FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT ›› 2018›› Issue (5): 82-89.doi: 10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.05.014
• Scientific Research • Previous Articles Next Articles
CHEN Hua1(), LIN Huazhong2, JIN Aixian3, SUN Yujun1(
)
Received:
2018-06-04
Revised:
2018-07-20
Online:
2018-10-28
Published:
2020-09-24
Contact:
SUN Yujun
E-mail:chenhua123589@outlook.com;sunyj@bjfu.edu.cn
Tab.1
The table of index value results
指标 | 类型 | 面积/亩 | 指标值 |
---|---|---|---|
森林生产力 | |||
平均胸径C1/cm | 正 | 17.24 | |
平均树高C2/m | 正 | 12.64 | |
单位面积蓄积C3/m3 | 正 | 188.64 | |
森林结构 | |||
草灌盖度40%~60%的面积比例C4/% | 正 | 41249 | 49.97 |
郁闭度0.4~0.69林分面积的比例C5/% | 正 | 28171 | 34.13 |
混交林面积比例C6/% | 正 | 19443 | 23.55 |
中幼龄林比例C7/% | 负 | 17379 | 21.05 |
立地条件 | |||
腐殖质层大于5cm的面积比例C8/% | 正 | 78555 | 95.16 |
土层厚度大于40cm的面积比例C9/% | 正 | 72896 | 88.30 |
立地质量Ⅰ,Ⅱ的面积比例C10/% | 正 | 58931 | 71.39 |
坡度小于26°的面积比例C11/% | 正 | 57054 | 69.11 |
Tab.2
The table of the weight for each index
指标 | 主观 权重 (wc) | 客观 权重 (ws) | 综合 权重 (wz) |
---|---|---|---|
森林生产力 | |||
平均胸径C1/cm | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.14 |
平均树高C2/m | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
单位面积蓄积C3/m3 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.18 |
森林结构 | |||
草灌盖度40%~60%的面积比例C4/% | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
郁闭度0.4~0.69林分面积的比例C5/% | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.03 |
混交林面积比例C6/% | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
中幼龄林比例C7/% | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
立地条件 | |||
腐殖质层大于5cm的面积比例C8/% | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.05 |
土层厚度大于40cm的面积比例C9/% | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
立地质量Ⅰ,Ⅱ的面积比例C10/% | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.14 |
坡度小于26°的面积比例C11/% | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
Tab.3
Standard of forest resources quality evaluation indexes at stand scale
指标 | 类型 | 优(Ⅰ) | 好(Ⅱ) | 中(Ⅲ) | 一般(Ⅳ) | 差(Ⅴ) | 指标值 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | a | b | a | b | a | b | a | b | ||||||||
C1 | 正 | 0.750 | 1.000 | 0.571 | 0.746 | 0.393 | 0.568 | 0.214 | 0.389 | 0.000 | 0.211 | 0.473 | |||||
C2 | 正 | 0.824 | 1.000 | 0.588 | 0.818 | 0.353 | 0.582 | 0.176 | 0.347 | 0.000 | 0.171 | 0.508 | |||||
C3 | 正 | 0.770 | 1.000 | 0.579 | 0.770 | 0.387 | 0.578 | 0.195 | 0.387 | 0.000 | 0.195 | 0.688 | |||||
C4 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.500 | |||||
C5 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.341 | |||||
C6 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.236 | |||||
C7 | 负 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.789 | |||||
C8 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.952 | |||||
C9 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.883 | |||||
C10 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.714 | |||||
