Northeast and East Central Asia

National Biodiversity
Strategies & Action Plans

Newsletter
Issue 5/6,10 june,2001

Funded by:
United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
 Edited by:
Bureau of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
Biodiversity Working Group / China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (BWG/CCICED)


Editors: XIE Yan, WANG Sung; Institute of Zoology, CAS, Beijing, China, 100080
Tel/Fax: (8610) 6264 7675; E-mail: wangs@panda.ioz.ac.cn; http://www.bpsp-neca.brim.ac.cn http://www.chinabiodiversity.com




Alien Species are Invading Good Forest (Picture by XIE Yan)

★Loss of Water and Soil Became the Top Environmental Problem in China
★The Environment Impact Assessment Law (Draft)
★Endangered Plants in the Three Gorges Area Cloned
★Snow Leopard Conservation in Kyrghyzstan
★Turns to Unregulated Markets for Wood
★To be or not to be for Saker Falcon in Central Asian countries?
★Features of Invasive Species in China
★Partial List of Invasive Species in China
★1591 Species of Wild Animals Recorded on Protection List
★Degradation in Protected Areas: The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas
★China Commences to Establish State-level Ecological Function Reserves
★Compilation of China's Biodiversity Websites

ZHANG Jiyao, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Water Conservancy, Indicated
Loss of Water and Soil Became the Top Environmental Problem in China

In today’s videophone meeting on national protection of Mother River, Zhang Jiyao, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Water Conservancy (MWC), indicated that: “Loss of water and soil has become the top environmental problem in China. There is no time to delay to protect the Mother River.”

Results of the second remote sensing survey conducted by MWC recently showed that after several years of comprehensive control, some successes have been achieved. However, water and soil erosion through out of the country is still very serious, and tendency of ecological deterioration had not yet effectively halted, in particular, such situation in the West had no choice but to be harnessed at once. Nowadays, the area of water and soil erosion is 3,670,000sq.km., among which eroded by water is 1,790,000sq.km.. Water and soil erosion area in the Middle Yellow River is 450,000 sq.km., and that in the Upper Yangtze River is 300,000 sq.km. The main impacts of water and soil erosion are desertification, petrifaction, degradation of land and threatening survival of the local residents. Moreover rivers and lakes are silted up, so as to promote the occurrence of draught and flood.

It is reported that water and soil erosion, water shortage and water pollution more and more frequently influence Chinese social economy and people’s production and living. In 2000, big and middle sized cities, such as Tianjin, Dalian, Yantai and Weihai, etc., were in bad need of water. 70% reaches of Huai River, Tai Lake and Yellow River suffered pollution in various degrees. 60% reaches of Hai River and Songliao River, and even some water head were polluted.
WANG Haizhou, China Youth, 9/1/2001
Translated by WU Lihui


The Environment Impact Assessment Law (Draft)
Proposed to the 19th Standing Committee Meeting of the 9th Session of the National People's Congress

To implement the sustainable development strategy and prevent the side impacts on environment due to policies and programs, exploitation and construction, the Environment and Resource Committee of the National People’s Congress Council drew up the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (Draft) of People’s Republic of China on the basis of comprehensive survey, argumentation and suggestions from all sides. This draft was submitted to the 19th Standing Committee Meeting of the 9th Session of the National People's Congress held on Dec 22nd. LI Peng, Chairman of the Standing Committee, presided over the meeting.

WANG Tao, Vice Director of the Environment and Resource Committee, gave the explanation of this draft. He indicated that China is one of the developing countries which firstly conduct the EIA system. In the Environmental Protection Law of People’s Republic of China (Try out) approved in 1979, this system was set up as a rule of law for the first time. After the practice of more than 20 years, in the period of the 9th Five-year Plan the execution rate of this system was up to 90%. The evaluation, examination and approval work is standardized gradually, and the evaluation range also expands from infrastructure projects to technical reformation projects and regional exploitation and construction projects.

However, along with the constant expanding of range and scale of economic activities, harms to environment caused by regional exploitation, industrial development and utilization of natural resource are increasingly distinct. Especially, those environmental problems caused by relative policies and programs have already become major threats to the sustainable development of China. WANG Tao said that, ‘China’s economic development history of the recent several decades indicates side impacts derived from some policies and programs developed by the government and related departments, compared with that of the construction projects, are heavier, last longer period and affect broader ranges’.
WANG Tao indicated that China has conducted beneficial exploration and accumulated some experiences in the development of EIA system. According to the experiences and practices, this draft expands the range of EIA from single construction projects to those policies and programs which are harmful to environment. The achievement of this aim cannot only rely on amending existing laws, and the constitution of a complete Environment Impact Assessment Law is indispensable.
DING Pin, China Environment News, 23/12/2000
Translated by QIN Hua, Picture by Emil Shukurov


Endangered Plants in the Three Gorges Area Cloned

Recently, the Yichang Three-Gorge Vivarium, Chinese Academy of Science starts to collect explants of endangered dove tree (Davidia involucrata), Henry emmenopterys (Emmenopterys henri) and Wilson buckeye (Aesculus wilsonii) for inoculation and culture, so as to conduct fast asexual reproduction experiments on them in the plant clone laboratory.
Dove tree, Henry emmenopterys and Wilson buckeye are key protected plants of China. The clone of these plants marks the formal beginning of rescue clone experiments of the Yichang Three-Gorge Vivarium for threatened plants in the Three Gorges Area. The first group of cloned seedlings of Three Gorges plants may come into being in the culture bottles after one month, provided that experiments go on wheels.
Beijing Evening Paper, 23/3/2001
Translated by QIN Hua


SNOW LEOPARD CONSERVATION IN KYRGHYZSTAN

In the beginning of 20th century snow leopard was not big nor small in its population number. Yearly bag only in Middle Asia was about 250 leopards. Soon this number decreased, because leopard's population began to reduce rapidly on the whole distribution area, and in Pribaikalye, Sayany and Tarbagatai this animal disappeared completely. Taking in consideration that leopard hunting was allowed until 50, and only then in some countries as a result of low life level, sometimes even impoverishment of the locals in the countries of former USSR, black market appearing, transparent borders with China. Leopards began to be hunted for everywhere, even in nature reserves.
Even before international scientific and nature-conserving society was not satisfied with snow leopard situation and began to unite efforts to conserve this species. International trust on snow leopard was established as a result; conferences and seminars were held. "Snow Line" journal was rising such questions as monitoring, protection, restoration of the population numbers in different countries. In some countries programs of saving this species were performed. So, by the specialists opinion, a hope to save snow leopards in India, Bhutan and Nepal appeared. In most danger nowadays are populations of snow leopard in China and former Soviet Union countries. China, almost destroyed amur tiger on its territory, now uses inside organs of snow leopard in folk medicine. They don't only kill their own leopards, but have them put on a market for the neighbors - from Kyrghyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Specialists suppose that in the last 10 years in those countries snow leopard population number decreased in 4-5 time, and in some regions - even in 10 times, which can't leave specialists and community not concerned aboupartially limited, is becomes obvious why this beautiful animal that lives in extreme conditions, happen to be on the point of disappearing. Never the less in USSR set by the time nature protection system and no international market controlled leopard decreasing rates. Situation worsened rapidly with Union collapse. Smuggling appeared under this situation.
In Kyrghyzstan from 1999 "Snow leopard" project works in collaboration with NABU (German Union of Nature Protection) and Ministry of Nature Protection of Kyrghyzstan Republic. On the first step of the project a very good technically supplied group of operative fighting with smuggling, market channels and black market was created (in 2000 the second group was created). For the first year of work group members did dozens of spot-checks of snow leopard distribution places, and found more than 150 situations of breaking Nature Protection Laws of Kyrghyzstan. Reports were made on all of the cases and given to Nature-conserving Office of Public Prosecutor of the Republic. There are criminal case began on some of them. At the same time taken and destroyed are more than 200 weapons of leopard's catching, traps, hooks, etc. About 90 not registered guns were taken from poachers, mostly rifled. Some illegal market channels of skins were found, and the skins taken from them. Criminal cases of those affairs were also giver to the Office of Public Prosecutor.
This action's success is not only in those specific cases of finding and preventing poaching, but also in the thought that was formed and effective system of protection of not only snow leopard, but also other rare species of the animals. Also helps work with local citizens that is done on the second step of the project from 2000: in local press several popular articles about snow leopard protection in Kyrghyzstan were published, talks and seminars with students were held. In this work is used a film about snow leopard, made by German television with help of NABU. On Kyrghyzstan television more than 10 times a film about "Snow leopard" group was shown.

