Wetlands

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 209–219 | Cite as

Modeling the effects of nutria(Myocastor coypus) on wetland loss

  • Jacoby Carter
  • A. Lee Foote
  • A. Johnson-Randall
Article

Abstract

We created a model to study the process in which nutria(Myocastor coypus) feeding activities lead to erosion and loss of marsh area. This model ties together data on nutria population dynamics and feeding behavior from the literature with data from field studies on the phenology ofScirpus americanus andSpartina patens conducted in the Barataria Basin, Louisiana, USA in 1992. The complete model consists of three linked models: a model of nutria population dynamics (nutria model), a model of the annual marsh biomass cycle ofScirpus americanus andSpartina patens (biomass model), and a plant-biomass densitydependent marsh area model (area model). When all three models are linked together, they form the nutria-biomass-area model.” Analysis of the models indicated the following. (1) The high population densities and low survivorship rates as reported in the literature are incompatible. (2) The nutria model is sensitive to adult and juvenile survivorship and, to a lesser extent, young born per female. It is not particularly sensitive to gestation periods, impregnation rates, or time to maturity. (3) The marsh area model is not sensitive to the marsh loss equation nor to the density at which loss of marsh area begins but is sensitive to the amount of biomass destroyed per nutria. (4) Nutria numbers do not significantly decrease in the nutria-biomass-area model until the total marsh area approached zero because marsh loss occurs only during winter when marsh biomass is at its annual low.

Key Words

nutria Myocastor coypus Scirpus americanus Spartina patens eat-out brackish marsh marsh loss model population dynamics coastal Louisiana 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Atwood, E. L. 1950. Life history studies of nutria, or coypu, in coastal Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 14:249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carter, J., A. L. Foote, and L. A. Johnson. 1998. Nutria model. U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/nutria/readme.htm.Google Scholar
  3. Coreil, P.D. 1976. Habitat preferences, movements, and activities of adult female nutria in a southwestern Louisiana intermediate marsh area. M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. USA.Google Scholar
  4. Ehrlich, S. 1962. Two experiments in inducing nutria aggregation in unfenced artificial ponds. Hydrobiologia 19:316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, J. 1970. About nutria and their control. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Denver, CO, USA. Resource Publication 86.Google Scholar
  6. Foote, A. L. and L. A. Johnson. 1993. Plant stand development in Louisiana coastal wetlands: nutria grazing effects on plant biomass. p. 265–269. In M.C. Landin (ed.) Wetlands: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, New Orleans, LA. South Central Capter, Society of Wetland Scientists, Utica, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Gosling, L. M., S. J. Baker, and J. R. Skinner. 1983. A simulation approach to investigating the response of a coypu population to climatic variation. EPPO Bulletin 13:183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gosling, L. M. and S. J. baker. 1989. Demographic consequences of differences in the ranging behaviour of male and female coypus. p. 155–224. In R.J. Putman (ed.) Mammals as Pests. Chapman and Hall. New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, V. T. and F. Webert. 1962. Nutria feeding activity and its’ effect on marsh vegetation in southwestem Louisiana. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA, Special Scientific Report Wildlife 64.Google Scholar
  10. High Performance Systems Inc. 1994. STELLA II, High Performance Systems Inc. Hanover, NH, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, L. A. and A. L. Foote. 1997, Vertebrate herbivory in managed coastal wetlands: a manipulative experiment. Aquatic Botany 59:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kinler, N. W., G. Linscombe, and P. R. Ramsey. 1987. Nutria. p. 327–343. In M. Novak, J. Baker, M. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds.) Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. The Ontario Trappers Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Linscombe. G., N. Kinler, and V. Wright. 1981. Nutria population density and vegetative changes in brackish marsh in coastal Louisiana. p. 129–141. In J. A. Chapman and D. Pursley (eds.) Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Frostburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Linscombe, G. and N. Kinier. 1997. A Survey of Vegetative Damage Caused by Nutria Herbivory in the Barataria and Terrebonne Basins. Barataria-Terrebone National Estuary Program, Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, LA, USA,Google Scholar
  15. Newson, R. M. 1969. Population dynamics of the coypu,Myocastor, coypus (Molina), in eastern England. p. 203–204. In K. Petrusewicz and L. Ruszkowski (eds.) Energy Flow through Small Mammal Populations. IBP Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Nowak, R. M. (ed.) 1991. Walker’s mammals of the World, 5th Edition, Volume 2. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Reggiani, G., L. Boitain and R. De Stefano. 1995. Population dynamics and regulation in the coypuMyocastor coypus in central Italy. Ecography 18:138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Starfield, A. M. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Willner, Gale R. 1982. Nutria. p. 1059–1076. In J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhammer (eds.) Wild Mammals of North America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacoby Carter
    • 1
  • A. Lee Foote
    • 1
  • A. Johnson-Randall
    • 1
  1. 1.USGS National Wetlands Research CenterLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations