DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Home-range of Wild Boar, Sus scrofa Living in the Jirisan National Park, Korea

지리산의 멧돼지 Sus scrofa 행동권

  • Choi, Tae-Young (Environmental Planning Institute, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Yun-Soo (Species Restoration Center, Korea National Park Service) ;
  • Park, Chong-Hwa (The Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • 최태영 (서울대학교 환경계획연구소) ;
  • 이윤수 (국립공원관리공단 종복원센터) ;
  • 박종화 (서울대학교 환경대학원)
  • Published : 2006.06.01

Abstract

The objectives of this paper are to estimate home range and core habitat area of wild bores in Jirisan National Park of Korea. A radio-telemetry study was carried out on 5 wild boar individuals (3 females and 2 males). Except one individual whose enough data could not be collected, the mean home range size of 4 individuals was $5.13km^2$ (95% kernel) and mean core habitat area was $1.18{\pm}0.31km^2$ (50% kernel). Home-range sizes of 2 females were $6.21km^2\;and\;5.45km^2$ each, and that of 2 males were $5.15km^2\;and\;3.72km^2$ each, which means home-ranges of female boars were larger than those of male boars in this research. This result is presumed to have been caused by the fact that the males were sub adult individuals weighing 40 kg and 19 kg when they were captured for this research.

본 연구의 목적은 멧돼지의 행동권과 핵심 지역의 면적을 분석하는 것으로서, 이를 위해 지리산국립공원 내에서 5개체(암 3, 수2)를 포획하여 귀에 원격 무선 추적용 소형 발신기를 부착하였다. 이 중 위치 자료가 충분히 수집되지 못한 암컷 l개체를 제외한 4개체의 행동권을 분석한 결과 평균 $5.13km^2$ (95% kernel)이었으며, 활동의 핵심지역 면적은 $1.18{\pm}0.31km^2$ (50% kernel)로 계산되었다. 암컷 2개체의 행동권(95% kernel)은 각각 $6.21km^2$$5.45km^2$이었으며, 수컷 2개체의 행동권은 각각 $5.15km^2$$3.72km^2$로 계산되었다. 암컷의 행동권이 수컷에 비해 넓게 나타난 이유는 추적된 수컷 2개체 모두 체중이 40 kg와 19kg의 미성숙 단계에서 포획되어 연구가 시작되었기 때문으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김원명. 1994. 멧돼지(Sus scrofa coreanus Heude)의 서식지이용연구를 위한 Radio-Telemetry의 적용시험. 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문. pp 27-30
  2. 서창완. 2000. GIS와 로지스틱 회귀분석을 이용한 멧돼지 서식지 모형 개발. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위논문. pp 104
  3. Baskin L, Danell K. 2003. Ecology of Ungulates; A Handbook of Species in Eastern Europe and Northern and Central Asia. Springer. Germany. p 24
  4. Caley P. 1997. Movements, activity patterns and habitat use of feral pigs(Sus scrofa) in a tropical habitat. Wildlife Res 24(1): 77-87 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR94075
  5. Mech LD, Barber SM. 2002. A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in national parks. A report to the U.S Natonal Park Service. pp 19-20
  6. Park CR, Lee WS. 2003. Development of a GIS-based habitat suitability model for wild boar Sus scrofa in the Mt. Baekwonsan region, Korea. Mammal Study 28:17-21 https://doi.org/10.3106/mammalstudy.28.17
  7. Saunders G, Kay B. 1996. Movements and home ranges of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in Kosciusko national park, new south wales. Wildlife Res 23 (6): 711-719 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9960711
  8. Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ, Gitzen RA. (1999). Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildlife Manag 63: 739-747 https://doi.org/10.2307/3802664
  9. Seaman DE, Powell RA. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77: 2075- 208 https://doi.org/10.2307/2265701
  10. Sokov AI 1993. Mammals-Artiodactyla. Fauna Tadzhikistana 20 (5):1- 257 (in Russian)
  11. Tsarev SA 1980. Intraspecies relations of boar at the northern linits of the range. In: Sokolov V. E. (ed) Kopytnye fauny SSSR. Nauka, Moscow, pp 321-322 (in Russian)
  12. Worton BJ. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilisation distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164-168 https://doi.org/10.2307/1938423
  13. Worton BJ. 1995. Using Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate kernelbased home range estimators. J Wildlife Manag 59: 794-800 https://doi.org/10.2307/3801959

Cited by

  1. Diet of The Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Agricultural Land of Geochang, Gyeongnam Province, Korea vol.103, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.2.307
  2. Using habitat suitability model for the wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus) to select wildlife passage sites in extensively disturbed temperate forests vol.38, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2015.018