한국환경생태학회지 (Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology)

  • 제28권2호
  • /
  • Pages.215-234
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1229-3857(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-131X(eISSN)
한국환경생태학회 (Korean Society of Environment and Ecology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국내 자연하천의 유형별 물리적 구조 및 식생 특성 연구

A Study on Hydromorphology and Vegetation Features Depending on Typology of Natural Streams in Korea

  • 김혜주 (김혜주자연환경계획연구소) ;
  • 신범균 (김혜주자연환경계획연구소) ;
  • 김원 (한국건설기술연구원 수자원.환경연구본부 하천해안연구실)
  • 투고 : 2014.03.10
  • 심사 : 2014.04.16
  • 발행 : 2014.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 하천복원 및 하천평가의 근거를 마련하기 위하여 국내 자연하천의 유형 및 특성을 연구하는 것이다. 이를 위하여 국내 섬 지방을 제외한 전국의 다양한 자연하천 조사구 95개소를 선정하여, 각 조사구의 자연환경적, 물리적 및 식물 식생특성을 조사 및 분석하였다. 그 결과, 95개 조사구는 하천의 규모(4개 유형), 고도(3개 유형), 하상재료(5개 유형)에 의거 모두 24개 유형으로 분류할 수 있었다. 그리고 각 하천유형과 식물 식생출현성과 가장 상관성이 강한 환경인자인 고도에 따라서 24개 하천유형을 다시 평지(고도 200m미만), 산지(고도 200m이상 500m미만), 고산지(고도 500m이상)의 3개 유형으로 크게 구분하여 하천의 물리적 구조, 식물 식생적 특성을 비교하였다. 먼저 평지하천의 대표적인 특징은 고산지나 산지하천과 비교하여 하천규모는 크지만 하상재료는 작은 편이고, 홍수터가 잘 발달하는 계곡횡단면 형태가 많았으며, 하천규모가 클수록 횡단폭의 변화와 사주발달이 양호하고 사행성이 두드러지는 편이며, 대표적 식생은 버드나무군락이었다. 반면에 산지와 고산지하천은 평지하천에 비하여 하천규모가 작고, 하상재료는 굵고 거칠며, 계곡횡단면 형태는 홍수터가 발달하지 못하는 좁은 형태이었다. 또한 사행도나 사주발달도 평지하천에 비하여 미약하였다. 산지하천의 두드러진 대표식생은 졸참나무-, 굴참나무-, 때죽나무군락이었으며, 고산지하천에서는 소나무-, 신갈나무-, 물푸레나무군락이었다.

The purpose of this study is to identify the type and characteristics of the domestic natural streams in order to establish a basis for stream restoration and evaluation. To this end, 95 domestic natural stream areas, which have various natural environments, were selected except for the province of island and then the characteristics of natural environment, hydromorpholoy, plant and vegetation were investigated and analyzed in each stream area. As a result, 95 stream areas were classified into total 24 types according to 3 criteria such as stream size (4 types), altitude (3 types), bed material (5 types). Depending on altitude class that is the environmental factor showing the highest correlation with each stream types, the emergence of vegetation and plant, 24 stream types were reclassified into 3 types such as lowland (altitude less than 200m), mountain (altitude from 200m to 500m), highland (altitude more than 500m), and hydromorpholoy, plant and vegetation characteristics of each stream type were compared. First, when compared to the mountain and highland streams, the typical features of lowland streams were as follows: Stream size was large but bed material size was small and there were many valley forms where flood plane were developed well. In addition, the more large stream size was, the more cross-section width variability, bars and sinuosity were in good conditions. In lowland stream, representative vegetation community was Salix koreensis community. On the other hand, when compared to the lowland streams, the typical features of mountain and highland streams were as follows: Stream size was small but bed material was coarse-grained and its size was large. Mountain and highland streams valley form where flood plane was not developed well was narrow, and sinuosity and bars development were weak. Representative vegetation communities of mountain streams were Quercus serrata -, Quercus variabilis -, Styrax japonica community and representative vegetation communities of highland streams were Pinus densiflora -, Quercus mongolica -, Fraxinus rhynchophylla community.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. AQEM Consortium(2002) Manual for the Application of the AQEM System: A Comprehensive Method to Assess European Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Developed for the Purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0, February 2002, In: www.aqem.de
