Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment (생태와환경)

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

DOI QR Code

Review of a Plant-Based Health Assessment Methods for Lake Ecosystems

식물에 의한 호수생태계 건강성 평가법에 대한 고찰

  • Choung, Yeonsook (Department of Biological Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyungeun (Department of Biological Sciences, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2013.01.30
  • Accepted : 2013.03.21
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is a global trend that the water management policy is shifting from a water quality-oriented assessment to the aquatic ecosystem-based assessment. The majority of aquatic ecosystem assessment systems were developed solely based on physicochemical factors (e.g., water quality and bed structure) and a limited number of organisms (e.g., plankton and benthic organisms). Only a few systems use plants for a health assessment, although plants are sensitive indicators reflecting long-term disturbances and alterations in water regimes. The development of an assessment system is underway to evaluate and manage lakes as ecosystem units in the Korean Ministry of Environment. We reviewed the existing multivariate health assessment methods of other leading countries, and discussed their applicability to Korean lakes. The application of multivariate assessment methods is costly and time consuming, in addition to the correlation problem among variables. However, a single variable is not available at this moment, and the multivariate method is an appropriate system due to its multidimensional evaluation and cumulative data generation. We, therefore, discussed multivariate assessment methods in three steps: selecting metrics, scoring metrics and assessing indices. In the step of selecting metrics, the best available metrics are species-related variables, such as composition and abundance, as well as richness and diversity. Indicator species, such as sensitive species, are the most frequently used in other countries, but their system of classification in Korea is not yet complete. In terms of scoring metrics, the lack of reference lakes with little anthropogenic impact make this step difficult, and therefore, the use of relative scores among the investigated lakes is a suitable alternative. Overall, in spite of several limitations, the development of a plant-based multivariate assessment method in Korea is possible using mostly field research data. Later, it could be improved based on qualitative metrics on plant species, and with the emergence of further survey data.

