DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Home Range and Daily Activity of Nutria(Myocastorcoypus) Using Radio Tracking in South Korea

원격무선추적을 이용한 한국 정착 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus)의 행동권 및 활동성 연구

  • Received : 2020.04.13
  • Accepted : 2020.06.09
  • Published : 2020.06.30

Abstract

This study investigated the home range and characteristics of activities to contribute to the improvement of management techniques and the successful promotion of management policies of invasive nutria, which is a representative invasive species of South Korea. Six individuals were captivated for the study. Remote radio tracking on three of them was carried out followed by the analysis of the results. The average home range of the follow-up individuals were confirmed to be 0.043 ㎢ at MCP 95%, 0.085 ㎢ at K 95%. It was 0.018 ㎢ at K 50%, which is the core space. In 95% MCP, males exhibited the home range with 0.058 ㎢, showed wider home range 0.046 ㎢ than females who showed 0.012 ㎢, and showed a wider home range 0.015 ㎢ more at night than during the day. As a result of comparing the results of this study with the case studies of overseas studies, it is determined that the magnitude of the derived home range is the result of a stable habitat in which the procurement of food resources is smooth and human interference is limited. The daily moved distance of males was larger than that of females, with a maximum moved distance of 1,278 m per day. Activity at the study site is high from around sunset to around 6 A.M., 10 P.M., 7 P.M., 1 A.M., and 5 A.M., and high around sunrise and low during the daytime such as 2 P.M., which reflected the propensity of nocturnal animals to act. The results of this study on the home range and activity in nutria can be used as useful data forimproving the management of invasive alien species for the installation and operation of traps, the spatial setting of controlled areas, and the calculation of the amount ofresources together with a basic understanding of nutria's behaviors in South Korea.

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.
  2. Adams WH. 1956. The nutria in coastal Louisiana. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science. 14: 28-41.
  3. Aliev FF. 1965. Growth and development of nutrias’ functional features. Fur Trade Journal of Canada. 42(11):2-3.
  4. Aliev FF. 1966. Numerical Changes and the Population Structure of the Coypu (Myocastor coypus) in Different Countries. Saugetierkd Mitt. 15: 238-242.
  5. Aliev FF. 1968. Contribution to the Study of Nutria- Migrations (Myocastor coypus). Saugetierkd Mitt. 16: 301-303.
  6. ArcGIS Pro. Tool Reference. Available from: http://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/toolreference/spatial-analyst/kernel-density.htm (accessed on 8 February 2017)
  7. Bertolino S, Angelici C, Monaco E, Monaco A, Capizzi D. 2012. Interactions between Coypu (Myocastor coypus) and bird nests in three mediterranean wetlands of central Italy. Hystrix It. J. Mamm. 22: 333-339.
  8. Borgnia M, Galante ML, Cassini MH. 2000. Diet of the Coypu (Nutria, Myocastor coypus) in Agro- Systems of Argentinean Pampas. J Wildl Manage. 64(2): 354-361. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803233
  9. Bounds DL. 2000. Nutria: An Invasive Species of National Concern. Wetland Journal. 12(3): 9-16.
  10. Carter J, Foote AL, Johnson-Randall A. 1999. Modeling the effects of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on wetland loss. Wetlands. 19: 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161750
  11. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2014. "Global Biodiversity Outlook 4". midterm assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Montreal. p.155.
  12. Chabreck RH, Love JR, Linscombe G. 1981. Foods and feeding habits of nutria in brackish marsh in Louisiana. Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearers Conference. 1(1): 531-543.
