Conservation of giant panda habitat in South Minshan, China, after ...

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONSConservation of giant panda habitat inSouth Minshan, China, after the May 2008earthquake353Weihua Xu, Xuezhi Wang, Zhiyun Ouyang * , Jindong Zhang, Zhiqi Li, Yi Xiao, and Hua ZhengIn May 2008, a major earthquake struck Sichuan Province, in southwestern China. In addition to catastrophicloss of human life and destruction of towns and villages, the earthquake severely damaged ecosystemsthat support some of the last remaining giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) populations in the wild.To measure the extent of this destruction, we analyzed panda habitat loss and fragmentation across theSouth Minshan Mountains, using Thematic Mapper (TM) images and field data collected before and afterthe earthquake. Results show that 354 km 2 (23%) of panda habitat in this region was destroyed, 249 km 2 ofwhich was inside nature reserves. The remaining habitat was fragmented by landslides and mudflows,thereby threatening the giant panda’s long-term survival. Furthermore, the mean patch size of the remaininghabitat inside reserves was only 23% of that outside, indicating markedly higher habitat fragmentationinside reserves compared to outside. To assist in regional conservation efforts for the giant panda and itshabitat, we propose the creation of a conservation management unit that would include key areas, corridors,and current reserves, to encourage the dispersal/movement of pandas between isolated habitatpatches. Other measures include human disturbance alleviation and “ecological compensation”, whichwould increase the efficacy of the conservation management unit.Front Ecol Environ 2009; 7(7): 353–358, doi:10.1890/080192 (published online 27 Jul 2009)State Key Laboratory of Regional and Urban Ecology, Research Centerfor Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing, China * (zyouyang@rcees.ac.cn)Beyond the Frontier: Listen to Weihua Xu discussing this researchon Frontiers’ monthly podcast, at www.frontiersinecology.org.On 12 May 2008, a magnitude 8 earthquake struckWenchuan County, Sichuan Province, in southwesternChina. As of 2 November 2008, 35 603 aftershocks have beenrecorded (274 of these were greater than magnitude 4;Sichuan Earthquake Relief Information Net 2008). Thisearthquake and the subsequent aftershocks had a catastrophicimpact on the local human population, leaving 69 227 dead,17 923 missing, and 4.3 million homeless. Direct economiclosses were estimated to be around 845.1 billion YuanRenMinBi (RMB), about US$124 billion (CCTV 2008).In addition to the loss of human life and property, theearthquake also threatened biodiversity in the region.This area is one of the 25 global hotspots for biodiversityconservation (Myers et al. 2000), with about 12 000species of plants and 1122 species of vertebrates (Wang etal. 2008). Most of the existing range of the giant panda(Ailuropoda melanoleuca; Figure 1) is also included withinthe vicinity; about 67% of the wild giant panda population– and over half of its habitat – were probably affectedto some extent by the earthquake (Wang et al. 2008).Individual giant pandas are solitary during most of the year,generally inhabiting an area from 3.9 to 6.4 km 2 (Schaller et al.1985). They will also move seasonally, mainly in response toclimatic variability, food availability, mating, and other factors.This earthquake might have changed the spatial areainhabited by pandas. In this paper, we have evaluated theeffects of the earthquake on panda habitat, as part of an effortto develop conservation strategies for the giant panda and itsremaining habitat. We focused on South Minshan (MinshanB, Figure 2), because it may have been the hardest hit of all theareas inhabited by pandas. South Minshan lies adjacent to theepicenter of the earthquake and was the only part of thepanda’s range that lies completely within earthquake intensityzones X and XI (Figure 2), therefore sustaining the greatestdamage (CEA 2008). Here, we analyze habitat loss and fragmentationacross this region – based on satellite imagery, fieldworkbefore and after the earthquake, and comparisons withprevious research. We investigate the spatial distribution patternsof the damaged and remaining habitat and provide suggestionsfor the design of a species conservation strategy.Specific objectives include: (1) evaluating habitat loss in theregion, (2) identifying broad fragmentation patterns of theremaining habitat after the earthquake, and (3) detecting keyareas and corridors outside the nature reserves, on which tofocus conservation efforts. Our findings will also contribute tothe ongoing habitat restoration plan for pandas and otherspecies throughout the area affected by the earthquake. MethodsStudy areaLocated in Sichuan Province, South Minshan (Figure 2)lies in the transition zone between the Tibetan Plateau andthe Sichuan Basin, with elevations ranging from less than© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

