林业科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (6): 71-81.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20250420
收稿日期:2025-07-01
修回日期:2026-01-18
出版日期:2026-06-10
发布日期:2026-06-13
通讯作者:
潘萍
E-mail:panping@jxau.edu.cn
基金资助:
Jun Liu,Xunzhi Ouyang,Ping Pan*(
),Yi Zheng,Liping Zheng,Chang Liu
Received:2025-07-01
Revised:2026-01-18
Online:2026-06-10
Published:2026-06-13
Contact:
Ping Pan
E-mail:panping@jxau.edu.cn
摘要:
目的: 探讨树种多样性对天然马尾松林种内、种间和总竞争强度的影响,为营造种间关系协调的马尾松林提供科学依据。方法: 以江西省赣州市天然马尾松林为研究对象,将Patrick丰富度、Shannon-Wiener多样性和Pielou均匀度3个树种多样性指标划分为低、中和高3个等级,采用八邻域平移法选取对象木,利用Voronoi图法确定林木竞争范围,运用Hegyi竞争指数计算不同径级的种内、种间竞争指数,比较并分析不同树种多样性等级的竞争指数及其与对象木胸径的关系。结果: 1) 3个树种多样性指标由低到高其主要树种变化不大,以马尾松、木荷和杉木为主;除Pielou均匀度外,Patrick丰富度和Shannon-Wiener多样性的对象木和竞争木株数占比在D≥15 cm总体上均随等级增加而增加;各指标种内、种间和总竞争指数的大小排序与对象木、竞争木株数大致相同,均随等级增加而减小;各指标种内平均竞争指数在总体上均随等级增加而降低,种间平均竞争指数则呈相反趋势;各指标不同等级种内、种间竞争指数的数值占比主要集中在5≤D<20 cm。2) 不同树种多样性等级下,种内竞争指数的数值占比均大于种间竞争指数,占总竞争指数的56.71%~81.67%;而木荷在种间竞争指数中的占比最大,占种间竞争指数的41.32%~78.05%。3) 不同树种多样性等级下,除指数函数在Pielou均匀度中等级的种间竞争指数拟合效果相对更好外,幂函数在其他种内、种间和总竞争指数与对象木胸径的拟合上表现相对更佳,均表现出随对象木胸径增大而逐渐减小的趋势。结论: 天然马尾松林中,林内的竞争压力主要来源于种内竞争,木荷是种间竞争压力的主要来源;树种多样性增加有利于促进大径木的生长和存活,缓解对象木个体的种内竞争压力,并增加其种间竞争压力,促使林分朝种内、种间压力均衡的趋势发展。因此,实现可持续森林管理的关键在于采取抚育间伐等经营措施和营造树种丰富且结构合理的林分。
中图分类号:
刘军,欧阳勋志,潘萍,郑怡,郑李平,刘畅. 树种多样性对天然马尾松林种内和种间竞争关系的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(6): 71-81.
Jun Liu,Xunzhi Ouyang,Ping Pan,Yi Zheng,Liping Zheng,Chang Liu. Influence of Tree Species Diversity on Intraspecific and Interspecific Competition in Natural Pinus massoniana Forests[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2026, 62(6): 71-81.
