Mobile QR Code QR CODE : Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers
Title Evaluation on Functional Assessment for Fish Habitat of Underground type Eco-Artificial Fish Reef using the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)
Authors 안창혁 ; 주진철 ; 권재형 ; 송호면
Page pp.565-575
ISSN 10156348
Keywords aquatic ecosystem assessment;Index of Biological Integrity(IBI);Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index(QHEI);eco-artificial fish reef(EAFR);수생태계 평가;생물보전지수;서식지평가 정성지수;방틀둠벙
Abstract The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the expression of both multi-metric qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) and biological integrity index (IBI) for artificial structures eco-artificial fish reef (EAFR) for fishes asylum and habitat. Especially, both experimental evaluation and biological verification were performed in Water and Environmental Center’s outdoor test-bed of Korea Institute of Construction Technology located in Andong-city, Gyeongsangbuk-do. The experimental conditions reflecting the situation of domestic river include the flow rate (e.g., 0.0~1.5 m s?¹), the width (e.g., 1.0~3,0 m), the depth (e.g., 0.05~0.70 m), and variable bed materials. Both QHEI and IBI were monitored for 8 months from May to December 2010. Whereas QHEI values were highest at experimental points of the E~F with an average of 83.1, those were lowest at B~C with an average of 78.1. However, QHEI values inside EAFR were more than 98.9, regardelss of space and time, and indicated more than the highest good of the state (Good) in the habitat. Overally, IBI values showed similar trend with QHEI, but were 44.2 in the winter dry season, compared to 32.8 of QHEI values. IBI values Also, IBI values inside EAFR were greater than those at the experimental channel by 5.7 to 11.4% and 18.7 to 34.8% in flow and stagnant conditions, respectively, indicating that EAFR can secure asylum and habitat for fish during the dry season. For comprehensive aquatic ecosystem assessment, the experimental channel showed generally fair conditions (Fair~Good), whereas EAFR showed good conditions (Good), suggesting that EAFR can be applied to aquatic ecosystem restoration and improvement.