Hubbry Logo
MyocastorMyocastorMain
Open search
Myocastor
Community hub
Myocastor
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Myocastor
Myocastor
Myocastor
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Myocastor
Temporal range: Late Miocene - Recent
Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Rodentia
Family: Echimyidae
Subfamily: Echimyinae
Tribe: Myocastorini
Genus: Myocastor
Kerr, 1792
Species

Myocastor is a genus of rodent that contains the living nutria (or coypu), as well as several fossil species.

Taxonomy

[edit]

Due to similar cranial morphology, the nutria was once considered a close relative of the Caribbean hutias and placed together with them in the family Capromyidae.[1] Later, it was more accepted to place it in its own family, the Myocastoridae.[2] Recent molecular studies place them in the family Echimyidae, in the tribe Myocastorini.[3][4][5]

Fossil record

[edit]

Kerber et al. (2013) recognize the following species as valid:[6]

Other species described but no longer considered valid include Myocastor minor, Myocastor perditus, and Myocastor priscus.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Myocastor

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Myocastor is a monotypic of semi-aquatic in the family , containing the single Myocastor coypus, commonly known as the or coypu. Native to wetlands and marshes across southern , from and southern to , M. coypus is a large characterized by its robust, rat-like body, webbed hind feet, and orange-tinted incisors adapted for gnawing vegetation. Adults typically measure 40–60 cm in head-body length, with a of 30–45 cm, and weigh 5–10 kg, though males are generally larger than females. Their consists of a dense, soft underfur prized for the fur trade and coarser guard hairs, with coloration ranging from dark gray to reddish-brown. These are highly adapted to aquatic environments, spending much of their time swimming and foraging in freshwater or brackish habitats such as rivers, lakes, and swamps, where they construct burrows in banks or nests in dense vegetation. Introduced to , , , and in the early for , Myocastor coypus has established populations that are often considered invasive, causing significant ecological damage through of aquatic plants, burrowing that undermines levees and embankments, and with . In regions like the Gulf Coast and parts of , populations have been managed through and to mitigate impacts on wetlands and . Despite these challenges, the species remains globally secure (G5 status), though local declines occur due to habitat loss and predation. Behaviorally, nutria are primarily nocturnal and gregarious, living in groups of 2–13 individuals with home ranges varying by sex (females ~2.5 ha, males ~5.7 ha). They are strict herbivores, consuming stems, roots, and leaves of emergent plants, which can lead to vegetation loss in invaded areas. Reproduction is prolific, with females capable of breeding year-round, lasting 127–139 days, and litters averaging 3–6 young (up to 13), reaching at around 6 months. In their native range, they play a role in ecosystems as grazers and prey for predators like alligators and , but introduced populations often disrupt .

Taxonomy

Etymology

The genus name Myocastor is derived from the words mûs (μῦς), meaning "" or "," and kástōr (κάστωρ), meaning "," alluding to the animal's status as a large with semi-aquatic habits reminiscent of a beaver. This combination reflects its classification combined with behaviors such as burrowing and inhabiting environments, though it does not construct dams like true beavers. The species epithet coypus originates from "coypu," an indigenous name in the Mapudungun language spoken by the people of southern and adjacent , adapted into Spanish as coipú. This term, meaning something akin to "water-sweeper" in reference to the animal's aquatic lifestyle, was Latinized for scientific use. The binomial Myocastor coypus was formally established in 1792 by Scottish naturalist Robert Kerr in his translation and revision of Carl Linnaeus's , drawing on an earlier description provided by Italian-Chilean naturalist Juan Ignacio Molina in 1782 under the name Mus coypus. Kerr's assignment of the genus name formalized its taxonomic identity based on Molina's observations of the species in its native South American habitats.

