assessing the diversity of selected arthropods in cabbage...

Assessing the Diversity of Selected Arthropods in Cabbage-Growing Areas in Mt. Malindang,

Misamis Occidental

Biodiversity Research Programme (BRP) for Development in Mindanao: Focus on Mt. Malindang and Environs

Emma M. Sabado Stephen G. Reyes

Esteban T. Padogdog, Jr.

Assessing the Diversity of Selected Arthropods in Cabbage-Growing Areas in Mt. Malindang,

Misamis Occidental

Emma M. Sabado Stephen G. Reyes

Esteban T. Padogdog, Jr.

under the

Biodiversity Research Programme (BRP) for Development in Mindanao: Focus on Mt. Malindang and Environs

Funding for BRP is provided by the Netherlands Ministry for Development Cooperation (DGIS) through the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).

The Biodiversity Research Programme (BRP) for Development in Mindanao is a collaborative research programme on biodiversity management and conservation jointly undertaken by Filipino and Dutch researchers in Mt. Malindang and its environs, Misamis Occidental, Philippines. It is committed to undertake and promote participatory and interdisciplinary research that will promote sustainable use of biological resources, and effective decision-making on biodiversity conservation to improve livelihood and cultural opportunities. BRP aims to make biodiversity research more responsive to real-life problems and development needs of the local communities, by introducing a new mode of knowledge generation for biodiversity management and conservation, and to strengthen capacity for biodiversity research and decision-making by empowering the local research partners and other local stakeholders.

Philippine Copyright 2004 by the Biodiversity Research Programme for Development in Mindanao: Focus on Mt. Malindang and Environs. SEAMEO SEARCA, College, Laguna. Printed by NJP Printmakers Incorporated, Quezon City, Philippines ISBN 971-560-106-5

Assessing the diversity of selected arthropods

Acknowledgments iii

List of Figures iv

List of Tables vi

Abstract 1

Introduction 2

Rationale 3

Objectives 3Overall objectivesSpecific objectives

Review of literature 4Importance of arthropods in ecosystemsImpact of agriculture on biodiversity

Methodology 7Sampling sites 7Sampling methods 7

Sweep netTraps

Biodiversity assessment of arthropods in cabbage farms 9Participatory activities 9Farming practices of selected local partners and their relevanceto biodiversity 9Impact and constraints in implementing the project 9

Results and Discussion 10Sampling sites 10Local partners and description of their farms 10

MansawanGandawanLake Duminagat

Arthropods associated with cabbage 12Class CrustaceaClass DiplopodaClass ArachnidaClass InsectaPhytophagous insectsBeneficial insects

Insect community structure in the cabbage agroecosystem 21Diversity of insect communities in three cabbage farms 22Guilds or functional groups in the cabbage agroecosystem 23Correlation between yield, soil features, and arthropod diversity 26Participatory activities 28Farming practices of selected local partners which may affect biodiversity 29

Contents

i

Technical Report

Key project impacts 30Constraints to project success 31

Low remuneration rateProblem in research personnel

Summary and Conclusion 32

Recommendations 33

Literature Cited 34

Appendix 38

ii


Acknowledgments

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty:for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou artexalted as head above all.

Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all: and in thine hand is power andmight; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now, therefore, ourGOD, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.I Chronicles 29:11-13

We would like to acknowledge GOD’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, which madeus successful in fulfilling our responsibilities as BRP researchers. To HIM be the glory!

Our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for the financial and technical support generously extendedby the Biodiversity Research Programme (BRP) and SEARCA. Likewise we would like to thank ourinstitutions, the Mindanao State University at Marawi and the University of the Philippines LosBaños for allowing us to participate as researchers in the BRP.

We are most grateful to Dr. Lijbert Brussaard and Dr. Leontine Visser who had shared theirknowledge and expertise, from the revision of the proposal until the completion of this report.

Thanks are also due to the following: Evrin Dris, the former research assistant of the project wholabored much in laying the groundwork; the local partners from the three barangays of DonVictoriano, Misamis Occidental for their cooperation, diligence, and patience in conducting theresearch; local and municipal government officials of Don Victoriano especially Barangay CaptainSergio Barimbao of Mansawan, and Municipal Agricultural Officer Bert Cajeta, for their support tothe project; Virginia Cagas and Ronelyn Tautu-an, Department of Agriculture technicians, for theirhelp in conducting the meetings and for their friendship; Lorenzo Buyog, our landlord, for makingour stay in Mt. Malindang meaningful and comfortable in spite of the difficulties; Alice Guimala,Jovial Anoling, and Pershing King of the Programme Management Office (PMO) for theiradministrative help and encouragement when life as BRP researchers seemed unbearable; HamsirMamasalagat for typing the report; Dr. Mariliza Ticsay who always followed up on our “never-ending requests” to the Joint Programme Committee (JPC); Dr. Grace Bacaltos and Dr. Oliva Canenciawho shared our predicament as BRP researchers but still encouraged us to make it to the end; Mr.Carlo Custodio, the PMO manager, for the challenges which contributed much to our growth asresearchers; colleagues in our respective departments, especially our chairman, for the considerationwhen classes had to be given up in favor of the BRP; and to our prayer warriors, members of theBible Baptist Church, Pagadian City, especially Mrs. Camila Arballo and Rev. Ebenezer Asis (“And allthings, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” Matt. 21:22) for their prayersto GOD to keep us from any danger while doing the research in Mt. Malindang.

Finally, we would like to thank our spouses for bearing our responsibilities wholeheartedly whilewe were away from home, and for their trust, loving support, and understanding which enabledus to conduct the research and finish this report.

iii

Technical Report

Fig. 1. Map showing location of three sampling sites in Mt. Malindang:(a) Lake Duminagat, (b) Gandawan, (c) Mansawan. 7

Fig. 2. Sampling methods: (a) sweep net, (b) visual count, (c) sticky trap,(d) pitfall trap. 8

Fig. 3. Sticky and pitfall traps installed in study sites. 8

Fig. 4. (a) Sowbugs (Isopoda), (b) scuds (Amphipoda), and (c) millipede (Diplopoda).Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 13

Fig. 5. (a) Crab spider, (b) jumping spider, (c) nursery web spider, and (d) wolf spider.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 13

Fig. 6. Total number of diamondback moths (P. xylostella) on sprayed andunsprayed cabbage plants estimated through visual counts in three barangays ofDon Victoriano, Misamis Occidental. January-March 2002. 17

Fig. 7. (a) Typical window-type damage of DBM, (b) undamaged cabbage. 17

Fig. 8. Life stages of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella: (a) eggs,(b) larva, (c) pupa, and (d) adult. Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University. 18

Fig. 9. The cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni: (a) larva and (b) adultPhotographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 18

Fig. 10. The cabbage worm, Crocidolomia pavonana: (a) egg, (b) larva,(c) adult male, and (d) adult female. Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University. 19

Fig. 11. Gregarious larvae of C. pavonana and their feeding damage.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 19

Fig. 12. (a) The adult cutworm, Spodoptera litura and (b) the green peach aphid,Myzus persicae adult and nymphs. Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University. 20

Fig. 13. Adults of the flea beetle, Psylliodes sp. Photographs fromWeb site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 20

Fig. 14. (a) Black ants feeding on a pink bollworm larva and (b) Polistes sp.,a vespid wasp. Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 21

iv

List of Figures


Fig. 15. (a) The predatory ladybird larva and (b) adult. Photographs fromWeb site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 21

Fig 16. (a) Tachinid fly, (b) cocoons, and (c) adult braconid wasp, Cotesia sp.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University. 22

Fig. 17. Margaleff’s indices for the different treatments and sites. 23

Fig. 18. Correspondence analysis performed with McAleece (1997)Biodiversity Prof. Beta I Ver. 24

Fig. 19. Common vegetation surrounding the sampling sites. 24

Fig. 20. DBM populations from different sites. 25

Fig. 21. DBM populations from different treatments. 25

Fig. 22. Spider populations from different sites. 25

Fig. 23. Spider populations from different treatments. 26

Fig. 24. Correlation between yield vs. phosphorus level. 27

Fig. 25. Differences in yield among sites. 27

Fig. 26. Differences in yield among treatments. 27

Fig. 27. Correlation between spiders and cabbage yield (in kg). 27

Fig. 28. Pictures taken during the orientation meeting and lecture onpest identification held at Nueva Vista, Don Victoriano,Misamis Occidental on December 21, 2001. 28

Fig. 29. Burning effect caused by excessive fertilizer use. 29

Fig. 30. Cabbage plants heavily infested by the DBM, P. xylostella. 30

v

Technical Report

Table 1. Pest management practices, cabbage yield, and salient featuresof sampling sites. Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental, Philippines. 11

Table 2. Summary of classes, orders, and families of arthropods associatedwith cabbage grown in three barangays of Don Victoriano,Misamis Occidental. January - March 2002. 15

Table 3. List of economically important insect pests associated with cabbagegrown in three barangays of Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental.January - March 2002. 16

Table 4. Soil analysis results for the top 10-cm samples from three sitesand different treatments. 27

vi

List of Tables

Assessing the diversity of selected arthropods 1

Biodiversity of arthropods was assessed incabbage fields of seven local partners in threeupland barangays of Don Victoriano, MisamisOccidental. These municipalities included NuevaVista, popularly known as Mansawan,Gandawan, and Lake Duminagat. Cabbage fieldsvaried in size (60-836 m2) and slope (20-40°).

The main hypothesis is that farms nearer theforest would have higher diversity comparedwith those farther away. Moreover, parasites andpredators would be more abundant in farmscloser to the forest. Species richness, measuredusing Margaleff’s index, did not significantlydiffer among treatments for the three sites.Correspondence analysis also showed generaluniformity of species richness among sites andtreatments.

Several classes of arthropods were foundassociated with cabbage. The more numerousincluded insects, spiders, sowbugs, andamphipods. Insects dominated these arthropodscomprising 10 orders belonging to 60 families.Detrivores include various flies, gnats, and theirrelatives, collembola, termites, sowbugs, andmillipedes. The diamondback moth or DBM,[Plutella xylostella (Linn.)], was the major pestof cabbage, which limited production andreduced yield. Populations from the three sites,however, did not differ significantly. Spidersdominated the predatory guild. Spider numbers

Abstract

were significantly more abundant in Gandawanand Lake Duminagat; among treatments, thefarm near the forest harbored significantly morespiders than the sprayed and unsprayedcabbage farms.

Other insect pests observed included thecabbage looper [Trichoplusia ni (Hubner)],cabbage worm [Crocidolomia pavonana (Fabr.)],cutworm [Spodoptera litura (Fabr.)], and thegreen peach aphid [Myzus persicae (Sulzer)].Two leaf-feeding beetles were also foundassociated with the cabbage agroecosystem, buttheir populations were very low: flea beetle(Psylliodes sp.) and squash beetle [Aulacophoraindica (Gmelin)]. Hymenopterous parasites andpredators, such as black ants, sphecid, andbraconid wasps were minimal. Tachinid flies(Tachinidae) parasitized cutworm larvae, whilea single cabbage looper larva was parasitizedby a braconid wasp, Cotesia sp. (Braconidae).Very few adults of this wasp, however, werecollected in cabbage fields.

Species richness and DBM population was notcorrelated with yield. Soil nutrients, especiallyphosphorus, affected yield. There was a strongcorrelation between average cabbage yield (kg)and the amount of phosphorus in the soil(r=0.92). Moreover, results indicated thataverage cabbage yield was correlated withspider number.

2 Technical Report

Our natural ecosystems are taken for grantedyet their great expanses support humanexistence. Among others, they provide essentialraw materials, renew soils and prevent erosion,shelter animals that pollinate our agriculturalcrops and control agricultural pests, clean ourwater and air, and help regulate climate. Peopleusually ignore their protection in favor of short-term profits. Even Philippine national parks, arefuge of rare and endemic biodiversity are notexempt from exploitation. Due to rapidpopulation growth, resources are consumedfaster leading to unsustainable exploitation ofecosystems. Overexploitation, mismanagementand lack of management have resulted inecosystem collapse with loss of one or moreresources, including loss of biodiversity (BSC1996).

Biodiversity characterizes the dynamic state ofan ecosystem’s health, on which human survivaldepends. Biodiversity refers to all species ofplants, animals, and microorganisms existingand interacting within an ecosystem (McNellyet al 1990). At its simplest, biodiversity measuresthe number and variety of species in anecosystem. At a deeper level, it denotes geneticdiversity that contributes to the populationdynamics of species and provides a measure oftheir richness and interdependence. Biodiversityinfluences processes such as carbon and nutrientcycling, control of microclimate, regulation ofhydrological processes, regulation of abundanceof undesirable organisms, and detoxification ofnoxious chemicals (ESA 2000). These renewalprocesses and functions are largely biological;therefore, their persistence depends uponmaintenance of biological diversity. When thesenatural functions are lost due to biologicalsimplification, the economic and environmentalcosts can be quite significant (Altieri 1994).

Biodiversity-related issues, which include thegreenhouse effect, global warming, ozonedepletion, desertification, land use andappointment, surface and underground watercontamination, and food safety are rapidly

approaching crisis status. Although manyenvironmental processes are beyond humancontrol, our planet’s long-term well-beingdepends on a solid understanding of howbiological diversity functions to maintain ahealthy planet.

Knowledge of biodiversity is important for wisemanagement and use of resources. Managingbiological diversity in a sustainable manner isthe key challenge now faced by human societies(Hawksworth and Ritchie 1993) including thePhilippines, which is considered a “hot spot” ofbiodiversity in the world (RAWOO 1998). Oneapproach in conserving biodiversity especiallyin developing countries is through community-based stewardship, where local villagers aregiven larger roles in deciding how to managetheir declining biodiversity (Morrell 1999).Conservationists are increasingly looking at thiskind of participatory approach to save much ofearth’s threatened biodiversity.

