¶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.18, no.2, 2000³â, pp.215-226
¾î·ù±ºÁýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±ÝÈ£°­ÀÇ »ý¹°º¸ÀüÁö¼ö (Index of Biological Integrity, IBI) Æò°¡
( Assessment of an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) using Fish Assemblages in Keum-Ho River, Korea )
¿°µ¿Çõ;¾È±¤±¹;È«¿µÇ¥;À̼º±Ô; Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¼Ò ȯ°æµ¶¼º¿¬±¸ÆÀ;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¼Ò ȯ°æµ¶¼º¿¬±¸ÆÀ;±¹¸³Áß¾Ó°úÇаü ÀÚ¿¬»ç¿¬±¸½Ç;Çѱ¹È­Çבּ¸¼Ò ȯ°æµ¶¼º¿¬±¸ÆÀ;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
¾î·ù±ºÁýÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ »ý¹°º¸ÀüÁö¼ö(Index of Biological Integrity, IBI)¿Í ¼­½ÄÁö Æò°¡Áö¼ö (qoalitativeHabitatEvaluationlndex, QHEI)¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ±ÝÈ£°­ÀÇ ¼ö¼­ »ýŰ踦 Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÃÑüÀûÀ¸·Î ±ÝÈ£°­ÀÇ IBI°ªÀº 13-37 ¹üÀ§¿¡ ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ¿¬ Æò±Õ°ªÀº 23(n=25, Std. error=1.16)À¸·Î¼­ Karr(1981) ¿Í U.S. EPA (1993) ±âÁØ¿¡ µû¸£¸é "Poor" ¶Ç´Â "Very Poor" »óÅ·ΠÆÇ¸íµÇ¾ú´Ù. Æò±Õ IBI°ªÀº ÇÏõÀÇ °íµµ±¸¹è¸¦ µû¶ó¼­ $0.22km^{-1}$($r^2$=0.91, p<0.05)·Î °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇÏ·ùÁö¿ªÀÇ IBI°ªÀÇ °¨¼Ò´Â ¿©¿ïÀú¼­¼º ¾î·ù ¹× ½ÄÃæ¼º ¾î·ùÀÇ °¨¼Ò¿Í ÇÔ²² ³»¼ºÁ¾, ºñÁ¤»ó ¾î·ù ¹× ¿Ü·¡ ¾î·ùÀÇ Áõ°¡ ¶§¹®À¸·Î ÆÇ¸íµÇ¾ú´Ù. IBI°ªÀÇ °ø°£Àû ¾ç»óÀº Æò±Õ ¾îÁ¾ ¼ö¿Í 1Â÷ ÇÔ¼ö°ü°è ($r^2$=0.998, p< 0.001)¸¦ º¸ÀÎ QHEI¿Í µ¿ÀÏÇÑ ¾ç»óÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ¼ö ȯ°æ³» conservative ionº¯È­ÀÇ Ã´µµ·Î¼­ ÃøÁ¤µÈ Àü±âÀüµµµµ¿Í pH°ª¿¡ µû¸£¸é, ±ÝÈ£°­Àº ¿©¸§µ¿¾ÈÀÇ À帶 ¹× ¼ö°è·ÎºÎÅÍ Ç¥Ãþ¼ö À¯ÀÔÀ¸·Î ÀÎÇØ 30%±îÁö Èñ¼®µÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, ÀÌ·± °á°ú´Â À帶±â°£ µ¿¾È °­¹°ÀÇ ¹°¸®Àû, È­ÇÐÀû ºÒ¾ÈÁ¤¼ºÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, À帶±â°£ ¹× À帶 ÈÄÀÇ IBI°ªÀ» ºñ±³ÇØ º¸¸é À帶 Àü¿¡ ºñÇØ 20%ÀÌ»ó °¨¼ÒÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÃÑüÀûÀ¸·Î ÇÏõÀÇ ¹°¸®Àû ±³¶õ Àü(À帶 Àü), ¼­½ÄÁö Æò°¡Áö¼ö´Â Àâ½Ä¼º ¾îÁ¾ÀÇ »ó´ë dzºÎµµ¿Í ¿ª»ó°ü°ü°è(r=0.99, p<0.0001)¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é¿¡ À°½Ä¼º ¾îÁ¾°ú´Â Á¤»ó°ü°ü°è(r=0.87, p=0.05)¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. °á·ÐÀûÀ¸·Î ¼­½ÄÁöÀÇ °ø°£Àû ÁúÀû