Ecology and Resilient Infrastructure

응용생태공학회 (Korean Society of Ecology and Infrastructure Engineering)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

영국과 미국에서 침입성 뉴트리아 (Myocastor coypus)의 효과적 관리

Effective Management of Invasive Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the UK and the USA

  • 길지현 (국립환경과학원 자연환경연구과) ;
  • 이도훈 (국립생태원 위해생물연구부) ;
  • 김영채 (국립생태원 위해생물연구부)
  • Kil, Jihyon (Natural Environment Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Do-hun (Department of Eco-safety Research, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Kim, Young-chae (Department of Eco-safety Research, National Institute of Ecology)
  • 투고 : 2015.11.26
  • 심사 : 2015.12.20
  • 발행 : 2015.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

생물다양성을 감소시키고 인간에게 경제적 손실을 불러오는 침입외래생물은 사전에 자연으로의 유입 차단이 최선이지만, 유입과 억제에 실패한 경우 적극적으로 구제하거나 퇴치해야 한다. 본 연구에서는 영국과 미국에서 실시된 뉴트리아 박멸 사례를 소개하고, 국내 뉴트리아 관리체계 개선에 기여할 수 있는 정보를 제공하고자 하였다. 영국의 박멸캠페인은 관리의 목적과 목표에 대한 완전한 이해를 바탕으로 장기적인 계획을 수립하였고 적합한 지원을 확보하였다. 뉴트리아에 대한 충분한 정보를 축적하고 관리 여건의 변화에 따라 관리전략을 수정하였으며, 현장에 반영하였다. 미국의 체사피크만 박멸 프로젝트는 장기간의 생태정보를 바탕으로 영국에 비해 발전된 포획 기술을 적용하였으며, 영국 박멸캠페인 성과를 분석하여 박멸계획과 전략, 실행방안을 도출하였다. 국내 서식하는 뉴트리아를 효과적으로 관리하기 위해서는 다음과 같은 사항을 제안할 수 있다. 첫째, 퇴치 필요성에 대하여 이해당사자간 공감으로 협의체를 구성하고 주기적으로 생태적 정보와 의견을 교환한다. 둘째, 현장의 의견을 적극 수렴하여 퇴치전략과 관리정책에 반영한다. 관리지표를 기반으로 퇴치계획을 수립하고, 성과를 평가하고, 성과에 따라 조정하는 모든 과정은 유기적으로 연계되도록 한다. 셋째, 과학적인 관리방법을 도입하고 관리성과는 객관적으로 평가하며, 실천계획은 서식실태 모니터링을 통해 가변적으로 조정한다. 넷째, 장기적인 예산과 안정적인 조직을 확보하고 퇴치 효율성이 높은 시기에 재원을 집중하여 투입한다. 이러한 시사점은 국내 뉴트리아 관리방식을 효율적으로 개선하고 체계적이고 장기적인 관리를 지속하는데 도움이 될 수 있다.

