Biodiversity Profiling for the Ancestral Domain of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan at Sitios Tintingan and Banate, Barangay Lagubang and Sitio Bising, Barangay Midtungok, Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat.
Field Survey Report submitted to Tri-People Concern for Peace, Progress and Development of Mindanao (TRICOM), Inc. Jayson C. Ibaňez Philippine Eagle Foundation and Philippine Eagle center Malagos, Baguio District, 8000 Davao City Tel. 082-271-2337, Fax 082-301-1033
[email protected]
Cover photo: A Blue-capped Wood-Kingfisher Actenoides hombroni caught inside the ancestral domain.
Research and Conservation Department. Philippine Eagle Foundation. Davao City. August 25, 2010
1
Executive Summary The Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF) was commissioned by the Tri-People Concern for Peace, Progress and Development of Mindanao (TRICOM) to conduct a biodiversity profiling within the ancestral domain (AD) of the Kulaman Manobo-Dulangan tribe at Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat. With researchers from the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), TRICOM staff, and Manobo Dulangan co-researchers, a field expedition from September 7 to 26, 2009 was conducted with the following objectives: (i) document the species richness and relative abundance of forest vertebrates inside the AD; (ii) take photos of wildlife and habitats; (iii) identify threats to forests and wildlife inside the AD; and (iv) provide recommendations for biodiversity conservation within the domain. The results of our expedition strongly suggest that the AD is also a critical habitat for Philippine biodiversity. This expedition listed at least 111 species of forest and open-habitat vertebrates (86 birds, 9 bats, 11 rodents and shrews, 2 nocturnal and arboreal mammals, and 3 large land mammals). More than half of these animals are endemic to the Philippines (52 %). Out of the 58 Philippine endemic species, 26 (45 %) are restricted only to forests in Mindanao and nearby islands. One forest shrew and a forest mouse are suspected to be new to science. As of this writing, researchers from the FMNH are still examining these specimens. We recorded at least 19 vertebrates (17 %) whose global population is considered “Threatened” or “Near-Threatened” by IUCN. The Philippine Eagle is the only IUCN “critically endangered” species inside the AD. Eleven (11) species fell under the “Vulnerable” category: three (3) birds, one fruit bat, one forest rat, the Philippine brown deer, and five (5) forest frogs. There were seven (7) species that were considered “Nearthreatened”: six (6) birds and one fruit bat. There are two distinct assemblages of forest animals within the AD. One group represents animals that inhabit montane forests and another represents those in dipterocarp forests. Results clamor for the conservation of these two unique habitats inside the AD. Hunting and shooting of wildlife, particularly of large birds and mammals, is an important threat that must be addressed immediately inside the AD. A long-term threat is deforestation due to timber poaching, Kaingin, and to some extent “shade coffee” plantations. To build new habitats and at the same time provide sustainable livelihoods through agro-forestry, idle and unproductive grasslands can be reclaimed through “rainforestation” techniques. Re-growths of trees and also agro-forestry in degraded dipterocarp forests can be enhanced as well through “Assisted Natural Regeneration”. The global community clamors for biodiversity conservation. However, it is equally important that local contexts must be taken into account too. Thus, conservation decisions by the indigenous communities must be based on consensus and careful evaluation of the cost and benefits (trade-offs) of doing conservation. Indeed, decisions must be equitable, just and sensitive to the socio-cultural and economic realities within the AD.
2
INTRODUCTION Indigenous Peoples around the globe have been asserting their rights over the ownership and management of ancestral lands. In the Philippines, state recognition of indigenous rights to self-determination and political autonomy, including ownership and self-governance of ancestral lands, is embodied in the Indigenous Peoples Rights (IPR) Act which was enacted in 1997. One of the more personal meanings of this piece of “landmark” legislation to the Kulaman Manobo-Dulangan tribe of Senator Ninoy Aquino town is the restoration of their ownership of about 27,000 hectares (ha) of indigenous territories through a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title or CADT (Sanchez, 2009) Integral to indigenous sovereignty is the country’s recognition of indigenous right “to protect, conserve and manage portions of the ancestral domains…which they find necessary for critical watersheds…, wildlife sanctuaries, ..protected areas, forest cover or reforestation..” (IPRA IRR. Part 2, Section 2.b.3.) Programs that address these environmental aims for AD management must be part of an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) which every indigenous community must develop with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The Kulaman Manobo-Dulangan is in the process of crafting their own ADSDPP. It is in this regard that the Biodiversity Profiling Project was conceptualized. The Tri-People Concern for Peace, Progress and Development of Mindanao (TRICOM), Inc., an NGO that has been working with the Kulaman Manobo-Dulangan over poverty alleviation and indigenous rights advocacy projects, commissioned the Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF) to lead an expedition to document the biodiversity of the ancestral domain. Aside from being the first systematic biodiversity survey of the ancestral domain, the three-week expedition is also the first attempt ever to survey the wildlife of Mount Daguma, which is considered a global Key Biodiversity Area or KBA (CI et al., 2008). PEF did the survey with mammal experts from the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH) in Chicago, USA; staff from TRICOM; officers of the Kulaman ManoboDulangan Organization (KMDO) and leaders and residents of Sitios Bising, Banate and Tintingan. The objectives of this biodiversity profiling are to: 1. Document the species richness and relative abundance of forest vertebrates namely frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals within the domain; 2. Take photos of wildlife and habitats for use in future education campaigns; 3. Identify recent threats to the forest and wildlife inside the domain; and 4. Provide recommendation for forest and wildlife conservation within the domain. This project report highlights the results of a three-week expedition to document the wildlife of the KMDO ancestral domain. It also features several species of wildlife that are regarded as globally important because of their conservation status. It also described the specific threats to wildlife and habitats and provides recommendations on how such threats could be mitigated, if not totally eradicated. 3
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The study area (Figure 1) is within the Ancestral Domain (AD) of the indigenous Kulaman Manobo Dulangan of Senator Ninoy Aquino town in the province of Sultan Kudarat in Mindanao Island. Upon the recommendation of the KMDO, we concentrated our survey efforts in forests and adjacent areas within Sitios Tintingan and Banate of Barangay Lagubang and Sitio Bising of Barangay Midtungok. There are a few more Sitios (communities) within the ancestral domain but Tintingan, Banate and Bising were selected because they contain the most forest cover and are the safest for biologists and technicians.
Figure 1. Study area at Sitios Tintingan, Bising, and Banate inside the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan Ancestral Domain in Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat showing Study Site 1 (Camp 1) at 1472 masl near Tintingan, Daguma Peak at 1700 masl, and Study Site 2 (Camp 2) near Banate.
Below is an excerpt from a report by Duya, et al (2010) which described the time it took the team to get to the first camp (Camp 1) and the nature of habitat/vegetation encountered along the way: “..We left Kulaman town center and traveled for 45 minutes by pick-up truck to our jump off point in Sitio Benebol (Binlibol), Barangay Lagubang which is about 900 m in elevation. From there, we hiked for 2 hours to Sitio Banate at ca. 1,190 m…. Between 900 and 1,190 m, the area we hiked through was entirely grassland and slash-and-burn farms; patches of forest were found
4
only along rivers and creeks that we crossed. From Sitio Banate, we walked for another 2 hours through slash and burn farms, coffee plantations and patches of secondary forest until we reached Sitio Tingtingan situated at ca. 1400 m. The following day, we hiked for an hour and a half and reached our base camp…... The locality was a transitional lowland/montane forest over limestone substrate. Along the way, we passed through relatively good secondary forest and in between these forests are small patches of slash and burn farms planted with vegetables, root crops and banana. Coffee plantations were also observed at the edge of the forest….” (Duya, et al., 2010:2).
Camp 1 (N 6.35348°; E 124.27327°, see Figure 2) is on a small, forested valley at an altitude of 1,472 meter above sea level (masl). It is situated directly at the base of a very steep slope that leads to the highest ridge of Mt Daguma (peak of ca. 1700 masl) and is close to a creek from where the survey team drew its water for the duration of the expedition. Sharp rocky outcrops of the limestone type and small caves were also present around the vicinity. The forest is of the “montane” type. Along the highest ridge above the camp are trees of stunted stature which are typical of forests of the “mossy” type. With the exception of narrow foot trails worn from frequent use by upland travelers and indigenous hunters, the surrounding forest is relatively undisturbed and unlogged. We used this camp from September 9 – 22, 2009. Figure 2. Camp 1 near Daguma Peak. Blue tarpaulins are shelters for the makeshift kitchen. Tents are behind.
Camp 2 (N 6.375850°, E 124.300041°, see Figure 3) is on a patch of fallowed corn farm in a residual “upper dipterocarp” forest near Sitio Banate. This farm is at an altitude of 1,200 masl and bounded on both sides by steep ravines. Unlike Camp 1, the forests surrounding Camp 2 have been logged in the past. What remained now are old trees that were left by logging and new ones that have grown after the logging. There were tree stumps and wood cuttings which indicate that the community has been getting most of its timber needs from the surrounding forests. There was also a recent “slash-and-burn” farm on a ridge above the camp. But despite kaingin and the local timber harvest, there is still a substantial stand of oldgrowth forests around the campsite. We surveyed these forests from September 22-26, 2009. Figure 3. Camp 2 near Sitio Banate.
