湘中丘陵区不同恢复阶段森林生态系统的碳储量特征

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20200503

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 探讨亚热带植被恢复过程中森林生态系统碳储量及其在各层次（植被层、枯落物层、土壤层）分配格局的变化，为揭示植被恢复对森林生态系统碳汇功能的影响机制和分阶段实施森林生态系统碳库管理措施提供科学依据。方法: 采用空间代替时间的方法，在湘中丘陵区选取地域毗邻、环境条件基本一致的檵木+南烛+杜鹃灌草丛（LVR）、檵木+杉木+白栎灌木林（LCQ）、马尾松+柯+檵木针阔混交林（PLL）、柯+红淡比+青冈常绿阔叶林（LAG）作为一个恢复序列，设置固定样地，采用收获法建立部分主要树种相对生长方程和引用部分主要树种通用生长方程估算生物量，采集0~10、10~20、20~30和30~40 cm土层土壤样品，测定植物、土壤碳含量，估算生态系统各层次的碳储量。结果: 植被层各组分碳含量随植被恢复而变化，同一恢复阶段各组分碳含量基本上表现为乔木层>灌木层>草本层；枯落物层碳含量以PLL最高，其次为LAG，LCQ最低；同一土层碳含量随植被恢复而增加；从LVR到LAG，植被层、枯落物层、0~40 cm土壤层和生态系统碳储量分别增加了70.80、1.17、67.05和139.02 tC·hm^-2；植被层、生态系统碳储量各阶段间的增长速率均呈先快后慢的特征，而土壤层呈快—慢—快的特征；不同恢复阶段生态系统碳储量具有一致的垂直分配格局：0~40 cm土壤层>植被层>枯落物层；随植被恢复，植被层碳储量对生态系统碳储量的贡献率呈增加趋势，而土壤层碳储量的贡献率呈下降趋势，枯落物层变化不大；生态系统、植被层、土壤层碳储量与植物多样性指数（除植被层外）、植被层生物量、土壤碳含量显著（P<0.05）或极显著（P<0.01）正相关。结论: 随着植被恢复，植物多样性、植被层生物量、土壤碳含量、植被层碳储量、土壤层碳储量和生态系统碳储量均增加，但各阶段的增长速率不同。为了提高亚热带森林生态系统碳储量，在植被恢复早、中期阶段，可合理经营促进植被恢复，通过提高植物多样性、植被层生物量、土壤碳含量来提高植被层和土壤层的碳储量；在植被恢复后期阶段，要通过保护好植被来保证土壤碳含量持续增高。

关键词: 植被恢复, 植被层, 土壤层, 碳储量, 湘中丘陵区

Abstract:

