Lisa V Carrier MSc Conservation Science 2011 Contents

List of Figures Lisa of Tables List of Acronyms Abstract Acknowledgements 1. Introduction 1.1 Rationale for research 1.2 Forests in China 1.3 Future prospects 1.4 Aims and Objectives 1.5 Hypotheses 1.6 Thesis structure 2. Background 2.1. Literature review 2.1.1. Moderately disturbed habitats 2.1.2. Highly disturbed habitats 2.2. Options for minimizing impact of forest disturbance 2.3. China’s history and rapid development 2.3.1. Economic Pressures 2.3.2. Protected Areas 2.4 Hainan Province 2.4.1. Geography 2.4.2. Economic development 2.4.3. Conservation and climate 2.4.4. Positive changes 2.5. Study site 2.5.1 Diaoluoshan National Forest Park 3. Methods 3.1. Habitats explored 3.1.1. Primary forest 3.1.2. Secondary forest 3.1.3. Plantations 3.2. Pilot Study 3.3. Population estimate methods 3.3.1. Camera traps 3.3.2. Live traps 3.4 Plot set up 3.5 Collection of vegetation data 3.6 Statistical Analysis

ii 4. Results 4.1 Total abundance comparisons across three habitat types 4.1.1 Camera traps 4.1.1.1. Variation in abundance within habitat types 4.1.2. Live traps 4.2. Richness comparisons between the different habitat types 4.2.1. Camera traps 4.2.2. Live traps 4.3. Comparison of diversity and evenness of species between habitats 4.3.1 Species abundance across habitat type 4.3.1.1 Camera traps 4.3.1.2 Live traps 4.4. Establishing which vegetation and land cover characteristics affect species abundance 4.4.1. Vegetation comparisons across habitat types 4.5. Comparisons between two plantation plots 5. Discussion 5.1. Small mammal abundance, richness, diversity and evenness 5.2 Correlations between vegetation characteristic and relative abundance 5.3. Comparison of survey method effectiveness 5.4. Biodiversity in modified landscapes 5.4.1 Wildlife friendly farming ‘v’ land sparing 5.5 Protected areas and hunting 5.6 Future research 5.7 Adaptations to methodologies 5.8 Conclusions 6. References 7. Appendices

iii List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Nature Reserve area growth in China over past 50 years. Figure 2.2. Land use classification changes in Hainan Figure 2.3. (A) Map of location of Hainan Island (B) Map of Hainan indicating location of Diaoluoshan Nature Reserve (C) Map of Diaoluoshan Nature Reserve outlining habitat types Figure 3.1. (A) Camera trap set up in Primary forest and Secondary forest (B) Camera trap set up in Plantations (C) Example camera trap image Figure 3.2. Illustration of live trap mechanism Figure 4.1. Graph illustrating difference in total mean relative abundance in each habitat type Figure 4.2. Graph illustrating mean relative abundance of each species measured by camera traps Figure 4.3. Graph illustrating mean relative abundance in each habitat type measured by live traps Figure 4.4. Graph illustrating mean relative abundance of each species in each habitat type, measured by live traps. Figure 4.5. Illustrates mean value of vegetation characteristics in each habitat type

iv List of Tables

Table 4.1. Statistical information resulting from comparison of relative abundance across habitat type measured by Camera traps. Table 4.2. Statistical information resulting from comparison of relative abundance across habitat type measured by live traps. Table 4.3. List of species found in different habitat types using camera traps Table 4.4. List of species found in different habitat types using live traps Table 4.5. Values for species diversity and evenness for each habitat using both methods. Table 4.6. Statistical values calculated for differences in vegetation characteristics between habitat types.

v List of Acronyms

PF – Primary forest SF – Secondary forest PL – Plantation GPS - Global Positioning System HB – Head and body length U- Statistical value for Mann-Whitney U test t – Statistical value for t-test (m)- Meters

vi Abstract

This paper is based on a study in Hainan Province, an island off of the South coast of China. The research conducted looks the responses of small mammal communities to different levels of disturbance and compares them with the composition and structure of Primary forest. The study investigates previously logged secondary forest and two plantation types.

Camera traps and live traps were used together to measure relative abundance, diversity, richness and evenness within these habitats and statistical comparison tests were conducted on this data to establish differences between them. Seven vegetation and land cover characteristics were also measured to investigate correlations between these and small mammal communities across the habitat types.

Both methods showed significant differences between small mammal relative abundance in primary forest and plantation. Camera trap data indicated a significant difference between primary forest and secondary forest but live trap data showed no significant difference between these two habitat types. Richness of species reduced when habitats were disturbed and diversity became more unevenly distributed as in disturbed habitats, indicating that some species adapt better to disturbed environments than others.

Results also showed significant differences in vegetation characteristics across habitat types differing in their level of disturbance.

Results gained can contribute to future methods used to improve forest plantation management.

Word Count: 13,427

vii Acknowledgements

I would firstly like to thank my two supervisors throughout this project. Firstly to Dr. Marcus Rowcliffe (ZSL), for his help and guidance through the field work and write up of the project. Secondly, to Dr. Wei Liang of Hainan Normal University, not only for his financial investment but also for his dedication and determination to ensure the success of the project.

I would also like to thank Jia jia Wang for her hard work and commitment and Sam Turvey (ZSL) for his advice and support.

I would also like to express my heart felt thanks to my family, who have supported both financially and emotionally through every challenge that I have faced throughout my postgraduate study.

viii 1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale for research Anthropogenic pressures such as land conversion to agriculture, logging and urbanization have been occurring in temperate and tropical regions throughout history, primarily as a result of agricultural expansion and utilization of forest resources. Development and intensification of agriculture is the greatest current threat to biodiversity (Fitzherbert et al., 2008), causing fragmentation of habitats and therefore loss of species leading to a reduction in the ability of ecosystems to function as a whole (Chaplin et al., 2000). Although forests are the most productive ecosystems for both human welfare and biodiversity, providing invaluable eco-system services and habitat for some of the most endangered and vulnerable species, they are disappearing faster than any other biome globally (Myers, 1991).

There have been many studies relating to the effects of deforestation and habitat fragmentation (e.g. Archard et al., 2002, Geist et al., 2002, Echeverria et al., 2006) but few studies have investigated the impacts of these types of disturbance on small mammal communities (e.g. Ramanamanjato & Ganzhorn 2001, Laurance, 1997), particularly in China (e.g. Chung & Corlett, 2006, Raoul et al., 2008 & Giraudoux et al., 1998). This understudied area is however crucial in evaluating the ability of small mammal communities to tolerate or exploit modified habitats, and therefore to adequately address biodiversity conservation issues when planning forest management schemes (Raoul et al., 2008). Small mammals play an important role in the ecology of almost all tropical habitats, as seed predators and scatter-hoarding seed dispersal agents, as consumers of invertebrates, small vertebrates and their eggs and as prey for snakes, mammals and birds (Chung et al., 2006). It is imperative that we conserve these species and ensure their continued existence within forest ecosystems and converted habitats.

1.2 Forests in china China’s fast growing economy has resulted in forest habitat consisting of a mere 13.9% of the total remaining land coverage in the country (Fu et al., 2004, cited in Raoul 2008). A high demand from the international wood-chip markets in the late 1970’s gave rise to

1 logging of native forest and consequently the further destruction of these environments to make way for plantations of fast growing Eucalyptus and fir trees (Zhang et al., 2000). Rubber production in the country has increased dramatically over the last decade, mainly due to the high demand for car tyres. Although there has been an expansion of rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations and increase in production within China, the country still only produces less than half of what it consumes leading to the promotion and further demand for rubber tree plantations (Li et al., 2007). These pressures are causing major detrimental effects on the environment with problems such as soil erosion, desertification and loss of biodiversity, but the ecological effects of these man made forests is largely unexplored (Gao, 2006). In China, Plantations cover 53 million hectares and account for 30% of the total forested area, with the highest proportion existing in South China (Wang 2009). Although fast growing, high yielding plantations are taking the pressure off of intact forest by reducing the need to log native forest, they are further isolating forest fragments by degrading the patches of land and reducing the biodiversity that exists here.

1.3. Future prospects China’s economic growth is set to increase rapidly in the near future (Klein et al., 2003), therefore an increase in land conversion to monoculture plantations and other cash crops is highly likely. It is vital that we investigate the effects of plantations on species diversity and research which species are most sensitive to different levels and types of disturbance and therefore which populations are at most risk of extinction. The positive implementation of National Parks along with their infrastructure and management is a step in the right direction for China’s remaining primary and secondary forests but a large majority of these protected areas have been left fragmented and degraded by logging and plantations (Liu et al., 1999). Actions are therefore required to determine alternative management methods in order to minimise the effects that these monoculture crops are having on abundance and diversity of small mammal communities, without preventing the growth of China’s agricultural export industry. This knowledge can then be utilized to maximise the efficiency of management plans that are put into place for regeneration of disturbed habitats. It will also provide information that can contribute to the management and implementation of future plantation planning and the laws surrounding land conversion.

2 1.4. Aims and Objectives Through this project small mammal assemblages will be investigated within different habitat types, varying in their disturbance level, to get an increased understanding of the effects of different levels of land conversion and habitat disturbance on small mammal populations. The research additionally looks at the specific characteristics of different habitat types that might influence small mammal abundance and biodiversity.

My objects are therefore to: -

1. Investigate the relative abundance of small mammals within Primary forest, Secondary forest and Plantations. 2. Explore the richness, at species level, within the small mammal communities that we discover and determine which species are more sensitive to habitat disturbance levels and land conversion. 3. Survey the diversity amongst these communities to determine if this varies across different habitat types. 4. Look at species evenness and which species dominate in which habitat types to give an indication of the adaptability of species to changing environments. 5. Measure finer scale vegetation and land cover characteristics such as canopy cover, shrub cover and plantation species and investigate if they have an influence on the relative abundance and richness within each habitat type.

Primary forest plots will be utilised as a control habitat and will be considered to consist of original vegetation and have minimal disturbance levels. The assumption will be made that Secondary forest and Plantation areas had an original vegetation structure, habitat range and animal community composition that is similar to the Primary forest habitat (Danielson & Heergaard, 1995). Comparisons will be made between: -

1. Primary forest and Plantations 2. Primary forest and Secondary Forest 3. Finer scale elements between each habitat type, such as vegetation type and ground cover features.

3 4. Two species of plantation

1.5 Hypotheses This research will test the following hypotheses;

H1. Habitats with moderate levels of disturbance will show similar or higher total species relative abundance to primary forest but highly disturbed habitat will show a much lower relative abundance. H2. Habitat with a moderate disturbance levels will have similar or higher species richness as Primary forest but plantation will have much lower richness. H3. Highly disturbed habitats will contain lower species diversity than primary forest. H4. Some species will adapt better to disturbed environments than others. H5. The vegetation characteristics will not be the same in each of the habitat types.

1.6 Thesis structure This report will commence with an overview of past literature in this research area and provide information on data collection methodologies and a brief introduction to the study area background. This will be followed by an explanation of the data collection methods and analysis of data collected. I will then discuss and review what these results reveal and make suggestions as to how the findings can contribute to future management and how future research in this area could move forward. I will lastly consider future research prospects in light of my findings and limitations that this project has incurred.

