Biodiversity survey results released

Editorial
DEB News
Feedback
Something older
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
Plants
Miscellany
Wild Corner
Best of Porc!
From the bar
Book Reviews
Recent Publications
Free Column
Information for Contributors

 

 

Feedback

Dear Feedback,

I am writing to join the ‘debate’ (I sincerely hope it is a friendly one) as stated in K. W. Cheung’s articles (Porcupine! 20: 5, 10-11). Readers are asked to pull out the last issue to follow the discussion in a Q & A format.

(1)“the adequacy of the West Rail EIA” - West Rail EIA is indeed INADEQUATE; while the impact on birds (birds seem to be the only non-human living form in Hong Kong that attract big attention, in public and in EIAs) has been studied and mitigation measures are being implemented, three species of aquatic animals of extremely high local conservation value, two fish species and the swan mussel, have been overlooked and as a result large portion of their habitat in the whole of Hong Kong is being destroyed (see Dudgeon in Porcupine! 19:17). The Rosy Bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus) is the overwhelmingly dominant life form in the concerned stream. Being an active swimmer in the water column (in areas no more than 30cm deep), this species must be easily detectable and easy to catch, even by a child, but the ‘ecology specialist’ who carried out the work must have been so focused ‘specialising’ in other more important faunal groups that he/she just forgot to look into the stream –even though the stream is the most prominent habitat type in the locale.

(2)“How much should an EIA include?” – do impact assessment of all natural habitat types for (at least) all vertebrate groups in the project area, i.e. while studying a project area with stream habitat, you HAVE to survey fish (fish was not on the ‘compulsory survey list’ for the West Rail project profile as far as I can tell). Let me quote my (I think it is) joke once more - not studying the impact on fish in a stream EIA is like not studying the impact of Giant Panda in a Sichuan bamboo forest EIA. By including fish, the ‘ecology specialists’ must demonstrate to AFCD and EPD that the method used and time spent in doing fish survey is adequate – in that case paid specialists will not easily ‘overlook’ (or did not look??) aquatic species with high conservation value in EIAs. Overlook is one issue, but NOT looking is another issue!!

(3) Who should be blamed? – no-one should be solely responsible and none of us should be blamed. Blaming doesn’t help conservation and the animals in trouble. We should all learn from the lessons (although the learning process must be very quick!) and make sure none of these unfortunate scenarios (e.g. Sham Chung and Kam Tin) happen in the future. We (governmental and non-governmental) should communicate more closely, frequently, and informally in conservation issues instead of partition ourselves into ‘specialists’ who go out and obtain data for the love, ‘paid specialists’ who go out and may not obtain satisfactory data, and ‘decision-makers’ who sit in their air-conditioned rooms to decide whether to accept/reject/disregard proposals/recommendations. Freshwater aquatic wildlife is indeed MOST susceptible to disturbance and habitat loss. Being fully aquatic and having very limited ability to move out from disturbed habitats (i.e. the water!), they can do nothing but wait to be murdered if the place they are inhabiting is destroyed. In the case of restricted species, it may result in local extinction.

(4) About “representativeness” of an ecological study – It is open to debate, but I believe a study that tells you the overall distribution range of a species in a particular area (e.g. Hong Kong), its relative abundance on a local and international scale, whether it is habitat-specific, and whether that particular habitat is rare and/or threatened in the study area must be qualified. About Cheung’s question on how to determine the status of a species if there are no representative data, perhaps this conclusion is inappro- priate as, except for our fishes (or may be we do need a revised mammal guide), many of our animal groups have received adequate coverage in the forms of wildlife books (see Proctor in Porcupine! 20:32) and brief but nevertheless accurate distribution records in local journals (e.g. see back issues on distributions of mammal, king crab, moth, sea grass etc.) such as Memoirs of Hong Kong Natural History Society and Porcupine!. For the fish, Drs. Sadovy and Cornish of HKU have prepared a book on our marine reef fishes, and a systematic survey of freshwater fishes in Hong Kong is now ongoing (see Dudgeon, Porcupine! 19: 17). Such representative works on both marine and freshwater fishes are just out, or due to appear in the near future.

