Effects of different management regimes on growth and plant diversity in mature Pinus tabuliformis plantations
-
摘要:
目的 基于油松成熟人工林，探索一种兼顾生态效益的大径级用材林培育方式，为我国成熟人工林的科学经营提供参考。 方法 以赤峰市旺业甸实验林场47年生和56年生油松人工林为研究对象，选取2013年和2019年调查的近自然经营、常规经营、封育管理样地乔灌草数据，采用双因素方差分析方法比较3种经营方式对油松成熟人工林胸径增长速度、死亡率、幼树更新以及乔灌草多样性的影响差异。 结果 3种经营油松成熟人工林年均胸径增长速度和6年死亡率差异显著（P < 0.05），近自然经营为0.40 cm/a和0.51%，常规经营为0.36 cm/a和1.44%，封育管理为0.31 cm/a和3.55%；6年间，近自然经营的林下植物种类增加3种、常规经营和封育管理分别减少5种和9种，47年生和56年生林分的乔木Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数增长排序为近自然经营 > 常规经营 > 封育管理，更新树苗死亡率和47年生林分的草本Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数下降排序为常规经营 < 近自然经营 < 封育管理；3种经营对油松成熟人工林的乔木胸径生长和死亡率以及乔灌草多样性的影响差异具有时效性。3种经营56年生油松人工林的年均胸径增长速度、乔木和灌木的Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数均高于47年生人工林，但草本Shannon-Wiener指数、Simpson指数为47年生林分高于56年生林分。 结论 对油松成熟人工林进行合理经营可提升乔木胸径生长速度、降低死亡率并延缓林分植物多样性下降，表明仍有必要对成熟人工林进行森林经营以获得更好的经济和生态效益；综合比较3种经营对油松成熟人工林大径级林木培育和植物多样性保护的效果，近自然经营是一种理想的经营方式。 Abstract:Objective To explore a management regime that takes into account the cultivation of large-diameter tree and ecological benefits base on the mature Pinus tabuliformis plantation, as well as to provide a reference for mature plantation management in China. Method Taking 47- and 56-year-old Pinus tabuliformis plantations in Wangyedian Experimental Forest Farm in Chifeng City as the research object, the data of sample plots under close-to-nature management (CTNM), conventional management (CM) and no human intervention (NHI) were collected in 2013 and 2019. Two-factor variance analysis was used to compare the effects of three management regimes on mean DBH growth rate, mortality, seedling regeneration and diversity of trees, shrubs and herbs. Result There were significant differences in mean DBH growth rate and 6-year mortality of mature Pinus tabuliformis plantations under three management regimes (P < 0.05), CTNM was 0.40 cm/year and 3.55% respectively, CM was 0.36 cm/year and 1.44%, and NHI was 0.31 cm/year and 0.51%. The understory plants under CTNM increased 3 species in 6 years, while that decreased 5 species under CM and 9 species under NHI. The increase of Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of trees in 47- and 56-year-old stands in 6 years was CTNM > CM > NHI, while the decrease of tree seedling mortality and the Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of herbs in 47-year-old stands was CM < CTNM < NHI. The effects on tree growth, mortality and plant diversity under three management regimes disappeared over time. The mean DBH growth rate, Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of trees and herbs in 56-year-old stands were higher than that in 47-year-old stands under three management regimes. Conclusion Forest management can increase the mean DBH growth rate, reduce the tree mortality and delay the decline of plant diversity of mature Pinus tabuliformis plantation, suggesting that mature plantation should be managed regularly to improve the economic and ecological benefits. Compared with CM and NHI, CTNM is the best to maintain the plant diversity of mature Pinus tabuliformis plantation as well as to cultivate large-diameter tree. -