C11 | 正 | 0.800 | 1.000 | 0.600 | 0.799 | 0.400 | 0.599 | 0.200 | 0.399 | 0.000 | 0.199 | 0.691 |
Tab.4
The correlative functions of evaluation indexes at different levels
指标 | 关联函数 | 优(Ⅰ) | 好(Ⅱ) | 中(Ⅲ) | 一般(Ⅳ) | 差(Ⅴ) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Ki(v1) | -0.3695 | -0.1725 | 0.4571 | -0.1502 | -0.3567 |
C2 | Ki(v2) | -0.3907 | -0.1399 | 0.3231 | 0.3278 | -0.4071 |
C3 | Ki(v3) | -0.2080 | 0.4261 | -0.2610 | -0.4918 | -0.6127 |
C4 | Ki(v4) | -0.3754 | -0.1672 | 0.4991 | -0.1677 | -0.3757 |
C5 | Ki(v5) | -0.5734 | -0.4312 | -0.1469 | 0.2902 | -0.2942 |
C6 | Ki(v6) | -0.7056 | -0.6075 | -0.4112 | 0.1785 | -0.1343 |
C7 | Ki(v7) | -0.0519 | 0.0529 | -0.4737 | -0.6491 | -0.7368 |
C8 | Ki(v8) | 0.2420 | -0.7592 | -0.8793 | -0.9195 | -0.9396 |
C9 | Ki(v9) | 0.4152 | -0.4181 | -0.7083 | -0.8054 | -0.8540 |
C10 | Ki(v10) | -0.2314 | 0.4278 | -0.2865 | -0.5239 | -0.6428 |
C11 | Ki(v11) | -0.2606 | 0.4580 | -0.2298 | -0.4861 | -0.6144 |
Tab.5
The correlation degree and comprehensive correlation degree of evaluation indexes in each grade
指标 | 关联度 | 优(Ⅰ) | 好(Ⅱ) | 中(Ⅲ) | 一般(Ⅳ) | 差(Ⅴ) | Max | 等级 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Ki(p1) | -0.0528 | -0.0247 | 0.0653 | -0.0215 | -0.0510 | 0.0653 | Ⅲ |
C2 | Ki(p2) | -0.0360 | -0.0129 | 0.0297 | 0.0302 | -0.0375 | 0.0302 | Ⅳ |
C3 | Ki(p3) | -0.0369 | 0.0756 | -0.0463 | -0.0872 | -0.1087 | 0.0756 | Ⅱ |
C4 | Ki(p4) | -0.0227 | -0.0101 | 0.0302 | -0.0102 | -0.0227 | 0.0302 | Ⅲ |
C5 | Ki(p5) | -0.0177 | -0.0133 | -0.0045 | 0.0090 | -0.0091 | 0.0090 | Ⅳ |
C6 | Ki(p6) | -0.0540 | -0.0465 | -0.0315 | 0.0137 | -0.0103 | 0.0137 | Ⅳ |
C7 | Ki(p7) | -0.0043 | 0.0044 | -0.0392 | -0.0538 | -0.0610 | 0.0044 | Ⅱ |
C8 | Ki(p8) | 0.0120 | -0.0377 | -0.0436 | -0.0456 | -0.0466 | 0.0120 | Ⅰ |
C9 | Ki(p9) | 0.0326 | -0.0329 | -0.0557 | -0.0633 | -0.0671 | 0.0326 | Ⅰ |
C10 | Ki(p10) | -0.0325 | 0.0601 | -0.0402 | -0.0736 | -0.0903 | 0.0601 | Ⅱ |
C11 | Ki(p11) | -0.0177 | 0.0312 | -0.0156 | -0.0331 | -0.0418 | 0.0312 | Ⅱ |
综合关联度 | Ki(p) | -0.2301 | -0.0068 | -0.1515 | -0.3354 | -0.5461 | -0.0068 | Ⅱ |
[1] | 王钰, 焦玉海, 蔺皙.我国目前木材供应对外依存度近50%[N].中国绿色时报, 2014(001). |
[2] | 徐济德. 我国第八次森林资源清查结果及分析[J].林业经济, 2014(3):6-8. |
[3] | 毛淑娟, 胡月明. 森林质量评价研究探讨[J]. 广东林业科技, 2007,23(2):67-71. |
[4] | 石春娜, 王立群. 我国森林资源质量评价体系研究进展[J].世界林业研究, 2007(2):68-72. |
[5] | 张邦文, 郑世跃, 欧阳勋志, 等. 基于森林资源二类调查数据的森林资源质量评价——以江西安福县明月山林场为例[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2011,33(6):1155-1159. |
[6] | 白丽, 段霞, 程伟, 等. 包头市固阳县林业生态建设格局与森林质量综合评价[J]. 内蒙古林业调查设计, 2014,37(2):115-120. |
[7] | 武高洁, 赵天忠. 基于物元模型的森林资源质量评价研究[J]. 南方农业学报, 2011,42(1):109-113. |
[8] | 黄广弋. 弋阳县森林资源质量分析与评价[D]. 南昌:江西农业大学, 2015. |
[9] | 张会儒, 何鹏, 郎璞玫. 基于AHP和Fuzzy的延庆县森林资源综合评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2011,26(5):179-184. |
[10] | Saaty T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process[J]. Appl.Math.Modelling, 1981,5:450-451. |
