Terminal Report: Evaluation of Silvicultural ... - Rainforestation

TERMINAL REPORTPROJECT TITLEEvaluation of Silvicultural Management, EcologicalChanges and Market Study of Products of ExistingRainforestation Demo and Cooperators’ FarmsRESEARCHERSStudy CoordinatorStudy LeadersResearch /Field StaffDr. Paciencia P. MilanDr. Ma. Juliet C. CenizaDr. Victor B. AsioDr. Salome B. BulayogFor. Mylene D. NapizaMarlito Jose M. BandeHernando L. MondalDarwin B. PosasJimmy O. PogosaIMPLEMENTING AGENCYLead AgencyInstitute of Tropical EcologyPROJECT SITESRF Demonstration Farms at:† FORI, LSU, Visca, Baybay, Leyte† Barangay Catmon, Ormoc City† Sitio Cienda, Gabas, Baybay, Leyte† Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte† Other RF Cooperators farms in LeyteFUNDING AGENCYDeutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit(GTZ) - Leyte Island Program, Buffer Zone ForestManagement and Reforestation by Small HolderCommunities ProjectDURATIONDate Started November 1, 2001Date of Completion December 30, 2004

STRATEGY 4: MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF FAUNAL BIODIVERSITY INSELECTED RAINFORESTATION DEMO AND COOPERATORS’ FARMSStudy Leader: Dr. Ma. Juliet C. CenizaIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Methdology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511. Establishment of Sampling Sites and Sample Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512. Sampling Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523. Identification of Arthropod Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524. Calculation of Ecological Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535. Assessment of Other Faunal Components in the RF Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541. Arthropod Abundance and Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542. Vertebrate Fauna Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55STRATEGY 5: MONITORING OF THE STATUS OF EXISTING RAINFORESTATION DEMOAND COOPERATORS’ FARMSStudy Leaders: Dr. Ma. Juliet C. Ceniza and Dr. Paciencia P. MilanMethodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601. Area Profile of Cooperators’ Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602. Present Status of the Cooperators’ Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71PHOTO DOCUMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

IntroductionIn 1992, the ViSCA-GTZ Applied Tropical Ecology Program developed andimplemented a sustainable production system called ”Rainforestation Farming” as a majorcomponent of the program’s forest conservation drive. It evolves from various efforts tosustain human food production and simultaneously preserve the biodiversity of terrestrialecosystems and their vital functions to humankind. It aimed at replacing the more destructiveforms of “kaingin” practices, forms a buffer zone around the primary forests, protect theirbiodiversity, help maintain the water cycle and provide farmers with stable and higherincomes.To save and protect the biodiversity of the Philippine rainforest, the rainforestationscheme utilizes local tree species. Research has screened local tree species, which couldthrive well in different soil and climatic conditions while applying the principles of treefarming.In addition, farmer-researchers adapted the system by applying the basic principlesand site requirements of tree farming. It involved farmers in the build up, management andutilization of the rainforestation sites.For more than ten years now, field trials had been going on and pilot sites have beenestablished in private lands. During the implementation, communities were organized intofarmer associations to ensure community involvement in protecting and rehabilitating theirdestroyed forests. As of the period, a total of 25 individual farmers and 3 farmers associationswere organized and adapted the said technology. In order to assess the impact and benefits ofthe technology, long term monitoring and evaluation of the demonstration sites as well asthose farmer-managed sites is relevant and necessary.Since the start of the implementation of Rainforestation Farming, gathering of data onplant height, base and crown diameter and mortality rate of forest and fruit trees plantedwithin the farm has been done on a yearly basis by the project field staff. Likewise, thecooperators were encouraged to gather the same data in order to determine the appropriateplanting scheme considering the combination and survival rate of different species. Themonitoring activity of the sites was made possible through the financial assistance by theGerman Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and the European Natural Heritage Fund(EURONATUR).The financial assistance provided by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) – through the Leyte Island Program, Buffer Zone Forest Managementand Reforestation by Small Holder Communities Project allowed the monitoring study fortwo years. The financial assistance supported the data collection on tree performance in4

esponse to silvicultural treatments, monitoring of soil nutrient and wildlife, market study ofRainforestation farm products at the established RF demonstration farms at Baybay andOrmoc, Leyte specifically at LSU, Sitio Cienda, Gabas and Barangay Pomponan andBarangay Catmon, respectively. Other cooperator farms in Leyte were also included in themonitoring.The objectives of this study were the following:• Evaluate the present status of the trees and plants planted in the farm.• Employ timber stand improvement of the RF demonstration farm and monitor theresponse of trees to the silvicultural management.• Continue monitoring and evaluation of tree performance as well as assess soil sitecharacteristics in the selected demo farm and cooperators farm.• Assess the cost of input and the marketability of rainforestation farm products,particularly the small round timbers.• Assess the faunal biodiversity in the RF demonstration farm at LSU;• Determine the wood products that are in high demand and marketable in the localmarket.This is a terminal report of the study covering the period from December 2001 toJune 2004.5

Strategy 1:MONITORING RESPONSE OF TREES IN SELECTED RFFARMS TO SILVICULTURAL MANAGEMENTIntroductionThe main objective of thinning in tree plantations, is less to assure that the spacing ismore sufficient to avoid undesirable competition among the trees and consequently, select themost promising trees. With this objective in mind, early and intensive reductions in thenumber of stems are carried out according to a prescribed schedule. This is usually donewhen the trees are around 6-10 years old and when the canopy start to close. Wide spacingand early, rigorous reduction in the number of tree result in many tree species developingstrong branches.Pruning and thinning are done to provide enough light for the crop underneath thepioneer and existing trees. This will also improve the bole quality of tree making it straightdue to the removal of branches and providing from balance crown. In addition, trees plantedvery close to each other have higher competition for both the lower and upper resources thatwould eventually lead to mortality. This could also deplete the nutrients present on the uppersurface of the soil. Minerals that are being taken up by the small trees would be imparted totrees which have a good morphological characteristics at early stage instead of being utilizedby small trees that have no chance to survive in the future. Resource partitioning above andbelow might be minimal if the stand structure is not so close. Therefore, thinning and pruningshould be conducted, which are dense in stand if the aim is for a good production.The objective of this component is to monitor and evaluate the tree status andperformance in selected RF farms; employ timber stand improvement in selected RF farmsand monitor the response of trees to the silvicultural management.6

Materials and Methods1. Selection and Description of the Study SitesFour of the existing rainforestation farms established by the ViSCA-gtzApplied Tropical Ecology Program were selected to determine the status andperformance of trees planted and to monitor the tree response to silviculturalmanagement. These were the Rainforestation Demonstration and Cooperators farmin the Leyte State University (LSU), Baybay, Leyte; Cienda-San Vicente FarmersAssociation in Gabas, Baybay, Leyte (Cienda RF); Pomponan RF in Pomponan,Baybay, Leyte and Catmon RF in Catmon, Ormoc City.43121 – Pomponan2 – Cienda3 – LSU4 - CatmonFigure 1. Map of Leyte and the location of the four study sites.7

1.1 LSU Demo FarmThe LSU demonstration farm is located inside the university’s 625-ha Forest Reservation at the lower slopes of Mt. Pangasugan. It isapproximately 0.90 km from the highway and at about 50 m asl elevation. Ithas a total area of 2.44 hectares. The terrain is slightly rolling with slope thatranges from 0-10%. The area was previously dominated by cogon (Imperatacylindrica) and was planted with coffee, cacao and banana. Some portions ofthe land were used as pasture area. The demonstration farm, which isconsidered as the pilot site for “rainforestation farming”, was established in1992 planted to several species of indigenous trees.Cienda Rainforestation FarmThe study site is located in Sitio Cienda, Brgy. Gabas, Baybay,Leyte. The total area of the farm is 0.9707 hectare. It has an elevation ofabout 50 m asl with slope of 5%. The land was previously cultivated andplanted with upland rice and finally converted into coconut plantation. Cogonand talahib (Saccharum spontaneum) dominated the understorey. In March1996, fast-growing indigenous tree species were planted following 2m x 2mspacing. After two years, dipterocarps were interplanted using 1m x 2mspacing. The indigenous trees served as nurse trees for the dipterocarps.1.3 Pomponan Rainforestation FarmThe study site was a parcel of land owned by a farmer cooperator. Ithas a total area of 0.33 hectare. The area is generally hilly, with an averageslope of 30% and is located at about 120 m asl elevation. It was formerlydominated by cogon and was planted to several native tree species inSeptember 1996.1.4 Catmon Rainforestation FarmThe rainforestation farm in Barangay Catmon is locatedapproximately 1.5 kilometers from the national highway of Brgy.Concepcion, Ormoc City at about 50 m asl elevation. It has an area of about0.75 ha. The terrain is relatively flat with slope that ranges from 0-2%. Thearea was planted to sugar cane, with coconut and banana along the boundary,until planting was no longer productive. The abandoned area was then8

overgrown with cogon and other shrubs. In June 1998, it was planted withindigenous tree species and fruit trees.2. Establishment of Monitoring PlotsSince the four study sites selected differ in terms of size, terrain, age ofplanted trees, and other growth conditions, the size and shape of sampling plots usedwere varied.2.1 LSU Demo FarmAn area of about 5,800 m 2 was selected for the study. Nine circularplots (radius=7.6 m) which measured 181.46 m 2 each were laid out from ninepermanently marked points established by Mr. Matthias Kolb in 2002,masteral student from the University of Gottingen, Germany (Fig. 2). Thetotal sampled area of 1,633.13 m 2 corresponds to about 28 % of the total area.2.2 Cienda Rainforestation FarmSeventeen circular plots (radius = 6.9 m), which measured about 150m 2 each, were laid out from previously established points in the area (Fig. 3).These plots were systematically distributed over the plantation with an areaof about 0.9707 hectare. The total area of 2,550 m 2 sampled correspond toabout 25% of the total area of farm.2.3 Pomponan Rainforestation FarmSince the farm is only about 0.33 ha and very narrow, threecontinuous sampling plots measuring 12m x 12m were laid out along theslope. Plot 1, plot 2 and plot 3 represented the upper, middle and lowerslopes, respectively. The total area sampled which was 432 m 2 , correspondto approximately 13% of the total area of the farm.2.4 Catmon Rainforestation FarmThirty circular plots (radius = 7.8 m) that measured 191.14 m 2 eachwere laid out in the 0.75 ha farm (Fig. 4). The total area sampled which was5,734.05 m 2 correspond to about 76% of the farm.9

Figure 2. Field lay out of the sample plots in the LSU Demonstration farm.(Source: Kolb 2003)10

Figure 3. Field lay out of the sample plots in Cienda RF site. (Source: Kolb 2003)Figure 4. Field lay out of the sample plots in the Rainforestation farm at Catmon,Ormoc City.11

3. Tree Inventory of the Rainforestation SitesTree inventory was conducted to determine the current vegetative cover ofthe four rainforestation sites (Fig. 5). Tree parameters observed and measured per siteare shown in Table 1. The parameters measured from each sites were not uniformbecause of the differences in tree species planted, age distribution and density.To monitor weed response to silvicultural treatments i.e. pruning, 2m x 2msub-plots were laid within each plot. Common and scientific name, number ofindividuals and cover dominance of undergrowth species were taken.Figure 5. Monitoring and inventory of the trees in the sample plotsTable 1. Tree parameters observed and measured in the four study sitesSiteLSU Demo FarmCienda RFPomponan RFCatmon RFParameter (unit of measurement)Species (common name, scientific name, and family name)Diameter at Breast Height - DBH (cm), trees with DBH > 10 cmHeight (m)Spatial position, distance (m) and angle (°) from the center of theplotSpecies (common name, scientific name, and family name)Diameter at Breast Height - DBH (cm), all tree speciesHeight (m)Spatial position, distance (m) and angle (°) from the center of theplotSpecies (common name, scientific name, and family name)Diameter at Breast Height - DBH (cm), all tree speciesHeight (m)Spatial position, x and y coordinates (m)Species (common name, scientific name, and family name)Diameter at Breast Height - DBH (cm), all tree speciesHeight (m)Spatial position, distance (m) and angle (°) from the center of theplot12

4. Silvicultural TreatmentsBased on tree inventory results and the growth conditions in the differentrainforestation sites, the silvicultural treatments were determined. Table 2 shows thelist of treatments in each rainforestation site.Weed and tree response monitoring was done only in Cienda RF. Weed datawere collected quarterly after the pruning activity. Tree height and diametermeasurements were conducted yearly. Measurements of tree height and diametergrowth on treated and untreated plots will be done one year after pruning and hence,not included in this report.Table 2. Silvicultural treatments in the four study sitesSiteLSU Demo FarmCienda RFPomponan RFCatmon RFTreatmentNo treatment was applied since trees are intended for ecologicalpreservation.Pruning operation was done on treatment plots; however, intensitywas not uniform because of uneven age distribution of trees andmixed species composition.Thinning was not yet implemented due to apprehension of thePeoples’ Organization members on the lack of market for roundtimbers to be harvested.No treatment was done. Weeding and brushing operations wereconducted by the farmer cooperator on a regular basisNo treatment was done because the farmer cooperator conductedpruning during the study period . Brushing and weeding were alsoregularly done by the cooperator .13

Results and Discussions1. LSU Demo FarmTree Species Composition and FrequencyA total of 64 different species of trees including undergrowth specieshave been recorded in the sample plots (Appendix Table 1). For trees withDBH of greater than 10 cm, 40 different species were identified. These treeswere categorized as: (a) dipterocarp trees (climax species), (b) nurse trees(non-dipterocarps which include pioneers, fast growing species and somepremium species) and (c) fruit trees. Three species of dipterocarps wereplanted, the dominant species of which is hagakhak (Dipterocarpuswarburgii) with frequency of 0.89 (Table 3). Frequency represents thefraction of the sample plots where the species was observed. A total of 28species of nurse trees were encountered wherein mahogany, Swieteniamacrophylla (0.67) and langil, Albizia lebbek (0.44) have the highestfrequency. Nine species of fruit trees were also identified, with antipolo,Artocarpus blancoi (0.78) and nangka, Artocarpus heterophylla (0.67)dominating.1.2 Diameter and Height Distribution of TreesTrees were classified into three diameter classes: 11-30cm (polesizedtrees), 31-60cm (standards) and 60cm and above (existing trees). Table4 shows that the trees occupying the 11-30 cm range, which constitute a totalof 117 trees (92%), dominated the sample plots. These trees include alldipterocarp trees (23), fruit trees (48) and nurse trees (46). The table alsoshows that all dipterocarp trees are still in its pole-sized stage, which impliesthat they are slow growing.Trees were also classified into three height classes to represent thelower (0-10 m), middle (11-20 m) and upper (21-30 m) canopy layer. On theaverage, 66% (84 trees) occupy the general level of the canopy or the 11-20m range (Table 5). These include 12 dipterocarps trees (14%), 40 nurse trees(48%) and 32 (38%) fruit trees. Twenty percent (36 trees) belongs to thelower layer. The remaining 6% (7 trees) belongs to the upper layer. These14

are mainly nurse trees and dipterocarps. Fruit trees were not able to establishunder the canopy of the fast growing nurse trees.For the dipterocarp species, the average DBH and height were shownin Table 6. The table shows that on the average, white lauan, Shoreacontorta has the biggest diameter (17.40 cm) and the tallest (16.17 m) amongthe three species identified.1.3 Tree/stand DensityThe inventory was carried out using nine circular plots each coveringan area of 181.46 m 2 . On the average, 66.11 trees/plot have been counted,corresponding to an average of 3,643.22 trees/hectare (Table 7). About76.98% (2,804.47 trees/hectare) of these are undergrowth trees with DBH ofless than 10 cm (Appendix Table 1).Table 3. Species composition and frequency at LSU Demo FarmCommon Name Scientific Name Family FrequencyDipterocarp TreesHagakhak Dipterocarpus warburgii Dipterocarpaceae 0.89White lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae 0.56Yakal saplungan Hopea plagata Dipterocarpaceae 0.11Nurse TreesAgoho Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae 0.11Alibangbang Pileostigma malabaricum Leguminosae 0.33Auri Acacia auriculiformis Mimosaceae 0.22Bagalunga Melia dubia Meliaceae 0.22Bahai Ormosia calavensis Fabaceae 0.11Bayag-usa Voacanga globosa Apocynaceae 0.11Binunga Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae 0.11Bitaog Canophyllum inophyllum Guttiferae 0.11Bugauak Euodia confusa Rutacea 0.22Dao Dracontomelon dao Anacardiaceae 0.11Malapapaya Polyscias nodusa Araliaceae 0.11Hindang Myrica javanica Myriaceae 0.11Ilang-ilang Cananga odorata Myriaceae 0.11Kalumpit Terminalia microcarpa Combretaceae 0.22Kupang Parkia roxburghii Mimosaceae 0.11Langil Albizia lebbek Mimosaceae 0.44Mahogany Swietenia macrophylla Meliaceae 0.67Malugai Pometia pinnata Capindaceae 0.11Milipili Canarium hirsutum Burseraceae 0.11Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae 0.11Mt. Agoho Casuarina rumphiana Casuarinaceae 0.11Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae 0.11Puso-puso Neolitsea vidolii Lauraceae 0.11Raintree Samanea saman Mimosaceae 0.33Talisai Terminalia catappa Combretaceae 0.11Taluto Pterocymbium tinctorium Sterculiceae 0.2215

