Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector - Frontier-publications.co.uk

Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research 

REPORT 9 

Na Hang Nature Reserve, 

Tat Ke Sector 

Site Description and Conservation Evaluation 

Frontier Vietnam 

1997

Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research 

Report 9 

Na Hang Nature Reserve, 

Tat Ke Sector 

Site Description and Conservation Evaluation 

Hill, M and Hallam, D (eds) 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

Forest Protection Department 

Frontier-Vietnam 

Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources 

Society for Environmental Exploration 

Hanoi 

1997

Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector 1997 

Technical report citation: 

Frontier Vietnam (1997) Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (eds) Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site 

Description and Conservation Evaluation. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research Report 9. 

Society for Environmental Exploration, London and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, 

Hanoi. 

Section citations: 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Vegetation In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site Description 

and Conservation Evaluation.. pp. 10-20. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research Report 9. Society 

for Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi . 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Invertebrate survey In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site 

Description and Conservation Evaluation.. pp. 21-26. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research 

Report 9. Society for Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological 

Resources, Hanoi. 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Butterflies In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site Description 


for Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi.. 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Fish In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site Description and 

Conservation Evaluation.. pp. 30-32. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research Report 9. Society for 

Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi. 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Amphibians and reptiles In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. 

Site Description and Conservation Evaluation.. pp. 33-34. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research 



Mcleod, R. (1997) Birds In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector Site Description and Conservation 

Evaluation.. pp 35-39. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research Report 9. Society for Environmental 

Exploration, London and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi. 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Mammals In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site Description 


for Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi. 

Hill, M. and Hallam, D. (1997) Socio-economic study In Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector. Site 

Description and Conservation Evaluation.. pp. 44-52. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research 



© Frontier Vietnam 

ISSN 1479-117X 

Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research Report 9 

i


Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR) 

The Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR) was founded by decision HDBT 65/CT of the 

Council of Ministers dated 5 March 1990. As part of the National Center for Natural Science and 

Technology, IEBR’s objectives are to study the flora and fauna of Vietnam; to inventory and evaluate 

Vietnam’s biological resources; to research typical ecosystems in Vietnam; to develop technology for 

environmentally-sustainable development; and to train scientists in ecology and biology. IEBR is Frontier's 

principal partner in Vietnam, jointly co-ordinating the Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme. In the 

field, IEBR scientists work in conjunction with Frontier, providing expertise to strengthen the research 

programme. 

The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE) 

The Society is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and was formed in 1989. The Society’s 

objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects 

contributing to the conservation of natural resources. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiatives 

developed in collaboration with national research agencies in co-operating countries. 


Frontier-Vietnam is a collaboration of the Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE), UK and 

Vietnamese institutions, that has been undertaking joint research and education projects within the 

protected areas network of Vietnam since 1993. The majority of projects concentrate on biodiversity and 

conservation evaluation and are conducted through the Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme. The 

scope of Frontier-Vietnam project activities have expanded from biodiversity surveys and conservation 

evaluation to encompass sustainable cultivation of medicinal plants, certified training and environmental 

education . Projects are developed in partnership with Government departments (most recently the Institute 

of Ecology and Biological Resources and the Institute of Oceanography) and national research agencies. 

Partnerships are governed by memoranda of understanding and ratified by the National Centre for Natural 

Science and Technology. 

Forestry Protection Department 

Block A3, 2 Ngoc Ha, Hanoi, Vietnam 

Tel: +84 (0) 4 733 5676 

Fax: +84 (0) 4 7335685 

E-mail: cites_vn@fpt.vn 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 


PO Box 242, GPO Hanoi, 75 Dinh Tien Hoang 

Street, Hanoi, Vietnam 

Tel: +84 (0) 4 868 3701 

Fax: +84 (0) 4 869 1883 

E-mail: frontier@netnam.vn 

Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources 

Nghia Do, Cau Glay, Hanoi, Vietnam 

Tel: +84 (0) 4 786 2133 

Fax: +84 (0) 4 736 1196 

E-mail: Lxcanh@ncst.ac.vn 

Society for Environmental Exploration 

50-52 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3QP. U.K. 

Tel: +44 20 76 13 24 22 

Fax: +44 20 76 13 29 92 

E-mail: info@frontier.ac.uk 

Internet: www.frontier.ac.uk 


ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Figures 

v 

Executive Summary 

vi 

Acknowledgements 

vii 

1.0 Introduction 1 

1.1 General 1 

1.2 Location 1 

1.3 Topography and geology 1 

1.4 Climate and hydrology 4 

2.0 Aims and Objectives 8 

3.0 Period of study and study sites 8 

4.0 Work Undertaken 9 

5.0 Vegetation surveys 


5.2 Methods 10 

5.2.1 Forest tree survey 10 

5.2.2 Ground flora survey 11 

5.2.3 Ad lib. collection 11 

5.3 Results 13 

5.3.1 Forest tree survey 13 

5.3.2 Ground flora survey 14 

5.3.3 Description of forest sites 14 

5.3.4 Other vegetation types at Tat Ke 18 

5.4 Discussion 19 

5.4.1 Rare species 19 

5.4.2 Comparison of Tat Ke and Ban Bung sectors 20 

6.0 Invertebrate surveys 



6.2.1 Sweep-netting 21 

6.2.2 Pitfall trapping 21 







7.0 Butterflies 





7.4.1 Rare and unusual species 28 

7.4.2 Seasonal changes in the fauna 29 

8.0 Fish 





8.4.1 Wild communities 31 

8.4.2 Aquaculture 32 


iii


9.0 Amphibians and reptiles 





10.0 Birds 





10.4.1 Comparison with previous surveys 37 

10.4.2 Range extensions and altitude reductions 38 

10.4.3 Evidence of breeding 38 

10.4.4 Biodiversity value 38 

11.0 Mammals 



11.2.1 Mammal trapping 40 

11.2.2 Bat netting 40 

11.2.3 Observation 40 


11.3.1 Mammal trapping 41 

11.3.2 Bat netting 41 

11.3.3 Observation 41 


12.0 Socio-economic study 




12.3.1 The people and place 45 

12.3.2 Economic activity 46 

12.3.3 Land tenure 47 

12.3.4 Forest use 47 

12.3.5 Peoples attitudes to conservation 49 

12.3.6 Forestry protection 50 

12.3.7 Ecotourism potential 51 


13.0 Conclusions 

13.1 Tat Ke sector 53 

13.2 Comparison of the Tat Ke and Ban Bung sectors 53 

14.0 References 55 

15.0 Appendices 

Appendix 1 Plant Species List 

Appendix 2 Forest Transect Diagrams 

Appendix 3 Family Composition of Forest Transect Flora 

Appendix 4 Butterfly Species List 

Appendix 5 Fish Species List 

Appendix 6 Amphibian and Reptile Lists 

Appendix 7 Bird Species List 

Appendix 8 Mammal Species List 

Appendix 9 List of specimens collected at Na Hang and their locations 


iv


LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Na Hang Nature Reserve 3 

Figure 2. Daily rainfall and depth of Khau Tinh stream, Tat Ke 4 

Figure 3. Topographical map of Na Hang reserve (Tat Ke sector) 6 

Figure 4. Map of Tat Ke sector showing study areas 7 

Figure 5. Map of the Tat Ke sector showing major vegetation types 12 

Figure 6. Summary table of tree flora data for forest sites 13 

Figure 7. Summary table of ground flora data for forest sites 14 

Figure 8. Number of ground flora species in each ecological group 14 

Figure 9. The five sites at which pitfall trapping was carried out 22 

Figure 10. Summary table of sweep-net data 22 

Figure 11. Summary table of pitfall trap data 23 

Figure 12. Graph of percentage of total pitfall catch (species) at each site 

Figure 13. 

in major invertebrate groups 23 

Graph of percentage of total pitfall catch (individuals) at each 

site in major invertebrate groups 24 

Figure 14. Pie chart of butterfly families 28 

Figure 15. Table of number of fish in three sites at Tat Ke 31 

Figure 16. Bird species 'near threatened' internationally 37 

Figure 17. Summary agricultural statistics for three villages 47 


v


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report describes the second phase of study conducted by the Society for Environmental 

Exploration (S.E.E.) in the Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam (22 o 10'N, 

105 o 24'E). Unlike the first expedition, which was based in the southern (Ban Bung) wilderness zone of 

the reserve (described in Hill and Kemp, 1996), this work described in this report was almost entirely 

carried out in the northern (Tat Ke) sector, which is separated from the southern by intensively 

cultivated lowlands and the town of Na Hang. The work was carried out between 5th July and 9th 

September 1996. 

The aim of the survey was to gather information on the forest structure and biodiversity of the sector in 

order to complement that gathered by the earlier research period, and compare forest quality, 

biodiversity, and threats to the conservation value of the protected area in both the southern and 

northern sectors of the reserve. 

The vegetation of the sector was studied, with forest transects in four widely differing forest types 

surveyed (see Appendices 2 and 3). A list of 918 plant species, belonging to 135 families, was produced 

(see Appendix 1); twenty-nine of these species are included in the plant Red Data Book for Vietnam 

(RDB, 1996). However, the forest in the Tat Ke sector differed significantly from that in the southern 

part of the reserve, with greater disturbance caused by its larger human population. 

Invertebrates were collected by sweep-net and pitfall trapping in forest transects and other locations. 

Pitfall trap assemblages showed relatively high diversity, although traps were situated in secondary 

vegetation types. However, sweep-net samples from forest vegetation were small. 

Butterfly transects were set up in open vegetation and two differing forms of secondary forest. 

Butterflies were observed in each trasect once each week. In addition, butterflies were collected 

throughout the reserve, and a total of 94 species were taken (see Appendix 4). 

Fish of the streams and rivers in and around the reserve were collected by Dr Nguyen Kiem Son of the 

Institute for Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi. A total of 73 species were recorded in the area 

(see Appendix 5); eight of the species collected are listed as under threat in Vietnam's Red Data Book 

(RDB, 1992). Amphibians and reptiles were also collected during the study period, and a list is shown 

in Appendix 6. 

Birds were observed throughout the study period in all the habitats of the Tat Ke sector, and during a 

short visit to the Ban Bung sector. A total of 153 species were observed (Appendix 7), nine of which 

are endangered at a national or international level. When combined with the data from the previous 

survey, a total of 221 species have been recorded from the reserve in 1996. 

Mammals were studied by trapping (small mammals and bats) and observation (larger mammals). A 

total of 21 species were recorded during the phase (see Appendix 8), but the Tonkin Snub-nosed 

Monkey Pygathrix avunculus was not observed. 

Socio-economic conditions of the human population of the reserve were investigated by interviews 

conducted in local villages, and with health workers and forestry officials. Human activity in the Tat Ke 

sector has had a major impact on forest quality; primary forest is now restricted to the South and West 

parts of the sector. Although there are plans to reduce the population by resettling Hmong villagers in 

another area, these seem unlikely to have a major impact on the population pressures which currently 

exist on the area's forests. 


vi


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report is the culmination of the advice, co-operation, hard work and expertise of many 

people. In particular acknowledgements are due to the following: 

IEBR 

Fish Expert: 

Botanist: 

Taxonomist: 

Taxonomist: 

Dr Nguyen Kim Son 

Dr Nguyen Kim Dao 

Professor Cao Van Sung 

Dr. Nguyen Van Sung 

SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION 

Managing Director: Ms. Eibleis Fanning 

Research Programme Manager: Ms. Leigh Stubblefield 

Operations Manager: 

Ms. Amy Banyard-Smith 

Hanoi University 

Botanist: 

Russian Tropical Centre 

Taxonomist: 

FRONTIER-TANZANIA 

Research Co-ordinator: 

Assistant Research Co-ordinators: 

Camp Co-ordinator: 

Field Assistants: 

Research Assistants: 

Dr Tran Dinh Nghia 

Dr. Alexander Monastyrskii 

Mr. Michael Hill 

Mr. Dan Hallam 

Ms. Maysie Harrison 

Ha Quy Quynh and Tran Quang Ngoc 

Ms. Emma Segar, Mr. Kevin Bowyer, Mr.Charlie 

Cox, Mr. John Gilhooley, Jun Kino, Mr. Ross 

McCleod, Ms. Natasha Ralphs, Ms. Dorit Stumper, 

Mr. Gero von Hasa-Radlitz, Ms. Allyson Steels, Ms. 

Alexandra Hamilton, Mr. Steven Hughes and Mr. 

Mark Kinlon 

Editorial Comments: 

Dr. Neil Burgess, SEE and Darwin Centre for Tropical 

Biodiversity, University of Copenhagen; Ms. Leigh 

Stubblefield, SEE. 


vii


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General description 

Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam, is made up of two 

wilderness zones; Tat Ke sector to the North of Na Hang town, and Ban Bung sector 

to the South (see Figure 1). The southern sector was the site of a biodiversity and 

socio-economic study by the Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE) in early 

1996 (Hill and Kemp, 1996). The aim of SEE-Vietnam's second project in this reserve 

was to extend the survey work carried out on the biology and sociology of the Ban 

Bung sector in January to March 1996 to include the northern Tat Ke sector, and this 

report describes the results of work carried out in the Tat Ke sector only. 

1.2 Location 

The northern (Tat Ke) sector of the reserve is bounded on the East by the River Gam 

and a tributary which joins the Gam at Pac Von. To the North, the boundary is formed 

by the borders of the Con Lon and Yen Hoa districts. In the West, the boundary is 

formed by the Yen Hoa River (a tributary of the River Nang), and the Na Hang-Con 

Phay road (in places, little more than a track). In the South, the River Nang is the 

boundary, and the southernmost point of the sector is at the confluence of the Rivers 

Nang and Gam (see Figure 3). 

Tat Ke has a large human population, and several villages occur within the reserve 

boundaries (particularly in the northern part of the sector). The largest settlement is 

Khau Tinh, and the majority of the sector is in the Khau Tinh subdistrict. The are also 

smaller villages and isolated farmsteads found throughout the sector, although few 

occur in the South and West of the sector. 

1.3 Topography and Geology 

The Tat Ke sector, like the southern Ban Bung sector, is made up of steep limestone 

hills. The majority of the sector, and the reserve as a whole, lies between 300 and 

800m above sea level (asl.) The highest mountain in the Tat Ke sector reaches 1,064m 

asl.(Cox, 1994), and the highest peaks are concentrated in the central part of the 

sector. The western part of this block is called Nui Khau Tep (Khau Tep Mountain). 

Two distinctive isolated hills of 926m and 814m asl. lie at the southernmost point of 

the reserve (see Figure 3). Along the banks of the Rivers Nang and Gam, there are 

narrow strips of level land which are now almost entirely under cultivation. Several 

plateaux exist at higher elevations within the reserve, for example, around the village 

of Khau Tinh. These are also used as arable land, particularly for rice and maize 

cultivation. 

Frontier-Vietnam Environment Research Report 9 1


As at Ban Bung, the underlying geology of the Tat Ke sector is limestone. Karstic 

processes have produced several extensive cave systems, although these are fewer 

than the Ban Bung sector. Tufa deposits occur at waterfalls and in caves. 

In contrast to the Ban Bung sector, where gold-prospecting was widespread (Hill and 

Kemp, 1996), few signs of disturbance (for example, extensive areas of digging, as 

found near Nam Trang in the Ban Bung sector) were observed during the study period 

at Tat Ke. Although gold-prospecting itself is likely to be a seasonal occupation for 

agricultural workers, the lack of diggings suggests that Tat Ke either possesses less 

gold, or that its more intensive agricultural use and greater settled population 

discourages the activities of itinerant gold-prospectors. 



Figure 1. Map of northern Vietnam showing the position of the Na Hang Nature 

Reserve. 



1.4 Climate and Hydrology 

The climate of the Na Hang area is strongly seasonal, with cool, dry winters and 

warm, wet summers. Mean climate data for a ten-year period is given by Cox (1994). 

The Tat Ke sector is drained by many small streams, although most of these are 

seasonal, drying out in the winter dry season. During the survey period in Tat Ke 

(which coincided with the summer wet season), the levels of streams within the 

reserve varied greatly with recent precipitation (see below). Around the margins of the 

reserve, most streams flow directly into the Rivers Nang and Gam, sometimes as steep 

waterfalls. In the central area, however, many streams (including the Khau Tinh 

stream) disappear into swallow holes in the limestone. A few of the streams in the 

sector are said to be permanent, flowing throughout the year, although in the winter 

villagers find it difficult to maintain an adequate water supply. Many farmers maintain 

small fish ponds amongst their rice paddies, although these too are usually only 

seasonal. 

During the period of the survey in Tat Ke, rainfall data was collected using a rain 

gauge, and the water level of a stream close to the camp (Khau Tinh stream) was 

measured. These data are shown in Figure 2, below. 

Figure 2. Daily rainfall (mm) and depth of Khau Tinh stream (mm), July- September, 

1996 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

-50 

-100 

* = total rainfall not collected 

The graph, Figure 2, shows the very short time lag between precipitation and stream 

flow. On most occasions, stream flow rapidly increased at the onset of rain. Although 

the forest and the limestone geology of the area act as a buffer to some extent, 



regulating stream flow, there is still a large amount of rapid surface flow during the 

monsoon period. This has been aggravated by forest destruction in many areas of 

North-West Vietnam, and during the 1996 rainy season, heavier than usual rains 

caused extensive flooding which destroyed crops. Tuyen Quang Province (including 

Na Hang District) was badly hit by these floods (Phuong Mai, Vietnam Courier, 

5/11/97). 



Figure 3. Topographical map of Tat Ke sector, Na Hang Nature Reserve. 



Figure 4. Map of Tat Ke sector, Na Hang Nature Reserve, showing study sites. 



2.0 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 

The fauna and flora of the Na Hang region were studied by Dang Huy Huynh and 

Hoang Minh Khien (1993), and a report on the biodiversity of the area was produced 

by Cox (1994), which led to the establishment of the nature reserve. Since the reserve 

was established in 1995, various foreign and Vietnamese biologists have carried out 

short periods of research in the area. In early 1996, an SEE expedition in the Southern 

(Ban Bung) sector of the reserve carried out a baseline biodiversity survey and socioeconomic 

work with local populations (Hill and Kemp, 1996). 

The aims of the second study period in the Na Hang reserve were to gather data on 

vegetation, animals and human populations in the northern part of the reserve, to add 

to the existing body of biological and socio-economic data. In particular, less wellknown 

groups (including butterflies, bats and small mammals) were to be targeted. 

This would allow conditions in the two wilderness zones to be compared. In addition, 

seasonal differences in the populations of insects, flowering plants and migratory birds 

would be observed. 

More specific aims of the survey were; 

• To identify and map the major vegetation types in Tat Ke, and describe their 

species composition and structure. 

• To assess the species richness and conservation value of major invertebrate 

and vertebrate groups. 

• To analyse human use of, and threats to, the forest vegetation of the Tat Ke 

area. 

• To discuss threats, and potential threats, to the reserve's biodiversity. 

3.0 PERIOD OF STUDY AND STUDY SITES 

The work described in this report was carried out between the 5th July and 9th 

September 1996. Survey work was concentrated in the northern (Tat Ke) wilderness 

zone of the Na Hang reserve (with the exception of a short trip to the southern Ban 

Bung sector, during which birds were studied). Major study sites are shown in Figure 

4; descriptions of these sites can be found in the relevant sections of this report. The 

position of the base camp (near Tat Ke village) is also shown in Figures 3 and 4. 



4.0 WORK UNDERTAKEN 

The work carried out in the Tat Ke sector of the Na Hang reserve is listed below. 

Details of the methodologies used can be found in relevant sections of this report. 

• The diversity of the forest flora was assessed by sampling all trees within four 

plots, each in a different forest type. 

Ground flora and shrubs were sampled in smaller quadrats within the plot. 

• The structure of the forest in each study site was assessed. Measurements of 

DBH, top height, height of bottom of canopy, first branch height, and canopy 

extent were taken for each tree. Forest transect diagrams were drawn using 

these data. 

• Invertebrate fauna was assessed using pitfall traps and sweep-netting. 

• The butterfly fauna of the reserve was sampled by net collection and butterfly 

trapping. 

• The fish fauna of streams and rivers in and around the Tat Ke sector was 

studied. 

• Reptiles and amphibians present in the sector were collected. 

• An extensive bird survey was carried out in all the habitats represented at Tat 

Ke, and measures of abundance and the distribution of species between 

habitats made. 

• A mammal survey was carried out using tracks and signs, sightings, mammal 

trapping (for small terrestrial mammals) and bat netting, to construct an 

accurate species list. 

• Socio-economic work was carried out to assess the impact of local 

populations on the forest in Tat Ke. 



5.0 VEGETATION SURVEY 

5.1 Introduction 

Previous studies of the vegetation of the Na Hang nature reserve have included work 

by Dang Huy Huynh et al.(1993), Cox (1994) and an SEE-Vietnam expedition in 

January to March 1996 (Hill and Kemp, 1996). All have indicated the importance of 

the forest at Na Hang on a regional and national scale. The latter is the most complete 

study of Na Hang's vegetation to date. However, work was restricted to the Southern 

(Ban Bung) sector of the reserve, with no work being carried out in the Tat Ke sector. 

The aims of this, the second SEE investigation within the Na Hang reserve, were to 

describe and map major vegetation types, and record species present in the Tat Ke 

sector in order to supplement the existing data and provide contrasts to the 

investigations already carried out within the Ban Bung sector of the reserve. Since 

forest vegetation types dominate in this part of the reserve (as at Ban Bung), detailed 

vegetation studies were restricted to forest areas. 

5.2 Methods 

Four sites were chosen to represent a variety of forest habitats present in the sector, 

which can be classified as described by Nakashizuka and Yusop (1993, for Peninsular 

Malaysia); 

• FT1 Primary transitional (lowland/lower montane) rainforest, 695m asl. 

• FT2 Secondary lowland rainforest, on limestone slope. 500m asl. 

• FT3 Primary lowland rainforest, in a steep limestone valley. 595m asl. 

• FT4 Primary lowland rainforest, on a wet slope, 680m asl. 

The positions of the four study sites are shown in Figure 5. 

At each study site, the following surveys were carried out; 

1) Forest tree survey (all trees over 4.5m high) 

2) Ground flora/sapling survey (herbs and trees under 4.5m). 

5.2.1 Forest tree survey 

In each location, a plot 40m x 40m was marked. Within the plot, all trees (over 4.5m 

tall) were identified and the DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of each tree measured. 

This allows the Basal Area of Wood (BA) to be calculated for each species and 

family. 

In addition, a 60m x 10m transect was laid out alongside the plot. Within the 

transects, each tree was identified to species. The following measurements were taken; 

DBH, trunk coordinates (position within transect), canopy extent, height of tree, 



height of base of canopy, point of inversion (height of lowest branch). These data 

were used to plot forest transect diagrams. 

5.2.2 Ground flora and sapling survey 

Twenty 2m x 2m quadrats were laid out in a diagonal line across the plot (a total of 

80m 2 , 5% of the plot area). Within each quadrat, the herbaceous species, shrubs and 

saplings under 4.5m were recorded. For each species, the number of individual plants 

and an estimate of percentage cover of the 2m x 2m quadrat were recorded. In 

addition, the proportion of each quadrat which was bare of vegetation was recorded. 

For the ground flora in each site, diversity was indicated by calculating Fisher's α. 

This measure of diversity takes account both the number of species (here, 

Recognisible Taxonomic Units or RTUs were used, as many of the taxa such as tree 

seedlings could not be identified to species level) and individuals in a sample (Fisher 

et al, 1943). Fisher's α is relatively free of bias when describing samples of differing 

size (see Magurran, 1988). 

5.2.3 Ad lib. collection 

In addition to this detailed work on forest vegetation, plants were collected throughout 

the habitats represented at Na Hang, in order to compile as accurate a list as possible 

of the flora of the area and provide a contrast with the available lists for the Ban Bung 

sector. The habitat preferences of each species were recorded, along with details of 

any fertile stages present over the study period, and human utilisation of the plants. 

The plant species list for Tat Ke was largely compiled by Dr Tran Dinh Nghia. 



Figure 5. Map of the Tat Ke sector showing major vegetation types 



5.3 Results 

As shown in Figure 5, the vegetation within the Tat Ke sector was dominated by forest 

types. However, clearance of land for cultivation (rice and maize), and grazing, was 

extensive. As a result, forests tended to be restricted to sloping ground. Evergreen 

lowland forests (primary and secondary) were present on the limestone slopes of the 

reserve, and montane and sub-montane forests on the higher slopes and mountains 

(over 700m asl.). 

The list of plant species identified in forest transects and through ad lib. collection at 

Tat Ke is shown in Appendix 1. A total of 917 species, belonging to 134 plant 

families, was found during the period of the study. 

5.3.1 Forest tree survey 

Transect diagrams for the five forest sites are shown in Appendix 2. 

A summary of the data for forest plots is given in the table, Figure 6. The plant 

families represented in each forest plot are shown in Appendix 3. 

Figure 6. Summary of tree data for forest sites 

Site Altitude Number Number Number Total Basal 

(m asl) of Familes of trees of Trees Area of trees 

per plot per plot per ha. (m 2 ha -1 ) 

FT1 695 21 103 644 30.00 

FT2 500 17 208 1300 50.00 

FT3 595 16 132 825 75.02 

FT4 580 26 174 1087 26.79 



5.3.2 Ground flora and sapling survey 

Figure 7 shows a summary of the data for the sites, and Figure 8 shows the total 

numbers of plants in each ecological class in each location. 

Figure 7. Summary of the ground flora data for four sites. 

Site Mean cover Mean number of Mean number of Fisher's α 

(% of quadrat) species per quadrat species m -2 

diversity index 

FT1 81.35 12.65 3.16 46.43 

FT2 62.47 9.84 2.46 13.43 

FT3 68.40 10.75 2.69 16.51 

FT4 42.15 12.00 3.00 45.52 

Figure 8. Numbers of ground flora species in each ecological group identified, for 

four sites. 

