ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The group would like to express their deepest gratitude to the Almighty
God, for giving us wisdom and courage to complete this research and for the
guidance without which we could never have carried out our sampling trips safely.

Also, to our family for their unconditional love, understanding and especially,
for their financial support.

To our SDF friends for their encouragement, moral support, motivation and
for all the laughs despite the hardships.

To our academic professors, for giving us ample time to complete our

research study and for inspiring us to learn more within and beyond the confines of
our classroom.

To Mr. and Mrs. Henry Salumbre, for providing ready transportation to our
sampling site in Mt. Makiling and all the other help that they had extended to us.

To our field guides, Sir Henry, Sir Aries and Sir Jason, for being patient
with us, for all their help in the gathering of data during our field work, for exerting all
their effort and sharing their knowledge and experience in the field of lizard
sampling.

To Dr. Portia Lapitan, Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems

(MCME), and TREES staff for allowing us to conduct our research in Mt. Makiling
and for accommodating us every sampling trip.

To Sir Donald Afan, for his help and for taking part in one of our sampling
work.

To Mrs. Carmen Quesada, for her helpful advice about group cooperation
and how she believed in us through thick and thin.

To Dr. Leticia del Rosario for imparting us her extensive knowledge of

statistical tests and data analyses.

To Dr. Arvin Diesmos, for helping us in the graphical analysis part of our
study and identification and verification of our lizard specimens and lastly, for his
suggestions and comments regarding our study.

And lastly, to our dearest adviser Mrs. Mae Lowe Diesmos, for always being
there for us, for the patience and the encouragement, for the concern in our safety
in all our field works, for accompanying us in our sampling trip, and most especially
for extending all the help we need during the duration of our thesis work. We thank
you.

1
 ABSTRACT

Rapid loss of species biodiversity is the major concern of most ecological

studies nowadays. Philippines, as a typical fragmented habitat, is greatly affected

by the disappearance of species at alarming rates. Habitat fragmentation can be

caused by geological processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical

environment or by human activity such as land conversion, which can alter the

environment on a much faster time scale. The objective of this study is to compare

lizard population diversity between a fragmented habitat, which includes the

Mahogany Plantation and a natural habitat represented by the Secondary Old-

Growth Forest and correlate this diversity to the effect of habitat fragmentation.

Lizard population diversity between Mahogany Plantation and Secondary

Old-Growth Forest was assessed using random strip transect distance sampling

method. Data gathered was subjected to graphical and statistical analysis such as

Species Effort Curve, Mann-Whitney U Test for two independent samples, Simpson

Index of Diversity and Sorensen Quantitative Index. The effect of habitat

fragmentation was correlated with species diversity of a sampling site.

Using Mann-Whitney U Test for two independent samples, the group

computed a p-value of 31 at 5% confidence interval, which is higher than the critical

value of 14 thus, statistically indicating that there is a significant difference between

the two sampling sites. The diversity between the two sites was computed using

Simpson Index of Diversity, with a computed value for Dmahogany= 0.21 and for

Dsecondary= 0.14, indicating Secondary Old-Growth Forest as more diverse in

terms of lizard population. Similarity of species present between the sampling sites

2
was also compared using Sorensen Quantitative Index and based on the computed

results, a value of 0.95 there is little similarity in the species present in sampling

sites. This dissimilarity in species present can also be corroborated with its diversity.

Based on the results, it was found that habitat fragmentation directly affects

species population diversity. Thus, natural habitat like Secondary Old-Growth

Forest, has a more diverse lizard population. Habitat fragmentation not only

modifies the geometry of the landscape, but also in species diversity, since

numerous animal species including lizards require large home range for their

reproductive success and survivorship. Moreover, habitat fragmentation contributes

to the conversion of populations of many species of animals which includes the

lizards into small, frequently isolated populations. This small populations carry only

fraction of the genetic variation of the total population or species which can increase

rates of genetic drift, elicit inbreeding depression and even lead to extinction.

3
 Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Biodiversity is the sum of all the different species of animals, plants, fungi,

and microbial organisms living on Earth and the variety of habitats in which they

live. Biodiversity underlies everything from food production to medical research.

Perhaps the greatest value of biodiversity is yet unknown. Scientists have

discovered and named only 1.75 million species—less than 20 percent of those

estimated to exist (Magurran, 2006).

Much of the Earth’s great biodiversity is rapidly disappearing. Most biologists

agree that life on Earth is now faced with the most severe extinction. Species of

plants, animals, fungi, and microscopic organisms such as bacteria are being lost at

alarming rates—so many, in fact, that biologists estimate that three species go

extinct every hour. Scientists around the world are cataloging and studying global

biodiversity in hopes that they might better understand it, or at least slow the rate of

loss. The Philippines has been identified as one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots.

That is not necessarily good news since many of the species of plants, mammals,

birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians and fishes that identify us as a biodiversity

hotspot are also in danger of extinction. Reptiles are represented by about 235

species, some 160 or 68% of which are endemic (Paredes, 2006).

4
 According to Brown et al., (2000), over 6,600 Reptile species are known

worldwide. Reptiles are in even greater distress worldwide than their better known

cousins (amphibians). Habitat loss and degradation may be the largest single factor

in reptile loss. For even when part of a habitat is protected, such as a wetland, the

surrounding terrestrial habitat needed by semi aquatic reptiles often is not.

According to Revilla et al., (2000), of the Philippine Island's total area of 30

million hectares, forest cover was more than 90% in 1575. As of 1995, only 18% of

the country’s land area (or 5.4 million hectares) remains forested out of 15.88

million hectares of declared forestlands. Of this amount, the old growth forest is a

dismal 800,000 hectares.

During the American regime, more exotic tree species found their way to the

Philippines through the School of Forestry. The site consisted of grass and brush at

the base of Mount Makiling. Laguna, Luzon and American administrators initiated

the reforestation of the school grounds mainly by planting indigenous tree species,

as well as the tropical American species mahogany (Swietenia spp.). documented

the introduction of the American mahoganies. Small leaf mahogany (Swietenia

mahogani) was introduced as early as 1911, and by batches in 1913, 1914, 1920

and 1922, from tropical America. Large leaf mahogany (S. macrophylla) was first

planted in Manila in 1907, then at the Forestry School at Mt. Makiling in 1913.

Mahogany is successful at invading natural forests due to the following attributes of

the species. Hardened mahogany seedlings can tolerate open fields as long as soil

moisture is not limiting. The leaves of mahogany are rarely attacked by herbivores.

Thus, a mahogany plantation is like a "green desert" to wildlife (Ponce, 1933).

5
 The Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR) provides researchers greater access

to ecological studies because of its enormous biological diversity and genetic

resources (Pulhin & Tapia, 2005). The animal composition of the Reserve includes 6

species of amphibians and 19 species of reptiles, reported by the late Dioscoro

Rabor. Endemicity has been found to be 60% for amphibians and 40% for reptiles

(also birds and mammals). It is then a suitable site for conducting biodiversity

researches (Rebancos, 2005).

B. Statement of the Problem

The increasing awareness regarding the increase of species extinction has

led to the practice of conservation biology through the principles of biodiversity. In

line with the growing concern for better biodiversity practices, the researchers had

undertaken the task of assessing the state of reptilian population abundance and

diversity patterns in a Mahogany plantation and Secondary Old Growth forest in Mt.

Makiling Forest Reserve using statistical methods employed in similar studies.

C. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

• To provide a view of the lizard population with respect to biodiversity,

especially in terms of conservation, assessment and management of species

at risk.

• To compare the lizard population in Mahogany Plantation and in the

Secondary Old Growth Forest.

6
 • To determine the effect of a fragmented habitat, which is the Mahogany

Plantation, to lizard population.

• To determine the dominant lizard species in both Mahogany plantation and

Secondary Old Growth Forest.

D. Significance of the Study

This study dealt with the assessment of lizards found in Mahogany plantation

and Secondary Old Growth forest of Mt. Makiling through population count. This

greatly contributed to the further understanding of lizard, and in general, reptilian

diversity patterns and abundance through the comparison, by statistical means, of

said species at the Mahogany plantation and Secondary Old Growth forest.