  2. Braun-Blanquet, J.(1964) Pflanzensoziologie. 3. Aufl. 865pp. Wien.
  3. Daum communications(2006-2012) Daum map; http://local.daum.net/map/index.jsp.
  4. Fuster, R., C. Escobar, G. Lillo, M. Gonzalez, A. Fuente and T. Pottgiesser(2012) Water bodies typology system: A chilean case of scientific stakeholders and policy makers dialogue. Lakes, Reservoirs and Ponds, Vol. 6(2): 93-107, 2012.
  5. Google Inc.(2006-2012) Google earth; http://www.google.com/ earth/index.html.
  6. Han, K.D., K.O. Byun and Y.J. Sung(2009) Study on selection of restoration model for amenity improvement of urban river : Division of river type (I). Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference, May 2009, pp. 2153-2157. (in Korean)
  7. Harris, R.R.(1988) Associations between stream valley geomorphology and riparian vegetation as a basis for landscape analysis in eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Environmental Management 12: 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873390
  8. Holmes, N.T.H., P.J. Boon and T.A. Rowell(1998) A revised classification system for British rivers based on their aquatic plant communities. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 8: 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0755(199807/08)8:4<555::AID-AQC296>3.0.CO;2-Y
  9. Holtrop, A.M., D. Day, C. Dolan and J. Epifanio(2005) Ecological Classification of Rivers for Environmental Assessment and Management: Stream Attribution and Model Preparation. Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Aquatic Ecology and Conservation, 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820, 57pp.
  10. Illies, J.(1952) Die Moelle. Faunistische-oekologische untersuchungen an einem Forellenbach im Lipper Bergland. Arch. Hydrobiol. 46: 424-612.
  11. Illies, J.(1953) Die Besiedlung der Fulda (insb. das Benthos der Salmonidenregion) nach dem jetzigen Stand der Untersuchungen. Ber. Limnol. Flussstat. Freudentahl 5: 1-28.
  12. Illies, J.(1958) Die Barbenregion mitteleuropaeischer Fliessgewaesser. Verh. internat. Ver. Limnol. 13: 834-844.
  13. Illies, J.(1961) Versuch einer allgemeinen biozoenotischen Gliederung der Fliessgewaesser. Internat. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 46: 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19610460205
  14. KEI(Korea Environment Institute)(2006) Program Development to Predict Changes in Biological Communities Depending on Degradation and Recovery of Stream Environments - Establishment and Application of Hypothetical River Continuum Concept -. KEI, 282pp. (in Korean)
  15. KICT(2005) Development of Multi-functional River Restoration Techniques. Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Korea, pp. 69-102. (in Korean with English summary)
  16. Kim, H.J.(2008) The Effectiveness of Domestic Stream Restoration projects - The Evaluation by Using Hydromorphological Structure Assessment of LAWA- In: Eco-STAR Project Symposium (June 13, 2008): Direction for Creation and Induction of Natural Waterfront through the Evaluation of Domestic Stream Restoration Projects, pp. 1-19. (in Korean)
  17. Kowarik, J.(1988) Zum menschlichen Einfluss auf Flora und Vegetation. Theoretische Konzepte und ein Quantifizierungsansatz am Beispiel von Berlin (West). Landschaftsentw. Umweltforsch, 56: 280pp. Berlin.
  18. LAWA(Laenderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser)(2000) Gewaesserstr ukturguetekartierung in der BRD. 1. Auf. Schwerin., 145p +Anh ang.