Classification

Myocastor is classified within the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, order Rodentia, suborder , infraorder Hystricognathi, family , subfamily Echimyinae, tribe Myocastorini, and genus Myocastor. The type species of the genus is Myocastor coypus (originally described as Mus coypus by Molina in 1782). Historically, Myocastor was placed in the family Capromyidae (hutias) or treated as a separate family, Myocastoridae, reflecting uncertainties in hystricognath relationships based on morphological traits. Molecular phylogenetic studies, however, have reclassified it within , supported by analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear genes showing close affinities with spiny rats. For instance, Leite and Patton (2002) demonstrated that including Myocastor in resolves issues with Capromys, while Galewski et al. (2005) confirmed this placement using the gene, emphasizing ecomorphological convergence. More recent mitogenomic data by Fabre et al. (2017) further solidify Myocastor as part of , with robust support from complete mitochondrial genomes across genera. The genus Myocastor is currently monotypic, comprising only the extant species M. coypus, though extinct species are known from the record. Phylogenetically, Myocastor is nested within the diverse South American hystricognath rodents of , sharing a with other members of tribe , such as spiny rats (e.g., Proechimys), based on shared molecular synapomorphies and biogeographic patterns. This positioning highlights its evolutionary ties to Neotropical spiny rat lineages, diverging during the radiation of echimyids.

Fossil record

The fossil record of Myocastor extends from the to the Recent, with most known specimens recovered from South American deposits, particularly in and . The earliest evidence of the genus comes from the Ituzaingó Formation (Mesopotamian stage) in , , where fragmentary dental and mandibular remains indicate the presence of primitive Myocastor forms adapted to environments. Fossils from and Pleistocene sites further document the genus's diversification, including localities in the Las Cañas Formation (northwestern ) and various and fluvial deposits in southern Brazil, such as those in . These sites reveal a range of dental morphologies suggesting increasing specialization for herbivory and semi-aquatic lifestyles during the . Kerber et al. (2014) reviewed the taxonomy of Myocastor fossils from , assigning Brazilian specimens to M. coypus and synonymizing proposed extinct taxa such as Myocastor minor, Myocastor perditus, and Myocastor priscus with the extant due to insufficient distinguishing features. Overall, the paleontological evidence points to Myocastor's origin in the ecosystems of southern during the , with key adaptations like and robust incisors predating those of the modern Myocastor coypus.

Description

Physical characteristics

Myocastor coypus, commonly known as the , exhibits a robust, stocky build characteristic of large rodents in the family . Adults typically weigh between 5 and 10 kg, with head-body lengths ranging from 40 to 60 cm and tails measuring 30 to 45 cm. The head is large and rounded, featuring small eyes and ears positioned high on the , a distinctive white muzzle, and prominent white up to 8 to 13 cm long that aid in sensory perception. The fur of M. coypus consists of a dense, soft undercoat that is grayish in color, overlaid with longer, coarser guard hairs that are typically dark brown, though variations from yellowish brown to black occur depending on and ancestry. This dual-layered pelage provides insulation and suited to its environment. The tail is long, rounded, scaly, and sparsely haired, resembling that of a large . Dentally, M. coypus possesses a of I 1/1, C 0/0, P 1/1, M 3/3 = 20, with the prominent incisors featuring orange enamel on their front surfaces, which facilitates gnawing through and other materials. Skeletally, the limbs are robust and short, with the hind limbs noticeably longer and more developed than the forelimbs, contributing to a hunched posture on land. The hind feet are partially webbed between the toes, supporting semi-aquatic locomotion.

Adaptations

The nutria (Myocastor coypus) exhibits several anatomical adaptations that facilitate their semi-aquatic lifestyle in environments. Their hind feet are partially webbed, connecting the first four toes, which enhances propulsion and maneuverability during . The long, cylindrical , covered in sparse hairs, functions as a to aid in steering while navigating through water. Additionally, the nostrils are equipped with valvular structures that seal shut during submersion, preventing water intake, while the ears are positioned high on the head. These features collectively enable efficient diving and foraging in aquatic habitats. In terms of sensory adaptations, coypus have relatively poor eyesight, which is supplemented by highly sensitive vibrissae () richly innervated with sensory neurons for detecting environmental cues in low-visibility conditions such as murky . Their hearing is acute, aiding in predator detection and social communication above and below . Coypus can hold their breath for up to five minutes or more during dives, allowing extended periods of submergence for feeding or escape. For thermoregulation, the pelage of Myocastor coypus consists of a dense, soft underfur layer overlaid with longer, coarser guard hairs that provide and insulation against cold water temperatures. This fur structure minimizes heat loss during prolonged exposure to aquatic environments. Feeding adaptations include ever-growing incisors with orange-pigmented enamel for durability, suited to continuously abrading tough , and a valvular where the lips seal behind the incisors, permitting gnawing without ingestion of water. These traits support efficient processing of fibrous plant material in semi-aquatic settings.

