DOI: 10.5061/dryad.n8pk0p2x3
title: Tree phenology from Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary (Sarawak, Malaysia) October 2016-January 2020

description: Community-managed forests (CF) bordering protected areas are critical to
 conservation in Borneo. Iban-managed CF retain tree species characteristic
 of primary forests within pulau, remnant old growth forests conserved for
 harvesting forest products. However, the selective felling of large trees,
 and proximity to surrounding mixed-use mosaic habitat, likely influence
 pulau structure and composition. Tropical Asian forests exhibit
 supra-annual mast fruiting (3-7 yrs) and extended periods of fruit
 scarcity, but fruit trees encouraged and planted by communities, in
 mixed-use mosaic bordering pulau, may benefit wildlife during periods of
 food scarcity. This data was used to investigate the seasonal
 availability of foods (fruits and seeds) important to wildlife within
 protected forest (predominately primary mixed-dipterocarp
 forest) and community-managed
 Iban pulau (selectively logged primary forest remnants)
 at the boundary of the Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary (LEWS), in
 Sarawak, Malaysia (Borneo). We documented the presence of fruits
 and seeds, comparing relative composition and fruiting activity between
 forests, using bimonthly phenology surveys across 50 locations (October
 2016-2019). We also documented fruit presence along walking
 transects within LEWS and the mixed-use mosaic bordering pulau
 within Iban territories.
description: This study was conducted using forest plots established within
 and adjacent to Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary (LEW) in Sarawak,
 Malaysia (a portion of Borneo) (111°53'E to 112°281'E and
 1°19'N to 1°51'N). In October 2016, we established 40 research
 plots within the sanctuary’s protected forest (PF) and within the Iban
 managed pulau (CF <em>pulau</em>). Plot selection was subject
 to accessibility, minimum spacing between plots, and presence of fruit
 trees (wild unplanted). We defined fruit trees as any tree that produces
 fruits or seeds eaten by mammals or birds, whether fleshy or hard,
 excluding trees with toxic properties. We also excluded trees that produce
 small seeds, or berries, of a size eaten mostly by small birds or rodents,
 as these would be overly challenging to detect through visual surveys.
 Over subsequent trips (February 2017, November 2017, and January 2018),
 our team established 10 additional plots to increase sampling effort. All
 plots were ≥20 m from the forest edge and 350-500 m from all other plots.
 Within each plot, we tagged every fruit tree ≥10 cm in diameter at breast
 height (DBH) within a 20 m radius. DBH of each tagged tree were recorded
 and leaf specimens were collected for species identification. Over
 subsequent surveys, additional specimens of fruits and flowers were
 collected to further improve species identification. Once established,
 each plot was divided into quarters, patches of dense vegetation and the
 relative spacing of trees was sketched, and our botany team qualitatively
 assessed the understory density. The understory of a plot was categorized
 based on this qualitative assessment as: “dense”, “medium”, or “open”. Of
 50 research plots, 29 were within the PF and 21 within the CF
 <em>pulau</em>. All forest plots within the CF
 <em>pulau</em> were bordered by a <em>mixed-use
 mosaic</em>. Starting in our second year of surveys (November 2017),
 we divided regularly-used trails between plots into transects (350-500 m
 stretch of forest per transect) to compare availability of fruits and
 seeds in areas between PF plots to those within the CF <em>mixed-use
 mosaic</em>.<strong> </strong>We monitored plots every
 two months for three years (October 2016-January 2020). On each bi-monthly
 visit, we stood at the base of each tagged tree and visually surveyed for
 fruits-on-the- ground and, with binoculars, presence of flowers, young
 fruits, and mature fruits within the canopy. From November 2017-October
 2019, field teams also recorded presence of flowers, young fruits, and
 mature fruits (ground or canopy), along select trails between plots.
 Photographs and voucher specimens, collected from plots and along the
 transects, were sent to local botanists at the Sarawak Herbarium for
 species confirmation using the most up-to-date sources for identification
 and nomenclature.
description: Datasets: 1) phenology_treeplots_LEWS:
 Comparison of LEWS forest (PF) vs. community forest plots (CF) (aka
 protected forest vs. Iban pulau) represented by tagged trees in fruit tree
 plots monitored for 3-years. 2) phenology_transects_LEWS:
 Walking transects between plots. Comparison of LEWS forest (PF) vs.
 community forest (CF) (aka protected forest vs. mixed-use mosaic bordering
 pulau) represented by observations of fruits along transects during our
 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> year of
 surveys. 3)
 treeplots_LEWS: location information for each tree plot The second tab of each excel
 dataset includes meta-data. If you have additional questions, please
 contact corresponding author for more details regarding this study, as
 some information has been omitted from original datasets e.g. information
 not needed for present analysis.