The Impact of Natural Recovery of Diseased and Pest-infected Treescutting on the Niche and Diversity of Secondary Pinus massoniana Forests

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2024.05.010

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigates the biodiversity and niche dynamics in Pinus massoniana forests(PMF)following thinning of trees affected by pine wilt disease to facilitate natural restoration,we aim to provide a scientific basis for the management of PMF stands after sanitation cutting.Employing a PMF stand unaffected by pine wilt disease as the control(CK),the forest stands with moderate cutting and restoration for 5 years(MT₅),moderate cutting and restoration for 15 years(MT₁₅),heavy cutting and restoration for 5 years(HT₅),and heavy cutting and restoration for 15 years(HT₁₅)were selected respectively assess how varying degrees of thinning and periods of natural restoration influence species composition,niche width,niche overlap,and biodiversity of PMF.1)Compared with CK,the important value of P.massoniana,niche width,and the average niche overlap between P.massoniana and other tree species in the forest stands after the cutting of epidemic wood generally decreased.2)Under the same natural restoration duration,the average important value of P.massoniana,niche width,and the average niche overlap between P.massoniana and other tree species decreased with increasing cutting intensity,and the important value of broad-leaved trees increased with increasing cutting intensity.3)Under the same cutting intensity,the average important value of P.massoniana,niche width,and the average niche overlap between P.massoniana and other tree species decreased with increasing natural restoration years,and the important value of broad-leaved trees increased with increasing natural restoration years.4)When the natural restoration lasted for 15 years,the species richness of the secondary forest of P.massoniana after heavy cutting was significantly higher than that after moderate cutting(P<0.05),while the difference was not significant when the natural restoration lasted for 5 years(P>0.05).5)Under the same cutting intensity,the species richness,Shannon-Wiener index,and Simpson index of the secondary forest of P.massoniana with natural restoration for 15 years were significantly higher than those with natural restoration for 5 years(P<0.05).Following thinning of P.massoniana,extended periods of natural restoration correlate with reduced significance and niche breadth of P.massoniana,alongside an increase in the significance of broad-leaved species.Additionally,the niche overlap between P.massoniana and other tree species decreases,resulting in higher species diversity.Intense thinning accelerates these ecological transitions more effectively than moderate thinning.

Key words: Pinus massoniana, thinning, natural restoration, biodiversity, niche, pine wilt disease

CLC Number:

S718.5

WU Jilai, MAO Yangjun, CHEN Yangen, HU Ao, WU Yanping, SHI Yan, WANG Yixiang. The Impact of Natural Recovery of Diseased and Pest-infected Treescutting on the Niche and Diversity of Secondary Pinus massoniana Forests[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2024, (5): 86-95.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.1

