|
|
|
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ / v.40, no.3, 2007³â, pp.403-411
|
³«µ¿° »ó·ù ¼ö°èÀÇ ¾î·ù ±ºÁý ±¸Á¶ ºÐ¼® ¹× »ýŰǰµµ Æò°¡
( Fish Community Structure Analysis and Ecological Health Assessments in the Headwater Watershed of Nakdong River ) |
| 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 ³«µ¿°ÀÇ ÃÖ»ó·ù 8°³ ÁöÁ¡À» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 1999³â $6{sim}8$¿ù±îÁö ¾î·ù±ºÁýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ Á¾´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö(H')¿Í IBI Áö¼ö¸¦ ÅëÇÑ »ýÅ °Ç°µµ Æò°¡¸¦ ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù. äÁýµÈ ÃÑ Á¾¼ö´Â 19Á¾À̾ú°í, ¿ìÁ¡Á¾Àº °¥°Ü´Ï¿Í ¹öµéÄ¡·Î½á °¢°¢ 51%, 28%¸¦ Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù. Æ®·ÎÇÈ ±æµå ºÐ¼®¿¡ µû¸£¸é, Àüü äÁýµÈ Á¾¿¡¼ Ãæ½ÄÁ¾ÀÌ 87%¿´°í, Àâ½ÄÁ¾ÀÇ ºóµµ´Â ±ØÈ÷ ³·°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. Á¾´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ °ø°£ÀûÀÎ º¯ÀÌÀÇ ÆÐÅÏÀº Á¾¼ö¿Í °³Ã¼¼öÀÇ ÆÐÅϰú À¯»çÇßÁö¸¸, ³»¼ºµµ ¹× Æ®·ÎÇȱæµå ÀÚ·á¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ÆÐÅϰú´Â »ó´çÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Á¾´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö´Â ÁöÁ¡ 6¿¡¼ 1.56À¸·Î ÃÖ´ëÄ¡¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, ¹Î°¨Á¾°ú ³»¼ºÁ¾Àº °¢°¢ ÃÖ¼Ò, ÃÖ´ë°ªÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ÇÑÆí, ÁöÁ¡ 6¿¡¼ Ãæ½ÄÁ¾°ú Àâ½ÄÁ¾ÀÌ °¢°¢ ÃÖ¼Ò, ÃÖ´ëÄ¡¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Áï Á¾´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö´Â ³»¼ºµµ ±æµå ¹× Æ®·ÎÇÈ ±æµåÀÇ ÆÐÅϰú ¾î¶² À¯»ç¼ºµµ ¾øÀ¸¸ç, ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ Áö¼ö´Â ¼ö°è³»¿¡¼ÀÇ ¾î·ù±ºÁýÀÇ Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ »ýÅÂÇÐÀû Ư¼ºµéÀ» Àß ¹Ý¿µÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø¾ú´Ù. ÇÑÆí, »ýŰǰµµ (IBI)ÀÇ Æò±Õ ¸ðµ¨°ªÀº 33.5(n=8)·Î½á º¸Åë${sim}$¾çÈ£»óÅ·Π³ªÅ¸³µ°í, Æ®·ÎÇÈ ±æµå ¹× ³»¼ºµµ ±æµåÀÇ ÆÐÅϰú À¯»çÇÏ°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¹Î°¨Á¾°ú Ãæ½ÄÁ¾ÀÌ °ÅÀÇ ÃÖ´ëÄ¡¸¦ º¸ÀÎ 2ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼ IBI°£Àº ÃÖ´ëÄ¡¸¦ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, µ¿ÀÏÁöÁ¡¿¡¼ ³»¼ºÁ¾°ú Àâ½ÄÁ¾ÀÇ ºóµµ´Â ÃÖÀúÄ¡¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ÀÌ·± °á°ú´Â IBI °ªÀÌ »ýÅÂÇÐÀûÀÎ ±â´É°ú °Ç°»óÅ¿¡ ¹ÐÁ¢È÷ ¿¬°üµÇ¾î ÀÖ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ´Â ¹ÙÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼ ÀüÅëÀûÀÎ Á¾ ´Ù¾çµµ Áö¼ö´Â ¾î·ù¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ »ýŰǰµµ ±ºÁýÆò°¡¿¡ ºñÈ¿À²ÀûÀÎ ¹Ý¸é, IBI¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ Á¢±Ù¹æ½ÄÀº ÇÏõ±¸Á¶¸¦ Àß Áø´ÜÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â À¯¿ëÇÑ Ã´µµ°¡ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» ½Ã»çÇÏ´Â ¹ÙÀÌ´Ù.ÀÇ ÀÜ·ù À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾àÀÇ Á¾·ù¿Í ³óµµÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¿ùº° »ç¿ë·®ÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ·Î »ç·áµÇ¸ç °ËÃâµÈ ³óµµ´Â ±âÁ¸ ¿¬±¸ °á°ú¿¡ ºñÃß¾î º¸¾ÒÀ» ¶§ ¼öÁß »ý¹°¿¡ ±Þ¼ºµ¶¼ºÀ» ÁÖ´Â ¼öÁØÀº ¾Æ´Ï¾úÁö¸¸ ÀϺ»ÀÇ ¼öÁúȯ°æ±âÁØ °¨½Ã ÇÊ¿äÇ׸ñÀ» ÀϺΠÃʰúÇÏ´Â °ªÀ» º¸¿© ¼öÁß »ý¹°¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¥ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸¹Ç·Î ÇâÈÄ º¸´Ù ¸¹Àº ¿¬±¸°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù°í ¸ó´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ À̹ø ¿¬±¸¿¡¼ ³ªÅ¸³ À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾à¿¡´Â ¼Ò·®ÀÌÁö¸¸ EPA¿¡¼ ÁöÁ¤ÇÑ I±ÞÀÇ °ÇÑ µ¶¼ºÀ» °¡Áø »ìÃæÁ¦ (dyfonate, parathionmethyl, mevinfos, phorate, chlorfenvinfos, methidathion))°¡ °ËÃâµÇ¾ú°í, À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾àÀÇ Æ¯Â¡ÀÎ ºÒ¾ÈÁ¤¼º¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ±¤ºÐÇØ ¹× ¹Ì»ý¹° ºÐÇØ¸¦ ÅëÇØ ÀÌ¹Ì ºÐÇØ°¡ ÁøÇà ÁßÀÌ¾î¼ º»·¡ÀÇ À¯±âÀÎ ÈÇÕ¹°ÀÌ °ËÃâµÇÁö ¾Ê¾ÒÀ» °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. ±×¸®°í À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾àÀÌ ¿ÏÀüÈ÷ ºÐÇØµÇ¾î »ý¼ºµÈ À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾à ±â¿øÀÇ ¿µ¾ç¿°·ù°¡ Àú¼öÁö ³»·Î ¸¹Àº ¾çÀÌ À¯ÀԵȴٸé, ºÎ¿µ¾çÈ¿¡ ±â¿©ÇÒ °¡´É¼ºÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù. µû¶ó¼ ³ó¾÷¿ë Àú¼öÁö¿¡¼ À¯±âÀÎ°è ³ó¾àÀÇ ³óµµ ºÐÆ÷´Â ¹°·ÐÀ̰í Áß°£ »ý¼º¹°°ú ±× µ¶¼º, ±¤ºÐÇØ ¹× ¹Ì»ý¹° ºÐÇØÀÇ ¸ÞÄ¿´ÏÁò, ±×¸®°í ÃÖÁ¾ »ê¹°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ´Ù.»è°¨À²Àº BODÀÇ °æ¿ì Scenario 1-1(󸮿뷮 1,500 $m^3$ $day^{-1}$ÀÎ Àΰø½ÀÁö), scenario 1-2 (󸮿뷮 1,000 $m^3$ $day^{-1}$ÀÎ Àΰø½ÀÁö), scenario 2(¸éÀû 4.2haÀÎ Àú·ùÁö)°¡ °¢°¢ ¿¬Æò±Õ 6.9%, 4.8%, 7.1%ÀÇ °¨¼Ò¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. TNÀº 4.7%, 3.4%, 13.4%ÀÇ »è°¨À²À» ³ªÅ¸³»¾úÀ¸¸ç, TP´Â 5.6%, 3.9%, 7.3 |
|
| The purpose of the study was to evaluate fish community, based on conventional at Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H'), and ecological health, based on the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) using fish assemblage in the eight sites of Nakdong River during June${sim}$August 1999. Total number of species sampled was 19 species, and two sensitive species of Zacco temminckii (51%) and Rhynchocypris oxycephalus (28%) dominated the fish community. Also, trophic guild analyses showed that insectivore was 87% of the total and omnivore was rare, indicating that the ecological health is well maintained in the system. The pattern of spatial variation in the diversity index(H') was very similar to patterns of the species number and individual number, whereas the pattern of H' was not matched with the tolerance and trophic guild data. The diversity index (H') showed highest (1.56) in Site 6 where the proportion of sensitive species and tolerant species was minimum and maximum, respectively, and where the insectivore and omnivore were minimum and maximum. In other words, the diversity index was not matched at all with the trophic and tolerant guilds, indicating that the conventional index did not reflect the ecological characteristics of fish community in the system. In the mean time, the ecological health (IBI) averaged 33.5 (n=8), indicating "good${sim}$fair condition" and the IBI values matched with trophic and tolerance guilds. Maximum IBI occurred in Site 2 where the sensitive and msectivore species were nearly maximum, and the tolerant and omnivore species were almost minima, indicating that IBI values were closely associated with the ecological functions and health conditions. Overall data suggest that the conventional diversity index may not effective for a evaluation of fish community, and that in contrast the IBI approach may be a useful tool for diagnosis of stream community. |
| |
| Ű¿öµå |
| diversity index;ecological health;IBI;sensitive species; |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.3, 2007³â, pp.403-411
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905952685)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
| ³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|