  13. Chelkowska H, Walkowa W, Adamezyk K. 1985. Spatial Relationships in sympatric populations of the rodents: Clethrionomys glareolus, Microtus agrestis and Apodemus agrarius. Acta Theriologica. 30(2): 51-78. https://doi.org/10.4098/AT.arch.85-2
  14. Cho CU, Gyun GH, Yang JJ, Lim SJ, Lee AN, Park HB, Lee BK. 2014. Home range and behavioral characteristics of the endangered Korea gorals (Naemorhedus caudatus) with GPS collar. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology. 28(1): 1-9. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2014.28.1.1
  15. Choi TY, Park CH. 2006. Home-range of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides living in the rural area of Korea. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 29(3): 259-263. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2006.29.3.259
  16. Choi TY, Kwon H, Woo DG, Park CH. 2012. Habitat selection and management of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in a rural area of Korea. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 26(3): 322-332. [Korean Literature]
  17. Cochran WW, Lord RDJr. 1963. A radiotracking system for wild animals. J. wildl. Mgmt. 27: 9-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/3797775
  18. Coreil PD, Perry HRJ. 1977. A collar for attaching radio transmitter to nutria. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 31: 254-258.
  19. Coreil PD, Zwank PJ, Perry HRJ. 1988. Female nutria habitat use in the intermediate marsh zone of coastal Louisiana. In Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science. 51: 21-30.
  20. Denena MM, Manning RW, Simpson TR. 2003. Home range and movement of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) at Spring Lake in central Texas, with anecdotal comments on the American Beaver (Castor canadensis) of the same area. Museum of Texas Tech University.
  21. Doncaster CP, Micol T. 1989. Annual Cycle of a Coypu (Myocastor coypus) Population: Male and Female Strategies. J. Zool. (London). 217: 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1989.tb02484.x
  22. Ensing EP, Ciuit S, de Wijs FA, Lentferink DH, ten Hodt A, Boyce MS, Hut RA. 2014. GPS based daily activity patterns in European red deer and North American elk (Cervus elaphus): indication for a weak circadian clock in ungulates. PloS one 9.9: e106997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106997
  23. Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ. 2006. Bandwidth selection for fixed-kernel analysis of animal utilization distributions. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(5): 1334-1344. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1334:BSFFAO]2.0.CO;2
  24. Gosling LM. 1974. The Coypus in East Anglia. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society. 23: 49-59.
  25. Gosling LM. 1977. Coypu, The Handbook of British mammals, Second Edition, (G.B. Corbet and H.N. Southern, eds) 256-265. Blackwell Scientific Press. Oxford.
  26. Gosling LM. 1979. The twenty-four hour active cycle captive coypus (Myocastor coypus). Journal of Zoology. 187: 341-367.
  27. Gosling LM, Hudson LW, Addison GC. 1980a. Age Estimation of Coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Eye lens Weight. J Appl Ecol. 17: 641-648. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402642
  28. Gosling LM, Guyon GE, Wright KM. 1980b. Diurnal activity of feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) during the cold winter of 1978-9. Journal of Zoology. 192: 143-146.
  29. Gosling LM, Baker SJ, Skinner JR. 1983. A Simulation Approach to Investigating the Response of a Coypu Population to Climatic Variation. Bull. OEPP. 13(2): 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1983.tb01597.x
  30. Gosling LM, Baker SJ. 1989. Demographic consequences of differences in the ranging behaviour of male and female coypus. Mammals as pests. 155: 167.
  31. Guichon ML, Doncaster CP, Cassini MH. 2003. Population Structure of Coypus (Myocastor coypus) in Their Region of Origin and Comparison with Introduced Populations. J. Zool. 261(3): 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903004187
  32. Haramis GMi, White TS. 2011. A beaded collar for dual micro GPS/VHF transmitter attachment to nutria. Mammalia. 75(1): 79-82. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2010.070
  33. Harstad AS, Bunnell FL. 1979. Home range and body weight-a reevaluation. Ecology. 60: 389-402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937667
  34. Hooven EF. 1973. A wildlife brief for the clearcut logging of Douglas-Fir. Journal of Forestry. 71: 210-214.
  35. Hulme PE. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01600.x
  36. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed on 6 January 2020)
  37. Korea Environment Institute (KEI). 2006. The Study on the status of alien animals introduced in Korea and classification of ecological risk class. Sejong.
