Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Ecology
Volume 2019, Article ID 1323419, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1323419
Review Article

Biodiversity Research Trends and Gaps from the Confluence of Three Global Biodiversity Hotspots in the Far-Eastern Himalaya

1International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), GPO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal
2Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan, China
3GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, North-East Unit, Arunachal Pradesh, India
4Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Department, Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar

Correspondence should be addressed to Nakul Chettri; gro.domici@irttehc.lukan

Received 13 September 2018; Accepted 16 December 2018; Published 8 January 2019

Academic Editor: Stephan Koblmüller

Copyright © 2019 Deepa Basnet et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The Far-Eastern Himalaya Landscape (FHL), a shared transboundary landscape between China, India, and Myanmar, is one of the most intact and biologically rich landscapes in the Eastern Himalaya. Yet, the state of biodiversity and its significance are comparatively poorly known to conservationists and policy makers due to low priority in research, inaccessibility, and remoteness. We collated and reviewed 1032 articles relating to biodiversity of the FHL to understand research trends, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest priority research areas for future biodiversity conservation and management in the landscape. Our review showed that the Myanmar part of the landscape is the most studied, followed by the Indian and Chinese parts. The trend of publications in the landscape showed that the earliest publication on biodiversity in the FHL dates back to 1833, while the years from 2001 to 2017 account for almost 80% of the total publications. Most studies focused on species (73.6%), followed by ecosystems (25%) and genetics (1.4%). Mammals were the most studied taxa (22.6%), with a greater focus on charismatic megafauna, followed by arthropods (15.6%), angiosperms (14.8%), insects (13.4%), and birds (10.8%). There were very few publications on lower invertebrates and lower kingdoms, Monera, Protista, Fungi, and Viruses. At the ecosystem level, most studies focused on forests (58.5%) followed by freshwater (32%), agroecosystems (9%), and alpine/tundra ecosystem (0.5%); there were only 14 studies at genetic level. In the FHL, new species have been discovered and rediscovered starting from the early 1930s until 2017. The majority of newly discovered species in the last 18 years are arthropods. The paper reviews past research areas, identifies gaps for future research and intervention, and recommends transboundary collaboration to address these gaps for conservation and sustainable development of the FHL landscape.

1. Introduction

Human induced habitat loss is among the primary threats to biological diversity [13]. As a result, most facets of biological diversity defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are dwindling and show decreasing trends [4, 5]. Protected areas (PAs) are considered as an integral element of global biodiversity conservation and have often been used as a key indicator of the global commitment to increasing the area under protection [6]. However, PAs are not immune to threats and larger landscape level change and have been compared to land-bridge islands within a sea of hostile habitat [79]. Over the past decades, there has been a shift in emphasis among conservation biologists from managing populations of threatened species at a single site to considering larger landscapes as conservation units [1012]. Such landscape scale approaches to conservation make sense because the drivers of biodiversity loss—land use and land cover change, fragmentation, overexploitation, and climate change—tend to operate at large scales [1315]. In many instances, the landscape approach makes better sense when considered at transboundary level considering the contiguous habitat across borders [16, 17].

The Far-Eastern Himalaya Landscape (FHL hereafter) is a shared transboundary landscape between China, India, and Myanmar [18]. The landscape is a meeting point of three biodiversity hotspots—Himalaya, Indo-Burma, and Mountain of Southeast China—and parts of the landscape are counted among the “crisis ecoregions”, “endemic bird areas”, “mega diverse countries”, and “global 200 ecoregions” [13, 19]. As a result of continental drift, the region has a low latitude along with a wide altitudinal range making it geologically diverse. The convergence of the Indo-Malayan and Palearctic biogeographical realms in the landscape has resulted in rich flora and fauna [2022]. It is one of the most intact and biodiversity rich transboundary biodiversity complexes of the Eastern Himalaya and has been described variously as a “Centre of Plant Biodiversity”, “Eastern Asiatic Regional Centre for Endemism” [23], “Museum”, and “Cradle” of plant diversity [24]. A study of the world’s frontier forests by the World Resources Institute shows that the complex contains mainland Southeast Asia’s last remaining tracts of large, intact natural forest ecosystems which are relatively undisturbed and large enough to maintain biodiversity [25]. The landscape is also significant in terms of freshwater biodiversity with rich species diversity and a high proportion of threatened species [26].

So far, the state of biodiversity and its significance are comparatively poorly known to conservationists and policy makers due to low priority in research, inaccessibility and remoteness [27]. Many species groups have been inadequately studied and the real extent of the biodiversity of the landscape is undoubtedly underestimated. This is reflected in the 353 new species discovered in the Eastern Himalaya between 1998 and 2008, equating to an average of 35 new species finds every year [28]. Even as our knowledge of the FHL remains poor and incomplete, it is facing multiple threats from intensification of farming systems, family fragmentation, encroachments, unregulated tourism, developmental projects, poaching, and land use and climate change [27, 2932]. The FHL, being an important transboundary landscape, designated through a consultative process for long term cooperation [33], needs immediate attention in terms of effective conservation measures [34]. Therefore, understanding the knowledge base, information gaps, and priority areas for future interventions are critical steps in making any transboundary landscape functional [35]. Reviewing available research can serve as a starting point for much needed conservation and management interventions within a given landscape. Here, we synthesize the existing and accessible peer-reviewed literature covering biodiversity aspects in the FHL to understand research trends, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest priority research areas for future biodiversity conservation and management in the landscape.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Situated between 24° 37′ 40.09′′- 28° 32′ 35.3′′N and 95° 27′ 13.75′′ - 99° 8′ 15.57′′ E, the FHL covers an area of over 71,400 km2 with an elevational range extending from 200 to 5,800 masl. The FHL spans across parts of Northern Myanmar (Namyun in the Sagaing Region, and Tanai, Sumprabum, Putao, Machanbaw, Nawngmun, and Khaunglanphu in Kachin District), including Hkakabo Razi National Park (HNP). In India, it includes Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve (NNP & TR) and adjoining buffer areas in Changlang District. In China, the three segments of Gaoligongshan National Nature Reserve (GNNR henceforth) and the intervening areas between them in North-west Yunnan form an integral part of FHL (Figure 1). The HNP of Myanmar is contiguous with the dense temperate forests of Yunnan Province of China and Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary (HWS) connects the NNP & TR in Arunachal Pradesh, India. The NNP & TR has a high potential to be connected with biological corridors to GNNR in Yunnan Province through the HWS which can be further linked with the HNP in Myanmar [18].

