Giant Panda (<i>Ailuropoda melanoleuca</i>)

Swaisgood, Ronald R.; McShea, William M.; Wildt, David E.; Hull, Vanessa; Zhang, Jindong; Owen, Megan A.; Zhang, Zejun; Dvornicky-Raymond, Zachary; Valitutto, Marc; Li, Dihua; Zhang, Hemin; Santiestevan, Jenny; Wei, Fuwen

doi:10.1017/9781108692571.007

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1,539 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not only the most divergent from the other bears in terms of diet, but also falls within a separate subfamily (Ailuropodinae). Its diet varies mainly in terms of the species (>40) and parts of bamboo consumed ( [12,13]).…”

Section: Dietary Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Species–Habitat Associations: A Case Study with the World’s Bears

Garshelis¹

2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat modeling is one of the most common practices in ecology today, aimed at understanding complex associations between species and an array of environmental, bioclimatic, and anthropogenic factors. This review of studies of seven species of terrestrial bears (Ursidae) occupying four continents examines how habitat models have been employed, and the functionality of their predictions for management and conservation. Bear occurrence data have been obtained at the population level, as presence points (e.g., sign surveys or camera trapping), or as locations of individual radio-collared animals. Radio-collars provide greater insights into how bears interact with their environment and variability within populations; they are more commonly used in North America and Europe than in South America and Asia. Salient problematic issues apparent from this review included: biases in presence data; predictor variables being poor surrogates of actual behavioral drivers; predictor variables applied at a biologically inappropriate scale; and over-use of data repositories that tend to detach investigators from the species. In several cases, multiple models in the same area yielded different predictions; new presence data occurred outside the range of predicted suitable habitat; and future range projections, based on where bears presently exist, underestimated their adaptability. Findings here are likely relevant to other taxa.

show abstract

Section: Dietary Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Species–Habitat Associations: A Case Study with the World’s Bears

Garshelis¹

2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the cost of generating chemical signals is too high for an energetically marginal species like the panda, which uses urine and AGS as chemical communication signals rather than feces (Nie, Swaisgood, Zhang, Hu, et al, 2012 ; Swaisgood et al, 2020 ). Both urine and feces are metabolic byproducts and therefore consume less energy, whereas AGS is produced by specialized glands and has a high‐fat content (Hagey & Macdonald, 2003 ), further exacerbating energy expenditure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signal detection theory applied to giant pandas: Do pandas go out of their way to make sure their scent marks are found?

Wang,

Swaisgood,

Wei

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inter‐animal communication allows signals released by an animal to be perceived by others. Scent‐marking is the primary mode of such communication in giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Signal detection theory propounds that animals choose the substrate and location of their scent marks so that the signals released are transmitted more widely and last longer. We believe that pandas trade‐off scent‐marking because they are an energetically marginal species and it is costly to generate and mark chemical signals. Existing studies only indicate where pandas mark more frequently, but their selection preferences remain unknown. This study investigates whether the marking behavior of pandas is consistent with signal detection theory. Feces count, reflecting habitat use intensity, was combined with mark count to determine the selection preference for marking. The results showed that pandas preferred to mark ridges with animal trails and that most marked tree species were locally dominant. In addition, marked plots and species were selected for lower energy consumption and a higher chance of being detected. Over 90% of the marks used were the longest‐surviving anogenital gland secretion marks, and over 80% of the marks were oriented toward animal trails. Our research demonstrates that pandas go out of their way to make sure their marks are found. This study not only sheds light on the mechanisms of scent‐marking by pandas but also guides us toward more precise conservation of the panda habitat.

show abstract

“…The conservation of wild pandas has made great progress with the help of the Chinese government (Wei et al 2011, Yang et al 2021). The results of the fourth national survey of giant pandas showed that the population and habitat area of wild giant pandas have increased (National Forestry and Grassland Administration 2021), and the designation of giant pandas on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Red List has been reduced from endangered to vulnerable (Swaisgood et al 2016). The habitat area of giant pandas has increased in the past 40 years, but habitat fragmentation remains a problem owing to geographical isolation and human disturbance (National Forestry and Grassland Administration 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergistic effects of anthropogenic disturbances on giant pandas

Pu,

Feng,

Huang

et al. 2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock grazing and the collection of bamboo shoots are the main threats to giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) habitat in the Liangshan Mountains in China. It is important to clarify the effect of these disturbances to the giant panda to formulate targeted management policies. Based on species distribution models and daily activity models, we investigated the effects of livestock grazing and bamboo shoot collection on giant pandas from May 2021 to July 2022. Our results indicated the giant panda's suitable habitat in the reserve covered 51.83 km2 (15.02% of the reserve area). Grazing and bamboo shoot collection led to losses of 19.08 km2 and 7.68 km2 of suitable habitat, respectively. Together, the 2 activities resulted in a loss of 28.35 km2 of suitable habitat, which was more than half of the area of panda habitat. The areas of suitable habitat for giant pandas significantly overlapped with the areas affected by both disturbances. Giant pandas did not show significant differences in daily activity rhythms under a single disturbance, but the daily activity rhythms of giant pandas differed when we compared the area combining the 2 disturbances with the undisturbed area. Our study reveals that the anthropogenic disturbances in the reserve have varying effects on the suitable habitat range and daily activity rhythm of giant pandas and evidence of a synergistic effect. Therefore, when formulating relevant conservation policies, it is important to fully evaluate the extent and characteristics of anthropogenic disturbances in shaping the population distribution and habitat preferences of the giant panda and other wildlife to enhance the efficacy of conservation management practices.

show abstract

Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)

Cited by 3 publications

References 1,539 publications

Understanding Species–Habitat Associations: A Case Study with the World’s Bears

Understanding Species–Habitat Associations: A Case Study with the World’s Bears

Signal detection theory applied to giant pandas: Do pandas go out of their way to make sure their scent marks are found?

Synergistic effects of anthropogenic disturbances on giant pandas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About