¶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

Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ / v.41, no.spc, 2008³â, pp.61-67
¼ö¿Â, ¸ÔÀ̳óµµ, ÆÐ°¢ Å©±â°¡ Microcystis aeruginosa¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¸»Á¶°³ÀÇ ¿©°úÀ² ¹× ¹è¼³¹° »ý»ê¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ
( Effects of Temperature, Food Concentration, and Shell Size on Filtering Rate and Pseudofeces Production of Unio douglasiae on Microcystis aeruginosa )
ÀÌ¿¬ÁÖ;±è¹éÈ£;±è³­¿µ;¾öÇÑ¿ë;Ȳ¼øÁø; °Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;Çѱ¹³óÃ̰ø»ç ³ó¾îÃÌ¿¬±¸¿ø;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
À¯±â¹°ÀÌ Ç³ºÎÇÑ À¯¼ö¿ª¿¡¼­ ¼­½ÄÇÏ´Â ÀÌ¸ÅÆÐ ¸»Á¶°³¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¿©°úÀ²(filtering rate, FR) ¹× ¹è¼³¹° »ý»êÀ²(pseudofaeces production, PFP)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃÖÀûÁ¶°ÇÀ» ÆÄ¾ÇÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿©, ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¼ö¿Â$(5{sim}35^{circ}C)$, ¸ÔÀ̳óµµ$(49{sim}491{mu}g$ ¿±·Ï¼Ò-${alpha}L^{-1}$), ÆÐ·ùÅ©±â $(5.6{sim}13.3cm)$ Á¶°Ç ÇÏ¿¡¼­ ¼·½Ä½ÇÇèÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸»Á¶°³´Â Àû¿ëÇÑ $5{sim}35^{circ}C$ÀÇ ¿Âµµ¹üÀ§ ³»¿¡¼­, ¼ö¿Â $15^{circ}C$¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ÃÖ°í FRÀ» º¸¿´À¸¸ç, $5^{circ}C$¿¡¼­ ÃÖÀúÄ¡¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ¸ÔÀ̹еµ´Â ³·À»¼ö·Ï ³ôÀº FRÀ» º¸¿´°í, ³ôÀ»¼ö·Ï ³ôÀº ¹è¼³¹° »ý»êÀ²À» ³ªÅ¸³ÂÀ¸¸ç, °³Ã¼ÀÇ Å©±â´Â ´ÜÀ§¹«°Ô´ç FR ¹× PFP¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡Áö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î, ¸»Á¶°³ÀÇ ¿©°úÀ²°ú ¹è¼³¹° »ý»êÀ²Àº ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¿äÀε鿡 ÀÇÇØ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú·Î ÆÇ´ÜÇÒ ¶§, ¸»Á¶°³´Â ¼ö¿ÂÀÌ ³·°í ¼ö½ÉÀÌ ¾èÀº ºÎ¿µ¾ç Àú¼öÁö¿¡¼­ ³²Á¶·ù ´ë¹ß»ý Ãʱ⿡ Àû¿ëÇÏ¸é ³ôÀº ¿©°úÀ²·Î ¼öÁúÀ» °³¼±ÇÏ´Â µ¥ È¿°úÀûÀÏ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÇ³ª, Àû¿ë¹æ¹ý ¹× »ý»êµÈ ¹è¼³¹°ÀÇ ¼öÁß¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¿µÇ⠵ ´ëÇÑ Ãß°¡ÀûÀÎ ¿¬±¸°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.
This study was conducted to evaluate filtering rate (FR) and pseudofeces production (PFP) of a freshwater filter-feeding bivalve, Unio douglasiae, on a toxic cyanobacterium (Microcystis aeruginosa). The experiments were conducted under the various conditions of water temperature $(5{sim}35^{circ}C)$, mussel size $(5.6{sim}13.3cm)$ and food con centrations $(49{sim}491{mu}g;Chl-{alpha}L^{-1})$. Among the applied temperature, the maximum FR $(0.41L;gAFDW^{-1}hr^{-1})$ and PFP (0.47mg $gAFDW^{-1}hr^{-1}$) were observed at 15 and $25^{circ}C$, respectively. Both weight-based FR and PFP were not correlated with the mussel size, and the values lied in a limited range with some degree of variation. Likewise, no significant relations between FR and PFP was observed in the mussel size. The FR values were negatively correlated with food concentration, while PFP showed positive correlation. Among the applied food concentrations, the maximum FR (0.34L $gAFDW^{-1}hr^{-1}$) and PFP (0.06mg $gAFDW^{-1}hr^{-1}$) appeared in $113{mu}g;Chl-{alpha}L^{-1}$ and $491{mu}g;Chl-{alpha}L^{-1}$, respectively. These results indicate that the grazing of Unio douglasiae are affected by various parameters, and it may be applied as an effective biofilter to inhibit Microcystis bloom under appropriate application. However, further studies on the fate of excreted pseudofeces are needed to understand their possibility of stimulating nuisant algal growth.
 
Ű¿öµå
freshwater bivalve;Unio douglasiae;Microcystis aeruginosa;filtering rate;pseudofaeces production;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.41, no.spc, 2008³â, pp.61-67
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200814364033986)
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¿