The Population Statistics of China, A.D. 2-1953

Durand, John D.

doi:10.2307/2172247

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also the reason why most of South, Southeast and Central China, which is warmer and wetter than the areas where the species is found today, only is predicted as climatic suitable if the historical records are included in the analyses. Hence, the reason why a large area in Southeast China is not predicted as suitable for Rhinopithecus, when only current distribution data is used, is mainly due to too high levels of precipitation, likely reflecting that high-rainfall areas have historically been more suitable for agriculture and human settlement, with the disappearance of Rhinopithecus from these areas synchronous with a rapid increase in human population and cultivated areas here during the last 400 years (Durand 1960; Li et al 2002). In contrast, we are not aware of any plausible mechanisms whereby high rainfall would exclude Rhinopithecus directly or via non-anthropogenic indirect effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus): potential distribution and its implication for conservation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many threatened species have undergone range retraction, and are confined to small fragmented populations. To increase their survival prospects, it is necessary to find suitable habitat outside their current range, to increase and interconnect populations. Species distribution models may be used to this purpose and can be an important part of the conservation strategies. One pitfall is that such mapping will typically assume that the current distribution represents the optimal habitat, which may not be the case for threatened species. Here, we use maximum entropy modelling (Maxent) and rectilinear bioclimatic envelope modelling with current and historical distribution data, together with the location of protected areas, and environmental and anthropogenic variables, to answer three key questions for the conservation of Rhinopithecus, a highly endangered genus of primates consisting of five species of which three are endemic to China, one is endemic to China and Myanmar and one is endemic to Vietnam; Which environmental variables best predict the distribution? To what extent is Rhinopithecus living in an anthropogenically truncated niche space? What is the genus’ potential distribution in the region? Mean temperature of coldest and warmest quarter together with annual precipitation and precipitation during the driest quarter were the variables that best explained Rhinopithecus’ distribution. The historical records were generally in warmer and wetter areas and in lower elevation than the current distribution, strongly suggesting that Rhinopithecus today survives in an anthropogenic truncated niche space. There is 305,800–319,325 km 2 of climatic suitable area within protected areas in China, of which 96,525–100,275 km 2 and 17,175–17,550 km 2 have tree cover above 50 and 75%, respectively. The models also show that the area predicted as climatic suitable using Maxent was 72–89% larger when historical records were included. Our results emphasise the importance of considering historical records when assessing restoration potential and show that there is high potential for restoring Rhinopithecus to parts of its former range. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10531-018-1507-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus): potential distribution and its implication for conservation

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more detailed discussion on this matter can be found in Durand (1960). Before the year 755 A. D., the historical records cited in Durand are more or less the same as in C&H. But for the period 756-1299 A.D., C&H used more than four times as many historical records as Durand, indicating possibly a greater effort on the part of C&H. Neither C&H nor Durand fully trusted the population data, and both made some subjective adjustments.…”

Section: The Data Set and The Robustness Of Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the synchronized pattern 2 Before C&H, the most extensive study by Ho was limited to 14-20 centuries. Durand (1960) made an effort to trace the Chinese population history back to the first century. Other related piecemeal research include Hartwell (I982) and Kuan (1981).…”

Section: Some Stylized Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Famine, revolt, and the dynastic cycle

Chu¹,

Lee²

1994

J Popul Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Historians have long noticed that population declines in ancient China often coincided with dynasty changes, and that most of these declines were the result of internecine wars which, in turn, were often initiated by famine or density pressure. Since the interactions between density pressure, internecine wars, and dynasty changes cannot be explained by the traditional age-specific density-dependent population structure, we propose to use a bandit/peasant/ruler occupation-specific population model to interpret the dynamic socio-economic transitions of ancient Chinese population, and provide econometric support to our model. We also highlight the rich dynamics of the composition of human population, a factor which was often neglected in previous research on general populations."

show abstract

“…Note that even the Roman Empire cannot be treated as an exception. Indeed, we have a lot of indirect evidence on the population size of the Early Roman Empire (till the 3rd century CE, see, e.g., Turchin and Nefedov 2009: 211-239;Koepke 2016), but even for the Early Roman Empire we only have direct census evidence for the number of Roman citizens who only constituted a minority of the Empire population-unlike for China where for the most of the period between 2 CE and 1851 CE we have quite systematic census data on the size of Chinese tax-paying population who encompassed the overwhelming majority of the overall population of the Chinese empires (see, e.g., Durand 1960Durand , 1977Bielenstein 1987;Korotayev, Malkov, Khaltourina 2006;Korotayev 2012).…”

Section: Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%