Reply to Pitogo et al.: No single silver bullet to simply understand war-biodiversity conflict in the Philippines

In Hilario-Husain et al.¹, we explored the potential link between sociopolitical conflict and biodiversity knowledge shortfalls in Mindanao in the Southern Philippines using publicly available datasets on conflict and biodiversity records. We found that species occurrence records were related to the frequency and distance of conflicts at the provincial scale. We argue that security risks, logistical challenges, and political restrictions associated with conflict zones often deter biodiversity research, leading to under-documented regions despite their ecological significance. Our study provides an initial discussion highlighting that sociopolitical and environmental conflicts represent an underestimated threat to biodiversity in the Philippines and suggests potential solutions to address them. In response to our work, Pitogo and colleagues raised some interesting concerns, specifically regarding the choice of dataset analysed and our analytical decisions. While they acknowledge the significance of our work, they suggest that it is premature and warrants reconsideration. We welcome their interest in our work and are open to their criticisms. The impressive number of authors from diverse academic institutions, including those from the Philippines, China, Taiwan, and the United States, who showed interest in our study, indicates the significance of this issue.

First, we would like to clarify that our work neither claims to investigate nor hypothesizes the direct effect of sociopolitical conflict on species richness per se (i.e., increasing conflict decreases levels of biodiversity) or on biodiversity as a whole, but our approach was exploratory, aimed at providing a basis for understanding the link between sociopolitical conflict and biodiversity knowledge shortfalls². We frame biodiversity shortfalls by focusing on gaps in our understanding of species distribution, especially in geographic areas with limited or no data, and on knowledge accessibility gaps caused by challenges in accessing or sharing data due to conflict and war. We reiterate our overarching goals, acknowledge the preliminary nature of our study, and recognise the inherent caveats in pioneering research that lacks prior empirical groundwork¹. Thus, the interpretation of our initial results requires care and caution. However, we believe that Pitogo and colleagues may have overlooked our objectives and chosen analyses, which could have led to a misunderstanding of the message we aim to convey.

Second, Pitogo and colleagues raised concerns about our data sources for analysis and stated...