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate the change trends of carbon storage and its distribution pattern(vegetation, litter and soil layer) within forest ecosystems at different restoration stages in hilly area of central Hunan Province of China, in order to provide a scientific basis for explaining the influence mechanism of vegetation restoration on carbon sink function of forest ecosystem, and implementing forest ecosystem carbon reservoir management measures in stages. Methods: By using the space-for-time substitution method, we selected four different types of ecosystems, comprising of Loropetalum chinense+Vaccinium bracteatum+Rhododendron simsii scrub-grass-land (LVR), L. chinense+Cunninghamia lanceolata+Quercus fabri shrubbery (LCQ), Pinus massoniana+Lithocarpus glaber+L.chinense coniferous-broad leaved mixed forest (PLL), and L. glaber+Cleyera japonica+Cyclobalanopsis glauca evergreen broad-leaved forest (LAG) to represent the successional sequence in the secondary forests in Changsha County, Hunan Province, China. Permanent plots were established in each ecosystems.Biomass was estimated by using the total harvesting method to establish relative growth equations of some dominant tree species and citing allometric equations of biomass of some dominant tree species. Soil samples (0-40 cm) were collected and divided into four layers (0-10, 10-20, 20-30, and 30-40 cm). Carbon contents in plant, litter, and soil samples were determinated, and carbon storage of vegetation, litter, and soil were estimated. Results: Carbon contents of different components at different vegetation layers varied with vegetation restoration. In the same restoration stage, carbon contents of different components at different vegetation layers ranked in the order of the arbor layer > the shrub layer > the herb layer. Carbon contents of litter were highest in PLL, followed by LAG and LCQ as the lowest. Soil organic carbon contents increased with the vegetation restoration.From LVR to LAG, carbon storage of vegetation, litter, 0-40 cm soil and ecosystem increased by 70.80, 1.17, 67.05 and 139.02 tC·hm^-2, respectively. The growth rate of carbon reserves in vegetation layer and ecosystem between different stage showed the characteristics of first fast and then slow. However the growth rate of carbon reserves in soil showed fast-slow-fast. Carbon stock within ecosystem showed a consistant spatial distribution pattern:0-40 cm soil layer > vegetation layer > litter layer in different restoration stages. With vegetation restoration, the contribution rate of carbon stock in vegetation layer to the ecosystem carbon stock increased, while that of soil carbon stock was in the decline, and that of litter carbon stock did not change. Carbon storages of ecosystem, vegetation, and soil were significantly positively correlated with species diversity index (except for vegetation), biomass in vegetaion, and soil organic carbon content. Conclusion: With vegetation restoration, plant diversity, vegetation biomass, soil organic carbon content, carbon storages of ecosystem and its each components (vegetation, litter and soil) increased. However the growth rates of carbon reserves in vegetation, soil and ecosystem showed different among different restoration stages. Therefore, it is an important way to improve the carbon reserve of subtropical forest ecosystem to promote forest vegetation restoration and improve tree species diversity, vegetation biomass, and soil organic carbon content in order to improve carbon reserves of the vegetation and soil by reasonable management measures in the early and middle of restoration stages, and to protect the above-ground vegetation and ensure the continuous increase of soil organic carbon content in the late stage of vegetation restoration.

Key words: vegetation restoration, vegetation layer, soil layer, carbon storage, hilly area of central Hunan Province

中图分类号:

S718.55

王振鹏,陈金磊,李尚益,张仕吉,方晰. 湘中丘陵区不同恢复阶段森林生态系统的碳储量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(5): 19-28.

Zhenpeng Wang,Jinlei Chen,Shangyi Li,Shiji Zhang,Xi Fang. Characteristics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Stocks at Different Vegetation Restoration Stages in Hilly Area of Central Hunan Province, China[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2020, 56(5): 19-28.

图/表 8

表1

灌木层和乔木层主要树种各组分生物量相对生长方程①"