4 2. Background

2.1 Literature review

Much research carried out globally on deforestation and fragmentation has targeted the effects it has on biodiversity as a whole or focuses on larger, charismatic species, which are critically endangered due to these threats (e.g. Chan et al., 2005, Gaveau et al., 2009 ). Few studies have been carried out investigating hostile environments that result from deforestation and land conversion and how these environments can be improved upon to make them more habitable to small mammal communities (Green et al., 2005, Norton, 1998, Matson and Vitousek 2006, Ramanamanjato 2001, Laurance 1997). This is concerning as studies have predicted massive declines and even extinctions of some species, such as birds and vascular plant species, following periods of deforestation and intensive logging (Brook et al., 2003, Laidlaw. R.W., 2000.), indicating that conversion of land to monoculture plantations may have a similar if not worse impact on small mammal communities.

2.1.1 Moderately disturbed habitats There are differing levels of disturbance that face natural environments. Secondary forest habitats relate to successional forests that develop after clearing of original forest (Chokkalingham and Jong, 2001) and have often been subject to intensive logging and hunting pressures. They are a large and growing part of current forest cover (Chokkalingham and Jong, 2001) and much research has been conducted to investigate this habitat type and its ability to provide suitable environments for biodiversity. Much of this research has resulted in positive outcomes for secondary forest. For example Bernard et al., (2009) investigated the effects of moderate disturbance of tropical lowland rain forest on non-volant small mammals in Borneo and discovered that small mammal diversity and density was higher in secondary forest than in primary forest, with more evenness as most species were reasonably abundant. This supports Johns (1997) theory that secondary forest may support some elements that primary forests may not and that secondary forest can be higher in plant diversity due to the higher levels of regrowth in the absence of larger canopy dominating tree species and therefore has higher species

5 diversity on a local scale. Laidlaw (2000) also found no significant difference in mammal species richness between primary and secondary forest, which had been logged between 4 and 36 years ago. Lastly, Wu et al., (1996) carried out a study in China and found seven species in secondary forests did not occur in primary forest. These findings indicate that some species thrive in moderately disturbed habitats, often competing with and displacing more sensitive species.

Although these studies have indicated higher or similar diversity within secondary forest when compared to primary forest, other longer-term studies have shown that secondary forest has less diversity (Wells et al., 2007). Well’s et al., (2007) found 27 species in primary forest and only 17 species in secondary forest in Eastern parts of Sabah, which was significantly lower. They suggest that common species may be able to thrive in both habitats quite comfortably but dominant primary forest species and/or rare species that are specialists of primary forests may be lost or decline in abundance under selective logging pressures due to the destruction of specific micro habitat and/or increased densities of competitors. These contrasting results may be due to a number of differing factors in each of the investigations. Laidlaw (2000) suggests that the matrix habitat surrounding forest fragments may play an important role in determining species richness. Lynam & Billick (1999) proposes that unless a forest fragment is attached to a larger, relatively undisturbed source, the natural small mammal community will struggle to recover.

It is likely that species responses to habitat change vary geographically to some degree. An example of this is the Long Tailed Giant Rat Leopoldamys sabanus, which has been found to be confined to Primary forest interiors and avoid moderately disturbed habitats in some locations (Lynam, 1995), but was frequently caught in secondary forest in Tabin, Borneo (Rajaratnam, 1999). This illustrates that species response to habitat disturbance may vary between geographical locations and the results from one area cannot necessarily be used to predict the effects of disturbance on small mammal communities in another location (Bernard et al., 2009).

6 Stuebing and Gaisis (1989) and Emmons (2000) investigated the effects of disturbance on Lesser tree shrew populations (Tupaia minor) and found that they are eliminated or greatly reduced by logging practices that leave other species apparently unaffected. But conversely, Johns (1997) showed that tree shrew populations actually increase after logging due to the rotting tree trunks and debris attracting invertebrate species, in turn providing a plentiful food source for insectivore species. This suggests that the extent of disturbance in these two investigations may vary and that lower levels of disturbance may positively affect tree shrews but they may be negatively affected by higher intensity disturbance. This illustrates a fine balance in how a moderately disturbed habitat may benefit aspects of biodiversity but if this disturbance level rises and peaks it can often tip the balance leading to biodiversity rapidly decreasing and habitats becoming dominated by adaptable species and vulnerable species being wiped out.

2.1.2 Highly disturbed habitat types Severely disturbed habitats such as monoculture plantations and land converted into crops and livestock grazing have a different effect on diversity. Much of the research carried out in these environments has shown declines in abundance and diversity (Bernard et al., 2009). Fitzherbert et al., (2008) investigated the affect that oil palm plantations have on biodiversity and finds that these habitats support fewer species than forests and cause further impacts such as habitat fragmentation and pollution. Rubber plantations have been specifically investigated by Li et al., (2007) who comments that they have a negative impact on flora, fauna and some ecosystem services, but plantations are necessary to keep people in developing countries out of poverty.

There are few cases where research indicates a positive effect on species but it seems that certain hardier species may inhabit these harsh environments and may even thrive here. For example, Laidlaw (2000) showed that certain species such as macaques may flourish here and Bernard et al., 2009 suggests various Rattus species such as Long tailed Giant Rat can co-exist with humans in such highly disturbed environments. There is even some indication that some mono-cultured plant species, such as shade coffee, can be a refuge for biodiversity and can even contain as many species as forested habitats (Perffecto et al., 1996).

7

Differing outcomes may be influenced by the species of the monoculture planation that is under investigation. Stuebing and Gasis (1989) found 15 species inhabiting Eucalyptus plantations where as Danielsen and Hegaard (1995) and Fitzherbert et al., (2008) showed very few or no species in Rubber plantations and oil palm plantations. The vegetation structure and ground cover also vary dependent on the planation set up and the age of the plantation. Bernard et, al (2009) and Atkeson et al., (1979) looked at varying ages of plantations which may also affect what species occur here due to the extent of the canopy, allowing the undergrowth to develop, which encourages a higher diversity of species to inhabit the environment.

It is evident that different species react differently to various levels of disturbance but much of the previous research indicates that various species can tolerate moderately disturbed landscapes, if the impact of modification is low, but only very few, very adaptable species can adapt to these highly disturbed habitats such as plantations, resulting in biodiversity rapidly decreasing in habitats such as plantations.

2.2 Options for minimizing impact of forest disturbance

Investigating the impacts of varying levels of disturbance on diversity is of great importance as it could be highly influential to forest and land managers considering the logging of forests or the conversion of natural forest into agricultural development or plantation. It may also play a role in prioritising areas of natural forest for National parks and sites of scientific research. The reality is that many forests are currently not protected or managed adequately and with increased economic pressures these forests may become under threat from land conversion in the near future. There is a pressing requirement for research into plantation management and the development of more environmentally conscious methods of farming, such as ‘mixed production’ and biodiversity landscapes. Maintaining biodiversity in plantations should be a priority for farmers as it provides many of the eco-system services directly related to the production of crops, such as pollination, natural water aggregation, improved soil fertility and natural pest control (Power, 2010).

8 There is strong evidence to suggest that with just small improvements, plantations can facilitate forest succession in their understories, even on highly degraded sites (Parrotta et al., 1997), encouraging the return of biodiversity to these habitats. Green et al., (2005) discuss two alternative methods that have been successfully implemented to reduce pressure on biodiversity and the forests in which they exist. Firstly, ‘Wildlife friendly farming’ methods, which encourage farmers to create more biodiversity friendly plantations and secondly, ‘land sparing’ which increases intensification of farming methods to reduce the demand of converting in tact forest environments into further plantations. This method may also be transferable to the logging of forests i.e. the intensification of logging concessions in smaller patches of forest to spare other areas of forest which would otherwise be damaged at lower intensity when using a less intensive but more widespread logging regime. Only by investigating which habitat elements benefit which species, can we build the information required to put these sorts of schemes into place.

Modifying the way in which plantations are established has shown to improve species diversity within plantations. For example Christian et al., (1997) found that incorporating heterogeneity amongst plantation species and discouraging the use of weed killer and clearance of undergrowth may dramatically improve the species diversity within a plantation. Norton (1998) suggests that improvements to plantations such as; retention of some indigenous forest flora species, increasing plant species diversity and modification of silvicultural practices within plantations encourages diversity in these areas. Improving vegetation and diversity within plantations can increase the ability of that landscape to act as a corridor between forested areas, rather than presenting a barren open space that species are unlikely to access to move from one forest fragment to another (Norton, 1998).

The subject of habitat disturbance is becoming more relevant and important to investigate as land conversion rates increase with economic pressures. With many countries under pressure to comply with environmental laws, ensure minimized ecological impacts and hit biodiversity targets (CBD, 2010), research on the effects of plantations on biodiversity is

9 highly relevant to governments globally and to forest and land managers considering the conversion of natural forest into plantation and implications surrounding this.

2.3 China’s history and rapid development The majority of China’s remaining forest is degraded having been subjected to different levels of disturbance, such as intensive logging, land conversion for agriculture and hunting pressures, but much of this is now protected through the protected area system and there are currently over 2194 nature reserves across China, covering 15% of the county’s territory (IUCN, 2006). This has resulted in much of the remaining forest regenerating at different stages but little is known about the ability of small mammal communities to re- inhabit these environments.

2.3.1 Economic pressures With China's recent rapid development (Economy, 2009), pressure is mounting to increase production of the remaining landscape. Despite these obvious pending pressures there are very few studies investigating the effects that plantations and logging are having on the environment and particularly on small mammal communities in this country.

China is the world’s forth largest country in area and retains the highest population globally, currently totaling around 1.3 billion, which is 20% of the worlds total population, having doubled in the past half century alone (Lui et al., 2005). Its huge economy is growing at the fastest rate of any major nation and its environmental problems are among the most severe of any major country (Lui et al., 2005).

2.3.2 Protected areas To protect biodiversity, the Chinese government had set up almost 2,000 nature reserves by the end of 2003, mostly within the past 20 years, the growth of which are outlines in Figure 2.1. The reserves cover 14.4% of China's territory, a percentage higher than the world average and than of most developed countries. But with 15-20% of the nations species currently endangered the need for further protection of remaining species and their habitats is of paramount importance (Lui et al., 2005).

10

(Lui et al., 2005) Fig 2.1 Graph illustrating the rapid growth of Nature Reserve coverage in China over the past 50 years. The Brown line shows number of reserves and the red line shows area covered.

2.4 Hainan Province

2.4.1 Geography At 18°100–20°100N and 108°370–111°030E, Hainan island stretches over 3.4 million hectares (EUTOU, 2006) and is the second largest Island on the south coast, separated from mainland China’s Guangdong province only by a 30km stretch of the south China sea known as the Qiongzhou Straights (Zhang et al.,2000). The climatic conditions of Hainan Island differ from those of the other provinces of China, experiencing higher annual temperatures and precipitation (Chen, 2009).

2.4.2 Economic Development Until recent years Hainan was amongst the poorest of provinces in China, but when the island was officially established as a stand alone province in 1988, it was designated as a ‘special economic zone’, to hasten the development of the Islands rich resources (Gopalakrishnan, 2007). Since then, the economic growth rate, averaging 20% annually from 1988-1995, has been the fastest rate across all of china’s provinces (Zhang et al.,2000). With the worlds largest rubber plantation company existing here (Chinadaily, 2011) and tourism steadily growing as holiday makers flock to the white sandy beaches and tropical climate, development shows no sign of slowing. Despite this rapid growth posing great threats to biodiversity, little biological research has been conducted here.

11 2.4.3 Conservation and climate

Many of its 98 mammal species are endemic to the island such as the Hainan gibbon (nasutus hainanus) and the Hainan Gymnure (Neohylomys hainanensis) (WWF, 2001). Several of these species are heavily under threat from habitat loss due to Hainan’s steady increase in land conversion for both subsistence and commercial agriculture (Zhang et al 2000).

