Study on Stand Spatial Structure of Typical Pinus massoniana Mixed Forest in Liping County of Guizhou Province

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.03.014

Abstract

Abstract:

This paper explored the spatial structure characteristics of typical mixed forests of Pinus massoniana in Liping County,Guizhou,and provided theoretical basis for the management and transformation of mixed forests in this area.Taking Pinus massoniana in the mixed forest in Liping County as the research object,the typical Pinus massoniana mixed forest in the study area was divided into 7 forest types based on the mixed tree species and proportion.The types were broad-leaved mixed forest with Pinus massoniana propotion of 40%(type A),50%(type B),70%(type C) and coniferous mixed forests mixed with Chinese fir with Pinus massoniana propotion of 30%(type D),50%(type E),70%(type F) and pure forests of Pinus massoniana(type G).The spatial structure of all types were analyzed using comprehensive evaluation indicators such as angular scale,diameter at breast height ratio,tree height ratio,mingling degree and spatial structure.The results showed that:1) The seven types of Pinus massoniana stands in the study area were all in a light aggregation distribution state,tending to a random distribution pattern;2) The Pinus massoniana in type F of the study area had a moderate height and diameter at breast height,while the Pinus massoniana in other types were subdominant in height and diameter at breast height;3) The mingling degree in the Pinus massoniana mixed forest in the study area was relatively high,usually above moderate mingling degree,while the pure forest of Pinus massoniana was in weak mingling degree and nearly zero mingling degree.4) The ranking of forest stand comprehensive evaluation was:Type A>Type D>Type E>Type B>Type F>Type C>Type G;5) There was no significant difference in the spatial structure of typical Pinus massoniana in the study area in terms of angular scale,ratio of diameter at breast height to size,and ratio of tree height to size.The differences in spatial structure were mainly influenced by the mingling degree.The mixed forest as a whole qas developing towards a top level community with random distribution,moderate competition among trees,and higher mingling degree,but it had not yet reached the level of natural top level community.

Key words: Liping County, Pinus massoniana, mixed forest, stand spatial structure

CLC Number:

YANG Shenjun, TAN Wei, CHEN Xinyu, TANG Jiajun, YANG Zejun, WU Yujie. Study on Stand Spatial Structure of Typical Pinus massoniana Mixed Forest in Liping County of Guizhou Province[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, (3): 105-114.

