Biodiversity Conservation in Mining Landscapes - A Systematic Review of Assessment Approaches in The Philippines

Philippine Journal of Science
152 (4): 1455-1474, August 2023

ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 08 Feb 2023
Biodiversity Conservation in Mining

Landscapes: a Systematic Review
of Assessment Approaches in the Philippines
Bernard Peter O. Daipan1,2*, Crusty E. Tinio2, and Nelson M. Pampolina2
1Department
of Forest Biological Sciences, College of Forestry,
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet 2601 Philippines
2Department of Forest Biological Science, College of Forestry and Natural Resources,
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
Mining is an important sector of the Philippine economy, but it often results in negative impacts
on biodiversity. To mitigate these impacts, it is crucial to assess biodiversity in mining areas and
integrate conservation efforts into mining operations. As part of the national policy guidelines
on biodiversity compliance for mining companies, this study has conducted a systematic review
to examine the various biodiversity assessment methods, tools, sampling designs, diversity
parameters, values, and indices used in the Philippines' mining sites. Search engines and research
databases were utilized in identifying diversity assessment-related research. Based on the eligibility
criteria, only 25 of the 100 papers downloaded and two project terminal reports were eligible and
considered in the review. It was found that authors commonly used transect line and quadrat
methods for floral studies and transect line, mist netting, point count, and opportunistic sampling
for faunal studies. Species abundance, relative abundance, dominance, frequency, relative
frequency, density, relative density, percent cover, and importance value were the most frequently
assessed biodiversity parameters, whereas the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Simpson index,
species richness, and evenness were the most commonly used indices. Endemism, economic
importance, invasiveness, and conservation status were additional factors evaluated. Overall, this
review provides an overview of the various biodiversity assessment methods used in the country's
mining areas and offers guidance for future assessments in other mining landscapes. The limited
number of studies related to biodiversity assessment in mining areas in the Philippines over the
last decade highlights the urgent need for more research in this field.
Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, mining area, mineral production sharing agreement
INTRODUCTION sharing agreements (MPSAs), which cover 548,813 ha

or 1.8% of the total land area, and the most common
The Philippines is regarded as a mineral-rich country, minerals mined in the country are gold, limestone, nickel,
ranking 5th globally in terms of untapped gold, copper, and copper, according to the DENR-MGB (Department
nickel, silver, and zinc reserves, estimated at around USD of Environment and Natural Resources–Mines and
1 trillion (Nem Singh and Camba 2020). Currently, the Geosciences Bureau) statistical report. However, despite
country has 303 mining sites with mineral production the potential economic benefits, the mining industry
has not been effectively utilized to benefit society
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
(Promentilla et al. 2021). Mining activities have also led
1455
Philippine Journal of Science Daipan et al.: Biodiversity Conservation in Mining Landscapes
Vol. 152 No. 4, August 2023
to the loss of biodiversity, particularly in economically open-access articles. Grey literature was also searched
developing countries with high biodiversity like the for relevant articles such as government/non-government
Philippines (Siqueira-Gay et al. 2020). Direct impacts of reports, international organization websites, news articles,
mining include the destruction of forest areas, alteration reports, and policy issuances, among others. Project
of habitat landscapes, and destruction of limestone karst terminal reports related to biodiversity assessment and/
areas, which are important global endemicity hotspots. or monitoring in mining sites were purposively collected
Indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation caused from the project proponents.
by mining road construction and heavy metal leakages
(Sonter et al. 2018).
Article Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The first step toward integrating biodiversity The downloaded articles were screened out based on
conservation in mining areas is to assess the status the eligibility criteria presented in Appendix I, which
of biodiversity – including richness, abundance, were adopted and modified from the paper of Roe
endemism, ecological status, and diversity indices and colleagues (2013). These criteria, however, were
(IUCN and ICMM 2004). In the Philippines, the DENR not applied to the project terminal reports that were
recently issued DAO (Department Administrative purposively collected.
Order) No. 2022-04, a policy guideline on enhancing
biodiversity conservation and protection in mining Data Extraction
operations in the Philippines. The policy specifies Using the eligibility criteria, a total of 25 studies out
biodiversity conservation measures at each stage of the 100 articles were selected in this paper. For the
of mining operations. During mineral exploration, project terminal reports, two reports were included in the
biodiversity measures include biodiversity assessment review. The relevant data and information were collected
and gathering of baseline information. If assessments or extracted from these studies during the review process.
have not been conducted, the mining company or third-
party consultants must undertake them. The information and/or data extracted from the 25
studies and the two project terminal reports include
In support of the national policy guideline on the location of the mining area where the study was
biodiversity compliance for mining companies, conducted, with geographic coordinates if available; the
this study has undertaken a systematic review of biodiversity component, taxa, and the type of ecosystem;
biodiversity assessment studies conducted in mining assessment tools and sampling design used, which include
areas across the Philippines. The primary objective of plot size, number of plots, collection methods, among
this study is to identify the various tools and methods others; biodiversity parameters such as abundance,
used to analyze biodiversity values, indices, and relative abundance, density, relative density, frequency,
parameters in both MPSAs and small-scale mining relative frequency, dominance, relative dominance,
sites. Moreover, the systematic review aims to provide and importance value; diversity indices; and species
valuable insights and guidance for future assessments endemicity, conservation or ecological status, and
in other mining landscapes, both within the Philippines economic importance, if available.
and abroad. The findings of this study can serve as a
useful resource for mining companies and stakeholders
involved in the development and implementation of Data Synthesis and Software Used
biodiversity management plans. The PDF format of the included papers was added to the
Mendeley Desktop software for the review process, data
extraction, and citation formatting. The spreadsheets were
used to enter all of the data and empirical information
MATERIALS AND METHODS that had been extracted. Graphs, charts, tables, and a
map were created for the purpose of analyzing the data
and information derived from the review. The software
Search Strategy used in this paper includes the QGIS software for the
This paper utilized three search engines or databases geographic distribution of the study areas and Microsoft
(SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate) in Excel for the graphs and charts. Code numbers (from
identifying relevant published articles/ research works S1–S25) were assigned for each research article for
and scientific reports for this review without regard easier identification of the paper. The overview of the
to the year of publication. The search terms or strings methodological framework of the review process on
that were commonly used are “biodiversity assessment; biodiversity assessment in mining areas is presented in
mining areas; Philippines.” Only the first 100 relevant Figure 1.
articles were considered and downloaded, preferably the
1456
Figure 1. The methodological framework of the systematic review.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION results produced by search engines that most published
biodiversity assessment studies were conducted in
protected areas/national parks (Malabrigo et al. 2016),
Published Articles and Project Terminal Reports
various mountain ecosystems and forest types in the
Related to Biodiversity Assessment in Mining Areas
Philippines (Gevaña et al. 2013), and in the indigenous
The result of the searches and article screening suggest
people’s forest reserves or ancestral domains (Pulhin
that there are very limited studies related to biodiversity
et al. 2020). Possibly the lack of field experts, funding
assessment in the mining areas in the country between
constraints, and publishable taxonomic studies are the
2010–2021 (Figure 2). It was observed from the research
major factors why there are very limited biodiversity
1457
plans tailored to the specific needs of an area and its