Panda habitat conservationXu et al.354China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant PandaFigure 1. Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), observed after the May 12earthquake.100 m to more than 4000 m. Five counties (Dujiangyan,Pengzhou, Shifang, Mianzhu, and Anxian) were includedin the 6093-km 2 study area. The area contains four naturereserves, established between 1993 and 1999, for the conservationof giant pandas, as well as diverse natural ecosystemsand other endangered species (eg golden monkey[Rhinopithecus roxellana] and takin [Budorcas taxicolor]).Two of these reserves are national nature reserves (Longxihongkouand Baishuihe) and two are provincial (state)nature reserves (Jiudingshan and Qianfoshan).Land-cover classificationTo map habitat loss caused by the earthquake and its aftermath(eg landslides and mudflows), we used threeThematic Mapper (TM) images acquired on 19 May 2006,18 September 2007, and 8 July 2008. The first two imageswere provided by the US Geological Survey, and the thirdwas provided by the China Remote Sensing SatelliteGround Station. Although the 2007 image served as theprimary data source for the pre-earthquake stage, cloudsobscured approximately 5% of this image – therefore, weused the corresponding cloud-free areas within the 2006image to complement the cloud-covered sections of the2007 image. The three images were georeferenced to theWGS 84 coordinate system, with a pixel size of 30 m x 30m. A supervised classification was carried out in ERDAS9.1 for the three images. Because forests are the main vegetationtypes used by giant pandas (Liu et al. 2001), and previouslyundisturbed forest habitat was essentially convertedto “bare land” by the earthquake and subsequentlandslides and mudflows, areas within the pre-earthquakeimages were classified as forest, bare land, or “other”, andthat within the post-earthquake image as bare land or“other”. This classification system allowed for pre-earthquakehabitat evaluation and post-earthquake habitatchange detection. Sample points collected in the fieldwere used for image classification and to assess accuracy.For the pre-earthquake images, 60 of the 100 sample pointscollected by researchers between 2005 and2007 were randomly selected for the trainingset, and the remaining 40 for accuracy assessment.For the post-earthquake image, weused 96 sample points collected betweenJune and October 2008, with 60 for thetraining set and 36 for accuracy assessment.The total classification accuracy was 87%and 91%, respectively, for the pre- and postearthquakestages. We overlaid the classificationfrom before and after the earthquake,which revealed the distribution of new bareland created as a result of the earthquake andits subsequent impacts.Changes in giant panda habitatPossible giant panda habitat in the pre-earthquakeimage was evaluated according to a conceptual model(Liu et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2006) and known biologicalrequirements of giant pandas (State Forestry Administration2006). Suitable habitat for the giant panda is considered tobe a function of four main criteria: (1) presence of forestcover; (2) presence of bamboo; (3) elevations between 1000and 3800 m; and (4) slopes of less than 50˚. For the preearthquakeassessment, we combined forest-cover dataobtained from the image classification with slope, elevation,and bamboo presence data. The slope and elevation datawere obtained from digital elevation model data (1:50 000)acquired from The National Geomatics Center of China,and bamboo distribution data were obtained from the ThirdNational Panda Survey (State Forestry Administration2006). The resulting habitat map of pre-earthquake conditionswas overlayed with the bare land distribution resultingfrom the earthquake, revealing the extent of the lost habitat.The total area of lost and remaining habitat was comparedacross different elevations and slopes, between variouscounties and reserves, and inside and outside of individualreserves. We also compared habitat fragmentationacross these areas before and after the earthquake, usinglandscape indices of the number of patches (NP) andmean patch size (MPS) calculated via Fragstats 3.3(McGarigal et al. 2002). A decrease in MPS can indicatean increase in fragmentation of a habitat.Designation of key areas and corridors in theremaining habitat outside nature reservesGiven the large proportion of habitat lost and fragmentedinside the nature reserves, it was important to identify potentialkey habitat outside the nature reserves, so that these couldbecome the focus of conservation efforts, and for the potentialestablishment of future nature reserves. The criteria we usedto select key areas were that they (1) contained large areas ofsuitable habitat, where pandas were distributed, (2) wereadjacent to current nature reserves, and (3) had relatively lowlevels of human disturbance. Corridors were also needed towww.frontiersinecology.org© The Ecological Society of America

