森林健康评价及其多尺度转换方法

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.201911007

国家林草科技领军期刊
中国精品科技期刊
中国高校百佳科技期刊
江苏省新闻出版政府奖期刊奖
RCCSE林学权威期刊（A+）
CSCD核心期刊
Scopus数据库收录期刊
中文核心期刊
SCD核心期刊

作者加群：102861116

微信公众号：南京林业大学学报

高级检索

南京林业大学学报（自然科学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3): 206-216.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.201911007

森林健康评价及其多尺度转换方法

董灵波(), 刘兆刚^*()

东北林业大学林学院,森林生态系统可持续经营教育部重点实验室,黑龙江哈尔滨 150040

收稿日期:2019-11-04 修回日期:2020-03-15 出版日期:2021-05-30 发布日期:2021-05-31
通讯作者: 刘兆刚
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31700562)

Forest health assessments and multi-scale conversion methods

DONG Lingbo(), LIU Zhaogang^*()

Key Laboratory of Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Management-Ministry of Education, School of Forestry, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China

Received:2019-11-04 Revised:2020-03-15 Online:2021-05-30 Published:2021-05-31
Contact: LIU Zhaogang

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】森林生态系统具有明显的层级结构,如何将样本点或样本区健康评价结果推广到区域尺度上是一个亟待解决的关键问题。为此,本研究尝试采用统计学方法实现森林健康评价结果在单木、林分和区域尺度间的转换,为森林健康经营提供理论依据和技术支撑。【方法】以大兴安岭地区盘古林场51块样地和森林资源二类调查数据为基础,采用熵值-AHP法构造单木尺度健康评价模型,并汇总得到林分尺度健康评价结果,即平均值(H_m)、标准差(H_sd)、变异系数(H_cv)、偏度(H_pd)和峰度(H_fd),进而采用度量误差模型建立林分尺度健康综合评价模型。最后,借助所建模型和森林资源二类调查数据以及DEM数据进行区域尺度森林健康得分空间分布制图,并分析其空间分布规律。【结果】所建林分尺度健康综合评价模型的预估精度相对较高,H_m、H_sd、H_cv、H_pd和H_fd预测模型的确定系数R²分别达到0.464 3、0.305 6、0.909 6、0.298 1和0.448 5,能够基本满足森林健康评价的需求;单木、林分和区域尺度评价结果均表明该地区森林整体处于亚健康水平,其中林分因子(树高、优势高、树种数量、株树密度、断面积和单位蓄积)与地形因子(海拔、坡度、坡位)共同影响林分健康得分及其分布情况;盘古林场森林健康得分平均值(H_m)为0.623 4,整体处于亚健康水平;各评价指标均具有明显的空间分布趋势,其中H_m、H_cv、H_pd和H_fd较大的区域主要集中在林场北部且靠近居民点和交通便利的地区,而在南部偏远地区则普遍较低,但H_sd的空间分布格局则完全相反,表明适当的森林经营有助于提升森林的健康水平。【结论】统计学方法能够实现森林健康评价结果从单木、林分到区域尺度的有效转换。

关键词: 森林健康评价, 尺度转换, 森林冠层, 度量误差模型, 空间分布

Abstract:

