喀斯特次生林优势种群竞争关系

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2024.04.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探明喀斯特地区次生林优势种群竞争关系,以贵州省紫云苗族布依族自治县格凸河国家级风景名胜区中洞景区撂荒30余年的典型喀斯特次生林作为研究对象,基于1.68 hm²的固定样地,在实地调查的基础上,采用Hegyi竞争指数对样地内优势种群种内种间竞争关系进行定量分析。结果表明:1)株数统计显示,共计调查胸径≥1 cm的林木2 805株,其中亮叶桦、化香树、马尾松、枫香树和山杨共2 455株,占总株数87.52%,为优势种群;2)林木间的竞争压力主要来自其周围5 m范围内的竞争木,除亮叶桦和枫香树的种间竞争大于种内竞争外,其余3个种群均为种内竞争大于种间竞争,表明次生林的竞争压力基本以种内竞争为主。5个优势种群种内竞争压力依次为化香树>山杨>马尾松>枫香树>亮叶桦;3)竞争模型预测表明,优势种群的胸径与竞争强度之间呈现幂函数关系,揭示了随着林木个体胸径的逐渐增大,竞争强度减弱,当林木个体胸径在3~5 cm时,竞争最为激烈,而当胸径达到10 cm后,竞争强度的变化趋于平稳。因此,建议在林木胸径达到10 cm之前,及时进行抚育管理,以减缓竞争压力,提高林分的稳定性。

关键词: 林木竞争, 喀斯特, 优势种群, 次生林, 竞争指数

Abstract:

This study explored the competitive relationships among dominant populations in secondary forests in karst areas.A typical karst secondary forest in the Zhongdong Scenic Spot of the Getu National Scenic Areas in Ziyun Miao and Buyi Autonomous County,Guizhou Province,abandoned for over 30 years,was selected as the study area.Based on 1.68 hm² fixed sample plots,the Hegyi Competition Index was used to quantitatively analyze competitive relationships through field surveys.1)Based on the number of plants,a total of 2 805 trees with a diameter at breast height(D_BH)more than 1 cm was investigated.Among these,the species consisting of Betula luminifera,Platycarya strobilacea,Pinus massoniana,Liquidambar formosana,and Populus davidiana collectively account for 2 455 individuals,constituting 87.52% of the total number of plants,and are thus identified as the dominant populations.2)The competitive pressure among trees was mainly exerted by those within 5 meters.However,for Betula luminifera and Liquidambar formosana,interspecific competition exceeded the intraspecific competition.The other three populations had more intraspecific than interspecific competition,which indicated that the competitive pressure of the secondary forests was mainly dominated by intraspecific competition.The intraspecific competitive pressures of the five dominant populations were ranked as follows:Platycarya strobilacea>Populus davidiana>Pinus massoniana>Liquidambar formosana>Betula luminifera.3)Competition model predictions showed a power function relationship between D_BH and competition intensity in dominant populations,revealing that competition intensity tended to weaken with the gradual increase in D_BH of individual trees in the population.The competition was most intense when D_BH of individual trees in the population stands was in the range of 3 to 5 cm.After D_BH reached 10 cm,the change in competition intensity tended to stabilize.Timely nursery management is recommended to reduce competitive pressure and enhance the stability before the D_BH reaches 10 cm.

Key words: forest competition, Karst, dominant populations, secondary forest, competition index

中图分类号:

S718.54

徐铭, 柴宗政, 孙彩丽, 王华. 喀斯特次生林优势种群竞争关系[J]. 林草资源研究, 2024,(4): 29-38.

XU Ming, CHAI Zongzheng, SUN Caili, WANG Hua. Competitive Relationship between Dominant Populations of Karst Secondary Forests[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2024,(4): 29-38.

图/表 8

图1

图2

表1

图3

图4

表2

表3

优势种群胸径及其竞争指数拟合分析

对象木	株数/株	模型	R²
亮叶桦	1 030	I_C=1.255 84 $D B H - 0.845 09$	0.644 6^***
		I_C=0.023 41D_BH+0.456 26	0.456 3^***
		I_C=0.807 39D_BH	0.530 5^***
化香树	773	I_C=1.406 41 $D B H - 0.832 07$	0.513 5^***
		I_C=-0.044 96D_BH+0.630 25	0.386 3^***
		I_C=0.824 26D_BH	0.494 4^***
马尾松	300	I_C=1.851 93 $D B H - 1.003 43$	0.614 4^***
		I_C=-0.038 45D_BH+0.598 21	0.508 4^***
		I_C=0.830 20D_BH	0.606 2^***
枫香树	178	I_C=2.083 18 $D B H - 0.935 05$	0.734 2^***
		I_C=-0.032 54D_BH+0.650 62	0.467 4^***
		I_C=0.865 27D_BH	0.660 9^***
山杨	174	I_C=2.001 74 $D B H - 1.011 49$	0.614 4^***
		I_C=-0.040 33D_BH+0.630 85	0.342 6^***
		I_C=0.839 45D_BH	0.445 7^***

