensis) from the massive conversion of forests into oil palm
plantations in Borneo (Rajaratnam et al. 2007), in both cases, by consuming exotic
rodent pests that are abundant in agricultural landscapes.
Location points of leopard cats in Palawan can be found in very close

proximity to both major and minor roadways (Fig. 5). Other researches have shown
that leopard cats frequently make use of roads and manmade walking trails in
Indonesian Borneo (Cheyne and Macdonald 2011), Malaysian Borneo (Sollmann et
al. 2013), and in Iriomote Island, Japan (Díaz-Sacco and Izawa 2013).
The absence of the female leopard cat in coconut plantations and built-up
areas could be due to its occurrence in a more forested area that is limited by steep
ridges along the northern edge of its range and the territoriality of the male occupying
the southern edge. Otherwise, it is expected that habitat selection between male and
female leopard cats would not be significantly different given a greater sample size, as
shown in previous studies (Grassman et al. 2005; Rajaratnam et al. 2007).
Home range
The estimated mean home range sizes of the male were 6.2917 km2 at 95%
MCP and 1.2683 km2 at 50% MCP, while those of the female were smaller with
3.9236 km2 at 95% MCP and 0.9558 km2 at 50% MCP, with a 0.7209-km2 overall
overlap in the 95% MCP of both individuals (Table 2). Mean home range size for both
sexes combined was 5.1077 km2 at 95% MCP and 1.1121 km2 at 50% MCP. There
were no overlaps between core ranges (50% MCP) of both leopard cats during either
season (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7), which may indicate territorial behavior.
Table 2 Estimated home range sizes of a male and female Palawan leopard cat
during different seasons in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
Mean Dry Season Wet Season
ID No. 95% 50% Over- 95% 50% Over- 95% 50% Over-
MCP MCP lap MCP MCP lap MCP MCP lap
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
LC-02 6.2917 1.2683 - 4.2515 1.1145 - 5.1509 1.1914 -
(Male)
LC-03 3.9236 0.9558 0.7209 2.8801 0.6243 0.4844 2.9713 0.7329 0.0045
(Female)
Mean 5.1077 1.1121 - 3.5658 0.8694 - 4.0611 0.9622 -
Figure 6 Dry season home range size estimates for a male and
female Palawan leopard cat in Aborlan, Palawan,
Philippines
Figure 7 Wet season home range size estimates for a male and female
Palawan leopard cat in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
Territoriality, as indicated by the exclusivity of core ranges among

individuals, has also been observed in other leopard cat populations such as
those in westcentral Thailand (Rabinowitz 1990) and northcentral Thailand
(Grassman et al. 2005). However, large overlaps among the core ranges of
Iriomote leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis) were detected in
Iriomote Island, Japan (Schmidt et al. 2003). Schmidt and colleagues suggested
that the isolation and small size of Iriomote Island (284 km2) may have led to an
increased frequency of encounters between individuals and a decreased tendency
toward strict territorial behavior in order to maximize access to limited resources.
Thus, leopard cat populations in continental Asia or islands such as
Palawan (11,785 km2), which is more than 40 times larger than Iriomote
Island, may have a higher tendency towards exhibiting territorial behavior.
Table 2 shows that the mean home range size estimate for the male is larger
than the female, agreeing with the results of other studies. In westcentral Thailand,
the MCP home range of a male leopard cat was larger at 7.5 km2 while that of a
female was only 6.6 km2 (Rabinowitz, 1990). In southcentral Thailand, the mean
MCP home range of 3 male leopard cats was also larger at 4.1 km2 while that of a
female was only 2.5 km2 (Grassman 2000). However, this is contrary to the results of
Grassman, et al., (2005) in Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand, where females
had larger home range sizes.
Table 2 and Figs. 6 and 7 show the variation of home range size during
different seasons. For both sexes, the sizes of both 95% and 50% MCP home ranges
were smaller during the dry season and larger during the wet season. Studies by
Rabinowitz (1990), Grassman (2002) and Austin et al., (2007) agree that leopard cats
tend to have larger home range sizes during the wet season. However, Grassman, et
al., (2005) measured an increase in home range size during the dry season, but this
was not found to be statistically significant. These aforementioned studies all linked
seasonal changes in home range to changes in the availability of prey items. It is
possible that when prey density decreases, leopard cats must travel farther distances
in search of food.
Prey species diversity
A total of 59 individuals representing 5 species of non-volant small mammals

were recorded over 1500 trap nights (Table 3). Overall trapping success was 4.13%.
Trapping success during the dry season was relatively higher (5.07%) than during
the wet season (3.20%). Trapping success was also relatively higher in the mixed
brushland habitat (4.93%) than in the forest habitat (3.33%).
Table 3 Small non-volant mammals recorded across different habitat types and
seasons in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines
Forest Mixed Brushland
Order Family Species
Dry Wet Dry Wet
Scandentia Tupaiidae Tupaia palawanensis 6 4 4 3
Rodentia Sciuridae Sundasciurus steerii 0 0 3 0
Muridae Maxomys panglima 10 5 6 4
Rattus exulans 0 0 4 4
Rattus tanezumi 0 0 5 4
These results suggest that seasonal changes in habitat use and home range
size of leopard cats may be related to the lower abundance of small mammals
during the wet season. Utilization of more disturbed habitats such as mixed
brushlands, coconut plantations, and built-up areas versus forest areas during the
wet season may be due to the decrease in abundance of small mammals in the
forest and relative stability of exotic rodent pest populations in disturbed habitats.
The increase in home range size during the wet season can also be explained by the
overall decrease in small mammal abundance that could drive leopard cats to travel
farther away in search of food. Several studies have also linked seasonal increases
in leopard cat home range to decreases in the availability of prey items (Rabinowitz
1990; Austin et al. 2007; Grassman et al. 2005).
Conclusion
The spatial ecology of one adult male and one adult female P. b. heaneyi
in Barangay Cabigaan, Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines from May 2013 to July 2014
showed that both leopard cats tracked used forest areas more frequently, with 273
points (71.09%). Other habitats utilized with less frequency were mixed brushlands
with 99 points (25.78%), coconut plantations with 10 points (2.60%), and built-up
areas with 2 points (0.52%). Use of forest areas was higher during the dry season
while use of the more disturbed mixed brushlands, coconut plantations, and built-up
areas was higher during the wet season.
Home range estimates showed that the mean 95% MCP home range of the
male (6.2917 km2) was larger than that of the female (3.9236 km2). There were no
overlaps between core ranges (50% MCP) of both individuals during either season.
There was an increase in mean home range size from dry season (3.5658 km2) to wet
season (4.0611 km2) for both sexes.
Small mammals captured included Rattus exulans, Rattus tanezumi,

Sundasciurus steerii, Maxomys panglima, and Tupaia palawanensis. More small
mammals were captured in mixed brushlands possibly due to the higher diversity of
food sources present in the area. The abundance of small mammals was lower during
the wet season for both habitat types and sexes.
Although forest areas were the most frequently used overall, this study
suggested that P. b. heaneyi had an increased frequency of use of disturbed habitats
(mixed brushland, coconut plantations, and built up areas) during the wet season
and this appeared to be related to the decrease in the abundance of prey species.
During this season, the relative abundance of M. panglima and T. palawanensis
found in the forest area decreased sharply during the wet season, while that of exotic
species such as R. exulans and R. tanezumi in the disturbed habitats remained the
same or decreased only slightly. This may have caused leopard cats to travel toward
disturbed areas farther away from forests in search of prey. This may also have led to
the increase in home range sizes of P. b. heaneyi during wet season.
In future studies, it is recommended that trapping be conducted for multiple

years during the driest months from January to February. It is further recommended
that both leopard cat and small mammal traps be set in coconut plantations and built-
up areas within Barangay Cabigaan, as these habitats were also utilized.
Due to the number of other carnivoran species unintentionally captured, it

is recommended that these species should also be included in future studies using
similar trapping methods. These are closely related species that may share habitat
and dietary requirements, and it will be of great interest to study these ecological
dynamics. Mammalian carnivores such as leopard cats serve as keystone species
in many ecosystems as they are at the top of the food chain. They are also highly
charismatic and could serve as flagship species for the conservation of other wildlife
and their habitat.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Nagao Natural Environment Foundation,
Department of Science and Technology, Cabigaan Barangay Council, Aborlan
Municipal Government, and Palawan Council for Sustainable Development staff
(PCSD).
Literature cited
Aborlan Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). 2012. Aborlan, Palawan,
Philippines: Aborlan Municipal Government. [unpublished].
Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE. 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat
use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology. 74(5):1313–1325.
Austin SC, Tewes ME, Grassman LI, Silvy MJ. 2007. Ecology and conservation of the
leopard cat and clouded leopard in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Acta Zool
Sinica. 53:1–14.
Bashir T, Bhattacharya T, Poudyal K, Sathyakumar S, Qureshi Q. 2014. Integrating

aspects of ecology and predictive modelling: implications for the conservation of
the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in the Eastern Himalaya. Acta Theriol.
59(1):35–47. doi:10.1007/s13364-013-0145-x
Calawagan CLG. 2014. Endoparasites and selected microbial pathogens of Palawan

leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis heaneyi Groves, 1997) in Aborlan,
Palawan, Philippines [MS thesis]. Los Baños, Laguna (Philippines): University of

the Philippines Los Baños.
Cheyne S, MacDonald DW. 2011. Wild felid diversity and activity patterns in Sabangau
peat-swamp forest, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx, 45(1), 119-124. doi:10.1017/
S00306053100 0133XZ
Cruz RM, Villafuerte-Van Den Beukel D, Lacerna-Widmann I, Schoppe S, Widmann

P. 2007. Wildlife trade in Southern Palawan, Philippines. Banwa. 4(1):12–26.
Diaz-Sacco JJ, Izawa M. 2013. Road use by the Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis
iriomotensis) on Iriomote-jima Island in relation to its herpetile prey. Mammal
Study, 38, 73-80.
Esselstyn JA, Widmann P, Heaney LR. 2004. The mammals of Palawan Island,
Philippines. P Biol Soc Wash. 117(3):271–302.
Fuller MR, Fuller TK. 2012. Radio-telemetry equipment and applications for
carnivores. In: Boitani L, Powell RA, editors. Carnivore Ecology and Conservation:
A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford (United Kingdom): Oxford University Press.
p. 506.
Grassman LI. 2000. Movements and diet of the leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis in
a seasonal evergreen forest in south-central Thailand. Acta Theriol. 45:421–426.
Grassman LI, Tewes ME, Silvy NJ, Kreetiyutanont K. 2005. Spatial organization and
diet of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in north-central Thailand. J Zool
London. 266:45–54.
Kintanar RL. 1984. Climate of the Philippines. Quezon City (Philippines): Department
of Science and Technology (DOST) - Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and
Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) Report, 38.
Lorica MRP, Heaney LR. 2013. Survival of a native mammalian carnivore, the leopard
cat Prionailurus bengalensis Kerr, 1792 (Carnivora: Felidae), in an agricultural
landscape on an oceanic Philippine island. J Threatened Taxa. 5(10):4451–4560.
Mohd-Azlan J, Sharma D. 2006. The diversity and activity patterns of wild felids in a
secondary forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Oryx. 40(1):36–41.
Nakanashi N, Okamura M, Watanabe S, Izawa M, Doi T. 2005. The effect of habitat on

home range size in the Iriomote cat Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis. Mamm
Study. 30:1–10.
Nash SV. 1997. Fin, Feather, Scale and Skin: Observations on the Wildlife Trade in
Lao PDR and Vietnam. Vietnam: Traffic Southeast Asia.
Oh DH, Moteki S, Nakanishi N, Izawa M. 2010. Effects of human activities on home

range size and habitat use of the Tsushima leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis
euptilurus in a suburban area on the Tsushima Islands, Japan. J Ecol Field Biol.
33(1):3–13. doi:10.5141/JEFB.2010.33.1.003
Paguntalan LJ, Jakosalem PG, Reintar AR, Doble KJ, Ramilo RV, Espinosa AF. 2015.
Terrestrial biodiversity conservation status of Busuanga Island: Preliminary report.
London, United Kingdom: Community Centered Conservation. 17 pp.
Rabinowitz A. 1990. Notes on the behavior and movements of leopard cats, Felis
bengalensis, in a dry tropical forest mosaic in Thailand. Biotropica. 22:397–403.
Rajaratnam R, Sunquist M, Rajaratnam L, Ambu L. 2007. Diet and habitat selection

of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis borneoensis) in an agricultural
landscape in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. J Trop Ecol. 23:209–217.
Sanderson J, Sunarto S, Wilting A, Driscoll C, Lorica R, Ross J, Grassman L. 2008.

Prionailurus bengalensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012.2
[retrieved 2012 Nov 01]. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Schmidt K, Nakanishi N, Okamura M, Doi T, IZAWA M. 2003. Movements and use

of home range in the Iriomote cat (Prionailurus bengalensis iriomotensis). Journal
of Zoology, London (261), 273–283
Simcharoen S, Umponjan M, Duangchantrasiri S, Pattanavibool A. 2014. Non-

Panthera cat records from big cat monitoring in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife
Sanctuary. CATnews (Special Issue 8):31–35.
Sollmann R, Mohamed A, Samejima H, Wilting A. 2013. Risky business or simple

solution – Relative abundance indices from camera-trapping. Biological
Conservation, 159, 405-412.
Tajiri H, Doi T, Izawa M, Tatara M. 1996. Home range size and habitat selection of
the Tsushima leopard cat (Felis bengalensis euptilura) in the Tsushima Islands,
Japan. Isl Stud Okinawa. (14):31–38.
Ecological implications of domestic cat

ranges on the Calayan rail in the forest
sanctuary of Calayan Island, Cagayan,
Philippines
Emilia A. Lastica-Ternura, MS, DVM Juancho B. Balatibat
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
College of Veterinary Medicine College of Forestry and Natural Resources
University of the Philippines UPLB
Los Baños (UPLB)
College, Laguna Joseph S. Masangkay
Email address: [email protected] Professor
College of Veterinary Medicine
Leticia E. Afuang, PhD UPLB
Associate Professor
College of Arts and Sciences
UPLB
Studies show that domestic cats are considered as one of the biggest threats to
wildlife. They have been implicated in species decline on islands and on continents,
and affect mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. A preliminary assessment of
the threats to the Calayan rail (Gallirallus calayanensis) showed that introduced
domestic cats have effects on its conservation status from being vulnerable
to being extinct. This study aims to determine domestic cat diet and ranges on
Calayan Island; confirm if there is an overlap between cat and G. calayanensis
habitat range; identify human perceptions on the possible impact of domestic cats on
G. calayanensis; and provide basis for future management options. Results showed
that cats traveled an average distance of 112.38 m and overlapped with the habitat
of the G. calayanensis. Although cats were not perceived to be threats to local
wildlife by the respondents, the cats sampled in the study were able to cross buffer
areas into the wildlife sanctuary, implying a possible impact on species vulnerable
to predation. Calayan Island, because of its size and importance to biodiversity,
can be a possible model for island conservation through the control of introduced
predators and management of pet ownership.
Keywords: Calayan Island, Calayan rail, cats, invasive species management

18 E. A. Lastica-Ternura, et al.
SEVERAL STUDIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE VULNERABILITY OF BIRDS, REPTILES,

and mammals to cat attacks (Longecore et al. 2009; Peck et al. 2008; Nogales et al.
2004; Jessup 2004; Bonnaud et al. 2007; Mosby and Read 2006), which may cause
significant fluctuation in populations of wildlife (Peck et al. 2008). Domestic and feral
cats have been observed to travel greater distances particularly when they are prone
to hunt. Home ranges for a feral cat range from 0.028-3.947 ha (Nutter 2005); cat
populations that subsist by hunting have been observed to have wider home ranges
than those fed in households.
The Calayan rail (Gallirallus calayanensis) (Fig. 1) was discovered by Carmela

Española in 2004 and described in the same year by Allen et al. (2004). It is a member
of the cosmopolitan Rallidae family, which also includes coots and gallinules. The
bird is generally dark olive with red-orange legs and feet and yellow to red bill (Allen
et al. 2004). The species is restricted to Calayan Island, Babuyan Group of Islands, and
lives in primary and secondary forest on limestone substrate. They seem to prefer areas
near streams. In fact, the nest and eggs described by Oliveros and Layusa (2011) was
located beside a temporary stream. The species is closely associated with Odontonema
strictum, a bush that is abundant in the habitat. About 85% of sightings were associated
with recently disturbed forests, and animals occur as individuals or in small family
groups that forage on the ground and feed on snails, beetles, millipedes; a gastrolith and
grass-like plant material was seen upon examination of the holotype (Allen et al. 2004).
Figure 1 Calayan rail (Gallirallus

calayanensis) (Photo by Natural, Jr. 2016)
G. calayanensis was provided a provisional “Vulnerable” status under the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories of threat on the
basis of its limited range, known population size, and threats to its population (Allen
et al. 2004). The provisional conservation status was given as a precautionary measure
Ecological implications of domestic cat ranges on the Calayan rail 19
and based on preliminary assessment of the species and its habitat upon its discovery.
Threats of habitat destruction, hunting, and the impact of introduced species have
been identified to affect rail population. The ISLA Biodiversity Conservation, Inc. have
worked in the island to conserve the Calayan Rail through community engagement,
population surveys and education activities to address habitat destruction and hunting
(Española and Oliveros 2007; Broad and Oliveros 2006; Oliveros and Layusa 2007),
however the effect of introduced species has not been fully explored, and thus has
not been managed.
Field surveys have found that G. calayanensis inhabits most of the island’s
forests (Oliveros and Layusa 2011). Population surveys from 2005 to 2006 determined
that G. calayanensis has a wide distribution (Española and Oliveros 2007), with
observation in 5 out of the 7 barangays. Anecdotal information revealed that G.
calayanensis used to occur near houses in the lowland barangays of Magsidel, Dadao,
Dilay, and Dilam, but have now been driven to elevations above 81 masl (Española
and Oliveros 2007). The habitat of the species has declined predominantly because
of land clearing and conversion, and habitat incursion (Layusa 2012). Since domestic
cats are closely associated with human settlements, it is possible that cats may impact
the G. calayanensis populations around these areas if their ranges overlap.
This study aimed to profile the diet and range of domestic cats on Calayan
Island, determine if an overlap between cats and G. calayanensis exists, identify
human perceptions on the possible impact of domestic cats on the G. calayanensis
and local wildlife, and lastly, provide a basis for future management modalities.
Study location
The study was conducted in Calayan Island, Babuyan Group of Islands,

Cagayan province, a small group of islands situated above mainland Luzon and
below the Batanes Group of Islands (Fig. 2). Together with the Batanes Group of
Islands, they comprise the northernmost Important Bird Area in the Philippines
(IBA code PH001) (Mallari et al. 2001). It is also included in the list of the country’s
Secondary Areas (SA 94) for endemic birds. The Babuyan Group of Island lies on a
major bird migration route from Siberia, Japan, Korea, and China through Taiwan to
the Philippine archipelago (Española and Oliveros 2007).
Calayan Island (N19°20’, E121°27’) has a land area of 196 km2 and a
maximum elevation of 499 meters above sea level (masl). This low-lying island has
extensive primary and regenerating forests in its central area, which have intermittent
Legend
Barangay Boundary
Municipal Boundary
Sanctuary
Agrizone
Figure 2 Administrative boundary map of Calayan

Island, Cagayan Valley, Philippines
showing the barangays with Calayan Rail
clearings, often containing plots of land cultivated for rice, yam, corn, and coconut
(Española and Oliveros 2007). Extensive grassland covers the eastern coastline and
the island's northwestern tip. The main settlement areas are located on the southern
and northern coasts, where rice fields and coconut plantations extend 1–2 km inland.
A wildlife sanctuary was established through participative methods in 2011 where the
community identified zones allocated for the sanctuary and agricultural use (Fig. 3)
(ISLA 2009, 2010). A reconnaissance visit was conducted from May 22 to 27, 2013
and fieldwork and data collection was conducted from May 30 to June 7, 2013.
Interviews
To analyze human perceptions on the possible impact of domestic cats on G.

calayanensis, owners of domestic cats living in Barangay Magidel were interviewed.
Legend LANDCOVER
Closed forest, broadleaved
Barangay Boundary
Inland water
Sanctuary
Open forest, broadleaved
Agrizone
Other land, built-up area
Other land, cultivated, annual crop
Other land, cultivated, perennial crop
Other land, natural, barren land
Other land, natural, grassland
Other wooded land, shrubs
Other wooded land, wooded grasslands
Figure 3 Land use map of Calayan Island showing the

designated sanctuary bordered in yellow line
The extent of human attitudes on pet ownership, disease prevention and treatment,
methods of population control, and their opinions on how cats affect G. calayanensis
and other wildlife species were determined.
Six households that were directly adjacent to the wildlife sanctuary were
visited. Individual and focus group interviews were done in Sitio Longgog, Barangay
Magsidel. Respondents were chosen using snowball technique (Nutter 2005), where
each respondent suggested other possible respondents. Only those respondents
that were identified more than once were qualified for the interview. Open-ended
interview questions were formulated in English and translated to Ilocano by a local
resident. Interview categories included respondent information, pet ownership and
care, and awareness of the impacts of cats on wildlife. Translated interviews were
tested on 3 locals before the interview proper. At least 2 individuals were interviewed
from each household, with each interview lasting about 10-15 minutes. The results
of the interviews were collated. Common keywords that arose were extracted and their
frequencies were counted under each category to determine top answers.
Cat tracking
The location of each respondent’s household was plotted using a global

positioning system (GPS) device, and cats that live in each of these households
were identified using an assigned household number (Fig. 4). Eight domestic cats—4
males and 4 females—from households within the agricultural zone were assessed.
The cats’ ages ranged from 3 to 72 months. The location of the households in
relation to adjacent forest cover was noted. Hunting ranges of domestic cats were
estimated using data from published sources (Nutter 2005; Ogan and Jurek 1997;
Burrows et al. 2003), while the spool and line technique using spool collars (Fig. 5)
was employed to observe cat movements and range (Shanahan et al. 2007). Data
gathered from this technique (i.e. location points, cat movements, and ranges) as well
as household locations in relation to the protected area boundaries, buffer zones,
and G. calayanensis sightings were plotted on a map using a Geographic Information
System (GIS) Software (ArcGIS 10.1) to provide a graphical representation of the data.
All 8 cats observed in this study were collared with a spool and line attachment,
released, and revisited after 12 hours. While domestic cats were targeted during
this study, the presence of dogs, other domestic animals, and feral cats were also
noted, as well as anthropogenic activities that may affect G. calayanensis. All relevant
government and institutional permits were obtained prior to the conduct of the study.
Figure 4 Sample cat tagged Figure 5 Spool collars that were used
for tracking at the to tag cats for tracking at the
sampling site in sampling site Calayan Island,
Calayan Island, Cagayan Valley, Philippines
Cagayan Valley,
Philippines
The cat tracking data were overlaid with G. calayanensis sightings obtained
from census surveys conducted by Isla Biodiversity Conservation from 2005 to 2009.
Percentage of overlap between cat and G. calayanensis ranges were presented as x/y
values and plotted on a scatter chart for analysis. Correlation (r) was calculated using
Pearson’s technique and student t-test (p=0.05) was used to test significance.
Domestic cat range and potential overlap with the G. calayanensis habitat
All households interviewed were located within 200 m of the forest, the
habitat of the G. calayanensis and other forest wildlife. Cat tracks further confirm that
cat ranges go towards the forest zones and overlapped with known G. calayanensis
sighting areas, with 2 cats penetrating the wildlife sanctuary buffer zone (Fig. 6).
Legend Cat track
Calayan Rail sightings
Household
Sanctuary
Agrizone
Cat
Figure 6 Cat tracks from each household

showed 2 cats from household A
enter the wildlife sanctuary buffer zone
Distances traveled by the cats observed ranged from 30.42-577.17 m, with an

average distance of 112.38 m. Older cats traveled further, covering longer distances
and affecting bigger areas. Cat ages (in months) is strongly positively correlated with
distance (m) traveled (r=0.8723) (Fig. 7), indicating that older cats tend to travel further
than kittens. This shows that special attention should be given to households with cats
that are older and can travel to known G. calayanensis habitat.
A projection of the average distance traveled per cat per household was
plotted, which considered that cats traveled farther as they age. At 22.25 months, a cat
may travel an average of 112.382 m, greatly overlapping with and possibly disturbing
G. calayanensis ranges. On the other hand, if all cats traveled as far as the oldest cat
(72 months, 577.171 m), all cats will be able to cross the agricultural zone towards
the strict protection zone of the wildlife sanctuary (Fig. 8). This is crucial because
entry into the sanctuary can result in threats to other animals that are vulnerable to
cat predation. This estimated area may still increase, as cats that live in wild areas will
tend to travel farther and ranges may reach as wide as 12 km2 (Burrows et al. 2003),
possibly disturbing G. calayanensis nests and altering behavior patterns related to the
bird’s breeding and nesting, or affecting other wildlife on the island (Longecore et al.
2009; Nogales et al. 2004). This possibility should be enough to prompt conservation
managers to revisit the potential impact of domestic cats not only within the sanctuary
but within the distributional range of G. calayanensis .
Distance Travelled (m) Age (months vs. Distance Travelled (m)
750.000
562.500
Distance Travelled (m)
375.000
187.500
0.000
0 20 40 60 80
-187.500
Age (months)
Figure 7 Scatter plot showing a strong positive relationship

(r=0.8723) of the cats’ ages (months) and the
distance traveled (m) by each animal
Household Agrizone
Municipal Boundary
Household buffer
Sanctuary Calayan Rail
Figure 8 Distance traveled by cats (if all will

grow up to 72 months ) shows that all the cats
will reach the strict protection zone
Domestic cat profile, diet, and population control
The cats were obtained from households in other sitios in lowland barangays.
It has been a practice by some community members to get rid of kittens by leaving
them in areas several kilometers away from their house.
All of the households visited had pets that were neither vaccinated nor
dewormed. Two households also had pigs and chickens. All pets were fed with
leftovers from the respondents’ meals, dessicated coconut, cooked rice, and scraps
from food preparation such as raw fish innards. All pets were offered food 3 times a
day; one male cat was fed with fish 3 times a day.
The pets lived outside or in the vicinity of their house. Domestic cats are
free to roam in their surrounding areas, which is adjacent to the forest, unmonitored
especially during daytime.
It is significant to note that in the households included in this study, 2 male

dogs were found to be neutered, while all adult male cats (n=3) were neutered using
rubber bands wound around the base of the testicles as a modified burdizo.
Perceptions on pet ownership
The respondents had a low awareness of animal welfare methods where

100% of the respondents claim that they do not treat sick animals or give prophylactic
medication such as preventive vaccination or deworming. Typically, these medications
are sponsored by the local government units (LGUs), however, respondents claimed
that veterinarians have not visited the island to provide this service. The Provincial
Veterinarian in the city of Tuguegarao, the capital of Cagayan province, confirmed
that vaccination activities on dogs and cats have not been conducted on Calayan
Island. There have been no cases of rabies on the island, prompting a call to declare
Calayan Island as rabies-free. This requires that all pets be vaccinated, which in
turn requires an island-wide census of all household pets (2012 pers. comm with
JA Guillermo, Provincial Veterinarian; unreferenced), which, to date, has not been
done. Furthermore, disease testing for zoonotic pathogens (i.e. T. gondii) has not
been performed. Health monitoring of animals entering the island is not mandated, as
observed by the authors and confirmed by the Provincial Veterinarian. Animals enter
and leave Calayan Island freely, without being subjected to precautionary quarantine
measures.
All of the 15 respondents accepted neutering and spaying as management

options. Spaying is one of the more effective methods of cat population control, as
opposed to neutering (Andersen et al. 2004) because female cats affect population
growth rates more effectively than male cats. All respondents were willing to have
their pets vaccinated and wormed if the services are offered for free. None of the
female pets were spayed, and respondents were surprised that this can be done to their
female pets. Likewise, all of the respondents were willing to have their female pets
spayed if the service is offered for free. None of the respondents considered euthanasia
as a form of animal population control. Euthanasia is considered to be more effective
in the control of cat populations, as compared to neutering (Andersen et al. 2004).
Perceived and potential impacts of domestic cats on wildlife
Answers pertaining to the potential effect of cats on G. calayanensis indicated

that respondents do not consider cats or dogs as a threat to the species. Respondents
have observed cats take in mice, but have not seen the animals eat other wildlife.
On the other hand, 4 respondents said that their dogs catch monitor lizards. While
respondents claimed that their own pets have no impact on wildlife, studies show
that cats have been known to prey on wildlife (Longecore et al. 2009; Galbreath and
Brown 2004). It is possible that cats were not presumed to hunt because hunting
grounds are away from their homes and respondents were not able to monitor their
pets during the course of the day.
While neutering male cats may help stem the population of cats on the island,
the method of disposing kittens might increase the numbers of feral cats in the area,
possibly causing problems for G. calayanensis and other wildlife populations that
are vulnerable to cat predation. During the reconnaissance visit, a male feral cat was
observed in the vicinity of the first household, 100 m from the forest edge, but was
not observed during the subsequent field surveys. This reaffirms the presence of feral
cats reported by previous researchers (Española and Oliveros 2007; Allen et al. 2004).
But as observations along the trail did not yield further feral cat sightings, an estimate
of existing feral cat populations cannot be given. However, it can be inferred that the
continued practice of indiscriminate kitten disposal can result in an exponential increase
in the number of cats, creating a new colony of true feral cats (McLeod 2004) which can
travel wider distances and cause great damage to wildlife (Burrows et al. 2003).
Conclusion
While cats were not perceived by the respondents to be a threat to wildlife,

respondents have claimed that their cats often roam unmonitored around the
area during the day and sometimes at night. Actual cat ranges prove that cats can
enter into the habitat of G. calayanensis, which may cause direct predation. The
practice of leading kittens into the forest as a form of disposal may eventually create
an established feral cat population; feral cats have been observed by researchers,
including the authors of this study, on numerous occasions.
An island-wide survey of household pets in Calayan Island is recommended

to provide a baseline of their population on the island for future monitoring.
Registration of pets is recommended to monitor and regulate the influx of animals,
and determine the population trends of pets. Fitting pet cats with bells in their
collars were readily accepted and this should be upheld to help protect wildlife. The
efficacy of collar-mounted devices such as bells and sonic devices were investigated
by some authors, who recommend the use of either to help warn wildlife of possible
cat attacks (Nelson et al. 2005).
Information dissemination on the importance of responsible pet ownership

and the impact of domestic animals on wild population should be prioritized,
particularly in the areas near forests. Education on the ecological and health impacts
of cats is also helpful, and a multimethod approach involving all stakeholders should
be implemented to better ascertain effective and acceptable ways of management
(Zavaleta 2002; Stoskopf and Nutter 2004). Cat population management methods are
costly but these should be weighed against the cost of conservation (McLeod 2004).
Thus approaches need to be balanced, effective, and should benefit all stakeholders,
including the cat (Jessup 2004).
Current efforts to conserve the G. calayanensis are spearheaded by ISLA

Biodiversity Conservation, Inc. and the local government and community of Calayan.
The Calayan Rail Project utilises participatory and community-based approaches in
research for the monitoring to the G. calayanensis and its habitat, as well as capacity
building of local stakeholders. Because of this project, the G. calayanensis has
since been adopted to be the ambassador for conservation efforts in Calayan Island,
increasing education and awareness both locally and nation-wide. In addition to
these efforts, recommendations for future management of the G. calayanensis and its
habitat should include further investigation of the presence of free-roaming cats in the
sanctuary with measures to eradicate individuals with no owners. This will remove
the foreseen pressure on threatened animals, not just on the G. calayanensis, but on
other endemic wildlife in the area as well.
Calayan Island, because of its size and importance to biodiversity, can be a

feasible model for island conservation through the control of introduced predators in the
Philippines. Promoting G. calayanensis as the island’s flagship species for conservation
may enable the human population to further appreciate the benefits of cat population
management. This approach was helpful in the conservation of birds on Ascension
Island (Ratcliffe et al. 2009) and prompted the populace to actively participate not just
in population control, but also in the elimination of free-roaming and feral cats.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Dr. Jaime A. Guillermo (Provincial

Veterinarian, Cagayan Valley, Philippines), Jameson Reynon and Cynthia Layusa
(ISLA Biodiversity Conservation, Inc.), Samuel Telan (Protected Areas and Wildlife
Division, Region 2, Philippines), and Dr. Steve P. Ternura for their support.
Literature cited
Allen D, Oliveros C, Española C, Gonzales JCT. 2004. A new species of Gallirallus

from Calayan Island, Philippines. Forktail. 20(2004):1–7.
Andersen MC, Martin BJ, Roemer GW. 2004. Use of matrix population models to
estimate the efficacy of euthanasia versus trap-neuter-return for management of
free-roaming cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 225(12):1871–1876.
Bonnaud E, Bourgeois K, Vidal E, Kayser Y, Trenchant Y, Legrand J. 2007. Feeding

ecology of a feral cat population on a small Mediterranean island. J Mammal.
88(4):1074–1081.
Broad G, Oliveros C. 2006. Biodiversity and conservation priority setting in the

Babuyan Islands, Philippines. Sylvatrop. 15(1&2):1–30.
Burrows ND, Algarb D, Robinson AD, Sinagrab J, Ward B, Liddelow G. 2003.

Controlling introduced predators in the Gibson Desert of Western Australia. J Arid
Environ. 55: 691–713.
Española C, Oliveros C. 2007. Conservation of an island endemic: Calayan Rail

Gallirallus calayanensis. Unpublished report. 51 pp.
Galbreath R, Brown D. 2004. The tale of the lighthouse-keeper’s cat: discovery and
extinction of the Stephens Island wren (Traversia lyalli). Notornis. 51:193–200.
[ISLA] Isla Biodiversity Conservation. 2009. Establishing a wildlife sanctuary in Sitio

Longog, Calayan Island: Public Hearing Proceedings. Las Piñas City (Philippines):
Isla Biodiversity Conservation. Unpublished report. 25 pp.
[ISLA] Isla Biodiversity Conservation. 2010. Establishing a wildlife sanctuary in Sitio

Longog, Calayan Island. Technical Report 2. Las Piñas City (Philippines): Isla
Biodiversity Conservation. 45 pp.
Jessup DA. 2004. The welfare of feral cats and wildlife. J Am Vet Med Assoc.
225(9):1377–1383.
Layusa CAA. 2012. Distributional predictions and the implication of habitat loss to
the conservation of the Calayan Rail Gallirallus calayanensis [MS thesis]. Diliman,
Quezon City (Philippines): University of the Philippines-Diliman. 101 pp.
Longecore T, Rich C, Sullivan LM. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding

management. Conserv Biol. 23(4):887–894.
Mallari NAD, Tabaranza BR Jr, Crosby MJ. 2001. Key conservation sites in the
Philippines: a Haribon Foundation & BirdLife International directory of important
bird areas. Makati City (Philippines): Bookmark. 485 pp.
McLeod R. 2004. Counting the cost: impact of invasive animals in Australia 2004.
Canberra (Australia): Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.
Mosbey KE, Read JL. 2006. The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion fence
designs for threatened species protection. Biol Conserv. 127(2006):429–437.
Nelson SH, Evans AD, Bradbury RB. 2005. The efficacy of collar-mounted devices in
reducing the rate of predation of wildlife by domestic cats. Applied Anim Behav
Sci. 94:273–285.
Nogales M, Martin A, Tershy BR, Donlan JC, Veitch D, Puerta N, Wood B, Alonso J.
2004. A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conserv Biol. 18(2):310–319.
Nutter FB. 2005. Community meetings to facilitate consensus on feral cat management.
In: Evaluation of a trap-neuter-return management program for feral cat colonies:
population dynamics, home ranges, and potentially zoonotic diseases [PhD
dissertation]. Raleigh, NC (USA): North Carolina State University. 241 pp.
Ogan CV, Jurek RM. 1997. Biology and ecology of feral, free-roaming, and stray cats.
In: Harris JE, Ogan CV, editors. Mesocarnivores of northern California: biology,
management, and survey techniques, workshop manual. August 12–15, 1997,
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Arcata, CA (USA): The Wildlife Society,
California North Coast Chapter. pp. 87–92.
Oliveros C, Layusa C. 2007. Calayan Rail Project II: Building stakeholder capacity to
Conserve an Island-endemic Species. Unpublished report. 39 pp.
Oliveros C, Layusa C. 2011. First description of the nest and eggs of the Calayan rail.
J Yamashina Inst for Ornithol. 42:143–146.
Peck DR, Faulquier L, Pinet P, Jaquemet S, Le Corer M. 2008. Feral cat diet and
impact on sooty terns at Juan de Nova Island, Mozambique Channel. Anim
Conserv. 11(2008):65–74.
Ratcliffe N, Bell M, Pelembe T, Boyle D, White RBR, Godley B, Stevenson J, Sanders

S. 2009. The eradication of feral cats on Ascension Island. Oryx. 44(1):20–29.
Shanahan DF, Mathieu R, Seddon PJ. 2007. Fine-scale movement of the European
hedgehog: an application of spool-and-thread tracking. New Zeal J Ecol.
31(2):160–168.
Stoskopf MK, Nutter FB. 2004. Analyzing approaches to feral cat management—one
size does not fit all. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 225(9):1361–1365.
Zavaleta ES. 2002. It’s often better to eradicate, but can we eradicate better? In:
Veitch CR, Clout MN, editors. Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive
species. Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge (United Kingdom): IUCN, IUCN
SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. p. 393–403.
Conservation milestones of the critically

endangered Philippine crocodile
(Crocodylus mindorensis Schmidt 1935)
Rainier I. Manalo Erickson A. Tabayag
Program Director Technical Researcher
Crocodylus Porosus Philippines Inc. (CPPI) CPPI
Email: [email protected],
[email protected]
Philip C. Baltazar
Technical Researcher
CPPI
Conservation efforts to save the rarest crocodile species in the world, the
Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis), were exerted through the years
from 1891 to 2016. This study aimed to provide insights for the conservation
management of the species by documenting the milestones that could form
part of future conservation programs. The review of historical accounts and
published scientific articles identified species milestones in a timeline format.
Results showed that C. mindorensis became known to science as early as 1891,
based on specimens collected from the island of Mindoro (FMNH 11135), and
was originally described by Karl Schmidt as Crocodylus mindorensis in 1935. It
was later considered as a subspecies of the New Guinea crocodile (Crocodylus
novaeguineae mindorensis) until Philip M. Hall provided new evidence for its
designation as a totally separate species in 1989. Wild populations severely
declined in the early 1940s to 1980s due to human persecution and indiscriminate
hunting for skin trade. This triggered distribution studies to locate and estimate
the abundance of extant wild populations. Upon the conclusion of these studies
in the early 1990s, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
declared the species as critically endangered in 1996. Ex-situ conservation
breeding program was deemed the only hope for the species in the late 1990s
to early 2000s. The successful initiation and continuous development of the
collaborative breeding programs have resulted into a restocking of the species
to form nucleus populations in its natural habitat from 2009 to 2016. Over the
course of 125 years, wild populations have been unearthed and the species was
finally released in protected sanctuaries starting in the year 2009.
Keywords: Philippine crocodile, conservation, historical account

32 R. I. Manalo, et al.
CROCODILES ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THEIR PREDECESSORS THAT LIVED

among the dinosaurs, to which they are closely related, up to 200 million years ago.
For that reason, they are often referred to as living fossils. Much of their secret lives
have been carefully unraveled over the past decades, but there is still more to learn
and understand about them (Webb and Manolis 2009).
In the Philippines, crocodiles were once a prominent part of the lowland fauna
usually thriving in rivers, lakes, estuaries, and marshes. Today, they are threatened with
extinction. Conservationists have long been concerned with the rapid deterioration of
the lowland habitats in the Philippines and the effect of commercial agriculture and
development on the lowland terrestrial and aquatic fauna. Crocodiles are especially
vulnerable, restricted as they are to aquatic habitats that are easily modified for human
utilization, as fishponds or rice paddies (Ross and Alcala 1983). At present, known
populations of the 2 species of crocodiles naturally occurring in the Philippines—the
Indo-Pacific crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus
mindorensis) (Fig. 1)—are sparsely distributed all over the country.
Figure 1 Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis), an endangered

wildlife species endemic in the province of Mindoro
In the case of the endemic and more threatened C. mindorensis, it was

once prevalent all over the country but now restricted to inland freshwater wetland
Conservation milestones of the Philippine crocodile 33
pockets of northeastern Luzon and central Mindanao. Surveys of its wild populations
in the country have picked up during the more recent years. Researchers noted that
populations of this crocodile species are highly fragmented, often with only as many
as one breeding pair occupying one river or creek with a few juveniles or subadults
thrown in (van Weerd et al. 2006; Pomares et al. 2008; Manalo et al. 2013). Land
conversion has posed more of a threat to the fragmented wild extant populations than
direct hunting, illegal trading, and human persecution (Manalo et al. 2015). Favorably,
conservation efforts have been exerted through the years to save C. mindorensis from
the brink of extinction.
This study aimed to provide useful insights for the conservation management
of C. mindorensis and to document milestones that could guide future conservation
programs.
Materials and Methods
Forty-seven historical accounts and published scientifc articles were

collected and reviewed to identify and document conservation milestones of the C.
mindorensis in a timeline format. Findings were presented based on the clustered
significant contributions on the general concept of species recovery and conservation.
The presentation of timelines based from key notable events on Philippine crocodile
species management were supported by literatures from both national and international
efforts.
What follows is a selection of key historical events and milestones related

to the conservation management of C. mindorensis from national and international
levels—events that continue to shape attitudes, national laws, and policies concerning
the advancement of crocodilian conservation today.
Species discovery
The quest for species discovery started with the Menage Scientific Expedition
collections of distinguished natural historians led by Dr. JB Steere in 1891, followed
by the Crane Pacific Expedition of the Field Museum of Natural History in 1929. A
crocodile head specimen that exhibited 6 post-occipital scutes was known to have
been collected together with 3 other smaller skulls from the vicinity of Lake Naujan
in Mindoro. These were presented to the Field Museum by the Philippine Bureau
of Science for cleaning and examination in 1935. These 4 Mindoro specimens
proved to be distinct and new to science. The descriptions of Dr. Karl P. Schmidt,
former curator of herpetology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,
led to the discovery of a new Philippine freshwater crocodile species then named as
Crocodylus mindorensis sp. nov. This new crocodile species was assumed by many
to be conspecific with New Guinea crocodile (Crocodylus novaeguineae) until 1989
when Philip M. Hall pointed out a distinct morphologic characteristics which
ultimately distinguished C. mindorensis as a totally separate species.
1891: The first crocodile specimen (FMNH 11135) was said to have been collected
from the Island of Mindoro either by the Menage Expedition led by Dr. JB Steere or
from his personal collections (Schmidt 1935; Ross 1982b).
1929: Three small crocodile skulls, presumably from the vicinity of Lake Naujan,
were presented to the Crane Pacific Expedition of Field Museum by the Philippine
Bureau of Science (Schmidt 1935).
1935: Dr. Karl P. Schmidt first described the new Philippine freshwater crocodile
as Crocodylus mindorensis sp. nov. on the basis of skulls presumed to be from the
vicinity of Lake Naujan in the Island of Mindoro (Schmidt 1935).
1989: Distinct morphologic characteristics noted by Philip M. Hall provided

convincing evidence to declare C. mindorensis as a new crocodile species (Hall
1989).
Drastic population decline
Indiscriminate hunting for skin trade and human persecution of both C.

mindorensis and C. porosus were rampant all over the Philippines during the period
of 1940s to the late 1980s.
1958: A C. mindorensis was killed and owned by an unrecorded private collector

from the Mandaon area, west central Masbate. The specimen was included in the
collections of the United States National Museum (USNM Field Series 121077).
1970s and 1980s: The number of C. mindorensis was reduced mainly due to habitat
loss, indiscriminate killing, and commercial harvest (Ross and Datuin 1981; Banks
2005; van Weerd et al. 2016).
1983: The continued existence of C. mindorensis in the wild was in jeopardy. It

was in immediate danger of extinction and considered as one of the world’s most
threatened crocodilian species. This was primarily due to agricultural and industrial
development of lowland habitats. Crocodile conservation was an unlikely prospect as
crocodiles were unfavorably perceived as predators of domestic animals and elicited

little sympathy while habitat protection conflicted with government priorities for the
socioeconomic improvement of Filipinos in the rural areas.
Saving crocodiles from extinction
Persecution of crocodiles and rapid habitat loss through agricultural

growth brought C. mindorensis to the brink of extinction. From 1980 to 1982, the
international nongovernment organization (NGO) World Wildlife Fund funded the
Smithsonian Institution/World Wildlife Fund (SI/WWF) Philippine Crocodile Project
that signified the first coordinated conservation effort for the species. Through this
project and in cooperation with the Forest Research Institute (FORI) in Los Baños,
Laguna, the Bureau of Forest Development, and Silliman University in Dumaguete
City, studies were conducted to determine the distribution, status, and conservation
potential for C. mindorensis. The continued population assessments estimated the
presence of about 500 to 1000 individuals in the wild and in captivity. There was a
little chance for the species to survive in the wild even in sanctuaries and protected
areas without immediate intervention. In 1992, the Crocodile Specialist Group (CSG)
concluded that abandoning the remnant population in their natural habitat before the
real protection could begin could probably have resulted in the final extinction of
the species (Messel et al. 1992). Captive breeding management formed the principal
component of crocodile conservation in the Philippines (Ortega et al. 1994).
In the early 1980s, the SI/WWF and Silliman University Environmental

Center (SUEC) recorded the first known nesting and propagation of C. mindorensis
in captivity. Progenies of this successful breeding program were transferred to
international zoological facilities and private collections for Cooperative Breeding
and Conservation Program in 1988 (Banks 2005). In order to prevent further decline
of the crocodiles, the RP-Japan Crocodile Farming Institute (RP-Japan CFI) was
established in 1987 through the joint partnership of the Philippine government
(through DENR) and the government of Japan. A nucleus population was acquired
from the wild and other private collections from 1987 to 1994. The results of the
successful C. mindorensis captive breeding from 1989 to 2001 in the Palawan
Wildlife Rescue and Conservation Center (PWRCC), formerly CFI, was shared with
private institutions under loan agreements for conservation breeding, education,
and other conservation activities (Fig. 2).
1980: The SI/WWF Project studied the distribution, status, and conservation potential
of C. mindorensis and estimated the remaining population to be between 500 to
1000 individuals. This further led to the establishment of the SUEC, the first captive
breeding facility for C. mindorensis which also recorded the first nesting and breeding
in captivity (Ross 1982a, 1982b; Ross and Alcala 1983; Alcala et al. 1987).
Figure 2 Philippine crocodile hatchlings from the Palawan Wildlife Rescue and
Conservation Center (PWRCC)
1987: The RP-Japan CFI, later renamed as PWRCC, was established to conserve
the 2 species of crocodiles in the Philippines and to develop a crocodile farming
technology. It was considered as one of the best crocodile research facilities in the
world (Ortega 1996, 1998).
1988: Successful breeding of a nucleus population in PWRCC reached the 200

breeding adult management goal. International institutions like the Gladys Porter Zoo
(GPZ) in the USA and the Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens in Australia obtained
parental stocks from SUEC for Cooperative Breeding and Conservation Program.
1993: Eight progenies from GPZ were repatriated to the Philippines in 1993 and
2000 for future release into secured sanctuaries (Sibal et al. 1992; Ortega et al. 1994;
Manalo and Alcala 2015).
2006: Fifteen young C. mindorensis were lent to the Danish Krokodille Zoo by the
Philippine Government to initiate the first Philippine crocodile captive breeding
program in Europe. The first edition of Philippine Crocodile European Studbook (ESB)
was published by Cologne Zoo with its first breeding record in May 2013 (Manila
2008; Ziegler et al. 2013).
Contributions for the long-term conservation of the species
The C. mindorensis distribution, based on the field works of CA Ross and

AC Alcala in 1983, became the main blueprint of researchers and conservationists
in investigating extant populations and suitable habitats for restocking. New extant
populations were recorded in Northern Luzon and Central Mindanao. This triggered
the crafting of the Philippine Crocodile National Recovery Plan which led to the
successful initiation and continuous development of the collaborative breeding
programs of C. mindorensis. This also paved the way for the discovery and mapping out
of new populations and locality records of C. mindorensis within the entire Philippine
archipelago. In support of the discovery of new populations in northeastern Luzon, the
local government of San Mariano, Isabela adopted the protection of C. mindorensis in
their area as part of their environmental protection program.
In 2007, the Forum on Crocodiles in the Philippines generated 3 major

resolutions for the conservation of the C. mindorensis and 4 other resolutions
concerning both crocodile species present in the Philippines. One of the important
outcomes is the realization of the head-starting program (Res. No. 1-4) and the
reintroduction of captive-bred C. mindorensis to Lake Dicatian in Divilacan, Isabela
(Res. No. 1-5) led by the Mabuwaya Foundation Inc. (MFI). A reintroduction resolution
in selected areas in Mindanao (Res. No. 1-6) was drafted with the assistance of the
Crocodylus Porosus Philippines Inc. (CPPI).
Among the major contributions of the Forum are the preliminary discovery of
genetic differences between island subpopulations (Louis and Brenneman 2008), the
presence of extant populations in high elevations (Manalo 2008) and in small islands
(Oliveros et al. 2008), existence of population in Ligawasan Marsh (Tabora 2008;
Pimental et al. 2008; Pomares et al. 2008), and the in-situ conservation efforts in
San Mariano, Isabela (Miranda et al. 2008; van der Ploeg et al. 2008). However, one
of the major events was the technical dialogue in the head starting with the release
program of the MFI which eventually demonstrated its viability through a more than
3-fold increase in its wild population in 1999.
1999: The studies on the distribution, abundance, and population genetics in the
Philippines led to the discovery of 2 extant populations of C. mindorensis, the
previously unknown populations in San Mariano, Isabela and in Pulangi River,
Bukidnon, Mindanao (Pontillas 2000; van Weerd et al. 2000).
2000: A Philippine Crocodile National Recovery Team (PCNRT) was formed by

the Philippine Government to take charge of recovering C. mindorensis from near
extinction and to oversee the implementation of the first Philippine Crocodile
National Recovery Plan. Collaborative efforts of the Philippine Government and

NGOs confirmed the occurrence of fragmented new populations in the foothills
of Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (NSMNP), Babuyan Group of Islands, and
highlands of Cordillera Central. Several crocodile sanctuaries were established in the
NSMNP (DENR 2000; Manalo 2008; Oliveros et al. 2005; Banks 2005; Oliveros et
al. 2008; van Weerd and van der Ploeg 2012).
2007: A Forum on Crocodiles in the Philippines was held at the National Museum
of the Philippines and attended by representatives from 14 countries (Fig. 3). It was
organized by the Crocodylus Porosus Philippines Inc. (CPPI) in partnership with the
National Museum of the Philippines, Silliman University, and the Veterinary Office
of the City of Manila. This dialogue advanced the in-situ conservation program
through the release of more than 100 captive-raised juveniles from the nest protection
scheme and head-starting program in San Mariano, Isabela. The preliminary findings
of the population genetics studies found differences between island sub-populations.
Active search for new habitats have recorded the presence of C. mindorensis in high
altitudinal ranges in South Cotabato, Mindanao (van de Ven et al. 2012; van Weerd
et al. 2008; van de Ven et al. 2009; van Weerd and van der Ploeg 2008; Hinlo 2010;
Manalo et al. 2013; van Weerd and van der Ploeg 2012).
Figure 3 Participants of the Forum on Crocodiles in the Philippines held

from Jan. 31 to Feb. 2, 2007
Managing wild populations
After two decades of successful breeding, the progenies of Philippine

crocodiles from the PWRCC nucleus populations were released back into their natural
habitats. In 2009, 50 sub-adult C. mindorensis were first reintroduced in northeastern
Luzon and 3 adults in Central Mindanao.
The PWRCC reintroduction programs, in partnership with the MFI in

Divilacan, Isabela and CPPI in Santo Tomas, Davao del Norte, have both utilized
matured individuals and hard release protocols. The human and crocodile
coexistence was compromised during the process of establishing new crocodile
territories and adapting to their new environment due to the inherent captive-bred
behavior of released individuals. These releases, which were considered partly
unsuccessful, have tailored the refinement of restocking criteria guided by the
Philippine experiences (van Weerd et al. 2012). The concern on the population
genetics, with the presence of hybrids in PWRCC, was also concluded in 2010
(Hinlo 2010; Hinlo et al. 2014).
The 36 juvenile crocodiles (<100 cm) which were introduced in the

Paghungawan Marsh, Pilar, Siargao Island Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (SIPLAS)
(Mercado et al. 2013) through soft release in 2013 have shown an increase in growth
(Mean=0.084 cm/day and 11.76 g/day), which translates into better adaptability to its
new environment. With the more terrestrial behavior of C. mindorensis, the decline
in regular sightings to about 53% of the introduced population was attributed to the
observed wariness related to the increasing size of the crocodiles, a higher number of
crocodiles concealed in the vegetation (Manalo et al. 2015), and the impact communities
have committed for the implementation of Community-Based Sustainable Tourism
(CBST), along with the growing support of local government leading to sustainable
management of their wetland resources (Manalo et al. 2016). Twenty-two deputized
Wildlife Enforcement Officers have been deployed to support the community-based
biophysical monitoring and enforcement (DENR RSO No. 2015-555, October 14,
2015). Several municipal resolutions have been crafted such as the request for an
enhancement release (Mun. Res. No. 070 s.2015) and the local government declaration
of crocodile conservation month (Mun. Res. No. 067 s.2015).
Upon the creation of the National Crocodile Conservation Committee

(NCCC) in 2015, the Conservation and Management Plan for Crocodile Species in the
Philippines for 2016 to 2020 was adopted and implemented. This strengthened the
national priority in the conduct of plans of actions in selected priority conservation
sites for restocking of C. mindorensis. International conservation partners contributed
and pledged support for the Plan (Adams and Manalo 2014). To date, crocodile
awareness campaigns are ongoing in Luzon and Mindanao.
2009: The first reintroduction of PWRCC captive-bred mature individuals was initiated
in northeastern Luzon and Central Mindanao. Although this restocking program was
partially considered unsuccessful, the experience gained in the process provided the
basis for the policy recommendation on the revision of release criteria tailored for
Philippine setting.
2012: C. mindorensis was maintained in the Critically Endangered (CR) category but
the criteria used in its categorization were changed from A1c, C2a to A2, C.D., (ver.
3.1) in the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group revised Red List Assessment during the
21st World Crocodile Conference in Manila (Manalo and Alcala 2015; van Weerd et
al. 2016).
2013: Thirty-six juveniles were introduced in a marshland area in SIPLAS

(Fig. 4). The released animals demonstrated better adaptability in their new
environment. They were expected to breed in 2017 and produce young that
can survive in the wild in the near future. A community-based sustainable
ecotourism was introduced, with the C. mindorensis as its flagship species.
Subsequently, the municipality of Pilar declared the month of May as “Crocodile
Figure 4 Release of 36 juvenile Philippine crocodiles (Crocodylus mindorensis)

in Paghungawan Marsh of the Siargao Island Protected Landscapes and
Seascapes (SIPLAS) in Pilar, Surigao del Norte
Conservation Month” for the municipality and requested for an enhancement release
(Mercado et al. 2013; Manalo and Alcala 2015; CPPI Report 2015).
2015: The PCNRT was reconstituted as the NCCC to address the conservation needs
of the 2 species of crocodiles present in the Philippines (DSO No. 2015-1010, dated
28 October, 2015). The national management plan for crocodiles was developed,
adopted, and implemented.
2016: Public Education and Community Participation (PECP) activities are ongoing in
Luzon, Mindanao, and Palawan (Cureg et al. 2015; CPPI Report 2015).
Figure 5 shows the Conservation timeline of Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus

mindorensis) from 1891 to 2016.
Conclusion
The identified historical events and milestones could help in better

understanding and recognizing the challenges in the past, present, and those that
might emerge in the future, while dealing with the conservation of C. mindorensis.
These could also allow recognizing opportunities that may be useful in further
addressing the existing and emerging threats. Moreover, the milestones of C.
mindorensis conservation provided reliable basis for developing more effective,
consistent, and wide-ranging management strategies to ensure the long-term survival
of the remaining wild populations. History has shown that the conservation of C.
mindorensis is highly dependent on management practices that allow for human and
crocodile coexistence. This requires the vital role of public awareness, information,
and education.
There should be programs that give people incentives to conserve both the
crocodiles and their habitat. Aside from this, establishment of sanctuaries in strategic
areas should be done to prevent or at least minimize habitat disturbances. Moreover,
further research is needed to monitor the current status of endemic crocodile species
in order to create, adapt, and put into action an efficient and suitable conservation
action plans for them. Indeed, social acceptance and unwavering commitment among
the local communities, stakeholders, and decision makers form substantial catalyst for
the advancement of crocodile conservation in the Philippines.
Conservation Timeline of Philippine Crocodile

