Leaves litter flammability of common forest species in wuhan,China

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.01.009

Abstract

Abstract:

For forest fire prevention and fire resistant tree species selection in Wuhan,we analyzed the flammability of leaves litter of common forest species in Wuhan and evaluated their combustion.We selected leaves litter of ten common forest species,Pinus massoniana,Pinus elliottii,Liquidambar formosana,Camphora officinarum,Quercus variabilis,Quercus chenii,Ilex chinensis,Camellia oleifera,Broussonetia papyrifera,Pittosporum tobira,measured seven flammability related variables,equilibrium moisture content,ignition point,ignition time,calorific value,ash content,lignin content and cellulose content.Cluster analysis and principal component analysis were used to divide the flammability of leaves litter into three grades:flammable,combustible and non-flammable,and to calculate a combustion index for each species.The results show that leaves litter of three species(P.elliottii, P.massoniana and Q.chenii)were classified as flammable,six species(I.chinensis, Q.variabilis, C.oleifera, P.tobira, L.formosana and C.officinarum)as combustible,and one species(B.papyrifera)as non-flammable.In the descending order,the flammability of the leaves litter of ten common forest species was P.elliottii, P.massoniana, Q.chenii, I.chinensis, Q.variabilis, C.oleifera, P.tobira,L.formosana, C.officinarum and B.papyrifera.B.papyrifera can be used as forest fire resistant tress species due to the non-flammable of its leaves litter.Forests with P.elliottii,P.massoniana or Q.chenii as the main component species are highly susceptible to fire due to the high flammability of their leaves litter,which should be a focus in forest fire prevention.

Key words: forest fires, leaves litter, combustibility, fire resistance, forest fire prevention, Wuhan City

CLC Number:

S762.3

YANG Wei, HE Wanwan, XIONG Zixuan, TANG Li, ZHANG Wenyu, ZHAO Zeyao, XUE Weixing, YAN Zhaogui. Leaves litter flammability of common forest species in wuhan,China[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2025, (1): 77-83.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Fig.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.2

