不同抚育方式对白桦次生林生长及土壤养分的影响

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.S0.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以河北省木兰围场国有林场白桦林为研究对象,分析不同抚育方式对林木生长和土壤理化性质的影响。结果表明:1) 胸径。传统经营对胸径生长没有影响,均质经营4年后显著高于对照。2) 树高。对树高生长没有影响。3) 冠幅。2年时均质经营>传统经营>对照,都显著;4,6年时二者仍显著高于对照,但二者之间差异不显著。4) 蓄积年平均生长量。2年内差异不显著,4,6年后均质经营显著高于传统经营和对照。5) pH值。在0~20 cm和20~40 cm的土层,都是差异不显著。6)在0~20 cm的土层,有机质含量、碱解氮含量、有效磷含量、速效钾含量都是均质经营>传统经营>对照,差异显著。在20~40 cm的土层,速效钾含量没有差异;碱解氮含量是均质经营>传统经营>对照,差异显著;有效磷含量是对照>传统经营>均质经营,差异显著;机质含量为均质经营显著高于传统经营和对照,但传统经营和对照没有差异。

关键词: 森林抚育, 均质经营, 传统经营, 白桦次生林, 生长, 土壤养分

Abstract:

This paper analyzed the effects of different tending methods on the tree growth and soil physicochemical properties in birch forest,based on a research conducted in a birch forest of Hebei Mulan Weichang State-owned Forest Farm.The results showed that:1)Effects on DBH:No significant difference between UM and CK,while the effect of quality management(QM)was significantly higher than the CK after 4 years.2)Effects on tree height:There was no significant difference on tree height growth.3)Effects on crown width:QM>UM>CK after 2 years,significantly;QM and UM both were significantly higher than the CK after 4 and 6 years,but there was no significant difference between QM and UM.4)Effects on average annual volume growth:No significant difference among QM,UM,and CK after 2 years.However,QM was significantly higher than UM and CK after 4 and 6 years.5)There was no significant difference of effect on PH value in 0~20 cm and 20~40 cm soil layers.6)In the 0~20 cm soil layer,the content of organic matter,alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen,available phosphorus,and available potassium were all QM>UM>CK,with significant differences.In the 20~40 cm soil layer,there was no difference in the content of available potassium;the content of alkali hydrolyzed nitrogen was QM>UM>CK,with significant differences;effective phosphorus content was CK>UM>QM,with significant differences;the organic matter content of QM was significantly higher than that of UM and CK,but there was no difference between UM and CK.

Key words: forest tending, quality management, traditional management, secondary birch forest, tree growth, soil physicochemical properties

中图分类号:

S714.2

王辉, 陈爱桃, 徐丽. 不同抚育方式对白桦次生林生长及土壤养分的影响[J]. 林业资源管理, 2022,(zk1): 85-90.

WANG Hui, CHEN Aitao, XU Li. Effects of Different Tending Methods on Tree Growth and Soil Nutrients in Secondary Birch Forest[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022,(zk1): 85-90.

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 26

[1]	凌继华, 王丽, 张鸿景. 木兰林管局白桦次生林经营的建议[J]. 河北林业科技, 2010(3):57.
[2]	李久贵, 孟宪友. 次生林的经营管理[J]. 林业勘查设计, 2005(2):43.
[3]	朱教君. 次生林经营基础研究进展[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002, 13(12):1689-1694.
[4]	刘忠君, 郑秀梅. 次生林的特点分析[J]. 林业勘查设计, 2005(4):19-20.
[5]	张水松, 林光, 陈长发, 等. 次生常绿阔叶林抚育改造技术的研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 1997(5):57-64.
[6]	管惠文, 董希斌, 张甜, 等. 抚育间伐后落叶松天然次生林生境恢复效果的评价[J]. 东北林业大学报, 2019, 47(7):6-13.
[7]	胡雪凡, 张会儒, 周超凡, 等. 不同抚育间伐方式对蒙古栎次生林空间结构的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(5):137-147.
[8]	王智勇, 董希斌, 张甜, 等. 抚育间伐强度对落叶松天然次生林林分结构及健康的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2018, 46(11):1-7.
[9]	路兴慧, 臧润国, 丁易, 等. 抚育措施对热带次生林群落植物功能性状和功能多样性的影响[J]. 生物多样性, 2015, 23(1):79-88. doi: 10.17520/biods.2014174
[10]	刘忠玲, 姚颖, 刘建明, 等. 抚育间伐对白桦天然次生林枯落物与土壤持水特性的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2020, 36(4):29-37.
[11]	Jactel H, Gritti E S, Drössler L, et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationships in forests:Climate matters[J]. Biology Letters, 2018, 14(4):20170747. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2017.0747
[12]	Zhang Y, Chen H Y H, Reich P B. Forest productivity increases with evenness,species richness and trait variation:A globalmeta-analysis[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2012, 100(3):742-749. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01944.x
[13]	周志立, 张丽玮, 陈倩, 等. 木兰围场3种典型林分枯落物及土壤持水能力[J]. 水土保持学报, 2015, 29(1):207-213.
[14]	郭梦娇. 辽河源地区典型林分森林生态系统服务功能评估研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016.
[15]	王辉, 张章, 曹运强, 等. 森林近自然流域经营关键技术[J]. 河北林业科技, 2018(4):53-55.
[16]	邬可义, 陈绍志, 徐成立, 等. 以目标树为构架的人工林全林经营与天然次生林的转化研究——河北木兰林管局森林经营新探索[J]. 林业经济, 2015, 37(1):56-61.
[17]	王艳军, 王辉, 陈爱桃. 木兰林场森林近自然经营实践[J]. 林业科技通讯, 2021(8):46-49.
[18]	李朝英, 郑路. 土壤pH测定的影响因素探讨[J]. 上海农业学报, 2021, 37(1):47-52.
[19]	张勇强, 李智超, 厚凌宇, 等. 林分密度对杉木人工林下物种多样性和土壤养分的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(1):239-250.
[20]	杨芹芹. 城市人工林土壤养分状况与微生物群落结构的研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2012.
[21]	于伟斌. 白桦人工林抚育间伐试验研究[J]. 农林科技, 2014(3):21.
[22]	白育英. 大青山白桦次生林经营技术研究[J]. 干旱区资料与环境, 2000(1):90-94.
[23]	Bell T H, Klironomos J N, Henry H A L. Seasonal response of extracellular enzyme activity and microbial biomass to warming and nitrogen addition[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2010, 74(3):820-828. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2009.0036
[24]	Teste F P, Lieffers V J, Strelkov S E. Ectomycorrhizal community responses to intensive forest management:Thinning alters impacts of fertilization[J]. Plant and Soil, 2012, 360(1/2):333-347. doi: 10.1007/s11104-012-1231-6
[25]	Dang P, Gao Y, Liu J L, et al. Effects of thinning intensity on understory vegetation and soil microbial communities of a mature Chinese pine plantation in the Loess Plateau[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 630:171-180. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.197
[26]	李春辉. 不同抚育强度对侧柏林下土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 防护林科技, 2017(5):61-62.

