목차

표제지=1,1,1

제출문=2,2,1

요약문=3,3,10

SUMMARY=13,13,14

목차=27,27,6

Contents=33,33,6

List of Figures=39,39,8

List of tables=47,47,4

List of Appendices=51,51,2

제1장 서론=53,53,2

제1절 연안어장 환경모니터링 연구의 필요성=55,55,3

제2절 국내ㆍ외 연구 현황=58,58,4

참고문헌=61,61,2

제2장 저서생물을 이용한 어장 환경모니터링 기법 개발=63,63,2

제1절 가막만의 어장환경과 대형저서동물 군집구조=65,65,1

1. 서론=65,65,1

2. 재료 및 방법=66,66,1

가. 수질 환경요인=66,66,1

나. 저질 환경요인=66,66,5

다. 환경요인의 분석=70,70,1

라. 저서생물 채집=70,70,2

마. 저서생물 자료분석=71,71,1

3. 가막만의 어장 환경=72,72,1

가. 지형=72,72,1

나. 물리ㆍ화학적 환경=72,72,18

다. 퇴적 환경=89,89,9

라. 환경요인의 분석=97,97,5

마. 가막만의 수산자원=101,101,2

4. 가막만 저서생물의 종조성 및 군집구조=103,103,1

가. 종조성 및 서식밀도의 계절적인 변동=103,103,4

나. 저서생물의 공간 분포=106,106,6

다. 우점종의 시ㆍ공간적 분포=111,111,10

라. 군집구조=120,120,4

5. 고찰=123,123,4

6. 참고문헌=127,127,2

제2절 해양저서동물 군집을 이용한 연안어장 환경 모니터링 기법개발=129,129,1

1. 서론=129,129,5

2. 재료 및 방법=133,133,1

가. 저서생물 채집=133,133,1

나. 생물 자료 분석=134,134,6

다. 분류군별 군집구조와 환경변수와의 관계=139,139,2

라. 생물자료의 변환(Transformation)=140,140,1

마. 환경요인=140,140,1

3. 결과 및 고찰=141,141,1

가. 가막만 저서동물군집의 교란 정도=141,141,18

나. 가막만 군집구조와 환경요인=158,158,3

다. 가막만의 오염 현황 판정=160,160,3

라. 분류군별 군집 분석을 통한 어장환경 모니터링의 기법 제안=162,162,13

4. 결론=175,175,1

가. 가막만의 오염 현황=175,175,1

나. 해양저서동물군집을 이용한 오염 모니터링 기법=175,175,2

다. 오염 모니터링을 위한 기법 제안=176,176,2

5. 참고문헌=178,178,6

제3절 퇴적물에 서식하는 중형저서생물을 이용한 환경모니터링 기법 개발=184,184,1

1. 서론=184,184,3

2. 재료 및 방법=187,187,3

3. 결과 및 고찰=189,189,1

가. 군집분석=189,189,35

나. 오염과의 관계=224,224,25

4. 참고문헌=249,249,6

제3장 유기오염 모니터링 기법 개발=255,255,2

제1절 유기주석화합물의 농도 분포=257,257,1

1. 서론=257,257,2

2. 재료 및 방법=258,258,1

가. 시료 채취=258,258,3

나. 임포섹스 측정=261,261,1

다. 유기주석화합물의 분석=261,261,2

3. 결과 및 고찰=263,263,1

가. 굴과 대수리 중의 유기주석화합물 농도=263,263,6

나. 해수와 양식 진주담치 중의 유기주석화합물 농도=268,268,3

다. 퇴적물 중의 유기주석화합물 농도=270,270,1

라. 대수리의 임포섹스=270,270,4

4. 참고 문헌=274,274,3

제2절 유기염소계 농약 및 PCBs 농도 분포=277,277,1

1. 서론=277,277,2

2. 재료 및 방법=278,278,1

가. 시료채취=278,278,1

나. 분석방법=278,278,11

3. 결과 및 고찰=288,288,1

가. 굴 중의 유기염소계화합물 농도=288,288,7

나. 양식 진주담치 중의 유기염소계화합물 농도=294,294,7

다. 퇴적물 중의 유기염소계화합물 농도=300,300,7

4. 참고문헌=307,307,3

제3절 다환방향족 탄화수소(Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocabons, PAHs)의 농도 분포=310,310,1

