全 文 ：New Developments in Plant Conservation and
the Relevance of Ethnobotany
Alan Hamilton
(Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China)
Abstract: There is only one cover of plants on Earth, so all plant鄄related aspects of conservation should be consid鄄
ered in deciding how the land and the plants on it should be managed for conservation purposes. A three鄄fold classi鄄
fication of the benefits to be derived from ecosystem鄄based plant conservation (EBPC) is suggested: conservation of
plant species, the sustainable use of plant resources and the delivery of ecosystem services. EBPC is a place鄄centred
approach which, in principle, can be pursued anywhere. Ethnobotanical research can help reveal realities about re鄄
lationships between local people and plants, thus providing information useful for advancing plant conservation. Ap鄄
plied ethnobotany involves ethnobotanists working in a participatory way with local people, both parties contributing
to the identification and resolution of conservation issues relating to plants. This type of research helps ensure that
priority issues from the local perspective are addressed, thus making it more likely that local people will be commit鄄
ted to implementing solutions found. Both knowledge and values associated with local communities, and knowledge
and methodologies associated with science are brought together in the conservation cause.
Key words: Biocultural diversity; Ecosystem鄄based; Ecosystem services; Evidence鄄based; Participatory
CLC number: Q 948. 12摇 摇 摇 摇 Document Code: A摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Article ID: 2095-0845(2013)04-424-07
1 摇 Plant conservation at a time of envi鄄
ronmental crisis
The global ecosystem is deeply perturbed, as
shown by climate change, ocean acidification and
other indicators. Major changes are predicted for the
near future, with the movement of biotic and agricul鄄
tural zones, coastal flooding threatening cities and
mass movements of people (Karling, 2001). These
developments are additional to major stresses already
imposed on natural systems by the demands on re鄄
sources and pollution produced by a huge and grow鄄
ing number of people.
The state of the plant world reflects the precari鄄
ous state of the global environment as a whole. It is
estimated that 22 per cent of plant species are at risk
of extinction (RBG, 2010), the genetic diversity of
both cultivated and wild plants is declining, much
agriculture is unsustainable ( judging by widespread
soil erosion and eutrophication of water bodies),
rangelands are commonly over鄄grazed and desertifi鄄
cation spreading, and many people suffer from short鄄
ages of essential plant resources, such as fuelwood
(He, 2009; RBG, 2010; Schemske et al., 1994;
Schroter et al., 2005).
摇 摇 This is an emergency. Therefore, people inter鄄
ested in particular facets of the environment should
organise their efforts to ensure that their contributions
to conservation are most effective. Plants form one
such facet. For greatest effectiveness, plant conserva鄄
tion should embrace all plant鄄related aspects of con鄄
servation, given that there is only one cover of plants
on the land and that contributions made to different
aspects of plant conservation can be synergistic.
摇 摇 A very large number of organisations is con鄄
cerned with the management or use of plants, for in鄄
stance those connected with agriculture, forestry,
pastoralism and horticulture. Many of these organi鄄
sations already contribute to plant conservation, but
植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 2013, 35 (4): 424 ~ 430
Plant Diversity and Resources摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 DOI: 10. 7677 / ynzwyj201312133
Received date: 2012-11-05; Accepted date: 2012-12-25
Author for correspondence; E鄄mail: alanchamilton@ btinternet. com
coordination between them to achieve maximum con鄄
servation effectiveness is a challenge, resulting in
weaknesses in influencing policy. Two quotes from
reviews of progress on the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation ( GSPC), an international agreement
on plant conservation made in 2002, illustrate this
problem of institutional complexity: “A further chal鄄
lenge ( in strengthening the scientific contribution to
plant conservation) is the need to integrate better the
plant diversity鄄related activities of what are currently
diverse and disconnected sectors, including agricul鄄
ture, forestry, protected area management and botan鄄
ic gardens冶 (Blackmore et al., 2011); “Crucial ar鄄
eas of influence for the plant conservation community
in Europe are agricultural and forestry policy. Cur鄄
rently, the former is being influenced for the benefit of
conservation by BirdLife International . . . and But鄄
terfly Conservation . . . . These organisations provide
policy鄄relevant data and analyses that will be influen鄄
tial in the revision of the Common Agricultural Policy
in 2012. . . . A presence from the botanical and plant
conservation community at European level is currently
lacking . . . 冶 (Radford, 2011).