In May of 1999 with participation and funding of international organization Sacred Earth Network in Aksu-Djabagly nature reserve a regional seminar dedicated to snow leopard protection problems in Middle Asia was held. On this conference specialists from 5 countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and USA set main problems and key moments for leopard protection through regional projects. An international community organization "Asia - Irbis" was created, its main task is snow leopard protection on Central Asian territory in former USSR borders. Sooner Tajikistan joined this organization. Seminar's participants accepted an Appeal to the Governments of their countries with a request to unite the efforts on leopard saving. In 2000 with SEN funds 3 short-term projects on work with the local people in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrghyzstan were held. Future will show us how soon positive results will appear. It is hard to believe that those measures are enough. It is important to widen the field of those and new projects and programs in order to recruit all local people to conservation of this unique and wonderful inhabitant of the high mountains. Snow leopard should live in its native places!

Torsten HARDER
"Snow leopard" project coordinator,
Councilor of Ministry of Environment Protection of Republic of Kyrghyzstan

Dr. Valentina TOROPOVA
Ph.D. in biology sciences,
NGO “Asia - Irbis”

Picture by Emil Shukurov


Turns to Unregulated Markets for Wood

PIANMA, China -- This Chinese town hard on the border with Bur-ma smells of wood. Sawdust floats through the air like pollen. Fires crackle in roadside restaurants. Pianma's tallest structure is a mountain of logs more than 50 feet high. And trucks weighed down with timber trundle through town daily.

Pianma, 1,500 miles southwest of Beijing on the far edge of Yunnan Province, is one of China’s gateways into the forests of northern Burma, where for the last several years a massive, unregulated and largely unnoticed timber trade has stripped bare hundreds of square miles of ancient tropical forests. As such, Pianma is a vantage point to view the mounting appetite of the Chinese economic giant that is emerging and spreading its reach to the rest of Asia and the world.

The economy -- at more than $4 trillion it is 22 times bigger than it was in 1978 -- has led the charge toward renewal of what many Chinese regard as their rightful influence on the country’s Asian neighbors. China is the biggest investor in Mongolia, for instance, and buys more than half its cashmere. China has challenged Russia for influence in several Central Asian countries, including Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where Chinese investments vie with Moscow’s and Chinese bicycles, electronic goods and other gadgets are pushing Russia’s out.

To the south, China has improved ties with Vietnam, and Chinese firms are some of the most aggressive investors in that country. Chinese firms have also plowed money into Nepal and Cambodia.

China’s growing economic influence has sometimes aroused passions in the region. Mongolia moved several years ago to ban Chinese firms from participating in its privatization process. Government and cashmere industry officials routinely blame China for the collapse of their textile industry. Local officials in Siberia have spoken about their fears of a "Chinese invasion," although negotiations are underway for Chinese crews to cut down trees in Russia.

Here in Pianma, where men saunter the streets with pistols and prostitutes gather on street corners offering laborers a quick massage and more, people have been trading lumber for years. But the boom, truckers and lumberjacks say, really began in 1998. That was the year China issued a ban on logging to protect its fast-disappearing forests and to halt massive soil erosion that contributed to deadly floods.

"You have a situation where an environmentally beneficial policy in China created incentives to destroy forests in other parts of the world," said Jim Harkness, director of the China office of WWF, a conservation organization formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund.

From 12 provinces in 1998, the logging ban was extended to 18 in 2000. No logging is allowed in the upper reaches of the Yangtze or Yellow rivers, Logging has been reduced in Northeastern, Inner Mongolia, the northwestern Xinjiang territory and elsewhere. In all 740,000 wood workers have been laid off, according to research by WWF. China’s timber production plummeted 97 percent from 1997 to 2000, when only 1 million cubic meters were produced.

Preparations for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization have also sparked an increase in timber imports. Tariffs on forestry products have fallen drastically as China seeks to prepare for a more open trading system. In many places around China’s borders, no tariffs are charged for logs.
In that atmosphere, thousands of out-of-work laborers flooded this town and regions all along the borders after 1998, looking for wood to feed an unquenchable demand for chopsticks, furniture and paper. China’s imports of logs skyrocketed from less than 5 million cubic meters in 1998 to more than 10 million in 1999 and between 14 million and 15 million last year.

Steven Johnson, a statistician at the International Timber Trade Organization, estimates that within a few years China will surpass the United States, Japan and the European Union as the world’s biggest importer of logs, although its imports of all wood products are still a fraction of the world total.
"The logging ban played a role," a World Bank official said, "but the trend was already there. As China gets richer, it’s natural that it will consume more wood."
On paper, Burma supplies less than 10 percent of the imports, or 740,000 cubic meters, according to statistics collected by the timber trade group. But no one in this swath of western Yunnan Province believes those numbers.
"I would say it's about twice that high," said Li Jiajing, a 44-year-old driver, who said he moved 1,000 cubic meters last year of teak, Chinese hemlock, walnut, dragon spruce and Chinese pine, One recent day, he was preparing an 18-cubic-meter truckload of three teak logs; the trunks were more than 10 feet in diameter, hundreds of years old.