层次Layer	树种Species	叶Foliage	枝Branch	干(或茎)Trunk (or stem)	根Root
灌木层 Shrub layer	檵木 Loropetalum chinense	W_F=3.645 D²H +23.806 (R²=0.906，P＜0.01)	W_B=68.835 e^0.063 D²H(R²=0.936，P＜0.01)	W_T=183.35 e^0.042 D²H(R²=0.997，P＜0.01)	W_R=15.887 D²H + 122.24 (R²=0.925，P＜0.01)
	杉木 Cunninghamia lanceolata	W_F=99.654 e^0.072 D²(R²=0.848，P＜0.01)	W_B=60.734 e^0.063 D²(R²=0.909，P＜0.01)	W_T=696.51ln(D²)- 1 275.5 (R²=0.998，P＜0.01)	W_R=283.41H-207.98 (R²=0.888，P＜0.01)
	白栎 Quercus fabri	W_F=93.995 ln(H) +67.777 (R²=0.849，P＜0.01)	W_B=96.326ln(D²H) + 71.774 (R²=0.966，P＜0.01)	W_T=14.646D²H + 199.63 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)	W_R=223.55ln(D²H) + 20.502 (R²=0.975，P＜0.01)
	南烛 Vaccinium bracteatum	W_F=37.689 ln(D²H) +67.245 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)	W_B=94.287 ln(D²H) + 70.024 (R²=0.893，P＜0.01)	W_T=28.751 D²H+ 93.238 (R²=0.996，P＜0.01)	W_R=16.979D²H + 552.98 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)
	木姜子 Litsea pungens	W_F=21.396 e^0.100 D²(R²=0.975，P＜0.01)	W_B=89.889D²- 315.73 (R²=0.814，P＜0.01)	W_T=234.54 D²-801.66 (R²=0.823，P＜0.01)	W_R=104.19 e^0.171 D²(R²=0.932，P＜0.01)
	杜鹃 Rhododendron simsii	W_F=128.49 ln(H)-27.847 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)	W_B=108.19 e^0.338 D²(R²=0.931，P＜0.01)	W_T=79.850 e^0.588 D²(R²=0.922，P＜0.01)	W_R=139.92 e^0.411 D²(R²=0.965，P＜0.01)
	格药柃 Eurya muricata	W_F=82.87 ln(D²H) +63.537 (R²=0.678，P＜0.01)	W_B=279.77 e^0.005 D²H(R²=0.979，P＜0.01)	W_T=25.363 D²H-165.85 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)	W_R=52.678 D²H- 774.93 (R²=0.999，P＜0.01)
乔木层 Arbor layer	马尾松 Pinus massoniana	W_F=3.392 D²H- 1 098.5 (R²=0.751，P＜0.01)	W_B=9.724 8 D²H-3 716.6 (R²=0.833，P＜0.01)	W_T=15.619 D²H + 5 983.8 (R²=0.788，P＜0.01)	W_R=2.758 D²H + 658.2 (R²=0.870，P＜0.01)
	柯Lithocarpus glaber	W_F=1.559 D²H + 622.46 (R²=0.997，P＜0.01)	W_B=4.357 D²H + 822.27 (R²=0.971，P＜0.01)	W_T=0.504 D²H + 2 934.7 (R²=0.954，P＜0.01)	W_R=1.501 D²H + 878.59 (R²=0.804，P＜0.01)
	檵木 Loropetalum chinense	W_F=17.088 D²H-434.52 (R²=0.969，P＜0.01)	W_B=25.141 D²H-513.19 (R²=0.815，P＜0.01)	W_T=42.117 D²H-467.12 (R²=0.767，P＜0.01)	W_R=13.951 D²H- 115.53 (R²=0.992，P＜0.01)
	红淡比 Cleyera japonica	W_F=4.127 8 D²H + 2.936 (R²=0.946，P＜0.01)	W_B=4.744 D²H + 122.5 (R²=0.838，P＜0.01)	W_T=32.98 D²H-1 161 (R²=0.840，P＜0.01)	W_R=4.544 D²H + 106.77 (R²=0.832，P＜0.01)
	连蕊茶 Camellia fraterna	W_F=40.211 ln(H) + 58.598 (R²=0.844，P＜0.01)	W_B=75.413 ln(H) + 102.26 (R²=0.867，P＜0.01)	W_T=81.555 H^{0.704 5}(R²=0.828，P＜0.01)	W_R=97 574 ln(H) + 174.85 (R²=0.809，P＜0.01)
	青冈 Cyclobalanopsis glauca	lnW_F=2 750 ln(D) -5.394 (R²=0.930，P＜0.01)	lnW_B=2 835 ln(D) -4.837 (R²=0.943，P＜0.01)	lnW_T=2 358 ln(D) -1.915 (R²=0.992，P＜0.01)	lnW_R=2 948 ln(D) - 4.957 (R²=0.980，P＜0.01)
	杉木 Cunninghamia lanceolata	lnW_F=1.469 ln(D)-24 467 (R²=0.663，P＜0.01)	lnW_B=1.996 ln(D) -3.713 2 (R²=0.779，P＜0.01)	lnW_T=2.584 ln(D) - 3.352 9 (R²=0.928，P＜0.01)	lnW_R=2.053 2 ln(D) - 3.166 7 (R²=0.894，P＜0.01)
	落叶阔叶树 Deciduous broad-leaf	lnW_F=2 599 ln(D)-6.234 (R²=0.739，P＜0.01)	lnW_B=2 691 ln(D)-4.724 (R²=0.918，P＜0.01)	lnW_T=2 501 ln(D)-2.772 (R²=0.962，P＜0.01)	lnW_R=2 282 ln(D)- 3.272 (R²=0.872，P＜0.01)
	常绿阔叶树 Evergreen broad-leaf	lnW_F=2.013 ln(D)-3.760 (R²=0.791，P＜0.01)	lnW_B=2.375 ln(D)-3.406 (R²=0.939，P＜0.01)	lnW_T=2.419 ln(D)-2.428 (R²=0.925，P＜0.01)	lnW_R=2.343 ln(D)- 3.329 (R²=0.929，P＜0.01)

