2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

CORRELATION BETWEEN BIOTIC FACTORSAND ABIOTIC FACTORS- FOCUSED ON THE CASE STREAMS IN
GYEONGGI DISTRICT, KOREANovember 4, 2008

Chang Wan KIM, Ph. D and Hyea-Ju KIM, Ph. D
River and Coast Research Division
Korea Institute of Construction Technology
www.kict.re.kr

1

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research Procedure
3. Results
4. Conclusionwww.kict.re.kr

2

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

1. INTODUCTION

 Correlation between biotic and abiotic factors

9 Classification of stream typology
9 Evaluation of ecological stream status
 LfU (Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz) Baden-Württemberg(1998) (State Institute for Environment Protection)

9 Classification of ‘silicates stream’ and ‘carbonate stream’ LfU Baden-Württemberg (2000)
9 Classification of stream type

 AQEM (2001) - European Water Project (The Development

and Testing of an Integrated Assessment System for the Ecological Qualityof Streams and Rivers throughout Europe using Benthic Macroinvertebrates)

9 Determination of representative benthic macroinvertebrates by stream types
9 Development of integrated method for assessing streams
using benthic macro-invertebrates

www.kict.re.kr

3

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE Survey of River Structure

9 Survey sheet
9 Stream typology
9 Structural quality classes
9 Nine elements dependent on stream typology

 Survey for Biotic Factors and Water Quality Items
9 Vegetation
9 Benthic macro-invertebrates
9 Water quality items

 Correlation Analysis

9 RDA (Redundancy Analysis)
9 CCA (Canonical Correspondence Analysis)

www.kict.re.kr

4

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Survey Sheet for Physical River Structure
4

17

16

19

18

1

2

3

1
2

5

8

6
7

3

11

14

www.kict.re.kr

4
9

5
6
Items
25
Elements
6

10
12

20

22
22

23

24
25

13
15

5

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Structural Quality Classes (LAWA, 2000)

Natural State-1, 2 Natural State-3

Natural State-6, 7

www.kict.re.kr

Natural State-4

Natural State-5

Class

State

Range

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Unchanged
Slightly Changed
Moderately Changed
Distinctly Changed
Obviously Changed
Strongly Changed
Completely Changed

1.0-1.7
1.8-2.6
2.7-3.5
3.6-4.4
4.5-5.3
5.4-6.2
6.3-7.0

6

EU-WFG
Ecological
Condition
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Nine Elements Dependent on Stream Typology
9. Special bed structures
8. Substrate diversity
1. Curvature
2. Erosion due to curvature

3. Lateral patches

4. Flow diversity
5. Depth variation
6. Lateral erosion

7. Width variationwww.kict.re.kr

7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 0. Stream Typology (LAWA, 2000)

K (Gorge)

K (V-shaped)

S (U-shaped)

M (Meandering)A (Trough)A (Alluvial)

F (Silt)

F (Sand)

F (Gravel)

F (Organism)

F (Lowland)

F (Lowland, Artificial)www.kict.re.kr

8

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 1. Curvature of channel

Lm/Bm < 2
Severe, 60-90°

Lm/Bm = 2
Very Strong, 30-60°

Lm/Bm = 4
Moderate, 20°

Lm/Bm > 4
Weak, 30-60°

Stretched

Straight (Artificial)www.kict.re.kr

9

Lm/Bm = 3
Strong, 10-40°
Index byStandard
stream typology
for estimation
A, F S M, K
Curvature
Severe11Very Strong
2
1
×Strong32
Non-curvature
Moderate
4
3
Weak
5
4
×
Stretched
65Straight
7
7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 2. Erosion due to curvatureCur. / Strong

Non-Cur. / Strong

Cur. / Strong

Cur. / Weak

Non-Cur. / Strong

Non-Cur. / Strong Non-Cur. / Weakwww.kict.re.kr

10

Cur. / Weak

Index by stream
typology
Standard for
S, A, Festimation
Non- K, M
Curva curva-ture ture
Frequently strong 2
2
Rarely strong
2
3
Frequently weak1
4
×
Rarely weak
1
5
None
1
7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 3. Lateral Patches