species. On a negative note, the distribution information
in many studies is often incomplete, including the articles
reviewed in this study.
The geographic location of study areas should be noted
using GPS readings, as recommended by the manual
on biodiversity assessment and monitoring system for
terrestrial ecosystems published by the DENR and the
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ) GmbH (BMB-GIZ 2017). The specific geolocations
could serve as permanent biodiversity monitoring areas,
Figure 2. The number of published biodiversity assessment studies which are valuable in the conservation and sustainable
in mining areas annually in the Philippines. management of biodiversity resources, as well as in
the planning and decision-making process (Malabrigo
studies and information not only on a specific region et al. 2016). Knowing the exact geographic locations
but on the country as a whole. Of the 25 studies listed in where biodiversity assessments were conducted is also
Appendix II, five were conducted in small-scale mining important in identifying or locating biodiversity hotspots
areas – two in S7 and one each in S17, S18, and S21. and determining which species are present in the area,
This brings the total number of small-scale mining sites including threatened species. Pinpointing the exact
studied to five. Two studies were conducted in illegal location can also help in identifying potential threats to
mining areas (S2 and S3), whereas the remaining studies biodiversity such as deforestation, pollution, and land
were conducted in areas with MPSAs or adjacent mining use changes.
areas with 26 mining companies. All in all, there were 33 The study found that Surigao del Norte had the highest
mining sites under study. The list of the different journals number of biodiversity assessment studies in mining
where the papers were published is also presented in areas – followed by Benguet, Cebu, and Misamis
Appendix II. With the recently issued policy (DAO 2022- Oriental (Figure 3a). It is interesting to note that out of
04) concerning biodiversity conservation in mining areas the 55 provinces with mining areas and MPSAs, only 16
in the country, it is anticipated that studies on species provinces have published biodiversity assessment studies
richness baseline information in most of the mining areas, inside or adjacent to the mining areas. Moreover, no
if not all, may increase in the coming years. published articles related to the review topic were found
in the mining areas of Rizal province, although it is the
Geolocation of the Study Areas second province with the highest number of MPSAs.
In this study, information regarding the province, The distribution of the different biodiversity assessment
municipality, barangay, and geographic coordinates studies (flora and fauna) and the project sites (DGCP and
of the study sites was obtained from the papers. While PMC) is reflected in Figure 3b. Most studies on the Luzon
most studies included the provinces and municipalities island group focus on the flora diversity assessment in
of their study sites, only a few studies indicated the mining areas, whereas on the Mindanao island group, both
barangays and geographic coordinates of their study areas floral and faunal diversity studies were conducted. On
(Appendix III). However, for the project terminal reports the other hand, only the province of Cebu has published
(S26 and S27), the geographic coordinates were listed articles on the Visayan island group.
in all study sites/plots. Indicating the exact geographic
It is highly recommended to include the geographic
location where biodiversity assessments were conducted
coordinates of study sites in biodiversity assessments,
is crucial in developing effective conservation strategies
aside from the barangay or sitios. This information can
and conducting species distribution studies. As Sofaer
help in developing effective conservation strategies,
and colleagues (2019) suggest, geographic information
identifying potential threats to biodiversity, and monitoring
on species occurrence is an imperative element of
and evaluating conservation efforts. It is crucial to have
conservation, as it can help in developing site-specific
accurate and complete information on the geographic
conservation plans that may include reforestation
location of study sites to aid in species distribution studies,
strategies. Additionally, geographic information provides
site-specific conservation planning, and sustainable
relevant components such as elevation, climate type,
management of biodiversity resources.
and proximity to threats like land use changes, which
can significantly affect the survival of species. With this
information, conservationists can develop conservation
1458
Figure 3. [A] The number of published