表1
林分因子概况"
| 变量Variable | 最小值Minimum | 最大值Maximum | 平均值Mean | 标准差Standard deviation |
| 平均胸径Average DBH/cm | 9.1 | 18.7 | 13.2 | 2.6 |
| 平均树高Average height/m | 7.7 | 14.2 | 10.7 | 1.5 |
| 株数密度Tree density/hm?2 | 689 | 2 500 | 1 709 | 485 |
| 郁闭度Canopy density | 0.30 | 0.90 | 0.67 | 0.14 |
| 林分断面积Stand basal area/(m2·hm?2) | 12.29 | 44.40 | 22.61 | 7.58 |
| Patrick丰富度Patrick richness | 2 | 12 | 6 | 3.03 |
| Shannon-Wiener多样性Shannon-Wiener diversity | 0.45 | 1.95 | 1.01 | 0.41 |
| Pielou均匀度Pielou evenness | 0.31 | 0.96 | 0.64 | 0.15 |
表2
树种多样性指标不同等级的主要树种组成"
| 树种多样性指标 Tree species diversity indices | 等级 Levels | 树种组成 Species composition |
| Patrick丰富度 Patrick richness | 低Low | 7马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata |
| 中Medium | 7马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata | |
| 高High | 6马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata 1丝栗栲Castanopsis fargesii +三花冬青Ilex triflora | |
| Shannon-Wiener 多样性 Shannon-Wiener diversity | 低Low | 8马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba +杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata |
| 中Medium | 7马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata + 枫香Liquidambar formosana | |
| 高High | 6马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata 1丝栗栲Castanopsis fargesii +三花冬青Ilex triflora | |
| Pielou均匀度 Pielou evenness | 低Low | 7马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata + 枫香Liquidambar formosana |
| 中Medium | 6马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 2杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata | |
| 高High | 6马尾松Pinus massoniana 2木荷Schima superba 1丝栗栲Castanopsis fargesii 1杉木Cunninghamia lanceolata +三花冬青Ilex triflora |
表3
树种多样性指标不同等级的对象木、竞争木株数和种内竞争指数①"
| 树种多样性 指标 Tree species diversity indices | 径级 Diameter class/cm | 低Low | 中Medium | 高High | |||||||||||
| 对象木株数 Number of objective trees | 竞争木株数 Number of competitive trees | 种内竞争 指数 Intraspecific CI | 平均竞争 指数 Average CI | 对象木株数 Number of objective trees | 竞争木株数 Number of competitive trees | 种内竞争 指数 Intraspecific CI | 平均竞争 指数 Average CI | 对象木株数 Number of objective trees | 竞争木株数 Number of competitive trees | 种内竞争 指数 Intraspecific CI | 平均竞争 指数 Average CI | ||||
| Patrick丰富度 Patrick richness | 5≤D<10 | 555(50.92) | 1 032(60.00) | 2 262.20(68.38) | 3.96±1.05a | 463(40.44) | 902(48.18) | 2 014.02(59.30) | 3.59±1.40a | 176(26.04) | 606(39.97) | 766.21(49.14) | 3.92±1.59a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 329(30.18) | 456(26.51) | 750.95(22.70) | 2.23±0.72a | 356(31.09) | 564(30.13) | 887.44(26.13) | 2.20±0.79a | 168(24.85) | 398(26.25) | 413.96(26.55) | 2.14±0.90a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 150(13.76) | 173(10.06) | 235.42(7.11) | 1.51±0.63a | 195(17.03) | 260(13.89) | 381.25(11.22) | 1.89±1.46a | 142(21.01) | 264(17.41) | 213.95(13.72) | 1.36±0.58a | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 45(4.13) | 49(2.85) | 53.56(1.62) | 0.92±0.68a | 81(7.07) | 97(5.18) | 81.94(2.41) | 1.11±0.49a | 84(12.42) | 135(8.91) | 92.26(5.92) | 0.88±0.49a | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 9(0.83) | 9(0.52) | 5.94(0.18) | 0.15±0.32b | 32(2.80) | 36(1.92) | 21.16(0.62) | 0.60±0.54a | 56(8.28) | 63(4.16) | 45.39(2.91) | 0.78±0.42a | |||