  38. Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ. 2001. Analysis of animal space use and movements. Academic Press. 125-166.
  39. Kil JH, Lee DH, Kim YC. 2015. Effective Management of Invasive Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the UK and the USA. Ecol. Resil. Infrastruct. 2(4): 265-273. https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2015.2.4.265
  40. Kim BJ, Choi TY, Park CH, Kim YJ, Lee H. 2008. A brift report of the short-term home range study of a pair of Raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides koreensis) in a rural area of Gurye, Chonnam province, South Korea using radiotracking method. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 22(3): 230-240. [Korean Literature]
  41. Kim BJ, Lee SD. 2011. Home range study of the Korean water deer (Hydropotes inermis agyropus) using radio and GPS tracking in South Korea: comparison of daily and seasonal habitat use pattern. Journal of Ecology and Environment. 34(4): 365-370. https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2011.038
  42. Kim P. 1980. The coypu (Myocastor coypus) in the Netherlands: reproduction, home range and manner of seeking food. Lutra. 23: 55-64.
  43. Kim YC, Kim A, Lim J, Kim TS, Park SG, Kim M, Lee DH. 2019. Distribution and Management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) Populations in South Korea. Sustainability. 11(15): 4169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154169
  44. Kim YC, Hong SH, Lee C, Kim A, Park H, Park SG, Kim M, Lee DH. 2020. Studies on the establishment and characteristics of habitat use of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) in South Korea. Korean J. Environ. Biol. 38(1): 1-15. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2020.38.1.001
  45. Korea Meteorological Administration. 2020. https://www.weather.go.kr/weather/climate/average_30years.jsp?yy_st=2011&stn=288&norm=Y&obs=0&x=19&y=11 (accessed on 15 May 2020)
  46. LeBlanc DJ. 1994. Nutria. Prevention and Control of Wildlife damage. B71-B80.
  47. Lee DH, Kil J, Yang BG. 2012. Ecological Characteristics for the Sustainable Management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research. [Korean Literature]
  48. Lee DH, Kil J, Kim DE. 2013a. The Study on the Distribution and Inhabiting Status of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 27(3): 316-326. [Korean Literature]
  49. Lee DH, Lee CW, Kil J. 2013b. A study on plant diet resource of nutria (Myocastor coypus) habitat in Nakdong-River. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 22(5): 491-511. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2013.22.5.491
  50. Lee DH, Kil J. 2013. A study on morphology measurement and comparison of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) inhabiting in Korea. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 22(3): 241-254. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2013.22.3.241
  51. Lee DH, Lee MS, Kim YC, Kim IR, Kim HK, Jeong DG, Lee JR, Kim JH. 2018. Complete Mitochondrial Genome of the Invasive Semi-Aquatic Mammal, Nutria Myocastor coypus (Rodentia; Myocastoridae). Conserv Genet Resour. 10(4): 613-616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-017-0877-z
  52. Lee JB, Kim YK, Bae YS. 2014. Historical Review and Notes on Small Mammals(Mammalia: Erinaceomorpha, Soricomorpha, Rodentia) in Korea. Anim, Syst. Evol. Divers. 30(3): 159-175. https://doi.org/10.5635/ASED.2014.30.3.159
  53. Levins M, D'Antonio CM. 2003. Forcasting biological invasions with increasing international trade. Conservation Biology, 17(1): 322-326. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02038.x
  54. Lohmeier L. 1981. Home range, movements and population density of nutria on a Mississippi pond. J. Miss. Academy. Sci. 26: 50-54.
  55. Lowery GH. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge.
  56. Masters G, Norgrove L. 2010. Climate change and invasive alien species. CABI Working Paper 1, p.30.
  57. McNeely JA, Mooney HA, Neville LE, Schei P, Waage JK. (eds.) 2001. A Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. x + p.50.
