Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment (생태와환경)

The Korean Society of Limnology (한국수생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Analysis of the Fish Assemblage Characteristics by Wetland Type (River and lake) of National Wetland Classification System of Wetlands in Gyeongsangnam-do

국가습지유형분류체계의 습지 유형 (하천형과 호수형)에 따른 경남지역 습지의 어류군집 특성 분석

  • Kim, Jeong-Hui (EcoResearch) ;
  • Yoon, Ju-Duk (Environmental Impact Assessment Team, National Institute of Ecology) ;
  • Im, Ran-Young (Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Gu-Yeon (Department of Science Education, Kyungnam University) ;
  • Jo, Hyunbin (Institute of Environmental Technology and Industry, Pusan National University)
  • 김정희 (에코리서치) ;
  • 윤주덕 (국립생태원 환경영향평가팀) ;
  • 임란영 (부산대학교 생명과학과) ;
  • 김구연 (경남대학교 과학교육과) ;
  • 조현빈 (부산대학교 환경기술산업개발연구소)
  • Received : 2017.11.24
  • Accepted : 2018.04.24
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Twenty-nine wetlands (20 river type and 9 lake type wetlands) in Gyeongsangnam-do were investigated to understand the characteristics of fish assemblages by the wetland type and to suggest management strategies. As a result, $10.3{\pm}4.8$ species were collected from river type wetlands on average (${\pm}SD$) and $9.1{\pm}4.1$ species from lake type wetlands. Thus, there was no significant difference in the number of species between them (Mann-Whitney U test, P>0.05). However, the species that constitute the fish assemblage showed statistically significant differences between the two wetland types (PERMANOVA, Pseudo-F=2.9555, P=0.007). Furthermore, the species that contribute the most to each type of fish assemblage were Zacco koreanus (river type, 28.51%) and Lepomis macrochirus (lake type, 23.21%), respectively (SIMPER). The results of the NMDS analysis using the fish assemblage by place classified the species into three groups (river type, lake type, and others). The current wetland management is only focused on endangered species, but this study shows a difference in fish assemblage by wetland type. Therefore, a management system based information on endemic species, exotic species and major contribution species should be provided. Furthermore, the classification of some types of wetlands based on the present topography was found to be ambiguous, and wetland classification using living creatures can be used as a complementary method. This study has limitations because only two types of wetlands were analyzed. Therefore, a detailed management method that can represent every type of wetland should be prepared through the research of all types of wetlands in the future.