5
To describe the biodiversity within the AD, we focused our survey efforts on three forest habitat types: (i) mossy forest, (i) montane forest, and (iii) upper dipterocarp forests. These habitat types however overlap at certain altitudes and locations in the study area so that most of the animals surveyed were actually from places where two habitats converge (also called “ecotones”). For example, most of our standard 2-km transect lines for birds followed foot trails across the mountain. From Camp 1, some transects led to lower altitudes. As a result, we listed birds flying or calling in a “montane forest” but also surveyed a habitat transition of montane and upper dipterocarp forest as we walked down the trail. Similarly, the “trap lines” of our mammal group doing rodent surveys followed foot trails leading to the peak. These trap lines started from a montane forest, covered a montane-mossy transition forest, then ended at a mossy forest. A. Mossy forests – This forest type is associated with high altitudes and mountain tops. A narrow band of mossy forest between 1600 and 1700 masl was found along the ridges above the camp. Trees were stunted (ca. 3-4 m high) and often gnarled partly because of exposure to strong winds that batter ridge tops and the poor soil associated with mountain tops. As the name suggests, tree trunks and branches were almost covered with mosses as a result of the very high moisture in thick fog that always cloak this forest type. B. Montane forests – This mix of forest type is found at middle to high altitudes. At our study area, this forest type was recorded at altitudes between 1400 to 1600 masl. This was the dominant vegetation type around Camp 1. The highest trees were as tall as 40-50 m on the average but they don’t get as high as those in Dipterocarp Forests (> 65 m). The average diameter at breast height (dbh) of trees is 30 centimeters (cm) and type of trees commonly found were of the genus Lithocarpus spp., Dacrycarpus sp. (Igem), Callicarpha sp., Astrocalyx sp., Palaquim sp, Ficus sp. and Biscopea sp., among others. C. Upper dipterocarp forests – This forest type is dominant in lowland to middle elevations. It is prone to human exploitation not only because it is the habitat closest to people but also since it contains the biggest trees that are valued in the timber industry. In our study area, old stands and secondary (young) growths were found at altitudes between 1200 to 1400 masl. The highest trees were as tall as 65 m and the average dbh of trees is 31.7 cm. All of our transect lines were along foot trails and logged areas so the biggest trees were already gone. The kinds of trees that were common were of the genus Biscopea sp., Letsia sp., Sandoricum sp., Ficus sp., Palaquim sp., Syzygium sp., and Lithocarpus sp. Some parts of the forests though were substantially modified and a few of these areas fell within our transect lines (survey plots). Thus, our results included forest wildlife, but also animals that inhabit “shade coffee” farms and “non-forest” areas. “Shade coffee” refers to coffee trees planted under the canopy of tall rainforest trees. Coffee trees are equally spaced and the forest floor, with the exception of invasive grasses and soft shrubs, was cleared by the land owner of its natural undergrowth. On the other hand, non-forest areas refer to either grasslands or “kaingin (slash-and-burn) farms. 6
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODS Our biodiversity profiling focused on four forest animal groups namely (i) birds, (ii) frogs and reptiles, (iii) bats (or flying mammals), and (iv) non-flying mammals. All of these animals belong to a group called “vertebrates” or animals with “back bones”. A. Field Survey A specific team is responsible for each animal group. Each team is comprised by a Biologist who acted as the team leader, at least one field technician, and at least one indigenous co-researcher. We employed a suite of standard survey methods for each of the four animal groups. 1. Birds For birds, we surveyed for kinds (or species) that are active during the day (or are diurnal). Birds that are active at night (or nocturnal) were also noted when encountered during transect walks for nocturnal mammals. We listed birds using four techniques and each is discussed below. a. Survey using mist nets. This technique employs specialized nets called “mist nets” to catch flying birds. Each net is made of special black nylon threads which appear invisible from afar. Each net measured 6 m x 20 m and were installed either individually or as a series in flight ways inside the forests or up the tree canopy. Nets were opened at dawn and closed at late afternoon. For each bird captured, we recorded the date it was caught, the species name and the number of the net that caught it. We also recorded the following: (i) bill length, (ii) wing length, (iii) tail length, and (iv) leg length. We also took photos of a few individuals for each species. A bird field guide (Kennedy et al., 2000) was consulted whenever a bird can’t be identified. All birds were released except for one or two individuals that were euthanized and preserved as museum specimens. So we know if a bird was captured previously, we marked each by cutting a section of a secondary wing feather. b. Line transect survey. This survey technique involves listing all the birds seen (flying, singing or feeding) within 20 m of both sides of a 2-km line transect. Two persons walked the transect; one walked ahead of the second observer and looked for birds while the other person lists any bird seen by the first observer. The second observer also records any bird he sees along the way. Both observers had a pair of binoculars to aid in identifying birds. Whenever a bird (or birds) is (are) detected, the following information were recorded: (i) the time it was seen, (ii) the species, (iii) the number of individuals seen, (iv) the section of the forest where it was seen (i.e. either ground, undergrowth, understory, or canopy), (v) the point on the transect 7
closest to the animal, (vi) the bird’s approximate distance from the transect, and (vii) whether the bird was heard or seen. Transect walks started within the first day light hours when bird activity begins to peak. c. Opportunistic listing. This technique simply means listing all birds that were seen casually around the forests. Such random instances may be during hikes from and back to the camp, when transects were being established, during vegetation sampling, and during raptor observations, among others. d. “Sit and Wait”. This technique is useful for survey of raptors (birds-of-prey) such as eagles, hawks and kites that hunt in the forest canopy and fly or do aerial displays. We occupied high points that offered a good view of valleys, ridges and the forest canopy. From there we sat and waited for displaying, calling, or hunting raptors. To aid in raptor identification, we used a pair of binoculars and a variable powered (25 – 60 x magnification) field scope. 2. Bats Our primary means to survey bats is through mist nets. There are two groups of bats. One group is the insect-feeders (insectivores) or the “microbats” and the other is the fruit-eaters (frugivores) or the “megabats”. Most microbats are active at dusk so that fieldworkers keep watch of the nets during the first two hours of the evening to retrieve any microbat netted. These animals have very sharp teeth and so they can easily chew their way out of the nets. Megabats on the other hand have blunt teeth and are active the whole night so there is no need to watch out for them (or over the net). All megabats (including a few larger microbats) are retrieved early the following day and hanged on a suitable, well shaded roost inside the forest after measurement and identification. All bats were identified using a bat field guide (Ingle et al., 1992). The following measurements were also recorded for each animal: (i) forearm length, (ii) toe length, (iii) tail length, (iv) total length, and (v) ear length. Weight was also measured using a Pesola Spring. Digital photos were also taken and compiled. All animals were later released except for a few individuals that were euthanized and preserved as museum specimens. Prior to release, bats were given sugar solutions through syringes to replenish energy that has been lost during periods of handling. 3. Non-flying mammals This group includes all other land mammals that are found within the AD. We further divided these animals into (i) nocturnal, arboreal mammals, (ii) rodents and the shrews, and (iii) other large mammals. The survey methods employed for each of these sub-groups are discussed below:
8
a. Nocturnal, arboreal mammals (Flying lemur, Civets, and Flying squirrels) Our survey of this mammal group intends to measure the abundance of Philippine eagle prey or food items at the forests of Daguma. Specifically, we wanted to know (i) where the eagle prey animals are found; and (ii) how abundant are they inside the AD. Answering these questions is important for the preservation not only of the eagle but also of its prey animals that are locally threatened too. We focused on three eagle prey species namely the Flying lemur Cynocephalus volans, Palm civets Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, and the Flying squirrel Petinomys mindanensis. The eagles feed mainly on the Flying lemur and the Palm civet while the Flying squirrel is a minor prey item (Ibanez, 2008). We walked the same transect line used for birds. Aided by two powerful (rechargeable) halogen flashlights (or torches), a team of at least three personnel walked the 2 km transect and searched for arboreal mammals across all levels of the forests. Whenever the lights from our torches hit the face of any arboreal mammal, the eyes reflects back and gives away the animal’s presence. Called “eye shine”, biologists rely on this special trait to detect nocturnal mammals in the forests. Similar to what we recorded during bird transects, we noted (i) the time an animal was detected, (ii) its position in the forest, (iii) its approximate distance from the observers, and the (iv) point at along the transect to which it was closest. We also recorded whether the animal was an adult or an immature. We made transect walks during the first three hours of the evening when animal activity were at its peak. b. Rats, squirrels and shrews Aside from opportunistic listing, we used snap traps to survey forest rats, shrews and squirrels. Unlike nets which capture animals alive, snap traps are designed to kill any animal that takes the bait. This survey is often referred to as the “removal trapping method”. Below is a description by Duya et al. (2010) of this method: “…..we used two types of traps (Victor rat traps and [smaller] Museum Specials) and two types of baits (fried coconut with peanut butter, and live earthworms). Traps were baited with either type of baits. We set them mainly on the ground, at entrance of burrows, under root tangles, and fallen logs. Most of the Museum Specials and some Victors were set on vines, climbing pandans (Freycinetia spp), and horizontal branches and tree trunks to allow us to sample arboreal and scansorial species. Arboreal trapping has been routinely done on Luzon for the past five years and has enabled us to discover additional species for the island and document wider habitat adaptations of several species previously captured only on the ground…..” c. Large land mammals We relied on opportunistic listing for documenting other large mammals. We also relied on indirect evidences of its presence such as fecal droppings in
9
palm civets, forest tracks of deer, and even pieces of hunted mammal bones such as jaw bones, skull or limb bones that are stored in kitchens of indigenous homes. We also inspected any mammal that was hunted by villagers to identify the animal.
4. Frogs, Snakes and Lizards We did opportunistic listing, but we also employed two techniques to survey for amphibians (frogs) and reptiles (snakes and lizards). The first technique involved establishing several 20 m transects inside the forests and finding as many animals as possible on both sides of the line. These lines were searched during the day (one in the morning and another in the afternoon) mostly for skinks, other lizards and snakes. At nighttime, frogs were surveyed during the first four hours of the evening. Any animal that were encountered along the way (including big snakes, like a cobra) were collected and preserved as museum specimens. Unlike birds and most mammals, identifying forest frogs, lizards and snakes is not as straight forward. There is great variability in the physical appearances of these animals so that individuals that looked similar (or different) may not necessarily be of the same (or different) species or kind. Aside from accurate measurements, a close examination of minute body parts (e.g. knobs or warts on the foot pad of frogs or the number and position of scales for skinks and snakes) are necessary. Thus, more specimens were preserved for analysis at the Philippine Eagle Center in Davao City.
