Published online December 21, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5141/jee.22.068
Journal of Ecology and Environment (2022) 46:33
Hong Geun Kim , Rae-Ha Jang
, Sunryoung Kim
, Jae-Hwa Tho
, Jin-Woo Jung
, Seokwan Cheong
and Young-Jun Yoon
*
Research center for Endangered Species, National Institute of Ecology, Yeongyang 36531, Republic of Korea
Correspondence to:Young-Jun Yoon
E-mail yjyoon@nie.re.kr
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The publisher of this article is The Ecological Society of Korea in collaboration with The Korean Society of Limnology
Background: The Korean scarlet dwarf, Nannophya koreana Bae (Odonata: Libellulidae), is anendangered dragonfly with an increasing risk of extinction owing to rapid climate changes and human activities. To prevent extinction, the N. koreana population and their habitat should be protected. Therefore, suitable habitat evaluation is important to build the N. koreana restoration project. The habitat suitability index model (HSI) has been widely used for habitat evaluation in diverse organisms.
Results: To build a suitable HSI model for N. koreana, 16 factors were examined by seven experienced researchers. A field survey for N. koreana observed sites and spatial analysis were conducted to improve the model. Five factors were finally selected by this procedure (crown density, open water surface, water depth, pioneer plant cover, and type of water source). Finally, the N. koreana HSI model was generated with the five adjusted factors based on interview, field survey, and spatial analysis. This model was validated by a current N. koreana habitat in 2021. With this model, 46 sites in Uljin-gun, Korea, were surveyed for N. koreana habitats; five sites were identified as core habitats and seven as potential core habitats.
Conclusions: This model will serve as a strong foundation for the N. koreana restoration project and as a reference for future studies on N. koreana and other endangered insect populations. Further analysis and long-term data will improve the efficacy of this model and restore endangered wildlife.
Keywords: endangered species, habitat suitability index, endemic species, Nannophya koreana, Libellulidae
The habitat suitability index (HSI) was developed to evaluate the habitat environment for designated organisms in the 1980s; this index could be used to develop expectation models for organisms (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). HSI can evaluate and predict the environmental factors that affect habitat status with quantified values to exclude any possible bias from different researchers or invalid assumptions (Gibson 2004). HSI has been applied to evaluate wildlife habitats and prevent wildfire (Brach and Kaczmarowski 2014) and landslides (Moayedi et al. 2019).
A total of 11 previous publications on the
This study developed an HSI model based on the current status of the
Five research sites were selected to analyze habitat characteristics.
The
Table 1 . Environmental variables for
Factor | Contents | Acquisition |
---|---|---|
Distribution | More than 23 habitats have been reported, but only five sites were recently confirmed. | Retrieved |
Habitat type | Mountainous wetlands and fallow paddies. | Retrieved |
Habitat area | 113.4–1,153.1 m2. The average area was 500 m2, which is relatively small. | Retrieved |
Home range | Recently emerged adults stay at the emerging site. Adults have a relatively small area of activity; thus, the density of adults is high in a small area. | Retrieved |
Air temperature | Relatively wide range between 16–27°C | Retrieved |
Vegetation | Open area without shade and tall trees. Early transitional vegetation structures include Vegetation types for the oligotrophic state, which is the early stage of eutrophication. | Measured |
Water temperature | Above 14.3°C during the hatching period. Optimal growth temperature is 30–35°C, which is higher than that for other dragonflies. | Measured |
Open water surface | Open wetland with direct sunlight for water touching ovipositing. | Measured |
Water depth | General water depth is 0–10 cm, and ca. 20 cm is also possible. The water depth has limited fluctuation throughout the year. | Measured |
Water quality | The water quality might not affect the survival of | Measured |
Risk factors | Wetland reduction because of drought. Predation by natural enemies during nymphal stages with deep water depth. Reduction of open water surface because of high crown density or tall vegetation. Conversion of wetland to dry land caused by ecological succession. Developing pressure because of private land. | Measured |
The 11 factors were categorized into two groups; one for field survey data and the other to retrieved from spatial information. The detailed datasets for the spatial information were retrieved from the following institutes: weather information (Korea Meteorological Administration and WorldClim), soil information (Korea Soil Information system), continuous digital topographic map (National Geographic Information Institute), forest type map (Forest Geographic Information System), and vegetation index (Environment Bigdata Platform). The Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographic Information System was used to analyze spatial information.