NI = Number of individual plants NS = Number of species 

HERBS CLIMBERS PALMS SHRUBS TREES 

Site NI NS NI NS NI NS NI NS NI NS 

FT1 183 21 66 12 7 3 127 23 100 44 

FT2 6 4 18 5 0 0 109 15 1554 41 

FT3 166 18 33 10 0 0 65 18 1697 33 

FT4 169 27 34 9 19 3 171 28 83 44 

5.3.3 Description of forest sites 

5.3.3.1 Forest Transect 1 

Forest Transect 1 (FT1) was situated in an area relatively undisturbed by human 

activity; although the density of trees was the lowest of any of the plots studied, there 

was no sign of recent felling. 

FT1 was the highest altitude plot studied, at 695m above sea level. As a result, the 

forest showed some similarity with lower montane forest in both its structure (a 

relatively undifferentiated canopy with few emergent trees), and species composition 

(the presence of high-altitude taxa such as Podocarpus neriifolius 

(Podocarpaceae),and members of the family Theaceae). However, the plot also 

showed some similarities with lowland rainforest; the upper canopy reached around 

30-35m, and was dominated by members of the family Lauraceae (Phoebe sp., 

Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis), and Aglaia gigantea (Meliaceae), which formed 

butresses 2 or 3 metres high. The main canopy of the plot, at around 20m, was 

dominated by trees of the families Lauraceae, Clusiaceae (Garcinia fragraeoides), and 

Ebenaceae (Diospyros pilosella, D. mun). Trees of Saraca dives (Fabaceae) were 

present in this stratum, and also as smaller trees 10-20m in height alongside 

freshwater springs in the transect. 



Of the tree species recorded for the plot, three were endangered and protected within 

Vietnam; Burretiodendron (Excentrodendron) hsienmu, Madhuca pasqueri, and 

Garcinia fragraeoides (see section 5.4.1, below). 

The ground flora at FT1 was particularly diverse, with 113 taxa present in the quadrats 

studied. Herbaceous plants and shrubs were abundant; the species most commonly 

recorded were a herb of the family Urticaceae, and a fern. The most abundant shrub 

was Psychotria baviensis (Rubiaceae). Epiphytes and climbers were also well 

represented; climbing Araceae (Pothos scandens and other species) and lianas were 

common. Most of the mature canopy trees carried epiphytic ferns (Aglaeomorpha 

coronans and Asplenium nidus) and orchids. 

Limestone outcrops in FT1 supported a distinctive flora, dominated by Chirita sp. 

(Gesneriaceae) and Begonia spp. (Begoniaceae). 


FT2 was located within one kilometer of Tat Ke village, and it was obvious that 

intensive (although selective) felling had occurred here in the past. As a result, the 

character of the forest here was very different from that at all the other sites studied. 

The main canopy was not high (around 15-20m), and large, buttressed trees were few. 

However, some larger trees had survived logging; these included Madhuca pasqueri 

(Sapotaceae), Burretiodendron hsienmu (Tiliaceae), and Pterospermum diversifolium 

(Sterculiaceae). 

The main canopy consisited of an even-aged stand of Streblus (Teonongia) 

tonkinensis (Moraceae) (about 80% of the trees in this layer, and 66% of all trees, 

were S. tonkinensis). However, some other trees were present and these included 

Symintonia tonkinensis (Hamamelidaceae), Phoebe poilanei (Lauraceae), Paralbizzia 

lucida (Fabaceae), Reheodendron macrocarpum (Styracaceae), Aglaia aff. per-viridis 

(Meliaceae), Madhuca sp. (Sapotaceae), Choerospondias axillaris (Anacardiaceae). 

The ground flora was heavily dominated by seedlings of Streblus tonkinensis. A 

number of other tree species were represented by seedlings, but by few individuals. 

The diversity of herbs, shrubs and palms in the field layer was also low, probably as a 

result of disturbance, and the dense shade cast by the regenerating stand of Streblus. 

The most abundant herbs were the ferns (several species), Liliaceae, and 

Amaryllidaceae (Curculigo sp.). 

Several of the plant species recorded at FT2 are listed in the Red Data Book for 

Vietnam (RDB, 1996), and are protected by the state. The include Burretiodendron 

hsienmu, Madhuca pasqueri, and Phoebe poilanei (Lauraceae). 



Streblus tonkinensis, although not an endangered species, is endemic to Vietnam. It 

produces small volumes of relatively low quality wood (which is easily attacked by 

termites) (FIPI, 1996). The bark produces a rubber resin of high quality, but in small 

quantities which are not economically exploited. Within the forest plot studied, the 

regeneration of S. tonkinensis was so strong that, without thinning, the area would 

produce small roundwood only suitable for fuel (Nguyen Kim Dao, pers. comm.). This 

strong regeneration of the dominant species from seed also threatens to exclude 

regeneration of rarer species, resulting in a forest type with low biological diversity or 

botanical and conservation interest. 


FT3 was a relatively undisturbed area of primary forest on the slope of a rocky 

limestone valley at 595m. The riverbed at the bottom of the slope is dry for much of 

the year but carries water for part of the wet season. Part of the 40 x 40m study plot 

took in an area of flat, alluvial soils beside the dry riverbed, but the majority was on 

the steep (30-40 o ) limestone slope. 

In contrast to the forest at FT2, canopy zonation at FT3 was well developed, with a 

marked emergent layer of tall, buttressed trees. Dominant species in this upper canopy 

layer included Burretiodendron hsienmu, Lithocarpus sp. (Fagaceae), and Aglaia 

gigantea (Meliaceae). 

The lower canopy was dominanted by Streblus tonkinensis (about 58% of the trees in 

the plot). Other families present included Bignoniaceae (Fernandoa serrata), 

Lauraceae (Cinnamomum polyalphum), Clusiaceae (Garcinia fragraeoides), Fabaceae 

(Ormosia sp.), and Ebenaceae (Diospyros sp.). 

As in FT2, the diversity in the field layer was low. Tree seedlings were the dominant 

form, with Streblus tonkinensis and Burretiodendron hsienmu by far the most 

abundant regenerating woody species. Other trees and shrubs represented in this layer 

included Psychotria baviensis and Rothmannia vietnamensis (Rubiaceae), Garcinia 

fragraeoides (Clusiaceae), Elaeagnus bonii (Elaeagnaceae), Albizzia sp. (Fabaceae), 

Reherodendron macrocarpum (Styracaceae), Bauhinia spp. (Fabaceae), and Neolitsea 

polycarpa (Lauraceae). 

Herbaceous plants were most abundant on the alluvial soils at the base of the slope; on 

the slope itself, the ground flora was limited to Streblus tonkinensis and 

Burretiodendron seedlings, and a few shade-tolerant species such as ferns (the forest 

floor was under particularly dense shade on the slope). The pteridophytes were the 

most abundant and diverse group of herbs, with five species of fern present in the 

quadrats studied. 




FT4 was dominated by relatively small trees which were present in large numbers. 

However, unlike FT2, there were no signs of recent logging. The upper canopy (25- 

30m), which was incomplete, was dominated by Chisocheton globulus (Meliaceae), 

Burretiodendron hsienmu (Tiliaceae), Castanopsis indica, Lithocarpus licentii, and 

L. bacgiangensis (all Fagaceae), Phoebe cuneata and Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis 

(Lauraceae). 

The lower canopy (15-20m) was dominated by the Annonaceae (Miliusa balansae, 

Polyalthia sp.), Clusiaceae (Garcinia multiflora), Loganiaceae (Fagraea fragrans), 

Magnoliaceae (Manglieta cuneata) and Myrtaceae (Syzygium baviensis). No Streblus 

tonkinensis was present. Past disturbance was indicated by the presence of members 

of the Araliaceae (Trevesia palmata), Sonneratiaceae (Duabanga sonneratiodes) and 

Euphorbiaceae (Croton longipes, Macaranga spp.). It is possible that the disturbance 

was not caused by human intervention, but through, for example, surface flow of 

water in the rainy season (the area was crossed by several rocky stream beds). 

The altitude of FT4 was reflected in the presence of certain taxa characteristic of 

higher altitude forests, including Ulmus lancaeifolia (Ulmaceae), and Magnolia 

talammoides (Magnoliaceae), an the relatively undifferentiated canopy. However, 

these characteristics were not so marked as at the highest transect studied, FT1. 

The herb and shrub layers of FT4 were particularly diverse, the shrub layers 

dominated by the Rubiaceae (Wendtlandia glabrata and other species) and 

Acanthaceae. The most abundant herbs were Ophiopogon spp. (Convallariaceae), and 

members of the families Liliaceae and Orchidaceae. On limestone outcrops, Begonia 

sp. (Begoniaceae) was abundant. Several palm species were present. Tree seedlings 

occurred in relatively small numbers, but several species were represented, and there 

was no clearly dominant species. Woody lianas (for example, Tetrastigma sp., 

Vitaceae) were common. 



5.3.4 Other vegetation types at Tat Ke 

Although the sector is dominated by forest, and forest habitats were the only 

vegetation types studied in detail, other vegetation types make up a significant 

proportion of the land area (see Figure 5). The most important of these are described 

below. 

5.3.4.1 Grazing land and scrub 

Large areas of the Tat Ke sector, particularly flat land around villages and towards the 

edges of the wilderness zone, had been cleared to provide grazing for buffalo. The 

SEE camp at Tat Ke village was in one such cleared area, which was dominated by 

grasses, herbs (particularly Ageratum conyzoides and Artemesia sp., Asteraceae), and 

the shrubs Crotalaria spp. (Fabaceae) and Clerodendron sp. (Verbenaceae). In some 

areas, taller-growing shrubs such as Alangium spp. (Alangiaceae), Mallotus and 

Macaranga spp. (Euphorbiaceae) were present, but natural regeneration to secondary 

forest is arrested by continual grazing and repeated clearance of these lands. Both the 

flora and fauna of these areas are relatively restricted, and the species present 

widespread and common in northern Vietnam. 

5.3.4.2 Arable land 

Arable lands were also an important form of land-use in the Tat Ke sector. Around 

villages such as Tat Ke, Na Chang and Khau Tinh, these took the form of extensive 

rice paddies, usually providing a single crop a year for local consumption. The paddies 

were devoid of native vegetation save for semi-aquatic species such as Sagittaria and 

Marsilea spp., and weedy herbaceous vegetation on the earth banks surrounding each 

field. 

Large areas of land were used for the production of maize, which gives two crops a 

year. Unlike rice production, which was restricted to the relatively level areas close to 

human habitation (largely in the eastern and northern parts of the reserve), maize 

fields were found throughout the reserve, often in areas remote from human habitation 

(see map, Figure 5). The fields were often on steep hillsides, and, in some places, 

clearance of forest for the extension of maize production was still occurring. In some 

areas, maize fields had been subject to extensive erosion of topsoil. 

5.3.4.3 Bamboo Forest 

Secondary forest, composed of pioneer plants in the families Euphorbiaceae (Mallotus 

and Macaranga spp.), Urticaceae, and Rubiaceae, occurred throughout the reserve, 

and particularly along paths and roads. In places where disturbance was particularly 

severe, such as alongside tracks on steep slopes and near villages, such vegetation was 

replaced by large stands of giant bamboo. This vegetation type was not studied in 



detail, as it showed little variation and supported few plant species; the diversity of 

ground vegetation in these areas was highly restricted. 

5.3.4.4 Montane Forest 

Lower Montane and Montane forests, characterised by the presence of plant families 

such as the Aceraceae (Acer spp.), Theaceae, and Podocarpaceae, and a simpler 

structure than the lowland rainforest (Whitmore, 1988), were present on the highest 

slopes of the Tat Ke sector (from 700m asl. and above). These were among the least 

disturbed forests in the sector, due to their inaccessibility (these forest types formed 

small 'islands' on steep slopes and limestone cliffs). Cox (1994) reports that dwarf 

'elfin forest' is also present on the highest peaks, but none was observed during the 

present expedition and, if such forest exists, is is likely to be extremely restricted in 

distribution. 

5.4 Discussion 

5.4.1 Rare species 

Of the plant species recorded in the Tat Ke sector during the present survey, twentynine 

are listed in the Red Data Book of Vietnam (RDB, 1996) as threatened with 

extinction on a national scale. The species at greatest risk (Endangered) is Asarum 

balansae (Aristolchiaceae), a terrestrial forest herb used in traditional medicine. 

Ten further species are included in the group 'Vulnerable', which includes species less 

immediately threatened with extinction, but still at risk. Most of these species are 

timber trees which have been overexploited, or forest herbs gathered for medicinal 

use. The trees include Burretiodendron hsienmu (Tiliaceae), endemic to Southern 

China and Northern Vietnam (FIPI, 1996), which was found in all forest transects 

studied at Na Hang. Other similarly endangered trees include Diospyros mun 

(Ebenaceae), Garcinia fragraeoides (Clusiaceae), Manglieta fordiana 

(Magnoliaceae), and Markhamia stipulata (Bignoniaceae). 

Among the forest herb species identified at Tat Ke, several are included in the 

'Vulnerable' group, and most of these are species which have been gathered for 

medicinal use. These include Codonopsis javanica (Campanulaceae), Thalictrum 

foliosum (Ranunculaceae), and Smilax glabra (Smilacaceae). In addition, the 

'Vulnerable' category includes one species of palm, Calamus platyacanthus (a rattan 

palm). 

Among species thought to be at lesser risk of extinction, several are of interest, 

including Phoebe poilanei (Lauraceae), which was found in FT2. This species is listed 

as 'Threatened' in the Red Data Book. However, it is an endemic species to Vietnam, 

and known previously only from Son La province, so its discovery in the Na Hang 

reserve is of some significance (Nguyen Kim Dao, pers. comm.). It is a medium to 



large tree, 15-20m or more in height, producing a hard, heavy aromatic wood used in 

general construction (FIPI, 1996). 

5.4.2 A comparison of the vegetation of the Tat Ke and Ban Bung sectors 

In SEE's study of forests in the southern (Ban Bung) sector of the Na Hang reserve 

(Hill and Kemp, 1996), a total of 607 plant species were identified, and the present 

work extends this list of plants considerably. However, a comparison of the preferred 

habitats reveals that the plants in the Tat Ke sector tend to be those of disturbed, rather 

than pristine forest habitats. This may in part reflect sampling bias, but it was clear 

that clearance in the Tat Ke sector has been much more extensive than that in the Ban 

Bung sector. In the northern part of the Ban Bung sector, the dominant vegetation type 

was relatively undisturbed primary forest, and areas of secondary vegetation were 

small and isolated. 

In contrast, Tat Ke's remaining forests tended to be more disturbed, and it was 

possible to study one area of regenerating forest in depth (FT2). Until the late 1960s, a 

logging road to the village of Tat Ke, near the centre of the sector, allowed timber 

extraction over a wide area. Today, large-scale timber extraction has ceased, but forest 

clearance for agricultural purposes is still going on. In Ban Bung, mining activities 

appeared to pose a greater threat to the integrity of extant forests that did agriculture, 

but this disruption was on a relatively small scale. Agricultural activity within the Tat 

Ke sector, however, is extensive and expanding. 

In the previous study of the Ban Bung sector (Hill and Kemp, 1996), five forest plots 

were described in detail. Three of these plots were situated below 400m asl., markedly 

lower than any of the plots described in the current study. In Tat Ke, most of the land 

at 400m asl. and below had been cleared for agricultural purposes, or was regenerating 

secondary forest dominated by pioneer species. Primary forest in the Tat Ke sector 

was restricted to steep slopes on higher ground, and there was no equivalent of the 

forests on flat alluvial land at 360m, which, although rare, was present in the Ban 

Bung sector (FT2 in the previous SEE report). As a result, the flora of Tat Ke tends to 

resemble that of the highest altitude plots in the previous survey, and Tat Ke's forests 

show less structural- and species-diversity than did those of the southern sector. This 

is apparent in, for example, the importance of Burretiodendrion hsienmu (Tiliaceae) 

and Streblus tonkinensis (Moraceae) in almost all the transects studied at Tat Ke (the 

single exception being FT4). 

It appears likely that, in the future, primary and less-disturbed secondary forests will 

become restricted even further to the high ground to the South and East of the Tat Ke 

sector, where the human population is at its lowest. It is essential that these Lower 

Montane and Montane forests are given adequate protection, as they are now the only 

remaining areas of undisturbed forest in the sector and are thus crucial to the survival 

of the area's large mammal populations. 



6.0 INVERTEBRATE SURVEY 


The aim of the invertebrate survey was to sample the invertebrate communities in a 

variety of the habitats in the Tat Ke sector of the reserve, and arrive at a measure of 

the comparative diversities of invertebrate communities in the reserve's major 

vegetation types. Two methods were used in order to quantitatively sample 

invertebrates; sweep-netting and pitfall trapping. Both are commonly used methods of 

insect collection, and the principles and drawbacks associated with each are discussed 

by Southwood (1978), Biological Survey of Canada (1994), and other authors. Sweepnetting 

was carried out in the four Forest Transect sites discussed in Chapter 5, 

above). Pitfall trapping was carried out in a wider range of habitats, from newly 

cleared areas to the primary forest at FT3. 

6.2 Methods 

6.2.1 Sweep-netting 

The sweep-netting survey was carried out in a three-day period of good weather at the 

end of the expedition. Sweep-netting was carried out in the four Forest Transects 

studied. In each case, 300 sweeps were made through the ground layers of vegetation, 

and the captured invertebrates were gathered using a pooter. The invertebrates were 

preserved in 70% ethanol. At camp, the insects were sorted to order and 

morphospecies or RTU. The abundances of RTUs were used to calculate a diversity 

index (Fisher's α). Dominance was described using the Berger-Parker index (Berger & 

Parker, 1970; described in Magurran, 1988). 

6.2.2 Pitfall trapping 

Pitfall traps were laid out in a wide range of habitats, including three of the four 

vegetation plots (see Figure 9). In each case, traps consisted of small (c.15cm 

diameter) plastic buckets, which were laid out in an array which covered appoximately 

3.14m 2 . 

Metal strips between the buckets were used to increase the effectiveness of the traps 

by directing insects to the buckets. In each bucket, a dilute solution of formalin was 

used as a preservative. Although salt water is recommended by some authors (eg. 

Biological Survey of Canada, 1994), as it causes less bias in the catch than do other 

preservatives, it seemed likely that salt-water traps would have to be frequently 

checked on the Na Hang climate; as the study took place during the summer rainy 

season, high temperatures and regular heavy rain could cause the dilution of a trap's 

contents and accelerate decomposition. Instead, a dilute solution of formalin was used 

in the traps. After six nights in place, the traps were removed and the insect 

assemblages sorted into RTUs, as for the sweep-net catches. 



Figure 9. The five sites at which pitfall trapping was carried out. 

Site Altitude Description 

(m asl) 

PF1 600 New clearing, bordered by existing maize field and secondary forest. 

Some regrowth of herbaceous species, such as grasses and Selaginella sp. 

PF2 600 Secondary forest near PF1. 

PF3 400 Scrub near base camp. 

Vegetation dominated by shrubs (Fabaceae) and grasses. 

PF4 500 FT2. Secondary forest, dominated by Streblus tonkinensis. 

(see section 5.4, above, for description) 

PF5 595 FT3. Primary Forest. 

PF6 695 FT1. Primary Forest. 

6.3 Results 


The numbers of species, number of individuals, α diversity and dominance, d, for 

each sample are given in Figure 10. 

Figure 10. Summary of sweep-net samples for four sites. 

Site No. RTUs No. of α 

d 

Individuals 

FT1 55 107 45.86 0.159 

FT2 31 45 43.23 0.089 

FT3 42 120 22.85 0.392 

FT4 75 115 61.11 0.096 

Relative abundance of insects varied greatly between the locations; the catch at FT2 

was particularly small. None of the samples was large enough to allow detailed 

statistical analysis, suggesting that future sweep-net sampling should involve larger 

numbers of sweeps (Janzen, 1973a, used 800-sweep samples in his analysis of tropical 

vegetation in Central America and the Caribbean). However, a balance must be found 

between the statistical requirement for samples as large as possible, and the 

difficulties of sorting large samples, especially in the field. 

6.3.3 Pitfall trapping 

Fisher's α and the dominance measure d were calculated for each sample, and 

summary data is given in Figure 11. 



Figure 11. Table of summary data for five pitfall sites. 

Site No. of RTUs No. of 

α 

d 

Individuals 

PF1 172 1003 59.76 0.270 

PF2 101 463 39.83 0.419 

PF3 152 1030 49.23 0.311 

PF4 155 724 60.48 0.188 

PF5 67 270 28.54 0.267 

The percentage of the total catch from each site, in major invertebrate orders, is shown 

in Figures 12 (by RTU) and 13 (by individuals). In these graphs, the sites have been 

reordered so that they follow a possible vegetational succession, running from the 

most disturbed site (PF1), through pioneer vegetation (PF3), secondary forest (PF2 

and PF4), to primary forest (PF5). (In reality, it is unlikely that a vegetational 

succession would proceed along exactly this course throughout the reserve). 

Figure 12. Graph showing the percentage of the total number of RTUs caught in 

pitfall traps at each site, in major invertebrate orders. 

PF1 

PF3 

Site PF2 

PF4 

PF5 

others 

Aranae 

Orthoptera 

Hemiptera 

Diptera 

Coleoptera 

Hymenoptera 

0% 50% 100% 



Figure 13. Graph showing the percentage of the total number of individuals caught in 

pitfall traps at each site, in major invertebrate orders. 

PF1 

PF3 

Site PF2 

PF4 

PF5 

others 

Aranae 

Orthoptera 

Hemiptera 

Diptera 

Coleoptera 

Hymenoptera 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 



Although sample sizes were too small to allow statistical analysis of results, general 

trends in sample size and diversity can be explained, at least in part, by the vegetation 

of each forest site. The highest diversity of insects are in Forest Transects FT4 and 

FT1, and these are the sites with the most diverse ground flora. Forest Transect 4 gave 

a large sample with high diversity, and this is probably a result of its highly diverse 

herb and shrub layers. In forest Transect 2, where the ground layer was densely shaded 

by the canopy of young, regenerating trees above, and was itself dominanted by a 

small number of tree seedlings, the catch was small (although, since most of the 

individuals caught represented different taxa, the overall diversity index α for this site 

is relatively high). 

On the basis of so few samples, it is impossible to conclude whether the altitude of 

sites had any effect on invertebrate communities, although previous studies suggest 

that this would be the case; Holloway (1984) found that the overall diversity of moth 

communities in Sarawak (sampled by light-trapping) was highest in Lower Montane 

forests, at around 1000m. In Costa Rica, Janzen (1973b) found that the diversity of 

sweep-net samples reached a peak at altitudes of around 1,100m. However, these 

samples were taken from open habitats, and Wolda (1987), who sampled insects of 

several orders using light-traps in forest habitats of Panama, found a decrease in 

diversity with altitude, and suggested that the relationship between diversity and 

altitude differered between different habitat types. 



Compared to the sweep-net samples taken in the Ban Bung sector of the Na Hang 

reserve (Hill and Kemp, 1996), the values of α were all very small. This could be a 

result of the smaller samples (due to differential sampling effort), but α should be 

relatively robust to changes in sample size (Magurran, 1988), so the decrease in 

diversity is likely to be a real effect, caused by the differences in forest structure 

between the northern and southern sectors of the reserve (and, possibly, by seasonal 

effects). However, without much more extensive sampling it would be impossible to 

ascertain the cause of this difference. 

6.4.2 Pitfall-trapping 

Pitfall trapping gave mixed results, largely because of environmental conditions. 

During particularly heavy monsoon rains, traps at PF5 and PF6 were flooded. Those at 

PF5 were re-set, but this was not possible for PF6. Also, due to the constraints of 

time, it was not possible to attempt pitfall trapping at FT4. However, a complete set of 

pitfall data were obtained for sites PF1-PF5. 

All the samples were relatively large, when compared to the samples taken by sweepnetting. 

The smallest pitfall samples were at PF5, which contained only 270 

individuals, and PF2, with 463 individuals. Both PF5 and PF2 also had relatively low 

diversity index values α; in the case of the latter site, this is probably because the 

sample was heavily dominated by its most abundant taxon (a Collembolan species). 

There was no clear progression, as might be expected, from less diverse earlysuccessional 

faunas to more diverse forest faunas (indeed, the sample with the lowest 

α diversity is the forest PF5). This may be because even the early-successional sites 

PF1 and PF3 were relatively close to forest or scrub which supported relatively 

diverse invertebrate faunas. 

Figures 12 and 13 show that, although the taxa present vary little in importance 

between sites, there are major differences in the numbers of individuals, particularly in 

three groups; Hymenoptera, Orthoptera, and 'Others'. In part, these differences can be 

explained by successional change; thus, the site PF1 had a particularly large 

proportion of Orthoptera (grasshoppers and crickets). In particular, one cricket species 

(which was found in all of the sites studied) was extremely abundant here (271 

individuals were found). Orthoptera were less abundant in the grassland site PF3 and 

the forested sites. Although the Orthoptera were found in large numbers at PF1, 

species diversity was low throughout all the sites. The social nature of many of the 

Hymenoptera accounts for the variation of this group; if the traps were located near an 

ant nest, a large catch was guaranteed. 

The 'Others' group included the insect orders Collembola, Thysanura, Isoptera, 

Psocoptera, Blattoidea, Dermaptera, Lepidoptera, Mantoidea, the Isopoda (Crustacea), 

Oligochaetes, Myriapoda, Chilopoda and Arachnids (excluding spiders). These taxa 

made up a very small proportion of the total number of RTUs recognised, but were 



extremely important in terms of numbers of individuals. In particular, Collembola 

were an important group. At site PF2, the 'Others' group comprised 60% of the total 

individuals; 44% were Collembola. 

Pitfall trap samples resulted in large catches which were probably more representative 

of the terrestrial invertebrate communities in the sites studied than were the results of 

sweep-netting. Diversity index values for these sites were similar to those recorded for 

low-altitude forest sites in the Ban Bung sector (Hill and Kemp, 1996), although the 

sites chosen in Ban Bung were all primary forest vegetation, which might have been 

expected to support greater diversity than the secondary forest and open sites studied 

in the Tat Ke sector. However, as with the sweep-net samples, seasonal changes and 

altitude may influence this result. 



