¶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.40, no.2, 2007³â, pp.214-222
³ó¾÷¿ëÀú¼öÁö À¯¿ªÈ¯°æÆ¯¼º¿¡ µû¸¥ ¼öÁú°æÇ⠺м®
( Water Quality Trend Analysis based on Watershed Characteristics in Agriculture Reservoirs )
±èÈ£¼·;ÃÖÀº¹Ì;±èµ¿¿ì;°øµ¿¼ö;±è°æ¸¸;±è¹üö; ±¹¸³È¯°æ°úÇпø ÇѰ­¹°È¯°æ¿¬±¸¼Ò;°­¿ø´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;±¹¸³È¯°æ°úÇпø ¼öÁúÃÑ·®°ú;±¹¸³È¯°æ°úÇпø ÇѰ­¹°È¯°æ¿¬±¸¼Ò;Çѱ¹³óÃ̰ø»ç;°­¿ø´ëÇб³ ȯ°æ°úÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â ±¹³» ºÐÆ÷Çϰí ÀÖ´Â 490°³ Àú¼öÁö¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î À¯¿ªÆ¯¼º°ú ¼öÁú°úÀÇ °ü°è¸¦ Á¶»çÇÏ¿´°í, TSIÆíÂ÷ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇØ À¯ÇüÀ» ±¸ºÐÇÏ¿© ¿µ¾ç¿° Ãø¸é¿¡¼­ÀÇ °¢ À¯Çüº° Ư¼ºÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ ´ë»óÀú¼öÁö¿¡¼­ ¼ö½ÉÀÌ ¾èÀ»¼ö·Ï ºÎ¿µ¾çÈ­ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ô°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. À¯¿ª ³» ³í°ú ¹çÀÇ ÀÌ¿ë¸éÀûÀÌ 30%ÀÌ»óÀÎ °æ¿ì ¼öü ³» TP³óµµ´Â Æò±Õ 0.1 mg $L^{-1}$ ÀÌ»óÀ̾ú´Ù. TN ³óµµ´Â À¯¿ªÀüü¸éÀû Áß ³íÀÇ ¸éÀûÀÌ 25% ÀÌ»óÀÎ °æ¿ì¿¡ Æò±Õ 2.6 mg $L^{-1}$ÀÌ»óÀÇ ºÐÆ÷¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³Â´Ù. TSIÆíÂ÷¸¦ ÅëÇØ ±¸ºÐµÈ ÇüÅ Áß TYPE III¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÏ´Â Àú¼öÁöÀÇ ¼öÁúÇ׸ñº° Æò±Õ ³óµµ´Â ´Ù¸¥ µÎ ÇüÅ¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ Àú¼öÁö¿¡¼­ º¸´Ù 2¹è ÀÌ»ó ³ôÀº ¼öÁØÀ̾ú´Ù. TYPE III¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ Àú¼öÁö´Â ´Ù¸¥ µÎ À¯Çü¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ Àú¼öÁö¿Í ºñ±³ÇØ ºÎ¿µ¾ç»óÅÂÀ̰í, ¼ö½ÉÀÌ ¾èÀ¸¸ç, ¼öÇ¥¸éÀû¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À¯¿ª¸éÀûºñ (DA/RA)°¡ ÀÛ°í, ³í°ú ¹çÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ÀÌ¿ë¸éÀûÀÌ ³Ð¾ú´Ù. TYPE I°ú II¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ Àú¼öÁöÀÇ ¼öÁúÀº TYPE II¿¡¼­ BOD¿Í ¿±·Ï¼Ò ${alpha}$³óµµ°¡ ³ôÀº °ÍÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇϰí´Â À¯»çÇÑ ¼öÁØÀ̾ú°í, ÇüÅÂÇÐÀû Ư¼º(Æò±Õ¼ö½É, DA/RA)À̳ª ÅäÁöÀÌ¿ëÇüÅ ¶ÇÇÑ À¯»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. TYPE I¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÈ Àú¼öÁöµé¿¡¼­´Â ÀÎÀÌ Á¶·ù¼ºÀå¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÏÂ÷ÀûÀÎ Á¦ÇÑ¿äÀÎÀº ¾Æ´Ñ °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ ¸ðµç ´ë»óÀú¼öÁö¿¡¼­ ÀÎÀÇ Á¦ÇѰ¡´É¼ºÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, ÅäÁöÀÌ¿ëÇüÅÂ, ƯÈ÷ À¯¿ª ³» ³í°ú ¹çÀ¸·ÎÀÇ ÀÌ¿ë¸éÀûÀº Àú¼öÁöÀÇ ¼öÁúÀ» °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ¸Å¿ì Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÎÀÚ¿´´Ù.
This study was conducted to assay the relationship between the characteristics of watershed and water quality, and to evaluate water quality characteristics of the classified types by TSI deviation analysis with the collected data from 490 reservoir. Relatively shallow depth (<5m) reservoirs out of selected 490 appeared to be eutrophic. The mean TP concentration in reservoirs with the PFA+UFA/watershed area of above 30% was ${geq}0.1$ mg $L^{-1}$. The mean TN concentration in reservoirs with the PFA/watershed area of above 25% was ${geq}2.6$ mg $L^{-1}$. Based on the TSI deviation analysis, water quality parameters in TYPE III reservoirs were in high concentration compared to other reservoirs types. Characteristics of Type III generally showed eutrophic, small DA/RA ratio, shallow depth, and large paddy field and upland field to watershed ratio compared to other types of reservoirs. Both water quality and morpho-physical parameters, Type I and II reservoirs were similar with the exceptions of BOD and chi. ${alpha}$ concentration. Phosphorus in Type I reservoirs was not the primary limiting factor on algal growth, but significant decrease chl. ${alpha}$ concentration with the increasing TN/TP indicated that phosphorus was the possible secondary limiting factor. Overall results indicated that type of land use, such as PFA and UFA area in watershed, was important parameters for the assessment of water quality characteristics, and phosphorus was limiting nutrient on algal growth in 490 reservoirs.
 
Ű¿öµå
TSI deviation analysis;morpho-physical parameters;land us;PFA+UFA/watershed area;primary limiting factor;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.2, 2007³â, pp.214-222
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905950677)
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¿