To date, ‘plant conservation爷 as an established
discipline within the global conservation movement
has concentrated mainly on conservation of plant
species. The approach has been based on linear log鄄
ical thinking, involving the following principal
steps: the listing of plant species for a country or
other area of concern, the identification of those that
are endangered ( Red Lists), the identification of
the places where these are found or where plant spe鄄
cies generally are concentrated, and then the appli鄄
cation of in situ and ex situ measures to conserve
them ( Fig. 1). The protected area is seen as the
prime in situ conservation tool, while ex situ facili鄄
ties include botanic gardens and seedbanks. This
approach has proved relatively successful in the case
of ex situ conservation, because the appropriate in鄄
stitutions ( such as botanical gardens and seed鄄
banks) are relatively easy to identify and bring to鄄
gether for coordinated action. In contrast, despite
some successes, there has been little progress overall
with in situ conservation, as reported in several pa鄄
pers reviewing progress on the GSPC and exemplified
by the statement “we have found no evidence of the
targets mobilizing significant new resources for plant
conservation冶 (Paton and Lughadha, 2011).
Fig. 1摇 The linear logical approach of ‘ traditional plant
conservation爷 . The problem addressed is how to
secure conservation of plant species
While ex situ plant conservation does help to
preserve plant species, it should not be seen as an
alternative to making greater efforts at in situ conser鄄
vation, especially from an ecosystem perspective.
The immediate challenge in plant conservation is for
the plant conservation community to contribute as
much as it can to keep ( in situ) ecosystems functio鄄
ning as well as possible.
Compared to other taxonomic groups, plants re鄄
quire distinctive approaches to their conservation be鄄
cause of their keystone roles in ecosystems and econ鄄
omies. Sustainable use and the delivery of ecosystem
services should be fundamental parts of plant conser鄄
vation. The importance of paying attention to sus鄄
tainable use of plant resources for the conservation of
species ( in any taxonomic category ) is apparent
from the major roles that plant鄄related activities often
play in projects aimed primarily at the conservation
of birds or mammals. Typically, such projects de鄄
vote considerable energy to working on plant issues,
not only because plants supply the food and physical
habitats required by the animals, but also because
the major challenges in maintaining the habitats of鄄
ten relate to the unsustainable use of plant resources
by local people.
5244 期摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Alan Hamilton: New Developments in Plant Conservation and the Relevance of Ethnobotany摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇
People living close to the sites of charismatic
animals or endemic birds tend to be have much grea鄄
ter day鄄to鄄day involvement with plants than with the
animals that are of interest to the conservationists.
Rural economies in places where biodiversity is con鄄
centrated tend to revolve centrally around plants.
However, in urban places distant from field sites,
the public tends to have much more interest in birds
and charismatic animals (such as tigers, gorillas and
pandas) than plants. The membership of the Royal
Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK is
about 100 times larger than that of the equivalent bo鄄
tanical society, Plantlife International. Because ani鄄
mal and bird projects can be relatively well funded
and must of necessity deal with botanical issues, the
result is that, in some parts of the world, it is likely
that animal conservationists are achieving more for
conservation of plant species than plant conservation鄄
ists are achieving themselves.
2摇 Conservation benefits related to plants
Plant conservation as a discipline will be driven
forward by people who combine a concern for the en鄄
vironment with a particular interest in plants and
who are activists in the conservation cause. Consid鄄
ering the range of interests of members of this ‘plant
conservation community爷 a three鄄fold classification
of the benefits to be derived from plant conservation
is proposed: conservation of plant species, sustain鄄
able use and the delivery of ecosystem services.
For the greater part, conservation of plant spe鄄
cies will have to be pursued within the context of
use. Finding ways to integrate the conservation of
plant species into productive landscapes is one of the
major challenges facing plant conservation today
(Ashley et al., 2006; Hannah and Hansen, 2005;
Manning et al., 2009). Protected areas, the main
tool of ‘traditional爷 plant conservation, are certainly
helpful for conserving plant species, but they will
not be adequate on their own to protect the entire
world flora. Many species are not found in protected
areas, populations of species within protected areas
can be small and of doubtful long鄄term viability, the
management of some protected areas is weak and un鄄
able to prevent illegal activities (Nagendra, 2008),
and climate change will cause disruption to the eco鄄
systems of many protected areas, causing extinctions
of plant species within them.
