Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment (생태와환경)

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of Stream Channel Naturalness on Aquatic Ecological Health in the Han River, South Korea

한강권역 내 하도 자연성이 어류 건강성에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Hyunji (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Noh, SeongYu (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Jeong, Hyun-Gi (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Moon, Jeongsuk (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Shin, Yuna (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Kyung-Lak (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Su-Woong (Water Ecology Research Team, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Kwan (Water Environment Research Department, National Institute of Environmental Research)
  • 김현지 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 노성유 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 정현기 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 문정숙 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 신유나 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 이경락 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 이수웅 (국립환경과학원 유역생태연구팀) ;
  • 이재관 (국립환경과학원 물환경연구부)
  • Received : 2018.10.23
  • Accepted : 2018.12.08
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate effect of stream channel naturalness on ecological health by using environmental factors and Fish Assessment Index (FAI) in the Han River of South Korea. These samples and data have been released from the research project titled Stream/River Ecosystem Survey and Health Assessment, which was conducted in 444 sites in the Han river watershed from 2008 to 2016. All samples were classified into five groups according to a degree of morphological changes of stream. Water chemistry analyses indicated a decline in water quality by decreasing stream channel naturalness, it is assumed that channelized stream was vulnerable to aquatic pollution compared to the natural meandering stream. In the result of frequency of dominant species, sensitive species and insectivore such as Zacco koreanus, Rhynchocypris kumgangensis and Pungtungia herzi were frequently dominated in the natural meandering stream while tolerant species and omnivores such as Carassius auratus and Cyprinus carpio were more dominated in the channelized streams. The FAI in the channelized stream shows decline to average of $46{\pm}25$ compared with that of the natural meandering stream ($80{\pm}20$). The decrease in FAI was highly influenced by changes in matrixes of fish assemblage structure such as number of sensitive species (M3), portion of omnivores (M5) and insectivores (M6). Moreover, annual average FAIs from 2008 to 2016 were significantly correlated with water chemistry, especially TN, TP and BOD ($r^2=0.59$, p<0.0001). Taken together, all the results suggest that the stream channelization could negatively impact on the water quality and fish assemblage structure, leading to degradation in aquatic ecosystem health.

본 연구는 하천 내 하도 자연성이 어류 건강성에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위하여, 2008~2016년 간 한강권역의 자연사행하천과 하도정비로 직강화된 하천의 수질환경요인과 FAI를 비교 분석하였다. 하도 자연성에 따른 우점종의 출현빈도를 분석한 결과, 자연사행하천에서 민감성 및 충식성 어종이 우세한 반면, 하도 직강화 하천에서는 내성 및 잡식성 어종이 우점하는 빈도가 높은 양상을 보였다. 하도 및 저수로의 직강화로 인해 하도 자연성이 감소함에 따라 FAI가 감소하는 경향을 보였으며, 특히 생태적 어류군집구조 특성이 반영된 메트릭인 민감종수(M3) 및 충식종의 개체수 비율(M6)의 감소와 잡식종의 개체수 비율(M5)의 증가가 FAI 변화에 주요요인으로 나타났다. 하도 자연성 감소에 따른 연도별 FAI 하락은 BOD, TN, TP, 전기전도도, 탁도의 증가와 높은 상관관계를 보여, 하도 및 저수로의 직강화로 인한 수질변화는 물리적 서식환경의 교란과 함께 어류 건강성에 주요 영향요인으로 판단된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 국립환경과학원

