환경영향평가 (Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment)

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

DOI QR Code

철원 민간인통제지역 해제 이후 인공시설물 증가에 따른 두루미류 분포변화

Habitat Utilization Change of Crane Species against the Increasing Anthropogenic Structure after Released from Civilian Control Zone; CCZ in Cheorwon, Rep. of Korea

  • 투고 : 2019.05.16
  • 심사 : 2019.12.03
  • 발행 : 2020.02.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 철원에서 민간인통제지역 해제 이후 시공된 인공시설물이 두루미류의 서식에 미치는 영향을 평가하였다. 연구 장소는 2012년에 민간인통제지역에서 해제되었고 2017년부터는 축사가 만들어진 장소를 대상으로 하였다. 두루미의 평균 서식 개체수는 민간인통제지역 해제 전(2009년-2012년)에는 9.3±4.3 개체 이었으며, 해제 이후 3.5±0.5 개체가 되어 1/3 수준으로 감소하였다. 재두루미는 민간인통제지역 해제 전과 후에 각각 63.3±24.6 개체, 6.0±6.0 개체로 조사되어 90% 가량이 감소하였다. 이 결과는 민간인통제지역의 해제 이후 비닐하우스, 축사의 건립이 전반적으로 두루미의 서식개체수 감소에 영향을 준 것으로 판단된다. 두루미의 경우 축사가 건립된 지역으로부터 핵심지역이 멀어지는 경향이 나타났다. 하지만 연구지역은 2012년 민간인통제지역이 개방된 시기부터 선호되는 지역이 아니었기 때문에 두루미의 분포범위 변화는 예상보다 크지 않았다. 재두루미의 경우 비닐하우스가 건립된 지역에서도 상대적으로 높은 밀도로 분포하였지만, 축사가 집중적으로 건설된 2017년 이후에는 핵심서식지가 위축되고 파편화되는 변화가 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 두루미와 재두루미 모두 축사의 신축으로 인한 서식환경 변화에 대해 민감하게 반응한 것으로 보인다. 반면 민간인통제지역 개방 이후 비닐하우스가 건립되어 영향을 주었지만 축사의 건립은 핵심서식지에 대해 더 큰 변화를 유발한 것으로 나타났으며 이는 사람의 통행 등이 비닐하우스에 비해 축사가 더 빈번하기 때문으로 사료된다.