Moreover, this study provides sound information regarding the habitats of lizards

found in both sites, which shall be of great use in the field of ecosystem

management. Another point which this study had considered was the evaluation of

the effects of habitat fragmentation. Lastly, this study provides ecological

information for conservation practitioners.

E. Scope and Limitation

This study was limited, in terms of geographic range, to the Mahogany

plantation and Secondary Old Growth forest at the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve.

Lizard occurrences at both sites was the sole focus of this study. Data was gathered

once a month from June to November, and was subjected to statistical and

graphical data analysis. Test statistic that was utilized is Mann-Whitney U test for

7
two independent samples. The diversity index that were used by the researchers

are: Simpson index of diversity and Sorensen quantitative index. For the graphical

analysis, species sampling effort was utilized with the aid of EstimateS 8.0 software.

8
 Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Biodiversity

Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome or

for the entire Earth. It encompasses everything, from food production to medical

research. The exact meaning of the word, in terms of its function and relation to

other biological sciences, has not yet been properly coined, so to speak. Instead,

what the common people know about biodiversity, will almost certainly point to

conservation biology. However, attempts of defining the subject of biodiversity have

been made in relation with the growing field of conservation biology. To put it simply,

biodiversity is the sum of all different species of animals, plants, fungi and microbial

organisms living on Earth and the variety of habitats in which they live; another

meaning, and which is highly connected to the researchers' study has been adapted

by Magurran (2006), “it is the variety and abundance of species in a defined unit of

study.” The meaning, though simple, provides a very sharp glimpse of biodiversity in

that it can be “partitioned into two components”. These two partitions are species

richness, the number of species in the unit of study, and evenness, the variability in

species abundance, which are in turn weighed by various diversity measurements.

Encompassing all living things on Earth, biodiversity has recently been the

focus of most ecologists around the world. The trend of study nowadays is that to

compare biodiversity from past studies, or if not, make a study that serves as future

reference for biodiversity studies. Also, recent studies on biodiversity exhibited that

diversity on the species level is where the current of research is. Usually, a study of

9
this kind involves counting of the species and analyzed using biostatistical tools and

a plethora of diversity indices provide the means to quantify the biodiversity in a

given study site. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological

systems.

B. Philippine Biodiversity

A vast number of biodiversity studies are done in the Philippines every year.

In fact most studies indicated the Philippines as a “hotspot” area for biodiversity

studies. Paredes (2006) gave the following reasons for the Philippines as hotspot

for biodiversity: the archipelago bridges two major biogeographical regions which

contributes to the biological diversity of both plants and animals; the Philippines also

has a very high endemicity which is incomparable to any other place in the world;

lastly, there is a high (and growing) rate of deforestation and habitat fragmentation

aside from the inadequacies in environmental protection policies . He also went on

to explain that destruction of natural habitats has advanced more quickly than in

most countries.

According to the First Philippine National Report to the Convention on Biological

Diversity (1998), the Philippines has been shown to be characterized by varied

topography, varying exposures to shifting winds and typhoons, a typical distribution

of rainfall, and the Kuro-Siwa (Japanese current) that flows northward along the

eastern coast. These factors greatly contributes to the complexity of ecosystems

and habitat types in the Philippines.

10
 With the aforementioned reasons, it is no wonder that the Philippine forests are

among the richest. The Philippine forest is shown to be mainly ccomposed of

dipterocarp forests comprising 66%. With varying habitats, an approximate number

of 185 species of terrestrial vertebrates have been described in the country of which

62 % is endemic (PAWB, 1998).

C. Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is a process of environmental change important in

evolution and conservation biology. As the name implies, it describes the

emergence of discontinuities (fragmentation) in an organism's preferred

environment (habitat). Habitat fragmentation can be caused by geological

processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical environment or by human

activity such as land conversion, which can alter the environment on a much faster

time scale. Habitat fragmentation has two parts: the decrease in habitat type and

the apportionment of the remaining habitat into smaller, more isolated pieces

(Rosenzweig, 1995).

It has been repeatedly exhibited that the main threat to biodiversity is habitat

fragmentation. It is one of the most pervasive effects of human activites since it

greatly contributes to species extinction. Fragmentation, of course, also greatly

affects species distribution (Soulé & Orians, 2001).

Diesmos et al., (2000) further emphasized that destruction of rainforests,

clearance and fragmentation of habitats, affects 90% of the Philippine fauna since

majority of these species are forest-obligates. Pollution, overhunting, and

11
introduction of alien species, likewise, remain a deterrent factor against biodiversity.

Habitat fragmentation resulted from the destructive and unsustainable

human-induced practices as logging, land conversion for agricultural purposes,

residency in protected areas; and also by natural calamities. As a result, fragmented

forest patches, which are obviously smaller than the original forested area, contain

smaller populations, which will be more vulnerable to extinction. Also, in an isolated

patch competition for a limited food source will increase adding to the already high

rate of extinction. Another factor detrimental to biodiversity is the problem of

exploitation that resulted from the “open and free for all” mentality of our forests and

the prevailing problem of poverty that limits economic and livelihood opportunities.

Moreover, there is the problem of pollution that can be classified into two: a)

chemical or environmental pollution which is the draining of wastes coming from

industries and plants to wetland ecosystems making the environment unconducive

for any biological process to take place; and b) biological pollution or the

introduction of invasive or exotic species that competes directly with local and

indigenous species. Needless to say, these threats to biodiversity contributed to the

rapid rate of biodiversity loss. For example, the forest cover in the country has been

greatly reduced from 50% to 24% during the years 1948 and 1987 (PAWB, 1998).

As a result, fragmented forest patches, which are obviously smaller than the

original forested area, contain smaller populations, which will be more vulnerable to

extinction. Also, in an isolated patch competition for a limited food source will

increase adding to the already high rate of extinction. A change in the forest

conditions can alter the "livability" of a habitat for a species and may force it to

12
disperse and colonize another tract of continuous forest. For species that need

large home ranges for survival, dispersal to another patch is necessary. However,

deforestation may result in patches too far apart for individual species to navigate,

decreasing odds for successful dispersal and colonization and increasing the

likelihood that species may be hesitant to leave its natural environment. If this is the

case, then individuals will not leave home to mate and inbreeding and a loss of

genetic diversity will occur (Jones, 1999).

Mace, et al., (in Soule and Orians, 2001) found that the case for habitat

fragmentation as a threat to biodiversity is that massive human populations

competes directly and indirectly with species for natural resources (this can be

exhibited by the fact that some people tend to have livelihood, or even live, inside

protected areas) and the human-induced activities are factors that greatly correlates

with the loss or extinction of species.

Another example regarding the role of habitat fragmentation in reducing species

diversity was presented by Alcala in the National Academy of Science and

Technology website (2001), “the Family Dipterocarpaceae, comprising 39 species in

the Philippines, is now represented by only 14 species in several limestone forest

fragments with a total area of 300 hectares in southwestern Negros Island. The

number of species that may have gone extinct during the past years is not known.

However, there is little doubt that abundance of this tree family has been reduced

because of forest degradation. The various vertebrate groups in these forest

fragments have shown variable responses to human impacts. The amphibians and

reptiles have lost more than 20% of the species occurring there 50 years ago. The

13
birds appear to have lost a few endemic sspecies. The mammals, especially the

volant species (fruit bats), have not lost any species during the past 50 years, but a

couple of species have become rarer and are on the verge of extinction. The large

herbivores have also shown reduction in population size.”

Faced with the challenges of quantifying biodiversity to combat the threats that

contributes to its decline, a study must consist of reliable species that greatly

indicates the role of biodiversity. Diesmos et al., (2000) mentioned that “data from

recent studies suggest that amphibians and reptiles have a tendency towards a

finer-scale isolation and differentation thereby making them appropriate ogranisms

to use in identifying sub-centers of endemism.”