Riffle-pool/Distinct Steps/Distinct

Bar/Distinct

Index by stream
typology
Standard for
M, A, F, S
estimation
Narrow
Wide
K(B<5 m) (5 m<B)
1
Abundant
1
1
Several
2
2
Two
3
×
2
One
4
5
Half (Rudiment)
5
7
7
None
7

Riffle-pool/Rudiment Steps/Rudiment

Bar/Rudimentwww.kict.re.kr

Artificial Pool

Bar/Rudiment11

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 4. Flow diversity

SmoothRushing

Wavy

Walking

Crest-formingStandard for estimation
Very High (Crest-forming, Rushing)High (Wavy)
Moderate (Walking)
Low (Smooth)None

www.kict.re.kr

12

Index bystream typology
M, A, K
F
1
1
2
1
4
3
5
5
7
7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 5. Depth variation

Index byStandard for
stream typology
estimation
M, A, KF

www.kict.re.kr

Very High

1

1

High

2

1

Moderate

4

3

Low

5

5

None

7

7

13

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 6. Lateral erosion

Moderate/Strong

Deep/Strong

Very Deep/Strong

Index by stream
typology
M, A, F, S
Very Moderate
Deep-VeryK
Depth ofshallowcross-Section Deep
(B/H<4) (B/H>4)
Strong
3
3
Weak
5
1
×
None
7
1
Standard for
estimation

Moderate/WeakModerate/WeakVery Deep/WeakVery Deep/Weakwww.kict.re.kr

Very Deep/Strong14

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 7. Width variation

None

ModerateHigh
Index byStandard for
stream typology
estimation
M, A, K, S F
Very High
1
1
High
2
1
Moderate
4
2
Low
6
4
None
7
7

Very Highwww.kict.re.kr

15

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 8. Substrate diversity

Clay/Silt/Loam

Gravel and Stone

Silt & Mud

Sand

Block, Gravel & Stone

Bedrock
www.kict.re.kr

16

GravelIndex byStandard for
stream typology
estimation
S, A, KF
Very High
1
1
High
2
1
Moderate
4
2
Low
6
4
None
7
7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE 9. Special bed structures

Scour Hole

Deep Run

Hissing SpotStream-pool

Still Side-pool

Reverse Side-pool

Macro-hydrophyte

Root Spot

Cascadewww.kict.re.kr

17

Darting Spot

Index
by
Standard stream
typologyforestimation M,
A, FK
Abundant
1
1
Several
2
1
Two
3
2
One
4
3
Half (1/2) 5
5
None
7
7

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Survey for Biotic Factors and Water Quality
 Location

9 length of 1 km showing best natural state at each stream

 Vegetation

9 Braun-Blanquet (1964) method → Phytosociology
9 Belt-transect → Emergent species along cross-section

 Benthic macro-invertebrate

9 Quantitative sampling : Surber (1937) net
9 Qualitative sampling : Hand-grab and collector
9 Dominance, Diversity, Evenness, Richness indices Water quality

9 Data of Water Quality Monitoring Network (Ministry ofEnvironment, Korea)
9 pH, COD, BOD, DO, SS, T-N, T-P, NH3-N, PO4-P,
water temperature, conductivity, and number of coliform

www.kict.re.kr

18

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

2. RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Correlation Analysis Method
 Ordination
Principal Component Analysis
Indirect
Correspondence Analysis
MethodMultiDetrended Correspondence Analysis
variateReDundancy Analysis
Analysis Direct
Canonical Correspondence Analysis
MethodDetrended Canonical Correspondence Analysis

 Programs

9 CANOCO 4.5 (ter Braak, C.J.F. and Šmilauer, P.;
2002)
2002 : RDA, CCA
9 SPSS 13 (Statistical Package for the Social Science):
Pearson Correlation, PCA

www.kict.re.kr

19

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Location and Geology of Survey Streams
Gravel Stream