Figure 1: The Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape showing protected areas.

About 53.5% of the FHL is under formal protection in the form of PAs (National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Nature Reserves) comprising almost 90% of undisturbed broad- and needle-leaved forests (see Table 1). The landscape is comprised of eight ecoregions [36], nine important bird and biodiversity areas [37], and one World Heritage site, the Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas in China, with a variety of ecosystems and habitats, biodiversity, genetic resources, and cultural heritage [18]. The landscape is home to a wide variety of globally threatened and endangered mammal species [27]. Some of these include the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), Namdapha flying squirrel (Biswamoyopterus biswasi), and Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock). The landscape is also rich in avian diversity, with 525 species recorded in GNNR, 490 in Namdapha National Park, and 311 in Hkakabo Razi National Park [38].

Table 1: Protected areas in the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape.

The landscape is home to approximately 213,600 people [18] from over 20 different ethnic and linguistic groups who add to the region’s historical, cultural and traditional diversity [39]. They include the Chakma, Lisu, Singpho, and Rawang. Around 70% of the rural population depend on natural resource-based livelihoods. The region is facing vulnerabilities due to climate change and anthropogenic activities and therefore there is a need for conservation and management of its rich biodiversity [27].

Recognizing the global and regional significance and challenges that lie within the landscape, the governments of China, India, and Myanmar endorsed and initiated the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape Initiative (HI-LIFE henceforth) that focuses on regional cooperation for integrated landscape conservation and development [18]. The conservation of biodiversity together with improved livelihoods is a prime objective of the initiative. The review and synthesis of existing literature on the FHL is a critical first step in understanding the status of biodiversity, recognizing knowledge gaps, and suggesting potential areas for future research in the landscape. This would also help to direct much needed future interventions and investments for conservation and management of the landscape.

2.2. Methodology

The study is based on the review of literature pertaining to the biodiversity of the FHL, carried out between June 2017 and May 2018. As the objective was to document the status of biodiversity research and identify gaps for future interventions, the review adopted multiple approaches. Initially, articles were collected using search engines such as Scopus and Google Scholar following Kandel et al. [35] and Chaudhary et al. [40]. In the search for literature, three broad categories of keywords were used: the names of countries and provinces or districts within the landscape and names of PAs within the landscape, followed by keywords for biodiversity (mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, fish, etc.) used interchangeably with the above two.

We considered the literature with such key words when they appeared in the title, key words, or the abstract. The rigorous search process for extant literature included journal articles, books/chapters, dissertations, institutional reports, proceedings, management, and development plans. The collected list of articles was then again validated with “Publish or Perish” software [41], which enabled us to add grey literature to the list. We also considered reports of new discoveries or rediscovered species of flora and fauna from the landscape. In addition, we also reviewed the national and global policy interventions contributing to biodiversity conservation with special focus on Multilateral Environmental Agreements. The entire inventory of publications has been made available at ICIMOD’s Regional Database Initiative.

3. Results and Discussion

The research led to 30 different sets of datasets considering the set of interchangeable keywords. The list was then combined in Microsoft Excel to eliminate duplicates. The final list of 1032 published documents from the landscape was then considered for analysis. It is important to note here that this research may not have covered all the research conducted in the landscape. However, it does contribute to the baseline information. More importantly, it provides a foundation for examining the existing research gaps for future interventions and priorities.

3.1. Geographical Distribution of Publication

Our results show that research interest appears to be higher in Myanmar, followed by India and China, whereas the least interest appears to be in the transboundary region of the landscape (publications which included more than one country as their study area were categorized under “transboundary” group for the purpose of this study; see Figure 2). Myanmar makes up a large portion of the landscape (66%) as compared to China (22%) and India (12%), which probably explains why it has the largest number of publications. Out of the 37% of the studies that were carried out in the Myanmar portion, the majority were in three protected areas, Hkakabo Razi National Park, Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, and Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary Extension [42]. Around 50% of the landscape is covered by PAs and therefore it is not surprising that the bulk of the research was carried out within PAs.

Figure 2: Site specific records of publications from the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape (FHL).

The transboundary region accounted for 7% of the publications and 42% of these carried out at the transboundary level (on the Brahmaputra basin) were published in 2017 alone. This indicates that transboundary conservation using landscape approach has gained popularity in recent years. Furthermore, various organizations including ICIMOD, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and Mac Arthur Foundation are working for integrating conservation and development through transboundary cooperation in the region. This has resulted in greater research in the region that is transboundary in scale. The increasing number of such studies can promote shared ownership, trust and cooperation. Furthermore, such research has the potential to assist in integrating science and management in wake of the elevated rate of floral and faunal species loss [43].

3.2. Historical Trends of Publications

The trend of publications was analyzed for nearly two centuries (1820 to 2017) on a three decadal basis. The linear line (see Figure 3) for almost one and a half century suggests less interest and investments in research [44]. There is no evidence of literature on biodiversity during 1851-1880, suggesting either no research or no publications in the public domain. The number of publications for about one and half century thereafter was 39 only, almost one-fourth of what was published from 1971 to 2000. However, the upward trend of publications after the 1970s confirms that the scientific community started becoming active and vocal against the loss and extinction of magnificent mammalian and avian species [45]. The years from 2001 to 2017 mark an important period for biodiversity research in the landscape accounting for almost 80% of the total publications. This is in line with global trends in biodiversity research following the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was held in 1992 and focused global interest on the topic of “biodiversity”. Together with 188 other member countries, China, India, and Myanmar are signatories to CBD. Similar patterns of publication on biodiversity can be seen in other parts of the HKH, including in the Kangchenjunga Landscape in the Eastern Himalayas [35].

Figure 3: Pattern of publications from the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape.

The conservation value of the region was only realized in the 21st century when international NGOs and national research institutions started investing in conservation issues here [46]. These include regional institutions such as ICIMOD; Kunming Institute of Botany (KIB), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS); Southeast Asia Biodiversity Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS-SEABRI); and national institutions like GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development (GBPNIHESD), India, and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC), Myanmar, working on and promoting research and development of the landscape in this region.

