马尾松间伐强度对林下套种格木和木荷存活的影响

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.06.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以马尾松纯林为对象,在浙江省慈溪市林场设置4种不同间伐强度(T0:0%,T1:25%,T2:45%,T3:65%)的实验样地,间伐后套种木荷和格木2种阔叶树,对其存活率进行为期11年的长期监测。结果表明:木荷存活率在中度间伐下最高,格木存活率在生长前期以轻度间伐下最高,成林之后以中度间伐下最高,总体上2个套种树种均以中度间伐下的存活率最高。格木比木荷更适合在不间伐和轻度间伐下生存,木荷比格木更适应重度间伐下的环境,中度间伐更能创造适宜木荷和格木共同生长的条件。2个套种阔叶树种的存活率在不同间伐强度下存在显著差异(P<0.05)最早出现在种植后第2年,不同阔叶树种的生存会因环境条件的变化和自身树种特性存在差异。在纯林混交化改造中,中度间伐(约45%)可以提高林下套种林木的存活率。

关键词: 人工纯林, 间伐影响, 混交化改造, 套种阔叶树, 存活率

Abstract:

Two kinds of artificial replanting broadleaved tree specieswere used as the research objects to study the survival of replanting tree species under Pinus massoniana plantation after four thinning intensities (T0:0%,T1:25%,T2:45%,T3:65%),which had been monitored for 11 years. The results showed that the survival rate of Schima superba was the highest under moderate thinning,and the survival rate of Erythrophleumfordii was the highest under light thinning in the early growth stage,and then the survival rate would be the highest under moderate thinning after forest formation. In general,the survival rates of the two interplanting tree species were the highest under moderate thinning. Erythrophleumfordii was more suitable for survival under non-thinning and light thinning than Schima superba. Schima superba was more adaptable to the environment under heavy thinning than Erythrophleumfordii,and moderate thinning can create conditions suitable for the co-growth of Schima superba and Erythrophleumfordii. The survival rates of the two interplanting broadleaved tree species were significantly different under different thinning intensities (P<0.05),which started to appear in the second year after planting. The survival of different broadleaved trees will vary due to changes in environmental conditions and the characteristics of their own tree species. Therefore,in pure forest mixed transformation,moderate thinning (45%) can improve the survival rate of interplanting trees.

Key words: pure plantations, thinning effects, mixed transformation, interplanting broadleaved tree, survival rate

中图分类号:

左宗贵, 左松源. 马尾松间伐强度对林下套种格木和木荷存活的影响[J]. 林业资源管理, 2021, 0(6): 111-117.

ZUO Zonggui, ZUO Songyuan. Thinning Effects on the Survival of Interplanting Trees Under Pinus massoniana Plantation[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2021, 0(6): 111-117.