图 1 2013—2019年3种经营的乔木平均胸径增长
Figure 1. Mean DBH growth of trees under three management regimes during 2013−2019
图 2 2013—2019年3种经营的乔木死亡率
Figure 2. Tree mortality under three management regimes during 2013−2019
图 3 2013年和2019年3种经营的乔木Shannon-Wiener指数和Simpson指数
Figure 3. Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of trees under three management regimes in 2013 and 2019
图 4 2019年3种经营灌木Shannon-Wiener指数和Simpson指数比较
Figure 4. Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of shrubs under three management regimes in 2019
图 5 2013年和2019年3种经营草本Shannon-Wiener指数和Simpson指数比较
Figure 5. Shannon-Wiener index and Simpson index of herbs under three management regimes in 2013 and 2019
表 1 乔木样地基本概况
Table 1. General profiles of plots with different treatments
林龄
Stand
age经营类型
Management
regime2013年抚育前
Before tending in 20132013年抚育后
After tending in 20132019年 抚育
强度
Thinning海拔
Altitude
（m）坡度
Slope
（º）乔木密度（株·hm−2）
Density/
tree·hm−2平均胸径
Mean
DBH/cm胸高断面积
Basal area/
m2·hm−2乔木密度（株·hm−2）
Density/
tree·hm−2平均胸径
Mean
DBH/cm胸高断面积
Basal area/
m2·hm−2乔木密度（株·hm−2）
Density/
tree·hm−2平均胸径
Mean
DBH/cm胸高断面积
Basal area/
m2·hm−247 NHI 1056 ± 174a 17.42 ± 1.06a 25.44 ± 1.53a 1056 ± 174a 17.42 ± 1.06a 25.44 ± 1.53a 1022 ± 164a 18.89 ± 1.08a 29.21 ± 1.44a 0%c 1148−1171 ≤ 22 47 CM 972 ± 172a 17.23 ± 0.79a 23.73 ± 2.33a 717 ± 104a 18.90 ± 0.60a 20.72 ± 1.94a 711 ± 98a 20.90 ± 0.66a 25.30 ± 2.10a 25% ± 2%a 1129−1157 ≤ 20 47 CTNM 961 ± 59a 16.51 ± 0.50a 23.17 ± 0.39a 789 ± 49a 17.84 ± 0.30a 21.50 ± 0.53a 789 ± 49a 20.17 ± 0.16a 26.79 ± 0.58a 18% ± 1%b 1165−1201 ≤ 20 56 NHI 645 ± 40a 24.40 ± 0.71a 32.19 ± 0.61a 645 ± 40a 24.40 ± 0.71a 32.19 ± 0.61a 622 ± 34a 26.64 ± 0.75a 38.20 ± 0.88a 0%c 1342−1367 ≤ 15 56 CM 689 ± 83a 21.47 ± 1.19a 29.16 ± 1.81a 517 ± 38a 24.13 ± 0.79a 26.78 ± 1.45a 511 ± 34a 26.43 ± 0.65a 31.78 ± 1.57a 24% ± 4%a 1349−1373 ≤ 15 56 CTNM 689 ± 6a 23.43 ± 1.14a 32.09 ± 2.27a 578 ± 20a 24.69 ± 0.85a 29.47 ± 1.97a 572 ± 24a 27.18 ± 0.76a 36.17 ± 2.20a 16% ± 2%b 1322−1359 ≤ 16 注：经营类型NHI、CM、CTNM分别为封育管理、常规经营、近自然经营；表中数值为平均值 ± 标准误差；小写字母表示相同龄级的某一指标在不同经营方式下的显著性差异（P < 0.05）。Notes: NHI、CM、CTNM represents no human intervention, conventional management and close-to-nature management respectively; The values in the table are mean ± standard error; Lowercase letters indicate the significantly differences of corresponding values at the same stand age under different management regimes (P < 0.05). 
