Pandas People Coexistence and Competition

C H A PT ER 4 Pandas–People Coexistence and Competition Vanessa Hull, Jindong Zhang, Wei Liu, Jinyan Huang, Shiqiang Zhou, Scott Bearer, Weihua Xu, M...
Author: Samantha Pope
7 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
C H A PT ER 4

Pandas–People Coexistence and Competition Vanessa Hull, Jindong Zhang, Wei Liu, Jinyan Huang, Shiqiang Zhou, Scott Bearer, Weihua Xu, Mao-Ning Tuanmu, Andrés Viña, Hemin Zhang, Zhiyun Ouyang, and Jianguo Liu

4.1 Introduction With the expansion of the human population in the last few centuries, human–wildlife interactions are increasing like never before (Carter et al., 2014, Woodroffe et al., 2005). Nearly all wildlife populations and associated habitats have been altered by humans in a multitude of ways. Examples include poaching, livestock grazing, resource extraction, pollution, and climate change (Pimm and Raven, 2000). Wildlife in turn affect humans in numerous ways, including destruction of crops, killing livestock and people, providing economic income through wildlife tourism, and controlling pests (Carter et  al., 2014). Human–wildlife interactions can be framed from many different perspectives, but two of the most common contrasting paradigms are human–wildlife competition and human–wildlife coexistence (Woodroffe et  al., 2005). Competition occurs when humans and wildlife engage in antagonistic interactions with one another due to limited available resources (Treves and Karanth, 2003, Woodroffe et al., 2005). Coexistence can be achieved when one or both sides have adapted to the other’s presence so that both can be sustained while sharing the same space (Madden, 2004, Woodroffe et al., 2005). Understanding factors that trigger competition and those that foster coexistence can help guide conservation policy and management planning into the future to promote sustainability of coupled ­human–wildlife systems.

The giant panda is one endangered species that has been profoundly shaped by human–wildlife interactions. As outlined in Chapter 1, giant pandas and humans have a long and complex history of interacting with one another. The story of h ­ uman– panda interactions is one that can be told from many different perspectives, and themes of competition and coexistence are interwoven even in the earliest records of ancient China (Chapter  1). The portrayal of pandas as peaceful mountain-dwelling neighbors was juxtaposed against the harvest of pandas by elites for sport and fur (Schaller, 1994). The dominant pattern for centuries has been coexistence, considering that pandas have survived in the face of considerable human development pressures when many other large mammals have not. For example, elephants are almost extinct in China and rhinos, gibbons, and snub-nosed monkeys have nearly disappeared due to the combined effects of hunting and habitat loss (Corlett, 2007). A survey of over 50 reserves in South China found “very few signs of large and medium-sized mammals” (Fellowes et al., 2004, cited in Corlett, 2007). The subspecies of tiger once living in South China has recently been extirpated (Tilson et al., 2004). So have the leopard and gray wolf, with several other species at regional risk (Lau et al., 2010). Pandas are also found to persist at densities higher than many other bears around the world, which highlights differences in their biology (Garshelis, 2004), and a higher capacity to coexist with people (Hull et al.,

Pandas and People. Edited by Jianguo Liu, Vanessa Hull, Wu Yang, Andrés Viña, Xiaodong Chen, Zhiyun Ouyang, and Hemin Zhang. © Oxford University Press 2016. Published 2016 by Oxford University Press.

Thanks for your interest!



We aren’t able to show the entire chapter. To buy “Pandas and People, Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability” please visit: Oxford University Press or Amazon.com Scroll down to view the chapter’s summary and citation list.

Pa n d a s – P e o p l e C o e x i s t e nc e a n d   C o m p e t i t i o n    57

Legend Focal buffer zone Focal experimental zone B

Roads

F

Zones (2009) Core

C

Buffer

E

A

Experimental

D

A, B, C - Experimental zone areas of concern D, E, F - Buffer zone areas of concern

N E

W S 0

6

12

18

Kilometers 24

Figure 4.7  Proposed focal areas for zoning revisions in Wolong Nature Reserve for improved giant panda conservation. Zoning designations (core, buffer, and experimental) are presented along with focal experimental zones (areas of experimental zone that should be considered for conversion to buffer and/or core zone) and focal buffer zones (areas of buffer zone that should be considered for partial or full conversion to core zone). Both focal zones represent areas that support giant pandas and are also outside existing human establishments. Letters represent focal experimental (A–C) and buffer (D–F) zones of particular importance that are recommended for revision to better protect the panda population. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier (originally printed in Hull et al., 2011).