(1891-2016)
Menage Species Discovery
Expedition & Dr. Dr. Karl P.
J.B. Steere Schmidt
First crocodile first described Extinction Risk
Population Considered as
specimen (FMNH the species as Decline Philippine Crocodile Conservation
11135) collected Crocodylus one of the world's Program
Habitat loss, most threatened
from the Island of mindorensis sp. indiscriminate Successful breeding of nucleus
Mindoro nov. crocodilian population in captivity
killing and trade species
1929 1958 1980 1987 1989
1891 1935 1970 1983 1988
Crane Pacific Hunting for First Captive RP-Japan Species New to Science
Expedition of Trade Breeding Facility Crocodile Philippine Crocodile
Field Museum A specimen SI/WWF & Silliman Farming Institute (Crocodylus mindorensis)
Philippine Bureau owned and University Established as new crocodile species
of Science killed (USNM Environmental through the joint described by Philip M. Hall
presented three Field Series Center (SUEC) partnership of the
small crocodile 121077) recorded the first DENR and JICA
skulls propagation in
captivity
Philippine
Crocodile
National IUCN Crocodile National Crocodile
Specialist Conservation
Repatriation of Recovery Plan First Forum on
Crafting of the Group Committee
Progenies Crocodile Development of the
Eight progenies from
National Plan for Assessment National Conservation
the continued A Filipino dialogue Critically Endangered
international zoos are on crocodile in the & Management Plan for
collaborative (CR) category from
repatriated for future Philippine with foreign Crocodile to address the
conservation & A1C, C2A to A2, C.D.
release in the wild participation conservation needs of the
breeding programs (ver. 3.1)
two species of crocodiles
1999 2006 2009 2013 2016
1993 2000 2007 2012 2015
Field Research European First Conservation Public

Discovery & mapping Collaboration Reintroduction Introduction Education &
of new populations, 36 juveniles
Philippine Program Community
localities, and are released in
Government 50 sub-adult and
altitudinal records Paghungawan Marsh Participation
transferred 15 3 adult Philippine
young crocodiles Crocodiles are as flagship species for On-going in Northern
habitat protection & Luzon, Mindanao, and
to Denmark released in natural Palawan
habitat ecotourism
Figure 5 Conservation timeline of Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis)

from 1891 to 2016
Literature cited
Adams C, Manalo RI. 2014. Minutes of the Philippine Crocodile Meeting at the 23rd
Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group; 2014 May 26–30; Lake
Charles, Louisiana (USA): [publisher unknown].
Alcala AC, Ross CA, Alcala EL. 1987. Observation on reproduction and behavior of
captive Philippine Crocodiles (Crocodylus mindorensis Schmidt). Silliman J. 34
(1–2):18–28.
Banks CB. 2005. National recovery plan for the Philippine crocodile, Crocodylus
mindorensis, 2005–2008. 2nd edition. Quezon City (Philippines): Department of
Environment & Natural Resources-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (DENR-
PAWB).
[CPPI] Crocodylus Porosus Philippines Inc. 2015. Crocodile Research and

Conservation, Crocodylus Porosus Philippines Inc. Annual Program Progress
Report, January–December 2015. (Philippines): Crocodylus Porosus Philippines
Inc.
Cureg MC, Bagunu AM, Van Weerd M, Balbas MG, Soler D, Van Der Ploeg J. 2015. A
longitudinal evaluation of the Communication, Education and Public Awareness
(CEPA) campaign for the Philippine crocodile Crocodylus mindorensis in northern
Luzon, Philippines. Int Zoo Yearb. 50:1–16.
[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Resources (PH). 2000 March 3.

DENR Special Order 2000-231: Creating Philippine Crocodile National Recovery
Team (PCNRT). (Philippines): Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(PH).
[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Resources (PH). 2015 October 13.
DENR Regional Special Order 2015-555: Deputation of selected individuals
represents various agencies/organizations as Wildlife Enforcement Officers.
(Philippines): Department of Environment and Natural Resources (PH).
[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Resources (PH). 2015 October

28. DENR Special Order 2015-1010: Reconstituting the Philippine Crocodile
National Recovery Team (PCNRT) to be known as the National Crocodile
Conservation Committee (NCCC). (Philippines): Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (PH).
Hall PM. 1989. Variation in geographic isolates of the New Guinea crocodile
(Crocodylus novaeguinae Schmidt) compared with the similar, allopatric
Philippine crocodile (C. mindorensis Schmidt). Copeia. 1989(1):71–80.
Hinlo MRP. 2010. Population genetics and conservation of the Philippine crocodile
[MS thesis]. Manawatu (New Zealand): Massey University. [cited 2016 March
30]. http://mro.massey.ac.nz/xmlui/handle/10179/2054#sthash.D4qi56X7.dpuf
Hinlo MRP, Tabora JAG, Bailey CA, Trewick S, Rebong GG, Van Weerd M,
Pomares CC, Engberg SE, Brenneman RA, Louis EE Jr. 2014. Population genetics
implications for the conservation of the Philippine Crocodile Crocodylus
mindorensis Schmidt, 1935 (Crocodylia: Crocodylidae). J Threatened Taxa.
6(3):5513–5533. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3384.5513-33
Louis EE Jr., Brenneman RA. 2008. Philippine Crocodile systematics and population
genetics —Preliminary Report. Natl Mus Papers. 14-2007(Spec Issue: Proc Forum
Crocodiles Phil):123–227.
Manalo RI. 2008. Occurrence of Crocodylus mindorensis in the Cordillera Central,

Abra Province, Luzon Island. Natl Mus Papers. 14-2007(Spec Issue: Proc Forum
Manalo RI, Alcala AC. 2015. Conservation of the Philippine crocodile Crocodylus
mindorensis (Schmidt 1935): in-situ and ex-situ measures. Int Zoo Yearb. 49:113–
124.
Manalo RI, Alcala AC, Mercado AVP, Belo WT. 2016. Conservation introduction of
Philippine crocodile in Paghungawan Marsh, Siargao Island Protected Landscapes
and Seascapes (SIPLAS), Surigao del Norte, Philippines. In: Soorae PS, editor.
Global re-introduction perspectives: 2016: Case studies from around the globe.
Gland (Switzerland): IUCN SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. p. 51–55.
Manalo RI, Pomares CC, Mercado VP, Belo WT, Saljay G, Tupas TD. 2013. A new
distribution record for the Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis, Schmidt
1935). In: de Silva A, compiler. World Crocodile Conference. Proceedings of
the 22nd working meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group; 2013
May 21–23; Negombo, Sri Lanka. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for
Conservation of Nature. p. 208–214.
Manalo RI, Alcala AC, Bucol AA, Belo WT, Mercado VP, Baltazar PC. 2015. Philippine
Crocodile Release Program: an update on the status of the introduced Philippine
Crocodiles (Crocodylus mindorensis) in Paghungawan Marsh, Siargao Island
Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, Pilar, Surigao Del Norte, Philippines. 13 p.

In: Proceeding of the First East & South-East Asia Regional Meeting of the IUCN
Crocodile Specialist Group; 2015 May 25–29; Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Manila AC. 2008. Status of crocodiles in captivity in the Philippines. Natl Mus Papers.
14-2007 (Spec Issue: Proc Forum Crocodiles Phil):38–39.
Mercado VP, Alcala AC, Belo WT, Manalo RI, Diesmos AC, de Leon J. 2013. Soft
release introduction of the Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis,
Schmidt 1935) in Paghungawan Marsh, Siargao Island Protected Landscape and
Seascape, Southern Philippines. Crocodile Specialist Group Newsl. 32(2):13–15.
Messel HF, King W, Webb GJW, Ross CA. 1992. Summary report on the workshop
on the prospect and future strategy of crocodile conservation of the two species
(Crocodylus mindorensis, Crocodylus porosus) occurring in the Philippines.
In: Ross JP, editor. Crocodile conservation action: a special publication of the
Crocodile Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN-
The World Conservation Union. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN Species Survival
Commission (SSC), Crocodile Specialist Group. p. 98–101.
Miranda JSQ, Gelacio MA, Balayan M. 2008. Local attitudes and sightings of
crocodiles in Ligawasan Marsh the role of the Local Government of San
Marinao, Isabela, in Philippine Crocodile conservation. Natl Mus Papers. 14-
2007 (Spec Issue: Proc Forum Crocodiles Phil):46–54.
Oliveros CH, Telan SP, Guerero JP. 2008. Philippine Crocodile (Crocodylus
mindorensis) Conservation on Dalupiri Island, Babuyan Island Group, Northern
Philippines. Natl Mus Papers (Spec Issue: Proc Forum Crocodiles Phil). 14-
2007:98–108.
Oliveros CH, Manalo RI, Coñate E Sr, Tarun B, Telan S, van Weerd M. 2005. Philippine
crocodile recorded on Dalupiri Island. Crocodile Specialist Group Newsl. 24(3):14–
15.
Ortega GV. 1996. The beauty of the beast: conserving the crocodiles of the Philippines.
Crocodile Farming Institute Comprehensive Report (1987–1995). Puerto Princesa
(Philippines): Department of Environment and Natural Resources (PH).
Ortega GV. 1998. Philippine crocodile conservation: comprehensive report. In:

Crocodiles: Proceedings of 14th working meeting of the Crocodile Specialist
Group; 1998 July 13–17; Singapore. Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge (United
Kingdom): IUCN-The World Conservation Union. p. 101–134.
Ortega GV, Regoniel P, Ross CA. 1994. Status of crocodile in the Philippines: an
update. In: Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 12th working meeting of the Crocodile
Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN-The World
Conservation Union; 1994 May 2–6; Pattaya, Thailand. Gland (Switzerland) and
Cambridge (United Kingdom): IUCN-The World Conservation Union. p. 115–
154.
Pimentel JL, Pomares CC, Tabora AAG. 2008. Local attitudes and sightings of
crocodiles in Ligawasan Marsh. Natl Mus Papers. 14-2007 (Spec Issue: Proc
Forum Crocodiles Phil):190–196.
Pomares CC, Pomares MP, Escalera CMR. 2008. The existence of wild crocodiles
in Ligawasan Marsh and its tributaries. Natl Mus Papers. 14-2007 (Spec Issue:
Proc Forum Crocodiles Phil):197–203.
Pontillas UFA. 2000. New breeding sites for the Philippine crocodile. Crocodile
Specialist Group Newsl. 19(2):10–12.
Ross CA. 1982a. Philippine Crocodile Project: Final Report. Washington, DC (USA):
Smithsonian Institution/World Wildlife Fund. WWF Project # 1489.
Ross CA. 1982b. The crocodile must stay. Habitat Magazine. 3(1):14–19.
Ross CA, Alcala AC. 1983. Distribution and status of the Philippine crocodile
(Crocodylus mindorensis). Kalikasan: Phil J Biol. 12(1–2):169–173.
Ross CA, Datuin CP. 1981. Crocodiles in peril. Canopy Int. 1981:7.
Schmidt KP. 1935. A new crocodile from the Philippine Islands. Field Mus Nat Hist
Zool Ser. 20:67–70.
Sibal MC, Sarsagat IG, Satake Y. 1992. Captive breeding of C. mindorensis and C.
porosus. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the prospects and future strategy
of crocodile conservation of the two species (Crocodylus mindorensis and
Crocodylus porosus) occurring in the Philippines. Puerto Princesa (Philippines):
RP-Japan Crocodile Farming Institute. p. 36–44.
Tabora JAG. 2008. Ligawasan Marsh and its role in Philippine biodiversity. Natl Mus
Papers. 14-2007 (Spec Issue: Proc. Forum Crocodiles Phil):95–97.
van de Ven W, Balbas M, Rodriguez D, Telan S, Guerrero J, van Weerd, M. 2012.

Head-starting as a tool for crocodile conservation. In: Crocodiles. Proceedings
of the 21st working meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group; 2012
May 22–25; Manila, Philippines. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for
Conservation of Nature. p. 106.
van de Ven W, Guerrero JP, Rodriguez DG, Telan SP, Balbas MG, Tarun BA, van Weerd
M, van der Ploeg J, Wijtten Z, Lindeyer FE, de Longh HH. 2009. Effectiveness of
head-starting to bolster Philippine crocodile Crocodylus mindorensis populations
in San Mariano municipality, Luzon, Philippines. Conserv Evidence. 6:111–116.
van der Ploeg J, Cureg MC & van Weerd M. 2008. Mobilizing public support for
in-situ conservation of the Philippine crocodile in the Northern Sierra Madre:
something to be proud of! Natl Mus Papers. 14-2007 (Spec Issue: Proc Forum
van der Ploeg J, Rodriguez D, Tarun B, Guerrero J, Balbas M, Telan S, Masipiqueña

A, Cureg M, van Weerd M. 2008. Crocodile Rehabilitation, Observance and
Conservation (CROC) Project: the conservation of the critically endangered
Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis) in northeast Luzon, the
Philippines. Final report of the BP Conservation Program Consolidation Award.
Cabagan, Isabela (Philippines): Mabuwaya Foundation Inc.
van Weerd M, Balbas M, van de Ven W, Rodriguez D, Telan S, Guerrero J, Jose E,

Macadangdang A, Calapoto W, van der Ploeg J, et al. 2012. Philippine crocodile
conservation in NE Luzon: an update and a proposal for a national Philippine
crocodile reintroduction strategy. In: Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 21st working
meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group; 2012 May 22–25; Manila,
Philippines. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for Conservation of Nature.
p. 49.
van Weerd M, General A, van Boven G. 2000. Update on Philippine crocodile

conservation in the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park. Crocodile Specialist
Group Newsl. 19(4):11–14.
van Weerd M, van der Ploeg J. 2008. Philippine crocodile hatchling head-start and
re-enforcement program in San Mariano, Isabela Province, Luzon, Philippines.
In: Soorae PS, editor. Global re-introduction perspectives: re-introduction case-
studies from around the globe: Abu Dhabi (UAE): IUCN-SCC Re-introduction
Specialist Group. p. 79–83.
van Weerd M, van der Ploeg J. 2012. The Philippine crocodile: ecology, culture and
conservation. Philippines: Mabuwaya Foundation.
van Weerd M, van der Ploeg J, Rodriguez D, Guerrero J, Tarun B, Telan S, de Jonge
J. 2006. Philippine crocodile conservation in Northeast Luzon: an update of
population status and new insights into Crocodylus mindorensis ecology. In:
Crocodiles: Proceedings of the 17th Working Meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile
Specialist Group; 2004 May 24–29; Darwin, Northern Territory of Australia.
Gland (Switzerland): IUCN. p. 306–321
van Weerd M, Pomares C, de Leon J, Antolin R, Mercado V. 2016. Crocodylus

mindorensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T5672A3048281.
[downloaded on 14 January 2017]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-
3.RLTS.T5672A3048281.en
Webb G, Manolis C. 2009. Green Guide: Crocodiles of Australia. Chatswood

(Australia): New Holland Publishers.
Ziegler T, Rauhaus A, Karbe D. 2013. Philippine Crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis).

European Studbook (ESB) 1st Edition. Cologne (Germany): Cologne Zoo.
Odonata communities and habitat

characteristics in Mount Kanlaon Natural
Park, Negros Island, Philippines
Novehm Allen G. Pagal Lisa Marie J. Paguntalan
BS Biology Executive Director
Department of Biological Sciences Philippines Biodiversity Conservation
Mindanao State University - Iligan Foundation, Inc. (PBCFI)
Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT)
E-mail: [email protected] Philip Godfrey C. Jakosalem
Head, In-situ Conservation Programme
Karyl Marie F. Dagoc PBCFI
Associate Professor V
MSU-IIT Reagan J. T. Villanueva
Medical Officer IV
Dennis A. Warguez Southern Philippines Medical Center
Assistant Professor V
MSU-IIT
A study on the diversity, abundance, and habitat preference of odonates on

different habitat types and altitudinal gradients in Mount Kanlaon Natural Park
was conducted from May 18 to June 2, 2015 using line transect, visual searching
techniques aided by sweep nets, hand catching, and photo documentation. A
total of 72 plots with a size of 10 x 10 m each was established in the study
area for habitat assessment. Eleven species, in which 8 are Philippine endemics,
were recorded. Highest diversity (H’=2.05) and endemicity (70%) were recorded
in secondary lowland forest. Areas with low elevation had the highest species
richness (S=10). Furthermore, all species found in high elevation were considered
endemic. The Philippine endemic Cyrano unicolor was the most abundant
species. Canonical Correspondence Analysis showed that height of understory
level seems to influence the abundance of Drepanosticta cf. pistor, canopy
cover and elevation might influence the abundance of Heteronaias heterodoxa,
and stream depth might affect the abundance of Neurobasis subpicta. Multiple
Regression Analysis identified water pH as an important factor influencing the
occurrence of C. unicolor while occurrence of Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri might
be dependent on tree density.
Keywords: Damselflies, dragonflies, Mount Kanlaon National Park, Cyrano unicolor,

Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri
50 N. A. Pagal, et al.
ODONATA COMMUNITIES ARE KNOWN AS SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

of the health and condition of wetlands (Samways and Steytler 1996; Oppel 2006;
Silva et al. 2010). Adults and larvae are sensitive and vulnerable to the physical
and ecological changes affecting and degrading their terrestrial and aquatic habitats
(Remsburg and Turner 2008), such as increased erosion and thinning of forests
(Clausnitzer et al. 2009). Odonata rely heavily on the presence of aquatic habitats in
forests (Cayasan et al. 2013). A sudden decrease in the population of odonates may
indicate changes in the environmental stability of the immediate area or upstream
(Klym and Quinn 2003) as their distribution is dependent on the ability of their
habitats to support them (Cayasan et al. 2013). This group is also a possible species
richness indicator for invertebrates (Briers and Biggs 2003) and macrophytes (Sahlen
and Ekestubbe 2001). Adult Odonata link terrestrial and aquatic food webs and
function as both opportunistic predators and prey for wetland vertebrates (Hornung
and Rice 2003; Bried and Ervin 2005).
The Philippines is an outstanding center of odonate endemicity (Moore

1994) in which more than 60% (Kalkman et al. 2008) out of approximately 300
species are endemic (Hämäläinen and Müller 1997). Thirty-five species of dragonfly
have been recorded in Negros and 30 of these are known to occur in Mount Kanlaon
Natural Park (MKNP) and its surrounding areas (Moore 1994). Sadly, only 4% of the
original forest of Negros exists today, including MKNP. This causes a lot of pressure
on the remaining endemic species which made Negros-Panay region to rank 10th
in the world’s priority conservation areas considering that the region has the most
endemic species or subspecies that are regarded as critically endangered or extinct
(NFEFI 2011; Tamblyn 2011).
It was only until recently that the preservation of the insect diversity and
their importance in ecosystems were duly acknowledged. One of the first insect
orders to be given full attention for conservation priority is the Odonata. Species
of this order are primarily threatened by habitat alteration. Therefore, a better
understanding and improvement on the knowledge about odonate assemblages and
their habitat preferences are needed for future conservation measures and actions
(Carchini et al. 2003).
This study aimed to identify the Odonata species in MKNP, determine the
diversity and abundance of odonates across habitat types and altitude gradients,
correlate the abundance and occurrence of the species to different habitat variables,
and identity the different direct local threats to the odonates in the area.
Odonata communities and habitat characteristics in MKNP 51
Study area
Mount Kanlaon (Fig. 1) is an active volcano located in Negros Island and

is regarded as the highest peak in central Philippines. Mt. Kanlaon has a land area
of 24,577 ha, an altitude of 306–2,465 meters above sea level (masl), and a base
diameter of 30 km. It extends across Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental in the
Visayas region (10°25'N, 123°08'E) and is situated approximately 35 km southeast
of Bacolod City (Mallari et al. 2001; PHIVOLCS 2002).
Figure 1 A panoramic view of Mount Kanlaon Natural Park
Sampling sites
The different forest habitat types and their corresponding bodies of water
in the municipality of Murcia and the cities of Bago and La Carlota were chosen as
the sampling sites.
Primary montane forest
The surveyed area (Fig. 2) is situated in the mountainous part of Barangay

Mailum, Bago City with an altitude ranging from 1,400–1,700 masl. Ten transects
were established in the forest interior (10°28'10.90"N, 123°7'42.20"E) and 4 transects
in Asya (10°28'24.90"N, 123°7'26.40"E) and Bangkuyo Rivers (10°28'29.82"N,
123°7'28.56"E). Most of the forest is characterized by an almost closed canopy
created by large and tall trees, particularly dipterocarps growing on very steep slopes.
The canopy along the streams is partially closed by tall trees on the banks and the
sides of riverbeds are densely covered by ferns. The 2 bodies of water have rocky and
sandy substrates.
Figure 2 Primary montane forest habitat ranging from 1,400–1,700 masl
Secondary montane forest
The forest located in Barangay Guintubdan, La Carlota City is classified as

secondary montane forest (Fig. 3) reaching an elevation of 1,000–1,300 masl. A total
of 15 transects was marked in the forest habitat (10°25'40.0"N, 123°05'32.2"E)
and 4 transects on the bodies of water surveyed, namely Siya River (10°25'42.9"N,
123°05'40.6"E); Buslugan River (10°25'63.3”N, 123°06'18.0”E); and Abaga, Mayor,
and Oro Falls (10°29'22.9"N, 123°07'05.1"E). The overstory provides a full shade to
the terrain and the lower canopy consists of smaller trees of less than 20 m in height.
Buslugan River, with dark and still water, has a canopy which gradually opens towards
the downstream, with trees 5–10 m tall and semi-dense understory vegetation. The
remaining waters have similar tree height and understory condition with the previous
river described. Siya River has canopies on both sides of the river overlapping on the
river bank while the 3 waterfalls have an open canopy condition. The water in the
falls has a moderate flow while Siya River is a still and temporary body of water.
Figure 3 Secondary montane forest habitat ranging from 1,000–1,300 masl
Secondary lowland forest
This habitat type (Fig. 4) is present in Sitio Wasay, Barangay Minoyan, Murcia,
along an elevation gradient of 650--800 masl. Ten transects were established in the
forest interior (10°29'38.00"N, 123°6'16.79"E) and 2 transect lines were put up in
Pula River (10°29'46.58"N, 123°5'55.37"E). The forest floor is slightly steep and
consists largely of young trees (10–20 cm) and a few scattered large trees. The thick
undergrowth is covered with shrubs, small plants, and ferns. The aquatic habitat has a
murky and slow to fast moving water surrounded by short trees which slightly extend
their canopy over the river channel. This forest fragment is near a plantation and farm.
Figure 4 Secondary lowland forest habitat ranging from 650–800 masl (Photos
by Ryno Sanchez)
Plantation
The plantation in Sitio Wasay, Barangay Minoyan, Murcia (Fig. 5) has

an elevation of 500–600 masl and is located at 10°30'10.63"N, 123°6'11.69"E.
The dominant trees present include Swietenia macrophylla, Pterocarpus indicus,
Gmelina arborea, and Coffea arabica. Ten transects were established on this site.
The area can be characterized by the presence of huge trees arranged in rows at the
entrance and smaller trees surrounded by shrubs and small plants with increasing
altitude. Thinly dispersed and scattered understory vegetation was observed in the
lower areas that eventually become abundant with increasing elevation. Outside
this cultivated area is a clearing area for farming and agricultural purposes.
Figure 5 Plantation habitat ranging from 500–600 masl (Photos by Earl

Maglangit)
Mixed forest
The mixed forest in Sitio Wasay, Barangay Minoyan, Murcia (10°30'0.91"N,

123°5'44.56"E; ca. 500–650 masl) is low and flat lands (Fig. 6). Gayas River occurs
at 10°30'2.33"N, 123°6'26.32"E. This forest area is covered with a mix of exotic
and native trees. Some of the introduced and planted tree species are P. indicus, G.
arborea, and C. arabica. Majority of the trees in the forest interior and surrounding
the stream are 10–15 meters tall, which are mostly immature based on their narrow
crowns. A total of 15 transect lines was established in the forested portion and 2
transect lines in the aquatic habitat.
Figure 6 Mixed forest habitat ranging from 500—650 masl (Photos by Ryno
Sanchez)
Survey and data collection
Field survey and assessment of Odonata fauna were conducted from May
18 to June 2, 2015 and were carried out between 0900 and 1700 H on the different
habitat types and altitudinal gradients of MKNP under Wildlife Gratuitous Permit
No. R6-2014-001 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). Line transects with a length of 100 m each were marked out and surveyed
in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the 5 forest types. The elevation gradients of
each habitat type were divided and categorized into low elevation (500–800 masl),
middle elevation (801–1,100 masl), and upper elevation (1,101–1,800 masl). Visual
searching techniques with direct observation and opportunistic sample collection
of odonates from different habitats and elevations were applied. A sweep net with
approximately 46-cm diameter opening and 2-m long handle was used in collecting
specimens (Cayasan et al. 2013). Live Odonata samples were stored in small brown
envelopes with the wings folded over the back (Quisil et al. 2013). The specimens
were subjected to ethyl acetate and then submerged in acetone for 24 hours (Reece
and Mcintyre 2009). Dried specimens were placed in paper triangles, stored in a
sealed or airtight container, and organized by collection site. The Odonata samples
were photographed right after their collection. Initial identification was referred to
published references and was verified.
Habitat assessment
Plots were established in each habitat type. A 10-m circular plot was
marked in every transect being studied (AFCD 2004). The plots were divided into
quadrants and the habitat characteristics of each quadrant were individually studied
and surveyed to assess information regarding the habitat selection of the species.
Number of trees, canopy cover, canopy height, canopy openness, understory cover,
moss cover, air temperature during the day, and relative humidity were the variables
measured for both terrestrial and aquatic habitat plots. Additional factors applicable
only to the water habitats, namely, water temperature, stream depth, water flow,
water pH, turbidity, and stream type (temporary or permanent) were also recorded.
Data analysis
Species diversity was evaluated and analysed using Shannon-Wiener and

