2.1 | Data collection
Several search engines were used to identify publications with abstracts
that contain the Latin or Chinese names of the pines as well as the
words “seed” and “seed dispersers”. These search engines included
Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, China National Knowledge Internet,
and Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide. We retained only articles,
reviews, and theses published in English and Chinese. After searching,
23 Chinese articles and 20 English articles were selected in terms of
their contained information regarding seed dispersal of the eight
specified species of pines (Table 3). In each study, the seed dispersers
of the large-seeded pines were recorded.
To the best of our knowledge, the detailed pines and animal ranges
available were Flora of China (Zheng & Fu, 1978) and Fauna Sinica (Luo,
2000; Zhang, 2007), which were published by Science Press and hosted by
the Chinese Academy of Science. Although these data are considered a
landmark for studies conducted on the ecology and conservation of pines,
rodents, and birds, updating the databases is demanding, but neglecting
added information can be detrimental to conservation efforts (Hughes,
2017). In addition, we also referred to Pinus dabeshanensis and
its Origin (Peng & Jiang, 1999), Tibet Vegetation (Chinese Academy of
Sciences, 1988), Flora and Vegetation Geography of China (Chen, 2014)
and Floristics of Seed Plants from China (Wu, 2011) as literary
references for the distribution of pines, while A Checklist on the
Classification and Distribution of the Birds of China (Third Edition)
(Zheng, 2017), China’s Mammal Diversity and Geographic Distribution
(Jiang et al., 2015), and Study on Rodents in Typical Semi-desert and
Desert Areas of China (Wu et al., 2008) were the literary references for
the distribution of seed dispersers.
We also queried the distribution information of these species from
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2020)
(https://www.gbif.org/) as a supplement (see “Data available”), we
obtained the distribution information of eight species of pines with
geographical coordinates in China, and screened the information one by
one. The records that were wrongly classified due to the wrong name of
species were eliminated, and the effective records of each species were
retained. There were no records of P. geraedana , 3 of P.
pimila , 74 of P. bungeana , 505 of P. armandii , 22 ofP. koraiensis and 28 of P. fenzeliana (excluding 106
records of P. kwangtungens , which were classified as Latin name
errors). The species information on GBIF were obtained from the
contributions of biologists and field researchers through time, but for
species with poor habitat conditions, there would be a lack of
information, while the habitat that is accessible to humans would have
widely studied species. However, the distribution data could be
inaccurate with differences between the GBIF data and the Chinese
monograph. Hence, we chose to follow the data provided in Flora of
China, Fauna Sinica, and local plant and animal record books, as
mentioned previously.