B. Analysis Methods The species assemblage for each animal group was described using two measures namely (i) species richness and (ii) percentage endemicity. For birds and mammals that had data on number of individuals caught (or seen), relative abundance estimates were also calculated and shown in the tables. This report also described a few species that were identified by the World Conservation Union or IUCN as globally “threatened”. Species richness refers to the cumulative number of species that were recorded by the different techniques within the AD. Out of the total species, the percentage of Philippine endemic species (i.e. species that are found only in the Philippines) and Mindanao endemic species (i.e. species restricted only to Mindanao and nearby islands) were also calculated. Such percentage of endemicity provides a broad evaluation of the importance of the AD in terms of being a habitat for unique species. 1. Birds Relative abundance for each species of bird was expressed as the number of birds per 100 birds. This was calculated by getting the ratio of the total individuals for each species and the total individuals for all the species (N), and then multiplying this by 100 birds, or 10
RA = Total no. of individuals seen (or netter) per species x 100 birds Total no. of birds seen (or netted) Relative abundance per species was measured separately for mist net data and from line-transect data. However, not all species were encountered by both techniques so that some species only had one abundance value. 2. Bats Relative abundance estimates for each species of bat was expressed as the number of bats per 100 net nights. This was calculated by getting the ratio of the total number of individuals caught per species and the cumulative number of net nights (total no. of nets used x the no. of nights nets were opened), and then multiplying the ratio by 100, or RA
=
Total no. of individuals per species x 100 net nights Total no. of net nights
3. Rodents Relative abundance measure for rodents was expressed as the number of rodents caught per 100 trap nights. This was calculated by getting the ratio of the number of individuals trapped per species and the cumulative number of trap nights (total no. of traps used x the no. of nights they were used), and then multiplying the ratio by 100, or RA
=
Total no. of individuals per species x 100 trap nights Total no. of trap nights
4. Nocturnal arboreal mammals Relative abundance measure for Flying lemurs and Palm civets was expressed as the number of animals detected per 100 hours of transect. This was calculated by getting the ratio of the number of individuals detected for each species and the total number of hours spent for the transect survey, and then multiplying the ratio by 100, or RA
=
Total no. of individuals detected per species x 100 transect hours Total transect hours
11
DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS A. Birds One way of describing the bird community within the AD is through its species richness (or its total bird species). From our survey, we know that there are at least (i.e. more species can still be found) 86 species of forest and open habitat birds within the AD (see Appendix 1). The number of species that are endemic to the Philippines is 42 and out of this value, 14 species are confined only to Mindanao and nearby islands (also known as the Greater Mindanao Faunal Region or GMFR, see Heaney and Regalado, 1998). We can also describe the bird community inside the AD by looking at the no. of unique birds that compose it. We can describe endemicity percentages (%). If we calculate for % endemicity using the no. of Philippine “endemics” and the no. of birds that are restricted only to Mindanao, we get these values. Bird uniqueness inside the AD is 48 % (see Figure 4). In simple terms, this means that for every 10 species encountered inside the AD, 4-5 species of this are unique to the country. If we calculate for the % of Philippine endemic birds unique only to Mindanao, we get a value of 33 % (i.e. no. of Mindanao endemic/No. of Philippine endemic x 100). This means that for every 10 Philippine endemic birds within the AD, 3 of this are confined only to Mindanao.
Figure 4. Species richness of birds inside the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan Ancestral Domain based on level of uniqueness (endemicity). Legend. 1: resident (nonendemic + endemic birds), 2: Philippine endemic, 3: Mindanao endemic.
The team also found 10 bird species whose global population is believed to be under threat of extinction by the World Conservation Union or IUCN (see Table 1). The “top four” globally threatened bird species within the AD are the following: 1. Philippine Eagle. Scientific Name: Pithecophaga jefferyi. Local (Manobo) Name: Banog Obal. IUCN category: Critically Endangered (CE) The Philippine Eagle is the most “endangered” animal within the AD. Based on a recent assessment by Birdlife (2010), this
12
“long-lived species qualifies as ‘Critically Endangered’ because it has an extremely small population, as a result of extremely rapid declines… owing to extensive deforestation. Recruitment to the adult population (i.e. replacement of breeding adults that have died) currently appears to be very low indicating that declines may continue into the future.”
Table 1. Birds within the Ancestral Domain of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan that are classified by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as “Threatened ” (i.e. Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) and “Near Threatened”. Species
English Name
“IUCN” Status
Pithecophaga jefferyi
Philippine Eagle
Critically Endangered
Spizaetus philippensis
Philippine Hawk-Eagle
Vulnerable
Actenoides hombroni
Blue-capped WoodKingfisher
Vulnerable
Mimizuku gurneyi
Giant Scops-Owl
Vulnerable
Mearnsia picina
Philippine Needletail
Near threatened
Buceros hydrocorax
Rufous hornbill
Near threatened
Aceros leucocephalus
Writhed Hornbill
Near threatened
Erythrura coloria
Red-eared Parrot-Finch
Near threatened
Aethopyga primegenius
Grey-hooded Sunbird
Near threatened
Aethopyga boltoni
Apo Sunbird
Near threatened
The Philippine eagle is restricted only to four islands of the archipelago namely Luzon, Leyte, Samar and Mindanao. It is estimated that no more than 340 adult pairs of this species is left (Miranda et al, 2000) and that the population continuous to decline because of the tandem effects of deforestation and shooting or killing by people (Ibanez, 2008; Salvador and Ibanez, 2006). For a species that lives long (65 years or more), breeds slow (one young every two years), and cannot live without the forests, the survival of every living individual is very important. The AD is undoubtedly a Philippine Eagle nesting territory. The species was seen on five occasions, which are strong proofs that the AD is also an eagle habitat. In addition, the villagers themselves reported frequent encounters with the Banog Obal (Manobo Dulangan name for Philippine Eagle, which means “monkey eagle”).
13
The first time we saw an adult eagle was on September 14 at 0948 hr. Forester Guiller Opiso and I saw one individual soaring above Malmal Peak near Tintingan. After flying in an ascending spiral for nearly 3 minutes, it flew towards the direction of the forests near Bising. The second time was on September 15. Technician Emiliano Lumiston and I occupied a vantage point close to Camp 1 starting at 0700 hr. At 0854 hr an adult eagle emerged from the tree line above Baluan River and soared in spirals in front of us. The bird had a prey item which we couldn’t identify. After gaining considerable altitude, it glided past our post, then above Camp 1, and eventually disappearing behind Daguma peak. Judging from the direction of its flight, it was headed towards the forests of Kulaman River. The third instance was on September 19 at Bising. With Sitio Leader More Katil and Technician Lumiston, we saw another adult Philippine Eagle above Kumilat River. At 1332 hr, I heard the raucous calling of the Rufous hornbill and I searched for it amongst the forest using our field scope. To our great delight, we saw a small flock of hornbills mobbing an adult eagle. Intimidated by the aggressive hornbills, the eagle flew away towards the forests above Sitio Limanga. The fourth instance was on September 23. We were just about to resume hiking after a brief rest when one of our guides called our attention. A lone Philippine Eagle was flying at 1036 hr over Tobak Creek just above Camp 2. It soared then plunged at 1039 hr towards the same site where it appeared. He flew with a Philippine hawk eagle which was calling loudly and aggressive. The Philippine eagle on the other hand was silent and appeared calm. The eagle reappeared at 1058 hr and landed on a Gymnostoma tree atop a far ridge. Through our field scope, we saw the bird gazing at something below. While this was happening, the hornbills were calling loudly and a Philippine hawk eagle was flying in circles above the eagle’s position. At 1116 hr, the eagle stooped at something on the forest canopy and never re-appeared. The last and most exciting encounter with the eagle happened on September 24. Along with TRICOM Staff Rey Palabon and Titing Toring and PEF Technician Lomiston, we spotted an adult eagle at 1056 hr on a Gymnostoma tree just below the place where an eagle was seen the previous day. After a while, it flew from tree to tree until it settled on a branch close enough for us to get a photo of the bird. Using “digiscoping” (digital camera on the field scope), we took the first photo ever of a Philippine Eagle from Daguma range (Figure 5). Figure 5. An adult Philippine Eagle suspected to be female above Tobak creek on September 24, 2009. Photo by © JCIbaňez.
14
Closely inspecting its plumage, we noticed that all the tail and wing feathers had blunt (rounded) ends. The crest feathers also looked well developed and the brown neck feathers are already at the shoulder level. The legs were crisp yellow-orange and all of the breast feathers are cotton white. Based on these external features, this bird is undoubtedly an adult bird. Owing to the fact that it looked big, we suspected that it’s an adult female. The crop (bird stomach) also looked full as inferred from a lump just beneath the bird’s keel bone, suggesting that the bird hunted and fed. Our observation of the eagle on a dive flight on September 23 could be a successful hunting attempt. At 1128 hr, the bird began moving from tree to tree downstream and closer to the river. It drifted further away from our post until it went out of view at 1135 hr. 2. Philippine hawk-eagle. Scientific Name: Nisaetus philippensis. Local (Manobo) Name: Dalit linaday . IUCN category: Vulnerable (Vul)
Figure 6. An adult, captive Phil. hawk eagle in Davao City. Wild birds were seen on Sep 17, 19 & 23, 2009 inside the ancestral domain. Photo by © JCIbaňez.
Among the birds found inside the AD, the Philippine hawk-eagle (Figure 6) ranks second to the Philippine Eagle in terms of extinction chances. Birdlife (2010) believes that its global population is small (between 1,000-2,499 individuals) and severely fragmented and that the current numbers are undergoing a rapid decline owing to lowland forest loss, hunting and trade. It lives in the surviving rainforests almost across the country. However, a recent comparison of the genetic make-up of Luzon and Mindanao populations suggests that the Mindanao group should be considered a separate species (Gamauf et al., 2005). If this is eventually accepted by experts, the importance of conserving the Mindanao population of the hawk eagle becomes even more critical.