Timber company officials estimate that more than 350,000 cubic meters move through Pianma alone each year.� Large amounts also come into China from Burma at towns farther south along the border：Tengchong, Yingjiang, Zhangfeng, Ruili and Wanding. And a Malaysian timber firm is building a bridge across the Salween River, 60 miles north of Pianma near Fugong, to bring in still more logs.
In 1998, there were only 13 small sawmills in Dehong prefecture, a center of the new logging trade. Now there are more than 100. Another 100 have sprouted up around Tengchong.
China's activities in the Burmese rain forests are mirrored on its northern border. Imports of Russian logs have skyrocketed over the past two years and outstrip the number from Burma. Russia now accounts for 42 percent of all blocks that flow into China. But Russia’s wood comes mostly from forests that specialize in faster-growing softwood, while Burma's comes from tropical forests where the trees are often hundreds of years old.
"It's an international tragedy because Burma possesses about half of mainland Southeast Asia's forests," said Kirk Talbot, a Washington-based expert on Southeast Asian forests. "The combination of a military-backed junta [in Burma] and unquenchable appetites in China is creating a disaster."
In theory，the military-run Myanmar Timber Enterprise controls all Burma's lumber exports. But the Chinese are not dealing with the government from Rangoon across from Pianma, for Burma's political system has conspired to facilitate the denuding of its forests.
In 1988, Burma's military-led government annulled the results of an election. Concerned that thousands of dissidents who fled Rangoon would be armed by insurgents who have operated for decades along Burma's northern border, Burma's genera..ls cut a deal with the rebel forces: In exchange for permission to engage in business, the insurgents promised not to arm the dissidents.
Logging concessions were a key sweetener. Burma's generals gave these local leaders access to logging machinery and milling equipment. Chinese businesses were soon operating in Burma, bringing in lumberjacks and truckers and cutting down forests.
Burma and Yunnan, the neighboring Chinese province, are home to an abundance plant and animal life, from a dizzying variety of rhododendron species to the lesser panda. There are more than 12,000 recorded species of trees in the region, one of the most biologically diverse in the world.
Deforestation has ravaged its forests, however. In 1949, the year of China's Communist revolution, half of Yunnan province was forested, but today it is less than10 percent. In Burma, forest cover has dropped from 21 percent in 1949 to less than 7 percent today.
Environmentalists in Yunnan say the damage to Burma's forests along the border has been severe. In 1997, one Yunnan-based conservationist reported that Chinese loggers had cleared 35 miles into Burma, This year logging has moved 60 miles inside Burma, he said.
"Burma used to be covered in huge trees like our Gaoligong Shan area just across our border," said the environmentalist, who recently journeyed to the border region. "Now you can climb to the top of their mountains and all you see are roads and logging trucks and barely any trees."
Most of China's deals are done with warlords in Burma's Kachin state, which borders China.

"The warlords basically run one region and so they sell us all of their mountains," said Wang Jian, a businessman based in Pianma. "We're in a difficult position because they change warlords all the time. So our incentive is, once we get the contract,，cut all the logs. So we clearcut. If we don’t, and they change the warlords we're going to have to pay him as well."

That has angered China’s environmentalists, who note that while China bans the logging of its own hardwood forests, its policies encourage lumberjacks and smugglers to cut down rare trees and snare endangered animals in Burma and Laos.

But Kou Wenzhong, a senior official in China's forestry department, said Chinese firms have a hard time making money in the region despite the absence of regulation.
"We're trying to pay attention to Burma's environment as well," he said in an interview in Beijing, "but when a warlord is changed over there, they rip up the contract and things get very difficult. Lots of contracts have been broken. There have been serious losses."
-- John Pomfret, Washington Post
Monday, March 26, 2001


To be or not to be for Saker Falcon in Central Asian countries?
-- Realities and perspective of Saker Falcon survival in Kazakhstan

Using big falcons in hunting for birds - prey is a big part of cultural heritage of many nations that inhabit huge Eurasian territories from Saudi Arabia in the West to Mongolia and China in the East and from Russia in the North to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India in the South. To the end of 20th century traditional falcon hunting stayed mainly in countries of Close and Middle East. Bird that is preferred by Arab hunters is Saker Falcon, because it is used to living in the conditions of high temperature and dry air of arid zone and also has excellent hunting characteristics.
As many other former Soviet Union republics, Kazakhstan was closed for foreigners a long time and for international society is "terra incognita" in some way. This, and also no demand for Saker falcon on the national market let Saker falcon live freely until early 90s. This species was stable and its population number counted by specialist was from 2 up to 5 thousands of pairs. When USSR collapsed, new era of new independent countries' establishment began that also opened a new page in the lives of flying, running and crawling inhabitants.
The most tragic is Saker Falcon destiny, that in several years from blooming species went down to the species that are on the border of disappearing. Tragedy sizes could be vividly illustrated by following fact: according to monitoring results that was taken by Institute of Zoology specialists from 1985, to 2000 year in Kazakhstan from several thousands not more that 150-200 nesting pairs remained. According to materials of international conference held in Mongolia in July of 2000 that set a goal of discussing the problem falcon conservation in Eurasia, it is not better in other republics of Central Asia. For example, in Kyrghyzstan and Uzbekistan Saker falcon population number also decreased down to critical point and is not more that 100 and 150 pairs accordingly.
So what has happened? Why on the border of millenniums, characterized by really high level of science and technology developing, this ecological tragedy took place, that put not only Saker falcon, but many other rare species of Central Asia on the survival border? Who is guilty in what had happened? Is it possible to change the situation, stop the hunting for this species and restore its normal population number? It is necessary to give straight answers to those questions, or else in the nearest future we will witness Saker falcons repeating Dinosaurs destiny (knowing that we are guilty in it).
Saker falcon protection problem was pointed out in the first years of Kazakhstan establishment. Mass hunting for big falcons of the republic began in 1992, when the republic was crowded by a huge wave of hunters from many Arab East countries. Their goal was easy - there was no strict nature-conserving laws, no problems with customs, hard material circumstances of local people and totally corrupted bureaucrats. According to experts' counts in the period from 1993 to 1995, yearly up to a thousand birds were illegally taken out of the country! Because of understandable reasons (international airport, good roads, and most importantly - high density of Saker falcon nests) main target for falcon hunting was South-East of the country, where, according to annual nesting territories monitoring results, Saker falcon population from 1993 to 1998 reduced in 8-10 times. Many previously densely inhabited by falcons mountain ridges nowadays are completely devastated.
At the same time with foreign citizens lots of Kazakhstan people took active participation part in falcons hunting. Falcon rush was warmed up by many rumors and reports on the radio and television about Saker falcons fabulously high cost, that on the Saudi Arabia markets gets as high as 75 thousand dollars. Hard material circumstances of country people, often pasturing cattle near nests of birds-of-prey, and also many rural citizens that know about falcons existence only from other people's conversations, stimulated people's desire to get "easy money".
Beginning with 1993, the situation became worse every day, because pressing on the species increased with lots of incoming groups and widening their "affairs" geography. Non-professional local hunters were replaced by organized groups that used government support. Hope for Saker falcon conservation became very illusory, when this species became an instrument of national politics. Government members, high-ranked workers of nature-conserving agencies, and in some cases even representatives of science - all those people that wanted to correct their material conditions provided an opportunity of illegal hunt and taking the birds out of Kazakhstan.
Examples of right treat of Saker falcons are shown by Austria and Hungary that are located on the West border of this species' area, and in the East a good example of rational treat of national possession is Mongolia. Even with big population numbers in the republic (about 3000 pairs) and not having it in the national Red Data Book list, this country sells only several dozens of birds a year, which doesn't harm the population. It is interesting that almost all money got from this trade are put into ecological problems salvations.
Actions coordination of countries territory of which is inhabited by falcons became possible thanks to big international scientific program, started by National Ornithological Research Center (NARC, UAE) in 1989 that united international society attempts, interested in conservations and rational use of species' resources. Owing to this program annual monitoring of nesting territories of Saker falcon was done in Kazakhstan and other republics of Central Asia, biology and seasonal migrations were studied. Created in 1995 Middle-Eastern work group made recommendations oriented on population numvers stabilization and its further increasing. Main features of those recommendations is following:
1. transparency provided to all operations with falcons in Kazakhstan;
2. prohibition on taking adult birds out of the border of the country;
3. marking with microchips all falcons taken abroad for identification;
4. giving hunting permissions according to results of control of Kazakhstan populations conditions;
5. developing of legal act that would control taking in, using and taking out of the country falcons taking in donsiderations CITES requirements.
After the recommendations were given to the government "Temporary rules on usage of Saker falcon and Houbara bustard on Kazakhstan territory" was published. This legal act doesn't count most of the recommendations points and leaves ways for illegal affairs. Even more strange is reaction of Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources of information about species critical conditions in the republic. Knowing that there is not more that 200 pairs, this Ministry in the summer of 2000 demanded from Institute of Zoology sanction for catching of 200 birds!
From the facts above it is clear that the destiny of Kazakhstan Saker falcon is in the "right" hands. Last actions of Ministry of Ecology and Natural resources of Republic of Kazakhstan give us reasons to think that bureaucrats do everything to do till the end affair begun in the 1992 and use this species resource completely. Only joining the Convention of International Trade by Endangered Species (CITES) in 2000 leaves a hope that the government would be forced to finally turn their face to the nature, to the law, and make everything needed for conservation Saker falcon and all other endangered species that live on the Kazakhstan territory.