Xu et al.Panda habitat conservation355EpicenterPanda distributionEarthquake intensityXXIElevation (m)High: 7206Figure 2. South Minshan (boundary depicted by the red line). The panda distribution area in South Minshan (“Minshan B”) is almostcompletely within the earthquake intensity regions X and XI, the areas most seriously damaged in the May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.allow pandas to move between isolated habitat patches. Thecriteria for proposed corridors were that they (1) were withina short distance (less than 2 km) of key areas, (2) containedsuitable habitat, and (3) experienced a low amount of humandisturbance (Xu et al. 2006). ResultsCharacteristics of lost panda habitatPanda habitat in the study area decreased from 1536 to1182 km 2 , indicating that 354 km 2 (23%) of panda habitatwas destroyed by the earthquake (Figure 3; Table 1).Of this lost habitat, 88.6% was located between the elevationsof 1200 and 3000 m, and 66.7% lay in areas witha slope greater than 30˚ (Figure 4). After the earthquake,the NP was 4.6 times that of the pre-earthquakeperiod, and the MPS was only 0.17 thatof the pre-earthquake period (Table 1). Thisindicated a sharp increase in patch number anda decrease in patch size after the earthquake.Thus, there was a notable increase in fragmentationof giant panda habitat.Habitat loss was considerably different insideas compared to outside the nature reserves. Thehabitat loss ratio outside nature reserves was13.6%, as compared with 32.5% inside reserves.In post- to pre-earthquake periods, the ratio ofNP was higher – and the ratio of MPS was lower– inside reserves as compared with outside(Table 1). These results suggest that more dam-age to panda habitat occurred inside the nature reservesthan outside such areas. Habitat loss also differed amongthe different nature reserves. Habitat loss inside reservesranged from 15.2% for Qianfoshan Nature Reserve (NR)to 47.8% for Baishuihe NR (Table 1). Among the fourreserves in this study area, two – Longxi-hongkou andBaishuihe – experienced more serious damage than theothers in terms of habitat loss ratio, with 33.7% and47.8% of habitat lost, respectively (Table 1).Characteristics of remaining panda habitatLow: 67After the earthquake, the proportion of remaining habitatand MPS decreased with increasing elevation (Table2), indicating a greater proportion of large, contiguousareas of panda habitat at low elevations. For example,Table 1. Changes in giant panda habitat due to the earthquakewithin nature reserves and outside nature reservesHabitat loss Habitat loss Ratio RatioLocation (km 2 ) (%) of NP of MPSLongxi-hongkou NR 70.15 33.7 9.72 0.07Baishuihe NR 78.59 47.8 4.18 0.12Jiudingshan NR 88.99 27.9 3.84 0.19Qianfoshan NR 11.16 15.2 8.61 0.10Inside reserves 248.89 32.5 4.74 0.14Outside reserves 105.11 13.6 4.32 0.20All 354.00 23.0 4.64 0.17Note: Ratio of NP presents number of patches in the post-earthquake period divided by that ofpre-earthquake. A ratio above 1 means the number of patches has increased.The ratio of MPS presentsmean patch size in the post-earthquake period divided by that of pre-earthquake. A ratiobelow 1 means the mean patch size has decreased.© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

Panda habitat conservationXu et al.356K3LongxihongkouNRDujiangyanBaishuihe NRJiudingshan NRFigure 3. Panda habitat loss and proposed key areas and corridors in South Minshan.Three key areas (K1, K2, and K3) and two corridors (C1 and C2) are proposed forthe conservation of panda habitat outside nature reserves after the earthquake.about 63% of the remaining panda habitat lies below2000 m, where MPS is two or three times greater thanthat at higher elevations (Table 2).Distribution of the remaining habitat was different insideand outside the nature reserves. Although 515 km 2 (43.6%)of the post-earthquake habitat was protected within thereserves, the MPS inside the reserves was 0.06 km 2 , and itwas 0.26 km 2 outside the reserves; thus, it was only 23% ofthat outside the reserves (Table 3). In one especially severecase, the MPS of the Baishuihe NR inside PengzhouCounty was only 7% of that outside the reserve, showing asizable difference in habitat fragmentation inside and outsidethe reserves. This indicated that although a large proportionof panda habitat was protected in the reserves,habitat connectivity therein is generally worse than thatoutside of the reserves. The