Furthermore, Carandang and Lasco (1998) mentioned other problems that arise

from habitat fragmentation such as reduction to smaller populations due to smaller

amounts of habitat, isolation of populations in fragmented parts, which allows for

greater possibility of extinction, the potential increase in predators, competitors and

parasites. Also, fragments often yield a significantly different physical and biotic

environment than existed before. Furthermore, species that need large home

ranges have trouble living in the smaller fragmented areas and lastly, fragmentation

increases the likelihood of inbreeding, which leads to a loss of genetic diversity.

Because of habitat fragmentation due to human intervention in the landscape,

the populations of many species of plants, animals and microbes are being reduced

to small, frequently isolated populations. These small populations carry only fraction

of the genetic variation of the total population or species- a situation that can

increase rates of genetic drift, elicit inbreeding depression and even lead to

14
extinction. Habitat fragmentation not only changes the geometry of the landscape,

but also in species diversity, because numerous animal species which includes the

lizards require large home range for their reproductive success and survivorship

(Odum, 2005).

D. Lizards as bio indicator of Habitat Fragmentation

There are altogether about 125 species of lizards in the Philippines, with about

99 unique to the country. In addition to the many kinds of geckoes and members of

several less diverse groups, there are at least 65 species of skinks. The skinks are

among the most active and conspicuous animals on and near the ground in lowland

forest during the daytime, noisily rustling through fallen leaves as they search for

insects to eat. Several especially small skinks live beneath rocks; their legs are so

tiny that they can barely be seen, and the lizards move by wriggling. Reptiles are

good indicators for assessing forest condition because they are very sensitive to

ecological and climatic change. They are abundant in the ecotones and easy to

observe, so that a quantitative analysis can be performed (CIFOR).

It has been shown that lizards may be identified with their environment pointing

which area is a potential source of species diversity. In an article by Sleath, et al.,

(1999) in their study of skinks, concluded that skink populations living within the

ecotone between two forests exhibited significant differences in their physical

appearance compared to the rainforest skinks. In contrast, rainforest skinks have

been found to be geographically isolated for millions of years.

A great assemblage of herptiles—amphibians and reptiles—makes the

Philippines as a major center for herpetofauna studies. Amphibian endemicity is

15
high at the species level having 77 percent while 66 percent of reptiles are endemic.

To be specific, Philippine Lizards are comprised by 125 species of which 99 is

unique to the country. But there is the problem of insufficient data regarding the

evaluation of biodiversity of herps in general. There is then a lack of studies that

impedes an accurate assessment of the conservation status of herps. So far

records of decline or extinction of amphibians and reptiles have not yet been fully

established since herp extinction has not yet been properly documented. Before a

gamut of documented evidence has been compiled, part of the lizard population

may already have been extinct due to the large-scale destruction of Philippine

forests (Diesmos et al., 2000).

It has now been shown that habitat fragmentation is a leading factor in the loss

of biodiversity and that lizards (herps in general) make satisfactory species of

interest in that they are poorly studied (with respect to biodiversity studies) and that

they tend to accurately indicate the state of biodiversity of an area.

E. Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve

The Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR) provides researchers greater access to

ecological studies because of its enormous biological diversity and genetic

resources (Pulhin & Tapia, 2005). The animal composition of the Reserve includes 6

species of amphibians and 19 species of reptiles, reported by the late Dioscoro

Rabor. Endemicity has been found to be 60% for amphibians and 40% for reptiles

(also birds and mammals). It is then a suitable site for conducting biodiversity

researches (Rebancos, 2005).

16
 The MFR has a total area of 4,244.37 ha which comprises 80% of the whole Mt.

Makiling which is a dormant volcano with rugged and generally steep topography

(MCME, 1999).

Mt. Makiling’s is climate belongs to the Type I class. It has two pronounced

seasons namely (May to December) and dry (January to April). The climate is

generally moist and has a mean annual rainfall of 2,400 mm (Caldecott, 1993).

Even during the dry months, the upper levels of Mt. Makiling remain moist being

exposed to clouds with areas 750m above mossy and moist (Cruz, et al., 1991).

Also, the MFR includes a complete sequence of altitudinal forest types from lowland

to upper montane habitats. Moreover, the soils of the reserve belong to four series

such as Lipa, Macolod, Gulugod and Makiling (Alcala, et.al 1995). Makiling soil,

however, has been classfied as Macolod clay-loam type derived from volcanic tuff

and ash (MCME, 1999).

Only 55% of the MFR is considered as close canopy forest. The rest of the MFR,

if not converted for special use (Boy Scouts of the Philippines, National Arts Center

and others), have become cultivated, grasslands and areas devoted to special use

of UPLB’s College of Forestry and housing projects of the government (MCME,

1999).

F. Mahogany Plantation

A bioinvasive forest tree species is one, which is by origin alien to the local

ecosystem and reproduces in the new habitat at a rate faster than the indigenous

17
species and thus affecting the biodiversity of the local environment. Eight forest tree

species planted in the country were identified as bioinvasive based from local and

international sources: mahogany Swietenia macrophylla, giant ipil-ipil Leucaena

leucocephala, paper mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera, palosanto Triplaris

cumingiana, Acacia/Auri Acacia auricauliformis, African tulip Spathodea

companulata, aroma Aroma confusa, and mesquita aroma Prosopis juliflorae

(Peralta et al., 2006).

During the American regime, more exotic tree species found their way to the

Philippines through the School of Forestry. The site consisted of grass and brush at

the base of Mount Makiling. Laguna, Luzon and American administrators initiated

the reforestation of the school grounds mainly by planting indigenous tree species,

as well as the tropical American species mahogany (Swietenia spp.). Ponce (1933)

documented the introduction of the American mahoganies. Small leaf mahogany

(Swietenia mahogani) was introduced as early as 1911, and by batches in 1913,

1914, 1920 and 1922, from tropical America. Large leaf mahogany (S. macrophylla)

was first planted in Manila in 1907, then at the Forestry School at Mt. Makiling in

1913. Mahogany is successful at invading natural forests due to the following

attributes of the species. Hardened mahogany seedlings can tolerate open fields as

long as soil moisture is not limiting. The leaves of mahogany are rarely attacked by

herbivores. Thus, a mahogany plantation is like a "green desert" to wildlife (Revilla

et al., 2000).

G. Secondary Old-Growth Forest

Philippine forests have extremely high floral and faunal diversity. With

18
continued deforestation, some species are now endangered or even extinct.

(DENR/UNEP, 1997).

Secondary forests are defined as ‘forests regenerating largely through

natural processes after significant human disturbance of the original forest

vegetation at a single point in time or over an extended period and displaying a

major difference in forest structure and/or canopy species composition with respect

to nearby primary forests on similar sites’ (Chokkalingam et al., 2000).

Secondary forests are the largest and most dynamic natural forest

ecosystems in the Philippines. The two most dominant forms are post-extraction

secondary forests and swidden fallow secondary forests. These forests generate

numerous ecological and socio-economic benefits, both at the local and national

level. Post-extraction secondary forests are one of the main sources of timber

supply as well as habitat for biodiversity. Swidden fallow secondary forests restore

soil productivity following cultivation and provide numerous products especially for

indigenous communities. (Lasco et al., 2001)

Next to primary forests, post-extraction secondary forests are major

biodiversity refuges in the Philippines. For instance, a secondary forest in Mt.

Makiling has a diversity index comparable to that in primary forests in Southeast

Asia (Luna et al., 1999).

The ultimate driving forces of secondary forest formation and their eventual

destruction (deforestation) are more complex than simply blaming loggers and

shifting cultivators. Secondary forest formation and eventual destruction in the

Philippines are linked to the larger issues of corruption, poverty, high population

19
density and migration to upland areas. (Kummer, 1992).

H. Indices for Measuring Diversity

Diversity indices account for the measurement of species diversity in a

community. A diversity index provides information about the community aside from

species richness. Also, a diversity index, due to its power of quantifying diversity,

provides data for evaluation of rarity and commonness of species (Beals, et. al

2000). According to Magurran (2004), diversity indices came about as an answer to

the need for capturing the richness and evennness of characteristics of an

assemblage. Magurran also notes that there is “a plethora of indices” to choose

from however, the researchers have determined that the Simpson index of diversity

is the most appropriate for use in the study of lizard population. But what is

common among these indices is that a) reliance on the counting of the number of

species and b) combination of the number of species and the distribution of

individuals among species (Moles & Hayes, 2002).

