¶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.3, 2008³â, pp.367-373
ºÏÇѰ­ ¼ö°è¿¡ ºÐÆ÷ÇÏ´Â ¸»Á¶°³ÀÇ ³²Á¶·ù ¼·½ÄƯ¼º
( Grazing Effects of Freshwater Bivalve Unio douglasiae of the North Han River on the Cyanobacterial Bloom Waters )
ÀÌ¿¬ÁÖ;±è¹éÈ£;Ȳ¼øÁø; °Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇРȯ°æ°úÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇРȯ°æ°úÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇРȯ°æ°úÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
À¯Çس²Á¶ÀÇ »ý¹°ÇÐÀû Á¦¾î¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ÀÏȯÀ¸·Î ºÏÇѰ­¼ö°è(°¡Æò)¿¡ ¼­½ÄÇÏ´Â ÀÌ¸ÅÆÐ ¸»Á¶°³(Unio douglasiae)ÀÇ ¼·½ÄƯ¼ºÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼·½Ä½ÇÇèÀº Å©°Ô ½Ã°£º°, °³Ã¼Å©±â, µ¿¹°¹Ðµµ, ¸ÔÀ̹еµ (¿±·Ï¼Ò-a ³óµµ) µî¿¡ µû¶ó ÆÐ·ùÀÇ ¿©°úÀ² ¹× ¹è¼³¹° »ý»ê·®À» °¢°¢ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸»Á¶°³ÀÇ ¿©°úÀ²Àº ¼·½Ä ÈÄ Àû¿ë 7½Ã°£Â° (0.21 L $g^{-1}h^{-1}$, 0.54 mg $g^{-1}h^{-1}$), Å©±â 5 cmº¸´Ù ÀÛÀº °³Ã¼¿¡¼­ ÃÖ°í ¿©°úÀ² ¹× ¹è¼³¹° »ý»ê·® (5.89 L $g^{-1}h^{-1}$, 16.38 mg $g^{-1}h^{-1}$)À» °¢°¢ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ °¡Àå ³·Àº ¸ÔÀ̹еµ (¿±·Ï¼Ò-a 88.5 ${mu}gL^{-1}$)¿¡¼­ 0.41 L $g^{-1}h^{-1}$·Î ÃÖ°í ¿©°úÀ²À» º¸¿´À¸¸ç, ÀÏÁ¤ ¸ÔÀÌ³óµµ À̻󿡼­´Â ¹è¼³¹° »ý»ê·®ÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ÆÐ·ùÀÇ Á¶·ù Á¦¾îÈ¿°ú´Â °³Ã¼ ¹Ðµµ°¡ Áõ°¡ÇÒ¼ö·Ï ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ È¿°ú¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. °á±¹ ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°úµéÀº ºÏÇѰ­¿¡ ¼­½ÄÇÏ´Â ÀÌ¸ÅÆÐ ¸»Á¶°³°¡ ºÎ¿µ¾çÈ£¼öÀÇ ³²Á¶·ù Á¦¾îÀÇ À¯¿ë»ý¹°·Î¼­ Àû¿ë °¡´É¼ºÀ» ÀÔÁõÇÏ¿´´Ù.
A freshwater bivalve (Unio douglasiae) was examined to assess the filtering rate (FR) on the cyanobacterial assemblage in a hypertrophic lake. Animal U. douglasiae used in the present study was collected using a hand-operated dredge from the North Han River (Gapyeong, Korea). The FR was measured at different feeding conditions such as feeding interval (1, 4, 7, and 24 h), mussel size (4.2$sim$8.1 cm, n=23), prey concentration (506.7, 409.8, 327.5, 199.7 and 88.6 ${mu}g;L^{-1}$), and mussel density (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 indiv. $L^{-1}$). On the applied feeding interval, the maximum FR (0.21 L $g^{-1}h^{-1}$) and minimum feces production (FP, 0.12 mg $g^{-1}h^{-1}$) were observed at 1 and 24 hr, respectively. Both weight-based FR and FP 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 FP were observed in the mussel size. The FR values were negatively correlated with food concentration, but positively with FP. For the food concentrations, the maximum FR (0.41 L $g^{-1}h^{-1}$) and FP (0.16 mg $g^{-1}h^{-1}$) were 88.6 ${mu}gL^{-1}$ and 327.5 ${mu}gL^{-1}$, respectively. These results indicate that U. douglasiae collected from the North Han River, although the filtering rate were slightly less than Keum River mussel, may be applied as a strategic bio-filter to mitigate cyanobacterial bloom in eutrophic lake.
 
Ű¿öµå
freshwater bivalve;Unio douglasiae;cyanobacterial bloom;grazing rate;feces production;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.41, no.3, 2008³â, pp.367-373
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200833338919344)
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¿