Korean Journal of Plant Resources (한국자원식물학회지)

The Plant Resources Society of Korea (한국자원식물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Improvement of Types and Grades of Forest Wetland through Correlation Analysis of Forest Wetland Evaluation Factors and Types

산림습원 가치평가 요소와 유형 및 등급의 상관성 분석을 통한 산림습원 유형 구분 및 등급의 개선 방안 연구

  • Lee, Jong-Won (DMZ Botanic Garden, Korea National Arboretum) ;
  • Yun, Ho-Geun (DMZ Botanic Garden, Korea National Arboretum) ;
  • Lee, Kyu Song (Department of Biology, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • An, Jong Bin (DMZ Botanic Garden, Korea National Arboretum)
  • 이종원 (국립수목원 DMZ산림생물자원보전과) ;
  • 윤호근 (국립수목원 DMZ산림생물자원보전과) ;
  • 이규송 (강릉원주대학교 생물학과) ;
  • 안종빈 (국립수목원 DMZ산림생물자원보전과)
  • Received : 2022.03.15
  • Accepted : 2022.05.09
  • Published : 2022.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was carried out on 455 forest wetlands of south Korea for which an inventory was established through value evaluation and grade. Correlation analysis was conducted to find out the correlation between the types and grades of forest wetlands and 23 evaluation factors in four categories: vegetation and landscape, material circulation and hydraulics·hydrology, humanities and social landscape, and disturbance level. Through the improvement of types and grades of forest wetlands, it is possible to secure basic data that can be used in setting up conservation measures by preparing standards necessary for future forest wetland conservation and restoration, and to found a systematic monitoring system. First, between the type of forest wetland and size and accessibility showed a positive correlation, but the remaining items were analyzed to have negative or no correlation. In particular, it was found that there was no negative correlation or no correlation with the grades of forest wetland. Moreover, it was found that there was a very strong negative correlation with the weighted four category items. Thus, it is judged that improvement is necessary because there is an error in the weight or adjust the evaluation criteria of the value evaluation item, add an item that can increase objectivity. Especially, in the case of forest wetlands, the ecosystem service function due to biodiversity is the largest, so evaluation items should be improved in consideration of this. Therefore, it can be divided into five categories: uniqueness and rarity (15%), wildlife habitat (15%), vegetation and landscape (35%), material cycle·hydraulic hydrology (30%), and humanities and social landscape (5%). It will be possible to propose weights that can increase effectiveness.