We saw hawk eagles in three observation days. The first day was on September 17. While on our way to a new observation post near Tintingan we saw a flying, immature hawk eagle at 0840 hr. At 1420 hr, we saw an adult bird standing on a tree atop a hill. A few minutes later, a pair of Large-billed crow mobbed the hawk eagle out of our view. The rest of the encounters were on September 19 and 23 near Bising and Tintingan, respectively. In both occasions, we saw adult birds flying. Judging from the fact that a hawk eagle in immature plumage was seen, we can safely conclude that the rainforests of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan is also an important nesting habitat for the hawk eagle.
15
3. Blue-capped forest kingfisher. Scientific Name: Actenoides hombroni. Local (Manobo) Name: Sumbang . IUCN category: Vulnerable (Vul) This species (Figure 7) is confined to Mindanao and nearby islands and is known from mid-montane to lower mossy forests between altitudes of 1000-2000 masl (Kennedy et al., 2000). The remaining population of this kingfisher is believed to be small (between 2,500 – 9,999 individuals) and fragmented and is undergoing a rapid decline, primarily as a result of the clearance of lowland forest (Birdlife, 2010).
Figure 7. A male Blue-capped kingfisher netted on Sep 14 near Camp 1. Photo by © JCIbaňez.
Of all the birds recorded inside the AD, the Blue-capped kingfisher is considered the rarest. Only a single individual was netted in a pristine montane forest close to Camp 1. The bird is considered very secretive but can be vocal and thus can be tracked especially just before sunrise (Birdlife 2010). 4. Giant Scops-owl. Scientific Name: Mimizuku gurneyi. Local (Manobo) Name: Bugtong Utaw . IUCN category: Vulnerable (Vul) The Giant scops-owl (Figure 8) is found only in Mindanao and a few nearby islands. It lives in forest and forest edge from the lowlands to about 1,500 masl or even higher (Kennedy et al., 2000). This owl is considered to have a small population (between 2,500 - 9,999 individuals) which is undergoing a rapid decline and severe fragmentation as a result of extensive deforestation (Birdlife, 2010). Figure 8. A roosting Giant scops-owl. Photo by © James Eaton/ Birdtour Asia.
The Giant scops-owl was not seen but calling birds were heard several times at Camp 2 near Banate. During a transect walk for nocturnal arboreal mammals, we also heard two birds; one at 1952 hr from above a shade coffee plantation close to Tingtingan and at 2044 hr from an upper dipterocarp forest below Tintingan.
16
B. Bats The results for bats were taken from a report prepared by Duya et al. (2010). The team recorded a total of 9 species of bats, consisting of 6 fruit (mega) bats and 3 insectivorous (micro) bats (see Table 2). Among the fruit bats, three species are Philippine endemic (Haplonycteris fischeri, Ptenochirus minor and Megaerops wetmorei). The latter two species are endemic to Mindanao and they were captured within dipterocarp forests at 1220 masl. M. wetmorei is an IUCN “Vulnerable” species. H. fischeri was netted in between the dipterocarp and montane forests at 1472 masl and in the dipterocarp forest at 1220 masl. The species is a widespread Philippine endemic (Heaney et al. 1998). The non endemic Macroglossus minimus was caught only at 1220 m while Cynopterus brachyotis was caught at 1472 masl and 1220 masl. Our group saw at least seven individuals of IUCN “NearThreatened” (see Bates et al., 2008) Pteropus vampyrus while feeding noisily on the fruits of a Ficus (Balete) tree during an arboreal mammal transect at 1300 m in September 13.
Three species of insectivorous bats were recorded during the survey (Table 1). All were captured at 1472 m. Rhinolophus inops was the only endemic insectivorous bats captured. Pipistrellus javanicus and Hipposideros diadema are widespread in Asia (Heaney et al. 1998). Table 2. Bats documented in Mt Daguma, Sen Ninoy Aquino Municipality, Sultan Kudarat Province, Mindanao Island. C= confirmed through observation. Scientific Name Family Pteropodidae – Fruit bats Pteropus vampyrus Cynopterus brachyotis Haplonycteris fischeri Macroglossus minimus Ptenochirus minor Megaerops wetmorei Family Rhinolophidae – Horseshoe and roundleaf bats Rhinolophus inops
Common Name Large Flying fox Short-nosed fruit bat Philippine pygmy fruit bat Dagger-toothed flower bat Lesser musky fruit bat. Mindanao fruit bat
Elevation (m) Total 1220 1472 1696 C 27
0 3
0 0
0 30
1
21
0
22
2 39 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 39 2 0
Philippine forest horse shoe bat Diadem roundleaf bat
Hipposideros diadema Family Vespertilonidae – Vesper and evening bats Pipistrellus javanicus Javan pipistrelle Number of net nights Number of species Total number of individuals captured
0 0
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 15 4 71
2 33 5 28
0 18 0 0
2 66 9 99
17
C. Non-volant (non-flying mammals) We had two sources of data for the non-flying mammals. The results for rats, squirrels and shrews were lifted from a report by Duya et al. (2010). For the nocturnal mammals, results were from fieldwork by PEF staff. Lastly, the combined field notes of Duya et al. (2010) and PEF were used to describe results for other large mammals. 1. Rats, squirrels and shrews The mammal team recorded 11 species of non-flying small mammals, consisting of 9 endemic species and 2 introduced (or foreign) species (Table 3). Most of the specimens were trapped in the montane forests at 1472 masl. These species were the Mindanao shrew (Crocidura beatus), Mindanao tree shrew (Urogale everetti), Mindanao forest mouse (Apomys insignis), large Mindanao forest rat (Bullimus bagobus), southern Philippine shrew mouse (Crunomys melanius), Philippine forest rat (Rattus everetti), and Philippine tree squirrel (Sundaciurus philippinensis). C. melanius is an IUCN “Vulnerable” species. The team caught none of the Philippine pygmy squirrel (Exilisciurus concinnus). However, it was commonly heard and seen in the montane forests. At Camp 1, a few individuals were seen feeding on insects and licking tree trunks for sap between 0530 and 1000 hr. Interestingly, one squirrel seemed to be using three trees only (ca. 30-50 m apart) of the same tree species (Family Meliaceae) during the team’s stay at Camp 1. Six endemic species were recorded at 1696 m, in a forest that is a transition between montane and mossy. These species are the Mindanao forest mouse (Apomys insignis), Large Mindanao forest rat (Bullimus bagobus), Philippine forest rat (Rattus everetti), Mindanao shrew (Crocidura beatus) and an unidentified shrew (Crocidura sp.). This unidentified Crocidura sp. is very different and could be a new species. An arboreal forest mouse tentatively named Apomys littoralis was caught at Daguma peak using a small trap placed on a Pandan vine about 2 m from the ground. This individual is believed to be the world’s second specimen for the species. The first specimen was captured in 1946 in Bugasan, Maguindanao (Sanborn, 1952). It was collected in a coconut plantation at 50 ft altitude. This is also the first case of an Apomys sp. getting captured using an arboreal trap on Mindanao Island. The unknown Apomys sp. though is very different from A. littoralis and thus, could be another new species. Three endemic species and one introduced species were caught at 1220 masl near Camp 2. The Philippine forest rat (R. everetti) and the Mindanao forest mouse (Apomys insignis) were captured in an upland dipterocarp forest. The Southern Mindanao shrew mouse (Crunomys melanius), Mindanao forest mouse (A. insignis) and the introduced Asian house rat (Rattus tanezumi) was caught close to a 5-6 year old coffee plantation. Locals consider the Asian house rats as pests of their corn. They reportedly don’t eat this rat because it taste bad. One of the local guides brought a common house mouse (Mus musculus), another introduced species, which he caught at his home in Tingtingan. 18
2. Nocturnal arboreal mammals We found individuals of the Flying lemur Cynocephalus volans (Figure 9) and the Palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, but none of the Flying squirrel Petinomys mindanensis. We did 11.92 hours of observation along four transect lines and detected five (5) Flying lemurs and four (4) Palm civets. If we calculate for relative abundance (or encounter rates), the value for Flying lemur and Palm civet is 41.95 per 100 hrs and 33.56 per 100 hrs, respectively. This means that if you walk for 100 hrs inside the AD, you will find at least 42 individuals and 34 individuals of Flying lemurs and Palm civets, respectively. Figure 9. A male Flying lemur that was captured by the locals. Photo by © JCIbaňez.
The relative abundance (also called “encounter rate”) values for the Flying lemur and the Palm civet are significantly different from the values obtained during a similar study in Sumilao, Mt. Kitanglad in 2008. In the Kitanglad study, Silvosa et al. (2008) encountered Flying lemurs and Palm civets at a rate of 33.8 per 100 hrs and 48.8 per 100 hrs, respectively. Based on these figures, it seems that Flying lemurs are more abundant at the Manobo Dulangan AD than at Mt Kitanglad. For Palm civets though, the trend is in reverse; there are fewer civets at the Manobo Dulangan AD than at Mt Kitanglad.
Figure 10. A male Palm civet collected as museum specimen during the survey. Photo by © JCIbaňez.
One interesting result though that completely distinguishes the two areas is our failure to detect Flying squirrels inside the Manobo Dulangan AD. In contrast, this species appears to be very common at similar habitats and altitudes at Mt Kitanglad. In fact, the encounter rate for the species at Kitanglad was estimated at 282.0 per 100 hrs (Silvosa et al., 2008), which is over three times more than the combined encounter rates for the Flying lemur and the Palm civet (Figure 10). However, the fact that the Manobos have a local name (Bet-tuyo Tudok) for the Flying squirrel indicates that the species inhabit the forests of Daguma. It is possible we were either looking at the wrong places or that the animals have become less common if not rare. Additional surveys in as many sites as possible are definitely needed.