Inventories of Philippine plants and vertebratesare still incomplete in terms of biodiversityinformation, but these are way ahead of andmore updated than those of invertebrates,particularly arthropods, despite the fact thatarthropods comprise 70% of the animalkingdom. The latest literature-based inventoryof Philippine insects (Baltazar and Gapud 1995)recorded 20,131 species in 6,162 genera under495 families and 27 orders. This number comesclose to the earlier estimate of 25,000 for thePhilippines (Baltazar 1990). Insects and theirallies are the most diverse group of organismsin most ecosystems. As indicator species, theycan provide a highly sensitive advance warningof ecosystem changes (Holloway and Stork1991). They are bioindicators of habitatdisturbances, pollution, and climate change(Hawksworth and Ritchie 1993). Theirassessment, therefore, would provide detailedinformation on the status of Mt. Malindang’secosystems, complementing information thatwill be obtained with other organisms.

Vegetables are the major sources of income and

Introduction


are one of the components of the diets of therural population in the uplands of Mt. Malindang.Insect pests are regarded as one of thesignificant factors limiting vegetable yield.Although several control measures are available,the most convenient method employed byfarmers is the use of pesticides.

Pesticides kill and injure a variety of organismsincluding insect pests and nontarget organismssuch as wildlife, pollinators, natural enemies,and decomposer organisms. They significantlyaffect the highly diverse community of soilmicroorganisms and invertebrates that regulatenutrient cycling in ecosystems. Through driftand runoffs their impact can extend beyond thefarms, affecting biodiversity of life in freshwaterand marine ecosystems (Matson et al 1997).

The dependency of upland vegetable growerson pesticides therefore poses a threat not onlyto people but also to the ecosystem, which maylead to less biodiversity. Alternative methodsto control insect pests must be studied to prevent

the loss of biodiversity in the agricultural andsurrounding natural ecosystems of Mt. Malindangdue to continued pesticide use.

The first step toward developing economicalprograms for pest control is to properly identifythe pests and associated beneficial species thatprovide natural control. Observation,experiment, and experience oftentimes showthat in any ecosystem, only a few pests areeconomically important and some naturalenemies can control them (FAO 1983).Assessing the presence of insects and othereconomically important arthropods associatedwith vegetables grown in the uplands of Mt.Malindang is therefore vitally needed inresponse to insect pest problems in thecommunities. Through the assessment, theroles of various insects and related arthropodscan be established, leading to possible solutionsto pest problems and preservation ofbiodiversity.

Rationale

Objectives

A. Overall

To assess the diversity of insects and other economically important arthropods in the uplandvegetable-growing areas in Mt. Malindang.

B. Specific

1. To assess and identify the major insect pests attacking cabbage;2. To identify the natural enemies of insect pests attacking cabbage;3. To identify other economically important arthropods found in the cabbage agroecosystem;4. To assess arthropod diversity and community structures in the cabbage agroecosystem; and5. To compare arthropod abundance among the different cabbage farms and relate it to farmers’

cultural practices and other factors that may affect cabbage production.The biological diversity of the world is unbelievably great. The visible “biota” (vascular and vertebrates)

4 Technical Report

comprise between 2% to 6% of the estimatedglobal biodiversity. Invertebrates includingarthropods (insects, mites, spiders, andrelatives), and the microflora and microfauna(bacteria, algae, fungi, protozoa, etc.) accountfor about 95% of biodiversity, and collectivelyform the “invisible” infrastructure that drivesecosystem dynamics (Hawksworth and Mound1991, Hammond 1992).

Importance of arthropods in ecosystems

Arthropods constitute about 64% of the knownglobal biodiversity. They are the most diversegroup of organisms in most ecosystems. Theirspecies richness vastly exceeds that of vascularplants and vertebrates together, while theirbiomass within natural ecosystems exceeds thatof vertebrates (Lauenroth and Milchunas 1992,Wilson 1987). They are part of the meso andmacrofauna and comprise elaborated food webscontaining several tropic levels. Some feeddirectly on roots of living plants, but mostsubsist on dead plant matter and the microbesassociated with it. Others are carnivores,parasites, or predators.

Arthropods represent a vast resource ofecosystem information that is currentlyunderused. For instance, arthropods can provideinformation virtually on all macro andmicrohabitats within an ecosystem. They coverseveral size classes, exhibit a range ofecosystem requirements (highly specific togeneralist) and dispersal abilities, show a varietyof life cycle and development times, assist inmediating ecosystem functions such asdecomposition, help maintain soil structure andsoil fertility, regulate populations of otherorganisms (including arthropods, vertebrates,and plants), respond quickly to environmentalchanges, and act as “mobile links” essential tothe reproduction of many flowering plants(Danks 1992, Kremen et al 1993, Wiggins et al1991). Information derived from arthropod speciesassemblages can be used to accuratelycharacterize almost any aspect of an ecosystem.

The use of arthropods as an indicator speciescan provide a highly sensitive advance warningof ecosystem changes (Holloway and Stork

Review of Literature

1991). Some species react quickly toenvironmental stressors and are ideally suitedto act as bioindicators of habitat disturbance,pollution, and climate change (Hawksworth andRitchie 1993). Arthropods are routinely usedin aquatic ecosystems to provide informationon environmental quality. The advantage ofusing arthropod species as indicators orcandidates for ecosystem monitoring is thattheir tremendous ecological diversity providesa wide choice for designing appropriateassessment programs (Kremen et al 1993),which can be applied for both short- and long-term monitoring. The use of arthropods inecosystem analysis is cost effective. Arthropodsare easily, quickly, and cheaply available, thusproviding a means to obtain timely and cost-effective ecosystem information. Detailedsampling protocols exist for virtually all groupsof arthropods in habitats ranging from derivedsoils in forest canopies to deep groundwaterfauna (Marshall et al 1994). Identifyingarthropod species generally is not asproblematic as identifying fungi or bacteria,where DNA analysis and fatty acid profiles mustoften be employed (BSC 1996).

Arthropods are ideal for monitoring suitableeffects associated with habitat fragmentation.Fragmented ecosystems subdivide populationsand impose barriers to dispersal. These barrierslimit gene flow and preclude migration as aresponse to environmental change (Ledig1992). Fragmented populations contain only apart of the original gene pool and often aresubject to substantial genetic drift and loss ofgenetic biodiversity (Brown 1992).Geographically circumscribed species with littlegenetic diversity have proven highly prone toextinction (Ehrlich 1992). Genetic diversity ofarthropod populations in fragmentedecosystems can be measured and the rate ofgenetic drift assessed with respect tononfragmented populations. In this way, anadvance warning of ecosystem changes due tofragmentation, policy and managementpractices can be modified to reduce its impact(BSC 1996).

Fossil remains demonstrate that arthropodspecies are robust over long periods and thatgiven the opportunity, they migrate with


changing conditions rather than evolve newspecies. Arthropods are useful in reconstructingpaleoenvironments because they are able toprovide detailed and precise information onvegetation, soil, water quality, vertebratespecies composition, forest composition, anddegree of stress (Elias 1994). Shifts of fossilarthropod species derived from existingecosystems are used to place fossils of the samespecies in ecological perspective and toreconstruct past environments. Shifts of fossilarthropod species assemblages can be used toassess biotic shifts resulting from environmentalstressors or long climate change, becauseecosystem data can be adjusted to account forrecent arthropogenic changes. Such a long-termperspective is necessary to meaningfully assessecosystem-wide biotic shifts. Theseassessments allow proactive development ofpolicy on mineral fertilization, which canenhance epegeic arthropods through a richsupply of saprophagous mesofauna. The higherfertilization input in conventional fields leadsto a higher crop density, which can alter themicroclimate and also reduce the occurrenceof helio- and thermophilous species (Pfiffner andNiggli 1996).

The physical, chemical, and biologicalcharacteristics of the soil are greatly influencedby the soil fauna. Silty-loam soils contain aricher fauna than sandy soils. Generally, themost important faunal groups are thearthropods (insects, mites, spiders, myriapods,springtails), the oligochaetes (earthworms andenchytraeids), nematodes, and mollusks(Pfiffner 2000).

Impact of agriculture on biodiversity

Agriculture, which involves about 25-30% ofthe world land area, is one of the main activitiesthat affect biological diversity. One effect resultsfrom the fact that agriculture consists ofsimplifying the structure of the environmentover vast areas, replacing nature’s diversity witha few cultivated plants and domesticatedanimals. The world’s agricultural landscapes areplanted with only some 12 species of graincrops, 23 vegetable species, and about 35 fruitand nut crop species (Fowler and Mooney 1990).

Biodiversity simplification reaches an extreme inmonocultures. Modern commercial agriculture isdominated by monoculture, and the reduced

plant diversity influences the composition andabundance of associated biota such as wildlife,pollinators, insect pests and their naturalenemies, soil invertebrates, andmicroorganisms (Matson et al 1997). Theworsening insect problem is increasingly linkedto expanding crop monocultures at the expenseof the natural vegetation, thus decreasing localhabitat diversity (Altieri and Letourneau 1982,Flint and Roberts 1988). Monocultures are oftenmore vulnerable to pests and diseases andtherefore require higher inputs of pesticides(Power and Flecker 1996).

Another way in which agriculture affectsbiodiversity is through the externalitiesassociated with the use of intensiveagrochemical and mechanical technology toboost crop production. In the US, about 17.8million tons of fertilizers are used in grainproduction systems, and about 500 millionpounds of pesticides are applied annually tofarm lands. Although these inputs have boostedcrop yield, their undesirable environmentaleffects are undermining the sustainability ofagriculture (Altieri 1994). In the Philippines,pesticides are the main, if not the only controlmeasure used on major vegetable crops suchas cabbage, green beans, eggplant, and tomato(Sumalde 1995). In practical terms, pest anddisease control in major vegetable-growingareas worldwide is synonymous with chemicalcontrol. World Resources Institute (WRI) et al(1992) identified five fundamental causes ofbiodiversity loss:

1. The unsustainably high rates of humanpopulation growth and natural resourcesconsumption;

2. Economic systems and policies that fail tovalue the environment and its resources;

3. Inequity in the ownership, management,and flow of benefits from both the use andconservation of biological resources;

4. Deficiencies in knowledge and itsapplication;

5. Legal and institutional systems that promoteunsustainable exploitation.

The six mechanisms for biodiversity loss arehabitat loss and fragmentation; introducedspecies; overexploitation of plant and animal

6 Technical Report

species; pollution of soil, water, and atmosphere;global climate change; industrial agriculture andforestry.

The loss of biodiversity has a range of negativeecological and societal consequences. Moreimmediately, loss of biodiversity can havesignificant impacts on ecosystem function withinagroecosystems and economic returns from thecropping system. Conserving biodiversity thusprovides several benefits to agriculture.Uncultivated species, including wild relatives ofcrops, are important sources of germplasm fordeveloping new crops and cultivars. Naturalareas adjacent to agricultural systems providea habitat for pollinators and natural pestenemies. Within the agroecosystem itself,increasing crop diversity through polyculturescan augment the resources available topollinators and to natural enemies such asparasitic wasps, resulting in higher populationsof these beneficial organisms (Andow 1991).Maximizing the use of agrochemicals can alsoresult in preserving beneficial organisms and

functional processes such as decomposition andnutrient cycling, thus, conserving biodiversitywithin the agroecosystem and enhancing plantand soil processes that in turn, improve cropproductivity (Matson et al 1997).

Alternative methods of control other thanchemical control are actively used in moderncrop protection to develop ecologically andeconomically sound pest control procedures.The continued use of ecologically soundbiological, cultural, and chemical methods isencouraged to preserve the quality of theecosystem. Timing insecticide application andabandoning the fixed spray calendar can leadto substantial reduction in treatments andimprovement of the pest-natural enemiessituation (Gonzales 1976). If a key pest can beeradicated from a wide area, biodiversity maybe enhanced by its absence due to reduced useof chemical pesticides (Thomas 1996).


Methodology

Sampling sites

The study sites planted with cabbage werelocated in the three barangays of DonVictoriano, Misamis Occidental, namely NuevaVista, popularly known as Mansawan,Gandawan, and Lake Duminagat (Fig. 1). Theywere chosen mainly because of their distancefrom the primary forests of Mt. Malindang. Thehypothesis was that the differing distance ofthese barangays from the forests would affectthe level of arthropod biodiversity and insectpest infestation. It was assumed that the sitenearest to the primary forest would have ahigher level of biodiversity and lower insect pestinfestation. Conversely, the farther the site wasfrom the primary forest, the lower thebiodiversity and pest infestation.

Sampling methods

Sampling was done in the middle of each farmmeasuring at least 60 m2. Insects and relatedarthropods associated with cabbage weremonitored weekly through sweep net, visualcounts, and use of sticky and pitfall traps (Fig.2).

A. Sweep netSweep net sampling was used for mobileinsects. Twenty sweeps were made for eachsampling. Arthropods collected were put intoplastic bottles filled with ethanol and broughtto the field house for sorting and identification.Twenty plants were selected from the 60-m2

plot along a transect line chosen anew for eachsampling occasion. Each cabbage plant was

Fig. 1. Map showing location of three sampling sites in Mt. Malindang:(a) Lake Duminagat, (b) Gandawan, (c) Mansawan.

8 Technical Report

Fig. 2. Sampling methods: (a) sweep net, (b) visual count, (c) sticky trap,(d) pitfall trap.

Fig. 3. Sticky and pitfall traps installed instudy sites.

examined for foliar insects such as thediamondback moth (DBM), cabbage semilooper,cabbage worm, cutworm, and aphids, togetherwith associated arthropods like spiders.Counting and recording were done in the fieldby local partners under the supervision of theresearch assistant. Local partners were trainedto identify common cabbage pests and naturalenemies prior to the experiment.