表1

表2

表3

图1

图2

图3

图4

表4

参考文献 0

	邸月宝, 王辉民, 马泽清, 等. 亚热带森林生态系统不同重建方式下碳储量及其分配格局. 科学通报, 2012. 57 (17): 1553- 1561.
	Di Y B , Wang H M , Ma Z Q , et al. Carbon storage and its allocation pattern of forest ecosystems with different restoration methods in subtropical. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2012. 57 (17): 1553- 1561.
	丁圣彦, 宋永昌. 演替研究在常绿阔叶林抚育和恢复上的应用. 应用生态学报, 2003. 14 (3): 423- 426. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2003.03.022
	Ding S Y , Song Y C . Application of succession study in tending and restoration of evergreen broadleaved forest. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2003. 14 (3): 423- 426. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2003.03.022
	宫超, 汪思龙, 曾掌权, 等. 中亚热带常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段碳储量与格局特征. 生态学杂志, 2011. 30 (9): 1935- 1941.
	Gong C , Wang S L , Zeng Z Q , et al. Carbon storage and its distribution pattern of evergreen broad-leaved forests at different succession stages in mid-subtropical China. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2011. 30 (9): 1935- 1941.
	辜翔, 张仕吉, 刘兆丹, 等. 中亚热带植被恢复对土壤有机碳含量、碳密度的影响. 植物生态学报, 2018. 42 (5): 595- 608.
	Gu X , Zhang S J , Liu Z D , et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon concentration and density in the mid-subtropical region of China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018. 42 (5): 595- 608.
	侯一蕾, 赵正, 温亚利, 等. 湘西山区林业生态建设与经济发展的相互制约分析. 林业科学, 2014. 50 (12): 131- 138.
	Hou Y L , Zhao Z , Wen Y L , et al. Analysis on the interaction relationship between forestry ecological construction and economic development in Xiangxi Mountains. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2014. 50 (12): 131- 138.
	黄宗胜, 符裕红, 喻理飞. 喀斯特森林植被自然恢复中凋落物现存量及其碳库特征演化. 林业科学研究, 2013. 26 (1): 8- 14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1498.2013.01.002
	Huang Z S , Fu Y H , Yu L F . Evolution of litterfall accumulation and the characteristics of its carbon pool in the process of natural restoration of Karst forest vegetation. Forest Research, 2013. 26 (1): 8- 14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1498.2013.01.002
	黄宗胜, 喻理飞, 符裕红, 等. 茂兰退化喀斯特森林植被自然恢复中生态系统碳吸存特征. 植物生态学报, 2015. 39 (6): 554- 564.
	Huang Z S , Yu L F , Fu Y H , et al. Characteristics of carbon sequestration during natural restoration of Maolan karst forest ecosystems. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2015. 39 (6): 554- 564.
	李尚益, 方晰, 陈金磊, 等. 人为干扰对中亚热带森林生物量及其空间分布格局的影响. 生态学报, 2018. 38 (17): 6111- 6124.
	Li S Y , Fang X , Chen J L , et al. Effects of different degrees of anthropogenic disturbance on biomass and spatial distribution in subtropical forests in central southern china. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018. 38 (17): 6111- 6124.
	刘雯雯, 项文化, 田大伦, 等. 区域尺度杉木生物量通用相对生长方程整合分析. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2010. 30 (4): 7- 14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-923X.2010.04.002
	Liu W W , Xiang W H , Tian D L , et al. General allometric equations for estimating Cunninghamia lanceolata tree biomass on large scale in southern China. Journal of Central South University of Forestry and Technology, 2010. 30 (4): 7- 14. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-923X.2010.04.002
	逯军峰, 王辉, 曹靖, 等. 不同林龄油松人工林枯枝落叶层持水性及养分含量. 浙江林学院学报, 2007. 24 (3): 319- 325.
	Lu J F , Wang H , Cao J , et al. Water holding capacity and nutrients of litter layers in a Pinus tabulaeformis plantation at different ages in Mount Xiaolong of Gansu. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 2007. 24 (3): 319- 325.
	马钦彦, 陈遐林, 王娟, 等. 华北主要森林类型建群种的含碳率分析. 北京林业大学学报, 2002. 24 (5/6): 96- 100.
	Ma Q Y , Chen X L , Wang J , et al. Carbon content rate in constructive species of main forest types in northern China. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2002. 24 (5/6): 96- 100.
	马文济, 赵延涛, 张晴晴, 等. 浙江天童常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段地表凋落物的C:N:P化学计量特征. 植物生态学报, 2014. 38 (8): 833- 842.
	Ma W J , Zhao Y T , Zhang Q Q , et al. C:N:P stoichiometry in forest floor litter of evergreen broad-leaved forests at different successional stages in Tiantong, Zhejiang, eastern China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2014. 38 (8): 833- 842.
	王亮, 牛克昌, 杨元合, 等. 中国草地生物量地上-地下分配格局:基于个体水平的研究. 中国科学:生命科学, 2010. 40 (7): 642- 649.
	Wang L , Niu K C , Yang Y H , et al. Patterns of above- and below-ground biomass allocation in China's grass-lands:evidence from individual-level observations. Science China:Life Sciences, 2010. 40 (7): 851- 857.
