¶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.244-253
ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ°¡ À×¾î Cyprinus carpioÀÇ ¼ºÀå ¹× ´Ü±âÀû Çൿ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ
( Effect of Ultrasound on the Growth and Short-term Behaviour of the Carp, Cyprinus carpio )
À±¼ºÁø;¿°µ¿Çõ;±è¿ì±Ù;À±È«±æ;À̼º±Ô; Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¿ø ºÎ¼³ ¾ÈÀü¼ºÆò°¡¿¬±¸¼Ò;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¿ø ºÎ¼³ ¾ÈÀü¼ºÆò°¡¿¬±¸¼Ò;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¿ø ºÎ¼³ ¾ÈÀü¼ºÆò°¡¿¬±¸¼Ò;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¿ø ºÎ¼³ ¾ÈÀü¼ºÆò°¡¿¬±¸¼Ò;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¿ø ºÎ¼³ ¾ÈÀü¼ºÆò°¡¿¬±¸¼Ò;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â À×¾îÀÇ »ýÅ ¹ÝÀÀ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ(°­µµ 31 dB re 1 ${mu}Pa$, Á֯ļö $14{sim}15$ kHz)ÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ±¸¸íÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© Ä¡»çÀ², üÁߺ¯È­, °Ç°­¼º Æò°¡ ¹× ÇൿÆÐÅÏÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÇè±â°£ µ¿¾È ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡ ³ëÃâµÈ À×¾î Cyprinus carpioÀÇ Ä¡»çÀ²Àº ´ëÁ¶±ºÀ» Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© 󸮱º ¸ðµÎ 5% ÀÌÇÏ·Î ½ÇÇ豸 »çÀÌÀÇ Ä¡»çÀ²Àº ¶Ñ·ÇÇÏ°Ô ±¸º°µÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P>0.05). °¢°¢ÀÇ ½ÇÇ豸¿¡¼­ ÃøÁ¤ÇÑ ½ÇÇè¾î·ùÀÇ Æò±Õ üÁßÀº ½ÇÇèÁ¾·á ½Ã ´ëÁ¶±º¿¡ ºñÇØ 󸮱º¿¡¼­ ¾à°£ Áõ°¡ÇÏ´Â °æÇâÀ» º¸¿´À¸³ª ½ÇÇ豸°£ÀÇ ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. ´ëÁ¶±º°ú °í󸮱ºÀÇ ÀϺΠ°³Ã¼µéÀº °¡º­¿î Ç¥ÇǼջó°ú ²¿¸®Áö´À·¯¹ÌÀÇ ÃâÇ÷ ÈçÀûÀÌ °üÂûµÇ¾úÀ¸³ª ´«, Áö´À·¯¹Ì, ±â»ýÃæ °¨¿°, Èä¼±ÀÇ ÃâÇ÷ ¹× ¾Æ°¡¹Ì¿¡¼­´Â ÀÌ»óÁõ»óÀÌ ÀüÇô °üÂûµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(P>0.05). ±Ù°Å¸®¿¡¼­ ÀϽÃÀûÀ¸·Î ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¸¦ ¹ß»ý½ÃÄ×À» ¶§ ¾î·ù´Â À½¿øÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ È¸ÇÇÇÏ´Â ¹æÇ⼺ ¿òÁ÷ÀÓÀ» º¸¿´À¸³ª ¿ø°Å¸®¿¡¼­ ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡ ³ëÃâµÈ À×¾î´Â ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ Çൿº¯È­¸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î ³·Àº °­µµÀÇ ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡ ³ëÃâµÈ ¾î·ù´Â ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ ¹ß»ý¿¡ µû¸¥ ½É°¢ÇÑ ½ºÆ®·¹½º´Â ¹ÞÁö ¾ÊÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.
In this study, mortality, body wet weight, health assessment, and short-term behavioral mode were observed to determine the effects of ultrasound on the ecological response of the carp Cyprinus carpio. Mortality in the treatments was less than 5% during ultrasound exposure (31 dB re 1 ${mu}Pa$, $14{sim}15$ kHz) and there were no significant differences among the replicates (P>0.05). The treatments, based on mean wet weight, exhibited greater effect than the controls, but the magnitude of the differences was not large. Skins and tail fins of some test animals exposed to the controls and intensive treatment groups had light injury such as hemorrhaging, whereas, damages in other organs such as eyes, other fins, parasites, thymus, and gills were not observed (P>0.05). Sudden stimuli in low intensity at a short distance caused a directional avoidance of the fish from the sound. However, the carp exposed to ultrasound at the large scale field was not observed clear behavior changes. Overall results suggest that fish exposed to the low-intensity ultrasound had no serious stress during the tests.
 
Ű¿öµå
ultrasound;behavioral mode;ecological response;carp;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.2, 2007³â, pp.244-253
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905950859)
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¿