Over 50 DBM larvae were collected weekly andreared on cabbage leaves under fieldhouseconditions. Undetermined numbers ofsecondary pest larvae were also reared to findout possible emergence of parasitoids. Thesepests were usually handpicked after visualcounting in the field. Collecting and rearinglarvae were done throughout the entire cabbagegrowing season. Observation was also donethroughout the sampling period to determinepromising predators of cabbage pests.

B. TrapsTwo sticky traps, painted yellow, measuring 15x 20 cm, were installed vertically andalternatively with pitfall traps inside the 60-m2

sampling plot (Fig. 3). They were installedapproximately 1 m above the ground to catchflying insects.

a b

c d


Insects and related arthropods that adhered tothe traps were removed weekly using fine-pointed forceps and placed in vials filled with80% ethyl alcohol for preservation and lateridentification. A transparent grease-basedadhesive was applied on both sides of the trapsafter routine cleaning.

Pitfall traps made of plain galvanized iron sheetwere sunk to the ground allowing the 12-indiameter lid to protrude a little to preventrainwater from entering. The funnels were closelyfitted to plastic containers half-filled with 70%ethyl alcohol. The traps collected ground-dwellingarthropods like springtails, scuds, andamphipods.

Arthropods collected through the differentdevices were sent to UP Los Baños foridentification. Co-project Leader Dr. Stephen G.Reyes was responsible for the identification andstatistical analysis of the data.

Biodiversity assessment ofarthropods in cabbage farms

Ideally, identifying samples for ecologicalstudies to species level is desirable. It isrecognized that arthropod diversity is high andinvolves many specimens to be processed. Inthe Philippines, we have very few systematiststhat can handle specific taxonomic groups foridentification. Therefore, in this study,identification to species level was limited toknown and economically important taxa. Othertaxonomic groups were identified to the familylevel; under each family, distinguishablemorphospecies were assigned numbers, e.g.,Tachnidae 1 for one distinguishablemorphospecies of tachinid flies, and so on.

Since the project was participatory in nature,the interests of local partners were important,hence assessment was limited to the majorpests of cabbage and possible natural enemies.These organisms were relatively common, easilydetected, and sensitive to habitat disturbanceand pesticide application, and importantly, haveeconomic significance to the indigenous farmersof Mt. Malindang.

Participatory activities

Seven farmers in the three barangays of DonVictoriano, Misamis Occidental were tapped aslocal partners in the project.

The following activities were undertaken toencourage their participation:

1. Courtesy call and briefing on municipal andbarangay officials about the project.

2. Identification of local partners throughbarangay officials.

3. Conduct of orientation meeting and lectureon pest identification.

4. Implementation of weekly samplingactivities by local partners under thesupervision of the project’s researchassistant.

5. Regular consultation with local partners andbarangay officials.

6. Validation meeting.

Farming practices of selected localpartners and their relevance tobiodiversity

The farming practices of selected local partnerswere assessed and correlated to theagroecosystem of Mt. Malindang. It is hopedthat this assessment would provide additionalknowledge that would help enlighten thepolicymakers of Misamis Occidental so that theywill formulate policies that would conserve Mt.Malindang’s biodiversity.

Impact and constraints inimplementing the project

The key impacts of the project and the majorconstraints in its implementation were assessedand are presented in this report. These resultsare expected to provide benchmark informationand may serve as a guide for future biodiversityresearch projects to be implemented in theuplands of Mt. Malindang.

10 Technical Report

Sampling sites

Arthropods were assessed in cabbage fields ofselected local partners in the three uplandbarangays of Don Victoriano, MisamisOccidental that included Nueva Vista,(Mansawan), Gandawan, and Lake Duminagat.

Mansawan is located near the town of DonVictoriano (10 km away), followed by Gandawan(17 km), while the farthest is Lake Duminagat.Cabbage fields of local partners varied in size(60-836 m2) and slope (20-40°). Table 1 showsthe salient features of the sampling sitesincluding the pest management practices oflocal partners and their cabbage yield.

Local partners and description oftheir farms

Initially, three farmers were chosen as localpartners for each barangay, but this wasreduced to two (Mansawan and Gandawan).Infestation of cabbage rot disease due tofrequent heavy rains prevented two farmers inparticipating in the project.

Thus, only seven farmers joined the researchproject as local partners:

Barangay Local partners

1. Mansawan Enerio PacanteJunnie Gumola

2. Gandawan Roger EmpilDanilo Empil

3. Lake Duminagat Rudy PenalteJanito TamonCarlos Gomistil

A. MansawanTwo separate fields (A & B) were selected inbarangay Mansawan. Field A is a 60-m2 fieldmanaged by Mr. Enerio Pacante. The area waspreviously planted with onion for about threeyears, followed by sweet potato. It is fullyexposed to sunlight throughout the day with asteepness of about 30°. The surroundingvegetation included some bananas, Malabagotrees, avocado, and pomelo fruit trees, andvegetables like onion and pechay. The dominantvegetation, however, was Saccharum sp., agrass belonging to Graminae.

The plot had 600 cabbage plants spaced 30-40cm between rows and 25-37 cm between hills.Complete fertilizer (14-14-14) was applied sixtimes during the season at varying levels withan interval of 9 days to 2 weeks aftertransplanting (WAT). Fertilizer was first dissolvedin a specific amount of water (by gallons) andapplied to individual plants. Each plant receivedapproximately a ¼ can of sardine (155 g)fertilizer (by volume). Cabbage plants weresprayed seven times with Ascend, aninsecticide, weekly starting from the first weekof transplanting at the rate of one full cap ofthe insecticide (approximately 1 tbsp) mixedwith water in a 16-L capacity sprayer tank. Onesprayer tank loaded with the mixture wassprayed in the entire plot every sprayingsession.

Field B is a 150-m2 pesticide-free area withapproximately 1,500 cabbage plants managedby Mr. Junnie Gumola. Cabbage plants werespread with 40-60 cm between rows and 35-40 cm between hills. The area was plantedpreviously with yam and exposed to sunlightfor about 7 hours per day. The steepness of theslope was approximately 35°. The surroundingvegetation included tree ferns, some fruit treessuch as marang and avocado, coffee, Saccharumsp., and some wild flowering shrubs. Completefertilizer dissolved in water similar to Field A,was also applied to the plants.

B. GandawanFarm A, approximately 310 m2, was managedby Mr. Roger Empil. For the previous three years,the area was planted to root and tuber cropslike sweet potatoes, yam, and potatoes. Thearea has a 20° slope, receiving an average of 7hours of sunlight per day. Vegetables such asonion and chayote surrounded the area alongwith some banana trees near the bottom. Mr.Empil applied the same kind of fertilizer, in thesame frequency and manner of application, inhis cabbage plants as Mr. Enerio and Mr. Gumola.No chemical was applied to control insect pestsand diseases. Cabbage plants were spaced 40-50 cm between rows and 30-40 cm betweenhills.

The owner of Farm B was Mr. Danilo Empil, abrother of Mr. Roger Empil. Bamboos, tree ferns,bananas, chayote, and many Saccharum sp.

Results and Discussion

11

Technical R

eport

Table 1. Pest management practices, cabbage yield, and salient features of sampling sites. Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental, Philippines.

Sprayed* = sprayed once Sprayed** = sprayed seven times

Site/local partner

Pest management

practice

Yield (kg/20 heads)

Soil type

Soil pH

Steepness of slope

Planting density

(m2)

Planting distance

(cm)

Duration of exposure

to sun (no. of hours)

Land use for the previous three years

Surrounding vegetation

Total Mean Per plant

Per row

I. Mansawan

E. Pacante Sprayed∗∗ 1,844 0.092 clay 0.8 35° 13.33 25 30 8 Onion, sweet potato

Bananas, malabago tree, avocado, pomelo, onion, pechay, Saccharum sp.

J. Gumola Unsprayed 7,850 0.390 loam 5.9 35° 7.14 35 40

7

Yam

Tree fern, wild shrubs, marang, avocado, coffee, Saccharum sp.

II. Gandawan

R. Empil Unsprayed 17,640 0.880 loam 5.9 20° 8.33 30 40 7 Yam, white potatoes, sweet potatoes

Onion, chayote, banana

D. Empil Sprayed* 10,700 0.530 loam 5.5 30° 8.33 30 40 6 Uncultivated

Bamboos, tree ferns, bananas, Saccharum sp.

III. Lake Duminagat J. Tamon

Sprayed*

7,880

0.394

loam

5.8

20°

11.00

30

30

6

Uncultivated

R. Penalte Sprayed* 8,670 0.440 loam 5.6 20° 11.00 30 30 6 Uncultivated

Bamboos, tree ferns, bananas, Saccharum sp.

C. Gomistil Unsprayed 7,680 0.384 loam 5.2 40° 16.00 25 25 2 Forested areas Grasses, chayote, forest trees

12 Technical Report

surrounded his farm, which was about 285 m2,with weeds in the upper part. It was exposedto sunlight for about 6 hours only during theafternoon since the area faced west. The areahad a 30° slope. Like his brother, he also usedcomplete fertilizer. However, he sprayed hiscabbage plants with Bushwack at the rate ofone full cap of the insecticide bottle (1 tbsp)mixed with water in a 16-L capacity knapsacksprayer.

C. Lake DuminagatFarms A and B, approximately 836 m2, wereadjacent to each other and were managed byuncle and nephew farmers, Mr. Rudy Penalteand Janito Tamon. The area had beenabandoned for five years before they took overand planted cabbage. Exposure to sunlightaveraged 6 hours; the land had a 20° slope.Vegetation around the farms included tree ferns,bananas, chayote, yam, shrubs, grasses, andforest trees like tinagdong and pulayo.

Total cabbage density was approximately 7,500with plants spaced 30-37 cm apart betweenrows and hills. Plants were side-dressed withcomplete fertilizer at 15-day intervals starting 2weeks from transplanting and 2 weeks prior toharvesting. The approximate rate was one pinchper cabbage plant. Magnum (an insecticide) wassprayed once to control insect pests.

Mr. Carlos Gomistil managed Farm C, which wasabout 222 m2 and with a 40° slope. It was theonly farm that was part of the protected primaryforest area. It was exposed to sunlight for about2 hours per day only because of the presenceof many tall trees with heights ranging from 15to 25 m. Grasses and chayote likewise borderedthe bottom part. Cabbage plants were spaced25-30 cm between rows and between hills. Totalplant density was around 2,500. Completefertilizer was side-dressed (one pinch per plant).Weekly fertilizer application started 2 weeks aftertransplanting and ended 3 weeks prior toharvest.

Arthropods associated with cabbage

Arthropods constitute about 60% of known globalbiodiversity (Lauenroth and Milchunas 1992,Wilson 1987). They have evolved into the largestgroup of all living things in terms of number ofspecies. They occupy many ecological niches,ranging from living on other arthropods, to eatingeither living or dead plants, or living in or onhigher plants (Ross et al 1982).

Four classes of arthropods were found associatedwith cabbage grown in the uplands of Mt.Malindang. These included Crustacea (sowbugsand scuds), Arachnida (spiders and mites),Diplopoda (millipedes), and Insecta (insects).Among the arthropods, insects dominate innumber and kind.

Class Crustacea

Sowbugs (Isopoda) are terrestrial crustaceans,which are closely related to lobsters, shrimps,and crayfish. They are active in the eveningand run rapidly, superficially resemblingcockroaches in form and behavior (Fig. 4a).Another group of terrestrial crustaceans, thescuds (Amphipoda) are pinkish to yellowish andshrimp-like in form (Fig. 4b).

Sowbugs and scuds spend bright daylight hoursin damp dark habitats such as underneathstones, logs, leaf litter, and other debris. At nightthey venture out and feed on decomposingorganic material. They are mainly a nuisanceand are capable of feeding on tender plant tissueand occasionally causing considerable damageto vegetable transplants and seedlings (Dreesand Jackman 1999).

Class Diplopoda

This class of arthropods includes the millipedesor thousand-legged worms (Fig. 4c). Millipedeslive in leaf litters, rotten logs, and humid places,with most species feeding on decaying plantmaterials (Ross et al 1982).

Class Arachnida

This class includes spiders and mites, whichhave several thousand species. Spiders arecommon and are the most important predatorsof insect pests in the uplands of Mt. Malindang.They are generalist predators and feed on manykinds of insect prey of suitable size. Somespiders will make webs to trap flying prey, whileothers hunt visually. Crab spiders, for example,wait in flowers or other places for the prey tocome within reach (Fig. 5). Mites, on the otherhand, include phytophagous, predatory, anddetrivore species. Most phytophagous speciesare now recognized as important pests, whilepredatory mites are used in greenhouses tocontrol pests such as thrips, aphids, andphytophagous mites.


Fig. 4. (a) Sowbugs (Isopoda), (b) scuds(Amphipoda), and (c) millipede(Diplopoda). Photographs fromWeb site: http: vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology, Departmentof Entomology, Texas A&MUniversity.

Fig. 5. (a) Crab spider, (b) jumping spider, (c)nursery web spider, and (d) wolf spider.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&MUniversity.

a

b

c

a b

c

d

14 Technical Report

Class Insecta

Insects in the cabbage agroecosystem consistof 10 orders belonging to 60 families (Table 2).A common feature of many agroecosystems asexemplified in cabbage is a reduction in speciesrichness coupled with high populations of otherselected species (Stary and Pike 1999).Generally, the insect fauna associated withcabbage can be classified as phytophagous,predators, parasitoids, and neutrals.

A. Phytophagous insectsThe four insect orders with pests are Lepidoptera(moths and butterflies), Homoptera (aphids),Coleoptera (beetles), and Orthoptera(grasshoppers) (Table 3). The diamondbackmoth or DBM (Plutella xylostella) is the majorinsect pest of cabbage. Visual counts donethroughout the growth period of cabbage in thethree study sites consistently showed a highpopulation of DBM compared with other pestspecies.