Tamayuan Strombosia philippinensis Sterculiaceae 0.11Tanglin Adenanthera intermedia Mimosaceae 0.22Fruit TreesAntipolo Artocarpus blancoi Moraceae 0.78Avocado Persea americana Lauraceae 0.22Caimito Chrysophyllum cainito Sapotaceae 0.33Durian Durio zibethinus Bombacaceae 0.11Lanzones Lansonium domesticum Meliaceae 0.11Marang Artocarpus odoratissimus Moraceae 0.33Nangka Artocarpus heterophylla Moraceae 0.67Sampaloc Tamarindus indica Cesalpiniaceae 0.11Santol Sandoricum koetjape Meliaceae 1.00Table 4. Diameter distribution of trees per species category at LSU DemoFarmDiameterAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Dipterocarps Nurse tree Fruit tree Total (%)11-30 23 46 48 117 92.0031-60 - 9 - 9 7.0061 & above - 1 - 1 1.00Total 23 56 48 127 100.00Table 5. Height distribution of trees per species category at LSU DemoFarmDiameterAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Dipterocarps Nurse tree Fruit tree Total (%)0-10 9 10 17 36 29.0011-20 12 40 32 84 66.0021-30 1 6 - 7 6.00Total 22 56 49 127 100.00Table 6. Average diameter and height of dipterocarp species at LSU DemoFarmSpeciesDBH (cm)AverageHeight (m)Hagakhak 13.01 12.68White lauan 17.40 16.17Yakal-saplungan 11.10 10.4016

Table 7. Stand density expressed as the number of trees per plot (NTP) andnumber of trees per hectare (NTH) at LSU Demo FarmSpecies Category NTP NTHDipterocarps 2.56 141.08Nurse trees 7.22 397.88Fruits 5.44 299.79Undergrowth species 50.89 2,804.47Total 66.11 3,643.22Cienda RFTree Species Composition and FrequencyA total of 55 species had been recorded. These tree species wereclassified into two major groups: planted and existing (naturally growing inthe area) species. Planted trees were further classified into three categoriesnamely: (a) dipterocarp trees (climax species), (b) nurse trees (nondipterocarpthat includes pioneer, fast growing species and some premiumspecies) and (c) fruit trees. There are six species of dipterocarps recorded,the dominant of which are bagtikan, Parashorea malaanonan and whitelauan, Shorea contorta with frequency of 1.00 followed by yakal-saplungan,Hopea plagata and yakal-kaliot, Hopea malibato with 0.94 and 0.88,respectively (Table 8). A total of 22 species of nurse trees were recordedwherein bitanghol (0.82) and tamayuan (0.65) have the highest frequency.Seven species of fruit trees were also recorded where marang (0.59) andlanzones (0.53) dominate.Table 9 shows the 22 existing species in the plantation that includedthe dominant trees of molave (0.94), narra (0.41), bujon (0.41), and coconutpalm (0.76). These vegetations were retained when the rainforestation farmwas established.17

2.2 Diameter and Height Distribution of TreesTrees were classified into four 5-cm diameter classes to includeseedling and sapling stage. Table 10 shows that 74.77% (50.88 trees) of thetrees occupies the 0-5 cm range. This implies that small diameter treesdominate the sample plots. Trees of dipterocarp species mainly belong to thisrange (27.94 trees). There were very few trees with diameter of 11-15 cm (5.35%)and 15-20 cm (0.51%). Majority of them are nurse trees and existing trees.The same trees were categorized into four 5-m height classes (Table11). The table shows that 78.44% (53.29 trees) of the trees belongs to the 0-5m range which means that majority of the trees are relatively small. Only4.86% and 4.50% of the trees belonged to the 11-15 and 16-20 m heightclasses, respectively. Most of them are nurse trees and existing trees. Fruittrees are below 10 m high. Most of the dipterocarps are below 5 meters.The average diameter and height of dipterocarp species were shownin Table 12. On the average, white lauan has the biggest diameter (3.15 cm)followed by bagtikan (2.45 cm) and yakal-kaliot (2.34 cm). In terms ofheight, white lauan (3.91 m) is also the tallest, while yakal (3.62 m) andbagtikan (3.56 m) follow.2.3 Tree/Stand DensityThe inventory was carried out using 17 circular plots each coveringan area of 150 m 2 . On the average, 67.76 trees/plot had been encountered,corresponding to an average of 4,517.33 trees/hectare (Table 7). Density perspecies category was also shown in Table 7. The number of existingtrees/hectare (529.33) corresponds to about 11.72% of the estimated densityof the stand.2.4 Prunning and Weed ResponseResults of the tree inventory revealed dense basal density at theCienda RF that caused too much shading particularly to most of thedipterocarp trees that were planted. This was mainly contributed by some ofthe already existing trees in the area, which promoted early canopy closure(Fig. 6). This contributed to the poor performance of some of the treesplanted in this RF site. Pruning was conducted in 10 randomly selected plots,18

the remaining seven plots served as control. Weed inventory was carried outusing seventeen 2m x 2m sub-plots.A total of 46 weed species were encountered in all sample plots(Table 14). Before pruning, 34 species were found in the untreated plots thedominant of which are Certococcom patens, Lygodium japonicum, Axonopuscompressus, Cenchrus echinatus, Melastoma affine, Ficus nota and Ficuspseudopalma. After three months, the same number was observed and thesame species were dominant. After six months, two additional species wereencountered, Passiflora foetida and Ageratum conyzoides.Table 8. Species composition and frequency of all planted trees at CiendaRFCommon Name Scientific Name Family FrequencyDipterocarp TreesApitong Dipterocarpus grandiflora Dipterocarpaceae 0.06Bagtikan Parashorea malaanonan Dipterocarpaceae 1.00White Lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae 1.00Yakal Shorea astylosa Dipterocarpaceae 0.06Yakal kaliot Hopea malibato Dipterocarpaceae 0.88Yakal saplungan Hopea plagata Dipterocarpaceae 0.94Nurse TreesAcacia Samanea saman Mimosaceae 0.06Alagao Premna odorata Verbenaceae 0.12Almaciga Agathis philippinensis Arnacariaceae 0.12Antsoan dilaw Cassia javanica Cesalpiniaceae 0.06Bagalunga Melia dubia Meliaceae 0.06Bahai Ormosia calavensis Fabaceae 0.06Balao Vaccinium perrigidum 0.12Banai-banai Radermachera pinnata Bignoniaceae 0.06Banitlong Cleistanthus pilosus Euphorbiceae 0.12Bitanghol Calophyllum blancoi Clusiaceae 0.82Dao Dracontomelon dao Anacardiaceae 0.65Hindang laparan Myrica javanica Myricaceae 0.06Ipil Instia bijuga Cesalpiniaceae 0.41Kalumpit Terminalia microcarpa Combretaceae 0.12Malakauayan Podocarpus philippinensis Podocarpaceae 1.00Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae 0.29Mt. Agoho Casuarina rumphiana Casuarinceae 0.53Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae 0.18Tamayuan Strombosia philippinensis Sterculiaceae 0.65Teak Tectona grandis Verbenaceae 0.18Thailand shower Cassia siamea Cesalpiniaceae 0.12Toog Petersianthus quadrilatus Lecythidaceae 0.12Fruit TreesDurian Durio zibethinus Bombacaceae 0.18Guyabano Anona muricata Annonaceae 0.06Lanzones Lansonium domesticum Meliaceae 0.53Mangosteen Garcinia mangostana Guttiferaceae 0.24Marang Litsea perrottetii Moraceae 0.59Nangka Artocarpus heterophylla Moraceae 0.06Rambutan Nephelium lappaceum Sapindaceae 0.3519

Table 9. Species composition and frequency of existing trees at Cienda RFCommon Name Scientific Name Family FrequencyAlagao Premna odorata Verbenaceae 0.06Alagasi Leukosyke capitellata Urticaceae 0.06Antipolo Artocarpus blancoi Moraceae 0.29Banai-banai Radermachera pinnata Bignoniaceae 0.06Banitlong Cleistanthus pilosus Euphorbiaceae 0.35Binunga Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae 0.06Bujon Mussaenda philippica Rubiaceae 0.41Coconut (palm) Cocos nucifera Palmae 0.76Dita Alstonia scholaris Apocynaceae 0.06Dungon Tarrietia sylvatica Sterculiaceae 0.06Guyabano (fruit tree) Anona muricata Annonaceae 0.06Kariskis Albizia lebbekoides Mimosaceae 0.24Lanipga Toona philippinensis Meliaceae 0.12Lapnisan Polyalthia oblongifolia Annonaceae 0.06Malacogon 0.24Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae 0.94Nangka (fruit tree) Artocarpus heterophylla Moraceae 0.06Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae 0.41Niyog-niyogan Ficus pseudo-palma Moraceae 0.06Paguringon Cratoxylum celebicum Guttiferae 0.29Salingkugi Albizia saponaria Mimosaceae 0.06Tibig Ficus nota Moraceae 0.12Table 10. Diameter distribution of trees per species category at Cienda RFDiameterAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Dipterocarps Nurse tree Fruit tree Existing Total (%)0 - 5 27.94 18.41 2.29 2.24 50.88 74.776 -10 3.35 5.47 0.71 3.65 13.18 19.3711-15 - 1.88 - 1.76 3.645.3515-20 - 0.06 - 0.29 0.35 0.51Total 31.29 25.82 3.00 7.94 68.05 100Table 11. Height distribution of trees per species category at Cienda RFHeightAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Dipterocarps Nurse tree Fruit tree Existing Total (%)0 - 5 29.82 18.29 2.47 2.71 53.29 78.446-10 1.41 4.82 0.59 1.59 8.41 12.3811-15 0.06 2.00 - 1.12 3.18 4.6816-20 - 0.59 - 2.47 3.06 4.50Total 31.29 25.70 3.06 7.89 67.94 100.0020

Table 12. Average diameter and height of dipterocarp species at Cienda RFSpeciesDBH (cm)AverageHeight (m)Bagtikan 2.45 3.56White lauan 3.15 3.91Yakal 1.75 3.62Yakal-kaliot 2.34 3.43Yakal-saplungan 1.47 2.86Table 13. Stand density expressed as the number of trees per plot (NTP)and number of trees per hectare (NTH) at Cienda RFSpecies Category NTP NTHDipterocarp trees 31.53 2,102.00Nurse trees 25.29 1,686.00Fruit trees 3.00 200.00Existing trees 7.94 529.33Total 67.76 4,517.33For the treated plots, 33 species were found before pruning.Dominant species include Certococcum patens, Lygodium japonicum,Elephantopus tomentosus, Melastoma affine, Pteridium aquilinum, Axonopuscompressus, Mussaenda philippica, Mimosa pudica, and Caladium bicolor.Three months after pruning, 40 species were found. Seven additionalspecies: Artocarpus ovata, Boreria laevis, Centella asiatica, Ficus ovata,Phyllantus amarantus, Stachytarpheta jamaicensis, and Leukosykeascuatovenosa were encountered. The opening in the canopy created by thepruned branches might enhance growth of these species. Thirty-nine specieswere found six months after pruning.21

Figure 6. Canopy cover in the selected sample plots of trees in Cienda RFbefore the pruning operation in 200322

Table 14. Frequency of occurrence of weed species in the treated and untreatedplots before and after pruning at Cienda RFSpeciesBeforepruningUntreated Plots3 mos. afterpruning6 mos. afterpruningBeforepruningTreated Plots3 mos.afterpruning6 mos.afterpruningArtocarpus blancoi 1 2 2 2 2 2Artocarpus ovata 0 0 0 0 1 2Axonopus compressus 5 5 5 6 7 7Boreria laevis 0 0 0 0 1 1Breynia rhamnoides 1 2 2 1 1 2Caladium bicolor 3 3 3 4 4 6Canarium asperum 2 2 2 1 1 1Carmona rectus 1 1 1 0 0 0Cenchrus echinatus 4 4 4 2 2 2Centella asiatica 1 1 1 0 2 2Certococcom patens 7 7 7 10 10 10Chromolaena odorata 3 3 3 2 3 2Commelina benghalensis 2 1 1 1 1 1Cratoxylum formosum 0 0 0 1 1 1Desmodium triflorum 4 3 3 1 3 3Elephantopus tomentosus 3 3 3 8 8 8Eleusine indica 0 0 0 1 1 1Emilia sonchyfolia 1 1 1 1 1 1Ficus nota 4 5 6 3 4 5Ficus ovata 0 0 0 0 1 0Ficus pseudopalma 4 4 4 3 4 5Ficus septica 2 3 3 1 2 2Hyptis capitata 0 0 0 1 1 1Imperata cylindrica 3 3 3 4 4 5Leukosyke capitellata 2 2 2 1 2 2Lygodium japonicum 6 7 7 8 9 10Melastoma affine 4 5 4 9 9 9Mikania cordata 1 2 2 1 1 1Mimosa pudica 2 3 3 4 4 5Mussaenda philipica 2 3 2 5 5 5Ormosia calavenesis 1 0 2 1 1 1Passiflora foetida 0 1 1 0 0 0Phyllantus amarantus 1 1 2 0 1 1Phyllantus veridis 3 3 3 2 2 2Polyscias nodosa 1 1 2 0 0 0Premna odorata 1 1 1 2 1 2Pteridium aquilinum 3 3 3 7 8 8Pterocarpus indicus 1 1 1 0 0 0Stachytarpheta dichotoma 0 0 0 0 1 1Stachytarpheta jamaicensis 2 2 2 1 1 1Synedrella nodiflora 1 0 0 1 0 1Syzygium sp. 1 2 2 1 1 1Wedilla biflora 0 0 0 1 2 2Centrosema pubescens 0 1 1 0 0 0Ageratum conyzoides 0 0 1 0 1 0Leukosyke ascuatovenosa 0 0 0 0 1 123

3. Pomponan RF3.1 Tree Species Composition and FrequencyA total of six tree species was planted in the farm (Table 15). Theseare mainly indigenous species belonging to five families. Except for narra(0.67), all other species has a frequency of 1.0 which means the species arefound in all sample plots.Table 15. Species composition and frequency at Pomponan RFCommon Name Scientific Name Family FrequencyDao Dracontomelon dao Anacardiaceae 1.00Kalumpit Terminalia microcarpa Combretaceae 1.00Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae 1.00Mahogany Swietenia macrophylla Meliaceae 1.00Lamio Dracontomelon edule Anacardiaceae 1.00Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae 0.673.2 Diameter and Height Distribution of TreesBased on the average diameter of trees planted, Table 16 shows thatdao (15.26 cm) and kalumpit (13.47 cm) performed well in the area comparedto molave ((6.11 cm) and mahogany (6.21 cm). Average height of trees alsoshows that dao and kalumpit dominated the upper canopy with an averageheight of 11.65 m and 11.03 m, respectively. This implies that these speciesare fast growing and are more adapted to the area.Multiple comparisons of mean diameter and height of tree species inthe upper, middle and lower slopes are shown in Table 17. Significantdifferences at 5% level of confidence were observed for the mean height ofdao, molave and mahogany. Mean height of dao in the upper and middleslope was significantly higher from that of lower slope. Dao is relativelyshorter at the lower slope but performs well at the upper slope where trees areexposed to sunlight for long periods. No significant differences in the meandiameter and height of kalumpit were observed in the upper, middle andlower slope.Table 17 also shows that the mean height of mahogany in the middleand lower slopes varies significantly. Middle and lower slope height values,however, does not differ with the height value in the upper slope.24

Mean height of molave in the upper slope varies significantly fromthe mean height of trees in the middle and lower slope. It indicates thatmolave performs well in the middle (7.66 m) and lower (7.44 m) than in theupper slope (3.47m).Table 16. Average diameter (DBH) and height of tree species atPomponan RFSpeciesAverageDBH (cm)HEIGHT (m)Dao 15.26 11.65Kalumpit 13.47 11.03Molave 6.11 6.19Mahogany 6.21 7.41Table 17. Comparison of mean diameter (DBH) and height of treespecies at Pomponan RFSpecies Plot No. Slope DBH (cm) Height (m)Dao 1 Upper 16.8440 a 12.3167 a2 Middle 17.4600 a 13.7940 a3 Lower 11.4750 a 8.9025 bKalumpit 1 Upper 15.4500 a 11.8033 a2 Middle 11.8060 a 10.9755 a3 Lower 13.1600 a 10.3060 aMahogany 1 Upper 5.1000 a 7.7300 ab2 Middle 6.0430 a 5.8958 b3 Lower 7.4900 a 8.6140 aMolave 1 Upper 4.0500 a 3.4750 b2 Middle 7.5600 a 7.6600 a3 Lower 6.7200 a 7.4380 a3.3 Tree/Stand DensityThe inventory was carried out using three rectangular plotsmeasuring 144 m 2 each. On the average, 26 trees/plot were plantedcorresponding to an estimated density of 1,805.56 trees/hectare (Table 18).The stand density can be considered optimum. The table shows that treespecies are more or less evenly distributed in the plantation.25