1. 서론=310,310,2

2. 재료 및 방법=312,312,1

가. 분석방법=312,312,1

나. 퇴적물=312,312,3

3. 결과 및 고찰=314,314,1

가. 퇴적물=314,314,10

나. 생물체=323,323,6

4. 참고문헌=329,329,2

제4절 생물 중 중금속의 농도 분포=331,331,1

1. 서론=331,331,1

2. 재료 및 방법=331,331,1

가. 시료채취=331,331,1

나. 분석방법=331,331,2

3. 결과 및 고찰=332,332,3

제4장 생리ㆍ생화학적인 방법에 의한 환경오염측정 기법 개발=335,335,2

제1절 환경평가를 위한 환경생체지표의 개발 및 가막만 어장환경조사연구=337,337,1

1. 서론=337,337,1

가. 환경독성학적인 접근법=337,337,2

나. 환경생체지표(Biomarker)=338,338,2

다. 환경생체지표(Biomarker) 개발=339,339,2

라. 가막만 어장환경조사연구=340,340,1

2. 재료 및 방법=340,340,1

가. 연구대상생물 및 채집=340,340,2

나. 혈체액의 채집 및 처리=341,341,6

3. 결과 및 고찰=346,346,18

4. 참고문헌=364,364,2

제2절 환경평가를 위한 생화학적ㆍ생리적 분석 기법 개발=366,366,1

1. 서론=366,366,4

2. 재료 및 방법=369,369,1

가. 시료 채취=369,369,1

나. 생화학적 조성비의 분석=369,369,4

다. 조직학적 시료 작성=372,372,5

라. 화상분석 Software를 이용한 참굴의 생식소 분석=376,376,4

3. 결과=379,379,1

가. 생화학적 구성비=379,379,15

4. 참고문헌=394,394,3

제5장 어장환경도(FishAtlas) 작성=397,397,2

제1절 서론=399,399,2

제2절 재료 및 방법=400,400,1

1. 저장목록(Inventory) 작성=400,400,2

2. 자료 수집과 해안서식지 분류=401,401,1

3. 수치지도 작성=401,401,2

4. 주제도 작성=402,402,2

5. 환경민감정도 산정=403,403,8

제3절 결과와 고찰=411,411,2

참고문헌=413,413,2

제6장 종합고찰=415,415,6

부록=421,421,2

Appendix 1. Species List of Macrobenthos Occurred in Kamak Bay=423,423,8

Appendix 2-1. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during April 1997=431,431,3

Appendix 2-2. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during July 1997=434,434,2

Appendix 2-3. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during October 1997=436,436,3

Appendix 2-4. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during March 1998=439,439,3

Appendix 2-5. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during August 1998=442,442,3

Appendix 2-6. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during October 1998=445,445,3

Appendix 2-7. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during December 1998=448,448,3

Appendix 2-8. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during May 1999=451,451,3

Appendix 3-1. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Genus in August, 1998=454,454,1

Appendix 3-2. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Family in August, 1998=455,455,1

Appendix 3-3. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Order in August, 1998=456,456,1

Appendix 3-4. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Class in August, 1998=457,457,1

Appendix 3-5. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Phylum in August, 1998=458,458,1

Appendix 3-6. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Genus in May, 1999=459,459,1

Appendix 3-7. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Family in May, 1999=460,460,1

Appendix 3-8. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Order in May, 1999=461,461,1

Appendix 3-9. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Class in May, 1999=462,462,1

Appendix 3-10. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Phylum in May, 1999=463,463,1

Appendix 4. Number of Meiobenthos Depending on Mesh Sizes from April 1997 to May 1999=464,464,33

Appendix 5. Faunal Composition and Individual Numbers of Meiobenthos Obtained in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=497,497,12

Appendix 6. Distribution of 10 Dominant Species Occurred on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=509,509,19

Appendix 7-1. Total Individuals Number of Meiobenthos on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=528,528,2

Appendix 7-2. Individuals Number of Nematodes on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=530,530,2

Appendix 7-3. Individuals Number of Benthic Harpacticoids on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=532,532,2

Appendix 7-4. Nematodes/Benthic Harpacticoids Ratio on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=534,534,2

영문목차

title page=0,1,12

SUMMARY=13,13,20

Contents=33,33,6

List of Figures=39,39,8

List of tables=47,47,4

List of Appendices=51,51,2

Chapter 1. Introduction=53,53,2

Part 1. Objectives of the Study=55,55,3

Part 2. Technical Review of the Study=58,58,5

Chapter 2. Monitoring Methods with Benthic Animals for Mariculture Farm=63,63,2

Part 1. Environmental Conditions and Structure of Macrobenthic Community=65,65,1

1. Introduction=65,65,1

2. Materials and Methods=66,66,1

1) Physical and Chemical Environment=66,66,1

2) Benthic Environmental Factors=66,66,5

3) Analysis of Environmental Parameters=70,70,1

4) Macrobenthos Sampling=70,70,2

5) Data Analysis=71,71,1

3. Study Areas of Kamak Bay=72,72,1

1) Topography=72,72,1

2) Physical and Chemical Environment=72,72,18

3) Benthic Environment=89,89,9

4) Analysis of Environmental Parameters=97,97,5

5) Fishery Resources=101,101,2

4. Species and Community Composition of Macrobenthos=103,103,1

1) Seasonal Changes=103,103,4

2) Distributional Patterns=106,106,6

3) Spatio-Temporal Distribution of the Dominant Species=111,111,10

4) Macrobenthic Community Structure=120,120,4

5. Discussion=123,123,6

Part 2. Relationship between Taxonomic Resolution and Macrobenthic Community Patterns for Pollution Monitoring=129,129,1