| D≥30 | 2(0.18) | 1(0.06) | 0.39(0.01) | 0.04±0.12b | 18(1.57) | 13(0.70) | 10.69(0.32) | 0.39±0.49a | 50(7.40) | 50(3.30) | 27.36(1.76) | 0.36±0.34a | |||
| 合计Total | 1 090(100) | 1 720(100) | 3 308.46(100) | 2.84±0.80a | 1 145(100) | 1 872(100) | 3 396.50(100) | 2.51±1.12a | 676(100) | 1 516(100) | 1 559.13(100) | 1.99±0.93a | |||
| Shannon-Wiener多样性 Shannon-Wiener diversity | 5≤D<10 | 676(51.92) | 1 031(57.25) | 2 999.13(67.70) | 4.21±1.04a | 362(36.60) | 895(50.03) | 1 394.19(55.90) | 3.49±1.23a | 156(25.16) | 614(40.45) | 649.10(48.44) | 3.73±1.69a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 392(30.11) | 506(28.09) | 991.19(22.37) | 2.50±0.63a | 311(31.45) | 502(28.06) | 702.65(28.17) | 2.04±0.68a | 150(24.19) | 410(27.01) | 358.52(26.76) | 2.04±0.98a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 168(12.90) | 190(10.55) | 361.30(8.16) | 2.07±1.50a | 201(20.32) | 266(14.87) | 302.17(12.12) | 1.44±0.42a | 118(19.03) | 241(15.88) | 167.15(12.47) | 1.28±0.63a | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 49(3.76) | 58(3.22) | 66.63(1.50) | 1.26±0.64a | 71(7.18) | 82(4.58) | 66.98(2.68) | 0.76±0.45b | 90(14.52) | 141(9.29) | 94.15(7.03) | 0.91±0.45ab | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 12(0.92) | 12(0.67) | 8.64(0.20) | 0.21±0.37b | 29(2.93) | 34(1.90) | 20.23(0.81) | 0.64±0.56a | 56(9.03) | 62(4.08) | 43.63(3.26) | 0.70±0.43a | |||
| D≥30 | 5(0.39) | 4(0.22) | 3.15(0.07) | 0.18±0.35a | 15(1.52) | 10(0.56) | 7.92(0.32) | 0.27±0.46a | 50(8.07) | 50(3.29) | 27.36(2.04) | 0.36±0.34a | |||
| 合计Total | 1 302(100) | 1 801(100) | 4 430.04(100) | 3.16±0.85a | 989(100) | 1 789(100) | 2 494.14(100) | 2.29±0.79b | 620(100) | 1 518(100) | 1 339.91(100) | 1.87±0.97b | |||
| Pielou均匀度 Pielou evenness | 5≤D<10 | 539(43.19) | 802(46.15) | 2 525.23(60.76) | 4.33±0.92a | 303(36.24) | 877(49.33) | 1 232.81(59.09) | 3.79±1.64a | 352(42.56) | 861(54.08) | 1 284.38(63.53) | 3.32±1.28a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 379(30.37) | 508(29.23) | 1 022.82(24.61) | 2.49±0.94a | 238(28.47) | 494(27.78) | 532.79(25.54) | 2.03±0.81a | 236(28.54) | 416(26.13) | 496.76(24.57) | 2.05±0.54a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 218(17.47) | 279(16.05) | 468.00(11.26) | 2.22±1.44a | 150(17.94) | 247(13.89) | 208.02(9.97) | 1.40±0.48b | 119(14.39) | 171(10.74) | 154.60(7.65) | 1.16±0.47b | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 65(5.21) | 92(5.29) | 96.50(2.32) | 1.35±0.64a | 90(10.77) | 107(6.02) | 83.11(3.98) | 0.94±0.33b | 55(6.65) | 82(5.15) | 48.14(2.38) | 0.64±0.41b | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 26(2.08) | 35(2.01) | 26.53(0.64) | 0.73±0.57a | 37(4.43) | 41(2.31) | 21.19(1.02) | 0.45±0.46a | 34(4.11) | 32(2.01) | 24.77(1.22) | 0.38±0.43a | |||
| D≥30 | 21(1.68) | 22(1.27) | 17.06(0.41) | 0.47±0.49a | 18(2.15) | 12(0.67) | 8.29(0.40) | 0.18±0.30a | 31(3.75) | 30(1.89) | 13.09(0.65) | 0.17±0.27a | |||
| 合计Total | 1 248(100) | 1 738(100) | 4 156.14(100) | 2.97±1.04a | 836(100) | 1 778(100) | 2 086.21(100) | 2.28±0.86ab | 827(100) | 1 592(100) | 2 021.74(100) | 2.05±0.95b | |||
表4
树种多样性指标不同等级的种间竞争指数①"
| 树种多样性指标 Tree species diversity indices | 径级 Diameter class/cm | 低Low | 中Medium | 高High | |||||
