한국환경생태학회지 (Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology)

  • 제26권6호
  • /
  • Pages.902-910
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1229-3857(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-131X(eISSN)
한국환경생태학회 (Korean Society of Environment and Ecology)
권호 표지

멧돼지(Sus scrofa coreanus Heude)의 임상 교란이 토양의 생물학적 활성에 미치는 영향

Effects of Grubbing by Wild Boars on the Biological Activities of Forest Floor

  • 투고 : 2012.07.17
  • 심사 : 2012.11.21
  • 발행 : 2012.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

한반도 낙엽활엽수림에서 멧돼지(Sus scrofa coreanus Heude)는 그 수효가 날로 증가하고 있으며 그들의 임상 교란은 광범위하게 일어나고 있다. 본 연구는 멧돼지의 임상을 파헤치는 교란이 토양생태계의 기능에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 알아보고자 환경부 장기생태연구지소인 점봉산 지역에서 미생물량 C와 토양 효소의 활성 측정을 실시하였다. 멧돼지에 의해 생성된 교란지형은 표층토양과 하층토양이 섞인 흙더미와 파인 구덩이의 노출된 바닥 2종류로 구분하였고, 인근의 교란을 받지 않은 지역을 대조구로 설정하였다. 토양 유기물 함량은 유기물 함량이 높은 표층의 토양과 하층의 토양이 섞이면서 대조구에서 20.22%로 가장 높은 값이 나타났고, 흙더미와 구덩이의 바닥은 각각 16.91%, 15.52%를 나타내었다. 용적밀도는 구덩이 바닥 토양에서 가장 높은 값을 보였다. 미생물량 C와 토양 $CO_2$의 발생은 교란을 받지 않은 대조구에서 가장 높이 나타났으며 이는 토양의 유기물 함량과 양의 상관관계를 나타내었다. 토양의 cellulase와 invertase의 활성은 미생물량 C와 높은 상관관계를 나타내어 유기물의 함량이 토양 효소 활성에 영향을 미침을 나타내었다. 질산환원효소는 구덩이 바닥 토양에서 가장 높은 값을 나타내었고, 용적밀도와 높은 상관관계를 나타내어 토양 공극이 적은 다소 혐기적 조건에서 그 활성이 높게 나타났다. 본 연구의 결과 멧돼지의 파헤치는 교란은 토양의 물리적 특성을 변화시키고, 토양 효소의 활성에 영향을 미쳤다고 판단된다.