7.0 BUTTERFLIES (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) 


There are no butterfly species listed in the Red Data Book for Vietnam (RDB, 1992), 

but this is due to a lack of sufficient data on butterfly abundances, rather than 

reflecting the rarity or otherwise of Vietnam's butterfly fauna (A. Monastyrskii, pers. 

comm.). Previously unknown butterfly species have recently been described from 

Vietnamese specimens (Devyatkin, 1996), and further new taxa are likely to exist, 

particularly among traditionally less well-known and highly diverse families such as 

the Hesperiidae and Lycaenidae (Lekagul et al., 1977). 

The work of the previous SEE expedition in Ban Bung in January-March 1996 was 

the first study of butterflies in the Na Hang region. However, for much of that period 

butterflies were scarce; both the number of butterfly individuals and the species 

diversity increased markedly during the study period, and were continuing to rise at 

the end of the period, suggesting that a continued study would have resulted in the 

recording of many more species (Hill and Kemp, 1996). The aim of the butterfly 

survey on this second expedition to the reserve was to add to the species list of the 

earlier study, to examine seasonal differences in abundance, as well as comparing 

habitats and their butterfly faunas in the two sectors of the reserve. 

7.2 Methods 

Butterflies were collected throughout the Tat Ke sector, but particularly in habitats 

close to the base camp. Once collected, a preliminary identification of each specimen 

to genus and 'Recognisible Taxonomic Unit' (RTU) or morphospecies was made, 

using Lekagul et al (1977). Duplicate specimens were released; the aim was to take 

only one or two specimens of each species observed, although in the case of some 

highly variable common species (such as the grass yellows, Eurema spp.), many 

specimens were taken. Specimens were identified in Hanoi by A. Monastyrskii of the 

Russian Tropical Institute, using Corbet and Pendlebury (1978), Pinratana (1977-88), 

and other works; specimens of the family Hesperiidae were identified in Moscow by 

A. Devyatkin of Moscow State University. 



7.3 Results 

A list of the butterfly species caught during the phase is given in Appendix 4. Figure 

14 shows the distribution of species caught, between butterfly families. 

Figure 14. Pie chart showing the distribution of butterfly species observed at Na 

Hang, between families. 

Hesperidae 

Papilionidae 

Lycaenidae 

Riodinidae 

Pieridae 

Danaidae 

Satyridae 

Amathusidae 

Nymphalidae 


A total of 93 RTUs (representing 9 families) were taken, or observed, over the study 

period. Although this does not represent the entire butterfly fauna of the Na Hang 

region (several taxa were observed but not captured), when combined with the data 

from the earlier SEE study, a total of 142 species is now known for the reserve. 

The most diverse families of butterflies in the Tat Ke sector (in terms of number of 

species) were the Nymphalidae and Hesperiidae (17 species each); the Nymphalidae 

were the most abundant in the previous SEE study. 

7.4.1 Rare or unusual species 

Several of the species taken were new or interesting records. Three specimens of 

Papilio castor, a tailless swallowtail which is found from India to Taiwan, were 

collected. Although this is not a new record for Vietnam (K. Spitzer, pers. comm.), it 

has been collected here only rarely. 

Three unusual satyrids were caught. Mandarinia regalis is endemic to North 

Indochina and the eastern Himalayas, and, at Tam Dao National Park, is confined to 

undisturbed montane forest (Leps and Spitzer, 1989). Two of the satyrids represent 

new records for Vietnam; Zipaetis unipupillata and Ypthima similis. The former 

species may also be of a new subspecies (A. Monastyrskii, pers. comm.).. 



7.4.2 Seasonal changes in the butterfly fauna 

Although 86 species were recorded in the January to March period in the Ban Bung 

sector of the Na Hang reserve, and 93 in the present survey, there was relatively little 

overlap in the species observed; 49 species were found on the first survey (Hill and 

Kemp, 1996) and not the second (see Appendix 4b). Part of this difference may be 

due to the differing habitats in the two sectors of the reserve (and hence, butterfly 

foodplants). However, climatic conditions also differed greatly between the two study 

periods, and there is little doubt that part of the variation in butterfly faunas can be 

explained by seasonality. 

This may be noticed within individual genera; for example, four species of Neptis 

(Nymphalidae) were noted on the Jan-Mar survey (N. hylas, N. miah, N. soma, and N. 

harita); in the summer period, only one species, N. nata, was observed. 

The Dragontail Butterfly Lamproptera curius (Papilionidae) which was abundant in 

the first survey, was absent, replaced by the very similar L. meges in the summer 

period at Tat Ke. 

In the earlier survey, two species of butterfly in the family Libytheiidae were collected 

(Libythea celtis and L. myrrha); at Tat Ke, no libytheiids were observed. However, the 

Amathusiidae, a group of forest butterflies which were not recorded in the earlier 

survey, were an important component of the butterfly faunas of some forest habitats in 

Tat Ke, although only four species were present. The most common species of 

amathusiid was the Junglequeen Butterfly Stichophthalma louisa. Stichopthalma 

populations in North Vietnam are highly seasonal in nature, with imagos present only 

in the early wet season (Spitzer et al., 1993). Stichophthalma louisa is confined to 

closed forest habitats, and open habitats represent a barrier to its dispersal, but little is 

known of its feeding ecology or life history (Novotny et al., 1991). It is therefore 

entirely dependent on the conservation of forest reserves of sufficient size to support 

long-term populations. 



8.0 FISH 


Vietnam has a rich freshwater fauna, with at least 60 endemic freshwater fish 

described (mainly from the North of the country) (Government of SRV, 1994). 

The aim of the fish survey carried out at Na Hang was to compile as accurate as 

possible a list of fish species found within the reserve (and in the rivers bordering the 

reserve), and to compare the fish fauna of the limestone streams that drain the reserve 

itself, with that of the larger rivers of the area. The bulk of this work was carried out 

in the Tat Ke sector of the reserve, but some work was also carried out in the Ban 

Bung (southern) sector of the reserve, where Pac Ban Reservoir is the only permanent 

body of standing water in the protected area. 

8.2 Methods 

Five methods of capture were used: 

1. Hand Net 

2. Hook and line (by Research Assistants) 

3. Electric fishing (by local fishermen) 

4. Harpoon guns (by local fishermen) 

5. Conical fish traps (by local fishermen). 

Collection of fish specimens was concentrated in three main sites; 

Site 1 Khau Tinh stream (from FT1 to the base camp) 

Site 2 Streams flowing into the River Nang below Tat Ke waterfall 

Site 3 Fish from the Rivers Gam and Nang were observed on sale in Na Hang 

market. 

In addition, fish were observed and collected near Chom village (at the western edge 

of Tat Ke sector), and at Nam Trang, in the southern (Ban Bung) sector of the reserve. 

The fish specimens collected were identified using Mai Dinh Yen (1978, 1992). 

Photographs of fish from this book were shown to fishermen along the Gam and Nang 

rivers in order to complete the list of fish inhabiting the Rivers Nang and Gam and the 

Pac Ban reservoir. Local residents were interviewed about fish culture in ponds along 

streams and rivers. 

8.3 Results 

A list of the fish species inhabiting streams within the reserve, the Nang and Gam 

rivers and fish-farming ponds in and around the Nature Reserve of Na Hang is given 

in Appendix 5. In total, 73 species were recorded in this area. Seven species were 



identified in streams in the Ban Bung sector, and 10 in the Tat Ke sector. Thirty-two 

species were recorded in the largest river in the area, the Gam at Na Hang town. The 

number of species in the three sites studied in detail are shown in Figure 15. 

Figure 15. Number of fish species at two streams in the Tat Ke sector, and the River 

Gam. 

Site 

No. Species 

Site 1 

10 

FT1-Base Camp 

Site 2 

17 

Streams entering River Nang 

River Gam 32 


8.4.1 Wild communities 

The fish faunas of the three sites studied in detail are quite distinct. Only four fish 

species are present in both the Khau Tinh stream (Site 1) and the streams flowing into 

the River Nang (Site 2), and no fishes are present both at Site 1 and the River Gam 

(see Appendix 5). The River Gam has the highest diversity of fish, the greatest 

number of species and the largest number of economic species. The sporadic flow of 

the smaller streams within the reserve limits the range of fish that can survive there; 

upstream of Forest Transect 1 no fish were found in the Khau Tinh stream (although 

insect larvae and crustacea were present). Previous logging of the watershed of the 

Khau Tinh stream may also have had an adverse effect on the aquatic environment, 

and intensive fishing pressure had occurred in the vicinity of Tat Ke village. The 

presence of waterfalls near the outflow of the sector's streams into the River Nang 

(upstream of Site 2) prevent colonisation of the streams by fish from the river. 

Seven of the species captured are described as 'Vulnerable' in the Red Data Book of 

Vietnam: Onychostoma laticeps, Semilabeo notabilis, Spinibarbus caldwelli, 

Spinibarbichythys denticulatus, Mylopharyngodon piceus, Cranoglanis sinensis and 

Hemibagrus elongatus. One species, Ophiocephalus striatus, is described as 

'Threatened' (RDB, 1992). In most cases, the threats to these species come from 

overfishing, and the use of unselective or destructive fishing methods such as 

explosives or fine-meshed nets (Government of SRV, 1994). Although dynamite 

fishing was not observed during the present survey, it is common in other freshwater 

habitats in Vietnam (for example, the nearby Ba Be Lake; Kemp et al., 1994), and it is 

likely to occur in the Rivers Nang and Gam. Monofilament nets are widely available. 



8.4.2 Aquaculture 

Within the Tat Ke sector, fish are cultivated in artificial ponds (200-600m 2 in surface 

area) and rice-paddies. The species involved include the Common Carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), White Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), Cirrhina molitorella, 

Spinibarbichthys denticulatus, Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), Indian Carp 

(Labeo rhohita, Labeo mrigala), and Tilapia (Tilapia mossambica). The yield of 

cultivated fish is about 300-400kg/ha in the rice fields and 1500-2500kg/ha in the 

ponds, but during the wet season in the Tat Ke sector flash-floods often occur, 

washing pond fish out to streams and rivers. After these floods only the Common 

Carp (C. carpio) remains in the rice fields; most of the other species are washed away 

and the yield of cultivated fish decreases. For this reason, Common Carp is now the 

only species deliberately reared in the rice fields, and Common and Grass Carp are the 

main species reared in the ponds. Pond-reared Common Carp spawn in the spring 

(February to March), and young carp from these spawnings are used to stock rice 

paddies. Sometimes fish are caught from the River Nang and stocked in the ponds. 

These include Cirrhina molitorella and Spinibarbichthys denticulatus. The species 

Barbatula caudofurca and Zacco spilurus occasionally swim into the irrigation 

channels which feed the rice fields. 



9.0 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 


Previous studies of the Na Hang area have resulted in extensive species lists (65 

species of reptile and 18 amphibians were recorded by Dang Huy Huynh, 1993). More 

recently, the reserve has hosted a foreign herpetological research expedition in 1996 

(R. Murphy, Royal Ontario Museum, pers. comm.). During the previous SEE research 

in Na Hang's Ban Bung sector (Hill and Kemp, 1996), conditions for the collection of 

reptiles in particular were poor (cool, damp weather conditions meant that reptile 

activity was restricted), and relatively few species were taken. 

9.2 Methods 

At Tat Ke, amphibians and reptiles were collected on sight, and, in the case of snakes, 

where they had been killed by local people. An effort was made to collect only one 

specimen of each species, although with certain species (particularly the Oriental 

Whip Snake or Vine Snake, Ahaetulla prasina, which has green and grey-brown 

colour phases) several specimens were taken. Tortoises were also observed in the 

wild, and after collection by locals. 

Preliminary identification of snakes was carried out in the field using A Field Guide to 

the Snakes of South Vietnam (Campden-Main, 1975), and The Snakes of Thailand and 

their husbandry (Cox, 1991). All specimens were identified in Hanoi by Dr Nguyen 

Van Sang of IEBR. 

9.3 Results 

A list of the amphibian and reptile species collected or observed during the phase is 

given in Appendix 6. 

A large number of frogs were collected in pitfall traps set to collect insects (see 

Chapter 6, above), but these all proved to belong to one species, Rana limnocharis. 


The most commonly seen reptile was the arboreal snake Ahaetulla prasina, which 

appeared to be common in the scrub and secondary forest close to the base camp. 

Specimens of six other snake species were collected, and several more were observed 

in the field but could not be positively identified. 

Two of the reptiles collected in the Tat Ke sector are listed as 'Threatened' in the Red 

Data Book of Vietnam (RDB, 1992). The small arboreal agamid lizard Acanthosaura 

lepidogaster is threatened particularly by forest loss, although widely distributed in 

Vietnam (particularly the North). The snake Elaphe moellendorffii is restricted to 



northern Vietnam and southern China, and its known range includes Cao Bang, Bac 

Thai and Hoa Binh (although not Tuyen Quang) provinces (RDB, 1992). 

Overall, the most important threat to reptile species in Vietnam is habitat loss. 

However, collection of live animals for trade particularly affects certain species (for 

example, forest tortoises and the Tokay (Tac ke) Gecko, Gekko gekko), and occurs 

even within nature reserves such as Na Hang (see Hill and Kemp, 1996). In addition, 

snakes are often killed on sight when encountered close to villages or on roads and 

tracks, although such casual predation probably has the greatest impact on commoner 

species and therefore causes little long-term damage of more endangered populations. 

Within reserves, where forest habitat has some protection, it is important that hunting 

of reptiles is curtailed to allow populations of endangered species in these areas to 

remain healthy. 



10 0 BIRDS 


Two previous surveys of bird species in the reserve area have been carried out. The 

first, by the Institute for Ecology and Biological Research, Hanoi (IEBR) in 1993 

(Dang Huy Huyen et al., 1993; Cox et al.,1994), compiled a list including 143 species 

seen during the survey or known from historical records for the Eastern part of Na 

Hang district. The second was carried out by The Society for Environmental 

Exploration (SEE) at the start of 1996 and indentified 171 species in the field (Hill 

and Kemp, 1996). Together, these surveys give a total of 242 species for the Na Hang 

area. 

The aim of this second phase of survey by SEE-Vietnam was to further increase 

knowledge of the bird species presently occuring in the Tat Ke sector of the reserve. 

Specific objectives were: 

• To produce a list of all birds identified within the reserve and assess their relative 

importance to biodiversity at a national and international level 

• To provide seasonal data for the summer months at Na Hang, as no information 

has previously been compiled 

• To measure the distribution and relative abundance of all species identified in the 

reserve 

• To record all evidence of breeding within the reserve and note any other 

interesting behaviour 

• To carry out a comparison of the bird fauna in the Tat Ke and Ban Bung sectors. 

10.2 Methods 

For survey work, all observers used binoculars, and a 27 x 60 telescope with tripod 

was also available. Sighting information was recorded using a dictophone or note 

book. In addition to birds seen, birds identified by call, captive birds taken in the Tat 

Ke sector, and traces of birds (such as feathers) were also recorded. For identification, 

three field guides were used; Birds of South-East Asia (King et al., 1975), A Guide to 

the Birds of Thailand (Lekagul and Round, 1991), and Birds of Hong Kong and South 

China.(Viney et al., 1994). For nomenclature, Distribution and taxonomy of birds of 

the world (Sibley & Monroe, 1990; with supplement, 1993) was used. 

Observations were made in all habitat types found in the reserve (primary, secondary 

and bamboo forest, scrub and agricultural land) and over as much of the area of the 

Tat Ke sector as possible. Observations were concentrated in the forest areas around 



the main campsite, at the 4 vegetation transect sites (FT1-FT4), and at a permanent 

hide. All areas were visited, but relatively few observations came from the eastern 

side, the southwest corner and the northern section beyond Khau Tinh. A period of 10 

days was spent observing from a fixed hide in montane forest (>1000m asl.) in the 

less disturbed central part of the sector near Khau Tep Mountain which added 

considerably to the number of species recorded. Records were also kept of the birds 

seen in the buffer zones and in a 1 day visit to the Ban Bung sector. 

Over 600 man-hours were spent in observation, and considerably more time in the 

field while carrying out other work. Observations were made throughout the day from 

dawn until after dusk, while concentrating on the more active periods of morning and 

early evening, and in all weather conditions including heavy rain. For each sighting, 

date, time, habitat and numerical abundance were recorded and note made of any 

interesting behaviour. Special note was made of any behaviour relating to breeding. 

Nesting, collecting nest material, collecting food and newly fledged dependent young 

were all taken as evidence of breeding and the presence of birds in juvenile plumages 

was also recorded. 

10.3 Results 

The total number of species recorded during the survey period was 153; 140 in the 

Tat Ke sector, a further 7 in the Ban Bung sector and 6 in the 'buffer zones' (which are 

delimited in the original report on the reserve by Cox, 1994, but are almost entirely 

agricultural land; Hill and Kemp, 1996). The full list is shown in Appendix 7, which 

gives details of habitat types, relative abundance, evidence of breeding and any other 

points of interest. 

Of the species recorded, 7 are described by Collar et al.(1994) as 'near-threatened' (not 

under the risk of extinction in the medium-term, but close to qualifying in a higherrisk 

category of threat; Collar et al.,1994), and a further 2 are endangered within 

Vietnam (RDB, 1992). 



Figure 16. Bird species 'near-threatened' internationally (Collar et al., 1994) 

Species No. of 

occasions 

observed 

Pied Falconet 

Microhierax melanoleucos 

White-winged Magpie 

Urocissa whiteheadi 

Grey Laughingthrush 

Garrulax maesi 

Red-tailed Laughingthrush 

Garrulax milnei 

Rufous-throated Fulvetta 

Alcippe rufogularis 

Rufous-headed Parrotbill 

Paradoxornis ruficeps 

Green Cochoa 

Cochoa viridis 

Species endangered in Vietnam: 

Total no. of 

individuals 

observed 

Habitat 

1 4 Scrub, Ban Bung sector 

4 at least 16 Secondary forest 

• Psarisomus dalhousiae (Long-tailed Broadbill) 

• Temnurus temnurus (Ratchet-tailed Treepie) 


10.4.1 Comparison with previous surveys 

3 at least 11 Montane forest c. 1,000m, Khau Tep 

Mountain. 

2 2 Montane forest c. 1,000m, Khau Tep 

Mountain 

1 1 adult, Secondary forest 

1 juvenile 

1 2 Secondary forest; observed in mixed 

flock with P. atrosuperciliaris 

2 2 juveniles Montane forest 900-1000m, 

Khau Tep Mountain 

Of the species recorded in this survey 103 were recorded in the SEE winter survey in 

Ban Bung (Hill and Kemp, 1996). Of the 50 species not recorded in Ban Bung, 29 

have never been previously recorded for the reserve area. The combined lists from 

Ban Bung (Hill and Kemp, 1996) and Tat Ke (this report) give a total of 221 species 

for the Na Hang reserve. There are 34 additional species listed in the report by Cox 

(1994), giving a total of 255 species. 

The marked difference between the species recorded in the two phases is the result 

both of seasonal variations and of differences between the two sectors of the reserve. 

During the summer phase many of the winter migrant species of thrushes, Old World 

flycatchers, warblers and raptors were, as expected, not present. Additionally, the 

cuckoos and pittas were much less vocal and fewer were identified. Both cuckoos and 

pittas show seasonal variation in activity, calling particularly during the spring, and 

are difficult to observe in forest when not calling (King et al., 1975). 

There was an increase in the number of accipiters, swifts and drongos recorded. The 

increase in records for these groups is probably due in part to the time in the breeding 

cycle, and in part to the more disturbed nature of the Tat Ke sector (more clearings 

from which these birds could be observed in flight). 



The differences in numbers records of owls, hornbills, woodpeckers and pittas reflects 

the more disturbed nature of the forest in the Tat Ke sector. In the previous phase 

these groups were all found in primary forest which was more widespread, and less 

affected by human utilisation and disturbance, than was the forest in this sector. 

Other differences reflect the predominantly higher altitude of much of Tat Ke's forest, 

and variation in the migrant species recorded over the period of each phase. 

10.4.2 Range extensions and altitude reductions 

Eight records indicate 'range extensions' of species, and 8 records indicate 'altitude 

reductions' from species ranges and typical altitude distributions recorded by King et 

al. (1975). 

Most of the species for which 'altitude reductions' were recorded had also been 

observed at low altitudes in the previous SEE winter survey for Na Hang, when it was 

suggested that seasonal migration between habitats at different elevations could 

account for the observations (Hill and Kemp, 1996). The presence of individuals 

outside their recognised altitude limits in different seasons suggests that some species 

at least are normally resident at these altitudes. 

10.4.3 Evidence of breeding 

Evidence of breeding was recorded for 10 species, and juveniles of another 11 species 

were seen. The most significant of these records was that juveniles of 3 of the 

internationally 'near-threatened' species were observed: Urocissa whiteheadi (Whitewinged 

Magpie), Alcippe rufogularis (Rufous-throated Fulvetta), and Cochoa viridis 

(Green Cochoa), which suggests that they breed within the reserve. 

10.4.4 Biodiversity value of the reserve 

Na Hang Nature Reserve is of major importance nationally and internationally for the 

conservation of birds. The two study periods in Tat Ke and Ban Bung have recorded 

15 species of internationally scare birds (although most of these fall into the 'nearthreatened' 

group, not in imminent danger of extinction) and a further 4 species 

endangered within Vietnam (see Appendix 7c for full list). The reserve should be 

managed for its bird conservation value in addition to the protection it gives to the 

monkeys. There need be little conflict between management for bird and mammal 

conservation, as both would benefit from a reduction in human use of forest resources. 



The high diversity of birds found in the Na Hang reserve make it a very attractive 

location for special interest bird groups to visit. The birds found here have the 

potential to bring the type of low impact, high value tourism which would allow the 

reserve and local people to benefit without damaging the forest or disturbing the 

population of Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey (see section 12.3.7 of this report). 



11 0 MAMMAL SURVEY 


Previous studies of the mammal fauna of Na Hang (by Dang Huy Huyen, 1993, Cox, 

1994, and Hill and Kemp, 1996) have positively identified 56 mammal species within 

the boundaries of the Na Hang reserve, and have provided some information on the 

status of the most threatened mammal in the area, the Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey 

Pygathrix avunculus. The Tat Ke sector of the reserve is thought to contain the largest 

extant population of this primate. 

The aims of this, the second SEE-Vietnam mammal survey of the reserve, were to 

gather further information on the local mammals of the northern wilderness zone of 

the reserve, and to compare mammal faunas of the two wilderness zones, which 

isolated from each other by arable land, which acts as a barrier to the movement of 

many mammal species between the forested wilderness zones. 

11.2 Methods 

Three survey methods were used to identify mammals in the reserve; 

1. Small mammal (rodent) trapping, using Vietnamese live traps. 

2. Bat netting at two cave-roosts. 

3. Direct observation of mammals, their tracks and signs. 

11.2.1 Mammal trapping 

Trap-lines of 15 Vietnamese live-traps were laid out in a variety of habitats, using 

fruit as bait (and, occasionally, peanuts and fish). The traps were laid out for at least 5 

nights in each location and checked every day. 

11.2.2 Bat netting 

Mist nets were erected at the mouths of cave roost sites. Nets were in place by about 

5pm and were watched constantly until daybreak the following morning. Bats were 

identified using The Mammals of the Indo-Malayan region (Corbet and Hill, 1992). 

11.2.3 Mammal observation 

Observation of mammals, their tracks and signs was carried out throughout the 

reserve. Mammals were identified using The Mammals of the Indo-Malayan region 

(Corbet and Hill, 1992), Mammals of Thailand (Lekagul and McNeely, 1988), and the 

Preliminary Identification Manual for the Mammals of South Vietnam (Van Peenen, 

1969). 



11.3 Results 

11.3.1 Mammal trapping 

Mammal trapping, using a variety of baits including fruit, peanuts and fish, was 

carried out in the vegetation plot areas FT1, FT2 and FT3, around the camp at Tat Ke, 

and at one of the caves where bat netting was carried out. A total of 200 trap-nights 

was carried out. 

No specimens were caught in the traps and, as a result, none of the Muridae (which 

were observed in the forest, in caves and associated with human settlements in the 

reserve, on several occasions) could be identified. 

Two Shrew species (Suncus etruscus and Crocidura horsfieldi) were taken in a pitfall 

trap in a cleared area of forest at around 600m asl. 

11.3.2 Bat netting 

Two nights of bat-netting were carried out, at two different caves. A total of 180 

individuals were caught, measured and released. Not all taxa could be identified in the 

field (3 species are assigned only to RTUs); however, a total of 8 distinct RTUs were 

collected. At least 4 species were new records for the reserve. 

11.3.3 Observation 

A total 13 terrestrial or arboreal mammals were recorded during the survey period (see 

Appendix 8). 

Three of these species are listed in the 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals 

(Groombridge, 1993); 

• Pig-tailed Macaque (Macaca nemestrina); status 'Commercially Threatened'. A 

single group of 7 individuals was observed montane forest on Khau Tep mountain. 

This species was listed as a 'Commercially Threatened' species (one threatened with 

extinction as a sustainable resource) in 1993 (Groombridge, 1993). In Vietnam, it is 

threatened more heavily (listed as 'Vulnerable' in RDB, 1992), as there is a flourishing 

trade in the species for meat, both within Vietnam and for illegally exported 

specimens in China (Wenjun et al., 1996) 

• Asiatic Black Bear (Selenarctos thibetanus); status 'Vulnerable'. Clawmarks of large 

bears were observed on the trees in an undisturbed forest on Khau Tep mountain, but 

it appears likely that this species is scarce within this sector of the reserve. 

• Serow (Naemorhedus sumatrensis); status 'Indeterminate'. The droppings of Serow 

were only observed once at the base of a limestone cliff in less disturbed forest, 

although suitable habitat for this species appeared to be widespread in the reserve. 



Two of these species (the Asiatic Black Bear and the Pig-tailed Macque) are regarded 

as more heavily threatened within Vietnam than internationally, and are placed in 

higher threat categories in the RDB (1992) than in the IUCN list (Groombridge, 

1993). Another of the mammals, the Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak) is not 

internationally threatened, but is regarded as 'Vulnerable' in the Red Data Book of 

Vietnam (RDB, 1992). 