表3

图5

参考文献 40

[1]	陶岩, 殷秀琴, 田育红, 等. 长白山红松针阔混交林种内、种间竞争关系研究[J]. 北京师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 47(4):428-431.
[2]	柳江, 洪伟, 吴承祯, 等. 天然更新檫木林竞争规律研究[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2001(2):240-243.
[3]	唐杨, 童跃伟, 韩艳刚, 等. 邻域竞争对长白山阔叶红松林关键树种生长的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(5):1479-1486.
[4]	许恒, 刘艳红. 珍稀濒危植物梓叶槭种群径级结构与种内种间竞争关系[J]. 西北植物学报, 2018, 38(6):1160-1170.
[5]	BELLA I E. A new competition model for individual trees[J]. Forest Science, 1971, 17(3):364-372.
[6]	LORIMER C G. Tests of age-independent competition indices for individual trees in natural hardwood stands[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 1983, 6(4):343-360.
[7]	CHANDLER R, DEBELL D. Evaluation of field performance of poplar clones using selected competition indices[J]. New Forest, 2004, 27:201-214.
[8]	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.
[9]	金则新, 朱小燕, 林恒琴. 浙江天台山甜槠种内与种间竞争研究[J]. 生态学杂志, 2004(2):22-25.
[10]	李尤, 苏智先, 张素兰, 等. 珙桐群落种内与种间竞争研究[J]. 云南植物研究, 2006(6):625-630.
[11]	黄伟程, 高露双, 赵冰倩. 不同间伐强度下竞争对东北阔叶红松林主要树种生长—气候关系的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2023, 45(1):30-39.
[12]	汪清, 潘萍, 欧阳勋志, 等. 马尾松—木荷不同比例混交林种内和种间竞争强度[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(1):49-57.
[13]	FRAVER S, D’AMATO A W, BRADFORD J B, et al. Tree growth and competition in an Old-growth Picea Abies forest of Boreal Sweden:Influence of tree spatial patterning[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2014, 25(2):374-385.
[14]	JI Yingrui, ZHANG Peng, SHEN Hailong. Competition intensity affects growing season nutrient dynamics in Korean pine trees and their microhabitat soil in mixed forest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2023, 539:539121018.
[15]	刘济明. 贵州茂兰喀斯特山地顶部森林群落种子库研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2000(1):47-53.
[16]	WANG Linjiang, LUO Nana, SHI Qinglong, et al. Responses of soil labile organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities to long-term vegetation restorations in the Karst ecosystems,Southwest China[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2023, 194.107034.
[17]	王琪, 容丽. 喀斯特石漠化区不同处理方式下滇柏的生长状况—以贵州省陈家寨为例[J]. 热带农业科学, 2016, 36(6):37-44.
[18]	FAN Zhouzhou, LU Shuyu, LIU Shuang, et al. The effects of vegetation restoration strategies and seasons on soil enzyme activities in the Karst landscapes of Yunnan,Southwest China[J]. Journal of forestry research, 2019, 31:45-57.
[19]	杨文松, 容丽, 叶天木, 等. 黔中喀斯特次生林优势物种空间分布格局及关联性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2022, 33(5):1215-1222. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202205.008
[20]	蔡冰玲, 魏鑫, 范海兰, 等. 梅花山拟赤杨次生林优势树种种间竞争研究[J]. 西南林学院学报, 2009, 29(5):16-18.
[21]	杨瑞, 喻理飞, 罗远飞, 等. 黔中喀斯特森林群落光皮桦种群竞争初步研究[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2010, 38(2):153-155.
[22]	王雁青, 姚凯, 王晓双, 等. 茂兰喀斯特区圆果化香的种内和种间竞争强度分析[J]. 西北植物学报, 2021, 41(5):880-888.
[23]	池森, 王从军, 黎庆菊, 等. 喀斯特次生林幼树更新空间分布格局及种间关联性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(12):3989-3996. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202012.006
[24]	韦红艳, 徐铭, 柴宗政, 等. 喀斯特次生林优势种群结构及数量动态[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2023, 51(7):80-85.
[25]	CONDITR. Research in large,long-term tropical forest plots[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1995, 10:18-22.
[26]	陈科屹, 张会儒, 张博, 等. 长白山北坡天然次生林典型建群种的种群结构及动态特征[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(13):5142-5152.
[27]	申瀚文, 鄢前飞, 曾思齐, 等. 木荷次生林种内和种间竞争研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2012, 32(4):81-85.
[28]	吴明. 马尾松—麻栎人工混交林种内与种间竞争关系研究[D]. 河南农业大学, 2016.
[29]	柴宗政, 王得祥, 张丽楠, 等. 秦岭西段油松天然次生林种群竞争关系研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 40(12):57-63.
[30]	许鲁东. 香樟次生天然林群落空间分布格局及竞争关系研究[D]. 福建农林大学, 2022.
[31]	HOU Rui, CHAI Zongzheng. Predicting crown width using nonlinear mixed-effects models accounting for competition in multi-species secondary forests[J]. PeerJ, 2022, 10:e13105.
[32]	姚慧芳, 卢杰, 王超, 等. 藏东南嘎朗国家湿地公园华山松种内与种间竞争强度研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2021(3):89-95.
[33]	刘万生, 李想, 陈福元, 等. 蒙古栎林种内和种间竞争研究[J]. 植物研究, 2020, 40(4):552-558. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2020.04.009
[34]	高浩杰, 高平仕, 王国明. 舟山群岛红楠林种内和种间竞争研究[J]. 植物研究, 2017, 37(3):440-446. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2017.03.015
[35]	刘虹佑, 马燕, 吴其超, 等. 濒危植物泰山柳种内与种间的竞争关系[J]. 森林与环境报, 2020, 40(2):178-183.
[36]	ZHANG Zhonghua, HU Gang, ZHU Jiedong, et al. Aggregated spatial distributions of species in a subtropical Karst forest,southwestern China[J]. Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013, 6(2):131-140 doi: 10.1093/jpe/rts027
[37]	李冬林, 江浩, 王火, 等. 连云港市枫树湾景区枫香种群结构与分布格局[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(1):49-58. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2020.01.006
[38]	姚慧芳, 卢杰, 曾加芹, 等. 藏东南川滇高山栎天然林的种内与种间竞争指数的海拔差异[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(8):53-62.
[39]	王丹, 王震洪. 枫香树种群格局与生境适应性的研究[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2017, 36(3):6-14.
[40]	李帅锋, 刘万德, 苏建荣, 等. 滇西北金沙江流域云南红豆杉群落种内与种间竞争[J]. 生态学杂志, 2013, 32(1):33-38.