Ecosystem services ( in the sense used here)
refer to those benefits that people derive from ecosys鄄
tems that are not in themselves directly botanical,
but whose availability is nevertheless significantly in鄄
fluenced by the type of plant cover on the land.
These benefits include climatic amelioration ( on
global to local scales), provision of water supplies,
prevention of flooding, control of soil erosion and
landslides, provision of habitats for animals and sup鄄
ply of pollination services. More attention should be
paid to such services by the plant conservation com鄄
munity, which will often require collaboration with
other social players to make significant advances
(McNeely, 2011). Saving plant species is only of
limited interest to many members of the public. In
contrast, shortages of water or high frequencies of
flooding or landslides can stimulate people to take
action ( Cooke, 2010; Stringer et al., 2007; Yin
and Li, 2001). In doing so, plant species can gain
opportunistically.
Some of the services received from ecosystems
are cultural. It is human nature for people to wish to
retain certain natural features of their neighbour鄄
hoods, to which they have become accustomed and
which have come to be part of their psychological i鄄
dentities. It is common around the world for commu鄄
nities to attach particular significance to certain spe鄄
cies of plants or types of vegetation, or particular in鄄
dividual plants or patches of habitat, with efforts
made to secure their continuing existence. Where
communities have long been resident and livelihoods
closely dependent on local plants ( as has normally
been the case in human history), then a very large
number of plant species can come to be valued for a
wide range of uses. In the process people have often
developed systems of beliefs and practices (often re鄄
624摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 35 卷
lated to religion) that have tended to preserve these
resources ( Pei, 2010). Where elements of tradi鄄
tional biocultural diversity remain, then these pro鄄
vide invaluable foundations upon which to build con鄄
servation initiatives to tackle the challenges of mod鄄
ern times.
3摇 A place鄄centred approach
It is suggested that a place鄄centred approach is
suitable for ecosystem鄄based plant conservation. Fig鄄
ure 2 illustrates some features of the approach. Ear鄄
lier versions of the model have been published
(Hamilton, 2012; Hamilton and Hamilton, 2006;
Pei and Huai, 2009).
Ecosystems, as they relate to plant conserva鄄
tion, are very complex, having multiple dimensions
(ecological, cultural, social, economic and politi鄄
cal) . By focusing on a particular place, the effects
of all these influences necessarily come together, as
revealed by the type of plant cover present and the
ways in which people interact with it. ‘ Place爷 in
this context can mean any area relevant to the practi鄄
cal management of plants. Places can be nested, for
example conservation attention may be directed at
one part of a farmer爷s field, a whole field or a whole
farm ( with all its fields and other landscape fea鄄
tures).
The entire landscape of the Earth can be con鄄
sidered conceptually to be composed of individual lo鄄
cal places, at any of which plant conservation can be
pursued. An ideal pattern of plants in the landscape
can be envisaged, balancing the delivery of all
plant鄄related conservation benefits, one against the
other, while also making provision for the use of
some land for purposes that contribute little of noth鄄
ing to conservation (as with built鄄up areas and much
industrial agriculture). The value of such a vision,
even if very schematically formed, is that it can pro鄄
vide a common platform to unite the efforts of many
people who can contribute to advancing plant conser鄄
vation locally, each contributing their own special
knowledge and skills.
Fig. 2摇 Representation of Ecosystem鄄based Plant Conservation
(adapted from Hamilton, 2012)
a. The inner circle represents the plants of any place. These plants
may contribute to one or more of the three purposes of plant conserva鄄
tion (species conservation, ecosystem services, sustainable use) . Al鄄
ternatively, the plants may deliver few or no conservation benefits (e.
g. as with much intensive agriculture) or be replaced by a plant鄄free
surface (e. g. where the land is covered by buildings); b. The inner
ring represents those people who do ( or could) influence the plants
directly, such as farmers, gardeners, collectors of wild plant re鄄
sources, and reserve managers; c. The outer ring represents those
people who do (or could) influence the plants, though only indirect鄄
ly, such as lawmakers, consumers, contributors to climate change and
conservation biologists; d. Places vary in their relative (actual or po鄄
tential) contributions to plant conservation. Therefore, the optimal
delivery of conservation benefits from plants entails trade鄄offs between
places ( indicated by the two鄄way arrows); e. The outer circle repre鄄
sents the Earth爷s limit of ecological sustainability, setting a minimum
long鄄term requirement for conservation achievement. The current level
of exploitation of Earth爷s ecosystems already exceed the limits of global
sustainability (Hails et al., 2008)
For the purpose of analysis and practical ac鄄
tion, people can be considered to be divided into
two groups in relation to pursuing plant conservation
at a particular place - those who can directly influ鄄
ence the plants as they live and those who can also
influence the plants, but only indirectly. Typical
members of the first group are farmers, forestry
workers, pastoralists, gardeners and protected area
workers. The other group includes people working in
7244 期摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Alan Hamilton: New Developments in Plant Conservation and the Relevance of Ethnobotany摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇
plant鄄related industries, the consumers who buy
their products, government agencies, religious or鄄
ganisations, educational establishments, training in鄄
stitutes, natural history societies, scientific organisa鄄
tions, among others.