In comparison with the earlier survey in Ban Bung (Hill and Kemp, 1996), few 

mammals were observed in the Tat Ke sector. This is due to a combination of factors: 

undoubtedly, the presence on the earlier expedition of a skilled Vietnamese 

mammalogist (Dr Dang Ngoc Can), and knowledgeable local guides, increased the 

success of the first mammal survey. In addition, seasonal changes in the behaviour of 

mammals may have influenced the possibility of observing certain species 

(particularly the Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey). However, one important factor must be 

the level of human disturbance in the Tat Ke sector of the reserve, when compared to 

the relatively undisturbed Ban Bung sector. Throughout the northern sector, clearance 

for agricultural purposes fragmented the remaining forests and their mammal 

populations. In addition, hunting pressure appears more intense in Tat Ke, affecting 

populations of species which are preferentially hunted by man, for example, Wild 

Boar (Sus scrofa) and Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak). 

Four of the species recorded (all of them bats) were previously unrecorded in the 

reserve, bringing the reserve total to 60 mammal species (and the total for the Na 

Hang district to 83). One of the new bats, Murina sp., was a juvenile collected by a 

local farmer on a banana plant, the others were collected in the course of bat-netting at 

cave roosting sites. 

This information, combined with that of the survey in Ban Bung sector (Hill and 

Kemp, 1996), has added considerably to previous work on bats in the region. 

Collating all previous survey data from the reserve, Na Hang contains at least 24 

species of bats.Since new species were still being added during this survey, it is likely 

that further species exist in the reserve. The combination of limestone geology and 

good forest cover found at Na Hang are unique in Tuyen Quang province, suggesting 

that this may be an site of regional or national importance for bat conservation. 

The Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey, Pygathrix avunculus was not observed during the 

expedition, despite an extended satellite camp (of ten days duration) at a hide in 

montane forest overlooking an area of undisturbed forest, where the monkeys had 

been seen by a previous visiting group. Local people suggested that sightings of the 

monkey were more frequent in the winter dry season, when the low availability of 

water and scarcity of fruiting trees concentrated the population into certain restricted 

areas. In contrast, during the summer wet season, food supplies are abundant and the 

troops fragment to breed (Nguyen Kiem Son, pers. comm.). 



Population estimates arrived at by local people were often considerably lower than the 

200 individuals claimed by earlier publications (eg, Cox, 1994). 

The major threat to mammals in the Tat Ke sector of the Na Hang reserve appears to 

be forest destruction for agriculture, which is extensive and continuing. Without an 

end to this process, it is difficult to believe that viable populations of larger mammals 

can be sustained. As in other reserve areas of Vietnam, larger carnivores and primates 

are particularly threatened, the former group due to the large areas needed to sustain 

viable populations (Government of SRV, 1994), and the latter because of their 

attractiveness to hunters and perceived role as cropraiders (Nisbett and Ciochon, 

1993). 



12 0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY 


Vietnam contains 54 ethnic groups and has a population of approximately 75 million. 

The ethnic minorities, that is those people resident in Vietnam but not sharing Kinh 

identity, language or other cultural characteristics, account for 13.1% of the total 

population of Vietnam (VIE/96/010). The population relies heavily on agriculture as a 

source of income. Agriculture in Vietnam accounts for 72.2% of the labour population 

(Mekong River Commission Secretariat, 1995). 

In addition to agriculture, highland people exploit the forest resource to supplement 

their income. Ethnic minorities and forests are closely related and "the former are the 

authentic owners of the latter; the latter are the direct object of the former's 

exploitation" (Nguyen Van Thang, in Rambo et al., 1995). 

This chapter assesses socio-economic conditions of minority populations in the Tat 

Ke sector, in addition to the potential for tourism there, as many tourists seek to travel 

to natural settings (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996) with cultural and ecological interest. 

12.2 Methods 

The methods adopted in the survey were based on the techniques of Participatory 

Rural Appraisal (Grandstaff et al., 1995). Semi-structured and informal interviews 

were used to gather information from Kiem Lam (Forestry Protection Department), 

local government officials, village leaders and family heads. Interviews were 

conducted in Vietnamese and translated to English by an IEBR student. 

Not all the villages, or indeed all the families in the sector could be visited due to time 

constraints. Instead, a village containing each of the ethnic minorities present in the 

reserve was visited from which a cross section of families (based on wealth) were 

chosen for interview. However, permission to interview the Hmong ethnic minority 

could not be obtained although we were allowed to visit the village. The official 

reasoning behind this restriction was that the village was soon to be moved out of the 

sector. 



12.3 Results 

12.3.1 The people and place 

The results of the study are outlined in section 12.3-12.6 below. 

The Tat Ke sector of Na Hang reserve comes mainly under the jurisdiction of the 

Khau Tinh subdistrict which contains 15 villages of the ethnic minorities Tay, Dao 

and Hmong. The subdistrict contains 286 families and a total population of 1735. 

Population growth is estimated at 2.3% (Kiem Lam., unpublished data). Village 

populations tend to belong to a single minority, although Tay and Dao sometimes mix. 

The villages studied were; 

12.3.1.1 TAT KE, a Tay minority village 

The Tay village of Tat Ke is situated in the valley floor at an elevation of 500m asl. 

The village now consists of 16 families (population 118) with each family averaging 

7.3 members. Prior to 1962 the village consisted of 20 families who were employed 

by two branches of the commercial forestry service. In 1966, one of these departments 

closed and ten of the families moved to a site further north of the original village. 

Both parts of the village became reliant on agriculture rather than forestry. Four 

families left the area all together. Several families were relocated from the Dao village 

of Na Tang in 1971. 

The majority of the village houses are built on stilts and are constructed of timber and 

bamboo. The ground beneath is used to store equipment and to house livestock. 87.5% 

of the families have privately owned hydro-electric generators, the remainder relying 

on kerosene lamps. 

12.3.1.2 NA TANG; a Dao minority village 

The Dao village of Na Tang is situated on a plateau at an elevation of 750m asl. 

The village is long established although in 1971 the resident Tay minority were 

relocated by the government to Tat Ke to concentrate the Dao. This was done to 

preserve the Dao identity and traditions, and to make village management easier. 

There are 18 families (population 118) with an average family size of 6.5 people. 

The houses are constructed of timber and bamboo on mud floors. 66.7 % of the 

families interviewed had hydro-electric power (H.E.P.) with the remainder using 

kerosene. 



12.3.1.3 LUNG PANG CAMP; a Tay minority hamlet 

Lung Pang is a permanent camp situated in a valley at an elevation of approximately 

800m asl. 

The camp consists of three households which moved to the site from Khau Tinh 

village in 1990, where their families are still based. The move was precipitated by a 

lack of agricultural land on which to crop maize. 

The houses are typical Tay minority style, and are manned all year round by the third 

generation of each family. Other family members stay at the camp during busy periods 

of the agricultural year and also visit to bring supplies. None of the houses have 

H.E.P., but use kerosene instead. 

12.3.1.4 KHUOI BOC; a Hmong minority village 

The Hmong village of Khuoi Boc is situated on the hillside at an elevation of 800- 

900m asl. No families could be interviewed. 

The village moved here in 1992 from Ba Be, Cao Bang Province. Authority to 

relocate the village from Na Hang has been given by the Tuyen Quang Province, 

although the date of the move depends on when the District Rangers Office can 

finance the project. Twelve families (population 78) with an average family size of 6.5 

members live in the village. 

The houses are similar in style to those of the Dao; and only some have H.E.P. 

12.3.2 Economic activity 

Levels of poverty are much higher among the mountain minority people than among 

the Kinh ethnic group (Van Cong, Nhan Dan Newspaper, 30/1/92). The majority of 

the population rely on advanced subsistence farming based on semi-intensive paddy 

rice production using draft for ploughing, fertilisers and pesticides. This is 

supplemented by maize, cassava, cotton production grown on slopes surrounding the 

villages and sugar cane, fruit trees and taro grown in gardens. Official statistics (Kiem 

Lam, unpublished data) state that there are 169 ha of cleared land, of which 76 ha is 

used to crop rice and 21 ha is used for other crops. 

Livestock are kept in a traditional way. The primary function is to provide draft power 

and manure for crop cultivation as low quality feed supplies restrict animal weights 

and therefore, the potential for meat. Grazing on common scrubland occurs and the 

animals are generally fed crop residues. 

Fish are also cultivated by some families with small ponds in their gardens. 



Agricultural statistics from the families interviewed are given in Figure 17. 

Figure 17. Summary agricultural statistics for three villages 

Village Rice Corn 

ha kg/ha kg/person ha kg/ha kg/person 

Tat Ke 4.5 1,671 1000 2.0 8,079 268.3 

Na Tang 3.4 4,803 707 2.5 5,658 568.5 

Lung Pang 0.5 569 355 0.7 4,367 316.7 

12.3.3 Land Tenure 

According to the 'Law on Land' (1993) "Land is the property of the people and is 

subject to the exclusive administration by the state." (UNDP/FAO 1992-93). 

Under Decree of the Council of Ministers No. 327, 1992, "Master guidelines and 

policies to utilize unoccupied land, bare hilly areas, forests, denuded land and beaches 

and waterfront" (Smith, 1993), Tat Ke has been given the responsibility of protecting 

areas of forest. Each family interviewed has been assigned an area of forest by Kiem 

Lam for which they receive annual payments. The plots contain natural trees and 

bamboo in addition to newly planted trees. The families are given permission to 

collect dead wood and minor forest products from their respective plots. However, 

some families reported that their plots had been 'raided' by other families. 

Permission for residents to create new fields in forested areas is supposed to be sought 

from Kiem Lam. However, Kiem Lam reported that this regulation was not always 

followed and extensions to existing fields were difficult to monitor. 

12.3.4 Use of, and dependence on, the forest 

Forestry can be defined as "the production and harvesting of forest products generally 

and not just the exploitation of of timber" (MacKinnon et al., 1986). Unauthorised 

forestry is illegal within the sector, although small scale domestic use is tolerated by 

Kiem Lam. 

12.3.4.1 Hunting and fishing 

Gun and cross-bow ownership and the presence of hunting trophies (including barking 

deer and serow horns, wild pig skulls and silver pheasant feathers), in many of the 

houses suggest that hunting has occurred in the sector. When the owners were 

questioned about such matters they told us the guns were used to protect their crops 

and that such trophies were collected many years previously. 

However, we were told by the Tay that it is not uncommon for the Hmong minority to 

hunt wild animals using packs of dogs. One such case occurred in 1996 when a pack 



was seen and heard chasing a deer through the forest. The District Rangers Office 

confirmed this. 

The stream flowing through Tat Ke village has been overfished using the poison leaf 

of Momordica cochinchinensis (Family Cucurbitaceae). Only small fish now populate 

these waters. The Nang and Gam rivers are fished using net and lines and electric 

methods. Some explosive fishing is reputably still carried out on a small scale 

although it was not observed. 

12.3.4.2 Food and medicine 

The following products were observed to be taken from the forest during the study 

period: 

• Bamboo (Poaceae) shoots were frequently collected during the study period; this was 

the main season for its harvest. 

• Polygonum hydropiper (Polygonaceae) is used as a vegetable to stuff bamboo 

shoots. 

• Arenga pinnata (Arecaceae) is used by some houses in Lung Pang in the production 

of rice wine. 

• The Hmong villagers use Dioscoria alata (Dioscoriaceae) from the forest to 

supplement their diet when maize reserves are finished. 

• Tay villagers at Tat Ke collected Scoparia dulsis (Scrophulariaceae) for use as a 

herbal tea; in addition to domestic use, the herb was dried and sold at Na Hang. 

• Herbal medicines are still used for snake bites, skin infections, rashes and other 

minor ailments. Ocimum tomentosus (Lamiaceae) is used in the cure of 

dermatological problems; Fibraurea tinctoria (Menispermaceae) is used as an 

antibiotic during the treatment of animal bites and cuts. Alocasia hainanica (Araceae) 

is used to reduce swelling around cuts and bruises. 

12.3.4.3 Timber 

There is no evidence to suggest clear-cut logging for timber occurs at present. 

Selective logging does occur on a small scale for domestic use, and is carried out 

using traditional methods. No chainsaws or heavy machinery are used. The practice is 

monitored and controlled; permission to log timber for the construction of houses has 

to be obtained from the district committee beforehand. Species used in the 

construction of houses include: 

• Woody plants for the construction of the frame : 

Markhamia stipulata (Bignoniaceae) 

Fagraea fragans (Loganiaceae) 

Erythrophloeum fordii (Fabaceae) 

Artocarpus heterophyllus (Moraceae) 

Burretiodendron hsienmu (Tiliaceae) 



Melia azedarach (Meliaceae) 

Chukrasia tabularis (Meliaceae) 

Shorea stellata (Dipterocarpaceae) 

Garcinia tonkinensis (Clusiaceae) 

Vatica tonkinensis(Dipterocarpaceae) 

• For the walls : 

Bambusa blumeana 

Gigantochloa laevis 

Dendrocalamus membranaceus 

Dendrocalamus latiflorus (all Poaceae) 

• For the roof : 

Imperata cylindrica 

Dendrocalamus patellarus 

Dendrocalamus membranaceus (all Poaceae) 

12.3.4.4 Other 

Dead wood and bamboo is collected from the forests surrounding the villages and is 

used as the main source of fuel for cooking. The families interviewed estimated that 

between 1-2 m 3 were used each month, although this is considered to be an 

underestimate due to their belief that firewood may be taxed in the near future. 

Bat guano is collected from local caves and used as fertiliser by some families. 

12.3.5 Peoples attitudes to conservation 

The Tay people of Tat Ke village appear to have the greatest amount of foresight and 

respect for the reserve, seeing it as an important source of income. They are keen to be 

involved with any future plans for development. They are concerned about the amount 

of erosion occuring in the reserve, which is particularly evident along the path from 

Tat Ke to the Nang River. 

The Dao appear to have little respect for the reserve, and no idea of its present 

importance. The village leader had no clear plans for the village although he did 

express concern over the amount of alcohol the local men were drinking. No mention 

of the forest or reserve was made. 

The Hmong lead a very simple lifestyle, and appear content with sufficient food to 

live on. They are the least affluent of the minorities. They have a strong respect for the 

ideas of Ho Chi Minh (especially with regards to the environment) although their 

poverty prevents them from practising these ideals. 



12.3.6 Forestry Protection 

The sector is managed by Kiem Lam who enforce the legal protection of the reserve 

using laws established by central government in August 1991, managing the reserve to 

ensure its sustainability. 

The overall aims of Kiem Lam are: 

• To improve the protection of the reserve; 

• To decrease population growth rates in the reserve; 

• To reforest 80-90% of the areas currently unforested, with the help of local 

communities and before the year 2000. 

In order to achieve these aims, Kiem Lam liaises with the provincial, district and 

subdistrict committees and local communities. 

Kiem Lam had an annual budget of 89 million VND (approximately US$8000) in 

1995. This is used to run the head quarters in Na Hang, together with five outposts 

situated in each of the sub-districts contained in the reserve. These are manned by a 

total of 12 staff who are responsible for patrolling the area, meeting with the subdistrict 

committee and villages, and for reporting to head office once a month. Kiem 

Lam has office equipment, a telephone, and access to a four-wheel drive jeep. It does 

not have two-way radios or binoculars, items which the head of the Office considered 

essential equipment which it can not afford. Finance to relocate villages also comes 

from the budget. 

Within the reserve, the following activities are prohibited: 

• Forest clearance for agriculture; 

• Timber and forest resource collection; 

• Hunting animals; 

• Disturbing wildlife. 

To enforce these rules, Kiem Lam has the power of prosecution and confiscation. 

However, in practice such powers are only used if the misdemeanour is considered 

large-scale or problematic. It was not established how many prosecutions or cases of 

misdemeanour have occured. 



12.3.7 Ecotourism potential 

Tourism is seen as a very lucrative source of foreign investment and is a growing 

industry in Vietnam. However, at the present time there are no known cases of tourists 

visiting either sector of the Na Hang reserve. This gives the reserve managers an ideal 

opportunity to develop its tourist industry in a sustainable way that attracts the optimal 

numbers of tourists to the area without compromising the quality of the reserve. 

Na Hang's current lack of tourism may attract tourists seeking tranquility, remoteness 

and unspoilt scenery; however, it is similar in character to Cuc Phuong and Cat Ba 

National Parks (Cox, 1994) which are already well established tour destinations, with 

good transport links and tourist facilities. At present, the potential for back-packing or 

sight-seeing tourists at Na Hang appears limited. 

However, there is an opportunity to attract special interest groups, such as 

international ornithological or botany clubs, or dedicated ecotourists. These could 

provide a valuable source of income for the reserve, providing local employment (for 

forest guides and workers in services), whilst causing only the minimum of 

disturbance to the forest itself. 

12.3.7.1 Specialist ecotourism; bird groups 

Na Hang Nature Reserve has a high diversity of birds, including rare and endemic 

forms with the potential to attract tourists with a special interest in birds. 

In the past years, a small number of specialist bird tour groups have visited Vietnam. 

They are usually made up of experienced observers and are led by a professional 

leader. 

Bird groups cause little disturbance to an area because they involve small groups and 

are only resident for short periods of time. Numbers of visitors could be controlled 

and directed away from prime areas of the reserve, for example, where the Tonkin 

Snub-nosed Monkey is found. 

Among the Kiem Lam rangers and local people there are individuals with a good 

knowledge of both the reserve and its birds. The most experienced could be chosen 

from both sources to act as guides. Most of the other basic services required by 

ecotourist groups could be provided in Na Hang town. 

The attraction of bird groups would generate revenue for the reserve and local people, 

which Cox (1994) lists as an overriding priority. 

The principle behind attracting special interest bird groups is to attract limited 

numbers of high value tourists, thus bringing valuable revenue with limited 

disturbance. For example, Fillon et al. (1992) (in Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996) estimated 



that bird-related tourism attracted 78 million travellers and generated US$78 billion 

for the countries they visited. 


The communities within the Tat Ke sector of Na Hang reserve lead a traditional 

lifestyle based on agriculture. They face problems of food and land shortages which 

tend to create an uneven distribution of wealth between the minorities and within each 

village as populations grow. There is currently no alternative source of income 

available to villagers and because the expansion of agricultural land is prohibited, the 

problems are addressed through the use of new seed strains and agricultural 

chemicals. However, these are expensive and may only prove to be a short-term 

solution with serious implications to both the environment and health. 

The local people are strongly dependent on the forest resource. If the present rate of 

encroachment continues, it will have serious implications for the quality and survival 

of the reserve. Hunting and fishing can have serious ramifications for biodiversity (for 

example, the elimination of large fish species in the stream by Tat Ke village), and the 

decline of primate populations in the area is thought to be from hunting and forest 

encroachment. 

The Na Hang reserve appears to fulfil the conditions which would allow a certain 

amount of tourism, particularly ecotourism by dedicated groups. However, this kind of 

tourism is relatively new to Vietnam, and there are at present no long-term plans to 

develop tourism projects in Na Hang. Much of Vietnam's experience with overseas 

tourism has involved low-budget travellers, whose requirements are very different to 

those of ecotourist groups. Only when there has been a proper consideration of the 

impacts of tourists on the reserve, and how this can be minimised, should any visitors 

be allowed in the reserve. 



13 0 CONCLUSIONS 

13.1 Tat Ke sector 

The Tat Ke sector of the Na Hang nature reserve is an important protected area 

containing a large number of different habitat types, and particularly forests on 

limestone. Although this ecotype once covered a large part of northern Vietnam, it is 

becoming endangered as forests outside protected areas are cleared (MacKinnon, 

1990); this process is visible all around Na Hang itself, especially in the more 

accessible areas near roads and rivers, where very little remains of the former forest 

cover. 

As a result of this destruction, nature reserves become increasingly important as 

reservoirs of biodiversity, and this is true even of predominantly secondary forest 

areas such as Tat Ke. Tat Ke's patchwork of habitat types ensures that it supports a 

particularly high diversity of certain taxonomic groups, including butterflies and birds. 

Its forest has begun to recover following the cessation of large-scale logging in the Tat 

Ke area (Nguyen Kim Dao, pers. comm.). For other taxonomic groups, however, 

human disturbance seems to pose a threat to biodiversity. Mammal diversity in the 

reserve is particularly high, and includes internationally important populations of 

endangered species (Cox et al., 1994), but this diversity is threatened by hunting. It is 

interesting that, while there was abundant evidence of mammal species such as 

Muntiacus muntjak and Sus scrofa in the Ban Bung sector, the results of this survey 

suggest that these commonly hunted species were rare in the Tat Ke sector. 

13.2 Comparison of the Tat Ke and Ban Bung wilderness zones 

The Tat Ke sector contrasts greatly with the southern (Ban Bung) sector of the reserve, 

which was the subject of an earlier (January-March 1996) study by S.E.E (Hill and 

Kemp, 1996). Both areas share a similar limestone geology, and in both, the natural 

vegetation is made up of tropical forest ecotypes, with montane forests towards the 

peaks of the highest mountains. However, historical factors have led to the differential 

development of the two areas. While Ban Bung is nearer to the town of Na Hang, 

access to that part of the reserve has in the past been poor. In Tat Ke, the presence of a 

logging road has allowed more extensive clearance of natural forests, so that the Ban 

Bung sector is now dominated by primary forest formations, while, in the Tat Ke 

sector, secondary forest is predominant. Primary forest in the northern sector is now 

limited to the West (Nui Khau Tep) and South, where the human population is most 

sparse. Even in these areas, some disturbance of the forest has occurred. However, 

these forests still harbour important populations of birds and mammals (including the 

Asiatic Black Bear and Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey). 

The human population of Tat Ke is large and expanding, although the forestry 

authorities plan to move certain groups (the Hmong) out of the reserve altogether. 

Relocation of human populations from reserve areas has been planned in several 



places in Vietnam, but rarely carried out successfully; one exception is the core zone 

of Cuc Phuong National Park (MacKinnon, 1990). At present, people move 

throughout the Tat Ke sector in order to cultivate maize and other crops. Not only flat 

land, but also steep slopes have come under cultivation, and settlements are scattered 

throughout the protected area. Hunting occurs, and the demand for forest products is 

high. 

Despite these problems, Tat Ke's forests have begun to recover from logging. 

Although this survey shows that regenerating forests are often dominated by a small 

number of species (particularly Streblus tonkinensis, Moraceae), they are usually 

contiguous with more varied old-growth forests and it is probable that colonisation by 

further woody species will continue in the future. The resultant patchwork of forest 

types with varied characteristics could, if relatively undisturbed by hunters, support a 

high biodiversity; logged areas often provide a greater density of flowering and 

fruiting trees than primary forests, favouring certain mammals and birds (Johns, 1991; 

Lambert, 1992). 

Tat Ke still supports the largest single population of the Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey 

(Cox et al., 1994), although local estimates suggest that this population may have 

declined in recent years; one forestry protection official suggested that there may be as 

few as 50 left in the sector, with only around 30 individuals in the Ban Bung sector of 

the reserve (Le Hong Binh, pers. comm.). Although hunting of this species does not 

appear to be an important problem, habitat loss and degradation, and the presence of 

humans in the forest present a real threat to the monkey, which avoids humans and is 

rarely observed, even by the local population (Ratajszczak et al., 1990). 



14.0 REFERENCES 

Berger, W. H. & Parker, F. L. 1970. Diversity of planktonic Foraminifera in deep sea 

sediments. Science 168: 1345-7. 

Biological Survey of Canada 1994. Terrestrial arthropod biodiversity: Planning a 

study and sampling techniques. Supplement to the Bulletin of the Entomological 

Society of Canada 26(1): March 1994. 

Campden-Main, S. M. 1970. A Field Guide to the Snakes of South Vietnam. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. 

Ceballos-Lascurian, H. 1995. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas. IUCN, Gland 

and Cambridge. 

Collar, N. J., Crosby, M. J. & Stattersfield, A. J. 1994. Birds to watch 2. The world 

list of threatened birds. Birdlife Conservation Series 4, Birdlife International, 

Cambridge. 

Corbet, A. S. & Pendlebury, H. H. 1978. The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. 

Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 

Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1992. The mammals of the Indo-Malayan region; a 

systematic review. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Cox, C.R. 1994. A management feasibilty study of the proposed Na Hang (Tonkin 

Snub-nosed Monkey) Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam. IUCN 

Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Cox, M. J. 1991. The Snakes of Thailand and their husbandry. Krieger Publishing, 

Malabar, Florida. 

Dang Huy Huyen & Hoang Minh Khien 1993. Study of the biological diversity of the 

forests of Tuyen Quang and proposed protective measures [In French]. Conservation 

de la Biodiversite au Vietnam Rapport 1b. Vietnam National Centre for Natural 

Science and Technology, Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi. 

Devyatkin, A. L. 1996. New Hesperiidae from North Vietnam, with the description of 

a new genus. Atalanta 27(3/4): 595-604, colour plate X. 

FIPI 1996. Vietnam Forest Trees. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi. 

Fisher, R. A, Corbet, A. S., & Williams, C. B. 1943. The relation between the number 

of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. 

J. Anim. Ecol. 12: 42-58. 



Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 1994. Biodiversity Action Plan for 

Vietnam. Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Global Environment 

Facility Project, Hanoi. 

Grandstaff, T.B. & Messerschmidt, D.A. 1995. A manager's guide to the use of Rapid 

Rural Appraisal. FARM Programme, FAO/UNDP, Bangkok, Thailand. 

Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1993. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Hill, M., and Kemp, N. 1996. Biological survey of: Na Hang Nature Reserve 1, Ban 

Bung sector. SEE-Vietnam Scientific Report 1. Society for Environmental 

Exploration, London. 

Holloway, J. D. 1984. The larger moths of the Gunung Mulu National Park; a 

preliminary assessment of their distribution, ecology, and potential as environmental 

indicators. Sarawak Museum Journal 51: 149-191. 

Janzen, D. H. 1973a. Sweep samples of tropical foliage insects: description of study 

sites, with data on species abundancesand size distributions. Ecology 54: 659-686. 

Janzen, D. H. 1973b. Sweep samples of tropical foliage insects: effects of seasons, 

vegetation types, elevation, time of day, and insularity. Ecology 54: 687-708. 

Johns, A. D. 1991. Responses of Amazonian rain forest birds to habitat modification. 

Journal of Tropical Ecology 7: 417-437. 

Kemp, N., Le Mong Chan & Dilger, M. (1994). Site description and conservation 

evaluation; Ba Be National Park, Cao Bang Province, Vietnam. Frontier-Vietnam 

Scientific Report 4. Society for Environmental Exploration, London. 

King, B., Woodcock, M. & Dickinson, E.C. 1975. Birds of South-East Asia. Collins, 

London. 

Lambert, F. R. 1992. The consequences of selective logging for Bornean lowland 

forest birds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 335: 443-457. 

Lekagul, B., Askins, K., Nabhitabhata, J., & Samruadkit, A. 1977. Field Guide to the 

Butterflies of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok. 

Lekagul, B. & McNeely, J. A. 1988. Mammals of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet Co.Ltd., 

Bangkok. 



Lekagul, B. & Round, P. D. 1991. A Guide to the Birds of Thailand.Saha Karn Bhaet 

Co.Ltd., Bangkok. 

Leps, J. & Spitzer,K. 1989. Vulnerable butterflies of the Tam Dao Mountains forest. 

Garrulax 6: 6. 

Leps, J. & Spitzer,K. 1990. Ecological determinants of butterfly communities 

(Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in the Tam Dao Mountains, Vietnam. Acta Entomol. 

Bohemoslov., 87:182-194. 

MacKinnon, J. (1990). Forestry Sector Review Tropical Forestry Action Plan, Vietnam. 

Ministry of Forestry, Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Hanoi. 

MacKinnon, J., MacKinnon, C., Child, G., & Thorsell, J. 1986. Managing Protected 

Areas in the Tropics. IUCN, Gland. 

Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Chapman and Hall, 

London. 

Mai Dinh Yen. 1978. Dinh loai ca nuoc ngot cac tinh phia bac Viet nam [Freshwater 

fishes of Vietnam: in Vietnamese]. Nha xuat ban khoa hoc va ky thuat, Hanoi. 

Mai Dinh Yen, Nguyen Van Trong, Nguyen Van Thien, Le Hoang Yen & Hua Bach 

Loan 1992. Dinh loai ca nuoc ngot cac nam bo [Freshwater fishes of South Vietnam, 

in Vietnamese]. Nha xuat ban khoa hoc va ky thuat, Hanoi. 

Mekong River Commission Secratariat. 1995. Agriculture of Vietnam - a state of the 

art review. The Mekong River Commission Secratariat, Bangkok. 

Nakashizuka, T. & Yusop, Z. 1993. Altitudinal zonation of forest communities in 

Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forestry Science 4(3): 233-244. 

Nisbett, R. A. & Ciochon, R. L. 1993. Primates in northern Vietnam: a review of the 

ecology and conservation status of extant species, with notes on Pleistocene localities. 

International Journal of Primatology 14: 765-795. 

Novotny, V., Tonner, M. & Spitzer, K. 1991. Diatribution and flight behaviour of the 

Junglequeen Butterfly, Stichophthalma louisa (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), in an 

Indochinese montane rainforest. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 30: 279-288. 

Pinratana, A. 1977-88. Butterflies of Thailand, Volumes 1-6. Viratham Press, 

Bangkok. 

Pollard, E. 1977. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. 

Biological Conservation 12: 116-134. 



Ratajszczak, R., Cox, R & Ha Dinh Duc. 1990. Report of a preliminary survey of 

primates in North Vietnam. WWF Project 3869. WWF International, Gland. 

Rambo, A.T., Reed, R.R., Le Trong Cuc, DiGregorio, M.R. (eds). 1995. The challenges of 

highland development in Vietnam. East-West Centre, Honolulu. 

RDB. 1992. Red Data Book of Vietnam; Vol. 1. Animals. [In Vietnamese]. Science 

and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi. 

RDB. 1996. Red Data Book of Vietnam; Vol. 2. Plants. [In Vietnamese]. 

Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi. 

Sibley, C. G. & Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. 

Yale University Press. New Haven & London. 

Sibley, C. G. & Monroe, B. L. 1993. A supplement to distribution and taxonomy of 

birds of the world. Yale University Press. New Haven & London. 

Smith, G.A. 1993. Livestock and barren land development. Working paper No. 1, 

Vietnam Environment Program and Policy Priorities. Consultants report. The World 

Bank. 

Southwood, T. R. E. 1978. Ecological methods, with particular reference to the study 

of insect populations. Chapman and Hall, London. 

Spitzer, K., Novotny, V., Tonner, M & Leps, J. 1993. Habitat preferences, distribution 

and seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a montane tropical 

rainforest, Vietnam. Journal of Biogeography 20: 109-121. 

UNDP/FAO. 1992-1993. Vietnam. Watershed management and ethnic minorities. 

Main report. Report No. VIE/92/TO3. Technical Support Services at Programme 

Level. UNDP/FAO Work programme. Hanoi. 

Van Peenen, P. F. D. 1969. Preliminary Identification Manual for the Mammals of 

South Vietnam. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. 

VIE/96/010. 1996. Strengthening Capacity in Policy Formulation and Management of 

Ethnic Minority Development in Vietnam. Government of Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, Hanoi. 

Viney, C., Phillipps, K., & Lam Chiu Ying. 1994. Birds of Hong Kong and South 

China. (Sixth Edition). Government Information Services, Hong Kong. 



Vo Quy & Nguyen Cu. 1995. Danh Luc Chim Vietnam [Checklist of the birds of 

Vietnam]. Nha Xuap Ban Nong Nghiep (Agricultural Publishing House), Hanoi. 

Wenjun, L., Fuller, T. K. & Sung, W. 1996. A survey of wildlife trade in Guanxi and 

Guangdong, China. TRAFFIC Bulletin 16: 9-16. 

Whitmore, T. 1988. Forest types and forest zonation. In: Earl of Cranbrook. (ed.), Key 

Environments: Malaysia, pp 20-30. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 

Wolda, H. 1987. Altitude, habitat and tropical insect diversity. Biological Journal of 

the Linnaean Society 30: 313-323. 


Appendix 1. 

Habitat; 

Plants 

Plant species identified in Tat Ke sector, Na Hang reserve 

pf = primary forest, sf = secondary forest , hf = high altitude forests, g = grassland, 

ar = arable 

Fertile stages present; Fl = Flower, Fr = Fruit 

Uses & Status; 

t = timber, m = medicinal plant, e = edible, o = ornamental 

∗ = Recorded in the Red Data Book for Vietnam (RDB, 1996). 