[11] | Shannon C E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication[J]. The Bell System Technical Journal, 1948,5(27):379-423. |
[12] | 董晓峰, 刘申, 刘理臣, 等. 基于熵值法的城市生态安全评价——以平顶山市为例[J]. 西北师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2011,47(6):94-98. |
[13] | 蔡文. 物元模型及应用[M]. 北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 1994: 22-23. |
[14] | 刘琪璟. 中国立木材积表[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2017: 14-15. |
[15] | 施恭明, 江希钿, 林力, 等. 福建省阔叶树二元材积方程修订[J]. 武夷学院学报, 2015,34(3):10-14. |
[16] | 蔡重, 张志云, 连芳青, 等. 基于GIS技术的生态公益林与商品用材林质量评价[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2012,34(6):1180-1185. |
[17] | 党普兴, 侯晓巍, 惠刚盈, 等. 区域森林资源质量综合评价指标体系和评价方法[J]. 林业科学研究, 2008,21(1):84-90. |
[18] | 罗扬, 佘光辉, 刘恩斌. 基于熵权重的喀斯特地区林业可持续发展评价方法[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2007,31(1):114-118. |
[19] | 谢非, 张永祥, 任仲宇, 等. 改进的模糊综合评价法在地下水水质评价中的应用[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2014,25(3):125-128,132. |
[20] |
袁菲, 张星耀, 梁军. 基于干扰的汪清林区森林生态系统健康评价[J]. 生态学报, 2013,33(12):3722-3731.
doi: 10.5846/stxb201205100690 |
[21] |
贾贵义, 全永庆, 黎志恒, 等. 基于组合赋权法的白龙江流域甘肃段地质灾害危险性评价[J]. 冰川冻土, 2014,36(5):1227-1236.
doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0240.2014.0147 |
[22] | 王举位, 张征, 安宝利, 等. 砒砂岩区沙棘人工林生态系统服务功能评价指标权重初探[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2013,27(10):145-151. |
[23] |
王乃江, 张文辉, 同金霞, 等. 黄土高原蔡家川林场森林质量评价[J]. 林业科学, 2010,46(9):7-13.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20100902 |
[24] | 周少舟. 天然林资源保护工程效益评价[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2008. |
[25] | 于丹, 孙爱峰. 秩和比法在水环境安全综合评价中的应用[J].科技资讯, 2012(32):113. |
[26] | 斯庆毕力格, 毛斌. 聚类分析和TOPSIS法在森林资源综合评价中的应用[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2016,31(4):241-245. |
[27] | 张红文, 索延星, 张霖, 等. 灰色聚类分析法在天然林资源保护工程社会影响评价中的应用[J]. 河南林业科技, 2013,33(1):4-7. |
[28] | 王玉芳, 白鹤松, 王锐. 基于人工神经网络模型的森林资源安全评价——以大兴安岭阿木尔林业局为例[J].林业资源管理, 2014(6):44-48. |
[29] | 陈俊华, 朱志芳, 龚固堂, 等. 基于格网和物元模型的防护林质量评价[J]. 水土保持通报, 2011,31(4):116-121. |
[30] | 陈建军. 将乐县用材林资源质量综合评价[J].福建林业, 2015(4):31-34. |
[31] | 翁建宇. 福建将乐国有林场森林资源质量评价[J].北京农业, 2014(36):89-90. |
[1] | HUA Weiping, WU Jianwei, YU Liyao, WANG Yanan, WU Chengzhen, ZHUANG Chongyang, CHI Shangping, JIANG Xidian. Forestland Grading Based on Forest Potential Productivity Evaluation Model and Its Application [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(3): 29-37. |
[2] | ZENG Weisheng, YANG Xueyun. Analysis of Timber Forest Resources Status and Timber Safety Analysis in China [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(1): 17-24. |
[3] | PENG Tailai, HUANG Junwei, LIU Jinshan, QI Jianwen. Quality Evaluation of Natural Forest Resources Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(6): 82-88. |
[4] | YAN Shu, DENG Houyin, HU Dehuo, WANG Runhui, WEI Ruping, ZHENG Huiquan, ZOU Yihua, CHEN Xiawei. Comprehensive Quality Evaluation of the Pure and Mixed Cunninghamia lanceolata Stands of the Ecological Public-Welfare Forests in Northern Guangdong [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(5): 69-75. |