The analyses of the literature also showed that from 1820 to 2017 the journals Biodiversity and Conservation of Springer, Elsevier, Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, Taylor & Francis, Zootaxa, and BioOne published the highest number of publications from this landscape mainly from the protected areas of China, India, and Myanmar.

Research on Biodiversity. Our results reveal that 73.6% of the studies were conducted at the species level, 25% at the ecosystem level, and 1.4% at the genetic level (Figure 4). A large number of papers focused on forest ecosystems, mammals, fossilized mesofauna of amber of Hukaung valley, and angiosperms. A few studies also considered multiple case studies from the landscape. For example, [47] investigated fish, amphibians, and reptiles in a single case study at GNNR and [48] in phytodiversity of Arunachal Pradesh and [49] documented mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The cited articles mentioned in other scientific and research papers were also noted to understand the major interests of the authors [50], which was the most cited publication, 695 times for Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), [51] 354 times for hunted mammals, and [52] 217 times for ecology. This process helped to identify the foremost research interest and species of interest (usually large mammals) in the field of biodiversity.

Figure 4: Total number of publications for different biodiversity levels in the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape.
3.3. Publications at Ecosystem Level

A large part of the landscape consists of natural ecosystems: forests supporting a wide variety of habitats, species, and gene pool. The publications were dominated by forest ecosystem (58.5%), followed by freshwater (32%), agroecosystems (9%), and alpine/tundra ecosystem (0.5%). The results show that topics touching upon protected areas of Myanmar (46.6%) dominated the database in forest ecosystem category, followed by India (27.4%) and China (26%). The available literature pays more attention to anthropogenic threats/biotic [5355], conservation biology [31, 56, 57], and ecosystem services and function [58]. Most of the research in conservation biology and anthropogenic threats indicate that there is a need for greater synergies between conservation and development in the study sites. Further, climate adaptation research also stresses on complementary actions among people to adapt to and enhance resilience of both people and environment. This is extremely vital in wake of the changing climate and its projected adverse impacts here [59].

There were 83 researches conducted on freshwater ecosystem including hydrological modelling, limnological parameters and sediment/chemical flux, among others [60, 61]. The landscape has rich agro-biodiversity with different agricultural practices, including shifting cultivation being practised in the region [62, 63] and has been documented from across the Himalayas [64, 65]. A few studies were also carried out in the regions of Myanmar and China to understand the agricultural development here [66]. Unfortunately, the alpine ecosystem of Northwest Yunnan was the solo research subject investigated in the tundra zone [67]. There were only a handful of studies that looked at ecosystems at a transboundary scale [6871].

3.4. Publications at Species Level

With regard to species, 760 studies were conducted on different kingdoms: Animalia (73.5%), Plantae (23.3%), Fungi (1.5%), Monera (0.4%), Protista (0.8%), and Virus (0.4%). Charismatic megafauna accounted for 22.6% of total faunal studies, followed by arthropods (15.6%), angiosperms (14.8%), insects (13.4%), and birds (10.8%). Data deficiency was recorded for smaller mammals due to less research and conservation awareness [72]. There were very few publications on lower kingdoms such as Monera, Protista, Fungi, and Viruses, and these are major gaps that need comprehensive studies on taxonomy, distribution, and population trends.

The first research in the landscape was on rufous-necked hornbill (Aceros  nipalensis), Vulnerable in 1829 [73]. Birds are environmental indicators; many researchers preferred to carry out avifaunal surveys [74] and develop checklists of birds [75, 76] in order to understand the distribution, abundance, and updated status of birds in the protected areas. The landscape is home to mountain hawk eagle (Nisaetus nipalensis) [77], rufous-necked hornbill [78], and Naung Mung scimitar babbler (Jabouilleia naungmungensis) [79]. The Sclater’s monal (Lophophorous sclateri) [66], a keystone bird species of GNNR, has been studied for its diet and a threat assessment of the species has also been done. The GNNR is rich in avian diversity and hence bird watching has been promoted as high-end tourism product [80]. However, as of 2017, transboundary research is limited only to a study on greater rufous-headed parrotbill (Psittiparus bakeri) [81] and overall bird diversity [82].

Data on the distribution of research on mammals was strikingly clear. The Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) received most of the attention in terms of their distribution and conservation status [83, 84], with very less focus on ungulates. The hoolock gibbon is a keystone mammal species in the landscape which has been studied for its distribution, population size, habitat, behavior, and conservation status [85, 86]. Since rodents were viewed as a challenge to the agroecosystem, more than 162 studies have been conducted on them between 1910 and 2015 [87].

Another interesting phylum was Arthropoda, which was studied mainly in fossilized form in the Cretaceous amber of Hukaung valley, Kachin, and Myanmar. Additionally, 87.9% of the researches carried out were for insects, 13.3% for arachnids, and 0.6% for crustaceans in the GNNR, Namdapha, Hukaung valley, Ayeyarwady, and the upper Chindwin catchment. Butterflies, moths [88, 89], beetles [90, 91], and wasps [92] have been abundantly studied too.

Studies for Plantae were prevalent due to the traditional use of medicinal plants and animals [93, 94], flowers [95], orchids [96], seed plants [97], wild tea [98], and bamboo [99] in the landscape. Shen et al. [100] and Paul et al. [101] have also studied the rhododendron species in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot at transboundary scale.

3.5. Publications at Genetic Level

The review encountered only 14 publications on genetic level studies for the landscape, with only one study at the transboundary scale for the Indo-Burma Biodiversity hotspot [102]. Seven of the genetic studies were conducted in the GNNR, two in Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve, two in the Hukaung valley, and two in both the Hkakabo Razi and Hukaung valley. These publications were on nitrogen-fixing filamentous bacteria [103], evolutionary microbiology [104], frog species [105], encephalitis virus [106], elephant [107], cobra (Naja mandalayensis) [108], balsams (Impatiens casseabriae and Impatiens putaoensis) [109], leaf muntjac (Muntiacus putaoensis) [110], flowering plant (Remusatia sp.) [111], conifer (Pinus yunnanensis) [112], Cyprinidae fish (Gymnodiptychus integrigymnatus) [113], and golden snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus roxellana) [114]. There was no genetic research on agro-ecosystem within this landscape. Fewer studies at genetic level compared to research at ecosystem and species level could be due to limited financial resources, lack of sophisticated equipment and restrictive government policies to carry out genetic research in developing countries.