Distribution and habitat

Native range

The native range of Myocastor coypus spans subtropical and temperate regions of , from central and southern southward to at the continent's southern tip. This distribution encompasses key countries including , , , , , and southern , where the species occupies diverse ecosystems across a broad latitudinal gradient south of approximately 23° S. In its native habitats, M. coypus prefers freshwater wetlands such as marshes, swamps, and riverbanks, particularly those featuring dense stands of emergent aquatic vegetation like cattails (Typha spp.) and reeds. These semi-aquatic environments provide ample cover and food resources, with the species generally avoiding fast-flowing waters in favor of sluggish streams, lake edges, and permanent water bodies. While primarily a lowland inhabitant, populations extend into the Andean foothills up to elevations of 1,190 meters. Population densities in optimal native wetlands have historically been substantial, varying from 0.5 to 21.4 individuals per depending on quality and resource availability. However, these densities have declined in many areas due to ongoing loss from , drainage, and , leading to rapid population decreases in regions such as Argentine rivers and lakes.

Introduced range

The genus Myocastor, commonly known as or coypu, has been introduced to numerous regions outside its native South American range primarily through initiatives starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Initial introductions occurred in and around 1899–1930, with animals escaping or being deliberately released from farms after the collapse of the fur market in the 1940s; subsequent deliberate releases by agencies for control and trapping further facilitated spread. Similar patterns of escape and release from fur farms led to establishments in and during the mid-20th century. Established populations now occur in over 20 countries across , , , and . In , viable populations persist in approximately 13 U.S. states, concentrated along the Gulf Coast (e.g., and ) and the Southeast and Atlantic coasts. European populations are widespread in at least 20 countries, including , , , the Netherlands, and , though complete eradications have occurred in the (by 1989) and . In , established populations occur in at least 16 countries, including , , , and several in Western Asia such as , , , , and , while in , introductions date to the 1950s in (e.g., ), though historical introductions occurred at other East African sites without confirmed establishment. Ongoing management efforts continue in areas like , , where populations remain localized but persistent. In introduced regions, Myocastor species primarily inhabit wetlands such as marshes, rivers, lakes, and slow-flowing streams, mirroring native preferences, but demonstrate adaptability to and coastal zones with mild climates. Their establishment success stems from a high reproductive rate—females produce 2–3 litters annually with 5–6 young per litter—and the general lack of predators and competitors in new environments, enabling rapid population growth where winters are not excessively harsh.

Behavior and ecology

Social structure

Myocastor coypus, commonly known as the coypu or , exhibits a centered on family-based groups that promote cooperative living in aquatic habitats. These groups typically consist of 2 to 13 individuals, including one dominant , several related and subadult females, their , and subordinate or subadult s. The dominant male, often the largest individual, leads the group and maintains through behavioral dominance, while females exhibit overall social dominance except during periods. Group fidelity is high, with over 85% of mature females and 78% of mature males remaining in their natal groups, fostering stable, kin-based units that enhance survival in variable environments. Activity patterns in M. coypus are predominantly crepuscular and nocturnal, with peak activity occurring from late afternoon through early morning (approximately 18:00 to 09:00), allowing groups to forage and interact under cover of darkness to minimize predation risk. In areas with low predation pressure or cooler temperatures below 28°C, individuals may shift to diurnal behaviors such as resting or sunning during the day, while huddling occurs in cold weather to conserve energy. Seasonal influences affect these patterns, with greater nocturnal activity in summer due to heat and human disturbance, and delayed dawn peaks in winter. Vigilance behaviors, comprising up to 13% of active time in disturbed habitats, are more frequent during daylight or in urban settings, reflecting adaptive responses to environmental threats. Communication among group members relies on a combination of vocalizations, olfactory signals, and physical actions to coordinate activities and maintain bonds. Vocal signals include grunts, squeaks, and alarm calls that alert the group to danger, often eliciting collective flight responses. Scent marking via anal glands is prominent, particularly by dominant males who deposit odors on burrows and group members to reinforce identity and hierarchy. Amicable interactions such as allogrooming and in communal settings strengthen social ties, while slapping on serves as a warning signal during encounters with intruders. Territoriality is evident in the defense of systems and core feeding areas, with groups maintaining spatial segregation and minimal overlap with neighbors despite occasional inter-group movements. Home ranges vary by sex, with females averaging approximately 2.5 ha and males 5.7 ha in studied populations, such as in . Dominant males actively patrol larger territories, primarily in , excluding rivals through aggressive displays like chasing, which are rare but targeted at maturing young males or outsiders. This territorial , supported by marking, ensures resource access for the group while allowing some tolerance among females and juveniles.

