Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

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

DOI QR Code

A Study on Morphology Measurement and Comparison of Nutria(Myocastor coypus) Inhabiting in Korea

국내 서식하는 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus)의 형태측정 및 비교에 관한 연구

  • Lee, Do-Hun (Ecosystem Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Kil, Jihyon (Ecosystem Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research)
  • 이도훈 (국립환경과학원, 자연평가연구팀) ;
  • 길지현 (국립환경과학원, 자연평가연구팀)
  • Received : 2013.04.08
  • Accepted : 2013.05.22
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The nutria(Myocastor coypus) that is originated from South America is a representative Invasive alien species in Korea. invasive alien species is one of the biggest causes for the loss of biodiversity and it may threaten the conservation and function of ecology as well as the welfare of mankind. Intense habitation has been made around the Nakdong River basin area that this study has analyzed the habitat density of nutria for the subject of 3 survey sites in the Nakdong River basin area. As a result of survey on habitation density in 2011 and 2012, under St.1 it was shown $2.01{\pm}0.21$/ha in 2011 and $0.69{\pm}0.55$/ha in 2012. Under St.2, it was shown $0.91{\pm}0.37$/ha in 2011 and $0.55{\pm}0.39$/ha in 2012. Under St.3, it was shown $5.31{\pm}0.72$/ha in 2011 and $3.99{\pm}2.31$/ha in 2012. The wet survey areas of St.1 and St.3 had shown relatively high habitation density compared to St. 2, the river survey area, and the average annual habitation density of the survey area was $2.74{\pm}2.29$/ha in 2011 and $1.74{\pm}1.18$/ha in 2012 that it has shown slightly reducing trend. As a result of measuring the morphology by capturing the habitation individuals, the average body length of adults is $92.23{\pm}9.41cm$, the length from the head to body for $53.90{\pm}5.15cm$, tail length for $38.33{\pm}4.83cm$, hind foot length for $13.82{\pm}1.00cm$, front foot length for $6.02{\pm}0.56cm$, and weight for $5.48{\pm}1.08kg$. As a result of comparing the types between genders, male showed a slightly higher figure in all parts compared to female and it showed significantly difference in total body length, head-body length, front foot length and total weight. As a result of analysis for each head-body length, other measured parts, weight and relativity for each measured part, all bodily part is shown to have the higher volume of correlations. The condition index of individuals in the survey area was shown in the average of $35.67{\pm}4.78$ with female for an average of $36.60{\pm}5.19$ and male for an average of $34.73{\pm}4.34$. The winter temperature in the southern area of Korea is considered for not greatly impacting on the habitation and development of nutria that, if there is no artificial control, it is considered to have certain concern of showing drastic breeding and territory expansion for the habitation group.