Table 18. Stand density expressed as the number of trees per plot(NTP) and number of trees per hectare (NTH) at PomponanRFSpecies NTP NTHDao 6.00 416.67Kalumpit 7.33 509.03Molave 4.00 277.78Mahogany 8.67 602.08Total 26.00 1,805.564. Catmon RF4.1 Tree Species Composition and FrequencyA total of 27 tree species was encountered in the sample plots. Thespecies were classified into three categories: (a) dipterocarp trees, (b) nursetrees (includes existing pioneer trees) and (c) fruit trees. There are eightspecies of dipterocarps encountered the dominant of which are red lauan,mayapis, bagtikan and white lauan with frequency of 1.00, 0.93, 0.80 and0.73, respectively (Table 19). A total of 14 species of nurse trees wererecorded wherein molave (1.00), kalumpit (0.83) and palosapis (0.57) had thehighest frequencies. Five species of fruit trees were also recorded andnangka (0.13) dominated.4.2 Diameter and Height Distribution of TreesTrees were classified into four 5-cm diameter classes to includeseedling and sapling stage. Table 20 shows that 61.98% (21.50 trees) and27.39% (9.5 trees) of the trees occupied the 0-5 cm and 6-10 cm range,respectively. This implies that small diameter trees (less than 10 cm indiameter) dominate the sample plots. Majority of the dipterocarps alsobelongs to these diameter classes.The same trees were categorized into three 5-m height classes (Table21). The table shows that 58.89% (20.44 trees) and 40.36% (14.01 trees) ofthe trees belongs to the 0-5 m and 6-10 m classes. This implies that the treesare still small. Most of the dipterocarps fall within this range. For the 11-1526

m range, only 0.75% (0.26 trees) was classified. These are mainly nurse treesand dipterocarps. Fruit trees have not reached a height of more than 10 m.Table 22 shows the average diameter and height of dipterocarp speciesat Catmon rainforestation farm. On the average, three species performed wellin the area compared to the other species of dipterocarps. Mayapis, red lauanand bagtikan shows an average of diameter of 9.35 cm, 7.03 cm and 5.70 cm,and average height of 6.36 m, 5.95 m, and 5.37 m, respectively.4.3 Tree/Stand DensityThe inventory was carried out using 30 circular plots each coveringan area of 191.14 m 2 . On the average, 35.53 trees/plot had been encountered,corresponding to an average of 1,858.84 trees/hectare (Table 23). More thanhalf (58.35%) of the estimated NTH are dipterocarp species.Table 19. Species composition and frequency at Catmon RFCommon Name Scientific Name Family FrequencyDipterocarp TreesApitong Dipterocarpus grandiflora Dipterocarpaceae 0.03Apitong-Hagakhak Dipterocarpus validus Dipterocarpaceae 0.10Bagtikan Parashorea malaanonan Dipterocarpaceae 0.80Dalingdingan Hopea foxworthyi Dipterocarpaceae 1.00Mayapis Shorea squamata Dipterocarpaceae 0.93Red lauan Shorea negrosensis Dipterocarpaceae 1.00White lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae 0.73Yakal kaliot Hopea malibato Dipterocarpaceae 0.20Palosapis Anisoptera thurifera Dipterocarpacea 0.57Nurse TreesAlim (existing) Mallotus multiglandulous Euphorbiaceae 0.03Anabiong (existing) Trema orientalis Ulmaceae 0.07Bagalunga Melia dubia Meliaceae 0.03Dao Dracontomelon dao Anacardiaceae 0.07Hauili (existing) Ficus septica Moraceae 0.03Ipil Instia bijuga Ceasalpiniceae 0.27Kalumpit Terminalia microcarpa Combretaceae 0.83Lapnisan Polyalthia oblongifolia Annonaceae 0.03Malakauayan Podocarpus philippinensis Podocarpaceae 0.17Malubago (existing) Hibiscus tiliaceus Malvaceae 0.03Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae 1.00Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae 0.07Suyapao (existing) 0.03Fruit TreesAvocado Persea americana Lauraceae 0.03Marang Artocarpus odoratissimus Moraceae 0.03Guava (existing) Psidium guajava Myrtaceae 0.03Nangka Artocarpus heterophylla Moraceae 0.13Santol (existing) Sandoricum koetjape Meliaceae 0.0327

Table 20. Diameter distribution of trees per species category atCatmon RFDiameterAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Total (%)Dipterocarp Nurse tree Fruit tree0 - 5 11.83 9.57 0.10 21.50 61.986-10 5.90 3.57 0.03 9.50 27.3911-15 2.33 0.63 0.00 2.96 8.5315-20 0.50 0.20 0.03 0.73 2.10Total 20.56 13.97 0.16 34.69 100.00Table 21.Height distribution of trees per species category atCatmon RFHeightAverage number of trees per plotClass (cm) Total (%)Dipterocarp Nurse tree Fruit tree0 - 5 10.97 9.37 0.10 20.44 58.896-10 9.47 4.47 0.07 14.01 40.3611-15 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.26 0.75Total 20.57 13.97 0.17 34.71 100.00Table 22. Average diameter and height of dipterocarp species atCatmon RFSpeciesAverageDBH (cm)Height (m)Apitong 0.90 1.50Apitong-hagakhak 2.48 3.02Bagtikan 5.70 5.37Dalingdingan 3.00 4.52Mayapis 9.35 6.36Red lauan 7.03 5.95White lauan 4.86 4.12Yakal-kaliot 3.48 4.61Table 23. Stand density expressed as the number of trees per plot(NTP) and number of trees per hectare (NTH) at CatmonRFSpecies Category NTP NTHDipterocarp trees 20.73 1,084.54Nurse trees 14.65 766.45Fruit trees 0.15 7.85Total 35.53 1,858.8428

RecommendationsBased on inventory results, a high number of tree species have been used at the LSUdemo farm. Most tree species have been represented by only a few individuals in the sampleplots hence, generalization on the growth performance of a particular species will be difficultto attain. The high frequency of individuals in the lower diameter range indicates the lack ofthinning and pruning operations at an earlier stage. Stand density (3643 trees/ha) and crowncompetition could have contributed to the low average diameters especially of important treespecies like dipterocarps.Very high species diversity was also observed at Cienda RF. Tree species howeverwere not equally represented in the different sample plots hence, monitoring the performanceof a particular species will also be difficult. Stem distribution also shows that most treesbelong to the lower DBH classes. Trees with large DBH are mainly nurse trees. Dipterocarptrees on the average have DBH of less than 10 cm. The very low performance of trees may beattributed to the dense condition in the area (4517 trees/ha) and the presence of existing largetrees and coconut palms which triggered early closure of the canopy (Figure 6). Selectivethinning and pruning operations are recommended to improve stem quality and growthcondition in the understorey.A very few species of trees planted at Pomponan RF post no problem onmanagement. The project implementers, however, should look into the probable market ofthe tree species grown.The number of tree species planted at Catmon RF was lower compared to those ofLSU demo farm and Cienda RF. However, more than half of the trees planted aredipterocarps. Inventory results show that stand density (1858 trees/ha) was at optimum level.Thinning and pruning schedules however should be planned for long term monitoring.29

Strategy 2:MARKETING STUDY OF RAINFORESTATION FARMPRODUCTSIntroductionIn 1992, the ViSCA-gtz Applied Tropical Ecology Program developed andimplemented a sustainable production system called Rainforestation Farming as a majorcomponent of the program’s reforestation drive. Rainforestation farming evolves fromvarious efforts to sustain human food production and at the same time preserve biodiversity ofterrestrial ecosytems and their vital functions to mankind. The program aimed to replace themore destructive forms of “kaingin” practices, form a buffer zone around the primary forests,protect their biodiversity, help maintain the water cycle and provide farmers with stable andhigher incomes.Around ten years after its implementation, a total of 28 individual and farmercooperators were involved in the program. The trees planted by the cooperators are now bigand are mature enough to be prunned. The outputs of pruning are round timbers that can beused as housing materials for the construction of fences, and other uses. In Baybay, there arebuyers for this small round timber but it is not yet determined as to how much is the demandfor these products and who are the existing buyers as well as potential buyers. If a market forthe round timber is available, this will encourage tree farmer cooperators to grow more treesand not cut the entire tree to produce lumber.This component of the study has the following objectives:1. To assess the marketability of rainforestation farm products particularly the smallround timbers;2. To identify the uses and existing users of round timbers in Baybay and Ormoc.3. To assess the costs of inputs of establishing Rainforestation farms and value ofoutputs (income) from Rainforestation products.30

MethodologyPlace of StudyThe study was conducted in the vicinity of LSU, Baybay, Ormoc and the nearby areasof the pilot sites of the Rainforestation Project. The municipalities of Inopacan, Hilongos andBato in addition to Baybay and Ormoc were also covered as potential markets for the roundtimber because of their proximity to the pilot sites.The RespondentsThe respondents for the study included wood processors, traders and dealers oflumber and processed wood products in Ormoc, Baybay, Inopacan, Hilongos, and Bato. Atotal of nineteen processors and seven market dealers were interviewed for this study. Choiceof respondents did not follow the usual random sampling technique but was based on theiravailability and willingness to be interviewed. There were only a few processors and markettraders in each of the municipality and not all of them were willing to provide the neededinformation.Data GatheringData were gathered through personal interviews with respondents using a preparedinterview schedule. Secondary data were also gathered from secondary sources such as theInstitute of Tropical Ecology in LSU and the Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR) to supplement the data gathered from the survey.Data AnalysisThe data gathered were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency counts, andpercentages. Tabular presentations of actual responses were used as basis for discussion.Presentation of data is composed of two parts: socio-economic description of buyers of roundtimbers and current uses of round timbers in the study sites.To determine the current supply and demand of round timber, volume requirementand available supply were compared to see if there is a supply and demand gap. Through this,potential market in the area for round timber is estimated. Factors and problems affecting thesupply of timber were also discussed.31

Results and DiscussionsProcessorsSocio-economic characteristics. A total of 19 processors were interviewed in thisstudy (Table 24). Close to 80 % of the processors were from Baybay (73.7%), the rest camefrom Hilongos (5.3%), Ormoc (5.3%) %), Inopacan (5.3%) and Bato (10.5%). Majority ofthem (73.7%) belong to the middle age bracket. Their business experience as wood productprocessors ranged from one to 23 years. A greater percentage of the processors interviewedhad been in the business from 1 to 5 years (38.9%). Almost one –fourth (22.2%) wereprocessing wood products for a period of 6 to 11 years while a little over twenty five percentwere engaged in it from 12 to 17 years. All of the processors interviewed reported that thenumber of workers they have ranged from 1 to 5.Not one of the respondents claimed that they depended on wood processing businessalone as their source of livelihood. All of them cited a number of alternative sources ofincome. Frequently mentioned income source were hardware store, coconut farming (71.4%),rice farming (28.6%), fishing (14.3%), carpentry (14.3%) and abaca (14.3%). Other incomesources mentioned include labor from construction, tuba gathering, corn farming and coprabuying.Table 24. Socioeconomic characteristics of wood product processors in LeyteVariable Frequency (n=19) PercentPlaceBaybayOrmocHilongosInopacanBatoAgeMiddle ageOldSenior citizenYears in Business1-56-1112-1718-231411121441745273.75.35.35.310.573.721.15.338.922.227.811.132

Other Sources of incomeCoconutHardware storeRice farmingFishingAbaca farmCarpentryConstructionTuba gathererCornCopra buyerTeaching6142211111142.97.128.614.314.37.17.17.17.17.17.1Wood products processed. There is a wide variety of wood products processed by theprocessors (Table 25). About 50 % of the wood processors processed sala set, doors with jam(36.8%), bed (31.6%), dining sets (31.6%), tables (31.6%), TV stand (26.3%), divider(26.3%) and dining table (21.1%). Other wood products processed include telephone stand,aparador, curio, rocking chair, love set, baby’s crib, magazine rack, wooden basin, lumber,plywood, and many others. The processors reported that they process more than one kind ofwood products and therefore they require greater volume of different wood species for them.Of the products mentioned, baby’s crib, telephone stand and magazine racks are potential userof round timber.Table 25. Types and kinds of wood products processedWood product processed Frequency PercentSala set 9 47.4Door with jam 7 36.8Bed 6 31.6Dining set 6 31.6Table 6 31.6Chair 6 31.6TV stand 5 26.3Divider 5 26.3Dining table 4 21.1Telephone stand 3 15.8Aparador 3 15.8Curio 2 10.5Rocking chair 2 10.5Wheel bench 2 10.5Love set 2 10.5Sofa bed 2 10.5Bope 1 5.3Swing 1 5.3Consul table 1 5.3Cleopatra sala set 1 5.333

Saint Louie 1 5.3Round table 1 5.3Corner table 1 5.3Magazine rack 1 5.3Jar stand 1 5.3Duang 1 5.3Mirror 1 5.3Flower base 1 5.3*Multiple responsesTree species used. Wood processors prefer to use white lauan (68.4%), narra(47.4%), molave (26.3%) and antipolo (5.3%) (Table 26). These species mentionedespecially narra are high quality wood and relatively expensive but have limited supply. Ifother wood species will be available, processors may opt to use them. This is one area wherethe round timber could come in.Table 26. Tree species used in wood processingTree species Frequency PercentageWhite lauan 13 68.4Red lauan -Malaysian lauan -Narra 9 47.4Imported -Molave 5 26.3Toog - -Antipolo 1 5.3*Multiple responsesReasons for preference. Durability of the wood topped the list of reasons forpreferring a particular tree species (Table 27). Ease in “plaining” (42.1%), good grain(21.1%), easy to nail (15.8%), good texture (15.85%) were the other characteristics looked byprocessors when choosing wood species. Color and price were also the other factorsconsidered by wood processors in their choice of tree species. The round timber from therainforestation products will have high market potential if they meet the above- mentionedcriteria for wood product processing.34

Table 27. Preference of a particular tree species by the wood processorsReasons Frequency PercentageDurable 14 70.7Straight 2 10.5Color 2 10.5Easy to plain 8 42.1Good grain 4 21.1Easy to nail 3 15.8Good texture 3 15.8Good quality 3 15.8Light to carry 2 10.5High price 1 5.3Low price 1 5.3Sources of wood to be processed. Ten of the processors interviewed (52.6%) did notgive answers when asked for their suppliers. About 50% answered they got their lumber fromillegal chainsaw operators but did not give details as to where these operators are located. Thereason why the other respondents were hesitant to give information about their suppliers isthat most of them were not legitimate suppliers of wood products.Marketing practices. The processors interviewed did not give information regardingpricing, quantity sold, type of buyers and marketing strategy. In terms of mode of payment,52.63% of them said products sold were paid in cash and the rest claimed that they were ininstallment basis (47.37%) (Table28). When transporting processed products sold, in mostcases, it is the customer who pays for the transportation cost. There were also instances thatprocessors pay for the transportation cost. Most of the processed wood products were soldwithin the locality and local markets. Some were on a made to order basis while othercustomers will just purchase the products on display. Selling price of the product usuallydepends on the tree species, volume purchased, processing cost, and type of furniture. Rawmaterial price depends on the lumber supplier, tree species and volume purchased.Supply and demand trend. Majority of the respondents (63.2%) said supply of woodfor processing decreased while more than one-fourth of them said, supply has not changed(Table 29). The declining supply trend was attributed to the strict implementation of DENRlaws on tree cutting (42.1%), season (21.1%) and lack of capital (15.8%) (Table 29.) On thedemand side, demand for processed wood products showed an increasing trend as reported by78.9% of the wood processors (Table 29). Increase in the number of customers (57.9%) andseason (26.3%) also contributed to this increase in demand (Table 29).35

Table 28. Marketing practices of wood processors in LeyteVariable Frequency* PercentageMode of paymentCashInstallmentTransportation payerCustomerProcessorPlace of saleLocalityLocal marketMallMode of marketingOrderDisplayPricing of raw materialsLumber –supplier laborTree speciesVolumeSelf pricingProcessor’s selling price determinationVolume usedMaterial UsedLaborTree speciesType of furnitureMark up/profit*Multiple responses1091110111011511121210418161094352.6347.3757.952.657.952.65.378.957.963.273.252.621.194.284.252.647.421.115.8Table 29. Supply and demand trend and reasons for the changeVariable Frequency PercentageSupply trendIncreasingDecreasingSameReasons for the changing trend in supplyDENR policyMature SeedsSeasonLack of capitalNo legal permitDemand trendDecreaseIncreaseSameReasons for the changing trend in demandMore customersSeasonCompetitionSupply21258343131511152110.563.226.342.115.821.115.85.315.878.95.357.926.310.55.336