As a global biodiversity hotspot (Chen, 2009), Hainan’s monsoon tropical climate supports two types of eco-region. Coastal plains are part of the China –Vietnam Subtropical Evergreen Forest eco-region, experiencing evenly distributed rainfall throughout the year. The interior of the island supports mountainous monsoon forests reaching 1860m in elevation, where the climate is hotter and drier throughout the year (WWF, 2001). These hilly environments are similar to those existing in Northern Indo China.

It is widely agreed that about 30% of the island was covered with forest in the 1950’s but rainforests suffered mass deforestation between the 1950’s and 1970’s mostly due to 350,00 hectares of forestry land in the center of the Island being allocated to state logging firms. On top this, tropical crops, which were introduced in the beginning of the century, also started to expand over this period, due to the rapid demand for natural rubber materials and other goods. This lead to a 50% loss of forest cover by the end of the 1970’s (Zhang et al., 2000). Although agriculture has not expanded dramatically in recent years, by 1981, activities have resulted in the island retaining just 7.2% of its forest cover (WWF, 2001). Much of land has been transformed for intensive agriculture and cash crops, predominantly Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), coffee (Coffea canephora) and palm oil plantations (Elaeis guineensis) (Wikipedia, 2011). Figure 2.2 is a model outlining the changes in land use classifications between the 1950’s and 1990’s.

12 (Zhang et al., 2000)

Figure 2.2. Shows the land use classifications and their changes between 1957 and 1995 in Hainan

We can see a substantial increase in plantations but a recent downturn in the amount of degraded land and a constant cover of natural forest over the last decade or so.

2.4.4 Positive changes

Over the last two decades the decreasing trend in forest area has started to reverse, partly due to the planting of 130,000 ha of fast growing Eucalyptus trees between 1982 and 1995 to satisfy the demand for woodchip export (Zhang et al., 2000). There are currently also 9 National nature reserves and 18 Provincial Nature reserves (Liang Pers. comm), which have imposed strict regulations on logging, land conversion and hunting. The larger reserves are generally located in the mountainous central locations of the Island and are managed by the State owned Forestry Bureaus (Zhang et al., 2000). Unfortunately the majority of the smaller reserves exist in the drier, interior portions of the island and tend to be highly degraded and lack connectivity with other reserves (WWF, 2001). In principle, harvesting of all rainforest has been banned since 1994 (Zhang et al., 2000), but despite this there are still habitats experiencing high levels of disturbance and land conversion. Very little research has been conducted on species abundance and distributions in these environments, which gives rise to a high risk of extinction for some of the more endangered and especially endemic species that very little is known about.

2.5 Study site

13

2.5.1 Diaoluoshan National Forest Park

Diaoluoshan National Forest Park is 380 km2 in area and sits within Lingshui, Wanning, o o o o Qiongzhong and Baoting counties at 18 43’-18 58’N by 109 43’-110 03’E, Southeast Hainan (Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 1998). The region has a tropical monsoon climate o o with mean monthly temperature range from 15 C in January to 28 C in July. Annual precipitation is 1,800 to 2,000 mm, falling mainly between May and October (Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 1998). The landscape is a mixture of steep and gentle hills, with some granite rocky outcrops (Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 1998). The park has an altitudinal range from 50m to 1,499m. The Forest Park was designated in 1994 to promote ecotourism as an alternative to logging native forest, which was banned in the same year (Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 1998). In 1999 it was subsequently upgraded to a National Forest Park and is classified as a Forest Ecosystem Nature Reserve managed by the Provincial Forestry Department (KFBG, 2002). Figure 2.3 shows the location of Hainan globally (a), the location of Diaoluoshan on Hainan Island (b) and an outline of the boundaries of the national park (c). Picture (c) also outlines the different habitat types in the Park. A more detailed map of exact plot locations can be seen in Appendix 2 Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3.

The original vegetation of Diaoluoshan would have been tropical seasonal evergreen rainforest and hillside evergreen rainforest. Much of the original forest cover at lower elevations, however, has been cleared and transformed in to secondary forest and shrubland (Kadori Farm and Botanical Garden, 2002). From local knowledge it is understood that in 1963 a factory was built on the mountain to process wood from the monoculture fir tree plantations, which had been established around the many access roads that had been built throughout the forest. It wasn’t until 1992 that the factory was closed down and in 1994 the extraction of wood was prohibited and hunting in the area was banned. The Fir tree plantations have now been abandoned and are currently in a phase of re-generation, having been relatively undisturbed for around 17 years. The factory was replaced by a hotel resort, which currently attracts mostly Chinese tourists who vacate there to enjoy the remaining natural environment.

14 A

B (mapsof.net, 2011) Yinggeling Nature Reserve

C

(Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 2011)

(Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, 2011)

Fig 2.3. (A) A map illustrating the location of Hainan Island. (B) A map of Hainan Island indicating the location of Diaoluoshan Forest Nature Reserve, indicated by a yellow triangle. It also shows the two main cities on the island, Haikou in the North and Sanya in the South, indicated by red dots. It also outlines some of the other Nature reserves on the island, which are indicated in darker green. Yinggeling Nature reserve is indicated here as this is where the pilot study was carried out. (C) Outlines the reserve boundaries and shows remaining primary forest in dark green, secondary forest in lighter green and further degraded land in pale green around the perimeter. It also indicates where rivers and lakes are and where many of the tourist attractions are.

There is one research station on site, which is owned by Hainan Normal University and an unused research station exists for use by the forestry department but a new one is currently under construction. Very little published data exists regarding fauna and flora in Diaoluoshan. Kadori Farm Botanical Gardens carried out a rapid biodiversity assessment in May 1999, over 5 days, which was based on interviews with two officials from the Nature

15 Reserve, past records and some sightings. This report provides an overview of species likely to exist in the Park but does not investigate any further than this. Relying on pictures for identification by local people is not an efficient method and many of the pictures shown were identified as existing here when in actual fact, they were species found on mainland China and had never existed on the Island. This indicates that there is an immediate need for a thorough investigation to establish what species still exist in this reserve. Chen (Long et al., (2002) conducted research that outlined rare plant species existing here, which are red-listed. Other research has analyzed rare reptile (wang et al., 2007) and invertebrate species (Tong, 2010) but there is no other information about small mammal populations in Diaoluoshan, to my knowledge.

16 3. Methods

This section describes the field methodologies applied to the research regarding data collection and explains rationale behind the statistical analysis methods used. The fieldwork and preparation for data collection was carried out over a 10-week duration between May and July 2011. All data was collected from Diaoluoshan National Forest Park and the surrounding plantations (apart from the pilot study). A total of 6 plots were explored, over 3 habitat types using 2 plots in each habitat type.

3.1 Habitats explored Three habitat types with varying levels of disturbance were explored so that comparisons could be made and conclusions drawn over their ability to sustain diverse populations of small mammals.

3.1.1. Primary forest The remaining primary forest in the reserve, illustrated by the dark green areas in figure 2.3c, only exists in fragmented sections at the very tops of the mountainous terrain, above 1,000m in elevation (KFBG, 2002). These areas remained un-touched, as they were inaccessible by road when the forest was being logged up until 1994 (KFBG, 2002). Although there is still some level of disturbance in this primary forest, in the form of tourism, it is relatively pristine in its vegetation construction and the canopy height here reaches up to around 25-40m in some of the remote areas, indicating the existence of very old and established tree (KFBG, 2002). This habitat will be used as a control as the flora and fauna species we find here should indicate what an undisturbed environment should resemble.

3.1.2 Secondary forest Although there are some areas of scrub and grassland that have been heavily grazed by cattle, the majority of remaining habitat is made up of secondary forest, indicated by the lighter green areas in figure 2.3c. Much of this forest has been intensively logged and some areas have been cleared and planted with monoculture fir trees, which are now in a re- generation stage. As logging was outlawed in 1994, this habitat should have been fairly

17 undisturbed for around 17 years, but much of the secondary forest is easily accessible by road and is visited by many tourists annually. Although hunting in the National Park is banned, there are signs that it is still common practice here, as it easily accessible by road and there is little surveillance.

3.1.3 Plantations There were no active plantations within the National Park therefore it was necessary to travel 20km south. Two plantation types were investigated to establish if different species of plantation affect species abundance differently. Firstly a rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis), plantation was explored, a species which is rapidly increasing as an agricultural commodity across the island. This plantation had shrubby secondary forest surrounding it on two sides and another species of monoculture planation adjoining the other side of it. The plantation owner visited on a weekly basis and staff collected the rubber regularly but did not live on the site, although there was habitation about 100m away. From local knowledge we know that this plantation was established in 1989.

The second plantation is a species of Areca palm (Areca catechu) (Gupta et al., 2002), which produces a fruit that is globally known as the ‘betel nut’. Within China, this fruit is predominantly grown in Hainan and is used as a traditional Chinese medicine, which has been grown for this purpose for over 1,500 years (Wikipedia, 2011). The fruit is chewed and is said to give a ‘pleasant tipsy feeling’ (Gupta et al., 2002). The terrain and vegetation is similar to that of the Hevea brasiliensis plantation. The owner of the plantation lives on the site and has 3 dogs and some chickens that roam the plantation. There were also some rubber tree saplings scattered within the plantation. The surrounding land is a mixture of invasive vines and other plantation crops. The plantation was established in 1986 but according to local people some of the other surrounding plantations were established as early as 1964.

3.2 Pilot study A brief pilot study was carried out at Yinggeling Nature Reserve. The location of this site is shown in figure 2.3(b). Ten live traps and 5 camera traps were set in a grid formation, 30m apart over a 24 hour period. This gave an opportunity to test various bait types and reveal

18 any problems with the mechanics and set up of the cameras and live traps. Several baits were tested and due to a combination of practicalities, previous suggestions and success of capture rates, an amalgamation of peanuts, seeds and ripe local bananas was chosen.

The pilot study revealed numerous problems with the way in which the cameras were set up. Originally being set up at a vertical angle, tied to a tree at ground level, the resulting images were not detailed enough and not picking up the small mammals at ground level. The cameras are designed to capture shots of larger mammals and the flash is strong enough to expose a vast area to ensure the animal can be identified. There are few experiments that have used camera traps to research small mammals but De Bondi et al., (2010) adapted a method of fixing the cameras horizontally, about 1.7 meters above the bait. This method was adopted but consequently the image became over exposed due to the high intensity flash in too small an area. To address this problem we used masking tape to dull the flash in order to get more usable images. Where possible the cameras were attached to horizontal branches at approximately 1.5 meters height. This resulted in a much clearer image.

The live traps also needed several alterations to ensure that the animals were not injured in the traps and that they had shelter from the elements. These included a pedal mechanism to ensure the animal entered fully into the trap before the door was triggered, preventing it becoming caught in the trap door. A bamboo bar across the inside of the trap door to stop it sitting flush to the body of the trap thus preventing tails being trapped in the mechanism. Lastly, a plastic cover was placed over the top of each trap to protect animals from the elements.

