Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회지)

The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Connectivity Modeling Considering the Habitat and Movement Characteristics of Wild Boars (Sus scrofa)

멧돼지(Sus scrofa) 서식지 및 이동 특성을 고려한 연결성 모델링 연구

  • Lee, Hyun-Jung (Dept. of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Whee-Moon (Dept. of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Kyeong-Tae (Dept. of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University) ;
  • Jeong, Seung-Gyu (Animal Resources Division, National Institute of Biological Resources) ;
  • Kim, Yu-Jin (Animal Resources Division, National Institute of Biological Resources) ;
  • Lee, Kyung Jin (Animal Resources Division, National Institute of Biological Resources) ;
  • Kim, Ho Gul (Dept. of Human Environment Design, Major in Landscape Urban Planning, Cheongju University) ;
  • Park, Chan (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of Seoul) ;
  • Song, Won-Kyong (School of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University)
  • 이현정 (단국대학교 환경원예.조경학과 대학원) ;
  • 김휘문 (단국대학교 환경원예.조경학과 대학원) ;
  • 김경태 (단국대학교 환경원예.조경학과 대학원) ;
  • 정승규 (국립생물자원관 동물자원과) ;
  • 김유진 (국립생물자원관 동물자원과) ;
  • 이경진 (국립생물자원관 동물자원과) ;
  • 김호걸 (청주대학교 휴먼환경디자인학부 조경도시계획전공) ;
  • 박찬 (서울시립대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 송원경 (단국대학교 환경원예.조경학부)
  • Received : 2022.05.23
  • Accepted : 2022.08.26
  • Published : 2022.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Wild boars(Sus scrofa) are expanding their range of behavior as their habitats change. Appearing in urban centers and private houses, it caused various social problems, including damage to crops. In order to prevent damage and effectively manage wild boars, there is a need for ecological research considering the characteristics and movement characteristics of wild boars. The purpose of this study is to analyze home range and identify land cover types in key areas through tracking wild boars, and to predict the movement connectivity of wild boars in consideration of previous studies and their preferred land use characteristics. In this study, from January to June 2021, four wild boars were captured and tracked in Jinju city, Gyeongsangnam-do, and the preferred land cover type of wild boars was identified based on the MCP 100%, KDE 95%, and KDE 50% results. As a result of the analysis of the home range for each individual, it was found that 100% of MCP was about 0.68km2, 2.77km2, 2.42km2, and 0.16km2, and the three individuals overlapped the home range, refraining from habitat movement and staying in the preferred area. The core areas were analyzed as about 0.55km2, 2.05km2, 0.82km2, and 0.14km2 with KDE 95%., and about 0.011km2, 0.033km2, 0.004km2, and 0.003km2 with KDE 50%. When the preferred land cover type of wild boar was confirmed based on the results of analysis of the total home range area and core area that combined all individuals, forests were 55.49% (MCP 100%), 54.00% (KDE 95%), 77.69% (KDE 50%), respectively, with the highest ratio, and the urbanization area, grassland, and agricultural area were relatively high. A connectivity scenario was constructed in which the ratio of the land cover type preferred by the analyzed wild boar was reflected as a weight for the resistance value of the connectivity analysis, and this was compared with the connectivity evaluation results analyzed based on previous studies and wild boar characteristics. When the current density values for the wild boar movement data were compared, the average value of the existing scenario was 2.76, the minimum 1.12, and the maximum 4.36, and the weighted scenario had an average value of 2.84, the minimum 0.96, and the maximum 4.65. It was confirmed that, on average, the probability of movement predictability was about 2.90% better even though the weighted scenario had movement restrictions due to large resistance values. It is expected that the identification of the movement route through the movement connectivity analysis of wild boars can be suggested as an alternative to prevent damage by predicting the point of appearance. In the future, when analyzing the connectivity of species including wild boar, it is judged that it will be effective to use movement data on actual species.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 논문은 국립생물자원관의 2022년도 일반사업(NIBR202218101)의 지원으로 수행되었습니다.