Simpson Indices, which were calculated using Paleontological Statistics (PAST)
software. Relative abundance was calculated by dividing the number of individuals
of a specific species found in each habitat and altitudinal range to the total number
of the different species present in that said area and extent and then multiplying
the result by 100%. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) which is a method
used to correlate the abundance of species to the different habitat variables was
performed using CANOCO software. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) was used to
correlate the relationship between the occurrence of species and the different habitat
parameters. Kruskal-Wallis Test was applied in order to test if the habitat variables
significantly vary among the different habitat types and altitude gradients.
Species composition
Eleven species with a total of 144 individuals were collected from MKNP in
this study (Fig. 7). Five odonates are classified as least concern (IUCN 2015) while
the conservation status of the 6 other species have not been assessed. Eight (73%) out
Figure 7 Odonata species from Mount Kanlaon Natural Park [Anax cf.
panybeus (Hagen, 1867); Cyrano unicolor (Hagen in Selys, 1869);
Diplacina bolivari (Selys, 1882); Drepanostica cf. pistor (van Tol,
2005); Heteronaias heterodoxa (Selys, 1878); Neurobasis subpicta
(Hamalainen, 1990); Orthetrum pruinosum clelia (Burmeister,
1839); Sangabasis cf. cahilogi (Villanueva & Dow, 2014);
Pseudagrion pilidorsum pilidorsum (Brauer, 1868); Rhinocypha
colorata (Hagen in Selys, 1869); Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri
(Hamalainen, 1991)]
of the 11 Odonata species recorded were Philippine endemics. The endemicity of

suborder Zygoptera is 86% (6 out of 7 species), which is greater than Anisoptera with
50% endemicity (2 out of 4 species) (Table 1). This result is in agreement with the
findings of Villanueva and Mohagan (2010) that there are more endemic damselflies
(94%) compared to dragonflies (33.3%). In addition, Kalkman et al. (2008) stated that
Philippine zygopterans have 86% endemicity while nisopterans have 31% endemicity.
The semi-pristine characteristics of the forested landscapes that hold many bodies of
water support the development of a variety of damselflies. However, it fails to sustain
the elevated thermal requirements of most dragonflies. It was found that landscapes
with little human activities have a higher proportion of Zygoptera than Anisoptera
population (Stewart and Samways 1998; Clausnitzer 2003).
Species richness
Secondary lowland forest harbored the highest number of species in this study
(10 out of 11 species) (Table 2). Although there is a higher proportion of Zygoptera,
species of Anisoptera recorded are all present in this habitat. Dragonflies are mainly
generalists in nature and are likely to be found in open habitats, penetrating into
open secondary forests (Samways and Steytler 1996; Dijkstra and Clausnitzer 2006;
Stewart and Samways 1998). A study conducted by Orr (2006) showed that the
presence of Anisoptera is generally not associated with heavily forested areas and
they were usually present and commonly observed on exposed hilltops and forest
canopies. Furthermore, plantation habitat had the least number of species (Table 2).
Lower records of species in the plantation could be due to the habitat alteration
brought about by agriculture and other human uses. Human-induced disturbances
negatively impact the odonates and other invertebrates in tropical rain forest (Lawton
et al. 1998; Liow et al. 2001; Hanski et al. 2007; Clausnitzer et al. 2009; Sodhi
et al. 2009) by reducing their species richness and leading to an evidently altered
species composition (Dolny et al. 2012). However, the presence of Drepanosticta cf.
pistor in the secondary lowland forest, mixed forest, and plantation forest of MKNP
(Table 2) might be an indication that these areas in MKNP, although subjected to
physical alterations and disturbances, are still capable of supporting the existence
of sensitive species. The family Platystictidae, wherein D. cf. pistor belongs to, can
only exist in restricted range of habitats or specific ecological conditions (Chovanec
and Raab 1997; Orr 2003; Watanabe et al. 2004) and is greatly affected by habitat
alterations and will vanish completely when degradation of riparian forests happens
(Subramanian 2008). This may also indicate that D. cf. pistor is a species that could
tolerate habitat modification to an extent.
Table 1 Odonata species of Mount Kanlaon Natural Park in Negros Island, Philippines 60
Taxonomic rank Distribution Conservation

Scientific name Reference
Suborder Family status status
Anisoptera Aeshnidae Anax cf. panybeus Oriental Species Least Concern Hagen 1867
Corduliidae Heteronaias heterodoxa Philippine Endemic Least Concern Selys 1878
Libellulidae Diplacina bolivari Philippine Endemic — Selys 1882
Orthetrum pruinosum Oriental Species Least Concern Burmeister
clelia 1839
Zygoptera Calopterygidae Neurobasis subpicta Philippine Endemic — Hämäläinen
1990
Chlorocyphidae Cyrano unicolor Philippine Endemic Least Concern Hagen in Selys
1869
Rhinocypha colorata Philippine Endemic Least Concern Hagen in Selys
1869
Coenagrionidae Sangabasis cf. cahilogi Philippine Endemic — Villanueva and
Dow 2014
Pseudagrion pilidorsum Oriental Species — Brauer 1868
pilidorsum
Platycnemididae Risiocnemis Philippine Endemic — Hämäläinen
rolandmuelleri 1991
Platystictidae Drepanosticta cf. pistor Philippine Endemic — van Tol 2005
cf. – refers to species which cannot be identified with certainty
N. A. Pagal, et al.
Table 2 Occurrence of odonate species across habitat types of Mount Kanlaon Natural Park in Negros Island,
Philippines
Primary Secondary Secondary

Mixed forest Plantation
List of species montane forest montane forest lowland forest
Stream Forest Stream Forest Stream Forest Stream Forest Forest
Anax cf. panybeus - - - - + - - - -
Cyrano unicolor + - + - + - + - -
Diplacina bolivari - - - - + + - - -
Drepanosticta cf. pistor - - - - + - - + +
Heteronaias heterodoxa + + + - + - + - -
Neurobasis subpicta + - + - + - - - -
Orthetrum pruinosum clelia - - - - - + - - -
Sangabasis cf. cahilogi - - + + - - - - -
Odonata communities and habitat characteristics in MKNP
Pseudagrion pilidorsum
- - - - + - - - -
pilidorsum
Rhinocypha colorata - - - - + - + - -
Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri - - - - + + + - +
Total no. of species 3 4 10 5 2
Total no. of endemic species 3 4 7 5 2
+ indicates presence of the species
61
Species richness decreases as elevation increases (Table 3). Species richness

of tropical odonates is inversely proportional to elevation owing to the fact that
tropical species can only manage to disperse and inhabit lower elevation ranges
(Stevens and Bailowitz 2009). According to Hofmann and Mason (2005) and Sato and
Riddiford (2008), water velocity in aquatic habitats largely influences distribution and
abundance of Odonata. Current velocity increases as gradient (slope) increases with
elevation, giving rise to reduced species richness. The observation on the decrease of
Odonata species with increasing altitude is further verified by several investigations
(Borisov 1987; Samways 1989; Vick 1989; Campbell et al. 2010) and Laidlaw (1934)
found that few or no Odonata occur above 2,000 masl in some places.
Table 3 Occurrence of odonate species across altitudinal gradients of Mount

Kanlaon Natural Park
Lower Middle Upper
List of species
elevation elevation elevation
Anax cf. panybeus + - -
Cyrano unicolor + + +
Diplacina bolivari + - -
Drepanosticta cf. pistor + - -
Heteronaias heterodoxa + + +
Neurobasis subpicta + + +
Orthetrum pruinosum clelia + - -
Sangabasis cf. cahilogi - + -
Pseudagrion pilidorsum pilidorsum + - -
Rhinocypha colorata + - -
Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri + - -
Total no. of species 10 4 3
Total no. of endemic species 7 4 3
+ indicates presence of the species
Diversity
Simpson and Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices were highest in secondary

lowland forest (D=0.84; H’=2.05) and lowest in secondary montane forest (D=0.29;
H’=0.61). Odonata in secondary lowland is moderately diverse (H’=2.05) and low
(H’=0.60 to 0.92) in the remaining habitat types. Secondary lowland forest, although
associated with clearing activities, yields the highest diversity. A positive shift on
the number of certain species is possible in disturbed landscapes because of the
increased canopy openness and more sunlight penetration (Korkeamäki and Suhonen
2002; Dijkstra and Lempert 2003). This serves as a great advantage to species that
are naturally deprived of accessible source of their needed sunlight while odonates
that do not specifically depend on canopy cover can adapt and withstand this habitat
modification by migrating into shadier parts upstream (Oppel 2006). Thus, the high
level of diversity for secondary lowland forest does not necessarily display a richer
and more equitable diversity of species but instead a relative absence of several of
the rarest species in the community. On the other hand, montane areas in tropical
rainforests are expected to contain the heterogeneous water microhabitats suitable
for a wide array of odonate species (Furtado 1969; Vick 1999, 2002; Dijkstra and
Lempert 2003) and act as their regional refugia (Kalkman et al. 2008). However, both
primary and secondary montane habitats in this study ranked the least in terms of
odonate diversity. A possible explanation for the low diversity obtained is the limited
sampling time which decreased the chances of finding secluded and rare odonates.
Rare odonates that thrive in the tropical forests depend mainly on primary forest. Rare
species that occur in low abundance cannot be efficiently detected and gathered by
the span of time allocated for sampling and observation (Morse et al. 1988; Godfray
et al. 2000; Moore 1997).
Odonates are moderately diverse in the lower elevation and less diverse in
the remaining altitudinal gradients. Diversity is highest in lower elevation (D=0.73;
H’=1.76) and then decreases in both middle (D=0.31; H’=0.64) and upper
elevation (D=0.39; H’=0.70). Larvae of dragonflies and damselflies are rarer in
upland streams and are observed to have increasing species diversity with decreasing
altitudes (Fielding and Haworth 1999). However, upper elevation with primary forest
exhibited a higher diversity than middle elevation with secondary forests. This can
be explained by the pristine nature of the primary forest promoting species diversity.
Relative abundance
The Philippine endemic Cyrano unicolor was the most abundant among
all species collected, with 48 individuals. The species was recorded from old-
growth montane forests to disturbed habitats in the lowland. A study conducted by
Villanueva (2010) reported that Chlorocyphidae species were present in both pristine
and disturbed (e.g. mining operations) sites in Surigao del Sur, Mindanao Island. The
distinct metallic reflection of the wings aid in their quick detection which result to
their frequent record as they are more visible (Villanueva 2010).

The members of the families Coenagrionidae and Libellulidae have the least
number of individuals: Pseudagrion pilidorsum pilidorsum (2) and Pericnemis cf.
cahilogi (3) under Coenagrionidae family; and Diplacina bolivari (4) and Orthetrum
pruinosum clelia (3) under Libellulidae family. Members of families Coenagrionidae
and Libellulidae are usually present in open unshaded habitats like low gradient
natural watercourses (Reels et al. 2012) located in the reduced forest covers of
secondary lowland forest which is the habitat the samples are restricted to. The forest
is not an essential habitat for these open land species and is only used as an option
when feeding or mating (Orr 2006).
In primary forest and secondary montane forest, C. unicolor has the highest
abundance. Despite having the greatest overall abundance compared to other species,
they only have the greatest count in the montane habitat types and are lesser or absent
in the remaining habitats. The dominance of this species in the montane habitat types
corroborates the findings that they rely so much on shaded areas with streams and rivers
(Villanueva 2009a). Chlorocyphidae species are intolerant of human disturbance, and
are very sensitive to ecological changes and alterations (IUCN 2015). Risiocnemis
rolandmuelleri under Platycnemididae is the most abundant in secondary lowland
forest and mixed forest, favoring the clear flowing or running waters with a vegetation-
covered sunny riparian zone (Silsby 2001; Manci 2012). D. cf. pistor has a higher
relative abundance value versus R. rolandmuelleri in plantation. Being classified as
shadow damsels (Platystictidae), odonates of this family prefer to rest on the shades
of forest streams situated in lowlands and highlands and occasionally perch in dense
vegetation of rivulets (Oppel 2005).
The results on the relative abundance of upper and middle elevation show
that C. unicolor is the most abundant for both gradients. Species of the family
Chlorocyphidae commonly reside on clear woodland streams and rivulets from the
lowlands reaching up to 1,700 m (Claveria 2013). R. rolandmuelleri is found to be
highly abundant in the lower elevation of MKNP. Genus Risiocnemis population
ranges across lowland up to lower montane forest restrictively to small clear aquatic
bodies of shady rainforests (Gassmann and Hämäläinen 2002).
Habitat assessment
Kruskal-Wallis test showed that all the categorized habitat types varied
significantly in 9 out of 14 habitat factors measured (p-value of <0.001), namely,
number of trees, canopy cover, canopy height, canopy openness, understory cover,
moss cover, air temperature during the day, relative humidity, water temperature,
stream depth, water flow, water pH, turbidity and stream type. Nine habitat variables
differ significantly in all categorized habitats (p-value of <0.001).
CCA indicates that D. cf. pistor and Heteronaias heterodoxa, species captured
in the forest interior, are significantly affected by the habitat variables. Abundance of
D. cf. pistor seems to be dependent on understory cover while abundance of H.
heterodoxa might be influenced by both, understory cover and elevation (Fig. 8).
Representatives of the genus Drepanosticta normally opt to stay at streams of the
forest understory (Orr 2004 and 2005) because they are poor flyers and hence, cannot
disperse effectively in higher grounds.Consequently, they are being restricted and
reliant to the understory level (van Tol et al. 2009). H. heterodoxa frequently dwell
in the heavily tree-covered creeks of higher altitudes (Lung and Sommer 2001). Their
nature is to patrol a certain portion of the stream, then quickly fly back to the forest
canopy where they settle (Villanueva 2009b). This is in agreement with the result
of this study wherein they are substantially abundant on the higher elevation and
primary forest characterized by a thicker and more predominant canopy layer in
contrast to the understory. It can be inferred that a dominant understory covDreer
decreases the odds in finding this species.
Relative Humidity
Understory (%)
Heteronaias heterodoxa
Moss cover (%)
Canopy_openness Canopy cover (%)
Air_temperature
Tree density
Figure 8 Canonical Correspondence Analysis biplot showing the

relationship between the abundance of Odonata species
found in the forest interior and the different habitat variables
On the other hand, out of all the odonates collected from the streams, the
only species appeared to have been influenced by a stream habitat factor is Neurobasis
subpicta (Fig. 9). Stream depth might impact the abundance of the species which is a
factor influencing their ovipositional site selection. Neurobasis species generally lay
their eggs on surfaces floating at a depth of 5–15 cm below the water like plants or
aggregate of roots (Günther 2006).
Figure 9 Canonical Correspondence Analysis biplot presenting the

relationship between the abundance of Odonata species
collected from aquatic bodies and the different habitat variables
MRA implied that the absence and presence of C. unicolor is perhaps

affected by water pH. Moreover, occurrence of Risiocnemis rolandmuelleri may be
correlated positively with tree density. Acidity (pH) is one of the parameters affecting
the composition, diversity, and distribution of the odonate larvae in various habitats
(Corbet 1999). Thru a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in a study conducted by
Maneechan and Prommi (2015), it was shown that Chlorocyphidae, under which C.
unicolor is classified, is one of the aquatic insect families that is affected by the pH of
water. Platycnemididae species like R. rolandmuelleri are very particular with their
habitat requirements and one of their preferences is a riverside with dense emergent
vegetation, making tree density essential (Taylor 2013).
Existing local threats
The odonates in the area are subjected to direct threats such as deforestation
(e.g. logging and clearing for farming and settlements). Logging activities were heard
and seen in the mixed forest and near Gayas River of Sitio Wasay, Brgy. Minoyan,
Murcia. Farming was also observed near Pula River in the same barangay. Loggers
were seen carrying sacks of charcoal within the secondary lowland forest of the same
area. Other disturbances seen in the area are the barriers constructed and the garbage
and litter left in Asya River which obstructs the normal flow of the water.
Additional threats observed in the area include the ongoing illegal hunting
and exploitation of wildlife species. Butterfly traps using animal feces were found in
the plantation of Sitio Wasay, Brgy. Minoyan, Murcia. Bird hunting was very rampant
in the area. Three gunshots were heard which is estimated to be 1.5 km away in
Guintubdan, Brgy. Ara-al, La Carlota City. Two gun shots, which were estimated to
be 1 km away from point 1,750 of the transect established in the plantation of Sitio
Wasay, were also heard. Caged birds were also seen in the Wasay Trail of Brgy.
Minoyan, Murcia. A total of 26 snare traps for civet cat were spotted in the primary
forest of Brgy. Mailum, Bago City, while 4 traps were found in the secondary montane
forest of Guintubdan, Brgy. Ara-al.
Despite the status of MKNP as a natural park, the wildlife is not totally
protected and still vulnerable and susceptible to the illegal activities and habitat
destruction.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Prof. Beverly Cagod and Prof. Angeli V.
Mag-aso who served as panel members of the primary author; the field guides
and assistants. This research was also made possible through the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Mt. Kanlaon Protected Area Management
Office, and the William Oliver Student Grant of Chester Zoo.
Literature cited
[AFCD] Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (HK). 2004.

Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys.
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) Guidance Note.
Borisov SM. 1987. Ecology of two closely related dragonfly species in Tajikistan. Ekologiya.
1:85–87.
Bried JT, Ervin GN. 2005. Distribution of adult Odonata among localized wetlands in
East-central Mississippi. Southeastern Nat. 4(4):731–744.
Briers RA, Biggs J. 2003. Indicator taxa for the conservation of pond invertebrate
diversity. Aquat Conserv. 13(4):323–330. doi:10.1002/aqc.576
Campbell WB, Novelo-Gutiérrez R, Gómez-Anaya JA. 2010. Distributions of odonate

richness and diversity with elevation depend on windward or leeward aspect:
implications for research and conservation planning. Insect Conserv Diver.
3(4):302–312. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00108.x
Carchini G, Domenico MD, Pacione T, Solimini AG, Tanzilli C. 2003. Species

distribution and habitat features in lentic Odonata. Ital J Zool. 70(1):39–46.
doi:10.1080/11250000309356494
Cayasan RD, Limitares DE, Gomid JVS, Nuñeza OM, Villanueva RT. 2013. Species
richness of Odonata in selected freshwater systems in Zamboanga del Sur,
Philippines. Aquac Aquar Conserv Legis. 6(4):378–393.
Chovanec A, Raab R. 1997. Dragonflies (Insecta, Odonata) and the ecological status
of newly created wetland: Example for long term bioindication programmes.
Limnologica. 27: 381–392.
Clausnitzer V. 2003. Dragonfly communities in coastal habitats of Kenya: indication

of biotope quality and the need of conservation measures. Biodivers Conserv.
12(2):333–356. doi:10.1023/a:1021920402913
Clausnitzer V, Kalkman V, Ram M, Collen B, Baillie J, Bedjaniç M, Darwall W, Dijkstra

K, Dow R, Hawking J, et al. 2009. Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate:
The first global assessment of an insect group. Biol Conserv. 142(8):1864–1869.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.028
Claveria CXW. 2013. Family Chlorocyphidae—The damselflies of Sabah.

[retrieved 2015 October 27]. http://wongchunxing.com/Damselfly/Family__
Chlorocyphidae.htm
Corbet PS. 1999. Dragonflies: Behaviour and Ecology of Odonata. Colchester (United
Kingdom): Harley Books.
Dijkstra KDB, Clausnitzer V. 2006. Thoughts from Africa: how can forest influence
species composition, diversity and speciation in tropical Odonata? In: Rivera AC,
editor. Forest and dragonflies. Proceedings of 4th WDA International Symposium
of Odonatology; 2005 July; Pontevedra, Spain. Sofia (Bulgaria) and Moscow
(Russia): Pensoft. p. 127–151.
Dijkstra KDB, Lempert J. 2003. Odonate assemblages of running waters in the Upper
Guinean forest. Archiv für Hydrobiologie. 157:397–412.
Dolný A, Harabiš F, Bárta D, Lhota S, Drozd P. 2012. Aquatic insects indicate terrestrial
habitat degradation: changes in taxonomical structure and functional diversity of
dragonflies in tropical rainforest of East Kalimantan. Trop Zool. 25(3):141–157.
doi:10.1080/03946975.2012.717480
Fielding AF, Haworth PF. 1999. Upland habitats. London (United Kingdom):
Routledge.
Furtado JI. 1969. Ecology of Malaysian odonates: biotope and association of species.
Verhandlungen Internationaler Verein für Limnologie. 17:863–887.
Gassmann D, Hämäläinen M. 2002. A revision of the Philippine subgenus

Risiocnemis (Igneocnemis) Hämäläinen (Odonata: Platycnemididae). Tijdschrift
voor Entomologie, 145:213–266.
Godfray HC, Lewis OT, Memmott J. 2000. Studying insect diversity in the tropics.
Changes and Disturbance in Tropical Rainforest in South-East Asia. p. 87–100.
doi:10.1142/9781848160125_0008
Günther A. 2006. Reproductive behaviour of Neurobasis kaupi (Odonata:

Calopterygidae). Int J Odonatol. 9(2):151–164.
Hämäläinen M, Müller RA. 1997. Synopsis of the Philippine Odonata, with lists of
species recorded from forty islands. Odonatologica. 26(3):249–315.
Hanski I, Koivulehto H, Cameron A, Rahagalala P. 2007. Deforestation and apparent

extinctions of endemic forest beetles in Madagascar. Biol Letters. 3(3):344–347.
Hofmann TA, Mason CF. 2005. Habitat characteristics and the distribution of Odonata
in a lowland river catchment in eastern England. Hydrobiologia. 539:137–147.
Hornung J, Rice CL. 2003. Odonata and wetland quality in Southern Alberta, Canada:
a preliminary study. Odonatologica. 32(2):119–129.
[IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2015. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. [retrieved 2015 November 25]. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Kalkman VJ, Clausnitzer V, Dijkstra KDB, Orr AG, Paulson DR, van Tol J. 2008. Global
diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater. Hydrobiologica. 595:351–363.c
Klym M, Quinn M. 2003. Introduction to dragonfly and damselfly watching. Austin,

TX (USA): Texas Parks and Wildlife.
Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM, Hodda
M, Holt RD, Larsen TB, Mawdsley NA, Stork NE, Srivastava DS, Watt AD. 1998.
Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in
tropical forests. Nature, 391, 72—75.
Liow LH, Sodhi NS, Elmqvist T. 2001. Bee diversity along a disturbance gradient
in tropical lowland forests of south-east Asia. J Appl Ecol. 38(1):180–192.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00582.x
Lung M, Sommer S. 2001. Suborder: Anisoptera (Dragonflies). [retrieved 2015
November 29]. http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/insects/drgnfly/cordfam/
corddex.htm
Mallari NA, Tabaranza BR, Crosby M. 2001. Key conservation sites in the Philippines:
a Haribon Foundation & Bird Life International directory of important bird areas.
Makati City (Philippines): Bookmark.
Manci CO. 2012. Dragonfly Fauna (Insecta: Odonata) from Romania [PhD thesis
abstract]. Cluj-Napoca (Romania): Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Biology
and Geology, Department of Taxonomy and Ecology (RO).
Maneechan W, Prommi T. 2015. Diversity and distribution of aquatic insects in

streams of the Mae Klong watershed, Western Thailand. Psyche. 1–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/912451
Moore NW. 1994. Report of the 8th meeting of the IUCN Odonata specialist group.
Bilthoven (Netherlands): Societas Internationalis Odonatologica.
Moore NW, compiler. 1997. Dragonflies—Status Survey and Conservation Action

Plan. IUCN-SSC Odonata Specialist Group. Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge
(United Kingdom): IUCN. v+28 pp.
Morse DR, Stork NE, Lawton JH. 1988. Species number, species abundance and body
length relationships of arboreal beetles in Bornean lowland rain forest trees. Ecol
Entomol. 13(1):25–37. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.1988.tb00330.x
[NFEFI] Negros Forests and Ecological Foundation, Inc. 2011. The Diminishing
Natural Treasure. [retrieved 2015 November 25]. http://www.negrosforests.org/
diminishing-natural-treasure
Oppel S. 2005. Habitat associations of an Odonata community in a lower montane

rainforest in Papua New Guinea. Int J Odonatol. 8(2):243–257.
Oppel S. 2006. Comparison of two Odonata communities from a natural and a

modified rainforest in Papua New Guinea. Int J Odonatol. 9:89–102.
Orr AG. 2003. A guide to the dragonflies of Borneo: their identification and biology.
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah (Malaysia): Natural History Publication (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd.
Orr AG. 2004. Critical species of Odonata in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and
Brunei. Int J Odonatol. 7(2):371–384. doi:10.1080/13887890.2004.9748222
Orr AG. 2005. Dragonflies of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Kota Kinabalu
(Malaysia): Natural History Publications (Borneo).
Orr AG. 2006. Odonata in Bornean tropical rain forest formations: diversity,
endemicity and implications for conservation management. In: Cordero-Rivera
A, editor. Forests and Dragonflies. 4th International Symposium of Odonatology;
2005 July; Pontevedra, Spain. Sofia (Bulgaria): Pensoft. p. 51–78.
[PHIVOLCS] Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. 2002. Kanlaon

Volcano. [retrieved 2015 May 1]. http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/html/update_
VMEPD/Volcano/VolcanoList/kanlaon.htm
Quisil S., Arreza J, Nuñeza O, Villanueva R. 2013. Species richness of Odonata in

Lanuza and San Agustin, Surigao del Sur, Philippines. Aquac Aquar Conserv
Legis. 5(3):245–260.
Reece BA, McIntyre NE. 2009. Community assemblage patterns of odonates inhabiting
a wetland complex influenced by anthropogenic disturbance. Insect Conserv
Divers. 2:73–80.
Reels G, Dow R, Hämäläinen M, Do MC. 2012. The status and distribution of

dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in Indo-Burma. In: Allen DJ, Smith KG,
Darwall WRT, compilers. The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity
in Indo Burma. Cambridge (United Kingdom) and Gland (Switzerland): IUCN. p.
90–101
Remsburg AJ, Turner MG. 2008. Aquatic and terrestrial drivers of dragonfly (Odonata)
assemblages within and among north-temperate lakes. J N Am Benthol Soc. 28(1):
44–56. doi: 10.1899/08-004.1
Sahlen GS, Ekestubbe K. 2001. Identification of dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of

general species richness in boreal forest lakes. Biodivers Conserv. 10:673–690.
Samways MJ. 1989. Taxon turnover in Odonata across a 3000 m altitudinal gradient
in Southern Africa. Odonatologica. 18:263–274.
Samways MJ, Steytler NS. 1996. Dragonfly (Odonata) distribution patterns in urban and
forest landscapes, and recommendations for riparian management. Biol Conserv.
78(3):279–288.
Sato M, Riddiford N. 2008. A preliminary study of the Odonata of S’Albufera Natural

Park, Mallorca: status, conservation priorities and bio-indicator potential. J Insect
Conserv. 12:539–548.
Silsby J. 2001. Dragonflies of the world. Plymouth (United Kingdom): Natural History
Museum.
Silva D, De Marco P, Resende DC. 2010. Adult odonate abundance and community
assemblage measures as indicators of stream ecological integrity: a case study.
Ecol Indic. 10(3):744–752.
Sodhi NS, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW. 2009. A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of
Anthropogenic Forest Disturbance on Southeast Asias Biotas. Biotropica.
41(1):103–109. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00460.x
Stevens LE, Bailowit RA. 2009. Odonata biogeography in the Grand Canyon
ecoregion, southwestern USA. Annals of the Entomological Society of America.
102:261–274.
Stewart DAB, Samways MJ. 1998. Conserving dragonfly (Odonata) assemblages

relative to river dynamics in an African savanna game reserve. Conserv Biol.
12:683–692.
Subramanian KA. 2008. Damselflies and Dragonflies of Peninsular India—A Field

Guide. New Delhi (India): Vigyan Prasar, Department of Science and
Technology (IN). 168 pp.
Tamblyn A. 2011. Negros Rainforest Conservation Project – Biodiversity

Assessment and Sustainable Development Project. [retrieved April 26, 2015].
http://www.solutions-site.org/node/40.
Taylor M. 2013. Dragonflight: in search of Britains dragonflies and damselflies.

