Philippine Journal of Science

151 (5): 1605-1621, October 2022

ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 20 Jan 2022

Occurrence and Distribution of Philippine Warty Pig

(Sus philippensis Nehring, 1886) in Mt. Banahaw
de Tayabas, Luzon Island, Philippines

Al John C. Cabanas1*, Anna Pauline O. de Guia2, Renato S.A. Vega3,

and Judeline C. Dimalibot2

1Mathematics and Natural Sciences Department,

Southern Luzon State University, Lucban, Quezon, Philippines
2Animal Biology Division, University of the Philippines Los Baños,
College, Laguna, Philippines
3College of Agriculture and Food Science, University of the Philippines
Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines

This study determined the occurrence and distribution of Philippine warty pig (Sus philippensis)
in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas using camera trapping and indirect signs. The Philippine warty pig is
an endemic species of wild pig in the Philippines and is currently listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN
Red List because of the presence of several threats such as hunting, habitat fragmentation, and
the current outbreak of African swine fever (ASF). Camera trap stations were established with
10 camera traps functioning 24 h for 17 d along different elevations. Different species distribution
models (BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, and MAXENT) were constructed using 19 bioclimatic predictors
to determine the potential distribution of the species in Mt. Banahaw. Results from three different
SDMs suggested that Philippine warty pigs prefer to occupy secondary growth forests, as a high
probability of occurrence was observed within 600–800 m above sea level (masl). Models also
predicted that Philippine warty pigs occupy large portions of Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas, although
sparsely in the extreme southern and northern sections of the mountain. The most reliable model
that predicted the distribution of the species was MAXENT, as it acquired the highest area under
curve (AUC) among the three SDMs. This study confirmed the presence of Philippine warty pigs
in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas and its preferred habitat. The data and information generated here
will be useful for the local community’s plans in conserving and managing this endemic species.
Additional recommendations also include investigating the population size within and outside
the protected area and establishing baseline data to assess the impact of ASF.

Keywords: camera traps, distribution, habitat, species distribution model

INTRODUCTION with divisions associated with the major faunal regions

The Philippines is home to four endemic species of wild
pigs, which is greater than any other country, next to
Indonesia. Their distribution follows predictable lines
*Corresponding author: cabanasaljohn@gmail.com
of late Pleistocene aggregate island complexes (Oliver
1995). The Visayan warty pig (Sus cebifrons) is found in
the islands of Visayas that includes Panay, Negros, and
Cebu. Endemic to the islands of Mindoro is the Oliver's
warty pig (S. oliveri), whereas the Palawan bearded pig
(S. ahoenobarbus) can only be found in the islands of