Figure 6 shows the total number of DBM basedon visual counts from sprayed and unsprayedcabbage farms. Higher larval populations wererecorded on sprayed plots than on unsprayedones. Results further showed that sprayedcabbage plots located far from the primaryforests suffered heavy infestation of DBMcompared with the unsprayed plot. As a result,the local partner who sprayed his cabbage plantsseven times with an insecticide was not able toproduce marketable heads.

Yellowish-white eggs of DBM are glued to theupper and lower leaf surfaces either singly orin groups. Larvae are pale yellowish-green togreen covered with fine, scattered, erect hairs.They feed on leaves, which show the typical“window-type” damage (Fig. 7) caused by larvalfeeding of DBM. DBM larvae are easily identifiedby their peculiar reaction when disturbed. Theyactively wriggle and automatically hangthemselves suspended by a silken thread. This“hanging” habit earned them their local nameof “bitay-bitay”. Larvae pupate in delicate,white, open-mesh cocoons attached to theleaves of the host plant. Initially, the pupaeare light green but as they mature, they becomebrown as the adult moth becomes visiblethrough the cocoon. The adult moth can beidentified by the three small white diamond-shaped marks that are visible when it is at restwith its folded wings (Fig. 8).

The minor pests of cabbage included the cabbagelooper (Trichoplusia ni), cabbage worm(Crocidolomia binotalis), cutworm (Spodopteralitura), and the green peach aphid (Myzuspersicae). Very few individuals of leaf-feedingbeetles were observed to feed on cabbage likethe flea beetle (Psylliodes sp.) and the squashbeetle (Aulacophora indica).

The larvae of cabbage looper (T. ni) are lightgreen and characteristically move in a “looping”manner. They are voracious feeders and stripfoliage in a short time. Several kinds wereobserved in the cabbage fields, which includeda brown species. Moths are light-grayish brownwith a small lighter-colored spot near the centerof each forewing (Fig. 9).

The larvae of cabbage worm (C. binotalis) areeasily recognized by distinctive yellowish whitestripes on their bodies (Fig. 10). Three stripesare located dorsally, while two stripes are onthe lateral sides. These stripes disappear whenlarvae are close to pupation. Newly hatchedlarvae found on the underside of the leaves aregregarious; they then move to the growing pointof the plant center or bore to the center of thehead. A ravaged plant center with mats of frassand silk are evidence of cabbage worm damage(Fig. 11).

The cutworm (S. litura) is a common pest ofcorn, tomato, and vegetables. Eggs are laid onthe underside of leaves in batches and arecovered with hair scales from the body of thefemale moth. The newly hatched larvae at firststay in groups, but later disperse. Mature larvaeare large, dark brown, and have pairs of blackmarkings on the front and hind parts of thebody. During the day these insects hide justbeneath the soil close to the site of the previousnight’s damage. They curl up into a tight Cshape when disturbed. They pupateunderground. Moths have brown wings withwhite markings (Fig. 12a).

The green peach aphid (M. persicae) is apolyphagous species with a large range of hostplants, including cabbage. Aphids primarily feedon the sap of leaves and young shoots of plants.They withdraw nutrients from the plants anddisturb the growth hormone balance, haltinggrowth and causing the leaves to curl up.Through their enormous reproductive capability,they severely damage crops. They also havethe ability to transmit viruses (Fig. 12b).


Table 2. Summary of classes, orders, and families of arthropods associated withcabbage grown in three barangays of Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental.January-March, 2002. Specific details are given in Appendix Tables 1-4.

Class / Order Family Common name

A. CrustaceaIsopoda sowbugs

B. ARACHNIDAAcarina mitesAraneae spiders

C. MYRIAPODADiplopoda millipedes

D. HEXAPODA Collembola Entomobryidae springtails

E. INSECTAOrthoptera Acrididae katydids, crickets, grasshoppersGryllacrididaeGryllidaeTetrigidae

Thysanoptera Phlaeothripidae thrips

Hemiptera Cicadellidae hoppersCixiidaeDelphacidaeFlatidaeFulgoridaeMembracidaeNogodinidaeTropiduchidae

Coleoptera Cerambycidae beetlesChrysomelidaeCleridaeCoccinellidaeCurculionidaeElateridaeLanguriidaeLycidaeScarabaeidaeStaphylinidaeTenebrionidae

Diptera Anthomyiidae true fliesCecidomyiidaeChloropidaeDolichopodidaeDrosophilidaeEmpididaeMycetophilidaeMuscidaeNeriidaeOtitidaePhoridaeRhagionidae

16 Technical Report

Table 3. List of economically important insect pests associated with cabbage grown inthree barangays of Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental. January–March, 2002.

Order/Family Species Common name

LEPIDOPTERA

Plutellidae Plutella xylostella diamondback mothGeometridae Trichoplusia ni cabbage looperPyralidae Crocidolomia pavonana cabbage wormNoctuidae Spodoptera litura cutwormArctiidae Unidentified sp. tiger moth

COLEOPTERA

Chrysomelidae Aulacophora indica squash beetlePsylliodes sp. flea beetle

HEMIPTERA

Aphididae Myzus persicae green peach aphid

ORTHOPTERA

Acrididae Oxya sp. short-horned grasshopper

Table 2. Continued...

Class / Order Family Common name

Diptera SepsidaeSciaridaeSciomyzidaeStratiomyidaeSyrphidaeTachinidaeTipulidae

Lepidoptera Arctiidae moths, butterfliesGeometridaeNoctuidaePyralidaePlutellidae

Hymenoptera Bethylidae ants, wasps, beesBraconidaeChalcididaeFormicidaeIchneumonidaePompilidaeSphecidaeVespidae


Fig. 6. Total number of diamondback moths (P. xylostella) on sprayed andunsprayed cabbage plants estimated through visual counts in threebarangays of Don Victoriano, Misamis Occidental. January-March 2002.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Larv

a

Pupa

Adul

t

Larv

a

Pupa

Adul

t

Larv

a

Pupa

Adul

tMansawan Gandawan Lake Duminagat

Num

er o

f DB

M/ 2

0 pl

ants

Sprayed

NotSprayed

Fig. 7. (a) Typical window–type damage of DBM, (b) undamaged cabbage.

a b

18 Technical Report

Fig. 9. The cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni: (a) larva and (b) adult.Photographs from Web site: http:vegipm.tamu.edu. ExtensionEntomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University.

Fig. 8. Life stages of the diamondback moth, Plutellaxylostella: (a) eggs, (b) larva, (c) pupa, and (d) adult.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University.

a

b

cd

a b


a

b

c

d

a b

Fig. 10. The cabbage worm, Crocidolomia pavonana: (a) egg,(b) larva, (c) adult male, and (d) adult female.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University.

Fig. 11. Gregarious larvae of C. pavonana and their feedingdamage. Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University.

20 Technical Report

Fig. 12. (a) The adult cutworm, Spodoptera litura and (b)the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae, adult andnymphs. Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University.

a

b

Two leaf-feeding beetles were also found incabbage farms but their populations were verylow. These were the flea beetles (Psylliodes sp.)(Fig. 13) and the squash beetle (A. similis).Flea beetles are so named because of theirenlarged hind legs and jumping ability. Adultsare usually black, with brown legs and antennae.Eggs are laid in the soil at the base of the plants.From the eggs hatch cylindrical, brown-headed,white larvae that are about half an inch longwhen full grown. Round holes in leaves are themost obvious damage caused by flea beetles.

B. Beneficial insectsBeneficial insects associated with insect pestsof cabbage included parasites and predators.Several predatory species of Hymenoptera likeblack ants (Fig. 14a) and a vespid wasp (Fig.14b) were observed feeding on live DBM larvae.The larva and adult of ladybird beetles(Coccinellidae) (Fig. 15) and hover flies(Syrphidae) fed on aphids. The population ofthese predators, however, was very low. Unlikethe predators that kill more than one preyduring their lifetime, parasitoids kill only oneprey during their development and the adult isfree living. Insect parasitoids lay their eggs inor on the host. The larvae that feed within oron the host kill it during their development.When fully grown, parasitoid larvae pupate andlater emerge as adults, which generally feedon plant pollen or nectar (van den Berg and Cock2000).

a

b

Fig. 13. Adults of the flea beetle,Psylliodes sp.Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University.


Like the predators, the population of parasitoidsin cabbage farms was very low. Not a singleparasitoid was found parasitizing DBM larvae.Tachinid flies parasitized several cutwormlarvae, while a single larva of cabbage looperwas parasitized by Cotesia sp. (Braconidae) (Fig.16).

Neutral insects consisted mainly of various flies,gnats, termites, collembolans, and theirrelatives (sowbugs, scuds, and millipedes).Majority of these insects are considered asdetrivores.

Insect community structure incabbage agroecosystem

Biological diversity and ecological guilds tendto be much lower in man-altered systems suchas monocultural agricultural systems (Liss etal 1986), e.g., the cabbage agroecosystem.

Habitat duration tends to be much shorter andecological niches limited. It follows as well thatguild interactions are limited and perhapstractable. Individual species may have animportant organizing influence in communitiesespecially when resources are limiting. The DBMis considered a major pest of cabbage that limitproduction and reduces yield. In the context ofcommunity ecology, the DBM can be consideredas an organizer species (Price 1971), with amajor effect on the populations of other insectspecies in the vegetable agroecosystem. Theuse of pesticides to control its population mayhave important ramifications on the arthropodcommunity structure and guild interactions.Furthermore, changing dominance structuredue to interspecific competition with or withoutDBM is a potent organizing force, although somemay claim that the test for the competitionhypothesis is inadequate (Polis et al 1989, Price1984). Predators and parasites may also play

a b

Fig. 14. (a) Black ants feeding on a pink bollworm larva and (b)Polistes sp., a vespid wasp. Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, Extension Entomology,Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University.

a b

Fig. 15. (a) The predatory ladybird larva and (b) adult.Photographs from Web site: http://vegipm.tamu.edu,Extension Entomology, Department of Entomology,Texas A&M University.

22 Technical Report

an organizing role in communities by keepingpopulations of herbivores, including DBM, belowlevels at which resources may become limiting(Lawton 1983). Besides these antagonisticinteractions, mutualistic, commensalistic, andamensalistic interactions among species shouldalso be considered (Price 1984). Additionally,species number and relative abundance, kindsof species present or absent, and the complexinteractions existing among the components ofthe community should also be given importanceto get a better view of the community dynamicsand changing structure. In this study, we triedto assess the impact of farmers’ insect controlpractices on the insect community structure inthree cabbage farm sites with differentproximity to the natural forest habitat.

Diversity of insect communitiesin three cabbage farms

Several diversity statistics describe the insectcommunities in any ecosystem although thesemeasures differ in their discriminant abilitydepending on the type of habitats and samplesize (see Magurran 1988). The Margaleff’s indexwas used to look at insect diversity in thecabbage agroecosystem because it is relativelyeasy to calculate, it is highly sensitive to samplesize, and it has good discriminant ability.

a

Fig. 16. (a) Tachinid fly (b) cocoons, and(c) adult of braconid wasp, Cotesia sp.Photographs from Web site:http://vegipm.tamu.edu, ExtensionEntomology, Department ofEntomology, Texas A&M University.

b

c

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performedto test whether species richness values werestatistically different among the threetreatments (sprayed, unsprayed, and a farmnear the forest) in three sites. For the differentsampling dates, species richness values amongthe treatments in the three sites were notsignificantly different at 5% level of significance(Fc0.84 = 19.48, α-level = 0.05). Similarly, speciesrichness values among the sites were notsignificantly different (Fc1.57 = 19.48, α-level =0.05). These results suggest that, in terms ofrelative abundance for the different treatmentsand sites, all species are relatively similar.Figure 17 shows Margaleff’s indices for thedifferent treatments and sites.

In the preceding discussion, species richnessmeasure (Margaleff’s index) was used to gaugethe effect of pesticide use on cabbage.Generally, it is assumed that in a stressedenvironment, species richness would decrease.Other indicators of a stressed environmentinclude the shift in the log normal pattern ofspecies abundance and dominance (Magurran1988). Basically, this study showed that interms of species richness alone, there are nodifferences between the insect fauna of thedifferent sites and treatments. However,species richness measures alone are aninadequate yardstick to track changes incommunity structure.


Fig. 17. Margaleff’s indices for the different treatments and sites. The first letter denotes thesite, e.g., M for Mansawan; US, S, and D mean unsprayed, sprayed, and near the forest;the number specifies the sampling date, e.g., 1 means the first sampling date. Data arefrom the first three sampling dates. Data points are not significantly different fortreatments and sites. Data from the fourth to tenth sampling dates did not significantlydiffer for treatments and sites. Margaleff’s indices were computed using McAleece (1997)BioDiversity Prof. Beta 1 ver.

Another tool that can graphically show possibledifferences in insect community structure iscorrespondence analysis. This is a type ofordination specifically designed for ecologicalstudies and uses reciprocal averaging todetermine axis values (Hill 1973). It is apowerful descriptive method, which can showcorrelation between biodiversity patterns andenvironmental causes of variation. As Figure18 shows, most samples from different sitesand treatments cluster near each other withvery minimal exceptions. This further supportsthe findings that diversity for the different sitesand treatments are not significantly differentfrom each other.

Diversity of vegetation within and around theagroecosystem is one of the factors that canaffect the degree of arthropod biodiversity. Agreater variety of plants would lead to a greatervariety of herbivorous insect species, and inturn determine a greater diversity of predatorsand parasites (Altieri 1984). This factor mayaccount for the similarities in insect fauna of

the different sampling sites and treatments.Generally, the surrounding vegetation of thesampling sites was less diverse and thecomposition was similar. This vegetationincluded tree ferns, a grass weed—Saccharumsp.—several bananas and fruit trees, andvarious wild shrubs (Fig. 19).

