西南桦红椎混交林的生长动态及林木形质分析

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009009

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） ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (1): 97-105.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009009

西南桦红椎混交林的生长动态及林木形质分析

唐继新¹^,²(), 朱雪萍¹, 贾宏炎¹^,^*(), 曾冀¹, 郭文福¹, 黄德卫¹

1.中国林业科学研究院热带林业实验中心,广西凭祥 532600
2.广西友谊关森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站,广西凭祥 532600

收稿日期:2020-09-03 接受日期:2020-11-04 出版日期:2022-01-30 发布日期:2022-02-09
通讯作者: 贾宏炎
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YFD0600604-01)

Growth dynamics and tree form quality of mixed Betula alnoides-Castanopsis hystrix plantation

TANG Jixin¹^,²(), ZHU Xueping¹, JIA Hongyan¹^,^*(), ZENG Ji¹, GUO Wenfu¹, HUANG Dewei¹

1. Experimental Center of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Pingxiang 532600, China
2. Guangxi Youyiguan Forest Ecosystem Research Station, Pingxiang 532600, China

Received:2020-09-03 Accepted:2020-11-04 Online:2022-01-30 Published:2022-02-09
Contact: JIA Hongyan

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探索西南桦与红椎 “丛状行间”同龄混交林的生长动态和树干形质特征,为其大径材培育提供参考。【方法】以11年生西南桦与红椎 “丛状行间”同龄混交林为对象,选取9株西南桦和10株红椎样木进行树干解析,分析混交林不同树种的生长动态、径阶蓄积构成、干形、冠高比和树干分杈率等。【结果】西南桦平均木和优势木的胸径生长速生期(连年生长量>1.0 cm)分别在第3~7年和第3~9年;红椎平均木的胸径生长速生期在第4~8年,优势木胸径生长速生期从第3年开始,直至第11年仍未结束。西南桦平均木和优势木的树高生长速生期(连年生长量>1.0 cm),分别在第1~7年和第1~8年;红椎平均木的树高生长速生期主要在第3~7年,优势木树高的生长速生期在第1~7年。西南桦平均木和优势木单株材积的生长速生期(连年生长量>0.01 m³)起始时间分别在第6年和第5年,二者直到第11年仍未结束。在造林后11年内,红椎平均木单株材积的生长量仍处于缓慢增长期。从第4年起,西南桦平均木胸径、树高和单株材积的总生长量开始显著高于红椎平均木对应生长量(P<0.05);西南桦优势木胸径、树高和单株材积的总生长量分别从第5、8、5年开始显著高于红椎优势木对应总生长量(P<0.05)。二元材积模型(V=a×10^-4×D^b×H^c)对西南桦与红椎的单株材积拟合及预测效果较好。在11年生混交林中,西南桦和红椎的径阶蓄积分布近似正态分布,西南桦和红椎优良级干形的林木比率分别为67.71%和97.31%,两树种树干分杈率均低于6.0%。【结论】在中幼龄期,西南桦处于混交林上层。西南桦与红椎的 “丛状行间”同龄混交经营,有利于塑造西南桦与红椎的优良树干形质和林木生活力。西南桦与红椎优势木的胸径和树高生长速生期比其平均木的速生期长。

关键词: 西南桦, 红椎, 混交林, 生长动态, 林木形质

Abstract:

【Objective】 This study explored the growth dynamics and tree form quality of a mixed Betula alnoides-Castanopsis hystrix plantation with row cluster and the same age. This was carried out to provide management reference for large-diameter timber cultivation of the mixed plantation.【Method】 An 11-year-old mixed plantation was adopted as the research object. Nine and ten sample trees of species B. alnoides and C. hystrix, respectively,were selected for stem analysis. The growth dynamics, diameter class accumulation composition, stem form, crown height ratio and stem branching ratio of different tree species in the plantation were analyzed. 【Result】 The rapid stage of diameter at breast height (DBH) growth (annual growth amount >1.0 cm, the same below) of average and dominant trees of B. alnoides occurred in the 3rd to 7th and 3rd to 9th years,respectively.The DBH rapid-growth period of the average trees of C. hystrix occurred in the 4th to 8th year, and the DBH of dominant trees of C. hystrix occurred from the 3rd year; in the 11th year, this was still on going. Tree height rapid-growth period of average and dominant trees of B. alnoides occurred during the 1st to 7th and 1st to 8th years.The rapid-growth period of tree height of average trees of C. hystrix mainly occurred in the 3rd to 7th year, while for the dominant trees of this species occurred in the 1st to 7th year. For B. alnoides, the rapid-growth periods of a single volume of average and dominant trees commenced in the 6th and 5th year, respectively;in the 11th year, this was still on going. For C. hystrix, in the first 11 years of afforestation, the growth of the single volume of average trees was still in the slow stage. From the 4th year, the total growth of DBH, tree height, and single volume of average trees for B. alnoides were significantly higher than the total growth of the average trees of C. hystrix (P<0.05). The total growth of the DBH, tree height, and single volume of the dominant trees for B. alnoides were significantly higher than the counterparts for C. hystrix from the 5th, 8th, and 5th years, respectively (P<0.05). The binary volume model (V=a×10^-4×D^b×H^c) demonstrated a good fitting and prediction effect on the single volume for B. alnoides and C. hystrix. For both species, the distribution of diametral class accumulation was approximately normal. In the 11-year-old mixed plantation, the ratio of excellent stem form of B. alnoides and C. hystrix was 67.71% and 97.31%, respectively, and stem branching ratio of both species was <6.0%. 【Conclusion】 During the middle and young stages, B. alnoides occurred in upper layer of the mixed plantation.In the mixed plantation, it was conducive to decent stem form quality and tree viability of B. alnoides and C. hystrix. The fast-growth period of DBH, tree height of the dominant trees of the two species were larger than the growth of average trees.

