首页>>学术检索

冀北山地华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落稳定性研究

标题: 冀北山地华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落稳定性研究
英文标题: Study on Community Stability of Natural Secondary Forests of Pinus Tabulaeformis Carr and Plantations of Larix Gmellini (Rupr.) Rupr in Mountain Land in North Hebei
作者: 赵娜
出版时间: 2011-01-01
所在大学: 河北农业大学
关键词: 冀北山地,稳定性,人工林,天然次生林
英文关键词: Mountain land in North Hebei,stability,plantation,natural secondary forest
论文级别: 硕士
学位: 学位论文
导师: 李玉灵
专业: 生态学
提交时间: 2011
摘要: 本研究通过分析冀北华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落环境因子、林分生长状况、天然更新状况、林下植物多样性等差异,采用灰色关联度相关分析定量评价各群落稳定程度.结果表明:(1)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落环境因子分析华北落叶松人工林内各测点温度高于油松林,同一林分内温度差异不显著.落叶松林同一林分不同海拔及两林分同一海拔样地间湿度差异不显著(P<0.05).落叶松林内照度随着海拔增加逐渐增大,油松群落坡底照度最高.油松、落叶松群落土壤理化各指标值随着土层深度及海拔高度的增加大体呈递减趋势.落叶松林相同海拔同土层内土壤理化各指标值均大于油松林.(2)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落林分生长状况随海拔高度的增加,落叶松群落各样地立木平均胸径逐渐减小,而油松群落则变化不明显,且两群落立木径级分布范围缩小.油松群落各样地乔木径级分布范围较落叶松林广,且成年立木平均胸径高于落叶松群落.落叶松群落整体层次结构较单一,主林层高度集中,幼树缺失.油松群落具复层结构,其树高较落叶松高,上层林冠郁闭.落叶松林各样地成熟立木胸径、树高及材积在10a生长速率加快;胸径及树高最大速率于20a左右;胸径和材积平均及连年生长量比较:坡底>坡中>坡顶.油松群落各样地成熟立木胸径前15a生长较慢,树高及材积在20a后增长加快;胸径及树高最大速率于40a左右;胸径平均生长量比较:坡中>坡顶>坡底.落叶松林速生期早、时间短,而油松速生期晚、时间长,综合可持续发展理论,油松群落较落叶松稳定.(3)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落地上生物量油松和落叶松群落各样地草本生物量大小排序均为坡底﹥坡顶﹥坡中;灌木生物量排序为坡中油松﹥坡底油松﹥坡顶油松、坡中落叶松﹥坡顶落叶松﹥坡底落叶松;乔木生物量排序为坡中油松﹥坡顶油松﹥坡底油松、坡底落叶松﹥坡中落叶松﹥坡顶落叶松.枯落物随海拔分布排序与乔木生物量排序相同.除坡底外,油松群落总生物量均高于落叶松.同海拔草本生物量比较:油松>落叶松;除坡底外同海拔灌木生物量比较:落叶松>油松林;除坡中样地外同海拔乔木生物量比较:落叶松>油松林.油松林总生产力高于落叶松林总生产力.(4)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落天然更新状况落叶松林近乎同龄林,群落内鲜有幼苗,天然更新状况不良,群落结构不稳定.油松群落幼苗数量多,随海拔增加,各样地更新幼苗总数排序为坡中>坡底>坡顶.(5)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落物种多样性两群落灌木层物种数与种类相近.油松群落草本层以菊科植物为主;落叶松群落草本层以莎草科等植物为主.草本层Margalef丰富度指数、Shannon-Wiener、Simpson多样性指数和Pielou均匀度指数随海拔高度的增加,在油松林内先减小后增加,落叶松林内持续减小.Alatalo均匀度指数在油松林内随海拔高度的增加而增加,在落叶松林内则先增加后减小.两群落同一海拔各草本α多样性指数均无明显差异(P<0.05).落叶松林内样地间草本β多样性指数值随海拔的增高而增大,而油松林内该指数则减小.油松与落叶松坡顶样地间β指数大,环境差异明显.(6)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林林下植物生态位测度落叶松群落草本层内蓖包风毛菊(Saussurea pectinata)及林地早熟禾(Poa nemoralis Linn.)的生态位宽度指数较高.细裂叶蒿(Artemisia tanacetifolia)、多花胡枝子(Lespedeza floribunda)、斑叶堇(Viola variegata Fisch. ex Link)与二叶兜被兰(Neottianthe cucullata (L.) Schltr.)利用环境资源条件相似.油松群落草本物种乌苏里苔草(Carex ussuriensis)及金色狗尾草(Setaria glauca(L.)Beauv.)的生态位宽度相对较大,群落内旱生植物生态位宽度较宽,环境有向干旱化方向发展.山马兰(Kalimeris lautureana (Debx.) Kitam.)与长柱韭(Allium longistylum Baker)、乌苏里苔草等物种重叠度较大,易受其它物种争夺资源,易濒危.(7)华北落叶松人工林与油松天然次生林群落稳定性综合评价两群落土壤养分含量、生长状况及草本物种多样性灰色关联度大小分析结果:落叶松林同海拔样地内土壤肥力高于油松林.除坡顶样地外,落叶松林同海拔样地内植被生长状况优于油松林.除坡中样地外,油松同海拔样地内林下草本物种多样性优于落叶松林.通过灰色关联度分析,除坡顶样地外,落叶松群落综合稳定性评价优于油松.