Simpson index of diversity was chosen because this index of diversity provides

a good estimate of diversity at relatively small sizes. It is a non-parametric measure

of diversity, heavily weighted toward the most abundant species in the sample.

In essence, it captures the variance of species distribution and is more effective

than species accumulation curves in ranking communities. This is a reliable index in

that it does not take any special assumptions regarding the focus of the study.

Usually, the wrong notion in regards to diversity indices is that they are used to

assess the environmental stress spurred by the growing problem of pollution

(McManus & Pauly, 1990).

20
 As a tool to corroborate the results of the study, the Mann-Whitney U Test which

is non-parametric (Mendenhall, et al., 2006) was utilized to figure out whether any

significant difference in the diversity of the two sites exists. is a non-parametric test

for assessing whether two samples of observations come from the same

distribution. The null hypothesis in this test is that the two samples are drawn from a

single population, thus, their probability distributions are equal. This test, however,

requires that the two samples must be independent, and that the observations shall

either be ordinal or continuous measurements such that if the two populations are

compared one can tell which differs.

Since it is highly impossible to detect all species and their relative abundance

with a limited number of samples or intensity of sampling effort, estimation of

unseen species are applied. The employed estimator here is the Sorensen index of

compositional similarity. One of the widely-used beta index, the Sorensen index is

based on the presence and absence of species in assemblages (Chao, et al., 2004)

and quite easy to compute. Magurran (2006) noted that Clark and Warwick

concluded the effectiveness of the Sorensen index using six criteria: a) the value

should be 1 or 100 when two samples are identical; b) the value should be 0 when

samples have no species in common; c) a change of measurement unit does not

affect the value of the index; d) the value is unchanged by the inclusion or exclusion

of a species that occurs in neither samples; e) the inclusion of a third sample makes

no difference to the similarity of the initial pair of samples; and lastly, f) the index

reflects differences in total abundance.

21
 Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

A. Study Area

The Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve is located 14°08’N and 121°11’E, lying 65km

of Metro Manila. It covers 4224 hectares extending across 80% of the mountain. Mt.

Makiling Forest Reserve straddles the municipalities of Los Baños and Calamba (all

in Laguna Province) and the municipality of Sto. Tomas (in Batangas Province).

The actual forest reserve is comprised of a total of 4,224.37 hectares, 80% of the

Mt. Makiling. The higher elevations (750m and above) is a mossy forest with

rugged and steep terrain predominantly covered with narra and mahogany species.

The forest below 750m are composed mainly of hardwood species and severa;

forest plantations.

The Makiling Forest Reserve has an average annual temperature of 27ºC

with a mean annual maximum of 30.4 ºC and a mean annual minimum of 23.8 ºC .

At night, the temperature falls regularly below 15 ºC .

The soil is classified as clay-loam type and has a derivation from volcanic tuff

and ash, with a pH ranging from 4.3-6.5. The soil is relatively moist at all times.

There are two types of season observable namely: wet and dry. Generally, it

is dry from January to April, and wet from May to December. The mean annual

rainfall is about 220cm and is considerably greater at higher elevations. (MCME,

1999)

22
B. Sample Preparation

Captured lizard population found in the Mahogany plantation and Secondary

Old Growth forest was captured and placed temporarily in ziplocks. It was

documented using a digital camera.

Documented pictures of species found was primarily identified with the help

of field guides and further identified with the field book “Philippine Fauna and Flora”

by Alcala (1995). Identified species were confirmed by Dr. Arvin C. Diesmos and

their presence in the sampling sites confirmed via the technique Ethnobiology.

C. Experimental Methods

On site surveillance was made by the group every once a month fom June-

November 2007. The group recorded the number of lizards that was found in the

Mahogany plantation and Secondary Old Growth forest.

The group performed different techniques for maximum results such as

opportunistic search, visual encounter survey, photograph documentation and

ethnobiology.

Oppurtunistic Serach consists of active systematic search for animals to

provide an enumeration of lizard fauna at each site and be able to compare species

richness at both sites. Searches were carried out during the mornings, since lizards

usually show a drop of activity during the hottest hours of the day. (Emanueli &

Jesus, 1999)

Visual Encounter Survey on the ohter hand, consists of walking in previously

marked transects through an area or habitat. This method is most effective towards

23
arboreal species and is used to determine the species richness of a study site, to

compile a species list and to estimate relative abundance of indviduals within

assemblages. (Raxworthy & Nussbaum, 1994)

Photograph documentation which consist of the actual capture of species

was also employed and random strip transect distance sampling method was the

method usedin the gathering the data for this study.

The data collected was subjected to various statistical tests and graphical

analysis.

D. Statistical Treatment of Data

Data collected from both sites was subjected to Mann-Whitney U Test for

two population. The diversity index was computed using Simpson index of diversity.

Similarity between the two sampling sites was also computed using Sorensen

Quantitative index.

Simpson's Diversity Index is a measure of diversity which takes into account

both richness and evenness. In the field of ecology, it is often used to quantify the

biodiversity of a habitat, taking into account the number of species present as well

as the abundance of each species. The term 'Simpson's Diversity Index' can

actually refer to any one of three closely related indices.

Simpson's Index (D) measures the probability that two individuals randomly

selected from a sample will belong to the same species. With this index, 0

represents infinite diversity and 1, no diversity. That is, the bigger the value of D, the

lower the diversity.

For Simpson's Index of Diversity (1 – D), the value also ranges between 0

24
and 1, indicating that the greater the value, the greater the sample diversity. In this

case, the index represents the probability that two individuals randomly selected

from a sample will belong to different species.

In Simpson's Reciprocal Index (1 / D), the value starts with 1 as the lowest

possible figure. This figure would represent a community containing only one

species, indicating the higher the value, the greater the diversity. The maximum

value is the number of species in the sample. Simpson's Index gives more weight to

the more abundant species in a sample. The addition of rare species to a sample

causes only small changes in the value of D (McManus & Pauly, 1990).

25
 Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Species Account of Lizards in Mahogany Plantation and Secondary Old

Growth Forest

A total of 12 species of lizards were found in both Mahogany plantation and

Secondary Old Growth Forest.

Table 4.1 Species Account of Lizards in Mahogany Plantation and Secondary Old
Growth Forest
Mahogan Secondary
Species y Old
Plantation Growth
Forest
Family Agamidae
Genus Draco
Draco spilopterus (Weigmann, 1834) X
Genus Gonocephalus
Gonocephalus semperi (Peters, 1867) X
Family Gekkonidae
Genus Gekko
Gekko gecko (Linnaeus, 1758) X
Family Scincidae
Genus Brachymeles
Brachymeles bonitae (Dumeril & Bibron, 1839) X
Genus Dasia
Dasia Grisea (Gray, 1845: 110) X
Genus Eutropis
Eutropis multifasciata (Kuhl, 1820) X
Eutropis multicarinata (Gray, 1845) X X
Genus Lipinia
Lipinia vittigera (Boulenger, 1894) X X
Genus Sphenomorphus
Sphenomorphus cumingi (Gray, 1845) X
Sphenomorphus jagori (Peters, 1864) X X
Sphenomorphus steerei (Stejneger, 1908) X
Family Varanidae
Genus Varanus
Varanus salvator (Wiegmann, 1834) X
Total 5 10

26
 The mahogany plantation consists of 5 lizard species (9 Eutropis multicarinata, 7

Lipinia vittigera, 4 Sphenomorphus cumingi, 4 Brachymeles bonitae and 2 Dasia

grisea) with a total count of 26. While in the secondary old growth forest, it yielded

10 lizard species with a total count of 39 (9 Lipinia vittigera, 8 Sphenomorphus

cumingi, 7 Eutropis multicarinata, 4 Eutropis multifasciata, 3 Gekko gecko, 3 Draco

spilopterus, 2 Sphenomorphus jagori, 1 Varanus salvator, Gonocephalus semperi

and Sphenomorphus steerei).