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2020-key findings[M/OL]. Rome: FAO, 2020[2022−05−14]. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8753en. [2] Hua F, Bruijnzeel L A, Meli P, et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches[J]. Science, 2022, 376: 839−844. doi: 10.1126/science.abl4649 [3] Brockerhoff E G, Jactel H, Parrotta J A, et al. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity?[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17: 925−951. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x [4] 刘世荣, 杨予静, 王晖. 中国人工林经营发展战略与对策: 从追求木材产量的单一目标经营转向提升生态系统服务质量和效益的多目标经营[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(1): 1−10. doi: 10.1016/j.chnaes.2017.02.003Liu S R, Yang Y J, Wang H. Development strategy and management countermeasures of planted forests in China: transforming from timber-centered single objective management towards multi-purpose management for enhancing quality and benefits of ecosystem services[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(1): 1−10. doi: 10.1016/j.chnaes.2017.02.003 [5] 张可欣, 刘宪钊, 雷相东, 等. 马尾松人工林不同经营方式短期经济效益分析[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2022, 44(5): 43−54.Zhang K X, Liu X Z, Lei X D, et al. Short-term economic benefit analysis under different management modes of Pinus massoniana plantation[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2022, 44(5): 43−54. [6] 张会儒, 雷相东, 李凤日. 中国森林经理学研究进展与展望[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(9): 130−142.Zhang H R, Lei X D, Li F R. Research progress and prospects of forest management science in China[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(9): 130−142. [7] Wang C, Zhang W, Li X, et al. A global meta-analysis of the impacts of tree plantations on biodiversity[J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2022, 31: 576−587. doi: 10.1111/geb.13440 [8] Kawamura K, Yamaura Y, Soga M, et al. Effects of planted tree species on biodiversity of conifer plantations in Japan: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Forest Research, 2021, 26(3): 237−246. [9] Mitschka J H. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 155(1–3): 81−95. [10] Pawson S M, Brin A, Brockerhoff E G, et al. Plantation forests, climate change and biodiversity[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2013, 22: 1203−1227. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0458-8 [11] 张英豪, 毛炎新, 奉国强. 不同密度控制下油松人工林的生态效益评估[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2015, 13(4): 80−85.Zhang Y H, Mao Y X, Feng G Q. Evaluation of ecological benefits in Pinus tabulaeformis plantation with different stand densities[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 13(4): 80−85. [12] 周芳萍, 徐建民, 陆海飞, 等. 利用珍贵树种改造尾巨桉纯林的混交模式研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2022, 35(1): 10−19.Zhou F P, Xu J M, Lu H F, et al. Transformation of Eucalyptus urophylla $ \times $ Eucalyptus grandis clone plantation into mixed-species forest using precious tree species[J]. Forest Research, 2022, 35(1): 10−19. [13] National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Forest resources in China: the 9th national forest inventory[M]. Beijing: National Forestry and Grassland Administration, 2019: 25. [14] 郭浩, 王兵, 马向前, 等. 中国油松林生态服务功能评估[J]. 中国科学C辑:生命科学, 2008, 38(6): 565−572.Guo H, Wang B, Ma X Q, et al. Evaluation on ecological service value of Pinus tabulaeformis in China[J]. Science in China Series C: Life Science, 2008, 38(6): 565−572. [15] 马履一, 李春义, 王希群, 等. 不同强度间伐对北京山区油松生长及其林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2007, 43(5): 1−9.Ma L Y, Li C Y, Wang X Q, et al. Effects of thinning on the growth and the diversity of undergrowth of Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in Beijing mountainous areas[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2007, 43(5): 1−9. [16] 修勤绪, 陆元昌, 曹旭平, 等. 目标树林分作业对黄土高原油松人工林天然更新的影响[J]. 西南林学院学报, 2009, 29(2): 13−19.Xiu Q X, Lu Y C, Cao X P, et al. Effect of target tree stand management on natural regeneration of Pinus tabulaeformis plantations on Loess Plateau Area[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 2009, 29(2): 13−19. [17] 高云昌, 张文辉, 何景峰, 等. 黄龙山油松人工林间伐效果的综合评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(5): 1313−1319.Gao Y C, Zhang W H, HE J F, et al. Effects of thinning intensity on Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in Huanglong Mountain, Northwest China: a comprehensive evaluation[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(5): 1313−1319. [18] 陆元昌, 张守攻, 雷相东, 等. 