exception to this was AnxianCounty, where habitat inside the reserve was less fragmentedthan habitat outside the reserve.Table 2. Characteristics of the remaining panda habitatin different elevation rangesElevation Area Area MPS(m) (km 2 ) (%) (km 2 )< 1500 377.69 31.9 0.141500–2000 367.02 31.0 0.112000–2500 204.83 17.3 0.062500–3000 148.02 12.5 0.05> 3000 84.70 7.1 0.03Total 1182.26 100.0 0.11C2K2PengzhouShifangQianfoshan NRC1K1MianzhuAnxianProposed key areas and corridors forconservation of the remaining habitatoutside nature reservesWe identified three key areas of habitat thatlie outside the reserves (K1, K2, and K3) thatshould be protected, based on panda populationdistribution and habitat status after theearthquake. K1 is located along the boundarybetween Anxian and Mianzhu counties, andconnects the Jiudingshan and QianfoshanNRs. This area included about 75 km 2 ofundamaged habitat, and panda feces werefound here between 2006 and 2007 duringfield patrolling (ie before the earthquake). K2is located along the boundary betweenPengzhou and Shifang counties. It is thelargest block of remaining habitat, with atotal area of about 173 km 2 . Connecting themost fragmented habitat within two naturereserves (Baishuihe and Jiudingshan), thisarea has the greatest potential for use by pandas.Evidence of panda inhabitation wasfound in this key area in 2001, during theThird National Panda Survey (State ForestryAdministration 2006), but it is not clear ifpandas currently reside in the area. K3 lies inthe western part of Dujiangyan County and isconnected to Longxi-hongkou NR. Theremaining habitat in this area is about 60 km 2 and, accordingto field surveys, was recently used by pandas.Besides these key areas, two other areas (C1 and C2) wereidentified as corridors. C1 lies in the northern part of K1.At an elevation of about 1800 m, this area will connect tworeserves (Qianfoshan and Jiudingshan) and the K1 area.Although some habitat here was damaged, corridor constructionand habitat restoration should promote pandamovement between K1 and the reserves. C2 is located inthe eastern section of Baishuihe NR. This area could reestablishthe connection between Baishuihe andJiudingshan, which was destroyed by the earthquake. Thisarea is critical, not only for connecting Baishuihe NR,Jiudingshan NR, and K2, but also for linking together thenorth and south parts of South Minshan.Panda populationCorridorsNature reservesKey areasCountiesLost habitatRemaining habitat DiscussionIn this study, we used Landsat images and field data to analyzechanges in panda habitat before and after the May 12 earthquake.Our analysis showed that 354 km 2 (23%) of the pandahabitat in the South Minshan region was lost as a result ofthe earthquake and subsequent landslides and mudflows. Inaddition, the remaining habitat was fragmented into severalblocks and many small patches. There is a high probabilitythat this will have separated and fragmented the panda populationinhabiting this region (about 35 individuals, accordingto the Third National Panda Survey; State ForestryAdministration 2006). Isolation of small populations of pan-www.frontiersinecology.org© The Ecological Society of America

Xu et al.Panda habitat conservationdas increases the possibility of their extinction in the wild,due in part to an increased potential risk of inbreeding(Wang et al. 2002). Furthermore, habitat loss was mainlylocated inside nature reserves, and the less fragmented habitatthat remained after the earthquake was largely distributedoutside these reserves. The current reserve system in thisregion is therefore facing a major challenge. It is vital thatconservation measures are established to protect panda habitatoutside the existing reserves and to create corridors so thatpandas can move between isolated populations.We propose that three key areas and two corridors in thisregion should be protected, to ensure the long-term sustainabilityof the giant panda population and its habitat.Given that these key areas are comparatively large in size,contain relatively intact habitat, and are in close proximityto existing nature reserves, they should be incorporatedinto the nature reserve system as rapidly as possible. Theinclusion of K2 in the reserve system should be the highestpriority. Moreover, C1 and C2 should be established as corridors,allowing the remaining pandas in the population tomove between different habitat fragments. The proposedkey areas and corridors, together with current reserves,should be formed into a management unit, to enhancehabitat conservation.In order to improve the effectiveness of this managementunit, some issues need to be addressed. First, disturbancesdue to human activities must be minimized. Humanimpacts were among the most serious threats to giant pandasbefore the earthquake. The