Species Habitat Fertile Uses/Status 

stages 

LYCOPODIOPHYTA 

LYCOPODIACEAE 

1. Lycopodium cernuum (L.) Franco & Vasc. g, sf 

2. Lycopodium complanatum L. g 

SELAGINELLACEAE 

3. Selaginella willdenowii (Desv.) Baker. pf, sf 

4. Selaginella sp. sf 

POLYPODIOPHYTA 

ADIANTACEAE 

5. Adiantum caudatum L. g 

6. Adiantum flabellatum L. g 

7. Antrophyum callifolium Blume pf 

8. Antrophyum vittaroides Bak. pf, sf 

9. Cheilanthes farinosa (Forsk.) Kaulf. pf 

10. Onychium lucidum Spr. pf, sf 

11. Pityogramma calomelanos (L.) Link sf 

ANGIOPTERIDACEAE 

12. Angiopteris yunnanensis Hiern. pf, sf 

13. Archangiopteris tonkinensis (Hay.) Ching pf 

ASPLENIACEAE 

14. Asplenium antrophyoides Chr. pf, sf 

15. Asplenium nidus L. pf, sf 

16. Asplenium obscurum Blume sf, g 

17. Asplenium praelongum sf, g 

18. Asplenium unilaterale Lamk. pf 

19. Diplazium subsinuatum (Hook. & Grev.) Tag. pf, sf 

BLECHNACEAE 

20. Blechnum orientale L. sf 

CYATHEACEAE 

21. Cyathea chinensis Copel. pf, sf 

22. Cyathea gigantea Copel. pf, sf 

DAVALLIACEAE 

23. Nephrolepis cordifolia (L.) Presl. sf m 

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE 

24. Lindsaea javanensis Blume sf 

25. Lindsaea lucida Blume pf, sf 

26. Microlepia hookeriana (Hook.) Presl. sf


stages 

27. Microlepia marginata (Houtt.) C. Chr. sf 

28. Microlepia speluncae (L.) Moore sf 

DRYOPTERIDACEAE 

29. Arachnoides assamica (Kuhn.) Ohwi. g 

30. Arachnoides chinensis (Rosenst.) Ching. pf, sf 

GLEICHENIACEAE 

31. Dicranopteris linearis (Burm) Underw. sf 

HYMENOPHYLLACEAE 

32. Gonocormus minutus (Blume) Bosch. pf 

33. Hymenophyllum oxydon Bak. pf 

34. Trichomanes cystaseiroides Christ. pf 

MARSILIACEAE 

35. Marsilea quadrifolia L. ar m 

POLYPODIACEAE 

36. Aglaomorpha coronans (Mett.) Copel. pf, sf 

37. Colysis wrightii (Hook) Ching pf, sf 

38. Drynaria bonii Christ. pf m 

39. Microsorium hancockii (Bak.) Ching pf, sf 

40. Polypodium fasciatum (Blume) Presl. pf, sf 

41. Pyrrosia lanceolata (L.) Farw. pf, sf 

42. Pyrrosia longissimus (Blume) Pic. & Ser. pf, sf 

43. Pyrrosia subfurfuracea (Hook.) Ching pf, sf 

PTERIDACEAE 

44. Pteris biaurita L. sf 

45. Pteris decrescens Chr. 

46. Pteris deltodon Bak. sf 

47. Pteris ensiformis Burm. f. sf 

48. Pteris longipes D. Don sf 

49. Pteris semipinnata L. pf, sf 

50. Pteris vittata L. pf 

SCHIZEACEAE 

51. Lygodium conforme C. Chr. sf 

52. Lygodium japonicum (Thunb.) Sw. g, ar 

53. Lygodium scandens (L.) Sw. g, ar 

THELYPTERIDACEAE 

54. Pronephrium megacuspe (Bak.) Holtt. ar, sf 

55. Thelypteris triphylla (Sw.) Iwats. sf 

THYRSOPTERIDACEAE 

56. Cibotium barometz (L.) J. E. Sm. sf m, ∗ 

PINOPHYTA 

CYCADACEAE 

57. Cycas cf. rumphii Miq. sf 

PODOCARPACEAE 

58. Podocarpus neriifolius D. Don. hf t


stages 

MAGNOLIOPHYTA 

MAGNOLIOPSIDA 

ACANTHACEAE 

59. Acanthus ilicifolius L. sf 

60. Dipteracanthus repens (L.) Hassk. g Fl 

61. Hemigraphis brunelloides (Lam.) Bremek. sf Fl 

62. Justicia aequalis R. Ben. ar Fl 

63. Justicia gendarussa Burm. f. ar Fl m 

64. Justicia procumbens L. ar Fl m 

65. Lepidagathis hyalina Nees ar, g 

66. Lepidagathis incurva Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don sf, ar 

67. Ruellia tuberosa L. 

68. Staurogyne hypoleucum (R. Ben.) R. Ben. sf Fl 

69. Staurogyne petelotii R. Ben. sf Fr 

70. Strobilanthes apricus (Hance) T. Anderw. 

71. Strobilanthes brunescens R. Ben. ar Fl 

72. Strobilanthes patulus R. Ben. sf 

73. Thunbergia alata Boj. ex Sims. ar Fl o 

74. Thunbergia fragrans Roxb. ar Fl o 

75. Thunbergia laurifolia Lindl. sf 

76. Thunbergia grandiflora (Rottl.) Roxb. ar Fl o 

ACERACEAE 

77. Acer tonkinense Lec. sf 

ALANGIACEAE 

78. Alangium chinense (Lour.) Rehd. ar, sf Fl, Fr 

79. Alangium kurzii Craib ar, sf Fl, Fr 

AMARANTHACEAE 

80. Achyranthus aspera L. ar Fr m 

81. Aerva sanguinolineata (L.) Blume ar 

82. Alternanthera sessilis (L.) R.Be ex Roem et Schult.f 

ar, g 

Fl 

83. Amaranthus hybridus L. ar Fl o 

84. Amaranthus spinosus L. ar Fl m 

85. Amaranthus tricolor L. ar Fl e 

86. Amaranthus viridis L. ar e 

87. Celosia argentea var. cristata L. ar Fl, Fr m, o 

88. Celosia argentea var.plumosa L. ar Fl, Fr m, o 

89. Cyathula prostrata (L.) Blume ar 

ANACARDIACEAE 

90. Allospondias lakonensis (Koenig & L. f.) Kurz. sf, ar t, e 

91. Dracontomelum duperreanum Pierre pf 

92. Gluta wrayi King sf, pf Fr m 

93. Mangifera foetida Lour. sf, ar Fr e 

94. Mangifera indica L. ar Fr t, e 

95. Mangifera longipes Griff. sf Fr t 

96. Rhus javanica var. roxburghii (DC) Rehd. & Wils. sf, ar Fl, Fr 

97. Rhus verniciflua Stokes sf Fr 

98. Semecarpus tonkinensis H. Lec. sf Fl m, t 

99. Toxicodendron succedana (L.) Mold. sf t


stages 

ANNONACEAE 

100. Annona squamosa L. ar Fr e, m 

101. Artabotrys hongkongensis Hance sf 

102. Artabotrys petelotii Merr. sf 

103. Desmos chinensis Lowr. sf Fr 

104. Desmos pedunculosis (A. DC) Ban sf, ar Fr 

105. Fissistigma balansae (A. DC) Pham Hoang ar, sf Fr 

106. Fissistigma villosissima Merr. ar, sf Fl 

107. Miliusa balansae Fin. & Gagn. sf, ar 

108. Mitrella mesyi (Pierre) Ban sf, pf Fr 

109. Polyalthia jucunda. (Pierre) Fin. & Gagn. sf t 

110. Uvaria calamistrata Hance sf, ar 

111. Uvaria hamiltonii Hook. f. & Thoms. sf Fr 

112. Uvaria hexapetalus (L.f.) Bhandare 

APIACEAE 

113. Anethum graveolens L. ar Fl e 

114. Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. ar Fl e, m 

115. Cnidium monnieii (L.) Cusson. ar Fr m 

116. Coriandrum sativum L. ar e, m 

117. Eryngium foetidum L. ar Fl e 

118. Hydrocotyle tonkinensis Tard. ar, g Fl, Fr e 

119. Oenanthe javanica DC. ar, g e 

APOCYNACEAE 

120. Allamanda cathartica L. 

121. Alstonia mairei Levl. sf 

122. Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. sf m 

123. Bousingonia mekongense Pierre ex Pl. sf 

124. Kopsia tonkinense Pit. pf, sf 

125. Melodinus monogynus Roxb. sf 

126. Melodinus tournierii Pierre ex Spire sf 

127. Rauvolfia verticillata (Lour.) Baill. sf ∗ 

128. Strophanthus caudatus (Burm f.) Kurz. sf Fl 

129. Tabernaemontana bovina Lour pf Fl, Fr 

130. Tabernaemontana divaricata (L.) R. Br. ar Fl m, o 

131. Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) Merr. ar 

ARALIACEAE 

132. Acanthopanax gracilistylis W. W. Sm. ar, g Fr ∗ 

133. Aralia armata Seem. ar, sf m 

134. Dendropanax chevalieri (Vig.) Merr. var. chevalieri 

pf 

Fl, Fr 

135. Eleutherococcus trifoliatus (L.) Merr. ar 

136. Polyscias fruticosa (L.) Harms. ar e, m 

137. Schefflera hypoleucoides var. tomentosa Grushv. et Skvorts. 

sf 

138. Schefflera octophylla (Lour.) Harms. sf Fl e, m 

139. Trevesia palmata (Roxb. ex Lindl.) Vis. sf m


stages 

ARISTOLOCHIACEAE 

140. Aristolochia indica L. ar Fl m 

141. Asarum balansae French ar, sf 

142. Asarum glabrum Merr. pf 

ASCLEPIADACEAE 

143. Dischidia nummalaria R. Br. sf 

144. Dischidia tonkinensis Cost. sf Fr 

145. Hoya obovata Decne sf 

146. Streptocaulon juventas (Lour.) Merr. g, ar m 

147. Tylophora koi Merr. ar 

148. Tylophora ovata (Lindl.) Hook. ex Steud. sf, g Fl, Fr m 

ASTERACEAE 

149. Ageratum conyzoides L. ar Fl, Fr m 

150. Artemisia vulgaris L. g Fl m 

151. Bidens pilosa L. g Fl m 

152. Bidens tripartita L. g Fl, Fr m 

153. Blumea aromatica DC. ar Fr 

154. Blumea balsamifera (L.) DC. g Fr m 

155. Blumea lanceolaria (Roxb.) Druce g m 

156. Centipeda minima (L.) A. Br. & Aschers. ar m 

157. Conyza canadense (L.) Cronq. ar m 

158. Cosmos bipinnatus Cav. ar o 

159. Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. ar Fl, Fr m 

160. Elephantopus mollis HBK. sf, ar Fl, Fr 

161. Elephantopus scaber L. sf, ar Fl, Fr m 

162. Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. g, ar Fl, Fr m 

163. Eupatorium odoratum L. ar m 

164. Eupatorium reevesii Wall. sf 

165. Gnaphalium luteo-album L. ar Fl 

166. Gynura crepidiodes Benth. g, ar Fl 

167. Gynura lycopersicifolia DC. g, ar 

168. Lactuca indica L. ar, g m 

169. Lactuca triangulata Maxim. g 

170. Petasites japonicus (Sieb. & Zucc.) Maxim. pf 

171. Thaspis tokinensis Gagn. g 

172. Tagetes erecta L. ar Fl o 

173. Tagetes patula L. ar Fl o 

174. Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray ar Fl 

175. Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less. ar Fl m 

176. Vernonia solanifolia Benth. sf 

BALSAMINACEAE 

177. Impatiens arrensii (Zoll.) Y. Shimizu pf 

178. Impatiens balsamina L. ar Fl, Fr o 

179. Impatiens bonii Hook. f. pf Fl 

180. Impatiens yerrucifer Hook. f. sf


stages 

BASELLACEAE 

181. Basella rubra L. ar Fl, Fr 

BEGONIACEAE 

182. Begonia aptera Blume pf 

183. Begonia balanseana Gagn. pf, sf 

184. Begonia baviensis Gagn. pf, sf 

185. Begonia lecomtei Gagn. pf 

BERBERIDACEAE 

186. Podophyllum sp. sf, ar Fr 

BIGNONIACEAE 

187. Fernandoa collignonii (Dop.) Steen. pf, sf t 

188. Fernandoa serrata (Dop) Steen. sf Fl t 

189. Markhamia stipulata (Wall.) Seem ex Schum. pf, sf Fl t 

190. Oroxylon indicum (L.) Vent. pf, sf Fl t 

191. Pauldopia ghorta (G. Don.) Steen. sf t 

192. Stereospermum neuranthum Kurz. sf t 

193. Tecoma stans (L.) HBK. ar o 

BOMBACACEAE 

194. Bombax ceiba L. sf, ar Fr m 

BORAGINACEAE 

195. Bothriospermum tenellum Fisch. & Mey. ar 

196. Ehretia longifolia Champ. in Hook. g, ar 

197. Heliotropium indicum L. ar Fr m 

198. Heliotropum strigosum Willd. g, ar 

BRASSICACEAE 

199. Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. ar 

200. Brassica oleracea L. ar 

201. Cardamine hirsuta L. ar Fl 

202. Rorippa bengalensis (DC.) Hara. g, ar 

203. Rorippa globosa (Turcz.) Hayek ar 

204. Rorippa indica (L.) Hiern. ar m 

BROMELIACEAE 

205. Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. ar Fr e 

BUDDLEIACEAE 

206. Buddleia asiatica Lour. sf, ar Fl m 

207. Buddleia officinalis Max. g m 

BURSERACEAE 

208. Bursera tonkinensis Guill. pf t, ∗ 

209. Canarium album Roensch pf, sf Fr t, e, m 

210. Canarium parvum Leenh. sf Fr e 

211. Canarium tramdenum Dai et Yakovl. pf Fr t, e 

CAMPANULACEAE 

212. Codonopsis javanica (Blume) Hook. f. sf Fl ∗ 

213. Lobelia sinensis Lour. ar m 

214. Pratia nummularia (Lam.) A. DC. pf, sf Fl


stages 

CAPPARACEAE 

215. Capparis pubiflora DC. sf 

216. Cleome chelidonii L. f. ar Fl 

217. Crateva nervala Buch.-Ham. g, ar Fl 

CAPRIFOLIACEAE 

218. Lonicera japonica Thunb. g, ar Fl m 

219. Sambucus hookeri Rehder g, ar Fr m 

CARICACEAE 

220. Carica papaya L. ar Fr e 

CARYOPHYLLACEAE 

221. Dianthus caryophyllus L. ar Fl o 

222. Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moenth. ar 

223. Stellaria vestita Kurz. g 

CELASTRACEAE 

224. Microtropis rhynchocarpa Merr. sf 

CHENOPODIACEAE 

225. Chenopodium polyspermum L. ar 

CHLORANTHACEAE 

226. Chloranthes spicatus (Thunb.) Makino ar m 

227. Chloranthes japonicus Sieb. pf, sf 

COMBRETACEAE 

228. Combretum sundaicum Miq. sf 

229. Quisqualis indica L. g, ar Fl. m 

230. Terminalia catappa L. ar Fl, Fr t 

CONVULVULACEAE 

231. Erycibe griffithii C. B. Cl. ex Hook. sf Fl 

232. Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. ar e 

233. Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lamk. ar e 

234. Ipomoea hederifolia L. ar, g 

235. Ipomoea sinensis Choisy ar Fl 

236. Ipomoea staphylina Roem. et Schult. ar, sf Fl 

237. Ipomoea triloba L. ar, g Fl 

238. Jacquemontia paniculata (Burm. f.) Hall. f. g, sf Fl 

239. Merremia gemella (Burm. f.) Hall. f. g, ar Fl 

240. Merremia hederacea (Burm. f.) Hall. f. g, ar Fl m, e 

241. Merremia hirta (L.) Merr. g, ar Fl 

242. Xenostegia tridentata (L.) Austin & Staples g, ar Fl 

CLUSIACEAE 

243. Garcinia fragraeoides A. Chev. pf t, ∗ 

244. Garcinia multiflora Champ. ex Benth. pf 

245. Mesua sp. pf 

CURCURBITACEAE 

246. Actinostemma tenerum Griff. ar ∗ 

247. Benincasia hispida (Thunb.) Cogn. ar Fl, Fr e 

248. Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt. ar Fl e, m 

249. Cucumis sativus L. ar Fr e, m 

250. Cucurbita maxima Duch. ex Lam. ar Fr e 

251. Cucurbita pepo L. ar Fr e 

252. Gymnopetalum cochinchinensis (Lour.) Kurz. ar Fl e


stages 

253. Gymnopetalum integrifolium (Roxb.) Kurz. ar Fl e 

254. Hodgsonia macrocarpa (Blume) Cogn. sf Fr e 

255. Lagenaria siceraria (Mol.) Stadley ar Fr e 

256. Luffa cylindrica (L.) M. J. Roem. ar Fl, Fr e 

257. Momordica cochinchinensis (Lour.) Spreng. ar m, e 

258. Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M. J. Roem. sf, ar Fl 

259. Neoalsomitra integrifolia (Cogn.) Hutch. sf Fl 

260. Solena heterophylla Lour. ar Fl 

261. Thladiahta cordifolia (Blume) Cogn. ar, g 

262. Zehneria indica (Lour.) Keyr. ar, g Fl 

DILLENIACEAE 

263. Dillenia indica L. sf Fr 

264. Tetracera sarmentosa (L.) Vahl. ssp. asiatica (Lour.) Hoogl. 

sf, ar 

265. Tetracera scandens Merr. sf, ar Fl, Fr m 

DIPTEROCARPACEAE 

266. Dipterocarpus retusus Blume pf t 

267. Hopea recopei Pierre pf, sf t 

268. Parashorea chinensis Wang Hsie pf Fr t, ∗ 

269. Shorea hypochra Hance pf t 

270. Shorea siamensis Miq. pf 

271. Vatica chevalieri (Gagn.) Smith pf Fr t 

EBENACEAE 

272. Diospyros latisepala Ridl. pf, sf Fr t 

273. Diospyros mollis Griff. sf, ar t, m 

274. Diospyros mun Chev. pf ∗ 

275. Diospyros subarticulata Lec. sf Fr 

ELAEOCARPACEAE 

276. Elaeocarpus chinensis (G. & Ch.) Hook. f. sf 

277. Elaeocarpus griffithii (Wight) A. Gray. pf, sf Fr t 

EUPHORBIACEAE 

278. Aleurites moluccana Willd. sf e 

279. Aleurites cordata (Thunb.) R. Br. ex Stend. sf, ar t 

280. Antidesma bunius Spring pf Fr e 

281. Antidesma henryi Pax & Hoffm. pf Fr e 

282. Antidesma montana Blume sf, ar 

283. Aporosa dioica (Roxb.) Muell. Arg g Fl 

284. Aporosa macrostachyus (Tul.) Muell. Arg. g Fl 

285. Aporosa yunnanensis Pax & Hoffm. g, sf Fl 

286. Bischofia javanica Blume sf Fl t 

287. Breynia fructicosa (L.) Hook. f. g Fl m 

288. Bridelia balansae Tutcher. sf 

289. Claoxylon indicum (Blume) Endl. ex Hassk. sf m 

290. Cleistanthus petelotii Merr. ex Croizat pf Fr t, ∗ 

291. Cleistanthus tonkinensis Jabl. pf Fr 

292. Cnesmone javanica Blume g 

293. Croton argyratus Blume pf t 

294. Croton longipes Gagn. pf 

295. Croton tiglium L. sf m 

296. Deutzianthus tonkinensis Gagn. pf t 

297. Drypetes hoaensis Gagn. sf Fr t


stages 

298. Drypetes perreticulata Gagn. pf t 

299. Endospermum chinense Benth. pf, sf t 

300. Glochidion rubrum Blume g Fl 

301. Macaranga balansae Gagn. sf 

302. Macaranga denticulata (Blume) Muell. Arg. sf Fr t 

303. Mallotus barbatus Muell. Arg. sf, ar Fr m 

304. Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell. Arg. sf Fr m 

305. Mallotus metcalfianus Croiz. sf Fl 

306. Mallotus paniculatus (Lam.) Muell. Arg. sf Fl 

307. Mallotus resinosus (Blume) Merr. sf 

308. Manihot esculenta Crantz. ar e 

309. Microdesmis caseariaefolia Planch. sf 

310. Phyllanthus emblica L. g Fr e 

311. Ricinus communis L. g, ar Fl o, m 

312. Sapium discolor (Champ.) Muell. Arg. g Fl m 

313. Sapium rotundifolia Hemsl. sf 

314. Sapium sebiferum Roxb. g o, m 

315. Strophioblachia fimbricalyx Boerl. pf 

316. Suregada multiflora (Juss.) Brill. pf 

317. Trewia nudiflora L. sf t 

318. Trigonostemon stellaris (Gagn.) Phamh. pf 

319. Vernicia montana Lour. sf 

FABACEAE 

320. Acacia concinna (Willd.) A.DC. sf 

321. Acacia megaladina Desv. sf Fl 

322. Acacia pennata (L.) Willd. sf Fl 

323. Acacia pruinescens Kurz sf 

324. Acacia tonkinensis I. Niels. sf 

325. Adenanthera microsperma Teijim. et Binn. sf 

326. Albizia kalkora Prain. pf t 

327. Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth. pf t 

328. Arachys hypogea L. ar e 

329. Archidendron chevalieri (Kost.) I.Niels. sf Fr t 

330. Archidendron lucidum (Benth.) I. Niels. pf Fr t 

331. Archidendron pellitum (Gagn.) I. Niels. pf t 

332. Archidendron robinsonii (Gagn.) I. Niels. pf t 

333. Bauhinia cardinale Pierre ex Gagn. sf, g Fl 

234. Bauhinia championii (Benth.) Bents. g 

335. Bauhinia coccinea (Lour.) A. P. DeCand. sf, g 

336. Bauhinia pyrroclada Drake del Cast g, sf 

337. Bauhinia variegata L. pf, sf Fl e, t 

338. Caesalpinia latisiliqua (Cav.) Hatt. pf Fr 

339. Caesalpinia minax Hance g, ar Fr 

340. Cassia timoriensis A. DC. sf 

341. Cassia tora L. ar Fl m 

342. Crotalaria acicularis Buch-Ham. ar Fl 

343. Crotalaria chinensis L. ar, sf, g Fl 

344. Crotalaria pallida Aiton ar, g Fl 

345. Crotalaria sessiflora L. sf, g Fl 

346. Derris balansae Gagn. sf m 

347. Desmodium blandum van Meuwen ar Fl, Fr 

Species Habitat Fertile Uses/Status

stages 

348. Desmodium heterophyllum (Willd.) DC. ar Fl m 

349. Desmodium longipes Craib. g, ar Fr 

350. Desmodium triflorum DC. ar, g Fl m 

351. Desmodium triquetum (L.) DC. g, ar Fr m 

352. Desmodium velutinum (Willd.) DC. g Fl 

353. Erythrophloeum fordii Oliv. pf t 

354. Gleditsia pachycarpa Bal. ex Gagn. pf Fr t 

355. Lycidise rhodostegia Hamsl. sf t 

356. Milletia cinerea Benth. pf, sf t 

357. Milletia eriobotrya Drake pf t 

358. Mimosa invisa Mart. ex Colla. g Fl 

359. Mimosa pudica L. g, ar Fl 

360. Ormosia balansae Drake sf t 

361. Ormosia dasycarpa Jacks. sf t 

362. Peltolophorum dasyrrachis (Miq.) Kurz pf, sf Fl, Fr t 

363. Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. g Fl 

364. Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi var. thomsonii (Benth.) v. d. Maesn. 

g, ar Fl m 

365. Saraca dives Pierre pf Fr t 

366. Saraca indica L. pf t 

367. Tamarindus indica L. ar e 

FAGACEAE 

368. Castanopsis boisii Hickl. et Camus sf Fl, Fr t 

369. Castanopsis echinophora Cam. pf 

370. Castanopsis indica (Roxb.) A.DC. sf, pf Fr t, e 

371. Castanopsis tonkinensis Scemen ex Tugler. pf, sf Fr t 

372. Lithocarpus bacgiangensis Hick. et A.Camus sf Fr t 

373. Lithocarpus licentii sf, pf t 

374. Lithocarpus tubulosus (Hick. et Camus) Camus pf, sf Fr t 

FLACOURTIACEAE 

375. Bennettiodendron cordatum Merr. pf Fr ∗ 

376. Flacourtia rukkam Zoll. et More sf, ar Fl, Fr t, e 

377. Casaeria glomerata Roxb. sf Fl 

378. Hydnocarpus hainanensis (Merr.) Steum. sf 

379. Xylosma longifolium Clos. sf 

GESNERIACEAE 

380. Boeica porosa pf 

381. Chirita cycnostyla Burret. pf 

382. Chirita genella Wood. pf 

383. Chirita pellegriniana P. I. Burret. pf 

384. Didymocarpus pulchra C. B. Clarke in DC. pf 

385. Paraboea martinii (Levl.) Burrett. pf Fr


stages 

HAMAMELIDACEAE 

386. Symingtonia tonkinensis (Lec.) VanSteen. pf 

JUGLANDACEAE 

387. Engelhardia roxburghiana Wall. pf, sf Fr t 

LAMIACEAE 

388. Elsholtzia blanda (Benth.) Benth. g, ar 

389. Gomphostema grandiflorum Doan. g 

390. Leonurus sibiricus L. g Fl, Fr m 

391. Mentha aquatica L. ar Fl m 

392. Mosla dianthera (Benth. & Hook.) Maxim. g, ar Fl e, m 

393. Ocimium basilicum L. ar e, m 

394. Orthosiphon spiralis (Lour.) Merr. ar Fl m 

395. Perilla frutescens var. crispa (Thunb.) Handl. ar e, m 

396. Rhabdosia ternifolia (D. Don.) Hance g, ar Fl 

397. Salvia sapiformis Hance g 

LAURACEAE 

398. Actinodaphne obovata Blume pf, sf Fr 

399. Caryodaphnosis poilanei Kost. pf t 

400. Caryodaphnosis tonkinensis (Lec.) Airy Shaw pf t 

401. Cinnamomum burmanii (Ness) Blume pf t 

402. Cinnamomum glaucescens (Buch-Hamilt) Drury pf, sf t 

403. Cryptocaria chingii Ching pf, sf Fr 

404. Lindera glauca (Sieb. & Zucc.) Blume sf, g 

405. Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers. sf, g Fr t, m 

406. Litsea monosepala (Roxb.) Pers. sf Fr m 

407. Litsea sp. sf, g Fl 

408. Machilus bonii Lec. sf 

409. Machilus chinensis (Champ. ex Benth.) Hemsl. sf Fl t 

410. Phoebe cuneata Blume pf t 

411. Phoebe poilanei Kosterm. sf t, ∗ 

412. Phoebe tavoyana Hook. f. sf t 

LEEACEAE 

413. Leea bracteata C.B. Cl. g Fl 

414. Leea rubra Blume ex Spreng. g, sf Fr m 

LOGANIACEAE 

415. Fagraea fragrans Roxb. pf, sf t, m 

416. Mitreola reticulata Tirel. sf Fl, Fr 

417. Strychnos ignatii Bergius pf m 

418. Gelsemium elegans (Gardn. & Champ.) Benth. sf, g Fr m 

LORANTHACEAE 

419. Helixanthera parasitica Lour. sf, ar 

420. Macrosolena bibracteolatus (Hance) Dans. sf 

421. Taxilus chinensis (DC) Dans. pf Fr 

422. Viscum ovalifolium DC. sf Fr 

MAGNOLIACEAE 

423. Magnolia talammoides Dandy sf Fl o 

424. Magnolia sp. pf Fr t 

425. Manglietia conifera Dandy pf Fr t 

426. Manglietia fordiana (Hemsl.) Oliv. pf, sf Fr t, ∗ 

427. Manglietia glauca Blume sf t 

428. Michelia balansae (A.DC.) Dandy sf t


stages 

429. Michelia faveolata Merr. sf Fr t 

430. Michelia tonkinensis Chev. pf, sf t 

MALVACEAE 

431. Abelomoschus moschatus Medicus g, ar Fl m 

432. Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet. ar, g m 

433. Gossypium arboreum L. var. arboreum ar Fl, Fr 

434. Hibicus mutabilis L. ar Fl o 

435. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. ar Fl, Fr o 

436. Hibiscus nitifolius L. ar Fl, Fr 

437. Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Gurcke ar Fl 

438. Sida cordifolia L. ar Fl m 

439. Sida rhombifolia L. g, ar Fl m 

440. Urena lobata L. ar, g Fl m 

MELASTOMATACEAE 

441. Allomorphia arborescens Guill. pf 

442. Blastus borneensis Cogn. var. eberhardtii (Guill.) C. Hans. 

pf, sf 

Fr 

443. Medinilla assamica (C.B. Cl.) Chen sf 

444. Melastoma malabarica L. g, sf Fl m 

445. Melastoma sanguineum Sims. g, ar Fr m 

446. Melastoma septemnervium (Lour.) Merr. g, ar 

447. Memecylon edule Roxb. g, ar Fr 

448. Osbeckia chinesis L. ar, sf Fl 

MELIACEAE 

449. Aglaia gigantea (Pierre) Pollegr pf t 

450. Aglaia odorata Lour. ar Fr m 

451. Aglaia roxburghiana (Wight & Ann.) Mig. pf t 

452. Amoora dasyclada (How. & Chen) C. Y. Wu pf Fl t 

453. Amoora gigantea Pierre pf Fr t 

454. Chisocheton cochinchinensis Pierre pf t 

455. Chisocheton globulus Pierre pf t 

456. Chisocheton glomeratus Hiern. pf t 

457. Chukrasia tabularis Juss. pf t, ∗ 

458. Dysoxylum cochinchinensis Pierre pf t 

459. Dysoxylum tonkinense Chev. ex Pell. pf Fl t 

460. Melia azedarach L. ar t, m 

461. Toona chinensis (Juss.) Roem. pf t, e 

462. Toona sureni (Blume) Merr. pf t 

463. Walsura cochinchinensis Harms. sf 

MENISPERMACEAE 

464. Fibraurea tinctoria Lour. sf Fl m 

465. Stephania japonica (Thunb.) Miers sf, g Fl m 

466. Stephania rotunda Lour. sf, g Fl m 

467. Tinospora glabra (Burm. f.) Merr. g


stages 

MORACEAE 

468. Antiaris toxicaria (Pers.) Lesch. var. toxicaria pf t 

469. Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk. ar Fr t, e 

470. Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb. ar Fr t, e 

471. Ficus abelii Miq. sf Fl, Fr 

472. Ficus benjamina L. ar Fl o 

473. Ficus callosa Willd. sf 

474. Ficus elastica Roxb. ex Horn. sf, ar t, o 

475. Ficus glaberrima Bl. sf, pf 

476. Ficus hirta Vahl. var. roxburghii (Miq.) King sf, g Fl 

477. Ficus hispida L.f. ar, sf Fl e 

478. Ficus heterophylla L. f. g, ar Fl 

479. Ficus sundaica Blume sf 

480. Ficus semicordata Buch.-Ham. ex J.E. Sm. sf 

481. Ficus vasculosa Wall ex Miq. pf 

482. Maclura cochinchinensis (Lour.) Corn. g Fr m 

483. Morus alba L. ar e, m 

484. Streblus aspera Lour. sf, ar Fr t 

485. Streblus ilicifolia (Kurz) Corn. pf t 

486. Streblus macrophyllus Blume pf 

487. Streblus tonkinensis (Eberh. et Dub.) Corner pf t 

MYRISTICACEAE 

488. Knema petelotii Merr. pf, sf Fl t 

489. Knema tonkinensis (Warb.) de Wilde pf, sf t 

MYRSINACEAE 

490. Ardisia arborescens Wall. sf 

491. Ardisia gigantifolia Stapf. sf Fr m 

492. Ardisia silvestris Pitard sf Fl ∗ 

493. Ardisia thorelii Pitard sf Fr 

494. Embelia bonii Gagn. sf, pf 

495. Embelia ferruginea Wall. pf 

496. Embelia indica Wall. pf 

497. Embelia ribes Burm. f. sf Fr 

MYRTACEAE 

498. Eucalyptus globulus Labill. ar Fl t, m 

499. Psydium guyava L. ar Fr e, m 

500. Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Air.) Hassk. sf, g Fl, Fr m 

501. Syzygium baviensis (Gagn.) Merr. & Perry sf 

502. Syzygium balsamineum (Wight.) Walp. pf, sf 

503. Syzygium odoratum (Lour.) DC. pf Fr t 

504. Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston ar Fl, Fr e 

505. Syzygium petelotii Merr. & Perr. pf, sf Fr t 

506. Syzygium polyalthum (L.) DC. pf, ar t, m 

OLEACEAE 

507. Jasminum longisepalum .Merr. sf, g 

508. Jasminum sambac (L.) Ait. ar Fl m 

509. Jasminum tonkinense Gagn. sf, g 

510. Olea dentata Wall. pf, sf 

511. Osmanthus matsumuranus Hay. sf Fr


stages 

ONAGRACEAE 

512. Ludwigia ascendens (L.) Hara ar Fl, Fr 

513. Ludwigia epilobiodes Maxim., var. epilobiodes ar, g Fl, Fr 

514. Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.) Raven, ssp. octovalvis ar Fl m 

