¶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

Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ / v.25, no.4, 2007³â, pp.326-335
¾ß¿Ü °Ý¸® Æ÷Àå¿¡¼­ À¯ÀüÀÚ º¯Çü źÀúº´ ÀúÇ×¼º PepEST °íÃß°¡ ÀýÁöµ¿¹° ±ºÁý¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ
( Effect of the Anthracnose Resistant Transgenic Chili Pepper on the Arthropod Communities in a Confined Field )
ÀÌÈÆº¹;±Ç¹Îö;¹ÚÁöÀº;±èâ±â;¹Ú±â¿õ;À̹ü±Ô;±èȯ¹¬; Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÆò°¡¼¾ÅÍ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
³ó¾÷»ýŰ迡 ½É°ÜÁø źÀúº´ ÀúÇ×¼º À¯ÀüÀÚÀÎ PepEST À¯ÀüÀÚ°¡ ³»ÀçµÈ À¯ÀüÀÚº¯Çü °íÃßÀÇ È¯°æÀ§ÇؼºÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© 2006³â °íÃßÀÇ »ýÀ°±â°£ µ¿¾È ÀýÁöµ¿¹°ÀÇ ±ºÁý±¸Á¶¸¦ 3ȸ(6¿ù 20ÀÏ, 7¿ù 25ÀÏ, 8¿ù 28ÀÏ)¿¡ °ÉÃÄ Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ °¡ÁöÀÇ °íÃß Áï ¸ðº»(nTR, WT512)¿Í À¯ÀüÀÚ º¯Çü °íÃß(TR, line 68)ÀÇ ²É°ú ÀÙ¿¡ ¼­½ÄÇÏ´Â °ïÃæÀ» Æ÷ÇÔÇÑ ÀýÁöµ¿¹°ÀÇ ±ºÁý±¸Á¶¸¦ ÆÄ¾ÇÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© °ïÃæÀ» Æ÷ȹÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â Áø°ø ÈíÀԱ⸦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÀýÁöµ¿¹°À» Á¤·®ÀûÀ¸·Î äÁýÇÏ¿´´Ù. »ýÀ° ±â°£ Áß¿¡¼­ 7¿ù¿¡ °¡Àå ¸¹Àº Á¾¼ö, Á¾´Ù¾çµµ, ±×¸®°í Á¾±¸¼ºÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿©ÁÖ¾úÁö¸¸(P<0.05), °¢ »ýÀ°±â°£º° µÎ ÀÛ¹°°£ÀÇ ±ºÁý±¸Á¶´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(P>0.05). °¢ ºÐ·ù±º º°·Î Åë°èÀûÀÎ À¯ÀǼºÀ» °ËÁõÇÑ °á°ú, ÃʽÄÀÚÀÇ ¸ÔÀÌ ±â´É±ºÀÌ Åë°èÀûÀÎ À¯ÀǼºÀ» ³ªÅ¸³ÂÀ¸¸ç (P<0.05), ±×ÃʽÄÀÚ±ºÀÇ °íÃß¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀáÀçÀûÀÎ ÇÇÇØ °¡´É¼ºÀ» °ËÁ¤ÇÑ °á°ú, ¼¶¼­±¸¸Þ¶Ñ±â, Áøµ÷¹°, ±×¸®°í ÃÑä¹ú·¹ÀÇ ÀáÀçÀû ÇÇÇØ°¡´É¼ºÀÌ Å©´Ù°í ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. Áö±Ý±îÁö ¼öÇàµÈ º» ¿¬±¸°á°ú¸¦ ±Ù°Å·Î ÆÇ´ÜÇÏ¿© º¼ ¶§, À¯ÀüÀÚ º¯Çü °íÃß·Î ÀÎÇÑ ºñÇ¥Àû »ý¹°Ã¼ÀÇ ±ºÁý±¸Á¶ÀÇ Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸¹Ç·Î, ȯ°æÀ§Çصµ´Â ¾ø´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇÁö¸¸, ÃßÈÄ È¯°æ À§ÇصµÀÇ ÀáÀç °¡´É¼º ¶§¹®¿¡, ȯ°æÀ§Çؼº Æò°¡¿¬±¸°¡ Áö¼ÓÀûÀ¸·Î ¼öÇàµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í °á·Ð ³»¸± ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
This study was conducted to assess the environmental risks of anthracnose resistant transgenic chili peppers with the PepEST gene on non-target organisms in the agroecosystem environments during the chili pepper growing seasons in 2006. We quantitatively collected arthropods assemblages living on leaves and flowers of chili peppers on June 20, July 25, and August 25 by using an insect vacuum collector to compare the patterns of arthropod community structures between non-transgenic chili peppers (nTR, WT512) and anthracnose resistant transgenic chili peppers (TR, line 68). We found the seasonal difference with the highest species richness and Shannon's diversity in July's sampling among the growing seasons (P<0.05) and each sampling season showed the different arthropod community composition. We also found there was no statistical difference between the two types of crops, nTR and TR, at each sampling time (P>0.05). The significance level of arthropod community showed that there were lots of seasonal difference of functional groups as well as taxa but only the herbivore group in the functional groups was significantly different for the types of plants (P<0.05). So, we further examined the herbivore groups to find any potential damage and identified the possibility of herbivorous damage from some herbivores, grasshoppers, aphids and thrips. Although we couldn't find any adverse effects from the environmental risk assessment between the arthropod community structures on two types of plants from our results, we should keep working for the environmental risk assessment because of the herbivorous potential risk possibility.
 
Ű¿öµå
anthracnose;arthropod;community;diversity;herbivore;transgenic chili pepper;
 
ȯ°æ»ý¹° / v.25, no.4, 2007³â, pp.326-335
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1226-9999
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200714364665494)
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¿