References 35

[1]	罗碧珍, 魏书精, 罗斯生, 等. 林火干扰对广东木荷林生态系统碳库的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(8):3359-3369.
[2]	郭文霞. 北京地区油松林抗火性综合分析及调控研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2009.
[3]	CURRAN T, PERRY G, WYSE S, et al. Managing fire and biodiversity in the wildland-urban interface:A role for green firebreaks[J]. Fire, 2018, 1(1):3.
[4]	CUI Xinglei, ALAM M A, PERRY G L W, et al. Green firebreaks as a management tool for wildfires:Lessons from China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019,233:329-336.
[5]	翟振岗, 刘乃安. 基于热重与因子分析的树叶试样燃烧性研究[J]. 火灾科学, 2008(2):67-72.
[6]	LV Dangzhen, XU Minghou, LIU Xiaowei, et al. Effect of cellulose,lignin,alkali and alkaline earth metallic species on biomass pyrolysis and gasification[J]. Fuel Processing Technology, 2010, 91(8):903-909.
[7]	GROOTEMAAT S, WRIGHT I J, VAN BODEGOM P M, et al. Burn or rot:Leaf traits explain why flammability and decomposability are decoupled across species[J]. Functional Ecology, 2015, 29(11):1486-1497.
[8]	LEONELLI L, BARBONI T, SANTONI P A, et al. Characterization of aerosols emissions from the combustion of dead shrub twigs and leaves using a cone calorimeter[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2017,91:800-810.
[9]	NOLAN R H, BLACKMAN C J, DE DIOS V R, et al. Linking forest flammability and plant vulnerability to drought[J]. Forests, 2020, 11(7):1779.
[10]	LUNGULEASA A, SPIRCHEZ C, OLARESCU A M. Calorific characteristics of Larch(Larix decidua)and Oak(Quercus robur)pellets realized from native and torrefied sawdust[J]. Forests, 2022, 13(2):361.
[11]	GOULD J S, SULLIVAN A L. Initial growth of fires in eucalypt litter,from ignition to steady-state rate of spread:Laboratory studies[J]. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2021, 31(2):163-175.
[12]	彭徐剑, 何晨, 詹庆斌. 3种南方防火树种理化性质的试验研究[J]. 林产工业, 2021, 58(3):27-31.
[13]	宋林姝, 王峥, 刘燕, 等. 北京常见灌木燃烧特性及抗火性评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2023, 42(5):1056-1064.
[14]	黎书会, 吴艳, 孙志东, 等. 凉山州15种主要经济树种的防火性能[J]. 应用生态学报, 2024, 35(1):203-211. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202401.003
[15]	张德顺, 吴雪, 陈陆琪瑶, 等. 上海市常见26种园林树种燃烧性评价[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 49(10):1399-1406.
[16]	李世友, 李小宁, 罗文彪, 等. 20种园林绿化树种活枝叶的燃烧性研究[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2009, 36(2):178-183.
[17]	冼丽铧, 陈嘉杰, 陈红跃, 等. 28种防火林带树种树叶抗火性能研究[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2020, 54(4):575-581.
[18]	陶佳, 雷泽勇, 王国晨, 等. 沙地樟子松人工林叶凋落物的分解与养分释放[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2023, 37(12):131-139.
[19]	高荣敏. 武汉市常见林型地表可燃物载量及地表火行为模拟研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2023.
[20]	QI Xionghui, WEI Ming, WANG Zilin, et al. Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown in Hubei,China:Cessation of incense burning reduces regional landscape fire[J]. Ecology and Society, 2022, 27(3):5.
[21]	国家林业局昆明勘察设计院. 林火阻隔系统建设标准:LY/T 5007—2014[S]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2014.
[22]	高扬. 磨山风景区景观生态研究及保护[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2006.
[23]	朱春阳, 陈奕汝, 郭慧娟, 等. 城市森林公园植物群落与空气负离子空间分布的关系:以武汉马鞍山森林公园为例[J]. 中国园林, 2021, 37(5):109-114.
[24]	黄发新, 胡文杰, 崔鸿侠, 等. 武汉城市森林空气环境效应研究:以九峰国家森林公园为例[J]. 湖北林业科技, 2024, 53(4):1-8.
[25]	张运林, 宋红, 胡海清. 云南3种乔木防火期内含水率变化及预测模型[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2019, 34(1):157-162.
[26]	钟金, 朱宇颐, 覃方兴, 等. 四川省常见树种防火期凋落物燃烧性分析[J]. 防护林科技, 2024(3):50-55.
[27]	WANG Zhiqiang, HUANG Heng, WANG Han, et al. Leaf water content contributes to global leaf trait relationships[J]. Nature Communications, 2022, 13(1):5525. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32784-1 pmid: 36130948
[28]	朱沛煌, 陈妤, 季孔庶. 松科植物萜类合成酶及其基因家族研究进展[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(3):233-244. doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202004027
[29]	邹璐, 陶远胜, 甘继权, 等. 井冈山自然保护区16种树叶的抗火性排序[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2012, 34(5):976-982.
[30]	李克, 倪泽仁, 刘晓东, 等. 南京市5种常见树种的燃烧性研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 48(1):103-110.
[31]	邓湘雯, 唐林琴, 田大伦, 等. 湘西南石漠化地区4种植被恢复模式早期林分燃烧性[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(11):89-94.
[32]	唐炳祥. 基于RS和GIS的泰山林火阻隔带选线规划研究[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2023.
[33]	董迪. 重庆中心城区常见园林树种抗火性评价及配置优化[D]. 重庆: 重庆交通大学, 2024.
[34]	ROBERTS M R. Response of the herbaceous layer to natural disturbance in North American forests[J]. Canadian Journal of Botany, 2004, 82(9):1273-1283.
[35]	王康锋, 罗永忠. 陇南市主要林型可燃物载量与环境因子的关系[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2023, 43(6):651-658.