A.S Levin, Member of Middle-Eastern work group on falcons


Features of Invasive Species in China

  1. China is vulnerable to invasion. China’s vast territory stretches 5,500 km from north to south and 5,200 km from east to west. It spans 50 degrees of latitude, and covers five climatic zones: cold?temperate, temperate, warm?temperate, subtropical, and tropical. A wide range of habitats and environmental conditions makes China especially vulnerable to the establishment of invasive species of foreign origin. Potential invasive alien species from most areas of the world may find suitable habitat somewhere in China.
  2. Range involved is extensive. Alien species occur in each of China’s 34 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. They occur widely in both urban and rural landscapes, and in protected areas. Alien plants have been reported everywhere, except in a few remote reserves in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.
  3. Have invaded into various ecosystems. Alien species occur in almost every watershed and ecosystem, including forests, wetlands, grasslands, croplands, residential area in cities, etc. The aquatic ecosystem has most severely effected.
  4. Invasive species cover most of taxonomic groups. They represent many taxonomic groups, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes; arthropods and crustaceans; algae, ferns and seed plants; and fungi, viruses, bacteria, and other micro-organisms.
  5. Many unintentional introductions. As travel and trade have increased, travelers and transported goods have provided pathways for introducing more and more species as hitch-hikers on clothing and vehicles; in containers, packaging materials, shipping waste, and ship’s ballast; and as contaminants in shipments of agricultural seeds and other biological materials. Some of the most invasive, damaging and widespread unintentional introductions include the banana moth (Opogona sacchari), fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), crofton weed (Eupatorium adenophorum), and spinyflower alternanthera (Alternanthera pungens).
  6. Many intentional introductions. China has a long history of introduction of non?native species, especially species proven to be productive elsewhere and offering potential economic benefits to China. Early introductions were associated with immigration and trade among different regions. Alien species have often introduced from other countries and from one region of China to another for economic development, recreation uses, or environmental improvements. Many of them have been introduced by institutions involved in agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, horticulture, aquaculture, and species specific centers for farming and breeding.
  7. Impact of invasive species are obvious.

8. Intentional or unintentional introductions when restoring the natural vegetation.

Large scale planting of Eucalyptus in Return Farmland into Forest in Sichuan, Picture by XIE Yan


For many years, government departments of agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry, as well as customs authorities in China, have paid great attention to the potential harm of a small number of alien species, leading to the quarantine of alien diseases and pests. However, it was only a few years ago that the concept of invasive species was introduced into China and the potential threats to China’s natural heritage are not yet widely recognized. Not enough attentions are paid to those have not caused severe economic damage but are competing with and substituting for the endemic species and changing the local ecosystems. Therefore, intentional or unintentional introductions of alien species when restoring the natural vegetation on a large scale will necessarily bring the great loss of Chinese abundant and endemic biodiversity and beyond retrieval. At present, the introductions of alien species on a large scale in China include:


Partial List of Invasive Species in China

Mammals：
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Musk rat (Ondatra zibethicus)
Brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)
Birds：
Sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulpurea)
Rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematotus)
Canada goose (Anser canadensis)
Reptiles:
(Trachemys scripta elegans)
Amphibians:
Bull frog (Rana catesbeiana)
Marine toad (Bufo marinus)
Fishes：
Bighead (Aristichthys nobilis)
Gobies (Gobiidae)
Topmouth Gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva)
Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis)
Livebearers (Poeciliidae)
Perch (Perca fluviatilus)
Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
Crustaceans：
Crayfish (Procambius clarkii)
Mollusks：
Amazonian snail (Ampullaria gigas)
Giant Africa snail (Achatina fulica)
Insects：
(Termite)
Pine Scale (Hemiberlesia pitysophila)
American White Moth (Hyphantria cunea)
Banana moth (Opogona sacchari)
Loblolly pine mealybug (Oracella acuta)
Vegetable Leaf Miner (Liriomyza sativae)
American rice water weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus)
American Cockroach (Periplaneta americana)
German Cockroach (Blattella germanica)
Woolly Apple Aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum)
Grape Root Louse (Phylloxera vitifolii)
Nematode:
North American pinewood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus)
Fungi：
Black Spot (Ceratocystis fimbriata)
Wildlife Diseases：
Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus in trout (IPNV)
Plants：
Mexican Tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides)
Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)
Spingflower Alternanthera (Alternanthera pungens)
Amaranth (Amaranthus)
Cacti (Cactaceae)
Golden Dewdrop (Duranta repens)
Love Apple (Solanum aculeatissimum)
Plantaiga (Plantaginaceae)
Venus' Looking-glass (Triodanis)
Tropic Ageratum (Ageratum conyzoides)
Ragweed (Ambrosia)
Fleabance (Conyza)
Daisy Fleabane (Erigeron annuus)
Crofton weed (Eupatorium adenophorum)
South American Climber (Mikania micrantha)
Tall goldenrod (Solidago altissma)
Common cordgrass (Spartina anglica)
Darnel ryegrass (Lolium temulentum)
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
Palmate-leaved Morning Glory (Ipomoea cairica)
Ivygourd (Coccinia cordifolia)
Common Lantana (Lantana camara)
Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Common Cat's Claw Vine (Macfadyena unguis-cati)
Trilobe Wedelia (Wedelia trilobata)
Castor-oil Plant (Ricinus communis)
Common Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus)
Madeira Vine (Anredera cordifolia)
Yellow Sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis)
White Sweetclover (Melilotus albus)
Tubeleaf Kalanchce (Kalanchoe tubifolia)
Weeping Lantana (Lantana montevidensis)
Oleanderleaf Nothoscordum (Nothoscordum gracile)
Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea)
Blue Trumpet Vine (Thunbergia graniflora)
Odor Eupatorium (Eupatorium odoratum)
Prickly Pear (Opuntia monacantha)
Coromandel Coast Falsemallow (Malvastrum coromandelianum)
Timothy (Phleum pratense)
Carpetgrass (Axonopus compressus)
Ramose Scouring Rush (Equisetum ramosissimum)
Caterpillar Grass (Paspalum dilatatum)
West African Pennisetum (Pennisetum clandestinum)
Knotroot Bristlegrass (Setaria geniculata)
Sudangrass (Sorghum sudanense)
Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)
Bulbous Barley (Hordeum bulbosum)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Mexican Ageratum (Ageratum houstonianum)
Tinctorial Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria)
Lance Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
Corntfower (Centaurea cyanus)
Aztec Marigold (Tagetes erecta)
Whiteedge Morning Glory (Ipomoea nil)
Common Morning Glory (Ipomoea purpurea)
Four-o’clock (Mirabilis jalapa)
Pink Woodsorrel (Mimosa pudica)
Corymb Wood Sorrel (Oxalis corymbosa)
Hemp (Cannabis indica)
Sensitiveplant-like Senna (Cassia mimosoides)
Sickle Senna (Cassia tora)
Panicled Fameflower (Talinum paniculatum)
Coffee Senna (Cassia occidentalis)
Common Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana)
Hawksbeard Velvetplant (Crassocephalum crepidioides)
Common Chicory (Cichorium intybus)
XIE Yan and LI Zhenyu


