Analysis on the Competitive Status of Cyclobalanopsis glaucaSecondary Forest Based on the Improved Hegyi Model

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2018.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

The study was based on 12 fixed sample plots of Cyclobalanopsis glauca secondary forest in Loutu Forest Farm,Pingjiang County,Hunan Province.The methods of fixed radius,crown overlap and single wood influence circle were used for analysis of the competition status of Cyclobalanopsis glauca, the Hegyi competition index was improved by using the ratio of height between object wood and competitive wood.Results showed that the greater the diameter of Cyclobalanopsis glauca,the greater the scope of influence and competition.The free tree crown model was:CW=0.1773+0.2799×D,and the diameter and canopy size was positively related.The relative size of the three categories of competition indexes was Hegyi-improvement model > Bella competition index > Hegyi competition index.The results showd that the competitive index included diameter ratio,height ratio and distance and could accurately reflect the competition status of Cyclobalanopsis glauca secondary forest.

Key words: Hegyi competition index, free tree, height ratio, competitive wood, Cyclobalanopsis glauca secondary forest

CLC Number:

S718.5

LONG Shisheng, ZENG Siqi, XIAO Huashun, LIU Falin, HU Man. Analysis on the Competitive Status of Cyclobalanopsis glaucaSecondary Forest Based on the Improved Hegyi Model[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2018, 0(1): 50-56.

Figures/Tables 9

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.2

Tab.5

Tab.4

Fig.3

Fig.4

References 15

[1]	汪金松, 范秀华, 范娟, 等. 林木竞争对臭冷杉生物量分配的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2012,48(4):14-20.
[2]	吕飞舟, 李新建, 冯强, 等. 蒙古栎次生林林木竞争压力指数研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2015(2):71-76.
[3]	黄新峰, 亢新刚, 杨华, 等. 5个林木竞争指数模型的比较[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2012,40(7):127-134.
[4]	Hegyi F. A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands[C]// Fries J.Growth models for tree and stand simulation.Stockholm,Sweden:Royal College of Forestry, 1974: 74-90.
[5]	Bella , I.E . A new competition model for individual trees[J]. For.Sci. 1971,17(3):364-372.
[6]	第八次全国森林资源清查结果[J]. 林业资源管理, 2014(1):1-2.
[7]	孜来比·买木提名, 杨华, 赵广亮, 等. 单木竞争指标的研究进展[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2012,27(6):152-158.
[8]	Martin G L, Ekar . A comparison of competition measure and growth models for predicting plantation red pine diameter and height growth[J]. Forest Scinece, 1984,30:731-743.
[9]	张跃西. 邻体干扰模型的改进及其在营林中的应用[J]. 植物生态学与地植物学学报, 1993(4):352-357.
[10]	洪伟, 吴承祯. 邻体干扰指数模型的改进及其应用研究[J]. 林业科学, 2001(S1):1-5.
[11]	吕勇, 钱升平, 吕飞舟, 等. 青冈栎次生林林木综合竞争压力指数研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017,37(10):1-6.
[12]	张鹏, 王新杰, 高志雄, 等. 将乐地区马尾松最优冠幅模型研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2015(4):94-98.
[13]	吕飞舟. 基于CSI的蒙古栎林木竞争与分级研究[D]. 长沙:中南林业科技大学, 2016.
[14]	张思玉, 郑世群. 笔架山常绿阔叶林优势种群种内种间竞争的数量研究[J]. 林业科学, 2001,37(S1):185-188.
[15]	Biging G S, Dobbertin M. Evaluation of competition indices in individual tree growth models[J]. Forest Science, 1995,41(2):360-377.

样地	地理因子					林分因子
样地	土壤	海拔/m	坡度/(°)	坡向	坡位	郁闭度	林分组成	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/cm
1	黄壤	324	42	阳坡	中	0.7	3青3杜2圆2甜	15.4	11.1
2	黄壤	340	47	阳坡	中	0.7	4青3杜2檵1杉	12.9	9.5
3	黄壤	312	32	阳坡	下	0.8	4青3杜2杉1甜	14.6	10
4	黄壤	310	45	阳坡	中	0.8	4青4杜1檵1橄	12.5	9.3
5	黄壤	330	30	阴坡	下	0.7	3青2甜2杉2杜1杨	14.9	9.7
6	黄壤	312	32	阳坡	下	0.7	4青3檵3杜	12.1	9.1
7	黄壤	315	33	阳坡	下	0.7	3青3拟3杜1杉	13.1	9
8	黄壤	320	35	阳坡	中	0.8	4青3圆3檵	15.1	8.8
9	黄壤	314	35	阴坡	中	0.7	4青2圆2杜1檵	14.3	11.3
10	黄壤	318	36	阴坡	上	0.7	5青3杜2拟	13.2	9.9
11	黄壤	302	15	阳坡	中	0.7	4青2拟2杉2檵	12.8	9.6
12	黄壤	305	30	阳坡	中	0.7	5青3杜2山	12.7	9.5

样地号	青冈栎株树/株	总株株树/株	青冈栎比例/%	对象木分布状况
样地号	青冈栎株树/株	总株株树/株	青冈栎比例/%	株树/株	比例/%	平均胸径/cm
1	25	93	26.9	15	16.1	15.2
2	29	84	34.5	22	26.2	12.4
3	24	71	33.8	15	21.1	15.8
4	27	65	41.5	15	23.1	12
5	23	89	25.8	18	20.2	15
6	32	82	39	12	14.6	10.7
7	20	76	26.3	11	14.5	14
8	21	60	35	15	25	19.2
9	30	75	40	12	16	14.8
10	39	78	50	26	33.3	12.1
11	42	111	37.8	32	28.8	13.6
12	35	80	43.8	22	27.5	12.3
总计	347	964	36.2	215	22.2	—

数据	指标	最小值	最大值	平均值	标准差	变异系数/%
建模数据	冠幅/m	2.4	7.5	4.7	1.44	39.19
	胸径/cm	15.3	36.6	14.2	7.08	49.87
	树高/m	9.2	15.4	11.7	2.81	26.24

方法	对象木数量/株	竞争木数量/株
固定半径法	215	3318
树冠重叠法	215	2259
单木影响圈	215	2348

优势木号	理论冠幅/m	实际冠幅/m	冠幅相对误差	平均调整系数
9	3.17	3.62	0.1243	1.1157
10	3.32	3.5	0.0514
22	4.73	5.24	0.0973
41	6.03	3.92	0.1299