Diet and foraging

Myocastor coypus, commonly known as the coypu or nutria, is strictly herbivorous, relying almost exclusively on plant matter for sustenance. Its diet is dominated by aquatic vegetation, with studies indicating that aquatic macrophytes constitute approximately 82% of consumption year-round, including emergent species like common reed (Phragmites australis) and submersed or floating-leaved plants such as waterweed (Elodea spp.) and water starwort (Callitriche stagnalis). The Poaceae family, particularly grasses like Paspalum distichum, is also prevalent, comprising a significant portion of fecal samples in wetland habitats. In proximity to agricultural areas, coypus occasionally forage on crops such as rice or sugarcane, though this represents a minor component compared to native wetland plants. Foraging behavior in M. coypus is predominantly nocturnal and semi-aquatic, with individuals spending the majority of their active periods—often dominant over other activities like vigilance—searching for and consuming vegetation. They swim to reach submerged or floating and dig burrows or use their strong incisors to excavate roots and stems from the substrate, typically remaining within 5 meters of water bodies during feeding. Daily food intake is substantial, averaging 25% of an individual's body weight, which for adults weighing 5–10 kg equates to 1.25–2.5 kg of material consumed per day to meet energetic demands. To enhance nutrient absorption from fibrous vegetation, coypus practice coprophagy, re-ingesting soft fecal pellets produced overnight, which allows for microbial and improved of . Seasonal variations influence dietary preferences, with submersed and floating-leaved aquatic plants peaking at around 66% of the diet in summer, while emergent macrophytes decline to about 16%; in winter, terrestrial elements like tree bark increase to nearly 29% as aquatic availability diminishes. During dry periods, coypus shift toward terrestrial grasses and herbs when vegetation recedes, maintaining intake through opportunistic on available emergent or upland . As ecosystem engineers, M. coypus play a role in shaping landscapes by selectively and clearing dense , such as reeds, which creates open patches and heterogeneous habitats that can enhance . Their construction of feeding platforms from plant debris provides resting and nesting sites for other species, including waterfowl, thereby promoting overall wetland diversity despite potential risks in sensitive areas.

Reproduction

Myocastor coypus exhibits aseasonal breeding in warm climates, producing 2–3 litters per year, with peaks often occurring in spring and summer depending on availability and environmental conditions. is induced by copulation, and females experience post-partum estrus within 1–2 days, enabling rapid rebreeding. This reproductive strategy supports high in favorable habitats. Litter size averages 5–6 young, ranging from 1 to 13, with smaller litters in winter and larger ones in mild conditions with abundant resources; lasts 127–139 days. Young are precocial, born fully furred with eyes open and weighing about 225 g; they can swim and consume vegetation shortly after birth but remain dependent on maternal milk. occurs at 5–8 weeks, is reached at 4–8 months, and lifespan averages 3–6 years in the wild but up to 10 years in captivity. Parental care is primarily provided by females, who nurse in burrows or nests for several weeks; males defend territories but offer minimal direct involvement in rearing.

Human interaction

Fur trade and farming

The fur of Myocastor coypus, known as , has been commercially valued since the early 19th century in its native , where pelts were harvested for export to for use in fashion items such as hats and collars. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, overharvesting in the wild prompted the establishment of fur farms in to sustain supply, with live animals also exported to and for programs. The trade expanded globally in , with farms established in the United States (including and ) and (such as and ), driven by demand for the animal's soft underfur, which was prized for its warmth and texture. Farming practices focused on captive breeding to produce high-quality pelts, emphasizing selective breeding for denser underfur while managing the rodents' prolific reproduction—females can produce multiple litters annually in controlled environments. In the United States, Louisiana emerged as a major center post-World War II, with wild populations supplementing farm production through regulated trapping; annual pelt harvests peaked at over 1.8 million in 1976, generating $15.7 million in value, primarily from exports to Europe. In the United States, annual pelt harvests exceeded 1 million by the early 1960s, with Louisiana leading production. Economically, nutria pelts were marketed under names like "nutria" or dyed as "river mink" for use in coats, linings, and trims, providing a more affordable alternative to other furs. However, the industry declined sharply by the due to market saturation, the rise of synthetic fabrics, shifting trends, and economic factors such as recessions, leading to farm closures and releases of captive animals that contributed to populations. Today, nutria fur occupies a , promoted in some contexts as an eco-friendly option by utilizing pelts from invasive efforts.