studies per province; [B] the
geographic distribution of the study
sites for floral and faunal diversity
assessments.
1459
Biodiversity Component, Taxa, Ecosystem Type, and were usually 20 m x 20 m with ≤ 5 cm dbh (S4, S16, S19,
Taxonomic Characterization S20, and S23), with 5 m x 5 m and 1 m x 1 m subplots
In this review, biodiversity assessment studies were established for other understory vegetation. Some studies
categorized based on their focus on either flora or fauna and used a 10 m x 10 m plot size (S12, S13, S22, and S24),
their ecosystem type, which could be terrestrial, aquatic, or whereas one study established a 20 m x 10 m plot size
both. Appendix IV provides an overview of these studies, (S14). For weeds, grasses, or herbs and ground cover, the
which revealed that 17 studies focused on floral diversity usual plot size was 1 m x 1 m. It is noteworthy that the 10
assessment in mining areas, whereas eight studies assessed m x 10 m quadrat size used for floral assessment in two
faunal diversity. The floral studies included different forest project sites (S26 and S27) is considerably smaller than
types, grassland areas, and specific groups of plants such the 20 m x 20 m quadrat size recommended by BMB-GIZ
as ferns, medicinal plants, hyperaccumulating plants, (2017) for assessing species diversity.
and epiphytes. Interestingly, one study even assessed
the diversity of fungi (mycorrhizal) in a mining site. The On the other hand, faunal diversity assessment studies used
majority of floral studies were conducted in terrestrial various methods, with the transect line method being the most
ecosystems, with only one study assessing both aquatic common for birds, amphibians, and reptiles, whereas other
and terrestrial areas. methods included mist netting, point count, opportunistic and
purposive sampling, cage and pitfall trapping, net sweeping,
On the other hand, the faunal diversity assessment studies and modified tray method (Appendix VI).
included amphibians, birds, bats, reptiles, fish, odonates,
and nematodes but did not include any other mammals It is important to note that the sampling design used in
besides bats. This is likely because other forest-dependent measuring species richness is crucial for the accuracy and
mammals avoid mining areas due to the disturbances reliability of biodiversity assessment studies. There is no
caused by mining activities, which threaten their habitats one-size-fits-all sampling method; instead, the method
(Martins-Oliveira et al. 2021). Two project reports in chosen should depend on the objectives, the type of
DGCP and PMI assessed a wider range of biodiversity ecosystem, and the taxa being assessed. Clear and concise
groups – including plants, fungi, fauna, lichen, arthropods, objectives are necessary for successful sampling design,
and freshwater ecology. However, conducting more and stratified sampling is necessary to ensure proper
comprehensive biodiversity assessments in other mining representation of various land use and cover types found
sites would require higher financial costs and third-party in the area (Gevaña et al. 2013).
experts' technical assistance.
Biodiversity Values
The taxonomic characterization in all diversity assessment
A number of metrics or parameters were used by some of
studies in mining areas mentioned the scientific names of
the papers under review in assessing the biodiversity of
the flora and faunal species assessed. However, only 12
the mining regions; these include the species abundance
studies included their common names, and only 18 studies
(Ab), relative abundance (Rab), dominance (Dom),
included their family names. Only one study indicated
relative dominance (Rdom), frequency (F), relative
the order of the species encountered in the study sites.
frequency (Rf), density (D), relative density (Rd), percent
Taxonomic identification in mining areas, particularly
cover (%C), and importance value (IV). However, not
metallophytes, is a challenging task, as pointed out by
all of these parameters can be found in a single study.
Pollisco (2018). Therefore, proper and correct taxonomic
For the vegetation assessment, the most frequently used
identification and documentation should be conducted
biodiversity parameters were species D and F (Figure 4).
in these mining areas to identify priority species for
The IV was only included in nine floral diversity studies.
conservation. Various checklists, websites, and databases
On the contrary, the usual biodiversity parameters used in
such as Co's Digital Flora of the Philippines, Plants of the
the faunal survey studies were the Ab, Rab, D, and Dom.
World Online, and World Flora Online can be used for
Based on the review, five floral papers (S5, S7, S8, S10,
verifying species identity.
and S17) and one faunal paper (S6) did not use any of the
aforementioned parameters in describing or measuring the
Assessment Tools and Sampling Design biodiversity in the mining sites.
In assessing the diversity of flora in mining areas, the
most common sampling methods used by different
Biodiversity Indices
authors (13 studies) were the line transect and quadrat
In most biodiversity assessment studies in the Philippine
methods (Appendix V). Other methods included purposive
mining areas, various biodiversity indices are calculated
sampling (S5), field survey (S7), and exploratory survey
to characterize species diversity. The most commonly
(S8), whereas one study (S10) did not indicate its sampling
used indices include the Shannon-Wiener (H’) diversity
methods. The quadrat plot sizes used for trees and shrubs
1460
Figure 4. The different values used in diversity assessment studies.
index, Simpson index, species richness, Margalef index, In addition, Brillouin’s diversity index was used in one
and species evenness using Pielou’s index and McIntosh study to describe biodiversity in the mining area. Other
index (Appendix VII). The Shannon-Wiener diversity biodiversity indices used in mining areas include the
index is the most widely used index for both floral and Margaleaf and evenness indices. Margalef’s diversity
faunal assessment, followed by species richness and index, developed by Margalef (1958), is commonly used
evenness. However, it is worth noting that the eight papers to calculate species richness for small samples, whereas
chosen for this review did not compute or determine any evenness indices take into account the species richness
biodiversity index in their research. and the relative abundance of species in a particular area.
Pielou’s evenness index, for example, is a standardization
The Shannon-Wiener diversity index is a commonly of the H' (Shannon index) that measures the degree of
used measure proposed by Shannon and Weaver (1949) diversity within a specific spatial unit and ranges from 0–1.
that considers both species abundance and evenness. The
Simpson diversity index, developed by Simpson (1949), is Jaccard's, Sorensen's, and Bray-Curtis similarity indices
another common index that considers both evenness and are also used to assess the similarity of species within
species richness and measures the probability that any two established plots, an important factor in measuring
randomly selected individuals belong to the same species. biodiversity (Leinster and Cobbold 2012). The different
The benefit of using Simpson's index is that it takes both formulas used to compute biodiversity indices are
richness and evenness into account and can be used for presented in Appendix VIII.
populations that are both finite and infinite (Bollarapu
and Ramarao 2021). There is no definitive set of biodiversity indices to be
computed in conducting biodiversity assessment studies
for flora and fauna in mining areas, as the choice of indices
1461
will depend on the specific objectives of the study and Proposed Step-by-step Approaches for Conducting
the characteristics of the study site. Appendix IX presents Biodiversity Assessment in Mining Areas in the
the proposed diversity indices for each component to be Philippines
assessed in mining areas. However, it is important to Based on the result of this systematic review, the authors
note that the selection of appropriate biodiversity indices proposed the following guidelines and components for
depends on the research objectives, study design, and data conducting the biodiversity assessment in mining areas:
collected. Therefore, researchers must carefully evaluate [1] identify the scope and objectives of the assessment
which indices to use based on their specific research (before starting the assessment, it is essential to determine
questions. the scope of the study and the specific objectives to be
achieved); [2] determine the biodiversity components
and taxa to be assessed (as much as possible include the
Endemism, Economic Importance, and
terrestrial plants, terrestrial and aquatic animals, insects,
Conservation/Ecological Status
fungi, and microorganisms); [3] identify the ecosystem
Appendix X shows that several of the chosen publications
type and taxonomic characterization (the ecosystem type
had study objectives that focused on species endemism,
or land use land cover should be identified to understand
economic importance, invasiveness, and conservation/
the specific habitats that support the biodiversity in
ecological status. Endemism is a well-known concept
the mining area; this can be identified using satellite
in conservation science and is important for identifying
imageries and GIS applications; in addition, taxonomic
endemic species and sites with high endemism for
characterization should include the FM, SN, and – if
conservation efforts (Florentin et al. 2022). However, out
possible – the CN or the local name of the species); [4]
of the 25 reviewed articles, only nine studies took into
select the assessment tools and sampling design (several
account the endemicity of the species found in mining
assessment tools and sampling designs can be used as
sites, indicating that there is still much work to be done in
shown in this paper; these may include biodiversity
identifying and compiling a list or database of all endemic
surveys, ecological assessments, and habitat assessments;
species – both flora and fauna – in the nation's mining areas.
the sampling design should be representative of the
One study (the project terminal report) included the entire mining area and should cover all the habitats and
invasiveness status of plant species encountered in the biodiversity components; moreover, exact geolocation of
area, which is relevant to understanding the potential effect the study sites and sampling plots should always be noted);
of invasiveness on biodiversity conservation. Invasive [5] determine the biodiversity values and indices such as
plant species can have negative impacts on biodiversity, Ab, Rab, Dom, Rdom, F, Rf, D, Rd, %C, and IV (these
causing a decline in native biodiversity, economic losses, should also include species richness, species evenness,
and loss of aesthetic value (Paclibar and Tadiosa 2019). similarity, and diversity indices such as the H’ and/or
Therefore, it is crucial to assess invasive animal species Simpson's diversity index; these values and indices can
in mining areas as well, as they can have similar negative help to compare the biodiversity of different habitats and
impacts on local ecosystems. identify areas of high conservation value); [6] consider
endemism, economic importance, invasive species
Although estimating the economic importance of species is (plants and animals), and conservation/ecological status
challenging, it can provide valuable insights and pertinent (endemism refers to the presence of species that are unique
information on species with significant economic value to a specific geographic region; economic importance
within mining sites (Gascon et al. 2015). Only one research refers to the value of biodiversity in terms of the goods
article (S17) evaluated the economic category of the floral and services that it provides; invasive species can have
species found in mining sites – including medicinal, food negative impacts on the local ecosystem; the conservation/
consumption, handicraft, and ornamental categories. Other ecological status of the biodiversity components can help
economic importance for floral species includes weeds, soil to prioritize areas for conservation and management
binders, timber, fodder, and fuel wood (Rahman et al. 2015). actions); [7] analyze the data and interpret the results (after
Both the project terminal reports (S26 and S27) and 11 collecting the data, there is a need to analyze and interpret
studies determined the ecological or conservation status of the results; the analysis should include statistical tests
the flora and/or fauna using the IUCN red list of threatened and comparisons of the biodiversity values and indices
species and/or the updated list of threatened species in the across different habitats and biodiversity components;
Philippines prepared by the DENR. However, the IUCN the interpretation of the results should provide insights
is not intended to define or categorize conservation status into the ecological status of the mining area and identify
at the local or national level, despite being an excellent areas that require conservation and management actions);
model for classifying extinction risk at the global level [8] develop a biodiversity management plan (based on the
(Crain and White 2011). results of the assessment, the mining companies need to
develop a biodiversity management plan for the mining
1462
area; the plan should include strategies to conserve and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

