53 An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman Romel V. Pasumbal Jr.* Jelaine L. Gan Institute of Biology, College of Science University of the Philippines Diliman Geoffrey Jules N. Solidum Nappy L. Navarra College of Architecture, College of Science University of the Philippines, Diliman ABSTRACT An inventory of the non-avian terrestrial vertebrate species found within the 493-hectare land area of the UP Diliman campus is presented. Visual encounter surveys for amphibians and reptiles, as well as mist-netting and trapping for mammals, were conducted last August 2019 to early February 2020 on selected study grids on campus. To determine habitat associations, the species richness of each vertebrate class (i.e., amphibia, reptilia, and mammalia) was analyzed with habitat characteristics of the grid using regression analysis. Based on the surveys and recent records (2015 onwards) in literature, a total of 33 species were recorded: seven amphibians, 15 reptiles, and 11 mammals. Comparison with historical records from 1998 revealed that an additional two amphibian species, seven reptile species, and six mammalian species have been sighted within the area since 2015. However, a fork-tongued frog, falling under the genus Fejervarya, and four reptilian species that had previously been recorded within the study sites were not observed. Habitat association analysis revealed that building area is correlated with species richness, with reptilian species richness being positively correlated with it. Overall, this study shows that the UP Diliman campus supports considerable urban biodiversity despite recent developments. Keywords: urban biodiversity, amphibian diversity, reptile diversity, mammal diversity * Corresponding Author Science Diliman (January-June 2022) 34:1, 53-70 sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 53 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 54 INTRODUCTION The global increase of the human population lends itself to rapid urbanization, with urbanized areas becoming the most rapidly expanding habitat type worldwide (Faeth et al. 2011). Currently, 55% of the world’s population resides in urban areas, and this number is expected to increase to 68% by 2050 (United Nations 2019). This rapid urbanization entails the conversion of natural green spaces into man- made infrastructures (e.g., roads, houses) and fragmentation of habitats, which are associated with biodiversity loss and environmental degradation (Müller et al. 2013). Amidst these threats, pockets of green spaces serve as refuges where flora and fauna can thrive within urban landscapes (Pickett et al. 2001). Urban ecosystems, along with their associated biodiversity (Nilon 2011), provide numerous ecosystem services (Edwards et al. 2020). These services are derived from the interactions between different species and between species and their environment, such as seed dispersal, pollination, pest control, and the like (Montoya et al. 2012). With most people now living in cities, these biodiversity-derived services are influenced by anthropogenic activities, with alterations to species composition, abundances, richness, and evenness tied to changes in their habitat (Faeth et al. 2011; Nilon 2011). The University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD) campus is one of the last remaining green spaces in Metro Manila. The 493 hectares of land within its bounds provide habitats for a diversity of plant and animal species within the surrounding ‘sea’ of urban infrastructure. A survey conducted by Ong et al. (1999) revealed the campus to be home to over 50 unique vertebrate fauna including six amphibian species, nine reptilian species, 38 bird species, and eight mammalian species. After more than a score, these numbers have become outdated given new species records and potential species loss (Vallejo and Aloy 2014). Much of the landscape has changed as well, with many new infrastructures and other campus developments. This study aims to provide an updated inventory of non-avian vertebrate fauna found within the UP Diliman campus, as well as to determine general species- habitat associations. This would highlight the importance of green spaces for wildlife as well as provide information that can guide land-use management and maintenance practices of the campus to better conserve urban biodiversity. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 54 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 55 METHODOLOGY The 493-hectare UPD campus is located in Quezon City, National Capital Region. The city ranks as the most populous among the 16 highly urbanized cities in the region based on the 2020 census (Philippine Statistics Authority 2021). The campus was acquired in 1939 but was officially used a decade after when the administration was transferred from the old campus in Manila (University of the Philippines Diliman n.d.a). Since then, numerous buildings have been built to support the university’s functions, and the campus now has more than 900 buildings (University of the Philippines Diliman n.d.b). Development has been guided by the 2012 Land Use Plan (Appendix 1) wherein 28% of the campus’ land area has been dedicated to academic or academic support units (137.70 ha), 22.5% has been dedicated for residential use (110.87 ha), 4.4% for the campus core (21.66 ha), and 3.7% designated as a protected forest area (18.25 ha) (University of the Philippines Diliman n.d.b). The campus map was divided into study grids measuring 250 m by 250 m in QGIS (Figure 1). Selected grids were surveyed for the presence of non-avian vertebrate Figure 1. Dominant habitat map of UP Diliman campus (campus boundary outlined in dark red lines). The 58 study grids (in 250 m by 250 m spacing) were color-coded based on the dominant plant and building features observed within: built area (grey), grassland (yellow), grassy open forest (pale green), layered open forest (dark green), urban open forest (brown), cropland (pale yellow). White lines signify roads. Landmark areas are indicated by color coded pins: UP Lagoon (blue), Palma Hall (orange), Romulo Hall (red), UP MSI (pale yellow), Binhi Arboretum (purple), and National Science Complex (green). sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 55 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 56 fauna and classified into habitat types based on vegetation composition and built area coverage. The grids located across Commonwealth Avenue (i.e., UP Arboretum, UP-Ayala Land Technohub) and Katipunan Avenue (UP Town Center) were not included due to time and logistic constraints. Sampling events were conducted from August 2019 to early February 2020. Habitat Sampling In each grid, the dominant plant feature (e.g., grasses, shrubs, and trees) was determined through on-site surveys and inspection of satellite images. Additional information on each grid’s canopy cover and building area was measured using satellite imagery through Google Earth (Google Earth Pro 2017). These were then used to classify the grids into the following vegetation cover classification types: Built Area – heavily modified areas with high building footprint (i.e., 1-2 story infrastructures) and with minimal vegetation (e.g., potted plants, scattered trees) around the infrastructure Cropland – agricultural spaces mostly planted with low crops (i.e., rice, vegetables) Grassland – open spaces with scattered small shrubs and extensive grass cover Grassy Open Forest – vegetated areas dominated by large trees with a few understory layer/s and abundant groundcover Layered Open Forest – vegetated areas with multiple structural layers consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover Urban Open Forest – vegetated areas with multiple layers of trees, shrubs, and groundcover interspersed with low-level infrastructures Wildlife Survey Amphibian, reptilian, and mammalian species records were obtained through a series of grid surveys. These were supplemented with data collected through collating recent wildlife records dating from 2015 to 2021. The sources included student thesis studies, class field exercises (i.e., Biology courses), social media (i.e., The UP Wild Facebook page), and other citizen science platforms (e.g., iNaturalist). Such reports were verified through photographs and/or specimen examination. Grids lacking in data from these supplemental sources were prioritized in the survey effort, leading to a total of 26 grids sampled for amphibians, 23 grids for reptiles, and 15 grids for mammals. Sampling was only done during the wet season, sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 56 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 57 as the Covid-19 pandemic prevented us from conducting the dry season sampling activities. Amphibians and reptiles were surveyed using time-constrained opportunistic searches at night (Bennett 1999). At least one man-hour of survey effort was spent in each grid. On the other hand, bats were sampled using mist nets (Hoffmann et al. 2010). Two mist nets were opened in each grid from 1800H to 2100H for a total of six net hours per grid. On the other hand, non-volant mammals were captured using cage traps. Five cage traps per grid were baited with bread with peanut butter. Traps were left deployed for two nights, for a total of 10 trap nights per grid, but were checked and rebaited as needed daily. Captured mammals were released after species identification. Species encounters outside of the survey period were also noted as off-survey data. Identification was aided using field guides (Alcala and Brown 1998; Das 2015; Heaney et al. 2016). Experts from the UP Diliman Institute of Biology verified for uncertain identification. Species-Habitat Association Species richness per grid derived from these records was then compared against the grids’ respective habitat type, canopy cover, and building area through GLM analysis with Poisson error distribution using RStudio (RStudio Team 2020). Additionally, the species richness per class (i.e., amphibia, reptilia, mammalia) was also analyzed in relation to canopy cover and building area. RESULTS & DISCUSSION A total of 33 unique