London United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.
van Tol J, Reijnen BT, Thomassen HA. 2009. Phylogeny and biogeography of the
Platystictidae (Odonata). In: van Tol J. Phylogeny and biogeography of the
Platystictidae (Odonata) [PhD thesis]. Leiden (Netherlands): University of Leiden.
p. 3–70.
Vick GS. 1989. List of the dragonflies recorded from Nepal, with a summary of their
altitudinal distribution (Odonata). Opusc Zool Flumin. 43:1–21.
Vick GS. 1999. A checklist of the dragonflies of the South West Province of Cameroon
with a description of a new species of the genus Phyllogomphus Selys, 1854.
Odonatologica. 28:219–256.
Vick GS. 2002. Preliminary biodiversity assessment of odonate fauna of the Takamanda
Forest Reserve, Camerooon. IDF-Report 4. (1):1–10.
Villanueva RJT. 2009a. Cyrano unicolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2009: e.T169273A6605110. [downloaded on 2015 December 29]. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T169273A6605110.en
.
Villanueva RJT. 2009b. Heteronaias heterodoxa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2009:e.T169281A6606228. [downloaded on 2015 December 29]. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T169281A6606228.en.
Villanueva RJ. 2010. Adult Odonata community in Dinagat Island, the Philippines: impact
of Chromium ore mining on density and species composition. Odonatologica.
39(2):119–126.
Villanueva RJ, Mohagan AB. 2010. Diversity and status of Odonata across vegetation
types in Mt. Hamiguitan Wildlife Sanctuary, Davao Oriental. Asian J Biodiv. 1(1):
25–35.
Watanabe M, Matsuoka H, Taguchi M. 2004. Habitat selection and population

parameters of Sympetrum infuscatum (Selys) during sexual mature stages in a cool
temperate zone of Japan (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Odonatologica. 33:169–179.
Review and update of the 2004 National

List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna of
the Philippines
Juan Carlos T. Gonzalez, PhD* Don Geoff E. Tabaranza
Professor Research Program Manager
Animal Biology Division Mindoro Biodiversity Conservation
University of the Philippines Los Banos Foundation, Inc. (MBCFI)
Carmela P. Española, PhD
Cynthia Adeline A. Layusa* Assistant Professor
Executive Director Institute of Biology
Isla Biodiversity Conservation University of the Philippines
Willem A.C. van de Ven
Leticia E. Afuang, PhD President
Associate Professor Wild Bird Club of the Philippines
Animal Biology Division
Institute of Biological Sciences Arvin C. Diesmos, PhD
UPLB Scientist III and Curator for Herpetology
National Museum of the Philippines
Mariano Roy M. Duya
Biologist Rubie M. Causaren, PhD
Institute of Biology Professor
University of the Philippines College of Science and Computer
Studies, Graduate Studies,
Lawrence R. Heaney, PhD De La Salle University (DLSU)
Curator and Head of the Division of
Mammals Mae Lowe L. Diesmos
Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH) Assistant Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Danilo S. Balete† University of Santo Tomas
Research Associate
Mammals Division
FMNH
__________________
*These authors contributed equally to this manuscript
Keywords: Philippines, National Threatened List, red list, terrestrial fauna,

conservation status
74 J. C. T. Gonzalez, et al.
Ronaldo T. Lagat, PhD Simplicia A. Pasicolan, PhD

Assistant University Registrar Chief Science Research Specialist
DLSU–Dasmariñas Urban Ecosystem Research Division
Ecosystems Research and Development
Nikki Dyanne C. Realubit Bureau
Faculty Department of Environment and Natural
Holistic Education and Resources (DENR)
Development Center
Anson M. Tagtag
Emerson Y. Sy Chief
Executive Director Wildlife Management Section-Wildlife
Philippine Center for Terrestrial and Resources Division
Aquatic Research (PCTAR) Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)
DENR
Ireneo L. Lit, Jr., PhD
Professor Josefina L. De Leon
Institute of Biological Sciences Chief
UPLB Wildlife Resources Division
DENR-BMB
Jeremy C. B. Naredo
University Research Associate Theresa Mundita S. Lim, DVM
MNH, UPLB Director
DENR-BMB
Emilia A. Lastica-Ternura, DVM
Assistant Professor Perry S. Ong, PhD
College of Veterinary Medicine Professor
UPLB Institute of Biology
University of the Philippines Dilliman
Contributors
Kristine O. Abenis1, Joni T. Acay2,4,7, Ace Kevin Amarga1, Juancho B. Balatibat1,

Marites Gatan-Balbas2,7, Jessica B. Baroga1, Apolinario B. Cariño2,8, Emmanuel
Ryan C. de Chavez, PhD1,2, Elorde S. Crispolon1, Aimee Lynn A. Barrion-Dupo,
PhD1, Melizar V. Duya2,3, Orlando L. Eusebio1, Hendrik Freitag, PhD2,9, Ian
Kendrich C. Fontanilla, PhD3, Maren Gaulke, PhD10, Rai Gomez2,11, Anna
Pauline O. de Guia, PhD1,2, Jayson Ibañez, PhD11, Nina R. Ingle, PhD2, Godfrey
Jakosalem2,12, Indira Dayang Lacerna-Widmann2,13, Cristian C. Lucañas1, Neil
Review and update of the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna of the Philippines 75
Aldrin D. Mallari, PhD2,14, Rainier Manalo2,15, Tammy Mildenstein, PhD16, Lisa

Marie J. Paguntalan2,12, J. Kahlil Panopio2,17, Marisol D.G. Pedregosa2,18, David
Quimpo2,17, Emmanuel F. Rafael2,19, Joseph B. Rasalan6, Aris A. Reginaldo2,20,
Sabine Schoppe, PhD2,13, Jodi Sedlock, PhD21, Merlijn van Weerd2,7, Peter
Widmann2,13, Sheryl Yap1, and Arne E. Jensen4
1
University of the Philippines–Los Baños; 2Biodiversity Conservation Society
of the Philippines; 3Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines–Diliman;
4
Wild Bird Club of the Philippines; 5National Museum of the Philippines;
6
Department of Environment and Natural Resources–Biodiversity Management
Bureau; 7Mabuwaya Foundation; 8PENAGMANNAKI; 9Ateneo de Manila
University; 10University of Munich; 11Philippine Eagle Foundation, Inc.;
12
Philippines Biodiversity Conservation Foundation, Inc.; 13Katala Foundation,
Inc.; 14Center for Conservation Innovations; 15Crocodylus Porosus Philippines,
Inc.; 16Cornell College; 17Haribon Foundation; 18Energy Development
Corporation; 19Avilon Wildlife Conservation Foundation; 20University of the
Philippines–Baguio; 21Lawrence University
In 2004, the Philippines' Department of Environment and Natural Resources

issued the National List of Threatened Fauna Species. Between 2015 and 2017,
this was reviewed by assessing 1994 taxa, including 57 mammals, 683 birds, 355
reptiles, 115 amphibians, and 784 invertebrates, using the threatened categories
specified in the 2001 Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act. Another
group evaluated the initial assessment if the criteria were properly applied and
the taxa were assigned to their appropriate categories. Fifty-five percent or 1105
species were placed under four threatened categories: Critically Endangered (CR)
– 60; Endangered (EN) – 61; Vulnerable (VU) – 439; Other Threatened Species
(OTS) – 545. For the first time, invertebrates were included in the assessment and
accounted for nearly 70% of species listed. Among the vertebrates, an increase in
the number of taxa in all categories was notable and most pronounced in birds in
all threatened categories. For reptiles, the number doubled but half of these were
under OTS. For amphibians, the increase was due to species classified under CR
and OTS. For mammals, the number of threatened species also increased except
under VU. The number of threatened endemic species increased to 168 species,
representing 15% of all threatened taxa.
NATIONAL RED LISTS, ALSO CALLED RED DATA BOOKS OR THREATENED

species lists, are important tools in conservation especially after the Convention of
Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a set of targets to significantly reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss at the national, regional, and global levels (Butchart, et al., 2006; Vie
et al., 2009; Sachs et al., 2009) – a firm commitment by world leaders (Balmford et al.
2005) that will continue forward until 2028 (Szabo et al. 2012).
A National Red List can provide an evaluation of the status and extinction
risks of local species. As most conservation work is usually at the local and national
levels, a National Red List can provide initial information that can aid any conservation
planning (Brito et al. 2010). Especially for this purpose, having a National Red List has
an advantage such that it reflects extinction risks and rarity of species, cultural values,
conservation importance and priorities, population declines, international response
to conservation, or combinations of these factors (Miller et al. 2007) that may not be
reflected at a globally-scaled threatened species list. Further, there is internal bias in
regional or global red lists towards locally rare, but globally abundant species, or globally
threatened but locally common species (Hoffman et al. 2008). An example provided
by Hoffman and colleagues (2008) include the Herald petrel (Pterodroma heraldica)
categorized as Least Concern under the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List but Critically Endangered in the Australian National Red List.
Another example is the Dugong (Dugong dugon), which is Vulnerable globally but is
not in the red list of Australia. Although one country does not accord a species the same
conservation status as another country, excluding falsely one species from a threatened
list could lead to extinction (Brito et al. 2010).
In response to the growing public advocacy on environmental protection

legislation (Posa et al. 2008), the constitutional obligations provided by Article II of the
1987 Philippine Constitution that states the rights of its people to a balanced ecology
in harmony with nature, and the mandates of the conventions it is signatory to, the
Philippines enacted national laws to conserve the wildlife and natural heritage of the
country. The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 or Republic
Act 9147 (otherwise known as the Wildlife Act) is the overarching law that promotes
the conservation of the country’s wildlife species and their habitats, which includes
the regulation of wildlife collection and trade, stipulates the country’s commitments to
international conventions, and supports scientific studies on biodiversity conservation.
Article II Section 22 of the Wildlife Act calls for the determination and classification
of threatened species or subspecies based on the best available scientific information
while taking into consideration internationally accepted criteria.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) List of

Threatened Species was signed into effect by virtue of 2 DENR Administrative Orders
(DAO) in pursuant to the Wildlife Act: DAO Number 15 Series of 2004 established
the list of terrestrial faunal species, and DAO Number 1 Series of 2007 enumerated
the threatened flora. The document is legally binding and has implications for
national law enforcement and monitoring. The DENR List of Threatened Species is the
country’s basis for the collection and trade of wildlife and their derivatives, issuance
of permits for transport of such species, the possession of threatened species, and
conservation propagation; the same applies to look-alike species (Joint implementing
rules... 2004). However, the list has yet to be updated since its enactment in 2004.
As new species are discovered and more information are gathered from
the field as well as from advances in science, it is imperative that the National List
of Threatened Species be updated to reflect the best scientific evidence currently
available. The Wildlife Act stipulates reviewing the list regularly in consultation with
scientific institutions, academe, and other stakeholders (Joint implementing rules...
2004). However, it has neither been revised since it was published in 2004, nor
initiated an assessment based on the mechanism set under RA 9147. The list is clearly
outdated and will benefit from a comprehensive review. The list in DAO 2004-15
shows not only disparities with the species assessed under the IUCN criteria, but
also shows gaps for specific taxonomic groups, namely, reptiles, invertebrates, and
plants. There is a need to assess these groups to regulate biases and produce better
information on threatened species. Further, the DENR List of Threatened Species
contains categories for Other Threatened Species (OTS) and Other Wildlife Species
(OWS), which are vaguely defined categories. With more studies, reclassifying the
species under these categories can reflect a more appropriate conservation status.
There is a need to carefully identify, assess, and categorize species in the Philippines
to come up with a standard and robust species list that can benefit not only the wildlife
permitting system, Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS), protected area planning,
and wildlife enforcement activities, but also research and conservation strategies for
species and ecosystems in the country.
The DENR officially created the Philippine Red List Committee (PRLC)
through the issuance of Special Order No. 2015-62 on 22 January 2015 to lead the
development of a DENR Administrative Order comprising the proposed amendments
to the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna of the Philippines and their
categories. The PRLC, together with the Technical Working Group (TWG) of the
Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) formed from members of the Biodiversity
Conservation Society of the Philippines (BCSP), reviewed and assessed the status
of Philippine species based on the criteria stipulated under Article II Section 22 of
the Wildlife Act. Members of the TWG consisted of wildlife researchers, managers,
and conservation practitioners from academic, government, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOS). Four TWG subcommittees were formed to represent the

taxonomic groups that will be assessed for the DAO: mammals, birds, reptiles and
amphibians, and invertebrates (mainly arachnids, insects, and land snails). The 2004
version of the DAO did not include terrestrial invertebrates in its assessment.
Each subcommittee thoroughly discussed all information, justification, and

recommendations provided by TWG members. The subcommittees compiled all
inputs from members as well as other stakeholders and contributors, and drafted
a species account for each species incorporating all the information mentioned
above. The review underwent a consultative process held through continuous email
exchanges, subcommittee meetings, workshops, constituency consultations, and
public presentations made between 2015 and 2017 (see Annex 6 for list of meetings
and workshops). The species list and profiles were compiled, reviewed, finalized,
and agreed upon by the subcommittees before submission to PRLC for consideration.
Criteria for determination of threatened fauna species and their categories
The classification of species as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN),

Vulnerable (VU), and Other Threatened Species (OTS) are generally based on the
best scientific and internationally accepted criteria, including but not limited to the
following: (1) destruction, modification, fragmentation, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (3) other natural or manmade factors affecting existence of wildlife; 4)
perceived/observed reduction in population size and area of occupancy; and 5)
small population size and/or restricted population and continuing decline in such
population. Apart from the 4 threat categories, Other Wildlife Species (OWS) refers to
all other species of fauna native to the Philippines but not categorized as threatened.
These 4 threat categories, as defined in DAO 2004-15 and amended by the

PRLC for adoption in the proposed update DAO, are as follows:
• Critically Endangered (CR) - a species that is facing an extremely high risk
of extinction in the wild in the immediate future; presumed extinct species
upon rediscovery of a population shall be automatically categorized as
Critically Endangered.
• Endangered (EN) - a species that is not Critically Endangered but whose
survival in the wild is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating.
• Vulnerable (VU) - a species that is neither Critically Endangered nor
Endangered but is under threat from adverse factors throughout its range and
is likely to be moved to the endangered category in the future.
• Other Threatened Species (OTS) - a species that is not Critically Endangered,
Endangered, or Vulnerable but is under threat from adverse factors such

as overcollection throughout its range and is likely to be moved to the
vulnerable category in the near future. It also includes species that have the
tendency to become threatened due to predation, destruction of habitats,
or other similar causes; new species; and species with insufficient scientific
information. Such species may be included in the threatened species list
upon the recommendation of the PRLC and endorsement of the National
Wildlife Management Council (NWMC).
Parameters used for assessment
Recognizing the unique conditions from each taxonomic group, assessment

for threat status was justified differently, without necessarily basing the evaluation on—
but referencing if needed—the IUCN conservation status. Assessments were limited to
Philippine populations as opposed to their global distribution, while subspecies and
island populations (e.g. Luzon bleeding-heart subspecies) at risk, as well as ongoing
conservation efforts targeting the species or its known habitat (e.g. designation as
protected area or critical conservation area, ongoing conservation projects, etc.) were
taken into account. For instance, known localities outside of protected areas may
increase the threat scores of little-known and endemic invertebrates, while threatened
island populations or subspecies also increase extinction risk.
The TWG subcommittee for mammals came up with an initial, general list
of species considered priority species for discussion based on prior assessments and
new information. The subcommittee identified several aspects of the species ecology
and distribution that were necessary for assessing the proposed changes in species
threat status and inclusion. Each species was evaluated based on the following
information: (1) original distribution of the species and the consequent changes; (2)
reproductive characteristics; (3) patterns of abundance i.e. change in the abundance
of the species, abundance of the species in different habitats, ability to maintain
population in response to disturbance gradients and the extent of their effects; (4)
threat from invasive species; (5) the status of management in protected areas where
species are found; and (6) the current need for research resulting from gaps in
knowledge. Using the threatened mammal list in DAO 2004-15 as the initial list,
the group identified 28 priority species for assessment. The subcommittee evaluated
these species and recommended actions for either upgrading, downgrading, delisting,
or inclusion in the updated National Red List. All other species in the DAO 2004-15
were also evaluated and found that their current threat status remain applicable and
thus retained.
Three threat criteria guided the reptile and amphibian assessments: (1)
degree to which a species is threatened by illegal wildlife trade; (2) degree to
which a species is being threatened by loss of habitat; and (3) degree to which a
species is being threatened by hunting or overharvesting (i.e. for subsistence or local
commerce). The subcommittee assessed 115 amphibians and 355 reptiles using
current data on taxonomy and phylogenetic significance, population status, range and
protected habitat within its distributional range, and the range of threats to species.
The Amphibian Conservation Needs Assessment (ACNA), a parallel assessment based
on the IUCN categories, enhanced the assessment of amphibian species. Species
currently listed as CR by the IUCN assumed this conservation status, while species
were listed as OTS if illegal trade is still negligible at present, but may intensify in the
near future.
The TWG subcommittees for both birds and invertebrates adopted a

cumulative scoring system to support the classification of threat status, which was
based on three parameters for birds and five for invertebrates. Scores were set at three
points for each criterion with increasing severity of impact (0–3), thus, a maximum
total score of nine for birds and 15 for invertebrates.
Justification for the scoring system employed by the birds subcommittee

referred to the following parameters:
1. Population score referred to individual counts, number of individuals and

subpopulations, taking note of size and trend, with 0 being a score for
stable or increasing population and 3 being a score for extremely low or
rapidly decreasing population;
2. Occurrence score referred to the area of occurrence and distribution,

which includes geographical location, spread, habitat use and range
of species, with 0 as the score for widespread distribution and 3 being
limited in occurrence or distribution; and
3. Threat score referred to the prevailing threat or suspected pending threat

(next 5 years) which can include anthropogenic or natural threats, with 0
as no or very few threats and 3 as extremely threatened.
The total of the scores was classified under the following: OWS (0), OTS
(1–2), VU (3–5), EN (6–7), CR (8–9). The subcommittee assessed at subspecies level
species with multiple subspecies or evolutionary significant unit (ESU). The overall
score for the species followed the category of the subspecies with the highest score.
Other considerations by the subcommittee included accidental, extirpated, and
extinct species. Species with less than 30 observations were classified as accidental
or vagrant species, in which case, the global IUCN status was followed. Species
presumed extirpated in the Philippines but whose global population is not threatened
and contain no Philippine endemic subspecies were classified as OTS. Presumed
extirpated Philippine endemic subspecies were categorized as CR. Taxonomic format
and nomenclature followed the International Ornithological Congress (IOC) World
Bird List v6.1 (Gill and Donsker 2014). Information was gathered from IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species (IUCN 2015), BirdLife International species factsheets (BirdLife
International 2015), The Internet Bird Collection website (https://www.hbw.com/ibc),
A Guide to the Birds of the Philippines (Kennedy et al. 2000), Wild Bird Club of the
Philippines (WBCP) reports, survey reports, and experts’ knowledge of the species
and their habitat. The subcommittee assessed a total of 683 species, based on the
evaluation of 724 bird species, subspecies, and ESUs.
The parameters used for evaluation of terrestrial invertebrates included: (1)

known from the original collection >30 years and/or has not been seen for the last
30 years despite active research efforts; (2) known only from extremely limited range
and habitat; (3) obligate association with a threatened species; (4) taxa susceptible to
poaching and illegal trade; and (5) known from localities that are under severe threat
(e.g. deforestation, mining, land conversion, pollution, unregulated tourism, etc.).
The total scores were divided into the following categories: OWS (0–3), OTS (4–6),
VU (7–9), EN (10–12), CR (13–15) from de Chavez (in litt. 2018).
The bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian subcommittees assessed known

and described species recognized as valid until 30 January 2016. New taxonomic
discoveries or splits beyond the specified date were no longer included in the
assessment. In case of conflict between the scientific name and the common name of
species, the scientific name became the controlling interpretation. A set of external
reviewers evaluated the robustness of the parameters used by the subcommittees as
well as their justification for assigning a species under a certain threat category.
Assessment of threatened terrestrial fauna
The TWG assessed 57 mammals, 683 birds, 355 reptiles, 115 amphibians,
and 784 invertebrates. A total of 1,105 species were recommended for inclusion in
the updated National Red List: 60 as Critically Endangered, 61 as Endangered, 439 as
Vulnerable, and 545 as OTS (Fig. 1).
2004 2018
79
54
40
37
33
32
21
22
17
15
13
13
10
9
8
7
9
5
5
5
4
6
3
4
1
4
1
0
0
CR EN VU OTS CR EN VU OTS CR EN VU OTS CR EN VU OTS
Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians
Figure 1 Summary of threatened Philippine terrestrial fauna listed in DAO 2004-15

and in the proposed amendments to the DAO
In DAO 2004-15, the birds represented more than half (55%) of the total
threatened species listed, whereas, in the proposed updated list, 71% of the listed
species are represented by invertebrates (Fig. 2).
While (57%) of the species listed in DAO 2004-15 fell under the VU category,
majority (49%) of species in the proposed list are classified as OTS (Fig. 3). There is
an overall decrease in the CR (16% to 5%), EN (18% to 6%), and VU (57% to 39%)
categories, but a significant increase in OTS (6% to 49%).
There is a notable increase in the number of species for all taxonomic groups
in all 4 threatened categories, but most pronounced increase in birds. The number of
reptiles doubled, largely from the contributions of OTS, whereas for amphibians, the
increase was largely based on the rise in VU and OTS. For mammals, threat categories—
except for VU—increased in the proposed updated list.There is a drastic increase in
both the number of threatened (CR, EN, VU) and OTS categories from DAO 2004 to
the proposed updated list. Notably, the number of OTS had nearly quadrupled (Fig 4).
The increased number of assessed birds and amphibians considerably influenced the
proportion of threatened species, whereas for reptiles and mammals, the proportion
remains constant.
Changes in the conservation status of Philippine threatened fauna list
In the proposed amendment to the list, 97 (9%) species retained their 2004 status,
32 (2.9%) species were elevated to a higher threat category, while 12 (1.1%) species were
downlisted to a lower category. Seven species were delisted (Fig. 5). Added to the list are
964 (87%) species, 784 of which are invertebrates.
Invertebrates - 0%
Mammals - 5%
Amphn=15
n = 54
ibians-
Re
pt
10%
n iles Mammals - 23%

n = 34 Birds - 17%
= - n = 184
18 12
%
Reptiles - 4%
n = 51
Amphibians - 3%
n = 32
Invertebrates - 71%
Birds - 55% n = 784
n = 81
A B
Figure 2 Comparison of Philippine threatened fauna listed in (A) DAO 2004-15

and (B) the proposed amendments to the DAO according to taxonomic
groups
OWS - 1%, n =2
CR - 5%,
n = 60
%
OTS=- 69
24 ,
= 6%
n
n -1
CR
B
OTS - 49%,
EN -19%, VU - 40%, n = 545
n = 28 n = 439
VU - 58%,
n = 85
n = 6%,
61
EN -
A B
Figure 3 Comparison of Philippine threatened fauna listed in (A) DAO 2004-15

and (B) the proposed amendments to the DAO according to the
4 threat categories
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2004 2018 2004 2018 2004 2018 2004 2018
Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians
CR EN VU OTS
Figure 4 Comparison of Philippine threatened vertebrate fauna listed in DAO

2004-15 and in the proposed amendments to the DAO based on the
number of species distributed among 4 threat categories
Mammals
A total of 54 species belonging to 13 families were recommended to

be included in the amended list. Twenty-four species listed in DAO 2004-15
retained their conservation status, including the 7 CR species: Tamaraw (Bubalus
mindorensis), Visayan warty pig (Sus cebifrons), Visayan spotted deer (Cervus
alfredi), the Philippine bare-backed fruit bat (Dobsonia chapmani), Dinagat hairy-
tailed cloud rat (Crateromys australis), Ilin hairy-tailed cloud rat (Crateromys
paulus), and dugong (Dugong dugon). The Sulu warty pig (Sus sp. from the Sulu
Archipelago), Calamian deer (Cervus calamianensis), Philippine tube-nosed fruit
bat (Nyctimene rabori), and Panay bushy-tailed cloud rat (Crateromys heaneyi) all
retained their EN status. From the original list, 11 species remained as VU and 2
species retained their OTS status.
Six species were uplisted from the DAO 2014-15. The golden-crowned fruit
bat (Acerodon jubatus) was elevated from EN to CR because recent observations
indicated a declining population due to heavy hunting, continuous roost disturbance,
and reduction of the extent of lowland forest where the species depends for food and
roosting. The Palawan pangolin (Manis culionensis), and Palawan flying fox (Acerodon
leucotis) were moved from VU to EN, while the giant flying fox (Pteropus vampyrus)
was elevated from OTS to EN. Twenty-three previously unlisted species were added
Table 1 List of Philippine threatened mammal species and their status in DAO 2004-15, in the proposed
amendments to the DAO, and in the IUCN Red List
DAO Proposed
Family Scientific name Common name IUCN Justification
2004-15 status
Bovidae Bubalus mindorensis Tamaraw CR CR CR
Suidae Sus barbatus Palawan bearded pig VU VU VU
Sus sp. from Sulu Is. Sulu warty pig EN EN NE
Sus cebifrons Visayan warty pig CR CR CR
Sus ahoenobarbus Palawan bearded pig VU VU NT
Sus oliveri Mindoro warty pig - EN VU
Tragulidae Tragulus nigricans Balabac mouse deer VU VU EN
Cervidae Cervus calamianensis Calamian deer EN EN EN
Cervus mariannus Philippine deer VU EN VU Heavily hunted for local consumption and
commercial trade of meat, horn and skin.
In Mindoro, the species is also heavily
hunted by local and international hunters.
Cervus alfredi Visayan spotted deer CR CR EN
Dugongidae Dugong dugon Dugong CR CR VU
Legend:
CR – Critically Endangered, EN – Endangered, VU – Vulnerable, OTS – Other Threatened Species (DAO), OWS – Other Wildlife Species (DAO),
Review and update of the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna of the Philippines
NT – Near Threatened (IUCN), DD – Data Deficient (IUCN), LC – Least Concern (IUCN), NE – Not Evaluated/Assessed (IUCN)
85
Table 1 Continuation
DAO Proposed 86
2004-15 status
Pteropodi- Acerodon jubatus Golden-crowned EN CR EN Heavily hunted, continuous roost
dae fruit bat disturbance, and reduction of extent of
lowland forest where the species depends
for food and roosting areas. Recent
observations indicate that the population
of A. jubatus decreases faster than that of
P. vampyrus (Heaney et al. 2016). Under
CITES Appendix I.
Dobsonia chapmani Philippine bare- CR CR CR
backed fruit bat
Nyctimene rabori Philippine tube- EN EN EN
nosed fruit bat
Acerodon leucotis Palawan flying fox VU EN VU Heavily hunted, roost disturbance, and
reduction of extent of lowland forest where
the species depend for food and roosting
area. Limited distribution, found only in
Palawan; Under CITES Appendix II.
Pteropus vampyrus Giant flying fox OTS EN NT Heavily hunted, continuous roost
disturbance, and reduction of extent of
lowland forest where the species depend for
food and roosting area. Formerly occurred
in many large colonies in the Philippines,
but these are now greatly reduced in size
and number (Heideman and Heaney 1989;
Mickleburgh et al. 1992; Mildenstein et al.
2005; Mudar and Allen 1986; Rickart et al.
1993; Stier and Mildenstein 2005; Utzurrum
1992); Under CITES Appendix II.
Pteropus dasymallus Wooly flying fox VU VU VU
Pteropus speciosus Philippine gray VU VU DD
flying fox
J. C. T. Gonzalez, et al.
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Pteropus leucopterus White winged fruit VU VU LC Heavily hunted, roost disturbance, and
bat reduction of extent of lowland forest
where the species depend for food and
roosting areas.
Eonycteris robusta Philippine dawn bat - VU NT Lowland forest within its range has been
reduced to not more than about 8% of its
original extent (ca. 2% old growth, 6%
secondary) (Walpole 2010). Additionally,
the caves where these bats roost (and
maintain maternity colonies) have been
very heavily disturbed throughout the
Philippines through mining of guano, severe
hunting of bats (often by use of smoke from
fires), treasure hunting, and mining of the
limestone in which the caves exist.
Styloctenium Mindoro striped- - VU DD Found only in Mindoro Island. Current
mindorensis faced fruit bat data indicated the species is less
widespread and less abundant compared
to D. microleucopterus. Report from
local people suggested that the species is
regularly hunted. Continuous reduction of
the remaining lowland forest in Mindoro
where the species occur further threatens
the survival of the species.
Desmalopex Mindoro pallid VU VU NE Known only from patches of forest in
microleucopterus flying fox the lowlands of Mindoro which have
undergone extensive deforestation;

previously listed as Pteropus sp. A in DAO
2004-15.
87
DAO Proposed 88
2004-15 status
Haplonycteris sp. Sibuyan pygmy fruit VU - NE Found only in Sibuyan Island but the
from Sibuyan Is. bat species is poorly known and has not been
formally described. The species is found
within a protected area.
Molossidae Chaerephon plicatus Wrinkle-lipped bat - VU LC Formerly among the most abundant bats
in some large caves (Lawrence 1939;
Taylor 1934); some previously recorded
colonies in caves now destroyed (Rickart
et al. 1993). Currently, the species has
limited distribution (Cagayan, Cebu, Rizal,
Bulacan). Caves where they occur are
threatened by guano mining; collected for
food (Cagayan,Bulacan, Cebu and Rizal)
or commercially sold (Bulacan).
Muridae Crateromys australis Dinagat hairy-tailed CR CR CR
cloud rat
Crateromys paulus Ilin hairy-tailed CR CR CR
cloud rat
Crateromys Bushy-tailed cloud VU VU VU
schadenbergi rat
Phloeomys cumingi Southern Luzon VU VU VU
giant cloud rat
Batomys russatus Dinagat hairy-tailed VU VU VU
rat
Crateromys heaneyi Panay bushy-tailed EN EN EN
cloud rat
Rhyncomys tapulao Zambales shrew-rat - VU VU This species occurs only in mossy forest
at high elevations and only in old-growth
and lightly-disturbed habitat, and not
in areas that have been significantly

disturbed (Balete et al., 2009).
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
The recent mining in Mt. Tapulao
has removed an uncertain but large
percentage of the known habitat for the
species. Given the small population and
area of habitat that are currently known,
the removal of a significant portion of the
habitat by mining activities represents a
clear and present threat to the species.
Archboldomys Isarog shrew mouse VU OTS VU Although restricted to Mount Isarog,
luzonensis population is stable and moderately
common in primary montane and mossy
forest from 1350 to 1750 m (Heaney et al.
2010, 2016). The species is found within
a protected area and no current threat to
its habitat.
Batomys uragon Mt. Isarog hairy- - OTS LC Described in 2015
tailed rat
Soricomys kalinga Kalinga shrew mouse - OTS LC Described in 2006
Soricomys Mingan shrew - OTS DD Described in 2012
leonardocoi mouse
Soricomys montanus Southern Cordillera - OTS NE Described in 2012
shrew mouse
Rhynchomys Banahao shrew rat - OTS LC Described in 2007
banahao
Apomys aurorae Aurora forest mouse - OTS LC Described in 2011