This study has been carried out to determine the effects of disturbances from wild boar grubbing on the functions of ecosystem. The experiments was performed in Mt. Jumbong of Long-term Ecological Research Sites of the Ministry of Environment. We measured soil physical properties, soil respiration($CO_2$), microbial biomass C, and soil enzyme activities from both disturbed and control plots. The disturbance sites were divided into two parts, mounds and pits. Soil organic matter contents were highest value at the control plots and lowest at the pit plots, respectively at 20.22% and 15.52%. The soil bulk densities were highest at the pit plots. Soil microbial biomass C and $CO_2$ evolution were significantly higher at the control plots compared to the disturbed plots. The results were positively correlated with soil organic matter contents. The cellulase activity and invertase activity in the soil showed similar pattern as the microbial biomass C and $CO_2$ evolution results. The cellulase activity and invertase activity in the soil were positively correlated with soil microbial biomass C. Soil organic matter contents seemed to affect the soil enzyme activities. The nitrate reductase activities were highest at the pit plots, which showed positive correlation with soil bulk density. The study results showed that the grubbing disturbances by wild boars induced the changes in soil properties, which affected soil microbial activities.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Anderson, J.P.E. and K.H. Domsch(1978) A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 10: 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(78)90099-8
  2. Bardgett, R.D. and D.A. Wardle(2003) Herbivore mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities. Ecology 84: 2,258-2,268. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0274
  3. Cushman, J.H., T.A. Tierney and J.M. Hinds(2004) Variable eVects of feral pig disturbances on native and exotic plants in a California grassland. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1,746-1,756.
  4. Dalal, R.C.(1975) Urease activity in some Trinidad soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 7: 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(75)90022-X
  5. Dendooven, L. and J. M. Anderson(1994) Dynamics of reduction enzymes involved in the denitrification process in pasture soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 26: 1,501-1,506. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(94)90189-9
  6. Dick, R.P. and M.A. Tabatabai(1992) Potential uses of soil enzymes. In: Metting, Jr., F.B.(Ed.), Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 95-127.
  7. Dick, R.P.(1994) Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A.(Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 107-124.
  8. Eivazi, F. and M.A. Tabatabai(1988) Glucosidases and agalactosidases in soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 20: 601-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(88)90141-1
  9. Frankenberger, W.T. and W.A. Dick(1983) Relationship between enzyme activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 47: 945-951. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1983.03615995004700050021x
  10. Gabet, E.J., O.J. Reichmann and E.W. Seabloom(2003) The effect of bioturbation on soil processes and sediment transport. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 31: 249-273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.31.100901.141314
  11. Genov, P.(1981) Food composition of wild boar in north-eastern and western Poland. Acta Theriol 26: 185-205.
  12. Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A. and E. Hazebroek(1996) Wild boar(Sus scrofa scrofa L.) rooting and forest regeneration on podzolic soils in the Netherlands. For. Ecol. Manag. 88: 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03811-X
  13. Ineson, A.(1977) Splash erosion, animal activity and sediment supply in a small forested Luxemburg catchment. Earth Surf. Process & Landf. 2: 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3290020207
  14. Jefferies, R.L., D.R. Klein and G.R. Shaver(1994) Vertebrate herbivores and northen plant communities: reciprocal influences and processes. Oikos 71: 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546267
  15. Knowles, R.(1982) Denitrification. Microbiological Reviews. 46: 43-70.
  16. Koch, A.S. and E. Matzner(1993) Heterogeneity of soil and soil solution chemistry under Norway spruce(Picea abies Karst.) and Euroupean beech(Fagus silvatica L.) as influenced by disturbance from the stem basis. Plant and Soil 151: 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00016288
  17. Kotanen, P.M.(1995) Responses of vegetation to changing regime of disturbance: effects of feral pigs in a Californian coastal prairie. Ecography 18: 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1995.tb00340.x
  18. Kumar, Jha D., G.D. Sharma and R.R. Mishra(1992) Soil microbial population numbers and enzymes activities in relation to altitude and forest degradation. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 24: 761-767 . https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(92)90250-2
  19. Lacki, M.J. and R.A. Lancia(1986) Effects of wild pigs on beech growth in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J. Wildl. Mannage. 50: 655-659. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800976
  20. Ladd, J.N. and J.H.A. Butler(1972) Short-term assays of soil proteolytic enzyme activities using proteins and peptide derivatives as substrates. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 4: 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(72)90038-7