人工林近自然化改造的理论基础和实施技术[J]. 世界林业研究, 2009, 22(1): 20−27.Lu Y C, Zhang S G, Lei X D, et al. Theoretical basis and implementation techniques on close-to-nature transformation of plantations[J]. World Forestry Research, 2009, 22(1): 20−27. [19] 林同龙. 杉木人工林近自然经营技术的应用效果研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2012, 32(3): 11−16.LIN T L. Application effect research on intimate natural forestry management techniques for Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2012, 32(3): 11−16. [20] Wang X, Lu Y, Xing H, et al. Effects of close-to-nature conversion on Pinus massoniana plantations at different stand developmental stages[J]. Tropical Conservation Science, 2018, 2: 1−16. [21] Fang X, Tan W, Gao X, et al. Close-to-nature management positively improves the spatial structure of Masson pine forest stands[J]. Web Ecology, 2021, 21: 45−54. doi: 10.5194/we-21-45-2021 [22] 李国雷, 刘勇, 徐扬, 等. 间伐强度对油松人工林植被发育的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2007, 29(2): 70−75.Li G L, Liu Y, Xu Y, et al. Effects of thinning intensity on the development of undergrowth in Pinus tabulaeformis plantations[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2007, 29(2): 70−75. [23] 方精云, 王襄平, 沈泽昊, 等. 植物群落清查的主要内容、方法和技术规范[J]. 生物多样性, 2009, 17(6): 533−548. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09253Fang J Y, Wang X P, Shen Z H, et al. Methods and protocols for plant community inventory[J]. Biodiversity Science, 2009, 17(6): 533−548. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1003.2009.09253 [24] 国家林业局调查规划设计院, 黑龙江省林业监测规划院. 主要树种龄级与龄组划分: LY/T 2908—2017[S]. 北京: 国家林业局, 2017: 4.Academy of Inventory and Planning, State Forestry Administration, Heilongjiang Forestry Monitoring And Planning Institute. Regulations for age-class and age-group division of main tree-species: LY/T 2908−2017[S]. Beijing: State forestry administration, 2017: 4. [25] Holyoak M, Leibold M A, Holt R D. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. [26] 杨晓聪, 陈晓蔷, 窦松傲, 等. 林龄和立地条件对冀北山地油松单木生长量和生长率的影响[J]. 林业与生态科学, 2022, 37(4): 363−369.Yang X C, Cheng X Q, Dou S A, et al. Influence of age and site factors on the growth of Pinus tabulaeformis in mountain areas of northern Hebei Province[J]. Forestry and Ecological Sciences, 2022, 37(4): 363−369. [27] Juliette C, Matteo T, David F, et al. Forest diversity promotes individual tree growth in central European forest stands[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 54: 71−79. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12783 [28] 胡雪凡, 段光爽, 张会儒, 等. 蒙古栎次生林林木竞争对不同抚育间伐方式的响应[J]. 林业科学研究, 2021, 34(1): 1−9.Hu X F; Duan G S, Zhang H T, et al. Response of tree competition in natural secondary Quercus mongolica forest to thinning treatment[J]. Forest Research, 2021, 34(1): 1−9. [29] 原志坚, 王孝安, 王丽娟, 等. 抚育对黄土高原油松人工林林下植被功能多样性的影响[J]. 生态学杂志, 2018, 37(2): 339−346.Yuan Z J, Wang X A, Wang L J, et al. Effects of tending on functional diversity of understory vegetation in Pinus tabuliformis plantation on the Loess Plateau[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2018, 37(2): 339−346. [30] 朱教君, 李凤芹, 松崎健, 等. 间伐对日本黑松海岸林更新的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002, 13(11): 1361−1367.ZHU J J, LI F Q, Matsuzaki T, et al. Influence of thinning on regeneration in a coastal Pinus thunbergii forest[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002, 13(11): 1361−1367. [31] 陈辉荣, 周新年, 蔡瑞添, 等. 天然林不同强度择伐后林分空间结构变化动态[J]. 植物科学学报, 2012, 30(3): 230−237. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2012.30230Chen H R, Zhou X N, Cai R, et al. Tracking analysis of forest spatial structure change after different selective cutting intensities in a natural forest[J]. Plant Science Journal, 2012, 30(3): 230−237. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2012.30230 [32] Li Y F, He J A, Lu L H, et al. The long-term effects of thinning and mixing on species and structural diversity of Chinese fir plantations[J]. New Forests, 2021, 52: 285−302. doi: 10.1007/s11056-020-09794-2 [33] 郭婧, 喻林华, 方晰, 等. 中亚热带4种森林凋落物量、组成、动态及其周转期[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(14): 4668−4677.Guo J, Yu L H, Fang X, et al. Litter production and turnover in four types of subtropical forests in China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(14): 4668−4677. [34] 武朋辉, 白高平, 党坤良, 等. 