Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Plant Diet Resource of Nutria(Myocastor coypus) Habitat in Nakdong-river

낙동강에 서식하는 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus)의 식물 먹이 자원에 관한 연구

  • Lee, Do-Hun (Ecosystem Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Chang-Woo (National Wetlands Center) ;
  • Kil, Jihyon (Ecosystem Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research)
  • 이도훈 (국립환경과학원 자연평가연구팀) ;
  • 이창우 (국립습지센터) ;
  • 길지현 (국립환경과학원 자연평가연구팀)
  • Received : 2013.09.06
  • Accepted : 2013.09.23
  • Published : 2013.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, three survey areas in Changnyeong, Miryang and Jinju of the confirmed the habitation of nutria and carried out the performance on the plant diet resource. From the habitat trace survey in the nutria habitat, a total of 336 trace points was shown. There were 181 trace points (54%) confirmed from St. 1 as the highest showing, followed by 52 trace points (15.4%) from St. 2, and 103 trace points (30.6)% from St. 3. The vascular plants distributed in the habitat area were a total of 182 taxonomic group with 57 families, 99 genus, 16 hybrids, and 1 race. The vascular plant living types in the habitat area are 1-year plant (Th, Th(w)) for 63class groups (34.6%), hemicryptophyte (H) for 42class groups(23.1%). plants, trees, crop plants were included. As a result of analyzing the overseas research cases on the diet plants of nutria, there are 195 taxonomic groups in a total of 39 families, 126 genus, 183 breeds, and 12 hybrids. In the study areas, feeding the plants was confirmed by the 7 taxonomic groups, aquatic plant, terrestrial From the total of 182 taxonomic groups discovered in the habitat area, 20 class groups, in 3 habitation region, 10 class groups of commonly appearing 49 class groups were shown to be the breed confirmed for diet in existing case studies, and assuming from it basis, the nutria habitating in the survey area is considered to have the supply of diverse diet resource to have flawless habitation. This is implication of having potential breeding possibility.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립수목원, 한국식물분류학회, 2007, 국가표준식물목록, 국립수목원.한국식물분류학회.
  2. 길지현, 2012, 생물다양성을 위협하는 침입외래종, 국립환경과학원.
  3. 이도훈, 길지현, 김동언, 2013, 국내 서식하는 뉴트리아의 분포와 서식 현황 연구, 한국환경생태학회, 27(3) 316-326.
  4. 이도훈, 길지현, 양병국, 2012, 뉴트리아의 생태와 조절, 국립환경과학원.
  5. 이율경, 김종원, 2005, 한국의 하천 식생, 계명대학교 출판부.
  6. 이창복, 2003, 대한식물도감, 향문사.
  7. 이우철, 1996a, 한국식물명고 I, II, 아카데미서적.
  8. 이우철, 1996a, 한국기준식물도감, 아카데미 서적.
  9. 환경부, 2010, 환경백서 2010, 환경부
  10. 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.
  11. Adams, W.H, 1956, The nutria in coastal Louisiana, Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science, 14, 28-41.
  12. Aliev, F.F, 1966, Numerical changes and the population structure of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in different countries, Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, 15, 238-242.
  13. Atwood, E.L, 1950, The Journal of Wildlife Management. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 14, 249-265. https://doi.org/10.2307/3796144
  14. Bar-Han, A. and J. Marder, 1983, Adaptations to hypercapnic conditions in the nutria (Myocastor coypus)-in vivo and in vitro CO2 titration curves, Comp. Biochem. Physiol, 75A, 603-608.
  15. Blair, R.M. and M.J. Langlinias, 1960, Nutria and swamp rabbits damage baldcypress plantings, Journal of Forestry, 58, 388-389.
  16. 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.
  17. Bounds, D.L, 2000, Nutria: an invasive species of national concern, Wetland Journal, 12, 9-16.
  18. Christen, M.F, 1978, Evalucion nutritive de cuatro dietas monoespecificas en la alimentacion del coipo (Myocastor coypus), Tesis Faculitad de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia.
  19. Colares, I.G., R.N.V. Oliveira, R.M. Oliveira and E.P. Colares, 2010, Feeding habits of coypu(Myocastor coypus Molina 1978) in the wetlands of the Southern region of Brazil, Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, 82, 671-678. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652010000300015
  20. Corbet, G.B, 1978, The mammals of the Paleoarctic Region: a taxonomic review, British Mus.(Nat. Hist.), London.
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.4098/AT.arch.00-3
  22. Ellis, E.A, 1963, Some effects of selective feeding by the coypu (Myocastor coypus) on the vegetation of Broadland, Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society, 20, 32-35.
  23. Gosling, L.M., S.J. Baker and C.N. Clarke, 1988, An attempt to remove coypus (Myocastor coypus) from a wetland habitiat in East Anglia, Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 49-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403609
  24. Gosling, L.M, 1974, The coypus in East Anglia, Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society, 23: 49-59.
  25. Greg, L.K. and A. Noel, 1997, survey of vegetative damage caused by nutira herbivory in the Barataria and Terrebonne basins, BTNET(Barataria Terrebonne National Estuary Program).
  26. Hall, E.R, 1981, The Mammals of North America, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2, 601-1181.
  27. 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).