The habitat characteristics were investigated from the current
The major habitat factors were selected based on interview with seven experienced researchers who were provided with basic environmental information from the current
The air temperature was in the range of 16–27°C during egg hatching period. The egg hatching threshold temperature of
The
Table 2 . Analysis for
Habitat variables | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | Data source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wetland type | MW | FP | FP | FP | FP | FS |
Water depth (cm) | 3 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 25 | FS |
Open water surface (%) | 50 | 50 | 70 | 50 | 80 | FS |
Vegetation height (cm) | 15 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 30 | FS |
Forest type | UFL | UFL | UFL | UFL | UFL | FS |
Dominant vegetation | FD | PT | PT | EU | PJ | FS |
Pioneer crown density (%) | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | FS |
Water source | SR, P | SR, P | SR, P | SR, P | SR, P | FS |
Altitude (m) | 28 | 234 | 306 | 136 | 111 | FS |
Annual average temperature (°C) | 12.54 | 10.12 | 10.41 | 12.11 | 11.84 | KMA |
June average temperature (°C) | 21.88 | 21.21 | 21.34 | 22.72 | 21.92 | KMA |
July average temperature (°C) | 23.09 | 20.76 | 21.3 | 22.32 | 21.8 | KMA |
Annual precipitation (mm) | 1,405.07 | 1,698.75 | 1,505.96 | 1,643.23 | 2,058.98 | KMA |
Warmth index | 102.28 | 81.39 | 84.38 | 98.68 | 94.62 | KMA |
The driest month’s precipitation (m) | 23 | 26 | 25 | 29 | 31 | WC |
Normalized difference vegetation index | - | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.73 | KIGAM |
MW: mountainous wetland; FP: fallow paddy, FS: field survey; UFL: unstocked forest land; FD:
Based on the literature review and field survey, 16 habitat factors for
Table 3 . Selecting major variables for
Variables | Result of in-depth interview with experienced researchers | |
---|---|---|
Contents | Results | |
Crown density | Major factor for light reflection | Appropriate |
Open water surface | Major factor for water touching oviposition | Appropriate |
Water depth | Major factor for natural enemy | Appropriate |
Pioneer crown density | Major factor for ecological succession and wetland conversion | Appropriate |
Water source | Major factor for temperature | Appropriate |
Wetland type | Not suitable for wetland classification system | Inappropriate |
Vegetation height | Open water surface is more important vegetation height | Inappropriate |
Annual average temperature | Not important because of nationwide distribution | Inappropriate |
Monthly average temperature in June or July | Too big annual fluctuation and lack of studies | Lack of research |
Annual precipitation | Too big annual fluctuation and lack of studies | Lack of research |
Precipitation in the driest month (mm) | Draught might be important but need more studies | Lack of research |
The suitable indices for major habitat factors were generated by in-depth interview based on the literature review and field survey (Fig. 2).
Based on literature review and expert interview,
Table 4 . Categories for crown densities.
Class | Crown density |
---|---|
Low | Stands where trees occupy less than 50% of the canopy area |
Medium | Stands where trees occupy 51%–71% of the canopy area |
High | Stands where trees occupy more than 71% of the canopy area |
None | Non forest |
Data from Forest Geospatial Information System of Korea Forest Service.
During the
Based on the literature review, the water depth of the
Based on literature review, most of the
Among diverse water sources, surface runoff, including runoff from spring water, was selected as a suitable water source for the
The importance of each factor for the selected SI model was examined by experienced researchers (Table 5), and their relationship with the HSI model was established by weighting them (Equation 1).
Table 5 . Weighting on the major habitat variables based on the interview with experienced researchers.
No. | Habitat variables | Expert assessment score | Weight factor | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |||
1 | SI 1 (Crown density) | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2.85 |
2 | SI 2 (Open water surface) | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3.42 |
3 | SI 3 (Water depth) | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4.28 |
4 | SI 4 (Pioneer crown density) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2.85 |
5 | SI 5 (Water source) | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3.71 |
HSI = 0.17 (SI 1) + 0.2 (SI 2) + 0.25 (SI 3) + 0.17 (SI 4) + 0.21 (SI 5) [Equation 1]
HSI: habitat suitability index; SI 1: crown density; SI 2: open water surface; SI 3: water depth; SI 4: pioneer crown density; SI 5: type of water source.
The potential 46 habitats in Uljin-gun, Korea, were evaluated based on the developed HSI. Only one potential habitat (Bongpyeong-ri (3) wetland) was evaluated as HSI point 1. Two potential habitats (Mt. Chunjuk (3) and Hwaseong-ri (2) wetlands) were confirmed as HSI point 0.9. Seven potential habitats, including Sillim-ri and Ssangjeon-ri wetlands, had the lowest HSI point of 0.38, except for nine habitats where the wetland was disturbed by human activities (Table 6).