3.3 Populations estimate methods Two methods were used to estimate the relative abundance and richness of species. Camera traps were used capture the maximum number of individuals possible with the minimum amount of disturbance and distress to the animals. Although the camera traps took a high quality (12 mega pixel) shot of the animal it did not allow us to identify the species easily as the majority of activity was nocturnal resulting in unclear, black and white imagery, making it much more difficult to identify the species. A live trap method was used

19 in the same plots at the same time as the cameras. This method did not maximise the catch-ability of species as only one individual could be caught in each trap over a 24 hour deployment, but it gave us the opportunity to more accurately identify species. Combining these methods maximised my ability to accurately estimate the abundance of species in each habitat type whilst also allowing us to look in more detail at the richness and diversity amongst the small mammal communities that the cameras are monitoring.

3.3.1 Camera Traps Ten LTL 5210A, 12 megapixel scouting cameras in each plot were set within a 120-meter grid, with 60 meters between each camera. Each camera was set to take a sequence of three pictures, over a six second time scale and then ceased from taking another picture for a 30 second period before the camera could be re-triggered. This time lapse was set to ensure that the same individual was not continuously recorded in a short space of time. Each sequence of three pictures is classified as one visit. Empty frames were deleted and where animals could not be identified, such as when most of the animal is out of the frame or the picture is too blurred, the image was disregarded.

Each camera operates with a motion sensitive trigger and an infra-red flash. After the pilot study, the cameras were set using the method described above, which maximized the image quality. They recorded four days and four nights of activity over a 96-hour time period. They also recorded the date, time and temperature at every shot taken. In the primary and secondary forest plots the cameras were attached to horizontal branches but in the plantations, due to a lack of branches, a wire system was arranged between two trees and the camera brackets were fed through the wire, fixing it at the correct horizontal height above where the bait had been set. To enable the accurate measurement of individuals in each frame, a 50cm metal tape measure was fixed on the ground in front of each camera. The immediate surrounding vegetation and leaf litter was cleared from the area to prevent false triggers and ensure a clearer image of the animal. Figure 3.1 show the camera set up in Primary and Secondary forest and the plantations (A+B) and shows an example image of a small mammal caught by the camera trap (C).

20 A B

C

Fig 3.1. (A) An illustration of a typical camera set up in the Primary and Secondary forest locations. The camera is outlined by the yellow box. (B) Shows the set up of the camera on a wire rail in the plantation plots, again, outlined by the yellow box. (C) An example image of a nocturnal rodent taken on the camera traps. It shows the date and time in the bottom right hand corner and the temperature at the bottom in the middle.

Even with alterations to the cameras the images were still not of the best quality and the majority of species could not be identified and therefore had to be grouped into small rodent (80-170mm), medium rodent (170-210mm) and large rodent (210+mm) categories. The species that could be identified from their distinguishable features were noted as a separate species. It is possible that we can look at the species caught in the live traps to give us a better idea of what these species groups may consist of.

3.3.2 Live Traps At each plot a total of 20 local live wire traps were used, 10 of each, of two sizes, to ensure capture of the widest range of small mammals. The dimensions of the traps were; 34cm x 14cm x 12cm and 24cm x 11cm x 10cm. The traps had to be modified as described above in order to ensure the animals were not injured during capture. Figure 3.2 illustrates the mechanism used in the modified traps. A plastic cover was also places over the top at the

21 far end of the trap to shelter the animal from the elements. The smaller traps worked on the same mechanism.

Trigger

Lock

Block

Bait Springs

Pulley/ pivot Pedal

Figure 3.2. Outlines the mechanisms of the larger live traps used. As the animal steps on the pedal to get to the bait the pulley will move forward, releasing the trigger bar, in turn releasing the door, which is pulled shut by the springs. The lock bar will automatically move down the runner to secure the door closed. The block is in place to prevent the door closing flush to the trap, thus avoiding tail injuries to the animals.

At each plot we placed alternately sized traps within a 120m grid, placing each trap at 30m intervals. Traps were set in the morning, the first being set at around 7.30am and last at around 12 noon, depending on weather and terrain conditions. Traps were all set on the ground and were either covered with clear plastic or natural vegetation to protect the animals from the elements. Vegetation information was collected at each trap point and pictures were taken of floral species to be further identified at a later stage.

Traps were checked every morning between 7am and 11am over 4 consecutive days. When individuals were caught in the traps they were encouraged into a clear plastic bag, photographed and weighed, using scales with a 0.01g accuracy. Individuals were identified in the field where possible, but measurements of head, body, tail, hind foot and ear, using calipers, were also taken to help identify the species further in the analysis stage, primarily using Smith and Xie’s (2008) ‘Guide to Mammals of China’. Animals were only handled when clearer photos were required of specific body parts. The sex and condition of each animal was also noted along with any abnormalities, injuries and vocalisations. There were

22 some species caught in the traps that could not be identified and were therefore grouped into the same rodent categories that were used when analyzing the camera trap data. These were used in addition to the species that could be identified. There is a possibility that some of the grouped category individuals may be species that have their own categories but further analysis by a rodent expert is required to achieve more detailed results.

3.4 Plot set up Each of the primary and secondary plots were at least 200m any roads and villages and also from any other alternative habitat type. This was not possible for the plantation plots due to the smaller size of the plots the surrounding landscape. The grid reference and elevation levels were recorded at each trap site to be mapped a later stage.

GPS was used to map each point and a 30m tape measure was used measure distance between traps. A range finder was used to assist with measuring canopy height and accurately judge the distance of trees (>10DBH) within 5m radius of each trap. Due to inaccessibility difficulties and weather constraints only 15 live traps and 7 camera traps were set in the first primary forest plot and only 18 live traps and 9 camera traps were set in the second primary forest plot.

3.5 Collection of vegetation data A total of forty data points were collected in each habitat type. Seven vegetation and land cover characteristics were noted at each of the data points, which were the points at where the live traps were placed. These were then compared between primary forest and secondary forest and primary forest and Plantation habitats. The habitat components were chosen to give some indication of the level of disturbance to the habitat and the quality of the environment as an ecosystem for different species. Elements investigated were;

• Percentage rock cover • Percentage canopy cover • Percentage leaf litter cover

23 • Percentage shrub cover • Canopy Height (m) • Number of trees with a DBH >10cm, within 5m radius of trap/camera – • Elevation above sea level (m)

3.6 Statistical analysis Comparison tests were run between the habitat types using the statistical pack SPSS. Firstly the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality was used to determine if data is normally distributed and therefore which comparison tests will be appropriate to use. Following a result of unevenly distributed data an ANOVO test could not be used as it violated the assumptions for this test, therefore a Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to measure if there was a significant difference in relative abundance between the habitat types. This method was used for both camera data and live trap data as both methods had non-normally distributed data. More detailed comparisons were then performed on each set of abundance data to see which of the habitats significantly differed to each other. This was achieved by using t-tests and Mann-Whitney-U tests, dependent on if their data was normally distributed or not. The mean relative abundance in each habitat was then calculated and illustrated in the form of a bar graph for the camera trap data and the live trap data.

To investigate the habitat in more detail, several comparisons were made between vegetation characteristics within the different habitat types. Again, the Kolmogorov- Smirnov test of normality was used to determine what comparison tests would be appropriate for various comparisons. Independent T-tests were used on normally distributed data. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests were performed on non-normally distributed data, to identify which of the various vegetation characteristics differ significantly between the habitat types. The same statistical tests were used to compare the two plots within plantation habitat to investigate if the vegetation factors differed between them. These tests were only performed on live trap data.

24 To investigate the diversity of species between each of the habitats the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index equation was used: HPPln ʹ =−∑ ii( )

Where Pi is the relative abundance of each group of organisms And H’ is The Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index

This is affected by the number of species and their relative abundance within a community. When the H’ value is 0 the population is at its least diverse.

Finally we looked at species evenness of the small mammal communities within each of the habitats. This used the Pielou’s evenness Index equation; H! J! = H max

Where H’ is taken from the Shannon-Weaver Diversity index and Hmax is the maximum possible value of H’, calculated using the equation; 11 Hsmax =−ln= ln ( s) ss Where S is the total number of species

This is a measure from 1-0, with values approaching 1, indicating equal abundance across all species in the community.

The mean values of each species occurring in each habitat type was also calculated and expressed in a graph so that comparisons could be made on individual species. This was achieved for both methods.

25 4. Results

The data collected from the camera traps and the data collected from the live traps will be analysed separately, but comparisons between their outcomes and effectiveness as a method of analysis will be discussed at a later stage. As data were collected by the same observer and sampling time in both plots in all habitat types were the same and therefore data from both plots was pooled to represent one habitat type.

The camera traps recorded a total of 1379 visits on individuals to bait through out the three habitat types, over an 8 day period, the majority of which were unidentifiable and therefore grouped into categories. Of these, 1076 were small rodents (HB: 80-170mm), 137 were grouped as medium rodents (HB: 170-210mm) and 85 were grouped as large rodents (HB>210mm). The remaining individuals consisted of three species that are likely to be the Northern tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri), Pallas Squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus) and the Chinese White-Toothed shrew (Crocidura rapax). There were 13 Tree shrews, 2 squirrels and 4 shrews in total.

The live traps captured much fewer individuals but more species were identified, as it was possible to get more accurate measures and look at pelage colouration etc. In total there were 92 Individuals caught throughout all three habitats, over 8 days. Although identification was easier there were still several individuals that could not be identified and were therefore grouped into the same categories as for the camera traps. Of the species caught were; 49 Indomalayan Niviventer (Niviventer fulvenscens), 19 Lesser Marmoset Rats (Hapalomys delacouri), 5 Tree shrew (Tupaia belangeri), 2 Edward’s Leopoldamys rats (Leopoldamys edwardsi) and 2 Losea rats (Rattus losea). The remaining unidentifiable individuals were grouped into the same categories as in the camera traps. Within those groups there were 4 small rodents, 8 medium rodents and 3 large rodents.

Species that could be amongst the small rodent category listed for the camera traps could include the Indomalayan Niviventer and the Lesser marmoset rat. These two species were very similar in their size an appearance. Both species have a head and body length of less than 170mm and common in these habitat types (Smith and Xia et al., 2008). The Losea rat

26 would also be categorized in the small rodent group but has a different pelage from Indomalayan Niviventer and Lesser Marmoset rat and does not tend exist in habitat above 1,000m (Smith and Xia et al., 2008). Edward’s Leopolamys is a very large rodent species of more than 210mm in head and body length and would be put in the category of large rodent.

The identification of these species was based on body measurements taken, pelage colouration and other identifiable features. The habitat in which these species were recorded to exist in was also taken into consideration (Smith and Xia, 2008).

Species were easier to identify in the live traps but it is suspected that many species would not enter the traps due to their sensitive nature. On balance, we were able to classify more species from live trap data, which gave a better understanding as to the identification of less distinguishable species caught on the camera images.

4.1 Total abundance comparisons across three habitat types

4.1.1. Camera traps Statistical analysis results showed that there is a significant difference between Primary forest and Secondary forest, Primary forest and Plantation and Secondary forest and Plantation relative abundance. The values are displayed in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Show the P-values calculated for comparisons between Primary forest, Secondary forest and Plantation habitats measured by camera trap. The U values from the Mann-Whitney tests and the t value and degrees o freedom used for t-tests are also displayed. Habitats compared Test type t/u Value DF P-Value

PF/SF T-test 2.838 23.202 0.009 PF/PL Mann-Whitney 34.5 N/A 0.0001 SF/PL Mann-Whitney 65.5 N/A 0.0001

Total relative abundance of small mammals is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and it is clear from this graph that there is a difference between the overall species abundance between the

Primary forest, Secondary forest and Plantation. Primary forest has the highest relative

27 abundance at 43 visits, with secondary forest only showing a mean of 20 visits, which is under half the of primary forest abundance. Plantation relative abundance drops by more than half again, totalling a mean of just 8.75 visits, although this is a higher than expected to be observed here. This high number was mainly due to 3 outlying points recorded in the Areca plantation. These abnormally high records did not concur with the rest of the points in this habitat types and may skew the data somewhat giving an unrealistic representation of the relative abundance in that habitat type.