(5) “rescue (or wiping out?) of Black Paradise Fish from Sham Chung – well, need I say more, please see the set of ‘before, during and after’ photos I attached for Sham Chung. This species needs marshes, and I did not see marsh where they were previously found (freshwater marsh on the left-hand-side of the stream when facing the sea to be exact!) in Sham Chung during recent visits with AFCD officers. The whole freshwater marsh was drained and dried during construction to allow landscaping of the now up and nearly running 4-holes golf course. In actual fact I am even more grateful in having rescued (yes, rescued) these fish after seeing what Sham Chung looks like nowadays; it’s a haven for golf-players and ‘organic farmers’, but hell for wetland plants and animals. Oh, by the way, the mangrove fringing the sea has been destroyed as well, I could have ‘rescues’ some more life forms if someone had a coastal wetland to house them!

(6) “Absolutely nothing has been done, is it true?” – I made that comment (Porcupine! 19: 16) assuming interested readers will look up Dudgeon’s 1993 article, in which he specifically highlighted the fact that all threatened fish species are confined to lowland waterways. Well, for lowland streams, my statement is almost true – except the recent designation of Tai Ho as SSSI, which is most welcome and I thank AFCD for their hard work. But I found out about it only AFTER the article was written. Much of Tung Chung, one of the best sites for lowland freshwater fishes (i.e. the threatened group), is gone. The Bitterling stream in Kam Tin is on its way out (unless Mr. Cheung and his colleagues, responsible for the pending EIA, can ‘rescue’ it!). I recently found more new freshwater fish records for Hong Kong in lowland streams, which have been badly affected by channelization and pollution. Mr. Cheung is most welcome to contact me for a list of degrading-but-good streams if “environmental measures” to protect lowland fishes are taken promptly.

(7) About the Bitterling (Rhodeus) – it is getting meaningless now to argue which species is in Hong Kong since the two species R. ocellatus and R. sinensis are treated as synonyms by Chinese fish authorities. But to stand my ground, my large, breeding, male adults still retain the size ratio of R. sinensis rather than R. ocellatus. About the body markings, defining “two inconspicuous markings behind the operculum” for R. sinensis and “two indistinct (Pan’s meaning here is not dark as in contrasting colouration) bands behind the operculum” for R. ocellatus, as described by Pan (1991), is open to debate. How to determine whether a marking is distinct (as dark colour) or indistinct (as dark colour as well!) on a silvery fish is again, open to debate. By the way what is a marking and what is a stripe/band, is again, open to debate. On top of that, I would much rather save the species in-situ at Kam Tin stream than spend time arguing what it is at the moment.

This ‘debate’ is actually a good thing for the conservation of Hong Kong wildlife – it marks the beginning of an open and frank forum for different opinions, or otherwise such ideas and (possible) prejudices amongst the stakeholders will remain unknown and unsolved. We should keep it going with good intention and reasoning, until one day we all agree and work in unity towards our common goal – preserving the wildlife we all treasure in Hong Kong!

Bibliography

Pan, J. ed. (1991). The Freshwater Fishes of Guangdong Province. Guangdong: Guangdong Science and Technology Press.

Bosco Chan

 

With marsh: (above)
Sham Chung in 1996, the Black Paradise Fish was literally all over the plant-covered marsh. The remoteness of the site, the size of the marsh, and the number of fish gave me a false belief that they must be safe!

After destruction: (right)
Sham Chung in 2000 viewed from nearly the same spot (note the village houses and the crest). The whole marsh was drained during construction of the golf course. The 200+ individuals were 'wiped out' from a ditch situated by the hillside.

 

P.3-4

   

 

Porcupine!
For more information, contact
ecology@hkucc.hku.hk


Copyright © 2000