non-avian vertebrate species comprising six amphibian families, seven reptilian families, and five mammalian families were present across 58 grids of six different habitat classifications within the campus. Habitat Sampling The study site was a mosaic of habitat types (Figure 1). The majority of the 58 grids were classified as layered open forests (29.3%), grassy open forests (22.4%), or built areas (22.4%). There were relatively few grids representing grasslands (14.0%), urban open forest (6.9%), and cropland (5.2%). sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 57 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 58 Wildlife Inventory This study provided an updated campus inventory of non-avian vertebrate species (Table 1). A total of 33 species was recorded, which includes seven amphibians, 15 reptiles, and 11 mammals. Compared to the Ong et al. (1999) study, 20 new species records were added while seven species were not recorded here (Table 2). Field surveys alone revealed a total of 16 non-avian vertebrate species within the campus. Additional records were obtained from the literature review (Table 2). Table 1. Compiled list of non-avian vertebrate species found within the UPD campus from survey efforts, conducted from August 2019 to early February 2020 (indicated by asterisk), and literature review from 2015-2021 (items without an asterisk) Family Common Name Scientific Name Amphibians Bufonidae Cane Toad * Rhinella marina Dicroglossidae Chinese Edible Frog * Hoplobatrachus rugulosus Common Puddle Frog * Occidozyga laevis ‎Eleutherodactylidae Greenhouse Frog * Eleutherodactylus planirostris Microhylidae Banded Bullfrog * Kaloula pulchra Ranidae Common Green Frog * Hylarana erythraea Rhacophoridae Common Tree Frog * Polypedates leucomystax Reptiles Trionychidae Chinese Softshell Turtle Pelodiscus sinensis ‎Emydidae Red-eared Slider Trachemys scripta elegans Geoemydidae Southeast Asian Box Turtle Cuora amboinensis Gekkonidae Tender-skinned Gecko Gehyra mutilata Brooke’s House Gecko * Hemidactylus brookii Common House Gecko * Hemidactylus frenatus Flat-tailed House Gecko Hemidactylus platyurus Tokay Gecko Gekko gecko Scincidae Common Sun Skink Eutropis multifasciata Northern Philippine Sun Skink Eutropis borealis ‎Typhlopidae Brahminy Blind Snake * Indotyphlops braminus Colubridae Gervais’ Worm Snake * Calamaria gervaisii Island Wolf Snake * Lycodon capucinus sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 58 7/29/2022 4:12:49 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 59 Northern Triangle-spotted Snake Cyclocorus lineatus Philippine Rat Snake Coelognathus erythrurus Mammals Pteropodidae Cave Nectar Bat * Eonycteris spelaea Geoffroy’s Rousette Rousettus amplexicaudatus Greater Musky Fruit Bat * Ptenochirus jagori Lesser Short-nosed Fruit Bat * Cynopterus brachyotis Long-tongued Fruit Bat Macroglossus minimus ‎Emballonuridae Black-bearded Tomb Bat Taphozous melanopogon Vespertilionidae Java Pipistrelle Pipistrellus javanicus Lesser Asiatic Yellow Bat Scotophilus kuhlii Sciuridae Finlayson’s Squirrel Callosciurus finlaysonii Muridae Asian House Rat * Rattus tanezumi Asian House Shrew Suncus murinus Table 2. A compiled list of amphibians, reptiles and mammals found within UP Diliman from 1997-1998 (Ong et al. 1999), 2019-2020 survey data, and 2015-2021 literature data SPECIES Oct 1997 - Aug 1998 (Ong et al. 1999) This study Aug 2019 - Feb 2020 surveys 2015-2021 Literature data Amphibians Rhinella marina x x Hylarana erythraea x x Fejervarya sp. x Hoplobatrachus rugulosus x x Polypedates leucomystax x x Occidozyga laevis x x Eleutherodactylus planirostris x Kaloula pulchra x Reptiles Table 1. Compiled list of non-avian vertebrate species found within the UPD campus from survey efforts, conducted from August 2019 to early February 2020 (indicated by asterisk), and literature review from 2015-2021 (items without an asterisk) (Cont’n.) sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 59 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 60 Gekko gecko x Off census encounter - 2021, Class field exercise - 2018 Hemidactylus frenatus x x Hemidactylus stejnegeri x Class field exercise - 2018 Hemidactylus platyurus x Class field exercise - 2018 Eutropis multifasciata x Class field exercise - 2019 Naja philipinensis x Rhabdophis spilogaster x Pelodiscus sinensis Class field exercise - 2018 Trachemys scripta elegans Class field exercise - 2018 Cuora amboinensis Class field exercise - 2018 Gehyra mutilata Off census encounter - 2021 Eutropis borealis Class field exercise - 2018 Cyclocorus lineatus Class field exercise - 2019 Coelognathus erythrurus Verified via photograph - 2018 Hemidactylus brookii x Indotyphlops braminus x Calamaria gervaisii x Lycodon capucinus x Mammals Cynopterus brachyotis x x Ptenochirus jagori x x Rousettus amplexicaudatus x Class field exercise - 2017 Eonicteris spelaea x x Suncus murinus x Off census encounter - 2021, Class field exercise - 2019 Rattus norvegicus x Rattus exulans x Macroglossus minimus Thesis study (Abdao, 2019) Taphozous melanopogon Class field