Study on the Target Tree Density of Phoebe Bournei Plantation Based on Competition Relationship of Forest Trees

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2017.04.007

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to cultivate precious tree species of large diameter timber,the key is to manage Phoebe Bournei artificial pure forest and to determine the target tree density so that it can be beneficial to the growth of the target trees and to give full play to the productivity of the forest.In Jindong Forest Farm,the representative of the 14 year old Phoebe Bournei plantation was selected,and three sample spots (20m*30m) were set.In these three sample spots,respectively,11,15 and 14 trees were selected as alternative target trees according to the target tree selection criteria based on near natural operation.ArcGIS was used to generate voronoi diagram according to the spatial position of forest trees.The competitive unit of each alternative target tree is determined based on the generated Voronoichart.And by determining the competitive unit the V-Hegyi competitive index and neighborhood comparison of each alternative target tree were calculated.V-Hegyi competitive index and the degree of neighborhood comparison are divided into 3 levels,according to the variation range of the V-Hegyi competition index and the neighborhood comparison degree.Trees with both indexes at the first level were determined to be final target trees.The number of target trees in these three sample spots would be 8,10 and 9 respectively.That is,the final target tree density was 120,150 and 135/hm² respectively.So the target tree density of the average of Phoebe Bournei in Jindong forest farm was 135/hm².This paper provides the theoretical basis for the near natural management of artificial pure Phoebe Bournei forest of Jindong Forest Farm.

Key words: Phoebe bournei, Voronoi diagram, competition relationship, target tree density

CLC Number:

S757

SHI Le, LI Jiping, ZHAO Chunyan, CHEN Lei, HUANG Xiao. Study on the Target Tree Density of Phoebe Bournei Plantation Based on Competition Relationship of Forest Trees[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2017, 0(4): 37-43.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

V-Hegyi competition index and neighborhood comparison of alternative target trees in three plots

标准地号	树种	胸径 /cm	树高 /m	东西冠幅 /m	南北冠幅 /m	生活力	层次	起源	损伤	干形质量	V-Hegyi 竞争指数	大小比数
1	闽楠	12.7	9.5	4.7	5.3	1	2	1	1	1	3.31	0.00
1	闽楠	12.0	9.3	4.3	3.8	1	2	1	2	1	1.77	0.20
1	闽楠	12.5	11.2	3.0	2.7	2	2	1	1	2	2.67	0.33
1	闽楠	11.4	11.3	3.2	2.8	1	2	1	1	1	2.68	0.50
1	闽楠	11.8	10.8	3.2	3.6	1	2	1	1	1	1.86	0.25
1	闽楠	11.8	10.5	2.2	2.5	1	2	1	1	1	2.29	0.25
1	闽楠	10.9	10.5	5.2	5.5	1	2	1	1	1	2.36	0.50
1	闽楠	10.0	9.6	2.8	3.0	2	2	1	2	2	2.81	0.50
1	闽楠	13.1	10.0	4.0	2.8	1	2	1	1	1	3.67	0.30
1	闽楠	14.3	11.6	2.8	3.2	1	2	1	1	1	1.73	0.00
1	闽楠	12.0	9.0	3.0	3.8	2	2	1	2	2	1.43	0.20
2	闽楠	11.2	11.2	3.0	2.5	1	2	1	1	1	2.39	0.29
2	闽楠	12.3	11.2	3.8	4.2	1	2	1	1	1	1.78	0.00
2	闽楠	11.4	11.8	3.0	2.3	1	2	1	1	1	2.55	0.00
2	闽楠	12.0	8.3	4.0	3.7	1	2	1	1	1	2.27	0.00
2	闽楠	12.3	12.0	2.5	2.7	1	2	1	1	1	2.05	0.20
2	闽楠	13.0	11.0	3.7	4.2	1	2	1	1	1	2.16	0.00
2	闽楠	13.8	12.7	3.2	4.3	1	2	1	1	1	2.26	0.13
2	闽楠	12.6	12.5	3.3	3.5	1	2	1	1	1	2.24	0.20
2	闽楠	13.5	11.0	3.2	3.8	1	2	1	1	1	2.66	0.00
2	闽楠	12.2	8.0	2.2	3.4	2	2	1	2	2	1.97	0.00
2	闽楠	11.0	10.3	1.9	2.0	1	1	1	1	1	2.09	0.00
2	闽楠	12.5	8.6	1.8	2.7	1	1	1	1	1	2.16	0.33
2	闽楠	12.0	8.4	2.0	2.4	2	2	1	1	1	2.80	0.63
2	闽楠	11.5	8.5	3.0	2.2	1	2	1	1	1	3.70	0.50
2	闽楠	13.0	8.0	3.8	2.4	2	2	1	1	2	2.40	0.60
3	闽楠	11.5	9.5	4.0	4.2	1	2	1	1	1	3.35	0.00
3	闽楠	12.1	12.3	3.0	3.0	1	2	1	1	2	1.90	0.40
3	闽楠	15.6	11.5	2.8	4.0	2	2	1	1	1	3.03	0.33
3	闽楠	10.1	11.0	2.5	1.8	1	2	1	1	1	3.75	0.67
3	闽楠	11.0	9.2	2.5	2.8	1	1	1	2	1	2.23	0.50
3	闽楠	11.9	12.9	2.5	1.8	1	1	1	1	1	1.83	0.50
3	闽楠	11.2	11.3	1.7	2.0	1	1	1	1	1	2.99	0.86
3	闽楠	13.6	12.0	2.5	2.4	1	1	1	1	1	2.17	0.40
3	闽楠	11.0	8.5	2.5	2.6	1	1	1	2	1	2.64	0.33
3	闽楠	11.3	9.3	3.2	2.6	1	2	1	1	1	1.68	0.20
3	闽楠	12.2	9.8	2.8	3.2	1	2	1	1	2	2.22	0.40
3	闽楠	13.8	10.0	2.8	2.1	2	2	1	2	1	2.12	0.25
3	闽楠	12.3	9.5	2.2	2.5	1	2	1	1	1	1.72	0.60
3	闽楠	11.1	8.5	3.2	1.7	1	2	1	2	2	2.69	0.60