19
3. Large mammals Two endemic large mammals (Philippine warty pig Sus philippinensis and the Phil. brown deer Cervus mariannus) and one non-endemic but native species (Philippine macaque Macaca fascicularis) were confirmed based on casual observations, hunted animals and indirect evidences. Interviews also confirmed the presence of these animals. Foraging sites of the Phil. warty pig were commonly seen near line-transects, particularly at the montane forest. There were patches of loose earth where warty pigs apparently dug for earthworms and root crops. We also found jaw bones and teeth of warty pigs in a few homes at Tintingan and Bising. The Manobo Dulangans actively hunt these animals using both native traps and improvised shot guns. The Phil. brown deer is an IUCN “Vulnerable” species. Unfortunately, this globally threatened species is actively hunted inside the AD. On September 19, deer meat was sold in the village. The captor showed the mutilated leg of a female deer he caught with his trap. Along transect-lines, we also noted deer pathways, grazed bushes, droppings and hoof tracks. We also saw a few deer horns hanging in a few homes in the villages. Troops of foraging macaques were common in the forests. The mammal team saw several individuals at 1696 m and 1220 m while they serviced their traps. The team doing the amphibian and reptile survey found a macaque skull in the forest. A few skull and lower jaws hung on wood trusses above kitchens of some local homes. While watching for raptors, we saw a troop feeding and grooming in a nearby forests. The locals consider the monkeys pests of their corns. They also hunt these animals.
D. Amphibians and Reptiles At least eight (8) species of frogs were identified from specimens collected inside the AD (see Table 3). Only two (2) out of the 8 frog species were not endemic, registering a high (75 %) level of uniqueness for the frog community within the AD. Remarkably, five (5) out of the six (6) Philippine endemic species (83 %) are found only on Mindanao Island. All of the 5 Mindanao species of frogs are also categorized as “Vulnerable” by the IUCN. For lizards and skinks, there were five (5) species identified from the specimens. And interestingly, all are confined only to Mindanao Island. For one flying lizard specimen our consultant had difficulty making out which species it belongs. She assigned it to Gonyocephalus sp. and is entertaining the possibility that it could be a new, un-described species. There is certainly more species within the AD than what our team has found. For snakes, our specimens accounted for only four species. Only a single species was endemic; the rest were widespread in most parts of Asia. One of our guides brought a carcass of the deadly King cobra Ophiophagus hannah that his friend killed in an open field close to his home. More species will surely be discovered with additional efforts. 20
Table 3. Frogs, lizards and snakes recorded from Ancestral Domain of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan. Endemism: *- Philippine endemic, **- Mindanao/Mindanao faunal region endemic. IUCN Threat categories: NT – near threatened, VU – vulnerable. Scientific name BUFONIDAE Ansonia muelleri**, VU Pelophryne lighti**, VU
MEGOPHRYIDAE Leptobrachium hasselti
English Name Mueller's Toad
Mindanao flathead toad
Remarks Common in montane forests Uncommon, a few individuals collected on leaves in montane forests
Hasselt's Toad
Common in the forest floor especially when drizzling
Mindanao Horned Frog
Common in the forest floor
RANIDAE Occidozyga laevis
Puddle Frog
Common in pools and puddles
RHACOPHORIDAE Philautus acutirostris**, VU
Pointed-snouted tree frog
Most common especially in the montane forests
Megophrys stejnegeri**,VU
Philautus surdus* Philautus worcesteri**, VU AGAMIDAE (Lizards) Draco cyanopterus** Gonyocephalus sp.** SCINCIDAE Sphenormorphus variegatus**
Sphenomorphus diwata** Tropidophorus misaminus** COLUBRIDAE (Snakes) Calamaria lumbricoidea Psammodynastes pulverulentus Rhabdophis auriculata* VIPERIDAE Ophiophagus hannah
Common forest tree frog Smooth-skinned tree frog
Second most common species in the montane forests Uncommon in montane forests
Flying lizard
Uncommon
Flying lizard
Uncommon
Black-spotted sphenomorphus
The most common lizard
Diwata sphenomorphus
Uncommon
Misamis waterside skink
Uncommon
Variable Reed snake
Common in montane forests
Dark-spotted mock viper White-lined water snake King cobra
Common in montane forests Common in montane forests Uncommon in grasslands and open habitats
21
E. Biodiversity Threats This section will discuss several potential threats to wildlife that was noted within and around the AD, particularly to species that are considered globally threatened or nearthreatened and to species that are Mindanao endemic. We noted four biodiversity threats: 1. Shooting and hunting Like all indigenous communities close to the mountains, the residents of the AD still hunt deer, wild pigs, and occasionally monkeys. We don’t know how sustainable these hunting practices are but the use of guns and the possible increase in upland hunters might be depleting the local deer and wild pig population. The relatively high selling prices for the meat of these animals might have also increased hunting in the uplands. Shooting or hunting wildlife either for food or plainly for pleasure is detrimental to large, long-lived, and slow breeding animals. If collection or killing of animals exceed the capacity of the adult population to breed and raise young that will replace dying animals, the population can eventually collapse and die out. This is the reason why local populations of some species are lost even though intact habitats still exist. This is often called the “empty forest” syndrome in the conservation literature. Local population of Philippine Eagles is particularly vulnerable to shooting and hunting. Recently, we noted that accidental captures in traps intended for wild pigs and deer are also causing death among juvenile and sub-adult eagles (Salvador and Ibanez, 2006). There might be fewer than 200 adult pairs in Mindanao Island (Miranda et al., 2000). With a breeding rate of only one chick every two years, a life span of over 65 years, and the relatively long time for young birds to mature and breed (5-6 years), it would be difficult for a population to recover if many eagles are dying (Ibanez, 2008). 2. Timber harvest Evidences of timber harvest, either legally or illegally, were seen in upper dipterocarp forests close to Bising and Banate. Chain saw cuttings of large trees were noted along trails and transect lines. Our guides also reported illegal logging by non-indigenous trespassers to the AD. Tree harvests within the dipterocarp forests raise an alarm bell for two main reasons. First, the AD seems to have only a small area left of this forest habitat. Its upper dipterocarp forests seem to be confined to a narrow altitudinal band (i.e. 1200-1400 masl) along the AD perimeter. Much of what was left is also already degraded so that unsustainable tree harvests will certainly affect wildlife population therein. Decades of uncontrolled logging and the slash-and-burn farming that followed made the dipterocarp forest the most endangered forest in the country (Heaney and Regalado, 1998). In contrast, montane and mossy forests are still large and intact. Aside from being inaccessible, these forest types were spared from logging because they do not have many of the large trees that are valued by the timber industry. 22
The second reason is the fact that Dipterocarp forests have a unique set of animals that are not found in montane or mossy forests. Examples of these animals are the Mindanao bleeding heart Gallicolumba criniger, the Philippine eagle-owl Bubo philippinensis, and the Silvery kingfisher Alcedo argentata, which are all classified by IUCN as “threatened” species. We neither caught nor observed these animals but local guides whom we interviewed were positive that they exist inside the AD. They also confirmed that these birds are restricted to forests at lower altitudes (see Appendix 3 for the local names for these animals). The Philippine Eagle and the Philippine hawk-eagle also use large trees that are common in dipterocarp forests as nest trees. 3. Slash-and-Burn (Kaingin) Agriculture This predominant farming technique in the uplands has the potential to affect wildlife because it totally removes forest habitats. It completely removes foraging areas, breeding places and shelter for a wide range of wildlife. Because kaingin is normally done at accessible parts of the forest, it further reduces the already limited dipterocarp forests. The only animal group that benefit from it (in addition to the human species) are animals of the open habitats, which include non-native species that are pests to both people and a few endemics. A very good example is the Asian house rat Rattus tanezumi. It is a household and an agricultural pest. It also outcompetes and displaces native rats. Kaingin is not inherently bad but the exponential increase of human population in the uplands resulted to more forests getting cleared and farmed to feed more people. At Tintingan for example, most of the relatively flat areas is already occupied and farmed so that new families and new comers have no choice but to burn forests to farm even on steep slopes. Unfortunately, farming is the single most important livelihood for the communities. Except for timber, there are no other sources of stable livelihood from forest and non-forest products. 4. Clearing of undergrowths and the understory Several “shade coffee” plantations were also noted at the montane forests close to Tintingan and at the dipterocarp forests above Tobak creek. But unlike kaingin which totally removes the forests, these plantations clear the undergrowth and the understory yet leave the tall trees intact. But just the same, wildlife of the forest floor and the understory also lose their habitats. Bad effects will become evident when many of these plantations are established within the AD. Examples of these vulnerable animals are species of ground birds like the IUCN “endangered” Mindanao bleeding heart pigeon, the Streaked-ground babbler Ptilocichla mindanensis, the Bagobo babbler Leonardina woodi, and the Tabon scrub fowl Megapodius cumingii (local name: Manok Tana). Rodents of the forest floor are also vulnerable like the Mindanao tree shrew Urogale everetti, Large Mindanao forest rat Bullimus bagobos and the Mindanao forest mouse Apomys musculus.
