粤北地区典型人工林林下森林可燃物的特征研究

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2022.04.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

森林可燃物是发生森林火灾的重要物质基础,研究其特征对预研森林火灾发展规律具有重要作用。以粤北地区的5种典型森林(桉树林、马尾松林、杉木林、毛竹林和木荷林)为研究对象,测定了森林的灌木(Ⅰ)、草本(Ⅱ)、腐殖质(Ⅲ)和枯落物Ⅳ(d<0.6cm)、Ⅴ(0.6cm≤d<2.5cm)和Ⅵ(2.5cm≤d<7.62cm)的可燃性指标(干鲜比、平衡含水率、燃点和热值),分析可燃性指标间的差异及其关系,初步评价森林的可燃性。研究结果表明,可燃物的干鲜比位于41.88%~85.99%,枯落物Ⅴ最大,且不同可燃物类型间具有极显著的差异(P<0.01)。5种林分类型的腐殖质层(Ⅲ)、枯落物Ⅳ、Ⅴ和Ⅵ平衡含水率变幅分别为4.77%~5.01%,6.86%~7.27%,8.26%~9.64%和9.94%~10.58%;枯落物的平衡含水率随直径增大而升高,枯落物Ⅵ的平衡含水率显著高于Ⅲ(P<0.01)。腐殖质和枯落物的燃点分别为264.67~271.00℃和248.00~255.17℃,热值则分别达8.47~11.50kJ/g和16.11~17.92kJ/g;腐殖质的燃点显著高于枯落物(P<0.01),热值则与之相反。Person相关分析表明,所有可燃物的干鲜比之间具有正向共性,即两两之间干鲜比正相关;平衡含水率对燃点的影响大于干鲜比。5种森林的抗火性强度分成3类,第1类为木荷林,抗火性强林分,第2类是毛竹林,为抗火性中等林分,第3类包括马尾松、杉木和桉树林,为相对易燃林分。

关键词: 典型人工林, 森林可燃物, 可燃物特性, 熵权法

Abstract:

Forest fuels,as the essential material for forest burning,constitute the main body of forest fire behavior.The physicochemical characteristics of forest fuels play an important role in forest fire prevention and fighting.The flammability indexes,including dry-to-fresh quality ratio,equilibrium moisture content,ignition point,calorific value,of shrubs (I),herbs (II),humus (III)and litter IV (d<0.6cm),V (0.6cm≤d<2.5cm)and VI (2.5cm≤d<7.62cm)were determined in five types of plantations (Eucalyptus robusta,Pinus massoniana,Cunninghamia lanceolata,Phyllostachys pubescens,Schima superba)in northern Guangdong Province.The flammability indexes of difference and relationship between different typical forests were analyzed to evaluate the flammability of five types of forest.The results showed that the dry-to-fresh quality ratio of forest fuels were from 41.88% to 85.99%,and the litter V had the highest dry-to-fresh quality ratio among all typical fuels.Moreover,there were significant differences between different typical forest fuels (P<0.01).The content of equilibrium moisture of humus (III)and litter IV,V and VI in five typical forests were 4.77%~5.01%,6.86%~7.27%,8.26%~9.64%,9.94%~10.58%,respectively.The content of equilibrium moisture of litter increased with the increase of diameter,and the content of equilibrium moisture of litter VI was significantly higher than III (P<0.01).The range of ignition points of humus and litter were 264.67~271.00℃ and 248.00~255.17℃,respectively.Moreover,the range of calorific values were 8.47~11.50kJ/g and 16.11~17.92kJ/g,respectively.And the ignition point of humus was significantly higher than litter (P<0.01).Conversely,the calorific value of litter was higher than humus.Person correlation analysis showed that there had a positive commonality between the dry-to-fresh quality ratios of all fuels.Namely,the dry-to-fresh quality ratios were positively correlated between different typical forests.The impact of the equilibrium moisture on the ignition point was greater than dry-to-fresh quality ratio.The fire resistance strength of five plantations was divided into 3 categories,the first group was Schima superba forest with strong fire resistance.The Phyllostachys pubescens forest with medium fire resistance was followed.The third group,including Eucalyptus robusta forest,Pinus massoniana forest and Cunninghamia lanceolate forest,were relatively flammable forests.