1. Introduction=129,129,5

2. Materials and Methods=133,133,1

1) Benthic Animal Sampling=133,133,1

2) Data Analysis=134,134,6

3) Linking Community Analysis to Environmental Variables=139,139,2

4) Data Transformation=140,140,1

5) Environmental Factors=140,140,1

3. Results and Discussions=141,141,1

1) Degree of Macrobenthic Community Disturbance=141,141,18

2) Relationship between Environmental Variables and Community Structure=158,158,3

3) Pollution Condition of the Kamak Bay=160,160,3

4) Relationship between Taxonomic Resolution and Macrobenthic Community Patterns for Pollution Monitoring=162,162,13

4. Conclusion=175,175,1

1) Pollution Condition of the Kamak Bay=175,175,1

2) Relationship between Taxonomic Resolution and Macrobenthic Community Patterns for Pollution Monitoring=175,175,2

3) Suggestion for Pollution Monitoring Methods=176,176,8

Part 3. Community Structure of Meiobenthos for Pollution Monitoring=184,184,1

1. Introduction=184,184,3

2. Materials and Methods=187,187,3

3. Results and Discussions=189,189,1

1) Community Analysis=189,189,35

2) Relationship between Pollution Condition and Meiobenthos=224,224,31

Chapter 3. Organic Pollution Monitoring for Mariculture Farm=255,255,2

Part 1. Distribution of Organotin Compounds=257,257,1

1. Introduction=257,257,2

2. Materials and Methods=258,258,1

1) Sample Collection=258,258,3

2) Measurement(Messurement) of Imposex=261,261,1

3) Analytical Procedure=261,261,2

3. Results and Discussions=263,263,1

1) Organotin Residues in Oysters and Rock Shells=263,263,6

2) Organotin Residues in Seawater and Cultured Mussels=268,268,3

3) Organotin Residues in Surface Sediment=270,270,1

4) Imposex in Rock Shell=270,270,7

Part 2. Distribution of Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs)=277,277,1

1. Introduction=277,277,2

2. Materials and Methods=278,278,1

1) Sample Collection=278,278,1

2) Analytical Procedure=278,278,11

3. Results and Discussions=288,288,1

1) Organochlorine Compounds in Oysters=288,288,7

2) Organochlorine Compounds in Cultured Mussels=294,294,7

3) Organochlorine Compounds in Surface Sediment=300,300,10

Part 3. Distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs)=310,310,1

1. Introduction=310,310,2

2. Materials and Methods=312,312,1

1) Analytical Procedure=312,312,1

2) Sediment=312,312,3

3. Results and Discussions=314,314,1

1) PAHs in Sediments=314,314,10

2) PAHs in Biota=323,323,8

Part 4. Distribution of Heavy Metals in Biota=331,331,1

1. Introduction=331,331,1

2. Materials and Methods=331,331,1

1) Sample Collection=331,331,1

2) Analytical Procedure=331,331,2

3. Results and Discussions=332,332,3

Chapter 4. Biochemical/Physiological Analysis Techniques for Environmental Assessment=335,335,2

Part 1. Biomakers and Their Application Study in Kamak Aquaculture Area for Environmental Assessment=337,337,1

1. Introduction=337,337,1

1) Exotoxicological Approach=337,337,2

2) Biomaker=338,338,2

3) Development of Biomaker=339,339,2

4) Investigation of Aquaculture Area=340,340,1

2. Materials and Methods=340,340,1

1) Taget Organisms and Sampling=340,340,2

2) Sampling of Haemolymph=341,341,6

3. Results and Discussions=346,346,20

Part 2. Application of Biochemical Techniques in Marine Environmental Monitoring=366,366,1

1. Introduction=366,366,4

2. Materials and Methods=369,369,1

1) Sample Collection=369,369,1

2) Analysis of Biochemical Composition=369,369,4

3) Preparation of Histopathological Observation=372,372,5

4) Gonadal Analysis in Oyster with Image Analyser=376,376,4

3. Results=379,379,1

1) Biochemical Composition=379,379,18

Chapter 5. Environmental Atlas for Mriculture Farm=397,397,2

Part 1. Introduction=399,399,2

Part 2. Materials and Methods=400,400,1

1. Inventory=400,400,2

2. Data Collection and Coastal Habitat Classification=401,401,1

3. Electric Mapping=401,401,2

4. Environmental Maps=402,402,2

5. Environmental Sensitivity=403,403,8

Part 3. Results and Discussions=411,411,4

Chapter 6. Discussion=415,415,6

Appendix=421,421,2

Appendix 1. Species List of Macrobenthos Occurred in Kamak Bay=423,423,8

Appendix 2-1. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during April 1997=431,431,3

Appendix 2-2. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during July 1997=434,434,2

Appendix 2-3. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during October 1997=436,436,3

Appendix 2-4. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during March 1998=439,439,3