23
F. Recommendations The following recommendations are intended to mitigate for the possible ill-effects of the threats that were previously described. We recommend the following: 1. The Tribal Council must adopt a policy that regulates wildlife hunting within the AD. Such policy might include the suspension of hunting during the breeding season of hunted animals (e.g. deer and wild pigs), especially if their hunting methods include techniques that does not differentiate between pregnant females and nonbreeding individuals (e.g. noose traps and the use of improvised trigger explosives). To protect the resident pair of Philippine Eagles and any young they produce within the AD, the tribal council must also create a policy that limits the number of traps set by the traditional hunters. There should be wide distances between traps as well to prevent accidental captures of Philippine Eagles (Eagles are known to walk on the ground while on hunt for snakes and rodents). Because eagles are also very loyal to their nesting sites, the places where they nest must also be protected. Hunters must also undergo proper training for handling and restraining Philippine Eagles that might get accidentally caught in native traps. PEF can provide resource persons at no cost to the tribal council. 2. The tribal council must also enforce Philippine wildlife laws (i.e. RA 9147 or the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act) within the AD. Such law prohibits capture and killing of IUCN threatened and other species considered locally threatened by the country (OTS or Other Threatened Species, see DAO No. 2004-15) and the destruction of their breeding habitats. Sale of wildlife meat or any wildlife is also prohibited. Traditional wildlife use is allowed though. 3. As far as practicable, set aside the whole montane-mossy forests as a “protected area” of the AD for its biological and ecological value. In this context, we will define a “protected area” using the definition by IUCN (2004): “…an area of land….especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” The two potentially new, un-described species of rodents (Apomys sp. and Crocidura sp.) caught in the montane and mossy forests is a strong proof that these areas are important sites for the “evolution” of new species (scientists also call it as “center of endemism or speciation”). 24
Another compelling reason to conserve the montane and mossy forests is the fact that a lot of the forest vertebrates found only on Mindanao Island are restricted to these habitats. Ensuring the integrity and long-term persistence of these forests inside the AD is therefore important for the preservation of this biological heritage of Mindanao. As a protected area, the forests should not be used other than for cultural, religious or research purposes. It should not be farmed, logged or mined. 4. A similar “protected area” must also be identified and set aside for the remaining dipterocarp forests within the AD. As discussed previously, this habitat type has its own unique animal assemblage not found in other forest types. Securing habitats for these animals that cannot live outside dipterocarp forests is important if the Manobo Dulangan tribe would want to conserve as many of their wildlife neighbors as possible. One possible scheme of protection is setting aside dipterocarp forests in steep slopes, ravines or along rivers to protect watersheds as well. 5. Reforestation of idle grasslands must be pursued. There were large tracts of idle, unproductive Cogon (Imperata sp.) fields within the AD. Unfortunately, reclaiming these areas for agriculture will be very expensive for a regular farmer. Grasslands are also susceptible to wildfires so that natural regrowth of forest will be very difficult if not impossible (Turvey, 1994). Fortunately, there are tested ways to revive the ecological and agricultural productivity of grasslands. One technology is through “rain-forestation” (see Milan and Margraf, 1994). Aside from restoring forests, a farmer can achieve forms of sustainable livelihoods from agro-forestry. 6. Degraded forests must be rehabilitated. There must be an effort to help degraded dipterocarp forests to re-grow its old trees back. This can be done through an “assisted natural regeneration (ANR)” technique (see Dalmacio, 1986). There are ways to do this that also result to increased local income for communities by incorporating agro-forestry practices. 7. The tribal council should carefully evaluate the pros-and-cons for conservation of doing “shade coffee” plantations within the AD. Although “shade coffee” is a better alternative to “shifting” cultivation when it comes to achieving both economic and conservation goals (see Perfecto et al. 1996), there is evidence that many forest-dependent species are absent in these plantations (Raman, 2006). There is evidence too that farmers tend to convert more forests to plantations because of the high global demand for shade coffee (Tejeda-Cruz et al., 2010). If the KMDO adopts the intensification of shade coffee farming as a livelihood activity, policies against relentless expansion must be made and strictly enforced. 25
8. The indigenous communities (with help from NGO partners such as TRICOM, Inc.) must achieve a suite of sustainable forms of livelihoods to keep families away from forest destructive Kaingin and “Shade Coffee” farming. One conceptual model for achieving both conservation and economic objectives with indigenous communities is the “Sustainable Livelihoods Framework” or SLF. This framework has been gaining popularity in rural development work, including environmental projects where the causes of degradation are tied with poverty issues and the need for stable and resilient livelihoods (see Solesbury, 2003). 9. More importantly, the tribal council and the communities must thoroughly think about and discuss the above recommendations before deciding whether to adopt them or not. The global community clamors for biodiversity conservation. However, it is equally important that local contexts are taken into account too. Community decisions must be based on consensus and a careful evaluation of the cost and benefits (trade-offs) of doing conservation. It should also be just, equitable and sensitive to the cultural and economic realities within the AD. The process of decision making (i.e. how and why they came up with it) is often more important than the decision/s itself.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The results of our expedition strongly suggest that the AD is also a critical habitat for Philippine biodiversity. This expedition listed at least 111 species of forest and open-habitat vertebrates (86 birds, 9 bats, 11 rodents and shrews, 2 nocturnal and arboreal mammals, and 3 large land mammals) inside the AD. More than half of these animals are endemic to the Philippines (52 %). Out of the 58 Philippine endemics, 26 (45 %) are restricted only to forests in Mindanao. One forest shrew and a forest mouse are suspected to be new to science. As of this writing, FMNH researchers are still examining these specimens. We recorded at least 19 vertebrates (17 % of the total vertebrates listed) whose global population is considered as “Threatened” or “Near-Threatened” by IUCN. The species within the AD that has the highest chances of getting extinct (i.e. “critically endangered”) is the Philippine Eagle. Eleven (11) species fell under the “Vulnerable” category: three (3) species of birds, a single species of fruit bat, a single species of forest rat, the Philippine brown deer, and five (5) species of forest frogs. There were seven (7) species that were considered “Near-threatened”: six (6) are birds and is a fruit bat). There are two distinct groups or assemblages of forest animals within the AD. One group represents animals that inhabit montane-mossy forests and another group that represents those in dipterocarp forests. These results strongly clamor for the conservation of these two distinct habitats inside the AD. 26
Two potentially (un-described) new species of rodents were caught in the montane-mossy forests. Many of Mindanao endemic vertebrates were also found in this habitat mix. These two trends strongly support recent notions that the montane-mossy forests are a “center for speciation” in many forest animals. The dipterocarp forest has its own share as well of endemic and globally threatened species. It is the also most vulnerable to human exploitation because it is closer to human habitations. The large trees that it contains which is not as abundant in montane-mossy forests make it also more susceptible to deforestation from logging or timber poaching than high altitude forests. Hunting and shooting of wildlife, particularly of large birds and mammals, is an important threat that must be addressed inside the AD. High death rates due to hunting and shooting has the potential to wipe out wildlife populations inside the AD although a substantial amount of forest still remains. The community must therefore develop and faithfully implement policies against unsustainable hunting. The Wildlife Resources Protection and Conservation Act (RA 9147) is the best reference for these policies. The AD is undoubtedly a nesting territory of the “critically endangered” Philippine Eagle. As a species that is at the brink of extinction, the community must do its share to preserve our national bird. The nest of the pair must be located and its surrounding forests must be protected and exempted from farming, logging and mining. Local hunters must be mindful also about their native traps as hunting eagles could be accidentally captured by it. They must be trained on proper handling and restraint of eagles accidentally captured in traps. Deforestation within the AD is mainly due to timber poaching, kaingin, and to some extent by “shade coffee” plantations. These activities are driven by the communities’ primary need for livelihoods. Fortunately, there are ways to achieve both conservation and economic goals for ancestral domain management. Idle, unproductive grasslands can be reclaimed through “rainforestation” techniques. While restoring forests and adding new habitats for wildlife, rainforestation can also provide sustainable forms of livelihood through agro-forestry. Re-growths of trees in degraded dipterocarp forests can be enhanced through “Assisted Natural Regeneration” or ANR. Similary, ANR can be designed in such a way that it brings economic gains as well through agro-forestry. The global community clamors for biodiversity conservation. However, it is equally important that local contexts are taken into account too. Conservation decisions must be based on consensus and a careful evaluation of the cost and benefits (trade-offs) of doing conservation. It should also be equitable, just and sensitive to the cultural and economic realities within the AD. The process of decision making (i.e. how and why they came up with it) is often more important than the decision/s itself. 27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The hard work invested by the following PEF staff, technicians and volunteers are greatly acknowledged: (a) Bird group: Aniceto Allado and Mark Barrete; (b) Arboreal mammal group: Emiliano Lomiston; and (c) Amphibian and reptile group: Roselyn Quidlat and Neri Baron. The team is grateful to PEF Forester Guiller Opiso for characterizing the vegetation within our study area and to Ms. Elsa Delima for identifying the amphibian and reptile specimens. We are also grateful to the staff of the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH): Danilo Balete, Melizar Duya, Mariano Roy Duya, and Joel Sarmiento. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Lawrence Heaney of the FMNH. The mammal survey would not have been as successful without the financial support and guidance. I also thank Rey Palabon, Titing Toring, and June Sanchez of TRICOM, Inc, and freelance journalist Philip Somozo for the company and assistance in the field. I personally thank the officers and members of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan Organization (KMDO), the leaders and residents of Sitios Bising, Banate and Tintingan, and our excellent indigenous co-researchers for a wonderful and meaningful learning experience. This expedition was funded by the Tri-people Concern for Peace, Progress and Development of Mindanao, the Philippine Eagle Foundation and the Field Museum of Natural History. The survey was possible through a Wildlife Gratuitous Permit No. 02 for the collection of wild plant and animal specimens issued by DENR Region 12 – Koronodal City, South Cotabato on 17 August 2009.