60 P<0.001

50

40

30

20 Relative abundance

10

0 PF SF PL Habitat type

Figure 4.1. Shows the difference in mean relative abundance between each of the habitats, measured by total visits in both plots by all species over 8 days of data collection. The error bars show the amount of uncertainty in the data. The P- value for over comparisons is also shown which was calculated using a Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test.

These results show that relative abundance is not similar in secondary forest to that of primary forest and in fact decreases significantly, indicating that moderate levels as well as high levels of disturbance have a significant impact on the relative species abundance here.

4.1.1.1 Variation in abundance within habitat type The variation between the data collected at each different camera point was substantial. This illustrates that each area has differing habitat elements that may determine which species inhabit it and how they utilise it. For example, within the Primary forest habitat, one camera picks up on as few as 4 and as many as 102 visits over a four day period. Each

28 camera performed to differing qualities and some malfunctioned throughout the data collection period. This should be taken into consideration when looking at points individually.

4.1.2. Live traps Again, mean abundance was compared across habitat type but this time monitored by the live traps. A non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the overall data to compare abundance between habitat types. This resulted in a very significant difference (p <0.0001). Comparisons were then made between individual sets of data to compare habitats and the P- values obtained from these comparison tests are displayed in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Show the P-values calculated for comparisons between Primary forest, Secondary forest and Plantation habitats. The U values from the Mann-Whitney tests are also displayed.

Habitats compared Test type u Value P-Value

PF/SF Mann-Whitney 588.5 0.404

PF/PL Mann-Whitney 131.5 0.0001

SF/PL Mann-Whitney 300.5 0.0001

The only habitat comparison to not show a significant difference in mean relative abundance is Primary forest and Secondary forest. We can see from figure 4.2 that Primary forest is only slightly higher in its mean relative abundance than Secondary forest but plantation is a lot lower. For this reason we can accept the Null hypotheses and conclude that Primary forest and Secondary forest are similar in relative abundance but Plantation is significantly lower.

29 1.60 P<0.0001 1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60 Relative abundnace 0.40

0.20

0.00 PF SF PL Habitat type

Figure 4.2. Shows the difference in mean relative abundance, measured by the number of captures in all of the traps in each habitat type over an 8-day period. It also shows the P-Value of the overall comparison between the habitat types, calculated using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Error bars indicate the amount of uncertainty in the data.

4.2. Richness comparisons between the different habitat types

4.2.1. Camera traps The richness of species detected in each habitat type was analyzed as this is an important indicator of the quality of the habitat and which species are more adaptable to disturbed habitat types.

Table 4.3 lists the species found in each habitat type and it can be seen that, although both primary forest and secondary forest have the same richness number, the cameras have picked up on a species of shrew that occurs in the plantations and secondary forest but does not occur in primary forest. There is also a rodent species in the plantation that does not occur in primary or secondary forest and species of Squirrel that occurs in the primary forest but not in either of the other two habitat types.

30 Table 4.3 lists the various species found in each of the habitat types monitored by camera traps over an 8- day duration. The total number is the richness value for each habitat type.

Species PF SF PL Small rodent ✔ ✔ ✔ Medium rodent ✔ ✔ ✖

Large rodent ✔ ✔ ✖ Tree Shrew ✔ ✔ ✖ Shrew ✖ ✔ ✔ Squirrel ✔ ✖ ✖

Total 5 5 2

These results show that primary forest and secondary forest are similar in their richness but the plantations measure a much lower richness, accepting our Null hypotheses, that richness will be similar in secondary forest but much lower in plantation, than primary forest.

4.2.2 Live Traps It is clear from this data that the plantations are less species rich than primary and secondary forest. Table 4.4 reveals that there is species inhabiting the primary forest that do not occur in the secondary forest. These three species were Tree shrew, Edwards Leopoldamys and the larger rodent species category. This indicates that these species do not adapt well to secondary forest and there may be some vegetation characteristics within these habitats that indicate which environmental requirements are essential for the survival of these species.

Table 4.4 lists the various species found in each of the habitat types monitored by Live traps over an 8 day duration. The total number is the richness value for each habitat type Species PF SF PL Indomalayan Niviventer ✔ ✔ ✔ Lesser Marmoset rat ✔ ✔ ✖ Tree Shrew ✔ ✖ ✖ Small rodent ✔ ✔ ✖ Medium rodent ✔ ✔ ✖ Large rodent ✔ ✖ ✖ Edwards leopoldamys ✔ ✖ ✖ Losea Rat ✖ ✖ ✔ Total 7 4 2

31 The results from the live trap data reject the Null hypotheses as secondary forest richness is a lot lower than primary forest, but it agrees with the Null hypotheses whereby the richness is much lower for plantation.

4.3 Comparison of diversity and evenness of species between habitats The results of the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H’) and the Pielou’s Evenness Index (J) are both shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.5. Shows the measure of diversity of species within each of the habitat types, in the form of Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index (H’) and a measure of species evenness (J) within each habitat type. Method Habitat SW Diversity index (H') Species Evenness (J) Camera Primary forest 0.87 0.54 Secondary forest 0.22 0.14 Plantation 0.09 0.12 Live Trap Primary forest 1.63 0.84 Secondary forest 0.89 0.64 Plantation 0.64 0.92

It can be seen from the resulting values that both survey methods record primary forest as highest in its diversity and plantations as lowest in their diversity. The camera data indicates that Secondary forest and Plantation both have highly un-even communities, while the Primary forest is relatively even. The Live trap data shows conflicting results here as so few individuals were caught in the traps in the plantation and therefore the value is indicating a high level of evenness across species. Only 3 individuals were caught in the plantations of two species, resulting in very evenly distributed data. Secondary forest is showing the lowest value indicating that the rodent community is consistently more dominant by a few species. Primary forest evenness is also high in live trap data, indicating relatively little dominance by the minority species.

4.3.1 Species abundance across habitat types

4.3.1.1 Camera traps

Looking at the data in more detail we can start to compare differences between individual species abundance in each of the habitats. Figure 4.3 illustrates the mean abundance of each different species within each of the habitat types. It is evident from this graph that there is one species group that dominates each of the habitats, which is the small rodent

32 category. This may be one or multiple species but the images are not clear enough to make differentiation between these species. Medium rodents are more abundant in primary forest than secondary forest and plantation habitat but larger rodents inhabit the Secondary forest more than the primary forest. It can also be seen that Tree shrews occur in low numbers in the primary forest and the secondary forest, although slightly higher in abundance in the primary forest. It is not very clear from the graph but a species of shrew was detected in both secondary forest and plantation habitats.

40

35

30

25

Small rodent 20 Medium rodent Large rodent Tree shrew 15 Squirrel

Mean Relative abundance Shrew 10

5

0 PF SF PL

-5 Habitat type

Fig 4.3. Shows the mean relative abundance measured of each species group measured by the number of visits made to the camera traps within each habitat types over an 8-day duration. The standard error bars give us an indication of the uncertainly within the data. The coloured arrows point out data that is very minimal and may be difficult to identify on this graph (colours represent species).

33 4.3.1.2 Live traps Again, the mean species relative abundance within habitat type was investigated more closely. It can be seen from Figure 4.4 that more species have been identified when using this method. It is also apparent that the specie that adapts most adequately to secondary forest is the Indomalayan Niviventer. This species dominates both primary and secondary forest habitats, occurring more frequently in secondary forest. The second most highly abundant specie in both forest habitats is the Lesser Marmoset rat, which is similar to the

1

Indomalayan Niviventer 0.8 Marmoset rat Tree shrew Small rodent 0.6 Medium rodent Large rodent Edward's Leopoldamys 0.4 Losea rat Mean relative abundance

0.2

0 PF SF PL

-0.2 Habitat Type

Fig. 4.4 Shows the total relative abundance measured of each species group measured by the number of captures of each species caught the live traps within each habitat types over an 8 day duration. The standard error bars give an indication of uncertainty within the data indomalayan Niviventer in size but it is much more arboreal in its nature (Smith and xia et al., 2008). Of these two species, only the Indomalayan Niviventer occurs in plantation habitat, but at a very low relative abundance, suggesting that neither of these species do well in highly disturbed environments. The other species found in the plantation is the

34 Losea rat, but again, at a low number. It suggests that this species has adapted to highly disturbed habitats. The tree shrew is fairly well represented in Primary forest but was not captured in either of the other habitats, but we know it occurs in secondary forest habitat as the camera traps have recorded it here.

When combining the results of the two analysis methods we can see that in total, a minimum of 8 species occur in Primary forest, 5 species occur in Secondary forest and 3 species occur in Plantation.

These results allow us to accept the Null hypotheses as the highly disturbed habitat has a much lower diversity than that of Primary forest. These graphs also show that some species adapt well to disturbed environments than others, allowing the acceptance of the Null hypotheses, that some species adapt better to disturbed habitats than others.

4.4. Establishing if vegetation and land cover characteristics affect species abundance. The analysis so far has indicated that there are significant differences in the species composition and abundance between the habitat types. These habitat types offer different vegetation and land cover components, which are essential or desirable for particular species. It is important to investigate the vegetation differences between habitats to get an understanding of how the vegetation differs and what affects these differences have on species abundance and diversity.

4.4.1 Vegetation comparisons across habitat types The data from each individual data point can be seen in Figure 6.1 in the appendix but the mean measurements of each of the vegetation characteristics in each of the habitat types are summarized in Figure 4.5. This illustrates which vegetation characteristics dominate which of the habitat types and can then be linked to further trends in species abundance within these habitat types.

It can be seen from the graph that in most cases the Primary forest measurements are highest for each vegetation characteristic and plantation measures are considerably lower,

35 with secondary forest measuring midway. The exceptions to this are rock cover and the number of trees with a DBH>10cm, within a 5m radius of the traps. The plantations had a lot of monoculture trees that had a >10cm DBH, which may give a misleading account of mature trees present. If the monoculture trees were not included in the survey the value in this habitat would be zero or extremely low.

80 Canopy cover 8 Number of Trees Canopy Height Leaf litter 20 90 80 60 6 15 70 60 50 40 4 10 40 30

20 2 5 % Leaf litter 20 % Canopy Cover

Canopy Height (m) 10 0 0 No. of trees DBH>10cm 0 0 PF SF PL PF SF PL PF SF PL PF SF PL

Shrub cover 60 Rock cover 1200 Elevation 80

50 1000 60 40 800

40 30 600

20 400 % Shrub Cover

Elevation (m) 20 200 % Rock cover 10

0 0 0 PF SF PL PF SF PL PF SF PL

Fig 4.5. Shows the mean values from the live trap points for each of the vegetation characteristics. These are shown for each of the three habitat types, Primary forest, Secondary forest and Plantation. The error bars indicate the amount of uncertainty in the data.

Multiple comparison tests were performed to analyse if the differences between each of the vegetation types between primary forest and secondary forest and primary forest and plantation were significant or not. The P- Values generated from these tests and the tests performed on each set of data are listed in Table 4.6. This table also shows the means generated at each habitat, the test used to compare the data and the t or u value generated from the appropriate test. Degrees of freedom used for t-tests data was 71 although no. of trees showed a non significant difference therefore degrees of freedom were calculated as 60.6 and 42.4 respectively. These graphs illustrate that each of the

36 habitats differ in their vegetation characteristics, accepting the Null hypotheses that vegetation characteristics are not the same in the different habitat types. Table 4.6. Shows the mean of each vegetation characteristic in each of the habitats. It also shows the P- values calculated to establish if the difference in the means between Primary forest and Secondary forest and Primary forest and Plantation is significantly different or not. Non-significantly different values are highlighted in green. The t value taken from the t-tests and the U value taken from the Mann- Whitney U tests are also shown. The tests used to compare each pair of data points, dependent on if the data was evenly distributed or not is indicated in the Test column: TT= t-tests, MW= Mann-Whitney-U tests.

Comparison of PF and SF vegetation Comparison of PF and PL veg. Veg. type PF SF Test P-Val T/U PL Test P-Val T/U Value value % Rock Cover 21.06 5.93 MW 0.000 320 51.50 MW 0.000 256 % Canopy cov. 68.79 53.50 MW 0.000 296 25.90 MW 0.000 48.5 Canopy height 16.79 14.48 MW 0.019 452.5 9.75 MW 0.000 117.5 % Leaf litter 76.67 71.88 TT 0.166 1.399 21.38 TT 0.000 16.7 % Shrub cover 73.18 64.13 MW 0.009 428 50.25 MW 0.000 206 No. of Trees 6.03 4.78 TT 0.002 3.169 6.58 TT 0.508 -6.66 Elevation 1027 946 MW 0.000 95.0 178 TT 0.000 107

The data from the comparisons of primary forest and secondary forest shows significant P- values for all vegetation characteristics apart from percentage leaf litter cover and number of trees is the only non-significant P-value when comparing primary forest and plantation. These results tell us that percentage leaf litter cover is similar in primary forest and secondary forest and that this should not have an affect on the abundance and diversity of small mammals. Similarly, number of trees should also not have an affect on species inhabiting primary forest and plantations, although, as previously mentioned, this result may be a misleading outcome and if tested without mono-culture trees, would show a significant difference. All the other vegetation characteristics result in a significant P-value, which tells us that they vary significantly across habitat type.

Rock cover dramatically increases in plantations. This is mainly due to the steeped landscaping that is required in the plantations for accessibility and stability of the site when growing monoculture plantations. Percentage canopy cover and canopy height decrease from primary forest to secondary forest and from secondary forest to plantation

37 and number of trees with a DBH >10cm theoretically decreases in the same manner if it is taken into account that plantation tree species are not considered mature trees. Elevation decreases slightly in secondary forest locations but there is a substantial difference when looking at plantation locations. A lower elevation of this magnitude may have substantially affected the species that occur here, therefore this needs to be taken into consideration as differences between these habitat types may not be due disturbance but may be because these species do not occur at this altitude.

4.5 Comparisons between two plantation plots Variation in abundance between the two different species of plantation was also investigated. Comparison tests showed a significant difference in relative abundance (p<0.0001). There were 175 individuals recorded in the Areca plantation and only 3 individuals recorded in the rubber plantation.

Comparison tests also showed significant differences in canopy height, leaf litter, shrub cover and elevation. These factors may have some influence on relative abundance here, for example may have contributed to better protection from predators and therefore an increased abundance in the Areca plantation. The two sites also differed in the fact that there was habitation on Areca plot with the addition of disturbances such as dogs and chickens, which also gave rise to readily available food for small mammals such as rodents. These factors should be considered, as it is likely that they will influence relative abundance between the two sites.

38 5. Discussion

5.1 Small mammal abundance, richness, diversity and evenness Essentially both evaluation methods show a general decline in total relative abundance through primary forest, secondary forest and plantation respectively, indicating a high level of disturbance such as land conversion to monoculture plantations, has a highly negative impact on relative abundance of species. Live trap data only showed a significant result between primary forest and plantation and secondary forest and plantation but no significant difference between primary forest and secondary forest. However, the graph does show a small decline here which indicates moderate levels of disturbance, such as previous logging pressures, have less of a negative affect on some, more adaptable species. The live trap data relates better to the Null hypotheses that relative abundance will be similar or higher in moderately disturbed habitats to Primary forest but significantly lower in plantations.

From my richness and evenness data it seems clear that, as habitats become more disturbed, dominant species continue to increase whilst the more vulnerable, less abundant species decrease, agreeing with Ranamanamjato et al., (2001) who suggests that competition for space by invasive species such as Rattus rattus and other rodents that do well in disturbed habitats may wipe out other vulnerable species. Research by Laidlaw (2000), Bernard (2009) and Wu et al., (1996), also found that some species adapt well to different levels of disturbed environments. Diaoluoshan Nature Reserve shows similar trends to this previous data as my data also shows that some rodent species increase in number in secondary forest, such as the Indomalayan Niviventer, whilst other species, such as Tree shrews, which already showed low abundance in primary forest, reduce in number or do not exist in secondary forest at all. Plantations exhibit a species that has adapted to highly disturbed habitats that does not seem to occur in forested habitats. This may be a species that naturally does not occur at higher elevations, but it is likely that it has adapted to live on cultivated land and near human habitation and has outcompeted other, less adaptable species.

39 Through my own observations it is clear that, although hunting is illegal in china, it is evident that it still occurs regularly here. Rodents are eaten here and local people informed me that when rodents are caught in the forest (alive), and are too small for consumption they will be released, but larger individuals will be killed. The secondary forest is also much more accessible to hunters than the primary forest as the primary forest is mostly at higher altitude and with no road access. These factors could contribute to the lower numbers of larger species or rodents in the secondary forest.

5.2 Correlations between vegetation characteristics and relative abundance Leaf litter is the only vegetation characteristic that does not significantly differ between primary forest and secondary forest. This indicates that species that utilize leaf litter as a source of food should not lose out from any reduction of food in secondary forest. This could include species such as shrews and the endemic Hainan gymnure (Hylomys hainanensis) that are insectivorous in their diet, and feed on insects and other detritus inhabitants (Smith & Xia 2008). If we refer back to figures 4.3 and 4.4, when looking at species occurring in these habitat types, it can be seen that tree shrews were recorded in primary and secondary forest and Shrews were recorded in secondary forest, indicating that both habitats provide the required food sources for such species. However, shrew species were also noted in plantations, which have much lower leaf litter coverage, indicating it may not be a crucial habitat characteristic for this particular species. Although, it is worth noting that there was high numbers of ants observed in plantations which may be a good food source for small shrew species, especially very small species such as the Chinese White-toothed Shrew (Species Research JHS Ecology, 2011), but perhaps not plentiful enough for Tree shrew species. My data supports that of Tree shrew research carried out by Stuebing and Gaisis (1989) and Emmonds (2000), who showed only a reduced number of tree shrews in moderately disturbed habitats but elimination of this species in highly disturbed habitats. This implies that the food source for these species may still be available in secondary forest for these species but other dominant species may be out competing them for habitat space. They may also be affected by other disturbance factors not measured in our research.

40 Shrub cover influences a number of ground-dwelling small mammal species as it provides protection from predators, and also provides a source of food and some level of nesting materials. My research shows a decrease in relative abundance as shrub cover decreases, indicating there is a correlation here.

Characteristics related to trees such as number of trees >10cm DBH, canopy height and canopy cover relate more to arboreal species such as the Pallas Squirrel, Northern Tree Shrew and the Lesser Marmoset Rat. These species spend more time in the canopy searching for food and often nest in tree holes or in the canopy itself (Smith & Xia, 2008). This may be a reason why, as these vegetation characteristics decrease across these habitats, so do most of the species mentioned above in my data. Canopy cover may also influence the amount of light availability for forest floor flora species which may also influence food availability for some small mammal species but also, if large gaps in the canopy are evident this may open up opportunity for birds of prey to spot and target small mammals. These characteristics will also have an influence on the food availability for ground dwelling species.

The rock cover in plantation habitat differed to that of forested habitats as it consisted of lots of smaller more compact forms of rock whereas the forested rock cover consisted of larger more spread out rock clusters, therefore rock cover was substantially higher in plantations, more so in the Areca plantation. Rocky outcrops can be used by some small rodent species for cover from predators and often nesting sites (Briani et al., 2001) and may be an indicator as to why there is a high relative abundance of small rodent species in plantations.

Vegetation characteristics change as habitats become more disturbed, changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. For example, taking out large trees opens up the canopy and lets more light into the forest floor, allowing more shrubs and new trees to grow. It reduces competition on other species of flora, allowing them to increase and grow, such as invasive species or smaller saplings that would have otherwise died out. It reduces availability of nesting sites for arboreal small mammal species and reduces the amount of birds nesting in the trees, therefore reducing eggs and small birds as a food source for

41 carnivorous species. The results from this research show us that the vegetation in Primary forest and Secondary forest is significantly different and therefore will support a different range of species, supporting the Null hypotheses that vegetation will not be the same across the different habitat types.

5.3 comparison of survey method effectiveness Although both methods statistically show that there is a significant difference in relative abundance between primary forest and plantation, they clearly differ in their result of relative abundance comparisons between primary forest and secondary forest, with Live traps showing no significant difference and camera traps showing a very significant difference. These differences in results could be due to the inability of the live traps to catch more than eight small mammals over the deployment period whereas the camera traps would catch repetitive visits of individuals. Once the live traps reached their full capacity (of 1 individual), the rest of the possible population in the area could not be counted. Table 5.1 outlines the Strengths and weaknesses of these two methodologies and suggests improvements that could be made to maximise performance of both methods.

Table 5.1 Outlining strengths and weaknesses of both camera trap and live trap methods and suggests possible improvements that could be implemented in future research. Method Strengths Weaknesses Possible Improvements Camera 1. High detection rate 1. Lack of robust 1. Longer Pilot study to trap 2. Easier to carry guidelines experiment with set up 3. Improved welfare 2. Unidentifiable pictures 2. Use of silicone inside cameras 4. Captures visits from 3. Malfunctions to prevent humidity build up all species types 4. Time consuming set up 3. Uniform method of setting camera’s up at same heights and angles. Live 1. Species could be 1. Only capture one 1. Use Mark recapture method traps closely examined and individual at a time to get a better understanding therefore identified therefore hard to of population size easier. estimate a population 2. Use purpose build traps size 3. Use nesting materials inside 2. Adaptations time traps. consuming 4. Check more regularly 3. Stressful to animals 5. Adapt method to increase 4. Animals away from appeal of trap e.g. dig slightly possible offspring into the ground 5. Heavy and difficult to 6. Put some traps at different transport levels e.g. in trees 6. Sensitive species may not enter trap

42

Cameras had equal strengths and weaknesses but I found the main problem to be a lack of robust guidelines for use of this method for small mammals, to some extent, resulting in our methods being exploratory. Unidentifiable and blurred pictures due to malfunctions and nocturnal or crepuscular activity resulting in black and white shots often led to images being discarded. Malfunctions due to weather condition and camera set up often stopped cameras working or made images over exposed, but many of these problems could be rectified in future research. Using this method, from a practicality point of view, was much easier and much less time consuming and prevented animals becoming stressed by being handled and kept away from possible offspring, such as with live traps. Although live trap methods had many weaknesses, the fact that individuals could be closely identified made a big difference to the richness and diversity results.

These two methods work well when used together as live trap identifications can be used to help identify the much higher number of species recorded by the camera traps. As camera traps improve and adaptations are made for clearer identification in pictures, this method would be a better option for small mammal observations over a live trap option.

5.4 Biodiversity in modified landscapes

5.4.1 Future uses for the results if this data With agricultural practices continuing to be a growing threat there is concern that negative impacts to biodiversity as a whole are possible (Green et al., 2005). With food consumption expected to increase 2-3 fold by 2050 (Green et al., 2005), there is an urgent need to change the intensive manner in which we intensively farm in order to protect and retain biodiversity in all habitat types. The results from this research will contribute to ongoing investigations into improvements of agricultural practices such as research into which vegetation characteristics change as disturbance increases and at what level certain species start to increase or decrease due to these disturbances. It could also contribute to species-specific research such as investigating what habitat types Lesser tree shrews occur in and how populations react to different levels of disturbance. Results from this study may also contribute to methods in which forests and protected areas can be efficiently

43 managed to maximise protection of biodiversity, such determining which vegetation characteristics should be prioritized for improvement or intensive management in Secondary forest habitat in order to increase biodiversity. It may also be used to prioritize specific species for protection and monitoring, as they may be more highly sensitive to habitat change than other species.

5.4. Wildlife friendly farming ‘v’ land sparing Green et al., (2005) discuss two alternative methods that may contribute to retaining biodiversity rich environments. Firstly, ‘wildlife friendly farming’ methods, which include the retention of patches of natural forest within agricultural areas and utilizing farming methods that reduce the effects of detrimental pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers. Secondly, the method of land sparing, which relies on the intensification of farming methods and therefore increasing the yield of currently converted agricultural land therefore reducing pressure on the remaining intact forests. It has been frequently observed that as intensification of agriculture increases biodiversity decreases (Li et al., 2007, Fitzherbert et al., 2008 and Bernard et al., 2009), but it has also been observed that even low intensity farmed land hosts fewer species and especially those of conservation concern than forested habitats (Green et al., 2005). The data that has been collected from secondary forest habitats, which have not suffered farming and land conversion directly but have seen moderate levels of disturbance, support this with evidence of lower biodiversity of species and absence of some rarer species within these habitats, but indicate that secondary forest can still support high abundance levels of species which are more tolerant of disturbance. The problem with Green et al’s., (2005) thoughts of agricultural intensification is that this method would make agricultural land highly uninhabitable to almost all species and would further fragment the remaining pockets of habitat forest, making any form of corridor habitat unlikely in these environments. Crops will also be lower in yield and therefore more forest will need to perish to make way for more land conversion.

The vegetation data collected in Hainan provides evidence that retaining aspects of forest environments such as high percentages of shrub cover, canopy cover and leaf litter will increase biodiversity but how easy this is to sustain in a farming environment is unknown.

44 As there is little incentive for farmers to conserve biodiversity (Fischer et al., 2006), this method will rely heavily on government payouts to farmers who forgo using intensification methods to benefit from much higher yielding crops. An example of this is the use of Environmentally Sensitive areas and the Countryside Stewardships schemes that allow farmers to get payouts from the government if they set aside land, such as heathland, for the purpose of conservation (Krebs et al., 1999). In developing countries, the likelihood of these government payouts is slim and therefore intensification of agricultural practices on existing farmland may be the only way forward here. But it is arguable if China is still considered as a developing county and the government in recent years has invested highly in the protection of forest areas and biodiversity and therefore may invest in these sorts of schemes. It is clear that Hainan’s Areca and Rubber tree plantations are not barren of all wildlife forms and much of the land converted around the study site is scattered between areas of remaining remnant forest and therefore introduction of ‘wildlife friendly farming’ methods could be a good opportunity to reconnect these areas. Many of the plantations I visited when looking for an appropriate site were small, mixed species plantations with a lot of undergrowth that would be a good base for introducing some forms of wildlife friendly farming. The problem with this is that Hainan has such a fast growing economy and the little forest that does remain on the Island is either protected or small enough that it will be utilised very quickly. This causes problems when sourcing new land for conversion.

Danielson and Heegaard (1995) discuss regeneration of secondary forest and point out that logged forest cannot be used as replacement of primary forest. They comment that although most areas have already seen high anthropogenic disturbance levels and there is minimal primary forest remaining, secondary forest should be managed in addition to the protection of the irreplaceable Primary forest habitats. They also point out that conservation of biodiversity is becoming heavily reliant on the wise management of logged forests since these areas cover a much larger expanse than primary forests.

A problem of ‘wildlife friendly farming’ is that it will not benefit many species that are more sensitive to disturbance. This is evident from my research, as many species that were low in abundance in the primary forest, did not occur in the secondary forest. Johns

45 (1992) suggests that the greater the species richness of a community the more sensitive it is likely to be to habitat disturbances. This indicates that ‘wildlife friendly farming’ methods will only protect the more common species that can tolerate moderate levels of habitat disturbance but will not benefit scarcer, more vulnerable species. As Danielson and Heergaard (1995) pointed out in the case of secondary forest not being an adequate replacement for primary forest, it is the same case in that ’wildlife friendly farming’ cannot replace a forest environment and should only be used in addition to protecting forest environments. This would not be the case with the ‘wildlife friendly farming’ method as much more intact forest will be damaged to make way for more ‘wildlife friendly’ crops.

5.5 Protected areas and hunting Introducing or improving upon environmental characteristics may help to encourage some species into an area, but if anthropogenic activity is the core influence, no level of habitat restructuring is going to benefit such species, unless the anthropogenic activity ceases. This will only happen if the area is made into a National park or Protected area with strict management. It can be seen from this research that the secondary forest has significant differences in abundance and richness of species despite the area occurring within a National park, with high-level protection and that has not been subject to severe disturbance for around 17 years. From my own observations it was also clear throughout my research at the National Park, that although hunting is banned, it is still a regular occurrence. I observed rat, porcupine, wild boar and a form of small carnivore being prepared for consumption in restaurants within and around the National Park. We asked several taxi drivers, who were bringing tourists to the Park, what their favorite type of meat was and three out of five said mouse/rat, and two said turtle. If management plans for protected areas are put in place to improve the habitats and environment but there is no protection from hunting, such as patrols and fines implemented for hunting, vulnerable species will continue to decrease to critical levels or even local extinction.

5.6 Future research There is a clear need for research in the effectiveness of both ‘wildlife friendly farming’ and Land sparing methods. Green et al., (2005) created a model that can predict future outcomes from these methods but it makes many assumptions and does not take into

46 consideration many external factors that may influence future farming such as new technologies and economic changes. The different levels of intensity of farming techniques need to be carefully researched, as much of the literature that exists is conflicting due to the many confounding factors. Areas such as different ages of plantations, distance from nearest forest boundaries, the species of plantation, the location on a global scale and many other factors need to be measured as it is clear that communities are unique and results from one, seemingly similar situation, may show totally different results from another. It would also be interesting to investigate small mammal communities within monoculture plantations that are in different stages of regeneration and monitor changes throughout these stages. An example of this would be the abandoned fir tree plantations in Diaoloushan, which were abandoned 17 years ago and are now regenerating some of their natural undergrowth and other flora.

A measurement of the effectiveness of camera traps and live traps used for capturing small mammals is required. There is little literature on the use of camera traps for monitoring small mammals (De Bondi et al., 2010) and although the method worked fairly consistently for this research there are many improvements to the methodology that can be made. Local live traps are inefficient to use on their own when just looking at presence/absence unless they are used over a longer stretch of time.

There is little literature on hunting in China and especially in Hainan as it is officially illegal, but throughout my research period I saw solid evidence that hunting still continues with the use of various traps, throughout the national park, and indeed across Hainan. It is a difficult subject to approach with local people but there is a pressing need to investigate the extent of this problem.

5.7 Adaptations to methodologies The pilot study for this project was cut short due to unforeseen circumstances. This resulted in some research techniques being changed and adapted to improve their efficiency as the research went along. If the pilot study was longer in duration the techniques could have been perfected before the research was carried out.

47 The live traps used for the research were local wire hunting traps. Even after adaptations, they were not as efficient as specialty small mammal box traps such as ‘Sherman’ traps or ‘Longworth’ traps (Wilson et al., 1996). These kinds of traps should be used in future research of this sort for a more efficient result.

With more staff and more time I would have liked to have researched a larger area and tried different capture techniques such as putting traps in trees to look more closely at arboreal species. I would have also employed someone in China to help identify the species we caught more efficiently or attempted to take specimens for further identification.

5.8 Conclusions To develop biodiversity monitoring methods and define quantifiable achievement indicators we must first understand what aspects of the environment have the greatest effect on communities. Much of the landscape that has been modified into plantation or damaged through various disturbance impacts would take decades to regenerate or may never fully recover to its original capacity. These modified habitats support species that have adapted to these conditions and therefore maximum conservation of biodiversity should be achieved by conserving a mosaic of habitat types by managing disturbed habitats alongside pristine forests, therefore protecting adaptable species together with vulnerable and more habitat sensitive species. Management of these damaged habitats needs to encompass improvements and development that maximise the complex environment for all taxa, thus further research is vital to ensure that species communities are researched systematically.

48 6. References

Achard, F., Eva, H.D., Stebig, H.J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T. & Malingreau, J.P. (2002) Determination of Deforestation Rates of the World’s Humid Tropical Forests. Science. 297 pp. 999-1002.

Atkeson, D.T. & Johnson, S.A. (1979) Succession of Small Mammals on Pine Plantations in the Georgia Piedmont. America Midland Naturalist 101 (2) pp. 385-392.

Bernard, H, Fjeldsa. J & Mohamed, M. 2009. A Case Study on the Effects of Disturbance and Conversion of Tropical Lowland Rain Forest on the No-Volant Small Mammals in North Borneo: Management Implications. Mammal Study, 34(2) pp. 85-96.

Briani, C.D., Vieira, M.E. & Vieira, M.V. (2001) Nests and nesting sites of Brazilian forest rodents (Nectomys squamipes and Oryzomys intermedius) as revealed by a spool –and-line device. Acta Theriologica. 46 (3) pp. 331-334

Brook, B.W., Sodhi, N.S & Ng, P.K.L. 2003. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature. 424 pp. 420-423.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Country Profile- China [Online] http://www.cbd.int/countries/?countrycn. [Accessed: 23 August 2011]

Chan, B.P.L., Fellowes, J.R., Geissmann, T. & Zhang, J. (eds.). 2005. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for the Hainan Gibbon – VERSION I (Last Updated November 2005). Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden Technical Report. 3. KFBG, Hong Kong SAR, pp. 1- 33.

Chapin, L. F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., Mack, M. C. & Diaz, S. (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405, pp. 234-242.

Chen, Y. (2009) Distribution patterns and faunal characteristics of mammals on Hainan Island of China. Folia Zoological. 58 (4) pp. 372-384.

Chokkalingham, U. & Jong, W. (2001) Secondary forest: a working definition and typology. International Forestry Review. 3 (1) pp. 19-26.

Christian, P.D., Hoffman, W., Hanowski, JM., Niemi, J.M & Beyea, J. (1998) Bird and Mammal diversity on woody biomass plantations in North America. Biomass and Bioenergy. 14 (4) pp. 395-402.

Chung, K.P.S & Corlett, R.T. (2006) Rodent diversity in a highly degraded and tropical landscape: Hong kong, South China. Biodiversity and Conservation. 15 pp. 4521-4532.

Crawley, M.J. (2005) Statistics. An Introduction to using R. Chichester: Wiley.

49 China Daily (2006). China’s Hainan Rubber to start trading on Jan 7TH. [Online] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-01/06/content_11802531.htm. [Accessed: 23 July 2011]

Danielsen, F. & Heegaard, M. (1995) Impact of logging and plantation development on species diversity: A case study from Sumatra. Management of tropical forests: towards an intergrated perspective. Sandbukt (ed.) pp. 73-92.

De Bondi, N., White, J., Stevens, M. & Cooke, R. (2010) A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities. Wildlife Research. 37, pp 456-465.

Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau (1998) Feasibility Report of the Proposal for the Diaoluoshan National Forest Park. Unpublished report. pp. 33 (In Chinese.)

Diaoluoshan Forestry Bureau, (2011) Diaoluoshan National Park Map. Poster board in Diaoluoshan Information Centre.

Echeverria, C., Coomes, D., Salas, J., Rey-Benayas, J.M., Lara, A & Newton. A. (2006) Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean Temperate Forests. Biological Conservation. 130 pp. 481-494.

Economy, E. (2007) The Great Leaf Backward?. Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86503/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great- leap-backward.html?mode=print????

Emmons, L.H and Green, H.W. (2000) Tupai: A field study of Bornean Tree Shrews. California: University of California Press.

EUTOU (2006) Environment and Development. Wuzhishan (China). Power Point Presentation. Sourced at: www.eutou.com. [Accessed 26 July 2011]

Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily. G.C., Ehrlich, R.P., Goldman, r., Goldstein, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ranganathan, J. &Tallis, H. (2008) Should agriculture policies encourage land sparing or wildlife friendly farming? Frontier in Ecological Environment. 6 (7) pp.380-385.

Fitzherbert, E.B., Struebig, M.J., Morel, A., Danielsen, F., Bruhl, C. A., Donald, P.F and Phalan, B. (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 23 (10) pp. 538- 545.

Fleishman, E., Thomson, R.J., Mac Nally, R., Murphy, D.D. & Fay, J.P. Using Indicator Species to Predict species Richness of Multiple Taxonomic Groups. Conservation Biology 19 (4) pp. 1125-1137.

Fu, B.J., Liu, G.H., Wang, X.K., & Ouyang, Z.Y. (2004) Ecological issues and risk assessment in China. International Journal of Sustainability and Development, World Ecology. 11 pp.143-149. In Raoul, F., Pleydell, D., Quere, J., Vaniscotte, A., Reiffel, D., Takahashi, K.,

50 Bernard, N., Wang, J., Dobigny, T., Galbreath, K. & Giraudoux, P. (2008) Small-mammal assemblage response to deforestation and afforestation in central China. Mammalia. 72 pp. 320-332.

Gao, L. (2006) The impact of Conservation Policy on Attitudes Towards the Environment: A case Study on Hainan Island, china. MSc Thesis. Imperial College London.

Gaveau, L.A.D., Wich, S., Epting, J., Juhn, D., Kanninen, M. & Leader-Williams, N. (2009) The future of forests and orangutans (Pongo abelii) in Sumatra: predicting impacts of oil palm plantations, road construction and mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. Environmental Research Letters. 4 pp.11.

Geist, H.J and Lambin, E.F. (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience. 52 (2) pp. 143-150.

Giraudoux P, Quere, J.P., Delattre, P, Bao, G., Wang, X, Shi, D., Vuitton, D. and Craig, P.S. (1998) Distribution of small mammals along a deforestation gradient in southern Gansu, central China. Acta Theriologica. 43 (4) pp. 349-362.

Gopalakrisan, S. (2007) Negative Aspects of Special Economic Zones in China. Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 1492-1494. [online]. Available at: farmwars.info/wp- content/uploads/.../Negative-aspects-of-SEZ-in-China.pdf. [Accessed 04 August 2011].

Green, E.R., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P.W & Balmford, A. (2005) Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature. Science. 307 pp. 550.

Gupta, P.C. & Warnakulasuriya, S. (2002) Global epidemiology of the areca nut usage. Addiction Biology 7 pp. 77-83.

Johns, A. G. (1997) Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests. Cambridge University Press, pp. 225.

Johns, A.G. (1992) Vertebrate responses to selective logging: implications for the design of logging systems. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences. 335 pp. 437- 442.

IUCN (2006) International experts discuss China’s draft Protected Areas Law in Beijing. Available from: http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2006/02/21_pas_china.htm. [Accessed 10, July 2011]

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, (2002) Report of Rapid Biodiversity Assessments at Tongtieling Forest Area and Xinglong Tropical Botanic Garden, Southeast Hainan, China, 22-23 May 1999. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series (Online Simplified Version): 22. KFBG, Hong Kong SAR, pp. 1-18.

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, (2002) Report of a Rapid Biodiversity Assessment at Diaoluoshan National Forest Park, Southeast Hainan, China, 23-28 May 1999. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series (Online Simplified Version): 23 KFBG, Hong Kong SAR, pp. 1- 27.

51 Klein, L. & Ozmucur, S. (2003) The Estimation of China’s Economic Growth Rate. Journal of Economic and Social Measurements, 4 pp. 187-202.

Krebs, R.J., Wilson, J.D., Bradbury, R.B & Siriwardena, G.M. (1999) The Second Silent Spring? Nature. 400 pp. 611-612.

Laidlaw, R.W. (2000) Effects of Habitat Disturbance and Protected Area on Mammals of Peninsula Malaysia. Conservation Biology. 14 (6) pp.1639-1648.

Laurance, W.F. (1997) Responses of mammals to rainforest fragmentation in tropical Queensland: A review and synthesis. Wildlife Research. 24 (5) pp. 603-612.

Li, H., Aide, M.T., Ma, Y., Liu, W. &Cao, M. (2007) Demand for rubber is causing the loss of high diversity rain forest in SW China. Biodiversity Conservation 16 pp. 1731-1745.

Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., Tan, Y. Yang, J., & Zhang, H. 1999. Changes in Human Population Structure: Implication for Biodiversity Conservation. Population and environment. 21 (1) pp. 45- 58.

Lui, J & Diamond, J. (2005) China’s environment in a globalising World. Nature. 435 pp.1179-1186.

Long, W., Yang, X, Luo, T, Huang, Y., Li, D & Guo, T. (2002) List of the Meliolales from Diaoluoshan nature reserve in Hainan province. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany. Issue unknown. In Chinese.

Lynam, A. J. (1995) Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on the Distributional Patterns of Small Mammals in a Tropical Forest in Thailand [Phd. Thesis]. University of California, San Diego pp. 120.

Lynam, A.J. & Billick, I. (1999) Differential responses of small mammals to fragmentation in a Thailand tropical forest. Biological Conservation. 91(2-3) pp. 191-200.

Mapsof.net (2011) Location Map of Hainan. [Online] (http://mapsof.net/map/china- hainan-location-map [Accessed: July 28, 2011]

Matson, P.A & Vitousek, P.M. (2006) Agricultural Intensification: Will Land Spared from Farming be Land Spared for Nature? Conservation Biology. 30 (3) pp. 709-710.

Myers, N. (1991) Tropical forests – present status and future outlook. Change, 19 pp. 3-32.

Norton, A.D. (1998) Indigenous Biodiversity Conservation and plantation Forestry: Options for the future. New Zealand Forestry. 42:(3) pp. 34-39.

Parrotta, J.A., Turnbull, J.W & Jones, N. (1997) Calalysing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecology and Management. 99 pp. 1-7.

52 Perffecto, I., Rice, R.A., Greenberg, R., Van der Voort, M.E. (1996) Shade Coffee: A Disappearing Refuge for Biodiversity. BioScience. 46(8) pp. 598-608.

Power, A.G. (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society. 365 pp.2959-2971.

Rajaratnam, L. K. (1999) Non-Volant Small Mammals in Tabin Wild- life Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia [MSc. Thesis]. University of New England, Australia, pp. 234

Ramanamanjato, J.B & Ganzhorn, J.U. (2001) Effects of forest fragmentation, introduced Rattus rattus and the role of exotic tree plantations and secondary vegetation for the conservation of an endemic rodent and a small lemur in littoral forests of southeastern Madagascar. Animal Conservation. 4 pp.175-183

Raoul, F., Pleydell, D., Quere, J., Vaniscotte, A., Reiffel, D., Takahashi, K., Bernard, N., Wang, J., Dobigny, T., Galbreath, K. & Giraudoux, P. (2008) Small-mammal assemblage response to deforestation and afforestation in central China. Mammalia. 72 pp. 320-332.

Smith, A.T. & Xie, Y. (2008) A Guide to the Mammals of China. New Jersey. Princeton University Press.

Species Research JHS Ecology (2011) Pygmy Shrew. Available at: http://ecologyadventure2.edublogs.org/new-page/pygmy-shrew/. [Accessed 26 August 2011]

Stuebing, R.B. and Gasis, J. (1989) A survey of small mammals within a Sabah tree plantation in Malaysia. Journal of Topical ecology. 5 pp. 203-214.

Tong, Y. (2010) The Goblin Spiders of the Genus Opopaea (Araneadae, Oonopidae) in Hainan Island, China. Zootaxa.

Wang, J., Shi, H., Wang, L., Xie, M., Li, D & Zou, Q. (2007) Three Rare Amphibian and Reptile Animals on Diaoluoshan, Hainan. Sichuan Journal of Zoology.

Well, K., Kalko, E.K.V., Lakim, M.B. & Pfeiffer, M. (2007) Effects of rainforest logging on species richness and assemblage composition of small mammals in South East Asia. Journal of Biogeography. 34(6) pp. 1087-1099.

Wikipedia (2011). Plantation. [online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations. [Accessed: 07 August 2011].

Wilson, E.D., Cole, R.F., Nichols. J.D. & Rudran, R. (1996) Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Mammals. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Wu, D., Luo, J. & Fox, J. (1996). A comparison of ground-dwelling small mammal communities in primary and secondary tropical rainforests in China. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 12 pp. 215-230.

53 WWF (2001) Hainan Island monsoon rainforest (IM0169). Available at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/im/im0169_full.html [Accessed: 05 July, 2011]

Zhang, Y., Uusivouri, J and Kuuluvainen, J. (2000) Econometric Analysis of the causes of Forest Land Use Changes in Hainan, China. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30 (12) pp. 1913-1921.

54 Appendix 1 Rock cover Canopy cover Canopy height Leaf litter Shrub Cover No. Trees

33 33 33 33 33 33 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 17 17 17 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 Primary forest 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 10 20 30 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 10 20

39 39 39 39 39 39 37 37 37 37 37 37 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 33 33 33 33 33 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 17 17 17 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 9 9

Secondary Forest 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 10 20 30 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 5 10

39 39 39 39 39 39 37 37 37 37 37 37 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 33 33 33 33 33 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 27 27 27 27 27 27

25 25 25 25 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 17 17 17 17 17 15 15 15 15 15 15 Plantation 13 13 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 20 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 10 20

Figure 6.1 Graphs showing vegetaion measurements at each live trap site site at each plot in each of the habitat types. Primary forest; 1-15=Plot1, (15-33)=plot 2. Secondary forest; 1-20= Plot 3, 20-40=plot 4, Plantation 1-20=Plot 5 (Rubber plantation), 20-40= Plot 6 (Areca plantation).

55 Appendix 2

Figure 6.2. Map of primary forest plots (1&3) and secondary forest (2&4). The buildings in the middle are the resort hotel

Figure 6.3. Map of the plantation plots. Plot 5 is the Rubber tree plantation and Plo6 is the Areca plantation. The plantations are on the edge of Diaoluoshan town. There is also a river running through the middle of the town.

56

57