  21. Lee, S.W., J.H. Lim, M.S. Won and J.M. Lee(2009) Linking Spatial Characteristics of Forest Structure and Burn Severity. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 12(5): 28-41. (in Korean with English abstract)
  22. Lyang, D.Y. and K.S. Lee(2010) Responses of an herbaceous community to wild boar(Sus scrofa coreanus Heude) disturbance in a Quercus mongolica forest at Mt. Jeombong, Korea. Journal of Ecology and field biology 33(3): 205-216. https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2010.33.3.205
  23. Mohr, D. and W. Topp(2001) Forest soil degradation in slopes of the low mountain range of Central Europe - do deer matter? Forstw. Cbl. 120: 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02796094
  24. Mohr, D., L.W. Cohnstaedt and W. Tropp(2005) Wild boar and red deer affect soil nutrients and soil biota in steep oak stands of the Eifel. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37: 693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.002
  25. Moody, A. and J.A. Jones(2000) Soil response to canopy position and feral pig disturbance beneath Quercus agrifolia on Santa Cruz Island, California. Appl. Soil Ecol. 14: 267-281.
  26. Oh, K.C., J.K. Kim, W.O. Jung and J.K. Min(2001) The Changes of Forest Vegetation and Soil Environmental after Forest Fire. J. Korean Env. Res. & Reveg. Tech. 4(3): 19-29. (in Korean with English abstract)
  27. Pinna, W., G. Nieddu, G. Moniello and M.G. Cappai(2007) Vegetable and animal food sorts found in the gastric content of Sardinian wild boar(Sus scrofa meridionalis). Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 91: 252-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00700.x
  28. Rai, B. and A.K. Srivastava(1983) Decomposition and competitive colonization litter by fungi. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 15: 115-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(83)90128-1
  29. Risch, A.C., S. Wirthner, M.D. Busse, D.S. Page-Dumroese and M. Schutz(2010) Grubbing by wild boars(Sus scrofa L.) and its impact on hardwood forest soil carbon dioxide emissions in Switzerland. Oecologia 164: 773-784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1665-6
  30. Ritter, E.(2007) Nitrate in soil solution and nitrogen availability in litter and soil after gap formation in the semi-natural Suserup Skov and two managed beech Fagus sylvatica forest in Denmark. Ecol. Bull. 52: 103-111.
  31. Robertson, G.P., M.A. Huston, F.C. Evans and J.M. Tiedje(1988) Spatial variability in a successional plant community: Patterns of nitrogen availability. Ecology 69: 1,517-1,524. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941649
  32. Ryan, M.G. and B.E. Law(2005) Interpreting, measuring and modelling soil respiration. Biogeochemistry 73: 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-5167-7
  33. Schinner, F., R. Ohlinger, E. Kandeler and R. Margesin(1996) Methods in Soil Biology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 190-198.
  34. Sierra, C.(2001) The feral pig(Sus scrofa, Suidae) in Cocos Island, Costa Rica: rootings, soil alterations and erosion. Rev. Biol. Trop. 49: 1,159-1,170.
  35. Singer, F.J., W.T. Swank and E.E.C. Clebsh(1984) Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous forest. J. Wildl. Mannage 48: 464-473. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801179
  36. Sinsabaugh, R.L. and A.E. Linkins(1993) Statistical modelling of litter decomposition from integrated cellulase activity. Ecology 74: 1,594-1,597. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939495
  37. Sinsabaugh, R.L. and S. Findlay(1995) Microbial Production, Enzyme Activity, and Carbon Turnover in Surface Sediments of the Hudson River Estuary. Microb. Ecol. 30: 127-141.
  38. Sinsabaugh, R.L., R.K. Antibus, A.E. Linkins, L. Rayburn, D. Repert and T. Weiland(1992) Wood decomposition over a first-order watershed: mass loss as a function of exoenzyme activity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 24: 743-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(92)90248-V
  39. Smith, S.M. and J.M. Tiedje(1979) Phases of denitrification following oxygen depletion in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 11: 261-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(79)90071-3
  40. Speir, T.W.(1977) Studies on a climosequence of soils in tussock grasslands. 11. Urease, phosphatase, and sulphatase activities of top soils and their relationship with other properties including plant available sulphur. New Zeal. J. Sci. 20: 159-166.
  41. Tabatabai, M.A.(1977) Effect of trace elements on urease activity in soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 2: 9-13.
  42. Tardiff, S.E. and J.A. Stanford(1998) Grizzly bear digging: effects on subalpine meadow plants in relation to mineral nitrogen availability. Ecology 79: 2,219-2,228.
  43. Tierney, T.A, and J. H. Cushman(2006) Temporal changes in native and exotic vegetation and soil characteristics following disturbances by feral pigs in a California grassland. Biological Invasions 8: 1,073-1,089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-0229-x
  44. Trangmar, B.B., R.S. Yost, M.K. Wade, G. Uehara and M. Sudjadi(1987) Spatial variation of soil properties and rice yield on recently cleared land. Soil Science Society of American Journal 51: 668-674. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100030021x
  45. Van der Wal, R., S. Sjorgertsen, S.J. Wooding, E.J. Cooper, I.S. Jonsdottir, D. Kuipers and T.A.D Fox, A.D. Huiskes(2007) Spring feeding by pinkfooted geese reduces carbon stock and sink strength in tundra ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13: 539-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01310.x