manage the biodiversity of the area, mitigate the impacts
of mining activities on biodiversity, and monitor the The corresponding author would like to acknowledge
effectiveness of the management actions over time; the the DOST-ASTHRDP (Department of Science and
plan should also consider the economic and social impacts Technology–Accelerated Science and Technology
of biodiversity conservation and management on the local Human Resource Development Program) scholarship
communities and stakeholders); and [9] publication of opportunities; the College of Forestry, Benguet State
the research output (it is essential to publish the research University; and Ms. Sarah Jane and Mr. Paul Isaac. Above
findings in a peer-reviewed journal to enhance the body all, to the Lord Jesus Christ.
of knowledge within the country, particularly the status
of biodiversity in mining areas).
STATEMENT ON CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
CONCLUSION The authors declare no potential conflict of interest
The limited number of studies related to biodiversity regarding the publication of this work.
assessment in mining areas in the Philippines over the
last decade highlights the urgent need for more research
in this field. Although most biodiversity studies in the
country have focused on protected areas, mountain NOTES ON APPENDICES
ecosystems, forest types, and ancestral domains, the recent The complete appendices section of the study is accessible
policy on biodiversity conservation in mining areas is at https://philjournsci.dost.gov.ph
expected to lead to more studies on biodiversity in most,
if not all, mining areas. It is observed that biodiversity
assessment studies in mining areas have primarily
focused on either flora or fauna, with floral diversity in REFERENCES
terrestrial ecosystems being the most commonly assessed.
Clear and concise objectives and stratified sampling ABANTO RG, FLORECE LM, REBANCOS CM, BRI-
are necessary for a successful sampling design. Also, ONES ND, CASTILLO ASA. 2011. Natural regenera-
proper taxonomic identification and documentation are tion and carbon budget of rock dumpsite of an ex-mine
crucial for identifying priority species for conservation. site in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, Philippines.
Conducting comprehensive biodiversity assessments J of Environ Sci and Manage 14(2): 60–70.
in mining areas may require higher financial costs and AGGANGAN N, PAMPOLINA N, CADIZ N, RAY-
technical assistance from third-party experts. The choice MUNDO A. 2015. Assessment of plant diversity and
of appropriate biodiversity values and indices depends on associated mycorrhizal fungi in the mined-out sites of
the research objectives, study design, and data collected. atlas mines in Toledo City, Cebu for bioremediation.
Therefore, careful evaluation is necessary to determine J of Environ Sc and Manage 18(1): 71–86.
the appropriate indices for specific research questions
in mining areas. The reviewed articles show that there ALONG AA, DEMETILLO MT, SERONAY RA. 2020.
is still much to be done in identifying and compiling a Plant diversity and vegetation characteristics of the
comprehensive list of biodiversity species in mining areas forest over limestone mining site in Tubay, Agusan
in the Philippines. Furthermore, more research is needed del Norte, Philippines. J of Ecosyst Sci and Eco-Gov
to assess the invasiveness of plant and animal species in 2(2): 30–41.
these areas and to understand the economic significance ASCAÑO II CP, ALBUTRA QB, ANSIGBAT VV, MU-
of the flora and fauna found in mining sites. Overall, these GOT DA, DEMAYO CG. 2016. Avifauna assessment
findings emphasize the need for more comprehensive and in and around the hydraulic mining area of Brgy.
localized research efforts to improve conservation and Tumpagon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. J of Sci
management practices in mining areas in the Philippines. Res and Dev 3(4): 83–90.
Biodiversity assessments should be prioritized in mining
areas to provide baseline data for conservation efforts ASCAÑO II CP, ALBUTRA QB, ANSIGBAT VV, MU-
and to develop effective management plans that balance GOT DA, DEMAYO CG. 2015. Reptile assemblage
economic and environmental concerns. within and outside the hydraulicking mining area in
Tumpagon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. Advanc-
es in Environ Biol 9(27): 260–269.
1463
ATA JP, LUNA AC, TINIO CE, QUIMADO MO, MAL- of Threatened Philippine Plants and Their Categories,
DIA LS, ABASOLO WP, FERNANDO ES. 2016. and the List of Other Wildlife Species. Quezon City,
Rapid assessment of plant diversity in ultramafic soil Philippines.
environments in Zambales and Surigao del Norte,
[DENR] Department of Environment Natural Resources.
Philippines. Asian J of Biodivers 7(1): 1–16.
2017. DAO 2017-11: Updated National List of Threat-
BAYAS QEB, SALVADOR SASJ, RAGRAGIO EM, ened Plants. Quezon City, Philippines.
OBICO JJA. 2018. Taxonomic survey of nickel hy-
peraccumulating plants in a mining site on Luzon
2022. DAO 2022-04: Enhancing Biodiversity Conser-
Island, Philippines. Philippine J of Systematic Biol
vation and Protection in Mining Operations.
12(1): 103–108.
FLORENTIN JE, SALAS RM, JARVIE S, SVENNING
[BMB-GIZ] Biodiversity Management Bureau and the
JC, GOMEZ JMD. 2022. Areas of endemism and
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenar-
conservation status of Galianthe species (Spermac-
beit. 2017. Manual on biodiversity assessment and
oceae, Rubiaceae) in the Neotropics, Systematics, and
monitoring system for terrestrial ecosystems. Manila,
Biodivers 20 (1): 1–20.
Philippines.
GALOLO ARV, DEMAYO CG, RAGANAS CD, PAZ
BOLLARAPU MJ, RAMARAO KVSN. 2021. Biodiver-
SL. 2021. Amphibian diversity, endemism, and habitat
sity measures – mathematical evaluation of various
associations within and outside the selected mining
indices. Oeconomia Copernicana 12: 46–59.
sites in Caraga Region, Philippines. Proc of the Int
CABAHUG AN, CLEMENTE ED, LARIBA RS, SE- Academy of Ecol and Environ Sci 11(4): 159–187.
BLOS GM. 2021. Surveying the effects of the deep-sea
GARCIA CM, ASUBE LCS, VARELA RP, GARCIA
tailings disposal of mine wastes in Toledo City, Cebu,
GAA. 2017. Floristic composition in Kinalablaban
Philippines three decades after mine closure. Earth and
River delta interconnected with the nickel mines in
Environ Sci 690 (012042): 1–7.
Surigao Philippines. J of Biodivers and Environ Sci
CLAVERIA RJR, PEREZ TR, NAVARRETE IA, PEREZ 10(1): 97–104.
REC, LIM BCC. 2020. The identification of heavy
GASCON C, BROOKS TM, CONTRERAS-MAC-
metal accumulator ferns in abandoned mines in the
BEATH T, HEARD N, KONSTANT W, LAMOREUX
Philippines with applications to mine rehabilitation and
J, LAUNAY F, MAUNDER M, MITTERMEIER RA,
recovery. J of Sustainable Min 19(1): 46–57.
MOLUR S, AL MUBARAK RK, PARR MJ, RHODIN
CLAVERIA RJR, PEREZ TR, PEREZ REC, ALGO JLC, AGJ, RYLANDS AB, SOORAE P, SANDERSON JG,
ROBLES PQ. 2019. The identification of indigenous VIÉ JC. 2015. The Importance and benefits of species.
Cu and As metallophytes in the Lepanto Cu-Au Mine, Current Biol 25(10): 431–438.
Luzon, Philippines. Environ Monitoring and Assess
GEVAÑA D, POLLISCO JP, PAMPOLINA N, KIM D,
191(3): 185.
IM S. 2013. Plant diversity and aboveground carbon
CRAIN BJ, WHITE JW. 2011. Categorizing locally rare stock along altitudinal gradients in Quezon Mountain
plant taxa for conservation status. Biodivers Conserv Range in Southern Mindanao, Philippines. J of Environ
20: 451–463. Sci and Manag 16: 20–28.
CUEVAS VC, BALANGCOD TD. 2020. Ecological GOLORAN AB, DEMETILLO MT, BETCO GL. 2020.
succession in areas covered by rock mine wastes in Mangroves assessment and diversity in coastal area of
Benguet, Northern Philippines. Environ Asia 13(2): Barangay Cagdianao, Claver, Surigao del Norte, Phil-
101–113. ippines. Int J of Environ Sci & Nat Res 26(3): 69–77.
DECEMBER R. 2010. Adult Odonata community in [IUCN and ICMM] International Union for the Conserva-
Dinagat Island, the Philippines. Odonalologica 39(2): tion of Nature. 2004. Integrating mining and biodiver-
133–140. sity conservation: case studies from around the world.
48p. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK;
DEMETILLO MT. BETCO GL, GOLORAN AB. 2019.
ICMM, London, UK.
Assessment of native medicinal plants in selected
mining area of Claver, Surigao del Norte, Philippines. LEINSTER T, COBBOLD CA. 2012. Measuring diver-
J of Medicinal Plants Stud 7(2): 171–174. sity: the importance of species similarity. Ecol 93(3):
477–489.
2007. DAO 2007-01: Establishing the National List LILLO EP, FERNANDO ES, LILLO MJR. 2019. Plant
1464
diversity and structure of forest habitat types on Di- and Itogon, Benguet: science-based assessment for
nagat Island, Philippines. J of Asia-Pacific Biodivers sustainable and resilient mountain ecosystem [Project
12(1): 83–105. Terminal Report]. University of the Philippines Los
Baños Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI).
MALABRIGO Jr. PL, PAMPOLINA NM, BALATIBAT
JB, TINIO CE, AGUILON DJD, TINGZON K, LA- POLLISCO M. 2018. Biodiversity Management in
BATOS Jr. BV, UMALI AGA, TOBIAS AB. 2017. Large-scale Mining in the Philippines. Conference:
Ecological assessment and monitoring of biodiversity FORESPI 10th Anniversary and Annual Symposium
in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in Didipio Gold at the University of the Philippines Los Banos College
Copper Project, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Project of Forestry and Natural Resources (UPLBCFNR),
Final Report: Phase III. University of the Philippines College, Laguna, Philippines
Los Baños Foundation, Inc. (UPLBFI).
PROMENTILLA MAB, BELTRAN AB, ORBECI-
MALABRIGO JR PL, UMALI AG, TIBURAN C, PAM- DO AH, BERNARDO-ARUGAY I, RESABAL
POLINA N, BALATIBAT J, TINIO C, ABASOLO W, VJ, VILLACORTE-TABELIN M, DALONA IM,
LUNA A, BONCODIN J. 2016. Tree diversity and OPISO E, ALLORO R, ALONZO D, TABELIN C,
stand structure of permanent biodiversity monitoring BRITO-PARADA P. 2021. Systems Approach toward
area in Mt. Makiling. Asian J of Biodivers 7(1): 17–30. a Greener Eco-efficient Mineral Extraction and Sus-
tainable Land Use Management in the Philippines.
MANTE KMB, CADIZ NM, CUEVAS VC, REBANCOS
Chemical Engineering Transactions 88: 1171–1176.
CC. 2019. Soil and vegetation analysis of rehabilitated
and unrehabilitated area in an inactive copper mined PULHIN FB, TORRES AM, PAMPOLINA NM, LASCO
out site in Mogpog, Marinduque, Philippines. J of the RD, ALDUCENTE AM. 2020. Vegetation analysis of
Int Soc for Southeast Asian Agric Sci 25(2): 118–129. sanctuary and forest areas of Kalahan Forest Reserve
Nueva Vizcaya and Pangasinan, Philippines. Philippine
MARGALEF R. 1958. Information theory in biology. Gen
J of Sci 150(S1): 271–280.
Sys Yearbook 3: 36–71.
QUISIL JC, NUÑEZA OM, JOSEPH R, VILLANUEVA
MARTINEZ JG, TORRES MA, DOS SANTOS G,
RT. 2014. Impact of mine tailings on the species diver-
MOENS T. 2018. Influence of heavy metals on nem-
sity of Odonata fauna in Surigao del Sur, Philippines. J
atode community structure in deteriorated soil by gold
of Biodivers and Environ Sci 5(1): 465–476.
mining activities in Sibutad, southern Philippines. Ecol
Indicators 91: 712–721. RAHMAN M, HOSSAIN G, KHAN S, NASIR UDDIN
S. 2015. An annotated checklist of the vascular plants
MARTINS-OLIVEIRA AT, ZANIN M, CANALE GR,
of Sundarban Mangrove Forest of Bangladesh. Ban-
DA COSTA CA, EISENLOHR PV, DE MELO FCS,
gladesh J of Plant Taxon 22(1): 17–41.
DE MELO FR. 2021. A global review of the threats of
mining on mid-sized and large mammals. J for Nature ROE D, SANDBROOK C, FANCOURT M, SCHULTE
Conserv 62(126025): 1–7. B, MUNROE R, SIBANDA M. 2013. A systematic
map protocol: which components or attributes of bio-
MUGOT D, ASCANO II C, ANSIGBAT V, PILOTON
diversity affect which dimensions of poverty? Environ
Q. 2021. Inventory and Habitat Preference of Pteri-
Evidence 2(8): 1–8.
dophytes in and around gold‐mined areas in Gango,
Libona, Bukidnon, Philippines. Journal of Ecosystem SARMIENTO RT. 2018. Vegetation of the ultramafic soils
Science and Eco-Governance 3(2): 47–53. of Hinatuan Island, Tagana-An, Surigao del Norte:
an Assessment as Basis for Ecological Restoration.
NEM SINGH J, CAMBA A. 2020, The role of domestic
Ambient Sci 5(2): 44–50.
policy coalitions in extractive industries' governance:
disentangling the politics of “responsible mining” in SARMIENTO RT. 2020. Floristic diversity of the biodi-
the Philippines. Environmental Policy and Governance versity monitoring plots and its environs within Agata
30: 239–251. Mining Ventures, Inc., Tubay, Agusan del Norte, Phil-
ippines. Ambient Sci 7(1): 11–18.
PACLIBAR GCB, TADIOSA E. 2019. Ecological niche-
modelling of invasive alien plant species in a protected SARMIENTO RT, DEMETILLO MT. 2017. Rapid as-
landscape. Global J Environ Sci Manage 5: 371–382. sessment on tree diversity of Nickel Mining sites in
Carrascal, Surigao del Sur, Philippines. J Bio Env Sci
PAMPOLINA NM, ALVIOLA PA, YAP SA, ANARNA
10(4): 201–207.
JA, PAPA IA, TINGSON KN, CORACERO EE, AL-
VAREZ JD, GATDULA JC, ECO KO, LUCANAS CC,
TABACO EL. 2019. Biodiversity and ecology in Tuba
1465
SHANNON CE, WEAVER W. 1949. The mathematical