OXALIDACEAE 

515. Averrhoa carambola L. ar Fr e 

516. Oxalis corniculata L. ar Fl m 

517. Oxalis corymbosa DC. ar Fl m 

OPILIACEAE 

518. Meliantha suavis Pierre sf e, ∗ 

519. Urobotrya latisquamata (Gagn.) Hiepko pf Fl, Fr 

PASSIFLORACEAE 

520. Passiflora foetida L. g, ar m 

PEDALIACEAE 

521. Sesamum orientale L. ar Fl, Fr e, m 

PIPERACEAE 

522. Peperomia leptostachya Hook. & Arn. pf Fl 

523. Peperomia pellucida Kunth. ar e 

524. Piper betle L ar m 

525. Piper bonii C. DC. pf 

526. Piper lolot L. pf, ar e 

527. Piper longum L. ar m 

528. Zippelia begonifolia Blume pf 

PLANTAGINACEAE 

529. Plantago asiatica L. g Fr 

530. Plantago major L. ar, g Fr m 

POLYGONACEAE 

531. Polygonum barbatum L. ar, g Fl e 

532 Polygonum chinensis L. g, sf Fl. 

533. Polygonum glabrum Willd. g, ar 

534. Polygonum hydropiper L. g, ar Fl m 

535. Polygonum odoratum Lour. ar e, m 

PORTULACACEAE 

536. Portulaca oleracea L. ar Fl e, m 

537. Portulaca pilosa L. subsp. grandiflora (Hook.) Gees 

ar Fl o 

538. Talinum paniculatum (Jacq.) Gaertn. ar, g e, m 

PROTEACEAE 

539. Helicia cauliflora Merr. g Fr t 

540. Heliciopsis terminalis (Kurz.) Sleumer pf t 

RANUNCULACEAE 

541. Clematis granulata (L.) Ohwi g, ar Fl, Fr m 

542. Ranunculus pennsylvanicus L. f. ar, g 

543. Thalictrum foliosum DC. ar m 

RHAMNACEAE 

544. Paliurus tonkinensis sf Fr 

545. Rhamnus crenatus Sieb. & Zucc., var. cambodianum (Pierre) Tard. 

sf Fr m 

546. Ventilago leiocarpa Benth. g 

547. Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Mill. sf Fl


stages 

ROSACEAE 

548. Duchnesia indica (Andr.) Focke sf, g Fl, Fr 

549. Photinia prunifolia (H. & A.) Lindl. pf Fr t 

550. Prunus salicina Lindl. var. salicina Prun. ar Fr e 

551. Rosa chinensis Jacq. ar Fl o 

552. Rosa rubus Levl. & Van. sf, g Fl 

553. Rubus alcaeifolius Poiret. sf, g Fl, Fr m 

554. Rubus asper Wall sf 

555. Rubus cochinchinensis Tratt. sf, g Fl, Fr 

556. Rubus leucanthus Hance sf Fl 

557. Rubus multibracteatus Levl. & Van. sf 

558. Rubus tamdaoensis Hiep & Yakolef sf 

RUBIACEAE 

559. Adina pilulifera (Lam.) Franch. sf Fl, Fr 

560. Aidia oxydonta (Drake) Yamazaki pf, sf Fl t 

561. Aidia pycnantha (Drake) Tirv. sf Fr 

562. Canthium horridum Blume sf Fr m 

563. Dentella repens (L.) J. R. & G. Forst. ar Fl 

564. Gardenia angustifolia (L.) Merr. ar, g Fl e, m 

565. Gardenia stenophylla Pit. sf 

566. Hedyotis biflora (L.) Lam. ar Fl m 

567. Hedyotis corymbosa (L.) Lam. ar Fl m 

568. Hedyotis crassifolia A. DC. ar Fl 

569. Hedyotis diffusa Wight & Arn. ar Fl, Fr 

570. Hedyotis petelotii Merr. g, ar Fl, Fr 

571. Hedyotis scandens Roxb. g, ar Fr 

572. Hedyotis trinervia (Retz.) Roem. & Schult. ar 

573. Ixora chinensis Lam. g, ar Fl, Fr 

574. Ixora coccinea L. sf, g Fl e, m 

575. Ixora henryi Lévl. pf Fl 

576 Knoxia mollis Wight & Arn. g, ar. 

577. Morinda umbellata L. sf m 

578. Mussaenda cambodiana Pierre g, ar Fl, Fr m 

579. Mussaenda densiflora Li. sf, g 

580. Mussaenda glabra Vahl. sf, g Fl 

581. Mussaenda pilosissima Vahl. g 

582. Mycetia balansae Drake sf 

583. Neonauclea sessilifolia (Hook. f.) Merr. pf 

584. Paederia foetida L. ar Fl m, e 

585. Paederia scandens (Lour.) Merr. g, ar Fl 

586. Psychotria fleuryi Pit. sf Fr t 

587. Psychotria rubra (Lour.) Poit. sf Fl m 

588. Psychotria sarmentosa Blume sf, g Fl 

589. Psychotria serpens L. g, sf 

590. Psychotria siamica (Craib.) Hutch. g Fr 

591. Urophyllum longifolium Hook. f., var. annamensis Pierre ex Pit. 

sf, g 

592. Wendlandia glabrata DC. sf, pf t 

593. Wendlandia paniculata (Roxb.) DC. sf Fr t


stages 

RUTACEAE 

594. Clausena excavata Burm. f. sf m 

595. Glycosmis stenocarpa (Drake) Tan pf, sf 

596. Micromelum hirsutum Oliv. sf, g m 

597. Micromelum minutum (Forst. f.) W. & A. sf, g m 

598. Xanthoxylum nitidum (Lam.) DC. sf m 

SABIACEAE 

599. Meliosma henryi Diels. pf t 

600. Meliosma simplicifolia (Roxb.) Walp. subsp. fordii (Forb. & Hemsl.) Bens. 

sf 

SAPINDACEAE 

601. Allophyllus caudatus Radlk. pf Fl 

602. Cardiospermum halicacabum L. g, ar Fl m 

603. Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. sf 

604. Litchi sinensis Radlk. ar e 

605. Mischocarpus fuscescens Blume pf Fr t 

606. Mischocarpus sundicus Blume pf 

607. Nephelium sp. pf 

608. Pometia pinnata Forst. pf t 

609. Sapindus saponaria L. pf, sf t 

SAPOTACEAE 

610. Eberhardtia tonkinensis Lec. pf Fr t 

611. Madhuca pasquieri (Dub.) H.J. Lam. pf Fr t, ∗ 

612. Madhuca subquiconcialis H.J. Lam. et Kerpel pf t 

613. Sarcosperma kachinense (K. et Patl.) Exell. pf, sf 

SAXIFRAGACEAE 

614. Itea chinensis Hook. & Arn. pf 

SCROPHULARIACEAE 

615. Adenosoma caerulea R. Br. sf, ar Fl 

616. Adenosoma indica (Lour.) Merr. ar, g 

617. Bacopa floribunda (R. Br.) Wettst. ar, g 

618. Limnophylla chinensis (Osb.) Merr. ar, g 

619. Limnophylla heterophyllum (Roxb.) Benth. ar 

620. Limnophylla repens (Benth.) Benth. g, ar 

621. Lindernia anagallis (Burm. f.) Pennell ar Fl 

622. Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. Muell. ar, g Fl 

623. Lindernia ruelloides (Colsm.) Pennell ar Fl 

624. Mazus pumilus (Burm. f.) Steen ar, g 

625. Pieria fel-terrae Lour. sf, ar Fl m 

626. Torenia chevalieri Bon. sf, ar Fl 

627. Torenia concolor Lindl. sf, ar 

SOLANACEAE 

628. Capsicum frutescens L. ar Fl, Fr e, m 

629. Cestrum nocturnum L. ar Fl m, o 

630. Lycianthe biflorum (Lour.) Bitter 

631. Lycopersicon esculentum (L.) Mill. ar e 

632. Nicotiana tabacum L. ar Fl m 

633. Physalis angulata L. ar, g Fl, Fr 

634. Solanum americanum Mill. ar Fl, Fr m 

635. Solanum thrupii H. Wight ar Fl, Fr 

636. Solanum torvum Swartz ar, g Fl, Fr m 

637. Solanum undatum Poir. ar, g e 


stages 

SONNERATIACEAE 

638. Duabanga grandiflora (DC.) Walp. sf t 

STERCULIACEAE 

639. Byttneria erosa Gagn. sf Fl 

640. Byttneria pilosa Roxb. sf, g 

641. Commersonia bartramia (L.) Merr. sf Fr 

642. Firmannia simplex (L.) W.F. Wight sf, pf Fl t, m 

643. Helicteres angustifolia L. g, sf 

644. Helicteres hirsuta Lour. sf, g Fl, Fr 

645. Heritiera macrophylla Wall. pf Fl t 

646. Melochia corchorifolia L. ar Fl 

647. Pterospermum grandiflorum Gagn. sf, pf 

648. Pterospermum heterophyllum Pierre sf 

649. Sterculia foetida L. sf, ar Fr t, e 

650. Sterculia parviflora Roxb. sf Fl, Fr t 

651. Waltheria americana L. ar 

STYRACACEAE 

652. Alniphyllum eberhardtii Guill. pf ∗ 

653. Styrax tonkinensis (Pierre) Hall. f. pf, sf t 

SYMPLOCACEAE 

654. Symplocos cambodiana (Pierre) Hall. f. sf Fl t 

655. Symplocos viridissima Brand. sf 

THEACEAE 

656. Adinandra milettii (H. & A.) Benth. & Hook. f. sf Fr t 

657. Camellia sasanqua Thunb. sf, g Fr t 

658. Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Ktze ar e 

659. Eurya acuminata DC. var. euprista Korth. pf Fl 

660. Eurya japonica Thunb. sf, g 

TILIACEAE 

661. Corchorus capsularis L. g 

662. Corchorus olitorius L. g 

663. Excentrodendron hsienmu (Chung. & How.) Chiang & Miav. 

hf, pf 

t, ∗ 

664. Grewia asiatica L. sf, g Fl 

665. Grewia hirsuta Vahl. g Fl 

666. Grewia langsoniensis Gagn. g 

667. Grewia urenaefolia (Pierre) Gagn. g, sf 

ULMACEAE 

668. Celtis orientalis pf, sf t 

669. Celtis tetrandra pf, sf Fl t 

670. Gironniera cuspidata (Blume) Pl. ex Kurz. pf, sf Fr t 

671. Trema cannabina Lour g, ar Fr 

672. Trema orientalis (L.) Blume g, ar 

673. Ulmus lanceaefolia Roxb. ex Wall. sf t


stages 

URTICACEAE 

674. Boehmeria diffusa Wedd. g, ar 

675. Boehmeria nivea (L.) Gaud. ar 

676. Debregeasia squamata King ar, g 

677. Elatostema atropurpurea Gagn. pf, sf Fl 

678. Elatostema baviensis Gagn g Fl 

679. Elatostema dissectum Wedd. pf 

680. Laportea interrupta (Gaud.) Chew. ar 

681. Pellionia macroceras Gagn. sf, ar 

682. Pilea platanifolia Wight. sf 

683. Pouzolzia hirta Hassk. ar Fl 

684. Pouzolzia pentandra (Blume) Merr. ar 

VERBENACEAE 

685. Callicarpa albida Blume g Fl 

686. Callicarpa brevipes Hance g Fl 

687. Callicarpa candicans (Burm. f.) Hochr. g, ar m 

688. Callicarpa longifolia Lam. sf, g Fl 

689. Clerodendron kaempferi (Jacq) Sieb. ex Hassk. ar, g Fl m 

690. Clerodendron gaudichandii P. Dep. ar, g Fl m 

691. Clerodendrum phillipinum Schaur. f. ar, g Fl m 

692. Gmelina arborea Roxb. sf Fl t, m 

693. Gmelina lecomtei P. Dep. sf Fl t 

694. Lantana camara L. ar Fl o, m 

695. Phryma lepidostachya L. sf, ar 

696. Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene ar 

697. Premna serratifolia L. g, ar Fl e, m 

698. Vitex negundo L. ar Fl m 

699. Vitex peduncularis Wall. sf, pf Fr t 

700. Vitex quinata (Lour.) Williams pf, sf m, t 

VITACEAE 

701. Ampelopsis heterophylla Sieb. & Zucc. sf Fl 

702. Cayratia trifolia (L.) Domino ar, g Fr 

703. Cissus repens Lamk. g, ar 

704. Parthenocissus cuspidifera Pl. sf 

705. Tetrastigma eberhardtii Gagn. sf, pf 

706. Tetrastigma grandidens Gagn. sf, pf Fl 

707. Tetrastigma longisepalum Gagn. g 

708. Tetrastigma petelotii Gagn. sf, pf Fl 

LILIOPSIDA 

AGAVACEAE 

709. Dracaena eliptica Thunb. pf, sf Fr 

710. Poilanthes tuberosa L. ar Fl o, m 

711. Sanseveria cylindrica Bojer. ar o 

712. Sanseveria hyacinthoides (L.) Druce ar o 

ALISMATACEAE 

713. Sagittaria guyanensis H. Bk. ssp. lappula (D. Don.) Bogn. 

ar 

Fl 

714. Sagittaria sagittaefolia L. ssp. leucopetala (Miq.) Hartoz. 

ar Fl e


stages 

AMARYLLIDACEAE 

715. Crinum asiaticum L. sf, ar Fl m 

716. Curculigo gracilis Wall. sf, pf Fl 

717. Curculigo orchoides Gaertn. ar, sf Fl m 

718. Curculigo tonkinensis Gagn. pf 

ARACEAE 

719. Acorus gramineus Soland. pf-ar 

720. Acorus tatarinowi Schott pf-ar 

721. Acorus verus Houtt. pf-ar m 

722. Aglaonema modestum Schott. ex Engler pf Fl 

723. Alocasia hainanica N. E. Rr. pf, sf 

724. Alocasia macrorrhiza (L.) Schott. ar Fl e 

725. Alocasia odora C. Koch. ar e 

726. Amorphophallus paneoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicols. pf 

727. Amorphophallus tonkinensis Engler & Gehrm. sf 

728. Arisaema balansae Engler pf Fl, Fr 

729. Arisaema petelotii Krause pf Fl 

730. Anthurium scherzeanum Schott. sf, ar o 

731. Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott. ar e 

732. Epipremmum giganteum Schott. pf 

733. Epipremmum pinnatum (L.) Engler pf 

734. Homalomena occulta (Lour.) Schott. pf, sf m 

735. Pothos angustifolius Presl. pf, sf Fl 

736. Pothos repens (Lour.) Druce pf, sf Fl 

737. Pothos scandens L. pf, sf Fl 

738. Raphidophora decursiva (Roxb.) Schott. pf, sf Fl, Fr m 

739. Raphidophora laichauensis Gagn. pf, sf Fl 

740. Remusatia vivipara (Roxb.) Schott. sf, ar 

ARECACEAE 

741. Areca catechu L. ar Fl, Fr m 

742. Arenga pinnata (Wurmb) Merr. pf, sf e 

743. Calamus petreus Lour. pf, sf 

744. Calamus platyacanthus Warb. ex Becc. sf 

745. Calamus tetradactylus Hance pf, sf Fr 

746. Calamus tonkinensis Becc. pf, sf 

747. Caryota bacsonensis Magalar pf 

748. Caryota mitis Lour. ar Fl o 

749. Caryota monostachya Becc. pf, sf 

750. Caryota urens L. pf, sf 

751. Chuniophoenix nana Burrett. pf 

752. Licuala bracteata Gagn. pf, sf 

753. Licuala terrata Griff. pf, sf 

754. Licuala tonkinensis Becc. pf, sf 

755. Livistona saribus (Lour.) Merr ex Chev. sf, ar 

756. Livistona tonkinensis Magalon. sf 

757. Rhapis divaricata Gagn. pf 

758. Rhapis laosansis Becc. pf, sf 

759. Rhapis micrantha Becc. pf o 

760. Pinanga sp. sf 

761. Plectocomia elongata Mart. Bl. pf 

762. Plectocomia khaya Griff. sf, ar


stages 

BUTOMACEAE 

763. Tenagocharis latifolia (D. Don.) Buch. ar, g Fl 

COMMELINACEAE 

764. Commelina bengalensis L. ar, sf Fl 

765. Commelina communis L. ar Fl m 

766. Cyanotis burmanniana Wight. sf, ar Fl 

767. Murdania versicolor (Dalz.) Bruckner ar Fl 

768. Pollia hasskarlii R. Br. ar 

769. Pollia thyrsiflora (Blume) Endl. & Hassk. ar, g Fl 

770. Streptolirion volubile Edgew. sf 

CONVALLARIACEAE 

771. Ophiopogon backianus Diels. pf Fl 

772. Ophiopogon latifolius Rodr. pf Fl 

773. Ophiopogon reptans Hook. f. pf Fl m 

774. Ophiopogon tonkinensis Rord. pf Fl m 

775. Peliosanthes teeta Andr. pf m 

CYPERACEAE 

776. Carex baccans Nees. pf Fl 

777. Carex balansae Franchet sf 

778. Carex thomsonii Boott. pf, sf 

779. Cyperus amabilis Vahl. ar 

780. Cyperus articulatus L. ar 

781. Cyperus diffusus Vahl. g, sf 

782. Cyperus pilosus Vahl. g, ar 

783. Cyperus tonkinensis C. B. Clark g, ar Fl 

784. Eleocharis acutangula (Roxb.) Schult. ar 

785. Eleocharis congesta D. Don. ar Fl 

786. Eleocharis geniculata (L.) R. & S. ar Fl 

787. Fimbristylis ferruginea (L.) Vahl. ar 

788. Fimbristylis quinquangularis (Vahl.) Kunth. ar 

789. Fimbristylis salbudia (Nees.) Kunth. ar 

790. Fimbristylis squarrosa Vahl. ar, g 

791. Fimbristylis umbellaris (Lam.) Vahl. ar 

792. Kylinga polycephala Willd. ex Kunth. ar 

793. Rhynchospora corymbosa (L.) Britton. ar, g 

794. Rhynchospora submarginata Kuk. ar, g 

795. Scirpus juncoides Roxb. ar, g 

796. Scirpus petelotii R. Gross. ar, g Fl 

797. Scleria biflora Roxb. ar 

798. Scleria terrestris (L.) Fassett sf, g 

799. Scleria tonkinensis C. B. Cl. sf, g 

DIOSCOREACEAE 

800. Dioscorea alata L. ar Fl e 

801. Dioscorea bonii Prain. & Burk. ar, sf 

802. Dioscorea cirrhosa Prain. & Burk. ar, sf Fl m 

803. Dioscorea collettii Hook. f. ar, sf 

804. Dioscorea depauperata Prain & Burk ar, sf e, m 

805. Dioscorea esculenta (Lour.) Burk. ar Fl e 

806. Dioscorea kratica Prain. & Burk. pf, sf Fl e


stages 

ERIOCAULACEAE 

807. Eriocaulon bonii Lec. ar Fl 

808. Eriocaulon eberhardtii Hec. ar, g Fl 

LILIACEAE 

809. Allium ascalonicum L. ar e 

810. Allium fistulosum L. ar e, m 

811. Allium sativum L. ar e, m 

812. Chlorophytum orchidastrum Lindl. pf 

813. Dianella nemorosa Lam. ex Schiler. pf Fl m 

814. Disporopsis longifolia Craib. pf, sf 

815. Paris delavayi Franch pf Fl m 

816. Paris polyphylla ssp. yunnanensis (Fr.) H. M. pf fl m, ∗ 

817. Polygonatum odoratum (Mill.) Druce pf, sf 

MARANTACEAE 

818. Donax cannaeformis (G. Forst.) K. Schum. pf Fl 

819. Phrynium dispermum Gagn. pf Fl 

820. Phrynium placentarium (Lour.) Merr. pf Fl 

MUSACEAE 

821. Musa ornata Roxb. sf 

822. Musa paradisiaca L. ar Fl, Fr e 

ORCHIDACEAE 

823. Anectochilus brevistylus (Hook. f.) Ridley pf Fl 

824. Anectochilus elwesii (Hook. f.) King & Prantl. pf Fl 

825. Anectochilus lanceolatus Lindl. pf Fl 

826. Calanthe clavata Lindl. pf Fl 

827. Calanthe herbacea Lindl. pf Fl 

828. Calanthe triplicata (Willem.) K. & G. pf Fl 

829. Cheirostylis spathulata J. J. Sm. pf Fl 

830. Corymborchis fumata Thwaites pf 

831. Corymborchis veratrifolia (Reimx.) Blume pf, sf 

832. Dendrobium chryseum Rolfe pf Fl 

833. Dendrobium chlorostylum Gagn. pf Fl 

834. Dendrobium devonianum Paxt. pf Fl 

835. Dendrobium fimbriatum Hook. f. pf Fl 

836. Goodyera procera (Ker-Gawl.) Hook. pf Fl 

837. Habernaria acuifera Wall. ex Lindl. pf, g Fl 

838. Habernaria poilanei Gagn. pf Fl 

839. Liparis cordifolia Hook. f. pf, g Fl 

840. Spiranthes sinensis (Perx.) Ames g, ar m 

841. Zeuxine abbreviata (Lindl.) Hook. f. pf Fl 

842. Zeuxine nervosa (Lindl.) Benth. ex Clarke pf, g Fl 

PANDANACEAE 

843. Pandanus tonkinesis Mart. ex. Stone pf, sf 

POACEAE 

844. Agrostis micrantha Steud. g Fl 

845. Arachne racemosa (Raem. & Sch.) Chwi. g, ar 

846. Arundo donax L. g, sf 

847. Brachiaria mutica (Forssk.) Stapf. ar Fl 

848. Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.)Trin. ar, g Fl 

849. Cynodon arcuatus Presl. ar, g Fl 

850. Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. ar, g Fl 

851. Cyrtococcum accrescens (Trin.) Stapf. sf, ar Fl 


stages 

852. Cyrtococcum patens (L.) A. Camus sf, ar Fl 

853. Dactyloctenium aegyptiacum (L.) Willd. ar Fl 

854. Digitaria abludens (Roem. & Sch.) Veldk. ar, g Fl 

855. Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel. ar Fl 

856. Digitaria longiflora (Retz.) Pers. ar Fl 

857. Echinochloea colonum (L.) Link. ar Fl 

858. Echinochloea crus-galli (L.) P. Beauvoir ar 

859. Echinochloea crus-pavonis (H. B. K.) Schult. ar 

860. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ar, g Fl 

861. Eragrostis diarrhena (Schult.) Steud. g, ar 

862. Eragrostis tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Sch. ar 

863. Eragrostis unioloides (Retz.) Nees ex Steud. ar, g Fl 

864. Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. ar, g 

865. Isachne dioica sf, pf 

866. Isachne polygonoides Doll. in Mart. sf, ar 

867. Isachne petelotii A. Camus sf, ar 

868. Miscanthus nepalensis (Trin.) Hack. ar, g 

869. Miscanthus sinensis Anders. ar 

870. Oplismenus compositus (L.) P. Beauv. ar Fl 

871. Oryza minuta Presl. var. silvatica (Cam.) Veldk. sf, ar 

872. Oryza sativa (L.) ar Fl e 

873. Panicum brevifolium L. sf 

874. Panicum hyraspicum Edgw. sf, pf Fl 

875. Panicum miliaceum L. ar e 

876. Panicum nodosum Kunth. sf 

877. Panicum repens L. ar Fl 

878. Panicum sarmentosum Roxb. sf 

879. Paspalum conjugatum Berg. ar Fl 

880. Paspalum paspaloides (Michx.) Scribn. ar Fl 

881. Paspalum scrobiculatum L. ar Fl 

882. Paspalum vaginatum Swartz. ar 

883. Phragmites vallatoria (L.) Veldk. ar, sf 

884. Pseudoechinochloea polystacha (H. B. K.) Stapf. sf, ar Fl 

885. Saccharum officinarum L. ar e 

886. Saccharum spontaneum L. sf, ar 

887. Setaria glauca (L.) P. Beauv. ar 

888. Setaria pallide-fusca (Schum.) Stapf. & Hubb. ar 

889. Sphaerocaryum malaccense (Trin.) Pilg. ar Fl 

890. Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) O. Ktze. sf, ar 

891. Urochloa panicoides Beauv. ar 

PONTEDERIACEAE 

892. Monochoria cyanea F. Muell. ar Fl 

893. Monochoria hastata (L.) Solm. ar Fl 

SMILACACEAE 

894. Heterosmilax gaudichaudiana (Kunth.) Max. sf 

895. Heterosmilax paniculata Gagnep sf, ar 

896. Smilax aspericaulis Wall. ex A. DC. sf, ar 

897. Smilax biumbellatum Koy. sf, pf 

898. Smilax corbularia Kunth. sf, ar e 

899. Smilax glabra Roxb. sf, ar, g m, ∗


stages 

STEMONACEAE 

900. Stemona pierrei Gagnep g, ar 

901. Stemona tuberosa Lour. g, ar m 

TACCACEAE 

902. Tacca charitieri Andre pf Fl m 

903. Tacca plantaginea (Hance) Drenth. pf m 

ZINGIBERACEAE 

904. Alpinia globosa (Lour.) Haramnov pf, sf Fl 

905. Alpinia phuthoensis Gagnep pf Fl 

906. Amomum aculeatum Roxb. sf, ar 

907. Amomum villosum Lour. pf Fr e, m 

908. Costus speciosus (Koenig) Smith pf, sf Fl e, m 

909. Curcuma aromatica Salisb. ar Fr m 

910. Curcuma domestica Val. ar Fl, Fr e, m 

911. Hedychium coccineum Hamilt. pf Fl 

912. Hedychium ellipticum Sm. pf Fl 

913. Kaempferia galanga L. sf, ar m 

914. Kaempferia rotunda L. ar m 

915. Zingiber acuminatum Valeton pf, sf Fl 

916. Zingiber officinalis Roscoe ar e, m 

917. Zingiber zerumbet (L.) J. E. Sm. sf, ar Fl m

Appendix 2. 

Forest transect diagrams

FOREST TRANSECT 1 

Key: 

Ac 

Ao 

Ar 

Cl 

Co 

Di 

Eb 

Eu 

Fa 

Ju 

L1 

L2 

Lo 

Me 

Mt 

My 

Sa 

Sp 

St 

Ru 

Ul 

Anacardiaceae; Spondias pinnata 

Annonaceae 

Araliaceae; Trevesia palmata 

Clusiaceae; Garcinia fragraeoides 

Combretaceae 

Dilleniaceae; Dillenia heterosepala 

Ebenaceae; Diospyros spp. 

Euphorbiaceae 

Fabaceae 

Juglandaceae; Engelhardia roxburghiana. 

Lauraceae; Phoebe sp. 

Lauraceae 

Loganiaceae 

Meliaceae 

Myristicaceae 

Myrtaceae; Syzygium formosum 

Sapotaceae; Madhuca aff. pasqueri 

Sapindaceae; Sapindus saponaria 

Sterculiaceae 

Rubiaceae; Psychotria baviensis 

Ulmaceae



Fa 

Lu 

Me 

Mo 

Fabaceae 

Lauraceae; Phoebe poilanei 

Meliaceae 

Moraceae; Teonongia tonkinensis



Cl Clusiaceae; Garcinia fragraeoides 

Eb Ebenaceae; Diospyros spp. 

Eu Euphorbiaceae 

Fa Fabaceae 

Fg Fagaceae; Lithocarpus sp. 

Me Meliaceae; Aglaia gigantea 

Moraceae; Teonongia tonkinensis 

Mo Moraceae sp. 2 

Sa Sapindaceae; Xerospermum sp. 

Sy Styracaceae 

Ti Tiliaceae; 

Excentrodendron (Burretoidendron) hsienmu



Ar Araliaceae; Trevesia palmata 

Ae Arecaceae; Arenga pinnata 

Ac1 Anacardiaceae; Dracontomelon duperranum 

Ac2 Anacardiaceae; Gluta wrayi 

Ao1 Annonaceae; Miliusa balansae 

Ao2 Annonaceae; Polyalthia jucunda 

Ap Apocynaceae; Kopsia tonkinense 

Bu Burseraceae; Canarium album 

Cl Clusiaceae; Garcinia multiflora 

Dp Dipterocarpaceae; Shorea siamensis 

El Elaeocarpaceae; Elaeocarpus chinensis 

Eu Euphorbiaceae; Croton longipes 

Fg1 Fagaceae; Castanopsis indica 

Fg2 Fagaceae; Castanopsis echinophora 

Lu1 Lauraceae; Phoebe cuneata 

Lu2 Lauraceae; Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis 

Lg Loganiaceae; Fagraea fragrans 

Ma Magnoliaceae; Manglietia conifera 

Me1 Meliaceae; Chisocheton globulus 

Me2 Meliaceae sp. 2. 

M1 Moraceae; Ficus callosa 

M2 Moraceae; Ficus glaberrima 

My Myrtaceae; Syzygium baviensis 

So Sonneratiaceae; Duabanga sonneratioides 

Sp Sapindaceae; Mischocarpus sundaicus 

St1 Sterculiaceae; Byttneria pilosa 

St2 Sterculiaceae; Firmannia simplex 

Ti Tiliaceae; Excentrodendron (Burretoidendron) hsienmu 

Ul Ulmaceae; Ulmus lancaefolia

Appendix 3. 

Forest plot data

Appendix 3. Plant families found in forest plots FT1-4 

Family FT1 FT2 FT3 FT4 

NI 

plot 

BA 

(m 2 ha -1) % total 

BA 

NI 

plot 

BA 

(m 2 ha -1) % 

total 

NI 

plot 

BA 


BA 

NI 

ha -1 

BA 


BA 

BA 

Anacardiaceae 1 0.331 0.66 2 2.138 2.85 3 0.150 0.56 

Annonaceae 2 0.138 0.28 17 1.200 4.47 

Apocynaceae 1 0.112 0.38 1 0.675 1.35 8 0.156 0.58 

Araliaceae 2 0.175 0.58 5 0.175 0.65 

Bignoniaceae 6 4.325 5.76 

Bombacaceae 1 0.331 1.10 

Burseraceae 7 1.125 3.75 3 0.044 0.16 

Clusiaceae 21 5.213 17.37 15 11.063 22.13 7 1.225 1.63 12 0.519 1.93 

Combretaceae 2 1.212 4.04 2 0.775 1.03 

Dillenaceae 2 0.162 0.54 

Ebenaceae 5 5.569 18.56 1 0.013 0.03 2 0.037 0.05 2 0.031 0.12 

Elaeocarpaceae 5 0.756 2.82 

Euphorbiaceae 1 0.194 0.39 2 0.050 0.07 7 0.494 1.84 

Fabaceae 11 3.063 9.21 14 4.819 9.64 3 12.019 15.12 14 1.294 4.82 

Fagaceae 3 0.431 1.44 5 9.194 12.26 3 0.088 0.33 

Icacinaceae 1 0.081 0.16 

Lauraceae 21 8.450 28.18 1 1.706 3.41 1 1.825 2.43 13 5.306 19.78 

Loganaceae 1 0.037 0.13 8 0.925 3.45 

Lythraceae 1 0.050 0.17 

Magnoliaceae 7 1.294 4.82 

Melastomataceae 1 0.012 0.05 

Meliaceae 1 0.050 0.17 13 7.719 15.44 11 8.469 11.29 17 2.968 11.06 

Moraceae 138 10.350 20.70 78 12.806 17.07 6 1.206 4.50 

Myristicaceae 1 0.206 0.69 4 0.275 0.55 2 0.131 0.49

Myrtaceae 4 1.081 3.60 8 1.250 4.66 

Rubiaceae 6 1.137 4.40 

Sapindaceae 1 0.219 0.29 5 0.300 1.12 

Sapotaceae 4 8.950 17.90 4 1.875 6.99 

Sonneratiaceae 3 0.144 0.53 

Sterculiaceae 5 1.319 4.40 4 0.775 1.55 1 0.219 0.29 4 1.819 6.78 

Styracaceae 2 0.488 0.98 5 2.106 2.81 

Theaceae 5 0.125 1.87 

Tiliaceae 3 0.563 0.42 5 1.781 3.56 5 19.438 25.91 8 3.050 11.37 

Ulmaceae 5 0.506 1.69 1 0.638 1.28 1 0.175 0.23 3 0.463 1.72 

Verbenaceae 1 0.219 0.73

Appendix 4a. 

Butterflies of Tat Ke sector 

Papilionidae 

1. Troides helena L. 

2. Papilio helenus L. 

3. Papilio nepelus Boisduval 

4. Papilio castor Westwood 

5. Papilio memnon L. 

6. Papilio alcmenor Westwood 

7. Papilio paris L. 

8. Papilio demoleus L. 

9. Papilio polytes L. 

10. Pathisa antiphates Cramer 

11. Graphium eurypylus L. 

12. Graphium doson C. & R. Felder 

13. Lamproptera meges Zinken 

Pieridae 

14. Delias pasithoe L. 

15. Pieris canidia Sparrman 

16. Appias lyncida Cramer 

17. Appias nero Fabricius 

18. Appias indra Moore 

19. Appias albina Boisduvel 

20. Dercas verhuelli Hoeven 

21. Eurema brigitta Stoll 

22. Eurema laeta Boisduvel 

23. Eurema ada Distant & Pryer 

24. Eurema hecabe L. 

25. Eurema blanda Boisduval 

26. Eurema andersoni Moore 

Danaidae 

27. Danaus genutia Cramer 

28. Tirumala septentrionalis Butler 

29. Parantica aglea Stoll 

30. Ideopsis vulgaris Butler 

31. Euploea mulciber Cramer

Nymphalidae 

32. Cethosia biblis Drury 

33. Cethosia cyane Drury 

34. Cirrochroa tyche Felder 

34. Vargans egista Cramer 

35. Argyreus hyperbius L. 

36. Phalanta phalantha Drury 

37. Vindula erota Fabricius 

38. Junonia almana L. 

39. Kallima inachis Boisduvel 

40. Doleschallia bisaltidae Cramer 

41. Hypolimnas bolina L. 

42. Neptis nata subsp. adipala Moore 

43. Pantoporia hordonia Stoll 

44. Tanaecia julii Moore 

45. Tanaecia coelebs Corbet 

46. Parthenos sylvia Cramer 

47. Apatura (Rohana) parisatis Moore 

Amathusidae 

48. Discophora deo subsp. fruhstorferi Stichel 

49. Thaumantis diores Doubleday 

50. Faunis eumaeus subsp. incerta Staudinger 

51. Stichopthalma louisa Wood-Mason 

Satyridae 

52. Melanitis leda L. 

53. Melanitis phedima Cramer 

54. Melanitis zitenius Herbst 

55. Lethe confusa Aurivillius 

56. Mycalesis inopia Fruhstorfer 

57. Mycalesis mineus L. 

58. Mandarina regalis subsp. baronesa Fruhst. 

59. Coelites notis subsp. sylvarum Fruhst. 

60. Zipaetis unipupillata Lee 

61. Orsotriaena medus Fabricius 

62. Ragadia crisilda Hewitson 

63. Ypthima baldus Fabricius 

64. Ypthima similis Elwes & Edwars 

65. Ypthima sp.

Riodinidae 

66. Zemeros flegyas Cramer 

67. Laxita sp. 

Lycaenidae 

68. Zeltus amasa Hewitson 

69. Athene emolus Godart 

70. Yasoda androconifera Fruhstorfer 

71. Taraka hamada Druce 

72. Jamides alceto Felder 

73. Jamides pura Moore 

74. Caleta roxus Godart 

75. Zizina otis Fabricius 

76. Prosotas sp. 

Hesperiidae 

77. Pseudocoladenia dan F. 

78. Arnetta atinsoni Moore 

79. Ochus subvittatus Feld. 

80. Pithauria murdava Moore 

81. Isotenion lamprospilus Feld. 

82. Iambrix salsala Moore 

83. Koruthaialos sindu Feld. 

84. Koruthaialos butleri De Nicev. 

85. Ancistroides nigrita subsp. diocles Moore 

86. Notocrypta clavata subsp. theba Evans 

87. Notocrypta feisthamelii subsp. alysos Moore 

88. Notocrypta paralysos (Wood-Mason & de Niceville) 

89. Thoressa cerata (Hewitson) 

90. Thoressa masoni Moore 

91. Halpe zema Hew. 

92. Telicota linna Evans 

93. Polytremis lubricans H-S. 

94. Parnana guttata Brem. et Grey

Appendix 4b. 

Butterflies recorded at Ban Bung (Jan-Mar 1996), 

but not at Tat Ke (Jul-Sept 1996) 

Papilionidae 

1. Atrophaneura dasarada (Moore) 

2. Chilasa slateri (Hewitson) 

3. Papilio polyctor Boisduval 

4. Papilio protenor Cramer 

5. Graphium sarpedon (L.) 

6. Lamproptera curius (Fabr.) 

Pieridae 

7. Delias acalis Godart 

8. Prioneris thestylis (Doubleday) 

9. Cepora sp. 

10. Hebomoia glaucippe (L.) 

11. Ixias pyrene L. 

Danaidae 

12. Parantica melaneus Cramer 

13. Parantica sita Kollar 

Satyridae 

14. Erites falcipennis Wood.-Was 

& de Nicev. 

15. Mycalesis perseoides Moore 

16. Mycalesis zonata Matsumura 

17. Neope muirheadi Felder 

18. Lethe verma (Kollar) 

Nymphalidae 

19. Vindula dejone Butler 

20. Pseudergolis wedah (Kollar) 

21. Cyrestris cocles (Fabr.) 

22. Cyrestris thyodamas Boisduval 

23. Chersonesia risa (Doubleday) 

24. Symbrenthia javanus Staudinger 

26. Kaniska canace (L.) 

27. Terinos clarissa Fruhstorfer 

28. Hestina nama Doubleday 

29. Athyma ranga Moore 

30. Athyma zeroca Moore 

31. Vanessa cardui L. 

32. Neptis hylas L. 

33. Neptis miah Moore 

34. Neptis soma Moore 

35. Neptis harita Moore 

36. Stibochiona nicea Gray 

37. Sumalia daraxa Moore 

38. Polyura arja (Felder) 

Libytheiidae 

39. Libythea celtis Laicharting 

40. Libythea myrrha Godart 

Riodinidae 

41. Abisara fylla (Doubleday) 

Lycaenidae 

42. Allotinus unicolor Riley & 

Godfrey 

43. Celastrina argiolus L. 

44. Cheritra freja (Fabr.) 

45. Heliophorus androcles Riley 

46. Udara dilecta Moore 

47. Yasoda tripunctata Hewitson 

Hesperiidae 

48. Astictopterus jama C. & R. Felder 

49. Borbo bevani Moore 

25. Symbrenthia hypselis (Godart)

Appendix 5. 

