Journal of Wetlands Research (한국습지학회지)

Korean Wetlands Society (한국습지학회)
권호 표지

Comparisons of Flora and Vegetation Distribution in Main and Abandoned Channels

본류와 폐천의 식물상과 식생분포의 비교

  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We investigated characteristics of channel morphology, flora and vegetation distribution at the main and the abandoned channels of the Hwangguji Stream and the Cheongmi Stream. The analysis of aerial photographs and old topographical maps showed that the abandoned channels were made by cut-off from the main channel due to the construction of artificial levee. The total number of species and percentage of exotic plants at the main channels were higher than those at the abandoned channels. At the abandoned channel, the percentage of species number of hydrophytes and hygrophytes was higher than those at the main channels in the both stream. The results of principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the floral structure between at the main and the abandoned channel was more similar in the Hwangguji Stream than that in the Cheongmi Stream. The relative distribution areas of hydrophytes and hygrophytes at two abandoned channels were much higher than those at the main channels in the both stream. The dominant plant was an emergent macrophyte, Zizania latifolia at two abandoned channels. Therefore, flora and vegetation at the abandoned channel showed more hydric and lentic characteristics and provided diversity on the landscape level.

황구지천과 청미천의 본류와 폐천에서 하도형태, 식물상 및 식생분포 특성을 분석하였다. 항공사진과 옛 지형도를 분석한 결과, 폐천은 제방축조에 의해 사행하도가 단절되어 형성된 것으로 나타났다. 전체 식물종수와 귀화식물 백분율은 본류가 폐천에 비해 높았다. 두 폐천에서 수생, 습생식물 종수의 백분율은 각각의 본류에서 보다 높았다. 주성분분석결과 폐천과 본류 사이의 식물상 구조는 황구지천이 청미천에 비해 비교적 유사하게 나타났다. 두 폐천에서 수생, 습생 식물 분포 면적비율은 각각의 본류에 비해 높았다. 두 폐천에서 우점식물은 정수식물인 줄이었다. 따라서 폐천의 식물상과 식생분포는 습생, 정수 생태계의 특성을 나타내었으며 경관수준에서 다양성을 제공하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 건설교통부, 자연 친화적 하천정비기법 개발 보고서, 건설교통부, 서울, 2002.
  2. 박수현, 한국귀화식물원색도감, 일조각, 서울, 1995.
  3. 우효섭, 박재로, 하천 복원의 이해와 국내외 사례, 한국수자원학회지, 33: 15-28, 2000.
  4. 이상식, 김형수, 정상만, 폐천의 습지 활용에 대한 레크리에이션 및 심미적 가치평가, 한국도시방재학회논문집, 2: 127-134, 2002.
  5. 이창복, 대한식물도감, 향문사, 서울, 1993.
  6. 최홍근, 수생관속식물, 생명공학연구소, 대전, 2000.
  7. 한국건설기술연구원, 폐천 및 구하도 보전, 복원기술. 자연과 함께하는 하천복원 기술개발 연구단, 건설교통부, 서울, 2007.
  8. Akita, M., Makiguchi, Y., Nakao, K., Sandahl, J.F. and Veda, H, Upstream migration of chum salmon through a restored segment of the Shibetsu River, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, Vol. 15, pp. 125-130, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00153.x
  9. Cho, H.J. and Cho, K.H., Responses of riparian vegetation to flooding disturbance in a sand stream, KSCE Journal of civil engineering, Vol. 9, pp. 49-53, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02829097
  10. Cirujano, S., C. Casado, M. Bernues and J.A. Camargo, Ecological study of Las Tablas de Deimiel National Park(Ciudad Real, Central Spain): Differences in water physico-chemistry and vegetation between 1974 and 1989, Biological Conservation, Vol. 75, pp. 211-215, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(95)00079-8
  11. Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group (FISRWG), Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN3/PT.653, 1998.
  12. Hupp, C.R. and Osterkamp, W.R., Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes, Geomorphology, Vol. 14, pp. 277-295, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(95)00042-4
  13. Kalliola, R. and Puhakka, M., River dynamics and vegetation mosaicism: A case study of the River Kamajohka, northernmost Finland, Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 15, pp. 703-719, 1988. https://doi.org/10.2307/2845334
  14. Klein, L.R., Clayton, S.R., Alldredge, J.R. and Goodwin, P., Long-term monitoring and evaluation of the lower Red River meadow restoration project, Idaho, U.S.A., Restoration ecology, Vol. 15, pp. 223-239, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00206.x
  15. Marston, R.A., Girel J., Pautou, G., Piegay, H., Bravard, J.P. and Arneson, C. 1995. Channel metamorphosis, floodplain disturbance, and vegetation development: Ain River, France. Geomorphology Vol. 13, pp. 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(95)00066-E
  16. Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G., Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2007.
  17. Naiman, R.J. and Decamps, H., The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 28, pp. 621-658, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.621
  18. Nakano D. and Nakamura, F., Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to river restoration in a channelized segment of the Shibetsu River, northern Japan, River Research and Applications, Vol. 22, pp. 681-689, 2006.
  19. ter Braak C.J.F. and Smilauer, P., CANOCO reference manual and user's guide to Canoco for Windows - software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, 2002.
  20. Toth, L.A., Arrington, D.A., Brady, M.A., and Muszick, D.A., Conceptual evaluation of factors potentially affecting restoration of habitat structure within the channelized Kissimmee River ecosystem, Restoration Ecology, Vol. 3, pp. 160-180, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00168.x
  21. Toth, L.A., Plant community structure and temporal variability in a channelized subtropical floodplain, Southeastern Naturalist, Vol. 4, pp. 393-408, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2005)004[0393:PCSATV]2.0.CO;2