¶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.3, 2007³â, pp.370-378
´Ù¾çÇÑ ÇÏõ»ýŸðµ¨À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ »ýŰè Áø´Ü ¹× Æò°¡
( Ecosystem Diagnosis and Evaluations Using Various Stream Ecosystem Models )
±èÀÚÇö;ÀÌÀÇÇà;¾È±¤±¹; Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;Ãæ³²´ëÇб³ »ý¸í°úÇкÎ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
º» ¿¬±¸´Â °©ÃµÀÇ Áö·ùÀÎ ¹Ý¼®Ãµ¿¡¼­ µµ½ÃÈ­¿¡ µû¸¥ ¼­½ÄÁö ±³¶õ°ú ¼öÁú¿À¿°ÀÇ ¿µÇâ¿¡ µû¸¥ »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­¼º Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇØ 2005³â 7¿ùºÎÅÍ 2006³â 4¿ù±îÁö ¾î·ù¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ÇØºÎÇÐÀû °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡ ¸ðµ¨Áö¼ö(HAI),»ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡ Áö¼ö(IBI)¹× ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁö Æò°¡ ¸ðµ¨(QHEI)À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃÑüÀû °Ç°­µµ¸¦ Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ó±â ¸ðµ¨ÀÇ ½Ã°£Àû, °ø°£ÀûÀÎ ºÐ¼®À» À§ÇØ »ó·ù·ÎºÎÅÍ ÇÏ·ù±îÁö ÃÑ 6°³ ÁöÁ¡À» ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿© 3ȸ Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡°á°ú Æò±Õ 24(¾ÇÈ­${sim}$º¸Åë»óÅÂ)·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ°í, ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁö °Ç°­µµ´Â Æò±Õ 116(º¸Åë${sim}$¾çÈ£»óÅÂ)À¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ¿Í ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁö °Ç°­µµÀÇ »ó°üºÐ¼® °á°ú ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁö °Ç°­µµ´Â »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÇ¾ú°í, ƯÈ÷ ¼­½ÄóÀÇ ºñÀ²$(M_1)$, À¯·®/À¯¼ÓÀÇ ´Ù¾ç¼º $(M_3)$, ¿©¿ïÀÇ ºóµµ$(M_7)$¿Í ³ôÀº »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ÇØºÎÇÐÀû °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡ °á°ú ´ëÁ¶±ºÀº 0(ÃÖÀû»óÅÂ)À¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³­ ¹Ý¸é, 󸮱º(T1, T2)Àº °¢°¢ 5 (¾çÈ£»óÅÂ), 50 (¾ÇÈ­»óÅÂ)·Î ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç, »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ°¡ ³ôÀº ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ °³Ã¼°Ç°­µµ ¿ª½Ã ÃÖÀû»óÅ·Π³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ °á°ú »ýÅÂ°è °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡(IBI), ¹°¸®Àû ¼­½ÄÁö Æò°¡(QHEI) ¹× ÇØºÎÇÐÀû °³Ã¼ °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡(HAI)¸¦ ÅëÇÑ Æò°¡ ±â¹ýÀº ÇÏõ »ýŰèÀÇ ÃÑüÀû °Ç°­µµ Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇÑ ÁÁÀº ¸ðµ¨ÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.
The objective of this research was to diagnose integrative ecological health in Bansuk Stream, one of the tributaries of Gap Stream, using the fish assemblage during July 2006${sim}$April 2006. For this research, we selected six sampling sites and applied some approaches such as the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI), Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), and necropsy-based Health Assessment Index (HAI). The stream health condition, based on the IBI values, averaged 24 (n= 18, range: $10{sim}46$), indicating "poor${sim}$fair" condition according to the criteria of US EPA (1993). Physical habitat condition, based on the QHEI, averaged 116 (n=6, range: $77{sim}139$), indicating "fair${sim}$good" condition. Values of IBI were more correlated with 3 metrics of instream cover ($M_1$, r=0.553, p=0.017, n=18), flow/velocity ($M_3$, r=0.627, p=0.005, n=18), and riffes/bends ($M_7$, r=0.631, p=0.005, n=18) than other metrics. Value of HAI in the control was zero (i.e., excellent condition), while the values in the T1 and T2 treatments were 5 (range: 0${sim}$30) and 50 (range: 40${sim}$80), respectively. The maximum values of IBI (46) were coincided with zero of HAI. Thus, these approaches seem to be a good tool for a diagnosis and evaluations of stream ecosystem health.
 
Ű¿öµå
physical habitat;stream health;fish;biological integrity;ecological health;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.40, no.3, 2007³â, pp.370-378
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200709905952451)
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¿