ÀúÇÏ´Â ¿µ¾ç±¸Á¶ üÁ¦¿¡ º¯°æÀ» ÃÊ·¡ÇÏ¿´°í, ÀÌ·± ±â´ÉÀû º¯È­´Â °á±¹ IBI°ªÀÇ °¨¼Ò¸¦ ÃÊ·¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °á±¹ IBI°ªÀÇ °¨¼Ò¸¦ ÃÊ·¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ã¼öÀ¯ÀÔ¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ºÎºÐº¸´Ù ÀúÃþ ÇØ¼ö ¹× ÁÖº¯ ¼ö±«·ÎºÎÅÍ À¯ÀÔÇÏ´Â ºñÀ²ÀÌ ³ôÀº °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. ½Ã¾ÆÇØÀÇ ½Ä¹°Çöûũſ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ȯ°æ¿äÀÎÀº ½Ã°£°ú °ø°£¿¡ µû¶ó ´Ù¸£°Ô ³ªÅ¸³ª°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, ¿©¸§Ã¶ ±Ø½ÉÇÑ Áú¼ÒÀÇ ºÎÁ·À̳ª º½Ã¶ ±ÔÁ¶ ´ë¹ß»ý½ÃÀÇ ±Ô»ê¿° °í°¥ µîÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÏ¸é ¿µ¾ç¿°·ùº¸´Ùµµ ³ôÀº ºÎÀ¯¹°Áú, Áï ±¤·® µî ¹°¸®ÇÐÀû ¿äÀο¡ ÀÇÇØ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ »ó¾÷¼º ¸ñÀûÀÌ °³ÀÔµÈ ¿¬±¸»ç¾÷ Áï ÅõÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ °á°ú¸¦ ¹°À» ¼ö ¹Û¿¡ ¾ø´Â ¿¬±¸»ç¾÷¿¡ ´ëÇØ Á¾·¡ÀÇ ±×·£Æ®Çü ¿¬±¸ºñ °ü¸®Á¦¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÒ °æ¿ì Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ¼ÒÀç°¡ ºÒºÐ¸íÇÏ°Ô µÇ¾î ÁÁÀº ¼º°ú¸¦ ±â´ëÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø´Â ¹®Á¦°¡ Á¦±â µÇ¾ú´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¹®Á¦Á¡À» º¸¿ÏÇϱâ À§ÇÏ¿© °í¾ÈµÈ °ÍÀÌ ´ë¿©Çü ¿¬±¸ºñ °ü¸®Á¦µµÀÌ´Ù. µ¿ Á¦µµ´Â ¿¬±¸ÀÚ°¡ ¿¬±¸°á°ú¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¸íÈ®ÇÑ Ã¥ÀÓÀ» Áö´Â ´ë½Å ¼º°øÇÒ °æ¿ì¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼­µµ ¸íÈ®ÇÑ ±ÝÀüÀû º¸»óÀÌ ÁÖ¾îÁöµµ·Ï ÇÏ¿© give and take¿Í penalty and incentive¸¦ ¸íÈ®È÷ ÇÏ´Â ¹æ½ÄÀ¸·Î ºñÁî´Ï½º °³³äÀ» µµÀÔÇÑ °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ±× ÇÙ½É ³»¿ëÀº ¿¬±¸ÀÚ¿¡°Ô ¹«ÀÌÀÚ, ¹«´ãº¸·Î ¿¬±¸ºñ¸¦ ´ë¿©ÇÏ¿© Cash PowerÀ» ±³¼ö¿¡°Ô ÁÖ°í ½É»ç¼±Á¤¿¡ À־µµ ½Ç¸íÁ¦·Î ÇÏ¿© ½É»ç¼±Á¤ÇÏ´Â ±³¼ö¿¡°Ôµµ Àμ¾Æ¼ºê¸¦ Áְųª Æä³ÎƼ¸¦ ¹°µµ·Ï Çϸç, ´ë¿© ¹ÞÀº ±³¼ö´Â ¼º°ø½ÇÆÐ¿¡ °ü°è¾øÀÌ °è¾àµÈ ±â°£ÀÌ Áö³ª¸é ¿¬±¸ºñ¸¦ °±´Â Á¦µµÀÌ´Ù. ¼º°ø½Ã¿¡´Â ¿¬±¸ÀÚ¿Í È¸»ç°¡ Àμ¾Æ¼ºê¸¦ Á¦ÀÏ ¸¹ÀÌ ¹Þ°Ô µÈ´Ù. À̸®ÇÏ¿© ÀÌ Á¦µµ´Â Àß ¼öÇàµÇ¸é Çб³, ¿¬±¸ÀÚ, ȸ»ç, ½É»ç¼±Á¤ÀÚ ¸ðµÎ¿¡°Ô ÇýÅÃÀ» ÁÖ´Â Win Win ¿¬±¸ºñ °ü¸®Á¦µµÀÌ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ½É»ç, ¼±Á¤, Æò°¡µµ Ã¥ÀÓ ÀÖ°í °øÁ¤ÇÏ°Ô À¯ÁöµÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. ´ë¿© ¿¬±¸ºñ °ü¸®Á¦µµÀÇ ÀýÂ÷¸¦ ¿ä¾àÇÑ °ÍÀÌ Figure 1°ú °°´Ù. ÀÌ·± Á¡µéÀ» º¼ ¶§ ´ë¿©Çü ¿¬±¸ºñ°ü¸® Á¦µµ´Â ºñÁî´Ï½ºÇü ¿¬±¸ºñ °ü¸®Á¦µµ¶ó°í ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.»ç·á¿Í ÇÔ²² ±Þ¿©ÇÏ´Â ¹ßÈ¿»ç·áÀÇ ÀûÁ¤ ±Þ¿© ºñÀ²À» 50¡­60% Á¤µµ·Î ÇÒ ¶§ »ç·áÀÇ