[5] | PENG Chucai, DIAN Yuanyong, ZHOU Zhixiang, CHENG Weijin, XIAO Zhiyan, DONG Lian, LI Xinyu. Quality Evaluation and Analysis on Factors Affecting the Quality of the Forest Belt Around Wuhan City [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, 0(6): 75-83. |
[6] | MEI Hao, PENG Tailai, GUI Laiting. Quality Evaluation of the State Non-commercial Forests Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method—A Case Study of Guangdong Province [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2019, 0(2): 15-20. |
[7] | DONG Min, CHEN Pingliu, ZHANG Guofang. Overall Asset Valuation of Timber Forest under the Forest Harvest Quota System [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(6): 23-29. |
[8] | YANG Chuanqiang, LI Shimei, KONG Yuguang, GONG Yanping, YANG Zhijun, LU Hongchun, SUN Tianxu. Establishment and Application of Site Index Table for Pinus spp.in Shandong Province [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(2): 43-47. |
[9] | LU Lihua, FENG Yiming, NONG You, LI Hua, NONG Liangshu, SUN Dongjing, HUANG Dewei, MING Angang. Classification and Quality Evaluation of Forest Site Types by Using Compartments as the Research Scale [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(2): 48-57. |
[10] | ZHOU Jiemin,XIE Xianjian. Analysis of the Impacts on the Timber Plantations and Countermeasures in China [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2015, 0(6): 49-53. |
[11] | HUANG Haiyan, DAI Yiyuan, SUN Yali. Feasibility Study on Precious Timber Forest Development and Planning of Tree Species in Mengla County [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2014, 0(5): 107-114. |
[12] | ZHAO Chuanchuan, ZHAO Qiaoyu, AN Ruolan, MENG Hanlong, SONG Ruize, DONG Xu. Evaluation of the Forest Soil Nutrient in Southeast of Yushu [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2014, 0(4): 92-97. |
[13] | HU Rui, SONG Weiming. Impact Analysis of Collective Forest Tenure Reform on Southern Fast-growing and High-yielding Timber Forest Management [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2012, 0(2): 18-21. |
[14] | WANG Feng, ZHOU Lijiang, LI Renhong, YI Naiwen. Discussion on Developmental Countermeasures and History of Timber Forest Construction in Sichuan Province [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2012, 0(1): 17-21. |
[15] | JIANG Shulei, LI Guosong, WANG Min, WANG Yinxiao, LU Mengzhu. Investigation and Analysis on Main Culture Timber Forest Resources in Hebei Province [J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2012, 0(1): 26-32. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 244
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 319
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||