¶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.327-336
³²ÇѰ­ »ó·ù ¼ö°è¿¡¼­ ¾î·ùÀÇ ´Ùº¯¼ö ¸ðµ¨ Áö¼ö »êÁ¤ ¹× ±ºÁýÁö¼ö¿ÍÀÇ ºñ±³Æò°¡
( Multi-metric Index Assessments of Fish Model and Comparative Analysis of Community )
ÀÌÀçÈÆ;È«¿µÇ¥;¾È±¤±¹; Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇаú;±¹¸³Áß¾Ó°úÇаü ÀÚ¿¬»ç¿¬±¸ÆÀ;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â 1999³â 6¿ù°ú 8¿ù¿¡ ³²ÇѰ­ »ó·ù¼ö°èÀÇ 15°³ Á¶»çÁöÁ¡À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾î·ùÀÇ ´Ùº¯¼ö ¸ðµ¨À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© »ýŰǰ­¼ºÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´°í, ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ ±ºÁýºÐ¼®¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ Áö¼ö¿Í ¼­·Î ºñ±³ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¸¦ À§ÇØ ¿ì¸®³ª¶óÀÇ »ýÅÂÀû Ư¼º¿¡ ¸Â°Ô º¸¿ÏµÈ 10-¸ÞÆ®¸¯ °Ç°­¼º Æò°¡ ¸ðµ¨À» Àû¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾î·ùÁ¶»ç¿¡ µû¸£¸é, ÃÑ 6°ú 24Á¾ÀÌ ÃâÇöÇÏ¿´°í, »ýÅÂÀûÀÎ ±³¶õÁ¤µµ¿Í ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö¿¡ µû¶ó ÀϺΠº¯À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. »ýűæµåºÐ¼®¿¡ µû¸£¸é, ¹Î°¨Á¾°ú Ãæ½ÄÁ¾Àº °¢°¢ 91%, 56%·Î¼­ »ýÅÂÀûÀ¸·Î ¼öȯ°æÀÌ °Ç°­ÇÑ »óÅ·Π³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª S1°ú S2ÀÇ 2Â÷ ÇÏõ¿¡¼­´Â ³»¼ºÁ¾ÀÌ 66%, Àâ½ÄÁ¾ÀÌ 76%°¡ äÁýµÇ¾î ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁöÀÇ ÁúÀû ÀúÇϰ¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ³ªÅ¸³½ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. º» ¼ö°è¿¡¼­ »ýŰǰ­µµÀÇ Æò±Õ ¸ðµ¨°ªÀº 38·Î¼­ ¾çÈ£»óŸ¦ º¸¿´°í, °³º°Àû IBI °ªÀÇ ÆÐÅÏÀº ´Ù¸¥ »ê°£°è·ùÇü ÇÏõµé°ú À¯»çÇÏ¿© ºñ±³Àû ÀÌÈ­ÇÐÀû ¿À¿°¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ¿µÇâÀÌ ÀûÀº °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö¿¡ µû¸¥ IBI °ª°ú Á¾´Ù¾ç¼º Áö¼ö¿ÍÀÇ ºñ±³¿¡ µû¸£¸é, µÎ º¯¼ö °ªÀº ºÐ¸íÇÑ Â÷À̰¡ ÀÖÀ½À» º¸¿©ÁÖ¾ú´Ù Shannon-WeaverÀÇ Á¾´Ù¾ç¼º Áö¼ö´Â ½ÇÁ¦ ±ºÁý»óŸ¦ Àß ¹Ý¿µÇÏÁö ¸øÇßÀ¸¸ç, ƯÈ÷ 2Â÷ ÇÏõ¿¡¼­ÀÇ Á¾´Ù¾ç¼º Áö¼ö º¯ÀÌÀÇ ÆøÀº IBI °ªÀ¸·Î »êÁ¤ÇÑ »ýÅ °Ç°­µµ¿¡ ºñÇØ ÈξÀ Å©°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸°á°ú´Â ´Ùº¯¼ö ¸ÞÆ®¸¯¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ¿¬±¸ Á¢±Ù¹æ½ÄÀº ¼ö»ýÅÂ°è °ü¸®¿¡ À¯¿ëÇÑ µµ±¸·Î »ç¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸³ª, ±âÁ¸ÀÇ Á¾ ´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö¿Í °°Àº ±ºÁý ºÐ¼®¹ýÀº ÇÏõÂ÷¼ö¸¦ °í·ÁÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» °æ¿ì ºñÈ¿À²ÀûÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÇ¾ú´Ù.
This study assessed ecological health using a multi-metric fish model from 15 sites in the headwater watershed of southern Han River during June${sim}$August 1999 and then compared the health with conventional community diversity index to figure out differences between health and diversity index. For the analysis, we adopted 10 metric IBI model for regional applications. During this survey, total number of species sampled were 24 (6 families) and varied depending on magnitude of ecological disturbance and stream order. In the mountainous streams, mean proportion of sensitive and insectivore species was composed of 91% and 56%, respectively, indicating a potential healthy conditions. However, tolerant species with 66% and omnivore species with 76% were sampled from the 2nd order stream, which was shown deterioration in the physical habitat quality. In the overall watershed, mean IBI value was 38, judging as "fair" condition by the health criteria. Values of Individual IBI were closely associated with stream order and this pattern was similar to other mountainous streams showing low chemical pollutions and disturbance. Our comparison between IBI and diversity index over the stream order showed a distinct difference; Shannon-Weaver diversity index overestimated the actual community conditions and the variation range in the 2nd order stream was greater in the diversity index. Overall data suggest that the multi-metric approach may to a useful tool for stream ecosystem management and the conventional diversity index may not effective unless the stream order is considered for the stream evaluation.
 
Ű¿öµå
ecological health;fish;IBI;diversity index;stream order;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.2, 2007³â, pp.327-336
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905951338)
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¿