1605
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
Palawan and associated islands. The two subspecies of the
Philippine warty pig (S. philippensis) are found in Luzon
(S. philippensis philippensis) and Mindanao faunal regions
(S. philippensis mindanensis).
Philippine warty pigs (S. philippensis) are large-sized
mammals that play an important role as ecosystem
engineers. According to Jones et al. (1997), ecosystem
engineering by organisms is the physical modification or
creation of habitat. Pigs control the growth of wild plants,
act as seed dispersers, modify the structure of the soil,
and help establish pioneer plants. The feeding activities
of wild boars strongly influence the structure and function
of forested ecosystems (Focardi et al. 2008; Hone 2002).
Despite their ecological importance, little is known about
the ecology, behavior, and distribution of S. philippensis,
and their presence or absence on many islands in the
Philippines is still unsettled (Oliver and Heaney 2017). As
forest-associated species, one indicator used to infer their
presence is the extent of remaining forests where their
populations may still occur. The Philippine warty pig's
population is expected to be decreasing in most parts of
its range where it was formerly common (Meijaard et al.
2011). These drastic declines are mainly due to over-hunting
and poaching, threats of hybridization with free-ranging
domestic and feral pigs, and habitat loss and fragmentation
(Oliver and Heaney 2017; Scheffers et al. 2012; Meijaard et
al. 2011; Griffin and Griffin 2000; Oliver 1995). The topic
of human-wildlife conflict, crop-raiding, and communities’
attitudes towards pigs will be discussed elsewhere [Cabanas
et al. (in prep.)]. The Philippine warty pig is currently
listed as Vulnerable in the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Oliver and
Heaney 2017) and in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) administrative orders (DENR
2019) of the Philippine Wildlife Act (DENR-BMB 2019).
The recent outbreaks of ASF also pose a significant threat
to endemic pig species in the country (Luskin et al. 2020).
ASF outbreak was first recorded in August 2019 in the
Philippines (BAI 2019) and since then, ASF has been
spreading throughout the country. Several mass mortalities
are likely to occur once ASF spreads among wild pig
populations, as reported for the Borneo population of
Sunda bearded pigs (Sus barbatus) (Ewers et al. 2021).
It is, therefore, essential to conduct regular monitoring of
Philippine wild pig populations. The Philippines has the
highest annual forest loss of all Southeast Asian countries
with 2.8% forest loss per year, and most of the forests in
the Philippines are secondary and degraded (Stibig et al.
2007). The objective of this study was to determine the
occurrence and distribution, as well as infer the habitat
preferences, of the Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw
de Tayabas. With a total land area of 11,133 hectares, the
Mt. Banahaw Protected Landscape covers a total of nine
1606
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
of Philippine Warty Pig
municipalities of Laguna and Quezon. Mt. Banahaw is a
protected area for a vast number of Philippine endemics,
making this an ideal site to conduct biodiversity studies.
Data gathered in this study will serve as important baseline
information, which focuses on the distribution and ecology
of the Philippine warty pig (S. philippensis) in the region,
and will be beneficial in assessing current threats of ASF
in the Philippine wild pig population, as all four known
species of Philippine wild pigs are at risk of ASF (Luskin
et al. 2020).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Site
Mt. Banahaw is an active volcano that rises steeply to 2,177
m. The study was conducted at 500–1500 masl of Mt.
Banahaw de Tayabas. It is characterized as having a rough
terrain and moderate to steep slopes. Types of forest include
lowland dipterocarp on the lower slopes, as well as montane
and mossy types of forest above 900 masl. Occupying the
lower slopes are coconut plantations and inter-cropped fruit
trees, whereas cultivations are apparent in the surrounding
area (Birdlife Data Zone 2001). The sites were selected
during reconnaissance surveys in February and March
2018. Local knowledge, particularly from former hunters,
was considered in determining locations where the species
are usually observed. Anecdotal information from the local
community was also obtained in selecting the study sites.
The distance of the sampling site from the community was
approximately 5 km.
Camera Trapping
In determining the occurrence of wild pigs in Mt. Banahaw
de Tayabas, the study was conducted during the months of
October and November 2018, which coincided with the
wet or rainy season in Quezon Province (June–November)
according to the Modified Corona's Classification of
Climate (Lantican 2001).
Camera stations (Figure 1a) were selected based on
reconnaissance information, accessibility of the terrain,
and indigenous knowledge of former hunters. A total of 10
camera traps (Browning Dark Ops HD Pro) were deployed
for 17 days covering different elevations and forest types.
Camera traps were set to function for 24 h. Deployed
camera traps functioned effectively and were able to
capture different species of wildlife – including the target
species, the Philippine warty pig. A 20 m x 20 m plot was
established at each camera trap station, making the camera
trap the center point of each plot. Used wallows and tracks
(Figure 1b) identified by former hunters were noted and
documented to plot the distribution of the species.
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 1a. Camera trap locations in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas. Heat map denotes the elevation of camera trap locations.

Figure 1b. Traces (used wallows and tracks) of Philippine warty pig identified by former hunters and gatherers.