areas as targets for zoning revisions toward a higher level of protection (Figure 4.7; Hull et al., 2011). In addition, clearer guidelines should be put in place by the central government dictating rules about how the government may revise the zoning scheme over time as management needs change. For example, recent revisions to Wolong’s zoning scheme allowed for tourism development in a previously protected region. This change could be harmful to pandas because this area overlaps with a key part of the panda distribution area (Hull et al., 2011). In addition, managers should recognize that zoning does not do as well at managing human activities such as livestock grazing and should be combined with other policies that promote coexistence. Programs involving payments for ecosystem services, discussed at length in other chapters of this book (e.g., Chapters  5 and 13), provide good examples of ways to reward local people for their help with conservation. Such an approach is necessary and

worthwhile for fostering coexistence and serves as a good complement to exclusionary policies like zoning.

4.5 Summary Humans have interacted with wildlife in diverse ways, ranging from coexistence to competition. In this chapter, we explored the ways in which our interdisciplinary research has revealed novel insights into the relationship between the pandas and humans in the coupled human and natural system of Wolong Nature Reserve. We brought to light factors that have contributed to long-term coexistence between people and pandas. These factors include the panda’s natural avoidance of direct interactions with people, plant-based diet (so they do not prey on livestock), and relatively small space requirements (overlapping home ranges of 2.7–6 km2). We also described how the reserve’s zoning regulations

58   PA N DA S A N D P EO P LE

foster coexistence by encouraging spatial segregation between pandas and people, with human development limited to specified experimental zones in the reserve. We then highlighted the mechanisms and consequences of competition between people and pandas via activities such as timber harvesting, fuelwood collection, and livestock grazing. Our research also demonstrates the effectiveness of existing governmental policies and helped us to set forth recommendations for future policy making to promote coexistence between people and pandas. Other examples include improving zoning regulations to protect a greater proportion of panda habitat and developing a comprehensive livestock policy to address ever-evolving grazing issues. The complex panda–human interactions we explored here are reminiscent of the same challenges faced with balancing wildlife conservation and human livelihoods in many other coupled systems around the globe. Such complexities require a renewed effort toward analysis of wildlife–human relationships for better management of endangered wildlife and human well-being.

References Bearer, S., Linderman, M., Huang, J., et  al. (2008) Effects of fuelwood collection and timber harvesting on giant panda habitat use. Biological Conservation, 141, 385–93. Berger, K.M. (2006) Carnivore–livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conservation Biology, 20, 751–61. Carter, N.H., Shrestha, B.K., Karki, J.B., et  al. (2012) Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 15360–65. Carter, N.H., Viña, A., Hull, V., et al. (2014) Coupled human and natural systems approach to wildlife research and conservation. Ecology and Society, 19, 43. Corlett, R.T. (2007) The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests. Biotropica, 39, 292–303. Distefano, E. (2005) Human–wildlife conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. SARD. Initiative Report, FAO, Rome, Italy. Fellowes, J., Lau, M., Chan, B., et al. (2004) Nature reserves in South China: Observations on their role and problems in conserving biodiversity. In Y. Xie, S. Wang, and

P. Schei, eds, China’s Protected Areas, pp. 341–55. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, China. Garshelis, D.L. (2004) Variation in ursid life histories: is there an outlier? In D. Lindburg and K. Baragona, eds, Giant Pandas: Biology and Conservation, pp.  53–73. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Gittleman, J.L. (2001) Carnivore Conservation (vol. 5). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hu, J. (2001) Research on the Giant Panda. Shanghai Science and Education Publishing House, Shanghai, China (in Chinese). Hull, V. (2014) Giant Panda Behavior across a Coupled Human and Natural System. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Hull, V., Roloff, G., Zhang, J., et al. (2014a) A synthesis of giant panda habitat selection. Ursus, 25, 148–62. Hull, V., Xu, W., Liu, W., et al. (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of zoning designations for protected area management. Biological Conservation, 144, 3028–37. Hull, V., Zhang, J., Zhou, S., et al. (2014b) Impact of livestock on giant pandas and their habitat. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22, 256–64. Hull, V., Zhang, J., Zhou, S., et  al. (2015) Space use by endangered giant pandas. Journal of Mammalogy, 96, 230–36. Lau, M.W.-N., Fellowes, J.R., and Chan, B.P.L. (2010) Carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora) in South China: a status review with notes on the commercial trade. Mammal Review, 40, 247–92. Liu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., et al. (2008) Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9477–82. Liu, J., Linderman, M., Ouyang, Z., et al. (2001) Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas. Science, 292, 98–101. Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., Taylor, W.W., et al. (1999) A framework for evaluating the effects of human factors on wildlife habitat: the case of giant pandas. Conservation Biology, 13, 1360–70. Liu, X. and Li, J. (2008) Scientific solutions for the functional zoning of nature reserves in China. Ecological Modelling, 215, 237–46. Madden, F. (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 247–57. Menard, C., Duncan, P., Fleurance, G., et al. (2002) Comparative foraging and nutrition of horses and cattle in European wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 120–33. Morzillo, A.T., De Beurs, K.M., and Martin-Mikle, C.J. (2014) A conceptual framework to evaluate human–wildlife

