Biological Invasions

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1485–1496 | Cite as

Distribution, spread and habitat preferences of nutria (Myocastor coypus) invading the lower Nakdong River, South Korea

  • Sungwon Hong
  • Yuno Do
  • Ji Yoon Kim
  • Dong-Kyun Kim
  • Gea-Jae Joo
Original Paper


Nutria (Myocastor coypus) were introduced into South Korea in 1985 for fur farming and meat production. However, failures of nutria farm management in the late 1990s resulted in the accidental and/or intentional release of nutria into the wild, and they have spread and become serious pests. The successful management of invasive species like nutria somewhat depends on the comprehensive knowledge of distribution patterns. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the distribution, spread, and habitat preferences of nutria invading the lower Nakdong River in South Korea to facilitate current control and eradication endeavours. Nutria populations were recorded in 45 of 236 sites investigated. The distribution patterns revealed that the spread of nutria from farming sites has mainly proceeded along rivers via tributaries. Important factors associated with the establishment of new populations were food availability, levees with suitable burrow materials, and slow water flow. The winter climate was also important, and the total number of days below −4 °C significantly affected nutria occurrence. To date, efforts to control or locally eradicate nutria populations have had little success due to insufficient budgets and the lack of coordinated management activities between local governments. To improve the efficiency of nutria eradication programmes, local governments must establish an integrated and coordinated strategy that is overseen by a single, national agency. To ensure the success of the programmes, this agency should make the best use of ecological information about nutria distribution, and utilize optimal control techniques and timing.


Distribution Eradication Nutria Habitat preference Myocastor coypus 



This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Environment and the National Institute of Environmental Research (Korea), and the results of this study form part of the "Survey and valuation of Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Korea, 2013". We are very grateful to anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments used to improve the quality of the manuscript.