1607
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
Habitat Assessment
For this study, we used the habitat description data sheet
for the Southeast Asian Mammal Project by Heaney
(1986) to assess the habitat of each camera trap location
(N = 10). Using a 20 m x 20 m plot, we gathered
information on leaf litter cover, humus cover, presence of
moss, height of emergent trees, diameter at breast height
(DBH) of canopy trees, distance to the nearest water,
presence of Pandan, canopy cover, distance to clearing,
presence of Ficus, presence of other fruit trees, presence of
disturbance, and presence of Musa. Results obtained were
used to determine the occurrence of the Philippine warty
pig in the area and to characterize each habitat of camera
trap stations using principal component analysis (PCA).
Data Analysis
In order to examine whether environmental factors predict
the occurrence of the Philippine warty pig, we selected
variables to construct a plot from the habitat data. PCA
examines associations between variables, summarizing
them into components (Vernes 2003). A total of 13
variables (Heaney 1986) were recorded to characterize
the habitat on each camera trap station.
To examine how the different habitat variables relate to
the occurrence of warty pigs (camera trap captures, foot
tracks, and wallows), we used a generalized linear model
(GLM) function. Following the method of Burnham
and Anderson (2002), the “best” model was selected by
comparing the full models with null models that dropped
one or more predictor variables with the selection criteria
based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC).
To determine the potential distribution of S. philippensis,
three SDMs were constructed using all signs of pigs
– which include camera trap photos, tracks, and used
wallows identified by local hunters. Distribution models
have become a significant tool for reserve selection, as
well as survey design and management of rare species
(Carpenter et al. 1993).
SDMs, also known as ecological niche models, use
environment data for sites of occurrence or presence of
a species to predict a response variable for a site where
the environmental circumstances are appropriate for
that species to continue thriving or most likely to occur
(Araujo and Peterson 2012). Models that determine
species population distribution range and abundance are
a substantial tools in ecology by offering key evidence
for decision-making practices on conservation and
biodiversity management (Guisan and Zimmermann
2000). This study utilized three ecological niche models
– namely, BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, and MAXENT. These
three SDMs are widely used in academic research and
species conservation. The results of these models were
1608
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
of Philippine Warty Pig
combined to come up with the model average. We
utilized three models to arrive at more conclusive results
and compare the outputs of the single different models
using AUC. AUC is a threshold independent measure of
predictive accuracy. It is construed as the probability that a
randomly selected presence location is ranked higher than
a randomly chosen background point (Merow et al. 2013).
Nineteen (19) bioclimatic variables in raster format
were downloaded from WorldClim–Global Climate
Database (http://www.worldclim.org). These data are
a set of climate layers representing information related
to temperature and precipitation (Hijmans and Graham
2006). Using the boundary shapefile of Mt. Banahaw as
mask, the data layers from the WorldClim v.2.0 raster file
were then clipped to cover only the area of interest, as
these layers are presented on a global scale.
All prepared climatic and location files were then entered
in the machine algorithm – BIOCLIM, DOMAIN,
and MAXENT (v.3.4.1) – along with landcover data.
The resulting raster (ASC) file containing the modeled
distribution for S. philippensis was projected in QGIS
(v.3.0 Girona), along with a shapefile from ArcGIS
containing habitat types identified in Mt. Banahaw and a
shapefile of the broad habitat types.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Habitat Characterization
The PCA (Figure 2) presented different environmental
variables that characterized the different habitat types of
the camera trap locations. High leaf litter, for instance,
can be found in the upper montane forest (UP), which
also recorded significant number of mosses. Habitat
characteristics of UP are related to the mid-montane
forest (MM) variables, which was further characterized
by having greater DBH of trees, presence of Pandanus,
and closed canopy cover. PCA also showed that secondary
growth (SG) and plantation (P) are relatively related to
each other in terms of habitat types. This was confirmed
by the presence of fruit trees (e.g. Ficus, Musa) and
significant distance to anthropological clearings being
present in both types of forests.
Wetter conditions provide an abundance of food, whereas
hot and dry climates hinder such abundance (Klein
1965; Mattson 1980; Guthrie 1984). The most important
factors shaping wild boar density and distribution in the
environment are food, shelter, and water (Fernández-
Llario et al. 2003). Following the results of the study, we
suspect that the effects of precipitation and temperature on
the availability of root crops are probably the key factors
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 2. Principal components of habitat on different elevations (MM – mid-montane, P – plantation, SG – secondary growth, TF – tropical
forest, and UP – upper montane).