| 种间竞争指数 Interspecific CI | 平均竞争指数 Average CI | 种间竞争指数 Interspecific CI | 平均竞争指数 Average CI | 种间竞争指数 Interspecific CI | 平均竞争指数 Average CI | ||||
| Patrick丰富度 Patrick richness | 5≤D<10 | 627.55(56.94) | 1.41±0.90a | 558.58(49.77) | 1.38±1.00a | 366.63(37.62) | 2.39±1.54a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 336.09(30.49) | 1.04±0.47a | 328.36(29.25) | 1.18±0.78a | 258.91(26.57) | 1.62±1.14a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 105.25(9.55) | 0.71±0.42b | 133.36(11.88) | 0.80±0.60ab | 176.00(18.06) | 1.37±1.04a | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 24.15(2.19) | 0.60±0.37a | 61.46(5.48) | 0.61±0.47a | 74.42(7.64) | 0.82±0.52a | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 3.87(0.35) | 0.12±0.27b | 28.45(2.53) | 0.77±1.12a | 57.62(5.91) | 0.83±0.53a | |||
| D≥30 | 5.26(0.48) | 0.48±1.15a | 12.23(1.09) | 0.26±0.37a | 40.91(4.20) | 0.66±0.58a | |||
| 合计Total | 1 102.17(100) | 1.07±0.55a | 1 122.44(100) | 1.09±0.59a | 974.49(100) | 1.47±0.45a | |||
| Shannon-Wiener多样性 Shannon-Wiener diversity | 5≤D<10 | 654.99(61.34) | 1.18±0.85b | 508.06(45.84) | 1.37±0.66b | 389.70(38.09) | 2.63±1.55a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 305.35(28.60) | 0.80±0.49b | 343.33(30.98) | 1.28±0.59ab | 274.68(26.85) | 1.77±1.12a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 77.93(7.29) | 0.47±0.36b | 159.81(14.42) | 0.97±0.48ab | 176.88(17.29) | 1.45±1.01a | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 19.60(1.84) | 0.37±0.37b | 58.96(5.32) | 0.74±0.39a | 81.47(7.96) | 0.92±0.46a | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 4.16(0.39) | 0.11±0.26b | 26.41(2.38) | 0.76±1.17a | 59.38(5.81) | 0.91±0.48a | |||
| D≥30 | 5.77(0.54) | 0.46±1.09a | 11.71(1.06) | 0.25±0.39a | 40.91(4.00) | 0.66±0.58a | |||
| 合计Total | 1 067.80(100) | 0.87±0.52b | 1 108.28(100) | 1.16±0.40b | 1 023.02(100) | 1.61±0.48a | |||
| Pielou均匀度 Pielou evenness | 5≤D<10 | 479.56(51.41) | 1.31±0.96a | 536.76(44.15) | 1.83±1.05a | 536.43(51.06) | 2.04±1.61a | ||
| 10≤D<15 | 259.59(27.83) | 0.73±0.71b | 369.14(30.36) | 1.69±0.62a | 294.63(28.05) | 1.42±0.97a | |||
| 15≤D<20 | 125.22(13.43) | 0.74±1.15a | 172.10(14.15) | 1.20±0.41a | 117.30(11.17) | 0.94±0.54a | |||
| 20≤D<25 | 34.29(3.68) | 0.33±0.39b | 82.86(6.81) | 0.84±0.39a | 42.89(4.08) | 0.86±0.41a | |||
| 25≤D<30 | 17.46(1.87) | 0.25±0.49b | 39.65(3.26) | 1.06±1.07a | 32.83(3.13) | 0.47±0.53ab | |||
| D≥30 | 16.60(1.78) | 0.35±0.54a | 15.38(1.27) | 0.35±0.44a | 26.41(2.51) | 0.67±1.10a | |||
| 合计Total | 932.72(100) | 0.87±0.54b | 1 215.89(100) | 1.49±0.43a | 1 050.49(100) | 1.27±0.52ab | |||
表5
树种多样性指标不同等级的胸径与竞争指数的拟合模型"
| 树种多样性指标Tree species diversity indices | 等级Grade | 类型Type | 公式Formula | R2 |
| Patrick丰富度 Patrick richness | 低Low | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=3.935x-0.961 | 0.193 |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=3.950x-1.009 | 0.225 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.082x-0.992 | 0.209 | ||
| 中Medium | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.694x-0.989 | 0.230 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=5.271x-1.092 | 0.322 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=5.259x-1.055 | 0.276 | ||