Ecosystems are complex and the effects of inter鄄
ventions for conservation can be difficult to predict
(Lester et al., 2010). It is suggested that an evi鄄
dence鄄based approach is appropriate for plant con鄄
servation. There is a parallel with medicine, also
dealing with complex systems and with real results
required, and in which an evidence鄄based approach
has proved extremely effective at driving forward im鄄
provements in recent years ( Sutherland et al.,
2004). An evidence鄄based approach involves peri鄄
odic reviews of the evidence relating to the success
or failure of practical efforts to deal with particular
issues, followed by the formulation of recommenda鄄
tions on best practice. These recommendations can
then be disseminated for wider adoption, used to re鄄
form policy or treated as hypotheses for further tes鄄
ting. If applied properly, an evidence鄄based ap鄄
proach should not lead to ‘cookbook爷 solutions, but
rather to the integration of the experience of individ鄄
ual practitioners with the best external evidence
(Sackett et al., 1996).
Retaining elements of the natural geographical
patterns shown by plant species is an important con鄄
sideration in plant conservation. To do so will re鄄
quire the presence of a matching cultural diversity,
necessary for ensuring the existence of people at ev鄄
ery place interested in its unique botanical features
and prepared to make efforts to secure their survival.
An example of an evidence鄄based approach to
plant conservation is a programme of Plantlife Inter鄄
national, the aim of which was to find answers to the
question ‘How can communities best conserve their
medicinal plants?爷 (Hamilton, 2008, 2011; Pei et
al., 2010). This work involved Plantlife International
forming partnerships with ten botanical institutes or
NGOs in six countries in East Africa and the Himala鄄
yas, each of which, in turn, worked with local com鄄
munities to try and produce practical conservation re鄄
sults. Analysis of the success of these projects, com鄄
bined with lessons learnt during four events to share
experiences, led to the construction of a best practice
model. As might be anticipated from an ecosystem鄄
based approach, the model is socially鄄orientated.
Three social elements were identified ( community
groups, project teams and policy makers) and sug鄄
gestions made for the forms of relationships between
them and actions by each group.
4摇 The value of ethnobotany for plant con鄄
servation
Ethnobotany is the science dealing with the re鄄
lationships between people and plants. Ethnobotani鄄
cal research can perform an invaluable role in plant
conservation, through providing understandings of
how people relate to local plants and how wider cul鄄
tural, social, economic and political systems influ鄄
ence local people / plant relationships.
Crudely classified, ethnobotany can be pursued
in either an academic or applied way. In the former,
the ethnobotanist takes the role of outside observer,
documenting people爷s knowledge, values, uses and
methods of management of plants. ‘Academic爷 eth鄄
nobotany can contribute a lot of information useful
for the practical pursuit of conservation, such as a鄄
bout the types of species present in a neighbourhood
and their uses, methods of management, conserva鄄
tion status and contributions to local livelihoods. It
can investigate local social systems relevant to the
management of plants and traditional conservation
practices and associated beliefs and rituals.
An ‘ applied爷 approach to ethnobotany differs
from the ‘academic爷 mode in its intention to try to
make practical progress in conservation as the re鄄
search proceeds. Apart from any improvements in
conservation that may be made, applied ethnobotany
has the additional benefit of being very useful for the
development of conservation policy, because it pro鄄
vides evidence of what actually works ( or does not
work) on the ground.
824摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 35 卷
Applied ethnobotany involves the development
of partnerships between ethnobotanists (with access
to scientific knowledge and methodologies) and local
people (with their values, knowledge and practical
ways of interacting with plants) . Both parties are in鄄
volved in setting the research questions, undertaking
the research, analysing the data, and identifying the
implications of the findings for conservation and sus鄄
tainable development. Problem identification can be
an on鄄going process, for instance with initial as鄄
sumptions becoming questioned as more information
comes to light and new questions arising as the work
moves into new phases. Applied ethnobotany under鄄
taken in a participatory and action鄄orientated way
helps to ensure that priority issues from the local
perspective are addressed, thus making it more like鄄
ly that local people will be committed to implemen鄄
ting solutions found (Sheil et al., 2006).
5摇 Winning more public support for plant
conservation
An unintended consequence of the traditional
approach to plant conservation may have been to let
politicians off the hook. If plant conservation is con鄄
ceived as being mainly about saving plant species
( seen as units virtually disconnected from ecosys鄄
tems and economies), then politicians may believe
that have contributed sufficiently, once they have
provided funds to conserve a shortlist of Red鄄listed
species at a few sites in the wild and supported the
development of seedbanks. Welcome though such
contributions are, the sum total of their influence
will only extend to a minute fraction of the total plant
cover of the Earth, far below what is needed accord鄄
ing to the vision of an ecosystem鄄based approach.
Taking an ecosystem鄄based approach to plant
conservation and an applied approach to ethnobotany
may result in more support being given to fundamen鄄
tal botanical institutions underlying plant conserva鄄
tion (such as herbaria) and attract more students to
study botany. There have been may complaints in
recent years about a lack of support for herbaria and
for plant taxonomy generally, while whole plant bot鄄
any has been in decline as a taught subject around
the world (Disney, 1998; Hamilton et al., 2003;
Noss, 1996; Wilson, 2000). A new generation of
field botanists may be stimulated to become applied
ethnobotanists, a subject so useful for putting plant
conservation into effect.
6摇 Conclusion
Many details given here may require revision as
more experience is gained on how an ecosystem鄄
based approach to plant conservation can best be ap鄄
plied. However, the basic case is believed to be sol鄄
id: that the world is in deep environmental trouble,
that plant conservation should be pursued every鄄
where and that all plant鄄related aspects of conserva鄄
tion should be taken into account. Ethnobotany is
one of the most valuable tools available for use by
the plant conservation community, especially in its
applied form in which it draws on knowledge and
skills associated with both local communities and
scientists to identify and try to find answers to prob鄄
lems of concern. Taking an applied approach to eth鄄
nobotany will help overcome the commonly encoun鄄
tered problem of a disconnect between academia and
the practical pursuit of conservation (Cowling et al.,
2008; Gibbons et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2006;
Milliken et al., 2010).
Acknowledgements: The research was financed by grants to
Plantlife International from the Allachy Trust, the Rufford
Maurice Laing Foundation, the Gurney Charitable Trust, the
Tanner Trust and Dr William Hamilton. Patrick Hamilton as鄄
sisted with literature research.
References:
Ashley R, Russell D, Swallow B, 2006. The policy terrain in protected
area landscapes: challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape
conservation [J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15 (2): 663—689
Blackmore S, Gibby M, Rae D, 2011. Strengthening the scientific
contribution of botanic gardens to the second phase of the Global
Strategy for Plant Conservation [J] . Botanical Journal of the Lin鄄
nean Society, 166: 267—281
9244 期摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 Alan Hamilton: New Developments in Plant Conservation and the Relevance of Ethnobotany摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇
Cooke J, 2010. Force of Nature [ Z]. National Trust Magazine,
(Summer): 57—59
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Rnight AT et al., 2008. An operational model
for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation [ J] .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105
(28): 9483—9488
Disney H, 1998. Rescue plan needed for taxonomy [ J] . Nature,
394: 120
Gibbons DW, Wilson JD, Green RE, 2011. Using conservation sci鄄
ence to solve conservation problems [ J] . Journal of Applied E鄄
cology, 48: 505—508
Hails C, Humphrey S, Loh J et al., 2008. Living Planet Report