英文摘要: Based on analysis of main climatic factors, growth conditions, natural regenernation, species diversity difference between Pinus tabulaeformis Carr and Larix gmellini (Rupr.) Rupr communities, we evaluate stability of both communities synthetically and quantificationally with the Grey System Theory.The research results are summaried as follows:(1)The temperature measured in L. gmellini (Rupr.) Rup community was higher than P. tabulaeformis, and there is no significant difference of temperature between the different plots in the same community. In L. gmellini community, there was no significant difference of the air humidity among the different plots in the same community and the same altitude in two communities (P<0.05). With the altitude increasing, the light intensity in L. gmellini community increased. Among the three plots of P. tabulaeformis Carr community, the light intensity in bottom plot (N1) was highest.With the soil depth and altitude increasing, the indices value of physicochemical property of soil approximately decreased.Each indice value of physicochemical property of the same soil layer in the same altitude in the L. gmellini community was higher than the P. tabulaeformis community.(2)With the altitude increasing, the stand average DBH (diameter of a cross-section of a tree trunk 1.3 meters above the ground) decreased in L. gmellini community, but there was no difference of the stand average DBH in P. tabulaeformis community. The distribution of diameter class narrowed gradually in both communities. The distribution of diameter class of P. tabulaeformis is wider than that of L. gmellini and the DBH of P. tabulaeformis is bigger than that of L. gmellini.The L. gmellini community has a single hierarchy structure. It has a highly centralized main storey and is lack of saplings. The P. tabulaeformis community has a complex storey. The tree heights of P. tabulaeformis community are higher than that of L. gmellini community.At 10a, the growth rate of DBH and height in L. gmellini community began fast, and then that achieve the maximum growth rate at 20a. The average increment and current annual increment of DBH and volume of bottom plot (D1) in that community is highest, followed the medium slope plot (D2) and the last of that is the top plot (D3). Before 15 years ago, the growth of P. tabulaeformis was very slow. At 20a, the growth rate of height and volume in that community began fast.It achieve the maximum growth rate of DBH and height at 40a.The average increment of DBH of medium slope plot (N2) in that community is highest, followed the top plot (N3) and the last of that is the bottom plot (N1).Before 20a, the tree height grew at the rapid rate.The fast growing period of L. gmellini came early but was short, and that period of P. tabulaeformis came late but was long. The P. tabulaeformis community is more stable than the L. gmellini community.(3)The herb biomass of bottom plots in both communities was highest, followed the top plots and the last of that was the medium slope plots. The shrub biomass of the medium slope plot (N2) in P. tabulaeformis community was highest, followed the bottom plot (N1) and the last of that was the top plot (N3). The shrub biomass of the medium slope plot (D2) in L. gmellini community was highest, followed the top plot (D3) and the last of that was the bottom plot (D1). The tree biomass of N2 in P. tabulaeformis community was highest, followed N3 and the last of that was N1. The tree biomass of D1 in L. gmellini community was highest, followed D2 and the last of that was D3. The total and litter biomass had the same trend with the tree biomass of both communities. Except the N1 was lower than that of D1, the total biomass of P. tabulaeformis community at the same altitude was all higher than that of L. gmellini community.The herb biomass of P. tabulaeformis community at the same altitude was all higher than that of L. gmellini community. Except the shrub biomass of D1 was lower than that of N1, the shrub biomass of L. gmellini community at the same altitude was all higher than that of P. tabulaeformis community. Except the tree biomass of D2 was lower than that of N2, the tree biomass of L. gmellini community at the same slope sample was all higher than that of P. tabulaeformis community. The total biomass of P. tabulaeformis community at the same slope sample was all higher than that of L. gmellini community.(4)The stand of L. gmellini is the even-aged pure stands, and there were almost no seedlings in that community, so the natural regeneration was poor in this community. The structure of this community was not stable.The total density of seedlings of P. tabulaeformis community was more than that of L. gmellini community.The total density of seedlings of P. tabulaeformis community in N2 was highest, followed N1 and the last was N3.(5)The results indicated that the species distributed in shrub layer in two different communities are simila. Dominant herb species i