coupled effects of humandisturbance and the earthquake could be a serious obstacleto future conservation of the giant panda and its habitat.Because most of the intact habitat is distributed at lowerelevations, there is a greater probability of disturbance fromthe local people than before, especially as a result of humanactivities connected with post-earthquake reconstructionand tourism. There is thus an urgent need to assess thescope and extent of such disturbances.Measures should be taken to reduce these anthropogenicimpacts, for instance by physically relocating human residentsfrom selected, currently inhabited areas. Such relocationwas included in the overall post-earthquake planningfor this region and mainly involved relocating individualsfrom the areas that suffered heavy damage in the west to lessdamagedareas in the east. The proposed plan could benefitthe local people, moving them away from landthat could still suffer potential damage as aresult of future landslides and other disastersconnected with the earthquake. We proposean addendum to this plan, whereby residentsare relocated from scattered residential plots –in key areas and corridors of panda habitat –to clustered residential areas. This measurewould decrease the total area influenced byhuman activities and consequently has thepotential to benefit the pandas and other animalsthat may begin to occupy the habitatcloser to previous residential areas.(a)Area (km 2 )(b)Area (km 2 )25201510501000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Elevation (m)201510501 11 21 31 41Slope (degrees)Figure 4. Area of panda habitat losses at different elevations (a)and different slopes (b) in South Minshan.Another possible measure is restriction of the coverage oftourism centers and the size of the tourist population. Suchrestrictions may encourage pandas to utilize habitat to agreater extent than was the case before the earthquake.Preliminary field surveys conducted in October 2008, in theLongchi Forest Park within Longxi-hongkou NR, showedthat several animals, including the forest musk (Moschuschrysogaster) and the rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus bengalensis),inhabited low-lying areas that were affected by theearthquake. There was little evidence that these specieswere using this area before the earthquake, mainly as aresult of impacts from tourism and other human activities.Because of the complexity of wildlife responses to humandisturbance following the earthquake, further research isneeded to evaluate whether such measures are indeed lesseningthe impact of human activities on the giant panda.Habitat restoration is another important issue. SelectionTable 3. Characteristics of remaining giant panda habitat inside andoutside of nature reserves in different countiesArea of habitat (km 2 ) MPS (km 2 )Inside Outside RatioCounties/NR Inside NR Outside NR NR NR (%)Dujiangyan/Longxi-hongkou 137.87 190.16 0.07 0.42 17Pengzhou/Baishuihe 85.83 127.56 0.03 0.44 7Shifang/Jiudingshan 50.23 93.66 0.03 0.33 9Mianzhu/Jiudingshan 179.53 111.68 0.12 0.15 80Anxian/Qianfoshan 61.91 143.83 0.40 0.18 222Total 515.37 666.89 0.06 0.26 23357© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

Panda habitat conservationXu et al.358of restoration areas in each area of damaged habitat, particularlythe key areas or corridors, is a critical step. Suchefforts should be placed in the context of both long-termpanda habitat management plans and the long-termplanning for allocation of funds during the current reconstructionstage. In order to select restoration sites and thebest approach (eg natural restoration or human-mediatedrestoration), the potential effects of restoration can besimulated and assessed, based on a combination of differentfactors, such as rainfall, soil quality, and human disturbance.These effects can also be assessed via case studiesconducted following other disasters, such as the 1976Songpan earthquake (magnitude 7.2), which occurred inthe same mountain range as the 2008 earthquake.Furthermore, integrated monitoring systems should beestablished to monitor the long-term process of restorationof ecological structure and function, relying on multipleapproaches such as remote sensing and field surveys.The third issue that needs to be addressed concerns conductingwildlife field surveys, as well as patrolling andmonitoring programs. During the earthquake relief effortsand aftershocks, such surveys and programs in the naturereserves were postponed. These activities should now beresumed in the reserves, as well as in the proposed key areasand corridors, so as to rescue pandas and other wildlifespecies that may have suffered from insufficient access tofood resources due to earthquake damage and subsequenthabitat fragmentation. Moreover, such efforts will beimportant for determining whether