¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ / v.27, no.4, 2009³â, pp.334-340
½Ä¹°ÀÇ Á¾·ù¿Í ¿­¸ÅÀÇ Å©±â ¹× ¼º¼÷µµ°¡ Á¶·ùÀÇ ¸ÔÀ̼±Åÿ¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ
( Effect of Degree of Ripeness and Size of Fruit on the Feeding Preference in Some Breeding Birds )
±èÇö¿ì;Á¶»ï·¡;À¯¿µÇÑ; °øÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇдëÇÐ »ý¸í°úÇаú;°øÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇдëÇÐ »ý¸í°úÇаú;°øÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÚ¿¬°úÇдëÇÐ »ý¸í°úÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
Á¶·ù°¡ ½Ä¹° ¿­¸ÅÀÇ ¼º¼÷µµ¿Í Å©±â¿¡ µû¶ó ¾î¶»°Ô ¼±ÅÃÇÏ´ÂÁö¸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§ÇÏ¿© »çÀ° ÁßÀÎ 3Á¾ÀÇ »õ¿¡°Ô ¼º¼÷µµ¿Í Å©±â°¡ ´Ù¸¥ ½Ä¹° 3Á¾ÀÇ ¿­¸Å¸¦ ÁÖ¾î ±× ¸Ô´Â ¾çÀ» °è¼öÇϰí, ´Ùº¯·®Åë°è·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÇè¿¡ »ç¿ëÇÑ »õ´Â ±Ý°è(Chrysolophus pictus, ²æ°ú), ¾çºñµÑ±â(Columba rupestris, ºñµÑ±â°ú)¿Í ÀÚ¹Ù°øÀÛ (Pavo muticus, ²æ°ú)À̰í, ¿­¸Å´Â ¿Õº¢³ª¹«(Prunus yedoensis, Àå¹Ì°ú), ¶ãº¸¸®¼ö³ª¹« (Elaeagnus multiflora, º¸¸®¼ö³ª¹«°ú)¿Í ¾Æ±×¹è³ª¹«(Malus sieboldii, Àå¹Ì°ú)ÀÇ °¢°¢ 3Á¾·ùÀÌ´Ù. ±Ý°è´Â 3Á¾ ¿­¸Å¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ ¿­¸ÅÀÇ ¼º¼÷µµ¿Í Å©±â¿¡ µû¸¥ ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ ¼·½Ä ¼±È£µµ¸¦ º¸ÀÌÁø ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ¾çºñµÑ±â´Â ¿Õº¢³ª¹«¿Í ¶ãº¸¸®¼ö³ª¹«´Â ¿­¸ÅÀÇ Å©±â¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ ¼³ÀÍÀº ¿­¸Å¸¦ ¼±È£Çϱâ´Â Çϳª ¾Æ±×¹è³ª¹« ¿­¸Å´Â Å©±â³ª ¼º¼÷µµ¿¡ µû¸¥ Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù. °øÀÛÀº ¿Õº¢³ª¹«¿Í ¶ãº¸¸®¼ö³ª¹« ¿­¸ÅÀÇ °æ¿ì Å©±â¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ ÀÍÀº ¿­¸Å¸¦ ¼±È£Çϱâ´Â ÇÏÁö¸¸ ¾Æ±×¹è³ª¹« ¿­¸Å¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­´Â Å©±â³ª ¼º¼÷µµ¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ °ÅÀÇ ¼·½ÄÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. »õµé 3Á¾Àº Ãʱ⿡ ¼·½Ä ºóµµ°¡ ³ôÀº ¿­¸Å¸¦ Èı⿡µµ ¸¹ÀÌ ¼·½ÄÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÀÌ»óÀ¸·Î º¼ ¶§ Á¶·ù°¡ ¿­¸Å¸¦ ¼±ÅÃÇÔ¿¡ À־ ¿­¸ÅÀÇ Á¾·ù¿¡ µû¶ó ´Ù¸£´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¿­¸ÅÀÇ Å©±â¿¡ µû¸¥ ¼±È£µµ´Â Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Á¶·ù°¡ ¸ÔÀ̸¦ ¸Ô´Â ¾çÀº Ãʱ⠼±Åÿ¡ ÀÇÇØ °áÁ¤µÈ´Ù°í ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.
In other to know the feeding preference over the degree of ripeness and size of fruits in birds, we gave them to three bird species in breeding condition, counted and analyzed the number of fruits by correspondence ordination technique. Chrysolophus pictus did not show a distinct preference in respect to degree of maturity or size of fruits of among three tree species. Columba rupestris preferred un-ripen fruits over ripen ones of Prunus yedoensis or Elaeagnus multiflora, but did not choose selectively in case of fruits of Malus sieboldii. Pavo muticus showed the reverse favorable pattern of Columba rupestris. Total feeding amounts eaten by birds were dependent on the initial feeding amounts of fruits. These results indicated that in feeding activity some birds chose differently in terms of species or maturity of fruits, but not in fruit size.
 
Ű¿öµå
breeding bird;ripeness;size;fruit;feeding preference;correspondence ordination;
 
ȯ°æ»ý¹° / v.27, no.4, 2009³â, pp.334-340
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1226-9999
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200920460307081)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