径级	胸径/cm	亮叶桦		化香树		马尾松		枫香树		山杨
径级	胸径/cm	株数/株	比例/%	株数/株	比例/%	株数/株	比例/%	株数/株	比例/%	株数/株	比例/%
Ⅰ	1~<3	30	2.91	57	7.37	9	3.00	9	5.06	4	2.30
Ⅱ	3~<5	352	34.17	386	49.94	117	39.00	47	26.04	70	40.23
Ⅲ	5~<7	247	23.98	221	28.59	64	21.33	31	17.42	47	27.01
Ⅳ	7~<9	171	16.60	81	10.48	44	14.67	25	14.04	28	16.09
Ⅴ	9~<11	83	8.06	12	1.55	27	9.00	12	6.74	12	6.90
Ⅵ	11~<13	54	5.24	9	1.16	16	5.33	16	8.99	5	2.87
Ⅶ	13~<15	39	3.79	4	0.52	11	3.67	11	6.18	4	2.30
Ⅷ	15~<17	28	2.72	1	0.13	10	3.33	12	6.74	2	1.15
Ⅸ	17~<19	14	1.36	1	0.13	1	0.33	6	3.37	2	1.15
Ⅹ	19~<21	6	0.58	1	0.13	1	0.33	4	2.25
Ⅺ	≥21	6	0.58					5	2.81
总计		1 030	100	773	100	300	100	178	100.00	174	100

径级	亮叶桦			化香树			马尾松			枫香树			山杨
径级	总竞争	种间竞争	种内竞争	总竞争	种间竞争	种内竞争	总竞争	种间竞争	种内竞争	总竞争	种间竞争	种内竞争	总竞争	种间竞争	种内竞争
Ⅰ	16.87	19.04	13.20	34.63	29.53	42.84	5.31	5.60	5.16	8.85	9.97	8.58	2.55	2.14	2.42
Ⅱ	140.52	155.56	113.13	179.89	157.93	202.64	55.44	39.44	57.55	27.49	39.09	24.33	36.06	33.01	35.28
Ⅲ	69.17	75.58	58.33	70.08	62.44	78.98	21.17	17.33	21.16	10.89	16.20	9.62	16.66	14.52	16.29
Ⅳ	36.96	42.24	30.55	21.01	20.01	22.49	10.25	10.61	10.10	7.58	11.15	6.46	6.93	6.21	6.84
Ⅴ	16.31	20.25	13.49	2.90	3.36	2.89	5.02	5.28	4.75	2.40	3.74	2.11	2.23	2.54	2.15
Ⅵ	9.26	12.75	6.99	1.59	1.82	1.51	2.25	2.31	2.26	2.83	3.76	2.44	0.81	0.50	0.81
Ⅶ	5.46	7.85	4.19	0.64	0.94	0.55	1.31	1.89	1.13	1.73	2.05	1.60	0.66	0.98	0.64
Ⅷ	3.41	4.45	2.72	0.12	0.09	0.15	1.01	1.10	0.97	1.64	2.70	1.51	0.25	0.26	0.22
Ⅸ	1.54	2.15	1.31	0.14	0.15	0.14	0.08	0.15	0.08	0.76	1.12	0.63	0.13	0.04	0.14
Ⅹ	0.67	0.83	0.65	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.06	0.08	0.06	0.42	0.22	0.42
Ⅺ	0.38	0.49	0.37							0.41	0.49	0.35
总计	300.54	341.21	244.94	311.09	276.34	352.26	101.91	83.78	103.21	65.01	90.49	58.06	66.29	60.20	64.79