Figures/Tables 11

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Tab.2

References 41

[1]	秦娟, 孔海燕, 刘华, 等. 马尾松不同林型土壤C、N、P、K的化学计量特征[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2016, 44(2):68-76.
[2]	康凯. 近自然改造对落叶松林短期效果的影响研究[J]. 林业科技, 2021, 46(4):31-33.
[3]	盛炜彤. 关于我国人工林长期生产力的保持[J]. 林业科学研究, 2018, 31(1):1-14.
[4]	薛立, 陈红跃, 邝立刚, 等. 湿地松混交林地土壤养分、微生物和酶活性的研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003, 14(1):157-159.
[5]	林文欢, 詹潮安, 陈红跃. 林木种间的化感作用[J]. 世界林业研究, 2011, 24(5):13-17.
[6]	韩锦春, 李宏开. 马尾松混交林混交模式的多层次综合评判[J]. 植物生态学报, 2000, 24(4):498-501.
[7]	杨嘉麒, 邓海燕, 张港隆, 等. 4种混交比例对桉树—红椎人工混交林生长和土壤养分的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(11):90-97.
[8]	楼一恺. 天目山常绿落叶阔叶林群落垂直结构与群落物种多样性动态关系研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2021.
[9]	王晓荣, 胡兴宜, 庞宏东, 等. 毛竹扩展对杉木林和阔叶林群落结构与多样性的影响[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2022, 42(5):474-482.
[10]	Nothdurft A, Engel M. Climate sensitivity and resistance under pure-and mixed-stand scenarios in Lower Austria evaluated with distributed lag models and penalized regression splines for tree-ring time series[J]. European Journal of Forest Research, 2020, 139:189-211. doi: 10.1007/s10342-019-01234-x
[11]	Bottero A, Forrester D I, Cailleret M, et al. Growth resistance and resilience of mixed silver fir and Norway spruce forests in central Europe:Contrasting responses to mild and severe droughts[J]. Global Change Biology, 2021, 27(18):4403-4419. doi: 10.1111/gcb.v27.18
[12]	Morin X, Fahse L, Jactel H, et al. Long-term response of forest productivity to climate change is mostly driven by change in tree species composition[J]. Scienfic Reports, 2018, 8(1):5627.
[13]	张明霞, 王得祥, 彭舜磊, 等. 秦岭松栎混交林群落的稳定性[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(8):2564-2573.
[14]	刘琳, 张宝军, 熊东红, 等. 雅江河谷防沙治沙工程近地表特性——林下植被特性、生物结皮及土壤养分变化特征[J]. 中国环境科学, 2021, 41(9):4310-4319.
[15]	胡艳波, 惠刚盈. 优化林分空间结构的森林经营方法探讨[J]. 林业科学研究, 2006, 19(1):1-8.
[16]	Franklin J F, Spies T A, Pelt R, et al. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications,using Douglas-fir forests as an example[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 155(1):399-423. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00575-8
[17]	周红敏, 惠刚盈, 赵中华, 等. 林分空间结构分析中样地边界木的处理方法[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 45(2):1-5.
[18]	郝月兰, 张会儒, 唐守正. 基于空间结构优化的采伐木确定方法研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2012, 27(5):163-168.
[19]	惠刚盈, 李丽, 赵中华, 等. 林木空间分布格局分析方法[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(11):4717-4728.
[20]	董灵波, 刘兆刚, 马妍, 等. 天然林林分空间结构综合指数的研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2013, 35(1):16-22.
[21]	明安刚, 刘世荣, 李华, 等. 近自然化改造对马尾松和杉木人工林生物量及其分配的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(23):7833-7842.
[22]	陈明辉, 惠刚盈, 胡艳波, 等. 结构化森林经营对东北阔叶红松林森林质量的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(5):19-30.
[23]	康希睿, 李晓刚, 张涵丹, 等. 不同混交措施下杉木人工林群落稳定性特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(9):2912-2920.
[24]	李建, 彭鹏, 何怀江, 等. 采伐对吉林蛟河针阔混交林空间结构的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2017, 39(9):48-57.
[25]	卫笑, 郝日明, 张明娟, 等. 树冠空间结构对微气候影响的模拟[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2019, 36(4):783-792.
[26]	Joanna A H, Ivan A J, Bert G, et al. Weather,pollution and biotic factors drive net forest-atmosphere exchange of CO₂ at different temporal scales in a temperate-zone mixed forest[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2020, 291(1):1-13.
[27]	胡艳波, 惠刚盈, 戚继忠, 等. 吉林蛟河天然红松阔叶林的空间结构分析[J]. 林业科学研究, 2003, 16(5):523-530.
[28]	黄剑峰, 谭伟, 柴宗政, 等. 黔中马尾松近熟林空间结构特征及其调控[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2019, 36(4):749-756.
[29]	惠刚盈, Gadow K V, 胡艳波. 林分空间结构参数角尺度的标准角选择[J]. 林业科学研究, 2004(6):687-692.
[30]	惠刚盈, Gadow K V, Albert M, et al. 一个新的林分空间结构参数——大小比数[J]. 林业科学研究, 1999(1):4-9.
[31]	惠刚盈, 胡艳波. 混交林树种空间隔离程度表达方式的研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2001(1):23-27.
[32]	Carvalho B, Cruz M, Escudero A, et al. The effect of plant-plant interactions as a key biotic process mediating the spatial variation of phenotypes in a Pinus sylvestris forest[J]. Trees, 2022, 36:1401-1412. doi: 10.1007/s00468-022-02299-9
[33]	张建华, 郭宾良, 等. 冀北山地典型华北落叶松群落空间格局[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2014, 37(6):56-61.
[34]	贺燕, 张青, 张梦弢, 等. 长白山杨桦次生林不同演替阶段林木空间分布格局研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2015, 30(1):8-13.
[35]	武纪成. 落叶松云冷杉林结构特征及调整研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2008.
[36]	聂士朋. 物种分布的空间结构和干扰的时空结构对物种入侵结果的影响[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2021.
[37]	惠刚盈, 胡艳波. 角尺度在林分空间结构调整中的应用[J]. 林业资源管理, 2006(2):31-35.
[38]	夏富才. 长白山阔叶红松林植物多样性及其群落空间结构研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2007.
[39]	安慧君, 惠刚盈, 郑小贤, 等. 不同发育阶段阔叶红松林空间结构的初步研究[J]. 内蒙古大学学报:自然科学版, 2005, 47(6):116-120.
[40]	Oxbrough A, French V, Irwin S, et al. Can mixed species stands enhance arthropod diversity in plantation forests?[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2012, 270:11-18. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.01.006
[41]	Yuan Zuoqiang, Wang Shaopeng, Ali A, et al. Aboveground carbon storage is driven by functional trait composition and stand structural attributes rather than biodiversity in temperate mixed forests recovering from disturbances[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2018, 75:67-75. doi: 10.1007/s13595-018-0745-3