Tab.5

References 42

[1]	项文化, 田大伦. 不同年龄阶段马尾松人工林养分循环的研究[J]. 植物生态学报, 2002, 26(1):89-95.
[2]	张华锋, 陈思宇, 刘刚, 等. 松材线虫病疫木卫生伐对马尾松纯林林分结构的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2020, 37(4):745-751.
[3]	洪利兴, 王泳, 杜国坚, 等. 我国南方马尾松林生态系统的退化特征和改造对策研究[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2000, 20(2):1-9.
[4]	叶建仁, 吴小芹. 松材线虫病研究进展[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2022, 41(3):1-10.
[5]	邓莉丽, 刘青华, 周志春, 等. 抗松材线虫病马尾松种质资源遗传多样性分析及核心种质构建[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2024, 41(1):67-78.
[6]	果叮咚, 谢力. “数字森防”助力浙江高质量防控松材线虫病[N/OL].(2024-01-16)[2024-08-02]. http://lyj.zj.gov.cn/art/2024/1/16/art_1276365_59065117.html.
[7]	万凌凡, 刘国华, 樊辉, 等. 青藏高原东南部森林群落生态位特征与物种多样性的影响因素[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(13):5658-5668.
[8]	黄睿雪, 欧静, 王洪飞, 等. 百里杜鹃国家森林公园植物群落物种多样性及优势种生态位宽度对人为干扰的响应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2024, 43(5):1217-1226.
[9]	沈琪, 张骏, 朱锦茹, 等. 浙江省生态公益林植被恢复过程中物种组成及多样性的变化[J]. 生态学报, 2005, 25(9):2131-2138.
[10]	南国卫, 韩磊, 何馨雨, 等. 刺槐林草本层物种多样性的动态变化特征[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2022, 42(5):491-497.
[11]	胡澳, 赵毅辉, 吴继来, 等. 采伐后植被自然恢复对马尾松次生林土壤有机碳及其活性组分的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2024, 41(6):1189-1200.
[12]	吴敏娟, 尤誉杰, 张晓红, 等. 不同干扰模式对受害马尾松人工纯林林分结构的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(1):58-66. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201901.007
[13]	ERIC K, ALANA L B, MARGARET M M. Understory plant species and functional diversity in the degraded wet tropical forest of Kolombangara Island,Solomon Islands[J]. Bioligical Conservation, 2012,145:214-224.
[14]	刘艳红, 赵惠勋. 干扰与物种多样性维持理论研究进展[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2000, 22(4):101-105.
[15]	赵勇强, 阎玺羽, 谢加琪, 等. 退化喀斯特森林自然恢复中不同生活史阶段木本植物物种多样性与群落构建[J]. 生物多样性, 2024, 32(5):72-83.
[16]	PARIONA W, FREDERICKSEN T S, LICONA J C. Natural regeneration and liberation of timber species in cutting gaps in two Bolivian tropical forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2003, 181(3):313-322.
[17]	石娟, 骆有庆, 宋冀莹, 等. 松材线虫入侵后不同伐倒干扰强度对马尾松林植物多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2006, 17(7):1157-1163.
[18]	邹丰虎, 周雯, 柴宗政. 近自然经营对马尾松林优势树种生态位及种间关系的影响[J]. 西部林业科学, 2024, 53(1):55-65.
[19]	罗应华, 孙冬婧, 林建勇, 等. 马尾松人工林近自然化改造对植物自然更新及物种多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(19):6154-6162.
[20]	黎露, 王永琪, 马姜明, 等. 南亚热带马尾松人工林近自然恢复过程中林下木本植物生态位动态[J]. 广西科学, 2021, 28(5):499-510.
[21]	姚珊, 郭其强, 盘金文, 等. 马尾松人工林发育过程中林下灌草群落优势种生态位动态分析[J]. 西北植物学报, 2021, 41(8):1417-1424.
[22]	马克平. 生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰα多样性的测度方法(上)[J]. 生物多样性, 1994, 2(3):162-168.