습지 유형에 따른 어류군집 특성을 파악하고 이를 통해 관리 전략을 마련하기 위해 경상남도에 위치한 29개의 습지 (하천형 20개소, 호수형 9개소)를 대상으로 조사를 실시하였다. 조사결과 하천형 습지에서는 평균(${\pm}SD$) $10.3{\pm}4.8$종이, 호수형 습지에서는 평균 $9.1{\pm}4.1$종이 출현하였으며, 출현 종수의 차이는 확인되지 않았다(Mann-Whitney U test, P>0.05). 반면 두 습지 유형의 어류군집을 구성하는 종들은 통계적으로 유의한 수준의 차이를 보였으며(PERMANOVA, Pseudo-F=2.9555, P=0.007), 각 유형의 어류군집에 가장 크게 기여하는 종은 참갈겨니(하천형, 28.51%)와 블루길 (호수형, 23.21%)로 확인되었다 (SIMPER). 지점별 어류군집을 활용한 NMDS 분석결과 총 3개의 그룹(하천형, 호수형, 기타)으로 구분되어 기존의 유형 구분과 차이를 확인할 수 있었다. 현재 습지 관리는 멸종위기종을 중심으로 한 일원화된 방법이 제시되고 있으나, 본 연구에 의하면 습지 유형별 어류군집에 있어서 차이가 있기 때문에 고유종, 외래종, 주요 기여종에 대한 정보를 활용한 관리방법이 마련되어야 한다. 또한 현재 지형을 기반으로 한 습지의 유형 분류가 이루어지고 있으나 일부 습지의 유형에 대한 분류가 모호한 경우가 확인되었으며, 이에 대해 생물상 분석을 통한 보완이 이루어질 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 두 개의 습지 유형에 대한 분석결과로 한계가 있기 때문에 향후 모든 유형의 습지를 대상으로 연구를 실시하여 각 습지의 유형을 대변할 수 있는 세부적인 관리 방법 마련이 이루어져야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. An, K.G. and J.H. Han. 2013. Chemical Water Quality and Fish Community Characteristics in the Mid- to Downstream Reach of Geum River. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology 31: 180-188. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2013.31.3.180
  2. Baek, S.H., J.D. Yoon, J.H. Kim, H.J. Lee, K.R. Choi and M.H. Jang. 2013. Characteristics of fish community in the Seomjin River and brackish area. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology 31: 402-410. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2013.31.4.402
  3. Batzer, D.P. and V.H. Resh. 1992. Wetland management strategies that enhance waterfowl habitats can also control mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 8: 117-125.
  4. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck Jr, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633-641. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2
  5. Buisson, L., L. Blanc and G. Grenouillet. 2007. Modelling stream fish species distribution in a river network: the relative effects of temperature versus physical factors. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17: 244-257.
  6. Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick. 1994. Similarity-based testing for community pattern: the two-way layout with no replication. Marine Biology 118: 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00699231
  7. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.F. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
  8. Engler, R., A. Guisan and L. Rechsteiner. 2004. An improved approach for predicting the distribution of rare and endangered species from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00881.x
  9. Field, J.G., K.R. Clarke and R.M. Warwick. 1982. A practical strategy for analysing multispecies distribution patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 8: 37-52. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps008037
  10. Jang, M.H., G.J. Joo and M.C. Lucas. 2006. Diet of introduced largemouth bass in Korean rivers and potential interactions with native fishes. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 15: 315-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2006.00161.x
  11. Jo, H., J.A. Gim, K.S. Jeong, H.S. Kim and G.J. Joo. 2014. Application of DNA barcoding for identification of freshwater carnivorous fish diets: Is number of prey items dependent on size class for Micropterus salmoides? Ecology and Evolution 4: 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.921
  12. Jo, H., J.D. Yoon, J.H. Kim, K.S. Jeong, Y. Do and G.J. Joo. 2016. Diet shifts and delayed piscivory specialisation during the ontogenesis of the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede, 1802) in the Nakdong River and Upo Wetlands, South Korea. Indian Journal of Fisheries 63: 48-54.
  13. Kim, I.S. and J.Y. Park. 2002. Freshwater fishes of Korea. KyoHak Publishing Co, Seoul.
  14. Lambert, A. 2003. Economic valuation of wetlands: an important component of wetland management strategies at the river basin scale. Conservation Finance Guide, Washington.
  15. Lehner, B. and P. Doll. 2004. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028
  16. Matthews, W.J., D.J. Hough and H.W. Robison. 1992. Similarities in fish distribution and water quality patterns in streams of Arkansas: congruence of multivariate analysis. Copeia 1992: 296-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/1446191
  17. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35: 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8
  18. MOE. 2010. The study on manual of wetland classification by type/class and wetland restoration in Korea. The Ministry of Environment, Gwacheon.
  19. MOE/NIER. 2011. Monitoring guideline of Korean inland wetland. The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon.
  20. MOE/NIER. 2012. Wild fauna and flora disturbing the ecosystem. The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon.
  21. MOE/NIER. 2014. Guidebook for wetland policy officer. The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon.
  22. MOE/NIER. 2015. Guideline for natural environment protected areas. The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon.
  23. Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech. 2000. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology (4th edition). Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
  24. Naugle, D.E., R.R. Johnson, M.E. Estey and K.F. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0001:ALATCW]2.0.CO;2
  25. Nelson, J. 2006. Fishes of the world. Wiley, New York.
  26. NIBR. 2011. Red data book of endangered fishes in Korea, National Institute of Biological Resources, Incheon.
  27. Park, S.H., J.W. Lee, J.H. Kim, S.H. Baek, J.D. Yoon, K.R. Choi and M.H. Jang. 2013. Fish distribution and salinity in the Saemangeum Reservoir. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology 31: 411-418. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2013.31.4.411
  28. Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17: 1219-1228. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02177.x
  29. Yoon, J.D., J.H. Kim, M.S. Byeon, H.J. Yang, J.Y. Park, J.H. Shim, H.B. Song, H. Yang and M.H. Jang. 2011. Distribution patterns of fish communities with respect to environmental gradients in Korean streams. Annales de Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology 47: 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2011020