Problems encountered. A number of problems were encountered by the processors intheir business. Foremost of these problems mentioned is the competition with fellowprocessors as reported by 36.9% of the respondents (Table 30). Strict DENR policy on thecutting of trees was another felt problem since this has affected the supply of wood forprocessing (21.8%). Other problems cited include lack of buyers, limited and defective stock,decrease in wood supply and the time it takes to dispose the processed product.Table 30. Problems encountered by processors in dealing with lumber productsProblems Frequency PercentageNone 3 15.8DENR Policy 4 21.8Competition 7 36.9No Customer 1 5.3Decrease of wood supply 1 5.3Not paid by customer 1 5.3Limited stock 1 5.3Defective stock 1 5.3Jealous/Envy 1 5.3Take time in selling 1 5.3Location 1 5.3Coping mechanisms. To cope with the problems met, a number of actions were doneby the respondents (Table 31). To cope with the strict policy of DENR, the processors saidthere is nothing they can do but follow the policy and obey the rules and regulations. Toattract buyers they resorted to low pricing and contact buyers for their product. Decrease insupply of wood was offset by ordering from their supplier for wood to be processed. Someeven closed their business because of these problems.Table 31. Coping mechanism in handling the problems encounteredMechanism Frequency PercentageNone 3 15.8Obey rules and regulations 2 10.5Low pricing 4 21.8Secure permit 2 10.5By chance 1 5.3Order from supplier 1 5.3Stop business 1 5.3Abandon business 1 5.3Increase in capital 1 5.3Patching 1 5.3Leave it 1 5.3Contact buyer 1 5.337

Market DealersSocio-economic characteristics. Of the 7 market dealers two were from Ormoc,Hilongos and Baybay, only one of the market dealers interviewed came from Inopacan (Table32). An equal percentage of market dealers belong to old and middle age (42.9%). Majorityof the market dealers interviewed (42.9%) were engaged in the business from 18-23 years.Most of them (57.1%) have 1 to 5 workers.Market dealers have varied sources of income. Almost three-fourths of the marketdealers interviewed depended on their hardware store as source of income, while the otherswere engaged in construction work (28.6%) and selling of agrivet supplies (14.3%).Table 32. Socioeconomic characteristics of lumber market dealers in LeyteVariable Frequency (n=7) PercentPlaceBaybayOrmocHilongosInopacanAgeMiddle ageOldSenior citizenYears in Business1-56-1112-1718-23Above 23Other Sources of incomeHardware storeConstructionAgrivet22211331113152128.628.628.614.314.342.942.914.314.314.342.914.371.428.614.3Products sold. All of the market dealers interviewed sell lumber (Table 33). Fortytwo percent of them sell molding and plywood.Table 33. Products sold by the market dealersProduct sold Frequency* PercentageLumber 7 100.00Molding 3 42.9Plywood 3 42.9*Multiple responses38

Tree species of wood sold. Tree species of wood include narra, Malaysian lauan,molave, toog and antipolo. Some of them also sells imported wood. All of the market dealerssell white and red lauan (Table 34).Table 34. Tree species of products soldTree species Frequency* PercentageWhite lauan 7 100.00Red lauan 7 100.00Malaysian lauan 2 28.60Narra 3 42.9Imported 2 28.6Molave 2 28.6Toog 1 14.3*Multiple responsesReasons for preference. Preference for a particular species is influenced by durability,shape, color, demand and ease in “plaining” (Table 35). Almost three-fourths said theypreferred species that are durable and with straight stem.Table 35. Reasons for preferring a tree speciesReasons Frequency* PercentDurable 5 71.4Straight 5 71.4Color 3 42.9Demand 2 28.6Easy to plain*Multiple responsesSources of product. Wood sold by the market dealers come from various sources(Table 36). Almost one half (42.9%) procure wood within the locality while the others getsupply from the lumber yards nearby and from the farmers. Some market dealers importlumber from other countries.Table 36. Sources of products sold by the market dealers of tree lumbers in LeyteSource Frequency* PercentLocality 3 42.9Matemco Wood Supply 2 28.6Imported 2 28.6Framers 1 14.3Baybay Forest Products 1 14.3Serafica 1 14.3*Multiple response39

Marketing Practices. Selling price of wood sold by market dealers varied dependingon the tree species (Table 37). White and red lauan are sold at an average price of P30.28 perboard foot. Malaysian lauan is sold at P18.00 per board foot while yakal and molave are soldat P40 and P37, respectively. Surprisingly, Narra which is supposed to be more expensive issold only at P33.33 per board foot, much lower than the selling price of other tree species. Interms of quantity sold, 28.6% of the market dealers interviewed sold 500 board feet during theperiod covered by the interview (Table 38). There was one dealer who was able to sell 20,000board feet of wood. Average volume of wood sold during the period of study was 4,858.33board feet. Most of the buyers of wood were construction firms (85.7%) and individualhouseholds (14.3%) (Table 39). Wood sold is sometimes delivered to the place of the buyer(28.67%) while usually they were picked up by the buyers (71.4%) (Table 40). Payment ismostly either in cash (28.6%), installment (14.3%) or a combination of cash and installment(57.1%) (Table 40). Cost of transporting wood sold is either shouldered by the supplier(71.4%) or by the buyer (28.6%).Table 37. Selling price for wood products soldPrice (Pesos) per board footTypes of wood 23.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 38.0 41 45AveragePriceWhite and red lauan 1 2 2 1 1 30.28Malaysian lauan 2 1 18.00Narra 1 1 1 33.33Yakal 1 40.00ToogMolave 1 1 1 37Table 38. Volume of products sold by the market dealers in LeyteVolume sold (Board ft.) Frequency Percentage250 1 14.3400 1 14.3500 2 28.63000 1 14.35000 1 14.320000 1 14.3Average volume of wood sold4,858.33Table 39. Type of buyers of products sold by market dealers in LeyteType of buyers Frequency PercentageConstruction /individual 5 71.4Construction 1 14.3Individual 1 14.340

Table 40. Marketing practices of market dealers of lumbers in LeyteVariable Frequency PercentageMode of salePick updeliveredMode of paymentCashInstallmentCash and installmentPayer of TransportationSupplierBuyerSources of tree product informationSupplierConsignerLabor/transportation522145242171.428.628.614.357.171.428.657.128.614.3Problems encountered. The only problem felt by market dealers of wood was theDENR policy on tree cutting (Table 41). Because of the strict policy of DENR on tree cuttingsupply of wood declined. One has to comply a lot of paper works before he can cut a tree.As a result, some trees were cut without permit, what makes it illegal. Market dealers areaffected because if they buy illegally cut trees and are caught, they will also be penalized. Inmost cases, the lumber will be confiscated. To avoid this problem, they have to follow DENRpolicy.Table 41. Problems encountered and action taken by the market dealers of treelumbers in LeyteProblemsAction takenFrequency Percentage Action Frequency PercentageNone 6 85.7 None 6 85.7DENR Policy 1 14.3 Obey rules andregulations1 14.3Market Potential for Round Timber in LeyteConsidering the wide variety of wood products processed, there is a bright prospectfor red timber. Among the products mentioned, baby’s crib, telephone stand and magazineracks are promising products where round timber can be used.On the supply side, a decreasing trend of supply of the current tree species used forwood processing was felt by processor. The supply of currently used tree species is declining41

ecause of their limited supply and because of DENR policy on tree cutting. Some of thesespecies like narra are being banned. Strict DENR policy makes tree cutting difficult becauseof the many requirements to be complied before a permit is granted. Potential of the roundtimber to fill the supply and demand gap is high because these are produced without cuttingthe entire tree and therefore do not require DENR permit. The market can be furtherenhanced if the tree species grown in the rainforestation farm meet the quality requirements ofprocessors. In terms of cost, round timber is cheaper and therefore is competitive with theexisting tree species utilized for processing.Financial Analysis of the Cienda Rainforestation ProjectFinancial analysis is simply concerned about the financial or direct cash flow impactof a project to an individual or business. In the case of the Cienda Rainforestation project,this involves determining the costs of operating the project and the revenues earned.Intangible benefits such as increased employment opportunities and environmental impacts ofthe project will be included in the costs and benefits analysis. This analysis takes into accountall costs and benefits of a project including positive and negative externalities. In Ciendarainforestation project, data on the environmental impacts as well as to the community are notyet available so financial analysis is used.Results of the analysis indicate that the project is worth investing because the netpresent value of the expected benefits is positive which means that it exceeds the initialestablishment cost. Using a discount rate of 15% and 10%, NPV’s are P78,061.75 andP585,446.25, respectively. The NPV at 18 % is negative which means that if the discountrate is 18% the project is no longer viable. The internal rate of return (IRR) is 17%. If thecurrent market rate of interest is below 17%, then it pays to invest in the rainforestationproject.The projected income of trees in Cienda Rainforestation site after thirty (30) years ispresented in Table 42. On the other hand the cost of the establishment of an RF farm by eachrespective cooperator and their income annually is presented in Appendix Table 2.42

Table 42. Projected income of trees in Cienda RF farm after 30 yearsSpeciesNarra (Pterocarpusindicus)Bagtikan (Parashoreaplicata)AverageincrementDBH(cm)Height(m)No. ofTreesPrice perbd. ft.(PhP)Projected Income after n th year10 th 20 th 30 th0.50 1.18 18 120.00 21,219.30 169,754.97 572,400.000.49 0.62 196 60.00 36,670.84 293,366.71 990,112.64Yakal (Hopea malibato) 0.35 0.95 69 80.00 21,298.37 171,137.63 523,890.70Yakal saplungan(Hopea plagata)White lauan (Shoreacontorta)Kalumpit (Terminaliamicrocarpa)Tamayuan (Strombosiaphilippinenses)0.50 0.24 97 80.00 7,565.55 60,779.31 205,130.180.74 0.95 124 80.00 84,117.20 672,937.62 2,230,426.910.65 0.38 83 50.00 22,187.85 177,502.77 599,071.860.90 0.49 32 50.00 23,072.0 182,990.11 617,591.51Molave (Vitex parviflora) 0.20 1.53 48 120.00 36,598.02 292,784.17 988,146.58Thailand shower(Samania saman)Bitanghol (Calophyllumblancoi)Dao (Dracontomilondao)0.70 1.47 6 *0.20 0.82 95 40.00 4,150.63 33,205.05 112,067.050.20 0.62 44 100.00 3,633.8 29,070.41 98,112.62Tibig (Ficus nota) 0.65 0.79 4 *Antsohan dilaw 0.50 0.14 1 *Mountain agoho(Casuarina nodiflora)1.10 0.14 18 50.00 34,092.0 272,710.60 920,339.24Dita (Alstonia scholaris) 1.00 0.43 2 30.00 859.16 6,873.32 23,185.45Antipolo (Artocarpusblancoi)Bujon/kahoydalaga(Doña philippica)0.50 1.53 9 50.00 5,947.72 47,581.74 160,588.380.10 0.08 20 *Balao 0.50 0.25 7 50.00 728.46 5,827.67 19,668.38Malacogon 0.20 0.70 5 *Salingkugi 0.40 1.42 1 20.00 46.64 375.10 1,265.97*Trees with no commercial valueStandard Formula = 0.7854 d 2 L P 1178.85 Diameter :Conversion = 1m=100cm X 18 trees 0.5 cm x 10m_ = 0.05 mIm 3 =424 bd.ft P 21,219.37 100cmNarra : 0.7854(0.05) 2 11.8Volume = 0.0231693X 424 bd.ft Length :9.824 bd.ft 1.18 m x 10 year = 1.8 mX 120.00P 1178.8543

Strategy 3:MONITORING OF SOIL SITE CHARACTERISTICS INSELECTED RF DEMO AND COOPERATORS’ FARMSIntroductionRainforestation, the planting of native tree species to regenerate degraded lands, isbelieved to improve in the long term the soil quality. Improvement in soil quality would notonly enhance biodiversity but would also affect the overall site characteristic such asincreased water holding capacity of the landscape and reduced runoff and erosion. However,very little data are until now available concerning the type of soil properties improved and therate of improvement or change. This research was therefore carried out to monitor thechanges in selected soil characteristics in some rainforestation sites in Leyte.MethodologyThree sites were chosen for this study. These were the RF in LSU (Mt. Pangasugan)and Cienda in Baybay, Leyte and Catmon in Ormoc City. The Mt. Pangasugan site is ademonstration farm while the Cienda and Catmon sites are cooperators’ farms.Four sampling plots, each measuring 4 m long and 3 m wide, were laid out in eachsite. Six permanent markers were established in each plot that served as the sampling points.Soil samples taken from each marked point in each plot were thoroughly mixed andcomposited (Fig. 7). Sampling was done at monthly interval for one year. All soil sampleswere air dried, ground and sieved and analyzed in the laboratory for pH, organic matter (OM)content, total nitrogen (N) and available phosphorus (P) contents following standardlaboratory procedures. Because of the high cost of laboratory analysis other chemical andphysical properties were not determined. However, all soil samples have been stored so futureanalysis can be done on them.Observations of the morphological properties of the soil were also done usingstandard pedological procedures.44

Figure 7. Sampling of soil in RF sites for the soil analysisResults and DiscussionResults of the one-year monitoring of selected chemical soil properties are presentedin Figures 8-11 for the Mt. Pangasugan site, and Figures 12-15 for the Catmon and Ciendasites. As can be seen from the figures, considerable temporal variations in pH, OM, total Nand available P were observed.Mt. Pangasugan SiteThe soil in this site was reddish, clayey, acidic and contained very low amount ofseveral essential nutrients at the start of the rainforestation project. Now, after about 10 years,there has been observable improvement in soil quality both in terms of morphologicalproperties such as color (which turned dark reddish brown on the surface), improved structureand increased thickness of A horizon. Moreover, soil pH, OM content and total N, available Pwere also slightly improved compared to our initial soil data (Asio 1996).Total N (%)0.500.400.300.200.100.00N D J F M A M J J A S OTimeMt. PangasuganFigure 8. Monthly variation of total N in the rainforestationsite in Mt. Pangasugan.45

Avail. P (mg/kg)1.401.201.000.800.600.400.200.00N D J F M A M JJ A S OMt. PangasuganTimeFigure 9. Monthly variation of available P in therainforestation site in Mt. Pangasugan4.60pH (0.01M CaCl2)4.504.404.304.20N D JF M A M J J A S OMt. PangasuganTimeFigure 10. Monthly variation of pH in the rainforestationsite in Mt. Pangasugan4.003.00% OM2.001.00Mt. Pangasugan0.00N D J F M A M JTimeJ A S OFigure 11. Monthly variation of organic matter in therainforestation site in Mt. Pangasugan46

0.300.25Total N (%)0.200.150.10CatmonCienda0.050.00J F M A M J J A S O N DTimeFigure 12. Monthly variation of total N in therainforestation sites in Catmon andCienda100.00Avail. P (mg/kg soil)80.0060.0040.0020.000.00J F M A M J J A S O N DCatmonCiendaTimeFigure 13. Monthly variation of available P in therainforestation sites in Catmon and CiendaSoil pH5.405.205.004.804.604.404.204.003.80J F M A M J J A S O N DTimeCatmonCiendaFigure 14.Monthly variation of pH in the rainforestationsites in Catmon and Cienda47

% OM6.005.004.003.002.001.000.00J F M A M J J A S O N DTimeCatmonCiendaFigure 15.Monthly variation of organic matter in therainforestation sites in Catmon and CiendaResults of the monitoring showed monthly variations which can be attributed to theinfluence of climate on litterfall and decomposition, and leaching of nutrients.A detailed evaluation on the temporal and spatial variation of some chemicalproperties of the soil in the site can be found in the undergraduate thesis of Sueta (2002)which was partly supported by this project.Cienda SiteThe soil in the Cienda site is closely related to the soil of the Mt. Pangasugan site. Itwas also red, acidic, clayey and degraded at the start of the project. Rainforestation has alsoimproved the morphological properties of the soil as well as some selected soil properties likesoil pH, OM and total N of the soil although available P was not improved. The monitoringstudy showed considerable monthly variations of soil pH and OM content. However, onlyminor variations in total N and available P occurred.Catmon SiteThe soil in this site is alluvial in origin which means that it was developed fromvolcanic sediments deposited by fluvial processes. It is generally young, medium textured andrelatively better than the original Mt. Pangasugan and Cienda soils in terms of general soilquality. However, continuous sugarcane cultivation in the past has slightly degraded thestructure of the soil. Like in the two other sites, improvement in some soil morphological andchemical properties can be observed although not yet as dramatic as in the other two sites.Results of the one-year monitoring revealed that the soil has lower OM and N than theimproved Cienda soil although it has much higher available P. This was probably the residual48