3.6. Species Discovered and Rediscovered

In the FHL, several new species have been discovered starting from the early 1930s until 2017 (Figure 5). The species are categorized under flora and fauna and it can be noted that the discovery of fauna has been increasing since 1991 and is highest in the decade from 2011–2020. New discoveries of flora are comparatively low which have also increased over the last decade (Figure 5). Though there are increasing threats to biodiversity in the landscape, new species continue to be discovered as there are still several unexplored areas with high potential for new species [28]. As conservation interventions, terrestrial PAs have increased only by 0.3% and forest cover by 2.5% (North East Asia by 22.9% and South Asia by 5.8%) in the region in the past 25 years [115]. There are evidences of evolutionary significance of ancient flora in the landscape as well [116]. While new species of mammals, amphibians, arthropods, birds, reptiles, angiosperms, and bryophytes are being discovered. The majority of the newly discovered species in the last 18 years were typically arthropods (52 out of 72 are arthropods).

Figure 5: Species discovered in the Far-Eastern Himalayan Landscape.

Some recent discoveries that are new to science include the snub-nosed monkey, which was discovered in 2010 near the Myanmar-China border [117] and spurred demands for a transboundary landscape conservation approach for species and habitat protection. The fossilized booklice (Psocorrhyncha burmitica) was discovered from Burmese amber [118]. During a survey in 2017, three new angiosperms were discovered, one from the turnipwood family [119], an orchid [120], and a balsam [109]. Likewise, new species of fish [121] and vesper bat [122] have been discovered.

The rediscovery category contains some species which were not reported by scientists for decades or due to their small species range, anthropogenic/natural threats, and illegal trade. Some examples include a freshly defined spider (after detailed investigation based on the male holotype) from Yunnan, China [123], Bufo spp. recorded for a second time at a different location in Arunachal Pradesh [124], jester butterfly seen after 90 years in the Namdapha National Park and Tiger Reserve [125], and several Mesozoic arthropods rediscovered in Burmese Cretaceous amber [126].

3.7. Past Research Areas and Gaps for Future

Considering the results of numerical bibliographic analysis from 1820 to 2017, the existing challenges and gaps were analyzed so as to provide directions for prioritizing future research and sustainable management of biodiversity. These data were examined and categorized into the different biodiversity levels as shown in Table 2. The forest ecosystems in the protected areas may have attracted a lot of research interest and funding because of the national level forest protection scheme and programmes that incentivize protection, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and National Forest Protection Program (NFPP) and National-level Nature Reserves (NNRs) [127, 128]. There was no study on the biomes of rainforest, desert, grassland, and savanna as large areas of the landscape are within the PAs of the three countries. On a few studies focused on agro-ecosystems compared to forest ecosystems, which might be due to less research funding and limited access to these least studied geographical areas.

Table 2: Past research areas, gaps/investments for future.

At the species level, there was a greater focus on charismatic fauna, and there is a need to focus on small mammals and invertebrates. The greater research focus on charismatic and threatened fauna has led to a dearth of information on smaller animals, putting them at higher risk of extinction with not even a basic checklist of their distribution and population status, as also reported in the Kangchenjunga Landscape [35]. Minimal studies at the genetic level have been carried out since the 1990s [129]. The research mainly focused on measuring genetic diversity at species level. More number of inventories at each biodiversity level of organization is required to supplement gap analysis with 100% accuracy.

However, the key identified areas for the above-mentioned gaps and challenges require transboundary collaboration for reaching consensus on the prioritized gaps and actions. There is a need to identify the direction for future collaboration and provide basis for clarified task divisions on each side of the landscape. Higher level leadership and policy support is needed to make local collaborations easier and more effective. Protection, joint conservation of forest and biodiversity resources and sustainable community development in the border areas can be priority areas and actions for future collaboration.

3.8. Major Multilateral Environmental Agreements

The three countries sharing this landscape are signatory to major multilateral environmental agreement (Table 3). Most major agreements, treaties, and protocols related to biodiversity conservation (CBD, CITES, and Ramsar) and climate change (UNFCCC) have been ratified by the countries, indicating national commitment to conservation and encouraging green investments to reduce detrimental effects of climate change. For example, all three countries signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) between 1993 and 1994. Similarly, [130] China committed to protecting water quality, forest resources, and marine ecosystems and reducing wastelands in order to stem biodiversity loss by 2010. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance is meant for protecting wetlands and was signed by India in 1982. During 1992-1993, the first ever systematic mapping of wetlands and species diversity was carried out in India [131]. Myanmar has worked in partnership with CITES signatories including China, India, Thailand and Bangladesh to curb illegal wildlife trade in the international borders [132].

Table 3: International/regional environmental agreements, treaties and protocols ratified/accessioned by China, India & Myanmar.

4. Conclusion

The FHL has been in the limelight for its rich diversity and for new species discoveries in recent years. The initiative taken towards transboundary cooperation and landscape approach by the three countries is timely and our review clearly indicates that the region is of interest to researchers and has the potential for effective conservation interventions. The initiative is also forward looking for the landscape as the three countries share contiguous habitats for many charismatic species. The rich biodiversity of the landscape is still largely intact and could be conserved and managed sustainably if there is greater cooperation among the countries.

At this point, species are the key focus of biodiversity research in this landscape, although many taxa do not even have inventories. The trend shows that Myanmar has the highest number of publications, with maximum focus on arthropods, whereas most research in China is on angiosperms and on mammals in India. The bibliometric study of biodiversity research exhibits a sudden and marked increase in publications from 1990 to 2017 after the three countries signed Multilateral Environmental Agreements and began implementing them. The major challenge is to address the gap of limited research on lower taxa of vertebrates and invertebrates with small geographical range. There are still major gaps in our understanding of habitat use by some of the charismatic species and the potential for conservation corridors to support viable populations. Studies in population ecology are yet to be initiated for most of the taxonomic groups. The study is an important contribution to the understanding of historical and contemporary research trends and gaps in the landscape and provides practitioners, policy makers, conservationists, wildlife managers, and biologists with directions for future biodiversity research, conservation planning, and management of the landscape.