This study aims to evaluate the effect of artificial facilities constructed afterthe release of the civilian controlled zone (CCZ) in Cheorwon on the inhabitation of cranes. The study site was released from the CCZ in 2012, and several barns have been built since 2017. The average number of Red-crowned Cranes was 9.3±4.3 individuals (±Standard Deviation) in the period before the release of the CCZ from 2009 to 2012, and it decreased by ca. one third of Red-crowned Crane's average individuals were showing 3.5±0.5 individuals after release. The average number of White-naped Cranes also appeared to be decreased by ca. 90% from 63.3±24.6 to 6.0±6.0 individuals. This results suggest that the construction of greenhouses and barns after the releasing of the CCZ affected the decrease of the population of these two crane species. In the case of Red-crowned Crane, the core area tended to move away from the area where barns were built. However, the distribution range of Red-crowned Cranes did not change significantly we expected because the study area was not their favorite place since 2012 when the area was released from the CCZ. The density of the White-naped Crane was relatively high even in the area where greenhouses were built, but after 2017 when the barn was built intensively, core habitat of crane became shrink and fragmented. These results suggest that both Red-crowned Cranes and White-naped Cranes response sensitively against habitat change due to the construction of barns. Since the release of the CCZ, the construction of the greenhouse has been influenced on the distribution of cranes, but subsequently, the construction of the barn seems to have caused a bigger change in their core habitat because the passage of people to barns is more frequent than the greenhouses.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Austin JE, Richert AL. 2001. A Comprehensive review of observational and site evaluation data of migrant Whooping Cranes in the United States, 1943-1999. US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, USA, 157p.
  2. Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Oyugi JO. 1999. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13(5): 1140-1150. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98341.x
  3. Cao M, Liu G. 2008. Habitat suitability change of Red-crowed Crane in Yellow River Delta Nature Reserve. Journal of Forestry Research 19(2): 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-008-0024-5
  4. Choi TY, Kwon HS, Woo DG, Park CH. 2012. Habitat selection and management of the Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in rural area of Korea. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 26(3): 322-332. [Korean Literature]
  5. Fleishman E, Murphy DD, Brussard PF. 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecological Application 10: 569-579. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0569:ANMFSO]2.0.CO;2
  6. Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ. 2006. Bandwidth selection for fixed-kernel analysis of animal utilization distributions. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5): 1334-1344. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1334:BSFFAO]2.0.CO;2
  7. Herr AM, Queen LP. 1993. Crane habitat evaluation using GIS and remote sensing. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 59(10): 1531-1538.
  8. IUCN : International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Version 2018-2. [cited 2018 Feb 28]. Available from : http://www.iucnredlist.org
  9. Kauhala K, Auttila M. 2010. Estimating habitat selection of Badgers: a test between different methods. Folia Zoologica 59: 16-25. https://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v59.i1.a4.2010
  10. Lee WS, Rhim SJ, Park CR. 2001. Habitat use of cranes in Cheolwon Basin, Korea. Korean Journal of Ecology 24(2): 77-80.
  11. Pae SH. 2000. A study on habitat use of wintering cranes in DMZ, Korea: with carrying capacity and spatial distribution analysis using GIS. Dissertation of the Kyung Hee University. 77pp. [Korean Literature]
  12. Park JY. 1993. Wintering ecology of the Whitefronted Geese on Junam Reservoirs, Korea. M. Sc. Thesis, Kyung Hee University, 57pp. [Korean Literature]
  13. Roberge JM, Angelstam P. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18: 76-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x
  14. Roberge JM, Mikusinski G, Svensson S. 2008. The White-backed woodpecker: Umbrella species for forest conservation planning. Biodiversity Conservation 17: 2479-2494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9394-4
  15. Sawyer SC. 2012. Subpopulation range estimation for conservation planning: a case study of the critically endangered Cross River Gorilla. Biodiversity Conservation 21: 1589-1606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0266-6
  16. Sekercioglu CH, Loarie SR, Brenes FO, Ehrich PR Daily GC. 2007. Persistence of forest birds in the Costarican agricultural countryside. Conservation Biology 21: 482-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00655.x
  17. Signer J, Balkenhol N. 2015. Reproducible home ranges (rhr): A new, user-friendly R package for analyses of wildlife telemetry data. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(2): 358-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.539
  18. Su L. 2003. Habitat selection by Sandhill Cranes, Grus canadensis tabida, at multiple geographic scales in Wisconsin. Ph. D. Thesis of Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, 141p.
  19. Worton BJ. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164-168. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938423
  20. Yoo SH, Jung HY, Kim KS, Yu DS, Kim NS, Kim HJ, Hur WH, Kim JH, Lee KS. 2015. The change of core habitats of the cranes due to release of the civilian control zone; CCZ and construction disturbance. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 24(4): 301-316. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2015.24.4.301
  21. Yoo SH, Lee KS, Yoo JC. 2008. Preference of the CCZ (Civilian Control Zone) in Cheorwon basin as a wintering site of Cranes: wintering season of 2002-2003. Korean Journal of Ornithology 15(1): 39-49. [Korean Literature]
  22. Yoo SH, Lee KS, Kim IK, Kang TH, Lee HS. 2009. Research on the size, formation and tendency to evade the road of the feeding flocks of crane species: centering on the effect of road vs. traffic condition. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 23(1):41-49. [Korean Literature]
  23. Yoo SH, Lee KS, Kim JH, Park JH. 2011. Longterm monitoring result and factors of the wintering crane’s population change in Cheorwon, Korea: historic change and impact assessment of weather change by the MODIS. Korean Journal of Ornithology 18(1): 59-71. [Korean Literature]