Imperiled giant pandas need replanted bamboo forests in order to reconnect

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Giant panda habitats are too fragmented and need to be reconnected in order for the endangered animals to maintain their genetic diversity, a new study shows.

The study, conducted by researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the China Wildlife Conservation Association, both in Beijing, was published July 23 in the open-access journal

BMC Genetics.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) used to live in relative isolation from humans, but the 20th century brought villages, towns, roads, dams and other projects that now prevent pocket panda populations from visiting each other and exchanging genetic materials (in other words, breeding).

The researchers visited four patches of habitat in the Xiaoxiangling and Daxiangling mountains, with a mean distance of 76 kilometers between each patch. A total of 192 fecal samples were collected and revealed 53 unique genotypes. This, the researchers say, demonstrates signs of fragmentation within the panda population.

One of the study's co-authors, Fuwen Wei from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said in a prepared statement: "These results suggest that gene flow will be enhanced if the connectivity between the currently fragmented bamboo forests is increased. This may be of importance to conservation efforts as gene flow is one of the most important factors for maintaining genetic diversity within a species and counteracting the negative effects of habitat fragmentation."

How do we get the pandas to reconnect? The researchers say that bamboo forests need to be replanted, which would give the giant pandas enough food to wander and mix their populations. Doing so will "restore population viability of the giant panda in these regions," the authors wrote in the conclusion to their paper.

No one knows exactly how many giant pandas remain in the wild, especially after the devastating earthquakes that hit Sichuan province in 2008. Next year, China will embark on its fourth national survey of giant pandas, the last of which was conducted between 1998 and 2002. As Wei discussed in a June article published in

Cosmos, the survey will use some of the same molecular techniques (DNA fingerprinting) he employed in this new study to count the animals, and the survey aims to come up with a better assessment of the pandas' population in the wild.

Photo: Giant panda, courtesy of BMC Genetics.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe