Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-5676f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-08T11:00:16.868Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Overview and application of the National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program (NAEMP) in Korea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2011

Sang-Woo Lee
Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Soon-Jin Hwang*
Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Jae-Kwan Lee
Nakdong River Research Center, The National Institute of Environmental Research, Goryong 717-807, Republic of Korea
Dong-Il Jung
Water Environment Research Department, The National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404-170, Republic of Korea
Yeon-Jae Park
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul 130-743, Republic of Korea
Ji-Tae Kim
Department of Environmental Energy Systems Engineering, Kyonggi University, Suwon 443-760, Republic of Korea
*Corresponding author:


Core share and HTML view are not possible as this article does not have html content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper provides an overview of the development and application of the National Aquatic Ecological Monitoring Program (NAEMP) in Korea, which uses biological and habitat–riparian criteria for river/stream and watershed management. Development of NAEMP began in 2003, with recognition by the Korean Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the limitations of applying chemical parameters (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) as the principal targets of water environment management. Ecosystem health criteria under NAEMP were developed from 2003 to 2006. Candidate sites for monitoring were also screened and established across the country. NAEMP was implemented in 2007, and since then a standard protocol of nationwide monitoring based on multi-criteria has been implemented to assess the ecological condition of rivers and streams. The monitoring results indicate that many Korean rivers and streams are severely degraded, with biological conditions that are much worse than their water chemistry suggests. In 2009, 24% of rivers and streams were in classes C (Fair) and D (Poor) for BOD, but more than 71, 53, and 27% were categorized as Fair to Poor according to fish, diatom, and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, respectively. NAEMP is promising in that the results have already had great impacts on policy making and scientific research relevant to lotic water environment and watershed management in Korea. In the future, NAEMP results will be used to develop more aggressive regulations for the preservation and restoration of rivers/streams, riparian buffer areas and watersheds. Another future aim of the NAEMP is to develop aquatic ecological modeling based on the monitoring results.

Research Article
© EDP Sciences, 2011


Allan, J.D., 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters, Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 257284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L. and Fay, J., 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol., 37, 149161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, K.-G., Jung, S.H. and Choi, S.S., 2001. An evaluation on health conditions of Pyongchang River using the index of biological integrity (IBI) and qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI). Korean J. Limnol., 34, 153165 (in Korean).Google Scholar
An, K.-G., Lee, J.Y., Bae, D.-Y., Kim, J.-H., Hwang, S.-J., Won, D.-H., Lee, J.-K. and Kim, C.-S., 2006. Ecological assessments of aquatic environment using multi-metric model in major nationwide stream watershed. J. Korean Sco. Water Qual., 22, 796804 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Angermier, P.L. and Karr, J.R., 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities: considerations in sampling and interpretation. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 6, 418429.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, 2nd edn., EPA 841/B-99/002, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Beketov, M.A., 2004. Different sensitivity of mayflies (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate: linkage between experimental and observational data. Hydrobiologia, 528, 209216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkman, H.E. and Rabeni, C.F., 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environ. Biol. Fish., 18, 285294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolstad, P.V. and Swank, W.T., 1997. Cumulative impacts of land use on water quality in a southern Appalachian watershed. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 33, 519533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, D.B., 2005. Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams: a perspective from the Pacific Northwest of North America. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 24, 724737.Google Scholar
Bourassa, N. and Cattaneo, A., 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 17, 420429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brierley, G.J. and Fryirs, K.A., 2005. Geomorphology and River Management-Application of the River Style Framework, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 398 p.Google Scholar
Bryce, S.A. and Hughes, R.M., 2003. Variable assemblage responses to multiple disturbance gradients: case studies in Oregon and Appalachia, USA. In: Simon, T.P. (ed.), Biological Response Signatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 539560.Google Scholar