Key words: Betula alnoides, Castanopsis hystrix, mixed plantation, growth dynamics, tree form quality

中图分类号:

S757

唐继新,朱雪萍,贾宏炎,等. 西南桦红椎混交林的生长动态及林木形质分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(1): 97-105.

TANG Jixin, ZHU Xueping, JIA Hongyan, ZENG Ji, GUO Wenfu, HUANG Dewei. Growth dynamics and tree form quality of mixed Betula alnoides-Castanopsis hystrix plantation[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(1): 97-105.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009009.

图/表 9

图1

表1

图2

表2

混交林不同树种生长表现及双侧t检验分析"

林龄/a forest age	树种 tree species	林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) stand density	平均木胸径/cm mean DBH		平均木树高/m mean height		平均木单株材积/ ×10^-2 m³ mean individual volume		优势木胸径/cm mean DBH of dominant tree		优势木树高/m tree height of dominant tree		优势木单株材积/ ×10^-2 m³ mean individual volume of dominant tree
林龄/a forest age	树种 tree species	林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) stand density	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment	总生长量 total growth	连年生长量 annul increment
1	A	950	0	0	1.06±0.33	1.06±0.33	0	0	0	0	1.30±0.00	1.30±0.00	0±0.01	0±0.01
1	B	950	0	0	0.81±0.27	0.81±0.27	0	0	0	0	1.18±0.27	1.18±0.27	0	0
2	A	678	0.12±0.13	0.12±0.13	2.46±1.15	1.40±0.86	0±0.01	0±0.01	0.78±0.61	0.78±0.61	3.60±0.00	2.30±0.00	0.02±0.02	0.01±0.02
2	B	873	0.06±0.13	0.06±0.13	1.76±1.03	0.96±0.75	0	0	0.48±0.37	0.48±0.37	3.14±1.03	1.96±0.76	0±0.01	0±0.01
3	A	678	1.48±1.09	1.36±0.98	4.80±1.10	2.34±1.18	0.06±0.06	0.06±0.06	3.23±1.23	2.45±0.66^*	6.10±1.00	2.50±1.00	0.24±0.17	0.22±0.15
3	B	873	0.50±0.32	0.44±0.21	4.60±1.00	2.84±0.95		0	1.76±0.88	1.28±0.55^*	5.20±0.89	2.06±0.13	0.08±0.07	0.08±0.06
4	A	678	4.36±1.65^*	2.88±0.99^*	8.40±1.10^*	3.60±0.89	0.47±0.25^*	0.41±0.21^*	6.00±2.05	2.78±0.83	9.60±1.63	3.50±1.00	0.86±0.56	0.63±0.38
4	B	873	2.04±0.65^*	1.54±0.46^*	6.80±1.10^*	2.20±1.10	0.12±0.06^*	0.03±0.01^*	4.08±0.96	2.32±0.30	8.40±1.10	3.20±1.10	0.46±0.22	0.37±0.16
5	A	678	6.96±2.15^**	2.60±0.74^*	12.20±0.89^**	3.80±0.45^**	1.41±0.85^*	0.94±0.64^*	9.83±2.25^*	3.83±0.66^**	12.85±0.96	3.25±0.96	2.89±1.18^*	2.03±0.70^**