Apomys banahao Banahao forest - OTS LC Described in 2011
mouse
Apomys brownorum Tapulao forest mouse - OTS DD Described in 2011
89
Table 1 Continuation 90
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Apomys iridensis Southern Sierra - OTS NE Described in 2014
Madre shrew mouse
Apomys lubangensis Lubang Island shrew - OTS NE Described in 2014
mouse
Apomys magnus Lowland Banahaw - OTS NE Described in 2011
forest mouse
Apomys Mingan forest mouse - OTS NE Described in 2011
minganensis
Apomys sierrae Northern Sierra - OTS NE Described in 2011
Madre forest mouse
Apomys Zambales forest - OTS LC Described in 2011
zambalensis mouse
Archboldomys Large Cordillera - OTS NE Described in 2012
maximus shrew mouse
Musseromys Banahaw tree mouse - OTS NE Described in 2009
gulantang
Musseromys Sierra Madre tree - OTS NE Described in 2014
anacuao mouse
Musseromys Mt. Pulag tree mouse - OTS NE Described in 2014
beneficus
Musseromys Amuyao tree mouse - OTS NE Described in 2014
inopinatus
Erinaceidae Podogymnura Dinagat gymnure VU VU VU
aureospinula
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Manidae Manis culionensis Palawan pangolin VU EN EN Heavily hunted for food and traditional
medicine (especially the scales) both at
the local and international level; reduction
of extent of lowland forest. The species
occurs throughout Palawan. Most of the
areas where it occur do not have any
conservation management system in place.
Felidae Prionailurus Leopard cat VU VU VU
bengalensis
Viverridae Arctictis binturong Binturong OTS OTS VU
Cynoce- Cynocephalus Philippine flying OTS - VU Locally common and widespread. Found
phalidae volans lemur in different habitat from considerably
disturbed habitat, agriculture, secondary
forest to primary forest; the species is
adaptable and resilient but population is
currently unknown.
Tarsiidae Tarsius syrichta Philippine tarsier OTS OTS NT Locally common and widespread. Found
in different habitat from considerably
adaptable and resilient. Main threat:
rampant collection for pet trade.
Cercopithe- Macaca fascicularis Long-tailed macaque OTS - NT Locally common and widespread. Found
cidae in different habitat from considerably

adaptable and resilient but population is
currently unknown. Several reports by the
locals suggested the species as a pest to
agricultural crops.
91
Retain Status Uplisted Downlisted Delisted New Additions
103
57
30
34
24
24
23
23
22
20
12
11
47
6
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
MMammals
AMMALS B Birds
IRDS R EReptiles
PTILES Amphibians
A MPHIBIANS
Figure 5 Species movements from the DAO 2004-15 to the proposed

amendments to the DAO
to the list— 4 under VU, and 19 under OTS. Several of the species listed are under
threat from hunting for local subsistence, habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and
mining (i.e. collection of guano). M. culionensis is hunted for local consumption as
a luxury food item (Gomez & Sy 2018). Anecdotal evidences also suggest that the
species is hunted for the international wildlife trade, specifically for the traditional
Chinese medicine market. Smuggling activities has apparently increased in the last
decade.
Sus ahoenobarbus was previously a subspecies of S. barbatus but elevated to

a full species by Groves (2001) and Lucchini et al. (2005). This species retained its VU
status in the proposed list. Sus oliveri was initially a subspecies of Sus philippensis
which was categorized as Vulnerable under DAO 2014-15, and subsequently
recognized as a full species (Groves 2001; Luchini et al 2005; Grubb 2005). This
species is elevated to EN. Found only on Mindoro Island where reduction of its
lowland forest habitat occur, S. oliveri is also reported to be heavily hunted throughout
its range for food, bush-meat trade, and local ceremonies
On the other hand, the Isarog shrew mouse (Archboldomys luzonensis)

was downgraded from VU to OTS as present information suggested a moderately
common and stable population in primary montane and mossy forest from 1350 m
to 1750 m (Heaney et al. 2016). The Sibuyan pygmy fruit bat (Haplonycteris sp.),
previously VU, was delisted because of insufficient information to support the listing;
the species has not been scientifically described as well. The Philippine flying lemur
(Cynocephalus volans) and the Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) were
likewise removed owing to their stable population and wide distribution. C. volans
is believed to be locally common, widespread, and found in varied habitat types
from considerably disturbed to pristine primary forests. M. fascicularis is likewise

fairly common, widespread, and adaptable to different habitat types; some locals also
consider this species as a pest to agricultural crops. The complete list showing the
updated list of species movement of mammals from DAO 2014-15 to the proposed
amendment is in Table 1.
Birds
The threatened list of Philippine birds included 184 species from 57 families
(Table 2). Fifty-seven (57) species retained their threat category, including 13 CR, 8
EN, and 36 VU species. Two species—the Mindanao bleeding-heart (Gallicolumba
crinigera) and the Luzon water redstart (Rhyacornis bicolor) — were downlisted from
EN to VU. DAO 2004-15 also listed the Isabela oriole (Oriolus isabellae) as OWS
during the time when little was known of the species. Recent surveys revealed a
patchy distribution within degraded forests in Northern Luzon, which warranted a
threat status of CR.
The Sulu bleeding-heart (Gallicolumba menagei), a presumed extinct species,

and the Visayan hornbill (Penelopides panini ticaensis), a presumed extirpated
Philippine endemic subspecies, were categorized as CR. Both species retained their
2004 threat status. Fourteen accidental species followed the IUCN conservation
status i.e. the Baer’s pochard (Aythya baeri), Spoon-billed sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus
pygmeus), Chinese crested tern (Thalasseus bernsteini), and Masked booby (Sula
dactylatra)—all classified as CR—and the Oriental stork (Ciconia boyciana) as EN.
Among the presumed extinct species, the Sarus crane (Grus antigone), which
is possibly an endemic race luzonica, was classified as CR. The Woolly-necked
stork (Ciconia episcopus), and Spot-billed pelican (Pelecanus philippensis) are
recommended as OTS. Only the G. antigone was previously listed in DAO 2004-15.
Subspecies and ESU of some bird species were individually assessed and
weighted (Table 3). For ease of policy and enforcement, the Biodiversity Management
Bureau (BMB) recommended to adopt a more conservative approach—in cases where
subspecies have different threat categories, the highest status among the subspecies
would be followed and assumed, such as in the cases of the Luzon bleeding-
heart (Gallicolumba luzonica), Amethyst brown dove (Phapitreron amethystinus),
Mantanani scops-owl (Otus mantananensis), Indigo-banded kingfisher (Ceyx
cyanopectus), Colasisi (Loriculus philippensis), and White-browed shama (Copsychus
luzoniensis). The more threatened subspecies often comes from islands with highly
disturbed and fragmented forests. For instance, 4 subspecies of L. philippensis (L. p.
philippensis, L. p. regulus, L. p. worcesteri, and L. p. apicalis) were ranked as OTS
while the subspecies from Cebu, L. p. chrysonotus, and a potentially extinct L. p
siquijorensis are more threatened, thus, the species was recommended as CR.
Table 2 List of Philippine threatened bird species and their status in DAO 2004-15 and in the proposed amendments 94
to the DAO
DAO Proposed Justification (basis for classification)*
Family Scientific name Common name
2004-15 status 1 2 3 4 Remarks
Anatidae Anas luzonica Philippine duck VU VU 2 1 2 5
Aythya baeri Baer's pochard Not listed CR - - - 0 Accidental species;
followed IUCN status
Megapodiidae Megapodius cumingii Philippine megapode VU VU 1 1 3 5
Phasianidae Polyplectron Palawan peacock- VU EN 2 2 3 7
napoleonis pheasant
Diomedeidae Phoebastria Laysan albatross Not listed OTS - - - 0 Accidental species;
immutabilis followed IUCN status
Procellariidae Pterodroma Hawaiian petrel Not listed VU - - - 0 Accidental species;

sandwichensis followed IUCN status
Pseudobulweria Tahiti petrel Not listed OTS - - - 0 Accidental species;

rostrata followed IUCN status
Hydrobatidae Oceanodroma Swinhoe's storm Not listed OTS - - - 0 Accidental species;

monorhis petrel followed IUCN status
Ciconiidae Ciconia episcopus Woolly-necked stork Not listed OTS - - - 0 Presumed extirpated
species / subspecies
Ciconia boyciana Oriental stork EN EN - - - 0 Accidental species;
Threskiorni- Threskiornis Black-headed ibis Not listed OTS - - - 0 Accidental species;
thidae melanocephalus followed IUCN status
Platalea minor Black-faced spoonbill Not listed EN 3 2 2 7

Ardeidae Gorsachius goisagi Japanese night heron EN EN 3 2 1 6
Egretta eulophotes Chinese egret VU VU 1 2 2 5
Pelecanidae Pelecanus Spot-billed pelican Not listed OTS - - - 0 Presumed extirpated
philippensis species / subspecies;
follow IUCN status
(NT)
Pelecanus crispus Dalmatian pelican Not listed VU - - - 0 Accidental species;
Fregatidae Fregata andrewsi Christmas Island Not listed CR 3 3 2 8
frigatebird
Sulidae Sula dactylatra Masked booby Not listed CR 3 2 3 8
Sula leucogaster Brown booby Not listed EN 3 1 2 6
Anhingidae Anhinga melanogaster Oriental darter VU VU 1 1 1 3
Accipitridae Aegypius monachus Cinereous vulture Not listed OTS - - - 0 Accidental species;
Pithecophaga jefferyi Philippine eagle CR CR 3 3 3 9
Nisaetus philippensis Philippine hawk-eagle VU VU 1 2 2 5
Nisaetus pinskeri Pinsker's hawk-eagle VU EN 3 2 2 7
Haliaeetus Grey-headed fish VU VU 1 1 1 3
ichthyaetus eagle
Rallidae Gallirallus Calayan rail Not listed EN 1 3 2 6
calayanensis
Not listed
Lewinia mirificus Brown-banded rail EN 2 2 2 6

Gruidae Grus antigone Sarus crane CR CR - - - 0 Presumed extirpated
species / subspecies
Turnicidae Turnix worcesteri Worcester's - EN 2 2 2 6
buttonquail
95
Burhinidae Esacus magnirostris Beach stone-curlew Not listed EN 3 2 2 7
Charadriidae Charadrius peronii Malaysian plover VU VU 2 1 2 5
Scolopacidae Limnodromus Asian dowitcher Not listed VU 2 1 1 4
semipalmatus
Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
Numenius tahitiensis Bristle-thighed VU VU - - - 0 Accidental species;
curlew followed IUCN status
Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew Not listed OTS 0 1 1 2

Numenius Far Eastern curlew Not listed EN 3 2 1 6
madagascariensis
Tringa erythropus Spotted redshank Not listed EN 3 2 2 7
Tringa guttifer Nordmann's EN EN 3 2 2 7
greenshank
Calidris tenuirostris Great knot Not listed EN 3 2 1 6
Eurynorhynchus Spoon-billed VU CR - - - 0 Accidental species;
pygmeus sandpiper followed IUCN status
Laridae Thalasseus bernsteini Chinese crested tern CR CR - - - 0 Accidental species;

Anous minutus Black noddy - EN 3 1 2 6 subspecies worcesteri
restricted to Sulu Sea
Thalasseus bergii Great crested tern - VU 2 1 2 5
Onychoprion fuscatus Sooty tern - VU 2 1 2 5
Anous stolidus Brown noddy - VU 2 1 2 5
Onychoprion Bridled tern - OTS 0 1 1 2
anaethetus
Columbidae Streptopelia Island collared dove Not listed EN 2 1 3 6
bitorquata
Caloenas nicobarica Nicobar pigeon VU EN 3 2 2 7
Gallicolumba Luzon bleeding-heart VU VU - - - - Followed the highest
luzonica status of subspecies
Gallicolumba
luzonica rubiventris
Gallicolumba Mindanao bleeding- EN VU 1 1 1 3
crinigera heart
Gallicolumba Mindoro bleeding- CR CR 3 3 3 9
platenae heart
Gallicolumba keayi Negros bleeding- CR CR 3 3 3 9
heart
Gallicolumba Sulu bleeding-heart CR CR 3 3 3 9 Presumed extinct
menagei species / subspecies
Phapitreron Amethyst brown dove Not listed CR - - - - Followed the highest

amethystinus status of subspecies
Phapitreron
amethystinus frontalis
Phapitreron Tawitawi brown dove CR CR 3 3 3 9
cinereiceps
Phapitreron Mindanao brown Not listed VU 2 1 1 4
brunneiceps dove
Treron axillaris Philippine green Not listed VU 1 1 2 4
97
pigeon

Treron formosae Whistling green VU VU 1 2 2 5
pigeon
Ptilinopus marchei Flame-breasted Fruit VU EN 2 2 2 6
Dove
Ptilinopus merrilli Cream-breasted fruit VU VU 2 1 2 5
dove
Ptilinopus arcanus Negros fruit dove CR CR 3 3 3 9
Ducula poliocephala Pink-bellied imperial VU CR - - - - Followed the highest
pigeon status of ESU Ducula
poliocephala (Luzon
ESU)
Ducula mindorensis Mindoro imperial VU EN 3 2 2 7
pigeon
Ducula carola Spotted imperial VU EN - - - - Followed the status of
pigeon all subspecies
Ducula pickeringii Grey imperial pigeon VU EN 2 2 2 6

Cuculidae Centropus unirufus Rufous coucal Not listed OTS 0 0 1 1
Centropus steerii Black-hooded coucal CR CR 3 3 2 8
Strigidae Otus gurneyi Giant scops owl VU EN 2 2 3 7
Otus fuliginosus Palawan scops owl Not listed EN 2 2 2 6
Otus nigrorum Negros scops owl Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
Otus longicornis Luzon scops owl Not listed VU 1 2 2 5
Otus mindorensis Mindoro scops owl Not listed VU 1 2 1 4
Otus mantananensis Mantanani scops owl Not listed VU - - - - Followed the highest
status of subspecies
O. m. romblonis and
O. m. sibutuensis
Otus elegans Ryukyu scops owl Not listed OTS 0 1 1 2
Bubo philippensis Philippine eagle-owl VU EN 2 1 3 6
Ninox randi Chocolate boobook Not listed VU 2 1 1 4
Ninox spilocephala Mindanao hawk-owl Not listed VU 2 1 2 5
Ninox mindorensis Mindoro hawk-owl Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
Ninox spilonota Romblon hawk-owl Not listed EN 2 2 2 6
Ninox rumseyi Cebu hawk-owl Not listed EN 2 2 2 6
Ninox leventisi Camiguin hawk-owl Not listed EN 2 3 2 7
Ninox reyi Sulu hawk-owl Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
Podargidae Batrachostomus Palawan frogmouth Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
chaseni
Apodidae Mearnsia picina Philippine spine- Not listed VU 2 1 1 4
tailed swift
Alcedinidae Actenoides hombroni Blue-capped wood VU VU 1 2 1 4
kingfisher
Todiramphus Rufous-lored VU VU 1 1 2 4
winchelli kingfisher
Ceyx melanurus Philippine dwarf VU VU - - - - Followed the status of
kingfisher all subspecies
Ceyx margarethae Dimorphic dwarf Not listed OTS 0 0 1 1

99
kingfisher

Ceyx cyanopectus Indigo-banded Not listed CR - - - - Followed the highest
kingfisher status of subspecies
Ceyx cyanopectus
nigrirostris
Ceyx flumenicola Southern silvery Not listed VU 1 2 1 4
kingfisher
Ceyx argentatus Northern silvery VU VU 1 2 1 4
kingfisher
Bucerotidae Buceros hydrocorax Rufous hornbill VU EN - - - - Followed the highest
Buceros hydrocorax
hydrocorax
Anthracoceros Palawan hornbill VU VU 1 1 1 3
marchei
Anthracoceros Sulu hornbill CR CR 3 3 3 9
montani
Rhabdotorrhinus Walden's hornbill CR CR 2 3 3 8
waldeni
Rhabdotorrhinus Writhed hornbill VU VU 1 2 1 4
leucocephalus
Penelopides manillae Luzon hornbill Not listed VU - - - - Followed the highest
Penelopides manillae
subniger
Penelopides Mindoro hornbill EN EN 2 2 2 6
mindorensis
Penelopides affinis Mindanao hornbill Not listed EN - - - - Followed the highest
Penelopides affinis
basilanicus
Penelopides panini Visayan hornbill EN CR - - - - Followed the highest
ticaensis status of subspecies
Penelopides panini
ticaensis
Picidae Dendrocopos ramsayi Sulu pygmy VU VU 1 2 1 4
woodpecker
Dinopium everetti Spot-throated Not listed OTS 0 1 0 1
flameback
Chrysocolaptes Yellow-faced Not listed EN 3 2 2 7
xanthocephalus flameback
Chrysocolaptes Red-headed Not listed EN 3 2 1 6
erythrocephalus flameback
Mulleripicus Great slaty Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
pulverulentus woodpecker
Cacatuidae Cacatua Red-vented cockatoo CR CR 2 3 3 8
haematuropygia
Psittacidae Loriculus philippensis Colasisi Not listed CR - - - - Followed the highest
L. p. chrysonotus and
L. p. siquijorensis
Trichoglossus Mindanao lorikeet Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
johnstoniae
101
Prioniturus montanus Montane racket-tail Not listed EN 1 3 2 6

102
Prioniturus Mindanao racket-tail Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
waterstradti
Prioniturus platenae Blue-headed racket- VU VU 1 2 2 5
tail
Prioniturus luconensis Green racket-tail VU CR 3 3 2 8
Prioniturus discurus Blue-crowned racket- Not listed OTS 0 0 1 1
tail
Prioniturus Mindoro racket-tail Not listed EN 2 2 2 6
mindorensis
Prioniturus verticalis Blue-winged racket- EN CR 3 3 3 9
tail
Tanygnathus Blue-naped parrot VU CR - - - - Followed the highest
lucionensis status of subspecies
T. l. hybridus and
T. l. lucionensis
Tanygnathus Blue-backed parrot Not listed CR - - - - Followed the highest
sumatranus status of subspecies
T. s. freeri, T. s.
burbidgii, and T. s.
duponti
Eurylaimidae Sarcophanops steerii Wattled broadbill VU VU 1 2 2 5
Sarcophanops Visayan broadbill VU VU 1 2 2 5
samarensis
Pittidae Erythropitta kochi Whiskered pitta VU VU 2 1 2 5
Pitta steerii Azure-breasted pitta VU VU 2 1 2 5
Pitta nympha Fairy pitta Not listed VU - - - 0 Accidental species;

Campephagi- Coracina Black-bibbed Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
dae mindanensis cuckooshrike
Coracina ostenta White-winged VU VU 1 2 2 5
cuckooshrike
Coracina mcgregori McGregor's VU VU 2 2 1 5
cuckooshrike
Pericrocotus igneus Fiery minivet Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
Laniidae Lanius validirostris Mountain shrike Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
Oriolidae Oriolus xanthonotus Dark-throated oriole Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
Oriolus isabellae Isabela oriole OWS CR 3 3 2 8
Dicruridae Dicrurus menagei Tablas drongo Not listed CR 3 3 2 8
Rhipiduridae Rhipidura sauli Tablas fantail Not listed EN 1 2 3 6
Monarchidae Hypothymis helenae Short-crested monarch Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
Hypothymis coelestis Celestial monarch VU CR - - - - Followed the highest
Hypothymis coelestis
rabori
Terpsiphone Japanese paradise Not listed VU 2 2 0 4
atrocaudata flycatcher
Bombycillidae Bombycilla japonica Japanese waxwing Not listed OTS - - - 0
Paridae Periparus amabilis Palawan tit Not listed OTS 0 1 0 1

Parus semilarvatus White-fronted tit Not listed OTS 0 1 0 1
Pycnonotidae Alophoixus frater Palawan bulbul Not listed OTS 1 0 0 1
Not listed
103
Hypsipetes rufigularis Zamboanga bulbul VU 1 2 1 4

104
Hypsipetes Streak-breasted EN CR - - - - Followed the highest
siquijorensis bulbul status of subspecies
Hypsipetes
siquijorensis
monticola
Phylloscopi- Phylloscopus ijimae Ijima's leaf warbler VU VU - - - 0 Accidental species;
dae followed IUCN status
Acrocephali- Acrocephalus Speckled reed VU CR 3 3 2 8

dae sorghophilus warbler
Locustellidae Robsonius rabori Cordillera ground Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
warbler
Robsonius thompsoni Sierra Madre ground Not listed OTS 0 1 1 2
warbler
Robsonius Bicol ground warbler Not listed VU 1 1 1 3
sorsogonensis
Cisticolidae Orthotomus Yellow-breasted Not listed OTS 0 1 0 1
samarensis tailorbird
Timaliidae Micromacronus Visayan miniature Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
leytensis babbler
Pellorneidae Ptilocichla falcata Falcated wren- VU VU 1 2 2 5
babbler
Malacopteron Melodious babbler Not listed OTS 0 1 0 1
palawanense
Zosteropidae Zosterornis striatus Luzon striped babbler Not listed VU 3 1 0 4
Zosterornis latistriatus Panay striped babbler Not listed VU 2 2 1 5
Zosterornis nigrorum Negros striped babbler EN EN 2 3 1 6

Zosterornis Palawan striped Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
hypogrammicus babbler
Dasycrotapha Flame-templed EN EN 2 2 3 7
speciosa babbler
Dasycrotapha plateni Mindanao pygmy Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
babbler
Dasycrotapha Visayan pygmy Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
pygmaea babbler
Sterrhoptilus Golden-crowned Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
dennistouni babbler
Sturnidae Basilornis mirandus Apo myna Not listed VU 1 2 1 4
Gracula religiosa Common hill myna VU VU 1 1 3 5 Gracula religiosa
palawanensis (only
subspecies in the
Philippines out of 8
sbsp)
Turdidae Geokichla cinerea Ashy thrush VU VU 2 1 1 4
Muscicapidae Copsychus White-browed shama Not listed VU - - - - Followed the highest
luzoniensis status of subspecies
Copsychus luzoniensis
shemleyi
Copsychus cebuensis Black shama EN EN 2 2 3 7
Muscicapa randi Ashy-breasted VU EN 3 1 2 6

flycatcher
Vauriella albigularis White-throated EN EN 2 2 2 6
jungle flycatcher
105

Vauriella insignis White-browed jungle VU VU 1 1 1 3
flycatcher
Vauriella goodfellowi Slaty-backed jungle Not listed VU 1 2 1 4
flycatcher
Ficedula basilanica Little slaty flycatcher VU VU 1 1 0 2
Ficedula platenae Palawan flycatcher VU VU 1 2 1 4
Chloropseidae Chloropsis Philippine leafbird VU CR - - - - Followed the
flavipennis highest status of ESU
Chloropsis flavipennis
(Cebu ESU)
Dicaeidae Dicaeum proprium Whiskered Not listed VU 2 2 0 4
flowerpecker
Dicaeum anthonyi Flame-crowned Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
flowerpecker
Dicaeum Black-belted VU VU 2 1 1 4
haematostictum flowerpecker/Visayan
flowerpecker
Dicaeum Scarlet-collared VU VU 1 1 2 4
retrocinctum flowerpecker
Dicaeum quadricolor Cebu flowerpecker CR CR 3 3 3 9
Nectariniidae Anthreptes Grey-throated Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
griseigularis sunbird
Aethopyga Grey-hooded sunbird Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
primigenia
Aethopyga boltoni Apo sunbird Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
Aethopyga Lina's sunbird Not listed VU 1 2 0 3
linaraborae
Aethopyga Maroon-naped Not listed OTS 1 0 0 1
guamarasensis sunbird
Aethopyga decorosa Bohol sunbird Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
Estrildidae Erythrura viridifacies Green-faced VU VU 1 1 2 4
parrotfinch
Erythrura coloria Red-eared parrotfinch Not listed OTS 1 1 0 2
*Justification (basis for clasification)
1 Population score: 2 Occurrence score: 3 Threat score: 4 Total score:

Individual counts; number Area of occurrence and Prevailing threat or
0 OWS
of individuals and sub- distribution (geographic suspected pending
population, size, trend location, spread, habitat threat (next 5 years); can 1-2 OTS
0 – stable / increase; and distribution of include anthropogenic or 3-5 VU
3 – extremely low or species) natural threats
rapidly decreasing 0 – widespread; 0 -- none/very few; 6-7 EN
3 – limited occurrence / 3 -- extreme 8-9 CR
distribution
107
Table 3 List of bird subspecies and evolutionary significant units assessed
Species Recommended status

*Luzon bleeding-heart (Gallicolumba luzonica) VU
Gallicolumba luzonica rubiventris VU
Gallicolumba luzonica griseolateralis OTS
Gallicolumba luzonica luzonica OTS
*Amethyst brown dove (Phapitreron amethystinus) CR
Phapitreron amethystinus maculipectus VU
Phapitreron amethystinus frontalis CR
Phapitreron amethystinus imeldae VU
*Spotted imperial pigeon (Ducula carola) EN
Ducula carola nigrorum EN
Ducula carola mindanensis EN
Ducula carola carola EN
*Mantanani scops-owl (Otus mantananensis) VU
Otus mantananensis romblonis VU
Otus mantananensis cuyensis OTS
Otus mantananensis sibutuensis VU
Otus mantananensis mantananensis OTS
*Philippine dwarf kingfisher (Ceyx melanurus) VU
Ceyx melanurus mindanensis VU
Ceyx melanurus melanurus VU
Ceyx melanurus samarensis VU
*Indigo-banded kingfisher (Ceyx cyanopectus) CR
Ceyx cyanopectus cyanopectus OTS
Ceyx cyanopectus nigrirostris CR
*Rufous hornbill (Buceros hydrocorax) EN
Buceros hydrocorax mindanensis VU
Buceros hydrocorax hydrocorax EN
Buceros hydrocorax semigaleatus VU
*subspecies, ** evolutionary significant unit (ESU)
*Luzon hornbill (Penelopides manillae) VU
Penelopides manillae subniger VU
*Mindanao hornbill (Penelopides affinis) EN
Penelopides affinis basilanicus EN
*Visayan hornbill (Penelopides panini) CR
Penelopides panini ticaensis CR
Penelopides panini panini EN
*Colasisi (Loriculus philippensis) CR
Loriculus philippensis philippensis OTS
Loriculus philippensis mindorensis VU
Loriculus philippensis bournsi VU
Loriculus philippensis regulus OTS
Loriculus philippensis chrysonotus CR
Loriculus philippensis worcesteri OTS
Loriculus philippensis siquijorensis CR
Loriculus philippensis apicalis OTS
Loriculus philippensis dohertyi VU
Loriculus philippensis bonapartei VU
*Blue-naped parrot (Tanygnathus lucionensis) CR
Tanygnathus lucionensis hybridus CR
Tanygnathus lucionensis lucionensis CR
Tanygnathus lucionensis salvadorii VU
*Blue-backed parrot (Tanygnathus sumatranus) CR
Tanygnathus sumatranus freeri CR
Tanygnathus sumatranus everetti EN
Tanygnathus sumatranus burbidgii CR
Tanygnathus sumatranus duponti CR
*Celestial monarch (Hypothymis coelestis) CR
Hypothymis coelestis rabori CR
Hypothymis coelestis coelestis EN
*Streak-breasted bulbul (Hypsipetes siquijorensis) CR
Hypsipetes siquijorensis siquijorensis VU
Hypsipetes siquijorensis monticola CR
Hypsipetes siquijorensis cinereiceps EN
*White-browed shama (Copsychus luzoniensis) VU
Copsychus luzoniensis parvimaculatus OTS
Copsychus luzoniensis shemleyi VU
**Pink-bellied imperial pigeon (Ducula poliocephala) CR
Ducula poliocephala (Luzon ESU) CR
Ducula poliocephala (other ESU outside Luzon) EN
**Philippine leafbird (Chloropsis flavipennis) CR
Chloropsis flavipennis (Cebu ESU) CR
Chloropsis flavipennis (Greater Mindanao ESU) EN
Reptiles
The reptile subcommittee listed 51 species belonging to 13 families (Table

