The Study on the Distribution and Inhabiting Status of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea

뉴트리아 (Myocastor coypus)의 국내 분포 및 서식 현황에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2013.02.25
  • Accepted : 2013.05.07
  • Published : 2013.06.30

Abstract

This study has researched the national expansion, dispersion of nutria and investigated its inhabitation status for the past 3 years. The report has shown that the number of nutria habitat, reported to be distributed in 9 cities or districts in 2010, has been increased to 13 in 2012. In the research of 629 nutria habitats, 95.9% of habitat traces were found in Busan-Kyungnam area. From the research of relative density by location type for the 6 survey areas in these 5 areas above, it was shown 3.98(${\pm}2.56$)ind./100m in 2010, 2.90(${\pm}2.69$)ind./100m in 2011 and 1.39(${\pm}0.66$)ind./100m in 2012. From the research of relative density by habitat types, it was shown 3.48(${\pm}2.15$)ind./100m in palustrine wetland area, $1.01{\pm}(0.25)ind.$/100m in river area and $3.69{\pm}(2.83)ind.$/100m in riverine wetland area. It was shown that the annual average density in the areas has slightly been decreased for the past 3 years between 2010 and 2012. It also reported that the habitat density in the river area is a bit lower than that in the wetland area. Currently it can be determined that the nutria has fully adapted themselves to the various local environments of wetland, river, stream, and so on in Korea and the Relative density could be remarkably increased especially in the favorable condition like a wetland. As the ones living in the area with over-density could be spread out to other areas, the efficient management plan to control should be prepared considering ecological conditions.

본 연구에서는 3년간(2010~2012년) 뉴트리아의 전국적인 확산과 분포 흐름을 확인하고 서식 현황을 조사하였다. 2010년 9개 시 군에 분포하는 것으로 파악된 뉴트리아는 2012년 조사 결과, 13개 시 군에서 서식하는 것으로 나타났으며, 뉴트리아의 서식 흔적 조사에서 확인된 629개의 지점 중 95.9%의 흔적지점이 부산 경남지역을 중심으로 확인되었다. 부산 경남지역의 5개 행정구역 내 위치한 6개 조사구역을 서식지 유형별로 구분하여 개체 밀도를 조사한 결과, 2010년 3.89(${\pm}2.56$)개체/100m, 2011년 2.90(${\pm}2.69$)개체/100m, 2012년 1.39(${\pm}0.66$)개체/100m의 개체 밀도를 확인하였다. 조사기간 동안의 서식지 유형별 평균 개체밀도는, 소택형 습지 조사지역 3.48(${\pm}2.15$)개체/100m, 하천 조사지역 1.01(${\pm}0.25$)개체/100m, 하천형 습지 조사지역 3.69(${\pm}2.83$)개체/100m로 나타났다. 2010년부터 2012년까지 3년간 조사구역의 연간 평균 개체 밀도는 매년 감소하는 경향을 보였으며, 하천이 습지에 비해 뉴트리아 평균 개체 밀도가 낮게 나타났다. 현재 뉴트리아는 국내의 습지, 하천, 강 등 다양한 환경에 적응하여 서식하고 있으며 특히, 습지와 같이 서식에 유리한 환경이 조성된 지역에서는 급속한 밀도의 증가를 보일 수 있다. 과밀 지역에 서식하는 뉴트리아는 타 지역으로의 확산 가능성을 지니고 있으므로 생태적인 특성을 적용한 효율적인 관리방안의 수립이 필요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abbas, A.(1988) Impact du ragondin (Myocastor coypus Molina) sur une culture de mais (Zea mays L.) dans le marais Poitevin. Acta Oecol-Oec Appl 9(2): 173-189. (in French with English Abstract)
  2. Abbas, A.(1991) Feeding strategy of coypu (Myocastor coypus) in central Western France. J. Zool Lond. 224: 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb06033.x
  3. Adams, W.H.(1956) The nutria in coastal Louisiana. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science 14: 28-41.
  4. Aliev, F.F.(1966) Numerical changes and the population structure of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in different countries. Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 15: 238-242.
  5. Aliev, F.F.(1968) Contribution to the study of nutria-migrations (Myocastor coypus). Saugetier kundliche Mitteilingen 16: 301-303.
  6. Atwood, E.L.(1950) Life history studies of nutria, or coypu, in coastal Louisiana. J Wildl. Mgmt. 14(3): 249-265. https://doi.org/10.2307/3796144
  7. Bailey, J.W. and G.A. Heidt(1978) Range and states of the nutria, Myocastor coypus, in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Academy of Science, pp. 25-27.
  8. Bar-Han, A. and J. Marder(1983) Adaptations to hypercapnic conditions in the nutria (Myocastor coypus) - in vivo and in vitro $CO_2$ titration curves. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 75A: 603-608.
  9. Bergamon, D.L., M.D. Chandler and A. Locklear(2000) The economic impact of invasive species to wildlife services cooperator. Human Conflicts with Wildlife; Economic Considerations. USDA National Wildlife Research Center Symposia.
  10. Borgnia, M., M.L. Galante and M.H. Cassini(2000) Diet of the coypu (Nutria, Myocastor coypus) in agro- systems of Argentinean Pampas. J Wildl. Manage. 64(2): 409-416.
  11. Boumans, R.M. and J.W. Day(1994) Effects of two Louisiana marsh management plant on water and materials flux and short-term sedimentation. Wetlands. 14: 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160631
  12. Bounds, D.L.(2000) Nutria: an invasive species of national concern. Wetland Journal 12: 9-16.
  13. Bourdelle, E.(1939) American mammals introduced into France in the contemporary period, especially Myocastor and Ondatra. Journal of Mammalogy 20: 287-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1374250
  14. Brown, L.N.(1975) Ecological Relationships and breeding biology of the nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the Tampa, Florida area. Journal of Mammalogy 56: 928-930. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379669
  15. Cabrera, A. and J. Yepes(1940) Mamiferos Sud-Americanos (vida, costumbres descripcion). Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires, 370pp.
  16. Corbert, G.B.(1978) The mammals of huddling: test of a psycho-physiological hypothesis. Journal of Mammalogy 65: 256-262.
  17. D' adamo, P., M.L. Guichon, R.F. Bo and M.H. Cassini(2000) Habitat use by Myocastor coypus in agro-systems of the Argentinean Pampas. Acta Theriol 45: 25-33.
  18. Doncaster, C.P. and T. Micol(1990) Response by coypu to catastrophic events of cold and flooding. Holarctic Ecology 13: 98-104.
  19. Francesca, M., C. Simone and B. Corrado(2011) Coypu (Myocastor coypu ) in a Mediterranean remnant wetland: a pilot study of a year cycle with management implications.Wetlands Ecol Manage. 19: 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9208-9
  20. Gosling, L.M. and S.J. Baker(1987) Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. The Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Zoological Society of London, 28-29 November, 1986, London, United Kingdom, pp. 100-113.
  21. Gosling, L.M.(1974) The coypus in East Anglia. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society 23: 49-59.
  22. Gosling, L.M.(1979) The twenty-four hour active cycle captive coypus (Myocastor coypus). Journal of Zoology(London) 187: 341-367.
  23. Hall, E.R.(1981) The Mammals of North America. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2: 601-1181.
  24. Haramis, M., and R. Colona(1999) The effect of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on marsh loss in the lower eastern shore of Maryland: an exclosure study. United States Geological Survey Internet article http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/resshow/nutria.htm (Data accessed: 19 November, 2012)
  25. Kanwanich, S.(1998) The arguments for and against breeding nutrias: Bangkok post Perspective, 8 February 1998 Bangkok, Thailand. Internet http://www.bangkokpost.net (Data accessed: 4 November, 2012).
  26. Kim, P.(1980) The coypu (Myocastor coypus) in the Netherlands: reproduction, home range and manner of seeking food. Lutra 23: 55-64.
  27. Kuhn, L.W. and E.P. Peloquin(1974) Oregon's nutria problem. Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference 6: 101-105.
  28. LeBlanc, D.J.(1994) Nutria. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larsen. University of Nebraska-Lincoln press, 2: 71-80.
  29. Lee, D.H., J.H. Kil and B.K. Yang(2012) Ecological characteristics for sustainable management of nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon, 59pp. (in Korean)
  30. Ministry of Environment(ME)(2010) Environmental statistics yearbook 2010. Ministry of Environment, 709pp. (in Korea)
  31. Mitchell-Jones, A.J., G. Amori, W. Bogdanowicz, B. Krystufek, P.J.H. Reijnders, F. Spitzenberger, M. Stubbe, J.B.M. Thissen, V. Voharalik and J. ZIMA(1999) The atlas of European mammals: Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, 484pp.
  32. Miura, S.(1976) Disporsal of nutria in Okayama Prefecture: The Journal of the Mammalogical Society of Japan 6 : 231-237. (in Japanese with English abstract)
  33. Murphy, W.J., E. Elzirik, W.E. Johnson, Y.P. Zhang, O.A. Ryder and S.J. O'Brien(2001) Molecular phylogenetics and the origin oh placental mammals. Nature 409: 614-618. https://doi.org/10.1038/35054550
  34. National Institute of Environmental Research(NIER)(2006) A Study of detailed survey on invasive alien species in Korea and designation of invasive alien species in foreign countries. National Institute of Environmental Research Press, Incheon, 408pp. (in Korean with English abstract)
  35. Norris, J.D.(1967) A campaign against feral coypus (Myocastor coypus molina) in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 191-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2401418
  36. Nowak, R.M.(1999) Walker's mammals of world. 6th Ed. Johns hopkins University press, 1936pp.
  37. Peloquin, A.W.(1969) Growth and reproduction of the feral nutria (Myocastor coypus) near Corvallis, Oregon. M.S. theis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 55pp.
  38. SPSS Institute(2011) SPSS version 20.0 SPSS Inc. chicago, IL., U.S.A.
  39. Sutherland, W.J.(2004) Ecological census techniques. Blackwell Science, Massachussets, 432pp.
  40. Taylor, K.L., J.B. Grace, G.R. Guntenspergen and A.L. Foote (1994) The interactive effects of herbivory and fire on an oligohaline marsh Little Lake, Louisiana, USA. Wetlands 14: 82-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160624
  41. Warkentin, J.M.(1968) Observations on the behaviour and ecology of nutria in Louisiana. Tulane studies in Zoology and Botany 15: 10-17.
  42. Wentz, W.A.(1971) The impact of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on marsh vegetation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 41pp.
  43. Wilner, G.R.(1982) Nutria: Myocastor coypus. Pages. 1059-1076 in Wildmammals of North America (J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhammer, eds.) The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1147pp.
  44. Wilner, G.R., J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley(1979) Reproduction, physiological responses, food habit, and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes: Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Monographs, 65pp.
  45. Wood, C.A., L. Cnteras, G. Willner-Chapman and H.P. Whidden (1992) Myocastor coypus. Mammalian Species 398: 1-8.
  46. Woods, C.A. and E.B. Howland(1979) Adaptive radiation of Capromyid rodents: Anatomy of the masticatory apparatus. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 95-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379762