Forestland Grading Based on Forest Potential Productivity Evaluation Model and Its Application

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2023.03.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Forestland is an essential resource for forestry production.Scientific and reasonable classification of forestland grades can accurately and comprehensively reflect differences in forestland quality,providing a decision-making basis for government macro-control of the forestland market and strengthening forestland management.Taking standard stand volume as an evaluation element of forest potential growth power,we divided forestland quality grades and developed a forest potential productivity evaluation model related to forestland quality grading indicators.We estimated parameters using the LM-UGO method,evaluated model fitting goodness with fitting correlation coefficient,mean square error,sum of squares of residuals,and Chi-square test,and applied forestland quality grading to the forest resources in Wuyishan City and Wuyishan National Park as case studies.The results showed:1) The established forest potential productivity evaluation model had a correlation coefficient of 0.966,a mean square error of 1.726,a sum of squares of residuals of 286.095,and a Chi-square test value of 33.898.The weights of six forestland grading index factors including average annual temperature,average annual rainfall,thickness of humus layer,thickness of soil layer,slope,and slope position were 0.08,0.22,0.27,0.26,0.10,and 0.07 respectively.2) Based on the annual growth amount and average growth rate,the benchmark age for forestland quality grading was determined to be 20 years.3) In Wuyishan City and Wuyishan National Park,the proportions of grades 3 and 4 in forestland quality were relatively large,the proportion of grade 5 was 9.43%,grade 1 was the smallest,and the potential growth level of forestland was at a medium level.The area proportion of each grade was significantly related to altitude(topography),exhibiting a power function or polynomial relationship.Developing a forest potential productivity evaluation model related to forestland quality grading indicators can avoid the subjectivity problem of determining index factor weights by classical decision analysis methods such as the analytic hierarchy process and grey relational analysis method.

Key words: forestland quality evaluation, forestland grading, forest potential productivity, evaluation model, Wuyishan City, Wuyishan National Park

CLC Number:

F326.2

HUA Weiping, WU Jianwei, YU Liyao, WANG Yanan, WU Chengzhen, ZHUANG Chongyang, CHI Shangping, JIANG Xidian. Forestland Grading Based on Forest Potential Productivity Evaluation Model and Its Application[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2023, 0(3): 29-37.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.3