	喻林华, 方晰, 项文化, 等. 亚热带4种林分类型枯落物层和土壤层的碳氮磷化学计量特征. 林业科学, 2016. 52 (10): 11- 21.
	Yu L H , Fang X , Xiang W H , et al. Stoichiometry of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in litter and soil of four types of subtropical stand. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2016. 52 (10): 11- 21.
	郑帷婕, 包维楷, 辜彬, 等. 陆生高等植物碳含量及其特点. 生态学杂志, 2007. 26 (3): 307- 313.
	Zheng W J , Bao W K , Gu B , et al. Carbon concentration and its characteristics in terrestrial higher plants. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2007. 26 (3): 307- 313.
	周序力, 蔡琼, 熊心雨, 等. 贵州月亮山不同演替阶段亮叶水青冈林碳储量及其分配格局. 植物生态学报, 2018. 42 (7): 703- 712.
	Zhou X L , Cai Q , Xiong X Y , et al. Ecosystem carbon stock and within-system distribution in successional Fagus lucida forests in Mt. Yueliang, Guizhou, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018. 42 (7): 703- 712.
	周玉荣, 于振良, 赵士洞. 我国主要森林生态系统碳贮量和碳平衡. 植物生态学报, 2000. 24 (5): 518- 522. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1005-264X.2000.05.002
	Zhou Y R , Yu Z L , Zhao S D . Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest types. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2000. 24 (5): 518- 522. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1005-264X.2000.05.002
	Bloom A J , Chapin F S , Mooney H A . Resource limitationin plants-an economic analogy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1985. 16 (1): 363- 392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.002051
	Bradford J B , Kastendick D N . Age-related patterns of forest complexity and carbon storage in pine and aspen-birch ecosystems of northern Minnesota, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2010. 40 (3): 401- 409. doi: 10.1139/X10-002
	Dou X L , Deng Q , Li M , et al. Reforestation of Pinus massoniana alters soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in eroded soil in south China. Ecological Engineering, 2013. 52, 154- 160. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.099
	Kirschbaum M U F , Guo L B , Gifford R M . Observed and modelled soil carbon and nitrogen changes after planting a Pinus radiata stand onto former pasture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008. 40 (1): 247- 257. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.021
	Li X , Wilson S D , Song Y . Secondary succession in two sub-tro pical forests. Plant Ecology, 1999. 143 (1): 13- 21. doi: 10.1023/A:1009806512601
	Liu X J , Trogisch S , He J S , et al. Tree species richness increases ecosystem carbon storage in subtropical forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 2018. 285 (1885): 20181240. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1240
	Lu N , Liski J , Chang R Y , et al. Soil organic carbon dynamics of black locust plantations in the middle Loess Plateau area of China. Biogeosciences, 2013. 10 (11): 7053- 7063. doi: 10.5194/bg-10-7053-2013
	Ouyang S , Xiang W H , Wang X P , et al. Significant effects of biodiversity on forest biomass during the succession of subtropical forest in south China. Forest Ecology and Management, 2016. 372 (41): 291- 302.
	Sartori F , Lal R , Ebinger M H , et al. Changes in soil carbon and nutrient pools along a chronosequence of poplar plantations in the Columbia Plateau, Oregon, USA. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 2007. 122 (3): 325- 339. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.026
	Sigurdsson B D , Magnusson B , Elmarsdottir A , et al. Biomass and composition of understory vegetation and the forest floor carbon stock across Siberian larch and mountain birch chronosequences in Iceland. Annals of Forest Science, 2005. 62 (8): 881- 888. doi: 10.1051/forest:2005079
	Tremblay S , Ouimet R . White spruce plantations on abandoned agricultural land:are they more effective as C sinks than natural succession?. Forests, 2013. 4 (4): 1141- 1157. doi: 10.3390/f4041141
	Wang K B , Deng L , Ren Z P , et al. Dynamics of ecosystem carbon stocks during vegetation restoration on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Land, 2016. 8 (2): 207- 220. doi: 10.1007/s40333-015-0091-3
	Xiang W H , Zhou J , Ouyang S , et al. Species-specific and general allometric equations for estimating tree biomass components of subtropical forests in southern China. European Journal of Forest Research, 2016. 135 (5): 963- 979. doi: 10.1007/s10342-016-0987-2
	Zhu J X , Hu H F , Tao S L , et al. Carbon stocks and changes of dead organic matter in China's forests. Nature Communications, 2017. 8 (1): 151. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00207-1