theory of communication, by CE Shannon (and Recent
Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Com-
munication), W. Weaver. University of Illinois Press.
SIMPSON EH. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature
163(4148): 688.
SIQUEIRA-GAY J, SONTER LJ, SÁNCHEZ LE. 2020.
Exploring potential impacts of mining on forest loss
and fragmentation within a biodiverse region of Bra-
zil's northeastern Amazon. Res Pol 67(101662): 1–10.
SOFAER HR, JARNEVICH CS, PEARSE IS, SMYTH
RL, AUER S, COOK GL, EDWARDS JR. TC, GUA-
LA GF, HOWARD TG, MORISETTE JT, HAMIL-
TON H. 2019. Development and delivery of species
distribution models to inform decision-making. BioSci
69(7): 544–557.
SONTER LJ, ALI SH, WATSON JEM. 2018. Mining and
biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conser-
vation science. Proc Biol Sci 285(1892): 20181926.
TANALGO KC, CASINI LF, TABORA JAG. 2017. A
preliminary study on bats in a small-scale mining site
in south central Mindanao, Philippines. Ecol Questions
25: 85–93.
1466
APPENDICES
Appendix I. The eligibility criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of research articles.
Eligibility criteria Included articles Excluded articles
Population Published articles related to biodiversity assessment Unpublished articles; articles not conducted in
inside or adjacent to the mining area/s in the mining areas; articles outside the country
Philippines, preferably articles indexed in SCOPUS
of Web of Science; project terminal reports.
Study design Studies with clear methods/ tools, and sampling Studies without any clear methods or sampling
design in assessing the diversity of a certain biota design in assessing the biodiversity
or taxa
Exposure Studies that mentioned a link between biodiversity Biodiversity studies not linked to mining operations
assessment or conservation and mining operations
Outcome Studies with species richness and taxonomic Studies without results relevant to biodiversity
characterization results, biodiversity importance assessment and/or characterization
values, and diversity indices
Appendix II. The list of selected published studies and project terminal reports.
Code Author/s Year Journal Mining area/company
S1 Abanto et al. 2011 Journal of Environmental Science Yinlu Bicol Minerals, Philippines Iron Mines (PIM)
and Management
S2 Ascaño II et al. 2016 Journal of Scientific Research and Unregulated/unregistered, illegal mining area
Development
S3 Ascaño II et al. 2015 Advances in Environmental Biology Unregulated/unregistered, illegal mining area
S4 Ata et al. 2016 Asian Journal of Biodiversity DMCI Mining Corporation (DMC)/ Taganito Mining Corporation
(TMC)
S5 Bayas et al. 2018 Philippine Journal of Systematic Lagonoy ophiolite complex
Biology
S6 Cabahug et al. 2021 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Mining areas in Toledo City, Cebu
Environmental Science,
S7 Claveria et al. 2020 Journal of Sustainable Mining [1] Acoje Mines, Zambales; [2] Brookes Point Mines, Palawan;
[3] Camp 6, Benguet (Small-scale); [4] Philex Mines, Benguet; [5]
Lepanto Mines, Benguet; [6] Acupan, Benguet (Small-scale); [7]
Carmen Mine, Cebu; [8] Silangan Mine, Surigao; [9] Tompagon,
Misamis Oriental; [10] Manila Mining, Surigao
S8 Claveria et al. 2019 Environmental Monitoring and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
Assessment
S9 December 2010 Odonatologica Lecing/ Henry
S10 Demetillo et al. 2019 Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies Mining area in Claver
S11 Galolo et al. 2021 Proceedings of the International [1] Philsaga Mining Corporation (PMC); [2] Adnama Mining
Academy of Ecology and Resources Incorporated (AMRI)
Environmental Sciences
S12 Garcia et al. 2017 Journal of Biodiversity and Mining areas in Claver, Surigao
S13 Goloran et al. 2020 International Journal of Platinum Group Metals Corporation (PGMC)
Environmental Sciences and Natural
Resources
S14 Lillo et al. 2019 Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Dinagat Island Mining Areas
S15 Martinez et al. 2018 Ecological Indicators Mining areas in Sibutad
S16 Along et al. 2020 Journal of Ecosystem Science and Agata Mining Ventures, Inc. (AMVI)
Eco-Governance
S17 Mugot et al. 2021 Journal of Ecosystem Science and Small-scale mining
Eco-Governance
1467
Appendix II. Cont.