References

  1. Allan, J.D. and A.S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43: 32-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312104
  2. An, K.G., D.H. Yeom and S.K. Lee. 2001. Rapid Bioassessments of Kap Stream Using the Index of Biological Integrity. Korean Journal of Biology 19: 261-269.
  3. Andrews, C.S., L.E. Miranda, D.B. Goetz and R. Kroger. 2014. Spatial patterns of lacustrine fish assemblages in a catchment of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24: 634-644. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2468
  4. Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. 1993. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 4: 690-697.
  5. Bae, E.Y. and K.G. An. 2006. Stream Ecosystem Assessments, based on a Biological Multimetric Parameter Model and Water Chemistry Analysis. Korean Journal of Biology 39: 198-208.
  6. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid biassessment protocols for use in streams and Wadeable Rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; office of Water; Washington, D.C.
  7. Beechie, T.J., M. Liermann, E.M. Beamer and R. Henderson. 2005. A classification of habitat types in a large river and their use by juvenile salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 717-729. https://doi.org/10.1577/T04-062.1
  8. Chae, B.S., Y.H. Kang, S.K. Kim, D.U. Yoo, J.M. Park, H.U. Ha and U.W. Hwang. 2014. Ichthyofauna and fish community structure in the Yeong River, Nakdong River system, Korea. Korean Journal of Ichthyology 26: 50-69.
  9. Chae, B.S., S.K. Kim, Y.H. Kang, N.S. Heo, J.M. Park, H.U. Ha and U.W. Hwang. 2015. Ichthyofauna and Fish Community Structure in Upper Reach of the Nakdong River, Korea. Korean Journal of Ichthyology 27: 116-132.
  10. Dahm, C.N., K.W. Cummins, H.M. Valett and R.L. Coleman. 1995. An ecosystem view of the restoration of the Kissimmee River. Restoration Ecology 3: 225-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00172.x
  11. Dauwalter, D.C., E.J. Pert and W.E. Keith. 2003. An index of biotic integrity for fish assemblages in Ozark Highland streams of Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2003)002[0447:AIOBIF]2.0.CO;2
  12. Davis, W.S. 1995. Biological assessment and criteria: building on the past. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making, p. 15-29. (W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
  13. Dewey, M.R. and C.A. Jennings. 1992. Habitat use by larval fishes in a backwater lake of the Upper Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 7: 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1992.9664706
  14. Friberg, N., B. Kronvang, H. Hansen and L.M. Svendsen. 1998. Long-term, habitat-specific response of a macroinvertebrate community to river restoration. Aquatic Conservation 8: 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0755(199801/02)8:1<87::AID-AQC249>3.0.CO;2-L
  15. Gore, J.A. and F.D. Jr Shields. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience 45: 142-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312553
  16. Gorman, O.T. and J.R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59(3): 507-515. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936581
  17. Holubova, K. and M.J. Lisicky. 2001. River and environmental processes in the wetland restoration of the Morava River. WIT Press, Southampon, p. 179-188.
  18. Huggett, R.J. 2003. Fundamentals of Geomorphology. Routledge: London.
  19. Inoue M. and S. Nakano. 1999. Habitat structure along channel- unit wequences for juvenile salmon: a subunit-based analysis of instream landscapes. Freshwater Biology 42: 597-608. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00481.x
  20. Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1981)006<0021:AOBIUF>2.0.CO;2
  21. Karr, J.R. 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00427.x
  22. Karr, J.R., E.J. Sven and F. Brian. 2008. Ecological Health Indicators. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Aca-Press, Oxford: 1037-1041.
  23. Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Tant and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters. A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Special publication: p. 5.
  24. Kim, G. and K.Y. Han. 2010. Study for protection of water resources from pollution, p. 163-191. In: International Hydrological Project (IHP). Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
  25. Kondolf, G.M. 2006. River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society 11: 42.
  26. Lee, H.-G., H.-S. Shin, S.-W. Kim and J.K. Choi. 2012. Spatial analysis of ecological characteristics of Zacco platypus population in Lake Hoengseon Region. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology 26(3): 374-381.
  27. Lee, H.K., K.Y. Lee and J.S. Choi. 2018. The Actual Conditions of Fish Community and Stream order in Taebaeksan National Park. Journal of the Environment 13: 31-41.
  28. Lee, S.H., J.S. Choi, K.Y. Lee, Y.S. Jang, I.S. Lim, W.M. Heo, J.K. Kim and B.C. Kim. 2005. A Study of Water Quality and Fish Community in Lake Doam. Journal of Environmnetal Research 2: 43-60.
  29. Lee, S.H., H.G. Jeong, H.S. Shin, Y. Shin, S.W. Lee and J.K. Lee. 2017. Comparison on Ecological Index Characteristics between Zacco platypus and Zacco koreanus by Stream Order in Korea. Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment 50: 403-410. https://doi.org/10.11614/KSL.2017.50.4.403
  30. Lorenz, A.W., S.C. Jähnig and D. Hering. 2009. Re-meandering German lowland streams: qualitative and quantitative effects of restoration measures on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 44: 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9350-4
  31. Lyons, J., A.E. Gutierrez-Hernandez, E. Diaz-Pardo, E. Soto- Galera, M. Medina-Nava and R. Pineda-Lopez. 2000. Development of a preliminary index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on fish assemblages to assess ecosystem condition in the lakes of central Mexico. Hydrobiologia 418(1): 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003888032756