Key words: typical plantations, forest fuel, physicochemical characteristics of forest fuels, the entropy weight method

中图分类号:

S762.1

付志高, 王志龙, 肖以华, 许涵, 史欣. 粤北地区典型人工林林下森林可燃物的特征研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2022, 0(4): 61-71.

FU Zhigao, WANG Zhilong, XIAO Yihua, XU Han, SHI Xin. Characteristics of Understory Forest Fuels in Typical Plantations in Northern Guangdong Province[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2022, 0(4): 61-71.

图/表 9

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表2

图6

图7

参考文献 35

[1]	袁协尚. 森林可燃物上坡地表火蔓延的模型与实验研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学技术大学, 2020.
[2]	李颖, 严思晓, 张秀芳, 等. 武夷山国家公园内4种森林类型地表可燃物热值特征比较[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2020, 26(6):1385-1391.
[3]	Flannigan M D, Stocks B J, Wotton B M. Climate change and forest fires[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2000, 262(3):221-229. pmid: 11087028
[4]	孙龙, 刘祺, 胡同欣. 森林地表死可燃物含水率预测模型研究进展[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(4):142-152.
[5]	Lazaridis M, Latos M, Aleksandropoulou V, et al. Contribution of forest fire emissions to atmospheric pollution in Greece[J]. Air Quality,Atmosphere & amp;Health, 2008, 1(3):143-158.
[6]	李昱烨. 森林可燃物含水率模型的研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2010.
[7]	胡海清, 罗碧珍, 罗斯生, 等. 大兴安岭南瓮河落叶松—白桦混交林地表可燃物含水率[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(5):1314-1321.
[8]	常畅, 常禹, 胡远满, 等. 森林和草原可燃物含水率研究的文献计量分析[J]. 生态学报, 2022(4):1-10.
[9]	冯小兵, 曾宇怀, 吴泽鹏, 等. 基于卫星多光谱的广东亚热带森林FMC遥感反演[J]. 电子科技大学学报, 2022, 51(3):432-437.
[10]	李晓彤, 覃先林, 刘倩, 等. 基于AISA Eagle Ⅱ机载高光谱数据的森林可燃物类型识别方法[J]. 遥感技术与应用, 2021, 36(3):544-551.
[11]	Wendel G W. Fuel weights of pond pine crowns[R]. California:USDA Forest service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Note, 1960.
[12]	Brown J K. Estimating crown fuel weights of red pine and jaek pine[M]. London: Forgotter Books, 2017.
[13]	Deeming J E. National fire-danger rating system[R]. Washington,D C:Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,Forest Service,US Department of Agriculture, 1972.
[14]	Bradshaw L S. The 1978 national fire-danger rating system:technical documentation[R]. Utah:US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1984.
[15]	Van W C E, Forest P. Development and structure of the Canadian forest fire weather index system,forestry technical report 35[R]. Ottawa:Canadian Forestry Service, 1987.
[16]	Bilgili E, Coskuner K A, Usta Y, et al. Modeling surface fuels moisture content in Pinus brutia stands[J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 2018, 30(2):577-587. doi: 10.1007/s11676-018-0702-x
[17]	Lee H, Won M, Yoon S, et al. Estimation of 10-hour fuel moisture content using meteorological data:a model inter-comparison study[J]. Forests, 2020, 11(9):982. doi: 10.3390/f11090982
[18]	Baranovskiy N.V, Kirienko V.A. Mathematical simulation of forest fuel pyrolysis and crown forest fire impact for forest fire danger and risk assessment[J]. Processes, 2022, 10(3),483. doi: 10.3390/pr10030483
[19]	王秋华, 张文文, 缪秀丽, 等. 昆明周边4种主要林型地表可燃物的火焰特征[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2021, 40(7):1082-1085.
[20]	云丽丽, 王睿照, 刘晗琪, 等. 4种主要林型可燃物载量及其燃烧性研究[J]. 辽宁林业科技, 2021(5):26-30.
[21]	张今奇, 周梅, 赵鹏武, 等. 内蒙古毕拉河林区地表死可燃物热解特性[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2021, 40(10):1521-1524.
[22]	陈敏斯, 杜建华, 王薇, 等. 八达岭林场油松林冠层可燃物特征及潜在火行为[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2022, 44(3):55-64.
[23]	满子源. 江西南昌森林可燃物含水率动态变化及湿度码适用性研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2020.
[24]	杨加志, 张红爱, 严玉莲, 等. 基于森林资源连续清查的广东省人工林资源动态分析[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2019, 35(2):95-99.
[25]	岳超, 罗彩访, 舒立福, 等. 全球变化背景下野火研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(2):385-401.
[26]	范雪军. 基于分等核算模型的始兴县耕地质量监测研究[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2021.
[27]	宋巧娣. 泰山森林可燃物分布及火险等级的划分[D]. 济南: 山东农业大学, 2021.
[28]	庞世龙, 凌福诚, 侯远瑞, 等. 基于熵权灰色关联分析的喀斯特石漠化地区植被恢复效应评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(5):70-78.
[29]	韩汉鹏. 试验统计引论[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2006:93-98.
[30]	曾素平, 刘发林, 赵梅芳, 等. 我国亚热带典型树种抗火性状随林龄和器官的变异[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(4):1063-1072. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202004.008
[31]	梁瀛, 张思玉, 努尔古丽, 等. 天山中部林区主要树种理化性质及燃烧性分析[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(12):101-105.
[32]	韩岳宏, 王月, 高国平. 5种林型地表细小可燃物组成对平衡含水率和时滞的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2018, 46(11):62-65.
[33]	王婕. 安宁地区主要树种死可燃物含水率及火险等级研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2018.
[34]	刘三章, 王立中, 赵希宽. 南瓮河自然保护区森林枯落物含水率的变化规律[J]. 防护林科技, 2014(2):12-13.
[35]	王明霞, 单延龙, 尹赛男, 等. 11种树种的树皮抗火性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(1):65-71. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202001.020