S18 Quisil et al. 2014 Journal of Biodiversity and Small-scale mining
S19 Sarmiento 2020 Ambient Science Agata Mining Ventures, Inc
S20 Sarmiento and 2017 Journal of Biodiversity and Carrascal Nickel Corporation, Inc. (CNC)
Demetillo Environmental Science
S21 Tanalgo et al. 2017 Ecological Questions Small-scale gold mining
S22 Mante et al. 2019 Journal of the International Society Consolidated Mining Inc. (CMI)
for Southeast Asian Agricultural
Sciences
S23 Sarmiento 2018 Ambient Science Hinatuan Mining Corporation
S24 Aggangan et al. 2015 Journal of Environmental Science Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation
and Management (ACMDC)
S25 Cuevas and 2020 Environment Asia Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (LCMC)
Balangcod
S26a Malabrigo 2017 Didipio Gold and Copper Project (DGCP)
et al.
S27a Pampolina 2019 Philex Mining Corporation (PMC)
et al.
aProject terminal reports
Appendix III. The study location of the published papers and project reports selected for the review
Code Province Municipality Barangay Coordinates
S1 Camarines Norte Jose Panganiban Larap 14° 7.525’ and 122° 38.751’
Cagayan de Oro
S2 Misamis Oriental Tumpagon 8°19'19"N and 124°28'49"E
City
Cagayan de Oro
S3 Misamis Oriental Tumpagon 8°19'19"N and 124°28'49"E
City
15° 42’ 0” N and 120° 4’ 1” E;
Zambales, Sta. Cruz,
S4
Surigao del Norte Claver
9° 30’ 0” N and 125° 53’ 0” E
S5 Camarines Sur Lagonoy 13.44° N and 123.31° E
S6 Cebu Toledo City
Santa Cruz;
Zambales;
Brookes
Palawan;
Point; Tuba,
S7 Benguet; Cebu;
Mankayan;
Surigao del Norte;
Carmen; Tubod;
Misamis Oriental
Tompagon/CDO
S8 Benguet Mankayan
S9 Dinagat Island 10° 17’33” N / 125°34’58” E ;
S10 Surigao del Norte Claver
Rosario,
Agusan del Sur; Bayugan San Andres;
S11 Bunawan; 8023’13.2”N and 12600’10.8”E
Surigao del norte Urbiztondo
Claver
S14 Dinagat Island Whole province
S16 Agusan del Norte Tubay Tinigbasan
S17 Bukidnon Libona Gango
S18 Surigao del Sur Barobo Javier, Tambis 8’ 29.114’’ N 126’ 4.990’’ E; 8’32.234’’ N 126’2.738’’ E;
S19 Agusan del Norte Tubay 8°57'N; 125°32'E
S20 Surigao del Sur Carascal Bon-ot 819376 Easting and 1036650 Northing
S21 Sultan Kudarat Bagumbayan Kinayao 6°26’ 48.1’’N, 124°35'7.28"
1468
Appendix III. Cont.