Pa n d a s – P e o p l e C o e x i s t e nc e a n d   C o m p e t i t i o n    59 interactions within coupled human and natural systems. Ecology and Society, 19, 44. Ng, J.W., Nielson, C., and St Clair, C.C. (2008) Landscape and traffic factors influencing deer–vehicle collisions in an urban environment. Human–Wildlife Interactions, Paper 79. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hwi/79/. Nie, Y., Swaisgood, R.R., Zhang, Z., et al. (2012) Giant panda scent-marking strategies in the wild: role of season, sex and marking surface. Animal Behaviour, 84, 39–44. Nie, Y., Zhang, Z., Raubenheimer, D., et al. (2015) Obligate herbivory in an ancestrally carnivorous lineage: the giant panda and bamboo from the perspective of nutritional geometry. Functional Ecology, 29, 26–34. Pan, W., Lü, Z., Zhu, X.J., et  al. (2001) A Chance for Lasting Survival. Beijing University Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese). Peng, J., Jiang, Z., and Hu, J. (2001) Status and conservation of giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): a review. Folia Zoologica, 50, 81–88. Peterson, M.N., Birckhead, J.L., Leong, K., et  al. (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 3, 74–82. Pimm, S.L. and Raven, P. (2000) Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature, 403, 843–45. Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Pollnac, R., et al. (2007) Fish wars: conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy, 31, 645–56. Schaller, G.B. (1994) The Last Panda. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Schaller, G.B., Hu, J., Pan, W., and Zhu, J. (1985) The Giant Pandas of Wolong. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. State Forestry Administration (2006) The Third National Survey Report on the Giant Panda in China. Science Publishing House, Beijing, China (in Chinese). State Forestry Administration of China (2015) The Fourth National Giant Panda Survey. http://www.forestry.gov. cn/main/4462/content-743596.html (in Chinese). Swaisgood, R.R., Lindburg, D.G., and Zhou, X.P. (1999) Giant pandas discriminate individual differences in conspecific scent. Animal Behaviour, 57, 1045–53. Taylor, A.H., Huang, J., and Zhou, S. (2004) Canopy tree development and undergrowth bamboo dynamics in

old-growth Abies–Betula forests in southwestern China: a 12-year study. Forest Ecology and Management, 200, 347–60. Taylor, A.H. and Qin, Z. (1987) Culm dynamics and dry matter production of bamboos in the Wolong and Tangjiahe giant panda reserves, Sichuan, China. Journal of Applied Ecology, 24, 419–33. Tilson, R., Defu, H., Muntifering, J., and Nyhus, P.J. (2004) Dramatic decline of wild South China tigers Panthera tigris amoyensis: field survey of priority tiger reserves. Oryx, 38, 40–47. Treves, A. and Karanth, K.U. (2003) Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17, 1491–99. Viña, A., Chen, X.D., McConnell, W.J., et al. (2011) Effects of natural disasters on conservation policies: the case of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, China. Ambio, 40, 274–84. Viña, A., Tuanmu, M.-N., Xu, W., et al. (2010) Range-wide analysis of wildlife habitat: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 143, 1960–69. Wei, F., Yang, G., Hu, J., and Stringham, S. (2004) Balancing panda and human needs for bamboo shoots in Mabian Nature Reserve, China: predictions from a logisticlike model. In D. Lindburg and K. Baragona, eds, Giant Pandas: Biology and Conservation, pp. 201–09. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Wolong Nature Reserve (2008) Wolong Nature Reserve Annual Agricultural Report, 2008. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (2005) People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Yong, Y., Liu, X., Wang, T., et al. (2004) Giant panda migration and habitat utilization in Foping Nature Reserve, China. In D. Lindburg and K. Baragona, eds, Giant Pandas: Biology and Conservation, pp.  159–69. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Zhang, Z., Sheppard, J.K., Swaisgood, R.R., et  al. (2014) Ecological scale and seasonal heterogeneity in the spatial behaviors of giant pandas. Integrative Zoology, 9, 46–60. Zhang, Z., Swaisgood, R.R., Wu, H., et  al. (2007) Factors predicting den use by maternal giant pandas. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 2694–98.