4). Eleven of the 18 reptilian species in the DAO 2004-15 list retained their threat
categories, such as the Philippine forest turtle (Siebenrockiella leytensis), Philippine
crocodile (Crocodylus mindorensis), and the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata), which were all under the CR category. Previously unlisted, the saltwater
crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) is recommended to the CR category due to continuous
habitat destruction and modification (i.e. conversion of mangrove forests to fish ponds)
and persecution, while the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) was uplisted
from EN to CR because of the clauses afforded by the Appendix I of Convention
on Migratory Species (CMS). Thirty-four previously unlisted species from 9 families
were included in the amended list—1 CR, 2 VU, and 31 OTS. Illegal wildlife trade
primarily for pets and to a lesser extent for traditional medicine and curio trade is a
threat to several reptilian species in the list. Harvesting of the Tokay gecko (Gekko
gecko), purportedly for its curative properties, was rampant between 2010 and 2012,
until the claims were refuted by health authorities. The BMB has since issued a
memorandum to curb the trade.
Table 4 List of Philippine threatened reptile species and their status in the proposed amendments to DAO 2004-15
DAO Proposed
Family Scientific name Common name Justification*
2004-15 status
Geoemydidae Siebenrockiella leytensis Philippine forest turtle, CR CR 1, 13, 7, 8, 2, 3,
Palawan forest turtle 15
Cheloniidae Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle CR CR 1, 13, 9
Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle EN CR 1, 13, 9
Varanidae Varanus mabitang Panay forest monitor lizard CR CR 1, 2, 3, 4
Crocodylidae Crocodylus mindorensis Philippine crocodile CR CR 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 13
Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus Indo-Pacific crocodile; - CR 1, 3, 4, 6, 13
saltwater crocodile
Geoemydidae Heosemys spinosa Spiny hill turtle EN EN 2, 6, 7, 8
Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle EN EN 1, 13, 9
Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas Green turtle EN EN 1, 13, 9
Cheloniidae Lepidochelys olivacea Olive ridley turtle EN EN 1, 13, 9
Viperidae Trimeresurus mcgregori McGregor's pitviper OTS EN 1, 2, 3, 7, 8
Geoemydidae Cyclemys dentata Asian leaf turtle - VU 1, 2, 6, 7
Varanidae Varanus bitatawa Northern Sierra Madre forest - VU 1, 2, 6, 7
monitor lizard
Varanidae Varanus olivaceus Gray's monitor lizard VU VU 1, 6, 7
Geoemydidae Cuora amboinensis Malayan box turtle - OTS 11, 7, 8
Trionychidae Pelochelys cantorii Asian giant softshell turtle EN OTS 11
Agamidae Bronchocela cristatella Green crested lizard - OTS 7

Agamidae Bronchocela marmorata Marbled crested lizard - OTS 7
marmorata
111
Agamidae Gonocephalus interruptus Mindanao forest dragon - OTS 7

DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Agamidae Gonocephalus semperi Dark-spotted forest dragon - OTS 7
Agamidae Gonocephalus sophiae White-spotted forest dragon; - OTS 7
Negros forest dragon
Agamidae Hydrosaurus pustulatus Philippine sailfin lizard OTS OTS 7
Gekkonidae Gekko gecko Tokay gecko - OTS 7
Gekkonidae Pseudogekko smaragdinus Green smooth-scaled gecko - OTS 7
Gekkonidae Ptychozoon intermedium Philippine flying gecko - OTS 11, 7
Scincidae Tropidophorus grayi Spiny waterside skink - OTS 7
Varanidae Varanus bangonorum Bangon monitor lizard - OTS 11, 7, 5
Varanidae Varanus cumingi Cuming's monitor lizard VU OTS 11, 6, 7
Varanidae Varanus dalubhasa Enteng's monitor lizard - OTS 11, 7, 5
Varanidae Varanus marmoratus Luzon monitor lizard; VU OTS 11, 7
marbled monitor lizard
Varanidae Varanus nuchalis West Visayas monitor lizard VU OTS 11, 7
Varanidae Varanus palawanensis Palawan monitor lizard - OTS 11, 7
Varanidae Varanus rasmusseni Jolo-Tawitawi monitor lizard - OTS 11, 2
Varanidae Varanus samarensis Samar monitor lizard - OTS 11, 7, 5
Pythonidae Malayopython reticulatus Reticulated python OTS OTS 11, 7
Colubridae Boiga angulata Philippine blunt-headed tree - OTS 11, 7
snake
Colubridae Boiga cynodon Large blunt-headed tree - OTS 11, 7
snake
Colubridae Boiga dendrophila - - OTS 7
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Colubridae Boiga philippina - - OTS 11, 7
Colubridae Coelognathus erythrura - - OTS 6, 13
Colubridae Gonyosoma oxycephalum Red-tailed green rat snake - OTS 6, 13
Colubridae Ptyas carinatus Keeled rat snake - OTS 6, 13
Colubridae Ptyas luzonensis Keel-sealed mountain rat - OTS 6, 13
snake
Elapidae Naja philippinensis Philippine cobra - OTS 6, 13
Elapidae Naja samarensis Central Philippine cobra - OTS 6, 13
Elapidae Naja sumatrana Equatorial or Sumatran - OTS 6, 13
spitting cobra
Elapidae Ophiophagus hannah King cobra - OTS 6, 13
Viperidae Trimeresurus flavomaculatus Philippine pitviper - OTS 11, 7, 8
Viperidae Trimeresurus schultzei Schultz's pitviper - OTS 11, 7, 8
Viperidae Tropidolaemus philippensis Philippine temple pitviper - OTS 11, 7, 8
Viperidae Tropidolaemus subannulatus Temple pitviper - OTS 11, 7, 8
*Justification
1 Under threat due to habitat destruction 11 Species with limited information
2 Limited geographic range 12 Limited information on population dynamics
3 Restricted population 13 Threat from other natural and man made factors
4 Small population size 14 Possibly affected by habitat degradation
5 Under threat from hunting 15 Reduction in population size

6 Over-utilized
7 Under threat from exotic animal trade
8 Used as traditional medicine
9 Threat from trade for commercial use and curio
113
10 Under threat from high level of trade in leather

Of the Varanus species, the Panay forest monitor lizard (Varanus mabitang)
retained its CR status, while the Northern Sierra Madre forest monitor lizard (Varanus
bitatawa) and Gray's monitor lizard (Varanus olivaceus) are classified as VU due
to restricted distributional range and the importance for monitoring illegal trade;
V. bitatawa is a new addition to the list. All other monitor lizards were placed
under the OTS category (3 downlisted from VU) as these species were found to
adapt generally well in disturbed habitats; nonetheless, threats due to persecution,
bush meat trade, and illegal pet trade still persist. The rough-necked monitor lizard
(Varanus rudicollis) was listed in DAO 2004-15 but was removed from the proposed
amended list because there is no evidence that the species occurs in the country. The
Asian giant softshell turtle (Pelochelys cantorii) was downgraded to OTS because of
insufficient data to justify the EN status. The complete list of reptile species and their
categories based on DAO 2004-15, the proposed amendments to the DAO, and from
IUCN can be found in Table 4.
Amphibians
The number of amphibians included in the proposed amendments to

the threatened species list more than doubled from 15 to 32 species belonging to
7 families (Table 5). Five species retained their status. The Negros limestone frog
(Platymantis spelaeus) was retained as EN while species such as McGregor’s slender
stream toad (Ansonia mcgregori), Lawton’s cloud frog (Platymantis lawtoni), Negros
horned tree frog (Platymantis negrosensis), Rabor’s horned tree frog (Platymantis
rabori), and the Mindoro bush frog (Philautus schmackeri) were retained as VU. The
Gigantes limestone frog (Platymantis insulatus) was proposed to be elevated to CR
status because it has a very restricted home range that is also threatened by habitat
destruction. The Philippine flat-headed frog (Barbourula busuangensis) was elevated
to VU because of habitat disturbance from quarrying, conversion for housing and
agriculture, and pollution.
The Polillo plaintive tree frog (Platymantis polilloensis), Hazel’s cloud frog
(Platymantis hazelae), and Cordilleras torrent frog (Sanguirana igorota) were delisted
as they are more widespread than previously thought. Five other species were
downgraded to a lower threat category: the Negros horned tree frog (Platymantis
negrosensis) and Cordilleras cloud frog (Platymantis subterrestris) from EN to VU;
and the Mindanao fanged frog (Limnonectes magnus), Basilan caecilian (Ichthyophis
glandulosus), and Mindanao caecilian (Ichthyophis mindanaoensis) from VU to
OTS. These species have limited geographical range but with little information to
support enlisting in a higher threat category. Majority of the species in the threatened
amphibian list are threatened with habitat destruction within their limited geographical
range. Table 5 shows the full list of the proposed status per amphibian species.
Table 5 List of Philippine threatened amphibian species and their status in the proposed amendments to
DAO 2004-15
DAO Proposed
2004-15 status
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis insulatus Gigantes limestone frog VU CR 1, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis spelaeus Negros limestone frog EN EN 2, 4
Bombinatoridae Barbourula busuangensis Philippine flat-headed Frog OWS VU 3, 4
Bufonidae Ansonia mcgregori McGregor’s slender stream VU VU 3, 4
toad
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis banahao Banahao horned tree frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis bayani Walter’s limestone frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis biak Biak-na-bato limestone frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis indeprensus Banahao cliff frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis isarog Bicol cloud frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis lawtoni Lawton’s cloud frog VU VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis levigatus Romblon streambank - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis montanus Banahao cloud frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis naomiae Naomi’s montane wrinkled - VU 3, 4
ground frog
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis negrosensis Negros horned tree frog EN VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis panayensis Panay cloud frog - VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis pseudodorsalis Banahao streambank frog - VU 3, 4

Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis rabori Rabor’s horned tree frog VU VU 3, 4
Ceratrobatrachidae Platymantis subterrestris Cordilleras cloud frog EN VU 3, 4
Dicroglossidae Limnonectes diuatus White-spined fanged frog - VU 3, 4
115
DAO Proposed 116
2004-15 status
Dicroglossidae Limnonectes visayanus Visayan fanged frog - VU 3, 4
Rhacophoridae Philautus schmackeri Mindoro bush frog -VU VU 3, 4
Rhacophoridae Philautus surrufus Rufous bush frog - VU 3, 4
Rhacophoridae Philautus worcesteri Worcester’s bush frog - VU 3, 4
Dicroglossidae Limnonectes acanthi Palawan fanged frog - OTS 5, 8
Dicroglossidae Limnonectes macrocephalus Luzon fanged frog - OTS 4, 6, 8
Dicroglossidae Limnonectes magnus Mindanao fanged frog VU OTS 4, 6, 8
Megophryidae Leptobrachium mangyanorum Mindoro litter frog - OTS 3, 4, 8
Megophryidae Megophrys ligayae Palawan horned frog - OTS 7, 8
Megophryidae Megophrys stejnegeri Mindanao horned frog - OTS 7, 8
Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis glandulosus Basilan caecilian VU OTS 3, 8
Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis mindanaoensis Mindanao caecilian VU OTS 3, 8
Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis weberi Palawan caecilian - OTS 3, 8
*Justification for the proposed status
1 - Restricted within an extremely limited geographic 6 - Overutilized
range 7 - Under threat from exotic animal trade
2 - Restricted within a very limited geographic range 8 - Species with limited information
3 - Restricted within a limited geographic range 9 - Information is needed
4 - Under threat due to habitat destruction
5 - Used as food for local subsistence
Invertebrates
The subcommittee assessed 784 species of arachnids, insects, and

gastropods, with class Insecta comprising majority of the orders assessed: Blattodea
(cockroaches), Coleoptera (beetles), Hemiptera (true bugs), Hymneptora (wasps),
Lepideptora (butterflies and moths), Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), and
Phasmatodea (leaf insects and stick insects). Three families under the order Araneae
(spiders) were assessed, while for the Gastropods (land snails), 2 families from the
order Stylommatophora were reviewed (Table 6).
Table 6 Summary of invertebrate species assessed and their proposed threat

categories
Species Threatened species

Class Order Family
assessed CR EN VU OTS
Arachnida Araneae Araneidae 13 - - - 13
Dipluridae 2 - - - 2
Theraphosidae 9 - - - 9
Insecta Blattodea Blaberidae 30 - - 3 27
Blattidae 11 - - 2 9
Ectobiidae 10 - - - 10
Nocticolidae 2 - 2 - -
Polyphagidae 4 - - - 4
Coleoptera Buprestidae 11 - - 5 6
Carabidae 12 - - - 12
Cerambycidae 109 - - 1 108
Curculionidae 226 - - 226 -
Lucanidae 19 - - 7 12
Scarabaeidae 32 - - - 32
Hemiptera Cercopidae 37 - - - 37
Cicadidae 1 - - 1 -
Gerridae 2 - 1 1 -
Helotrephidae 3 - - 3 -
Cercopidae 37 - - - 37
Species Threatened species
Class Order Family
assessed CR EN VU OTS
Hemiptera Hermatobatidae 1 - - 1 -
Margarodidae 1 - - - 1
Nepidae 1 - - 1 -
Ochteridae 3 - - 3 -
Pseudococcidae 2 - - 1 1
Saldidae 2 - - 2 -
Hymenoptera Sphecidae 6 - - 4 2
Lepidoptera Erebidae 3 - - - 3
Geometridae 2 - - 2 -
Lycaenidae 10 1 1 7 1
Nymphalidae 10 4 - 6 -
Papilionidae 6 4 - 2 -
Saturniidae 2 - - 1 1
Odonata Aeshnidae 1 - - 1 -
Amphipterygidae 1 - - 1 -
Argiolestidae 2 - - 2 -
Chlorocyphidae 3 - 1 2 -
Coenagrionidae 3 - - 3 -
Corduliidae 1 - - 1 -
Euphaeidae 1 - - 1 -
Platycnemididae 5 1 - 4 -
Platystictidae 11 1 1 9 -
Phasmatodea Aschiphasmatidae 5 - - - 5
Diapheromeridae 46 - - 1 45
Heteropterygidae 46 - - - 46
Phasmatidae 54 - - 1 53
Phylliidae 11 - - 11
Prisopodidae 2 - - - 2
Gastropoda Stylommatophora Bradybaenidae 7 1 - 3 3
Helicarionidae 3 1 - 2 -
Total 784 13 6 321 444
Of the 784 species, 13 (1.7%) are CR, 6 (0.8%) are EN, 321 (40.9%) are VU,
and 444 (56.6%) are OTS. The family Lepidoptera had the highest rate of species
recommended under the CR (69.2%) and EN (6.7%) categories. The order Coleoptera
has a high VU category rate owing to the listing of 226 species from the family
Curculionidae.
Overharvesting is one of the most commonly cited threats to invertebrate

species. Several taxa belonging to Phasmatodea, Coleoptera, and Heminoptera were
prone to poaching and illegal trade, often for personal collections. Arachnids are
poached for pet trade (Dipluridae, Theraphosidae) and spider wrestling (Araneidae)
while Lepidoptera species appear heavily in international trade. The taxa also has
a high number of endemic species with unstable populations and its habitats are
degraded and heavily polluted. While over 80% of species have limited information
available or are known only from type specimens or collections, they have been
documented in localities that are under severe human disturbance and habitat
degradation (e.g. tourism, mining, land conversion). The Odonata species have
limited range but are threatened by habitat conversion and deforestation, especially
species that are forest obligate.
Endemic species in the proposed National List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna
The number of endemic mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians listed as

threatened (CR, EN, and VU) in the proposed amendments to the list increased to
168 as opposed to the 110 species under the DAO 2004-15 list. Endemic species
categorized as OTS increased considerably from 7 to 79 (Table 7).
The proportion of Philippine endemic species listed remained relatively

unchanged across the 4 Philippine vertebrate groups represented. All threatened
amphibians, half of the threatened reptilian species, nearly three-fourths of
threatened birds, and about 80% of the threatened mammals listed were all
endemic. Almost all invertebrates listed were endemic to the Philippines. Out of
the 784 invertebrate species evaluated, only 60 are so far known to occur outside
the Philippines. Majority of the invertebrate groups are poorly studied and most
species are presently known only from their type localities.
Conclusion
National red lists are very influential tools in the protection and conservation
of threatened species, especially among national organizations (Miller et al. 2007).
These lists become more relevant because conservation policies are implemented
more at national and subnational levels (Rodriguez 2008) and priorities are set
Table 7 Comparison of the number of threatened endemic species in the DAO

2004-15 and in the proposed amendments to the DAO
Version Category Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Total
DAO CR 6 11 4 0 21
2004-15 EN 5 10 6 3 24
VU 14 38 3 10 65
OTS 3 1 3 0 7
Total 28 60 16 13 117
Proposed CR 7 25 3 1 36
list EN 8 28 1 1 38
VU 12 59 2 21 94
OTS 22 23 25 9 79
Total 49 135 31 32 247
differently in different countries involving political and logistical considerations

(Gärdenfors 2001). If carefully assessed, with objectives clearly laid, a national
red list will allow the host country to safeguard its own resources and provide apt
conservation planning based on local needs.
However, while national red lists can provide important documents on

biodiversity loss (Zamin et al. 2010), they should not be used as an inference to changes
in biodiversity. Movements in red lists may be the result of improved knowledge,
refinements in taxonomy, and improvement in observation and survey techniques
(Quayle and Ramsay 2005). As in the case of the proposed updated Philippine Red
List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna, several factors influence the increase in species
listed under the threatened categories, particularly VU and OTS, apart from declining
biodiversity conditions. First, the number of species assessed in this evaluation period
was greater than in 2004. Where previously underrepresented, the proposed list
thoroughly assessed amphibians and reptiles, and more notably, included terrestrial
invertebrates among the taxonomic groups evaluated.
Secondly, field research and studies have led to discoveries of new species
and taxonomic splits, which have increased the number of species. For example,
the assessment for the DAO 2004-15 list came before the discovery of the Calayan
Rail (Gallirallus calayanensis). Subsequent studies have demonstrated the impacts
of habitat loss and hunting to the rail that already has a restricted range and patchy
distribution which warranted an EN status. In addition, field expeditions led to

discoveries of at least 28 non-volant mammals (Heaney et al. 2016), 20 of which were
proposed to be listed – two as VU and 18 under OTS. Further, morphological and
molecular studies of the water monitor (Varanus salvator) complex has yielded 4 new
species: V. rasmusseni, V. palawanensis, V. dalubhasa, and V. bangonorum (Koch et
al. 2010; Welton et al. 2014) which were included and classified as OTS in this list.
Thirdly, a wider pool of biodiversity researchers and conservationists were

involved in crafting the updated list of threatened species. These resource persons
provided on-the-ground information on species and habitats where published
information is lacking. The BCSP’s TWG yielded better information sharing and
communication among researchers and field practitioners working on the same
taxonomic group.
The proposed list will be useful for policy makers and implementers to afford
stricter enforcement of rules, including the trade of wildlife and introduction of exotic
species. Meanwhile, the updated list should also be an opportunity to boost long-term
biodiversity research in the Philippines to produce clear baselines and monitoring
data that will clearly establish the status of and trends in the country’s biodiversity.
This can also assist in increasing knowledge on the patterns of biodiversity loss both
locally and globally, and in providing information about what is happening to species
in different parts of its range (Zamin et al. 2010). Especially for species falling under
the OTS, such as data deficient species or newly discovered species, wide assessment
across taxa should be encouraged to identify data gaps for species or taxonomic
groups to avoid biases towards commonly surveyed and charismatic species. Existing
information is available for megafauna (Baillie et al. 2008) but both red lists and
scientific efforts should be expanded to lower and lesser-known taxonomic groups
such as invertebrates (Martin-Lopez et al. 2011; Walsh et al. 2012). The assessment
highlighted species—especially from the invertebrate, reptile, and amphibian
groups—that have limited information that would benefit from further taxonomic and
ecological studies. More than 80% of the 784 invertebrate species assessed were data
deficient and known only from type localities and collection specimen. Similarly,
44% of reptiles and 28% of amphibians listed have limited information, but were are
nonetheless threatened by trade or habitat degradation.
Data management and knowledge sharing through a database and a web-

based platform that contains baseline information on species, new knowledge, and
comprehensive species information and assessment can be utilized to show more
accurate biodiversity trends. The Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM), established by
CBD to facilitate information sharing (Laihonen et al. 2004), is an internet portal
that can be expanded by the BMB. An example is Malaysia’s Biodiversity Clearing
House Mechanism website (http://chm-malaysia.org/) which contains an impressive
catalogue of the country’s flora and fauna (Napis et al. 2001). Balmford et al. (2005)
further suggested the improvement on the use of local calibration and ground-truthing
of remotely-sensed data, development of volunteer networks for data gathering, and
exploration of ways in which locally collected data translate into higher analysis as
some of the routes towards reaching the intended goal of the CBD.
The proposed updated National List of Threatened Terrestrial Fauna is a

product of a collaborative undertaking among various experts and practitioners from
various sectors in the Philippines' biodiversity and conservation fields. It is envisioned
that, through the PRLC and with continued inputs from the TWGs, the list is updated
periodically as stipulated in the Wildlife Act.
The updated list can contribute to conservation planning and species

management. As a policy instrument, it can serve its purpose in managing biodiversity
by boosting funding and research in species and habitats that need attention,
while curbing species decline by controlling the drivers of biodiversity loss. As a
conservation tool, the list can contribute to planning of protected areas and critical
habitats, priority setting for species conservation efforts, and biodiversity awareness
among stakeholders and the general public.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Moonyeen Nida Alava, Carlo Custodio, Michelle

Encomienda, Eva Marie Maboloc, Nermalie Lita, Cecille Garcia, Pola Geneva
Bumanglad, and Katherine Soriano for their support to various BCSP Technical
Working Group meetings and workshops; Carl Oliveros for providing constructive
comments to previous versions of this manuscript; the University of Eastern
Philippines, the City Government of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, MBCFI, and the
Ateneo de Manila University for hosting the Philippine Biodiversity Symposia from
2015–2017, wherein workshops and consultations to discuss the proposed list were
organized and held; and the Wildlife Resources Division of the BMB for providing
technical and secretariat support to the subcommittees.
Literature cited
An act providing for the conservation and protection of wildlife resources and their
habitats, appropriating funds therefore and for other Purposes, Republic Act 9147.
2001. Philippine laws and jurisprudence databank. [accessed 2018 February 13].
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9147_2001.html.
Baillie JEM, Collen B, Amin R, Akcakaya HR, Butchart SHM, Brummit N, Meagher
TR, Ram M, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM. 2008. Toward monitoring global
biodiversity. Conserv Lett. 1:18–26.
Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson A, Green RE, Mace GM. 2005. The 2010 challenge:
data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Phil Trans R Soc B.
360:221–228.
BirdLife International. 2015. IUCN Red List for Birds. [Accessed 2015 September].
http://www.birdlife.org.
Brito D, Ambal RG, Brooks T, De Silva N, Foster M, Hao W, Hilton-Taylor C, Paglia

A, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez JV. 2010. How similar are national red lists and the
IUCN red list? Biol Conserv. 143:1154–1158.
Butchart SHM, Akcakaya HR, Kennedy E, Hilton-Taylor C. 2006. Biodiversity

indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List
Index. Conserv Biol. 20(2):579–581.
De Chavez. 2018. Correspondence with author, February 2018.
Gärdenfors U. 2001. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels.