물관리 정책이 수질평가 중심에서 수생태계 건강성 평가로 전환되고 있는 것은 세계적인 추세이다. 현재까지 수계의 평가기법은 수질이나 하상구조와 같은 물리화학적 요소 및 플랑크톤, 저서동물과 같은 일부 생물의 평가에 국한되어 개발되어 왔다. 식물은 호수의 물리, 화학 및 생물 변화를 민감하게 반영하는 지표인데 개발이 늦었다. 환경부에서는 전국의 호수와 저수지를 생태계로써 평가하고 관리할 목적으로 생태계의 평가 기법을 마련 중에 있다. 이 연구사업의 일환으로 식물을 이용하여 우리나라 호수생태계에 적합한 건강성 평가기법을 개발하기 위해서 기개발된 국외의 평가기법 중 주로 다변수법을 주로 고찰하였다. 다변수법의 적용은 시간과 비용이 많이 소요되고 변수 간의 상관성 등의 한계점이 있다. 그러나 현재 단일 변수로 쓸 만한 지표가 개발되어 있지 않으며 다변수법은 다면평가와 데이터 축적의 장점이 크다. 다변수법을 세 단계, 즉 평가지표의 선정, 점수화, 평가지수의 결정과 검증단계로 나누어 검토하였다. 평가지표 선정단계에서 가장 적용가능한 지표는 종조성과 수도 및 종 풍부도와 다양성 관련 지표들이다. 국외에서 대부분 포함하는 지표종은 아직 개발이 불완전해서 우리나라에서 적용하기에 한계가 있다. 다수 조사자가 참여할 경우 식물상에 대한 오동정이 결과에 영향을 미칠 수 있으므로 이 점의 사전 고려가 필요하다. 지표의 점수화 단계도 한계가 있다. 우리나라에 인위적 교란이 거의 없는 기준 호수가 없기 때문에 대안으로 다수의 호수를 조사하고, 조사된 호수의 지표값을 상대화하여 적용해야 한다. 같은 이유로 지수에 대한 검증과정도 어렵다. 종합할 때, 여러 가지 한계가 있지만 현장에서 조사 가능한 지표를 이용하여 식물을 이용한 호수 건강성의 다변수평가체계를 구축하는 것은 가능하다. 추후, 식물종의 질적 가치에 대한 지표를 추가하고 보다 많은 호수 조사의 결과가 누적되면 수준 높은 평가체계로 발전시킬 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Andreas, B.K. and R.W. Lichvar. 1995. Floristic index for establishing assessment standards: a case study for Northern Ohio. Technical Report WRP-DE-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., USA.
  2. Andreas, B.K., J.J. Mack and J.S. McCormac. 2004. Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) for vascular plants and mosses for the State of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
  3. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for Use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C., USA.
  4. Brooks, R.P., D.H. Wardrop and J.A. Bishop. 2004. Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic region using synoptic land cover maps. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000016876.63062.3d
  5. Calislie, B.K., A.L. Hicks, J.P. Smith, S.R. Garcia and B.G. Largay. 1999. Plants and aquatic invertebrates as indicators of wetland biological integrity in Waquoit Bay watershed, Cape Code. Environmental Cape Code 2: 30-60.
  6. Cardoso, A.C., A.G. Solimini and G. Premazzi. 2005. Report on harmonisation of freshwater biological methods. European Commission.
  7. Cho, Y.-H. 1997. A study on evaluation method of stream naturalness for ecological restoration of stream corridors. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 25(2): 73-81.
  8. Choung, Y., W.T. Lee, K.-H. Cho, K.Y. Joo, B.M. Min, J.-O. Hyun and K.S. Lee. 2012. Categorizing vascular plant species occurring in wetland ecosystems of the Korean Peninsula. Center for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Chuncheon, Korea.
  9. Elifritz, B.F. and M.S. Fennessy. 2005. A comparison of natural and constructed wetlands using the floristic quality assessment index. Annual report. Olentangy River wetland Research Park.
  10. Fennessy, M.S., M. Gray, R.D. Lopez and J. Mack. 1998. An ecological assessment of wetlands using reference sites. Final Report to U.S. EPA, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
  11. Ferreira, M.T., P.M. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, F.C. Aguiar and A. Albuquerque. 2005. Assessing biotic integrity Iberian rivers: Development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators 5: 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.01.001
  12. Gernes, M.C. and J.C. Helgen. 1999. Indexes of biotic integrity (IBI) for wetlands: vegetation and invertebrate IMI'. Final Report to U.S. EPA, Assistance number CD995525-01. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, USA.
  13. Gernes, M.C. and J.C. Helgen. 2002. Indexes of biological integrity (IBI) for large depressional wetlands in Minnesota. Report to U.S. EPA, Assistance number CD-995525-01. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, USA.
  14. Hatzenbeler, G.R., J.M. Kampa, M.J. Jennings and E.E. Emmons. 2004. A comparison of fish and aquatic plant assemblages to assess ecological health of small Wisconsin lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 20(3): 211-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/07438140409354245
  15. Herman, K.D., L.A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm and W.M. Brodowicz. 1997. Floristic quality assessment: development and application in the State of Michigan (USA). Natural Areas Journal 17(3): 265-279.
  16. Herman, K.D., L.A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm, W.W. Brodovich and K.P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic quality assessment with wetland categories and examples of computer applications for the State of Michigan-Revised (2nd). Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife, Natural Heritage Program.
  17. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Tier II Aquatic vegetation survey protocol.
  18. Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5: 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866609
  19. Karr, J.R. and W.E. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  20. Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey. Special Publification 5, Urbana, USA.
  21. Kim, B. 2009. Evaluation of ecological integrity in lake ecosystem (2nd). Center for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Chuncheon, Korea.
  22. Kim, D.-C. and I.-S. Park. 1999. A study on the evaluation criteria of stream naturalness for ecological environment restoration of stream corridors. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 17(3): 123-134.