层次Layer	项目Item	LVR	LCQ	PLL	LAG
乔木层Arbor layer	叶Foliage	—	—	467.82±46.08	414.70±44.70
	枝Branch	—	—	570.54±26.77	429.35±34.24
	干Trunk	—	—	576.94±19.75	554.99±18.54
	根Root	—	—	527.76±14.71	398.59±19.18
灌木层Shrub layer	叶Foliage	442.32±34.37	434.67±39.99	414.44±40.69	361.49±42.09
	枝Branch	547.08±18.30	540.94±19.92	555.11±17.93	517.06±41.74
	茎Stem	554.35±18.03	572.84±23.20	552.52±18.19	554.99±18.54
	根Root	536.31±13.50	536.69±19.41	540.92±20.20	493.89±10.71
草本层Herb layer	地上Aboveground	428.74±21.61	398.03±30.41	436.11±17.90	311.67±38.39
草本层Herb layer	地下Underground	514.46±39.70	513.87±23.47	512.78±17.28	439.78±41.97
枯落物层Litter layer	未分解Un-decomposed	387.28±59.47	365.44±55.14	516.43±20.26	497.74±60.25
	半分解Semi-decomposed	340.51±100.73	235.32±60.67	463.97±15.13	429.94±98.62
	已分解Decomposed	257.13±59.79	152.85±107.11	319.86±29.31	282.25±147.90
土壤层Soil layer	0~10 cm	12.22±3.08	19.49±0.95	25.65±9.21	47.58±7.20
	10~20 cm	4.49±2.62	7.67±0.75	10.89±3.60	18.22±4.31
	20~30 cm	2.95±1.71	5.32±1.01	7.01±2.96	14.89±5.74
	30~40 cm	1.67±0.70	3.01±0.53	5.07±1.80	13.51±5.46