图/表 4

图1

图2

表1

表2

参考文献 18

[1]	Keenan R J, Reams G A, Achard F, et al. Dynamics of global forest area:Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2015, 352:9-20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.014
[2]	Lamb D, Erskine P D, Parrotta J A. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes[J]. Science, 2005, 310(5754):1628-1632. doi: 10.1126/science.1111773
[3]	陈幸良, 巨茜, 林昆仑. 中国人工林发展现状问题与对策[J]. 世界林业研究, 2014, 27(6):54-59.
[4]	Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Río M D. Dynamics silviculture and management of mixed forests[M]. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018:1-25.
[5]	Zhang Hui, Wang Yixiang. Thinning and species mixing in Chinese fir monocultures improve carbon sequestration in subtropical China[J]. European Journal of Forest Research, 2019, 138(3):433-443. doi: 10.1007/s10342-019-01181-7
[6]	陆元昌. 近自然森林经营的理论与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2006.
[7]	何友均, 梁星云, 覃林, 等. 南亚热带人工针叶纯林近自然改造早期对群落特征和土壤性质的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(8):2484-2495.
[8]	朱宏光, 陆晓明, 温远光, 等. 马尾松人工林近自然化改造对林分生长的影响[J]. 广西科学, 2014, 21(5):477-483.
[9]	孙冬婧, 温远光, 罗应华, 等. 近自然化改造对杉木人工林物种多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 2015, 28(2):202-208.
[10]	Chauvat M, Titsch D, Zaytsev A S, et al. Changes in soil faunal assemblages during conversion from pure to mixed forest stands[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2011, 262(3):317-324. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.037
[11]	Keskitalo E C H. How can forest management adapt to climate change? possibilities in different forestry systems[J]. Forests, 2011, 2(1):415-430. doi: 10.3390/f2010415
[12]	陈贝贝, 姜俊, 陆元昌, 等. 间伐强度对马尾松人工林冠下套种树种生长的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2021, 43(1):58-65.
[13]	Deng Cheng, Zhang Shougong, Lu Yuanchang, et al. Thinning effects on forest evolution in masson pine(Pinus massoniana Lamb.)conversion from pure plantations into mixed forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, https://doi.org/10.106/j.foreco.2020.118503 .
[14]	周志春, 徐高福, 金国庆, 等. 择伐经营后马尾松次生林阔叶树的生长与群落恢复[J]. 林业科学研究, 2004(4):420-426.
[15]	Chen Xinli, Wang Dong, Chen Xin, et al. Soil microbial functional diversity and biomass as affected by different thinning intensities in a Chinese fir plantation[J]. Applied Soil Ecology, 2015, 92:35-44. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.01.018
[16]	Kuang Yuanwen, Wen Dazhi, Zhou Guoyi, et al. Reconstruction of soil pH by dendrochemistry of masson pine at two forested sites in the Pearl River Delta,South China[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2008, 65(8):804p1-804p7.
[17]	曾冀. 广西大青山杉木马尾松人工林近自然化改造试验研究[D]. 北京:中国林业科学研究院, 2017.
[18]	Goldberg D, Miller T E. Effects of different resource additions of species diversity in an annual plant community[J]. Ecology, 1990, 71(1):213-225. doi: 10.2307/1940261

树种	年度	平方和		自由度		均方	F值	显著性
木荷	2009	6.17		3		2.06	0.78	0.53
	2011	123.62		3		41.21	4.15	0.03
	2013	337.55		3		112.52	7.44	0.00
	2015	757.46		3		252.49	15.93	0.00
	2017	1048.42		3		349.47	20.18	0.00
	2019	792.39		3		264.13	85.55	0.00
树种	年度	平方和	自由度		均方		F值	显著性
格木	2009	9.63	3		3.21		0.76	0.54
	2011	313.24	3		104.41		4.49	0.03
	2013	514.53	3		171.51		8.81	0.00
	2015	600.25	3		200.08		13.20	0.00
	2017	933.48	3		311.16		57.68	0.00
	2019	400.03	3		133.34		20.37	0.00

木荷				格木
年度	间伐强度1	间伐强度2	显著性	年度	间伐强度1	间伐强度2	显著性
2011	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.03	2011	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.05
2013	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00	2013	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.03
2015	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.03	2013	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00
2015	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00	2013	中度间伐T2	重度间伐T3	0.02
2015	未间伐T0	中度间伐T3	0.00	2015	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.01
2015	轻度间伐T1	中度间伐T2	0.02	2015	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00
2017	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.02	2015	中度间伐T2	重度间伐T3	0.01
2017	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00	2017	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.00
2017	未间伐T0	中度间伐T3	0.00	2017	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00
2017	轻度间伐T1	中度间伐T2	0.01	2017	未间伐T0	重度间伐T3	0.01
2019	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.00	2017	轻度间伐T1	重度间伐T3	0.00
2019	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00	2017	中度间伐T2	重度间伐T3	0.00
2019	未间伐T0	中度间伐T3	0.00	2019	未间伐T0	轻度间伐T1	0.02
2019	轻度间伐T1	中度间伐T2	0.00	2019	未间伐T0	中度间伐T2	0.00
2019	轻度间伐T1	中度间伐T3	0.04	2019	未间伐T0	重度间伐T3	0.01
2019	中度间伐T2	重度间伐T3	0.00	2019	轻度间伐T1	中度间伐T2	0.01
				2019	中度间伐T2	重度间伐T3	0.02