Study on the Coupling Relationship Between Arbor Layer Structure and Shrub Layer Diversity of Chinese Pine Plantation Forests

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2020.02.017

Abstract

Abstract:

Plantation forest ecosystem is an important part of forest ecosystem.We use the Chinese pine which belongs to Shaanxi province Huanglong mountain as the research object and compares the four different density groups of Chinese pine plantation plots which in the difference of the spatial structure (Mingling index,Dominance index,Uniform Angle index and Crowding index) and of different shrub diversity (Simpson index,Shannon-Wiener index,Pielon index,Gleason index and Margalef index).The coupling relationship between tree spatial structure and shrub diversity was established and we discuss the relationship between them.The results showed that:(a) among the all groups,the spatial structure of the plot which showed a tree density of 2 300-2 800/hm² was the best;(b) shrub diversity was significantly affected by tree density,the shrub diversity which in different tree density groups shows:low-density>mid-lower density>low-density>mid-higher density>high-density;(c) in different groups,the difference of tree spatial structure has different effects on shrub diversity,in the plots which showed a tree density of 2300 ~ 2800/hm²,a higher correlation relationship between tree spatial structure and shrub diversity could be observed.This indicates that shrub diversity could be changed via an adjustment tree spatial structure in that tree density.

Key words: Chinese pine plantation forest, spatial structure, shrub diversity, tree density, coupling relationship

CLC Number:

WANG Jingmin, ZHOU Yuanbo, BU Yuankun, QIAO Yuxin, WANG Jiabao, LI Weizhong. Study on the Coupling Relationship Between Arbor Layer Structure and Shrub Layer Diversity of Chinese Pine Plantation Forests[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2020, 0(2): 112-119.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.2

References 21

[1]	盛炜彤. 中国人工林及其育林体系[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2014.
[2]	Macdicken K, Jonsson Ö, Piña L, et al. Global forest resources assessment 2015:how are the world's forests changing?[M]. Roma,Italy:Food and Agriculture Organizarion of United Nation, 2016.
[3]	Kelty M J. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2006,233(2/3):195-204. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.011
[4]	陈秋波. 桉树人工林生物多样性研究进展[J]. 热带作物学报, 2001,22(4):82-90.
[5]	Wang Boheng, Bu Yuankun, Li Yanjie, et al. Quantifying the Relationship among Impact Factors of Shrub Layer Diversity in Chinese Pine Plantation Forest Ecosystems[J]. Forests, 2019,10(9):781. doi: 10.3390/f10090781
[6]	楼一平, 盛炜彤. 人工林长期立地生产力研究概述[J]. 世界林业研究, 1998,11(5):18-25.
[7]	徐国祯. 森林生态系统经营——21 世纪森林经营的新趋势[J]. 世界林业研究, 1997,10(2):15-20.
[8]	茹文明, 张金屯, 毕润成, 等. 山西霍山森林群落林下物种多样性研究[J]. 生态学杂志, 2005(10):1139-1142.
[9]	Myers-Smith I H, Forbes B C, Wilmking M, et al. Shrub expansion in tundra ecosystems:dynamics,impacts and research priorities[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2011,6(4);doi: 10.108811748-932616141045509. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044015 pmid: 28781607
[10]	John R, Dalling J W, Harms K E, et al. Soil nutrients influence spatial distributions of tropical tree species[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007,104(3):864-869. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604666104
[11]	Small C J, Mccarthy B C. Spatial and temporal variability of herbaceous vegetation in an eastern deciduous forest[J]. Plant Ecology, 2003,164(1):37-48. doi: 10.1023/A:1021209528643
[12]	张彦雷, 康峰峰, 韩海荣, 等. 太岳山油松人工林冠下光环境特征与冠层结构[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2014,38(2):169-174.
[13]	丁圣彦, 卢训令, 李昊民. 天童国家森林公园常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段群落光环境特征比较[J]. 生态学报 2005(11):70-75.
[14]	李紫恬, 王盛萍, 袁亚男, 等. 华北土石山区不同密度油松人工林土壤含水量及其时间稳定性剖面分布[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019,35(4):491-499.
[15]	薛立, 邝立刚, 陈红跃, 等. 不同林分土壤养分、微生物与酶活性的研究[J]. 土壤学报, 2003 (2):280-285. doi: 10.11766/trxb200103200218
[16]	邓成, 张守攻, 陆元昌. 森林改善空气环境质量功能监测与评价研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2015,24(1):84-89.
[17]	高小莉, 赵鹏祥, 郝红科, 等基于 LANDIS-II 的陕西黄龙山森林景观演变动态模拟[J]. 生态学报, 2015,35(2):254-262.
[18]	邵英男, 刘延坤, 李云红, 等. 不同林分密度长白落叶松人工林土壤养分特征[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2017,37(9):27-31.
[19]	王宁, 毕华兴, 孔凌霄, 等. 晋西黄土区不同密度刺槐林地土壤水分补偿特征[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019,33(4):255-262.
[20]	李婷婷, 鱼舜尧, 吴傲淼, 等. 林分因子对云顶山不同人工林林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2019,39(8):1463-1471.
[21]	Prescott C E. The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling[J]. Tree Physiology, 2002,22(15/16):1193-1200. doi: 10.1093/treephys/22.15-16.1193