exercise - 2018 Pipistrellus javanicus Class field exercise - 2018 Scotophilus kuhlii Class field exercise - 2018 Callosciurus finlaysonii Verified via video - 2020 Rattus tanezumi x *previously misidentified as Limnonectes macrocephalus Table 2. A compiled list of amphibians, reptiles and mammals found within UP Diliman from 1997-1998 (Ong et al. 1999), 2019-2020 survey data, and 2015-2021 literature data (Cont’n.) sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 60 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 61 Amphibians There are seven amphibian species found within the campus. All species were observed during the surveys and they belong under the families of true toads (Bufonidae), forked-tongue frogs (Dicroglossidae), rain frogs (Eleutherodactylidae), narrow-mouthed frogs (Microhylidae), true frogs (Ranidae), and tree frogs (Rhacophoridae). Introduced species dominated the campus amphibian fauna. Out of the seven species, only the Common Tree Frog (P. leucomystax) and the Common Puddle Frog (O. laevis) are native to the country. Two new exotic species, the Banded Bullfrog (K. pulchra) and the Greenhouse Frog (E. planirostris) (Diesmos et al. 2015) have successfully established populations on campus and were encountered frequently in different sites. The former was first reported in Luzon in 2003 and was believed to have been brought by the pet trade or as a cargo stowaway (Pili et al. 2019). Its presence is conspicuous, especially during breeding season with its loud calls. On the other hand, the E. planirostris was first reported in Quezon City in 2014 as a stowaway in the plant trade (Sy et al. 2015), and by 2018 it was already common in the campus. This influx of new species was accompanied by a loss of a previous, potentially endemic, species. Ong et al. (1999) reported the presence of the Luzon Fanged Frog (Limnonectes macrocephalus) within the UP Arboretum. However, the accompanying photograph of the species was later identified as Fejervarya sp. (P. Kim, personal communication with author, February 2021). Two frogs under this genus, F. moodiei and F. vittigera, are known to occur in freshwater marshes and wetlands in Luzon (Diesmos et al. 2015). Regardless, neither of the two Fejervarya species nor L. macrocephalus were encountered in our surveys or in other recent amphibian surveys (Roño 2015). The loss of this species may be attributable to a loss of suitable habitat within the campus. A study by Villasenor et al. (2017) similarly correlates a decrease in frog species richness with habitat disturbance brought about by urban development. Changes in their aquatic habitat (water body size, aquatic vegetation), as well as urbanization of the terrestrial environment within one kilometer of that aquatic habitat, have been shown to impact the presence of different frog species. The streams around which they would usually be found could have been cemented over with the construction of ripraps, leading to the species’ eventual disappearance. Reptiles The reptilian community had the highest species richness (15 sp.) among the vertebrate classes. It is composed of three turtles, five geckos, two skinks, and five snakes. Of which, three snakes and two geckos were observed during the surveys. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 61 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 62 Of the three turtle species in the campus found in habitats near water bodies, only the Southeast Asian Box Turtle (C. amboinensis) is native. It was photographed from a man-made pond at the Palma Hall and near a stream at the IB-EDC Binhi Threatened Species Arboretum. Meanwhile, the Red-eared Slider (T. scripta elegans) and the Chinese Softshell Turtle (P. sinensis) were recorded within the National Science Complex. The presence of the T. scripta elegans in the wild was verified from a specimen that was unexpectedly caught in a pitfall trap last 2018, while the P. sinensis was recorded as a dead specimen in 2018 and alive in 2019. Both turtles are introduced species, with the former most likely introduced from the pet trade and the latter from the food trade (Sy 2015). For the geckos, all five species are known to be commensals or associated with human settlements (Bowles et al. 2019; Lwin et al. 2019; Lwin et al. 2021; Wogan et al. 2021a; Wogan et al. 2021b). They were abundant in roadside trees and artificial structures, particularly on surfaces near lighting fixtures. These areas served as their hunting grounds for insects that were attracted to the light (Zozaya et al. 2015). Of the five, only two species, the Brooke’s House Gecko (H. brookii) and the Common House Gecko (H. frenatus), were verified during survey efforts. The H. brookii was identified by its numerous tubercles on the dorsum, while the H. frenatus was distinguished by its cylindrical tail with serrations. Outside of the surveys, the authors also identified the Tender-skinned Gecko (G. mutilata) based on its smooth-looking skin and relatively wider tail base. The presence of the Tokay Gecko (G. gecko) was confirmed through its