It can also be observed than all lizards found in Mahogany Plantation belong to

the Family Scincidae or most commonly known as “skinks”. It can also be observed

that all lizards found in Mahogany Plantation belong to the Family Scincidae or most

commonly known as “skinks”. The family Scinicidae is the most common lizards

seen outside houses are the skinks. Skinks are shiny in appearance and generally

smooth to touch, except for a few species which possess keeled scales. Their

heads are conical, their bodies cylindrical, their tails tapering, and their legs variable

in length (rarely reduced to stubs or lost). Their tails easily break off. They bite when

handled but are not capable of inflicting painful wounds (Alcala, 1986).

Skinks may be terrestrial, burrowing, or arboreal in habit. They are

characteristically active during the day, but hide when disturbed or during bad

weather. Some species bask in the morning sun before becoming active; others are

not seen until their hiding places are searched. Skinks hide in rotting logs, humus,

leaf litter, tree holes, mosses growing on forest tree trunks, arboreal ferns, leaf axils

of palm trees; underneath stones and bark of trees. These microhabitat sites are

almost always most or are near sources of water (Alcala, 1986).

27
 However, lizards found in the Secondary Old Growth Forest, a natural habitat,

vary from Family Agamidae, Gekkonidae, Scincidae and Varanidae. The limited

divergence of lizard species in the Mahogany Plantation was corroborated to the

modification or fragmentation of this habitat.

Using the statistical test Mann-Whitney U test for two independent samples with

a p-value of 31, which is greater than the critical value of 14 at a confidence interval

of 0.05, the significant difference between the diversity of lizard population in

Mahogany Plantation and Secondary Old Growth Forest, was established (See

Appendix D for computation).

The results in the Mann-Whitney U test for two independent samples indicate

that fragmented habitat like the Mahogany plantation affects lizard population

because of the fact that the rate of disturbance in Mahogany Plantation is greater

than the rate of disturbance in Secondary Old Growth Forest. Disturbances like

destruction of rainforest, clearance and fragmentation of habitats which according to

Alacala et al., (2000) affects 90% of the Philippine fauna. Moreover, pollution,

overhaunting and introduction of alien species remain a deterrent factor against

biodiversity. In addition to that, because of habitat fragmentation due to human

intervention in the landscape, the populations of many species of plants, animals

and microbes are being reduced to small, frequently isolated populations. These

small populations carry only fraction of the genetic variation of the total population

or species- a situation that can increase rates of genetic drift, elicit inbreeding

depression and even lead to extinction. Habitat fragmentation not only changes the

geometry of the landscape, but also in species diversity, because numerous animal

28
species which includes the lizards require large home range for their reproductive

success and survivorship (Odum, 2005).

The figure 4.1 shows the lizard samples found both at the Mahogany

Plantation and the Secondary Old Growth Forest and the lizard samples found only

in each respective site.

Fig 4.1 Venn Diagram of Species Diversity in both sites.

Secondary Old
Growth Forest
Out of the 5 lizard species found in the Mahogany Plantation, only 2 (Dasia
Draco spilopterus
grisea andMahogany
Brachymeles bonitae) are not found in the other sampling site. However,
Plantation
Eutropis multicarinata
Gonocephalus semperi
in the Secondary Old Growth Forest, out of 10 lizard species found, only 3 lizard
Gekko gecko
Lipinia vittigera
species Brachymeles
are bonitae
shared with the other sampling site. Draco spilopterus, Gonocephalus
Eutropis multifasciata
Sphenomorphus cumingi
semperi, Dasia
Gekko
grisea geko, Eutropis multifasciata,Sphenomorphus
Sphenomorphus
jagori jagori,
Sphenomorphus
Sphenomorphus steerei and Varanus salvator are found only in the steerei
Secondary Old

Growth Forest. Varanus salvator

Similarities between the two sampling sites were also computed using

Sorensen quantitative index (Sorensen index of compositional similarity). This index

has a value of 0 when samples have no species in common at all, while high value

indicates low diversity. However, this index can be ranged from 0-1 using the

formula 1-D, with a value of 1 indicating no similarity and high diversity and 0 value

indicating similarity of samples and low diversity. The relationship between

compositional similarity and diversity is inversely proportional. A shift in diversity can

directly affect the composition of species in a given habitat (Magurran, 2006).

The computed value for Sorensen is 0.95 (1-D), indicating high diversity in

the sampling sites and little commonality between the two sampling sites. Out of the

29
total 12 lizard species found in Mahogany Plantation and Secondary Old Growth

Forest, only 3 species are similar in the two sampling sites, which are the species

Eutropis multicarinata, Sphenomorphus cumingi, and Lipinia vittigera.

B. Lizard Sampling Effort Curve

Sampling effort was evaluated using EstimateS, which generates rarefied

values in decimal rather than in whole numbers, to produce a smoother curve. The

species effort curve was done using Microsoft Excel.

Sampling effort curves help determine how many species are present in a

sample habitat. This curve shows the number of species produced against the

number of sampling effort required to exhaust the species present. This graph is

usually steep at the beginning but has tends to plateau at the end indicating the

point stability.

In the sampling effort curve for Mahogany Plantation, a plateau is evident

originating in the second and third sampling transect. This indicates that a sufficient

amount of sampling effort was enough to yield a credible and satisfacatory number

of species in the mahogany plantation.

However, the point of satiation or stability has not yet been reached in the

12

10
Species Observed

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 30
Transect
secondary old growth forest. This might be attributed to the fact that the secondary

old growth forest is limited in terms of sampling area and time in comparison to

Mahogany Plantation (See Appendix E for Sampling Permit).

Fig. 4.2 Comparative Species Effort Curve of the two Study Sites

C. Comparison of Lizard Population using Relative Frequency

The most diverse of both sites in terms of the number lizard species found, as

based on Fig. 4.3, is the Secondary Old Growth since there are 7 identified species

present compared to the Mahogany Plantation having only 5 species present.

The most frequent species in the Mahogany Plantation was found to be

Eutropis multicarinata. However, the most frequent species in the Secondary Old

Growth Forest are Lipinia vittigera, Sphenomorphus cumingi and Eutropis

multicarinata with ± 1 difference between the 3 species.

The least frequent species (Draco spilopterus, Gonocephalus semperi and

Sphenomorphus steerei) on the other hand, are found in the Secondary Old Growth

Forest. The extremes in the lizard species, the most frequent and the least frequent,

are both found in the Secondary Old Growth Forest. The presence of the most

frequent and the least frequent species in the Secondary Old Growth Forest

contributes to its diversity as compared to Mahogany Plantation.

In the two study sites, the group has found out that the most frequent species

in both sampling sites namely Sphenomorphus cumingi, Lipinia pulchella and

Eutropis multicarinata all belong to the family of Scincidae. Skinks, as they are

commonly known, are the most diverse group of lizards. They are found in various

habitats and are more arboreal and terrestrial than aerial or aquatic, which are

31
catered by the environment of the sampling sites contributing to their abundance

than the other family of lizards.

10
9
8
7
6
Count

5
4
3
2
1
0
a

a
as s
bo or
lla
i

ae

ri
em i
ea

ilo ko
ri
pu ng
at

re
at

pe
go
at

er
e

it

is

sp ec
in

ci

ee
i

h
m

lv

pt
ja
gr
ar

lc

st
sa
cu
ic

if
.

.
.

.s
S

.
D

lt
lt

S
.
.

G
B

u
V
S
u

L.

m
m

.
D

E.
.
E

Lizards

Fig. 4.3 Frequency of Lizards in Mahogany Plantation and Secondary old Growth Forest of
Mt. Makiling, Los Baños, Laguna
D. Species Diversity

Using the Simpson index of diversity, the difference between the two

sampling sites in terms of diversity, was computed. This index states that the higher

the value, the stronger the dominance but lower in diversity. It can also be ranged

from 0-1 using the formula 1-H. As the computed value gets closer to 1, diversity

increases and dominance decreases. However, as the computed value gets closer

to 0, diversity decreases and dominance increases. This index also shows the

relationship between diversity and dominance, which is inversely proportional

(Odum, 2005).