in determining the potential distribution of Philippine pairs of warts and gonial hair tufts (Meijaard et al. 2011).
warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas. In the study of
Caruso et al. (2018), habitat use of wild boar in Argentina
Habitat Preferences of Philippine Warty Pig in Mt.
was mainly confined to forest or forest edges and they
Banahaw de Tayabas
frequently occurred near natural habitats. While wild boars
Box plots (Figure 4) show the occurrence (n = 8) of
often use forests and shrublands, Fonseca (2007) reported
Philippine warty pigs based on their camera trap captures
that the species is able to use open areas but prefer trees
and indirect signs such as foot tracks and used wallows
or bush covers for shelter. Wild boars are more abundant
located within the 20 m x 20 m plots. Box plots for canopy
in old mature deciduous forests and locations where high
cover (A) show that they were mostly present in an open
food and landscape diversity is accessible (Acevedo et al.
canopy than a closed one. Moreover, traces revealed
2006). The availability of water restricts its density and
that they were found to thrive in areas that were in close
scope in hot dry climates (Abaigar et al. 1994; Massei
proximity to clearings such as plantations (B). For the
et al. 1997).
height of emergence (C), the species were mostly present
where emergents were shorter (D). Philippine warty pigs
Occurrence of Philippine Warty Pigs in Mt. also moved in areas where the trees have smaller DBH.
Banahaw de Tayabas They were also found to exist in areas abundant with fruit
After 17 camera trap days, only one camera trap station trees (E). Traces of the species indicate they occupy areas
was able to capture the target species (Figure 3). A total of Musa sp. plantation (F). The last box plot shows that
of three captures of S. philippensis representing five the species prefer habitats with easy access to water since
individuals was recorded: two solitary adults and an most of the tracks were observed in areas near streams (G).
adult female with two young. These captures are the first
photo records of Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw.
Generalized Linear Model
Sus philippensis’ unique morphological characteristics
The AIC (Akaike 1973) is presented on Table 1. Based
consist of usually black with grey-colored fur and a pale
on the AIC values, Model 5 (full model) is the “best‟
snout band. A long full crown tuft and nuchal mane extend
model for pig presence prediction. The logistic regression
along the back male S. philippensis. Males also have two
coefficients gave the change in the log odds of the outcome

1609
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 of Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 3. Philippine warty pig (S. philippensis) caught by camera trapping in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas.

1610
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 4. Box plots of occurrence of Philippine warty pig with each habitat variable in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas: [A] canopy
cover, [B] distance to clearing, [C] height of emergence, [D] DBH of trees, [E] presence of fruit trees, [F] presence
of Musa, and [G] distance to nearest water source.

1611
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 of Philippine Warty Pig

Table 1. AIC, model selection based on AIC (summary of values based on the outputs).
Model Intercept VegPL VegSG VegTF VegUP Musa Canopy Dist. Dist. Null de- Residual AIC
Water clearing viance deviance
PigPres -20.24086 13.36451 16.86753 -1.1378 -23.833 0.09088 -0.0748 -0.03164 0.0573 209.09 138.08 156.08
~ Veg +
Musa +
Canopy.
cover +
Dist.water
+ Clear.
dist

PigPres -24.26971 16.52108 17.50483 -0.8071 -22.883 0.10084 -0.03132 0.0541 209.09 140.50 156.5
~ Veg +
Clear.dist
+ Musa +
Dist.water

PigPres -13.977816 2.827558 8.288746 2.21297 -7.8936 0.13159 0.0210 209.09 145.25 159.25
~ Veg +
Clear.dist
+ Musa

PigPres -3.46574 -5.25144 0.84512 2.21297 2.61844 0.10756 209.09 152.21 164.21
~ Veg +
Musa