LITERATURE CITED Bates, P., Francis, C., Gumal, M., Bumrungsri, S., Walston, J., Heaney, L. & Mildenstein, T. 2008. Pteropus vampyrus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 23 August 2010. BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Actenoides hombroni. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 23/8/2010 _________________. 2010. Species factsheet: Mimizuku gurneyi. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 23/8/2010 __________________. 2010. Species factsheet: Nisaetus philippensis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 23/8/2010 __________________. 2010. Species factsheet: Pithecophaga jefferyi. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 23/8/2010 Conservation International Philippines, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, and Haribon Foundation. 2008. Priority sites for conservation in the Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Quezon City, Philippines. 28
Dalmacio, V. M. 1986. Assisted natural regeneration: a Strategy for cheap, fast, and effective regeneration of denuded forest lands. Region 8, Tacloban City. Philippines, DENR. 18 pp. Duya, M.R.M., M.V. Duya, D.S. Balete, J.B. Sarmiento and L.R. Heaney. 2010. Report on a Biodiversity Survey of Mt Daguma, Senator Ninoy Aquino Municipality, Sultan Kudarat, Mindanao Island. FMNH, USA. DENR Administrative Order No. 2004 – 15. 2004. Establishing The List Of Terrestrial Threatened Species And Their Categories, And The List Of Other Wildlife Species Pursuant To Republic Act No. 9147, Otherwise Known As The Wildlife Resources Conservation And Protection Act Of 2001. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. http://denrbicol.ph/PAWS/DAO%20200415.pdf Gamauf A, Gjershaug J-O, Røv N, Kvaløy K, Haring E. 2005. Species or subspecies? The dilemma of taxonomic ranking of some South-East Asian hawk-eagles (genus Spizaetus). Bird Conserv Int. 15:99–117. Heaney, L.R., & Regalado, J.C.JR. 1998. Vanishing Treasures of the Philippine Rainforest. Chicago, IL: The Field Museum. HEANEY, L. R., D. S. BALETE, L. DOLAR, A. C. ALCALA, A. DANS, P. C. GONZALES, N. INGLE, M. LEPITEN, P. S. ONG, W. L. OLIVER, E. A. RICKART, B. R. TABARANZA, JR. AND R. C. B. UTZURRUM. 1998. A synopsis of the mammalian fauna of the Philippine Islands. Fieldiana Zoology n.s., 88:1-61. Ibaňez, J.C. 2008. Philippine Eagle breeding biology, diet, behavior, nest characteristics, and longevity estimate in Mindanao island. Unpublished. MSc Thesis. Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City. Ingle, N.R. and L.R. Heaney. 1992. A Key to the bats of the Philippine Islands. Fieldiana 69: 1-44. IUCN—The World Conservation Union 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Kennedy, R.S., Gonzales, P.C., Dickinson, E.C., Miranda, H.C., Fisher, T.H. 2000. A Guide to the Birds of the Philippines. Oxford University Press. Milan, P., & Margraf, J. 1994. Rainforestation Farming: An alternative to conventional concepts. Annals of Tropical Research, 16(4), 17–27. Visayas State College of Agriculture, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines. Miranda, H.C., JR., D.I. Salvador, J.C. Ibanez, AND G.B. Ibanez. 2000. Summary of Philippine Eagle reproductive success, 1978-98. J. Raptor Res. 34:37-41.
29
Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E. Van Der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46:598-608. Raman, T. R. S. 2006. Effects of habitat structure and adjacent habitats on birds in tropical rainforest fragments and shaded plantations in the Western Ghats, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1577-1607. Salvador, J.I.D and J.C. Ibanez. Ecology and conservation of Philippine Eagles. Ornithological Science. 5:171-176.
SANBORN, C. C. 1952. Philippine Zoological Expedition, 1946-1947; Mammals -Philippines. Fieldiana Zoology v.33, no.2. p. 157-158. Sanchez, J. 2009. Mt. Daguma reveals unique biodiversity to the local people. http://triconcern.org/?p=203. Silvosa, M.R., G. Tampos, M.R. Hinlo, E.T. Dayos, and G. Opiso. 2008. Assessment of Philippine Eagle Prey Items and the Forests in Mount Kitanglad Natural Park, Sumilao, Bukidnon Province. Philippine Eagle Foundation, Davao City. Solesbury, W. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy. Overseas Development Institute. London, Uk. Pp. 28. Tejeda-Cruz, C., E. Silva-Rivera, J. R. Barton and W. J. Sutherland. 2010. Why shade coffee does not guarantee biodiversity conservation. Ecology and Society 15(1): 13. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art13/ Turvey, N.D. 1994. Afforestation and Rehabilitation of Imperata Grasslands in Southeast Asia: Identification of Priorities for Research, Education, Training and Extension. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 28, 52 pp.
30
APPENDIX 1. Birds within the Ancestral Domain of the Kulaman Manobo Dulangan Organization (KMDO) in Sitios Tintingan and Banate, Barangay Lagubang and Sitio Bising, Barangay Midtungok, Senator Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat. Uniqueness (or “Endemism): PE (PE)– Found only in the Philippines (or Philippine Endemic), ME (ME)- Found only in Mindanao or the Mindanao Faunal Region (or Mindanao Endemic). Including birds seen opportunistically (i.e. neither netted nor seen at transects). Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
Remarks
Oriental Honeybuzzard
-
-
Adults and an immature bird seen, common
2. Pernis celebensis
Barred Honeybuzzard
-
-
An immature bird flying over Kalalaha creek near Sitio Bising On Sep 19
3. Haliastur indus
Brahminy Kite
-
0.65
Philippine HawkEagle
-
-
5. Accipiter soloensis
Chinese goshawk
-
0.22
One bird seen at So. Tintingan
6. Spilornis cheela
Crested SerpentEagle
-
0.22
Common, calling often on a clear day
Philippine eagle
-
-
One adult eagle seen in 4 occasions
FALCONIDAE PE 8. Microhierax erythrogenys
Philippine falconet
-
0.65
GALLIDAE 9. Gallus gallus
Red Jungle Fowl
-
-
White-eared Brown-Dove
1.05
1.96
Hunted for food, kept as pet
Amethyst BrownDove
0.52
2.83
Hunted for food, kept as pet
Yellow-breasted Fruit-Dove
1.57
3.04
Hunted for food
Reddish CuckooDove
-
0.43
Commonly flying over forest
ACCIPITRIDAE 1. Pernis ptilorhynchus
4. Spizaetus philippensis
7. Pithecophaga jefferyi
PE
PE
COLUMBIDAE PE 10. Phapitreron leucotis 11. Phapitreron amethystina 12. Ptilinopus occipitalis
PE
13. Macropygia phasianella
PE
Commonly seen Adults and an immature bird seen
Common atop leafless vertical branches Calls heard
31
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Remarks
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
Blue-crowned Racquet-tail
-
1.52
Noisily flying over forest
Colasisi
-
1.09
Kept as pet
Brush Cuckoo
-
0.43
Heard than seen
Philippine Coucal
-
0.22
One bird seen in a grassland
Philippine HawkOwl
-
-
Heard near campsite above Tintingan
Giant Scops-Owl
-
-
Often heard along night transects
Great Eared Nightjar
-
-
Heard around dusk and dawn
APODIDAE 21. Collocalia vanikorensis
Island Swiflet
0.52
-
Commonly flying above the forests
22. Collocalia esculenta
Glossy Swiftlet
1.05
-
Roosting/nesting in caves and crevices close to the camp
Pygmy Swiftlet
-
-
Seen with other swifts
24. Cypsirius balasiensis
Asian Palm Swift
-
-
Seen with other swifts
25. Hirundapus celebensis
Purple Needletail
-
-
Seen from rock ledge
Philippine Needletail
-
-
Seen from rock ledge
Whiskered Treeswift
-
-
In forest edges and above grasslands
Philippine Trogon
-
0.43
PSITTACIDAE PE 14. Prioniturus discurus
15. Loriculus philippinensis
PE
CUCULIDAE 16. Cacomantis variolosus 17. Centropus viridis
PE
STRIGIDAE PE 18. Ninox philippensis
19. Mimizuku gurneyi
PE, ME
CAPRIMULGIDAE 20. Eurostopodus macrotis
23. Collocalia troglodytes
26. Mearnsia picina
PE
HEMIPROCNIDAE 27. Hemiprocne comata TROGONIDAE PE 28. Harpactes ardens
PE
Individuals and a few pairs seen
32
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
Remarks
ALCEDINIDAE PE, ME 29. Actenoides hombroni
Blue-capped Wood-Kingfisher
0.52
-
BUCEROTIDAE PE 30. Buceros hydrocorax
Rufous Hornbill
-
0.22
Writhed Hornbill
-
-
A flock of at least 7 birds seen in forest near Limanga
Tarictic Hornbill
-
1.52
A few more individuals seen around the forests
Coppersmith Barbet
-
1.52
More heard than seen
0.52
0.87
-
0.65
More heard than seen
White-bellied Woodpecker
-
0.43
PITTIDAE 37. Pitta sordida
Hooded Pitta
-
0.22
CAMPEPHAGIDAE 38. Coracina striata
Bar-bellied Cuckoo Shrike
-
2.39
One flying bird and few calling individuals noted One calling individual heard close to So. Tintingan Flying birds seen and heard
39. Pericrocotus flammeus
Scarlet Minivet
-
1.96
Uncommon, seen on top of trees
PYCNONOTIDAE PE 40. Hypsipetes philippinus
Philippine Bulbul
2.09
1.74
Common, heard and seen
-
1.09
Common in open areas
1.05
1.52
Noisy alone or with feeding flock in the forests
31. Aceros leucocephalus
32. Penelopides panini
PE, ME
PE
CAPITONIDAE 33. Megalaima haemacephala