  58. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2014. National Mid-Long Term Management Plan of Alien Species (2014-2018). Ministry of Environment. Sejong. [Korean Literature]
  59. Ministry of Environment (ME). 2019. National Mid-Long Term Management Plan of Alien Species (2019-2023). Ministry of Environment. Sejong. [Korean Literature]
  60. Merino SJ, Carter J, Thibodeaux G. 2007. Testing Tail-mounted Transmitters with Myocastor coypus (Nutria). Southeastern Naturalist, 6(1): 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2007)6[159:TTTWMC]2.0.CO;2
  61. Milholland MT, Shumate JP, Simpson TR, Manning RW. 2010. Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Big Bend National Park; a non-native species in desert wetlands. Texas Journal of Science. 62(3): 205-222.F
  62. Moinard C, Doncaster CP, Barre H. 1992. Indirect calorometry measurements of behavioral thermoregulation in a semiaquatic social rodent, Myocastor coypus. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 70: 907-911. https://doi.org/10.1139/z92-129
  63. National Institute of Ecology (NIE). 2019. Monitoring of invasive alien species designated by the act on the conservation and use of biological diversity(VI). [Korean Literature]
  64. Nolfo-Clements LE. 2009. Nutria survivorship, movement patterns, and home ranges. Southeastern Naturalist. 8(3): 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.008.0303
  65. Nowak RM, Walker EP. 1999. Walker's Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 812-813.
  66. Paini DR, Sheppard AW, Cook DC, De Barro PJ, Worner SP, Thomas MB. 2016. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113(27): 7575-7579.
  67. Panzacchi M, Cocchi R, Genovesi P, Bertolino S. 2007. Population control of coypu (Myocastor coypus) in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a cost-benefit analysis. Wildl. Biol. 13: 159-172. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[159:PCOCMC]2.0.CO;2
  68. Park SG, Lee DH. 2020. An inventory of alien mammals for ecological risk assessment in South Korea. Korean J. Environ. Biol. 38(1): 165-178. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2020.38.1.165
  69. Reggiani G, Boitani L, D'antoni S, De Stefano R. 1993. Biology and control of the coypu in the Mediterranean area. Supplementi alle Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina. 21: 67-100.
  70. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
  71. Sekercioglu CH, Loarie SR, BRENES FO, Ehrlich PR, Daily GC. 2007. Persistence of forest birds in the Costa Rican agricultural countryside. Conservation Biology. 21(2): 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00655.x
  72. Sherfy MH, Mollett TA, McGOWAN KR, Daugherty SL. 2006. A reexamination of age-related variation in body weight and morphometry of Maryland Nutria. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(4): 1132-1141. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1132:AROAVI]2.0.CO;2
  73. Sikes RS, Gannon WL. 2011. The animal care and use committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy. 92(1): 235-253. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-F-355.1
  74. Warkentin JM. 1968. Observations on the behaviour and ecology of nutria in Louisiana. Tulane studies in Zoology and Botany. 15: 10-17.
  75. Willner GR, Dixon KR, Chapman JA. 1983. Age determination and mortality of the nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Maryland, U.S.A. Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde. 48: 19-34.
  76. Woods CA, Howland EB. 1979. Adaptive Radiation of Capromyid Rodents: Anatomy of the Masticatory Apparatus. J. Mammal. 60: 95-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379762
  77. Woods CA, Contreras L, Willner-Chapman G, Whidden HP. 1992. Myocastor coypus. Mammalian Species. 398: 1.
  78. Worton BJ. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilisation distribution in home-range studies. Ecology. 70: 164-168. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938423
  79. Yang DH, Kim BH, Jung DH, Jeong HD, Jeong WJ, Lee BG. 2008. The studies on characteristics of home range size and habitat use of the Asiatic black bear released in Jirisan. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology. 22(4): 427-434. [Korean Literature]
  80. Yim YJ, Jeon ES. 1980. Distribution of Naturalized Plants in the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Plant Biology. 23: 69-83. [Korean Literature]
  81. Zietsman L. 2011.Observations on Environmental Change in South Africas. SUN Press. 177p.