【Objective】 Forest ecosystems have an obvious hierarchical structure; thus, the concept of health assessment results from the sample points or sample areas at the regional scale is currently an important issue in sustainable forest management. Therefore, the goal of this study was to achieve the efficient conversion of forest health assessment results among trees, stands and regional levels using statistical methods. It may provide a theoretical basis and technical support for forest health management in northeastern China. 【Method】 Based on the datasets of 51 sample plots and forest resource inventories in the Pangu Forest Farm in the Greater Khingan Mountains, a tree-level health assessment model was constructed using the entropy-AHP method. Then, five statistical indicators, namely, mean value (H_m), standard deviation (H_sd), coefficient of variation (H_cv), skewness (H_pd) and kurtosis (H_fd), were generated for each plot, which were treated as the results of a stand-level health assessment. The error-in-variable regression model was applied to develop a comprehensive evaluation model of stand-level health status. Finally, the spatial distributions of regional-level forest health scores were mapped using the estimated regression model and forest management inventory datasets. The basic characteristics and patterns of the five statistical indicators were analyzed. 【Result】 The prediction accuracy of the estimated forest health comprehensive evaluation model was relatively high, in which the values of determination coefficients (R²) of the H_m, H_sd, H_cv, H_pd and H_fd models were as high as 0.464 3, 0.305 6, 0.909 6, 0.298 1 and 0.448 5, respectively, meeting the potential demands of forest health assessment. The results of tree-, stand-, and regional level health assessments indicated that the forests within the study area mainly belonged to the category of sub-health, in which the stand (height of individual tree, height of dominant tree, number of tree species, number of trees per hectare, stand basal area and stand volume) and topographic factors (elevation, slope and slope position) affected the forest health scores and their distributions. The average values of forest health were 0.623 4, which belonged to the sub-health level. With respect to the five statistical indicators, they all exhibited obvious spatial patterns, in which the stands with larger H_m, H_cv, H_pd and H_fd values were mainly concentrated in the northern part of the forest farm, in particular being close to settlements and roads. However, the values were significantly lower in the southern portion where transportation was usually not convenient. Furthermore, the spatial distribution pattern of H_sd was completely opposite to that of the other indicators, revealing that the adaptive management is meaningful in the improvement of forest health levels. 【Conclusion】 The statistical methods used in this study could efficiently achieve scale conversions of forest health assessments at the trees, stands and regional levels.

Key words: forest health assessment, scale transformation, forest canopy, error-in-variable regression model, spatial distribution

中图分类号:

S718.5

董灵波,刘兆刚. 森林健康评价及其多尺度转换方法[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(3): 206-216.

DONG Lingbo, LIU Zhaogang. Forest health assessments and multi-scale conversion methods[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 45(3): 206-216.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.201911007.

图/表 10

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

表2

林分尺度健康评估结果及其各等级分配格局"