We evaluated the aquatic ecosystem of Keum-Ho River through applications of the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) using fish assemblages and Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) during June-November 1999. Overall IBI values ranged from 13 to 37 with mean of 23 (n=25, Std. error= 1.16), indicating a "Poor" or "Very Poor" condition according to the criteria of Karr (1981) and U.S. EPA (1993). The values of mean IBI declined at the rate of $0.22km^{-1}$(($r^2$=0.91, p< 0.05) along the longitudinal distance from the headwaters to the down-river. Reduced IBI values at down-river (St. 4 and 5) were attributed to the decreases in riffle benthic species and the relative abundance of insectivore and increases in tolerant species, anormalies and exotic species. Spatial pattern in IBI agreed with QHEI values, which showed a linear relation ($r^2$=0.998, p< 0.001) with mean number of species. Field measurements of conductivity and pH, indicators for variation of conservative ions, showed that the river water was diluted up to 30% by summer precipitation and surface run-off from the watershed, resulting in physical and chemical instability during the monsoon. For these reasons, average IBI values during monsoon and postmonsoon decreased more than 20% compared to pre -monsoon. Before the perturbation of the system (i.e., pre-monsoon), values of QHEI were inversely correlated (r=-0.99, p< 0.0001) with realtive abundance of native omnivore and were positively correlated (r=0.87, p=0.05) with relative abundance of native carnivore. These results indicate that spatial degradation of habitat quality modified the species richness and trophic structure, producing decreased IBI values. (Biological integrity, IBI, Monsoon, Habitat, River, Korea)bitat, River, Korea)
 
Ű¿öµå
 
ȯ°æ»ý¹° / v.18, no.2, 2000³â, pp.215-226
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1226-9999
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200011921491767)
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¿