PigPres ~ -1.78165 0.02469 209.09 188.54 192.54

Musa

for a one unit increase in the predictor variable. The table
shows that for every one-unit change in Musa, the log
odds of pig presence increase by 0.09088 and for a one
unit increase in canopy cover, the log odds of pig presence
decrease by 0.07482.
For categorical variables, results show that plantation (VegP)
and secondary growth (VegSG) (positive coefficients) are
more likely to have a higher presence/occurrence of warty
pigs than mid-montane (VegMM), whereas tropical forest
(VegTF) and upper montane (VegUP) are less likely to
have a higher presence/occurrence of pigs than mid-
montane (VegMM) (negative coefficients). The individual
components of habitat types had different influences on the
occurrence of the warty pigs.
Wild boars are much more active under moist conditions.
Grounds are easier to root, given the right amount of
moisture (Lemel et al. 2003; Welander 2000). Nest sites,
therefore, are constantly situated in close proximity to
water (Dardaillon 1986; Fernández-Llario 2004). Water
availability and temperature are two significant features
that can play an important role in the abundance and
distribution of wild boar (Cuevas et al. 2013).
Studies in other countries found that Sulawesi warty
pigs (S. celebensis) (NRC 1983; Mustari 2009) feed on a
wide range of diet, which includes roots, foliage, fallen
fruits (Corypha sp., Arenga pinata, Ficus sp.) as they
visit these plantation areas during fruiting season. Our
results concur with this study and further indicate that the
combined presence of food, water, and cover encapsulated
as elements of habitat had a positive relationship with the
distribution of wild pigs in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas. In the
study of Danilov and Pachenko (2012), results showed that
wild boar and feral pigs in Russia used a range of natural
and anthropogenic habitats to access either food or cover.
Moreover, in terms of distance to the nearest water, the
probability of pig occurrence decreased with an increasing
average distance to water (McClure et al. 2015).
Our data show that as the elevation increases, the indices
of presence of the species decreases (Figure 5). Plots of
Camera Station 1 up to Camera Station 5 recorded the
lowest number of tracks of Philippine warty pigs. The
elevations that recorded the greatest number of tracks were
within 600–800 masl. Numerous tracks were also recorded
in the plantation area. Results of this research follow the
previous study of Blouch (1984), wherein he discovered
the pockets of Javan warty pig (S. verrucosus) at 600–800
masl at Mt. Penanggungan in Indonesia. In Mt. Argapura
in Surabaya, S. verrucosus was found thriving at 500–800
masl. The preferred habitat for S. verrucosus was found
to be extensive areas of lowland secondary vegetation,
particularly teak (Tectona grandis) plantations and stretch
of Imperata cylindrica grassland, both scattered with
brush and forest clumps.
Modeling the Distribution of Philippine Warty Pig

1612
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
Figure 5. Distribution of traces such as footprints and wallows of Philippine warty pig plotted on different habitat gradients in Mt. Banahaw
de Tayabas.
in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas
SDMs. This study utilized three ecological niche models
– namely, BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, and MAXENT. These
three SDMs are widely used in academic research and
species conservation. The results of these models were
combined to come up with the model average.
BIOCLIM. The distribution model ran in BIOCLIM
generated a mean training AUC of 0.9946. The resulting
heat map below shows the probability of the presence of
Philippine warty pig along different habitat types. Yellow
markings indicate the predicted presence of the species
(Figure 6). It shows that S. philippensis is widely present
in the mixed-secondary agro-forest. Results also show
that as elevation increases, the possible presence of the
Philippine warty pig decreases.
DOMAIN. The distribution model ran in DOMAIN
generated a mean training AUC of 0.9937. It analyzes
a continuous similarity function for all candidate sites.
DOMAIN measures the environmental similarity to the
most similar training position.
The distribution was found to be dispersed and more
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Philippine Warty Pig
scattered than the model output of BIOCLIM (Figure
7). The yellow markings also imply the potential species
distribution of S. philippensis in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas.
Main difference between BIOCLIM and DOMAIN is
that the latter considered other portions of the mountain,
whereas the former did not. Figure also indicates that areas
with high probability of occurrence can be found in the
cultivated area. This may be due to considerable presence
of food resources such as coconut and root crops.
MAXENT. The distribution model ran in MAXENT
generated a mean training AUC of 0.9962 [maximum
of 1; relevant starting at 0.75, as per Fielding and Bell
(1997)]. MAXENT predicts that the Philippine warty pigs
occur throughout the Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas, although
sparsely in the extreme southern and northern portions of
the mountain (Figure 8). A relatively high probability of
occurrence was observed at 600–800 masl. The habitat
in the area was characterized as secondary growth forest.
MAXENT acquired the highest AUC value among the
three SDMs, which implies that MAXENT is the better
model for predicting the distribution of the Philippine
warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas.
1613
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 of Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 6. Distribution of Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas using BIOCLIM.

1614
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 7. Distribution of Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas using DOMAIN.

1615
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 of Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 8. Distribution of Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas using MAXENT.