  28. Harris, V.T. and F. Webert, 1962, Nutria feeding activity and its effects on marsh vegetation on southwestern Louisiana, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, 64, 1-53.
  29. Hillbright, A. and L. Ryszkowski, 1961, Investigations of the utilization and destruction of its habitat by a population of coypu(Myocastor coypus), bred in semi-captivity, Ekologia Polska, seria A 9, 506-524.
  30. IUCN, 2009, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Red List, http//www.iucnredlist.org.
  31. Kim, P, 1980, The coypu(Myocastor coypus) in the Netherlands: reproduction, home range and manner of seeking food, Lutra, 23, 55-64.
  32. Kinler, N.W., G. Linscombe and P.R. Ramsey, 1987, Nutria, 326-343 In: (M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch, eds,) Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.
  33. Kuhn, L.W. and E.P. Peloquin, 1974, Oregon's nutria problem, Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, 6, 101-105.
  34. Leblanc, D.J, 1994, Nutria, B71-B80 In(S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larsen eds.) Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA.
  35. Litjens, B.E.J, 1980, De beverat Myocastor coypus(Molina), in Nederland. Lutra, 23, 43-53.
  36. Llewellyn, D.W. and G.P. Shaffer, 1993, Marsh restoration in the presence of intense herbivory-the role of justicia-lanceolata (Chapm) small, Wetlands, 13, 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160878
  37. Linscombe, G., N. Kinler and V. Wright, 1981, Nutria population density and vegetative changes in brackish marsh in coastal Louisiana, Pages 129-141 in (J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds.) Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference, 1, 1-651.
  38. Milholland, M.T., J.P. Shumate, T.R. Simpson and R.W. Manning, 2010, Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in big bend national park; a nonnative species in desert wetlands, Texas J. of Sci, 62, 205-222.
  39. Miura, S, 1976, Disposal of nutria in Okayama Prefecture: The Journal of the Mammalogical Society of Japan, 6, 231-237.
  40. 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
  41. Murua, R., O. Neumann and I. Dropelmann, 1981, Food habits of Myocastor coypus in Chile, 544-558 in (J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds.) Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference, 1, 1-651.
  42. Myers, R.S., G.P. Shaffer and D.W. Llwellyn, 1995, Baldcypress(Taxodium distichum L rich) restoration in Southeast Louisianathe relative effects of herbivory, flooding, competition, and macronutrients, Wetlands 15, 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160667
  43. Nilyama, K, 1990, The role of seed dispersal and seeding traits in colonization and coexistence of Salix species in a seasonally flooded habitat, Ecol. Res, 5, 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02347007
  44. Nowak, R.M, 1999, Walker's mammals of world. 6th Ed, Johns hopkins University press, 1936.
  45. Prigioni, C., A. Balestrieri and L. Remonti, 2005, Food habits of the coypu, Myocastor coypus, and its impact on aquatic vegetation in a freshwater habitat of NW Italy, Folia Zool, 54, 269-277.
  46. Raunkiaer, C, 1934, The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 623.
  47. Robicheaux, B.L, 1978, Ecological implications of variably spaced ditches on nutria in a brackish marsh, Rockefeller Refuge, Louisiana. M.S. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 49.
  48. Schitoskey, F., Jr.J. Evans and G.K. Lavoie, 1972, Status and control of nutria in California, Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, 5, 15-17.
  49. Sutherland, W.J, 2004, Ecological census techniques, Blackwell Science, Massachussets.
  50. Taylor, K.L., J.B. Grace and B.D. Marx, 1997, The effects of herbivory on neighbor interactions along a coastal marsh gradient, American Journal of Botany, 84, 709-715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2445907
  51. Thomas, R., L. Olivier, M. Alain and B. Ivan, 2011, River management and habitat characteristics of three sympatric aquatic rodents: common muskrat, coypu and European beaver. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, 851-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0497-y
  52. Wentz, W.A, 1971, The Impact of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) on March Vegetation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon.
  53. Willner, G.R., J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, 1979, Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes, Wildlife Monographs 65, 1-43.
  54. Wood, C.A., L. Cnteras, G. Willner-Chapman and H.P. Whidden, 1992, Myocastor coypus. Mammalian Species, 398, 1-8.
  55. 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

Cited by

  1. Effective Management of Invasive Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the UK and the USA vol.2, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2015.2.4.265
  2. 국내 야생에서 발견되는 외래거북류의 분포 특성 - 강원도와 경상남도 지역을 중심으로 - vol.50, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.11614/ksl.2017.50.3.286
  3. 원격무선추적을 이용한 한국 정착 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus)의 행동권 및 활동성 연구 vol.29, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2020.29.3.182
  4. 법적지정 생태계교란생물의 사육 현황과 관리 개선 방안 - 리버쿠터와 중국줄무늬목거북을 중심으로 vol.7, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2020.7.4.388