P resulting from the long and intensive sugarcane production in the past. Monthly variationsin soil pH and OM were considerable but not on total N and available P.Concluding StatementsIn all sites, there were observable improvements in some chemical properties of thesoil aside from the field-observable improvement in soil color and soil structure particularlyof surface horizons. These results confirm the expected improvement in soil quality due to theplanting of native tree species as has been observed in many other parts of the tropics. Forinstance, Nye and Greenland (1960) have documented the regeneration of soil properties as aresult of fallowing (leaving the area undisturbed for several years). However, what isinteresting and new in the results of this present study are the considerable monthly variationsof the monitored soil chemical properties suggesting that the sites (or forest ecosystems) havenot yet reached the stable stage called steady state. This means that human disturbance likecutting of trees (harvesting) or cultivation for crop production may cause the soil to revert toits original degraded condition. Of course some amount of variations in the values of soilparameters may have been due to sampling and analytical error. But since the variations areconsistent in all the sites, they may be accepted as due to natural ecosystem processes.49

Strategy 4:MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF FAUNALBIODIVERSITY IN SELECTED RAINFORESTATIONDEMO AND COOPERATORS’ FARMSIntroductionPhilippine forests continued to decline despite of the measures taken to curtail theirdestruction. Farmers still cut down trees, converting the areas to agricultural lands and toincrease production. Hence, an approach called the Rainforestation Farming, which attemptsto combine the essential elements of forest and food production systems, has been designed torestore the natural forest cover, protect the Philippine biodiversity and at the same timeprovide farmers with good and stable income (Margraf and Milan 1996). The trees utilizedincluded some species of dipterocarps, which are known to be a valuable source of timber inthe Philippines.The dipterocarps (Family Dipterocarpaceae) represent a particularly valuablecontribution to the world’s timber resources and are the most important element in theproductive forests of South-East Asia (Mourey-Lechon & Courtet 1994; PROSEA 1994).They are particularly important in the Philippines, where they provide 75% of the logs and94% of the total volume of the growing stock. Dipterocarp forests have been exploited atunprecedented rates, and concern about the ecological and economic impacts is growing(Schulte 2002).The canopies of these trees both in temperate and tropical regions contain largelyundescribed and little understood assemblages of arthropods that have greatly expandedestimates of the total number of insect-arthropod species. As in natural forest stand,arthropods are the major life forms inhabiting in the tree canopies and make up the biggestproportion in terms of species (Longman & Jenik 1987). Among the consumers, arthropodsoccupy the largest number of rich and diversity seems endlessly high. Ants are the mostdominant arthropod group on the forest floor (Ceniza 1995).This component of the study aims to assess the abundance and diversity of arthropodsin the major tree species planted in the LSU, Cienda and Catmon Rainforestation sites;describe and compare the arthropod community structure in these tree species and to assessthe other faunal diversity enhancement in these areas after several years of establishment.50

MethodologyEstablishment of Sampling Sites and Sample TreesThree established Rainforestation sites in LSU, Cienda, Baybay, Leyte and Catmon,Ormoc City were selected as sampling sites for this component study. Sample trees selectedwere the major trees planted in the area, however, only ten different species were selected foreach site. Three trees for each species were sampled corresponding to the number ofreplicates. The following are the species of trees sampled for each selected site:Tree Species LSU Cienda CatmonApitong Hagakhak (Dipterocarpus warburgii) X - -Bagtikan (Parashorea malaanon) X X XBitanghol (Calophyllum blancoi) - X -Dalindingan (Hopea foxworthyi Elm.) X X XDao (Dracontomelon dao) X X -Kalumpit (Terminalia microcarpa) X X XMalakawayan (Podocarpus philippinensis) - X -Mayapis (Shorea squamata) - - XMolave (Vitex parviflora) X X XNarra (Pterocarpus indicus) X - XRed Lauan (Shorea negrosensis) - - XTamayuan (Strombosia philippinensis) X X -Tanguile (Shorea polysperma) - - X“White Lauan” (Pentacme contorta ) X X XYakal Kaliot (Hopea malibato) X X XSampling MethodsMonthly sampling on the canopy of the trees was made using the following:1. Foliage sampling. Hand net-sweeping was made on the canopy of each of thesample trees using aerial net (32 cm dia). At least 4 sweeping strokes were madearound the canopy per tree (Figure 16). Insect specimens and other arthropodscollected were placed in paper bags provided with chloroform or in vials withalcohol as killing agent. These were then brought to the laboratory for processingand identification.51

2. Twig/Branch Sampling. Three randomly selected main branches of each sampletree were beaten twice. The first tap was done to loosen the arthropods and thesecond, to dislodge them. Arthropods, particularly beetles that fell on the beatingsheet after tapping were collected, killed and placed in separate vials with 70%alcohol ready for sorting and identification (Fig. 16).The number of individuals of arthropod species was recorded for eachtree species and the sampling methods used. Calculation of some ecologicalindices to describe the arthropod community structure of each tree species wasmade from the pooled data.ABFigure 16. (A) Canopy samping of arthropods using the sweep net and (B)sorting of the collected samples for proper identificationIdentification of Arthropod SpecimensPreliminary sampling was made to identify the associated arthropods and to establisha reference collection. This was made to facilitate subsequent identification. Specimens thatwere collected, including immature and adults from each sample tree wee sorted bytaxonomic category and were counted. The specimens were identified to the lowest taxonpossible using available keys. Specimens with uncertain identities were sorted according toobvious morphological differences.Calculation of Ecological IndicesThe following ecological indices were calculated to describe the arthropod faunalstructure of each tree species for each of the sampling sites:52

1. Richness IndexThis was computed using the formula of Menhinick (1964) index asused by Almeroda 1997 and Ceniza 1995 and 1999.R S /n2 = where: S = total number of species observedn = total number of individuals observed2. Shannon’s IndexThis was computed using the following formula:−∑H = ( pilnpi)where: pi =ni =N =ni / Nabundance of each speciestotal abundance value3. Evenness IndexThis was computed using the following formula:E = H / LogSwhere: H = Shannon index of diversityS = number of species4. Index of DominanceThis was determined using the formula:C = ∑ ( ni / N)2where: ni =N =abundance of each speciestotal abundance value5. Jaccard’s coefficient of similarity (Magurran 1998)This was determined using the formula:Jaccard’s measure( Cj) = j( a + b − j)where: j = the number of species found in bothsitesa = the number of species in site A.b = the number of species in site B.Consolidation of all the indices computed was done so as to describe the arthropodcommunity structure for each tree species sampled.53

Assessment of Other Faunal Components in the RF SitesBird species monitoring in the field was done only in the LSU Rainforestation site.Visual observation was made together with the recording of the bird calls using a sensitivetape recorder both in the morning and in the afternoon. Bird identification was made possiblethrough some local technical experts and with the assistance of some Haribon staff. Inaddition, recorded bird calls was sent to an expert in UPLB for identification.In addition, visual observation on the presence of other vertebrates in the area wasalso made in order to monitor diversity enhancement in the area.Results and DiscussionsArthropod Abundance and DiversityAnalysis of the abundance of arthropods collected from the different tree species inthe selected Rainforestation sites is given in Tables 43-51. It is shown that the treesregardless of the species do harbor a great number of different species of arthropods. Theresults, however show that the samples collected at LSU (FORI) Rainforestationdemonstration site are relatively higher in abundance in terms of the number of individualsand richer in species composition than those from the other two sites. This is shown in thespecies richness and diversity indices that range from 0.72 to 8.0 and 1.01 to 3.31,respectively (Tables 43 and 44). The data also showed that Catmon RF site appeared to bethe least diverse as indicated by its indices (Tables 49 - 50). Considering the vegetationcomposition of the three sites, LSU site appeared to have a diverse species of trees planted(64 species) followed by Cienda (55 species) and Catmon (27 species). This heterogeneity ofvegetation may have provided varied niches for different organisms to inhabit, such as theinvertebrates.Regardless of the study site and the tree species, the groups of arthropods that werewell represented were the spiders (Araneae) and the beetle groups (Coleoptera). In all of thesites, the beetle family that was observed to be relatively abundant was the chrysomelid or theleaf beetle. These beetles are potential phytophagous species attacking timber trees. Theresults conform to the published reports that beetle fauna composed a major proportion ofarthropods in the canopy. For example, a study conducted by Almeroda (1999) on beetlefauna in selected dipterocarps in the LSU Rainforestation site and the Arboretum, revealedthat this group comprised from 5 to 57% of the canopy samples from beating samples. Other54

similar studies conducted in forest trees grown in other places outside of the country alsoreported the same trend, such as the study conducted by Hammond 1990 in Bornean forests.The results of the present study also revealed the abundance and predominance of thenon-insectan groups in the samples, which are the spiders. The data showed a diversecomposition of this group as evidenced by the numerous families represented in the samples.This is true regardless of the species of trees sampled as well as the sampling site. However,it is clearly shown that the LSU site has a relatively more diverse composition as well as thenumber of individuals of spiders than the other two sites. Spider is a generalist predator,therefore diversity and richness of species of a spider is directly influenced by thecongregation of other arthropod fauna which are possible prey to the spider. Predator existsin an environment where there are lots of possible preys.Generally, the results indicate that enhancement of biodiversity of arthropods isgreatly improved with good canopy structure of the vegetation in the area. Previous studiesconducted when the RF sites were just newly established (around 2 to 3 years old), indicatedthat the canopy cover was not yet developed and the arthropod community was shown to beless diverse (Ceniza & Milan 1997). The RF technology is geared towards enhancing as wellas conserving this biodiversity.Vertebrate Fauna EnhancementResult of the bird monitoring through bird call records indicated recolonization ofbird species in the area now that it is reforested. Some bird species which were not observedin the area before were now sighted to fly and hover around the vicinity of the RF site. InNovember, the laborers who monitored the area found out that Falcon birds have been spottedand started to colonize in the area. This species was not yet reported to be seen in the area. Alist of the different species of birds that were observed in the RF site of LSU is shown inTable 52.With regards to the sustained monitoring of the Philippine tarsier, the identified areawhere the Tarsiers were spotted has been fenced and protected from disturbance. A couple oftarsier has been spotted in the bamboo groove since January 2001 and they are protected untilnow. Additional bamboos were planted around the area and vicinity in order to provideenough habitats for these animals to promote increase of their numbers. Likewise, regularroving of the area was conducted to monitor the tarsier and to secure the area from furtherhuman disturbance.In addition, scoops owl had been also spotted in the RF site. They were likewise,being monitored and protected from disturbance. The presence of the undisturbed tree canopyof mostly the indigenous tree species somehow, gave these different species of wildlife to55

inhabit and hopefully reproduce. Other animals have returned in the vicinity after severalyears. It was noted that some animals encountered including reptiles and birds have alsoincreased in numbers.Table 43. Monthly species richness (R) indices of the arthropods collected fromLSU-FORI Rainforestation siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MA. Hagakhak 3.03 4.06 4.43 0.72 4.34 8.58 3.51 4.44 1.86 2.06 3.62Bagtikan 4.23 1.84 3.41 3.04 2.88 2.23 3.41 3.34 3.75 2.27 2.73Dalindingan 1.67 - - - 2.73 1.67 2.58 3.91 2.65 2.56 3.34Dao - - - - 4.97 2.81 1.67 2.28 2.23 2.89 3.22Kalumpit 3.34 2.73 - 2.17 2.65 1.82 2.01 3.04 3.90 3.37 3.62Molave - - - - 2.83 2.23 3.19 2.40 3.62 3.08 4.17Narra 2.67 3.61 1.44 2.41 4.35 3.32 1.80 1.67 3.47 3.34 4.17Tamayuan 4.61 2.28 4.68 2.89 2.61 4.34 2.82 2.50 2.57 2.06 3.04White Lauan 3.79 3.51 2.09 1.74 2.82 2.17 3.12 2.09 3.11 4.80 5.05Yakal Kaliot 1.56 1.86 3.69 2.89 2.79 2.89 4.60 3.04 2.61 2.50 4.94Table 44. Monthly diversity (H) indices of the arthropods collected from LSU-FORIRainforestation siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MA. Hagakhak 2.12 2.69 2.72 0.69 2.43 2.11 2.25 1.70 1.38 1.55 2.25Bagtikan 2.59 2.01 2.17 2.26 1.82 1.56 2.48 2.67 2.49 1.92 2.31Dalindingan 1.69 - - - 1.89 1.33 1.86 2.53 2.29 1.75 2.05Dao - - - - 3.31 2.19 1.47 1.71 2.16 1.91 2.30Kalumpit 2.58 1.89 - 1.70 1.91 1.01 1.68 1,89 2.36 2.08 2.21Molave - - - - 2.04 1.54 2.04 1.73 2.25 1.95 2.40Narra 1.91 2.28 1.13 1.79 0.64 2.12 1.54 1.33 2.16 2.15 2.44Tamayuan 2.29 1.74 0.73 2.01 1.93 2.58 2.02 1.85 1.75 1.55 1.97White Lauan 2.24 2.24 1.54 1.65 2.14 1.39 2.14 1.64 2.22 2.62 2.69Yakal Kaliot 1.18 1.33 2.34 1.89 1.79 1.91 2.65 2.03 1.89 1.77 2.67Table 45. Monthly evenness (E) indices of the arthropods collected from LSU-FORIRainforestation siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MA.Hagakhak 0.81 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.10 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.86 0.80 0.91Bagtikan 0.91 0.74 0.82 0.98 0.88 0.87 0.94 1.11 1.04 0.87 0.90Dalindingan 0.70 - - - 0.86 0.74 0.69 1.00 0.87 0.90 0.87Dao - - - - 1.00 0.88 0.61 0.79 1.20 0.92 0.93Kalumpit 1.00 0.86 - 0.74 0.72 1.00 0.68 0.82 0.92 1.0 0.90Mayapis .61 0.95 0.68 0.93 - - - - - - -Molave - - - - 0.64 0.86 0.65 0.83 0.91 1.0 0.91Narra 0.64 0.81 0.54 0.72 0.20 0.78 0.56 0.74 0.94 0.89 0.93Tamayuan 0.70 0.79 0.28 0.73 0.84 0.86 0.71 0.77 0.90 0.80 0.86W. Lauan 0.85 0.88 0.64 0.72 0.86 1.0 0.83 0.68 0.77 0.97 0.97Yakal Kaliot 0.50 0.83 0.86 0.68 1.00 0.92 0.87 0.88 0.82 0.74 0.9456

Table 46. Monthly species richness (R) indices of the arthropods collected fromCienda Rainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 1.73 2.41 0.62 2.23 1.86 4.33 1.81 3.04 2.82 2.41 2.33Bitanghol 1.95 1.67 2.34 2.52 2.61 2.28 4.08 2.82 3.75 2.57 3.22Dalindingan - - - - 2.73 2.19 3.22 2.40 2.73 1.30 2.60Dao 3.61 3.69 3.69 2.01 4.17 3.12 2.01 2.23 1.86 2.16 2.16Kalumpit 3.04 3.06 3.41 3.04 1.54 2.73 3.18 2.50 2.40 3.22 2.40Malakawayan 3.47 189 3.17 3.22 2.09 3.47 2.92 3.19 3.12 1.91 2.40Molave - - - - 2.23 2.16 2.14 2.57 2.16 2.89 1.44Tamayuan 1.40 2.17 3.74 3.18 2.17 3.19 1.70 1.44 2.52 2.65 2.06White Lauan 1.69 2.41 3.16 2.01 3.04 1.86 2.87 1.92 0.91 3.47 2.08Yakal Kaliot 3.91 2.82 2.82 2.51 1.41 2.92 2.82 2.73 3.04 1.92 2.79Table 47. Monthly diversity (H) indices of the arthropods collected from CiendaRainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 1.52 1.45 0.50 1.56 1.33 2.51 1.80 2.03 1.43 1.73 2.01Bitanghol 1.71 1.29 1.63 2.09 1.75 1.68 2.45 1.91 2.27 2.03 2.44Dalindingan - - - - 1.83 1.59 2.10 2.25 1.89 0.86 2.60Dao 3.61 3.69 3.69 2.01 4.17 3.12 2.01 2.23 1.86 2.16 2.16Kalumpit 3.04 3.06 3.41 3.04 1.54 2.73 3.18 2.50 2.40 3.22 2.40Malakawayan 3.47 1.89 3.17 3.22 2.09 3.47 2.92 3.19 3.12 1.91 2.40Molave - - - - 1.56 1.39 1.73 1.75 1.39 1.91 0.70Tamayuan 2.85 1.75 2.38 2.19 1.61 1.96 1.38 1.04 1.62 1.83 1.48White Lauan 1.78 1.87 1.90 1.47 1.97 1.33 1.91 1.39 0.64 2.16 1.72Yakal Kaliot 203 1.98 1.91 1.35 1.04 1.97 2.02 1.89 2.03 1.49 1.79Table 48. Monthly evenness (E) indices of the arthropods collected from CiendaRainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 0.53 0.58 0.31 0.87 0.82 0.90 0.64 0.88 0.57 0.83 0.87Bitanghol 0.67 0.54 0.64 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.83 0.77 0.95 1.00 0.98Dalindingan - - - - 0.83 0.66 0.84 1.00 0.86 0.37 1.00Dao 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.74 0.92 0.82 0.64 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00Kalumpit 0.88 0.58 1.00 0.88 1.41 0.75 0.82 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.75Malakawayan 0.94 0.55 0.66 0.92 0.64 0.94 0.79 0.93 0.83 0.42 0.80Molave - - - - 1.56 1.39 1.73 1.75 1.39 1.91 0.69Tamayuan 1.30 0.76 0.81 0.77 0.70 0.89 0.47 0.75 0.59 0.69 0.76White Lauan 0.61 0.75 0.64 0.59 0.86 0.83 0.92 0.68 0.58 0.94 0.60Yakal Kaliot 0.88 0.79 0.77 0.56 0.75 0.82 0.81 0.86 0.88 0.72 1.0057

