秦岭林区天然次生林与人工林立地质量评价

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20150410

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】以秦岭林区典型的松栎林带为例,采用临时样地、固定样地和解析木3套数据建立立地指数模型和立地形模型,比较天然次生林与人工林立地质量评价差异,为天然次生林立地质量评价提供科学依据和评价方法。【方法】首先对样地直径分布进行SW正态性检验和株数积累分布曲线检验,论证天然次生林编制立地指数表的可行性; 然后拟合优势树高生长方程,根据R²和标准估计误差选择各树种导向曲线模型; 依据树高连年生长量曲线与平均生长量曲线相交且趋于平缓、树高变异系数趋于平稳确定基准年龄和基准胸径; 分别采用相对优势高法、标准差调整法和变动系数调整法形成立地指数和立地形曲线簇,编制油松、华山松、锐齿栎和落叶松立地指数表和立地形表。运用卡方检验、落点检验和相关性检验分析不同树种立地指数表和立地形表精度差异, 采用平均误差、平均绝对误差和平均相对误差比较通用地位级表与立地指数表、立地形表评价立地质量偏差。【结果】各树种卡方检验值均小于卡方检验临界值,符合精度要求。油松和落叶松立地指数卡方检验平均值低于立地形,锐齿栎立地指数卡方检验平均值高于立地形,华山松立地指数与立地形卡方检验平均值差异较小。卡方检验、落点检验和相关性检验综合分析结果表明,立地形适用于天然次生林立地质量评价,而立地指数适用于人工林。与通用地位级表的比较表明,地位级评价立地质量平均误差、平均绝对误差、平均相对误差大于立地指数和立地形,地位级评价落叶松人工林立地质量误差显著大于立地指数。【结论】编制的油松、落叶松立地指数表,华山松、锐齿栎立地形表满足立地质量评价精度要求,能够反映林区天然次生林和人工林立地质量差异,可用于林区立地质量评价和森林经营管理。同时如何解决次生林立地质量评价中混交和异龄的特点、建立更具普遍性的立地指数和立地形模型仍是一个值得深入研究的问题。

关键词: 立地质量评价, 天然次生林, 人工林, 立地指数, 立地形, 秦岭

Abstract:

【Objective】 Site quality is essential for stand development. Stands established with natural or artificial regeneration methods requiring effective approaches to evaluate the site productivity in forestry practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the site quality for secondary forests and plantation using site index and site form models. 【Method】The permanent and temporary inventory data, and the stem analysis data, were collected from pine-oak stands in Qinling Mountains. Feasibility of applying site index models for secondary forests was validated by cumulative frequency curve and SW normality tests. Reference age and DBH were determined by analyzing of mean height increment and current annual height increment. Methods for formulating site index and site form tables, such as ratio method, standard deviation adjustment, and coefficient variation adjustment were applied by species after fitting dominant height growth equations. Chi-Square test, falling point test and correlation test were used for accuracy analysis of site index and site form for secondary forest and plantation. MRES, AMRES, MRES% were applied for error analysis of site class, site index and site form. 【Result】Chi-square values of each species were lower than critical values. Chi-square values of site index of Pinus tabulaedormis and Larix principis-rupprechtii were lower than that of site form. Chi-square value of site index of Quercus aliena var. acuteserrata was higher than that of site form. Little difference among site index and site form of Pinus armandii was observed. In general, site form appears superior for secondary forests, while site index is suitable for plantation. Site index and site form were more accurate than site class in evaluating the site quality. 【Conclusion】 Establishing site index tables and site form tables could be used for site evaluating in forest management. Further study of mixed and uneven-aged secondary forest site quality evaluation is required.

Key words: forest site evaluation, secondary forest, plantation, site index, site form, Qinling Mountains

中图分类号:

S757

吴恒, 党坤良, 田相林, 孙帅超, 陈书军, 赵鹏祥, 曹田健. 秦岭林区天然次生林与人工林立地质量评价[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(4): 78-88.

Wu Heng, Dang Kunliang, Tian Xianglin, Sun Shuaichao, Chen Shujun, Zhao Pengxiang, Cao Tianjian. Evaluating Site Quality for Secondary Forests and Plantation in Qinling Mountains[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2015, 51(4): 78-88.