样地 plot	统计值 statistical values										健康等级比例/% percent of health grades
样地 plot	H_m		H_sd		H_cv		H_pd		H_fd		不健康 unhealth		中健康 mid-health	亚健康 sub-health	健康 health
P1	0.798 8		0.055 3		6.930 0		-0.720 0		0.720 0		0.00		0.00	15.00	85.00
P2	0.797 0		0.065 7		8.240 0		-0.610 0		-0.350 0		0.00		0.00	24.24	75.76
P3	0.732 0		0.097 9		13.380 0		-0.950 0		0.060 0		0.00		2.86	42.86	54.29
P4	0.556 1		0.125 1		22.500 0		-0.430 0		1.470 0		2.27		30.68	63.64	3.41
P5	0.762 4		0.073 0		9.570 0		-0.630 0		0.010 0		0.00		0.00	45.98	54.02
P6	0.678 8		0.073 6		10.840 0		-0.540 0		-0.300 0		0.00		1.00	84.00	15.00
P7	0.683 0		0.085 4		12.510 0		-0.820 0		2.910 0		0.00		1.43	77.14	21.43
P8	0.683 8		0.078 0		11.400 0		-0.800 0		2.120 0		0.00		3.48	81.74	14.78
P9	0.661 2		0.076 9		11.630 0		-0.170 0		0.590 0		0.00		3.14	84.30	12.56
P10	0.675 2		0.089 0		13.190 0		-0.950 0		1.460 0		0.00		4.64	72.19	23.18
P11	0.601 0		0.083 5		13.890 0		-0.570 0		0.560 0		0.00		10.53	86.84	2.63
P12	0.659 3		0.093 1		14.120 0		-0.700 0		1.350 0		0.00		3.54	79.65	16.81
P13	0.635 6		0.077 7		12.230 0		-0.900 0		1.600 0		0.00		6.02	89.16	4.82
P14	0.694 3		0.094 0		13.540 0		-1.830 0		3.710 0		0.00		5.79	66.94	27.27
样地 plot		统计值 statistical values										健康等级比例/% percent of health grades
样地 plot		H_m		H_sd		H_cv		H_pd		H_fd		不健康 unhealth	中健康 mid-health	亚健康 sub-health	健康 health
P15		0.724 3		0.075 5		10.430 0		-0.980 0		1.190 0		0.00	0.96	56.73	42.31
P16		0.687 0		0.104 8		15.260 0		-0.490 0		0.870 0		0.00	1.75	71.93	26.32
P17		0.650 1		0.074 4		11.450 0		-0.620 0		0.180 0		0.00	2.86	92.86	4.29
P18		0.660 1		0.093 2		14.120 0		-0.790 0		0.870 0		0.00	6.88	80.63	12.50
P19		0.659 6		0.087 5		13.260 0		-0.070 0		-0.150 0		0.00	2.17	83.70	14.13
P20		0.629 4		0.082 9		13.170 0		-0.200 0		-0.050 0		0.00	7.32	86.18	6.50
P21		0.669 9		0.086 0		12.840 0		-0.370 0		-0.170 0		0.00	3.00	78.00	19.00
P22		0.634 8		0.077 4		12.200 0		-0.330 0		0.300 0		0.00	4.65	88.95	6.40
P23		0.688 8		0.094 8		13.760 0		-0.470 0		0.930 0		0.00	5.00	70.00	25.00
P24		0.725 0		0.101 1		13.950 0		-1.010 0		1.540 0		0.00	4.84	53.23	41.94