Appendix 2-5. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during August 1998=442,442,3

Appendix 2-6. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during October 1998=445,445,3

Appendix 2-7. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during December 1998=448,448,3

Appendix 2-8. The Abundance of Macrobenthos Collected in Kamak Bay during May 1999=451,451,3

Appendix 3-1. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Genus in August, 1998=454,454,1

Appendix 3-2. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Family in August, 1998=455,455,1

Appendix 3-3. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Order in August, 1998=456,456,1

Appendix 3-4. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Class in August, 1998=457,457,1

Appendix 3-5. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Phylum in August, 1998=458,458,1

Appendix 3-6. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Genus in May, 1999=459,459,1

Appendix 3-7. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Family in May, 1999=460,460,1

Appendix 3-8. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Order in May, 1999=461,461,1

Appendix 3-9. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Class in May, 1999=462,462,1

Appendix 3-10. ABC Curves for Species Data Aggregated into Phylum in May, 1999=463,463,1

Appendix 4. Number of Meiobenthos Depending on Mesh Sizes from April 1997 to May 1999=464,464,33

Appendix 5. Faunal Composition and Individual Numbers of Meiobenthos Obtained in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=497,497,12

Appendix 6. Distribution of 10 Dominant Species Occurred on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=509,509,19

Appendix 7-1. Total Individuals Number of Meiobenthos on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=528,528,2

Appendix 7-2. Individuals Number of Nematodes on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=530,530,2

Appendix 7-3. Individuals Number of Benthic Harpacticoids on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=532,532,2

Appendix 7-4. Nematodes/Benthic Harpacticoids Ratio on Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997-May 1999=534,534,2

Table 2-1-1. Sampling Dates, Sites and Items in Kamak Bay from Apr., 1997 to May, 1999=68,68,1

Table 2-1-2. The Heavy Metals within Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=98,98,1

Table 2-1-3. Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix form the Principal Component Analysis Based on Six Environmental Variables in Kamak Bay=99,99,1

Table 2-1-4. Eigenvalues from the Principal Component Analysis Based on Six Environmental Variables in Kamak Bay=99,99,1

Table 2-1-5. Number of Species, Abundances and Biomass Collected in Kamak Bay during the Study Period(April, 1997~May, 1999)=104,104,1

Table 2-1-6. Dominant Species Based on Number of Individuals Obtained in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=113,113,1

Table 2-1-7. Number of Station, Environmental and Biological Conditions for each Stational Groups in Kamak Bay from Aug., 1998 to May, 1999=122,122,1

Table 2-2-1. The Infaunal Trophic Group and Feeding Types of Species Occurred in the Kamak Bay. Species are Divided into Feeding Types Such as CAR:Carnivore, FF:Filter Feeder, SO:Selective Omnivore, CAR-2:Carnivore Showing other Feeding Types Simultaneously, SC: Scavenger, SDF:Surface Deposit Feeder, and SSDF:Sub-Surface Deposit Feeder(Cnid:Cnidarians, Plat:Platyhelminthes, Neme:Nemertineans, Sipun:Sipunculans, Moll:Mollusks, Pol:Polychaetes, Crus:Crustaceans, Echin:Echinoderms and Chor:Chordats)=145,145,3

Table 2-2-2. Comparisons of the 11 Environmental Variables, Taken k at a Time, Yielding the Best Matches of Biotic and Abiotic Similarity Matrices for each k, as Measured by Weighted Spearman's Rank Correlation, pw(D:Depth, T:Sediment Temperatures. S:Salinity of Bottom Water, DO:Desolved Oxygen of Bottem Water, C:Carbon, N:Nitrogen, Mz:Mean φ, TBT:Tributyltin, PCB:Polychlorinated Biphenyls, PAH:Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon, OCP:Organochlorine Pesticides)=159,159,1

Table 2-2-3. Pollution Level of Each Station Inferred from Analyses of Macrobenthic Community in Kamak Bay=161,161,1

Table 2-2-4. Summary of Results from "BIO-ENV" for Data from the Kamak Bay Comparing Environmental Variables with Fauna to Show the Variables Giving the Best Description of Community Patterns with Taxonomic Level=171,171,1

Table 2-3-1. Community Structure of Meiobenthos Obtained in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=190,190,8

Table 2-3-2. Nematodes/Bentic Harpacticoids Ratio at Each Stations in Kamak Bay=225,225,2

Table 2-3-3. The Range of Nematode/Harpacticoids Ratio as an Index of Pollution=234,234,1

Table 2-3-4. N/K(Nematodes/Kinorhynchs) Ratio of the Stations in Kamak Bay=236,236,2

Table 2-3-5. N/C and N/K Ratio at Two Sites in Tongyong=239,239,1

Table 3-1-1. Concentrations of Organotins in Surface Seawater in Kamak Bay in May 1999=269,269,1

Table 3-1-2. Summary of Imposex Measurement of Thais Clavigera=272,272,1

Table 3-2-1. Target Compounds of Organochlorinated Pesticides and its Metabolites=279,279,1