Trends Ecol Evol. 16(9):511–516.
Gill F, Donsker D (Eds.). 2016. International Ornithological Congress (IOC) world

bird list v. 6.1. IOC, Washington, D.C. [Accessed January 2016]. www.
worldbirdnames.org.
Gomez L, Sy EY. 2018. Illegal pangolin trade in the Philippines. TRAFFIC Bulletin
30(1): 37–40.
Groves CP. 2001. Taxonomy of wild pigs of Southeast Asia. Asian Wild Pig News.
1:2–3.
Grubb P. 2005. Artiodactyla. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM, editors. Mammal Species
World A Taxon Geogr Ref. 3rd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; p.
637–722.
Heaney LR, Balete DS, Rickart EA. 2016. The mammals of Luzon island: biogeography
and natural history of a Philippine fauna. Baltimore, Maryland (USA): Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hoffmann M, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Gascon C, Hawkins AFA, James RE,
Langhammer P, Mittermeier RA, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL, Silva JMC. 2008.
Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endanger Species Res. 6:113–125.
[IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2015. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2015. [Accessed 2015 September]. www.
iucnredlist.org.
Joint implementing rules and regulations pursuant to Republic Act No. 9147: an act
providing for the conservation and protection of wildlife resources and their
habitats, appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes (Joint DENR-
DA-PCSD Administrative Order 01-2004). 2004. Philippine Clearing House
Mechanism for Biodiversity. [accessed 13 February 2018]. http://www.chm.ph/
index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=36&Itemid=74&el_
mcal_month=7&el_mcal_year=2009.
Kennedy RS, Gonzales PC, Dickinson EC, Miranda HC Jr, Fisher TH. 2000. A guide to
the birds of the Philippines. New York (USA): Oxford University Press.
Koch A, Gaulke M, Böhme W, 2010. Unravelling the underestimated diversity of

Philippine water monitor lizards (Squamata: Varanus salvator complex), with the
description of two new species and a new subspecies. Zootaxa. 2446:1–54.
Lagrada L, Schoppe S, Challender D. 2014. Manis culionensis. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2014: e.T136497A45223365. [accessed 8 May 2018]. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-2.RLTS.T136497A45223365.en.
Laihonen P, Kalliola R, Salo J. 2004. The Biodiversity Information Clearing-House

Mechanism (CHM) as a Global Effort. Environ Sci Policy. 7:99–108.
Lucchini V, Meijaard E, Diong CH, Groves CP, Randi E. 2005. New phylogenetic
perspectives among species of Southeast Asian wild pig (Sus sp.) based on
mtDNA sequences and morphometric data. J Zool. 266:25–35.
Martın-Lopez M, Gonzalez JA, Montes C. 2011. The pitfall-trap of species conservation

priority setting. Biodiversity Conservation. 20:663–682.
Miller RM, Rodríguez JP, Aniskowicz-Fowler T, Bambaradeniya C, Boles R, Eaton MA,

Gärdenfors U, Keller V, Molur S, Walker S, Pollock C. 2007. National threatened
species listing based on IUCN criteria and regional guidelines: current status and
future perspectives. Conserv Biol. 21:684–696.
Napis S, Salleh KM, Itam K, Latiff A. 2001. Biodiversity databases for Malaysian flora
and fauna: an update. Proceedings of Internet Workshop 2001 (IWS2001), National
Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan; organized by Internet Research Committee of
Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers, Japan and High
Quality Internet Study Group of Information Processing Society of Japan; 21-23
February, 2001; Tokyo Japan.
Philippine Clearing House Mechanism for Biodiversity. 2009. [accessed 2018

February 13]. http://www.chm.ph.
Posa MRC, Diesmos AC, Sodhi NS, Brooks TM. 2008. Hope for threatened tropical
biodiversity: lessons from the Philippines. BioScience. 58(3):231–240.
Quayle JF, Ramsay LR. 2005. Conservation status as a biodiversity trend indicator:
recommendations from a decade of listing species at risk in British Columbia.
Conserv Biol. 19(4):1306–1311.
Rodriguez JP. 2008. National Red Lists: The largest global market for IUCN Red List
categories and criteria. Endangered Species Research, Preprint, 2008.
Sachs JD, Baillie JE, Sutherland WJ, Armsworth PR, Ash N, Beddington J, Blackburn
TM, Collen, B, Gardiner B, Gaston KJ and Godfray HCJ. 2009. Biodiversity
conservation and the millennium development goals. Science, 325(5947),
pp.1502-1503
Szabo JK, Butchart SHM, Possingham HP, Garnett ST. 2012. Adapting global
biodiversity indicators to the national scale: a Red List Index for Australian Birds.
Biol Conserv. 148:61–68.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 1987. Official Gazette
[accessed 2013 January 14]. http://www.gov.ph/the-philippine-constitutions/the-
1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/.
Vié JC, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart, SN. (eds.) 2009. Wildlife in a changing world—an
analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland (Switzerland):
IUCN. 180 pp.
Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Possingham HP. 2012. Trends and
biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian
case study. Oryx, 47(1):134–143.
Welton LJ, Travers SL, Siler CD, Brown RM. 2014. Integrative taxonomy and phylogeny-
based species delimitation of Philippine water monitor lizards (Varanus salvator
Complex) with descriptions of two new cryptic species. Zootaxa 3881(3): 201–
227.
Zamin TJ, Baillie JEM, Miller RM, Rodriguez JP, Ardid A, Collen B. 2010. National
Red listing beyond the 2010 target. Conserv Biol. 24(4):1012–1020. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01492.x
Annex 1 List of threatened Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable invertebrate species and their status 126
in the proposed amendments to DAO 2004-15
Proposed
status
Nocticolidae Nocticola caeca Antipolo blind cave EN 3, 5, 12 Known only from original
cockroach collection (1892); known only
from and probably restricted
to Cueva de Antipolo, Rizal
Nocticola simoni Simon's cave cockroach EN 3, 5, 12 Known only from

original collection (1890);
known only from and
probably restricted to Cueva
de Talbac, San Mateo, Rizal
Blaberidae Opistoplatia beybienkoi Bey-bienko apterous VU 5, 15, 17, 24 Known only from Coron,
cockroach Busuanga, and Puerto
Galera, Mindoro; Similar
looking species are used
in pet trade and Chinese
medicine.
Perisphaerus flavicornis Yellow-banded pill VU 5, 15, 13 Recorded only from

cockroach Palawan but present also
in nearby countries
Perisphaerus glomeriformis Black-head pill cockroach VU 5, 15, 13 Recorded only from

Catarman, Samar
Blattidae Homalosilpha ustulata Silphid cockroach VU 9, 15, 17, 13 Similar looking species are
used in pet trade.
Periplaneta banksi cockroach VU 5, 15 Known only from caves in

Polillo Island, Quezon and
Samal Island, Davao
Buprestidae Chrysodema dalmanni Jewel beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 16

Chrysodema eximia Jewel beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 16
Chrysodema jucunda Jewel beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 16
Chrysodema manillarum Jewel beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 16
Chrysodema smaragdula Jewel beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 16

Proposed
status
Cerambycidae Stenoleptura apoensis Longhorn beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus similis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus chrysomelas Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Curculionidae Eupachyrrhynchus superbus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Homalocyrtus maculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Macrocyrtus contractus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Macrocyrtus erosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus bifasciatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus bucasanus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus derasocobaltimus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus diffusisquamosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus geniculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus humeralis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus longipenis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus octomaculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus pardalis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus quadriplagiatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus samarensis Samar Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus sexmaculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus subfasciatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus violaceous Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Metapocyrtus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
chloromaculatus
127
Proposed 128
status
Metapocyrtus Clemens' Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
clemensi beetles
Metapocyrtus frosti Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
lineaticollis
Metapocyrtus Mindanao Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
mindanaoensis beetles
Metapocyrtus Negros Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
negrosensis
Metapocyrtus ruficollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
subdolosus
Metapocyrtus ticaoensis Ticao Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus trifaciatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus univerrucosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus abbrevilineatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus acutipennis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus annulatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus batanensis Batan Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus bifoveatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus brevicollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus bukidnonensis Bukidnon Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus caeruleomaculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus camarinensis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Proposed
status
Metapocyrtus chlamydatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus congestus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus derasus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus difficilis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus elegans Elegant Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus elongatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus erichsoni Erichnsoni's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus figuratus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus gibbirostris Round-snout Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus gregarius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus imitatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus impius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus interruptolineatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus interruptostriatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus interruptus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus lepantoensis Lepanto Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus limayensis Limay Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus lindabonus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus lumutanus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Metapocyrtus macgregori Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus magnigibbicollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
129
Proposed 130
status
Metapocyrtus mindorensis Mindoro Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus monticola Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus multisquamosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus niger Black Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus panayensis Panay Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus perpulcheroides Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus picipennis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus picticollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus pilositibialis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus polilloensis Polillo Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus politissimus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus politus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus proteus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus pseudomandarinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus pseudomonilifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus reyesi Reyes Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus rugicollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus schicki Schick's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus sibuyanensis Sibuyan Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus striatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus subdiffusus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus subfaciatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Proposed
status
Metapocyrtus subvirgatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus sumptuosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus tenuipes Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus virgatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus visayaensis Visayan Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus whiteheadi Whitehead's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus worcesteri Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus bifoveatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus boholensis Bohol Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus consobrinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus helleri Heller's Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus ilocanus Ilocano Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus insulanus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus lanusinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus monstrosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus moorei Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus ornatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus ostentator Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus propolitus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus quadrilifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Metapocyrtus schoenherri Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus subquadrilifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
131
Proposed 132
status
Metapocyrtus triangularis Triangle Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus tumoridorsum Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus virens Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus asper Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus celestinoi Celestino's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus laevicollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus metallicus Metallic Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
transversarius
Metapocyrtus acutispinosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus apoensis Apo Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus banahaoensis Banahaw Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus confusus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus joloensis Jolo Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus profanes Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus pseudoviridans Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus rostrogibbous Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus smaragdinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus socius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Metapocyrtus tawiensis Tawi-tawi Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Metapocyrtus vestitus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Proposed
status
Metapocyrtus viridans Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus absurdus Absurd Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus amabilis Friendly Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus anellifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus apicatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus apocyrtoides Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus apoensis Apo pachyrhynchid VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus ardentius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus argus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus atrocyaneus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus baluganus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus basilanus Basilan Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus bengetanus Benguet Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus bucasanus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus caeruleovittatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus chamissoi Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus chlorites Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus circulatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus congestus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus consobrinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Pachyrrhynchus corpulentus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus croesus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
133
Proposed 134
status
Pachyrrhynchus cumingi Cuming's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus davaoensis Davao Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus decussatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus dohrni Dohrn's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus dubiosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus elegans Elegant pachyrhynchid VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus eos Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus eques Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus erichsoni Erichson's Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus erosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus forsteni Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus galerensis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus gemmatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus gloriosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus halconensis Halcon Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus helleri Heller's pachyrhynchid VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus hirokii Hiroki's Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus igorota Igorot Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus inclytus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus infernalis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus jugifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus lacunosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Proposed
status
Pachyrrhynchus latifasciatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus libucanus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus loheri Loher's Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus lorquini Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus lubanganus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus moniliferus Cacao weevil VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus morio Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus multipunctatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus naokii Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus negrosensis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus nobilis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus nobiliyamianus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus ochroplagiatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus orbifer Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus pelpulcher Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus phaleratus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus pinorum Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus postpubescens Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus pseudomabilis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus pseudoproteus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus psittacinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Pachyrrhynchus pulchellus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus regius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus reticulatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
135
Proposed 136
status
Pachyrrhynchus rizali Rizal's Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus roseomaculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus rufopunctatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus rugicollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus samarensis Samar pachyrhynchid VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sanchezi Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sarcitis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus scheonherri Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus schuetzei Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus semiignitus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus semperi Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus signaticollis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus signatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus smaragdinus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sonani Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus speciosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sphaericollaris Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sphenomorphoides Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus stello Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus striatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus subamabilis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sulphureomaculatus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus sumptuosus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus tadaochii Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Proposed
status
Pachyrrhynchus taylori Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus tilikensis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus tobafolius Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus tristis Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Papilionidae Chilasa carolinensis Mindanao swallowtail CR 2, 5, 14, 15 Collected for international
trade
Pachyrrhynchus venustus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15

Pachyrrhynchus viridans Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus yamianus Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Pachyrrhynchus zamboanganus Zamboanga Easter egg VU 3, 5, 6, 15
beetles
Pachyrrhynchus zebra Zebra Easter egg beetles VU 3, 5, 6, 15
Lucanidae Dorcus parryi Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Dorcus taurus Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Dorcus titanus Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Metallactulus parvulus Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Odontolabis alces Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Odontolabis intermedia Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Odontolabis latipennis Stag beetles VU 5, 13, 15, 17
Cicadidae Psithyristria ridibunda Laughing cicada VU 5, 6
Gerridae Amemboa (s.str.) philippinensis - EN 3, 5, 6

Aquarius philippinensis - VU 5, 6
137
Proposed 138
status
Helotrephidae Hydrotrephes busuanganus Busuanga helotrephid VU 5, 6
backswimmer
Hydrotrephes minutus Minute helotrephid back- VU 5, 6
swimmer
Hydrotrephes stereoides - VU 5, 6 Subspecies H. s.
montanus is known only
from extremely limited
range and habitat
Hermatobatidae Hermatobates marchei - VU 5, 6

Nepidae Borborophyes mayri - VU 5, 6
Ochteridae Ochterus baltazarae Baltazar's ochterid VU 5, 6
Ochterus magnificus Magnificent ochterid VU 5, 6
Ochterus magnus Big ochterid VU 5, 6
Pseudococcidae Trionymus summus Apo summit grass root VU 5, 6 Known only from roots of
mealybug grasses growing in the peak
area of Mount Apo (2950
masl); grass host
not protected
Saldidae Chartoscirta mayona - VU 5, 6

Orthosaldula rubroalata - VU 5, 6
Sphecidae Chalybion magnum Great blue mud-dauber VU 4, 10
Chalybion polyphemus Polyphemus/Cyclops blue VU 4, 10
mud dauber
Sceliphron fervens Fiery yellow and black VU 5, 4, 10 In the Philippines, this can
mud dauber only be found in Palawan.
Sceliphron javanum Handsome yellow and VU - Last recorded in 1991 and

black mud dauber recollected in 2016; with
low progeny (3–5 cells)
and only 34 museum speci-
mens (UPLB-MNH)
Proposed
status
Geometridae Milionia coronifera Pine looper moth VU 2, 5, 9, 6
Milionia philippinensis Philippine day flying VU 2, 5, 9, 6
moth
Lycaenidae Poritia solitaria Angat common gem CR 2, 5, 8, 14 Only one record since
1988
Arhopala tindongani Tindongan's oakblue EN 2, 5, 14, 7, 6

Arhopala luzonensis Luzon oakblue VU 2, 14, 7
Arhopala simoni Tawitawi oakblue VU 2, 14, 8
Dacalana halconensis Halcon royal VU 2, 5, 14, 7, 6
Deramas mindanensis Mindanao bluejohn VU 2, 14, 8
Deramas sumikat Negros bluejohn VU 2, 14, 8
Miletus takanamii Takanami's brownie VU 2, 14, 8
Una philippensis Philippine una VU 2, 14, 5, 7
Nymphalidae Helcyra miyazakii Miyazaki's nymphalid CR 2, 5, 14, 7, 6 Last recorded in 1984
Tanaecia dodong Masbate brush-footed CR 2, 5, 14, 8, 6

butterfly
Tanaecia lupina Jolo brush-footed butterfly CR 2, 5, 14, 8, 6
Tanaecia susoni Cebu brush-footed CR 2, 5, 14, 8, 6
butterfly
Charaxes sangana Sanga emperor VU 2, 14, 8
Elymnias luteofasciata Mindanao palmfly VU 2, 7, 14
Euthalia mindanaensis Mindanao baron butterfly VU 2, 14, 8

Parantica davidi David's tiger VU 2, 5, 7, 14, There is demand in
15 international trade.
Parantica noeli Noel's tiger VU 2, 5, 8, 14, There is demand in

15 international trade.
139
Proposed 140
status
Terinos romeo Romeo's assyrian VU 2, 14, 8
Chilasa osmana Leyte swallowtail CR 2, 5, 14, 15 Collected for international
trade
Menelaides luzviae Marinduque swallowtail CR 2, 5, 14, 15 Collected for international

trade
Pathysa euphratoides Mindanao swordtail CR 2, 5, 14, 8, 6

Achillides chikae Luzon peacock VU 2, 5, 15 High demand in
swallowtail international trade
Pachliopta strandi Philippine crimson rose VU 2, 5, 14

Saturniidae Actias philippinica Philippine moon moth VU 2, 13, 15 High demand for trade
Aeshnidae Gynacantha constricta Constricted darner VU 11, 5, 20 Known from Laguna
Amphipterygi- Devadatta basilanensis Basilan damselfly VU 5

dae
Argiolestidae Luzonargiolestes realensis Real Quezon damselfly VU 11, 4, 5, 13, Known only from type
21 locality (National Botanical
Garden)
Luzonargiolestes baltazarae Baltazar's damselfly VU 11, 5, 13, 21

Chlorocyphidae Rhinocypha hageni Hagen's damselfly EN 11, 4, 5, 13,
21
Rhinocypha dorsosanguinea Red-backed damselfly VU 11, 5, 13, Known only from Basilan;
18, 21, 23 also with unconfirmed
record in Mindanao
Rhinocypha latimacula Bongo damselfly VU 11, 4, 5, 13, Known only from Tawi-
21 tawi and Bongao Island
Coenagrionidae Luzonobasis glauca Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from northern

and Central Luzon
Pandanobasis cantuga Damselfly VU 5

Pandanobasis daku Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from Leyte
Proposed
status
Corduliidae Hemicordulia apoensis Emerald dragonfly VU 11, 5, 13, 18 Known only from Mount
Apo
Euphaeidae Heterophaea barbata Damselfly VU 11, 5, 13, Known from northern and
21, 18 Central Luzon
Platycnemididae Risiocnemis seidenschwarzi Damselfly CR 1

Coeliccia exoleta Damselfly VU 5, 13, 22, 18 Known from Mindanao and
Camiguin
Risiocnemis antoniae Antonia's damselfly VU 11, 5, 13, Known from eastern

21, 18, 19 Mindanao
Risiocnemis odobeni Odoben's damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from Bicol

Peninsula
Risiocnemis pulchra Damselfly VU 11, 4, 5, 13, Known only from Bataan

20
Platystictidae Protosticta plicata Damselfly CR 11, 5, 13, Known only from
18, 21, 23 Kawasan Falls
Sulcosticta striata Damselfly EN 11, 5, 13, Known from northern

21, 18 Luzon
Drepanosticta acuta Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from

Camarines Sur
Drepanosticta aries Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from

Mount Apo, Lake Sebu
Drepanosticta aurita Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from

Mindoro; Lubang Island
Drepanosticta centrosaurus Damselfly VU 11, 5, 21, 19 Known only from Surigao

del Sur and Davao Oriental
Drepanosticta ceratophora Damselfly VU 11, 5, 22 Known from Palawan

mainland and Balabac
Island
Drepanosticta furcata Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from Siquijor

141
Proposed 142
status
Drepanosticta myzouris Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from
Mount Isarog
Drepanosticta quadricornu Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from Palawan

and Busuanga
Drepanosticta rhamphis Damselfly VU 5, 13, 21 Known only from

Catanduanes
Phasmatidae Mithrenes asperulus Stick insect VU 9, 15, 13

Phylliidae Microphyllium pusillulum Leaf insect VU 5, 6 Known only from Luzon,
Nueva Vizcaya
Microphyllium spinithorax Leaf insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known only from Luzon,

St. Thomas
Phyllium bilobatum Leaf insect VU 9, 15, 13

Phyllium bonifacioi Bonifacio's leaf insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known only from
northern Luzon
Phyllium ericoriai Leaf insect VU 2, 15, 6 Endemic to Luzon
Phyllium gantungense Leaf insect VU 2, 15, 5, 6 Endemic to Palawan
Phyllium geryon Leaf insect VU 5, 6,

Phyllium mabantai Leaf insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known from Mindanao,
Mount Apo, Agco, 2008
Phyllium mindorense Leaf insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known from Mindoro

Island, Mount Halcon,
1996
Phyllium palawanense Leaf insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known from Palawan
Phyllium woodi Leaf insect VU 5, 15 Known from Sibuyan and

Dapitan, Mindanao
Diapherome- Conlephasma enigma Enigmatic stick insect VU 5, 15, 6 Known only from Mindoro,
ridae Mount Halcon, 2006;
phylogenetic position
incertae sedis within order
of Phasmatodea
Proposed
status
Bradybaenidae Helicostyla smargadina Tree snail CR 1
Helicostyla daphnis Tree snail VU 5, 15, 6
Helicostyla portei Tree snail VU 5, 15, 6
Mesanella monochroa palawanica - VU 5, 15
Helicarionidae Coneuplecta turrita - CR 1
Ryssota otaheitana Helical snail VU 15, 6
Ryssota sagittifera batanica Helical snail VU 5, 15, 6
*Justification
1 Adopt IUCN Status 12 Strictly cave-dwelling
2 Endemic species 13 Data deficient
3 Known only from original collection 14 Population is unstable
4 Known only from type series / type locality 15 Prone to poaching and illegal trade
5 Known only from extremely limited range and habitat; known 16 Used as ornaments
from limited distribution 17 Pet trade; pet game/animals
6 Known from localities that are under severe threat / with high 18 Habitat alteration; habitat conversion
human disturbance 19 Mining
7 Occurs within priority areas of conservation 20 Habitat degradation
8 Occurs outside priority conservation sites 21 Deforestation; illegal logging
9 No specific locality recorded 22 Habitat fragmentation
10 Not seen in museum collections and through active collection 23 Ecotourism
11 Forest specialist 24 Used in Chinese medicine
143
Annex 2 List of meetings and workshops

Number of
Date Venue
Attendees
1st 08 April 2015 Biodiversity Management PRLC only Philippine Red List
Bureau (BMB), Quezon City Committee Meeting
2nd 03 June 2015 BMB, Quezon City PRLC only Philippine Red List
Committee Meeting
3rd 03 July 2015 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
13 attendees Committee Meeting
4th 11 February 2016 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
5th 29 March 2016 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
6th 26 July 2016 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
7th 19 October 2016 ICON Hotel North Edsa, PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
Quezon City 20 attendees Committee Meeting
8th 30 May 2017 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
9th 22 August 2017 BMB, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
10th 13–14 December B Hotel, Quezon City PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
2017 16 attendees Committee Meeting
11th 1–2 February Cocoon Boutique Hotel, PRLC and TWG Philippine Red List
2018 Quezon City 22 attendees Committee Meeting
12th
24-25 May 2018 Sulo Hotel, Quezon City PRCC and TWG Philippine Red List
17 atendees Committee Meeting
Workshops:
18–19 April 2015 University of Eastern 30 participants Philippine Threatened
Philippines, Catarman, Species Assessment
Northern Samar Workshop
1–3 September Clark, Angeles, Pampanga 30 participants Threatened Species TWG
2015 Assessment Workshop
6–7 April 2016 Filipiniana Hotel, Calapan 280 participants Constituency
City, Oriental Mindoro Consultation / Workshop
at the 25th Philippine
Biodiversity Symposium
2 November Los Baños, Laguna TWG on Invertebrate TWG
2016 Invertebrates only Meeting
19 July 2017 Ateneo de Manila 280 participants Public Presentation
University, Quezon City at the 26th Philippine
Biodiversity Symposium
Technical Reviewers for this Issue
Leticia E. Afuang, PhD

Associate Professor
University of the Philippines Los Baños
Cecilia I. Banag, PhD

Assistant Professor
University of Santo Tomas
Carlo C. Custodio
Board Member Emeritus
Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines
Hendrik Freitag, PhD

Associate Professor
Ateneo de Manila University
Nina R. Ingle, PhD

Member, Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines
President, Ingle Trust Foundation of Davao, Inc.
Carl H. Oliveros, PhD

Post-Doctoral Researcher
Louisiana State University
Rey Donne S. Papa, PhD

Professor and Department Chair
University of Santo Tomas
Marisol D.G. Pedregosa

Wildlife biologist
Energy Development Corporation
Aris A. Reginaldo
Assistant Professor
University of the Philippines Baguio
Emerson Y. Sy
Executive Director
Philippine Center for Terrestrial and Aquatic Research
Sylvatrop Editorial Board
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB)

Dr. Henry A. Adornado Dr. Bighani M. Manipula
Executive Adviser Chair, Sylvatrop Editorial Board

Veronica O. Sinohin Liberty E. Asis
Permanent Representative Alternate Representative

Adreana S. Remo
Managing Editor
Melanie N. Ojeda Bhia Mitchie T. Borcena

Technical Secretariat Secretariat for Finance and
Administrative Concerns
Forest Management Bureau (FMB)

For. Mayumi Ma. Quintos-Natividad For. Rebecca B. Aguda
Official Representative Alternate Representative

Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)

Perseveranda-Fe J. Otico
Permanent Representative
Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)

Marlynn M. Mendoza Nancy R. Corpuz
Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)
Dr. Yolanda M. Aguilar Dr. Maybellyn A. Zepeda
Land Management Bureau (LMB)

Atty. Emelyne V. Talabis Engr. Rolando R. Pablo

Office of the Secretary
For. Cynthia A. Lopez
Official Representative
Human Resource Development Service, DENR (HRDS)

Dexter M. Tindoc Maria Cristinellie C. Garcia
National Mapping and Resources Information Authority

(NAMRIA)
Dr. Rijaldia N. Santos Beata D. Batadlan

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)
Bileynnie P. Encarnacion Eduardo R. Canawin
Internal review of articles, solicitation of peer reviews,
and guidance for revision of manuscripts were conducted by the
Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines (BCSP)
Publications Committee ([email protected])
Editorial Board for this Issue
Leticia E. Afuang, PhD

Editor-in-Chief
Desamarie Antonette P. Fernandez

Coordinator
Carlo C. Custodio
Hendrik Freitag, PhD

Ateneo de Manila University
Emilia A. Lastica-Ternura, DVM

University of the Philippines Los Banos
Cynthia Adeline A. Layusa

Nikki Dyanne C. Realubit

Aris A. Reginaldo
University of the Philippines Baguio
Emerson Y. Sy
Philippine Center for Terrestrial and Aquatic Research
Willem van de Ven

Brenda Villacanas-Petersen
Proofreading and Layout
Michelle V. Encomienda
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine
Ecosystems and Natural Resources
Sylvatrop is a journal listed in Clarivate Analytics

(formerly Thomson Reuters) Master Journal List.
REMINDERS TO CONTRIBUTORS
Sylvatrop is a medium of information exchange on scientific, technical articles, research

notes and reviews of technical literatures on ecosystems and natural resources.
Manuscripts should not have been published earlier or are not being submitted for
publication in any other journal.
The article to be submitted should accompany an endorsement letter from the head
of agency of the author, addressed to the ERDB Director.
Normally, Sylvatrop publishes articles of approximately 10 printed pages or 24

manuscript pages, including figures, tables, and references. If the manuscript exceeds
normal length, but otherwise appropriate, it should be submitted. The editors will
suggest ways of condensing it.
Ideally, an article should have the following parts: title, author (with designation
and address), abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion,
conclusion, and literature cited.
For the text of the article, submit one hard copy and an e-copy in MS Word format.
Email a copy of your article to [email protected].
Submit quality photos/graphics with a resolution of at least 300 dpi.
An informative abstract and at least three keywords should be provided.
A brief acknowledgement may be included.
Keep the minimum number of tables, illustrations, maps and photographs. Provide
the caption of each.
For mechanical style, consult the Scientific Style and Format: The CounciI of Science
Editors (CSE) Manual for Authors, Editors and Publishers. 2006. 8th edition.
Use metric system.
This journal is being abstracted by:

Abstract Bibliography of Tropical Forestry (Philippines)
Documentation Centre on Tropical Forestry (Philippines)
Forestry Abstract (Oxford, UK)
Chemical Abstracts (Ohio, USA)
Asia Science Research Reference (India)

Sylvatrop 28-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sylvatrop 28-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sylvatrop 28-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SYLVATROP

Bighani M. Manipula, PhD Melanie N. Ojeda

January - June 2018 Vol. 28 No. 1

SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources is

For contributions or inquiries, address it to The Editor-in-Chief at the following address:

Biodiversity plays a very important role in our lives

For our conservation initiatives to succeed, there is

Congratulations to the members of the Sylvatrop Editorial Board headed

The Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines (BCSP) is an

This special issue of Sylvatrop is an example of the BCSP’s commitment

The issue also presents a significant contribution of the BCSP’s members

The BCSP Publications Committee did an exemplary job in putting together

Cynthia Adeline A. Layusa-Oliveros

The 25th Philippine Biodiversity Symposium

The Biodiversity Conservation Society of the Philippines

Key Programs Treasurer

25 Years of Biodiversity Conservation in the Philippines:

The Philippine Biodiversity Symposium is an annual gathering of Filipino

Symposium activities include an institutional exhibit of organizations

The 25th Annual Philippine Biodiversity Symposium was organized by the

For more information, please visit:

Spatial ecology of a male and a female

The spatial ecology of Palawan leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis heaneyi)

Keywords: Spatial ecology, habitat use, home range, leopard cat

THE LEOPARD CAT IS A SPECIES OF WILD CAT THAT IS SIMILAR IN SIZE TO A

Among numerous ecological research techniques, radio telemetry has

Materials and methods

Palawan province lies on the western edge of the Philippine archipelago

Figure 1 Location of Barangay Cabigaan. Insets: (A) Palawan province in the

Habitats in the area were mapped in QGIS v. 2.6.1 (Brighton), ground-

Figure 2 Major habitat types in Aborlan, Palawan, Philippines. From top

Trapping and radio telemetry

Trapping was conducted in 3 phases: a 5-day preliminary phase from May

Figure 3 Locations of traps used to capture Palawan leopard cats in

Upon capture, each cat received an injection of atropine sulfate by a licensed

Prey diversity and abundance

Diversity and abundance of small non-volant mammals were also determined

Results and discussion

Figure 4 Leopard cats caught through live trapping in Aborlan, Palawan,

However, due to the low number of P. b. heaneyi captured, statistically valid

Forest areas seem to be the most valuable habitat for P. b. heaneyi as

Figure 5 Location points of a male (LC-02) and a female (LC-03) Palawan

survived massive conversion of forests into sugarcane plantations in Negros Island,

Location points of leopard cats in Palawan can be found in very close

Territoriality, as indicated by the exclusivity of core ranges among

Prey species diversity

A total of 59 individuals representing 5 species of non-volant small mammals

Small mammals captured included Rattus exulans, Rattus tanezumi,

In future studies, it is recommended that trapping be conducted for multiple

Due to the number of other carnivoran species unintentionally captured, it

Bashir T, Bhattacharya T, Poudyal K, Sathyakumar S, Qureshi Q. 2014. Integrating

Calawagan CLG. 2014. Endoparasites and selected microbial pathogens of Palawan

Palawan, Philippines [MS thesis]. Los Baños, Laguna (Philippines): University of

Cruz RM, Villafuerte-Van Den Beukel D, Lacerna-Widmann I, Schoppe S, Widmann

Nakanashi N, Okamura M, Watanabe S, Izawa M, Doi T. 2005. The effect of habitat on

Oh DH, Moteki S, Nakanishi N, Izawa M. 2010. Effects of human activities on home

Rajaratnam R, Sunquist M, Rajaratnam L, Ambu L. 2007. Diet and habitat selection

Sanderson J, Sunarto S, Wilting A, Driscoll C, Lorica R, Ross J, Grassman L. 2008.

Schmidt K, Nakanishi N, Okamura M, Doi T, IZAWA M. 2003. Movements and use

Simcharoen S, Umponjan M, Duangchantrasiri S, Pattanavibool A. 2014. Non-