¶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.24, no.3, 2006³â, pp.221-229
ºÎ¿µ¾ç ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­ ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ ÀÛµ¿¿¡ µû¸¥ ½Ä¹°ÇöûũſÀÇ ±ºÁý º¯È­
( Change of Phytoplankton Community by Ultrasonication in Eutrophic Ponds )
°í¼Ò¶ó;¾ÈÄ¡¿ë;Á¤½ÂÇö;±èÈñ½Ä;¿ÀÈñ¸ñ; Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ȯ°æ»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ȯ°æ»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ȯ°æ»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ȯ°æ»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ;Çѱ¹»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¿ø ȯ°æ»ý¸í°øÇבּ¸¼¾ÅÍ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ°¡ ½Ä¹°Çöûũſ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» Á¶»çÇÒ ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î, ÀÌÈ­ÇÐÀû ±×¸®°í »ý¹°ÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î À¯»çÇÑ µÎ ±ºµ¥ÀÇ ºÎ¿µ¾çÈ­ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­ 2003³â 8¿ù 18ÀϺÎÅÍ 9¿ù 30ÀϱîÁö ¾à 4ÀÏ °£°ÝÀ¸·Î ½Ã·á¸¦ äÃëÇÏ¿© ½ÇÇèÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÇè±â°£ µ¿¾È ÃâÇöÇÑ ½Ä¹°Çöûũſ ±ºÁýÀº ±ÔÁ¶·ù(Bacillariophyceae)°¡ °ÅÀÇ ´ëºÎºÐÀ» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ³²¼¼±Õ(Cyanophyceae)Àº »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î ÀûÀº ºñÁßÀ» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐÀÚ»ý¹°ÇÐÀû ±â¹ýÁßÀÇ ÇϳªÀÎ DGGE(denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ½Ä¹°Çöûũſ ±ºÁý ±¸Á¶¸¦ ºñ±³ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 16S rDNAÀÇ DGGE profile ºÐ¼®¿¡ ÀÇÇÏ¿© 󸮱¸ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­´Â Oscillatoria acuminata¸¦ ºñ·ÔÇÏ¿© CFB (Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides) group bacterium µîÀÌ ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î È®ÀεǾúÀ¸¸ç, ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ°¡ Á¤ÁöµÈ ½Ã±â¿¡ ƯÀÌÀûÀ¸·Î Pseudanabaena sp.°¡ ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â °ÍÀ» È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ëÁ¶±¸ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­´Â Synechococcus sp.¿Í Aphanizomenon flos-aquae°¡ ÃâÇöÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ» È®ÀÎÇÏ¿´´Ù. 18S rDNAÀÇ DGGE profileºÐ¼®°á°ú 󸮱¸ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­´Â Chlamydomonas rein. hardtii°¡ ¿ìÁ¡ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î È®ÀεǾúÀ¸¸ç, ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ 󸮿¡ Å©°Ô ¹ÝÀÀÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù. ´ëÁ¶±¸ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­´Â 󸮱¸ ¿¬¸ø¿¡¼­ ³ªÅ¸³­ C. reinhardtii¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© Pteromonas protracta°¡ ÃâÇöÇÏ¿´´Ù. °á°úÀûÀ¸·Î ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ´Â ÁøÇÙ¼º ½Ä¹°Çöûũſ º¸´Ù´Â ¿øÇÙ¼º ½Ä¹°ÇöûũſÀÇ ´Ù¾ç¼º¿¡ ´õ Å« ¿µÇâÀ» ÁÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¸ç, ÀϺΠ³²¼¼±Õ(Pseudanabaena sp.)ÀÇ »ýÀå¿¡ ÀúÇØ¸¦ ÁÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.
The effects of ultrasonication on phytoplankton were investigated in two ponds in which physicochemical and biological water quality was similar, one as a treatment and the other as a control. The samples were collected from August 18 to September 30 in 2003. Traditional morphological analysis showed that Bacillariophyceae dominated phytoplankton community in both ponds. The abundance of Cyanophyceae was lower in the phytoplankton community of the sonicated pond than that of control pond. We used DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis) to analyze the diversity and change of phytoplankton community in two ponds. The DGGE banding patterns of 16S rRNA gene and sequence analysis demonstrated that Oscillatoria acuminata and CFB (Cytophaga-Flavobacterium-Bacteroides) group bacterium appeared in the treated pond, and the control pond was dominated by Synechococcus sp. and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. Especially, Pseudanabaena sp. dominated during the ultrasonic cessation in the treated pond. The DGGE profiles of 18S rRNA gene and sequence analysis showed that the treated pond was dominated by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the control pond by C. reinhardtii and Pteromonas protracta. In conclusion, the ultrasonication affected the reduced growth of cyanobacteria, particularly Pseudanabaena.
 
Ű¿öµå
pond;DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis);phytoplankton;ultrasonication;
 
ȯ°æ»ý¹° / v.24, no.3, 2006³â, pp.221-229
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1226-9999
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200634516373134)
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¿