Carlisle, D.M., Falcone, J. and Meador, M.R., 2009. Predicting the biological condition of streams: use of geospatial indicators of natural and anthropogenic characteristics of watersheds. Environ. Monit. Assess., 151, 143160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, P.A., Meissner, R., Wrona, F.J., Rupp, H., Guhr, H., Seeger, J., Culp, J.M. and Brua, R.B., 2006. Changes in nutrient loading in an agricultural watershed and its effects on water quality and stream biota. Hydrobiologia, 556, 399415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J.R., 1970. A biological approach to water quality management. Water Pollut. Control, 69, 415422.Google Scholar
Cho, Y.H., 1997. A study on evaluation method of stream naturalness for ecological restoration of stream corridors. J. Korean Inst. Landscape Arch., 25, 20732081 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Chung, J., 1987. An assessment of water quality by epilithic diatoms of Hyungsan River water-system. Korean J. Phycol., 2, 139146 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Chung, Y.H., Shin, J.H. and Lee, M.J., 1965. A study on the microflora of the Han River. I. The phytoplankton and the effect of the marine water in the lower course of the Han River. Korean J. Bot., 8, 729 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Cuffney, T.F., Zappia, H., Giddings, E.M.P. and Coles, J.F., 2005. Effects of urbanization on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in contrasting environmental settings: Boston, Birmingham, and Salt Lake City. In: Brown, L.R., Gray, R.H., Hughes, R.M. and Meador, M.R. (eds.), Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems, Am. Fish. Soc., Symp., 47, Bethesda, Maryland, 361408.Google Scholar
Davies, S.P. and Jackson, S.K., 2006. The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol. Appl., 16, 12511266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P. (eds.), 1995. Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 415 p.Google Scholar
Deshon, J.E., 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 217243.Google Scholar
DIN 38410, 1990. Biological-ecological analysis of water (group M): determination of the saprobic index (M2). German standard methods for the examination for water, Part 2, Wastewater and sludge, 10 p.
EEA, 1996. EEA Report. Surface water quality monitoring: 4.2. Biological assessments, Topic Report No. 2,
Flinders, C.A., Horwitz, R.J. and Belton, T., 2008. Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate communities in the mid-Atlantic uplands: implications for integrated assessments. Ecol. Indic., 8, 588598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gammon, J.R., 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River, Purdue University Water Resources Research Center Technical Report 86, Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Gburek, W.J. and Folmar, G.J., 1999. Flow and chemical contributions to streamflow in an upland watershed: a baseflow survey. J. Hydrologia, 217, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, M.B., Hill, B., Mccormick, H., Kaufmann, R., Herlihy, T. and Selle, A.R., 2005. Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecol. Indic., 5, 11736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hering, D., Johnson, R.K., Kramm, S., Schmutz, S., Szoszkiewicz, K. and Verdonschot, P.F.M., 2006. Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biol., 51, 17571785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate water quality of streams, Technical Bulletin of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 100, Madison, WI, 15 p.
Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality of streams, Technical Bulletin of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 132, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Hwang, S.-J., Kim, N.-Y., Won, D.H., An, K.G., Lee, J.K. and Kim, C.S., 2006. Biological assessment of water quality by using epilithic diatoms in major river systems (Geum, Youngsan, Seomjin River), Korea. J. Korean Sco. Water Qual., 22, 784795 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Jeong, K.-S., Joo, G.-J., Kim, D.K., Lineman, M., Kim, S.-H., Jang, I., Hwang, S.-J., Kim, J.-H., Lee, J.-K. and Byeon, M.S., 2008. Development of habitat–riparian quality indexing system as a tool of stream health assessment: case study in the Nakdong River basin. Korean J. Limnol., 41, 499511 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Johnson, R.K., Furse, M.T., Hering, D. and Sandin, L., 2007. Ecological relationships between stream communities and spatial scale: implications for designing catchment-level monitoring programmes. Freshwater Biol., 52, 939958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of biological integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6, 2127.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W., 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W., 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J., 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale, Special Publication 5, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
Kelly, M.G. and Whitton, B.A., 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. J. Appl. Phycol., 7, 433444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M.G., Bennion, H., Burgess, A., Ellis, J., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Jamieson, J., Adriaenssens, V. and Yallop, M., 2009. Uncertainty in ecological status assessments of lakes and rivers using diatoms. Hydrobiologia, 633, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennen, J.G., 1999. Relation of macroinvertebrate community impairment to catchment characteristics in New Jersey streams. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 35, 939955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennen, J.G., Chang, M. and Tracy, B.H., 2005. Effects of landscape change on fish assemblage. In: Brown, L.R., Gray, R.H., Hughes, R.M. and Meador, M.R. (eds.), Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems, Am. Fish. Soc., Symp., 47, Bethesda, Maryland, 3952.