Sand Stream

www.kict.re.kr

20

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Field Survey for River Structure

Curvature of channel(Very Strong)

Erosion due to curvature(Frequently Strong)

Lateral patches(One)

Flow diversity(Rushing → Very High)www.kict.re.kr

21

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Depth variation(Very High)

Lateral erosion(Very Deep/Strong)

Width variation(Moderate)

Substrate diversity(Moderate)www.kict.re.kr

22

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Special bed Structures(Still Side-pool)

Special bed Structures(Darting Spot)Special bed Structures(Root Spot)www.kict.re.kr

23

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Hydromorphological Structure
Class ■ Median of the Namhan river sub-basin / _ Median of the Bookhan river sub-basin
7

Index
7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Variable Erosion
SpecialLateral Curvature Substrate Flow
Depth
Width
Lateraldue toAveragebederosion of channel diversity diversity variation
variation
variation patches
Index
curvature
structures
Namhan river
1.7
1.3
2.0
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
1.7
subsub-basin
Bookhan river
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.7
3.3
subsub-basinwww.kict.re.kr

24

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Benthic Macro-invertebrate 62 species : 1:Tipulide sp.1, 2:Tipulide sp.2, 3:Nothopsyche KUa, 4:Kamimuria KUa,

5:Baetis fuscatus, 6:Calopteryx atrata, 7:Ranatra chinensis, 8:Glossosoma KUa,
9:Chironomidae sp. 1, 10:Laccophilus difficilis, 11:Micronecta sedula, 12:Hydaticus grammicus,
13:Baitis thermicus, 14:Goerodes KUa, 15:Ecdyonurus levis, 16:Macromia daimoji,
17:Whitmania edentula, 18:Semisulcospira libertina, 19:Erpobdella lineata, 20:Ephemera
orientalis, 21:Paraleptophlebia chocolata, 22:Sympetrum eroticum, 23:Ecdyonurus kibunensis,
24:Cercion calamorum, 25:Whitmania pigra, 26:Unio douglasiae, 27:Anax nigrofasciatus,
28:Ephemera strigata, 29:Rhyacophila KUa, 30:Lymnaea auricularia, 31:Muljarus japonicus,
32:Cincticostella levanidovae, 33:Orthetrum albistylum speciosum, 34:Platycnemis
phillopoda, 35:Epeorus pellucidus, 36:Drunella aculea, 37:Aquaris paludum, 38:Davidius lunatus,
39:Hippeutis cantori, 40:Limnodrilus gotoi, 41:Ischnura asiatica, 42:Rhantus pulverosus,
43:Baetiella tuberculata, 44:Sieboldius albardae, 45:Stenopsyche bergeri, 46:Gabbia misella,
47:Hesperocorixa kolthoffi, 48:Physa acuta), 49:Wormaldia KUa, 50:Laccotrephes japonensis,
51:Rhoenanthus coreanus, 52:Corbicula fluminea, 53:Semisulcospira tegulata, 54:Hydropsyche
KUa, 55:Iron aesculus, 56:Macrobrachium nipponense, 57:Anodonta woodiana,
58:Semisulcospira coreana, 59:Stylurus annulata, 60:Potamonectes hostilis, 61:Dytiscidae sp. 1,
62:Dytiscidae sp. 2

 Common species
Gravel stream
15
www.kict.re.kr

Sand stream
925

Gravel and sand stream

5

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 Result of RDA for hydromorphological structure
Axis

ResultSum of all eigenvalues
Sum of all canonical eigenvalues
Eigenvalues (λ)
Cumulative percentage varianceof species dataof species-environment relation
Species-environment correlations (R)Canonical coefficients (c) and intra-set correlations (r)of environmental variable EN2 (Lateral erosion)of environmental variable EN4 (Curvature)of environmental variable EN6 (Substrate diversity)cAxis 1