林分类型	样地编号	树种组成	林龄/ a	平均密度/ (株/hm²)	郁闭度	海拔/ m	坡度/ (°)	坡向	坡位
类型A	1	4马尾松4香樟2木荷+梾木	39	999	0.5	462	30	北	山脊
	2	4马尾松4香樟1枫香1木荷-米槠-梾木	35	766	0.7	495	40	东南	上
	3	4香樟3马尾松2木荷1丝栗栲+枫香-构树-梾木	34	749	0.5	564	15	西南	山脊
类型B	4	5马尾松2香樟2米槠1木荷-梾木-麻栎	32	1 199	0.6	422	33	东南	上
	5	5马尾松3香樟1枫香1木荷-梾木-光皮桦	30	1 082	0.6	600	40	东南	上
	6	5马尾松3香樟1梾木1枫香-木荷	31	1 065	0.7	633	15	东南	上
类型C	7	6马尾松2香樟2木荷-枫香-梾木-麻栎	30	932	0.6	462	38	南	中
	8	7马尾松2香樟1木荷+梾木	39	683	0.6	437	15	西南	上
	9	7马尾松2香樟1木荷-光皮桦-梾木-麻栎-木荷	34	916	0.6	438	15	西北	山脊
类型D	10	7杉木3马尾松	30	733	0.6	454	15	东南	下
	11	7杉木3马尾松	35	949	0.6	516	15	南	下
	12	6杉木4马尾松	33	932	0.6	456	15	西北	下
类型E	13	5马尾松5杉木	32	1 099	0.7	470	30	西	上
	14	5马尾松5杉木	33	1 015	0.6	468	15	北	上
	15	5马尾松5杉木	31	849	0.7	460	35	南	上
类型F	16	6马尾松4杉木	31	1 082	0.6	415	10	东南	下
	17	7马尾松3杉木	34	849	0.6	513	5	东南	中
	18	7马尾松3杉木	31	749	0.6	567	3	无	平地
类型G	19	10马	33	749	0.7	482	15	北	上
	20	10马	42	733	0.5	450	35	东南	山脊
	21	10马	30	836	0.6	460	40	东南	中

类型	角尺度 (W)		胸径大小比数 (U_径)		树高大小比数 (U_高)		混交度 (M)		林分空间结构指数(FSSI)		林分空间结构距离(FSSD)
类型	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差
类型A	0.561	0.009	0.475	0.003	0.488	0.350	0.704	0.030	0.550	0.006	0.801	0.012
类型B	0.567	0.008	0.491	0.010	0.498	0.344	0.614	0.122	0.514	0.043	0.876	0.076
类型C	0.595	0.021	0.488	0.014	0.482	0.343	0.428	0.089	0.449	0.050	1.018	0.073
类型D	0.555	0.014	0.475	0.014	0.496	0.372	0.697	0.037	0.548	0.009	0.812	0.022
类型E	0.559	0.013	0.473	0.024	0.486	0.335	0.578	0.018	0.517	0.021	0.873	0.028
类型F	0.554	0.036	0.501	0.006	0.502	0.358	0.422	0.023	0.454	0.011	0.996	0.015
类型G	0.561	0.027	0.485	0.012	0.489	0.355	0.021	0.030	0.169	0.141	1.333	0.027