Keywords

References

  1. 이도훈, 길지현, 양병국, 2012, 뉴트리아의 생태와 조절, 국립환경과학원.
  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. 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.
  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, 1965, Growth and development of nutrias' functional features, Fur Trade Journal of Canada, 42(11), 2-3.
  6. Bailey, J.A, 1968. A weight-length relationship for evaluating physical condition of cottontails, Journal of Wildlife Management, 32, 835-841. https://doi.org/10.2307/3799558
  7. Bailey, J.W. and G.A. Heidt, 1978, Range and states of the nutria, Myocastor coypus, in Arkansas, in Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Fayetteville, Arkansas, Academy of Science, 25-27.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Bounds, D.L, 2000, Nutria: an invasive species of national concern, Wetland Journal, 12, 9-16.
  11. Bounds, D.L, 1998, Marsh restoration: nutria control in Maryland. Maryland Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland, 30.
  12. 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
  13. Cabrera, A, 1961, Catlogo de los mammiferos de America del Sur. Rev. Mus. Argentino Cien Nat, "Bernardo Rivadavia", 4, 1-732.
  14. Cocchi, R. and F. Riga, 2008, Control of coypu Myocastor coypus population in northern Italy and management implications, Italian journal of zoology, 75(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000701690350
  15. Cabrera, A. and J. Yepes, 1940, Mamiferos Sud- Americanos(vida, costumbres descripcion), Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires, 370.
  16. 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
  17. Doncaster, C.P. and T. Micol, 1989, Annual cycle of a coypu (Myocastor coypus) population: male and female strategies, Journal of Zoology (London), 217, 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1989.tb02484.x
  18. Ehrlich, S, 1958, The biology of the nutria, Bamidgeh, 10, 36-43, 60-70.
  19. Evans, J, 1970, About nutria and their control, United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver Colorado, USA.
  20. Gosling, L.M. and S.J. Baker, 1989, The eradication of muskrat and coypus from Britain: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 38, 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1989.tb01561.x
  21. Gosling, L.M. and S.J. Baker, 1987, Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain, in The Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Zoological Society of London, 28-29 November, 1986, London, United Kingdom, 100-113.
  22. Gosling, L.M. and S.J. Baker, 1981, Coypu (Myocastor coypus) potential longevity, Journal of Zoology (London), 197, 285-312.
  23. Gosling, L.M., G.E. Guyon and K.M. Wright, 1980a, Diurnal activity of feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) during the cold winter of 1978-9, Journal of Zoology (London), 192, 143-146.
  24. Gosling, L.M., L.W. Hudson and G.C. Addison, 1980b, Age estimation of coypus(Myocastor coypus) from eye lens weight, Journal of Applied Ecology, 17, 641-648. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402642
  25. Gosling, L.M, 1979, The twenty-four hour active cycle captive coypus(Myocastor coypus), Journal of Zoology(London), 187, 341-367.
  26. Gosling, L. M. 1977, Coypu, The Handbook of British mammals, Second Edition, (G.B. Corbet and H.N. Southern, eds) 256-265, Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford.
  27. Gosling, L.M, 1974, The coypus in East Anglia, Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society, 23, 49-59.
  28. Grzimek, B., ed, 1975, Grzimek's animal life encyclopedia:mammals, I-IV. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 10-13.
  29. Hall, E.R, 1981, The Mammals of North America, Second Edition,. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2, 601-1181.
  30. 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).
  31. IUCN, 2009, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List. http//www.iucnredlist.org.
  32. Jennifer, H. and M. Edmond, 2012, Coastwide nutria control program 2011-2012, Coastal and Nongame Resources Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 54pp.
  33. Kim, P, 1980, The coypu (Myocastor coypus) in the Netherlands: reproduction, home range and manner of seeking food, Lutra, 23, 55-64.
  34. Kinler, N.W., G. Linscombe and P.R. Ramsey, 1987, Nutria, (M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch, eds) 326-343, Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.
  35. Konieczna, B, 1956, Dojrzewanie I rozrod nutrii (Myocastor coypus), II. Jajnik, [Sexual maturation and reproduction in Myocastor coypus, II. The ovary] Folia Biologica (Warsaw), 4, 139-150.
  36. Kuhn, L.W. and E.P. Peloquin, 1974, Oregon's nutria problem, Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, 6, 101-105.
  37. Leblanc, D.J, 1994, Nutria, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, (S.E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larsen eds) 71-80, Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA.
  38. Litjens, B.E.J, 1980, De beverat Myocastor coypus (Molina), in Nederland, Lutra, 23, 43-53.
  39. Lowery, G.H, 1974, The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters, Louisiana State University Press, BatonRouge, LA. 565.
  40. Mann, G.F, 1978, Los pesuenos mamiferos de Chile, Editorial de la Universidad de Concepcion, Chile 342.
  41. 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: United Kingdom, London, Academic Press.
  42. Miura, S, 1976, Disposal of nutria in Okayama Prefecture: The Journal of the Mammalogical Society of Japan, 6, 231-237.
  43. 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
  44. Newson, R.M, 1966, Reproduction in the feral coypu(Myocastor coypus), Pages 323-334 in(I.W. Rowlands, ed.) Comparative biology of reproduction in mammals Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 15, 1-559.
  45. Nowak, R.M, 1999, Walker's mammals of world, 6th Ed. Johns hopkins University press, 1936.
  46. Pagnoni, G.A. and R. Santolini, 2011, Struttura di popolazione di nutria(Myocastor coypus) in un; area agricola della Pianura Padana Orientale, Studi Trent. Sci. Nat, 88, 45-52.
  47. Schitoskey, F., Jr.J. Evans and G.K. Lavoie, 1972, Status and control of nutria in California, Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, 5, 15-17.
  48. Simpson, T.R. and W.G. Swank, 1979, Trap avoidance by marked nutria; a problem in population estimation, Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeast Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 33, 11-14.
  49. SPSS Institute, 2011, SPSS version 20.0 SPSS Inc, chicago, IL., U.S.A.
  50. 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, 41.
  51. Willner, G.R., K.R. Dixon, and J.A. Chapman, 1983, Age determination and mortality of the nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Maryland, U.S.A. Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde, 48, 19-34.
  52. Wilner, G.R, 1982, Nutria: Myocastor coypus, Wild mammals of North America, (J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhammer, eds) 1059-1076, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
  53. 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, 65.
  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. 자생종 포식자를 이용한 침입외래종 황소개구리(Rana catesbeiana)의 생태적 제어에 관한 연구 vol.31, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.13047/kjee.2017.31.1.054
  2. 제주도에 도입된 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus)의 생물학적 특성 및 서식 현황 vol.26, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2017.26.1.1
  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