  1. Abbas A (1991) Feeding strategy of coypus (Myocastor coypus) in central western France. J Zool 224(3):385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliev F (1968) Contribution to the study of nutria migrations (Myocastor coypus). Säugetierkd Mitt 16:301–303Google Scholar
  3. Aliev F (1973) Cases of mass mortality of nutria in the wetlands of Azerbaidzhan in winter 1971–1972. Mammalia 36:539–540Google Scholar
  4. Atwood EL (1950) Life history studies of nutria, or coypu, in coastal Louisiana. J Wildl Manage 14(3):249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker S, Clarke C (1988) Cage trapping coypus (Myocastor coypus) on baited farts. J Appl Ecol 25(1):41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baroch J, Hafner M (2002) Biology and natural history of the nutria, with special reference to Nutria in Louisiana. Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Louisiana. Genesis Laboratories Inc, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertolino S, Genovesi P (2007) Semiaquatic mammals introduced into Italy: case studies in biological invasion. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters: Profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer, pp 175–191Google Scholar
  8. Bertolino S, Viterbi R (2010) Long-term cost-effectiveness of coypu (Myocastor coypus) control in Piedmont (Italy). Biol Invasions 12(8):2549–2558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 22(2):333–339Google Scholar
  10. Buckley YM (2008) The role of research for integrated management of invasive species, invaded landscapes and communities. J Appl Ecol 45(2):397–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter J, Foote AL, Johnson-Randall A (1999) Modeling the effects of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on wetland loss. Wetlands 19(1):209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carter J, Leonard BP (2002) A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildl Soc B 30(1):162–175Google Scholar
  13. Chabreck RH, Palmisano A (1973) The effects of Hurricane Camille on the marshes of the Mississippi River delta. Ecology 54:1118–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung U, Choi J, Yun JI (2004) Urbanization effect on the observed change in mean monthly temperatures between 1951–1980 and 1971–2000 in Korea. Clim Change 66(1–2):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35(4):445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corriale MJ, Arias SM, Bó RF, Porini G (2006) Habitat-use patterns of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in an urban wetland of its original distribution. Acta Theriol 51(3):295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon KR, Willner GR, Chapman JA, Lane WC, Pursley D (1979) Effects of trapping and weather on body weights of feral nutria in Maryland. J Appl Ecol 16(1):69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Do Y, Kim JY, Im R-Y, Kim S-B, Choi J-Y, Joo G-J (2012) Spatial distribution and social characteristics for wetlands in Gyeongsangnam-do province. Korean J Limnol 45(2):252–260Google Scholar
  19. Doncaster CP, Micol T (1989) Annual cycle of a coypu (Myocastor coyus) population: male and female strategies. J Zool 217(2):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doncaster CP, Micol T (1990) Response by coypus to catastrophic events of cold and flooding. Ecography 13(2):98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ehrlich S (1962) Two experiments in inducing nutria aggregation in unfenced artificial ponds. Hydrobiologia 19:316–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ensminger AB, Nichols LG (1957) Hurricane damage to Rockefeller refuge. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commission, pp 52–56Google Scholar
  23. Gosling LM (1981a) Climatic determinants of spring littering by feral coypus, Myocastor Coypus. J Zool 195(3):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gosling LM (1981b) The effect of cold weather on success in trapping feral coypus (Myocastor coypus). J Appl Ecol 18:467–470Google Scholar
  25. Gosling LM (1989) Extinction to order. New Sci 121(1654):44–49Google Scholar
  26. Gosling L, Guyon G, Wright KMH (1980) Diurnal activity of feral coypus (Myocastor coypus) during the cold winter of 1978–9. J Zool 192(2):143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guichón M, Benitez V, Abba A, Borgnia M, Cassini M (2003) Foraging behaviour of coypus Myocastor coypus: why do coypus consume aquatic plants? Acta Oecol 24(5):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kil J, Kim Y, Lee D, Lee C, Hwang S, Kim D, Kim H, Kim J, Kim M (2010) Monitoring of invasive alien species designated by the wildlife protection act (IV). National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  29. Kil J, Kim J, Kim Y, Kim H, Lee D, Kim D, Hwang S, Lee J, Shin H (2012) Invasive Alien Species. National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim P (1980) The coypu (Myocastor coypus) in the Netherlands: reproduction, home range and manner of seeking food. Lutra 23:55–64Google Scholar
  31. Laurie E (1946) The coypu (Myocastor coypus) in Great Britain. J Anim Ecol 15(1):22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LeBlanc DJ (1983) Nutria prevention and control of wildlife damage. Great Plains Agricultural Council, Wildlife Resources Committee and Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln (Lincoln)Google Scholar
  33. Lee S (2010) Investigation of habitat use of Nutria (Myocastor coypu) for efficient eradication. Nakdong River Basin Environmental Office, ChangwonGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee D-H, Kil J, Yang G (2012) Ecological characteristics for the sustainable management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee C-B, Chun J-H, Song H-K, Cho H-J (2013) Altitudinal patterns of plant species richness on the Baekdudaegan Mountains, South Korea: mid-domain effect, area, climate, and Rapoport’s rule. Ecol Res 28(1):67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linscombe G, Kinler N, Wright V (1981) Nutria population density and vegetative changes in brackish marsh in coastal Louisiana. In: Chapman JA, Pursley D (eds) Worldwide Furbearer Conference proceedings, Frostburg, pp 129–141Google Scholar
  37. Meyer A (2006) The impacts of nutria on vegetation and erosion in Oregon. University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  38. Nolfo-Clements LE (2009) Nutria survivorship, movement patterns, and home ranges. Southeast Nat 8(3):399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Opdam P (1991) Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landsc Ecol 5(2):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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(2):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reggiani G, Boitani L, Stefano R (1995) Population dynamics and regulation in the coypu Myocastor coypus in central Italy. Ecography 18(2):138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Segal A (1978) Thermoregulation in coypu (Myocastor coypus) in summer. Zool zh 57:1878–1883Google Scholar
  43. Sierra de Soriano B (1969) La habitación de Myocastor coypus bonariensis Geoffroy “nutria”. prim Congreso Sudamericano de Zoología :145–152Google Scholar
  44. Stephens DW (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor K, Grace J, Marx B (1997) The effects of herbivory on neighbor interactions along a coastal marsh gradient. Am J Bot 84(5):709–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Warkentin M (1968) Observations on the behavior and ecology of the nutria in Louisiana. Tulane Stud Zool Bot 15(1):10–17Google Scholar
  47. Willner GR, Chapman JA, Pursley D (1979) Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits, and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes. Wildl monogr 65:3–43Google Scholar
  48. Wilson E, Newson R, Aliev F (1966) Enemies and competitors of the nutria in USSR. J Mammal 47(2):353–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sungwon Hong
    • 1
  • Yuno Do
    • 1
  • Ji Yoon Kim
    • 1
  • Dong-Kyun Kim
    • 2
  • Gea-Jae Joo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesPusan National UniversityBusanRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Physical & Environmental SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations