Assessment of Three Kinds of Reforestation Models Recovery Effect in Mu Us Sandy Land Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2017.06.019

FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT ›› 2017›› Issue (6): 108-112.doi: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2017.06.019

• Scientific Research • Previous Articles Next Articles

Assessment of Three Kinds of Reforestation Models Recovery Effect in Mu Us Sandy Land Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process

ZHANG Lei¹, HONG Guangyu¹^,², LI Zhuofan¹, GAO Xiaowei¹, HUANG Saren³, WANG Zhuo⁴, LIU Shanghua⁵, WANG Xiaojiang¹

1. Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences,Hohhot 010010,China
2. College of Grassland,Resources and Environment,Inner Mongolia Agriculture University,Hohhot 010011,China
3. Forestry Working Station of Ordos City Wushenqi Forestry Bureau,Wushenqi 017300,China
4. Ordos Supervision and Law Enforcement Bureau of Water and Soil Conservation,Ordos 017010,China
5. Ordos Engineering Management Office of Returning Farmland to Forest,Ordos 017010,China

Received:2017-09-12 Revised:2017-10-19 Online:2017-12-28 Published:2020-09-28
Contact: WANG Xiaojiang

Abstract

Abstract:

We selected 11 indicators which fall into five categories including carbon sequestration ability,biodiversity,soil improvement,soil water conservation and wind-break and sand-fixation,constructed the assessment index system of sandy land vegetation restoration recovery effect,obtained the corresponding weight by using the basic principle of analytic hierarchy process(AHP),and evaluated three kinds of reforestation models recovery effect in Mu Us Sandy Land.The results showed that the carbon sequestration capacity,soil improvement and windbreak and sand-fixation recovery efficiency of Salix psammophila checkboard were best,the carbon sequestration capacity and windbreak and sand-fixation of Amorpha fruticosa artificial forest were second,but the biodiversity benefits of it was best,all benefits of Pinus sylvestris var.mongolica artificial forest were almost the worst.In addition,integrated scores showed that S.psammophila checkboard(75.32)>A.fruticosa artificial forest(67.67)>P.sylvestris var.mongolica artificial forest(37.31),in other words,conventional afforestation methods of local tree species were the optimal choice in this region,and compared with the arbor,shrub was more suitable for afforestation in this region.

Key words: Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP), recovery effect, reforestation model, Mu Us sandy land

CLC Number:

S725.7

ZHANG Lei, HONG Guangyu, LI Zhuofan, GAO Xiaowei, HUANG Saren, WANG Zhuo, LIU Shanghua, WANG Xiaojiang. Assessment of Three Kinds of Reforestation Models Recovery Effect in Mu Us Sandy Land Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, (6): 108-112.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 18

[1]	任兰英. 毛乌素沙地荒漠化景观演变特征研究[D]. 呼和浩特:内蒙古师范大学, 2014.
[2]	张新时. 毛乌素沙地的生态背景及其草地建设的原则与优化模式[J]. 植物生态学报, 1994,18(1):1-3.
[3]	张雷, 王晓江, 洪光宇, 等. 毛乌素沙地不同飞播年限杨柴根系分布特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2017,36(1):29-34.
[4]	牛兰兰. 毛乌素沙地植被恢复模式及生态功能评价[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2007.
[5]	安云. 毛乌素沙地4种典型植被恢复模式生态效益分析[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2013.
[6]	Saaty T L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process[M]. New York:Mcgraw-Hill Inc, 1980.
[7]	杨斌, 杨国州, 张延东. 运用层次分析法优选临夏北塬农田防护林树种[J]. 林业科学, 2006,42(6):49-55. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20060609
[8]	童丽丽, 吴祝慧, 王哲宇, 等. 层次分析法与熵技术评价在南京城市绿化生态树种选择中的应用[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2010,38(9):58-61.
[9]	刘振虎, 卢欣石, 葛军. 利用层次分析法综合评价9个草坪品种的耐盐性[J]. 草地学报, 2002,10(3):207-211.
[10]	吴道义, 顾明. 层次分析法在畜牧业循环经济综合评价中的应用[J]. 家畜生态学报, 2010,31(1):50-53.
[11]	张军红. 毛乌素沙地油蒿群落土壤水分分布与动态[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2013.
[12]	LY/T1721-2008,森林生态系统服务功能评估规范[S].
[13]	王莲芬, 许树柏. 层次分析法引论[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 1990.
[14]	万年峰, 蒋杰贤, 徐建祥, 等. 层次分析法在上海市农田有害生物治理中的应用[J]. 生态学报, 2005,25(11):2997-3002.
[15]	高蓓, 卫海燕, 郭彦龙, 等. 基于层次分析法和GIS的秦岭地区魔芋潜在分布研究[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(21):7108-7116. doi: 10.5846/stxb201309122261
[16]	Ramanathan R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2001,63(1):27-35. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0455 pmid: 11591027
[17]	龚元圣, 王晓春, 陈贤. 标准差权重法在番茄果实商品性状评价上的应用分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008,36(31):13600-13602.
[18]	李博. 生态学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2003: 343-346.