| 高High | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.218x-0.870 | 0.226 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=4.042x-0.995 | 0.283 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.935x-1.001 | 0.278 | ||
| Shannon-Wiener多样性 Shannon-Wiener diversity | 低Low | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.430x-1.009 | 0.218 |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=4.609x-1.066 | 0.243 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.549x-1.030 | 0.227 | ||
| 中Medium | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.562x-0.967 | 0.218 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=4.128x-1.015 | 0.287 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.820x-1.024 | 0.259 | ||
| 高High | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.288x-0.855 | 0.222 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=4.686x-1.040 | 0.294 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=5.316x-1.022 | 0.281 | ||
| Pielou均匀度 Pielou evenness | 低Low | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.053x-0.932 | 0.213 |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=3.678x-0.958 | 0.255 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.192x-0.961 | 0.234 | ||
| 中Medium | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=4.043x-0.903 | 0.201 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=0.880e-0.069x | 0.282 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.684x-1.000 | 0.259 | ||
| 高High | 种内竞争指数Intraspecific CI | y=2.970x-0.821 | 0.181 | |
| 种间竞争指数Interspecific CI | y=4.520x-1.066 | 0.333 | ||
| 总竞争指数Total CI | y=4.025x-0.982 | 0.271 |
| 艾萨迪拉·玉苏甫, 玉米提·哈力克, 巴比尔江·迪力夏提, 等. 基于激光雷达数据的塔里木河下游胡杨种群空间分布格局和种内竞争关系. 林业科学, 2024, 60 (4): 31- 39. | |
| Asadilla Y, Umut H, Babierjiang D, et al. Spatial distribution pattern and intraspecific competition of Populus euphratica population in the lower reaches of the Tarim River based on LiDAR data. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2024, 60 (4): 31- 39. | |
|
曹雨婷, 叶生晶, 张 超, 等. 大同山杉木人工林林分空间结构与种内竞争关系. 东北林业大学学报, 2024, 52 (5): 8- 12, 18.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2024.05.002 |
|
|
Cao Y T, Ye S J, Zhang C, et al. Spatial structure of forest stand and intra-specific competition in the Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation in Datong mountain. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2024, 52 (5): 8- 12, 18.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2024.05.002 |
|
| 陈 诗, 海 鑫, 史训旺, 等. 宝天曼马尾松和槲栎混交林的竞争关系分析. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 2018, 38 (2): 10- 15. | |
| Chen S, Hai X, Shi X W, et al. The competitive relationship of Pinus massoniana and Quercus aliena mixed forest in Baotianman National Nature Reserve. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (Natural Sciences), 2018, 38 (2): 10- 15. | |
|
陈永刚, 汤孟平, 杨春菊, 等. 天然毛竹林竞争空间关系分析. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39 (7): 726- 735.
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0069 |
|
|
Chen Y G, Tang M P, Yang C J, et al. Spatial analysis of competition in natural Phyllostachys edulis community. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2015, 39 (7): 726- 735.