P25		0.661 0		0.098 6		14.910 0		-0.360 0		-0.190 0		0.00	8.62	70.69	20.69
P26		0.535 4		0.122 7		22.930 0		-0.520 0		-0.180 0		2.10	31.47	65.03	1.40
P27		0.595 5		0.083 1		13.950 0		-0.450 0		-0.310 0		0.00	11.96	88.04	0.00
P28		0.683 3		0.058 4		8.550 0		-0.370 0		0.740 0		0.00	0.00	87.23	12.77
P29		0.675 9		0.084 0		12.420 0		-0.210 0		-0.250 0		0.00	2.38	76.19	21.43
P30		0.594 2		0.083 4		14.030 0		-0.620 0		1.320 0		0.00	10.30	89.09	0.61
P31		0.632 5		0.089 1		14.090 0		-0.150 0		0.110 0		0.00	5.21	84.38	10.42
P32		0.659 2		0.094 4		14.320 0		-0.490 0		0.200 0		0.00	5.60	79.20	15.20
P33		0.658 2		0.072 2		10.970 0		-0.270 0		0.160 0		0.00	2.22	86.67	11.11
P34		0.616 6		0.093 2		15.120 0		-0.740 0		0.940 0		0.00	9.17	87.16	3.67
P35		0.644 5		0.103 4		16.030 0		-0.670 0		1.130 0		0.00	6.45	79.03	14.52
P36		0.734 2		0.073 3		9.990 0		-0.600 0		-0.260 0		0.00	0.00	51.06	48.94
P37		0.644 3		0.082 3		12.770 0		-0.260 0		1.130 0		0.00	3.33	83.33	13.33
P38		0.646 3		0.090 9		14.060 0		-0.950 0		2.040 0		0.00	4.76	85.71	9.52
P39		0.644 2		0.079 5		12.350 0		-0.790 0		0.940 0		0.00	4.44	87.78	7.78
P40		0.618 6		0.099 1		16.030 0		-0.560 0		0.630 0		0.00	13.21	78.30	8.49
P41		0.659 0		0.072 9		11.060 0		-0.420 0		0.230 0		0.00	2.54	88.98	8.47
P42		0.581 1		0.074 1		12.740 0		-0.070 0		0.340 0		0.00	14.77	83.52	1.70
P43		0.621 3		0.093 1		14.990 0		-1.080 0		2.660 0		0.87	6.96	84.35	7.83
P44		0.649 2		0.083 0		12.790 0		-0.870 0		1.210 0		0.00	5.19	84.44	10.37
P45		0.642 3		0.094 2		14.660 0		-0.330 0		-0.280 0		0.00	6.59	81.32	12.09
P46		0.723 4		0.058 1		8.030 0		-0.790 0		1.690 0		0.00	0.64	63.46	35.90
P47		0.694 6		0.068 0		9.790 0		-0.540 0		1.550 0		0.00	1.23	77.50	21.27
P48		0.652 5		0.073 9		11.320 0		-0.710 0		1.220 0		0.00	3.40	91.06	5.53
P49		0.650 7		0.074 4		11.440 0		-0.330 0		1.420 0		0.00	3.03	90.63	6.34
P50		0.670 1		0.074 7		11.140 0		-0.700 0		1.330 0		0.00	2.47	85.32	12.21
P51		0.693 0		0.068 0		9.820 0		-0.650 0		2.230 0		0.00	1.21	79.55	19.24
平均 mean		0.663 3		0.084 1		12.837 5		-0.597 1		0.846 5		0.10	5.48	75.78	18.63
标准差 SD		0.051 0		0.014 1		2.868 3		0.308 9		0.912 1		0.44	6.20	16.35	18.11