Invasive impacts

Introduced populations of Myocastor coypus, commonly known as nutria, exert significant ecological damage through burrowing and herbivory, leading to erosion of riverbanks, levees, and wetlands. Their extensive burrowing undermines flood-control structures, reservoir dams, and roadbeds, particularly in Louisiana and Texas, where it breaches flooded fields used for rice and crawfish production. Additionally, nutria feeding on roots, rhizomes, and tubers of native aquatic vegetation, such as cattails, cordgrass, and bulrush, destroys wetland habitats and kills seedling bald cypress trees, preventing forest regeneration in coastal areas. In Louisiana's fresh marshes, nutria herbivory has resulted in nearly 100% loss of vegetation like Eleocharis spp. and Hydrocotyle spp. in affected areas, converting stable marshes to open water and accelerating coastal land loss along the Gulf Coast and Chesapeake Bay. Nutria also cause substantial agricultural harm by destroying crops, with and suffering the most severe impacts. In the United States, annual damage to these crops has ranged from several thousand dollars to over $1 million, with broader estimates of nutria-related damages averaging $1.07 million per year across affected regions. Nutria graze on a variety of field crops including corn, milo, sugar beets, , , , oats, , melons, and , leading to significant yield reductions, especially for small-scale farmers in coastal states. Furthermore, nutria serve as vectors for diseases such as and septicemia, which can transmit to humans, , pets, and through contaminated water and feces. In terms of , compete aggressively with native herbivores like for shared aquatic vegetation and , contributing to the decline of muskrat populations in the . Their feeding and burrowing activities alter hydrology by increasing erosion and flooding vulnerability, disrupting ecosystems and reducing for other . In invaded areas, this and habitat modification have led to the near-elimination of muskrats in some locales, as nutria's larger size and adaptability outcompete the smaller native rodent. These impacts are evident globally, with severe effects in the United States' Gulf Coast, where have caused widespread marsh degradation and economic losses exceeding millions annually. In Europe, including the , act as ecosystem engineers through burrowing and feeding, damaging aquatic habitats and native vegetation in wetlands. In , particularly along Japanese rivers in western regions like Nara and prefectures, destroy rice paddies, broccoli fields, and riverine ecosystems, posing threats to endangered and local .

Management and control

Management of Myocastor coypus populations focuses on integrated strategies to control invasive spread in non-native regions while ensuring sustainable conservation in their South American native range. In areas where cause ecological damage, such as destruction and agricultural losses, primary control methods include and incentivized through bounty programs. For instance, Louisiana's Coastwide Nutria Control Program, implemented since 2002, offers payments for harvested tails to reduce populations along coastal marshes, achieving an average annual harvest of over 321,000 nutria across its first eight years, with recent seasons exceeding 400,000 individuals. As of 2024, Louisiana's program continues to incentivize harvests exceeding 400,000 nutria annually. is another common technique, particularly in accessible habitats, while chemical controls like bait are used selectively due to risks to non-target such as birds and native . restoration efforts, including replanting native vegetation to deter nutria and enhance resilience, complement these direct removal tactics. Eradication has proven feasible in localized areas through sustained, multi-year campaigns employing . In the , a comprehensive program in the successfully eliminated from the region by combining , shooting, and habitat monitoring. Similarly, the Chesapeake Bay Nutria Eradication Project in , , spanning the , removed all known populations by 2022 after two decades of effort, approximately 14,000 individuals and restoring more than 250,000 acres of marshland. In parts of , local administrations have achieved population reductions in protected wetlands through authorized live- and shooting, though nationwide eradication remains challenging due to the species' widespread distribution. Ongoing programs in emphasize volunteer-led and zoning for priority areas, while in , regulatory restrictions under the Invasive Alien Species Act support and public reporting to curb agricultural damage in regions like . In native South American habitats, conservation measures address threats from habitat loss due to and unregulated hunting for pelts and meat, which have led to local declines in countries like . Although M. coypus holds a Least Concern status on the (assessed 2008), reflecting its overall stable population, regional protections include export regulations in to promote sustainable harvesting. Emerging approaches to invasive control incorporate biological methods, such as laparoscopic sterilization via or , as tested in studies in . Public education campaigns also play a key role, raising awareness about reporting sightings and the ecological risks of invasives to support long-term prevention and community involvement in management. New populations detected in in 2023 are under active surveillance and control.