References

  1. Acevedo, P. .M. A. Escudero.R. Munoz and C Gortazar. 2006. Factors affecting wild boar abundance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta Theriologica, 51(3) : 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192685
  2. Algeo, T. P.D. Slate.R. M. Caron.T. Atwood.S. Recuenco.M. J. Ducey, ... and M. Palace. 2017. Modeling raccoon (Procyon lotor) habitat connectivity to identify potential corridors for rabies spread. Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2(3) : 44.
  3. Allwin, B. .R. Swaminathan.A. Mohanraj.G. N. Suhas.S. Vedaminckam.S. Gopal and M. Kumar. 2016. The wild pig (Sus scrofa) behavior-a retrospective study. Journal of Veterinary Science Technology, 7(4).
  4. Amici, A. .F. Serrani, F.C. M. Rossi and R. Primi. 2012. Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the "refuge effect". Agronomy for sustainable development, 32(3) : 683-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0057-6
  5. Barrios-Garcia, M. N. and S. A. Ballari. 2012. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biological Invasions, 14(1 ) : 2283-2300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6
  6. Cai, J. .Z. Jiang.Y. Zeng.C. Li and B. D. Bravery. 2008. Factors affecting crop damage by wild boar and methods of mitigation in a giant panda reserve. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(4) : 723-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0203-x
  7. Carroll, K. A. .A. J. Hansen.R. M. Inman.R. L. Lawrence and A. B. Hoegh. 2020. Testing landscape resistance layers and modeling connectivity for wolverines in the western United States. Global Ecology and Conservation, 23, e01125.
  8. Caruso, N. .A. E. Valenzuela.C. L. Burdett.E. M. Luengos Vidal.D. Birochio and E. B. Casanave. 2018. Summer habitat use and activity patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa in rangelands of central Argentina. PLoS One, 13(10), e0206513.
  9. Choi, TY.YS Lee and CH Park. 2006. Home-range of wild boar, Sus scrofa living in the Jirisan National Park, Korea. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 29(3) : 253-257. (in Korean with English summary)
  10. Desrochers, A., .M. Belisle.J. Morand-Ferron and J. Bourque. 2011. Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landscape Ecology, 26(1) : 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9532-8
  11. Gortazar, C. .E. Ferroglio.U. Hofle.K. Frolich and J. Vicente. 2007. Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 53(4) : 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0098-y
  12. Gimenez-Anaya, A. .J. Herrero.C. Rosell.S. Couto and A. Garcia-Ser ano. 2008. Food habits of wild boars (Sus scrofa) in a Mediterranean coastal wetland. Wetlands, 28(1) : 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-18.1
  13. Han, SH.JG Oh.IC Cho.MS Ko.TW Kim.MH Chang, ... and HS Oh. 2011. A molecular genetic analysis of the introduced wild boar species (Sus scrofa coreanus) on Mount Halla, Jeju Island, Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology, 25(5) : 658-665. (in Korean with English summary)
  14. Jinju. 2022. Jinju City Press Release. https://www.jinju.go.kr/00130/02730/00138.web?amode=view&gcode=1004&idx=39497584&artiSno=. (accessed 19. May. 2022)
  15. Ju, DU.K Jung.CS Ohk.SS Kim and GH Ahn. 2020. A survey for prevalence of infectious diseases in wild boar (Sus scrofa) in northern Gyeonggi province, South Korea. Korean Journal of Veterinary Service, 43(3) : 155-159. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.7853/KJVS.2020.43.3.155
  16. Keuling, O. .N. Stier, N and M. Roth. 2008. How does hunting influence activity and spatial usage in wild boar Sus scrofa L.?. European Journal of Wildlife research, 54(4) : 729-737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0204-9
  17. Keuling, O. .E. Baubet.A. Duscher.C. Ebert.C. Fischer.A. Monaco, ... and H. Thurfjell. 2013. Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59(6) : 805-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8
  18. Keuling, O. .E. Strauss and U. Siebert. 2016. Regulating wild boar populations is "somebody else's problem"! - Human dimension in wild boar management. Science of the Total Environment, 5 4 : 311-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.159