Axis 2

0.589

0.168

58.9
71.7
0.989

75.7
92.2
0.977

r

c

Total
variable
1
0.821
1

r

-0.0575 -0.4265 -0.4708 -0.3829
0.5015 -0.7316 1.7271 0.6294-1.3867 -0.968 -1.0978 0.2435

9 Three environmental variables by forward selection.
9 ‘Axis 1-EN6’ and ‘Axis 2-EN4’ have strong influence.
9 Axis 1 explains 58.9 % of variance of species and 71.7 %of species-environment correlation.
9 Axis 2 explains 16.8 % of variance of species and 20.5 %of species-environment correlation.
www.kict.re.kr

26

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 RDA ordination graph for hydromorphological structure
Sand stream

40

3

31

32
58
Gravel stream

www.kict.re.kr

27

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 Result of RDA for COD
ResultSum of all eigenvalues
Sum of all canonical eigenvalues

Axis

Eigenvalues (λ)
Cumulative percentage varianceof species dataof species-environment relation
Species-environment correlations (R)Canonical coefficients (c) and intra-set correlations (r)of environmental variable COD

c-1

Axis 1

Axis 2

0.447

0.224

44.7
100
0.868

67
0
0

r

-1

c

0

Total
variable
1
0.447
1

r

0

9 One environmental variables by Pearson correlation andforward selection of PCA.
9 Axis 1 explains 44.7 % of variance of species and 100 %of species-environment correlation.
9 Axis 2 explains 22.4 % of variance of species though it is
not attributed by environmental variables.
www.kict.re.kr

28

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 RDA ordination graph for COD
High water quality
Gravel stream

Low water quality
Sand stream
www.kict.re.kr

29

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

Plants from Belt-transect
 116 species : 1:Ailanthus altissima, 2:Galium spurium, 3:Setaria vidis, 4:Rorippa indica, 5:Ampelopsis

brevipedunculata V. heterophylla, 6:Salix gracilistyla, 7:Youngia sonchifolia, 8:Pteridium aquilinum V. latiusculum, 9:Staphylea
bumalda, 10:Securinega suffruticosa, 11:Oxalis corniculata, 12:Stephanandra incisa, 13:Carex lanceolata, 14:Festuca ovina,
15:Trigonotis peduncularis, 16:Vicia unijuga, 17:Impatiens noli-langere, 18:Corydalis ochotensis, 19:Actinidia arguta, 20:Maackia
amurensis, 21:Acer palmatum, 22:Commelina communis, 23:Bilderdykia dumetora, 24:Parthenocissus tricuspidata, 25:Carex
siderosticta, 26:Aceriphyllum ossii, 27:Ambrosia artemisiifolia V. elatior, 28:Alopecurus aequalis V. amurensis, 29:Woodsia
manchuriensis, 30:Kummerowia striata, 31:Berberis koreana, 32:Hypericum ascyron, 33:Impatiens textori, 34:Bidens frondosa,
35:Aster pilosus, 36:Cardamine leucantha, 37:Angelica decursiva, 38:Duchesnea chrysantha, 39:Stellaria alsine V. undulata,
40:Weigela subsessilis, 41:Rhus chinensis, 42:Hosta longipes, 43:Torilis japonica, 44:Rubus crataegifolius, 45:Morus bombycis,
46:Crataegus pinnatifida, 47:Rhododendron yedoense V. poukhanense, 48:Vicia angustifolia V. segetilis, 49:arex dispalata,
50:Menispermum dauricum, 51:Amphicarpaea edgeworthii V. trisperma, 52:Lycopus ramosissimus V. japonicus, 53:Acer ginnala,
54:Lespedeza bicolor, 55:Aster yomena, 56:Malus sieboldii, 57:Chelidonium majus V. asiaticum, 58:Onoclea sensibilis V. interrupta,
59:Potentilla fragarioides var. major, 60:Persicaria hydropiper, 61:Hemerocallis fulva, 62:Lactuca indica var. laciniata, 63:Youngia
denticulata, 64:Callicarpa japonica, 65:Trisetum bifidum, 66:Viola mandshurica, 67:Artemisia japonica, 68:Arthraxon hispidus,
69:Lespedeza maximowiczii, 70:Spiraea prunifolia for. simpliciflora, 71:Viola acuminata, 72:Quercus serrata, 73:Boehmeria spicata,
74:Lysimachia vulgaris V. davurica, 75:Gleditsia japonica V. koraiensis, 76:Aristolochia contorta, 77:Hemistepta lyrata, 78:Plantago
asiatica, 79:Rosa multiflora, 80:Lilium tigrinum, 81:Aster scaber, 82:Pueraria thunbergiana, 83:Viola verecunda, 84:Euonymus alatusfor. ciliato-dentatus, 85:Oenanthe javanica, 86:Metaplexis japonica, 87:Pinus densiflora, 88:Quercus mongolica, 89:Rubia cordifolia
V. pratensis, 90:Salix koreensis, 91:Persicaria perfoliata, 92:Robinia pseudo-acacia, 93:Rosa multiflora, 94:Artemisia selengensis,
95:Phragmites communis, 96:Bromus japonicus, 97:Quercus aliena, 98:Morus alba, 99:Miscanthus sinensis V. purpurascens,
100:Beckmannia syzigachne, 101:Dioscorea batatas, 102:Agropyron tsukushiense V. transiens, 103:Stellaria aquatica, 104:Oenothera
odorata, 105:Rumex crispus, 106:Fraxinus rhynchophylla, 107:Persicaria thunbergii, 108:Erigeron canadensis, 109:Clematis apiifolia,
110:Carex dispalata, 111:Phalaris arundinacea, 112:Erigeron annuus, 113:Humulus japonicus, 114:Equisetum arvense, 115:Artemisia
princeps V. orientalis, 116:Phragmites japonica