Table 3-2-2. Target Compounds of PCB Congeners=280,280,1

Table 3-2-3. GC(Gas Chromatograph) Condition for Analysis with Electron Capture Detecter(ECD)=287,287,1

Table 3-2-4. Concentrations of OCPs in Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea Gigas, from the Coast of Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=293,293,1

Table 3-2-5. Concentrations of PCBs in Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea Gigas, from the Coast of Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=295,295,1

Table 3-2-6. Concentrations of OCPs in Mussels, Mytilus Edulis Galloprovincialis, from the Coast of Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=298,298,1

Table 3-2-7. Concentrations of PCBs in Mussels, Mytilus Edulis Galloprovincialis, from the Coast of Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=299,299,1

Table 3-2-8. Concentrations of OCPs on Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=302,302,1

Table 3-2-9. Concentrations of PCBs on Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay(ng/g Dry wt.)=305,305,1

Table 3-3-1. Molecular Weight and Carcinogenic Activity of PAHs=311,311,1

Table 3-3-2. Target Compounds of PAH=313,313,1

Table 3-3-3. GC-MS(Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) Condition for Analysis=315,315,1

Table 3-3-4. SIM Mode(Selected lon Monitoring) Condition for PAHs Analysis=316,316,1

Table 3-3-5. Concentration of PAHs on Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay(ug/g Dry wt.)=317,317,1

Table 3-3-6. Concentration of PAHs Accumulated in Biotas of Kamak Bay(ug/g Dry wt.)=324,324,1

Table 4-1-1. Activity of Hemocyte Intracellular Biomakers from Mussels Collected in Different Stations in Kamak Bay=349,349,1

Table 4-1-2. Lysosome Response of Hemocytes Isolated from Bivalves in Kamak Bay=356,356,1

Table 4-1-3. Correlation Coefficients Obtained on the Base of Linear Regression Analysis of Mussel Biomaker Activity, Compared Between Each Other=361,361,1

Table 4-2-1. Dehydration, Clearing and Infiltration Time Sequence Using Citadel 1000 Automatic Tissue Processor=375,375,1

Table 4-2-2. Deparaffinization, Hydration, Staining and Permanent Mounting Procedures and Time Required at Each Steps=377,377,1

Table 4-2-3. Semi-Quantitative Scale for Digestive Gland Atrophy=380,380,1

Fig. 1-1. Relationship of Environmental Monitoring for Sustainable Mariculture Management=57,57,1

Fig. 1-2. Satellite Image of Kamak Bay=60,60,1

Fig. 2-1-1. Map Sampling Stations in Kamak Bay=67,67,1

Fig. 2-1-2. Bathymetry of Kamak Bay(after Kang, 1981)=73,73,1

Fig. 2-1-3. Monthly Variation of Air Temperature (A) and Precipitation (B) in Yosu from Jan., 1997 to May, 1999=74,74,1

Fig. 2-1-4. Water Current Patterns Measured during ca 2 Hours in Kamak Bay(after Lee. 1993)=76,76,1

Fig. 2-1-5. Monthly Variation of Water Temperature (Upper), Salinity and Specific Gravity(Lower) from Jan. 1997 to May, 1999. (Nori:National Oceanographic Research Institute, NFRDI:National Fisheries Research and Development Institute)=77,77,1

Fig. 2-1-6. Seasonal Distribution of Surface Temperature(℃) in Kamak Bay=78,78,1

Fig. 2-1-7. Seasonal Distribution of Bottom Temperature(℃) in Kamak Bay=79,79,1

Fig. 2-1-8. Seasonal Distribution of Surface Water Salinity in Kamak Bay=81,81,1

Fig. 2-1-9. Seasonal Distribution of Bottom Water Salinity in Kamak Bay=82,82,1

Fig. 2-1-10. Seasonal Variation of Dissolved Oxygen from Jan., 1997 to May, 1999. (NFRDI:National Fisheries Research and Development Institute)=83,83,1

Fig. 2-1-11. Seasonal Distribution of Surface Water Dissolved Oxygen(㎎/1) in Kamak Bay=84,84,1

Fig. 2-1-12. Seasonal Distribution of Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen(㎎/1) in Kamak Bay=85,85,1

Fig. 2-1-13. Changes of Watermass in Kamak Bay from Aug., 1998 and Feb., 1989(after Lee, 1993)=87,87,1

Fig. 2-1-14. Seasonal Variation of Surface and Bottom COD in Kamak Bay during April, 1997~May, 1998=88,88,1

Fig. 2-1-15. Seasonal Variation of Surface and Bottom T-N, T-P in Kamak Bay during Three Years(April, 1997~March, 1998)=90,90,1

Fig. 2-1-16. Distribution of Mean Grain Size of the Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=92,92,1

Fig. 2-1-17. Distribution of Sediment Facies in Kamak Bay=92,92,1

Fig. 2-1-18. Seasonal Variation of TC, TN and TS on Surface Sedim from April, 1997 to May, 1999=93,93,1