distinct call and visual encounter at the UP Arboretum in 2021. During the day, diurnal lizards were represented by two native skink species. The endemic Northern Philippine Sun Skink (E. borealis) was added to the list, confirmed through visual encounters and specimen examination. Along with the Many-lined Sun Skink (E. multifasciata), the two skinks were often encountered while basking. Lastly, a diversity of snakes inhabits the campus. Three species were recorded during the field survey, while the rest were confirmed from chance visual encounters and photographic evidence. Both the Brahminy Blind Snake (I. braminus) and the Gervais’ Worm Snake (C. gervaisii) were seen under flowerpots or plant debris on the ground. They were found at vegetated sites near UP Lagoon and at the Binhi Arboretum. The blind snake, as well as the Oriental Wolf Snake (L. capucinus), are non-endemic species that are common in urban areas (Wogan and Chan-Ard, 2012; Leviton et al. 2018). On the other hand, the campus is also home to two endemic snakes, the Philippine Rat Snake (C. erythrurus) and the Northern Triangle-spotted Snake (C. lineatus). The former was seen near buildings and houses (e.g., Area 2, Institute of sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 62 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 63 Biology), while the latter was seen at the layered open forest site beside the Marine Science Institute (MSI). All snakes recorded on campus were either non-venomous or mildly venomous. A few reptiles were not recorded again since the 1998 inventory. The Philippine Cobra (Naja philippinensis) and the Northern Water Snake (Rhabdophis spilogaster) were neither encountered nor reported within the last decade. For lizards, the Stejneger’s Leaf-toed Gecko (Hemidactylus stejnegeri) and skinks under the genus Sphenomorphus were similarly absent. Geckos are difficult to distinguish without close examination of features. More species are possibly found on campus that have yet to be included in this list. Mammals The mammalian community of the campus is composed of eight volant and three non-volant small mammal species. Of which, three fruit bat species and one invasive non-volant mammal species were captured during the field survey. Nevertheless, all previously known mammal species were recorded again in recent literature except for the invasive Norwegian Rat (Rattus norvegicus). All bats recorded on campus were native species. Among the fruit bat family (Pteropodidae), only the Greater Musky Bat (P. jagori) is endemic to the country. This species and the Lesser Short-nosed Fruit Bat (C. brachyotis) are the two most captured bats on campus. They were recorded in various habitats and even in areas of high human disturbance for as long as there were fruits and figs available. Both species have also been seen roosting in old buildings and trees. The other frugivorous and/ or nectarivorous bats, however, were captured less frequently. The Cave Nectar Bat (E. spelaea) and Geoffroy’s Rousettes (R. amplexicaudatus) are cave-dwelling species (Waldien et al. 2019; Waldien et al. 2020). Between the two, the R. amplexicaudatus was rarer and last recorded in 2017 during a class exercise in ecology at the Binhi Arboretum. Given the absence of caves on campus, the encountered individuals were likely passing by or foraging on campus. The Long-tongued Fruit Bat (M. minimus) was caught a handful of times at the Binhi Arboretum during a student thesis study (Abdao 2019). The presence of fruiting trees on the campus explains the presence of these bat species. Maintaining and improving plant diversity can further promote urban bat diversity (Threlfall et al. 2016). The four insect bat species are likewise native and represent two families (Emballonuridae and Vespertilionidae). Although the surveys failed to capture any of the insect bats, the authors have captured the Java Pipistrelle (P. javanicus), the Lesser Asiatic Yellow Bat (S. kuhlii), and the Black-bearded Tomb Bat (T. melanopogon) sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 63 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 64 during ecology and vertebrate biology class exercises (Table 2). A small colony of T. melanopogon was also observed to be roosting at an old building, the Romulo Hall. In contrast, the non-flying mammals in the list were all introduced species. Only the Asian House Rat (R. tanezumi) was recorded in the surveys. The presence of the shrew was confirmed from a few dead specimens at the National Science Complex, while the Finlayson’s squirrel (C. finlaysonii) was caught in a video near the Marine Science Institute by the security guard. The squirrel is native to Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam but was introduced to other countries, including the Philippines, through the pet trade (Bertolino 2009). Due to their high adaptability to urban habitats, these squirrels are considered ‘high-risk’ species and have the potential to become invasive once populations have been established (Bertolino and Lurz 2013). Species-habitat Association