样地号	样地组	郁闭度	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/m	密度/(株/hm²)	年龄/a	坡度/(°)	灌木种类/种	海拔/m
1	HDP	0.80	8.29	8.06	4533	29	35	12	1214
2	HDP	0.96	13.44	14.63	3917	35	28	10	1468
3	HDP	0.86	9.79	8.70	3850	32	33	12	1228
4	HDP	0.94	10.36	12.99	3767	34	18	14	1436
5	HDP	0.90	9.24	8.44	3417	32	40	11	1223
6	MDP	0.88	13.21	13.16	2800	35	21	17	1408
7	MDP	0.91	13.21	13.62	2700	32	15	14	1358
8	MDP	0.86	13.72	13.58	2700	37	15	17	1509
9	MDP	0.90	11.82	12.79	2500	39	25	9	1123
10	MDP	0.86	32.02	17.90	2300	48	5	11	1215
11	LDP	0.78	12.64	11.43	2200	34	31	18	1423
12	LDP	0.91	12.32	12.89	2133	34	7	17	1273
13	LDP	0.92	16.18	13.64	2100	31	13	17	1379
14	LDP	0.91	14.23	10.94	1917	31	5	12	1482
15	LDP	0.73	13.18	13.14	1900	55	12	16	1243
16	ELD	0.83	15.32	12.36	1817	44	25.5	23	1478
17	ELD	0.82	14.46	14.97	1633	42	32	21	1457
18	ELD	0.94	22.20	18.35	1617	55	27	18	1410
19	ELD	0.93	16.68	13.44	1400	37	18	20	1377
20	ELD	0.87	18.57	13.39	1283	43	22	19	1459

灌木多样性	样地类型
灌木多样性	高密度组	较高密度组	较低密度组	低密度组
Marglef指数	1.91±0.32^c	2.28±0.54^bc	2.71±0.21^ab	3.18±0.27^a
Pielou指数	0.66±0.09^a	0.74±0.15^a	0.82±0.10^a	0.76±0.13^a
Shannon-Wienner指数	1.60±0.17^b	1.89±0.30^ab	2.26±0.28^a	2.27±0.39^a
Simpson指数	0.76±0.04^b	0.83±0.04^ab	0.85±0.06^a	0.89±0.02^a
Gleason指数	2.44±0.31^b	2.82±0.74^b	3.31±0.49^ab	4.18±0.40^a

样地类型	指标	多样性主成分				指标	结构主成分
样地类型	指标	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	指标	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4
HDP	Mar	0.485	-0.102	0.411	-0.765	W	-0.568	0.275	-0.286	0.721
	Pie	-0.507	0.214	0.121	-0.274	M	0.564	0.207	0.547	0.583
	Sha	-0.464	0.330	0.659	0.009	U	0.498	-0.468	-0.663	0.307
	Sim	0.245	0.894	-0.336	-0.145	C	0.334	0.814	-0.423	-0.216
	Gle	0.482	0.190	0.519	0.564
MDP	Mar	-0.525	-0.310	-0.309	-0.662	W	0.557	0.096	0.809	-0.164
	Pie	0.555	-0.258	-0.145	-0.520	M	0.586	-0.132	-0.232	0.765
	Sha	0.356	-0.564	-0.514	0.393	U	0.173	0.954	-0.24	-0.041
	Sim	-0.027	-0.653	0.754	0.007	C	-0.563	0.25	0.484	0.622
	Gle	-0.537	-0.305	-0.227	0.370
LDP	Mar	-0.183	-0.654	-0.721	0.058	W	-0.604	0.321	-0.335	-0.648
	Pie	-0.501	0.377	-0.079	0.052	M	-0.441	-0.503	0.714	-0.208
	Sha	-0.580	0.067	0.066	0.674	U	0.132	-0.793	-0.546	-0.234
	Sim	-0.582	0.039	-0.005	-0.734	C	-0.651	-0.118	-0.283	0.694
	Gle	-0.200	-0.651	0.685	-0.003
ELD	Mar	-0.518	0.365	-0.292	0.715	W	-0.688	-0.162	-0.162	0.689
	Pie	-0.376	-0.612	-0.070	0.055	M	0.111	0.827	0.383	0.396
	Sha	-0.458	-0.508	-0.121	-0.167	U	-0.546	-0.081	0.736	-0.391
	Sim	-0.398	0.141	0.907	0.010	C	0.465	-0.532	0.534	0.465
	Gle	-0.471	0.463	-0.271	-0.676

样地类型	主成分		多样性					结构
样地类型	主成分		特征值(φ_i)	贡献率/%	累计贡献率/%			特征值(φ_i)	贡献率/%		累计贡献率/%
HDP	PC1	1.916		73.5		73.5	1.609			64.7	64.7
	PC2	0.968		18.8		92.2	0.992			24.6	89.3
	PC3	0.497		4.9		97.1	0.548			7.5	96.8
	PC4	0.378		2.9		100.0	0.356			3.2	100
MDP	PC1	1.698		57.7		57.7	1.683			70.8	70.8
	PC2	1.187		28.2		85.9	0.997			24.9	95.7
	PC3	0.836		14.0		99.9	0.415			4.3	100
	PC4	0.085		0.1		100	0.029			0	100
LDP	PC1	1.715		58.8		58.8	1.480			54.8	54.8
	PC2	1.360		37.0		95.8	1.139			32.5	87.2
	PC3	0.459		4.2		100	0.692			12.0	99.2
	PC4	0.022		0		100	0.177			0.8	100
ELD	PC1	1.643		54.0		54.0	1.410			49.7	49.7
	PC2	1.281		32.8		86.8	1.125			31.6	81.3
	PC3	0.811		13.2		99.9	0.855			18.3	99.6
	PC4	0.052		0.1		100	0.127			0.4	100