参考文献

2015陈永富,杨彦臣,张怀清,等. 2000. 海南岛热带天然山地雨林立地质量评价研究. 林业科学研究, 13(2):134-140.
(Chen Y F, Yang Y C, Zhang H Q, et al. 2000. A study on site quality evaluation of natural tropical mountainous rain forest in Hainan Island. Forest Research, 13(2):134-140. [in Chinese])
段劼,马履一,贾黎明,等. 2009.北京低山地区油松人工林立地指数表的编制及应用.林业科学, 45(3):7-12.
(Duan J, Ma L Y, Jia L M, et al. 2009. Establishment and application of site index table for Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in the low elevation area of Beijing. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 45(3):7-12. [in Chinese])
韩福利. 2006.秦岭林区森林资源保护的意义和可持续经营利用. 陕西林业科技, (4):69-72.
(Han F L. 2006. The significance of forest resources conservation in Qinling Mountainous area as well as sustained management and utilization. Shaanxi Forest Science and Technology, (4):69-72. [in Chinese])
李海奎,法蕾. 2011.基于分级的全国主要树种树高-胸径曲线模型.林业科学, 47(10): 83-90.
(Li H K, Fa L. 2011. Height-diameter model for major tree species in China using the classified height method. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 47(10):83-90. [in Chinese])
李悦黎,杜纪山. 1993.火地塘教学实验林场森林资源的数据分析及经营对策.西北林学院学报, 8(3):53-58.
(Li Y L, Du J S. 1993. Analysis and management strategy of forest resources of Huoditang teaching and experimental forest farm. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 8(3):53-58. [in Chinese])
刘建军,雷瑞德,尚廉斌,等. 1996.火地塘林场立地分类的初步研究.西北林学院学报, 11(增):31-36.
(Liu J J, Lei R D, Shang L B, et al. 1996. Site classification at Huoditang forest farm. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 11(S1):31-36. [in Chinese])
马建路,宣立峰,刘德君. 1995.用优势树全高和胸径的关系评价红松林的立地质量. 东北林业大学学报, 23(2):20-27.
(Ma J L, Xuan L F, Liu D J. 1995. Site quality estimation for natural Korean pine forest using total height and diameter of dominant tree. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 23(2):20-27. [in Chinese])
孟宪宇. 2006.测树学. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
(Meng X Y. 2006. Forest mensuration. Beijing: Chinese Forestry Publishing House. [in Chinese])
孟宪宇,陈东来. 2001.山杨次生林地位指数表编制方法的研究. 北京林业大学学报, 23(3):47-51.
(Meng X Y, Chen D L. 2001. Study on constructive method of site index table for poplar secondary forest. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 23(3):47-51. [in Chinese])
陶吉兴,唐明荣. 1990.常规立地指数表的误差来源与分析. 浙江林学院学报, 7(4):99-103.
(Tao J X, Tang M R. 1990. A source and analysis of errors in common site index table. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 7(4):99-103. [in Chinese])
吴再明. 1988.论X²检验在地位指数曲线检验中的应用. 云南林业调查规划, (2):1-6.
(Wu Z M. 1988. Application of Chi-square test in site index curve. Yunnan Forest Inventory and Planning, (2):1-6. [in Chinese])
鄢志明,彭志鹏. 1983. 油松地位指数表的编制. 陕西林业科技, (4):7-12.
(Yan Z M, Peng Z P. 1983. Site index table establishment of Pinus tabulaeformis. Shaanxi Forest Science and Technology, (4):7-12. [in Chinese])
詹昭宁,郝祖渊. 1978.林分中三株最高树树高平均值与蓄积量相关关系的初步探讨. 林业资源管理, (4):9-12.
(Zhan Z N, Hao Z Y. 1978. Relationship analysis of stand volume and average top height of 3 dominant trees. Forest Resources Management, (4):9-12. [in Chinese])
赵美丽,王才旺. 1994.林分优势高测定方法的探讨. 内蒙古林业调查设计, (2):10-16.
(Zhao M L, Wang C W. 1994. Methods of dominant height mensuration. Inner Mongolia Forestry Investigation and Design, (2):10-16. [in Chinese])
郑聪慧,贾黎明,段劼,等. 2013.华北地区栓皮栎天然次生林地位指数表的编制. 林业科学, 49(2):79-85.
(Zheng C H, Jia L M, Duan J, et al. 2013. Establishment of site index table for Quercus variabilis natural secondary forest in north China. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 49(2):79-85. [in Chinese])
Batho A, Garcia O. 2006. De Perthuis and the origins of site index: a historical note. FBMIS, 1: 1-10.
Cieszewski C J, Bella I E. 1993. Modeling density-related Iodgepole pine height growth, using Czarnowski's stand dynamics theory. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(12): 2499-2506.
Curtis R O. 1964, A stem-analysis approach to site-index curves. Forest Science, 10(2): 241-256.
Flewelling J W, Collier R, Gonyea B, et al. 2001. Height-age curves for planted stands of Douglas fir, with adjustments for density. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Garcia O. 2005. Comparing and combining stem analysis and permanent sample plot data in site index models. Forest Science, 51(4): 277-283.
Goelz J C G, Burk T E. 1992. Development of a well-behaved site index equation: jack pine in north central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 22(6): 776-784.
Hann D W. 1998. Extending southwest Oregon's Douglas-fir dominant height growth equation to older ages.
Huang S, Titus S J. 1993, An index of site productivity for uneven-aged or mixed-species stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(3): 558-562.
Keen F P. 1937. Climatic cycles in eastern Oregon as indicated by tree RINGS1. Monthly Weather Review, 65: 175.
Lynch D W. 1958. Effects of stocking on site measurement and yield of second-growth ponderosa pine in the Inland Empire. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
MacFarlane D W, Green E J, Burkhart H E. 2000. Population density influences assessment and application of site index. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 30(9): 1472-1475.
Perin J, Hébert J, Brostaux Y, et al. 2013. Modelling the top-height growth and site index of Norway spruce in Southern Belgium. Forest Ecology and Management, 298: 62-70.
Raulier F, Lambert M C, Pothier D, et al. 2003. Impact of dominant tree dynamics on site index curves. Forest ecology and management, 184(1): 65-78.
Vanclay J K, Henry N B. 1988. Assessing site productivity of indigenous cypress pine forest in southern Queensland. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 67(1): 53-64.
Wang G G. 1998. An ecologically based model for site index conversion among species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28(2): 234-238.
Weiskittel A R, Hann D W, Kershaw Jr J A, et al. 2011. Forest Growth and Yield Modeling. Wiley.