  19. Lee, J.H.(2005) The Comparative Characteristics by the Region and River with a View to Ecological Restoration of the River - Cases of the 16 Rivers in Kangweon Province -. Ph. D. Dissertation, Dankook Univ., Kyeonggi-do, Korea, pp. 210. (in Korean with English abstract)
  20. Lee, C.J., D.H. Lee, K.H. Kim and H.S. Woo(2004) Examination into the applicability of the river classification system based on the geomorphological criteria. Journal of Korea Water Resources Association 37(1): 1-11. (in Korean with English abstract) https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2004.37.1.001
  21. Lee, Y.K. and S.W. Lee(2012) Stream classification based on the ecological characteristics for effective stream management -In the case of Nakdong River -. J. Korean Env. Res. Tech. 15(5): 103-114. (in Korean with English abstract)
  22. Lee, Y.K., S.W. Lee and G.S. Hwang(2011) Exploring alternatives of stream classification for ecological restoration in Korea. Journal of Life and Environmental Sciences 33(1): 49-56. (in Korean with English abstract)
  23. Leps, J. and P. Smilauer(2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press.
  24. McNaughton, S. J. 1967. Relationship among functional properties of California glassland. Nature, 216: 168-169.
  25. LUA(Landesumweltamt Nordrhein-Westfalen)(2001) Merkblaett er Nr. 26. Gewaesserstrukturguete in Nordrhein-Westfalen. An leitung f. die Kartierung mittelgrosser bis grosser Fliessgewaes ser. Essen, 152pp.
  26. MLTM(Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) and HRFCO(Han River Flood Control Office)(2007) List of Rivers in Korea. MLTM, 741pp. (in Korean)
  27. MOE(Ministry of Environment)(2011) Guidelines of ecological stream restoration techniques (6th amendment 3.8). MOE, 305pp. (in Korean)
  28. Otto, A.(1991) Grundlagen einer Morphologischen Typologie der Baeche, Mitt. d. Inst. f. Wasserbau u. Kulturtechnik der Uni. Karlsruhe(180), pp. 1-94.
  29. Polar Engineering and Consulting(2008) SPSS Statistics 17.0, Release 17.0.0 (Aug 23, 2008).
  30. Pottgiesser, T. and M. Sommerhauser(2004) Die Fliessgewaessertypologie Deutschlands, System der Gewaessertypen und Steckbriefe zu den Referenzbedingungen. In: Handbuch der Angewandten Limnologie, Ecomed-Verlagsgesellschaft, Lansberg, 1-16 +Anhang.
  31. Pottgiesser, T. and M. Sommerhauser(2008) Beschreibung und Bewertung der deutschen Flie$\beta$gewassertypen - Steckbriefe und Anhang (engl.: Description and Evaluation of German river types), German Federal Environment Agency, Berlin, 29pp.
  32. Pottgiesser, T. and S. Birk(2007) River Basin Management Tools: River Typologies -Harmonisation of DRB Typologies -. umweltburo essen Bolle & Partner Gbr, Rellinghauser Str. 334 F, 45136 Essen, Germany, 32pp.
  33. Rosgen, D.L.(1994) A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9
  34. Rosgen, D.L.(1997) A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of lncised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, 12-22.
  35. Ter Braak, C.J.F. and P. Smilauer(2002) CANOCO for Windows Version 4.5.
  36. Walsh, M.C., J. Deeds and B. Nightingale(2007) User's Manual and Data Guide to the Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Middletown, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 8-1-8-7.
  37. Yang, H.K.(2001) The Classification of Mountain Streams based on Natural and Anthropogenic Influence in Channel Morphology - Case Studies on Sudong, Suip, Jojong, and Gapyeong Streams in Kyeonggi-do, Korea -. Ph. D. Dissertation, Seoul National Univ., Seoul, Korea, pp. 33-53. (in Korean with English abstract)