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0069 |
|
| 方 坚, 王孝安, 郭 华, 等. 黄土高原马栏林区辽东栎林种内、种间竞争研究. 西北植物学报, 2007, 27 (2): 334- 339. | |
| Fang J, Wang X A, Guo H, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition of Quercus liaotungensis in Malan Forest Rregion of Loess Plateau. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2007, 27 (2): 334- 339. | |
| 付梦瑶, 崔秋芳, 吴 明, 等. 松栎混交林中马尾松的种内种间竞争. 河南农业大学学报, 2016, 50 (3): 311- 317. | |
| Fu M Y, Cui Q F, Wu M, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition of Pinus massoniana and Quercus acutissima mixed artificial forest. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 2016, 50 (3): 311- 317. | |
| 郝月兰, 张会儒, 唐守正. 2011. Voronoi图方法确定云冷杉林最近邻木的适用性研究. 林业资源管理 (6): 59-64. | |
| Hao Y L, Zhang H R, Tang S Z. 2011. Study on the adaptability of Voronoi diagram on determining the nearest neighboring trees of natural mixed Spruce-fir forests. Forest Resources Management, (6): 59-64. [in Chinese] | |
| 李志洪, 胡淑仪, 李 伟, 等. 粤东北马尾松−木荷混交林种内种间竞争强度分析. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2013, 33 (8): 91- 95. | |
| Li Z H, Hu S Y, Li W, et al. Intra-specific and inter-specific competitions among major trees species in Pinus massoniana and Schima superba mixed forest in northeastern Guangdong Province. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2013, 33 (8): 91- 95. | |
|
林 晗, 吴承祯, 陈 辉, 等. 杉木−千年桐人工混交林种内种间竞争关系分析. 福建林学院学报, 2014, 34 (4): 316- 321.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2014.04.005 |
|
|
Lin H, Wu C Z, Chen H, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition in the mixed stands of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Aleurites montana. Journal of Fujian College of Forestry, 2014, 34 (4): 316- 321.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2014.04.005 |
|
|
刘淑燕, 余新晓, 陈丽华, 等. 松山自然保护区辽东栎群落种内、种间竞争关系. 水土保持通报, 2009, 29 (6): 91- 94.
doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2009.06.006 |
|
|
Liu S Y, Yu X X, Chen L H, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition of Quercus liaotungensis community in Songshan Nature Reserve. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009, 29 (6): 91- 94.
doi: 10.13961/j.cnki.stbctb.2009.06.006 |
|
|
刘万生, 李 想, 陈福元, 等. 蒙古栎林种内和种间竞争研究. 植物研究, 2020, 40 (4): 552- 558.
doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2020.04.009 |
|
|
Liu W S, Li X, Chen F Y, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition of Quercus mongolica forest. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2020, 40 (4): 552- 558.
doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2020.04.009 |
|
|
潘 萍, 韩天一, 欧阳勋志, 等. 飞播马尾松林碳密度分配特征及其影响因素. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28 (12): 3841- 3847.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201712.001 |
|
|
Pan P, Han T Y, Ouyang X Z, et al. Carbon density distribution characteristics and influencing factors in aerially seeded Pinus massoniana plantations. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017, 28 (12): 3841- 3847.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201712.001 |
|
|
冉松松, 余再鹏, 万晓华, 等. 邻域树种多样性对杉木叶片氮磷生态化学计量比的影响. 植物生态学报, 2023, 47 (7): 932- 942.
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2022.0128 |
|
|
Ran S S, Yu Z P, Wan X H, et al. Effects of neighborhood tree species diversity on foliar nitrogen-phosphorus stoichiometry of Cunninghamia lanceolata. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2023, 47 (7): 932- 942.
doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2022.0128 |
|
| 沈琛琛, 雷相东, 王福有, 等. 金苍林场蒙古栎天然中龄林竞争关系研究. 林业科学研究, 2012, 25 (3): 339- 345. | |
| Shen C C, Lei X D, Wang F Y, et al. Competitive states in natural middle-aged forest of Mongolian oak at Jincang Forest Farm. Forest Research, 2012, 25 (3): 339- 345. | |
|
孙千惠, 吴 霞, 姚小兰, 等. 林分密度对生态公益林群落结构和物种多样性的影响: 以新津文峰山马尾松为例. 四川农业大学学报, 2018, 36 (3): 315- 322.
doi: 10.16036/j.issn.1000-2650.2018.03.007 |
|
|
Sun Q H, Wu X, Yao X L, et al. Effects of stand density on community structure and species diversity of ecological non-commercial forest—a case study on Pinus massoniana in Wenfeng Mountain, Xinjin district, Sichuan Province. Journal of Sichuan Agricultural University, 2018, 36 (3): 315- 322.