S22 Marinduque Mogpog Ino; Kapayang
S23 Surigao del Norte Tagana-an Hinatuan Island, Talavera 9.753367° to 9.813161° N; 125.696155° to 125.741308° E
S24 Cebu Toledo City Biga, Bagakay and Lu-ay
S25 Benguet Mankayan Paco, Cabitin
S26a Nueva Vizcaya Kasibu Didipio With coordinates
S27a Benguet Tuba and Itogon Camp 3; Ampucao With coordinates
Appendix IV. The biodiversity categories and taxonomic characteristics.

Category/ group Ecosystem Taxonomic characterization
Code Target group/ site description
FL FA AQ TER CN SN FN OR
S1 Plants/ grassland area    
S2 Avifaunal / birds     
S3 Reptiles      
S4 Plants/ forests over the ultramafic soil    
S5 Nickel hyperaccumulating plants     
S6 Fish    
S7 Ferns   
S8 Plants (ferns, trees, shrubs)   
S9 Odonata/ dragonflies   
S10 Medicinal plants    
S11 Amphibians     
S12 Mesophytes and hydrophytic      
S13 Mangroves      
S14 Plants/ different forest types    
S15 Nematodes   
S16 Plants/ forest over limestone     
S17 Pteridophytes    
S18 Odonata   
S19 Plants     
S20 Trees     
S21 Bats     
S22 Vines, epiphytes, trees, shrubs   
S23 Plants    
S24 Plants and mycorrhizal fungi      
S25 Plants    
S26a Plants (ferns, grasses, herbs, palms, shrubs, vines, trees); fungal       
resources; fauna (birds, reptiles, amphibians, bats, rodents); lichen;
arthropods; freshwater ecology (periphyton, macrobenthos, fish,
crustaceans)
S27a Plants; riparian vegetation; macrofungi; fauna (avifauna,       
mammals, reptiles, amphibians); Terrestrial arthropods; aquatic
(plankton, macrobenthos, fishes)
Total 17 8 6 22 12 25 18 1
[FL] flora; [FA] fauna; [AQ] aquatic; [TER] terrestrial; [CN] common name; [SN] scientific name; [FN] family name; [OR] order; aproject terminal reports
1469
Appendix V. The biodiversity assessment tools and sampling designs for flora.
Code Sampling methods Plot size No. of Transect No. of
plots length transect
S1 Quadrat 1mx1m 20
S4 Transect line 20 m x 20 m; 5 m x 5 m within the plot 8
S5 Purposive sampling Not indicated
S7 Field surveys Not indicated
S8 Exploratory survey Not indicated
S10 Not indicated Not indicated
S12 Quadrat, line transect 10 m x 10 m 21 3
S13 Quadrat, line transect 10 m x 10 m; 1 m x 1 m for seedling/sapling 18 100–200 m 6
S14 Quadrat 20 m x 10 m; 2 m x 2 m for herbs, vines, seedlings 14
S16 Modified quadrat, line transect 20 m x 20 m; 5 m x 5 m for understory, shrubs, herbs, grasses 12 2 km 2
S17 Quadrat, line transect 1mx1m 45 2 km 4
S19 Quadrat 20 m x 20 m 4
S20 Quadrat 20 m x 20 m 3
S22 Quadrat 20 m x 20 m for vines ephiphytes; 10 m x 10 m for trees; 2 m 6
x 2 m for shrub, seedling, sapling; 1 m x 1 m for grass, ferns
S23 Quadrat 20 m x 20 m
S24 Quadrat 10 m x 10 m; 5 m x 5 m for wildlings 3
S25 Quadrat, line transect 1mx1m 10 50 m 3
S26a Quadrats, opportunistic 10 m x 10 m for flora; 1 m x 1 m for fungi 18
sampling for flora: quadrat and
purposive sampling for fungal
resources,
S27a Quadrats for flora, transect for 10 m x 10 m for canopy; 5 m x 5 m for understory; 1 m x 1 m 10 50m for
riparian vegetation, purposive for undergrowth riparian
sampling for macrofungi
Appendix VI. The biodiversity assessment tools and sampling designs for fauna.
Code Sampling methods No. of plots transect length No. of transect
S2 Line transect, point count, mist netting 36 2 km 4
S3 Transect line 10 4
S6 Transect line 25 m 5
S15 Modified tray method 5
S18 Opportunistic sampling 8
S21 misting nets 36 2 km 4
S26a Transect methods, mist netting, cage
trapping, opportunistic sampling, and
net sweeping
S27a Line-transect, mist netting, trapping,
opportunistic and purposive sampling,
pitfall traps, net sweeping,
1470
Appendix VII. The different biodiversity indices used by various authors.

