生物多样性 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (7): 22622.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022622

• 保护与治理对策 • 上一篇    下一篇

《国家重点保护野生植物名录》更新建议——基于对现有保护名录的分析

吴欣静, 陈金锋, 崔国发*()   

  1. 北京林业大学生态与自然保护学院, 北京 100083
  • 收稿日期:2022-11-03 接受日期:2023-05-16 出版日期:2023-07-20 发布日期:2023-07-31
  • 通讯作者: *E-mail: fa6716@163.com
  • 作者简介:*E-mail: fa6716@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(32171545)

Proposals for updating the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants—Based on an analysis of existing conservation lists

Xinjing Wu, Jinfeng Chen, Guofa Cui*()   

  1. School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083
  • Received:2022-11-03 Accepted:2023-05-16 Online:2023-07-20 Published:2023-07-31
  • Contact: *E-mail: fa6716@163.com

摘要:

大量野生植物的生存正在遭受着威胁, 对植物物种现状进行客观评估是一个重要的科学问题, 为更好地保护珍稀濒危植物, 我国编制了多个红色名录和保护名录。《国家重点保护野生植物名录》明确了国家重点保护野生植物的范围, 是依法保护野生植物资源的法律基础, 补充完善该名录具有重要的实用意义。本文拟通过对现有名录进行客观评价, 为《国家重点保护野生植物名录》的更新完善提供合理建议。通过综合我国现有植物保护名录, 建立统一表格, 对各名录进行对比分析; 通过研究我国具有代表性的野生植物红色名录, 将其与《国家重点保护野生植物名录》进行比较, 对比《国家重点保护野生植物名录》更新前后的变化, 分析各个名录间的相似性、差异性、完整性, 对现有名录作出评价。我国现有名录中存在各名录评价物种的数量和种类差别大、物种命名有争议、《国家重点保护野生植物名录》调整不全面、国际名录与国内名录差别较大等问题。建议将193种野生植物纳入《国家重点保护野生植物名录》的讨论范围, 其中44种为国家一级重点保护野生植物, 149种为国家二级重点保护野生植物, 以完善《国家重点保护野生植物名录》; 应重点关注1,313种野生植物, 可以考虑将其纳入省级自然保护名录中, 提高保护力度。

关键词: 野生植物, 植物名录, 濒危等级, 对比分析

Abstract

Aims: The survival of wild plants is under threat and an objective assessment of the current status of plant species is an important scientific issue. To protect rare and endangered plants, China has compiled red lists and protection lists of plants. List of National Key Protected Wild Plants defines the range of national key protected wild plants and is the legal basis for the legal protection of wild plant resources. Thus, supplementing and improving the list has important practical significance. This paper presents an objective evaluation of the current lists and provides important suggestions for updating and improving the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants.

Method: We synthesized the existing plant protection lists in China, created a unified table, and conducted a comparative analysis of each list. By studying the red list of representative wild plants in China, it is compared with the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants, including the changes before and after the update of the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants. Further, the similarities, differences and completeness among the lists were analyzed and evaluated.

Results: The existing lists in China have problems such as large differences in the number of species evaluated in each list, controversial names for species, incompleteness, and large discrepencies between the domestic lists and international lists.

Conclusion: Finally, we propose that 193 species of wild plants should be included in the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants, of which 44 species are protected at National Level I and 149 species are protected at National Level II. Furthermore, focus should be placed on the 1,313 species of wild plants, which should be considered for inclusion in the provincial nature conservation list, to improve the List of National Key Protected Wild Plants.

Key words: wild plants, plant lists, endangered classes, comparative analysis