doi: 10.16036/j.issn.1000-2650.2018.03.007 |
|
|
汪 清, 潘 萍, 欧阳勋志, 等. 马尾松-木荷不同比例混交林种内和种间竞争强度. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40 (1): 49- 57.
doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202101.016 |
|
|
Wang Q, Pan P, Ouyang X Z, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competition intensity in mixed plantation with different proportion of Pinus massoniana and Schima superba. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2021, 40 (1): 49- 57.
doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202101.016 |
|
|
温 馨, 王天罡, 程小琴. 山西太岳山不同径级油松种内竞争与叶功能性状. 生态学报, 2024, 44 (22): 10300- 10308.
doi: 10.20103/j.stxb.202404210885 |
|
|
Wen X, Wang T G, Cheng X Q. The intraspecious competition and leaf functional traits of Pinus tabulaeformis with different diameter classes in Taiyue Mountain, Shanxi Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2024, 44 (22): 10300- 10308.
doi: 10.20103/j.stxb.202404210885 |
|
|
邢海涛, 陆元昌, 刘宪钊, 等. 基于近自然改造的马尾松林分竞争强度研究. 北京林业大学学报, 2016, 38 (9): 42- 54.
doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20160023 |
|
|
Xing H T, Lu Y C, Liu X Z, et al. Competition intensity of Pinus massoniana stand based on close-to-nature management. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2016, 38 (9): 42- 54.
doi: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20160023 |
|
| 姚慧芳, 卢 杰, 曾加芹, 等. 藏东南川滇高山栎天然林的种内与种间竞争指数的海拔差异. 林业科学, 2022, 58 (8): 53- 62. | |
| Yao H F, Lu J, Zeng J Q, et al. Altitudinal differences in intraspecific and interspecific competition index of natural forests of Quercus aquifolioides in southeast Tibet. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58 (8): 53- 62. | |
| 殷鸣放, 薛 娟, 宁良智, 等. 基于近自然林业经营的不同密度林木竞争关系比较分析. 西北林学院学报, 2013, 28 (5): 149- 153,199. | |
| Yin M F, Xue J, Ning L Z, et al. Comparative study on competition relationship of the forests with different densities based on near-nature forestry management. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2013, 28 (5): 149- 153,199. | |
| 张 浩, 刘万生, 王彦琦, 等. 东北三大硬阔种内和种间竞争关系. 植物研究, 2024, 44 (6): 870- 878. | |
| Zhang H, Liu W S, Wang Y Q, et al. Intraspecific and interspecific competitions of the three hardwood tree species in northeast China. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2024, 44 (6): 870- 878. | |
| Bai J L, Ren C Y, Shi X Y, et al. Tree species diversity impacts on ecosystem services of temperate forests. Ecological Indicators, 2024, 167, 112639. | |
| Bolnick D I, Ingram T, Stutz W E, et al. Ecological release from interspecific competition leads to decoupled changes in population and individual niche width. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2010, 277 (1689): 1789- 1797. | |
| Cadotte M, Albert C H, Walker S C. The ecology of differences: assessing community assembly with trait and evolutionary distances. Ecology Letters, 2013, 16 (10): 1234- 1244. | |
| Guo Q X, Zhang Y B, Wang D L, et al. Influence of soil qualities on intra- and interspecific competition dynamics of Larix kaempferi and L. olgensis. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2017, 135, 96- 105. | |
| Hegyi F. A simulation model for managing jack-pine standssimulation. Royal College of Forestry Resreach, 1974, 30, 74- 90. | |