抚育年限/a	检验项	胸径年平均生长量/cm	树高年平均生长量/m	冠幅年平均生长量/m	蓄积年平均生长率/%
2	方差齐性检验Sig值	0.467	0.118	0.372	0.078
	方差分析组间F值	2.633	0.706	123.783	0.476
	方差分析显著性P值	0.151	0.531	0.000	0.643
4	方差齐性检验Sig值	1.000	0.372	0.171	0.720
	方差分析组间F值	10.333	1.870	84.778	71.531
	方差分析显著性P值	0.011	0.234	0.000	0.000
6	方差齐性检验Sig值	0.709	0.325	0.148	0.263
	方差分析组间F值	22.200	0.241	146.167	18.572
	方差分析显著性P值	0.002	0.793	0.000	0.003

抚育年限/a	抚育模式	胸径年平均生长量/cm	树高年平均生长量/m	冠幅年平均生长量/m	蓄积年平均生长率/%
2	CK	0.2367±0.011a	0.1600±0.036a	0.0167±0.015a	4.0767±0.713a
	UM	0.2033±0.025a	0.1400±0.010a	0.1733±0.021b	3.8167±0.396a
	QM	0.2267±0.015a	0.1400±0.017a	0.2100±0.010c	4.1867±0.131a
4	CK	0.1567±0.006a	0.1700±0.010a	0.0467±0.015a	2.0900±0.095a
	UM	0.1533±0.006a	0.1467±0.021a	0.1333±0.006b	2.5167±0.055b
	QM	0.1733±0.006b	0.1667±0.015a	0.1433±0.006b	2.8233±0.070c
6	CK	0.1767±0.006a	0.1467±0.021a	0.0233±0.012a	2.9600±0.111a
	UM	0.1733±0.006a	0.1367±0.021a	0.1267±0.006b	2.7600±0.130a
	QM	0.2100±0.010b	0.1400±0.010a	0.1167±0.006b	3.2700±0.052b

土层深度/cm	检验项	pH值	有机质含量/ (g/kg)	碱解氮含量/ (mg/kg)	有效磷含量/ (mg/kg)	速效钾含量/ (mg/kg)
0~20	方差齐性检验Sig值	0.232	0.454	0.306	0.535	0.547
	方差分析组间F值	1.966	400.532	106.836	46.404	639.076
	方差分析显著性P值	0.221	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
20~40	方差齐性检验Sig值	0.472	0.200	0.274	0.439	0.118
	方差分析组间F值	0.067	17.585	460.004	121.593	1.723
	方差分析显著性P值	0.936	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.256

土层深度/ cm	抚育模式	pH值	有机质含量/ (g/kg)	碱解氮含量/ (mg/kg)	有效磷含量/ (mg/kg)	速效钾含量/ (mg/kg)
0~20	CK	6.3967±0.068a	46.8367±0.520a	124.1367±3.491a	2.7600±0.044a	177.0667±1.468a
	UM	6.3533±0.035a	52.4067±0.166b	150.6867±2.098b	2.9400±0.026b	222.8267±2.623b
	QM	6.3200±0.030a	56.8300±0.515c	162.7767±4.040c	3.0700±0.046c	237.1767±2.201c
20~40	CK	6.4533±0.045a	40.8367±0.552a	101.1933±1.644a	3.4833±0.075a	116.9633±0.663a
	UM	6.4433±0.032a	41.9733±0.894a	125.4067±0.776b	2.7167±0.143b	118.1800±0.867a
	QM	6.4500±0.020a	43.9133±0.368b	134.9867±1.622c	2.1467±0.085c	116.5000±1.656a