Fig. 2-1-19. Seasonal Distribution of Total Carbon(TC, %)in Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=94,94,1

Fig. 2-1-20. Seasonal Distribution of Total Nitrogen(TC, %)in Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=95,95,1

Fig. 2-1-21. Distribution of Total Surfer(TS, %)in Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=96,96,1

Fig. 2-1-22. Grouping of Sampling Stations in a Two Dimensional PCA Based on the Seven Environmental Variable at Each Station in Kamak Bay=100,100,1

Fig. 2-1-23. Distribution of Mariculture Cage in Kamak Bay=102,102,1

Fig. 2-1-24. Seasonal Variation of Macrobenthos in Kamak Bay from April, 1997 to May, 1999=105,105,1

Fig. 2-1-25. Seasonal Changes of Ecological Indices of the Macrobenthos in Kamak Bay from April, 1997 to May, 1999=107,107,1

Fig. 2-1-26. Distribution of the Macrobenthic Species at Each Station in Kamak Bay from Aug., 1998 to May, 1999=108,108,1

Fig. 2-1-27. Distribution of Abundance of the Macrobenthos at Each Station in Kamak Bay from Aug., 1998 to May, 1999=109,109,1

Fig. 2-1-28. Distribution of Biomass of the Macrobenthos at Each Stations in Kamak Bay from Aug., 1998 to May, 1999=110,110,1

Fig. 2-1-29. Spatial Changes of Ecological Indices of the Macrobenthos in Kamak Bay=112,112,1

Fig. 2-1-30. Spatial Distribution of Dominant Species(Capitella Capitata and Musculista Senhousia) in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=115,115,1

Fig. 2-1-31. Spatial Distribution of Dominant Species(Tharyx sp. and Theora Fragilis) in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=116,116,1

Fig. 2-1-32. Spatial Distribution of Dominant Species(Lumbrineris Longifolia and Heteromastus Filiformis) in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=117,117,1

Fig. 2-1-33. Spatial Distribution of Dominant Species(Eriopisella Sechellensis and Praxillella Affinis) in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=118,118,1

Fig. 2-1-34. Spatial Distribution of Dominant Species(Moerella Iridescens and Ophiura Kinbergi) in Kamak Bay during the Study Period=119,119,1

Fig. 2-1-35. Dendrogram Based on Cluster Analysis(Upper) and Distribution of Stations Groups on the Map(Lower)=121,121,1

Fig. 2-2-1. Number of Species and Species Diversity of Each Station in the Kamak Bay (Spp.:Number of Species, H':Species Diversity)=142,142,1

Fig. 2-2-2. Benthic Pollution Index of Each Station for Macrobenthos Occurred in the Kamak Bay=144,144,1

Fig. 2-2-3. Log-Normal Plots of Each Station for Macrobenthos Occurred in the Kamak Bay(r²:Determinant Coefficient, s:Slope of the Regression Line)=149,149,2

Fig. 2-2-4. Rank-Frequency Diagrams of Each Station for Macrobenthos Occurred in the Kamak Bay=151,151,2

Fig. 2-2-5. Abundance-Biomass Comparison(ABC) of Each Station for Macrobenthos Occurred in the Kamak Bay=154,154,2

Fig. 2-2-6. W Statistic Values Corresponding to the 12 ABC Curves of Fig. 5 Plotted against Station Number in August, 1998 and May, 1999=156,156,1

Fig. 2-2-7. MDS Ordination of the 12 Stations Based on Square-Root Transformed Abundances and Bray-Curtis Similarities=157,157,1

Fig. 2-2-8. 1) W Statistic Value Corresponding to ABC Curves and 2) Pearson's Correlation Coefficients among W statistics of Each Taxon, Aug., 1998=164,164,1

Fig. 2-2-9. 1) W Statistic Value Corresponding to ABC Curves and 2) Pearson's Correlation Coefficients among W statistics of Each Taxon, May, 1999=165,165,1

Fig. 2-2-10. MDS Ordination of Square Root Transformed Abundances of Different Taxonomic Levels, Aug., 1998. Stress Value is a) 0.05, b) 0.01, c) 0.01, d) 0.06 e) 0.04, and f) 0.07 Respectively=166,166,1

Fig. 2-2-11. MDS Ordination of Square Root Transformed Abundances of Different Taxonomic Levels, May., 1999. Stress Value is a) 0.03, b) 0.02, c) 0.03, d) 0.04 e) 0.04, and f) 0.03 Respectively=167,167,1

Fig. 2-2-12. 1) A 'Second-Stage' MDS Ordination and 2) Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients among the Similarities of Each Taxon, Aug., 1998=168,168,1

Fig. 2-2-13. 1) A 'Second-Stage' MDS Ordination and 2) Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients among the Similarities of Each Taxon, May, 1999=169,169,1

Fig. 2-2-14. 1) A 'Second-Stage' MDS Ordination and 2) Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients among the Similarities of Each Taxon, In Tongyong Coastal Sea, May, 1998=173,173,1