It is the better to take preventative measures against the natural intrusion in advance from invasive alien species that reduce biodiversity and cause economic loss to humans. If the prevention of intrusion and spread fails, we need to make active control and eradication. This study aims to introduce nutria (Myocastor coypus) control cases performed in the United Kingdom and the United States and to provide information for the contribution of nutria management measure improvements. The nutria eradication campaign in the United Kingdom was developed as a long-term plan based on sufficient understanding on the management target and objective and suitable support. Sufficient information on nutria was accumulated and the management strategy was flexibly modified according to the changes in management that were proactively reflected in the field. Regarding the eradication project at Chesapeake Bay in the United States, based on long-term ecological information, more advanced capture technology than in the United Kingdom were introduced and the eradication plan, strategy and implementation were configured by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the eradication campaign in the United Kingdom. The successful cases in the United Kingdom and the United State provide an information on how to improv the nutria management measure. For the eradication of nutria, it is necessary to reach a consensus between stakeholders and to form a consultative group between related organizations for periodic communication. Opinions on the field must be actively accepted in the consultation process for strategy and policy decision, and the eradication plan needs to be developed based on a management index. The eradication plan is required to be managed, evaluated and adjusted in a systematic way. Scientific management must be introduced and the management performance must be evaluated objectively so that a practical plan can be flexibly adjusted. It is also required to secure a long-term budget support and a stable organization and to input a concentrated budget at the proper period when there is high efficiency of eradication.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Abbas, A. 1988. Impact du ragondin (Myocastor coypus Molina) sur une culture de mais (Zea may L.) dans Ie marais Poitevin. Acta Oecologica/Oecologica Applicata 9: 173-189. (in French)
  2. Baker, S.J. 2006. The eradication of coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Britain: the elements of a succesful campaign. In, Koike, F., Clout, M.N., Kawamichi, M., DePoorter, M. and Iwatsuki, K. (eds.), Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 142-147.
  3. Baker, S.J. 2010. Control and eradication of invasive mammals in Great Britain. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des epizooties 29:311-327.
  4. Boorman, L.A. and Fuller, R.M. 1981. The changing status reedswamp in the Norfork Broads. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 214-269.
  5. Cabrera, A. and Yepes, J. 1940. Mamiferos Sud-Americanos (vida, costumbres descripcion). Compania Argentina de Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (in Spanish)
  6. Carter, J. and Leonard, B.P. 2002. A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 162-175.
  7. Carter, J., Foote, A.L. and Johnson, L.A. 1999. Modeling the effects of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on wetland loss. Wetlands 19: 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161750
  8. Cocchi, R. and Riga, F. 2008, Control of coypu(Myocastor coypus) population in northern Italy and management implications. Italian Journal of Zoology 75: 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000701690350
  9. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2002. Decision VI/23 on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7197. Assessed 3 December 2015.
  10. Evans, J. 1970. About Nutria and Their Control. United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
  11. Foote, A.L. and Johnson, L.A. 1993. Plant stand development in Louisiana coastal wetlands: nutria grazing effects on plant biomass. In, Landin, M.C. (ed.), Wetlands: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA., South Central Chapter, Society of Wetland Scientists, Utica, MS, USA. pp. 265-269.
  12. Gosling, L.M. and Baker, S.J. 1987. Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. In, The Proceedings of Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 28-29 November, 1986, London, UK. pp. 99-113.
  13. Gosling, L.M. and Baker, S.J. 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
  14. Gosling, L.M., Baker, S.J. and Clarke, C.N. 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
  15. Gosling, L.M., Watt, A.D. and Baker, S.J. 1981. Continuous retrospective census of the East Anglian coypu population between 1970 and 1979. The Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 885-901. https://doi.org/10.2307/4144
  16. Hess, I.D., Conner, W. and Visser, J. 1997. Nutria - another threat to Louisiana's vanishing coastal wetlands. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 2 (2).
  17. Kendrot, S.R. 2011. Chesapeake Bay nutria eradication. In, Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. and Towns, D.R. (eds.), Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. pp. 313-319.
  18. Laurie, E.M.O. 1946. The coypus (Myocastor coypus) in Great Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology 15: 22-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1622
  19. Leblanc, D.J. 1994. Nutria. In, Hygnstrom, S.E., Timm, R.M. and Larsen, G.E. (eds.), The Handbook:Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. pp. B71-B80.
  20. Lee, D.H. and Kil, J.H. 2015. Analysis of the best practices for nutria management in Europe and North America. National Institute of Ecology, Seochoen, Korea. (in Korean)
  21. Lee, D.H., Kil, J.H. and Kim, D.E. 2013a. The study on the distribution and inhabiting status of nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 27: 316-326. (in Korean)
  22. Lee, D.H., Kil, J.H. and Yang, B.K. 2012. Ecological Characteristics for Sustainable Management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon, Korea. (in Korean)
  23. Lee, D.H., Lee, C.W. and Kil, J.H. 2013b. A study on plant diet resource of nutria (Myocastor coypus) habitat in Nakdong-River. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 22: 491-511. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2013.22.5.491
  24. Leuven, R.S., van der Velde, G., Baijens, I., Snijders, J., van der Zwart, C., Lenders, H.J. and bij de Vaate, A. 2009. The River Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. Biological Invasions 11: 1989-2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9491-7
  25. Lim, O.S., Kil, J.H. and Kim, Y.A. 2014. Report on Advanced Case Studies on Nutria Eradication Project in Europe. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  26. Lockwood, J.L., Hoopes, M.F. and Marchetti, M.P. 2006. Invasion Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
  27. Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. and De Poorter, M. 2000. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species: a Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland, New Zealand.
  28. Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Londsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M. and Bazzaz, F.A. 2000. Biotic invasions: cause, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10: 689-710. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2
  29. ME. 2014. The First National Mid-Long Term Management Plan of Alien Species (2014-2018). Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  30. Murphy, W.J., Elzirik, E., Johnson, W.E., Zhang, Y.P., Ryder, O.A. and O'Brien, S.J. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409: 614-618. https://doi.org/10.1038/35054550
  31. NIE. 2014. The Study on the Inhabitation Status of Nutria (Myocastor coypus). National Institute of Ecology, Seochoen, Korea. (in Korean)
  32. Norris, J.D. 1967. A campaign against feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) on Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 191-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2401418
  33. Public Law 108-16. 2003. Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003. http://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ16/PLAW-108publ16.pdf. Assessed 01 September 2015.
  34. Runami, L., Gunji, Y., Hishinuma, M., Nagano, M., Takada, T. and Higaki, S. 2013. Reproductive biology of the coypu, Myocastor coypus (Rodentia: Myocastoridae) in western Japan. Zoologia 30:130-134. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702013000200002
  35. SCBD. 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
  36. The Nutria Management Team. 2013. Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project: Strategic Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USA.
  37. Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607-615. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313420
  38. Willner, G.R., Chapman, J.A. and Pursley, D. 1979. Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes. Wildlife Monographs 65: 3-43.
  39. With, K.A. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation Biology 16: 1192-1203. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01064.x
  40. Witmer, G., Sheffels, T.R. and Kendrot, S.R. 2012. The introduction, impacts, and management of a large, invasive, aquatic rodent in the United States. In, Abreu, D.C. and De Borbon, S.L. (eds.), Marshes: Ecology, Management and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, New York, USA. pp. 49-89
  41. Woods, C.A. and Howland, E.B. 1979. Adaptive radiation of capromyid rodents: anatomy of the masticatory apparatus. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 95-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379762
  42. Woods, C.A., Contreras, L., Willner-Chapman, G. and Whidden, H.P. 1992. Myocastor coypus. Mammalian Species 398: 1-8.

피인용 문헌

  1. 뉴트리아(Myocastor coypus) 분포밀도 및 잠재적 서식가능지역 예측에 따른 관리방향 vol.27, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2018.27.2.203
  2. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Nutria ( Myocastor coypus ) in South Korea vol.9, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121164
  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