[1]	巫志龙, 周成军, 周新年, 刘富万, 朱奇雄, 黄金湧, 陈文. 不同强度采伐5年后杉阔混交人工林土壤呼吸速率差异[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(6): 142-149.
[2]	张茜茜, 杨庆朋, 刘亮, 王清涛, 李菲, 郭丽丽, 郝立华, 曹旭, 范晓懂, 梁伟佳, 郑云普. 环剥对毛白杨树干表面CO₂通量及其温度敏感性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(5): 1-10.
[3]	卫玮, 党坤良. 秦岭南坡林地土壤有机碳密度空间分异特征[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(5): 11-19.
[4]	王超群, 焦如珍, 董玉红, 厚凌宇, 赵京京, 赵世荣. 不同林龄杉木人工林土壤微生物群落代谢功能差异[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(5): 36-45.
[5]	刘宝, 王民煌, 余再鹏, 林思祖, 林开敏. 中亚热带天然林改造成人工林后土壤呼吸的变化特征[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(4): 1-12.
[6]	杨安娜, 陆云峰, 张俊红, 吴家森, 徐金良, 童再康. 杉木人工林土壤养分及酸杆菌群落结构变化[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(1): 119-127.
[7]	周贤武, 高玉磊, 苏明垒, 赵荣军, 吕建雄. 基因工程改良木材性质研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(3): 152-160.
[8]	高尚坤, 肖文发, 曾立雄, 雷蕾, 黄志霖, 王松. 马尾松人工林干扰对土壤微生物群落结构的短期影响[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(12): 92-101.
[9]	李平昊, 申鑫, 代劲松, 曹林. 机载激光雷达人工林单木分割方法比较和精度分析[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(12): 127-136.
[10]	冯宜明, 李毅, 曹秀文, 刘锦乾, 齐瑞, 赵阳, 陈学龙. 甘肃南部不同密度云杉人工幼林的林分结构特征及土壤理化性质[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(10): 20-30.
[11]	冯琦雅, 陈超凡, 覃林, 何亚婷, 王鹏, 段艺璇, 王雅菲, 何友均. 不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林林分结构和植物多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(1): 12-21.
[12]	彭晓瑞, 张占宽. 等离子体处理对6种木材表面润湿性能的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(1): 90-98.
[13]	贺同鑫, 孙建飞, 李艳鹏, 俞有志, 胡宝清, 王清奎. 环割对杉木和马尾松人工林土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(6): 77-84.
[14]	顾伟, 马玲, 孙虎, 王利东, 张子龙. 不同土壤环境下落叶松人工林昆虫群落结构及动态的差异[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(5): 97-106.
[15]	高敏, 马香丽, 杨晋宇, 黄选瑞, 吴亚楠. 冀北山地华北落叶松人工林与白桦混交改造模式对土壤动物群落的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2017, 53(1): 70-81.