  19. Killian, G. .L. Miller.J. Rhyan and H. Doten. 2006. Immunocontraception of Florida feral swine with a single dose GnRH vaccine. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 5 (5) : 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0897.2006.00379.x
  20. Kim, HR.TG Kim.GP Hong.JM Kim and EK Kim. 2017. Home Range analysis of Wild boars (Sus scrofa) in Heuimangbong (peak) of Hallyeohaesang National Park. Journal of National Park Research, 8(3) : 133-137. (in Korean with English summary)
  21. Kim, MK.SI Lee.HM Park and SD Lee. 2020. Ecological Studies of Wild boars(Sus scrofa) in Yeongwol HanbandoWetland Inferred through DNA Analysis of Non-invasive Samples. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment, 29(3) : 230-238. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2020.29.3.230
  22. Kim, SO.KI Kwon.TS Kim.HS Ko and GS Jang. 2014. An analysis on aspects of farm lands damaged by the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Gyeongnam Province, Korea. Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology, 17(6) : 17-27. (in Korean with English summary)
  23. Kim, WM. 1994. An application of radio-telemetry technique for habitat use of boars (Sus scrofa coreanus heude). Ph. D thesis of Korea University, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean with English summary)
  24. Kim WJ.CH Park and WM Kim. 1998. Development of Habitat Suitability Analysis Models for Wild Boar(Sus Scrofa) : A Case Study of Mt. Sulak and Mt. Jumbong, 6(2) : 247-256. (in Korean with English summary)
  25. Ko, CW.WH, Cho.BM, Hwang.DW, Ko.WM, Kang. 2021. The Analysis of African Swine Fever Disease Spread using Agent-Based Model. Journal of the Korean Cadastre Information Association, 23(2) : 87-98. (in Korean with English summary)
  26. Koen, E. L. .C. J. Garroway.P. J. Wilson and J. Bowman. 2010. The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PloS one, 5(7), e11785.
  27. Koen, E. L. .J. Bowman.C. Sadowski and A. A. Walpole. 2014. Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(7) : 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12197
  28. Labudzki, L. .G. Gorecki.J. Skubis and M. Wlazelko. 2009. Forest habitats use by wild boar in the Zielonka Game Investigation Centre. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria, 8(4) : 51-57.
  29. Lee, SM.EJ Lee.HB Park and CW Seo. 2018. Factors affecting Crop Damage by the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) : A case study in Geochang County, Gyeongnam Province, Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology, 32(2) : 140-146. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2018.32.2.140
  30. Lee, SM and WS Lee. 2014. Diet of The Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Agricultural Land of Geochang, Gyeongnam Province, Korea. Journal of Korean Forest Society, 103(2) : 307-312. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.14578/JKFS.2014.103.2.307
  31. Lee, WS. 2014. Habitat Use Characteristics and Development of DamagePrevention Technique in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa). Report to Korea Environmetnal Industry & Technology Institute. (in Korean)
  32. Lewis, J. S. .J. L. Corn.J. J. Mayer.T. R. Jordan.M. L. Farnsworth.C. L. Burdett, ... and R. S. Miller. 2019. Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Biological Invasions, 21(7) : 2373-2384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-01983-1
  33. Marrotte, R. R. .J. Bowman.M. G. Brown.C. Cordes.K. Y. Morris.M. B. Prentice and P. J. Wilson. 2017. Multi-species genetic connectivity in a terrestrial habitat network. Movement ecology, 5(1) : 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-016-0093-6
  34. Massei, G. and P. V. Genov. 2004. The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys, 16(1) : 135-145.
  35. Massei, G. .J. Kindberg. A. Licoppe.D. Gacic.N. Sprem.J. Kamler, ... and A. Nahlik. 2015. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest management science, 71(4) : 492-500. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3965
  36. McRae, B. H. and V. B. Shah. 2009. Circuitscape User's Guide. ONLINE. The University of California, Santa Barbara.
  37. Melis, C. .P. A. Szafranska.B. Jedrzejewska and K. Barton. 2006. Biogeographical variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. Journal of biogeography, 3 (5) : 803-811.