表2

图5

表3

表4

图6

参考文献 18

[1]	PERCY K E, FERRETTI M. Air pollution and forest health: toward new monitoring concepts[J]. Environ Pollut, 2004,130(1):113-126. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.034. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.034
[2]	WOODALL C W, AMACHER M C, BECHTOLD W A, et al. Status and future of the forest health indicators program of the USA[J]. Environ Monit Assess, 2011,177(1/2/3/4):419-436. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1644-8. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1644-8
[3]	王秋燕, 陈鹏飞, 李学东, 等. 森林健康评价方法综述[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018,42(2):177-183.
	WANG Q Y, CHEN P F, LI X D, et al. Review of forest health assessment methods[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2018,42(2):177-183. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201703105.
[4]	张国祯, 甘敬, 朱建刚. 北京山区森林健康的多尺度评价[J]. 林业科学, 2011,47(6):143-151.
	ZHANG G Z, GAN J, ZHU J G. Multi-scale health assessment of forests in mountainous regions of Beijing[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2011,47(6):143-151.
[5]	樊晶, 杨燕琼. 基于遥感的森林健康度分析: 以东莞桉树林为例[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2017,33(1):40-45.
	FAN J, YANG Y Q. Analysis of forest health based on remote sensing technology: a case study of Eucalyptus in Dongguan[J]. Forestry and Environmental Science, 2017,33(1):40-45. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4427.2017.01.007.
[6]	郭菊兰, 朱耀军, 武高洁, 等. 海南省清澜港红树林湿地健康评价[J]. 林业科学, 2015,51(10):17-25.
	GUO J L, ZHU Y J, WU G J, et al. Health assessment of mangrove wetland in Qinglangang, Hainan[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2015,51(10):17-25. DOI: 10.11707/j.10017488.20151003.
[7]	甘敬. 北京山区森林健康评价研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2008.
	GAN J. Forest health assessment for mountainous area of Beijing[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2008.
[8]	陈望雄. 东洞庭湖区域森林生态系统健康评价与预警研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2012.
	CHEN W X. The research on forest ecosystem health envaluation and early warning in east Dongting Lake area[D]. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2012.
[9]	姜孟竹, 刘兆刚, 李元. 大兴安岭盘古林场森林健康评价与分析[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014,34(7):73-79.
	JIANG M Z, LIU Z G, LI Y. Assessment and analysis on forest health of Pangu Forest Farm in Daxing’anling Mountains of China[J]. J Central South Univ For Technol, 2014,34(7):73-79. DOI: 10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2014.07.016.
[10]	朱宇. 大兴安岭天然落叶松林健康评价研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2013.
	ZHU Y. Forest health assessment of natural Larix gmelinii in Great Xing’an Mountians of China[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2013.
[11]	RANDOLPH K C, MOSER J W. An evaluation of changes in tree crown characteristics to assess forest health in two Indiana State Parks[J]. North J Appl For, 2004,21(1):50-55. DOI: 10.1093/njaf/21.1.50.
[12]	APPLEGATE J R, STEINMAN J. A comparison of tree health among forest types and conditions at fort A. P. hill, Virginia[J]. South J Appl For, 2005,29(3):143-147. DOI: 10.1093/sjaf/29.3.143. doi: 10.1093/sjaf/29.3.143
[13]	FILIPPO B, MATTEO F, GIOVANNI L, et al. Linking forest diversity and tree health: preliminary insights from a large-scale survey in Italy[J]. For Ecosyst, 2018(2):151-161.
[14]	刘玲华. 台湾北中部海岸保安林健康指标评估法[D]. 屏东: 国立屏东科技大学, 2005.
	LIU L H. The assessment method of health indicators for coastal protection forests-a study in northern and central Taiwai[D]. Pingtung: National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, 2005.
[15]	董灵波, 刘兆刚, 李凤日, 等. 大兴安岭主要森林类型林分空间结构及最优树种组成[J]. 林业科学研究, 2014,27(6):734-740.
	DONG L B, LIU Z G, LI F R, et al. Quantitative analysis of forest spatial structure and optimal species composition for the main forest types in Daxing’anling, Northeast China[J]. For Res, 2014,27(6):734-740. DOI: 10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj.2014.06.004.
[16]	姜廷山, 王鹤智, 董灵波, 等. 不同抚育强度对兴安落叶松林空间结构的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2018,46(12):9-14, 19.
	JIANG T S, WANG H Z, DONG L B, et al. Effects of different intermediate cutting intensities on the spatial structure of Larix gmelinii forest[J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2018,46(12):9-14, 19. DOI: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2018.12.002.
[17]	唐守正, 郎奎建, 李海奎. 统计和生物数学模型计算:ForStat教程[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009.
	TANG S Z, LANG K J, LI H K. Statistical and biological mathematical model calculation (For Stat)[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2009.
[18]	姬文元, 邢韶华, 郭宁, 等. 川西米亚罗林区云冷杉林健康状况评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009,45(3):13-18.
	JI W Y, XING S H, GUO N, et al. Health evaluation on spruce and fir forests in Miyaluo of the western Sichuan[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2009,45(3):13-18. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.03.003.