본 연구는 산림습원의 가치평가 및 등급화로 인벤토리가 구축된 산림습원 455개소를 대상으로 수행되었다. 산림습원 가치평가 항목인 식생 및 경관, 물질순환 및 수리·수문, 인문·사회경관 및 교란정도 4가지 카테고리의 23개 평가 요소가 산림습원의 유형 구분 및 등급에 미치는 상관관계를 알아보고자 상관분석을 실시하였다. 산림습원의 유형 구분 및 가치평가의 개선을 통하여 향후 산림습원 보전 및 복원에 필요한 기준안을 마련하여 보전대책 수립에 활용할 수 있는 기초자료를 확보할 수 있고, 체계적인 모티터링 체계를 구축할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 우선 산림습원 유형 구분과 규모와 접근성은 양적 상관을 보였으나, 나머지 항목은 음의 상관이나 상관성이 없은 것으로 분석되었다. 특히 산림습원 등급과는 음의 상관이나 상관성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 특히 가중치가 부여된 4가지 상위 카테고리 요소와 아주 큰 음의 상관이 있는 것으로 파악되었다. 따라서 가치평가 항목의 평가 기준치를 조정하거나 객관성을 높일 수 있는 항목을 추가하거나 가중치에 대한 오류가 있는 것으로 조정이 필요하다고 판단된다. 특히 산림습원의 경우 생물다양성으로 인한 생태계서비스 기능이 가장 크므로 이를 고려하여 평가항목을 개선해야 한다. 따라서 고유성·희소성(15%), 야생동물서식지(15%), 식생 및 경관(35%), 물질순환 및 수리·수문(30%) 그리고 인문·사회경관(5%) 5가지 카테고리로 구분해볼 수 있고, 실효성을 높일 수 있는 가중치를 제안하는 바이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, K.H., J.C. Lim, Y.K. Lee, T.B. Choi, K.S. Lee, M.S. Im, Y.H. Go, J.H. Suh, Y.K. Shin and M.J. Kim. 2016a. Vegetation classification and distributional pattern in Damyang river in wetland. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 25(2):89-102 (in Korean). https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2016.25.2.89
  2. Ahn, K.S., H.S. Kim and J.G. Kim. 2016b. Wetlands. Life Science, Seoul, Korea. pp. 1-604 (in Korean).
  3. Burkett, V. and J. Kusler. 2000. Climate change: potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of The United States 1. JAWARA. 36(2):313-320.
  4. Carpenter, S.R., S.G. Fisher, N.B. Grimm and J.F. Kitchell. 1992. Global change and freshwater ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 23(1):119-139. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.001003
  5. Chatterjee, A., E. Blom, B. Gujja, R. Jacimovic, L. Beevers, J. O'Keeffe, M. Beland and T. Biggs. 2010. WWF initiatives to study the impact of climate change on Himalayan high-altitude wetlands (HAWs). Mountain Res. Dev. 30(1):42-52. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00091.1
  6. Choung, Y.S., B.M. Kim, K.S. Lee, K.H. Cho, K.Y. Joo, J.O. Hyun, H.R. Na, H.K. Oh, G.H. Nam and J.S. Kim. 2020. Wetland Preference and Life Form of the Vascular Plants in the Korean Peninsula. National Institute of Biological Resources. Incheon, Korea. pp. 1-235 (in Korean).
  7. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. (USA). pp. 1-104.
  8. Cylinder, P.D. and K.M. Bogdan. 1995. Wetlands Regulation: a Complete Guide of Federal and California Programs. Solano Press Books, CA (USA). pp. 35-88.
  9. Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. (USA). pp. 1-108.
  10. Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 17(1):71-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1
  11. Gu, B.H. 2002. A Study on the Classification and Mapping Methods of Wetlands in Korea. Department of Landscape Architecture, Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National Univ., Korea. pp. 1-161 (in Korean).
  12. Johnson, W.C., B. Werner, G. Guntenspergen, R. Voldseth, R.A. Millett, B. Naugle, D.E. Tulbure, M. Carroll, R.W.H.J. Tracy and C. Olawsky. 2010. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. BioScience 60(2):128-140. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.7
  13. Jung, S.Y., J.W. Lee, H.T. Shin, S.J. Kim, J.B. An, T.I. Heo, J.M. Chung and Y.C. Cho. 2017. Invasive Alien Plants in South Korea. Korea National Arboretum. Pocheon, Korea. pp. 1-265 (in Korean)
  14. Kim, T.S., J.W. Kim, S.K. Moon, H.S. Yang and B.G. Yang. 2013. Introduction to national mid-term fundamental plan for wetlands conservation and management. J. Wet. Res. 15(4):519-527 (in Korean). https://doi.org/10.17663/JWR.2013.15.4.519
  15. Korea Forest Service. 2006. Report of Wetlands Research. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, Korea. pp. 1-491 (in Korean).
  16. Korea Forest Service. 2021. Annual Report on Forestry and Forestry Trends in 2020. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, Korea. pp. 1- 692 (in Korean).
  17. Korea National Arboretum. 2016. 2016 Statistical of Forest Wetland. Korea Forest Service, Daejeon, Korea. pp. 1-290 (in Korean).
  18. Korea National Arboretum. 2019. Checklist of Alien Plants in Korea. Dooroo Happy Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea. pp. 1-225 (in Korean).
  19. Korea National Arboretum. 2021. Checklist of Vascular Plants in Korea. Korea National Arboretum, Pocheon, Korea. pp. 1-1006 (in Korean).
  20. Kwon, D.H. 2006. Results of the research on Korea's wetlands and tasks. Journal of the Geomorphological Association of Korea 13(1):25-34 (in Korean).
  21. Lee, J.W., J.B. An, S.H. Kang and H.G. Yun. 2022a. A study on the flora of outstanding forest wetlands in the eastern part of Jeonnam province. Korean J. Plant Res. 35(1):134-167 (in Korean).
  22. Lee, J.W., J.B. An, T.Y. Hwang and H.G. Yun. 2022b. A study on classification of forest wetlands types and inventory establishment in Korea. J. Wet. Res. 24(1):1-24 (in Korean).
  23. Ministry of Environment. 2020. The 4 Intensive Survey on National Inland Wetlands('20). National Institute of Ecology. Seocheon, Korea. pp. 1-516 (in Korean).
  24. Ministry of Environment. 2022. The Wetlands Conservation Act. (accessed on 27 February 2022). https://www.law.go.kr.
  25. Mitsch and Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands (3rd ed.), John Wiley & Sons. NY (USA). pp. 1-900.
  26. Moon, H.S. 2006. The Identification and comprehension of the mountain wetlands. Journal of the Speleological Society of Korea 74:67-71 (in Korean).
  27. Omar, M.Y., A. Maroyi and J.J. Van Tol. 2016. Floral diversity, composition and distribution in a montane wetland in Hogsback, the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Pak. J. Bot. 48(5):1861-1870.
  28. Ramsar. 2022. Ramsar site and Convention Act. (accessed on 7 February 2022). https://www.ramsar.org/documents.
  29. Son, H.J., Y.S. Kim, J.U. Yun, K.W. Chun and W.G. Park. 2014. The flora and vegetation structure of forest wetlands in Mt. Cheongok (Gyeongbuk Bonghwa). J. Korean Soc. For. Sci. 103(3):313-320 (in Korean). https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.3.313
  30. Tarnocai, C. 2006. The effect of climate change on carbon in Canadian peatlands. Glob. Planet. Change 53(4):222-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.03.012
  31. Tiner, R.W. 1993. Using plants as indicators of wetland. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 144:240-253.
  32. Zedler, J. B. and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30(1):39-74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248