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to Dr. David Molden, Director General of ICIMOD, for his inspiration and for providing the required facilities. We are also grateful to the Government of China, India, and Myanmar for their continuous support for this initiative. We express our special thanks to Dr Ranbeer Singh Rawal, Director of the GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, India, and Mr Win Naing Thaw, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Myanmar, for their guidance and support. The editorial inputs from Samuel Thomas from ICIMOD are also acknowledged. The financial support received from the Austrian Development Agency and GIZ for conducting this analysis is highly appreciated.

References

  1. K. Klein Goldewijk, A. Beusen, G. Van Drecht, and M. De Vos, “The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years,” Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 73–86, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. García, R. M. Pringle, and T. M. Palmer, “Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction,” Science Advances, vol. 1, no. 5, 2015. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. X. Giam, “Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 114, no. 23, pp. 5775–5777, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. Secretariat of the CBD, “Global Biodiversity Outlook 3: A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020,” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal. pp. 1-94, 2010.
  5. A. Estrada, P. A. Garber, A. B. Rylands et al., “Impending extinction crisis of the worlds primates: Why primates matter,” Science Advances, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  6. S. Le Saout, M. Hoffmann, Y. Shi et al., “Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation,” Science, vol. 342, no. 6160, pp. 803–805, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. N. Jenkins and L. Joppa, “Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system,” Biological Conservation, vol. 142, no. 10, pp. 2166–2174, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. E. H. Orlikowska, J.-M. Roberge, M. Blicharska, and G. Mikusiński, “Gaps in ecological research on the world's largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000,” Biological Conservation, vol. 200, pp. 216–227, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. R. Jones, O. Venter, R. A. Fuller et al., “One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure,” Science, vol. 360, no. 6390, pp. 788–791, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. J. F. Franklin, “Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes?” Ecological Applications, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 202–205, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. P. G. Jones, “Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–13, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Reed, J. Van Vianen, E. L. Deakin, J. Barlow, and T. Sunderland, “Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future,” GCB Bioenergy, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 2540–2554, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. M. Brooks, R. A. Mittermeier, G. A. B. Da Fonseca et al., “Global biodiversity conservation priorities,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5783, pp. 58–61, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. B. Arts, M. Buizer, L. Horlings, V. Ingram, C. Van Oosten, and P. Opdam, “Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 42, pp. 439–463, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. R. F. Baldwin, S. C. Trombulak, P. B. Leonard et al., “The Future of Landscape Conservation,” Bioscience, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 60–63, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Kark, A. Tulloch, A. Gordon, T. Mazor, N. Bunnefeld, and N. Levin, “Cross-boundary collaboration: Key to the conservation puzzle,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 12, pp. 12–24, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. Y. Trisurat and N. Bhumpakphan, “Effects of Land Use and Climate Change on Siamese Eld's Deer (Rucervus eldii siamensis) Distribution in the Transboundary Conservation Area in Thailand, Cambodia, and Lao PDR,” Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 6, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. ICIMOD, “Regional Workshop on Planning Transboundary Technical Collaboration for Landscape Management, 8-9 February 2018, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar: ICIMOD Workshop Report 2018,” Kathmandu, ICIMOD, 2018. Available at: http://lib.icimod.org/record/33887.
  19. L. P. Koh, T. M. Lee, N. S. Sodhi, and J. Ghazoul, “An overhaul of the species-area approach for predicting biodiversity loss: Incorporating matrix and edge effects,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1063–1070, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. CEPF, “Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burma hotspot, Eastern Himalayan Region,” Washington DC, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, WWF US-Asian Program, 2005.
  21. CEPF, “Ecosystem Profile: Indo-Burma Hotspot, Indo-China Region,” Washington DC, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, WWF US-Asian Program, 2007.
  22. Z. Hua, “Biogeographical Divergence of the Flora of Yunnan, Southwestern China Initiated by the Uplift of Himalaya and Extrusion of Indochina Block,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 9, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, C. J. Loucks et al., “Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A conservation assessment,” Electronic Green Journal, no. 17, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. López-Pujol, F.-M. Zhang, H.-Q. Sun, T.-S. Ying, and S. Ge, “Centres of plant endemism in China: Places for survival or for speciation?” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1267–1280, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. J. Brunner, K. Talbott, and C. Elkin, “World Resources Institute, Forest Frontiers Initiative,” in Logging Burma's Frontier Forests: Resources and the Regime, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  26. D. J. Allen, S. Molur, and B. A. Daniel, The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in the Eastern Himalaya, IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland, 2010.
  27. N. Chettri, E. Sharma, and B. Shakya, Biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas: Status, Trends and Vulnerability to Climate Change, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, 2010.
  28. C. Thompson, New Species Discoveries,The Eastern Himalayas,Where Worlds Collide, WWF, 2009.
  29. J. S. Brandt, T. Allendorf, V. Radeloff, and J. Brooks, “Effects of national forest-management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya,” Conservation Biology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1271–1282, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C. M. Krishna, A. Kumar, P. C. Ray et al., “Impact of road widening on wildlife in Namdapha National Park, Arunachal Pradesh, India: a conservation issue,” Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 65–67, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  31. M. Rao, S. Htun, S. G. Platt et al., “Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate: A review of threats and implications for conservation planning in myanmar,” AMBIO, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 789–804, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. K. Tse-ring, E. Sharma, N. Chettri et al., “Climate change vulnerability of mountain ecosystems in the Eastern Himalayas: Climate change impact an vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas,” Synthesis report, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  33. ICIMOD and KIB, Consultation Workshop Report: Regional Experience Sharing Consultation on the Landscape Approach to Biodiversity Conservation and Management in the Eastern Himalayas: Towards Developing the Brahmaputra-Salween Landscape, Tengchong county, Yunnan Province, China, 2009.