[M]. Gland: WWF, 46
Hamilton AC, Pei SJ, Kessy J et al., 2003. The Purposes and Teach鄄
ing of Applied Ethnobotany [ R]. People and Plants Working
Paper. Vol. 11. Godalming: WWF
Hamilton AC, Hamilton PB, 2006. Plant Conservation: an Ecosystem
Approach [M]. London: Earthscan
Hamilton AC, ed. 2008. Medicinal Plants in Conservation and Devel鄄
opment: Case Studies and Lessons Learnt [M]. Salisbury: Pla鄄
ntlife International
Hamilton AC, 2011. An evidence鄄based approach to conservation
through medicinal plants [ J] . Medicinal Plant Conservation,
14: 2—7
Hamilton AC, 2012. Why and how to make plant conservation ecosys鄄
tem based [J]. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 1 (1): 48—54
Hannah L, Hansen L, 2005. Designing landscapes and seascapes for
change [ A]. In: Lovejoy TE, Hannah L ( ed.), Climate
Change and Biodiversity [M]. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 329—341
He FL, 2009. Price of prosperity: economic development and biologi鄄
cal conservation in China [J] . Journal of Applied Ecology, 46:
511—515
Karling HM, 2001. Climate Change [M]. New York: Nova Science
Publishers
Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM, 2006. An operational model
for implementing conservation action [J] . Conservation Biology,
20 (2): 408—419
Lester SE, Mcleod KL, Tallis H et al., 2010. Science in support of
ecosystem鄄based management for the US West Coast and beyond
[J] . Biological Conservation, 143 (3): 576—587
Manning AD, Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB, 2009. Scattered trees: a
complementary strategy for facilitating adaptive responses to cli鄄
mate change in modified landscapes? [J] . Journal of Applied E鄄
cology, 46: 915—919
McNeely JA, 2011. What more can plant scientists do to help save
the green stuff? [J] . Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society,
166: 233—239
Milliken W, Zappi D, Sasaki D et al., 2010. Amazon vegetation:
how much don忆t we know and how much does it matter? [J] . Kew
Bulletin, 65: 691—709
Nagendra H, 2008. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land
cover clearing [J] . AMBIO, 37: 330—337
Noss RF, 1996. The naturalists are dying off [J] . Conservation Biol鄄
ogy, 10 (1): 1—3
Paton A, Lughadha EN, 2011. The irresistible target meets the un鄄
achievable objective: what have 8 years of GSPC implementation
taught us about target setting and achievable objectives? [J] . Bo鄄
tanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 166: 250—260
Pei SJ (裴盛基), Huai HY (淮虎银), 2009. Plant Resource Con鄄
servation (植物资源保护) [M]. Beijing: China Environmental
Science and Technology Press, 312
Pei SJ, 2010. The road to the future? The biocultural values of the
Holy Hill Forests of Yunnan Province, China [ A]. In: Vers鄄
chuuren B et al., (ed.), Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature
and Culture [M]. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation U鄄
nion (IUCN)
Pei SJ, Hamiltan AC, Yang LX et al., 2010. Conservation and devel鄄
opment through medicinal plants: a case study from Ludian
(Northwest Yunnan, China) and presentation of a general model
[J] . Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 2619—2636
Radford EA, 2011. How to embed an international policy into the po鄄
litical context of the UK and Europe with reference to the imple鄄
mentation of the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Strate鄄
gy for Plant Conservation [J] . Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society, 166: 261—266
RBG, 2010. Plants Under Pressure鄄a Global Assessment [M]. Rich鄄
mond, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens, 16
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA et al., 1996. Evidence鄄based
medicine: what it is and what it isn忆t [J] . British Medical Jour鄄
nal, 312: 71—72
Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH et al., 1994. Evalua鄄
ting approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants
[J] . Ecology, 75: 585—606
Schroter D, Cramer W, Leemans R et al., 2005. Ecosystem service
supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe [ J] . Sci鄄
ence, 310: 1333—1337
Sheil D, Puri R, Wan M et al., 2006. Recognizing local people爷s
priorities for tropical forest biodiversity [ J] . AMBIO, 35 (1):
17—24
Stringer L, Twyman CC, Thomas DS, 2007. Combating land degra鄄
dation through participatory means: the case of Swaziland [ J] .
AMBIO, 36 (5): 387—393
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM et al., 2004. The need for
evidence鄄based conservation [J] . Trends in Ecology and Evolu鄄
tion, 19: 305—308
Wilson EO, 2000. On the future of conservation biology [ J] . Con鄄
servation Biology, 14: 1—3
Yin H, Li C, 2011. Human impact on floods and flood disasters on
the Yangtze River [J] . Geomorphology, 41 (2鄄3): 105—109
034摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 植 物 分 类 与 资 源 学 报摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 摇 第 35 卷