giant pandas doinhabit – or at least pass through – these key areas and corridors.Integrated field surveys also need to be carried outthroughout the earthquake-damaged portion of the pandadistribution area, to identify current panda distributionpatterns in damaged habitat. Because of the inaccessibilityof some zones after the earthquake, the continued aftershocks,and other potential dangers, field patrolling andmonitoring in the future should be adjusted to avoidpotential harm to field patrol staff. Assessment of the risksand the level of accessibility throughout the region couldcontribute to the planning of such patrolling activities.The May 2008 Wenshuan earthquake and its aftermathcaused marked loss and fragmentation of panda habitat inSouth Minshan. In order to conserve the remaining habitat,we propose establishing protected habitat across three keyareas and two corridors outside the current reserve system.This could be incorporated into the coming 10-year(2010–2020) plan for conservation of the giant panda andits habitat in China. Measures including relocation of residentialareas and ecological compensation (an environmentalprotection policy intended to balance ecological protectionand economic development; Yang et al. 2007) couldpotentially aid in the formation and operation of such amanagement unit. The existing National ForestConservation Program and the Grain-to-Green Program aregood examples of successful ecological compensation policiesalready in place in this region. Similar policies shouldalso be introduced throughout the entire earthquake-damagedarea, which could contribute to habitat restoration andlong-term conservation of the giant panda and other species.When coupled with increasing human activities, naturaldisasters – including earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes– create unprecedented challenges for biodiversity conservation,especially with respect to endangered species. Moreattention needs to be focused on these issues for future biodiversityconservation around the world. AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by a grant from the Major State BasicResearch Development Program of China (973 Program,#2009CB421104) and Funds of the Chinese Academy ofSciences for Key Topics in Innovation Engineering. We thankthe Sichuan Forestry Administration, WWF, Longxi-hongkouNR Administration, and Qianfoshan NR Administration forproviding assistance for field surveys after the earthquake. Wegreatly appreciate the provision of pre- and post-earthquakeremote-sensing data by NASA and the Center for EarthObservation and Digital Earth, the Chinese Academy ofSciences, and the provision of basic spatial data by TheNational Geomatics Center of China, as well as the provisionof the panda image by the China Conservation and ResearchCenter for the Giant Panda. We also acknowledge V Hull forconstructive comments on this paper. ReferencesCCTV (China Central Television). 2008. News report. CCTV.http://news.cctv.com/china/20081008/103396.shtml. Viewed 18Nov 2008.CEA (China Earthquake Administration). 2008. www.cea.gov.cn/manage/html/8a8587881632fa5c0116674a018300cf/_content/08_09/01/1220238314350.html). Viewed 18 Nov 2008.Liu JG, Linderman M, Ouyang ZY, et al. 2001. Ecological degradationin protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve forgiant pandas. Science 292: 98–101.McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, et al. 2002. FRAGSTATS:spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps.www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.Viewed 18 Nov 2008.Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, et al. 2000. Biodiversityhotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–58.Schaller GB, Jinchu H, Wenshi P, and Jing Z. 1985. The giant pandasof Wolong. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Sichuan Earthquake Relief Information Net. 2008. www.eqsc.gov.cn/manage/html/ff808181126bebda01126bec4dd00001/index.html. Viewed 2 Nov 2008.State Forestry Administration. 2006. The Third National Surveyreport on giant pandas in China. Beijing, China: China SciencePress.Wang DJ, Li S, Sun S, et al. 2008. Turning earthquake disaster intolong-term benefits for the panda. Conserv Biol 22: 1356–60.Wang H, Li SG, and Pan WS. 2002. Population viability analysis ofgiant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) in Qinling Mountains.Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis 38: 756–61.Xu WH, Ouyang ZY, Viña A, et al. 2006. Designing a conservationplan for protecting the habitat for giant pandas in the Qionglaimountain range. China Divers Distrib 12: 610–19.Yang GM, Min QW, Li WH, et al. 2007. Scientific issues of ecologicalcompensation research in China. Acta Ecol Sinica 27:4289–300.www.frontiersinecology.org© The Ecological Society of America