1616
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
Model Average
The three SDMs tested generated different distribution
maps using the same 19 bioclimatic variables. The model
shown below presents the model average of the three
SDMs used in the study (Figure 9).
Among the three ecological niche models used, MAXENT
provides the most reliable result and more dependable
predictive model. The result agrees well with other
studies. In the study of Reiss et al. (2011), results showed
that MAXENT had better predictive performance, and
its AUC values are significantly higher than BIOCLIM.
Elith et al. (2006) also confirmed that MAXENT
has significantly higher predictive performance than
BIOCLIM and DOMAIN. Giovanelli et al. (2010) confirm
that MAXENT is the most precise among four prediction
models (BIOCLIM, SVM, DOMAIN, and MAXENT).
Together, these studies stipulate the superior predictive
precision of MAXENT over other models, and these
include the BIOCLIM and DOMAIN.
Figure 9. Model average on the distribution of Philippine warty pig in Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas using the three SDMs.
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Philippine Warty Pig
Other Species Recorded
Other than Philippine warty pig, camera traps were also
able to capture photos of other wildlife species (Figure
10). This includes common palm civet (Paradoxurus
philippinensis) (three independent photos). This species
is abundant in the mountain based on the species’ indirect
signs along trails (scats) consisting of undigested seeds,
which they deposit on the ground along the trail. Photos
of feral cats were also captured in one of the camera trap
stations (two independent photos). Within the elevation of
1500 masl, this is the first information about their presence
in this part of Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas. This poses threats
to many populations of small-medium-sized wildlife of
Mt. Banahaw. Feral cats are known wildlife predators.
Camera traps deployed at 500-900 masl captured the
greatest number of species. Captured species also
include the long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis)
(one independent photo), the southern Luzon cloudrat
(Phloeomys cumingii) (one independent photo), and the
wild jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) (one independent photo).
1617
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 of Philippine Warty Pig

Figure 10. Other wildlife species captured through the camera traps in Mt. Banahaw de
Tayabas: [A] feral cat Felis catus, [B] unidentified owl, [C] wild jungle fowl Gallus gallus, [D] long-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis,
[E] unidentified rodent, and [F] common palm civet Paradoxurus philippinensis.

CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Camera trapping, foot tracks, and wallows verified
the presence of S. philippensis in Mt. Banahaw with
individuals captured at 700 masl. This study also
confirmed the species’ preference of secondary growth
forest (600–800 masl). The GLM generated from the
results suggest that S. philippensis prefer plantations
and areas near water sources such as streams, areas
with fruit trees such as Musa, and area that is closer to
an anthropological clearing. The average from the three
SDMs predicts that Philippine warty pigs occur throughout
Mt. Banahaw de Tayabas, although sparsely in the extreme
southern and northern portions of the mountain. Hunting
pressure can often modulate the occurrence of pig species.
Farmers resort to hunting and poaching wild pigs in order
to reduce the crop-raiding behavior of the pigs. Hunting