KMA (Korea Meteorological Administration), 2008. Climate change status and response plan, 2 p. (in Korean).
Kong, D.S., Ryu, H.I., Ryu, J.K. and Yoon, I.B., 1995. The development and application of higher taxa biotic index (HTBI) by benthic macroinvertebrates. P. Korean J. Environ. Toxicol., 11 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Kratzer, E.B., Jackson, J.K., Arscott, D.B., Aufdenkampe, A.K., Dow, C.L., Kaplan, L.A., Newbold, J.D. and Sweeney, B.W., 2006. Macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to land use and water chemistry in New York City drinking-water-supply watersheds. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 954976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutka, F.J. and Richards, C., 1996. Relating diatom assemblage structure to stream habitat quality. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15, 469480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Y.S. and An, K.-G., 2006. Biological stream health and physico-chemical characteristics in the Keumho River watershed. Korean J. Limnol., 39, 145156 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Lammert, M. and Allan, J.D., 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environ. Manage., 23, 257270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, H.D., 1977. A study of Saprobien system according to the water pollution in Han River. Korean J. Limnol., 10, 4752 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Lee, S.W., Hwang, S.J., Lee, S.B., Hwang, H.S. and Sung, H.C., 2009. Landscape ecological approach to the relationships of land use patterns in watersheds to water quality characteristics. Landscape Urban Plan., 92, 8089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenat, D.R. and Crawford, J.K., 1994. Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams. Hydrobiologia, 294, 185199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S.A., 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73, 19431967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Herlihy, A., Gerth, W., Kaufmann, P., Gregory, S., Urquhart, S. and Larsen, D.P., 2001. Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol., 46, 8797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, A.J., Tong, S.T.Y. and Goodrich, J.A., 2000. Land use as a mitigation strategy for the water-quality impacts of global warming: a scenario analysis on two watersheds in the Ohio River Basin. Environ. Eng. Policy, 2, 6576.Google Scholar
McCarron, E. and Frydenborg, R., 1997. The Florida bioassessment program: an agent for change. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 3, 967977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOE/NIER, 2006. Study on development of methods for synthetic assessment of water environment, The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea (in Korean).
MOE/NIER, 2007. Establishment of monitoring network for survey and evaluation of aquatic ecosystem health, The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea (in Korean).
MOE/NIER, 2008. Survey and evaluation of aquatic ecosystem health in Korea, The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea (in Korean).
Moerke, A.H. and Lamberti, G.A., 2006. Scale-dependent influences on water quality, habitat, and fish communities in the streams of the Kalamazoo River Basin, Michigan (USA). Aquat. Sci., 68, 193205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A.A. and Palmer, M.A., 2005. Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol. Appl., 15, 11691177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R.P. and Cushman, S.F., 2005. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland, USA. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 24, 643655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National River Authority (NRA), 1992. River Corridor Surveys, NRA, Bristol.PubMed
Nerbonne, B.A. and Vondracek, B., 2001. Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environ. Manage., 28, 8799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, L.A. and Johnson, D.L., 1983. Fisheries Techniques, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
NIER, 2003. Comprehensive plan of survey and research on development of methods for synthetic assessment of water quality, The National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea (in Korean).
Nijboer, R.C. and Verdonschot, P.F.M., 2004. Variable selection for modelling effects of eutrophication on stream and river ecosystems. Ecol. Model., 177, 1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nõges, P., van de Bund, W., Cardoso, A.C., Solimini, A. and Heiskanen, A.-S., 2009. Assessments of the ecological status of European surface waters: a work in progress. Hydrobiologia, 633, 197211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordin, R.N., 1985. Water Quality Criteria for Nutrients and Algae (Technical Appendix),
Ode, P.R., Hawkins, C.P. and Mazor, R.D., 2008. Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 967985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Y.N. and Chon, T.S., 1991. A study on the benthic macroinvertebrates in the middle reaches of the Paenae stream, a tributary of the Naktong River, Korea. Korean J. Ecol., 14, 345360 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Omernik, J.M., Abernathy, A.R. and Male, L.M., 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships. J. Soil Water, 36, 227231.Google Scholar
Osborne, L.L. and Wiley, M.J., 1988. Empirical relationships between land use/cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. J. Environ. Manage., 26, 927.Google Scholar
Osborne, P.E. and Suárez-Seoane, S., 2002. Should data be partitioned spatially before building large-scale distribution models? Ecol. Model., 157, 249259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, A., 1995. Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Teil 1, Verfahrensentwurf für kleine und mittelgroβe Flieβ gewässer der freien Landschaft im Bereich der Mittelgebrige, des Hügellandes und des Flachlandes, Lanesamt für Wasserwirtschaft Rheinland-Pfalz.