Guilds or functional groups in thecabbage agroecosystem

More diverse ecosystems tend to be morestable, resilient, and sustainable. In principle,the quality of diversity determines the extentto which it—in terms of varied guilds orfunctional groups—contributes to the stabilityand sustainability of the system (Peterson et al1998). It is believed that the central role ofguilds at the various trophic levels is morecrucial than species diversity per se to thesustainability of the system. In the riceagroecosystem, for example, Heong et al (1991)showed that arthropod diversity contributessubstantially to its sustainability.

M-S1 G-US1 G-S1 D-US1 D-S1 D-D1 M-US2 M-S2 G-US2 G-S2 D-US2 D-S2 D-D2 M-US3 M-S3 G-US3 G-S3 D-US3 D-S3 D-D3

Spe

cies

ric

hnes

s va

lues

Data from three sampling dates

M-S1 G-US1

G-S1

D-US1

D-S1 D-D1

M-US2

M-S2

G-US2

G-S2 D-US2

D-S2

D-D2 M-US3

M-S3

G-US3 G-S3

D-US3 D-S3

D-D3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20

24 Technical Report

Fig. 18. Correspondence analysisperformed with McAleece(1997) BioDiversityProf. Beta 1 ver.

Fig. 19. Common vegetationsurrounding the samplingsites.

Axi

s 1

Axis 2

-5

-10

-15

0 5

-2

-4

-6

-8

0

2

-1 -2

-3 -4

-5

0

1


The cabbage plant serves as a resource basefor the insect communities and insect fauna areclassified by specific guilds (functional groups),which include phytophagous insects, predators,parasitoids, and neutrals. Phytophagous speciesinclude DBM, cabbage looper, cabbage moth,cutworm, aphids, leafhoppers, and leaf-feedingbeetles. Neutrals consist mainly of various flies,gnats and their relatives, sowbugs, millipedes,and termites–all are mostly detrivores.Predators and parasites are mainlyhymenopterans.

In this study, we consider DBM as the organizerspecies. It was the most abundant and once itbecame established, the plant resource wasmostly unavailable to other phytophagousspecies. For the different sites, DBMpopulations, however, were not significantlydifferent (Fc1.80= 8.59, α-level = 0.05) (Fig. 20).Similarly, DBM populations were notsignificantly different at 5% level of significance(Fc2.43= 8.59, α-level = 0.05) (Fig. 21) for thedifferent treatments. Hymenopterous parasitesand predators were minimal. Spiders, on theother hand, were quite abundant and fed onDBM. Gandawan and Lake Duminagat had asignificantly higher number of spiders thanMansawan (Fc8.98= 8.59, α-level = 0.05) (Fig.22). Spider populations were also significantlymore abundant in the Lake Duminagat farm,which was near the forest (Fc29.71= 8.59, α-level= 0.05) (Fig. 23) compared with the sprayedand unsprayed treatments. This abundance ofspiders mostly exerted significant pressure onDBM populations. The prey-predator interactionbetween DBM and spiders is an important factorin community species structure andorganization.

Several environmental factors may influence thediversity, abundance, and activity of parasitoidsand predators in an agroecosystem. Theseinclude the availability of food (water, hosts,prey, pollen, and nectar), habitat requirements(refuges, nesting and reproduction sites), andthe intensity of crop management. In manycases, weeds and other natural vegetationincluding flowering species act as insectaryplants (Altieri 1984). Of the surroundingvegetation in the three sampling sites, only thegrass weed Saccharum sp. producedinflorescence, which may provide pollen andnectar to parasitic insects such as Cotesia sp.Cocoons and a few adults of this parasitic waspwere found only in the cabbage farm of Mr. Danilo

Fig. 20. DBM populations from different sites.Data points are not significant(Fc1.80= 8.59, ααααα-level = 0.05).

Fig. 21. DBM populations on differenttreatments. Data points are notsignificant(Fc2.43= 8.59, ααααα-level = 0.05).

Fig.22. Spider populations from thedifferent sites. Gandawan and LakeDuminagat sites have significantlyhigher spider populations comparedwith Mansawan(Fc8.98= 8.59, ααααα-level = 0.05).

Lake Duminagat

Sites

Gandaw anMansaw an

DB

M

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

-200+Std. Err.

MeanLake Duminagat

Sites

Gandaw anMansaw an

DB

M

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

-200+Std. Err.

Mean

Sprayed Unsprayed Near forest

Treatments

DB

M

450

350

250

150

50

-50

-150+Std. Err.

MeanSprayed Unsprayed Near forest

Treatments

DB

M

450

350

250

150

50

-50

-150+Std. Err.

Mean

Lake Duminagat

Sites

Po

pu

latio

n m

ean

-S

pid

ers

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5Mansaw an Gandaw an

+Std. Err.

MeanLake Duminagat

Sites

Po

pu

latio

n m

ean

-S

pid

ers

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5Mansaw an Gandaw an

+Std. Err.

Mean

26 Technical Report

Empil where Saccharum sp. abounded, unlike inthe other sampling sites where there was notmuch of them. The abundance of this grass weedmay explain the occurrence of the parasitic waspin the said area.

The importance of nonhost or noncrop habitatsas refuge for the natural enemies of insect pestsparticularly predators has been emphasized bysome workers (Stachow and Knauer 1988). Anadjacent forest perhaps served as refuge for thespiders thus explaining their abundance in a lonefarm adjoining it in Lake Duminagat. Cabbagefarms in Gandawan likewise were located nearsecondary forests, while no forest treessurrounded the farms in Mansawan.

The presence of trees therefore is a directfunction of the abundance of spiders. Along withthe trees come spiders that prey on pestsattacking the nearby grown cabbage like theDBM. Altieri (1984) reported a considerable

Fig. 23. Spider populations from differenttreatments. The farm in LakeDuminagat near the forest has asignificantly higher number ofspiders compared with the otherfarms (Fc29.71= 8.59, ααααα-level = 0.05).

movement of entomophagous insects fromwoodlands into adjacent orchards. Barrion (1999)suggested that tall and rather compact plantstands provide a better environment and refugefor spiders in harsh times.

Correlation between yield, soil features,and arthropod diversity

One of the components supporting plant growthis soil nutrient. We had the soil samples fromthe different farms from the three sites analyzedfor organic matter content, nitrogen (N),potassium (K), and phosphorus (P), and soilpH. The soil analysis was done in the AnalyticalServices Laboratory, Department of SoilScience, UP Los Baños. Table 4 summarizes theresults.

We examined the relationship between yield andthe amount of phosphorus in the topsoil becauseP is usually the limiting factor. As shown in Fig.24, there is a strong correlation between yieldand P (r = 0.92). The unsprayed plot inGandawan showed a very high level ofphosphorus followed by the sprayed andunsprayed farm in Lake Duminagat. This likelyis the reason for the significant differencesbetween sites and yield (Fig. 25) and alsobetween treatments and yield (Fig. 26). Thereis no correlation between yield and speciesrichness. Species richness, as measured by theMargaleff’s index, is fairly uniform for all sitesand treatments. Guilds or functional groups atthe various trophic levels are probably morecrucial than species diversity per se to thesustainability of the system. This is indicatedby the significantly more abundant spiderpopulations in Gandawan and Lake Duminagatand also in the farm near the forest.Additionally, there is also correlation with thenumber of spiders and yield, r = 0.66 (Fig. 27).

Treatments

Near forest

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Popula

tion m

ean -

Spid

ers


+Std. Err.

Mean

TreatmentsTreatments

Near forest

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Popula

tion m

ean -

Spid

ers


+Std. Err.

Mean

Treatments


Table 4. Soil analysis results for the top 10-cm samples from three sites and different treatments.

Site Treatment pH % Organic % N P ppm K cmol(+) matter kg soil

Mansawan sprayed 5.8 12.2 0.47 4 0.5 unsprayed 6.3 43.6 0.96 11 1.9Gandawan sprayed 5.5 11.7 0.51 10 3.2 unsprayed 5.7 70.8 2.34 90 0.8Duminagat sprayed 6.4 22.7 1.02 20 0.9 unsprayed 6.0 36.0 1.28 18 1.1 near forest 6.1 28.1 0.49 8 1.8

Fig. 24. Correlation between yield vs.phosphorus level. The twofactors showed very highcorrelation, r = 0.92.

Fig. 25. Differences in yield among sites.Significant differences withGandawan showing the highestaverage yield (Fc59.21 = 9. = 0. 48,ααααα-level 05).

Fig. 26. Differences in yield amongtreatments. Significant differenceswith unsprayed plots showing thehighest average yield (Fc11.55 = 9.48,ααααα-level = 0.05).

Fig. 27. Correlation between spidersand cabbage yield (in kg).

Regression95% confid.

AVE_YIELD = -0.1420 + 0.51461 * LOG_OM_PCorrelation: r = 0.92037

Phosphorus level in 10-cm topsoil (Log)

Ave

rage c

abbag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20.6Regression95% confid.

AVE_YIELD = -0.1420 + 0.51461 * LOG_OM_PCorrelation: r = 0.92037

Phosphorus level in 10-cm topsoil (Log)

Ave

rage c

abbag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.20.6 ±Std. Err.Mean

Sites

Ave

rag

e c

ab

bag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Lake DuminagatGandaw anMansaw an

±Std. Err.Mean

Sites

Ave

rag

e c

ab

bag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Lake DuminagatGandaw anMansaw an

±Std. Err.Mean

Treatments

Ave

rag

e c

ab

bag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


±Std. Err.Mean

Treatments

Ave

rag

e c

ab

bag

e y

ield

(kg

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Sprayed Unsprayed Near forestRegression95% confid.

SPID_LOG = .13474 + 1.4385 * AVE_YIELD

Correlation: r = .66228

Average cabbage yield (kg)

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sp

ide

r nu

mb

er

(Lo

g)









-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Sp

ide

r nu

mb

er

(Lo

g)

28 Technical Report

Participatory activities

Obtaining an entry permit from the office ofthe Mayor of Don Victoriano, MisamisOccidental, formally started the project. Mr.Alberto Cajeta, the municipal developmentofficer, issued the permit, on behalf of themayor. Local officials of the three barangayswere all approached and consulted. Mr. SergioBarimbao, the barangay captain of Nueva Vista,appointed Mr. Sonito Mangue, a councilor, toassist the lead researcher in identifying localpartners from the three barangays. He providedvaluable information and insights on the localpeople.

Local officials were completely briefed about theBiodiversity Research Project and SEARCAduring the site visit. The research team lived inthe village for the whole duration of the field

work. On December 21, 2001 the teamconducted a formal orientation meeting to brieflocal stakeholders about BRP, SEARCA, and theproject. A lecture on pest identification includingthe natural enemies associated with cabbagepests was also done followed by field exerciseson proper sampling and arthropod collection.Selected farmers were briefed on theirresponsibilities as local partners in the researchproject (Fig. 28).

At the end of the study, a validation meetingwas conducted on October 11, 2002 at the DayCare Center of Nueva Vista, Don Victoriano,Misamis Occidental to present the findings ofthe project to local partners and selectedbarangay leaders. Likewise, researcherspresented a research proposal for the nextphase to get feedback from local partners.

Fig. 28. Pictures taken during the orientation meeting and lecture onpest identification held at Nueva Vista, Don Victoriano,Misamis Occidental on December 21, 2001.


Farming practices of selected localpartners which may affectbiodiversity (Researcher’s view)

The current farming practices of selected localpartners and their relevance to biodiversity werealso assessed. Table 1 summarizes the pestmanagement practices, actual yield of cabbage,and salient features of the sampling sites.

Only two of the seven local partners, the Empilbrothers of Gandawan, were not Subanen. Allthe others were born in Mt. Malindang, but theirparents were migrants from severalmunicipalities in Misamis Occidental. Only a fewfinished elementary school education. Theselocal partners earned their living by farmingexcept for one who was partly working as amember of the Civilian Army Force GovernmentUnit (CAFGU).

All of them used lands on steep slopes prone toerosion, and practiced shifting cultivation. Theycleared lands to take advantage of theaccumulated fertility but later abandoned themwhen pest infestation became high. Majoritypracticed monoculture, e.g., planting ofcabbage, but one of them, Mr. Roger Empil,practiced multiple cropping, growing cabbage,chayote, onion, and taro (gabi). He did not plantcabbage continuously but grew another croplike onion in the area previously planted withcabbage to avoid DBM infestation.

Nearness to water supply, e.g., streams andponds, was the main criterion used in selectingan area to be planted to cabbage and onion.Farmers usually dissolved the granular fertilizer14-14-14 in water and applied one-fourthsardine can (155 g) of solution per plant. Thispractice is very laborious, since they have toapply the dissolved fertilizer on crops plantedon steep slopes. Majority of the local partnersapplied fertilizers weekly, which usually started2 weeks after transplanting, and ended 2 weeksprior to harvest. This practice is uneconomicaland unsustainable at the same time. Figure 29shows the “burnt” effect caused by fertilizerswhen applied at a high rate 2 weeks beforeharvest.

Many of the local partners cannot afford to buychemicals to control pests and diseases. To solvethis problem, they bought insecticides in retail.One bottle cap (approximately 1 tbsp or 10 mL)

of Bushwack and Magnum costs P10.00, whileAscend costs P25.00. Three local partnerssprayed their cabbage plants once withBushwack and Magnum, while one sprayedAscend seven times. The one who sprayed seventimes obtained the lowest yield (0.09 kg/head),which was nonmarketable, while the one whoobtained the highest yield (0.88 kg/head) didnot spray at all. DBM population was very high,while spider counts were low on cabbage plantssprayed seven times. On the other hand, DBMpopulation was low on unsprayed farms, whilespiders were abundant particularly in theunsprayed farm that adjoined the forest.