[23]	马克平, 刘玉明. 生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅰα多样性的测度方法(下)[J]. 生物多样性, 1994, 2(4):231-239.
[24]	LEVINS R. Evolution in changing environments:Some theoretical explorations[M]. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1968.
[25]	PIANKA E R. The structure of lizard communities[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1973, 4(1):53-74.
[26]	张慧, 周国模, 白尚斌, 等. 目标树抚育对亚热带天然次生灌丛群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报. 2017, 28(5):1414-1420. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201705.037
[27]	GU Li, GONG Zhiwen, LI Weizhong. Niches and interspecific associations of dominant populations in three changed stages of natural secondary forests on Loess Plateau,P.R.China[J]. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7(1):1-12.
[28]	史作民, 程瑞梅, 刘世荣. 宝天曼落叶阔叶林种群生态位特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 1999, 10(3):10-14.
[29]	SMITH M D, KNAPP A K. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss[J]. Ecological Letters, 2003, 6(8):509-517.
[30]	唐洪辉, 赵庆, 陈星澄, 等. 桉树不同采伐强度对新栽阔叶树种生态位及其生长量的影响[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(4):101-110.
[31]	马万里, 罗菊春, 荆涛, 等. 采伐干扰对长白山核桃楸林生物多样性的影响研究[J]. 植物研究, 2007, 27(1):119-124. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2007.01.022
[32]	巫志龙, 陈金太, 周新年, 等. 择伐强度对天然次生林乔木层6种优势种群生态位的影响[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2013, 21(2):161-167.
[33]	PETRAITIS P S. Algebraic and graphical relationships among niche breadth measures[J]. Ecology, 1981, 62(3):545-548.
[34]	陆云峰, 杨安娜, 王豪, 等. 紫楠天然群落优势物种生态位与种间联结性[J]. 林业科学研究, 2024, 37(3):61-67.
[35]	马姜明, 占婷婷, 莫祖英, 等. 漓江流域岩溶区檵木群落不同恢复阶段主要共有种生态位变化[J]. 西北植物学报, 2012, 32(12):2530-2536.
[36]	张乐满, 兰波, 张东升, 等. 三峡水库涪陵—奉节段消落带优势草本植物生态位与种间联结性研究[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(8):3228-3240.
[37]	SPIES T A, FRANKLIN J F, KLOPSCH M. Canopy gaps in Douglas-fir forests of the Cascade Mountains[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1990, 20(5):649-658.
[38]	舒琪, 徐瑞晶, 胡璇, 等. 海南岛甘什岭青梅群落主要乔木树种生态位与种间联结[J]. 生态学杂志, 2021, 40(9):2689-2697.
[39]	张明霞, 王得祥, 康冰, 等. 秦岭华山松天然次生林优势种群的种间联结性[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(1):12-21.
[40]	董冬, 许小天, 周志翔, 等. 安徽九华山风景区古树群落主要种群生态位的动态变化[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(5):1292-1304.
[41]	齐麟, 代力民, 于大炮, 等. 采伐对长白山阔叶红松林乔木群落的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2009(8):129-132.
[42]	陈旭, 刘宗悦, 徐钧杰, 等. 天目山毛竹林皆伐后群落的恢复特征[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2022, 39(4):705-716.