The computed values were DMahogany of 0.21 (1-H= 0.79 and DSecondary of 0.14

(1-H= 0.86), thus, Secondary Old-Growth forest is more diverse than the Mahogany

Plantation (See Appendix D for the computation).

32
 The Secondary Old Growth having a computed value closer to 1 indicates

that this sampling site is more diverse in terms of lizard population compared to

Mahogany Plantation since there are more lizard species found in this site.

However, its high diversity contributes to the low dominance of lizard species

since more species have to compete for dominance.

Mahogany Plantation on the other hand, yielding a computed value less than

the Secondary Old Growth Forest indicates that the diversity of its species was

directly affected by the modification of this habitat. However, since there are fewer

species present in the Mahogany Plantation, dominance of species are highly

prevalent. The lizard species that is dominant in this sampling site are the skinks,

more specifically the species Eutropis multicarinata.

Chapter V

CONCLUSION

This study has focused on comparing the diversity of lizard population in

mahogany plantation, a fragmented habit and secondary old growth forest of Mt.

Makiling Forest Reserve , a natural habitat.

By employing a random strip transect distance sampling, a total of 12

species were observed in both mahogany plantation and secondary old growth. The

results were subjected to different statistical tests. Mann-Whitney U Test was

performed to detect whether a significant difference exists between the two habitats.

With a p-value of 31, which is greater than the critical value of 14 at a confidence

interval of 0.05, the result yielded that mahogany plantation and secondary old

growth differ in terms of species diversity.

33
 Having established the difference, the Simpson’s index was used to evaluate

the degree of biodiversity. The computed values were D mahogany of 0.21 and Dsecondary

of 0.14; thus, secondary old growth forest has a high diversity of lizards compared

to that of mahogany plantation. A Sorensen quantitative index was also computed.

The computed value for Sorensen is 0.95, indicating high diversity in the sampling

sites.

The difference in the lizard diversity of the two sampling sites was correlated

with the difference in the kind of habitat of the sampling sites. The natural habitat

yielded higher diversity of lizard population than the fragmented habitat. Thus,

habitat fragmentation affects the diversity of lizard population.

Habitat fragmentation caused by human intervention in the landscape

contributes to the conversion of populations of many species of plants, animals and

microbes into small, frequently isolated populations. These small populations carry

only fraction of the genetic variation of the total population or species- a situation

that can increase rates of genetic drift, elicit inbreeding depression and even lead to

extinction. Habitat fragmentation not only modifies the geometry of the landscape,

but also in species diversity, since numerous animal species including lizards

require large home range for their reproductive success and survivorship.

34
 Chapter VI

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that a much more intensive sampling effort be done in the

secondary old growth forest ranging from peak 2 to peak 3 so as to insure maximal

species detection. With this intensive sampling effort, it is possible to have a

normally distributed data. With that in mind, reliable statistical tools can be

performed since most statistical tests assumes a normally distributed data. Since a

strip-transect was already performed, other interested parties may select a much

better method so as to yield reliable results. Since this study concerned only the

possible effects of habitat fragmentation, it is encouraged to take note of abiotic

factors which might play a significant role in the distribution of lizards.

35
References

Alcala, A. C. 1996. Philippine biodiversity : Species richness and abundance.

Manila.pp.34-36

Alcala et al., 1995. List of Amphibians of Mt. Makiling, Laguna, Philippines, with
notes on their Population Status. Sylvatrop Tech. Journal of Philippine
Ecosystems and Natural Resources, 5(1 & 2), 65-71.

Beals, M., L. Gross and S. Harrell.2000. Diversity indices. Retrieved at

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/shannonDI.html.

Brown, R. M.et al., 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Luzon Island, II : Preliminary
Report on the Herpetofauna of Aurora Memorial National Park, Philippines.
Hamadryad Vol. 25 No. 2.

Caldecott, J. O. 1993. Oppurtunities for Biodiversity Management in the Makiling

Forest Reserve, Philippines (ERMP Reports, 10). M. M. Quintos
Enterprises:Laguna.

Carandang, W. M. and Lasco, R. D. 1998. Successful reforestation in the

Philippines: technical considerations. Mega Issues in Philippine Forestry:
Key

36
 Policies and Programs. Forest Development Center, UPLB College of
Forestry and Natural Resources, Laguna, Philippines. pp. 49–59.

Catibog-Sinha, Corazon and Heaney, Lorenz (2006). Philippine Biodiversity:

Principles and Practice. Philippines: Haribon Foundation for the Conservation
of Natural Resources.

Chao, A. and T. J. Shen. 2003. Nonparametric Estimation of Shannon’s Index of

Diversity when there are Unseen Species in Sample. Environmental &
Ecological Statistics, 10, 429-443.

Chao, A. et al., 2005. A New Statistic Approach for Assessing Similarity in Species
Composition with Incidence and Abundance Data. Ecology letters, 8, 148
159.

Chao, A. et al., 2006. Abundance- based Similarity Indices and their Estimation
when there are Unseen Species in Samples. Biometrics, 62, 361-371.

Chokkalingam, U. et al., 2000. Tropical secondary forests in Asia: Reality and

Perspectives’ Workshop. Center for International Forestry Research,
Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 10–14

Colwell, R. K. 2006. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and

shared species from samples. Software Version 8.

DENR/UNEP (Department of Environment and Natural Resources/United Nations

Environment Program). 1997. Philippine Biodiversity: An Assessment and
Action Plan. Bookmark Inc., Makati City, Philippines. p. 298

Diesmos, A. C. Et al.,2002.Philippine amphibians and reptiles : An overview of

species diversity, biogeography, and conservation. UP Center for Integrative
& Developmental Studies Chronicles.

Kummer, D. M. 1992. Deforestation in the post-war Philippines.

Ateneo de Manila University Press, Philippines. p. 177

Lasco, R.D., Pulhin, J.M. and R. G. Visco. Secondary Forests in the Philippines:
Formation and Transformation in the 20th Century. 2000. Journal of Tropical
Science. UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resources, Laguna,
Philippines.

Luna, A. C. et al., 1999. The Community Structure of a Logged-over Tropical

Rainforest in Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 11(2): 446–458.

37
Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems. 1999. The Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve
Development Initiatives and Management Experiences. Makiling Center for
Mountain Ecosystems: Laguna, Philippines.

Magurran, A.E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd. : India.

McManus, J. W. And D. Pauly. 1990. Measuring Ecological Stress: Vartiations on a

theme. Marine Biology, 106, 305-308.

Mendenhall, W., R. J. Beaver, B. M. Beaver. 2006. Introduction to Probability and

Statistics. Brooks/Cole : Singapore.

Moles, R. And K. Hayes. 2002. Evaluating Biodiversity throiugh Functional Groups:

A Comparison of Functional Groups and Biodiversity Measures. Biology and
Environment. Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 102B, 2, 113-117.

Odum, E. P. And G. W. Barrett. 2006. Fundamentals of Ecology. Thompson

Brooks/Cole: Canada.pp.250-269

Paredes, D. 2006. On Biodiversity. Retrieved at

http://www.malaya.com.ph/nov13/edducky.htm.

Pulhin, J. M. & M. A. Tapia. 2003. History of a Legend : Managing the Makiling

Forest Reserve. Laguna, Philippines.

Rebancos, C.M. 2005. Biodiversity Conservation Practices in Mt. Makiling Forest

Reserve. UP Center for Integrative & Developmental Studies Chronicles.
June 2006 vol. 18 No. 6.

Revilla, A. V. Et al.,. 2000. Toward Environmental Disaster or No to Sustainability.

Quo vadis, Philippine Forestry. pp.12-15

Sleath, M. 1999. A Clue to Rainforest Biodiversity. Retrived at:

http://www. abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s67982.html

Soulé, M.E. & G. H. Orians (ed.). 2001. Conservation Biology : Research Priorities
for the Next Decade. Island Press : USA. pp. 230-240

Wildlife Conservation Society of the Philippines. 1997. Philippine Red Data Book.
Bookmark : Makati City, Philippines.