Paller, M.H., 2001. Comparison of fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessments from South Carolina coastal plain streams. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage., 4, 175186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passy, S.I., Rode, R.W., Carlson, D.M. and Novak, M.A., 2004. Comparative environmental assessment in the studies of benthic diatom, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 89, 121138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, R., 1977. Effects of trace metals in the aquatic ecosystem. Am. Sci., 66, 185191.Google Scholar
Pearson, T. and Rosenberg, R., 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Annu. Rev. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol., 16, 229311.Google Scholar
Pont, D., Hugueny, B., Beier, U., Goffaux, D., Melcher, A., Noble, R., Rogers, C., Roset, N. and Schmutz, S., 2006. Assessing river biotic condition at a continental scale: a European approach using functional metrics and fish assemblages. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 7080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prygiel, J., Whitton, B.A. and Bukowska, L. (eds.), 1999. Use of algae for monitoring rivers III. In: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Agence de l'Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai Cedex, France, 271 p.Google Scholar
Richards, C., Host, G.E. and Arthur, J.W., 1993. Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment. Freshwater Biol., 29, 285294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., Johnson, L.B. and Host, G.E., 1996. Landscape scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 53 (Suppl. I), 295311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., Haro, R.J., Johnson, L.B. and Host, G.E., 1997. Catchment and reach-scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits. Freshwater Biol., s37, 219230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D. and Erickson, D.L., 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol., 11, 141156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S. and Wallace, J.B., 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol., 48, 329346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A.H., Freeman, M.C., Freeman, B.J., Wenger, S.J., Ensign, W.E. and Meyer, J.L., 2005. Investigating hydrologic alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in urbanizing streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 24, 656678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, J.A., Stewart, P.M., Mullen, M.M., Simon, T.P. and Bennett, H.H., 2003. Influence of habitat, water quality, and land use on macro-invertebrate and fish assemblages of a southeastern coastal plain watershed, USA. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag., 7, 8599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, T.R., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protect. Tech., 1, 100111.Google Scholar
Simon, T.P. (ed.), 1999. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 652 p.Google Scholar
Simon, T.P., 2000. The use of biological criteria as a tool for water resource management. Environ. Sci. Policy, 3, S43S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skvortzow, B.W., 1929. Fresh-water diatoms from Korea, Japan. Phillippines J. Sci., 38, 283291.Google Scholar
Smith, A.J., Bode, R.W. and Kleppel, G.S., 2007. A nutrient biotic index (NBI) for use with benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol. Indic., 7, 371386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.W., Bergen, M., Weisberg, S.B., Cadien, D., Dankey, A., Montagne, D., Stull, J.K. and Velarde, R.G., 2001. Benthic response index for assessing infaunal communities on the mainland shelf of Southern California. Ecol. Appl., 11, 10731087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sponseller, R.A., Benfield, E.F. and Valett, H.M., 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol., 46, 14091424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šrámek-Hušek, R., 1956. Zur biologischen charakteristik der höheren saprobitätsstufen. Arch. Hydrobiol., 51, 376390.Google Scholar
Stewart, P.M., Scribiallo, R. and Simon, T.P., 1999. The use of aquatic macrophytes in monitoring and in assessment of biological integrity. In: Gerhardt, A. (ed.), Biomonitoring of Polluted Waters – Reviews on Actual Topics, Environmental Science Forum, 96, Trans Tech Publications, Ltd., Uetikon-Zuerich, Switzerland, 275302.Google Scholar
Stoddard, J.L., Herlihy, A.T., Peck, D.V., Hughes, R.M., Whittier, T.R. and Tarquinio, E., 2008. A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 878891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swink, W.R. and Wilhelm, G., 1994. Plants of the Chicago region, 4th edn., Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
Thompson, J., Taylor, M.P., Fryirs, K.A. and Brierley, G.J., 2001. A geomorphological framework for river characterization and habitat assessment. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst., 11, 373389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, S.T.Y. and Chen, W., 2002. Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. J. Environ. Manage., 66, 377393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, C.R., Dole´dec, S., Norris, R., Peacock, K. and Arbuckle, C., 2003. The influence of scale and geography on relationships between stream community composition and landscape variables: description and prediction. Freshwater Biol., 48, 768785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuda, M., 1964. Biology of Polluted Waters, Hokuryu-kan, Tokyo.Google Scholar
UNESCO, 2004. Integrated watershed management – Ecohydrology and phytotechnology – Manual, UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science in Europe, Venice, Italy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, US EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC, EP-440/5-90-004, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. Biological assessments and criteria: crucial components of water quality programs, EPA 822-F-02-006, Washington, DC.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002. Revised protocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the national water-quality assessment program, Open-file Report 02-150, Virginia.
van Dam, H., Mertens, A. and Sinkeldam, J., 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands. Netherlands J. Aquat. Ecol., 28, 117133.Google Scholar
Waite, I.R., Brown, L.R., Kennen, J.G., May, J.T., Cuffney, T.F., Orlando, J.L. and Jones, K.A., 2008. Comparison of watershed disturbance predictive models for stream benthic macroinvertebrates for three distinct ecoregions in western US. Ecol. Indic., 10, 11251136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L. and Webster, J.R., 1997. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science, 277, 102104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P. and Bannerman, R., 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage., 28, 255266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, H.G., 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res., 18, 653694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, T., Asai, K. and Houki, A., 1990. Numerical simulation of organic pollution in flowing waters. Enc. Env. Control Tech., 4, 251281.Google Scholar
Weisberg, S.B., Ranasinghe, J.A., Dauer, D.M., Schaffner, L.C., Diaz, R.J. and Frithsen, J.B., 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 20, 149158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Won, D.H., Jun, Y.-C., Kwon, S.-J., Hwang, S.-J., Ahn, K.-G. and Lee, J.-W., 2006. Development of Korean saprobic index using benthic macroinvertebrates and its application to biological stream environment assessment. J. Korean Sco. Water Qual., 22, 768783 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Woodiwiss, F.S., 1978. Comparative study of biological-ecological water quality assessment methods. Second practical demonstration, Nottingham (20 Sept. to 1 Oct. 1976), Summary Report, Commission of the European Communities, Environment and Consumer Protection Service.
Word, J.Q., 1978. The infaunal trophic index. Coastal Water Research Project Annual Report, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA, 1939.
Word, J.Q., 1980. Classification of benthic invertebrates into infaunal trophic index feeding groups, Biennial Report, 1979–1980, Coastal Water Research Project, Los Angeles, CA, 103121.
Word, J.Q., 1990. The infaunal trophic index, a functional approach to benthic community analyses, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Wui, I.S., 1974. The biological estimation of water pollution levels on the benthos fauna of the Yeong-san River. Korean J. Limnol., 7, 2935 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Wui, I.S., Ra, C.H., Choi, C.G. and Baik, S.K., 1983. Studies on the aquatic insects of the Tamjin River. Korean J. Limnol., 16, 3352 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Yeom, D.H., An, K.-W., Hong, Y.P. and Lee, S.K., 2000. Assessment of an index of biological integrity (IBI) using fish assemblages in Keumho River, Korea. Korean J. Environ. Biol., 18, 215226 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Yoon, I.B., Kong, D.S. and Ryu, J.K., 1992a. Studies on the biological evaluation of water quality by benthic macroinvertebrates (I) – saprobic valency and indicative value. Korean J. Environ. Biol., 10, 2439 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Yoon, I.B., Kong, D.S. and Ryu, J.K., 1992b. Studies on the biological evaluation of water quality by benthic macroinvertebrates (II) – effects of environmental factors to community. Korean J. Environ. Biol., 10, 4055 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Yoon, I.B., Kong, D.S. and Ryu, J.K., 1992c. Studies on the biological evaluation of water quality by benthic macroinvertebrates (III) – macroscopic simple water quality evaluation. Korean J. Environ. Biol., 10, 7784 (in Korean).Google Scholar
Zelinka, M. and Marvan, P., 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen klassifikation der Reinheid fliessender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol., 57, 389407.Google Scholar