Effective Management of Invasive Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the UK and the USA

영국과 미국에서 침입성 뉴트리아 (Myocastor coypus)의 효과적 관리

Kil, Jihyon;Lee, Do-hun;Kim, Young-chae

  • Received : 2015.11.26
  • Accepted : 2015.12.20
  • Published : 2015.12.30


It is the better to take preventative measures against the natural intrusion in advance from invasive alien species that reduce biodiversity and cause economic loss to humans. If the prevention of intrusion and spread fails, we need to make active control and eradication. This study aims to introduce nutria (Myocastor coypus) control cases performed in the United Kingdom and the United States and to provide information for the contribution of nutria management measure improvements. The nutria eradication campaign in the United Kingdom was developed as a long-term plan based on sufficient understanding on the management target and objective and suitable support. Sufficient information on nutria was accumulated and the management strategy was flexibly modified according to the changes in management that were proactively reflected in the field. Regarding the eradication project at Chesapeake Bay in the United States, based on long-term ecological information, more advanced capture technology than in the United Kingdom were introduced and the eradication plan, strategy and implementation were configured by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the eradication campaign in the United Kingdom. The successful cases in the United Kingdom and the United State provide an information on how to improv the nutria management measure. For the eradication of nutria, it is necessary to reach a consensus between stakeholders and to form a consultative group between related organizations for periodic communication. Opinions on the field must be actively accepted in the consultation process for strategy and policy decision, and the eradication plan needs to be developed based on a management index. The eradication plan is required to be managed, evaluated and adjusted in a systematic way. Scientific management must be introduced and the management performance must be evaluated objectively so that a practical plan can be flexibly adjusted. It is also required to secure a long-term budget support and a stable organization and to input a concentrated budget at the proper period when there is high efficiency of eradication.


