|
|
|
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ / v.40, no.1, 2007³â, pp.82-92
|
Æó¼öó¸® ½Ã¼³ÀÇ ¿µÇâ¿¡ µû¸¥ ¿µ»ê° ¼ö°èÀÇ »ý¹°ÇÐÀû ¼öÁú Æò°¡
( Biological Water Quality Assessments in Wastewater-impacted and Non-impacted Streams ) |
| ¾È±¤±¹;±è°ÀÏ;±èÀÚÇö; Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| ÃÊ ·Ï |
| º» ¿¬±¸´Â 2003³â ¿µ»ê° ¼ö°è³» 12°³ Á¶»çÁöÁ¡¿¡¼ ¾î·ù ±ºÁýºÐ¼®, °³Ã¼ Ư¼ººÐ¼® ¹× »ýÅ °Ç°¼º Áö¼ö(IBI) »êÁ¤À» ÅëÇØ ÇÏõÀÇ »ý¹°ÇÐÀû ¼öÁúÀ» ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 12°³ Á¶»çÁ¤Á¡ Áß 4°³ ÁöÁ¡Àº ¿À¿°ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀÌ ¾ø´Â ´ëÁ¶±º ÁöÁ¡À̾ú°í, ³ª¸ÓÁö 8°³ ÁöÁ¡Àº ³ó°øÆó¼ö ¹× Çϼöó¸®Àå ¹èÃâ¼öÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â ÁöÁ¡À̾ú´Ù. º» Á¶»ç¼ö¿ª 12°³ ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼ »êÁ¤µÈ Æò±Õ »ýÅ °Ç°¼º Áö¼ö(IBI)´Â 28(n=12, ¹üÀ§: $18{sim}44$)·Î¼ U.S. EPA(1993)ÀÇ ±âÁØ¿¡ ÀǰÅÇÒ ¶§ ¾ÇÈ${sim}$º¸Åë»óÅÂ$(Fair{sim}poor)$¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ÇÑÆí, ´ëÁ¶±º ÁöÁ¡(S3, S5, S6, S11)ÀÇ Æò±Õ »ýÅ °Ç°¼º Áö¼ö´Â 42(n=4, º¯ÀÌÆø: $38{sim}44$)·Î¼ ¾çÈ£»óÅÂ(Good)¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, ³ó°ø Æó¼ö ¹× Çϼöó¸®Àå ¹èÃâ¼öÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â ³ª¸ÓÁö 8°³ ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼ Æò±Õ °Ç°¼º Áö¼ö´Â 21(n=8, $18{sim}24$)·Î¼ ¾ÇÈ»óÅÂ(Poor)¸¦ º¸¿© 2¹è Á¤µµÀÇ ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ÀÌ·± °Ç°µµ Áö¼öÀÇ ÁöÁ¡º° º¯ÀÌ´Â Á¾ dzºÎµµ Áö¼ö ¹× Á¾ ´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö¿Í °ÅÀÇ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ¿´À¸³ª,1Â÷ ÇÏõÀÎ S11Àº ºÒÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Áï, ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö°¡ ³·Àº »ó·ùÀÇ 1Â÷ ÇÏõÀº Á¾ ´Ù¾çµµ ȤÀº ±ºÁý dzºÎµµ Áö¼ö¿¡ ÀÇÇØ »ýŰǰµµ°¡ Æò°¡µÉ °æ¿ì ÇÏõÀÇ Å©±â¸¦ °í·ÁÇÏÁö ¾Ê¾Æ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î °ú¼ÒÆò°¡ µÇ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ±ºÁý À¯»çµµ ºÐ¼® °á°ú¿¡ µû¸£¸é, À¯»çµµ ¼öÁØ 80%(p<0.05)¿¡¼ ÁöÁ¡Àº 3°³ ±×·ìÀ¸·Î ´ëº°µÇ¾ú´Ù. ÇϳªÀÇ ±×·ìÀº Æó¼ö¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â ÁöÁ¡À̾ú°í, ³ª¸ÓÁö 2°³ÀÇ ±×·ìÀº ¿À¿°¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ¿µÇâ ¹ÞÁö ¾Ê´Â 2°³ ´ëÁ¶±º ±×·ìÀ¸·Î ´ëº°µÇ¾ú´Ù. »ó°üµµ ºÐ¼®¿¡ µû¸£¸é, »ý¹°ÇÐÀû °Ç°¼º Áö¼ö´Â ³»¼ºÁ¾ÀÇ »ó´ëºóµµ¿Í ¿ª»ó°ü °ü°è(r=-0.899, p<0.001)¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, ¹Î°¨Á¾°ú´Â Á¤»ó°ü °ü°è(r=0.890, p<0.001)¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ÀÌ·± °á°ú´Â º» ¼ö¿ª¿¡¼ ³ó°øÆó¼ö ¹× Çϼöó¸®Àå ¹èÃâ¼ö ¹æ·ù´Â ÇÏõÀÇ »ý¹°ÇÐÀû ¼öÁú ¾ÇÈ¿¡ Á÷Á¢ÀûÀÎ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ¸ç, ¼öÀÚ¿øÀÇ º¸È£¸¦ À§Çؼ´Â ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¹èÃâ¼ö¿Í °°Àº ¿À¿°¿øÀÇ °ü¸®¸¦ °ÈÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÑ´Ù. |
|
| In 2003, we evaluated biological water quality at twelve sites of Youngsan River using community analysis, fish compositions, and the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). Of the twelve, four sites were the controls, which have no point sources in the upstream and the remaining eight sites were the impacted sites, which are influenced by wastewater treatment plant (WTP) and agro-industrial complex. Model values of the IBI, based on 12 sites data, averaged 28 (n=12, range: $18{sim}44$), indicating fair poor condition according to the criteria of US EP A (1993). In the mean time, mean IBI in the control sites (S3, S5, S6, S11) was 42 (n=4, range: $38{sim}44$), indicating a good condition, whereas mean IBI in the impacted sites was 21, indicating a poor condition. Mean IBI value in the control, thus, was greater by 2 fold than that in the WTP sites. The spatial pattern of IBI values was similar to the patterns of species diversity index and species richness index, except for Site 11, which was 1st order stream. Similarity analysis indicated that three groups were divided at the similarity level of 80%. One group was the streams influenced by wastewater and the other two groups were the pristine streams as the control, indicating that the stream health conditions are directly influenced by presence or absence of the point sources. Also, Pearson's correlation analysis showed that IBI values had negative correlation (r=0.899, p<0.001) with relative abundance of tolerance species, and had positive relation (r=0.890, p<0.001) with sensitive species. Overall, outcomes suggest that the point sources of the WTP might impact the species composition and ecological health, resulting in degradation of biological water quality. |
| |
| Ű¿öµå |
| biological water quality;wastewater;index of biological integrity;fish; |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.1, 2007³â, pp.82-92
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905949058)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
| ³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|