  34. ICIMOD, “Towards Developing the Landscape Initiative for the Far-eastern Himalaya (Hi-LIFE Initiative),” Kathmandu, ICIMOD, 2014. http://lib.icimod.org/record/31873.
  35. P. Kandel, J. Gurung, N. Chettri, W. Ning, and E. Sharma, “Biodiversity research trends and gap analysis from a transboundary landscape, Eastern Himalayas,” Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. WWF and ICIMOD, “Ecoregion-based Conservation in the Eastern Himalaya: Identifying Important Areas for Biodiversity Conservation,” Kathmandu, ICIMOD, 2001.
  37. BirdLife International, “ Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation,” Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International, 2007.
  38. Y. Shaoliang, Bird Watching Tourism in Gaoligongshan National Nature Reserve, China, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, 2017.
  39. P. Kunstadter, Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities, and Nations (I), University Press, New Jersey, Princeton, 2017.
  40. S. Chaudhary, A. McGregor, D. Houston, and N. Chettri, “The evolution of ecosystem services: A time series and discourse-centered analysis,” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 54, pp. 25–34, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. A. W. Harzing, “Publish or Perish,” https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish.
  42. D. Basnet, T. Dorji, G. Ali et al., Promoting Innovative Livelihoods (Ecotourism and Value Chains) for Sustainable Landscape Management, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, 2018.
  43. A. Breymeyer and R. Noble, Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas, Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
  44. K. S. Zimmerer, “Agriculture, livelihoods, and globalization: The analysis of new trajectories (and avoidance of just-so stories) of human-environment change and conservation,” Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. R. Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven, 5th edition, 2014.
  46. C. R. Margules and R. L. Pressey, “Systematic conservation planning,” Nature, vol. 405, no. 6783, pp. 243–253, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. B. Bai, W. Zhou, W. Li, Z. Liu, and M. Zhu, “Investigation on Fish, Amphibians and Reptiles of Nankang Region of Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve,” Sichuan Journal of Zoology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 370–373, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  48. S. Chakravarty, C. P. Suresh, A. Puri, and G. Shukla, North-East India, the Geographical Gateway of Indias Phytodiversity , Indian Forester, vol. 138, no. 8, pp. 702–709, 2012.
  49. N. Myers, R. A. Mittermeler, C. G. Mittermeler, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent, “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities,” Nature, vol. 403, no. 6772, pp. 853–858, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. R. Sukumar, The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992.
  51. R. T. Corlett, “The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of tropical Asian forests,” Biotropica, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 292–303, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. R. T. Corlett, The Ecology of Tropical East Asia, Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd edition, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. A. Arunachalam, D. Adhikari, R. Sarmah, M. Majumder, and M. L. Khan, “Population and conservation of Sapria himalayana Griffith. in Namdapha national park, Arunachal Pradesh, India,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 13, no. 13, pp. 2391–2397, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. N. E. Clark, E. H. Boakes, P. J. McGowan, G. M. Mace, R. A. Fuller, and D. Nogues-Bravo, “Protected Areas in South Asia Have Not Prevented Habitat Loss: A Study Using Historical Models of Land-Use Change,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1–7, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. C. Schmidt, “As isolation ends, Myanmar faces new ecological risks,” Science, vol. 337, no. 6096, pp. 796-797, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. Blower, “Conservation Priorities in Burma,” Oryx, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. J. Proctor, K. Haridasan, and G. W. Smith, “How far north does lowland evergreen tropical rain forest go?” Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141–146, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. N. S. Sodhi, T. M. Lee, C. H. Sekercioglu et al., “Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1175–1188, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. A. B. Shrestha, N. K. Agarwal, and B. Alfthan, The Himalayan Climate and Water Atlas: Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources in five of Asia’s Major River Basins, ICIMOD, GRID-Arendal and CICERO, 2015.
  60. G. R. Brakenridge, J. P. M. Syvitski, E. Niebuhr et al., “Design with nature: Causation and avoidance of catastrophic flooding, Myanmar,” Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 165, pp. 81–109, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. H. Chapman, M. Bickle, S. H. Thaw, and H. N. Thiam, “Chemical fluxes from time series sampling of the Irrawaddy and Salween Rivers, Myanmar,” Chemical Geology, vol. 401, pp. 15–27, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. M. Majumder, A. Shukla, and A. Arunachalam, “Agricultural practices in Northeast India and options for sustainable management,” in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, pp. 287–315, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  63. P. Sillitoe, “Shifting Cultivation and Sustainable Development of North-Eastern India,” Tradition in Transition Mountain Research and Development, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 89-90, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  64. K. P. Aryal, E. Kerkhoff, N. Maskey, and R. Sherchan, Shifting Cultivation in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape: A Case Study in the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area, WWF Nepal, 2010.
  65. K. Aryal, S. Poudel, R. P. Chaudary et al., “Conservation and management practices of traditional crop genetic diversity by the farmers: a case from Kailash Sacred Landscape, Nepal,” Journal of Agriculture and Environment, vol. 18, pp. 15–28, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. X. Luo, H. Ai, and L. Han, “Feeding ecology of Lophophorus sclateri at Gaoligong,” Journal of Southwest Forestry University, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 64–67, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  67. R. Sherman, R. Mullen, H. Li, Z. Fang, and Y. Wang, “Alpine ecosystems of northwest Yunnan, China: An initial assessment for conservation,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 181–192, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. N. Chettri, B. Shakya, and E. Sharma, Biodiversity Conservation in the Kangchenjunga Landscape, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, 2008.