5	B	873	3.48±0.31^**	1.44±0.61^*	8.80±1.30^**	2.00±0.71^**	0.38±0.12^*	0.08±0.02^*	5.88±1.08^*	1.80±0.19^**	11.20±1.67	2.80±1.10	1.21±0.45^*	0.75±0.25^**
6	A	678	9.14±1.74^**	2.18±0.69^*	15.20±0.89^**	3.00±1.41^*	3.08±1.50^*	1.67±0.69^**	12.92±2.25^**	3.10±0.12^**	15.10±1.00	2.25±1.26	6.66±1.94^**	3.78±0.78^**
6	B	873	4.68±0.52^**	1.20±0.46^*	10.20±0.89^**	1.40±0.55^*	0.84±0.27^*	0.14±0.04^**	7.80±1.15^**	1.92±0.23^**	13.60±1.41	2.40±0.89	2.72±1.00^**	1.51±0.57^**
7	A	678	10.88±1.06^**	1.74±0.88	16.66±0.93^**	1.46±0.78	5.50±1.25^**	2.42±0.51^**	15.48±2.29^**	2.55±0.41^*	18.10±1.92	3.00±1.15	13.19±3.24^**	6.52±1.44^**
7	B	873	5.84±0.40^**	1.16±0.21	11.30±0.98^**	1.10±0.55	1.44±0.36^**	0.21±0.05^**	9.70±1.25^**	1.90±0.28^*	15.36±2.00	1.76±0.72	4.66±1.53^**	1.94±0.60^**
8	A	678	11.82±0.96^**	0.94±0.50	17.10±0.96^**	0.44±0.09	7.66±1.19^**	2.16±0.42^**	16.65±2.45^**	1.18±0.31^**	20.35±1.50^*	2.25±0.50^**	17.72±4.31^**	4.53±1.29^*
8	B	873	6.92±0.52^**	1.08±0.26	11.98±0.93^**	0.68±0.30	2.23±0.50^**	0.28±0.06^**	11.46±1.16^**	1.76±0.13^**	16.20±2.20^*	0.84±0.38^**	7.16±2.00^**	2.50±0.59^*
9	A	678	12.46±0.90^**	0.64±0.21	17.52±1.02^**	0.42±0.11	9.50±1.17^**	1.84±0.41^**	17.85±2.47^**	1.20±0.37	21.15±183*	0.80±0.40	22.86±5.10^**	5.14±0.95^*
9	B	873	7.78±0.47^**	0.86±0.19	12.60±0.92^**	0.62±0.24	3.09±0.56^**	0.34±0.06^**	13.10±1.40^**	1.64±0.62	16.64±2.04^*	0.44±0.21	10.41±2.87^**	3.26±1.06^*
10	A	226	12.90±0.87^**	0.44±0.11^**	18.04±0.80^**	0.52±0.33	11.20±1.09^**	1.70±0.29^**	18.83±2.61^*	0.98±0.39^**	21.68±2.11*	0.53±0.38	28.76±6.86^**	5.90±1.93
10	B	291	8.72±0.30^**	0.94±0.27^**	13.10±0.90^**	0.50±0.20	4.11±0.57^**	0.41±0.06^**	15.14±1.31*	2.04±0.31^**	17.18±1.85^*	0.54±0.25	14.71±3.50^**	4.30±0.68
11	A	226	13.40±0.81^**	0.50±0.27	18.52±0.66^**	0.52±0.33	12.56±1.19^**	1.36±0.46^*	19.88±2.31^*	1.05±0.30	22.23±2.38^*	0.55±0.34	33.87±7.58^**	5.12±1.30^*
11	B	291	9.44±0.51^**	0.72±0.18	13.60±0.98^**	0.50±0.21	4.89±0.58^**	0.45±0.05^*	16.40±1.13^*	1.26±0.34	17.70±1.70^*	0.52±0.26	17.92±3.49^**	3.21±0.45^*