Fig. 2-2-15. A 'Second-Stage' MDS Ordination of Inter-Matrix Rank Correlation for the Abundance of Kamak Bay, May, 1999. Underlying Similarity Matrices Derived from Abundances of Species(s), Genus(g), Family(f), Order(o), Class(c), and Phylum(p), Using No(n), Square Root(2), Forth Root(4) and Absence/Presence(a) Transformations=174,174,1

Fig. 2-3-1. The Sampling Stations of Meiobenthos in Kamak Bay=188,188,1

Fig. 2-3-2. Abundance of Meiobenthos Obtained in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=198,198,4

Fig. 2-3-3. Faunal Changes of Meiobenthos at Each Stations in Kamak Bay during April 1997~May 1999=214,214,6

Fig. 2-3-4. The Relationships between Each Stations and Nematodes/Benthic Harpacticoids Ratio for Pollution Monitoring=229,229,4

Fig. 2-3-5. Taxon Diversity of Meiobenthos at Each Stations in Kamak Bay=242,242,4

Fig. 3-1-1. Sediment Sampling Stations in Kamak Bay=259,259,1

Fig. 3-1-2. Sample Collection Stations for Oyster(Crasstrea Giags, ●), Neogastropod(T, Clavigera, ●) and Mussel(Mytilus Edulis Galloprovincialis, ▲) in Kamak Bay=260,260,1

Fig. 3-1-3. Distribution of Tributyltin(TBT) in Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincial) in Kamak Bay=264,264,1

Fig. 3-1-4. Distribution of Dibutyltin(DBT) in Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincial) in Kamak Bay=265,265,1

Fig. 3-1-5. Distribution of Monobutyltin(MBT) in Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincial) in Kamak Bay=266,266,1

Fig. 3-1-6. Distribution of Triphenyltin in Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincial) in Kamak Bay=267,267,1

Fig. 3-1-7. Distribution of Tributyltin(TBT) in Surface Sediment in Kamak Bay=271,271,1

Fig. 3-2-1. Distribution of OCPs in Pacific Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincialis) in Kamak Bay=289,289,1

Fig. 3-2-2. Mean Concentration of OCPs in Pacific Oyster(C. Gigas)=291,291,1

Fig. 3-2-3. The Concentration of DDT Compounds (A) and Their Compositions (B) in Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea Gigas=292,292,1

Fig. 3-2-4. Distribution of PCBs in Pacific Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincialis) in Kamak Bay=296,296,1

Fig. 3-2-5. The Concentration of DDT Compounds (A) and Their Compositions (B) in Mussel, Mytilus Edulis Galloprovincialis. (O:Oyster)=297,297,1

Fig. 3-2-6. Distribution of OCPs in Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay=301,301,1

Fig. 3-2-7. The Concentration of DDT Compounds (A) and Their Compositions (B) in Sediments=303,303,1

Fig. 3-2-8. Distribution of PCBs in Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay=304,304,1

Fig. 3-3-1. Distribution of tPAHs in Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay=318,318,1

Fig. 3-3-2. PCA(Principal Component Analysis) of PAHs Distribution in Surface Sediment of Kamak Bay, Using SIMCA(Soft Independent Modeling of Class Analogy), (A) Score Plot=319,319,1

Fig. 3-3-3. Concentration of LMW(Low Molecular Weight) PAHs and HMW(High Molecular Weight) PAHs in Surface Sediment of Kamak Bay=321,321,1

Fig. 3-3-4. Naphthalene AHD(Alkyl Homologue Distribution) of Surface Sediments in Kamak Bay=322,322,1

Fig. 3-3-5. Distribution of tPAHs in Pacific Oyster(C. Gigas) and Cultured Mussels(M. Edulis Galloprovincial) in Kamak Bay=325,325,1

Fig. 3-3-6. Total PAHs Concentration Accumulated in Different Animal Tissues from Kamak Bay=326,326,1

Fig. 3-3-7. Naphthalene AHD(Alkyl Homologue Distribution) Series of Several Biotas in Kamak Bay=327,327,1

Fig. 4-1-1. Hemocyte and its Intracellular Biomakers=348,348,1

Fig. 4-1-2. Distribution of Intracellular Biomarkers Activities in Hemocytes of Mussels Collected in Kamak Bay. St1, St2, St3, St4-Investigated Stations. Results were Compared Using Student T-Test Criteria:Significant Differences between Stations(p＞0.05);*-Differences(p＜0.5);**-Significant Differences(p＜0.05);***-Significant Differences(p＜0.001)=350,350,1

Fig. 4-1-3. Lysosome Response of Haemocytes Isolated from Mussel and Oyster in Kamak Bay, Korea=357,357,1

Fig. 4-1-4. Comparison of Hemocyte Biomaker Activity from Oysters Collected in Koje Island(Cultivated), Masan Bay(Natural, Wild)and Kamak Bay(Station 3)=360,360,1