  69. E. Dinerstein and E. D. Wikramanayake, “Beyond “Hotspots”: How to Prioritize Investments to Conserve Biodiversity in the Indo‐Pacific Region,” Conservation Biology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 53–65, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. R. Kotru, R. S. Rawal, P. K. Mathur et al., “Effective Management of Trans boundary Landscapes – Geospatial Applications,” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XL-8, pp. 1309–1317, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  71. E. Sharma, N. Chettri, and K. P. Oli, “Mountain biodiversity conservation and management: A paradigm shift in policies and practices in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas,” Ecological Research, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 909–923, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. P. J. Stephenson, “Small mammal monitoring: why we need more data on the Afrotheria,” Afrotherian Conservation, vol. 13, pp. 34–42, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  73. B. Hodgson, “On a new species of Buceros,” Asiatic Researches, vol. 18, pp. 178–186, 1833. View at Google Scholar
  74. D. Lan and R. Dunbar, “Bird and mammal conservation in Gaoligongshan Region and Jingdong County, Yunnan, China: Patterns of species richness and nature reserves,” Oryx, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 275–286, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. B. E. Smythies, “A reconnaissance of the N'Mai Hka Drainage,” Ibis, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 627–648, 1949. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. D. C. B. Ticehurst, “On the Birds of Northern Burma,” Ibis, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 65–102, 1938. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. J. O. Gjershaug, O. H. Diserud, P. C. Rasmussen, and D. Warakagoda, “An overlooked threatened species of eagle: Legge's Hawk Eagle Nisaetus kelaarti (Aves: Accipitriformes),” Zootaxa, no. 1792, pp. 54–66, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. A. Datta, M. O. Anand, and R. Naniwadekar, “Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India,” Biological Conservation, vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 1429–1435, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. J. H. Rappole, T. Aung, P. C. Rasmussen, and S. C. Renner, “Ornithological exploration in the southeastern sub-Himalayan region of Myanmar,” Ornithological Monographs, vol. 70, pp. 10–29, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. K. S. Kanwal, “Opportunity of community-based bird-watching ecotourism in Arunachal,” The Arunachal Times, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  81. B. F. King and C. Robson, “The taxonomic status of the three subspecies of Greater Rufous-headed Parrotbill Paradoxornis ruficeps,” Forktail, vol. 24, pp. 120–122, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  82. S. C. Renner and J. H. Rappole, “Bird diversity, biogeographic patterns, and endemism of the eastern Himalayas and southeastern sub-Himalayan mountains,” Ornithological Monographs, vol. 70, pp. 153–166, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. A. Datta, R. Naniwadekar, and M. O. Anand, “Occurrence and conservation status of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India,” Small Carnivore Conservation, vol. 39, p. 10, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  84. D. S. Gour and P. A. Reddy, “Need of transboundary collaborations for tiger survival in Indian subcontinent,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2869–2875, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. W. Y. Brockelman, H. Naing, C. Saw et al., “Census of eastern hoolock gibbons (Hoolock leuconedys) in Mahamyaing wildlife sanctuary,” in The Gibbons. Development in Primatology: Progress and Prospects, pp. 435–451, Springer, New York, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  86. L.-Y. Yin, H.-L. Fei, G.-S. Chen, J.-H. Li, L.-W. Cui, and P.-F. Fan, “Effects of group density, hunting, and temperature on the singing patterns of eastern hoolock gibbons (Hoolock leuconedys) in Gaoligongshan, Southwest China,” American Journal of Primatology, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 861–871, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. L. H. Swanepoel, C. M. Swanepoel, P. R. Brown et al., “A systematic review of rodent pest research in Afro-Malagasy small-holder farming systems: Are we asking the right questions?” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–20, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  88. I. Kania, B. Wang, and J. Szwedo, “Dicranoptycha Osten Sacken, 1860 (Diptera, Limoniidae) from the earliest Cenomanian Burmese amber,” Cretaceous Research, vol. 52, pp. 522–530, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. S.-Y. Lang and S.-Z. Duan, “Description of a new species of Lethe (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae, Satyrinae) from western Yunnan, China,” Zootaxa, vol. 4179, no. 2, pp. 295–300, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. C. Basu, “Insecta: Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae,” Rec. Zoological Survey of India, vol. 82, pp. 201–214, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  91. C. Cai and D. Huang, “The first Mesozoic palmetto beetle (Coleoptera: Smicripidae) in Upper Cretaceous Burmese amber,” Cretaceous Research, vol. 64, pp. 45–49, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. P. Barden and D. Grimaldi, “A diverse ant fauna from the mid-cretaceous of Myanmar (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, 2014. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. G. Das, J. K. Patra, S. K. Singdevsachan, S. Gouda, and H.-S. Shin, “Diversity of traditional and fermented foods of the Seven Sister states of India and their nutritional and nutraceutical potential: a review,” Frontiers in Life Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 292–312, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. H. Ji, P. Shengji, and L. Chunlin, “An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by the Lisu people in Nujiang, Northwest Yunnan, China,” Economic Botany, vol. 58, pp. S253–S264, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. D. Yunfei, J. R. I. Wood, and L. Heng, ““Strobilanthes ovata (Acanthaceae), a New Species from Gaoligong Shan in Yunnan, China,” Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 143–146, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  96. X. G. Xiang, W. T. Jin, D. Z. Li et al., “Phylogenetics of tribe Collabieae (Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae) based on four chloroplast genes with morphological appraisal,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  97. Z. Wang, A. Chen, S. Piao, and J. Fang, “Pattern of species richness along an altitudinal gradient on Gaoligong Mountains, Southwest China,” Biodiversity Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 82–88, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  98. F. Yu and L. Chen, “Indigenous wild tea Camellias in China,” in Proceedings of the In International Conference on O-Cha (Tea) Culture and Science, 1999.
