欢迎访问林业科学,今天是

林业科学 ›› 2003, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (zk): 8-14.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.2003S102

• 论文及研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

沿海防护林生态系统不同群落生物量和能量的研究

叶功富1 吴锡麟4 张清海2 林益明3   

  1. 福建省林业科学研究院,福州350012;福建省农林大学林学院,南平353001;厦门大学生命科学学院,厦门361005
  • 收稿日期:2002-12-20 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2003-12-25 发布日期:2003-12-25

STUDY ON BIOMASS AND ENERGY OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ON THE COASTAL FOREST ECOSYSTEM

Ye Gongfu1,Wu Xilin4,Zhang Qinghai2,Lin Yiming3   

  1. Fujian Academy of Forestry Fuzhou350012;Forestry College of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Nanping353001;School of Life Sciences,Xiamen University Xiamen361005
  • Received:2002-12-20 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2003-12-25 Published:2003-12-25

摘要:

对福建省东山县海岸基干防护林带中木麻黄-厚荚相思群落、木麻黄-湿地松群落和单一木麻黄群落的生物量和能量进行了研究。结果表明,基干防护林带中,复合群落的生物量和能量均要高于单一群落,其中木麻黄-厚荚相思群落中的生物量和能量最高,为16 700.64g·m-2 和341 685.70kJ·m-2,其次是木麻黄-湿地松群落10 104.62g·m-2和210 128.30kJ·m-2,单一木麻黄群落最低,为5 129.87g·m-2和105 751.40kJ·m-2。在木麻黄-厚荚相思群落中,木麻黄各组分干重热值为19.83~21.52kJ·g,厚荚相思各组分热值为20.00~23.77kJ·g-1;木麻黄-湿地松群落,木麻黄各组分热值为19.47~20.83kJ·g-1,湿地松各组分热值为20.54~21.54kJ·g-1;单一木麻黄群落,木麻黄各组分热值为19.98~21.2 7kJ·g-1。在不同群落结构中木麻黄各组分的热值存在着一定的差异,木麻黄-厚荚相思群落中木麻黄各组分热值最大,其次是单一木麻黄群落,木麻黄-湿地松群落中最小。不同的混交模式产生不同的混交效果,木麻黄-厚荚相思群落的生物量是木麻黄-湿地松群落的1.65倍,是单一木麻黄群落的3.26倍,能量是木麻黄-湿地松群落的1.63倍,是单一木麻黄群落的3.23倍。木麻黄-湿地松群落的生物量是单一木麻黄群落的1.97倍,能量为1.99倍。可见在海岸带防护林生态系统中,复合群落具有更高的生物现存量和能量现存量;混交林的生产力和生态功能要高于单一树种的纯林,具有更稳定的生态结构和更好的生态功能。

关键词: 能量, 生物量, 群落, 木麻黄, 防护林

Abstract:

The biomass and the energy of the Casuarina equisetifolia and Acasia crassicarpa community, the C. equisetfolia and Pinus elliottii community, pure C. equisetifolia community were studied in Dongshan County, Fujian Province. The results showed as follows: the biomass and energy of C. equisetfolia and A. crassicarpa community was the highest by 16 700.64 g·m-2 and 341 685.70 kJ·m-2 respectively; The second is C. equisetifolia and P. elliottii community, 10 104.62 g·m-2 and 210 128.30 kJ·g-1; The pure C. equisetifolia community was the third, 5 129.87 g·m-2 and 105 751.40 kJ·m-2 respectively. There were more biomass and energy in the mixed communities than that in the pure community. Gross caloric value of fractions was as followed: the gross caloric value of fractions of C. equisetifolia and A. crassicarpa was 19.83~21.52 kJ·g-1 and 20.00~23.27 kJ·g-1 in their mixed community; The gross caloric value of fractions of C. equisetifolia and P. elliottii was 19.47 ~20.83 kJ·g-1 and 20.54 ~21.54 kJ·g-1 in the mixed community; The gross caloric value of fractions of C. equisetifolia was 19.98 ~21.27 kJ·g-1 in the pure C. equisetifolia community. The gross caloric value of fractions of C. equisetifolia was different because of different community, the highest was in the C. equisetifolia and A. crassicarpa community, the second was in the pure C. equisetifolia community, and that in the C. equisetifolia and P. elliottii community was the lowest. There was obviously mixed efficiency in different mixed patterns. The biomass of the C. equisetifolia and A. crassicarpa community was 1.65 times as that of C.equisetifolia and P. elliottii community, and 3.26 times as that of the pure C. equisetifolia community. There was the same tendency about energy. The energy of the C. equisetifolia and A. crassicarpa community was 1.63 times as that of the C. equisetifolia and P. elliottii community, and 3.23 times as that of the pure C. equisetifolia community. While the biomass and energy of the C. equisetifolia and P. elliottii community was 1.97 times and 1.99 times as those of the pure C. equisetifolia community respectively. As a conclusion, there were more biomass and energy in the mixed communities than those in the pure community, the mixed community had higher productivity and better ecological structure and function than the pure community.

Key words: Energy, Biomass, Community, Casuarina equisetifolia, Protection forest