Fig.5

References 37

[1]	Green R N, Marshall P L, Klinka K. Estimating site index of Douglas-fir[Pseudotsuga menziesii(Mirb.) Franco]from ecological variables in southwestern British Columbia[J]. Forests, 1989, 35(1):50-63.
[2]	Batho A, Oscar G. De Perthuis and the origins of site index:A historical note[J]. FBMIS, 2006, 1:1-10.
[3]	Skovsgaard J P, Vanclay J K. Forest site productivity:A review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands[J]. Forestry, 2008, 81(1):13-31. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpm041
[4]	解晓昕. 龙口市集体农用地定级与基准地价评估及其影响因素研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2022.
[5]	David M. Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making:Designing a system for conservation planning[J]. Landscape Ecology, 2000, 15(1):35-45. doi: 10.1023/A:1008165311026
[6]	Fan Jie, Li Pingxing. The scientific foundation of major function oriented zoning in China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2009, 19(5):515-531. doi: 10.1007/s11442-009-0515-0
[7]	Munoz M, Reul A, Gild S L, et al. A spatial risk ap-proach towards integrated marine spatial planning:A case studyon European hake nursery areas in the North Alboran Sea[J]. Marine Environmental Research, 2018(142):190-207.
[8]	王秀云. 林地分等定级与经济评价的研究[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2004.
[9]	陈宝晖. 福建省林地分等定级与估价技术的研究[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2005.
[10]	杨志格. 林地基准地价评估的研究[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2008.
[11]	王伟. 林地分等定级及估价技术研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2009.
[12]	郑聪慧, 贾黎明, 段劼, 等. 华北地区栓皮栎天然次生林地位指数表的编制[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(2):79-85.
[13]	肖春莲. 立地分类与评价研究现状[J]. 四川林业科技, 2019, 40(1):92-97.
[14]	付晓, 曹霖, 王雪军, 等. 吉林省林地立地质量评价及生产潜力研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2019, 39(5):1-9.
[15]	陈佳, 姚成硕, 林勇明, 等. 武夷山林地土壤酶活性差异及土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 山地学报, 2021, 39(2):194-206.
[16]	刘昊, 杨董琳. 不同森林类型林地土壤质量评价[J]. 山东农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 52(4):607-614.
[17]	雷相东, 符利勇, 李海奎, 等. 基于林分潜在生长量的立地质量评价方法与应用[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(12):116-126.
[18]	范阔, 苏晓慧, 张艺超, 等. 运用改进Richards模型预测马尾松人工林立地指数:以广西高峰林场为例[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(9):48-51.
[19]	沈剑波, 王应宽, 雷相东, 等. 基于BP神经网络的广东省针阔混交异龄林立地质量评价[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(5):38-47.
[20]	李清顺, 金万洲, 王得军, 等. 利用多树种立地形指数对林地质量进行综合评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 45(6):81-89.
[21]	石田, 武健伟, 李晓霞, 等. 林地分等定级模式构建与实践:以海南省林地为例[J]. 林业资源管理, 2022(6):19-25.
[22]	张妮, 曾思齐, 肖化顺. 林地区位等级的确定方法探讨:以长沙市为例[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2016, 36(5):73-78.
[23]	孟宪宇. 测树学[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国林业出版社. 2006.
[24]	DelRío M, Pretzsch H, Alberdi I, et al. Characterization of the structure,dynamics,and productivity of mixed-species stands:Review and perspectives[J]. European Journal of Forest Research, 2016, 135:23-49. doi: 10.1007/s10342-015-0927-6
[25]	Skovsgaard J P, Vanclay J K. Forest site productivity:A review of the evolution of dendrometric concepts for even-aged stands[J]. Forestry, 2008, 81(1):13-31. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpm041
[26]	Pokharel B, Dech J P. An ecological land classification approach to modeling the production of forest biomass[J]. Forestry Chronicle. 2011, 87(1):23-32. doi: 10.5558/tfc87023-1
[27]	Carmean W H. Forest site quality evaluation in the United States[J]. Advances in Agronomy, 1975, 27:209-269.
[28]	Berrill J, O'Hara K L. Estimating site productivity in irregular stand structures by indexing the basal area or volume increment of the dominant species[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2014, 44(1):92-100. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2013-0230
[29]	姜丽. 杉木林分密度指标变化规律及其在生长模型上的应用[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2021.
[30]	骆期邦, 吴志德, 蒋菊生, 等. 用于立地质量评价的杉木标准蓄积量收获模型[J]. 林业科学研究, 1989(5):447-453.
[31]	贺鹏, 陈振雄, 刘宪钊. 湖南省马尾松和杉木林分断面积生长模型构建[J]. 林业资源管理, 2021(5):56-61.
[32]	郭欣雨, 冯仲科, 曹忠, 等. 基于1stOpt软件的树高测量模型[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015, 43(5):38-41.
[33]	杜婧, 冯仲科, 樊潇飞, 等. 基于1stOpt软件的二元立木材积方程的研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014, 34(4):64-67.
[34]	Fu Liyong, Sharma R P, Zhu Guangyu. A basal area increment-based approach of site productivity evaluation for multi-aged and mixed forests[J]. Forests, 2017, 8(4):119-127. doi: 10.3390/f8040119
[35]	Pokharel B, Froese R E. Representing site productivity in the basal area increment model for FVS-Ontario[J]. Forest Ecology and Management. 2009, 258(5):657-666. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.040
[36]	Vanclay J K. Assessing site productivity in tropical moist forests:A review[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 1992, 54(1-4):257-287. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(92)90017-4
[37]	王霞, 李文明. 基于林地分等定级的地价模型[J]. 现代信息科技, 2019, 3(19):18-19.

因子	最大值	最小值	平均值
土层厚度/cm	250	0	81
腐殖层厚度/cm	50	0	10
坡度/(°)	75	0	29
年均气温/℃	24	13	21
年均降水量/mm	2 202	255	1 128
海拔/m	1 730	0	589
平均年龄/a	85	4	31
平均蓄积量/(m³/hm²)	465	1	105

指标分值	年均气温/℃	年均降水量/mm	腐殖质层厚度/cm	土层厚度/cm	坡度/(°)	坡位	地貌
90	≥18.0	≥2 000	≥5.0	≥80.0	<6.0	平地、全坡	平原
70	16.0~<18.0	1 600~<2 000			6.0~<16.0	谷、下	丘陵
50	14.0~<16.0	1 200~<1 600	2.0~<5.0	40.0~<80.0	16.0~<26.0	中	低山
30	12.0~<14.0	800~<1 200			26.0~<36.0	上	中山
10	<12.0	<800	<2.0	<40.0	≥36.0	脊

县(市、区)	乡镇	面积占比
县(市、区)	乡镇	1等级	2等级	3等级	4等级	5等级
光泽县	鸾凤乡	—	2.257	16.708	69.736	11.299
	司前乡	—	0.008	1.659	62.166	36.167
	寨里镇	—	0.852	24.916	59.807	14.425
建阳区	黄坑镇	0.031	1.131	51.438	44.843	2.556
	麻沙镇	—	0.000	18.668	67.518	13.814
邵武市	水北镇	—	—	2.541	69.491	27.969
武夷山市	崇安街道	0.027	1.393	34.080	63.104	1.397
	岚谷乡	0.004	0.471	9.193	84.782	5.549
	吴屯乡	0.038	1.238	20.214	71.736	6.774
	五夫镇	0.366	2.670	51.834	42.352	2.778
	武夷街道	0.787	5.868	41.265	46.934	5.146
	新丰街道	0.292	0.799	47.298	47.539	4.072
	洋庄乡	0.053	0.552	12.363	71.385	15.647
	星村镇	0.150	0.531	45.682	41.173	12.464
	兴田镇	0.705	2.951	35.402	47.690	13.252