It was learned during the validation meetingthat underdosage was the main reason why theDBM population was not controlled in spite offrequent spraying. Ascend, whose activeingredient is Fipronil, is a pyrazole stomach/contact insecticide, used for controlling DBM incabbage at 2-3.5 tbsps/16 L of water. It isapplied as a high volume spray at arecommended rate of 20-tank loads/ha. Mr.Pacante applied one tank load for his 600-m2

area at 1 tbsp/tank, which was below therecommended rate. The rate, however, seemedto be lethal to spiders because of their lowpopulation. The DBM population that infestedMr. Pacante’s plants at the earlier stage camefrom the neighboring pechay (another crucifer),which is an alternate host of the pest. Cabbageplants were heavily damaged by the pest (Fig.31), which resulted in great reduction in yield.Unsprayed cabbage plants did not suffer fromhigh DBM infestation, resulting in high yield,primarily because they were planted in newlyopened areas where the pest has notestablished yet. This was of course known bythe local partners and was validated during themeeting. That is why most of the sample farmswere located in remote and steep slopes, toevade DBM infestation.

Fig. 29. Burning effect caused byexcessive fertilizer use.

30 Technical Report

Cabbage plants grown beside the forest did notsuffer from high DBM infestation because of thepresence of spiders that preyed on the pest.Yield, however, was lower than on otherunsprayed farms mainly because of the veryclose planting distance, which led to competitionfor water, light, and nutrients. Moreover, thearea was very steep (about 40°), thus much ofthe applied fertilizers were easily eroded andbecame unavailable to the plants.

In summary, these are the farming practices ofthe local partners and their relevance tobiodiversity:

1. cultivation in steep slopesa. prone to erosion leading to fertility lossb. less diverse crops grown because ofthe steepness, therefore less biodiversity

2. shifting cultivationa. unsustainable; areas unable toregenerate because of short fallow periodb. destroyed habitats of beneficialorganisms

3. monoculture (e.g., cabbage)a. reduced species richnessb. high population of selected species likethe DBM

4. calendar application of fertilizers andpesticidesa. affected biodiversity especially ofnatural enemies

Fig. 31. Cabbage plants heavilyinfested by the DBM, P.xylostella.

Key project impacts

Generally, the project generated a great deal ofenthusiasm and interest among the local partnersand also some local officials who attended themeetings conducted by the research team. Boththe orientation and validation meetings werecarried out in the local language, which facilitatedunderstanding between researchers and localpartners. The use of visual aids such as coloredphotographs of insect pests and their naturalenemies greatly aided the lecture and promotedquick and better understanding among theparticipants.

Selected local partners gave local names of thecommon insect pests attacking cabbage andwhich were mainly derived from the pests’peculiar behavior or habit. For instance, theycalled DBM as “bitay-bitay” because of its habitof hanging itself when disturbed; cabbageworms as “tapok-tapok” because of theirtendency to aggregate themselves; cabbagelooper as “dangaw-dangaw” because the pestseems to measure when it moves; cutworm as“utlob” because it cuts; and aphids as “pito-pito” because they seem to stay always ingroups of seven.

Weekly sampling of arthropods trained localpartners to identify pests quickly and recognizethe different stages of development, e.g., thelarvae and pupae of the DBM. At the start ofthe project they found it difficult to recognizethe minute eggs of the DBM, but after severalsampling activities they became adept at it.Recognizing the different development stagesgave them an idea of when to start controllingthe pest, without our teaching them. Forexample, we noted that after counting the eggsof the DBM, a local partner would immediatelycrush them so that these eggs will not hatchinto larvae. Larvae and pupae were alsodestroyed physically.

During the validation meeting, local partnerswere asked to cite the benefits they receivedfrom the project. The common answer was thatthey had learned to distinguish the pests fromtheir natural enemies. This is important becausefarmers often think that all insects found ontheir crops are pests, hence these must bekilled. Thus when the picture of black antsfeeding on a larva of a certain pest waspresented to them they agreed that indeedthese ants were beneficial just like the spiders,and that these arthropods must be protected.


Innovativeness was seen as another impact ofthe project on local partners. Mr. Roger Empilof Gandawan, for instance asked if he couldkeep the insect net for himself after the project.He wanted to use the net to collect DBM adultsand physically destroy them. His idea wasgreatly appreciated, but it was also explainedto him that when he uses the net for collection,it is not only the pests that will be collected butalso the natural enemies and neutral ones. Thetask of separating the pests from the nonpestswould be laborious.

Constraints to project success

A. Low remuneration rateMisconceptions about the nature of the projectwere seen as an important constraint in itsimplementation. Majority of the local partnershad a “negative” perception about the projectbecause they thought that it was going to bean “employment agency”. One local partner keptcomplaining about the low rate of remuneration(P50.00), which he received for doing thesampling activities. His basis for comparisonwas the other BRP project which gave a higherrate (P160.00/day). We believed that theamount given to the local partners was fairenough because they only spent 2-3 hours insampling, while the collaborators of the otherproject spent the whole day doing theirresponsibilities. Giving remuneration to localpartners is considered a hindrance inimplementing participatory research projects.Competition among local partners was observedduring the validation meeting when they learnedthat there would be another research project.All of them wanted to become local partnersagain.

B. Problem on research personnelImplementing the project was delayed becauseof some problems regarding the recruitment ofa research assistant. Initially, the projectidentified Mr. Eliseo C. Mituda, the brother ofthe lead proponent for the position. Hisappointment, however, was questioned sinceBRP prohibits the appointment of close relativesof people involved in the project. An appeal wasmade to BRP-JPC to reconsider Mr. Mituda’sappointment mainly because of safetyconsiderations and concerns about familymatters. The request was finally granted afteralmost two months, but in the end Mr. Mitudadecided not to join the project anymore.

Mr. Ervin Dris, a BS Agronomy graduate of theMindanao State University (MSU), Marawi City,got the position. He was responsible forcontacting selected local partners andestablishing rapport and harmoniousrelationships with them. He supervised the landpreparation of the study sites including thesowing of cabbage seeds in the seedbed andconstructing sampling devices for arthropodbiodiversity assessment. He also helped inplanning and implementing orientationmeetings for local partners about BRP, SEARCA,and the research project. Simultaneous withthe orientation meeting was a lecture andpractical exercises on pest identification. Hejoined local partners in sampling for arthropodsduring the first three weeks. However, Mr. Drisdecided to quit due to health reasons on January16, 2002.

Mr. Esteban Padogdog, Jr., a graduate of BSForestry of MSU replaced Mr. Dris. Hisexperience and training as a forester from hisprevious jobs aided him in performing hisresponsibilities. Sampling activities werefinished when the local partners finallyharvested and sold the cabbage plants.

32 Technical Report

Summary and conclusion

Biodiversity of arthropods was assessed oncabbage fields of seven local partners in thethree upland barangays of Don Victoriano,Misamis Occidental, including Nueva Vista,Gandawan, and Lake Duminagat. Cabbage fieldsvaried in size (60-836 m2) and slope (20-40º).

Four classes of arthropods were foundassociated with cabbage: Insecta (insects),Arachnida (spiders), Crustacea (sowbugs), andDiplopoda (millipedes). Insects dominated thesearthropods comprising 10 orders belonging to60 families. Various flies, gnats and theirrelatives, collembola, termites, sowbugs, andmillipedes are mostly detrivores. Thediamondback moth or DBM (Plutella xylostellaLinn.) is the major pest of cabbage that limitsproduction and reduces yield. Other insect pestsobserved included the cabbage looper(Trichoplusia ni Hubner), cabbage worm(Crocidolomia binotalis), cutworm (Spodopteralitura), and the green peach aphid (Myzuspersicae). Two leaf-feeding beetles were alsofound associated with the cabbageagroecosystem but their population was verylow. These were the flea beetles (Psylliodes sp.)and the squash beetle (Aulacophora similis).Hymenopterous parasites and predators wereminimal and included the black ants, andsphecid and braconid wasps. Tachinid flies(Tachinidae) parasitized cutworm larvae, whilea single cabbage looper larva was parasitizedby a braconid wasp, Cotesia sp. (Braconidae).Very few adults of this wasp, however, werecollected in cabbage fields.

The arthropod species diversity was alsoassessed for the seven cabbage farms from thethree sites in Mt. Malindang. Species richnesswas measured using the Margaleff index, which

was found not significantly different amongtreatments for the three sites. Correspondenceanalysis also showed general uniformity ofspecies richness among sites and treatments.DBM is the dominant phytophagous species;DBM populations from the three sites and farmsdid not significantly differ. Spiders dominatedthe predatory guild with spider numberssignificantly more abundant in Gandawan andLake Duminagat. Among treatments, the farmnear the forest harbored significantly morespiders than sprayed and unsprayed cabbagefarms. Species richness and DBM populationwere not correlated with yield.

Soil nutrients, especially phosphorus, affectyield. A strong correlation was found betweenaverage cabbage yield (kg) and the amount ofphosphorus in the soil (r = 0.92). Moreover,there is indication that average cabbage yieldis correlated with spider number.

The weekly participatory sampling activities ofarthropods built up the capability of localpartners to quickly identify the different lifestages of the major insect pests of cabbageincluding their natural enemies.

The farming practices of the selected localpartners and their relevance to biodiversityincluded the following: (1) cultivation in steepslopes: prone to erosion leading to loss offertility; less diverse crops due to steepnesshence less biodiversity; (2) shifting cultivation:unsustainable and destroyed habitats ofbeneficial organisms; (3) monoculture: reducedspecies richness and population of selectedspecies like the DBM; (4) calendar applicationof fertilizers and pesticides: affected biodiversityespecially of natural enemies.


Recommendations

These recommendations are given to serve as aguide for policymakers, institutions, agencies,programs like the BRP, and interestedindividuals who are committed to promotingbiodiversity conservation in Mt. Malindang.

Generally, there is an urgent need to formulateand implement policies that will result in thefollowing:

1. practice of settled agriculture – farmers musthave a sense of ownership to avoidpracticing shifting cultivation;

2. promotion of agricultural practices that willconserve biodiversity such as minimal usageof chemical pesticides and fertilizers;

3. habitat diversification, e.g., crop rotation,intercropping, multiple cropping; and

4. empowerment of farmers through educationand training.

It is apparent from the findings of this researchthat there is an urgent need to implementintegrated pest management (IPM) to minimizepest problems in the uplands. Through IPM,farmers will be better equipped to makedecisions that will manage pests effectivelywithout full reliance on pesticides. It would alsominimize problems in shifting cultivation, sincefarmers would no longer have to plant in newlyopened areas to avoid pest damage. It wouldalso pave the way for implementing integratedcrop management (ICM) to help solve thecomplex problems in farming systems, e.g.,correct fertilizer usage and proper weed control.There is also a need to study the diversity ofspiders in the uplands of Mt. Malindang tomaximize their potential in regulatingpopulations of pests like the DBM.

34 Technical Report

Literature cited

Altieri, M.A. 1984. Patterns of insect diversity in monocultures and polycultures of brusselsprouts. Prot. Ecol. 6:227-232.

Altieri, M.A. 1994. Biodiversity and pest management in agroecosystem. Food Products Press. TheHaworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY.

Altieri, M.A. and D.K. Letourneau. 1982. Vegetation diversity and insect pest outbreaks. CRC,Critic. Rev. Plant Sci. 2:131-169.

Andow, D.A. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropods population response. Ann. Rev. Entomol.36:561-586.

Baltazar, C.R. 1990. An inventory of Philippine insects. I. Orders Neuroptera, Strepsiptera,Siphonaptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. UPLB, University Publications Office, College, Laguna,Philippines. 703 p.

Baltazar, C.R. and V.P. Gapud. 1995. An inventory of Philippine insects. National Research Councilof the Philippines, Terminal Report.

Barrion, A.T. 1999. Guild structure, diversity and relative abundance of spiders in selected nonricehabitats and irrigated rice fields in San Juan, Batangas, Philippines. Philipp. Ent. 13(2):129-157.

Biological Survey of Canada (BSC). 1996. The advantages of using arthropods in ecosystemmanagement. January.

Brown, A.H.D. 1992. Human impact on gene pool and sampling for their conservation. Oikos 63:109-118.

Danks, H.V. 1992. Long life cycles in insects. Can. Ent. 124(1):167-187.

Drees, B.M. and J. Jackman. 1999. Field guide to Texas insects. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston,Texas.

Ehrlich, P.R. 1992. Population biology of chickenspot butterflies and the preservation of globalbiodiversity. Oikos 63:6-12.

Elias, S.A. 1994. Quaternary insects and their environments. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington. 284 p.

Entomological Society of America (ESA). 2000. Position statement on insects and biodiversity. In:Insects as biodiversity indicators. 9301 Annapolis Road, Suite 3000 Lanham, MD.

Flint, M.L. and P.A. Roberts. 1988. Using crop diversity to manage pest problems: Some Californiaexamples. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 3:164-167.

Fowler, C. and P. Mooney. 1990. Food, politics and the loss of genetic diversity. The Univ. ofArizona Press, Tucson, A Z.


Gonzales, R.H. 1976. Crop protection in Latin America with special reference to integrated pestcontrol. FAO PH Prot Bull. Vol. 24:3.

Hammond, P.M. 1992. Species inventory. In: B. Groombridge, editor, Global biodiversity: Status ofthe earth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, London. p.17-39.

Hawksworth, D.L. and J.M. Ritchie. 1993. Biodiversity and biosystematic priorities: microorganismsand invertebrates. CAB International Wallingford, UK. 70 p.

Hawksworth, D.L. and L.A. Mound. 1991. Biodiversity data-bases: The crucial significance ofcollections. In: D.L. Hawksworth, editor. The biodiversity of microorganisms and invertebrates:Its role in sustainable agriculture, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 302 p.

Heong, J.L., G.B. Aquino, and A.T. Barrion. 1991. Arthropod community structures of rice ecosystemsin the Philippines. Bull. Ent. Res. 81:407-416.

Hill, M.O. 1973. Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. J. Ecol. 61:237-249.

Holloway, J.D. and N.E. Stork. 1991. The dimensions of biodiversity: The use of invertebrates asindicators of human impact. In: D.L. Hawksworth, editor. The biodiversity of microorganismsand invertebrates: its role in sustainable agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.302 p.

