Thinning Effects on the Survival of Interplanting Trees Under Pinus massoniana Plantation

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.06.018

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

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.

Figures/Tables 4

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Tab.2

References 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