 Common species
Gravel stream
29
www.kict.re.kr

Sand stream
730

Gravel and sand stream

9

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 Result of CCA for hydromorphological structure
ResultSum of all eigenvalues
Sum of all canonical eigenvalues

Axis

Eigen values (λ)

Axis 1

Axis 2

0.624

0.398

Cumulative percentage varianceof species data
24.7
40.6
of species-environment relation
41.7
68.4
Species-environment correlations (R)
0.997
0.979
Canonical coefficients (c) and intra-set correlations (r)crcrof environmental variable EN2 (Lateral erosion)-0.5251 0.3741 0.7858 0.6571
of environmental variable EN3 (Lateral patches)-1.6684 -0.9007 1.2269 -0.4117
of environmental variable EN6 (Substrate diversity)-0.7324 0.7517 2.1906 0.573
of environmental variable EN7 (Flow diversity)
0.3125 0.7816 -1.069 0.2493

Total
variable
2.519
1.495
1

9 Four environmental variables by forward selection.
9 ‘Axis 1-EN3’ and ‘Axis 2-EN6’ have strong influence.
9 Axis 1 explains 24.7 % of variance of species and 41.7 %of species-environment correlation.
9 Axis 2 explains 15.9 % of variance of species and 26.7 %of species-environment correlation.

www.kict.re.kr

31

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

3. RESULTS

 CCA ordination graph for hydromorphological structure
92

95

40

35

www.kict.re.kr

32

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and Watershed

4. CONCLUSION

 Benthic macro-invertebrates

9 They have strong correlations with substrate diversity
and curvature of channel.
9 They can be classified into two groups observed in asand stream and gravel stream.
9 Concentration of COD was only selected as a significant
factor influencing their habitats.

 Plants

9 They have strong correlations with lateral patches likebars, steps, and riffle-pools and substrate diversity.
9 They can also be classified into two groups observed in asand stream and gravel stream.

 Suggestion

9 There can be significant differences in hydromorphological and ecological characteristics between a sandstream and gravel stream.

www.kict.re.kr

33

2008 The 5th International Forum on Waterfront and WatershedThank You!

www.kict.re.kr

34