恢复阶段Restoration stage	层次Layer	地上部分Above-ground/(tC·hm^-2)	地下部分Under-ground/(tC·hm^-2)	合计Total/(tC·hm^-2)	地上部分/地下部分之比Ratio of above-ground to under-ground
LVR	灌木层Shrub layer	0.57±0.37	0.46±0.38	1.03±0.74(52.82)	1.24
	草本层Herb layer	0.48±0.25	0.44±0.45	0.92±0.70(47.18)	1.09
	合计Total	1.05(53.85%)	0.90(46.15%)	1.95(100%)	1.17
LCQ	灌木层Shrub layer	5.17±3.98	2.56±1.67	7.73±5.61(92.46)	2.02
	草本层Herb layer	0.29±0.07	0.34±0.25	0.63±0.22(7.54)	0.86
	合计Total	5.46(65.31%)	2.90(34.69%)	8.36(100%)	1.88
PLL	乔木层Arbor layer	59.95±9.29	7.91±1.90	67.86±10.94(96.56)	7.58
	灌木层Shrub layer	0.71±0.44	0.57±0.49	1.28±0.94(1.82)	1.24
	草本层Herb layer	0.60±0.16	0.54±0.24	1.14±0.40(1.62)	1.11
	合计Total	61.26(87.17%)	9.03(12.83%)	70.28(100%)	6.78
LAG	乔木层Arbor layer	62.37±20.10	9.27±1.96	71.66 ±22.00(98.51)	6.73
	灌木层Shrub layer	0.34±0.14	0.21±0.10	0.55±0.23(0.76)	1.62
	草本层Herb layer	0.25±0.04	0.27±0.06	0.54±0.05(0.74)	0.93
	合计Total	62.96(86.54%)	9.79(13.46%)	72.75(100%)	6.43

碳储量 Carbon stocks	植物多样性指数 Species diversity index	木本植物密度 Density of woody plants	植被层生物量 Vetegation biomass	土壤有机碳含量 Soil organic carbon concentration	土壤密度 Soil density
生态系统Ecosystem	0.538^*	0.316	0.937^**	0.921^**	-0.408
植被层Vetegation layer	0.393	0.427	0.923^**	0.786^**	-0.513
土壤层Soil layer	0.604^*	0.371	0.793^**	0.931^**	-0.256

[1]	武金翠,周军,张宇,余晓燕,石雷,漆良华. 毛竹林固碳增汇价值的动态变化:以福建省为例[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(4): 181-187.
[2]	朱万泽. 成熟森林固碳研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(3): 117-126.
[3]	王安宁, 黄秋娴, 李晓刚, 徐学华, 李玉灵. 冀北山区不同植被恢复类型根际土壤细菌群落结构及多样性[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(9): 130-141.
[4]	刘伟玮, 刘某承, 李文华, 曾凡顺, 曲艺. 落叶松-人参复合系统的植物多样性和碳储量特征[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(9): 124-132.
[5]	杨宁, 邹冬生, 杨满元, 付美云, 林仲桂, 赵林峰. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地不同植被恢复阶段土壤微生物群落多样性的变化[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(8): 146-156.
[6]	张宝娟, 郭耸松, 李继泉, 李玉灵. 掺土和施肥对铁尾矿基质理化性质及油松、樟子松幼苗生长的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(5): 12-20.
[7]	戚玉娇, 李凤日. 基于KNN方法的大兴安岭地区森林地上碳储量遥感估算[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(5): 46-55.
[8]	闫守刚, 沈自彬, 李晓东, 许清涛. 流动沙丘与丘间低地过渡带的时空格局对植被恢复的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(4): 103-109.
[9]	苗庆林, 田晓瑞, 赵凤君. 大兴安岭不同植被火后NDVI恢复过程[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(2): 90-98.
[10]	黄国胜, 马炜, 王雪军, 夏朝宗, 党永锋. 东北地区落叶松林碳储量估算[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(6): 167-174.
[11]	李胜蓝, 方晰, 项文化, 孙伟军, 张仕吉. 湘中丘陵区4种森林类型土壤微生物生物量碳氮含量[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(5): 8-16.
[12]	罗赵慧, 田大伦, 宁晨, 闫文德. 栾树林对湘潭锰矿废弃地土壤碳氮含量的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(3): 130-133.
[13]	杨宁, 邹冬生, 杨满元, 付美云, 雷玉兰, 林仲桂, 赵林峰. 衡阳紫色土丘陵坡地恢复过程中土壤微生物生物量与土壤养分演变[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(12): 144-150.
[14]	王长委, 胡月明, 沈德才, 黄胜利, 朱剑云, 王璐. 基于CBERS数据的亚热带森林地上碳储量估算[J]. 林业科学, 2014, 50(1): 88-96.
[15]	徐小军, 周国模, 杜华强, 周宇峰, 胡军国, 陆国富. 样本分层对毛竹林地上部分碳储量估算精度的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(6): 18-24.