1618
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
also plays a major role in the lives of many communities
(Melletti and Meijaard 2017); however, it was not included
in this analysis as we discuss human-wildlife conflict
such as crop-raiding and subsequent retaliatory hunting,
as well as communities’ attitudes towards pigs elsewhere
[Cabanas et al. (in prep.)].
The Philippine warty pig’s presence in Mt. Banahaw
indicates that the area’s resources are still sufficient for the
success of the species. However, more fieldwork is needed
to determine their viable populations in the wild. Data
from this study will be useful for the local community’s
plans for conserving and managing this endemic species.
Additional recommendations also include investigating
the population size within and outside the protected area,
as well as establishing baseline data to assess the impact
of ASF.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to
the Rufford Foundation and the DOST-ASTHRDP
(Department of Science and Technology–Accelerated
Science and Technology Human Resource Development
Program) for funding this research. We would also like
to thank the ENRO (Environment and Natural Resources
Office) Tayabas headed by Mr. Melvin Rada. We also give
thanks to the following individuals: Neil Jun Lobite for
the help in analyzing the data; Cristian Javin, Wilfredo
Tutor, and Rendel Durante for assisting the whole survey
team; as well as Camila Meneses, Kier Mitchel Pitogo,
and Rafael Ryno Sanchez for their invaluable assistance
during the fieldwork.
REFERENCES
ABAIGAR T, DEL BARRIO G, ERICAD JR. 1994.
Habitat preference of wild boar (Sus scrofa L. 1758)
in a Mediterranean environment. Indirect evaluation
by signs. Mammalia 58: 201–210.
ACEVEDO P, ESCUDERO MA, MUNOZ R. GOR-
TAZAR C. 2006. Factors affecting wild boar abun-
dance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta
Theriologica 51: 327–336.
AKAIKE H. 1973. Information Theory and an Extension
of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In: International
Symposium on Information Theory. Petrov BN, Csaki
F eds. p. 267–281.
ARAUJO MB, PETERSON AT. 2012. Uses and misuses
of bioclimatic envelope modelling. Ecology 93(7):
1527–1539.
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Philippine Warty Pig
BIRDLIFE DATA ZONE. 2001. Birdlife. Retrieved in
March 2022 from http://datazone.birdlife.org/site/
factsheet/mounts-banahaw-san-cristobal-nation-
al-park-iba-philippines/text.
BLOUCH RA. 1984. Current status of the Sumatran rhino
and other large mammals in Southern Sumatra. IUCN/
WWF Indonesia Programme, Bogor, Indonesia.
[BAI] Bureau of Animal Industry. 2019. Manila Bulletin
news: Processed pork from China tests positive for
African swine fever. Quezon City, Philippines.
BURNHAM KP, ANDERSON DR. 2002. Model Selec-
tion and Inference: a Practical Information—Theoret-
ical Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
CARPENTER G, GILLISON A, WINTER J. 1993. DO-
MAIN: a flexible modelling procedure for mapping
potential distributions of plants and animals. Biodi-
versity Conservation 2(6): 667–680.
CARUSO N, VALENZUELA AE, BURDETT CL,
VIDAL EM, BIROCHIO D, CASANAVE EB. 2018.
Summer habitat use and activity patterns of wild
boar Sus scrofa in rangelands of central Argentina.
PLOS One 13: 10.
CUEVAS MF, MASTRANTONIO L, OJEDA RA,
JAKSIC FM. 2013. Effects of wild boar disturbance
on vegetation and soil properties in the Monte Desert,
Argentina. Mammalian Biology für Säugetierkd 77:
299–306.
DANILOV PI, PACHENKO DV. 2012. Expansion and
some ecological features of the wild boar beyond the
northern boundary of its historical range in European
Russia. Russian Journal Ecology 43: 45–51.
DARDAILLON M. 1986. Seasonal variations in habitat
selection and spatial distribution of wild boar (Sus
scrofa) in the Camargue, southern France. Behavioural
Processes 13: 251–268.
[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. 2019. Administrative Order 2019-09.
Retrieved from http://www.bmb.gov.ph/index.php/e-
library/laws-and-policies/denr-administrative-orders/
dao-2017-2019
[DENR-BMB] Department of Environment and Natural
Resources–Biodiversity Management Bureau. 2019.
National List of Threatened Fauna. Retrieved on 29
Apr 2022 from https://bmb.gov.ph/index.php/facts-
and-figures-wild/national-list-of-threatened-fauna
ELITH JH, GRAHAM CP, ANDERSON R, DUDK M,
FERRIER S. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction
of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecog-
raphy 29: 129–151.
1619
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022
EWERS RM, NATHAN SKSS, LEE PAK. 2021. African
swine fever ravaging Borneo’s wild pigs. Nature 593:
37. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01189-3
FERNÁNDEZ-LLARIO P. 2004. Environmental cor-
relates of nest site selection by wild boar Sus scrofa.
Acta Theriologica 49: 383–392.
FIELDING AH, BELL JF. 1997. A review of methods for the
assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/
absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38–39.
FOCARDI C. 2008. Winter habitat selection by wild
boar  Sus scrofa in southeastern Poland. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 54(2): 361–366.