References

  1. https://www.mammaldiversity.org/
  2. https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Myocastor_coypus/
  3. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102549/Myocastor_coypus
  4. https://www.invasive.org/browse/subinfo.cfm?sub=4334
  5. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/10.1079/cabicompendium.73537
  6. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ecological-Risk-Screening-Summary-Nutria.pdf
  7. https://www.laseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/NIS-Nutria-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coypu
  9. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/21076354
  10. https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180402
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790302002798
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790304003689
  13. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/3/613/2739699
  14. https://www.insugeo.org.ar/publicaciones/docs/misc-12-11.pdf
  15. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2019.1657860
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618213009038
  17. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/invasive/myocastor-coypus
  18. https://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/nutria-coypu
  19. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/nsrl/mammals-of-texas-online-edition/Accounts_Introduced_Rodentia/Myocastor_coypus.php
  20. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fsc-nutria-invasive-rodent.pdf
  21. https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/page/nutria
  22. https://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sites/seagrant.oregonstate.edu/files/nutria-species-guide.pdf
  23. https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/MD-Furbearer-guide.pdf
  24. http://placentation.ucsd.edu/nutria.html
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9579949/
  26. https://www.science.smith.edu/departments/biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-398-01-0001.pdf
  27. https://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=99
  28. https://www.reabic.net/journals/bir/2022/2/BIR_2022_Schertler_Essl.pdf
  29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42991-021-00207-1
  30. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/nutria.asp
  31. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/1002707
  32. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=icwdmother
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341909296_Social_Behavior_and_Group_Formation_in_the_Coypu_Myocastor_coypus_in_the_Argentinean_Pampas
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357890355_Activity_patterns_and_behavior_of_Myocastor_coypus_in_a_gated_community_in_the_metropolitan_area_of_Buenos_Aires_Argentina
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237539785_Food_habits_of_the_coypu_Myocastor_coypus_and_its_impact_on_aquatic_vegetation_in_a_freshwater_habitat_of_NW_Italy
  36. https://www.scielo.br/j/aabc/a/SWQnj4TdmJZNQNk5FTwH9rx/?format=pdf&lang=en
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3803233
  38. https://academic.oup.com/jue/article/8/1/juab037/6509511
  39. https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Furbearers/Fact_Sheets/Nutria-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9646504/
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383057052_Coypu_Myocastor_coypus_as_ecosystem_engineer_composition_size_and_density_of_platforms_in_a_Mediterranean_coastal_wetland
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1379669
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/myocastor-coypus
  44. https://pubs.usgs.gov/rp/086/report.pdf
  45. https://www.laseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/NIS-Species-Info-Nutria.pdf
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/fashion/18nutria.html
  47. https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Furbearers/Coastwide_Nutria_Control_Program_Annual_Reports/1011CNCPfinalreport.pdf
  48. https://www.texasinvasives.org/animal_database/detail.php?symbol=7
  49. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=nwrchumanconflicts
  50. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/nutria
  51. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6010003
  52. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240917/p2a/00m/0li/015000c
  53. https://www.lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/LA-03b.pdf
  54. https://www.invasivespeciescentre.ca/invasive-species/meet-the-species/land-and-animal-invertebrates/nutria/
  55. https://icwdm.org/species/rodents/nutria/nutria-damage-prevention-and-control-methods/
  56. https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-09/decades-long-partnership-eradicates-destructive-nutria-rodents-maryland
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11250000701690350
  58. https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2023/4/MBI_2023_Bonnet_etal.pdf
  59. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/21/national/yamaguchi-nutrias-agricultural-damage/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10044515/
  61. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Invasives/Species/Nutria/Infestation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.