  38. Michez, A. .K. Morelle.F. Lehaire.J. Widar.M. Authelet.C. Vermeulen and P. Lejeune. 2016. Use of unmanned aerial system to assess wildlife (Sus scrofa) damage to crops (Zea mays). Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 4(4) : 266-275. https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2016-0014
  39. Naidoo, R. .J. W. Kilian.P. Du Preez.P. Beytell.O. Aschenborn.R. D. Taylor and G. Stuart-Hill. 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of local-and regional-scale wildlife corridors using quantitative metrics of functional connectivity. Biological Conservation, 217 : 96-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.037
  40. National Institute of Biological Resources. 2012. Final report onvertebrate animals of Korea (2nd stage, 3Year). Research report to National Institute of Biological Resources. (in Korean)
  41. National Institute of Biological Resources. 2015. 2015 Wildlife Survey. Research report to National Institute of Biological Resources. (in Korean)
  42. National Institute of Biological Resources. 2019. Wild boar management I. Research report to National Institute of Biological Resources. (in Korean)
  43. Park, CR and WS Lee. 2003. Development of a GIS-based habitat suitability model for wild boar Sus scrofa in the Mt. Baekwoonsan region, Korea. Mammal Study, 28(1) : 17-21. https://doi.org/10.3106/mammalstudy.28.17
  44. Pelletier, D. .M. Clark.M. G. Anderson.B. Rayfield.M. A. Wulder and J. A. Cardille. 2014. Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS One, 9(1), e84135.
  45. Rho, P. 2015. Using habitat suitability model for the wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus) to select wildlife passage sites in extensively disturbed temperate forests. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 38(2) : 163-173. https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2015.018
  46. Risch, D. R. .J. Ringma and M. R. Price. 2021. The global impact of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) on terrestrial biodiversity. Scientific reports, 11(1) : 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79139-8
  47. Saaez-Royuela, C. and J. L. Telleriia. 1986. The increased population of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Europe. Mammal Review, 16(2) : 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1986.tb00027.x
  48. Schley, L. .M. Dufrene.A. Krier and A. C. Frantz. 2008. Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(4) : 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x
  49. Scillitani, L. .A. Monaco and S. Toso. 2010. Do intensive drive hunts affect wild boar (Sus scrofa) spatial behaviour in Italy? Some evidences and management implications. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 56(3) : 307-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0314-z
  50. Seo, CW and CH Park. 2000. Wild boar(Sus scrofa coreanus Heude) Habitat Modeling Using GIS and Logistic Regression. Journal of GIS Association of Korea, 8(1) : 85-99. (in Korean with English summary)
  51. Song, JH.ED Choi and HJ Seo. 2018. Response of Wild Boars (Sus scrofa) to Two Attractants, and Use of Cage Traps to Capture Wild Boars in Korea. Korean Journal of Organic Agricultue, 26(3) : 381-391. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.11625/KJOA.2018.26.3.381
  52. Thurfjell, H. .J. P. Ball.P. A. Ahlen.P. Kornacher.H. Dettki and K. Sjoberg. 2009. Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges. European journal of wildlife research, 55(5) : 517-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-009-0268-1
  53. Thurfjell, H. .G. Spong and G. Ericsson. 2013. Effects of hunting on wild boar Sus scrofa behaviour. Wildlife Biology, 19(1) : 87-93. https://doi.org/10.2981/12-027
  54. Wilson, C. J. 2004. Rooting damage to farmland in Dorset, southern England, caused by feral wild boar Sus scrofa. Mammal Review, 34(4) : 331-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2004.00050.x
  55. Yoon, EJ.EY Kim.JY Kim and DK Lee. 2019. Connectivity Assessment Based on Circuit Theory for Suggestion of Ecological Corridor. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment, 28(3) : 275-286. (in Korean with English summary) https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2019.28.3.275