Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Differences in Density and Body Weight of Rodents in Different Restored Forest Areas after Forest Fire

산불피해지 복원방법에 따른 설치류의 서식밀도 및 체중 차이

  • Lee, Enn Jae (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Woo-Shin (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University) ;
  • Rhim, Shin-Jae (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2006.03.24
  • Accepted : 2006.05.10
  • Published : 2006.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to clarity the differences in density and body weight of rodents among unburned and two burned areas (silvicultured and natural restored areas) after forest fire from July to September 2004 in coniferous forest of Samcheok, Korea. The density of rodents was the least in the silvicultured area. There was no differences in density between the unburned and natural restored areas. Also, mean body weight of rodents in the natural restored area was higher than in the silvicultured area. Shrubs, seedlings, snags and CWD (coarse woody debris) would be good for inhabitation of the rodents in forest fired area. Therefore, coverage of understory layer should be maintained in forest fired area.

본 연구는 강원도 삼척시 검봉산 일대의 침엽수림 지역에서 2000년 발생한 산불피해 후 복원방법에 따라 각각 산림환경이 다른 조림지역과 자연복원지역, 미피해지역에서 설치류의 서식밀도 및 체중 차이를 파악하기 위해 2004년 7월부터 2004년 9월까지 실시되었다. 조사 결과 산불 미피해지역과 자연복원지역 간 설치류의 개체군 밀도는 차이가 없는 반면, 조림지역에서 가장 낮았다. 체중 역시 조림지역이 다른 지역에 비해 낮게 나타났다. 자연복원지역이 조림지역에 비해 설치류의 서식밀도 및 체중이 높게 나타난 것은 지면의 수목잔존물(CWD, coarse woody debris)과 하층식생이 커버(cover)로써 설치류에게 적합한 서식환경을 제공하는 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 산림청. 2001. 동해안 산불백서I. 산림청. 대전. pp. 405
  2. 이경준, 한상섭, 김지홍, 김은식. 1999. 산림생태학. 향문사. 서울. pp. 395
  3. 이은재. 2004. 산불피해 후 수목잔존붙이 설치류에 미치는 영향. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문. 서울. pp. 54
  4. 이진규외 19인. 1997. 제2차년도 고성산불지역 생태조사 결과보고서. 임업연구원. 서울 pp. 155
  5. 임신재. 1997. 서식지 구조에 따른 번식기 조류 군집과 소형 포유류 개체군의 변화에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문. 서울. pp. 60
  6. 천대윤. 2003. 종합 SAS 통계분석. 교우사. 서울. pp 515
  7. Bendell, J.F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. Academic Press. U.S.A. pp. 359
  8. Cope, M.J. and Chaloner, W.G. 1985. Wildfire: an interaction of biological and physical processes. pp. 153-162. In : B.H. Tiffney, ed. Geological factors and the evolution of plants, New Haven. Yale University Press. USA
  9. Crowner, A.W. and Barrett, G.W. 1979. Effects of fire on the small mammal component of an experimental grassland community. Journal of Mammology 60: 803-813 https://doi.org/10.2307/1380195
  10. Dueser, R.D. and Shugart, H.H. 1978. Microhabitats in a forest-floor small mammal fauna. Ecology 59: 89-98 https://doi.org/10.2307/1936634
  11. Ford, W.M., Menzel, M.A., McGill, D.M., Laerm, J. and McCay, T.S. 1999. Effects of a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 233-243 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00354-5
  12. Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F. and Swanson, FJ. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133-302 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60121-X
  13. Hayes, J.P., Horvath, E.G and Hounihan, P. 1995. Townsend's chipmunk populations in douglas-fir plantations and mature forests in the Oregon coast range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 67-73 https://doi.org/10.1139/z95-008
  14. Kent, M. and Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. John Wiley, Chichester. U.S.A. pp. 363
  15. Komarek, E.V. 1969. Fire and animal behavior. pp. 161-207. In : Proceedings of 9th Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall Timbers Research Station, U.S.A
  16. Lee, S.D. 1997. Relationships between small mammal community and coarse woody debris in forest ecosystem. Korean Journal of Ecology 20: 251-258
  17. Loeb, S.C. 1999. Responses of small mammals to coarse woody debris in an southeastern pine forest. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 460-471 https://doi.org/10.2307/1383293
  18. Marser, C., Trappe, J.M. and Franklin, J.F. 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. US Department of Agriculture. pp. 153
  19. Nichols, J.D. 1992. Capture-recapture models using marked animals to study population dynamics. Bioscience 42: 94-102 https://doi.org/10.2307/1311650
  20. Perry, G.L.W 1998. Current approaches modelling the spread of wildland fire: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22: 222-245 https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200204
  21. Planz, J.V. and Kirkland, G.L. 1992. Use of woody ground litter as a substrate for travel by the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 106: 118-121
  22. Rhim, S.J. and Lee, W.S. 2001. Habitat preference of small rodents in deciduous forests of north-eastern South Korea. Mammal Study 26: 1-8 https://doi.org/10.3106/mammalstudy.26.1
  23. Simsons, L.H. 1991. Rodent dynamics in relation to fire in the Sonoran desert. Journal of Mammalogy 72: 518-524 https://doi.org/10.2307/1382135
  24. Spies, T.A. and Franklin, J.F. 1988. Coarse woody debris in douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecology 69: 1689-1702 https://doi.org/10.2307/1941147
  25. Vacanti, P.L. and Geluso, K.N. 1985. Recolonization of a burned prairie by meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Prairie Naturalist 17: 15-22
  26. USDA. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42. Volume I. U.S.A. pp. 8