Table 6 . HSI analysis for potential sites of
Location | SI 1 | SI 2 | SI 3 | SI 4 | SI 5 | HSI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Eumnam-ri wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.63 |
2 | Mt. Cheonchuk (1) wetland | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.73 |
3 | Mt. Cheonchuk (2) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
4 | Mt. Cheonchuk (3) wetland | 0.17 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.9 |
5 | Mt. Cheonchuk (4) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
6 | Osan-ri (1) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.55 |
7 | Osan-ri (2) wetland | 0.068 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.698 |
8 | Osan wetland (Uljin) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
9 | Jinbok-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
10 | Goseong-ri (2) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
11 | Daeheung-ri wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
12 | Sillim-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
13 | Ssangjeon-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.63 |
14 | Ssangjeon-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.58 |
15 | Ssangjeon-ri (3) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
16 | Wangpi-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.66 |
17 | Wangpi-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
18 | Sanpo-ri (2) wetland-1 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.73 |
19 | Sanpo-ri (2) wetland-2 | 0.068 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.798 |
20 | Jinbok-ri (1) wetland | 0.068 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.648 |
21 | Sanpo-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
22 | Nagok-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
23 | Nagok-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
24 | Hujeong-ri wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.63 |
25 | Yongjang wetland (Uljin) | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
26 | Hwaseong-ri (2) wetland | 0.17 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.9 |
27 | Bongpyeong-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
28 | Bongpyeong-ri (2) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
29 | Bongpyeong-ri (3) wetland | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 1 |
30 | Samsan-ri wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
31 | Sadong-ri wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
32 | Ogok-ri (2) wetland | 0.17 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.8 |
33 | Deogin-ri (2) wetland-1 | 0.068 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.898 |
34 | Deogin-ri (2) wetland-2 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.73 |
35 | Seongu-ri wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
36 | Seongu-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
37 | Myeongdo-ri (1) wetland-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
38 | Myeongdo-ri (1) wetland-2 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.63 |
39 | Myeongdo-ri (1) wetland-3 | 0.068 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.798 |
40 | Myeongdo-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.83 |
41 | Goseong-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
42 | Sillim-ri (2) wetland-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
43 | Sillim-ri (2) wetland-2 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.73 |
44 | Myeongdo-ri (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
45 | Hwaseong-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
46 | Ogok-ri (1) wetland | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.38 |
HSI: habitat suitability index; SI 1: crown density; SI 2: open water surface; SI 3: water depth; SI 4: pioneer crown density; SI 5: type of water source.
With rigorous habitat analysis, four habitats among the five
Table 7 . HSI analysis for the six recent
No. | Location | SI 1 | SI 2 | SI 3 | SI 4 | SI 5 | HSI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Uljin, Myeongdo-ri (2) wetland | 0 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.83 |
2 | Daejeon | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 1 |
3 | Cheongju | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 1 |
4 | Jincheon | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 1 |
5 | Incheon | 0 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.83 |
6 | Gokseong | 0.17 | 0.2 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 1 |
HSI: habitat suitability index; SI 1: crown density; SI 2: open water surface; SI 3: water depth; SI 4: pioneer crown density; SI 5: type of water source.
In Uljin-gun, four
This study developed an HSI model for endangered insects through literature review, field survey, and interview with experienced researchers to evaluate the core habitats of
Among 46 potential habitats for
However, we determined seven potential habitats (Yongjang wetland, Bongpyeong-ri (2) wetland, Goseong-ri (2) wetland, Daeheung-ri wetland, Mt. Cheonchuk (4) wetland, and Ogok-ri (2) wetland) for
Based on this study, the potential and surrogate habitats for
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.5141/jee.22.068.
Table S1. Example of the second round of interview with experienced researchers.
jee-46-33-supple.pdfNot applicable.
Not applicable.
HGK did writing-original draft, review & editing, RHJ did investigation, data curation, writing-review. SK did investigation and data curation. JHT did methodology and writing review, JWJ did investigation and data curation. SC did conceptualization and writing-review & editing. YJY did conceptualization, investigation, and writing-review & editing.
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Ecology (NIE), funded by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the Republic of Korea (NIE-B-2022-34).
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Research 2022-12-21 46:32
Development of a habitat suitability index for the habitat restoration of Pedicularis hallaisanensis HurusawaRae-Ha Jang, Sunryoung Kim, Jin-Woo Jung, Jae-Hwa Tho, Seokwan Cheong, Young-Jun Yoon*
Research 2023-12-05 46:18
Habitat use and preferences of the least weasel (Mustela nivalis) in South KoreaAreum Kim, Donggul Woo, Je Min Lee, Jinhwi Kim and Anya Lim*
Research 2022-03-03 46:06
Prediction of potential spread areas of African swine fever virus through wild boars using Maxent modelSang Jin Lim1 , Hun Namgung2 , Nam Hyung Kim2 , Yeonsu Oh3* and Yung Chul Park2*