1591 Species of Wild Animals Recorded on Protection List

On the List of National Protected Terrestrial Animals Which Are Beneficial or of Important Economic and Scientific Research Values (hereafter the ‘List’) recently issued by the State Forestry Administration (SFA), 1591 species of wildlife are recognized as protected objects.
The List includes five classes: Mammalia, Aves, Amphibia, Reptilia and Insecta, totaling 46 orders and 177 families. This group of protected terrestrial wildlife does not include the 335 species on the List of State Key Protected Wildlife.
It is reported that China is very abundant in the wildlife resource, with 6266 species of vertebrate. In 1988, China constituted the State Wildlife Protection Law, to which the List of Key Protected Wildlife is attached. All provinces, autonomous regions and cities also accordingly drew up local list of protected wildlife. However, the key protected wildlife by the state and local governments only account for a small part of China’s whole wildlife resource. Besides these, there are still many wildlife species which have irreplaceable functions in the maintenance of environment, and they are also important natural resource for the sustainable development of national economy. According to the provision of the State Wildlife Protection Law that ‘The list of national protected terrestrial wildlife which are beneficial or of important economic and scientific research values and its amendment are established and publicized by the forestry administration department of the State Council’, the SFA prepared and issued the List.
The related principal of the SFA indicated that the issuance of the List further pinpoints the range and responsibilities of the wildlife protection in China, and establishes another statute base for the protection of wildlife. Implement of this List will provide potential safeguard for the advance of balanced law execution, macro control of gross resource wastage, and promotion of resource increase and ecological equilibrium.
ZHAO Cheng, People’s Daily, 31/8/2000
Translated by QIN Hua


Degradation in Protected Areas: The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for Giant Pandas
Jianguo Liu, * Marc Linderman, Zhiyun Ouyang , Li An, Jian Yang , Hemin Zhang

It is generally perceived that biodiversity is better protected from human activities after an area is designated as a protected area. However, we found that this common perception was not true in Wolong Nature Reserve (southwestern China), which was established in 1975 as a "flagship" protected area for the world-renowned endangered giant pandas. Analyses of remote sensing data from pre- and post-establishment periods indicate that the reserve has become more fragmented and less suitable for giant panda habitation. The rate of loss of high-quality habitat after the reserve's establishment was much higher than before the reserve was created, and the fragmentation of high-quality habitat became far more severe. After the creation of the reserve, rates of habitat loss and fragmentation inside the reserve unexpectedly increased to levels that were similar to or higher than those outside the reserve, in contrast to the situation before the reserve was created.


More than 12,700 protected areas have been established around the world, accounting for 13.2 million km(an area greater than the United States or China), or 8.81% of Earth's land surface (1). Although protected areas are generally believed to be the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation (2-4) and the safest strongholds of wilderness (2, 5, 6), human encroachments and threats are still very common in many protected areas (7, 8). The problems of mismanagement and conservation politics have been widely publicized (7, 9), but quantitative information about the deterioration of protected areas is scant (10). It is not clear whether all protected areas are effectively protected because there is little research comparing ecological degradation before and after the protected areas were established.
Is the rate of ecological degradation lower after the establishment of a protected area? To answer this question, we performed a case study of Wolong Nature Reserve, Sichuan Province, southwestern China (102°52' to 103°24'E, 30°45' to 31°25'N). We chose Wolong for three main reasons. First, it is the largest protected area designated for conserving the endangered giant pandas [Ailuropoda melanoleuca (11)] and contains approximately 10% of the wild panda population (12); created in 1975, the reserve covers an area of approximately 200,000 ha (12). Second, as in many other protected areas, there are local people residing in Wolong. Third, Wolong is a "flagship" nature reserve and has received exceptional financial and technical support from the Chinese government and many international organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (9). To a large extent, Wolong's ecological fate represents the success or failure of tremendous conservation efforts made by the Chinese government and many international organizations (9).
We assessed the rates of change in forest cover and giant panda habitat before and after Wolong was established as a nature reserve. Forest cover, slope, and elevation are important factors affecting pandas (11, 12). We incorporated these factors to estimate habitat suitability for pandas. In a process similar to hurricane damage assessment examining pre- and post-hurricane conditions (13, 14), we quantified forest cover before and after the reserve's establishment, using remotely sensed data obtained at three different time points (15). The different sources of data used in our study are typical of many studies of land use and land cover change (16-18), because it is unrealistic to obtain remote sensing data on the same characteristics over a long period of time because of changes in the sensors.
Neither aerial photography nor multi spectral data were available for the entire time span of this study. Although cloud-free images with consistent phenology were not available, leaf-off [Corona data and Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) data] versus leaf-on [Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data] conditions did not contribute significantly to the forest and panda habitat analyses for two reasons. First, our classifications were simple and consisted of only forest and nonforest categories. Second, because the 1997 image was acquired during leaf-on conditions, the analyses would give a more conservative estimate of forest loss. The images taken at different times were classified by means of photo interpretation, and the classifications were validated using several methods to ensure high quality (19).
In the reserve, elevation ranges from 1200 to 6250 m above sea level. Pandas' preferred areas are between 2250 and 2750 m above sea level (11, 12). [Because of the limitations of abiotic factors such as elevation, even without human impacts less than half of the reserve is suitable for the panda (12).] Data on forest cover were obtained from the remote sensing analyses discussed above, whereas the slope and elevation values for each pixel were calculated from a digital elevation model that we developed using the topographic maps provided by the reserve. Using previously established habitat analysis procedures (12) and previous studies on pandas' biological requirements (11), panda habitat suitability was defined and divided into four categories: highly suitable, suitable, marginally suitable, and unsuitable (12). (Unsuitable habitat would be underestimated, because information regarding several factors affecting panda habitat, such as bamboo distribution, was not available for the entire reserve and was thus not considered in this study.) We then calculated the numbers and sizes of habitat patches as measures of the degree of habitat fragmentation (20) at each time point, using the FRAGSTATS program (21).
The average rates of change per year (in the amount of panda habitat, the number of habitat patches, and mean patch sizes) before and after the reserve's establishment were calculated in order to make appropriate comparisons, because the lengths of the pre-establishment period (1965-1974) and post-establishment period (1974-1997) were different. [When calculating rates of changes during pre- and post-establishment periods, we substituted the 1974 data for the data from 1975 (March), when the reserve was officially established, because of a lack of cloud-free remote sensing imagery from 1975. This data substitution should not generate a significant bias, because according to our interviews with local residents and reserve managers, human disturbance to the panda habitat in 1974 was not much greater than that during the previous years.] We also compared rates of change in panda habitat inside the reserve to those outside (where habitat is not protected), a method similar to the methods of spatial comparisons used in past studies (4, 22, 23). The "outside" was defined as a surrounding area (62,656 ha) within 3 km around the reserve boundary, because it shared similar biophysical characteristics (such as elevation) with the reserve.
The quantity and quality of panda habitat inside the reserve continued to decrease after the reserve was created (Fig. 1). More surprising, the rates of panda habitat change demonstrated that high-quality habitats were more severely affected after the reserve was established (Table 1). The rates of change (the loss of the total habitat area, decrease in the number of habitat patches, and reduction in the mean patch size) in highly suitable habitats were much higher after the reserve was set up than before the reserve's establishment (Table 1). For suitable habitats, the rate of loss of the total area after the reserve's establishment was lower than that before the reserve was established, but the rate of reduction in mean patch size was higher after the reserve was created. The number of habitat patches actually increased after the reserve was established. For marginally suitable habitats, the rates of loss and reduction in the number of patches were lower after the reserve was established, whereas mean patch sizes increased slightly. Rates of change (the increase in the total area, reduction in the number of patches, and increase in mean patch sizes) in unsuitable habitats were lower after the reserve was established.

Fig. 1. Change in the amount of panda habitat in Wolong Nature Reserve before and after the reserve was established in March 1975. (A) Highly suitable habitat, (B) suitable habitat, (C) marginally suitable habitat, and (D) unsuitable habitat.
Although the rates of habitat loss inside the reserve were lower than those outside the reserve before the reserve was created, after the designation of reserve status, the rates of habitat loss and fragmentation inside the reserve unexpectedly and dramatically increased to levels that were similar to or higher than those outside the reserve (Table 2). Furthermore, the differences in the rates of loss and fragmentation between inside and outside the reserve were particularly large for highly suitable habitats. For suitable abitats, the rate of habitat loss inside the reserve reached the same level as that in the surrounding area after the reserve was established. The rate of reduction in the mean patch size inside the reserve became even higher than that outside the reserve after the reserve's establishment. The amount of marginally suitable habitats increased outside the reserve but decreased inside the reserve after the reserve was established. The mean patch sizes of marginally suitable habitats continued to increase both inside and outside the reserve after the reserve was created. Both the amounts and mean patch sizes of unsuitable habitats inside and outside the reserve increased over time. The gap between the rates of increase in the amount of unsuitable habitats inside and outside the reserve has almost doubled since the reserve's establishment. Although the ratios of rates of increase in the mean patch sizes of unsuitable habitats inside the reserve to those outside the reserve slightly decreased after the reserve was created, the rate of increase in the mean patch sizes was still higher inside the reserve than outside.

Table 1. Ratios of mean annual rates of change (the amount of panda habitat, number of habitat patches, and mean patch size) after the reserve's establishment to those before the reserve was created. A ratio of >1 indicates that the absolute rate of change after the reserve's establishment was higher than that before the reserve was established. The signs within parentheses represent the directions of change ("+" indicates an increase and "-" indicates a decrease) before and after the reserve was established, respectively.

Habitat type Amount of habitat Number of patches Mean patch size
Highly suitable 5.54 ( -, - ) 1.85 ( -, - ) 22.30 ( -, - )
Suitable 0.56 ( -, - ) 0.78 ( -, +) 1.11 ( -, - )
Marginally suitable 0.07 ( -, - ) 0.25 ( -, - ) 0.07 ( -, +)
Unsuitable 0.46 (+, +) 0.36 ( -, - ) 0.52 (+, +)

Table 2. Ratios of mean annual rates of change (the amount and mean patch size of panda habitats) inside the reserve to those outside the reserve, before and after the reserve was established. A ratio of <1 indicates that the absolute rate of change inside the reserve was lower than the rate outside the reserve; a ratio of >1 indicates that the absolute rate of change was higher. The signs within parentheses represent the directions of change ("+" indicates an increase and "-" indicates a decrease between two time points), inside and outside the reserve, respectively.

Habitat type Amount of habitat Mean patch size
Before establishment After establishment Before establishment After establishment
Highly suitable 0.29 ( -, - ) 1.15 ( -, - ) 0.05 ( -, - ) 4.38 ( -, - )
Suitable 0.71 ( -, - ) 0.98 ( -, - ) 4.37 ( -, - ) 4.79 ( -, - )
Marginally suitable 0.61 ( -, - ) 0.96 ( -, + ) 1.01 ( -, - ) 0.88 ( +, +)
Unsuitable 0.64 (+, +) 1.17 (+, +) 1.28 (+, +) 1.16 (+, +)

The loss and fragmentation of panda habitats in Wolong were directly due to forest loss and fragmentation, which took two major forms (Fig. 2). First, forest fragments next to non forest land continued to shrink and disappear. Second, large tracts of forest were divided into smaller tracts. The loss and fragmentation of the forest and of high-quality habitats were at least partially responsible for the dramatic decrease in the number of wild pandas in the reserve, from 145 in 1974 (11, 24) to 72 in 1986 (25). Based on wildlife-habitat relationships (26) and the decreasing frequency of finding pandas in the wild (as indicated by our personal observations and by interviews with reserve biologists and local residents), the current number of wild pandas in Wolong is likely to be even smaller.

Fig. 2. Forest distribution pattern across Wolong Nature Reserve in 1997 (left), with illustration of loss and fragmentation of forest (center) and panda habitats (right) within a representative area before and after the reserve was established. Gray areas are forested; those shown in white are nonforested. Highly suitable, suitable, marginally suitable, and unsuitable habitats are indicated in red, yellow, green, and black, respectively.

By examining the human population and activities in the reserve, it is not difficult to explain the much higher rates of loss and fragmentation of high-quality panda habitat after Wolong was designated as a protected area. There were 4260 local residents and 904 households inside the reserve in 1995, whereas there were only 2560 people and 421 households in 1975 when the reserve was established (12). This rapid increase in the local population was mainly due to the high birth rate (about 2.5 children per woman in 1997) in the reserve (12), because China's one-child policy does not apply to the members of the minority ethnic groups who account for approximately 75% of the local residents (27). The rate of increase in the number of households was even higher than the rate of the population increase because more young people established new households rather than staying with their parents and grandparents to live a traditional life-style, in which several generations live under one roof. In addition to the rapid increase in the population size and the number of households, the population structure has experienced a dramatic change (27). From 1982 to 1996, the labor force (people 20 to 59 years of age) of local residents in the reserve jumped by 60% (27).
Local people in the reserve were the direct driving force behind the destruction of the forest and of panda habitat (27). Most of the labor force are farmers, and there are a variety of economic activities in the reserve, including agriculture, fuel wood collection, timber harvesting, road construction and maintenance, Chinese herbal medicine collection, and tourism. The reserve attracts thousands of tourists each year, and the booming tourism has helped to transform the reserve from a closed economy to an open economy. For example, the tourism has significantly stimulated the extraction of natural resources such as fuel wood to produce marketable goods. These human activities in the reserve have had very negative impacts on the forest and on panda habitat (12). After the forests with easy access or close proximity to people were exhausted, forests in more remote areas at higher elevations (often high-quality panda habitat) became targets of destruction through activities such as fuel wood collection. In comparison, households outside the reserve have tighter restrictions on birth rate and have become less dependent on fuel wood as they have switched to coal, electricity, and other types of energy. These socioeconomic differences are among the causes of the discrepancy between the rates of habitat loss and fragmentation inside and outside the reserve.
Biodiversity conservation is faced with a much greater challenge than previously thought because even a flagship protected area such as Wolong was not better protected after its establishment. Quantitative analyses of pre- and post-establishment conditions inside and outside protected areas produce insightful results and provide much-needed information to develop strategies for truly effective biodiversity conservation. Because most of the world's protected areas have been established since the early 1970s (1), satellite imagery has been obtained at periodic intervals since 1972, and aerial photographs of many regions date back years or even decades earlier (16), it is also feasible to assess the effectiveness of many protected areas on the basis of their pre- and post-establishment conditions, using the approach presented here. To better understand the effectiveness of protected areas and develop more feasible policies, it is essential to integrate ecology with human demography, human behavior, and socioeconomic (12, 28).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), United Nations List of Protected Areas (World Conservation Monitoring Centre and IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1998).
2. R. F. Noss, in National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection, R. G. Wright, Ed. (Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA, 1996), pp. 91-120.
3. S. L. Pimm and J. H. Lawton, Science 279, 2068 (1998) [ISI]
4. A. G. Bruner, R. E. Gullison, R. E. Rice, G. A. B. da Fonseca, Science 291, 125 (2001) [ISI]
5. M. E. Soulé and M. A. Sanjayan, Science 279, 2060 (1998) [ISI] [Full Text].
6. J J. Armesto, R. Rozzi, C. Smith-Ramirez, M. T. K. Arroyo, Science 282, 1271 (1998) [ISI]
7. V. Dompka, Ed., Human Population, Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Science and Policy Issues (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 1996).
8. C. P. van Schaik, R. A. Kramer, in Last Stand: Protected Areas and The Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, R. Kramer, C. van Schaik, J. Johnson, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997), pp. 212-230.
9. G. B. Schaller, The Last Panda (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1994).
10. C. P. van Schaik, J. Terborgh, B. Dugelby, in Last Stand: Protected Areas and The Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, R. Kramer, C. van Schaik, J. Johnson, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997), pp. 64-89.
11. G. B. Schaller, J. Hu, W. Pan, J. Zhu, The Giant Pandas of Wolong (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985).
12. J. Liu, et al., Conserv. Biol. 13, 1360 (1999) [ISI].
13. N. H. Sulliavan, W. B. Bowden, W. H. McDowell, Bio tropical 31, 382 (1999) [ISI].
14. K. Basnet, G. E. Likens, F. N. Scatena, A. E. Lugo, J. Trop. Ecol. 8, 47 (1992) [ISI].
15. The remotely sensed data used were Corona photographs from 1965, Landsat MSS data from 1974 (the year right before the reserve was established), and Landsat TM data from 1997. The Corona data are stereo pair photographs acquired 20 January 1965 as part of the Corona photo reconnaissance satellite project (U.S. Geological Survey Eros Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD). Both Landsat MSS (3 January 1974) and Landsat TM data (27 September 1997) were obtained from China's Satellite Ground Station (Beijing, China).
16. T. M. Lillesand, R. W. Kiefer, Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation (Wiley, New York, ed,3,1994)
17. D. A. Stow, D. Collins, D. McKinsey, Geocarto International 3, 3 (1990) .
18. J. R. Jensen, Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, ed. 2, 1996).
19. All images were geo referenced to ground control points collected throughout the reserve, using Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers (Pathfinder Pro XRS) with sub meter accuracy. Because the Corona data are black-and-white photos, we did a forest/non forest classification using photo interpretation (or visual classification) to provide a consistent methodology for each of the three time points (1965, 1974, and 1997). The area of interest within each Corona photo was scanned into a digital image at 1200 dots per inch, giving a ground resolution of approximately 10 m. The individual Corona images were then combined into a single coverage and were classified on the basis of photo interpretation. To enhance the classification accuracy, we used general vegetation delineations on topographic maps, field observation information, interviews with local residents, and observations of areas that were undisturbed over time. The Landsat MSS and TM data were classified with the same procedure used for the Corona photos. To provide consistency, the visual interpretations of the Landsat data were done using false-color infrared images with similar band combinations (MSS bands 4, 5, and 6 and TM bands 2, 3, and 4), and the TM images (30 m by 30 m) were degraded and resampled to a resolution of 80 m by 80 m. To validate the visual interpretations, we surveyed 250 ground-truth plots (the size of each plot was equal to 60 m by 60 m, or 2 × 2 TM image pixels) in the summers of 1998 and 1999 in the reserve, using GPS units (with 1- to 3-m accuracy after differential corrections), and we used digital methods [supervised and unsupervised classifications (16, 18)] based on all four MSS bands and on comparable TM bands to classify the Landsat MSS and TM imagery。The overall correspondences between the digital and visual classifications ranged from 82 to 87%. Based on standard accuracy assessment methods (16), the accuracy for forest classifications of the 1997 TM data using visual and digital methods was between 80 and 88% when the results were compared with the independent data from the ground-truth plots. The visual and digital methods resulted in consistent total forest areas (the forest areas resulting from the digital methods were only 0.61 to 5.76% different from those resulting from the visual method). These testing results indicate that the visual classifications in our study were of high quality and comparability
20. R. T. T. Forman, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).
21. K. McGarigal, B. J. Marks, FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure (Version 2.0) (Oregon State Univ. , Corvallis,OR, 1994).
22. G. A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, C. Quesada-Mateo, P. Gonzalez-Quesada, S. Dayanandan, K. S. Bawa, Conserv. Biol. 13, 407 (1999) [ISI].
23. T. M. Caro, et al., Afr. J. Ecol. 36, 303 (1998) [ISI].
24. Giant Panda Expedition, Acta Zool. Sin. 20, 162 (1974) (in Chinese)
25. China's Ministry of Forestry and WWF, Conservation and Management Plan for Giant Pandas and Their Habitat (Beijing, China, 1989) (in Chinese).
26. M. L. Morrison, B. G. Marcot, R. W. Mannan, Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1992).
27. J. Liu, Z. Ouyang, Y. Tan, J. Yang, H. Zhang, Popul. Environ. 21, 45 (1999) [ISI].
28. J. Liu, Ed., Integration of Ecology with Human Demography, Behavior, and Socioeconomics, Ecol. Model. (special issue), in press.
29. We thank S. Pimm, C. Lepczyk, J. Qi, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of this paper; D. Rutledge, A. Thomas, and J. Xie for technical assistance; Q. Wang, S. Song, W. Taylor, and the Wolong Nature Reserve for logistic support (especially the assistance of J. Huang, Y. Tan, and S. Zhou); and NSF, NASA, NIH, the American Association for the Advancement of Science/The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Michigan State University, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (grant number G2000046807), and China Bridges International for financial support.
10.1126/Science.1058104
　　　　　　　　　