  32. Maddock, I. 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00437.x
  33. Moerke, A.H., K.J. Gerard, J.A. Latimore, R.A. Hellenthal and G.A. Lamberiti. 2004. Restoration of an Indiana, USA, stream: bridging the gap between basic and applied lotic ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0647:ROAIUS>2.0.CO;2
  34. Nagayama, S. and F. Nakamura. 2018. The significance of meandering channel to habitat diversity and fish assemblage: a case study in the Shibetsu River, northern Japan. Limnology 19: 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-017-0512-4
  35. Nagayama, S., F. Nakamura., Y. Kawaguchi and D. Nakano. 2012. Effects of configuration of instream wood on autumn and winter habitat use by fish in a large remeandering reach. Hydobiologia 680: 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0913-z
  36. Nakamura, F., N. Ishiyama, M. Sueyoshi, J.N. Negishi and T. Akasaka. 2014. The significance of meander restoration for the hydrogeomorphology and recovery of wetland organisms in the Kushiro River, a lowland river in Japan. Restoration Ecology 22: 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12101
  37. Nakamura, F. and H. Yamada. 2005. The effects of pasture development on the ecological functions of riparian forests in Hokkaido in northern Japan. Ecological Engineering 24: 539-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.010
  38. Nakamura, F., M. Jitsu, S. Kameyama and S. Mizugaki. 2002. Changes in riparian forests in the Kushiro Mire, Japan, associated with stream channelization. River Research and Applications 18: 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.621
  39. Nakano, D. and F. Nakamura. 2008. The significance of meandering channel morphology on the diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates in a lowland river in Japan. Aquatic Conservation 18: 780-798. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.885
  40. Negishi, J.N., M. Inoue and M. Nunokawa. 2002. Effects of canalization on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. Freshwater Biology 47: 1515-1529. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00877.x
  41. Palmer, M.A., H.L. Menninger and E. Bernhardt. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55: 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x
  42. Park, H.K., J.K. Choi, K.H. Won and G.L. Hwang. 2017. Study on the evaluation of ecological health by using fish communities in the Wonju stream, Korea. Korean Journal of Environmental Biology 35(4): 684-693. https://doi.org/10.11626/KJEB.2017.35.4.684
  43. Pedersen, M.L., N. Friberg, J. Skriver and A. Baattrup-Pedersen. 2007. Restoration of Skjern River and its valley-shortterm effects on river habitats, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates. Ecological Engineering 30: 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.08.009
  44. Poff, N.L. and J.D. Allan. 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76: 606-627. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941217
  45. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47: 769-784. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313099
  46. Rosenberg, D.M., P. Mccully and C.M. Pringle. 2000. Global- scale environmental effects of hydrological alternations: introduction. BioScience 50: 746-751. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0746:GSEEOH]2.0.CO;2
  47. Rowe, D.C., C.L. Pierce and T.F. Wilton. 2009. Fish assemblage relationships with physical habitat in wadeable Iowa stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 1314-1332. https://doi.org/10.1577/M08-192.1
  48. Schwartz, J.S. and E.E. Herricks. 2008. Fish use of ecohydraulic- based mesohabitat unit in a low-gradient Illinois stream: implications for stream restoration. Aquatic Conservation 18: 852-866. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.905
  49. Song, H.B., H.M. Baek and D.H. Cho. 2004. Freshwater Fish Distribution in Chuncheon, Korea. Journal of Environmental Research 1: 47-60.
  50. Taylor, C.M., T.L. Holder, R.A. Fiorillo, L.R. Williams, R.B. Thomas and M.L. Warren. 2006. Distribution, abundance, and diversity of stream fishes under variable environmental condition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-203
  51. The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research (MOE/NIER). 2008. The Survey.
  52. Tompson, M.Y., D. Brandes and A.D. Kney. 2012 Using electronic conductivity and hardness data for rapid assessment of stream water quality. Journal of Environmental Management 104: 152-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.025
  53. Yoon, H.J., B.S. Chae and W.O. Hwang. 1997. Geographic variation of body color and morphological characteristics of pale chub, Zacco platypus (Cyprinidae, Pisces). Korean Journal of Ichthyology 24: 167-176.
  54. Yoon, S., J. Choi and H. Lee. 2014. Comparison of fish distribution characteristics by substrate structure in the 4 streams. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology 28(3):302-313. https://doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2014.28.3.302
  55. Wolter, C., A.D. Buijse and P. Parasiewicz. 2016. Temporal and spatial patterns of fish response to hydromorphological processes. River Research and Applications 32: 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2980
  56. Wyzga, B., A. Amirowicz, P. Oglecki, H. Hajdukiewicz, A. Radecki-Pawlik, J. Zawiefska and P. Mikus. 2014. Response of fish and benthic invertebrate communities to constrained channel conditions in a mountain river: case study of the Biala, Polish Carpathians. Limnologica 46: 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2013.12.002
  57. Zeug, S.C. and K.O. Winemiller. 2008. Relationships between hydrology, spatial heterogeneity, and fish recruitment dynamics in a temperate floodplain river. River Research and Applications 24: 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1061