PICIDAE 34. Chrysocolaptes lucidus 35. Dendrocopus maculatus 36. Dryocopus javensis
PE
Greater Flameback Philippine Pygmy Woodpecker
41. Pycnonotus goiavier
Yellow-vented Bulbul
DICRURIDAE 42. Dicrurus hottentotus
Spangled Drongo
Rare, one indiv. caught inside montane forest Flocks of 10-20 birds seen at Tintingan, Banate and Bising
33
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
CORVIDAE 43. Corvus macrorhyncus
Large-billed Crow
-
0.87
Noisy pairs noted close to Tintingan
PARIDAE PE 44. Parus elegans
Elegant Tit
1.05
5.00
Common in the forests
Velvet-fronted Nuthatch
-
0.43
Common member of forest bird flocks
Stripe-breasted Rhabdornis
-
0.65
Common at montane forest; flocks on a feding tree close to camp at Banate
Bagobo Babbler
3.14
-
Common; seen roosting along transects at night and often caught in snap traps
Brown Tit-Babbler
34.03
4.57
Streaked Ground Babbler
1.05
-
Rusty-crowned Babbler
-
0.22
One individual seen below Tintingan at 1300 masl
White-browed Shortwing
3.14
2.39
Heard than seen
Long-tailed Ground Warbler
1.05
0.22
Secretive
Tawny Grassbird
-
0.22
Calling birds in grasslands and open areas
White-eared Tailorbird
-
0.22
One bird in upper dipterocarp forest below Tintingan
SITTIDAE 45. Sitta frontalis RHABDORNITHIDAE PE, ME 46. Rhabdornis inornatus
TIMALIIDAE PE, ME 47. Leonardina woodi
48. Macronous striaticeps
PE
49. Ptilocichla mindanensis
50. Stachyris capitalis
PE, ME
PE, ME
TURDIDAE 51. Brachypteryx montana SYLVIIDAE PE 52. Bradypterus caudatus
Megalurus timoriensis
PE
53. Orthotomus cinereiceps ME
PE,
Remarks
Most common forest bird Secretive, difficult to see
34
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Remarks
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
1.05
8.91
Common in montane forest
Philippine LeafWarbler
-
4.35
Mountain LeafWarbler
0.52
1.74
Found in forests near andbelow Tintingan Common in montane forests
Citrine Canary Flycatcher
-
1.52
Often seen in a feeding flock in montane forests
Mountain-verditer Flycatcher
1.05
1.74
Common either alone or in a feeding flock
Cryptic Flycatcher
4.19
-
Common but difficult to see
60. Ficedula hyperythra
Snowy-browed Flycatcher
4.71
0.43
Common but difficult to see
61. Ficedula westermanni
Little Pied Flycatcher Black and Cinnamon Fantail
-
1.09
9.95
3.04
More conspicuous of the flycatchers Common in montane forests
Blue Fantail
0.52
1.09
Confined to forests below Tintingan
PACHYCEPHALIDAE 64. Pachycephala PE philippinensis
Yellow-bellied Whistler
14.4
5.0
Common in the montane forests
MOTACILIDAE 65. Motacilla cinerea
Grey Wagtail
-
-
One bird seen close to rock ledge
White-breasted Wood-swallow
-
-
Common in open areas
ARTAMIDAE 67. Lanius cristatus
Brown Shrike
-
-
Common in open areas
68. Lanius schach
Long-tailed Shrike
-
-
Common in open areas
54. Orthotomus cuculatus
Mountain Tailorbird
55. Phylloscopus olivaceus
PE
56. Phylloscopus trivirgatus
MUSCICAPIDAE 57. Culicicapa helianthea
58. Eumyias panayensis
59. Ficedula crypta
PE
PE, ME
62. Rhipidura PE, ME nigrocinnamomea 63. Rhipidura supercilliaris
ARTAMIDAE 66. Artamus leucorhyncus
PE, ME
35
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
Remarks
-
1.30
Common in forests and forest edges
Coleto
0.52
3.56
Common in montane and disturbed forests
Grey-hooded Sunbird
0.52
3.04
Common in montane forests
Metallic-winged Sunbird
0.52
1.09
Found at all forest levels
73. Aethopyga boltoni
Apo Sunbird
1.57
-
Not as conspicuous
74. Arachnothera longirostra
Little Spiderhunter
-
0.22
Not as conspicuous
Red-keeled Flowerpecker
-
-
Seen in riparian forests between Banate and Binlibol
Buzzing flowerpecker
5.24
4.78
The most conspicuous flowerpecker at Daguma
Olive-capped Flowerpecker
0.52
1.52
Uncommon
Pygmy Flowerpecker Orange-bellied Flowerpecker
-
1.96
Uncommon
-
-
Seen in riparian forests between Banate and Binlibol
Fire-breasted Flowerpecker
-
-
One bird seen close to rocky ledge
Flame-crowned Flowerpecker
-
0.22
One bird seen in montane forest
Cinnamon Ibon
-
1.09
Common in montane forests
Mountain Whiteeye
-
9.57
Common in forest and forest edges
STURNIDAE 69. Aplonis minor 70. Sarcops calvus
Short-tailed Glossy Starling PE
NECTARINIIDAE PE, ME 71. Aethopyga primigenius 72. Aethopyga pulcherrima
PE
PE, ME
DICAEIDAE PE 75. Dicaeum australe
PE
76. Dicaeum hypoleucum
PE, ME
77. Dicaeum nigrilore
PE
78. Dicaeum pygmaeum
79. Dicaeum trigonostigma
80. Dicaeum ignipectus
81. Dicaeum anthonyi
PE
ZOSTEROPIDAE 82. Hypocryptadius PE, ME cinnamomeus 83. Zosterops montanus
36
Relative abundance Scientific Name
English Name
Mist net (per 100 birds)
Line transect (per 100 birds)
ESTRILIDAE PE, ME 84. Erythrura coloria
Red-eared Parrotfinch
2.09
-
85. Lonchura leucogastra
White-bellied Munia
0.52
0.53
86. Lonchura malacca
Chestnut Munia
-
-
Remarks
Uncommon in montane forests Found in open areas Flock in grasslands and cultivated areas near forests
37
38
APPENDIX 3. Initial listing of Kulaman Manobo Dulangan local names, uses and other notes for selected species of forest and open habitat vertebrates at Sitio Tintingan, Barangay Lagubang, Sultan Kudarat. Note: we interviewed only a few people. Additional consultation is needed to substantiate this initial list.
Kulaman Manobo Dulangan names
Local uses and other notes
Klo-ong
Food
Litef
Food, feed on crabs
Rufous night heron
Sigeyok
Food
Cattle egret
Kuliyo
Food
Tungkaling
Food
Great Bittern
Bigowa
Food
Wandering whistling duck/Philippine duck Oriental honey buzzard
Wadak
Food
Dalit linaday
Food
Dalit simodong
Food
Tagak pukay
Food
English Name Egrets Great-billed heron/Grey heron
Bittern
Barred honey buzzard and Philippine hawk-eagle Brahminy kite All sparrowhawks (Accipiter sp.) Crested serpent eagle
Kolisong
Food
Dalit kuligi
Food
Philippine Eagle
Banog obal
Food
Kolofodo
-
Red jungle fowl
Manok tana
Food
Tabon scrubfowl
Saob
Food
Mokok
-
Manok U’le
-
Wok-wok
-
Sigyok
-
Limokem
Food, pet
Higof-higof
Food, pet
Sigkolo
Food
Philippine falconet
Barred rail Crake Water hen Plain bush hen White-eared brown dove Amethyst Dove Yellow-breasted fruit dove
39
Kulaman Manobo Dulangan names
Local uses and other notes
Boon sa dawag
Food
Imperial pigeon
Boon kobo
Food
Reddish cuckoo dove
Malaboyon
Food
Common emerald dove
Malapakaw
Food
Bakoko
Food
Tagol
-
Manatad
Nests on bamboo, ave. 2 eggs
Konok onok
Food
Blue-naped parrot
Kalangag
Pet
Green Racquet-tail
Klet
Pet
Klosisi
Pet
Hiyof hiyof agdaw
-
Sagoksok
-
Sagoksok limulan
-
Grass owl
Su-wo
-
Scops owl
Bugtong utaw
-
Philippine eagle owl
Ngew
-
Night jar
Tahaw
-
Tubilang
-
Kawas basag
-
Tubilang
-
Tamblabla
-
English Name Black-chinned fruit dove
Spotted dove Zebra dove Mindanao bleeding heart Nicobar pigeon
Colasisi Plaintive cuckoo/Brush cuckoo Small coucals Black-faced coucal
Swift Needle tail Whiskered tree swift Philippine trogon Small kingfishers, including Silvery kingfisher Blue capped forest kingfisher
Bigte
-
Sumlang
Nests on soil cavity
Dollar bird
Salaksak
-
40
Kulaman Manobo Dulangan names
Local uses and other notes
Kafuloy-fuloy
-
Tarictic hornbill
Busek
Pet, food
Writhed hornbill
Kayamatan
Pet, food
Rufous hornbill
Koko
Pet, food
Coppersmith barbet
Tokofuk
-
Pygmy woodpecker
Kulilit toyang
-
Kew
-
Kulilit sumudong
-
Barn swallow
Maluboy
-
Coracina sp.
Kaliyak-liyak
-
Kaliyapo
-
Kuliyang fungol
-
Buluwing
-
Philippine Bulbul
Sufet
-
Yellowish Bulbul
Sufet tatawan
-
Tawis obal
-
Tuliyaw
-
Uwak
-
Kloso-kloso
-
Elegant Tit
Bakaka
-
Rhabdornis spp.
Tuligfas
-
Kabalik-balik
-
Mumas
-
Shortwing
Pagiling-giling
-
Grassbird
Manok gilo
-
English Name Bee eater
White-bellied woodpecker Greater flameback
Pied triller Minivets Yellow-wattled bulbul
Drongo Black-naped Oriole Crow Velvet-fronted nuthatch
Streaked ground babbler Brown tit babbler
41
Kulaman Manobo Dulangan names
Local uses and other notes
Tugkel
-
Tugkel komobel
-
Igsom
-
Black cinnamon fantail
Kuwedew wedew
-
Citrine canary flycatcher
Manok salungon
-
Yellow-bellied whistler
Tufle
-
Wagtail
Sulit
-
Long-tailed Shrike
Blese
-
Tugkling
-
Sagipsipen
-
Taligtig
-
Manok salungon
-
Chest nut munia
Maya
-
White-bellied munia
Flooy
-
Philippine forest rat
Bulaikog
Food
Palm civet
Lakefes
Food
Kabal
Food
Bet-tuyo tudok
Food
Mindanao tree shrew
Kalunge
Food
Pygmy squirrel
Tenduloy
-
Mindanao tree squirrel
Kalagsuy
Food
Takobong ulayan
Food
Batomys sp.(?)
Tulobaboy
Food
Malay civet
Tinggalong
Food
Takubong kasisang
Foul smelling rat
English Name Philippine tailor-bird White-eared tailor bird Verditer flycatcher
Coleto All sunbirds All flowerpeckers White eyes
Flying lemur Mindanao flying squirrel
Large Mindanao forest rat
Podogymnura (?) sp.
42
Kulaman Manobo Dulangan names
Local uses and other notes
Saladong
Food
Baboy mabeles (kasiutan)
Food
Philippine tarsier
Emal
Food
Philippine macaque
Ubal
Food
Pla-as
Food
Ibid
Food
Bakasan
Food
Philippine cobra
Dulafu
-
King cobra
Nofuy
-
English Name Philippine brown deer Philippine warty pig
Monitor lizard Sailfin lizard Reticulated python
43