FONSECA CR. 2007. Winter habitat selection by wild
boar Sus scrofa in southeastern Poland. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 54: 361–366.
GIOVANELLI JG, SIQUIERA MF, HADDAD CF, AL-
EXANDRINO J. 2010. Modeling a spatially restricted
distribution in the Neotropics: how the size of calibra-
tion area affects the performance of five presence-only
methods. Ecological Model. 221: 215–224.
GRIFFIN PB, GRIFFIN MB. 2000. Agta hunting and
sustainability of resource use in northeastern Luzon,
Philippines. In: Hunting for sustainability in tropical
forests. Robinson JG, Bennett EL eds. New York:
Columbia University Press. p. 325–335.
GUISAN A, ZIMMERMANN NE. 2000. Predictive
habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological
Modelling 135: 147–186.
GUTHRIE RD. 1984. Mosaics, allelochemics, and
nutrients: an ecological theory of late Pleistocene
megafaunal extinctions. In: Quaternary Extinctions:
a Prehistoric Revolution. Martin PS, Klein RG eds.
University of Arizona Press.
HEANEY LR. 1986. Biogeography of mammals in
Southeast Asia: estimates of rates of colonization,
extinction and speciation. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society 28(1–2): 127–165.
HIJMANS RJ, GRAHAM CH. 2006. Testing the ability
of climate envelope models to predict the effect of
climate change on species distributions. Global Change
Biology 12: 2272–2281.
HONE J. 2002. Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Aus-
tralia: dynamics, impacts, and management. Biological
Conservation 105: 231–242.
[IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Na-
ture. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,
Version 2017-3. Retrieved on 30 Apr 2020 from www.
iucnredlist.org
1620
Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution
of Philippine Warty Pig
JONES CG, LAWTON JH, SHACHAK M. 1997. Positive
and negative effects of organism as physical ecosystem
engineers. Ecology 78: 1946–1957.
KLEIN DR. 1965. Ecology of deer range in Alaska. Eco-
logical Monographs 35: 259–285.
LANTICAN RM. 2001. The science and practice of
crop production. SEAMEO SEARCA and UPLB, Los
Baños, Philippines.
LEMEL J, TRUVE J, SODERBERG B. 2003. Variation
in ranging and activity behaviour of European wild
boar Sus scrofa in Sweden. Wildlife Biology 9: 29–36.
LUSKIN MW, MEIJAARD E, SURYA S, SHEHEREZA-
DE, WALZER C, LINKIER M. 2020. African swine
fever threatens Southeast Asia's 11 endemic wild pig
species. Society for Conservation Biology [ee12784].
MASSEI G, GENOV PV, STAINES BW, GORMAN ML.
1997. Factors influencing home range and activity of
wild boar (Sus scrofa) in a Mediterranean coastal area.
Journal of Zoology. 242: 411–423.
MATTSON WJ. 1980. Herbivory in relation to plant
nitrogen content. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics. 11: 119–161.
MCCLURE ML, BURDETT CL, FARNSWORTH ML,
LUTMAN MW, THEOBALD DM, RIGGS PD. 2015.
Modeling and Mapping the Probability of Occurrence
of Invasive Wild Pigs across the Contiguous United
States. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0133771.
MEIJAARD EJ, D’HUART JP, OLIVER WL. 2011. Fam-
ily Suidae (pigs). In: Handbook of the mammals of the
world. Wilson DE, Mittermeier RA eds. Lynx Edicions.
MELLETTI M, MEIJAARD E eds. 2017. Ecology,
Conservation, and Management of Wild Pigs and
Peccaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781316941232
MEROW C, SMITH MJ, SILANDER JA. 2013. A prac-
tical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species distribu-
tions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter.
Ecography 36: 1058–1069.
MUSTARI AH. 2009. Population density of Sulawe-
si’s forest ungulates in Tanjung Peropa and Tanjung
Amoalengo Wildlife Reserves, southeast Sulawesi.
Media Konservasi 14(2): 89–94.
[NRC] National Research Council. 1983. Little-known
Asian animals with a promising economic future.
Washington: National Academy Press. p. 75–79.
OLIVER WL, HEANEY L. 2017. Sus philippensis. Ac-
cessed on 19 Feb 2021 from [URL]
Philippine Journal of Science Cabanas et al.: Occurence and Distribution of
Vol. 151 No. 5, October 2022 Philippine Warty Pig

OLIVER WL. 1995. The taxonomy, distribution and status

of Philippine wild pigs. IUCN/SSC Pigs and Peccaries
Specialist Group. IUCN.
REISS HS, CUNZE S, KOENIG K, NEUMANN H,
KROENCKE I. 2011. Species distribution modelling
of marine benthos: a North Sea case study. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 442(71).
SCHEFFERS BR, CORLETTE RT, DIESMOS A, LAU-
RANCE WF. 2012. Local demand drives a bushmeat
industry in a Philippine forest preserve. Tropical Con-
servation Science 5(2): 133–141.
STIBIG HJ, STOLLE F, DENNIS R, FELDKTTER C.
2007. Forest cover change in Southeast Asia. In: Joint
Research Center ed. The regional pattern. JRC Scien-
tific and Technical Reports.
VERNES K. 2003. Fine‐scale habitat preferences and
habitat partitioning by three mycophagous mammals in
tropical wet sclerophyll forest, north‐eastern Australia.
Austral Ecology 28: 471–479.
WELANDER J. 2000. Spatial and temporal dynamics of
wild boar (Sus scrofa) rooting in a mosaic landscape.
Journal of Zoology 252: 263–271.

1621