  99. H. C. Yang-Yuming, “Studies on the Bamboo diversity and its conservation in Yunnan, China,” Scientia Silvae Sinicae, vol. 1, pp. 1–25, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  100. S.-K. Shen, F.-Q. Wu, G.-S. Yang, Y.-H. Wang, and W.-B. Sun, “Seed germination and seedling emergence in the extremely endangered species Rhododendron protistum var. giganteum-the world's largest Rhododendron,” Flora, vol. 216, pp. 65–70, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. A. Paul, M. L. Khan, A. Arunachalam, and K. Arunachalam, “Biodiversity and conservation of rhododendrons in Arunachal Pradesh in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot,” Current Science, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 623–634, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. S. Goyari, S. S. Devi, M. C. Kalita, and N. C. Talukdar, “Population, diversity and characteristics of cellulolytic microorganisms from the Indo-Burma Biodiversity hotspot,” SpringerPlus, vol. 3, no. 1, 2014. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. Y. Dai, J. Cao, X. Tang, and C. Zhang, “Diversity of Frankia in nodules of Alnus nepalensis at Gaoligong mountains revealed by IGS PCR-RFLP analysis,” Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 186–190, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. P. Veiga-Crespo, L. Blasco, M. Poza, and T. G. Villa, “Putative ancient microorganisms from amber nuggets,” International Microbiology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 117–122, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. J. A. Dever, A. M. Fuiten, Ö. Konu, and J. A. Wilkinson, “Cryptic torrent frogs of myanmar: An examination of the amolops marmoratus species complex with the resurrection of amolops afghanus and the identification of a new species,” Copeia, no. 1, pp. 57–76, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. Z. Hou, W. Huang, D. Zi, Z. Gong, and Y. Lui, “First isolation of Russian springsummer encephalitis pathogenes from rodents and insectivora,” Virologica Sinica, vol. 7, pp. 397–403, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  107. T. N. C. Vidya, P. Fernando, D. J. Melnick, and R. Sukumar, “Population genetic structure and conservation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) across India,” Animal Conservation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 377–388, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. J. B. Slowinski and W. Wüster, “A new cobra (Elapidae: Naja) from Myanmar (Burma),” Herpetologica, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 257–270, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. B. Yang, S.-S. Zhou, K. W. Maung, and Y.-H. Tan, “Two new species of impatiens (Balsaminaceae) from Putao, Kachin State, Northern Myanmar,” Phytotaxa, vol. 321, no. 1, pp. 103–113, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. G.-G. Li, M.-X. Zhang, K. Swa, K.-W. Maung, and R.-C. Quan, “Complete mitochondrial genome of the leaf muntjac (Muntiacus putaoensis) and phylogenetics of the genus Muntiacus,” Zoological Research, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 310–316, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. R. Li, Z. Dao, and H. Li, “Seed plant species diversity and conservation in the northern Gaoligong Mountains in Western Yunnan, China,” Mountain Research and Development, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–165, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. Y. Xu, N. Cai, K. Woeste et al., “Genetic diversity and population structure of pinus yunnanensis by simple sequence repeat markers,” Forest Science, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 38–47, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. J. Yang, X. Chen, and J. Yang, “Molecular and morphological analysis of endangered species Gymnodiptychus integrigymnatus (Teleostei: Cyprinidae),” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 189–199, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. X. Zhou, B. Wang, Q. Pan et al., “Whole-genome sequencing of the snub-nosed monkey provides insights into folivory and evolutionary history,” Nature Genetics, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1303–1310, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. IPBES, “Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions Continue Dangerous Decline, Scientists Warn,”2018. https://www.ipbes.net/news/media-release-biodiversity-nature%E2%80%99s-contributions-continue-%C2%A0dangerous-decline-scientists-warn.
  116. B. M. Johri and P. S. Srivastava, Reproductive Biology of Plants, Springer Science & Bussiness Media, Berlin, 2001.
  117. T. Geissmann, N. Lwin, S. S. Aung et al., “A new species of snub-nosed monkey, genus Rhinopithecus Milne-Edwards, 1872 (Primates, Colobinae), from northern Kachin state, northeastern Myanmar,” American Journal of Primatology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 96–107, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. D.-Y. Huang, G. Bechly, P. Nel et al., “New fossil insect order Permopsocida elucidates major radiation and evolution of suction feeding in hemimetabolous insects (Hexapoda: Acercaria),” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 23004, pp. 1–9, 2016. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. V. Kumar, S. S. Dash, S. Panday, S. Lahiri, B. K. Sinha, and P. Singh, “kaniaceae: A New Family Record for Flora of India and Lectotypification of the Name Bretschneidera sinensis,” Bulletin of the Botanical Survey of India, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 8–10, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  120. X.-H. Jin and M. Kyaw, “Gastrodia putaoensis sp. nov. (Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae) from North Myanmar,” Nordic Journal of Botany, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 730–732, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. X.-Y. Chen, T. Qin, and Z.-Y. Chen, “Oreoglanis hponkanensis, a new sisorid catfish from north Myanmar (Actinopterygii, Sisoridae),” ZooKeys, vol. 2017, no. 646, pp. 95–108, 2017. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. P. Soisook, W. N. Thaw, M. Kyaw et al., “A new species of Murina (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) from sub-Himalayan forests of northern Myanmar,” Zootaxa, vol. 4320, no. 1, pp. 159–172, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. G. Tang, T. Blick, and H. Ono, “Rediscovery of an obscure spider genus Zametopina Simon, 1909 (Araneae, Thomisidae) from Yunnan, China,” Bull.Natl.Mus.Nat.Sci, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 65–70, 1909. View at Google Scholar
  124. M. M. Borah and S. Bordoloi, “Rediscovery of Bufo macrotis Boulenger (Amphibia: Anura) in Arunachal Pradesh, India,” Zoos' Print Journal, vol. 16, no. 8, p. 574, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. K. Kunte, “Rediscovery of the federally protected Scarce Jester Butterfly Symbrenthia silana de Nicéville, 1885 (Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae) from the Eastern Himalaya and Garo Hills, northeastern India,” Journal of Threatened Taxa, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 858–866, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  126. D. A. Grimaldi, M. S. Engel, and P. C. Nascimbene, “Fossiliferous cretaceous amber from Myanmar (Burma): Its rediscovery, biotic diversity, and paleontological significance,” American Museum Novitates, vol. 3361, pp. 1–71, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  127. R. K. Singh and I. Padung, “Climate change, REDD and biocultural diversity: Consultations and grassroots initiative with indigenous people of Arunachal Pradesh,” Current Science, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 421-422, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  128. R. Roy, S. Karki, and B. S. Karky, REDD+ in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: a stocktaking study from Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan, ICIMOD Working Paper 8 ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2015.
  129. I. Hanski and O. Gaggiotti, Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations, Academic Press, 2004.
  130. H. Xu, X. Tang, J. Liu et al., “Chinas Progress toward the Significant Reduction of the Rate of Biodiversity Loss,” BioScience, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 843–852, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  131. N. Bassi, M. D. Kumar, A. Sharma, and P. Pardha-Saradhi, “Status of wetlands in India: A review of extent, ecosystem benefits, threats and management strategies,” Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, vol. 2, pp. 1–19, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  132. A. H. Oswell, “The Big Cat Trade in Myanmar and Thailand: A Traffic Southeast Asia Report , Petaling Jaya,” TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, pp. 1–42, 2010. View at Google Scholar