模式	苗木(枝条)规格	株行距/(m×m)	经纬度	海拔/m	样地大小/(m×m)
沙柳沙障	40cm长多年生沙柳条	2×2	38°52'17.69″N,109°14'10.16″E	1308	30×30
紫穗槐人工林	2a生苗	1×2.5	38°52'19.99″N,109°14'05.35″E	1309	25×30
樟子松人工林	2a生苗	3×3	38°52'48.39″N,109°12'43.66″E	1305	30×30

总目标层	准则层	权重	指标层	权重	组合权重	指标属性
A恢复成效评价	B1固碳能力	0.08	C1单位面积乔(灌)木地上生物量	0.75	0.0625	正向
			C2单位面积草本地上生物量	0.25	0.0208	正向
	B2生物多样性	0.25	C3 R	0.33	0.0833	正向
			C4 D	0.33	0.0833	正向
			C5 H	0.33	0.0833	正向
	B3土壤改良	0.08	C6土壤有机质	0.50	0.0417	正向
			C7速效N	0.25	0.0208	正向
			C8速效P	0.13	0.0104	正向
			C9速效K	0.13	0.0104	正向
	B4土壤涵养水源	0.17	C10土壤含水量	1.00	0.1667	正向
	B5防风固沙	0.42	C11风蚀桩高度变化	1.00	0.4167	负向

指标	沙柳沙障	紫穗槐人工林	樟子松人工林
C1单位面积乔(灌)木地上生物量(g/m²)	343.89±169.70 a	171.30±107.29 ab	52.11±12.33 b
C2单位面积草本地上生物量(g/m²)	0.12±0.16 a	1.41±1.07 a	0.74±1.10 a
C3 R	0.67±0.34 b	1.55±0.39 a	0.89±0.19 b
C4 D	0 b	0.31±0.23 a	0 b
C5 H	0 b	0.46±0.30 a	0 b
C6土壤有机质(g/kg)	0.74±0.07 a	0.83±0.33 a	0.50±0.11 a
C7速效N(mg/kg)	13.75±0.24 a	9.56±3.46 b	11.07±1.10 ab
C8速效P(mg/kg)	3.08±0.05 a	2.80±0.02 b	3.02±0.12 a
C9速效K(mg/kg)	26.14±0.97 a	25.08±1.55 a	21.57±0.77 b
C10土壤含水量(%)	8.02±0.15 a	8.49±2.57 a	7.92±0.47 a
C11风蚀桩高度变化(cm)	1.32±1.67 b	4.15±2.58 ab	6.20±2.08 a

指标	沙柳沙障	紫穗槐人工林	樟子松人工林
C1单位面积乔(灌)木地上生物量	100.00	49.81	15.15
C2单位面积草本地上生物量	8.51	100.00	52.48
C3 R	43.23	100.00	57.42
C4 D	0.00	100.00	0.00
C5 H	0.00	100.00	0.00
C6土壤有机质	89.16	100.00	60.24
C7速效N	100.00	69.53	80.51
C8速效P	100.00	90.91	98.05
C9速效K	100.00	95.94	82.52
C10土壤含水量	94.46	100.00	93.29
C11风蚀桩高度变化	100.00	31.81	21.29

Assessment of Three Kinds of Reforestation Models Recovery Effect in Mu Us Sandy Land Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 18

Related Articles 2

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	BAI Xingwen, BU Rigude, HONG Guangyu, LI Wei, SHAO Feizhou, ZHANG Lei. Soil Moisture Characteristics and Its Response to Precipitation of Typical Plantation in Mu Us Sandy Land [J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2023, 0(6): 52-60.
[2]	WANG Cuiping, HAN Xiaohong, WANG Haochen, YOU Jiaqi. Responses of Vegetation in Mu Us Sandy Land to Climate Change from 1982 to 2020 [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(3): 80-89.