| Holden E M, Cahill J F Jr. Plant trait dissimilarity increases competitive interactions among co-occurring plants. Functional Ecology, 2024, 38 (7): 1464- 1474. | |
| Kahriman A, Şahin A, Sönmez T, et al. A novel approach to selecting a competition index: the effect of competition on individual-tree diameter growth of Calabrian pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2018, 48 (10): 1217- 1226. | |
| Kraft N J B, Crutsinger G M, Forrestel E J, et al. Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: an experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos, 2014, 123 (11): 1391- 1399. | |
| Li Q, Liang Y, Tong B, et al. Compensatory effects between Pinus massoniana and broadleaved tree species. Journal of Plant Ecology, 2010, 3 (3): 183- 189. | |
| Pan P, Sun Y J, Ouyang X Z, et al. Factors affecting spatial variation in vegetation carbon density in Pinus massoniana Lamb. forest in subtropical China. Forests, 2019, 10 (10): 880. | |
| Radtke P J, Burkhart H E. A comparison of methods for edge-bias compensation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1998, 28 (6): 942- 945. | |
| Wen L, Lei P F, Xiang W H, et al. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in pure and mixed stands of Pinus massoniana and Cinnamomum camphora differing in stand age. Forest Ecology and Management, 2014, 328, 150- 158. |
| [1] | 高文强,雷相东,何潇,李玉堂. 东北温带森林类型和发育阶段的树种多样性−地上生物量关系分异性[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(4): 55-67. |
| [2] | 毛慧,赵飞飞,李杰,张春雨. 东北中温带森林树种多样性和环境因子对土壤多功能性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(2): 40-52. |
| [3] | 尹海锋,刘思泽,曾杰,苏宇,余安卫,李贤伟. 林窗改造下马尾松根系分解与土壤线虫功能群的互馈作用[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(2): 85-96. |
| [4] | 刘世荣,陈远其,聂秀青,明安刚,王晖. 树种多样性对森林生态系统多功能性和韧性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(1): 1-18. |
| [5] | 胡建文,刘常富,勾蒙蒙,雷蕾,陈会玲,张佳佳,朱粟锋,斛如媛,肖文发. 马尾松人工林土壤有机碳及其组分对林龄的响应及驱动因素[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(6): 75-84. |
| [6] | 王胤,姚瑞玲,肖玉菲. PBZ/DPC处理对马尾松扦插生根及GAs代谢的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(3): 147-157. |
| [7] | 朱粟锋,勾蒙蒙,赵海平,刘常富,简尊吉,朱建华,肖文发. 基于CBM-CFS3模型的不同采伐情景下马尾松人工林生态系统碳动态[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(12): 24-33. |
| [8] | 舒韦维,明安刚,杨坤,李华,闵惠琳,陶怡,李忠国,韦菊玲,刘世荣. 近自然化改造对马尾松和杉木人工林土壤有机碳化学稳定性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(11): 1-13. |
| [9] | 张时馨,耿阳阳,周汀,王纪辉,胡伯凯,刘亚娜. 橙黄乳菇对马尾松和华山松幼苗生长及根系代谢物的调控[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(9): 50-58. |
| [10] | 都亚敏,李珠,蒋佳荔,殷方宇,吕建雄. 吸湿解吸循环过程中木材水分吸附特性[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(9): 150-158. |
| [11] | 沈熙为,曾彬,葛梦婷,王敬贤. 基于GC-MS-O技术的景观设计用马尾松木材气味化合物分析[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(9): 159-169. |
| [12] | 陈炳楠,杨风亭,孟盛旺,戴晓琴,寇亮,陈奕帆,王辉民,付晓莉. 红壤丘陵区马尾松林和湿地松林物候特征的时空变异及影响因素[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(8): 67-78. |
| [13] | 李媛,李珠,都亚敏,蒋佳荔. 水热环境中马尾松早材和晚材的轴向拉伸力学行为[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(8): 184-192. |
| [14] | 刘澳,王嘉铮,卢思航,雷菲娅,宁宏涛,腾渝,李守中. 长汀生态恢复区不同混交比例针阔混交林内马尾松种群动态及其驱动机制[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(5): 89-97. |
| [15] | 艾萨迪拉·玉苏甫,玉米提·哈力克,巴比尔江·迪力夏提,雷诚,魏建新,阿不都拉·阿不力孜,崔健泺,何熙祥. 基于激光雷达数据的塔里木河下游胡杨种群空间分布格局和种内竞争关系[J]. 林业科学, 2024, 60(4): 31-39. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||