Kremen, C., R.K. Colwell, T.C. Erwin, D.D. Murphy, R.F. Noss, and M.A. Sanjayan. 1993. Terrestrialarthropod assemblages: Their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 7(4):796- 808.

Lauenroth, W.K. and D.G. Milchunas. 1992. Shortgrass steppe. In: R.T. Coupland, editor. Naturalgrasslands introduction and Western hemisphere. Ecosystems of the World BA. Elsevier,Amsterdam. 469 p.

Lawton, J.H. 1983. Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol.28:23-39.

Ledig, F.T. 1992. Human impacts on genetic diversity in forest ecosystem. Oikos 63:87-108.

Liss, W.J., L.J. Gut, P.H. Westigard, and C.E. Warren. 1986. Perspective on arthropod communitystructure, organization, and development in agricultural crops. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 31:455-478.

Magurran, A. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, x + 179 p.

Marshall, S.A., R.S. Anderson, R.E. Roughley, V. Behan-Pelletier, and H.V. Danks. 1994. Terrestrialarthropod biodiversity supplement. 33 p.

Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystemproperties. Science 277:504-509.

McAleece, N. 1997. BioDiversity Professional Beta 1. The Museum of Natural History, London andThe Scottish Association for Marine Science.

McNelly, S., B. Geier and S. Stalfon. 1990. The relationship between nature conservation, biodiversityand organic agriculture. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement(IFOAM), Germany.

36 Technical Report

Morell, V. 1999. In search of solutions. National Geographic 195 (2): 72-87.

Peterson, G., C.R. Allen, and C.S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale.Ecosystem 1:6-18.

Pfiffner, L. 2000. Significance of organic farming for invertebrate diversity - enhancing beneficialorganisms with field margins in combination with organic farming. Res. Inst. Org. Agriculture,Switzerland.

Pfiffner, L. and U. Niggli. 1996. Effects of bio-dynamic, organic and conventional farming on groundbeetles and other epigaeic arthropods in winter wheat. Biol. Agric. and Hort. 12:353-364.

Philippines, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1977. Philippines biodiversity:An assessment and plan of Makati City. Bookmark.

Polis, G.A., C.A. Myers, and R.D. Holt. 1989. The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation:Potential competitors that eat each other. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:297-330.

Power, A.G. and A.S. Flecker. 1996. The role of biodiversity in tropical managedecosystems. In:G.H. Orians, R. Dirzo, and J.H. Cushman, editors, Biodiversity and ecosystem process intropical forests. Springer-Verlag, New York. p. 173-194.

Price, P.W. 1984. Alternative paradigms in community ecology. In: P.W. Price, C.N. Slobodchidoff,W.S. Gauld, editors. A new ecology: Novel approaches to interactive systems. John Wileyand Sons NY. 515 p.

Price, P.W. 1971. Niche breadth and dominance of parasitic insects sharing the same host species.Ecology 52:587-596.

Ross, H.H., C.A. Ross, and J.R.P. Ross. 1982. A textbook of entomology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,Canada.

Statchow, U. and N. Knauer. 1998. The importance of hedges in an agroecosystem of SchleswigHolstein. II. Carabid beetles (Carabidae: Col). Z. Kultruiotech. Flurbereinig. 29:299-306.Cited in M.G. Padetti and D. Pimentel, editors. Biotic diversity in agroecosystems.

Sumalde, A.C. 1995. Environmental impact of pesticides and other concerns related to their use invegetable production in the Philippines. In: E.D. Magallona, A.C. Sumalde, A.C. Pola, P.MacQuarrie, editors. Selected papers on pesticides management and regulation in thePhilippines. Environment and Resource Management Project (ERMP), Philippines.

Sotherton,N.W. 1998. Land use changes and the decline of farmland wildlife: An appraisal of theset-aside approach. Biol. Conserv. 83:259-268.

The Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council (RAWOO). 1998. Framework for Philippine–Dutch Programs of Biodiversity Research for Development. Publication No. 17. The Hague,the Netherlands. 36 p.

Thomas, J.D. 1996. Using marine invertebrates to establish research and conservation priorities.In: M.L. Reaka, Kudla D. & E. Wilson, editors. Biodiversity II: understanding and protectingour biological resources. National Press.

van den Berg, H. and M.J.W. Cock. 2000. African oduom and its natural enemies in Kenya. CABIBioScience, CABI UK Centre (Ascot), Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL57TA, UK.


Wilson, E.A. 1987. The little things that run the world (The importance and conservation ofinvertebrates). Conserv. Biol. 1:344-346.

World Resources Institute (WRI), World Conservation Union (WCU), United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP). 1992. Global biodiversity strategy guidelines for action to save, studyand use Earth’s biotic wealth sustainably and equitably.

38 Technical Report

Table 1. Visual counts of arthropods from Mt. Malindang.

Day 1

M-S1 Enerio 01/08/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 68Spiders 3

G-US1 Roger 01/08/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 46Spodoptera litura 2Spiders 19Beetle 2Leafhoppers 1

G-S1 Danilo 01/08/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 32Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Spiders 4Beetle 1Leafhoppers 1Hairy caterpillars 1

D-US1 Janito 01/17/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 45Myzus persicae 4Crocidolomia binotalis 1Grasshoppers 1Spiders 3

D-S1 Rudy 01/17/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 10Myzus persicae 1Spiders 19Wasp 2Ants 1

D-D1 Carlos 01/17/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 3Myzus persicae 1Spiders 38Snail 2

Day 2

M-US2 Junnie 01/12/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 36Spiders 3Fly 1

M-S2 Enerio 01/12/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 102Spiders 3

G-US2 Roger 01/15/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 205Spodoptera litura 1

Appendix


Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 14Spiders 23

G-S2 Danilo 01/08/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 52Spodoptera litura 2Spiders 3Myzus persicae 20Beetle 1

D-US2 Janito 01/24/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 46Myzus persicae 3Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 3Grasshoppers 2Hairy caterpillar 2Spiders 10

D-S2 Rudy 01/24/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 18Myzus persicae 9Spiders 9Diptera (fly, mosquito) 2Snail 3Hairy caterpillar 1

D-D2 Carlos 01/24/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 34Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 5Spiders 33

Day 3

M-US3 Junnie 01/23/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 36Spiders 4Myzus persicae 8Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1

M-S3 Enerio 01/23/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 578Myzus persicae 42

G-US3 Roger 01/22/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 217Spodoptera litura 2Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 22Spiders 72Beetle 2Myzus persicae 14Leafhoppers 1

G-S3 Danilo 01/22/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 353Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 6Spiders 15Myzus persicae 3Hairy caterpillars 3

D-US3 Janito 01/29/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 22Myzus persicae 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2

40 Technical Report

Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 1Spiders 3

D-S3 Rudy 01/29/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 22Myzus persicae 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 10Spiders 3

D-D3 Carlos 01/29/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 2Myzus persicae 1Spiders 45Snail 1

Day 4

M-US4 Junnie 01/31/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 161Spiders 5Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Crocidolomia binotalis 1

M-S4 Enerio 01/31/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 1147Crocidolomia binotalis 1

G-US4 Roger 01/30/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 125Spiders 15Myzus persicae 1Fly 1

G-S4 Danilo 01/30/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 230Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Spiders 14Myzus persicae 3Beetle 1

D-US4 Janito 02/07/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 248Myzus persicae 2Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 16Spiders 5

D-S4 Rudy 02/07/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 122Myzus persicae 1Spodoptera litura 14Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 9Spiders 2


Day 5

M-US5 Junnie 02/09/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 72


M-S5 Enerio 02/09/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 83Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Spiders 2

G-US5 Roger 02/08/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 41Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 16Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 2Spiders 21

G-S5 Danilo 02/08/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 52Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Spiders 7

D-US5 Janito 02/13/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 309Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 29Hairy caterpillar 2Spiders 6Aulacophora indica 1

D-S5 Rudy 02/13/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 71Myzus persicae 1Spodoptera litura 2Crocidolomia binotalis 1

D-D5 Carlos 02/13/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 12Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Spiders 30Snail 1Hairy caterpillar 2Beetle 1

Day 6

M-US6 Junnie 02/15/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 39Spiders 6Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Spodoptera litura 3

M-S6 Enerio 02/15/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 27Crocidolomia binotalis 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1

G-US6 Roger 02/14/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 9Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 18Spiders 14Unidentified worm 2

G-S6 Danilo 02/14/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 21Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 9Spiders 9

42 Technical Report

D-US6 Janito 02/21/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 52Crocidolomia binotalis 1Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 16Spiders 4Snail 1

D-S6 Rudy 02/21/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 93Myzus persicae 1Crocidolomia binotalis 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2


Day 7

M-US7 Junnie 02/23/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 72Spiders 7Crocidolomia binotalis 1Spodoptera litura 7

M-S7 Enerio 02/23/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 56Crocidolomia binotalis 6Spodoptera litura 9

G-US7 Roger 02/22/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 63Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 21Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 2Spiders 13Beetle 1Hairy caterpillar 1

G-S7 Danilo 02/22/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 73Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 1Spiders 9

D-US7 Janito 02/28/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 27Crocidolomia binotalis 1Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 28Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 1Aulacophora indica 2

D-S7 Rudy 02/28/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 51Crocidolomia binotalis 3Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 6Spiders 2


D-D7 Carlos 02/28/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 23Myzus persicae 3Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 10Spiders 23

Day 8

M-US8 Junnie 03/01/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 58Spiders 5Fly 10Myzus persicae 2Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Snail 1

M-S8 Enerio 03/01/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 158Crocidolomia binotalis 3Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 6Spiders 1

G-S8 Danilo 03/02/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 26Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 4Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 2Crocidolomia binotalis 4Spiders 11Myzus persicae 1

D-US8 Janito 03/07/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 59Crocidolomia binotalis 1Spodoptera litura 2Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 18Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 3GrasshoppersHairy caterpillar 2Spiders 3Aulacophora indica 1Snail 3

D-S8 Rudy 03/07/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 36Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 7Spiders 2


Day 9

M-US9 Junnie 03/08/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 59Spiders 1Myzus persicae 1Crocidolomia binotalis 11Til-As 1

44 Technical Report

M-S9 Enerio 03/08/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 127Myzus persicae 1Crocidolomia binotalis 6Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Spiders 2

G-S9 Danilo 03/06/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 6Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 7Crocidolomia binotalis 3Spiders 7Myzus persicae 10Beetle 1Geometridae 3Parasitic cocoons one massTermite (Adult) 1

D-US9 Janito 03/14/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 5Spodoptera litura 2Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 4Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 1Spiders 9Wasp 1Cocoon “semilooper” one mass

D-S9 Rudy 03/14/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 13Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Spiders 6Ants 1Beetle 1

D-D9 Carlos 03/14/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 37Spiders 32

Day 10

M-US10 Junnie 03/15/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 38Spiders 3Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 1Crocidolomia binotalis 8Til-As 1

M-S10 Enerio 3/15/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 76Crocidolomia binotalis 51Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 4Spiders 1Beetle 2Grasshoppers 1

G-S10 Danilo 03/14/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 8Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Spiders 12Ant (black) 1


D-US10 Janito 03/19/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 3Myzus persicae 5Crocidolomia binotalis 1Spodoptera litura 4Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Hairy caterpillar 1Spiders 4Aulacophora indica 3Millipede 1

D-S10 Rudy 03/19/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 10Spodoptera litura 8Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 2Spiders 2Beetle 2Cocoon one massLeafhoppers 1

D-D10 Carlos 03/19/02 Lake DuminagatPlutella xylostella 93Spodoptera litura 1Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 6Trichoplusia ni (pupae) 1Spiders 19Snail 8

Day 11

M-US11 Junnie 03/20/02 MansawanPlutella xylostella 25Spiders 13

G-S11 Danilo 03/14/02 GandawanPlutella xylostella 15Trichoplusia ni (larvae) 3Spiders 8Leafhoppers 1

46 Technical Report

TABLE 2. Arthropod sweep samples from Mt. Malindang.