Table 49. Monthly richness (R) indices of the arthropods collected from Catmon,Ormoc City Rainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 1.30 2.92 3.37 3.97 0.50 1.56 2.82 2.79 2.28 2.40 2.74 1.37 -Dalindingan 3.00 2.17 3.19 1.44 - - 2.73 2.16 2.57 3.62 1.25 - -Kalumpit 2.23 2.17 3.79 2.17 2.09 3.22 3.12 2.09 2.49 2.16 2.06 -Mayapis 3.37 2.57 3.64 3.51 - - 2.34 2.89 3.64 2.41 2.57 1.37 -Molave 1.67 2.92 3.22 4.42 - - 4.43 1.74 3.22 1.67 0.56 2.16 -Narra 2.09 2.01 2.49 3.06 - - 1.95 2.16 3.19 2.01 1.92 1.44 -Red Lauan - - - - - 2.57 3.62 2.82 3.90 2.09 0 - -Tanguile 1.17 3.12 0.56 2.41 - 0 - - - - - - -White Lauan 2.41 1.44 1.44 5.01 0 0 1.89 2.41 2.40 3.06 2.17 2.06 -Yakal Kaliot 2.06 2.16 2.16 2.29 - - 2.79 3.69 3.64 3.62 2.40 2.41 -Table 50. Monthly diversity (H) indices of the arthropods collected from Catmon,Ormoc City Rainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 1.36 2.36 2.08 2.79 - - 0.87 1.79 1.83 1.73 0.11 1.27 -Dalindingan 2.25 1.61 2.04 0.69 - - 1.89 1.39 1.39 1.84 1.30 - -Kalumpit 1.56 1.61 2.23 2.16 1.64 - 2.14 2.10 1.59 1.61 1.38 1.48 -Mayapis 2.08 1.75 2.20 2.06 - - 1.78 1.91 2.20 1.82 1.75 1.15 -Molave 1.29 2.02 2.59 2.23 - - 2.52 1.56 1.54 1.33 0.45 1.39 -Narra 1.54 1.54 1.61 2.14 - - 0.62 1.39 2.04 1.13 1.39 0.35 -Red Lauan - - - - - 0 1.75 2.54 2.03 2.35 1.33 0 -Tanguile 0.79 2.59 0.45 1.86 - 0 - - - - - - -White Lauan 1.70 0.69 0.49 2.77 0 0 1.21 1.86 1.67 2.14 1.63 1.55 -Yakal Kaliot 1.48 1.39 1.39 1.87 - - 1.79 1.80 1.89 2.25 1.75 1.86 -Table 51. Monthly evenness (E) indices of the arthropods collected from Catmon,Ormoc City Rainforestation cooperator’s siteTree Species 2002 2003F M A M J J N D J F M A MBagtikan 0.59 0.99 1.00 1.00 - - 0.35 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.05 0.58 -Dalindingan 0.91 0.70 0.93 1.00 - - 0.86 1.00 0.71 0.74 0.54 - -Kalumpit 0.87 0.70 0.88 0.69 1.64 - 0.86 0.82 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.76 -Mayapis 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.81 - - 0.69 0.92 1.00 0.73 0.90 0.52 -Molave 0.54 0.84 1.00 0.93 - - 0.93 0.68 0.62 0.74 0.25 1.00 -Narra 0.64 0.62 1.00 0.73 - - 0.24 1.00 0.93 0.57 0.67 0.25 -Red Lauan - - - - - 0 0.89 1.00 0.72 0.92 0.56 0 -Tanguile 0.31 1.00 0.25 0.75 - 0 - - - - - - -White Lauan 0.68 1.00 0.23 0.93 0 0 0.46 0.75 0.80 0.74 0.71 0.79 -Yakal Kaliot 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.62 - - 1.00 0.67 0.86 0.91 0.84 0.75 -58

Table 52. Birds identified at the LSU Rainforestation siteFamily Scientific Name Common NameAlcedinidae Halcyon smyrnesis White-throated kingfisherHalcyon chlorisWhite-collared kingfisherApodidae Collocalia esculenta Glossy swiftletMearnsia picinaPhilippine needletailHirundapus celebensisPurple needletailCypsiurus balasiensisAsian palm-swiftBucerotidae Penelopides samarensis Samar tarictic hornbillCapitonidae Megalaima haemacephala Coppersmith barbetCaprimulgidae Eurostopodus macrotis Great-eared nightjarCuculidae Cacomantis merulinus Plaintive cuckooCentorpus bengalensisLesser coucalColumbidae Treron vernans Pink-necked green pigeonPhapitreron leucotisWhite eared brown dovePtilinopus occipitalisYellow-breasted fruit doveMacropygia phasianellaReddish cuckoo doveStreptopelia chinensisSpotted doveChalcophaps indicaCommon emerald doveDicaeidae Dicaeum bicolor Bicoloured flowerpeckerDicaeum australeRekeeled flowerpeckerLaniidae Lanius cristatus Brown shrikeMeropidae Merops philippinus Blue-tailed bee-eaterMuscicapidae Hpothymis azurea Black-naped monarchNectariniidae Anthreptes malacensis Plain-throated sunbirdNectarinia sperataPurple-throated sunbirdNectarinia jugularisOlive-backed sunbirdOriolidae Oriolus chinensis Black napped oriolePsittacidae Loriculus philippensis Philippine hanging parrotPycnonotidae Pycnonotus golaver Yellow-vented bulbulHypsipetes philippinusPhilippine bulbulSturnidae Apionis panayensis Asian glossy starlingSarcops calvusColetoTimaliidae Macronous striaticeps Brown tit babbler59

Strategy 5:MONITORING OF THE STATUS OF EXISTINGRAINFORESTATION DEMO AND COOPERATORS’FARMSMethodologySite visits were conducted during the duration of the study. Personal interview withfarmer adoptors was also done to collect data on the status, growth performance, treemanagement practices, problems and other concerns related to the Rainforestation farming. Inaddition, observations were made as to the status of the farms and photodocumentation wasalso made.Results and DiscussionArea Profile of Cooperators’ FarmsTable 53 shows that of the 28 rainforestation cooperators’ farm established by theVISCA-GTZ project in 1994, only 26 cooperator farms have remained to be activelysustained. Two of the cooperators abandoned their area, one reason of which was that it wasburnt down.These cooperators’ and demo farms are located in Baybay Leyte, Ormoc City,Albuera and Ichon Macrohon Southern Leyte (see Fig. 1). The plot size utilized was mostlyless than a hectare, however, there were also owners of big tracts of land who opted to adoptthe RF technology. Tree species planted composed mainly of pioneers, dipterocarps, premiumtrees and fruit trees.Soil characteristic of Baybay and Ormoc sites was clay to clay loam with the sitetopography which was slightly moderate to rolling. Towards the southern part of Leyte(Punta and Ichon), the soil was characterized by limestone soil,Meanwhile, tenurial status of the land was mostly patented, which was a requirementfor the registration of planted trees in the Department of the Environment and NaturalResources (DENR). This will also serve as legal documents for allowing the farmers toharvest their planted forest trees in the future. Other cooperators’ application for registration60

was denied due to the problem of the land ownership, tenanted or with in the school orgovernment areas of reservation.Present Status of the Cooperators’ FarmsTable 54 shows the status of the individual cooperator farms. Observations show thatfarmers focused their activities on the management of the trees and replacing of dead ones. Itwas noted that most of cooperators continued their maintenance activities such asunderbrushing and pruning of the trees that affected the other plants. Some cooperatorsplanted additional trees in their farm, especially the vacant areas. Additional plantingmaterials were requested from the project for replacement of dead fruits and rainforest treesand for expansion purposes. However, distributions of planting materials were suspended dueto unavailability of stocks. Some cooperators requested for fertilizer to enhance the growth oftheir seedlings because the soil condition in their area is poor.The Patag Rainforest Association (PRA) conducted regular quarterly maintenance oftrees and replacing of dead trees in their RF cooperator farm. The association had also startedharvesting their pineapples. Meanwhile, the body agreed to conduct pruning and thinning ofpioneer tree species to provide enough light and space for the dipterocarp species and fruittrees.Poor tree performance was observed in some farms due to lack of silviculturalmanagement, particularly in Cienda and Mailhi. In the year 2003, the RF farms weremonitored in 2 separate visits every quarter. It was observed that the trees planted in thefarms that were established sometime in 1996 already formed a closed canopy, such as in thecase of Cienda RF farm (Fig. 6).With regards to the performance of trees planted in all farms, the dipterocarps grewwell in the farm which was of the volcanic type of soil while those area which was of thelimestone type, pioneer trees were the best adopted, such as Bagalunga (Melia dubia) Molave(Vitex parviflora) Binunga (Macaranga tanarius) and Antipolo (Artocarpus blancoi).Most of the cooperators stopped doing their routinary maintenance of the trees, forinstance ring weeding and brushing after 5 years, however they frequently visited the farm tomonitor against possible illegal encroachment. There were also farmers that applied timberstand improvement, such pruning and thinning for big and small trees, especially trees thatwere suppressed by fast growing species. The pruned branches were utilized for firewood andthe twigs and leaves were placed around the trunk to serve as mulch.The RF farm in Cienda has experienced drastic mortality of Bagalunga trees. Thesewere 5-year old trees that succumbed to mortality, the cause of which was not known. Inaddition, continued monitoring and assessment of the tree performance in Cienda RF will be61

done after the application of the silvicultural management. Pruning of the planted trees inCienda site was done in the early part of year 2003 and data collection on the response of thetrees will have to be done, including the response of associated vegetation in the treated plots.Fruit trees such as marang (Artocarpus odoratissimus), rambutan (Nepheliumlapaceum), santol (Sandoricum koetjape) and guyabano (Annona muricata) started to bearfruits five years after planting and durian (Durio zibethinus) followed 7 years after. Theseapparently showed that the RF adapters started getting revenues from fruit trees after farmestablishment. One cooperator already was able to harvest the yam (Dioscorea alata),pineapple (Ananas comosus) and taro (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) planted in his RF area.Majority of the mangosteen (Garcinia magostana) were attacked by leafminers thatdamaged the leaves of the plants. The infestation was observed in August 2000. Thecaterpillars seriously infested the rambutan trees, so that spraying of the plant with pesticidewas necessary.Some cooperators also started to harvest fruits from grafted and marcotted plants suchas rambutan, lemonsito, etc. Other fruit trees were now also in its fruit bearing stage after 8years from the time of planting.In the last quarter of this year, two RF farms have been supplied with plantingmaterials, both pioneer and dipterocarp species. One of the sites in Likoma, Albuera wasprovided with more than 100 tree seedlings for replacement of dead trees while the LuntiangFilipinas (Albuera chapter) was also provided with 400 seedlings of assorted tree species.On the other hand, one of the RF farms located in Mailhi was used as a demonstrationsite for a project on integrating abaca in existing Rainforestation area. To accommodate theabaca plants, the pioneer trees that were now in the harvestable size were cut down includingsome exotic species of Gmelina (Gmelina arborea) which were already existing when theRainforestation site was established. Almost 2000 cubic feet of lumbers were produced, theothers of which were dried up for firewood. The abaca was planted at a recommendeddistance of 2 x 2 meters. A total of 1000 pieces of suckers had been accommodated in thearea.62

Table 53. Area profile of rainforestation farming cooperator's farm as of December 2004Name of Farmer(s)OrganizationAdoptorsAurelia CapenaSite Location Area(hectares)Marcos,Baybay, Leyte0.32Totaltreesplanted706No. of Species PlantedForest Fruit8 Pioneer4dipterocarp5 fruit treesSoil Type Topography TenurialStatusClay loamUltisolSlightly tomoderately rollingPatentedProspero BagarinaoMarcos,Baybay, Leyte0.311,82314 Pioneer4 dipterocarp15 fruittreesClay loamUltisolSlightly tomoderate rollingPatentedManuel PosasMarcos,Baybay, Leyte0.306608Pioneer4dipterocarp4 fruit treesClay loamUltisolSlightly rollingPatentedAmbrosio ModinaMarcosBaybay, Leyte0.090953385 Pioneer5 dipterocarp5 fruit treesSandy loamUltisolSlightly rollingPatentedManuel BagarinaoMarcosBaybay, Leyte0.344586 Pioneer5 dipterocarp5 fruit treesClay loamUltisolSlightly tomoderate rollingPatentedNarciso ModinaPangasugan,Baybay,Leyte0.60102,89910 Pioneerdipterocarp3 fruit treesClayUltisolSlightly tomoderate rollingPatentedPatagRainforestAssociationPatag,Baybay,Leyte1.08679 Pioneer5 dipterocarp6 fruit treesClay loamUltisolSlightly rollingPatentedMarcelo FernandezGuadalupeBaybay, Leyte3.373,4569 Pioneer5 dipterocarp6 fruit treesSandy loamInceptisolModerate rollingto steepDeclaration(Timber land)Antonio BengalanGuadalupeBaybay, Leyte0.5986714 pioneer5 dipterocarp6 fruit treesSandy loamInceptisolSlightly toModerate rollingPatentedCienda-San VicenteFarmers Ass’nMacario RomanoCienda,Gabas,Baybay, LeyteMailhi,Baybay, Leyte0.97073.226,8174,21021 pioneer12dipterocarp14 pioneer6 dipterocarp7 fruittrees7 fruit treesClay to clayloamUltisolSandy loamInceptisolPlainSlightly tomoderately rollingPatentedDeclaration(Timber land)Potencia AlbesaV.SolidaridadBaybay, Leyte0.43772,09814 pioneer4 dipterocarp5 fruit treesClayUltisolPlainPatentedZosimo GucelaPomponanBaybay, Leyte84754359 pioneer1 dipterocarp4 fruit treesSandy loamInceptisolPlainPatented63Status onDENRRegistrationRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredUnregisteredUnregisteredRegisteredRegisteredUnregisteredRegistered

Francisco LubayNarciso de JesusNarciso UndayGuilermo LomocsoMarymile AloJesus GarayIreneo DayocSantos GalenzogaJesus BalbaronaLydia TanRogelio AberillaJose TuanteLuntiang FilipinasAlbueraChapter(15 uplandfarmermembers)Pomponan,Baybay, LeytePomponanBaybay, LeytePomponan,Baybay, LeytePomponan,Baybay, LeytePunta, Baybay,LeytePunta,Baybay, LeyteMaitum,Baybay, LeyteMaitum,Baybay, LeyteMaitum,Baybay, LeyteMaitum ,Baybay, LeytePlaridel,Baybay,LeyteLikoma,Ormoc,CityCambalading,Siguinon andDona Maria,,Albuera,Leyte0.4380.410.380.95185.4420.46860.98620.25180.47801.33090.87050.253.13536552446356753,5942,1701,9752447008207906657009 pioneer6 pioneer5 pioneer6 pioneer2 dipterocarp21 pioneer4 dipterocarp17 pioneer1 dipterocarp16 pioneer7 pioneer7 pioneer6 pioneer6 pioneer4 pioneer3 dipterocarp2 pioneer3 dipterocarp3 fruit trees3 fruit trees2 fruit trees2 fruit trees10 fruittrees8 fruit trees5 fruit trees2 fruit trees5 fruit trees3 fruit trees3 fruit trees3 fruit trees4 fruit trees64ClayInceptisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamInceptisolLimestoneInceptisolLimestoneInceptisolLimestoneInceptisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamUltisolClay loamInceptisolClay loamUltisolModerately rollingModerately rollingModerately rollingSlightly rollingSlightly tomoderately rollingModerately rollingModerately rollingSlightly rollingModerately rollingSlightly tomoderate rollingModerately rollingSlightly rollingModerately rollingPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedPatentedRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredUnregisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegisteredRegistered

Table 54.Status of the individual RF Cooperators’ and association farms as ofDecember 2003.Name of the CooperatorRemark/Problem(s)I. Municipality of Baybay, Leytea. Barangay Marcos1. Prospero Bagarinao et. al. Replacement of some plants that died was done. Thecooperator focus on the maintenance of the trees. Fruittrees have started bearing fruits after 7 years; thefarmers harvested about 200 kgs from rambutan alone,during the last fruiting season. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.2. Ambrosio Modina The cooperator expanded his farm size and plantedadditional trees such as bagtikan and white lauan.Thefarmer focused on the maintenance of the trees. Healso harvested a total volume of 800 hundreds bdf.Lumber. The trees were registered with the DENR.3. Manuel Bagarinao The cooperator focused his activity on the maintenanceof the trees. Every year herbicide was applied forprotection of pest and insects attack. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.b. Barangay Pangasugan1. Narciso Modina The cooperator conducted silvicultural management ofthe trees. The trees were registered with the DENR.c. Barangay Guadalupe1. Marcelo Fernandez The cooperator thinned out some trees that are notproductive due to less bearing of fruit. The registrationof trees was disapproved by the DENR since the farm iswithin the LSU Forest reservation area.d. Barangay Patag1. Antonio Bengalan The cooperator abandoned the area since September1996 because the landlord did not sign thememorandum of agreement. Thus, registration of treeswas not realized. No monitoring has been undertakensince it was disapproved.2. Patag RainforestAssociation (PRA)PRA members undertook replacing and maintenance oftrees since June 2002. The pineapples planted inbetween the trees have started bearing fruits. The areawas traversed by the NPC lines. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.e. Barangay Gabas1. Cienda-San VicenteFarmers AssociationSilvicultural management re: pruning and thinning ofpioneer species was done. This will provide enoughlight and space to climax species (dipterocarps) andfruit trees. In addition, regular monthly soil samples andinsect specimens was done to monitor the increase insoil properties and biodiversity; respectively, within theparticular area. The CSVFA got sales of 1,500 pesosfrom pruned branches in their planted trees.65

f. Barangay Mailhi1. Macario Romano The RF farm was now integrated with abaca in betweenthe trees. Around 2000 cubic foot was harvested fromthe existing trees to give space for the abaca plants.The farmer got not less than 20,000 pesos from theDurian, which is bearing this year. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.g. Barangay Villa Solidaridad1. Potenciana Albesa No additional planting was undertaken since lastquarter this year. The cooperator focued on theprotection activities rather than the maintenance of thetrees planted since it has already a closed canopy. Thetrees were registered with the DENR.h. Barangay Pomponan1. Zosimo Gucela The area was not well maintained and only few plantswere grown and adopted in the area. Moreover, it wasnoticed that the trees have stunted growth since thearea is flooded during high tide. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.2. Francisco Lubay The cooperator conducted maintenance and protectionactivities every quarter since the trees are alreadyclosing canopy. However, it was noticed that sometrees have stunted growth due to poor soil condition.The trees were registered with the DENR.3. Narciso de Jesus The farm was inventoried last year. There are only twospecies performing well in farm like Dao and lamyo,which both belong to the same family. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.4. Narciso Unday No monitoring was undertaken since the trees plantedwere burned by fire during the dry season. However,the cooperator maintained the trees despite of theproblem met. The trees were registered with the DENR.5. Guillermo Lomocso The cooperator conducted additional planting of fruittrees such as Lanzones, Cacao and Pomelo.Maintenance of the trees was done. However, it wasnoticed that the trees have stunted growth due to poorsoil condition. The trees were registered with theDENR.i. Barangay Punta1. Jesus Garay The cooperator harvested trees particularly thoseaffecting the growth of underneath crops. These weretrees with low economic value and were utilized forfirewood. Maintenance was done. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.2. Ireneo Dayoc The cooperator conducted pruning on existing trees inthe farm to provide enough sunlight to underneathcrops. The trees were registered with the DENR.3. Santos Galenzoga Not much maintenance of the farm was done. The treeswere registered with the DENR.66

4. Jesus Balbarona Not much maintenance of the farm was done. Thetrees have already closed canopy. The trees wereregistered with the DENR.j. Barangay Plaridel1. Rogelio Aberilla The cooperator undertook additional planting of annualplants integrated in the existing trees. Many trees arenot growing well particularly those are not adopted thetype of the soil. The trees were registered with theDENR.2. Lydia Tan Not much maintenance done on the farm since the areawas burned by fire and the manpower was the problemof the farmer. The trees were registered with theDENR.III. City of Ormoc, Leytea. Barangay Milagro The cooperator conduct release cutting of trees that arecovered by woody liana plants. The fast growing treesare not growig well since the area is located in highelevation while those slow growers performed very well.The registration of trees with DENR was hamperedsince certificate of land ownership (CLOA) is notavailable.b. Barangay Catmon The trees were inventoried every year to have acomparison of growth in an annual basis. It wasobserved that mostly trees have good crown formationand straight bole although it was planted directly in theopen area. Monthly soil sample and insect specimencollections were conducted to monitor the improvementof soil properties and biodiversity; respectively, withinthe particular area.c. Jose Tuante, Barangay Likoma A new RF adopter supported by the European NatureHeritage Fund (EURONATURE). Replacement plantingwas done on dead trees. The requirements for DENRregistration are still to be completed.IV. Municipality of Albuera, Leytea. Luntiang Filipinas – AlbueraChapterThe farm was accidentally burnt last year, almost half ofthe farm was affected and only few of plants recoveredand survived. Replacement planting was done. OnNovember 2003, a total of 400 seedlings of assortedfruit and forest trees were planted in the 10,000 squaremeterRF farm. The requirements for DENR registrationhave still to be completed.67

Summary and ConclusionThe LSU demonstration farm had the most number of tree species planted thanCienda and Catmon sites. However, of the three sites, Cienda RF had the highest standdensity. This completely supports the need for silvicultural treatment such as pruning orthinning of tree stands in order for the other tree species like the dipterocarp to increasediameter and height.In all sample sites, there were observable improvements in some chemical propertiesof the soil aside from the improvement in soil color and soil structure particularly of surfacehorizons. These results confirmed that soil quality was improved by planting of native treespecies. However, the results of the present study showed considerable monthly variations ofthe monitored soil chemical properties suggesting that the sites (or forest ecosystems) havenot yet reached the stable stage called steady state. This means that at this stage, humandisturbance like cutting of trees (harvesting) or cultivation for crop production may cause thesoil to revert to its original degraded condition.Generally, the results indicated that there was enhancement of biodiversity of fauna,including arthropods and other vertebrates due to the good canopy structure of the vegetationof the sites. High floral diversity promoted richer and diverse faunal components.Considering the wide variety of wood products processed, there is a bright prospectfor round timbers. Among the products mentioned, baby’s crib, telephone stand andmagazine racks were promising products where round timber can be used. The potential ofround timber to fill the supply and demand gap is high because this is produced withoutcutting the entire tree and thus sustaining ecological balance. The market can be furtherenhanced if the tree species grown in the rainforestation farm meet the quality requirements ofprocessors. In terms of cost, round timber is cheaper and therefore is competitive with theexisting tree species utilized for processing.The Rainforestation farming technology provided income for farmer adoptors in thefirst three years of its establishment because of the planting of cash crops and fruit trees in thearea. These provided the farmer with supplemental income. At this stage of the RF, thefarmer cooperators were engaged in the maintenance activities of their respective farms.68

Recommendations and ImpactsThe Rainforestation technology has just taken off and there is a need to continue themonitoring activity of the different established sites in order to assess the performance of thetrees, including the ecological changes. Continued biodiversity assessment and monitoringhas to be done to see how the technology promotes enhancement of flora and faunal richness.It has been shown that the technology can complement forest ecosystem functioning andprovide some relief out of socio economic pressures. There is however a need to continue datagathering and assessing the outputs or products from the RF farms especially when the treesare at the harvestable stage to complete the economics of the technology. Cost and benefitanalysis is also important for promotion as well as to provide inputs for planning,implementation and evaluation of RF farms.There seems to be a good prospect for marketability of round timber products becauseof its varied uses. Native tree species, because of its high quality, durability and strength arein great demand in the lumber market and cannot be comparable to exotic fast growingspecies. The round timber as one of the products of silvicultural management in RF farmsmay be able to fill some of the gap in the supply of hardwood for construction purposes.At this point in time, data gathering on species-site matching will be a relevantinformation which could be done. The established rainforestation cooperator farms havedifferent soil and other site characteristics where performance of different tree species can becorrelated. This information is greatly useful if Rainforestation farming technology is to bepromoted for wider implementation in other areas of the province.AcknowledgementThe study was funded by the GTZ- Leyte Island Program (fferzone Management)through the Financing Agreement with LSU for Collaborative Research and Training.The researchers also wish to acknowledge the cooperation and support of the RF farmercooperators who supplied some of the needed information for this study.69

Literature CitedALMERODA, N.M., 1997. Arthropods associated with selected dipterocarp trees. B.S. Thesis, ViSCA,Baybay, Leyte, Philippines. 41 pp.ASIO, V. B., 1996. Characteristics, Weathering, Formation and Degradation of Soils from VolcanicRocks in Leyte, Philippines. Hohenheimer Bodenkundliche Hefte 33, Stuttgart, 209pp.CENIZA, L.U., 1999. Spider fauna associated with selected dipterocarp trees. B.S. Thesis, ViSCA,Baybay, leyte, Philippines. 41 pp.CENIZA, M.J.C., 1995. Arthropod abundance and diversity in different ecosystems of Mt.Pangasugan, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines with special reference to the Coleoptera andHymenoptera fauna. PLITS 13 (3), University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.CENIZA, M.J.C. and P.P. MILAN, 1997. Arthropods of selected dipterocarp trees in Mt. Pangasugan,Baybay, Leyte, Philippines and vicinity. In: Proceedings, International Conf. OnReforestation with Philippine Species for Biodiversity Protection and EconomicProgress. Eds. J. Margraf, F. Göltenboth, P.P. Milan.DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) 2002. (Republic of the Philippines).Forest Resources Statistics. 28 October 2002.HAMMOND, P.M., 1990. Insect abundance and diversity in the Dumoga-Bone National Park, N.Sulawesi, with special reference to the beetle fauna of lowland rain forest in theToraut region. In: W.J. Knight and J.D. Holloway (eds.) Insects and the Rainforestsof Southeast Asia (Wallacea). The Royal Entomological Society of London.LONGMAN, K.A. and J.JENIK, 1987. Tropical forest and its environment. (2 ndSingapore Publishers.ed.). LongmanMAGURRAN, A.E., 1998. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, xi + 179 pp.MARGRAF, J. and P. P. MILAN, 1996. Trainors’ Orientation and Workshop On RainforestationFarming. PRCRTC Training Hall, ViSCA, Baybay, Leyte. May 16-17, 1996.Handouts. 20pp.MILAN, P.P., M.J.C. CENIZA and B.T. MANDRAS, 1993. Species composition of arthropods inFicus balete L. in Mt. Pangasugan. ViSCA-GTZ Ecology Program, Terminal Report,30p.MOURY-LECHON, G. and L. COURTET, 1994. Biogeography and Evolutionary Systematics. In:APPANAH and COSSALTER (eds.). Dipterocarps: State of the Knowledge andPriorities and Needs for Future Research. Center of International Forest Research(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.PROSEA, 1994. Plant Resources of South-East Asia 5(1) Timber trees: Major commercial timbers.First edition. Prosea Foundation, Bogor, Indonesia. 610 p.SCHULTE, A., 2002. Rainforestation Farming: Option for rural development and biodiversityconservation in the humid tropics of Southeast Asia. Volkmar Stiebitz, CongressReport GmbH. Shaker Verlag. Germany. 312 pp.SUETA, J. P., 2002. Chemical dynamics of a highly weathered soil under indigenous tree species inMt. Pangasugan. Undergraduate BSA thesis, LSU, Baybay, Leyte70

APPENDICES71

Appendix Table 1. Undergrowth vegetation per plot at LSU Demo farm_________________________________________________________________________Species Average no. of individuals/Plots Mean1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ____Agoho 2 - - - - - 1 - 3 0.66Alibangbang - - - 1 2 - - - - 0.33Almaciga 3 4 2 - - 2 1 2 1 1.67Anubing 3 - - - - - 1 - - 0.44Bagalunga - - - 1 - - - - - 0.11Bagtikan - 3 1 5 4 4 5 1 2 2.78Bahai - - 1 1 1 - 1 2 4 1.11Balobo 1 - - - - - 4 1 8 1.56Bayag-usa - - - - - - - 1 - 0.11Bayog - - 1 - - - - - 0.11Bitanghol 9 2 11 1 3 1 1 1 1 3.33Bitaog - - - 1 1 - - - - 0.22Bujon - - - - - - - 1 1 0.22Cacao 2 - - - - - - - - 0.22Dao 3 2 8 6 11 3 - - - 3.67Dita - - - - - - 2 - - 0.22Durian 1 1 - - - 1 2 3 - 0.89Hagakhak 2 3 11 6 3 6 3 9 8 5.67Hindang 5 - - - - - - 2 - 0.78Ipil - - - 1 - - - - - 0.11Ipil-ipil - - - - - - - - 1 0.11Kalumpit - 2 3 - - 2 3 - - 1.11Kupang - - - - - 1 - - 0.11Lamio - - 3 - - - - - - 0.33Langil - - - 1 - - 1 - - 0.22Lanzones 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1.44Lingo-lingo - 2 - 1 - - - - - 0.33Mahogany - 2 1 - - - 1 - - 0.44Malapanau - - - - - - - 1 1 0.22Malatamban - - 3 1 - - - - - 0.44Malugai 1 - - 1 2 - - - - 6.44Mayapis - - - - 1 1 - - - 0.22Molave - 3 1 2 - - 1 - - 0.78Moluccan sau - - - - - 1 - - - 0.11Mt. Agoho 1 - - 2 1 3 7 3 - 1.89Narra 5 1 3 9 7 2 1 0 1 3.22Opling buntotan - - - - 1 1 - - - 0.22Panau - - - - - - 4 2 3 1.00Potat - 3 - - - - - 1 2 0.66Pukinggang-kahoi - 1 - - - - - - - 0.11Puso-puso - - - - - - - 1 - 0.11Rain Tree - - - - - 1 - - 1 0.22Rambutan 1 2 1 - - 1 1 - 2 0.89Red Lauan - - - 1 - - 1 - - 0.22Tamayuan - - - - - - 1 - - 0.11Tanglin - - - - - - 1 1 - 0.22Ulayan - - 1 - - 2 - - - 0.33White Lauan 4 2 1 7 6 7 7 7 6 5.22Yakal saplungan 11 3 5 2 - 7 7 12 6 10.33Total 55 37 58 51 44 48 58 52 55 50.8972

Appendix Table 2: Establishment cost and income of Rainforestation farmsNARCESO DE JESUS• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 800 400 300 200 100Lay-outing 600Staking 480Hauling 480Digging 750Planting 1440Maintenance 500 500 400 300 220Replacement 0Sub-total 5050 900 700 500 320Grand Total PHP 7,470.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1660Forest trees 2000Pineapple 0Cassava 0Barbe wire 800Pruning/thinning 1920Coconut harvesting 500 560 450 461 453 524 532 543Fertilizer 480Sub-total 5440 560 500 500 500 500 500 500Grand Total PHP 9,000.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconuut 3900 3658 3650 3580 4550 3674 3988 3000Sub-totalGrand Total PHP 30,000.0073

MANUEL BAGARINAO• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 3000Lay-outing 600Staking 600Hauling 960Digging 600Planting 2880Maintenance 400 450 350 375 400 325 200Sub-total 9040 400 400 300 300 400 200Grand Total PHP 11,040.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1870Forest trees 5000Pruning/thinning 600Coconut harvesting 356 450 436 425 436 569 580 530Sub-total 7226 400 400 400 1000 400 400 400Grand Total PHP 10,626.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconuut 2259 2530 3650 3356 3645 3560 2000Sub-totalGrand Total PHP 21,000.0074

MARCELO FERNANDEZ• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 14400Lay-outing 3600Staking 3600Hauling 2250Digging 3000Planting 4500Maintenance 500 1900 1800 2000 500 500Sub-total 31850 1900 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Grand Total PHP 39,750.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 20000Forest trees 31840Banana harvesting 500 400 300 500 600 600 650Potato 50Barbe wire 800Pruning/thinning 2400Taro 260 100 100 100 150 200 100 100Sub-total 55350 600 500 400 650 800 700 750Grand Total PHP 59,750.00• IncomeIncomeYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200 2001 2002 2003Potato 250Banana 4304 2920 1920 4608 6808 6424 7008Taro 1260 1100 940 588 960 1000 500 840Sub-total 1510 5404 3860 2508 5568 7808 6924 7848Grand Total PHP 41,430.0075