Biodiversity;Eradication campaign;Invasive alien species;Nutria


  1. Abbas, A. 1988. Impact du ragondin (Myocastor coypus Molina) sur une culture de mais (Zea may L.) dans Ie marais Poitevin. Acta Oecologica/Oecologica Applicata 9: 173-189. (in French)
  2. Baker, S.J. 2006. The eradication of coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Britain: the elements of a succesful campaign. In, Koike, F., Clout, M.N., Kawamichi, M., DePoorter, M. and Iwatsuki, K. (eds.), Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 142-147.
  3. Baker, S.J. 2010. Control and eradication of invasive mammals in Great Britain. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des epizooties 29:311-327.
  4. Boorman, L.A. and Fuller, R.M. 1981. The changing status reedswamp in the Norfork Broads. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 214-269.
  5. Cabrera, A. and Yepes, J. 1940. Mamiferos Sud-Americanos (vida, costumbres descripcion). Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (in Spanish)
  6. Carter, J. and Leonard, B.P. 2002. A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 162-175.
  7. Carter, J., Foote, A.L. and Johnson, L.A. 1999. Modeling the effects of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on wetland loss. Wetlands 19: 209-219.
  8. Cocchi, R. and Riga, F. 2008, Control of coypu(Myocastor coypus) population in northern Italy and management implications. Italian Journal of Zoology 75: 37-42.
  9. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002. Decision VI/23 on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. Assessed 3 December 2015.
  10. Evans, J. 1970. About Nutria and Their Control. United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
  11. Foote, A.L. and Johnson, L.A. 1993. Plant stand development in Louisiana coastal wetlands: nutria grazing effects on plant biomass. In, Landin, M.C. (ed.), Wetlands: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA., South Central Chapter, Society of Wetland Scientists, Utica, MS, USA. pp. 265-269.
  12. Gosling, L.M. and Baker, S.J. 1987. Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. In, The Proceedings of Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 28-29 November, 1986, London, UK. pp. 99-113.
  13. Gosling, L.M. and Baker, S.J. 1989. The eradication of muskrat and coypus from Britain: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 38: 39-51.
  14. Gosling, L.M., Baker, S.J. and Clarke, C.N. 1988. An attempt to remove coypus (Myocastor coypus) from a wetland habitiat in East Anglia. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 49-62.
  15. Gosling, L.M., Watt, A.D. and Baker, S.J. 1981. Continuous retrospective census of the East Anglian coypu population between 1970 and 1979. The Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 885-901.
  16. Hess, I.D., Conner, W. and Visser, J. 1997. Nutria - another threat to Louisiana's vanishing coastal wetlands. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 2 (2).
  17. Kendrot, S.R. 2011. Chesapeake Bay nutria eradication. In, Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. and Towns, D.R. (eds.), Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 313-319.
  18. Laurie, E.M.O. 1946. The coypus (Myocastor coypus) in Great Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology 15: 22-34.
  19. Leblanc, D.J. 1994. Nutria. In, Hygnstrom, S.E., Timm, R.M. and Larsen, G.E. (eds.), The Handbook:Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. pp. B71-B80.
  20. Lee, D.H. and Kil, J.H. 2015. Analysis of the best practices for nutria management in Europe and North America. National Institute of Ecology, Seochoen, Korea. (in Korean)
  21. Lee, D.H., Kil, J.H. and Kim, D.E. 2013a. The study on the distribution and inhabiting status of nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 27: 316-326. (in Korean)
  22. Lee, D.H., Kil, J.H. and Yang, B.K. 2012. Ecological Characteristics for Sustainable Management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon, Korea. (in Korean)
  23. Lee, D.H., Lee, C.W. and Kil, J.H. 2013b. A study on plant diet resource of nutria (Myocastor coypus) habitat in Nakdong-River. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 22: 491-511. (in Korean)
  24. Leuven, R.S., van der Velde, G., Baijens, I., Snijders, J., van der Zwart, C., Lenders, H.J. and bij de Vaate, A. 2009. The River Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. Biological Invasions 11: 1989-2008.
  25. Lim, O.S., Kil, J.H. and Kim, Y.A. 2014. Report on Advanced Case Studies on Nutria Eradication Project in Europe. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  26. Lockwood, J.L., Hoopes, M.F. and Marchetti, M.P. 2006. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
  27. Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. and De Poorter, M. 2000. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species: a Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland, New Zealand.
  28. Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Londsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M. and Bazzaz, F.A. 2000. Biotic invasions: cause, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689-710.[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2
  29. ME. 2014. The First National Mid-Long Term Management Plan of Alien Species (2014-2018). Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  30. Murphy, W.J., Elzirik, E., Johnson, W.E., Zhang, Y.P., Ryder, O.A. and O'Brien, S.J. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409: 614-618.
  31. NIE. 2014. The Study on the Inhabitation Status of Nutria (Myocastor coypus). National Institute of Ecology, Seochoen, Korea. (in Korean)
  32. Norris, J.D. 1967. A campaign against feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) on Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 191-199.
  33. Public Law 108-16. 2003. Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003. Assessed 01 September 2015.
  34. Runami, L., Gunji, Y., Hishinuma, M., Nagano, M., Takada, T. and Higaki, S. 2013. Reproductive biology of the coypu, Myocastor coypus (Rodentia: Myocastoridae) in western Japan. Zoologia 30:130-134.
  35. SCBD. 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
  36. The Nutria Management Team. 2013. Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project: Strategic Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USA.
  37. Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607-615.
  38. Willner, G.R., Chapman, J.A. and Pursley, D. 1979. Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes. Wildlife Monographs 65: 3-43.
  39. With, K.A. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation Biology 16: 1192-1203.
  40. Witmer, G., Sheffels, T.R. and Kendrot, S.R. 2012. The introduction, impacts, and management of a large, invasive, aquatic rodent in the United States. In, Abreu, D.C. and De Borbon, S.L. (eds.), Marshes: Ecology, Management and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, New York, USA. pp. 49-89
  41. Woods, C.A. and Howland, E.B. 1979. Adaptive radiation of capromyid rodents: anatomy of the masticatory apparatus. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 95-116.
  42. Woods, C.A., Contreras, L., Willner-Chapman, G. and Whidden, H.P. 1992. Myocastor coypus. Mammalian Species 398: 1-8.


Supported by : 환경부