Day 1

M-S1 Enerio 01/12/02 Mansawan sweep netDBM 4Formicidae 1Tingidae 1

M-US1 Junnie 01/12/02 Mansawan sweep netFormicidae 1Curculionidae 1Cicadellidae 2Cicadellidae 2 1Muscoid 1Acalyptrate 2Spiders 3

G-S1 Danilo 01/08/02 Gandawan sweep netOttitidae 1

Day 2

M-S2 Enerio 1/16/02 Mansawan sweep netChrysomelidae 1Cicadellidae 1Cicadellidae 2 3Cicadellidae 3 1Chloropidae 8Phoridae 1DBM 2Braconidae 1Spiders 5Miridae 1

G-US2 Roger 01/15/02 Gandawan sweep netDBM 1Tetrigidae 2Spiders 10

G-S2 Danilo 01/15/02 Gandawan sweep netSpiders 1DBM 2

Day 3

M-S3 Enerio 01/26/02 Manswan sweep netMiridae 1Chloropidae 5Phoridae 1Cicadellidae 3Cerambycidae 1DBM 2Spiders 6

D-D3 Carlos 1/24/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netSciaridae 2Curculionidae 1Muscidae 1Tetrigidae 1


Anthocoridae 1DBM 2Chloropidae 6Spiders 19Cicadellidae 1

D-S3 Rudy 1/24/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM 7Cicadellidae 1Tetrigidae 2Formicidae 2Lauxanidae 1Chloropidae 3Cotesia sp. 1

Day 4

M-S4 Enerio 1/31/02 Mansawan sweep netDBM 44Drosophilidae 1Tipulidae 2Rhagionidae 1Acalyptrate 1

M-US4 Junnie 01/31/02 Mansawan sweep netDBM 108Spiders 1Anthomyiidae 1Drosophilidae 1Delphacidae 1Acalyptrate 1Cicadellidae

G-US4 Roger 01/30/02 Gandawan sweep netSpiders 6Acalyptrate 1DBM 1

G-S4 Danilo 01/30/02 Gandawan sweep netSemilooper 2DBM 15Sciomyzidae 1Anthomyiidae 2Spiders 3Chloropidae 1

D-US4 Janito 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netCicadellidae 1DBM 6Dolicophodidae 1Acalyptrate 8Spiders 4Formicidae 1

D-D4 Carlos 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netElateridae 2Spiders 15Braconidae 1Acalyptrate 4DBM 1

48 Technical Report

D-S4 Rudy 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netCotesia sp. 1Syrphidae 1Tipulidae 1Cecidomyiidae 3Braconidae 1Cicadellidae 1Tetrigidae 1Spiders 3Rhagionidae 1DBM 1

Day 5

M-S5 Enerio 02/09/02 Mansawan sweep netChloropidae 2Miridae 1DBM 1Spider 1Formicidae 2

M-US5 Junnie 2/9/02 Mansawan sweep netDBM 14Cicadellidae 1Drosophilidae 3Chloropidae 6Formicidae 1Formicidae 2 3Formicidae 3 1Spiders 1

G-US5 Roger 02/08/02 Gandawan sweep netSpiders 15DBM 11Cicadellidae 1Cotesia sp. 2

G-S5 Danilo 02/08/02 Gandawan sweep netDBM 20Spiders 6Halictus sp. 1Tipulidae 2Cicadellidae 1Phoridae 1Cecidomyiidae 1Semilooper 2

D-S5 Rudy 02/07/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM 6Spiders 7Miridae 1Delphacidae 1Cicadellidae 1Chloropidae 1

D-US5 Janito 02/07/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM adult 16Semilooper 1Spiders 8Curculionidae 1Tetrigidae 1Chloropidae 1Chrysomelidae 1Thrips 1


D-D5 Carlos 02/07/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netSpiders 14Chloropidae 2Cecidomyiidae 1DBM 5

Day 6

M-S6 Enerio 2/12/02 Mansawan sweep netFormicidae 1Cicadellidae 1DBM 17Chloropidae 12Tephretidae 1Drosophilidae 1

M-US6 Junnie 02/15/02 Mansawan sweep netVespidae 1Braconidae 2Tipulidae 1Chloropidae 32Spider 1DBM 6

G-US6 Roger 2/13/02 Gandawan sweep netTachinidae 1Spider 1DBM 1

G-S6 Danilo 2/13/02 Gandawan sweep netDBM 4Sciaridae 1Ottitidae 1Spiders 1Sciaridae 1

D-S6 Rudy 2/13/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM 15Formicidae 1Formicidae 2 1Dolichopodidae 1Chloropidae 10Chloropidae 2 1Semilooper 1Spiders 4

D-D6 Carlos 2/13/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netTipulidae 1DBM 2Chrysomelidae 1Delphacidae 1Staphylinidae 1Spider 9Diapriidae 1

50 Technical Report

D-US6 Janito 2/13/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM 9Tipulidae 1Formicidae 1Chloropidae 3Spiders 2Chloropidae 2 1Semilooper 1

Day 7

D-US7 Janito 2/21/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netSemilooper 4DBM 23Dolichopodidae 1Miridae 1Curculionidae 1Spiders 2Chloropidae 1

D-D7 Carlos 02/21/02 Lake Duminagat sweep netDBM 1Spiders 10Ichneumonidae 1Dolichopodidae 1Musca domestica 1


Table 3. Arthropod pitfall trap samples from Mt. Malindang.

Day 1

M-US1 Junnie 01/09/02 Mansawan pitfall trapCutworm 3

M-S1 Enerio 01/12/02 Mansawan pitfall trapFormicidae 33Formicidae 2 12DBM 4Amphipoda 1Spiders 3Cicadellidae 1Entomobryidae 16Scarabaeidae 1Staphylinidae 1Delphacidae 2Cecidomyiidae 1Solenopsis sp. 3Mycetophilidae 1

G-S1 Danilo 01/15/02 Gandawan pitfall trapStaphylinidae 1Cerambycidae 1Phalangidae 1Sowbugs 11Miridae 1Formicidae 3Calyptrate 5

Day 2

M-S2 Enerio 1/31/02 Mansawan pitfall trapGryllacrididae 2Blatellidae 1Staphylinidae 1Formicidae 1Phoridae 1Tenebrionidae 1Spiders 5Cecidomyidae 1Chrysomelidae 1

M-US2 Junnie 01/31/02 Mansawan pitfall trapDBM 1Formicidae 2Drosophilidae 1Delphacidae 1Cicadellidae 1Staphylinidae 1Miridae 2Acalyptrate 16Chloropidae 12Spiders 2

G-S2 Danilo 01/30/02 Gandawan pitfall trapGryllacrididae 2DBM 3Gryllidae 1Formicidae 7Spiders 5

52 Technical Report

Cecidomyidae 1Lygaeidae 2Curculionidae 1Staphylinidae 2Collembola 1Braconidae 3Isopoda 1

G-US2 Roger 1/30/02 Gandawan pitfall trapSphecidae 1Ichneumonidae 1Braconidae 1DBM 1Staphylinidae 1Coccinellidae 1Chrysomelidae 1Cecidomyiidae 2Mycetophilidae 1Tipulidae 1Phoridae 1Gryllacrididae 1Spiders 2

D-D2 Carlos 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapSpiders 1Amphipoda 2Cecidomyiidae 1Fomicidae 1Lycaedae 1Chrysomelidae 1Phalangidae 1Entomobryidae 1

D-S2 Rudy 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapSpiders 4Amphipoda 3Formicidae 11Elateridae 1Curculionidae 2Tenelerionidae 1Phalangidae 1

Day 3

M-US3 Junnie 2/9/02 Mansawan pitfall trapGryllidae 1Phoridae 1Formicidae 2Aphididae 1Formicidae 2 1Formicidae 3 2Carabidae 1Spiders 2

M-S3 Enerio 2/09/02 Mansawan pitfall trapChrysomelidae 1Gryllidae 1Blattidae 1Carabidae 1DBM 1


G-S3 Danilo 02/08/02 Gandawan pitfall trapChrysomelidae 1Formicidae 3Lygaeidae 1Coccinellidae 1DBM 2Unidentified sp. 7

D-D3 Carlos 1/24/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapScelionidae 1Curculionidae 1Carabidae 1Spiders 2Amphipoda 2Phalangida 2

D-US3 Janito 1/24/02 LakeDuminagat pitfall trapCleridae 1Staphylinidae 2Formicidae 45Formicidae 2 8DBM 1Chrysomelidae 1Formicidae 3 1Coccinellidae 1

Day 4

M-S4 Enerio 2/15/02 Mansawan pitfall trapFormicidae 1Earwig 1Cicadellidae 1Delphacidae 1Phalangida 1

M-US4 Junnie 2/15/02 Mansawan pitfall trapGryllacrididae 1Sepsidae 1Staphylinidae 2Carabidae 1Formicidae 37Formicidae 2 1Formicidae 3 4Formicidae 4 1Phoridae 2Curculionidae 1Coccinellidae 1Anobiidae 1DBM 2

G-S4 Danilo 2/12/02 Gandawan pitfall trapNoctuidae 3Staphylinidae 2Formicidae 1Formicidae 2 1Curculionidae 1Elateridae 1Tetrigidae 1Amphipoda 54Spiders 2Isopoda 2

54 Technical Report

G-US4 Roger 2/13/02 Gandawan pitfall trapStaphylinidae 2Coccinellidae 1Chrysomelidae 1Formicidae 1Spiders 3

D-D4 Carlos 02/13/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapPhalangida 2Amphipoda 2Aphididae 1Formicidae 1Spiders 1

D-US4 Janito 2/13/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapPhalangida 1Gryllacrididae 1Tetrigidae 1Gryllidae 4Earwig 1Formicidae 3Formicidae 2 2Cecidomyiidae 1Aphididae 2

D-S4 Rudy 2/13/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapDrosophila sp. 1Dolichopodidae 1Cerambycidae 1Formicidae 2Tetrigidae 2Gryllacrididae 1Sciaridae 1Phalangida 1Amphipoda 73Isopoda 2DBM 1

Day 5

D-US5 Janito 2/21/02 Lake Duminagat pitfallStaphylinidae 1Staphylinidae 2 1Formicidae 21Formicidae 2 3Gryllidae 3Earwig 1Millipede 3Amphipoda 5DBM 2

D-S5 Rudy 02/21/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapDBM 3Spiders 3Termitidae 1Formicidae 4Staphylinidae 1Aphididae 2Semilooper 1Amphipoda 84Millipede 2


D-D5 Carlos 02/21/02 Lake Duminagat pitfall trapGryllacrididae 1Braconidae 1Ichneumonidae 1Earwigs 5Phalangida 1Carabidae 1Staphylinidae 2DBM 1Spiders 3Phoridae 1Drosophilidae 1Phoridae 1Amphipoda 34

56 Technical Report

Table 4. Arthropod samples collected from sticky traps from Mt. Malindang.

Day 1

G-S1 Danilo 01/08/02 Gandawan sticky trapMiridae 2Tipulidae 2Cecidomyiidae 15Cerambycidae 1Psen sp. 1Bethylidae 1Tiphiidae 1

G-US1 Roger 01/08/02 Gandawan sticky trapSpiders 5Cicadellidae 2Languriidae 1Chrysomelidae 8Tipulidae 1Sciaridae 1Drosophilidae 1Neriidae 1Acalyptrate 2

Day 2

M-S2 Enerio 01/12/02 Mansawan sticky trapDBM adult 4Formicidae 1Stratiomyidae 1Drosophilidae 1Staphylinidae 1Braconidae 1Acalyptrate 1Delphacidae 1Mycetophilidae 1

G-S2 Danilo 01/15/02 Gandawan sticky trapCotesia sp. 2Curculionidae 1Cecidomyiidae 1

Day 3

M-US3 Junnie 1/23/02 Mansawan sticky trapAphididae 7Sciaridae 5Delphacidae 1Dolichopodidae 1Phoridae 2Tipulidae 4Chloropidae 1

M-S3 Enerio 1/23/02 Mansawan sticky trapDBM 21Sciaridae 1Tipulidae 2Delphacidae 1

D-D3 Carlos 1/24/02 Lake Duminagat sticky trapDrosophilidae 1Tipulidae 2


Phoridae 1Chrysomelidae 1Delphacidae 1

D-S3 Rudy 1/24/02 Lake Duminagat sticky trapDelphacidae 2Formicidae 1Chrysomelidae 1Tipulidae 1

Day 4

M-US4 Junnie 01/31/02 Mansawan sticky trapTipulidae 1Chalcididae 1

M-S4 Enerio 01/31/02 Mansawan sticky trapSpiders 2DBM 1Entomobryidae 1Leeches 3Unidentified larva 1

G-S4 Danilo 01/30/02 Gandawan sticky trapBraconidae 1Lygaeidae 1

G-US4 Roger 01/30/02 Gandawan sticky trapCurculionidae 1Chrysomelidae 1Cotesia sp. 1Acalyptrate 1Cecidomyiidae 2

D-S4 Rudy 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sticky trapCecidomyiidae 3Ottitidae 1

D-US4 Janito 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sticky trapCicadellidaeCecidomyiidae 1Formicidae 1Aphididae 1

D-D4 Carlos 01/29/02 Lake Duminagat sticky trapCicadellidae 1Flatidae 1Muscoid 1Tephretidae 1Drosophilidae 1Acalyptrate 1Bracon sp.

Day 5

M-US5 Junnie 2/9/02 Mansawan sticky trapAphididae 8DBM 2Tipulidae 1Phoridae 4Sciaridae 4Formicidae 2Staphylinidae 1Chloropidae 8

58 Technical Report

M-S5 Enerio 2/9/02 Mansawan sticky trapTipulidae 2Sciaridae 1Formicidae 1Chloropidae 22Dolichopodidae 1Phoridae 3Delphacidae 1

G-US5 Roger 02/08/02 Gandawan sticky trapSpiders 2

G-S5 Danilo 02/0802 Gandawan sticky trapDBM 2

D-US5 Janito 02/07/0 Lake Duminagat sticky trapBraconidae 2Empididae 1Cecidomyiidae 1Ricaniidae 1Ciixidae 1Tipulidae 1Mycetophilidae 1Nogodinidae 1Unidentified sp. 1

Day 6

M-S6 Enerio 2/15/02 Mansawan sticky trapChloropidae 4Phoridae 1Scelionidae 1

M-US6 Junnie 2/15/02 Mansawan sticky trapAphididae 2Chloropidae 4Formicidae 3Sciaridae 4Phoridae 1

G-S6 Danilo 2/13/02 Gandawan sticky trapChrysomelidae 1Bethylidae 1

D-US6 Janito 2/13/02 LakeDuminagat sticky trapTipulidae 1Sciaridae 2Aphididae 3Delphacidae 2Phoridae 1

D-D6 Carlos 2/13/02 LakeDuminagat stickytrapFormicidae 7Bibionidae 1Chrysomelidae 1DBM 1Phoridae 1

Project Leader: Emma M. Sabado Co-project Leader: Stephen G. Reyes Research Assistant: Esteban T. Padogdog, Jr. Local Partners: Enerio Pacante, Junnie Gumola, Roger Empil, Danilo Empil, Rudy Penalte, Janito Tamon, Carlos Gomistil Editing/Layout: Sylvia Katherine S. Lopez Production Assistant: Carina S. Fule

Biodiversity Research Programme (BRP) for Development in Mindanao:

Focus on Mt. Malindang and Environs

National Support Secretariat (NSS) SEAMEO SEARCA, College, Laguna

4031 Philippines

Site Coordinating Office (SCO) Don Anselmo Bernad Avenue

cor. Jose Abad Santos St. Ozamiz City

7200 Philippines

ISBN 971-560-106-5

assessing the diversity of selected arthropods in cabbage...

Documents