处理	累积株数采伐强度	自然恢复年限/a	郁闭度	主要乔木树种	平均胸径/cm
CK	未采伐		0.7	马尾松、青冈、枫香树等	17.03±0.93
MT₅	30%~40%,中度采伐	5	0.6	马尾松、木荷、青冈等	19.20±1.40
HT₅	60%~80%,重度采伐	5	0.5	木荷、马尾松、青冈等	17.68±0.70
MT₁₅	30%~40%,中度采伐	15	0.7	马尾松、青冈、苦槠等	12.05±1.59
HT₁₅	60%~80%,重度采伐	15	0.7	杉木、青冈、女贞等	9.87±0.67

树种		重要值
树种		CK	MT₅	HT₅	MT₁₅	HT₁₅
针叶树	马尾松(Pinus massoniana)	40.02⁽¹⁾	60.74⁽¹⁾	26.95⁽²⁾	29.50⁽¹⁾	1.31⁽¹³⁾
	杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)		3.52⁽⁵⁾	3.90⁽⁴⁾	6.09⁽⁶⁾	28.68⁽¹⁾
	合计	40.02	64.26	30.85	35.59	29.99
阔叶树	青冈(Quercus glauca)	27.77⁽²⁾	6.17⁽³⁾	4.00⁽³⁾	18.80⁽²⁾	12.04⁽²⁾
	木荷(Schima superba)		19.09⁽²⁾	61.28⁽¹⁾	4.70⁽⁷⁾	7.05⁽⁶⁾
	油茶(Camellia oleifera)	3.19⁽⁵⁾	3.21⁽⁶⁾		8.55⁽⁵⁾	7.59⁽⁵⁾
	檵木(Loropetalum chinense)		3.01⁽⁷⁾	3.87⁽⁵⁾		2.71⁽¹⁰⁾
	枫香树(Liquidambar formosana)	25.71⁽³⁾				8.74⁽⁴⁾
	苦槠(Castanopsis sclerophylla)				15.47⁽³⁾	6.48⁽⁷⁾
	女贞(Ligustrum lucidum)				13.18⁽⁴⁾	9.79⁽³⁾
	棕榈(Trachycarpus fortunei)	3.31⁽⁴⁾
	山矾(Symplocos sumuntia)		4.26⁽⁴⁾
	白栎(Quercus fabri)				3.71⁽⁸⁾
	豹皮樟(Litsea coreana var.sinensis)					5.45⁽⁸⁾
	黄檀(Dalbergia hupeana)					2.89⁽⁹⁾
	灯台树(Cornus controversa)					2.54⁽¹¹⁾
	梾木(Cornus macrophylla)					2.45⁽¹²⁾
	盐麸木(Rhus chinensis)					1.16⁽¹⁴⁾
	三角槭(Acer buergerianum)					1.12⁽¹⁵⁾
	合计	59.98	35.74	69.15	64.41	70.01

树种		生态位宽度(B_L)
树种		CK	MT₅	HT₅	MT₁₅	HT₁₅
针叶树	马尾松(Pinus massoniana)	3.816	2.999	1.936	2.990	1.000
	杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)		1.000	1.000	1.690	2.728
阔叶树	青冈(Quercus glauca)	2.827	1.748	1.000	2.510	1.615
	木荷(Schima superba)		2.885	2.920	1.000	1.766
	油茶(Camellia oleifera)	1.000	1.000		2.179	2.837
	檵木(Loropetalum chinense)		1.000	1.000		1.732
	枫香树(Liquidambar formosana)	2.898				1.596
	苦槠(Castanopsis sclerophylla)				2.918	2.472
	女贞(Ligustrum lucidum)				1.855	2.184
	棕榈(Trachycarpus fortunei)	1.000
	山矾(Symplocos sumuntia)		1.000
	白栎(Quercus fabri)				1.000
	豹皮樟(Litsea coreana var.sinensis)					1.000
	黄檀(Dalbergia hupeana)					1.000
	灯台树(Cornus controversa)					1.000
	梾木(Cornus macrophylla)					1.000
	盐麸木(Rhus chinensis)					1.000
	三角槭(Acer buergerianum)					1.000

树种		与马尾松的生态位重叠
树种		CK	MT₅	HT₅	MT₁₅	HT₁₅
针叶树	杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)		0.593	0.888	0.616	0.536
阔叶树	青冈(Quercus glauca)	0.896	0.828	0.937	0.879	0.000
	木荷(Schima superba)		0.983	0.671	0.476	0.926
	油茶(Camellia oleifera)	0.406	0.593		0.796	0.388
	檵木(Loropetalum chinense)		0.566	0.046		0.000
	枫香树(Liquidambar formosana)	0.995				0.314
	苦槠(Castanopsis sclerophylla)				0.931	0.489
	女贞(Ligustrum lucidum)				0.639	0.912
	棕榈(Trachycarpus fortunei)	0.729
	山矾(Symplocos sumuntia)		0.572
	白栎(Quercus fabri)				0.476
	豹皮樟(Litsea coreana var.sinensis)					0.000
	黄檀(Dalbergia hupeana)					0.000
	灯台树(Cornus controversa)					0.000
	梾木(Cornus macrophylla)					1.000
	盐麸木(Rhus chinensis)					1.000
	三角槭(Acer buergerianum)					1.000

因素	物种丰富度(S)	Shannon-Wiener多样性指数(H')	Simpson优势度指数(D)	Pielou均匀度指数(J)
采伐强度	*	ns	ns	ns
自然恢复年限	**	**	**	ns
采伐强度×自然恢复年限	**	ns	ns	ns