APPENDIX A

Map of Mt. Makiling (See attachments)

38
 APPENDIX B

Ecological Site A: Mahogany Plantation

39
Ecological Site B: Secondary Old-Growth Forest

40
41
 APPENDIX C
Methodology Flow Chart

Selection of Study Site

Makiling Forest Reserve

Natural Habitat Artificial Habitat

Secondary Old Growth Forest Mahogany Plantation

Random Strip Transect Distance Sampling Method

Opportunistic Search Visual Encounter Survey

APPENDIX D

Formulae of Test Photograph Documentation Statistics

Simpson Index of Diversity D= (ni *( ni -1)/(N*(N-1)

Identification
Mann- Whitney U test(keys,
for two
fieldindependent sample
guides, taxonomic U= ni(ni +n2 + 1) - Ti
articles, ethnobiology)

Sorensen Quantitative Index Cn= 2jN / (ni +n2)

Analysis

APPENDIX E
Graphical Analysis Statistical Analysis

• Lizard Sampling Effort Curve • Mann Whitney U Test for

• Species Accounts and Two Independent Sample
Venn Diagram • Simpson Diversity Index
• Relative Frequency • Sorensen Quantitative Index

42
 Statistical Computation & Analysis

A. Mann-Whitney U test for two independent sample

Mahogany Plantation Secondary Old-Growth Forest

Lizards found No. of Ranking Lizards found No. of Ranking
lizards lizards
E. multicarinata 9 14 E. multicarinata 7 10
S. cumingi 4 10 S. cumingi 8 12
L. pulchella 7 11 V. salvator 1 3
B. bonitae 4 9 L. pulchella 9 13
D. grisea 2 5 D. grisea 2 4
S. jagori 3 7
G. gecko 3 6
Draco sp. 4 8
E. multifasciata 1 2
Gonocephalus sp 1 1
Total = 5 26 49 10 39 66

U= 5(5 + 10 + 1) – 49
U = 5(16) – 49
U = 80 – 49
U = 31
Ucrit = 14

Since U=31 > Ucrit=14, reject the null.

B. Simpson index of diversity

Lizards found in Mahogany Ni Ni-1 ni*(ni-1) (ni*(ni-1)/(N*(N-

Plantation 1)
Eutropis multicarinata 9 8 72 0.11
Sphenomorphus cumingi 4 3 12 0.02
Lipinia pulchella 7 6 42 0.06
Brachymeles bonitae 4 3 12 0.02
Dasia grisea 2 1 2 3.08 x 10 -3
D= 0.21

Lizards found in Secondary Ni Ni-1 ni*(ni-1) (ni*(ni-1)/(N*(N-

Old-Growth Forest 1)

43
E. multicarinata 7 6 42 0.03
Sphenomorphus cumingi 8 7 56 0.04
Varanus salvator 1 0 0 0
Sphenomorphus jagori 2 1 2 1.35 x 10-3
Gecko gecko 3 2 6 4.05 x 10-3
Draco spilopterus 3 2 6 4.05 x 10-3
Lipinia pulchella 9 8 72 0.05
Eutropis multifasciata 4 3 12 8.10 x 10-3
Sphenomorphus steerei 1 0 0 0
Gonocephalus semperi 1 0 0 0
D = 0.14

Simpson diversity index has a value ranging from 0-1 with high values

indicating high dominance but low diversity. Thus, Secondary Old-Growth Forest is

more diverse than the Mahogany Plantation since Dmahogany= 0.21 > Dsecondary= 0.14

C. Sorensen Quantitative Index

Mahogany Plantation Secondary Old-Growth Forest

Lizards found No. of Lizards found No. of
lizards lizards
Eutropis multicarinata 9 Eutropis multicarinata 7
Sphenomorphus cumingi 4 Sphenomorphus 8
cumingi
Lipinia pulchella 7 Varanus salvator 9
Brachymeles bonitae 4 Lipinia pulchella 1
Dasia grisea 2 Dasia grisea 2
Sphenomorphus jagori 3
Gecko gecko 3
Draco spilopterus 3
Eutropis multifasciata 1

44
 Sphenomorphus steerei 1
Gonocephalus semperi 1
Total = 5 26 10 39

Cn = 2( 7 + 4 + 7 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0) / (26) (39)
= 2(18) / 1014
= 36 / 1014
Cn = 0.05
1 – Cn
= 1- 0.05
= 0.95

Sorensen index have 0 values for samples with no common species at all

indicating high diversity, while high values indicates similarity between samples.

Thus, both sites are not the same and there is a significant difference between the

sampling sites.

APPENDIX E

Permit to Conduct Study

(Attached at Next Page)

45
 APPENDIX G

DICHOTOMOUS KEY

FAMILY SCINCIDAE
1. dorsal and lateral scales on body and tail or occasionally Go to 2
on tail,
keeled…………………………………………………..
Dorsal and lateral scales on body and tail 4
smooth…………
2. supernasals absent; tympanum large, supererficial; Tropidophorus sp.
scales moderately to strongly keeled at least on tail;
basic ground color dark brown, usually with lighter
transverse bands or diamonds; limbs well developed,
and pressed fore and hind limbs

46
 overlap………………………………………………
Supernasals present; tympanum more or less sunk; Go to 3
scales weakly to strongly
keeled………………………………………….
3. scales moderately to strongly keeled; pterygoid bones Go to 8
separated with palatal notch extending forwards to level
of center of eyes; basic ground color olive green to dark
brown, usually with blackish markings and usually with a
dark brown to black lateral band often bordered above
by whitish spots or a white
line……………………………………………………
Scales weakly to moderately keeled; pterygoid bones Go to 11
separated with palatal notch extending forwards to level
of center of eyes; basic ground color grayish green to
grayish blue to brownish olive and marked by blackish
transverse bars at least on the upper lateral surfaces
and usually dorsum……..
4. lower eyelid with a transparent Go to 5
disk…………………………..
Lower eyelid Go to 6
scaley…………………………………………...
5. supernasals present, limbs well developed; 30-60 Emnoia sp.
lamellae beneath 4th toe; 26-40 midbody scale
rows…………………..
Supernasals absent, limbs short to well developed; 16- Go to 12
28 lamellae beneath 4th toe; 18-26 midbody scale
rows…………
6. supernasals Go to 7
present……………………………………………
Supernasals Go to 8
absent……………………………………………

7. limbs short, rudimentary, or absent; 0-10 lamellae Go to 14

beneath 4th toe; 22-32 midbody scale rows; frontal about
as broad as long; external naris in a very small nasal,
usually a postnatal; palantine bones separated, frontal
bone divided; basic dorsal color some shade of brown to
reddish brown, uniform without black or darker brown or
spots on upper lateral surface………
Limbs short; 12-14 lamellae beneath 4th toe; 26-28 Riopa sp.
midbody scale rows; frontal longer than broad; external
naris in a prominent nasal; postnasal absent; palantine
bones in contact; frontal bone single; basic dorsal
ground color tan to brown to black longitudinal band on

47
 the upper lateral surface………….