树种	平衡含水率 (EMC)/%	灰分含量 (AC)/%	热值 (CV)/(kJ/kg)	燃点 (IP)/℃	点燃时间 (IT)/s	木质素含量 (LC)/%	纤维素含量 (CC)/%
湿地松(Pinus elliottii)	26.04±0.80a	6.01±1.05def	21.22±0.58b	170.00±2.65f	64.33±0.58e	36.58±0.28a	16.53±0.64ab
小叶栎(Quercus chenii)	25.14±1.37a	6.95±0.48cd	18.89±0.14e	186.33±3.21e	65.00±2.00e	21.00±0.66de	18.05±1.34a
构(Broussonetia papyrifera)	9.06±1.24d	22.92±0.42a	14.42±0.11g	217.67±3.21a	90.33±6.43a	6.53±1.85i	15.69±1.73abc
冬青(Ilex chinensis)	15.28±0.24c	3.80±0.05g	21.54±0.35b	196.33±1.53cd	78.33±0.58bc	16.28±0.34f	14.48±0.78bcd
海桐(Pittosporum tobira)	17.97±1.77b	7.30±0.06c	19.69±0.04cd	213.67±5.03a	86.00±1.73ab	12.49±1.99g	12.50±0.81d
油茶(Camellia oleifera)	23.93±0.40a	5.47±0.38f	18.89±0.09e	206.33±0.58b	83.67±2.89abc	9.56±1.43h	15.78±2.87abc
马尾松(Pinus massoniana)	14.69±1.25c	5.98±0.86ef	22.94±0.15a	191.33±2.31de	59.33±8.50e	28.39±1.77c	17.24±1.19ab
樟(Camphora officinarum)	7.30±2.10d	8.49±0.19b	19.59±0.25d	207.67±4.04b	75.33±6.66cd	19.15±0.43ef	13.50±0.63cd
栓皮栎(Quercus variabilis)	9.43±1.80d	6.69±0.16cde	20.05±0.04c	192.33±4.51cde	63.00±6.25e	32.86±3.70b	7.24±2.32e
枫香树(Liquidambar formosana)	1.79±0.20e	9.29±0.47b	18.36±0.10f	198.00±4.36c	67.67±3.06de	23.57±1.32d	16.92±0.43ab

主成分	特征值	方差贡献率/%	累积贡献率/%
PC1	3.807	54.393	54.393
PC2	1.382	19.739	74.132
PC3	1.039	14.848	88.980
PC4	0.536	7.659	96.639
PC5	0.129	1.844	98.483
PC6	0.085	1.212	99.696
PC7	0.021	0.304	100.000

指标	PC1载荷	PC1标准化变量系数	PC2载荷	PC2标准化变量系数	PC3载荷	PC3标准化变量系数
平衡含水率(EMC)	0.374	0.192	0.773	0.658	0.290	0.285
热值(CV)	0.847	0.434	-0.028	-0.024	0.362	0.355
燃点(IP)	-0.906	-0.464	-0.146	-0.124	0.279	0.274
点燃时间(IT)	-0.873	-0.447	0.224	0.191	0.360	0.353
灰分含量(AC)	0.776	0.398	0.074	0.063	0.537	0.527
木质素(LC)	0.874	0.448	-0.332	-0.282	-0.280	-0.275
纤维素(CC)	0.040	0.021	0.772	0.657	-0.501	-0.492

树种	易燃性综合得分	综合排序	易燃性等级	树种	易燃性综合得分	综合排序	易燃性等级
湿地松(Pinus elliottii)	1.567	1	Ⅰ	油茶(Camellia oleifera)	-0.054	6	Ⅱ
马尾松(Pinus massoniana)	1.012	2	Ⅰ	海桐(Pittosporum tobira)	-0.438	7	Ⅱ
小叶栎(Quercus chenii)	0.720	3	Ⅰ	枫香树(Liquidambar formosana)	-0.480	8	Ⅱ
冬青(Ilex chinensis)	0.394	4	Ⅱ	樟(Camphora officinarum)	-0.510	9	Ⅱ
栓皮栎(Quercus variabilis)	0.221	5	Ⅱ	构(Broussonetia papyrifera)	-2.437	10	Ⅲ