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

References 21

[1]	郑万钧. 中国树木志[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1983: 795-797.
[2]	北京林学院. 树木学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1980: 85-95.
[3]	陈存及, 陈伙法. 阔叶树种栽培[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2000: 150-156.
[4]	任宜群. 基于GIS和ANN的时空相关单木生长模型研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学, 2005: 3-6.
[5]	金则新, 朱小燕, 林恒琴. 浙江天台山甜槠种内和种间竞争研究[J]. 生态学杂志, 2004,2(2):22-25.
[6]	李先琨, 苏宗明, 欧祖兰, 等. 元宝山冷杉群落种内与种间竞争的数量关系[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2002,11(1):20-24.
[7]	江挺, 汤孟平. 天目山常绿阔叶林优势种群竞争的数量关系[J]. 浙江林学院学报, 2008,25(4):444-450.
[8]	喻泓, 杨晓晖, 慈龙骏. 内蒙古呼伦贝尔沙地不同樟子松林竞争强度的比较[J]. 应用生态学报, 2009,20(2):250-255.
[9]	张小翠, 满自红, 张育德, 等. 连城国家级自然保护区青杄种内种间竞争关系研究[J]. 生态科学, 2008,27(4):197-201.
[10]	康华靖, 陈子林, 刘鹏, 等. 大盘山香果树(Emmenopterys henryi)种内及其与常见伴生种之间的竞争关系[J]. 生态学报, 2008,28(7):3456-3463.
[11]	汤孟平, 陈永刚, 施拥军, 等基于Voronoi图的群落优势树种种内种间竞争[J]. 生态学报, 2007,27(11):4707-4716.
[12]	金名仕. 森林生态学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1993: 424-431.
[13]	刘彤, 李云灵, 周志强, 等. 天然东北红豆杉种内和种间竞争[J]. 生态学报, 2007,27(3):924-929.
[14]	段仁燕, 王孝安. 太白红杉种内和种间竞争研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2005,29(2):242-250.
[15]	郑丽凤, 周新年, 江希钿, 等. 松阔混交林林分空间结构分析[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2006,14(4):275-280.
[16]	汤孟平, 周国模, 陈永刚, 等. 基于Voronoi图的天目山常绿阔叶林混交度[J]. 林业科学, 45(6):1-5.
[17]	吴承桢, 洪伟, 廖金兰. 马尾松中幼龄林种内竞争的研究[J]. 福建林学院学报, 1997,17(4):289-292.
[18]	惠刚盈, 赵中华, 胡艳波, 等. 结构化森林经营指南[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2010.
[19]	胡艳波, 惠刚盈. 优化林分空间结构的森林经营方法讨论[J]. 林业科学研究, 2006,19(1):1-8.
[20]	Aguirre O, Hui G Y, Gadow K V, et al. An analysis of spatial forest structure using neighbourhood-based variables[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2003,183:137-145. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00102-6
[21]	惠刚盈, Klaus von Gadow, Matthias Albert. 一个新的林分空间结构参数—大小比数[J]. 林业科学研究, 1999,12(1):1-6.

标准地	坡度/( °)	坡向	坡位	郁闭度	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/m	株数密度/hm²
1	12	东坡	下坡	0.9	10.5	9.0	1867
2	14	东坡	下坡	0.9	9.9	8.9	2200
3	13	西北坡	中下坡	0.8	11.9	9.6	1700

林木指数	第1级	第2级	第3级
V-Hegyi竞争指数	≤2.20	(2.20-2.97)	≥2.97
大小比数	≤0.50	(0.50-0.75)	≥0.75