  23. Ladd, D.M. 1993. Coefficients of conservatism for Missouri vascular flora. The Nature Conservancy. St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
  24. Lopez, R.D. and M.S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Application 12: 487-497. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0487:TTFQAI]2.0.CO;2
  25. Mack, J.J. 2001a. Vegetation index of biotic integrity (VIBI) for wetlands: ecoregional, hydrogeomorphic, and plant community comparisons with preliminary wetland aquatic life use designations. Final Report to U.S. EPA Grant No. CD985875-01. Vol. 1.
  26. Mack, J.J. 2001b. Ohio rapid assessment method for wetlands. Manual for using version 5.0. Ohio EPA Technical Wetland/2001-1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit.
  27. Mack, J.J. 2007. Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations. Ecological Indicators 7: 864-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.002
  28. Mack, J.J., M. Micacchion, L.D. Augusta and G.R. Sablak. 2000. Vegetation indices of biotic integrity (VIBI) for wetlands and calibration of the Ohio rapid assessment method for wetlands (ver. 5). Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Unit.
  29. Miller, S.J., D.H. Wardrop, W.M. Mahaney and R.P. Brooks. 2006. A plant-based index of biological integrity (IBI) for headwater wetland in central Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators 6: 290-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.011
  30. National Institute of Environmental Research. 2010. Summary report of the survey and health assessment for the aquatic ecosystems. National Institute of Environmental Research.
  31. Nichols, S.A. 1998. Floristic quality assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with example applications. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 15: 133-141.
  32. Nichols, S., S. Weber and B. Shaw. 2000. A proposed aquatic plant community biotic index for Wisconsin lakes. Environmental Management 26(5): 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010107
  33. Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel. 2001. Floristic quality assessment for plant communities of North Dakota, South Dakota (excluding the B lack Hills), and adjacent grasslands. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research, Jamestown, North Dakota, USA. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2001/fqa/.
  34. Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, USA.
  35. Penning, W.E., M. Mjelde, B. Dudley, S. Hellsten, J. Hanganu, A. Kolada, M. Van den Berg, S. Poikane, G. Phillips, N. Willby and F. Ecke. 2008. Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquatic Ecology 42: 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-008-9182-y
  36. Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Ecological Assessment Section, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
  37. Rothrock, P.E., T.P. Simon and P.M. Stewart. 2008. Development, calibration, and validation of a littoral zone plant index of biotic integrity (PIBI) for lacustrine wetlands. Ecological Indicators 8: 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.002
  38. Seo, A. 2012. Classififying wetland plant species as indicators of eutrophication in lakes of Korea. Mater thesis. Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea.
  39. Simon, T.P., P.M. Stewart and P.E. Rothrock. 2001. Development of multimetric indices of biotic integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along Southern Lake Michigan. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 4: 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/146349801753509195
  40. Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago region. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois, USA.
  41. Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago region. 4th edition. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, USA.
  42. Taft, J.B., G.S. Wilhelm, D.M. Ladd and L.A. Masters. 1997. Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois, a method for assessing vegetation integrity. Erigenia 15: 3-95.
  43. U.S. EPA. 1998. Lake and reservoir bioassessment and biocriteria. Technical Guidance Document EPA 841-B-98-007.
  44. U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Developing metrics and indexes of biological integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-822-R-02-016.
  45. Wilcox, D.A., J.E. Meeker, P.L. Hudson, B.J. Armitage, M. Glen Black and D.G. Uzarski. 2002. Hydrologic variability and the application of index of biotic integrity metrics to wetlands: a great lakes evaluation. Wetlands 22(3): 588-615. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2002)022[0588:HVATAO]2.0.CO;2
  46. Wilhelm, G. and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural areas assessment in the Chicago region. Transactions of the 53rd North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. p. 361-375.
  47. Wilhelm, G.S. and L.A. Masters. 1995. Floristic quality assessment in the Chicago region and application computer programs. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois.
  48. Wisconsin Floristic Quality Assessment. 2002. http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/WFQA.html.