抚育间伐对秦岭南坡油松中龄林生长的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017, 37(1): 20−26.Wu P H, Bai G P, Dang K L, et al. Thinning effects on growth of Pinus tabulaeformis middle-age forest on southern slope of Qinling Mountains[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2017, 37(1): 20−26. [35] Suzanne W S, Trevor B H, Ian R C. Pre-commercial thinning effects on growth, yield and mortality in even-aged paper birch stands in British Columbia[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2004, 190(2): 163−178. [36] Ding Y, Zang R G. Effects of thinning on the demography and functional community structure of a secondary tropical lowland rain forest[J/OL]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 279: 111805[2022−09−10]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111805. [37] 林思祖, 黄世国. 论中国南方近自然混交林营造[J]. 世界林业研究, 2001, 14(2): 73−79.Lin S Z, Huang S G. An establishment and management of nature-approximating mixed forests in South China[J]. World Forestry Research, 2001, 14(2): 73−79. [38] 刘钦, 邓洪平, 李宗峰, 等. 贵州赤水桫椤国家级自然保护区植物群落特征[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(1): 19−31.Liu Q, Deng H P, Li Z F, et al. Characteristics of plant community in the Guizhou Chishui Alsophila spinulata National Nature Reserve, Southwestern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2019, 41(1): 19−31. [39] 陈肖. 半干旱地区油松纯林改造成混交林效益分析[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2008(6): 31−32.Chen X. Analysis of mixed transformation of Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in semi-arid area of Northwest China[J]. Agricultural Science-Technology and Information, 2008(6): 31−32. [40] Luiz F S D, Gustavo S, José C L, et al. Growth, mortality, and recruitment of tree species in an Amazonian rainforest over 13 years of reduced impact logging[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2018, 430: 150−156. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.08.024 [41] 方升佐, 田野. 人工林生态系统生物多样性与生产力的关系[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 55(4): 1−6.Fang S Z, Tian Y. The relationship between biodiversity and productivity in the artificial plantation ecosystem[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2012, 55(4): 1−6. [42] 陆晓明. 马尾松人工林近自然化改造对物种多样性及生物量的影响[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2014.Lu X M. The effects of near nature transformation on species diversity and biomass in Pinus massoniana plantation[D]. Nanjing: Guangxi University, 2014. [43] Ming A G, Yang Y J, Liu S R et al. A decade of close-to-nature transformation alters species composition and increases plant community diversity in two coniferous plantations[J/OL]. Frontier in Plant Science, 2020, 11: 01141[2022−10−14]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01141. [44] 刘俊杰, 吕倩, 沈逸, 等. 目标树初期经营对杉木人工林林下植物多样性和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2021, 27(2): 408−415.Liu J J, Lü Q, Shen Y, et al. Early effects of target tree management on plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties in a Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology, 2021, 27(2): 408−415. [45] 张甜. 抚育间伐对小兴安岭天然针阔混交林生态功能的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2019.Zhang T. Effect of thinning on the ecological function of natural mixed broadleaf-conifer secondary forest in Xiaoxing’an Mountains[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2019. [46] 江萍. 不同林龄油松人工林抚育间伐效应研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2015.Jiang P. Studies on thinning effects of different aged Pinus tabulaeformis plantations[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2015. [47] 罗毓明, 谭向平, 邹晓君, 等. 我国南方4种常见人工林林下植物多样性特征及影响因素[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2022, 30(1): 1−10.Luo Y M, Tan X P, Zou X J, et al. Understory plant diversity characteristics and influencing factors of four common plantations in South China[J]. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany, 2022, 30(1): 1−10. [48] Haughian S R, Frego K A. Short-term effects of three commercial thinning treatments on diversity of understory vascular plants in white spruce plantations of northern New Brunswick[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016, 370: 45−55. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.055 [49] 郭海沣, 王涛, 贾炜玮. 抚育间伐对林口林业局主要针叶树种生长结构及生物多样性的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(12): 1−6.Guo H F, Wang T, Jia W W. Effects of thinning on growth, structure and biodiversity of main coniferous species in Northeast China[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2019, 47(12): 1−6. -
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(1)
计量
- 文章访问数: 61
- HTML全文浏览量: 27
- PDF下载量: 27
- 被引次数: 0