JESUS GARAY• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 2100Lay-outing 1440Staking 1200Hauling 1920Digging 1440Planting 2880Maintenance 200 440 300 200 300Sub-total 11180 440 300 200 300Grand Total PHP 12,420.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1050Forest trees 3000Pruning 50Sub-total 4050Grand Total PHP 4,050.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003Pruning 300Grand Total PHP 300.0076

SANTOS GALENZOGA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 4100Lay-outing 540Staking 300Hauling 420Digging 300Planting 1200Maintenance 500 1000 1000 500 1000Sub-total 7360 1000 1000 500 1000Grand Total PHP 10,860.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1360Forest trees 2000Pakwan 1000 700 800 500Eggplant 500 700 600 600Squash 700 800 600 500String beansAtsal 10Banana 100Pruning/thinning 1140Sub-total 3360 2310 2200 2000 2740Grand Total PHP 9,250.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Pakwan 10500 10500 105000 10500Eggplant 4750 4750 4750 4750Squash 9750 9750 9750 9750Stringbeans 40Atsal 40Banana 400 100Sub-total 27477 25100 14500 25000Grand Total PHP 92,077.0077

PATAG RAINFORESTATION FARMERS’ ASSOCIATION• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 21600Lay-outing 3840Staking 6720Hauling 1920Digging 7680Planting 7200Maintenance 1000 1060 1100 1500 2000 1500Sub-total 49960 1060 1100 1500 2000 1500Grand Total PHP 57,120.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 4505Forest trees 10000Pineapple 100Barbe wire 800Pruning/thinning 2000Sub-total 15405 2000Grand Total PHP 17,405.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Trees 374000Pineapple 500Sub-total 374500Grand Total PHP 374,500.0078

MARYMILE ALO• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 7200Lay-outing 3600Staking 3600Hauling 3600Digging 3600Planting 3600Maintenance 1650 1750 1900 1500 400Sub-total 26850 1750 1900 1500 400Grand Total PHP 32,400.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 20000Forest trees 33910Banana 240 100Corn 300 300Coconut harvesting 700 750Sub-total 55150 1150Grand Total PHP 56,300.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Coconuut 6500 6000 9500 8000Corn 750 1000 500 1350Banana 2000 1000 1000 1040Sub-total 9250 8000 11000 10390Grand Total PHP 38,640.0079

ZOZIMO GUCELA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 15000Lay-outing 1200Staking 1200Hauling 750Digging 1500Planting 3600Maintenance 3000 2600 2500 2400 2700 2300 2500Sub-total 26250 2600 2500 2400 2700 2300 2500Grand Total PHP 41,250.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1525Forest trees 5000Coconut harvesting 500 586 450 615 400 450 525 500Sub-total 7025 586 450 615 400 450 525 500Grand Total PHP 10,551.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconuut 2580 1950 2050 2080 1920 2000 1450 550Grand Total PHP 14,580.0080

AURELIA CAPEÑA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 800Lay-outing 1800Staking 1200Hauling 960Digging 1200Planting 960Maintenance 680 750 580 620 250Sub-total 7600 750 580 620 250Grand Total PHP 9,800.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2590Forest trees 8000Coconut harvesting 500 450 375 450 600 450 500 450Trees 3000Banana 200 150 150 200Sub-total 11290 600 525 650 600 3450 500 500Grand Total PHP 18,115.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconuut 2500 2150 2500 2600 2705 1875 1750 1420Trees 32000Banana 275 460 300 200 270 275 220 210Sub-total 2775 2610 2800 2800 2975 34150 1970 1630Grand Total PHP 51,710.0081

JESUS BALBARONA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 17520Lay-outing 1320Staking 600Hauling 480Digging 600Planting 2400Maintenance 1357 1254 1250 1575 1524Sub-total 24277 1254 1250 1575 1524Grand Total PHP 29,880.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 3500Forest trees 7000Coconut harvesting 560 480 720 567 465 525 530 500Abaca 120 100 140 150 200 175 150 120Sub-total 11180 580 860 717 665 700 680 620Grand Total PHP 16,002.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 6517 7865 7210 7856 8752 9800 6500 4500Abaca 1530 1320 1535 1615Sub-total 8047 9185 8745 9471 8752 9800 6500 4500Grand Total PHP 65,000.0082

REMEDIOS YAUNA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 10800Lay-outing 1320Staking 1320Hauling 1560Digging 1200Planting 3360Maintenance 1000 680Sub-total 20560 680Grand Total PHP 21,240.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 3250Forest trees 8000Corn harvesting 1500 2130Potato 350 400Rambutan 200 150Sub-total 13300 2680Grand Total PHP 15,980.00• IncomeIncomeYear2000 2001 2002 2003Corn 18500 20700Potato 2700 2300Rambutan 1700 1500Sub-total 22900 24500Grand Total PHP 47,400.0083

JOSE TUANTE• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 2250Lay-outing 960Staking 960Hauling 480Digging 360Planting 1000Maintenance 250 300 350ReplacementSub-total 6260 300 350Grand Total PHP 6,910.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2250Forest trees 9000Pakwan 1750 2000 1875Eggplant 1000 1500 2100Sub-total 14000 3500 3975Grand Total PHP 21,475.00• IncomeIncomeYear2000 2001 2002 2003Pakwan 35000 40000 20000Eggplant 12500 8000 15000Sub-total 47500 48000 35000Grand Total PHP 130,500.0084

NARCISO UNDAY• Capital InvestmentCapitalLaborBrushing 38645Lay-outing 1200Staking 1200Hauling 480Digging 480Planting 480Year1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Maintenance 4565 3574 3250 2891 3000Sub-total 47050 3574 3250 2891 3000Grand Total PHP 59,765.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2525Forest trees 700Coconut harvesting 400 500 450 560Corn 80 100 100 100Takudo 20 25 30 30Banana 80 90 100 100Barbe wire 400Sub-total 400 3805 715 680 790Grand Total PHP 6,390.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 3000 2900 2600 3500Corn 475 400 375 250Takudo 200Banana 1400Sub-total 5075 3300 2975 3750Grand Total PHP 15,100.0085

GUILERMO LOMOCSO• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 8400Lay-outing 2250Staking 1200Hauling 900Digging 4500Planting 6000Maintenance 1000 980 950 1240 1150 980Sub-total 24250 980 950 1250 1150 980Grand Total PHP 29,560.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987Planting materialsFruit tress 2125Forest trees 8000Avocado 50 80 80 80 100 100 120 120Caimito 20 20 30 30 30 30 40 40Nangka 200 250 200 250 300 300 420 350Cacao 120 200 210 130 125 130 250 200Pruning/thinning 1200Fertilizer 325Sub-total 10840 550 520 1690 555 560 830 710Grand Total PHP 16,255.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Avocado 5000 6125 6210 6000 6560 6105 5545 6455Caimito 1500 1750 2250 1050 1200 1150 1850 1250Nangka 450 550 475 525 490 510 520 480Cacao 1050 980 1120 1175 980 975 1120 1000Sub-total 8000 9405 10055 8750 9230 8740 9035 9185Grand Total PHP 72,400.0086

NARCISO MODINA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 14340Lay-outing 1200Staking 1200Hauling 600Digging 600Planting 2160Maintenance 750 720 850 875 725 820ReplacementSub-total 20850 720 850 875 725 820Grand Total PHP 24,840.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 1070Forest trees 4000Coconut harvesting 565 450 600 450 475 480 520 540Fertilizer 450Sub-total 6085 450 600 450 475 480 520 540Grand Total PHP 9,600.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 6200 4800 6100 6450 6750 5000 5600 7100Grand Total PHP 48,000.0087

ROGELIO ABARILIA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 14400Lay-outing 2400Staking 2400Hauling 1200Digging 1200Planting 1800Maintenance 1900 1975 1800 1745 1850 1760 1820 1550Sub-total 25300 1975 1800 1745 1850 1760 1820 1550Grand Total PHP 37,800.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2850Forest trees 9000Coconut harvesting 500 420 560 500 450 530 500 540Barbe wire 400Pruning/thinning 4800Sub-total 17550 420 560 500 450 530 500 540Grand Total PHP 21,050.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 1755 1750 1655 1950 1715 1800 1575 1800Potato 80Sub-total 3831 1750 1655 1950 1715 1800 1575 1800Grand Total PHP 16,076.0088

IRENEO DAYOC• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 7200Lay-outing 2880Staking 1920Hauling 1440Digging 1200Planting 4800Maintenance 2000 2500 3500 3500 2900Sub-total 21440 2500 3500 3500 2900Grand Total PHP 33,840.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 9625Forest trees 20000Fertilizer 375Sub-totalGrand Total PHP 30,000.00• IncomeIncomeFirewoodYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003For home consumptionGrand Total89

ANTONIO BENGALAN• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 5400Lay-outing 1200Staking 1200Hauling 600Digging 480Planting 1200Maintenance 780 890 680 980 1470Sub-total 10860 890 680 980 1470Grand Total PHP 14,880.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 3005Forest trees 10000Barbe wire 400Sub-total 13405Grand Total PHP 13,405.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003No IncomeGrand Total90

POTENCIANA ALBESA• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1195 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 3000Lay-outing 720Staking 720Hauling 840Digging 600Planting 1600Maintenance 4250 5260 5996 5960 5437 4567Sub-total 11730 5260 5996 5960 5435 4567Grand Total PHP 38,948.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2500Forest trees 10000Coconut harvesting 500 600 750 560 480 750 760 800Pruning/thinning 3000Sub-total 16000 600 750 560 480 750 760 800Grand Total PHP 20,700.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 5680 4990 5200 5100 5150 4120 4640 5120Grand Total PHP 40,000.0091

FRANCISCO LUBAY• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 4500Lay-outing 750Staking 750Hauling 3000Digging 750Planting 3000Maintenance 700 600 800 950 900 850Sub-total 13450 600 800 950 900 850Grand Total PHP 17,550.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 2825Forest trees 7000Coconut harvesting 520 535 460 510 645 625 670 650Corn 60 60Sub-total 10405 595 460 510 645 625 670 650Grand Total PHP 14,560.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 1500 1600 1400 1400 1350 1650 1750 1350Camote 160Corn 400 400Sub-total 4056 2000 1400 1400 1350 1650 1750 1350Grand Total PHP 14,956.0092

PROSPERO BAGARINAO• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 8400Lay-outing 1200Staking 1200Hauling 600Digging 600Planting 2400Maintenance 350 484 378 358 350Sub-total 14750 484 378 358 350Grand Total PHP 16,320.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 7345Forest trees 20000Coconut harvesting 560 456 542 536 681 654 635 730Banana 80 60 75 100 100 90 75 80Barbe wire 1600Sub-total 29585 516 617 636 781 744 710 810Grand Total PHP 34,399.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 6790 6547 5560 5630 6123 6320 6020 6010Banana 435 419 429 345 355 320 432 345Sub-total 7225 6966 5989 5975 6478 6640 6452 6355Grand Total PHP 52,080.0093

LYDIA TAN• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 6720Lay-outing 2100Staking 2100Hauling 600Digging 900Planting 720Maintenance 3750 3400 3330 4820 3200 1500Sub-total 16890 3400 3330 4820 3200 1500Grand Total PHP 33,140.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 3300Forest trees 9000Coconut harvesting 563 452 465 435 521 541 536 532Sub-total 12863 452 465 435 521 541 536 532Grand Total PHP 16,345.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 3560 3001 3010 3411 4513 4152 4253 4100Grand Total PHP 30,000.0094

MANUEL POSAS• Capital InvestmentCapital InvestmentLaborBrushing 900Lay-outing 750Staking 750Hauling 1200Digging 1050Planting 2100 1000 1459Year1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Maintenance 1200 3000 2623 2636 1528 1560 1080 1095 948Replacement 1230 1050 1360Sub-total 9180 5050 5442 2636 1528 1560 1080 1095 948Grand Total PHP 28,519.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostPlanting materialsFruit tress 5100 1800Forest trees 1500 1500Pineapple 860Xanthosoma 238Ube 574Pruning/thinning 660 300Year1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Pineapple harvesting 37 60 120 450 490 650Root crop harvestingTakodo 10 20 40 100Ube 80 120 350 635 130 145Sub-total 8272 3960 300 117 190 490 1125 720 795Grand Total PHP 15,969.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Rambutan 30 30 2100 3000 1500 6000Marang 50 600Santol 20 200 300Guyabano 30 150Mangosteen 120Durian 180Cacao 500 160Xanthossoma 40 60 100 400Pineapple 170 200 650 1050 2100 3100Ube 300 375 900 1500 600 1310Coconut 742.1Sub-total 500 645 3710 6250 4800 12662.1Grand Total PHP 28,567.1095

CIENDA SAN VICENTE FARMERS' ASSOCIATION• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 7200Lay-outing 9360Staking 15600Hauling 6240Digging 15600Planting 9360 6734 3279Maintenance 10080 34560 40336 34636 25028 15460 10280 10695Replacement 3360 6720 3360Sub-total 76800 48014 46975 34636 25028 15460 10280 10695Grand Total PHP 267,888.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 71257 8743 5347Forest trees 11638 4948 3052Sweet Potato 560Peanuts 2500Taro 1000Vegetables 1450Fertilizer 187 188Barbed wire 800Pruning/thinningVegetables harvesting 1569 2400Coconut harvesting 1250 1020 1102 1247 1115 1358 1239 457Root crops harvestingSweet Potato 570Peanuts 748Sub-total 90281 18147 9501 1247 1115 1358 1239 2857Grand Total PHP 125,745.00• IncomeIncomeYear1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconut 1378 1711.8 1074.99 1275 1637 1538.5 1461.8 336.5Sweet Potato 2400Vegetable 3622.5Peanut 2700Pineapple 1250Taro 250Firewood 2184Sub-total 7650.5 4411.8 2324.99 1275 1637 1538.5 1462 2520.5Grand Total PHP 22,820.2996

MACARIO ROMANO• Capital InvestmentCapitalYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003LaborBrushing 3600Lay-outing 4320Staking 4320Hauling 1920Digging 2880Planting 5040Maintenance 18300 5880 4623 3636 2528 1560 1280 1695 1348Replacement 4230 6250 3360Sub-total 44620 16408 11442 3838 2528 1560 1280 1695 1348Grand Total PHP 84,719.00• Production, Operating and Harvesting CostCostYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Planting materialsFruit tress 40130 8230 1245Forest trees 14575 4948 3052Pineapple 560Cassava 238Taro 574Salary for hired laborer 36785 14980 5275 5340 2579Pruning/thinning 649 500Barbe wire 450Root cops harvestingTaro 200 150Coconut harvesting 2468 2120 4102 3247 1115 2358 1239 1457 2456Cassava 250 200Pineapple harvesting 156 236 385 120Sub-total 95936 30864 14509 9356 3694 2358 1239 1957 2456Grand Total PHP 162,369.00• IncomeIncomeYear1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Coconuut 4488.24 8283.8 8283.8 3125.37 4050 5000 3725 3900 2145Durian 1500 5040 9625 500 8000 9500 14200 10600 18675Pineapple 250 125 120Cassava 600Taro 600Firewood 5947.2 4576Lumber 8500Sub-total 7438.24 13448.8 18028.8 9572.57 12050 14500 17925 14500 3389697

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION98

12 34567 89Plate 1. Photodocumentation of the present status of the different RF demonstration and cooperators’ farms.1 Capena Farm, Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, Leyte2 Modina Farm, Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, Leyte3 Ciemda Farm, Sitio Cienda, Gabas, Baybay, Leyte4 Bagarinao Farm, Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, Leyte5 Fernandez Farm, Brgy. Guadalupe, Baybay, Leyte6 Mailhi Farm, Brgy. Mailhi, Baybay, Leyte7 Posas Farm, Brgy. Marcos, Baybay, Leyte8 Bengalan Farm, Brgy. Guadalupe, Baybay, Leyte9 Gucela Farm, Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte99

1324567Plate 2. Photodocumentation of the present status of the different RF demonstration and cooperators’ farms.1 Lubay Farm, Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte2 De Jesus Farm, Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte3 Galenzoga Farm, Brgy. Maitum, Baybay, Leyte4 Garay Farm, Brgy. Punta, Gabas, Baybay, Leyte5 Unday Farm, Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte6 Dayoc Farm, Brgy. Maitum, Baybay, Leyte7 Lomocso Farm, Brgy. Pomponan, Baybay, Leyte100

2 314 5 6Plate 3. Photodocumentation of the present status of the different RF demonstration and cooperators’ farms.1 Balbarona Farm, Brgy. Maitum, Baybay, Leyte2 Tuante Farm, Brgy. Likoma, Ormoc City, Leyte3 Tan Farm, Brgy. Maitum, Baybay, Leyte4 Catmon Farm, Brgy. Catmon, Ormoc City, Leyte5 Villa Farm, Brgy. Villa, Baybay, Leyte6 Aberilla Farm, Brgy. Plaridel, Baybay, Leyte101

Institute of Tropical EcologyLeyte State University6521-A Visca, Baybay, LeytePhilippines(0063) 53 335-2652ite_lsu@yahoo.com