类别		桉树林	马尾松林	杉木林	毛竹林	木荷林
平均胸径/cm		9.2	14.1	10.2	7.5	12.2
平均树高/m		13.4	13.8	11.6	10.5	14.4
群落优势种	乔木层	桉树(Eucalyptus robusta)	马尾松(Pinus ma-ssoniana)	杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)	毛竹(Phyllostachys pubescens)	木荷(Schima superba)
	灌木层	阴香(Cinnamomum burmannii)、八角(Illicium verum)、桃金娘(Rhod-omyrtus tomentosa)	山茶(Camellia japonica)、桃金娘(Rhodomyrtus tom-entosa)	木荷(Schima superba)、黧蒴(Castanopsis fissa)、三桠苦(Melicope pteleifolia)	深山含笑(Michelia maudiae)、鼠刺(Itea chinensis)	山乌桕(Sapium disco-lor)、红背山毛杆(Alchornea trewioides)、密花树(Myrsine seguinii)
	草本层	芒萁(Dicranopteris dichotoma)、斑茅(Saccharum arundinaceum)	芒萁(Dicranopteris dichotoma)	乌毛蕨(Blechnum orientale)、芒萁(Dicranopteris dichotoma)	芒萁(Dicranopteris dichotoma)	芒萁(Dicranopteris dichotoma)、圣蕨(Diety-ocline griffithii)
土壤类型		山地黄壤	山地黄红壤	山地黄壤	山地黄壤	山地黄红壤
坡度/(°)		30~45	25~45	20~30	15~20	15~35
郁闭度		0.75~0.90	0.70~0.85	0.70~0.90	0.70~0.85	0.80~0.95
龄组		中龄	中龄	中龄	中龄	中龄
密度/(株/hm²)		1925	955	1328	827	1896

森林类型	干鲜比/%						燃点/℃		热值/(kJ/g)		平衡含水率/%				最终得分
森林类型	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ	Ⅵ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ	Ⅵ	最终得分
桉树(Eucalyptus robusta)	0.169	0.223	0.158	0.212	0.177	0.173	0.113	0.206	0.187	0.085	0.111	0.166	0.077	0.247		2.304
马尾松(Pinus massoniana)	0.180	0.183	0.154	0.219	0.226	0.250	0.085	0.180	0.284	0.073	0.109	0.169	0.100	0.244		2.456
杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)	0.132	0.130	0.226	0.248	0.177	0.243	0.094	0.159	0.192	0.085	0.119	0.188	0.106	0.207		2.306
毛竹(Phyllostachys pubescens)	0.196	0.257	0.229	0.392	0.208	0.189	0.087	0.222	0.175	0.113	0.113	0.173	0.109	0.184		2.647
木荷(Schima superba)	0.205	0.250	0.264	0.399	0.290	0.447	0.097	0.247	0.188	0.100	0.108	0.187	0.096	0.195		3.073