Biodiversity indices Similarity indices
Sorensen’s
(Margalef)
McIntosh
Evenness
Jaccard’s
Brillouin
Code
Shannon
Simpson
richness
-Wiener
Species
Pielou,
Curtis
Bray-
index
index
S1   
S2a   
S3a   
S4   
S5
S6a
S7
S8
S9a
S10
S11a   
S12 
S13   
S14     
S15a   
S16   
S17
S18a   
S19   
S20 
S21a 
S22  
S23   
S24   
S25
S26b    
S27b   
Total 17 8 1 12 11 1 2 1
aFaunal assessment studies; bproject terminal reports
1471
Appendix VIII. The various formulas of biodiversity values and indices commonly used.
Diversity value index Formula/Equation Remarks
Density (D)
Relative density (Rd)
Frequency (F)
Relative frequency (Rf)
Dominance (Dom)
Relative dominance (Rdom)
Importance value (IV)
Shannon-Weiner (H’) H’ = Shannon-Wiener

diversity index
S = total number of species
Pi = the proportion of
individuals found in the ith
species
ln = natural logarithm
Simpson diversity (Ds) Ds = Simpson diversity index
n = number of individual for

or each particular species
N = total number of
individuals of all species
Brillouin diversity index (HB) HB = Brillouin’s diversity

index
N = total number of species in

the sample
ni = number of species in the

ith species.
Margalef’s diversity index (R) R = Species richness
S = total number of species
N = total number of
individuals in the sample
In = natural logarithm
Pielou’s evenness index (J) J = Pielou’s evenness index
H’ = Shannon diversity index
Hmax = the logarithm of the

number of age classes with at
least one observation
1472
McIntosh evenness index M = McIntosh evenness index
ni = number of individuals
belonging to species i
N = total number of
individuals
Jaccard's similarity index ISj = Jaccard’s similarity
index
ISs = Sorensen’s similarity

index
Sorensen’s similarity index
a = number of common
species in between stands/
plots
b = number of species unique

to the first plot
c = number of species unique

to the second plot
Appendix IX. Proposed biodiversity indices to be computed for each component.

Terrestrial
Epiphytes
organism
Aquatic
Index
growth
Insects
Micro-
Grass/
Fauna
Fauna
under
Fungi
Flora
Species richness      
Shannon diversity index        
Simpson diversity index       
Evenness index       
Chao 1 diversity index   
Bray-Curtis similarity index  
Margalef diversity index  
Biological monitoring working 
party (BMWP) score
Average score per taxon 
(ASPT)
1473
Appendix X. Other parameters used to assess the biodiversity in the mining areas.
Code Biodiversity Economic Invasiveness status Ecological/ conservation Reference for conservation
endemism category status status
S1
S2a   IUCN
S3a  
S4 
S5
S6a
S7
S8
S9a
S10
S11a   IUCN
S12
S13   IUCN; DAO 2017-11
S14   IUCN ; DAO 2017-11
S15a
S16  IUCN ; DAO 2017-11
S17    IUCN ; DAO 2017-11
S18a 
S19  IUCN
S20   IUCN
S21a   IUCN
S22
S23  IUCN
S24
S25
S26b  
S27b   
Total flora 6 1 1 10 IUCN, DAO 2007-01
Total fauna 7 0 0 6 IUCN, DAO 2017-11
Overall total 13 1 1 16
aFaunal assessment studies; bproject terminal reports
1474

Biodiversity Conservation in Mining Landscapes - A Systematic Review of Assessment Approaches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biodiversity Conservation in Mining Landscapes - A Systematic Review of Assessment Approaches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biodiversity Conservation in Mining Landscapes - A Systematic Review of Assessment Approaches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Journal of Science

152 (4): 1455-1474, August 2023

Biodiversity Conservation in Mining

Bernard Peter O. Daipan1,2*, Crusty E. Tinio2, and Nelson M. Pampolina2

Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, mining area, mineral production sharing agreement

INTRODUCTION sharing agreements (MPSAs), which cover 548,813 ha

Figure 1. The methodological framework of the systematic review.

plans tailored to the specific needs of an area and its

Figure 3. [A] The number of published

Figure 4. The different values used in diversity assessment studies.

area; the plan should include strategies to conserve and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

SHANNON CE, WEAVER W. 1949. The mathematical

Appendix II. Cont.

Appendix III. Cont.

Appendix IV. The biodiversity categories and taxonomic characteristics.

Appendix VII. The different biodiversity indices used by various authors.

Relative density (Rd)

Relative frequency (Rf)

Relative dominance (Rdom)

Importance value (IV)

Shannon-Weiner (H’) H’ = Shannon-Wiener

S = total number of species

n = number of individual for

Brillouin diversity index (HB) HB = Brillouin’s diversity

N = total number of species in

ni = number of species in the

S = total number of species

H’ = Shannon diversity index

Hmax = the logarithm of the

McIntosh evenness index M = McIntosh evenness index

ISs = Sorensen’s similarity

b = number of species unique

c = number of species unique

Appendix IX. Proposed biodiversity indices to be computed for each component.

You might also like