Fish species 

Key: P Species cultivated in rice fields and ponds. 

(V) Listed as 'Vulnerable' in the Red Data Book for Vietnam 

(RDB, 1992). 

(T) Listed as 'Threatened' in the RDB for Vietnam. 

Distribution: + Observed, at; 1 Site 1 

2 Site 2 

3 Site 3; River Gam 

4 stream near Chom Village (western part of Tat Ke 

sector; flows into R. Gam) 

5 stream at Nam Trang (Ban Bung sector) 

Species with no + were not collected, but identified in interviews with local 

fishermen 

Distribution 

1 2 3 4 5 

Order: Cypriniformes 

Family: Cyprinidae 

1. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus P + 

2. Cyprinus multitaeniata + 

3. Onychostoma ovalis Pellegrin & Chevey + 

4. Onychostoma laticeps Gunther V + + 

5. Onychostoma gerlachi (Peters) 

6. Garra orientalis Nichols + 

7. Garra caudofasciata (Pellegrin & Chevey) + 

8. Garra angulostoma 

9. Semilabeo notabilis Peters V + 

10 Epalzeorhynchus mutabilis Linnaeus 

11 Altigena bibarbata 

12 Altigena tetrabarbata 

13 Altigena dorsoarcus 

14 Osteochilus salsburyi Nichols and Pope 

15 Cirrhina molitorella (Cuiver and Valenciennes) P + 

16 Spinibarbus caldwelli (Nichols) V + 

17 Spinibarbichthys denticulatus Oshima V, P + + 

18 Labeo tonkinensis (Pellegrin & Chevey) + 

19 Cyclocheilichthys iridescens Nichols and Pope + 

20 Lissochilus krempfi Pellegrin and Chevey 

21 Lissochilus macrosquamatus + 

22 Crossocheilus elongatus Pellegrin and Chevey 

23 Puntias ocellatus + 

24 Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson) V

1 2 3 4 5 

25 Opsarichthys uncirostris (Schlegel) + + + 

26 Rasbora cephalotaenia steineri + 

27 Rasbora lineatus (Pellegrin) 

28 Zacco spilurus (Gunther) + + 

29 Zacco platypus (Temminck and Schlegel) + 

30 Pseudohemiculter serrata (Koller) + 

31 Erythroculter hypselonotus + 

32 Hemiculter leucisculus (Basilewski) + 

33 Megalobrama macrops affinis (Vaillant) + 

34 Squaliobarbus curriculus (Richardson) P + 

35 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Sauvage) P + 

36 Rhodeus ocellatus Kner + 

37 Pararhodeus kyphus + 

38 Pararhodeus elongatus 

39 Acanthorhodeus tonkinensis Vailant + + 

40 Acanthorhodeus longibarbatus 

41 Squalidus chankaensis vietnamensis (P. Banarescu 

+ 

and T. Nalbant.) 

42 Microphysogobio labeoides Nichols and Pope + + 

43 Microphysogobio gigantus 

44 Saurogobio dabryi Bleeker 

45 Ctenopharyngodon idella P + 

46 Labeo rhohita P + 

47 Labeo mrigala P + 

48 Labeo tonkinensis (Pellegrin & Chevey) + 

Family: Cobitidae 

49 Barbatula caudofurca + + 

50 Barbatula fasciolata (Nichols & Pope) + + + 

51 Botia elongata + 

52 Botia gigantea + 

Family: Siluridae 

53 Parasilurus asotus (Linnaeus) + 

54 Parasilurus cochinchinensis (Cuvier and 

+ + 

. Valenciennes) 

Family: Bagridae 

55 Cranoglanis sinensis Peters V + 

56 Hemibagrus elongatus (Gunther) V + + 

57 Hemibagrus vietnamicus + 

Family: Clariidae 

58 Clarias fuscus (Lacepede) 

Family: Sisoridae 

59 Bagarius bagarius Hamilton and Buchanan V +

1 2 3 4 5 

Order: Ophiocephaliformes 

Family: Ophiocephalidae 

60 Ophiocephalus striatus Bloch T + 

61 Ophiocephalus maculatus (Lacepede) 

62 Ophiocephalus gachua Hamilton and Buchanan + 

63 Channa asiatica (Linnaeus) 

Order: Synbranchiformes 

Family: Flutidae 

64 Fluta alba (Zuiew) + 

Order: Perciformes 

Family: Serranidae 

65 Siniperca scherzeri kwangsiensis Fang and Chong 

66 Coreoperca whiteheadi Boulenger + + 

Family: Anabantidae 

67 Anabas testudineus (Bloch) + 

68 Macropodus opercularis Linnaeus + + 

Family: Eleotridae 

69 Micropercops hotayensis + 

Family: Gobiidae 

70 Rhinogobius hadropterus (Jordan and Snyder) + + 

Family: Cichlidae 

71 Tilapia mossambica P 

Order: Mastacembeliformes 

Family: Mastacembelidae 

72 Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepede) + + 

73 Mastacembelus aculeatus Basilewski 

Total number of species 10 17 32 2 7

Appendix 6. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Identified by Dr Nguyen Van Sang, IEBR, Hanoi. 

Key; 

(o) = observed only 

NT(T) = Nationally Threatened 

(listed as Threatened in the Red Data Book for Vietnam, Vol 1: 

Animals) 

6a: Amphibia 

Family Ranidae 

1. Rana limnocharis 

6b: Reptilia 

Family Emydidae 

1. Cistoclemmys sp.(o) 

2. Geoemyda sp.(o) 

Family Agamidae 

3. Acanthosaura lepidogaster NT(T) 

Family Scincidae 

4. Mabuya longicaudata 

Family Colubridae 

5. Elaphe moellendorffii NT(T) 

6. Elaphe prasina 

7. Oligodon chinensis 

8. Boiga multomaculata 

9. Ahaetulla prasina 

10. Pseudoxenodon bambusicola

Appendix 7. 

BIRDS 

7a. BIRD SPECIES RECORDED July - Sept. 1996 


A Habitat: pf - Primary forest; 

sf - Secondary forest; 

b - Bamboo forest; 

s - Scrub; 

a - Agriculture; 

w - rivers, streams and lakes (within above habitat types) 

B 

Abundance: (a) - Abundant 

(c) - Common 

(f) - Frequent 

(o) - Occasional 

(r) - Rare 

C Notes: *** - listed in 'Birds to Watch 2' (Collar et al.,1994) as vulnerable. 

** - listed in 'Birds to Watch 2' (Collar et al.,1994) as near-threatened. 

* - listed in RDB of Vietnam (RDB, 1992) as threatened within Vietnam. 

V - identified by Voice only 

T - traces (e.g. feathers) 

C - captive specimen seen 

RE - range extension from 'Birds of S.E. Asia' (King et al.,1975). 

AR - altitude reduction from that stated in 'Birds of S.E. Asia' (King et al.,1975). 

END - 'Restricted Range Species' endemic to Indochina, (+H= + Hainan). 

B - evidence of breeding 

J - juvenile(s) present 

BB - Recorded only in Ban Bung sector (All birds recorded in Tat Ke) 

BZ - Recorded only in Buffer Zones (sector if not stated otherwise) 

A B C 

Phasianidae: Quail, Partridges, Pheasants 

1. Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) sf (r) 

2. Silver Pheasant (Lophura nycthemera) pf (o) *, V & T 

Picidae: Woodpeckers 

3. White-browed Piculet (Sasia ochracea) sf,b,s (o) 

4. Grey-capped Woodpecker (Dendrocopos canicapillus) pf (r) 

5. Rufous Woodpecker (Celeus brachyurus) pf (r) 

6. Lesser Yellownape (Picus chlorolophus) pf,sf (o) 

7. Greater Yellownape (Picus flavinucha) sf (o) 

8. Bay Woodpecker (Blythipicus pyrrhotis) pf,sf (r) 

Megalaimidae: Barbets 

9. Great Barbet (Megalaima virens) pf,sf,a (c) C 

10. Red-vented Barbet (Megalaima lagrandieri) pf,sf (f) END 

11. Green-eared Barbet (Megalaima faiostricta) pf,sf,a (f) 

12. Golden-throated Barbet (Megalaima franklinii) pf (f) 

13. Blue-throated Barbet (Megalaima asiatica) a (r)

A B C 

Upupipae: Hoopoe 

14. Hoopoe (Upupa epops) s (r) 

Trogonidae: Trogons 

15. Red-headed Trogon (Harpactes erythrocephalus) sf (f) 

Alcedinidae: Kingfishers 

16. Common Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) w (o) 

Halcyonidae: Kingfishers 

17. White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) w (o) 

18. Black-capped Kingfisher (Halcyon pileata) w (r) 

Meropidae: Bee-eaters 

19. Blue-bearded Bee-eater (Nyctyornis athertoni) sf (r) 

Cuculidae: Cuckoos 

20. Large Hawk-Cuckoo (Cuculus sparverioides) pf,bf (r) 

21. Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) sf (r) 

22. Plaintive Cuckoo (Cacomantis merulinus) sf (r) 

23. Asian Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) pf,sf (f) 

24. Green-billed Malkoha (Phaenicophaeus tristis) pf,sf,s (f) 

25. Greater Coucal (Centropus sinensis) s,a (o) J 

Psittacidae: Parrots 

26. Red-breasted Parakeet (Psittacula alexandri) - (r) C, B 

Apodidae: Swifts 

27. Himalayan Swiftlet (Collocalia brevirostris) a (r) 

28. Silver-backed Needletail (Hirundapus cochinchinensis) pf,sf (f) RE 

29. Brown-backed Needletail (Hirundapus giganteus) pf,sf (o) RE 

30. Asian Palm Swift (Cypsiurus balasiensis) pf,sf,a (a) 

31. Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) pf,sf,a (c) 

32. House Swift (Apus affinis) sf,a (o) 

Strigidae: Owls 

33. Mountain Scops-Owl (Otus spilocephalus) pf,sf (f) 

34. Collared Scops-Owl (Otus bakkamoena) pf (r) V, BB 

35. Collared Owlet (Glaucidium brodiei) pf,sf (f) 

36. Brown Hawk-Owl (Ninox scutulata) pf (r) V, BB 

Columbidae: Pigeons, Doves 

37. Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis) a,sf (c) 

38. Red Collared-Dove (Streptopelia tranquebarica) sf,a (r) 

39. Emerald Dove (Chalcophaps indica) sf (o) 

40. Green Imperial-Pigeon (Ducula aenea) pf (r) 

41. Mountain Imperial-Pigeon (Ducula badia) pf (r) 

Scolopacidae: Sandpipiers, Snipe 

42. Common Sandpiper (Tringa hypoleucos) w (r) BZ 

Charadriidae: Plovers 

43. River Lapwing (Vanellus duvaucelii) w (r) BZ 

Accipitridae: Kites, Hawks, Eagles 

44. Crested Serpent-Eagle (Spilornis cheela) pf,sf,a (c) J 

45. Crested Goshawk (Accipiter trivirgatus) pf (r) 

46. Shikra (Accipiter badius) sf,a (r) 

47. Besra (Accipiter virgatus) pf,sf,a (f) J 

48. Black Eagle (Ictinaetus malayensis) sf,a (r) 

Falconidae: Falcons 

49. Pied Falconet (Microhierax melanoleucos) sf,s (r) **, BB 

50. Northern Hobby (Falco subbuteo) a (r) BZ

A B C 

Ardeidae: Herons 

51. Chinese Pond-Heron (Ardeola bacchus) w (f) 

Eurylaimidae: Broadbills 

52. Silver-breasted Broadbill (Serilophus lunatus) pf (r) 

53. Long-tailed Broadbill (Psarisomus dalhousiae) pf,sf (r) * 

Irenidae: Leafbirds 

54. Orange-bellied Leafbird (Chloropsis hardwickii) pf,sf (c) J 

Laniidae: Shrikes 

55. Tiger Shrike (Lanius tigrinus) s (r) RE, J 

56. Long-tailed Shrike (Lanius schach) s (f) 

Corvidae 

Subfamily Corvinae 

Tribe Corvini: Crows, Magpies 

57. Blue Magpie (Urocissa erythrorhyncha) sf,s (r) 

58. White-winged Magpie (Urocissa whiteheadi) sf (c) **, J 

59. Green Magpie (Cissa chinensis) pf,sf (f) 

60. Grey Treepie (Dendrocitta formosae) sf (o) 

61. Racket-tailed Treepie (Crypsirina temia) sf (r) 

62. Ratchet-tailed Treepie (Temnurus temnurus) sf,pf (f) * END 

(+H) 

63. Large-billed Crow (Corvus marcorhynchos) pf,sf (r) 

Tribe Artamini: Woodswallows 

64. Ashy Woodswallow (Artamus fuscus) s,a (f) BZ 

Tribe Oriolinae: Old World Orioles, Cuckooshrikes 

65. Maroon Oriole (Oriolus traillii) pf,sf,a (f) 

66. Large Cuckooshrike (Coracina macei) sf,a (o) 

67. Black-winged Cuckooshrike (Coracina melaschistos) pf,sf (f) J 

68. Scarlet Minivet (Pericrocotus flammeus) pf,sf,a (c) 

69. Bar-winged Flycatcher-Shrike (Hemipus picatus) sf,a (f) 

Subfamily Dicrurinae 

Tribe Dicrurini: Drongos 

70. Ashy Drongo (Dicrurus leucophaeus) pf,sf,a (a) 

71. Crow-billed Drongo (Dicrurus annectans) pf,sf (a) 

72. Bronzed Drongo (Dicrurus aeneus) sf,pf (a) 

73. Lesser Racket-tailed Drongo (Dicrurus remifer) sf (r) 

74. Greater Racket-tailed Drongo (Dicrurus paradiseus) pf,sf (o) 

Tribe Monarchini: Monarchs 

75. Black-naped Monarch (Hypothymis azurea) sf (o) 

76. Asian Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone paradisi) pf,sf (c) B 

Subfamily Aegithininae: Ioras 

77. Common Iora (Aegithina tiphia) pf (r) 

Subfamily Malaconotinae 

78. Large Woodshrike (Tephrodornis gularis) pf,sf (c) B 

Muscicapidae 

Subfamily Turdinae: Thrushes 

79. Blue Whistling Thrush (Myiophonus caeruleus) w/pf (r) 

80. Orange-headed Thrush (Zoothera citrina) pf (r) RE, B 

81. Scaly Thrush (Zoothera dauma) pf (r) 

82. Lesser Shortwing (Brachypteryx leucophrys) pf (r)

A B C 

Subfamily Muscicapinae: Flycatchers 

Tribe Muscicapini 

83. Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) s (r) 

84. Yellow-rumped Flycatcher (Ficedula zanthopygia) sf (r) 

85. Slaty-blue Flycatcher (Ficedula tricolor) pf (r) 

86. Small Niltava (Niltava macgrigoriae) pf (r) AR 

87. White-tailed Flycatcher (Cyonris concretus) pf,sf (f) AR, B 

88. Hainan Blue-Flycatcher (Cyornis hainanus) pf,sf,s (o) 

89. Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher (Culicicapa ceylonensis) pf,sf (a) B 

Tribe Saxicolini 

90. Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus saularis) a,s (r) 

91. White-rumped Shama (Copsychus malabaricus) sf (r) 

92. White-crowned Forktail (Enicurus leschenaulti) pf (r) 

93. Green Cochoa (Cochoa viridis) pf (r) **, AR, J 

94. Common Stonechat (Saxicola torquata) a (o) 

Sturnidae: Starlings, Mynas 

95. Chestnut-tailed Starling (Sturnus malabaricus) sf,a (r) RE, BZ 

96. White-vented Myna (Acridotheres grandis) a (c) 

97. Crested Myna (Acridotheres cristatellus) s,a (c) 

98. Golden-crested Myna (Ampeliceps coronatus) sf,a (r) RE, BZ 

99. Hill Myna (Gracula religiosa) a (r) 

Sittidae: Nuthatches 

100. Chestnut-bellied Nuthatch (Sitta castanea) pf,sf (o) 

101. Velvet-fronted Nuthatch (Sitta frontalis) pf,sf,a (f) 

Paridae: Tits 

102. Great Tit (Parus major) sf,s (r) 

103. Sultan Tit (Melanochlora sultanea) pf,sf (c) 

Hirundinidae: Swallows 

104. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) pf,a (f) 

Pycnonotidae: Bulbuls 

105. Black-crested Bulbul (Pycnonotus melanicterus) sf (r) 

106. Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) sf,s,a (a) 

107. Sooty-headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus aurigaster) sf,s,a (a) 

108. Olivaceous Bearded Bulbul (Alophoixus pallidus) pf,sf,b (a) B 

109. Grey-eyed Bulbul (Iole propinqua) s (r) 

110. Chestnut Bulbul (Hemixos castanonotus) pf,sf (o) 

111. Black Bulbul (Hypsipetes madagascariensis) pf,sf,s,a (a) J 

Cisticolidae: Cisticolas, Prinias 

112. Lesser Brown Prinia (Prinia rufescens) s,a (o) B 

113. White-browed Prinia (Prinia atrogularis) sf,a (r) B 

Sylviidae 

Subfamily Acrocephalinae: Old World Warblers 

114. Mountain Tailorbird (Orthotomus cuculatus) pf (r) 

115. Common Tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius) s (o) 

116. Arctic Warbler (Phylloscopus borealis) pf,sf (r) 

117. Blyth's/White-tailed Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus reguloides/davisoni) pf,sf (o) 

118. Sulphur-breasted Warbler (Phylloscopus ricketti) pf,sf (c) 

119. Golden-spectacled Warbler (Seicercus burkii) pf (f) 

120. Yellow-Bellied Warbler (Abroscopus superciliaris) pf,sf,b (c)

A B C 

Subfamily Garrulacinae: Laughingthrushes 

121. Masked Laughingthrush (Garrulax perspicillatus) s (r) BB 

122. White-crested Laughingthrush (Garrulax leucolophus) pf,sf (o) 

123. Lesser Necklaced Laughingthrush (Garrulax monileger) sf (r) 

124. Grey Laughingthrush (Garrulax maesi) pf (f) ** 

125. Black-throated Laughingthrush (Garrulax chinensis) pf,sf,s (f) 

126. Hwamei (Garrulax canorus) s (r) 

127. Red-tailed Laughingthrush (Garrulax milnei) pf (r) ** 

Subfamily Sylviinae 

Tribe Timalinii: Babblers 

128. Buff-breasted Babbler (Pellorneum tickelli) sf (r 

129. Puff-throated Babbler (Pellorneum ruficeps) pf (r) 

130. Red-billed Scimitar-Babbler (Pomatorhinus ochraceiceps) sf (o) AR 

131. Streaked Wren-Babbler (Napothera brevicaudata) pf,sf (c) 

132. Eyebrowed Wren-Babbler (Napothera epilepidota) pf (r) 

133. Golden Babbler (Stachyris chrysaea) pf (r) 

134. Grey-throated Babbler (Stachyris nigriceps) pf (o) J 

135. Spot-necked Babbler (Stachyris striolata) pf (r) 

136. Striped Tit-babbler (Macronous gularis) sf (o) 

137. White-browed Shrike-Babbler (Pteruthius flaviscapis) pf (c) 

138. White-hooded Babbler (Gampsorhynchus rufulus) sf,b (o) 

139. Rufous-throated Fulvetta (Alcippe rufogularis) sf (r) **,J 

140. Grey-cheeked Fulvetta (Alcippe morrisonia) pf,sf (f) 

141. Striated Yuhina (Yuhina castaniceps) pf (c) 

142. Black-chinned Yuhina (Yuhina nigrimenta) pf (o) 

143. White-bellied Yuhina (Yuhina zantholeuca) pf,sf (o) 

144. Black-browed Parrotbill (Paradoxornis atrosuperciliaris) sf,b (o) 

145. Rufous-headed Parrotbill (Paradoxornis ruficeps) sf,b (r) ** 

Nectariniidae 

Subfamily Nectariinae 

Tribe Diceani: Flowerpeckers 

146. Plain Flowerpecker (Dicaeum concolor) sf,s (o) 

Tribe Nectariini: Sunbirds 

147. Olive-backed Sunbird (Nectarinia jugularis) pf (r) RE 

148. Fork-tailed Sunbird (Aethopyga christinae) sf/s (r) 

149. Little Spiderhunter (Arachnothera longirostra) sf (r) 

150. Streaked Spiderhunter (Arachnothera magna) sf,s,a (c) AR 

Passeridae 

Subfamily Motacillinae: Wagtails, Pipits 

151. Forest Wagtail (Dendronanthus indicus) sf (r) RE 

152. Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) w (r) 

Subfamily Estriliinae: Waxbills 

153. White-rumped Munia (Lonchura striata) a (f) J

7b. Formulation used for the assessment of abundance of bird species recorded 

in Na Hang nature reserve. (Hill & Kemp, 1996) 

Relative abundance of each species within the reserve was calculated from the number 

of occasions the species was identified and the average flock size of each species. Set 

out in the table below is the format used for assessing abundance. This formulation is 

only applicable for the SEE-Vietnam surveys at Na Hang. The abundance rating is 

weighted more heavily towards the number of occasions each species was recorded, as 

flock size was more difficult to recorded accurately, especially whilst observing large 

or mixed flocks. 

Average 

No. of Occasions Sighted 

Flock Size 1 2 3-4 5-8 9-16 >16 

1-2 Rare Rare Occasional Frequent Common Abundant 

3-8 Rare Occasional Frequent Common Abundant Abundant 

>9 Occasional Frequent Common Abundant Abundant Abundant

7c. Endangered Bird Species Recorded in Na Hang Nature Reserve 

Endangered Internationally (Birds to Watch 2, Collar et al. 1994) 

Vulnerable 

• Picus rabieri (Red-collared Woodpecker). 

Near-threatened 

• Anorrhinus tickelli (Brown Hornbill) 

• Treron seimundi (Yellow-vented Green-Pigeon) 

• Microhierax melanoleucos (Pied Falconet). 

• Pitta soror (Blue-rumped Pitta) 

• Pitta elliotti (Bar-bellied Pitta) 

• Urocissa whiteheadi (White-winged Magpie) 

• Turdus dissimilis (Black-breasted Thrush) 

• Niltava davidi (Fujian Niltava) 

• Cochoa viridis (Green Cochoa) 

• Garrulax maesi (Grey Laughingthrush) 

• Garrulax milnei (Red-tailed Laughingthrush) 

• Xiphirhynchus superciliaris (Slender-billed Scimitar-Babbler) 

• Alcippe rufogularis (Rufous-throated Fulvetta) 

• Paradoxornis ruficeps (Rufous-headed Parrotbill). 

Endangered in Vietnam (RDB, 1992) 

• Psarisomus dalhousiae (Long-tailed Broadbill) 

• Pitta phayrei (Eared Pitta) 

• Temnurus temnurus (Ratchet-tailed Treepie)

Appendix 8. 

Key; 

A Identified from: 

T Tracks or traces present 

O Observed 

S Specimen taken 

Mammals 

B 

Threatened Species Categories in Vietnam 

(as defined in RDB, 1992): 

E Endangered 

V Vulnerable 

R Rare 

T Threatened / Commercially Threatened 

# New record for Na Hang Nature Reserve 

C 

Threatened Species Categories, International 

(as defined in 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals; Groombridge, 1993): 

E Endangered 

V Vulnerable 

R Rare 

I Indeterminate 

K Insufficiently Known 

C Commercially Threatened 

A B C 

Insectivora 

Tupaiidae: Treeshrews 

1. Common Treeshrew (Tupaia glis) O 

Soricidae: Shrews 

2. Savi's Pigmy Shrew (Suncus etruscus) S 

3. South-East Asian White-toothed Shrew (Crocidura fulignosa) 

S 

Chiroptera 

Microchiroptera 

Rhinolophidae: Horseshoe Bats 

4. Rhinolophus affinis S,O # 

5. Rhinolophus pearsoni S,O 

6. Rhinolophus subbadius S,O #

Hipposideridae: Old World Roundleaf Bats 

7. Hipposideros larvatus S,O 

8. Hipposideros pomona S,O # 

9. Hipposideros sp. S,O 

10. Aselliscus stoliczkanus S,O 

Vespertilionidae: Evening Bats 

11. Murina sp. S,O # 

Primates 

Cercopithecidae: Old World Monkeys 

12. Pig-tailed Macaque (Macaca nemestrina) O V C 

Rodentia 

Sciuridae: Squirrels 

13. Black Giant Squirrel (Ratufa bicolor hainana) O 

14. Red-bellied Squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus) O 

15. Tree Squirrel (Callosciurus inornatus) O 

16. Burmese Striped Tree-squirrel (Tamiops maclellandi) O 

17. Red-cheeked Squirrel (Dremomys rufigenis) O 

Carnivora 

Ursidae: Bears 

18. Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) T E V 

Artiodactyla 

Suidae: Pigs 

19. Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) T 

Cervidae: Deer 

20. Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjac) T V 

Bovidae: Bovines 

21. Serow (Naemorhedus sumatraensis) T V I

Appendix 9. 

List of specimens 

Insects (excluding butterflies and moths) 

Specimens from sweep-net and pitfall trapping, and collected by hand. 

Held in 70% ethanol. 

Held by University Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Insects (butterflies and moths) 

Dry specimens. 

Held by Dr. Alexander Monastrskyii, Russian Tropical Institute, Hanoi. 

Fish 

In 70% ethanol. 

Held by Dr. Nguyen Kiem Son, IEBR, Hanoi. 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Preserved in Formalin and held in 70% ethanol. 

Held at IEBR, Hanoi. 

Mammals (excluding bats) 

Representative specimens of trapped rodent species. 

Preserved in formalin and held in 70% ethanol. 

Held at IEBR, Hanoi, by Professor Cao Van Sung. 

Mammals (Bats) 

Preserved in Formalin and held in 70% alcohol. 

Held by Dr P. Jenkins, Natural History Museum, London.

Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tat Ke Sector - Frontier-publications.co.uk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?