Limbs well developed; about 25 lamellae beneath 4th Go to 19

toe; 50-60 midbody scale rows ; palantine bones in
contact; frontal bone single; basic dorsal ground color
light yellowish to light brown with vague blackish spots
and a series of larger black blotches on upper lateral
surface……………………………..
8. head scales lightly to strongly embossed or ridged; at Go to 9
least posteriorly; dorsal and lateral scales with 5-9
strong keels for adults; size at maturity small to
moderately large, snout-vent length 40-95
mm………………………………………………
Head scales smooth or embossed; dorsal and rarely Go to 10
lateral scales with 3 weak to strong keels per adults;
size at maturity large, snout-vent length at maturity
about 75-127mm………...
9. head scales smooth; midbody scale rows 32-34; 38-48 Eutropis
vertebral scale rows beneath parietals and base of tail; multifasciata
16-21 lamellae beneath 4th toe; pre-frontals in broad
contact………...
Head scales embossed; midbody scale rows 28-30; 34- Eutropis rudis
38 vertebral rows between parietals and base of tail; 18-
22 lamellae beneath 4th toe; pre frontals usually
separate………...
10. Fourth toe lamella 16-24; snout-vent length at maturity Go to 11
39-60mm; dorsal scale rows between parietals and point
opposite vent 38-48; interparietal relatively large
maturity e and broad, completely separating the
parietals, the latter very rarely in narrow contact
posteriorly…………………………………….
Fourth toe lamellae 22-29; snout-vent length at maturity Eutropis
about 50-96mm; dorsal scale rows between parietals multicarinata
and point opposite vent 36-42; interparietal small to
moderate, usually narrow except in young; parietals in
moderate to broad contact or
separated……………………………………………
11. Pre frontals in broad contact; medbody scale rows 28; Dasia Grisea
47 or 48 scale rows along vertebral line between
parietals and base of tail; 4th toe lamellae 16-18; dorsum
with 8-10 narrow dark transverse bands between axilla
and base of tail………………
12. Number of large supraoculars 5-6; length of of axilla- Go to 20
groin distance; hind limb usually less than 90% of axilla-

48
 groin distance; pre frontals narrowly separated to
narrowly in
contact………………………………………………………
…
Number of large supraoculars 5-6; length of hind limb Lipinia vittigera
90-110% of axilla-groin distance; pre frontals in broad
contact….
13. Limbs absent or with fewer than 5 digits on either fore or Go to 14
hind limbs or
both…………………………………………………..
Limbs Go to 18
pendactyl……………………………………………….
14. Hind limbs with 4 igits; fore limbs with 5; fronto-parietals Brachymeles
in contact; nuchals absent; 5 large pathfinderi
supraoculars………………..
Both fore and hind limbs with fewer than 5 Go to 15
digits……………
15. Fore and hind limbs with 4 Go to 21
digits……………………………..
Fore or hind limbs or both with fewer than 4 digits or Go to 16
clawed..

16. Fore and hind limbs usually with 2 clawed stumps; Brachymeles
fronto parietals in contact; 5 large supraoculars; samarensis
vertebral scale rows between parietals and base of tail
87-96………………………
Fore and hind limbs usually without claws; fronto Brachymeles
parietals separate; 4 large supraoculars; vertebral scale bonitae
rows between parietals and base of tail 96-
113……………………………..
Niether fore nor hind limbs present; fronto parietals Brachymeles
separate; 4 large supraoculars; vertrebrate scale rows vermis
between parietals and base of tail 104-
109………………………………………
17. Lamellae under 4th toe 9-13; midbody scale rows 30-32; Sphenomorphus
snout-vent length at maturity 26-36mm; ratio of head steerei
breadth to head length 65-77%; ratio of snout length to
head breadth 41-
53%..................................................................................
....
Lamellae under 4th toe 13-15; midbody scale rows 28; Sphenomorphus
snout-vent length at maturity 34-46mm; ratio of head cumingi
breadth to head length 55-63%; ratio of snout length to
head breadth 57-

49
 67%..................................................................................
........
Midbody scale rows 36-44; supraoculars 4-6; snout-vent Go to 18
length at maturity 45-110mm; dorsal scales rows
between parietals and base of tail 55-
80………………………
18. Fourth toe lamellae 20-24; midbody scale rows 38-42; Sphenomorphus
usually 5 large supraoculars; snout-vent length at llanosi
maturity 70-90mm; dorsal ground color dark brown to
blackish brown, individual scale mottled light and dark;
usually very narrow, irregular or broken light transverse
line or lines broken into series of small spots; a black
band on upper lateral surface above hind limb and
usually a series of large black blotches from eye to
forelimb region; upper labials with dark upper and lower
borders and a series of light spots or a continuous or
broken light line from anterior labials to ear
region………………...
Fourth toe lamellae 20-25; midbody scale rows 32-42; 4- Sphenomorphus
5 large supraocular; snout-vent length at maturity 74- abdictus
98mm; dorsal ground color light to dark brown marked
by vague, narrow, irregular, broken, light transverse
lines; an unbroken blackish band above hind limb and
base of the tail usually continuous, with a more or less
distinct series of blackish blotches on anterior trunk and
sometimes neck; labials vaguely dark
barred…………………………………………..
19. Fourth toe lamellae 24-30; midbody scale rows 38-44; Sphenomorphus
usually 4 large supraocular; snout-vent length at jagori
maturity about 70-110mm; dorsal ground color light to
dark brown with disrupted, light colored transverse lines;
a broad black band or series of large blotches on upper
lateral surface above hind limb and on posterior trunk,
but not extending toward; prominent dark ventral bars
between 6th-7th and between 7th-8th upper
labials………………………………………………..

FAMILY GEKKONODAE
1. Digits not or but slightly dilated; angularly bent Go to 12
between second and third phalanges for all digits
but first……………
Digits moderately to broadly dilated; not angularly Go to 2
bent between second and third
phalanges…………………………..

50
2. Terminal phalanges of all, or second through fifth Go to 3
digits, compressed, with claw; rising from within the
dilated portion; scansors broad or
narrow……………………………………..
Terminal phalanges of all, or second through fifth Go to 6
digits, compressed, with claw; rising free from
within the dilated portion; scansors broad or
narrow…………………………….
3. Digits mostly broadly dilated distally; scansors Go to 4
narrow; on 4th toe covering approximately distal
half; terminal scansors, distinctly wedged-
shaped……………………………………..
Digits more or less uniformly dilated; scansors Go to 5
wide; on 4th toe covering more than distal half;
terminal scansors rather oval or
squarish………………………………………………..
4. First digit well developed, broadly Gehyra sp.
dilated…………………….
First digit vestigial, not Hemiphyllodactylus sp.
dilated………………………………..
5. Prominent cutaneous folds on lateral surfaces and Cosymbotus sp.
posterior thighs; digits with prominent webs, about
1/4 to 1/3 webbed between third and fourth toes;
dorsal surfaces lacking enlarged tubercles; dorsal
granular scales small and relatively
uniform…………………………………………………
……
Prominent cutaneous folds absent; digits without Hemidactylus sp.
webs or only at base between third and fourth toes;
granular scales of dorsal surfaces relatively uniform
or interspersed with moderately to greatly enlarged
tubercles in more or less distinct longitudinal
rows……………………………………………………
…….
6. Scansors moderately narrow; entire, outer margin Ptychozoon sp.
nearly straight or with shallow notch for some distal
ones; median subcaudal scales acute-like in two
rows, two pairs of chin shield; habitus very strongly
depressed; wide cutaneous folds present on limbs,
lateral surfaces of body and tail; toes more than
half
webbed……………………………………………..
Scansors narrow; entire, distal ones with relatively Go to 7
straight, exposed margin or with shallow notch;

51
 median subcaudal scales enlarged, scute-like; two
or more pairs of chin shields, median pair narrow-
elongate; habitus not strongly depressed; wide
cutaneous folds on limbs and lateral surfaces of
body and tail absent; toes without websto about
one ¼ webbed……
Scansors narrow, exposed margin variably notched Go to 8
or usually sonme distal ones divided; median
subcaudal scales not scute-like, about the same as
or slightly larger than lateral scales; distinct chin
shields usually absent, replaced by two to several
rows of slightly to moderately enlarged scales, or, if
present, median pair short; dorsal tubercles absent,
or small and widely
separated………………………………………………
…
7. Nostril separated from the rostral; dorsal scales Gekko gecko
relatively large, flat; dorsal tubercles large; usually
in 8-10 longitudinal rows at midbody; 12-18 preanal
pores in a slightly arched series for males; no
femoral pores; 17-20 scansors beneath the 4th toe;
median subcaudal scales not scute-like; snout-vent
length at maturity for males, usually more than
115mm……..
Nostril in contact with the rostral; dorsal scales Gekko porosus
granular; dorsal tubercles small to large in 10-20
longitudinal rows at midbody; toes moderately
dilated, slender; 25 or more preanal and femoral
pores in a continuous series; median subcaudal
scales much enlarged, scute-like; snout-vent length
at maturity usually less than
100mm……………………………………..

52