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jliu@panda.msu.edu
Department of Systems Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
China's Center for Giant Panda Research and Conservation, Wolong Nature Reserve, Wenchuan County, Sichuan Province, China.


China Commences to Establish State-level Ecological Function Reserves

The State Environment Protection Administration (SEPA) formally approved of setting up ten experimental units of state-level ecological function reserves in nine provinces (or autonomous regions) recently. According to the news promulgation meeting of SEPA held yesterday, this is the first group of experimental units of state-level ecological function reserves in China.
These nine provinces (or autonomous regions) are Inner Mongolia, Heilongjang, Jiangxi, Hunan, Sichuan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai and Xinjiang. The ten experimental units of state-level ecological function reserves include: Ke’erqin Sandland Reserve at the north foot of the Yinshan Mountain, Sanjiang (three-river) Plain Reserve, Poyang Lake Reserve, Dongting Lake Reserve, Ruo’ergai-Maqu Reserve, Qinling Mountains Reserve, Heihe Watershed Reserve, Changjiang Headstream Reserve, Huanghe Headstrem Reserve and Talimu River Reserve. The program drafts of Changjiang Headstream, Huanghe Headstrem, Heihe Watershed and Ke’erqin Sandland reserves have already been finished in advance.
Beijing Evening Paper, 23/3/2001 Translated by QIN Hua


Compilation of China's Biodiversity Websites

Conserving China's biodiversity ：http://www.chinabiodiversity.com
Anhui Environment∶http://www.aepb.gov.cn/
Baishanzu National Nature Reserve∶http://www.nre.com.cn/hd/12/01.htm
Conserving Black-necked Crane：http://greenmail.126.com/
Beijing Window of Popular Science∶http://www.bjkp.gov.cn/kxbl/smqy/kp0824.htm
Beijing Milu Center：http://www.green-web.org/miluyuan/index.html
Beijing Wildlife Protection：http://www.bwca.com.cn/
Oriental Environment∶http://www.ee65.com.cn/pub/gb/2001/06/11/dfhj/home.htm
Fujian Environmental Protection∶http://fjepb.fj.cn.net/fjepb/zlhj.htm
Guilin Environmental Protection∶http://www.gll-gx.org.cn/hb/zrsht.htm
National Bureau of Oceanography∶http://www.soa.gov.cn/kepu/index.html
State Bureau of Environmental Protection∶http://www.zhb.gov.cn/sepa/nature/natureindex.htm
Right Whale Dolphins Protection Foundation of Ocean Park : http://www.scuba.net.hk/oceanpark/
Environmental Protection in Heilongjiang Province∶http://hb.hl.cninfo.net/
Space of Popular Science∶http://www.scitom.com.cn/
Bibliography on Sustainable Development∶http://www.sdinfo.net.cn/wenxian/content/baohuq.htm
Green Web∶http://www.green-web.org/aboutus.htm
Maibo-Nature And Human Beings: http://www.maibo.com.cn/hubdoors/0011/list1_0011.asp?ID=00110007
Human Loneliness：http://www.oyo.com.cn/topics/culture/animal/
Knowing Wild Animals：http://www.tesri.gov.tw/knowthem/
Shanghai Window of Environmental Protection∶http://www.sh-ep.com.cn/
Chinese Web of World Wildlife Fund∶http://www.wwfchina.org/
Sichuan Environmental Supervision and Measure Center∶http://www.scemc.org.cn/html/cswd.html
Taiwan Birds: http://taiwan.yam.org.tw/tbc/
Taiwan Nature Protection : http://wagner.zo.ntu.edu.tw/preserve/
Share in Microorganism Species Resources Information: http://www.im.ac.cn/sdinfo/
Wuhan Environmental Supervision and Measure Center∶http://www.whepb.gov.cn/jiancezhan/hjkpzs/kpzs.htm
Xiamen Environmental Supervision and Measure Center∶http://www.xmems.org.cn/creature/index.htm
Ecology and Biodiversity Department of Hongkong University: http://www.hku.hk/ecology/
Hongkong Bird Watch System: http://www.hkbws.org.hk/
Hongkong Fishing and Farming Natural Protection Bureau ∶http://www.afcd.gov.hk/web/
Xinjiang Environmental Protection∶http://public.xj.cninfo.net/huanbao/xjepb.htm
Stories of Xinjiang Wild Animals: http://public.xj.cninfo.net/huanbao/wild/
Saving Panda: http://www.chinakol.com/panda/
Web of Wildlife: http://www.wow.org.tw/
China Animals and Plants Protection: http://www.ipmchina.cn.net/ipm/ipm_c.html
China Environmental Protection International∶http://www.65.com.cn/
China Environmental Protection∶http://www.chinaenvironment.com/
China Environmental Protection∶http://www.zhb.gov.cn/index6.htm
China Popular Science Overview∶http://www.kepu.com.cn/
Typical Cultivate Life-form Conversation Committee, CAS: http://www1.im.ac.cn/typecc/index.html
Institute of Zoology, CAS: http://www.ioz.ac.cn/
Institute of Hydrobiology, CAS: http://www.ihb.ac.cn/
Institute of Microbiology, CAS: http://www.im.ac.cn/im/im.shtml
Institute of Botany, CAS: http://www.ibcas.ac.cn/
Open Research Laboratory of Quantity Vegetation Ecology, Institute of Botany, CAS: http://www.lqve.ac.cn/newpage1.htm
Microorganism Species Resources Information of Chinese Sustainable Development Information Web: http://www.im.ac.cn/sdinfo/
Institute of Resource entomology, CAF: http://www.forestry.ac.cn/zks/zks.htm
China's Biodiversity Information System: http://cbis.brim.ac.cn/
China's Biodiversity and Natural Protection Information Web∶http://www.nies.org/biodiv/chm_main.htm
Chinese Mushroom: http://www.mushroom.gov.cn/
China Microorganism Mushroom Species Conservation and Management Committee: http://www.im.ac.cn/database/aboutccccmc.html
China Microbiology Information Network: http://www.im.ac.cn/
China Society of Microbiology: http://www.im.ac.cn/im/csm/index.htm
China Wildlife-plant: http://www.wildlife-plant.gov.cn/
Approach Nature, Approach Panda: http://www.china-panda.org/