变量 variables	平均胸径/ cm mean DBH	平均树高/ m mean tree hight	林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) density	郁闭度 canopy density	落叶松比例 proportion of larch	平均冠幅/ m mean crown width	平均冠长/ m mean crown length	缺陷木株数比例 proportion of defective wood	单位蓄积量/ (m³·hm^-2) volume
最小值min.	6.30	6.66	475.00	0.40	0.00	0.92	3.27	0.00	55.67
最大值max.	14.94	17.86	3 917.00	0.80	1.00	1.73	8.86	0.50	185.16
平均值mean	10.20	11.04	1 730.90	0.60	0.68	1.29	5.83	0.06	100.22
标准差SD	2.12	2.00	662.40	0.12	0.25	0.21	1.16	0.11	31.01
变异系数/%CV	20.76	18.10	38.27	19.78	36.93	16.28	19.9	183.33	30.94

编号 No.	模型 model	F	P	确定系数 R²	均方根误差 RMSE	平均绝对误差 Bias
1	H_m=1.019 8-0.006 7S_BA-0.038 6H_T+0.026 1H_DT- 0.000 3E_LE+0.002 5S_LO-0.008 2P_OS	8.104 2	<0.000 1	0.465 2	0.037 7	0.028 8
2	H_sd=0.170 3-0.106 6H_m+0.003 8N_TS-0.000 1E_LE	8.377 0	0.000 2	0.361 1	0.007 4	0.005 4
3	H_cv=15.913 0+170.797 0H_sd-26.239 0H_m	248.100 0	<0.000 1	0.909 8	0.876 4	0.531 3
4	H_pd=-1.242 5-4.153 1H_sd +0.003 8V_OL+0.001 9E_LE- 0.014 9S_LO-0.000 1N_UM	4.415 0	0.002 4	0.308 4	0.187 4	0.131 2
5	H_fd=1.847 5-2.213 4H_pd-3.432 3H_m+0.112 4S_BA- 0.019 3V_OL-0.105 8P_OS	8.984 0	<0.000 1	0.449 0	0.689 6	0.528 4

模型 model	拟合优度 goodness-of-fit			检验结果 validation result
模型 model	确定系数 R²	均方根误差 RMSE	平均绝对误差 Bias	确定系数 R²	均方根误差 RMSE	平均绝对误差 Bias
H_m	0.464 3	0.037 7	0.028 8	0.492 6	0.032 5	0.024 5
H_sd	0.305 6	0.009 5	0.007 6	0.290 1	0.009 6	0.007 8
H_cv	0.909 6	0.877 5	0.546 9	0.907 8	0.838 6	0.533 3
H_pd	0.298 1	0.207 4	0.150 7	0.304 9	0.201 4	0.141 8
H_fd	0.448 5	0.689 9	0.528 6	0.438 1	0.695 0	0.530 4

森林健康评价及其多尺度转换方法

Forest health assessments and multi-scale conversion methods

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 18

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	吴妍, 李若楠, 赵志强. 黑龙江省国家级森林公园空间分布特征研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(5): 189-196.
[2]	李俊冬, 查禄慧, 马国强, 肖剑平, 李育武, 李旭. 云南楚雄小百草岭鸟类多样性空间格局[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 225-233.
[3]	许浩, 黄婷, 刘伟, 王浩. 长三角风景名胜区空间分布与可达性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 294-303.
[4]	阎雄飞, 程鑫辉, 郝哲, 王庭昊, 秦富林, 李刚. 枣瘿蚊幼虫在设施枣树上的空间分布型及抽样技术[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 201-208.
[5]	张建国, 葛扬. 国家森林城市与国家园林城市空间分布及其影响因素比较研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 41-49.
[6]	龚茂佳, 王娟, 付小勇, 寇卫利, 鲁宁, 王秋华, 赖虹燕. 云南广西蒜头果适生区预测及环境影响因子[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 44-52.
[7]	赵颖慧, 杨海城, 甄贞. 基于ULS、TLS和超声测高仪的天然次生林中不同林冠层树高估测[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(4): 23-32.
[8]	王磊, 刘强, 杨俊杰, 雷宇, 祁天法. 基于卫星跟踪的钳嘴鹳家域研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(6): 33-38.
[9]	张卓然, 唐晓岚. 环太湖地区历史村落的环境适应性及特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(5): 17-24.
[10]	纪烨琳, 苏喜友, 于治军. 基于随机森林模型的美国白蛾在中国的潜在生境预测[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(6): 121-128.
[11]	刘凯舟,曹霞,巨云为,翟敏,严晓茹,王笑石,周际丰. 山核桃透翅蛾幼虫空间分布型及抽样技术[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(03): 23-27.
[12]	陈霞,袁在翔,金雪梅,朱军,徐海兵,赵宸,陈斌,关庆伟. 紫金山针阔混交林主要树种空间分布格局及种间关联性[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(06): 84-90.
[13]	张景路,张绘芳,地力夏提·包尔汉,朱雅丽,雷亚君. 基于Landsat数字影像的阿尔泰山乔木林空间分布[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(04): 153-158.
[14]	秦鹏,顾琪,王舒悰,曹俊杰,王福升,时培建. 4种地被竹大个体空间分布的点格局分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(04): 39-45.
[15]	周梅,李春干,代华兵. 红树林空间分布遥感监测精度的影响因素及应对措施Symbol[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 42(01): 163-168.