The 16 species encountered during the survey period were found across five different habitat types, namely built areas, grasslands, grassy open forests, layered open forests, and open urban forests (Table 3). Table 3. Abundance of non-avian vertebrate species encountered during survey efforts within UP Diliman across different habitat types Species Habitat Types Built area Grassland Grassy Open Forest Layered Open Forest Open Urban Forest Amphibians E. planirostris 4 0 47 21 1 H. rugulosus 1 0 0 0 1 H. erythraea 0 1 1 3 0 K. pulchra 9 10 7 10 0 O. laevis 0 16 0 0 0 P. leucomystax 14 1 1 13 1 R. marina 22 69 92 108 1 Reptiles C. gervaisii 0 0 0 0 1 H. brookii 10 2 7 8 2 H. frenatus 26 7 34 40 7 I. braminus 1 0 0 1 0 L. capucinus 0 0 1 0 0 Mammals C. brachyotis 4 15 6 14 11 E. spelaea 1 1 0 0 0 P. jagori 3 17 1 2 3 R. tanezumi 2 0 0 2 1 sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 64 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 65 Overall species richness per grid was analyzed across the different habitat types. Built areas and grassy open forests, on average, show lower species richness compared to the other habitat classifications (Figure 2). However, results revealed no significant differences on the total vertebrate species richness of the grid between habitat types (Kruskal-Wallis test, p-value = 0.9021). This also suggested that all habitat types are equally important in supporting urban vertebrate diversity. Figure 2. Comparison of species richness among amphibians, reptiles, and mammals encountered during the August 2019 – February 2020 survey efforts per grid across the five habitat classifications of the UP Diliman study site. Species richness was also examined against grid characteristics, canopy area, and building area. The number of species per grid was not influenced by canopy cover (Kruskal-Wallis test; p-value = 0.88). Examining species richness against building area, however, revealed a positive association (GLM; p-value<0.0001). Upon further analysis at the taxonomic class level, only the reptilian species richness was affected by building area (GLM; p-value= 0.0033). This may be attributed to the high abundance of H. frenatus around buildings (Ota and Whittaker 2010). Both amphibian and mammalian species richness showed non-significant relationship with building area (p-value = 0.1 and p-value = 0.44, respectively). This lack of a significant correlation between habitat type and species richness may be explained by several factors. The assemblage of species found within the campus, particularly the non-native and invasive species, may be generalists which occupy a high diversity of habitats and are less sensitive to habitat disturbance than species restricted to a smaller number of habitats (Segura et al. 2007). It is also possible other factors have a greater effect on species richness within the campus. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 65 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 66 A study by Vallejo et al. from 2008 for example, has found that bird abundance is more affected by the number of spatial entities (i.e., the number of buildings and trees) as compared to spatial area (i.e., building area and canopy cover), which was used in this study. A similar pattern may be observed in the abundance of other non-avian vertebrate taxa. CONCLUSIONS With globally increasing urbanization rates, green urban spaces are important centers of biodiversity that are increasingly becoming threatened. The UP campus has undergone and is continuing to undergo a transformation in the form of further urban development projects. This has consequently impacted the different species residing within the campus. A frog under the Fejervarya genus, the endemic snakes Naja philippinensis, and Rhabdophis spilogaster, as well as the gecko Hemidactylus stejnegeri and skinks under the Sphenomorphus genus, are all previously recorded species that were not observed in this study. Change is part and parcel of infrastructural development but should not come at the cost of valuable wildlife resources. Light pollution from bright streetlights (Holker et al. 2010), the cementation of grassy patches (Klaus 2013), and the construction of ripraps around streams (Bernhardt and Palmer 2007) are a few examples of construction projects that can negatively impact the wildlife present in the area. Moving forward, the preservation of this wildlife resource should be a constant consideration. Care must be taken to ensure that the resulting space is beneficial to the residents of the area, humans and wildlife alike. In order to attain a future wherein wildlife thrives alongside urban development, it is imperative that the continued monitoring of our wildlife resources and how they change over time is maintained. In future studies, it is also recommended to examine seasonality, an aspect that was excluded from this study as a result of Covid-19 restrictions, which may reveal a different set of observable species. Lastly, it is also recommended to examine spatial entities, in addition to spatial area and habitat types, when determining species habitat associations. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 66 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 67 REFERENCES Abdao DRL. 2019. Correlation of diet and prey abundance of Philippine Scops Owl (Otus megalotis: Walden, 1875) in the threatened species arboretum, [undergraduate thesis]. [Diliman]: University of the Philippines Diliman. Alcala AC, Brown WC. 1998. Philippine amphibians: An illustrated field guide. New York: Bookmark Publishing. Bennett, D. 1999. Expedition field techniques: reptiles and amphibians. London (UK): Geography Outdoors. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA. 2007. Restoring streams in an urbanizing world. Freshw Biol. 52(4):738-751. Bowles P, Srinivasulu C, Srinivasulu B, Giri V, Roy AD, Murthy BHCK, Agarwal I, Molur S, Sondhi S, Pal S, et al. 2019 Hemidactylus brookii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T172703A1370220. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-2. RLTS.T172703A1370220.en. Das I. 2015. Field guide to the reptiles of south-east Asia. London (UK): Bloomsbury Publishing. Diesmos A, Watters J, Huron N, Davis D, Alcala A, Crombie R, Afuang L, Gee-Das G, Sison R, Sanguila M, et al. 2015. Amphibians of the Philippines, part 1: checklist of the species. Proc Calif Acad Sci, Series 4. 62(20):457–539. Edwards P, Drillet Z, Richards DR, Fung T, Song XP, Leong RAT, Gaw LYF, Yee ATK, Quazi SA, Ghosh S, et al. 2020. Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: benefits of tropical urban vegetation. Singapore-ETH Centre, Future Cities Laboratory. Faeth SH, Bang C, Saari S. 2011. Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1223(1):69-81. Google Earth Pro v.7.3.4.8573. April 15, 2017. UP Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 14°38’11.40”N, 121°04’02.26”E. Heaney LR, Balete DS, Rickart EA. 2016. The mammals of Luzon Island: biogeography and natural history of a Philippine fauna. Baltimore (MD): JHU Press. Hoffmann A, Decher J, Rovero F, Schaer J, Voigt CC, Wibbelt G. 2010. Field methods and techniques for monitoring mammals. In: Samyn Y, Vanden-Spiegel D, Degreef J, editors. Manual on field recording techniques and protocols for all taxa biodiversity inventories and monitoring. ABC Taxa. Belgium: Belgian Development Cooperation. p. 483-529. Holker F, Wolter C, Perkin EK, Tockner K. 2010. Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends Eco Evol. 25(12):681-682. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 67 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 68 Klaus VH. 2013. Urban grassland restoration: a neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation. Restor Ecol. 21(6):665-669. Leviton A, Siler C, Weinell J, Brown R. 2018. Synopsis of the snakes of the Philippines: a synthesis of data from biodiversity repositories, field studies, and the literature. Proc Calif Acad Sci. 64(4):399-568. Lwin K, Neang T, Phimmachak S, Stuart B, Thaksintham W, Wogan G, Danaisawat P, Iskandar D, Yang J, Cai B. 2019. Gekko gecko. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T195309A2378260. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1. RLTS.T195309A2378260.en. Lwin K, Wogan G, Phimmachak S, Neang T, Stuart BL, Thaksintham W, Danaisawat P, Yang J. 2021. Gehyramutilata. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2021: e.T172668A1363221. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.T172668A1363221. en. Montoya D, Rogers L, Memmott J. 2012. Emerging perspectives in the restoration of biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol. 27(12):666-672. Müller N, Ignatieva M, Nilon CH, Werner P, Zipperer WC. 2013. Patterns and trends in urban biodiversity and landscape design. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, McDonald RI, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Seto KC, Wlilkinson C, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 123-174. Nilon CH. 2011. Urban biodiversity and the importance of management and conservation. Landsc Ecol Eng. 7(1):45-52. Ong P, Pedragosa M, de Guia M. 1999. Wildlife inventory of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman and the Ateneo de Manila University Campus Diliman, Quezon City, Luzon, Philippines. Sci Diliman. 11(1):6-20. Ota H, Whitaker A.H. 2010. Hemidactylus frenatus. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2010: e.T176130A7184890. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. UK.2010-4.RLTS.T176130A7184890.en. [PSA] Philippine Statistics Authority (Philippines). 2021. Highlights of the National Capital Region (NCR) population 2020 census of population and housing (2020 CPH). [Press Release]. [accessed 2022 Jan 07] https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/ird/ specialrelease/1_Press%20Release_2020%20CPH_RSSO%20NCR_signed.pdf. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, GroveJM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Costanza R. 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev EcolEvol Syst. 32:127-157. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 68 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM R. V. Pasumbal Jr. et al. 69 Pili AN, Sy EY, Diesmos ML, Diesmos AC. 2019. Island hopping in a biodiversity hotspot archipelago: reconstructed invasion history and updated status and distribution of alien frogs in the Philippines. Pac Sci. 73(3):321-343. Rstudio Team. 2020. Rstudio: integrated development for R. Rstudio, PBC, Boston, MA. Roño JGA. 2015. Anurans in the University of the Philippines Diliman Campus: their distribution, estimated population density, and habitat association. [undergraduate thesis]. [Diliman]: University of the Philippines Diliman. Segura C, Feriche M, Pleguezuelos JM, Santos X. 2007. Specialist and generalist species in habitat use: implications for conservation assessment in snakes. J Nat Hist. 41(41-44):2765- 2774. Sy EY, Eleazar BI, Achacoso R, Diesmos AC. 2015. Geographic distribution: Eleutherodactylusplanirostris (greenhouse frog): Philippines, Luzon Island, Metropolitan Manila, Quezon City. Herpetol Rev. 46(1):56. Sy EY. 2015. Checklist of exotic species in the Philippine pet trade, II. Reptiles. J Nat Stud. 14(1):66-93. Threlfall CG, Williams NSG, Hahs AK, Livesley SJ. 2016. Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landsc Urban Plan. 153(1):28-39. [UN] United Nations. 2019. World urbanization prospects – population division. United Nations. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018- revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. University of the Philippines Diliman. n.d.a. History | University of the Philippines Diliman. [accessed 2022 Jan 07]. https://upd.edu.ph/history2/. University of the Philippines Diliman. n.d.b. Facts at a Glance | University of the Philippines Diliman. [accessed 2022 Jan 07]. https://upd.edu.ph/about/facts-at-a-glance/. Vallejo B, Aloy AB. 2014. Responses of the bird community in the University of the Philippines Diliman after campus redevelopment and the decline of two common urban bird species. Philipp Sci Lett. 7(1):55-61. Vallejo B, Aloyab A, Ong PS, Tamino A, Villasper J. 2008. Spatial patterns of bird diversity and abundance in an urban tropical landscape: the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman campus. Sci Diliman. 20(1):1-10. Villasenor NR, Driscoll DA, Gibbons P, Calhoun AJK, Lindenmayer DB. 2017. The relative importance of aquatic and terrestrial variables for frogs in an urbanizing landscape: key insights for sustainable urban development. Landsc Urban Plan. 157:26-35. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 69 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM An Updated Inventory and Habitat Association Analysis of the Non-avian Vertebrates 70 Waldien DL, Adleson S, Wilson Z. 2020. Eonycterisspelaea. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2020: e.T7787A22128326. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. UK.2020-3.RLTS.T7787A22128326.en. Waldien DL, Wilson Z, Adleson S, Abdul Aziz S, Bates PJJ, Bumrungsri S, Furey N, Ingle NR, Mildenstein T, Phelps K, et al. 2019. Rousettus amplexicaudatus. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2019: e.T19754A22001514. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi. org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T19754A22001514.en. Wogan G, Chan-Ard T. 2012. Lycodon capucinus. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2012: e.T192064A2035298. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. UK.2012-1.RLTS.T192064A2035298.en. Wogan G, Lwin K, Cai B, Shi L, Rao DQ, Wang Y, Iskandar D. 2021a. Hemidactylus platyurus. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2021: e.T195303A2377824. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.T195303A2377824.en. Wogan G, Sumontha M, Phimmachak S, Lwin K, Neang T, Stuart BL, Thaksintham W, Caicedo JR, Rivas G, Tjaturadi B, et al. (2021b). Hemidactylus frenatus. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2021: e.T99156022A1434103. [accessed 2022 Jan 08]. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.T99156022A1434103.en. Zozaya S, Alford R, Schwarzkopf L. 2015. Invasive house geckos are more willing to use artificial lights than are native geckos. Austral Ecol. 40(8):982-987. ______ Romel V. Pasumbal Jr. is an M.S. Biology student from the Institute of Biology, UP Diliman. His research interests lie in the biology and ecology of vertebrates, particularly those of herpetofauna. Jelaine L. Gan is an instructor at the Institute of Biology. Her research interests vertebrate biology and ecology, urban ecosystems, and conservation biology. Geoffrey Jules N. Solidum is a cum laude graduate of B. Landscape Architecture in UP Diliman. A professional painter, filmmaker, and graphic designer, his works focus on the creation of visual displays and commentaries tackling societal, political, and environmental issues. Nappy L. Navarra is an associate professor at the UP College of Architecture. His research interests are in landscape architecture, landscape ecology urban ecosystems, and resilience. sd june2022_pasumbal.indd 70 7/29/2022 4:12:50 PM