Fig. 4-2-1. Effects of Natural and Man-Made Stresses on Marine Organism=367,367,1

Fig. 4-2-2. Location of the Sampling Site=370,370,1

Fig. 4-2-3. Oyster Tissues Taken for Histological Analysis=373,373,1

Fig. 4-2-4. Digestive Gland Atrophy of Oysters:A, Atrophy O, B, Atrophy 1, C, Atrophy 2, D, Atrophy 3, E, Atrophy 4=381,381,1

Fig. 4-2-5. Protein Standard Curve Constructed Using Bovine Serum Albumine as a Standard Material=382,382,1

Fig. 4-2-6. Annual Variation of Total Protein in the Oyster Tissues Expressed as Percent Weight(%)=383,383,1

Fig. 4-2-7. Carbohydrate Standard Curve Constructed Using Soluable Agarose as a Standard Material=385,385,1

Fig. 4-2-8. Seasonal Variation of Total Carbonhydrate in the Oyster Collected from Kamak Bay during April 1997 and May 1998=386,386,1

Fig. 4-2-9. Seasonal Variation of Total Lipids in Oyster Tissues as Percent Weight=387,387,1

Fig. 4-2-10. A, Scanned Image of Oyster Tissue Cross-Section. B, Measurement of Gonadal Area;A1, Total Cross-Section Area, A2, Area Occupied by Gonadal Tissue=389,389,1

Fig. 4-2-11. Seasonal Variation of Percent Gonadal Area(PGA) of the Oysters=391,391,1

Fig. 4-2-12. Seasonal Variation of the Digestive Tuble Atrophy Index of Oysters Collected from Kamak Bay=392,392,1

Fig. 5-1. GIS Map Showing Distribution of Maricuture Farms and Depth in Kamak Bay=404,404,1

Fig. 5-2. Maps Showing Gradients of Dissolved Oxygen(DO) and Chemica Oxygen Demand(COD) in Kamak Bay=405,405,1

Fig. 5-3. Maps Showing Distribution of Pollutants from Sediments and Marine Bivalves in Kamak Bay=406,406,1

Fig. 5-4. Maps Showing Population Density, Fish Boat Power and Industry Power of Yosu and Kamak Bay=407,407,1

Fig. 5-5. Image of Computer Monitor Showing Sensitivity Colors Along the Coast of Kamak Bay=409,409,1

Fig. 5-5. Image of Computer Monitor Showing Sensitivity Colors Along the Coast of Kamak Bay=409,409,1

목차

표제지=0,1,1

1999년 10월=0,2,1

목차=1,3,2

제1장 서론=3,5,2

제2장 저서동물을 이용한 환경모니터링 기법=5,7,1

제1절 중형저서동물을 환경오염지수로 사용하기 위한 채취 및 분석 방법=5,7,12

제2절 대형저서동물 군집을 이용한 오염 모니터링 기법=17,19,1

1. 저서동물(Macrobenthos) 채취=17,19,2

2. 생물 자료 분석=18,20,13

3. 생물자료와 환경변수와의 관계=30,32,2

4. 상위 분류군 (과 수준)에서의 오염 모니터링 기법 적용=31,33,11

참고문헌=42,44,3

제3장 어장환경 모니터링을 위한 유기오염 물질 분석과 생화학적 분석 기법=45,47,1

제1절 유기오염물질 분석 방법=45,47,1

1. 유기염소계화합물 (CHs)과 다환방향족탄화수소 (PAHs)의 분석 기술=45,47,10

2. 유기주석화합물 (Organotin)의 분석기술=54,56,7

참고문헌=61,63,1

제2절 환경생체지표를 이용한 해양환경 평가 방법=62,64,3

1. 형광성 분자 탐지기 (Fluorescence Molecular Probe)를 이용한 측정=64,66,6

2. 현미경을 이용한 뉴트럴 레드 (Neutral Red, 시약명) 평가법=69,71,2

참고문헌=71,73,2

제3절 대수리의 임포섹스를 이용한 유기주석화합물 오염 평가=73,75,5

제4절 생리ㆍ화학적인 방법에 의한 분석 기법=78,80,1

1. 분석 방법=78,80,6

2. 조직학적 관찰=83,85,12

제4장 어장환경도 (FishAtlas) 작성=95,97,14

참고문헌=109,111,2

부록:용어 해설=111,113,4

그림4-1. 가막만내 한 해안의 서식지 유형과 양식장 배치도. 단위서식지는 환경에 반응하는 단위로 판단하고 지도를 작성하였다=97,99,1

그림4-3. 가막만의 양식장 배치도. 양식장 면허도를 근거로 한 것이므로 실제와는 다르다. 완전한 배치도를 만들기 위해서는 항공사진 촬영이 필요하다=101,103,1

그림4-5. 가막만 해안의 상대적인 어장 환경민감도(안). 실제자료의 지속적인 보완을 통해서 주관적인 요인을 최소화해야 한다=107,109,1