表2

图3

表3

图4

表4

表5

参考文献 23

[1]	赵晨, 韩冰, 康君. 混交林的研究进展分析[J]. 森林工程, 2009, 25(2):18-21.
	ZHAO C, HAN B, KANG J. Review on research progress of mixed forest[J]. For Eng, 2009, 25(2):18-21.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-005X.2009.02.005. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-005X.2009.02.005
[2]	周霆, 盛炜彤. 关于我国人工林可持续问题[J]. 世界林业研究, 2008, 21(3):49-53.
	ZHOU T, SHENG W T. On the plantation sustainability in China[J]. World For Res, 2008, 21(3):49-53.DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2008.03.009. doi: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2008.03.009
[3]	唐继新, 贾宏炎, 王科, 等. 密度调控对米老排中龄人工林生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 43(1):45-53.
	TANG J X, JIA H Y, WANG K, et al. Effect of density regulation on growth of Mytilaria laosensis plantation with middle age[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019, 43(1):45-53.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201805024. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201805024
[4]	蒋三乃, 翟明普, 贾黎明. 混交林种间养分关系研究进展[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2001, 23(2):72-77.
	JIANG S N, ZHAI M P, JIA L M. Advances on the research of interspecific nutrient interaction in mixed forest ecosystems[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2001, 23(2):72-77.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2001.02.017. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2001.02.017
[5]	LOEWE M V, GONZÁLEZ O M, BALZARINI M. Wild cherry tree (Prunus avium L.) growth in pure and mixed plantations in South America[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2013, 306:31-41.DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.015. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.015
[6]	PEREIRA E L, SANTOS S A P, ARROBAS M, et al. Microbial biomass and N mineralization in mixed plantations of broadleaves and nitrogen-fixing species[J]. Forest Syst, 2011, 20(3):516-524.DOI: 10.5424/fs/20112003-11458. doi: 10.5424/fs/20112003-11458
[7]	林星华. 闽南沿海山地火力楠马尾松混交林种间关系变化规律[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2001, 23(3):340-344.
	LIN X H. Variation laws of interspecific relations of Michelia macclurei and Pinus massoniana mixed forest in the coastal upland of south Fujian[J]. Acta Agric Univ Jiangxiensis, 2001, 23(3):340-344.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2286.2001.03.011. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2286.2001.03.011
[8]	冯玉龙, 王文章, 陈杰. 长白落叶松与水曲柳磷素营养关系的研究[J]. 林业科学, 2000, 36(2):20-25.
	FENG Y L, WANG W Z, CHEN J. Studies on the nutrition relationship of phosphorus between Larix olgensis Henry and Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2000, 36(2):20-25.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2000.02.004. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2000.02.004
[9]	张藤子. 油松-蒙古栎混交林中油松针叶养分特征及其影响因素研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2018.
	ZHANG T Z. Nutrient characteristics and its influencing factors of P.tabulaeformis needle in P.tabulaeformis and Q.mongolica mixed stand[D]. Shenyang:Shenyang Agricultural University, 2018.
[10]	朱万才, 吴瑶, 李亚洲, 等. 不同保留密度对落叶松水曲柳混交林的影响[J]. 森林工程, 2021, 37(2):50-56.
	ZHU W C, WU Y, LI Y Z, et al. Effect of different reserve density on Larix gmelinii-Fraxinus mandshurica mixed forest[J]. Forest Engineering, 2021, 37(2):50-56.
[11]	苏付保. 人工混交林营造技术浅析[J]. 林业实用技术, 2010(2):17-19.
	SU F B. Brief analysis of mixed plantation construction technology[J]. Pract For Technol, 2010(2):17-19.DOI: 10.13456/j.cnki.lykt.2010.02.013. doi: 10.13456/j.cnki.lykt.2010.02.013
[12]	崔崧, 肖锐, 王文帆, 等. 小兴安岭针阔混交林碳汇结构特征的研究[J]. 森林工程, 2020, 36(6):30-35.
	CUI S, XIAO R, WANG W F, et al. The study on the structural characteristics of the mixed-wood carbon sink in Xiaoxinganling Area[J]. Forest Engineering, 2020, 36(6):30-35.
[13]	曾杰, 郑海水, 翁启杰. 我国西南桦的地理分布与适生条件[J]. 林业科学研究, 1999, 12(5):479-484.
	ZENG J, ZHENG H S, WENG Q J. Geographic distributions and ecological conditions of Betula alnoides in China[J]. For Res, 1999, 12(5):479-484.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.1999.05.006. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.1999.05.006
[14]	朱积余, 唐玉贵, 陈尔. 红锥采穗圃营建及其穗条的扦插育苗试验[J]. 西部林业科学, 2007, 36(2):10-12.
	ZHU J Y, TANG Y G, CHEN E. An experimental study on cutting orchard construction and cutting propagation of Castanopsis hystrix[J]. J West China For Sci, 2007, 36(2):10-12.DOI: 10.16473/j.cnki.xblykx1972.2007.02.021. doi: 10.16473/j.cnki.xblykx1972.2007.02.021
[15]	曾杰, 郭文福, 赵志刚, 等. 我国西南桦研究的回顾与展望[J]. 林业科学研究, 2006, 19(3):379-384.
	ZENG J, GUO W F, ZHAO Z G, et al. Domestication of Betula alnoides in China:current status and perspectives[J]. For Res, 2006, 19(3):379-384.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2006.03.022. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.2006.03.022
[16]	周诚. 珍贵用材树种红锥的生物学特性与研究综述[J]. 江西林业科技, 2007, 35(5):29-31.
	ZHOU C. Research overview and biological characteristics of precious timber tree species-Castanopsis hystrix[J]. Jiangxi For Sci Technol, 2007, 35(5):29-31.DOI: 10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2007.05.011. doi: 10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2007.05.011
[17]	庞正轰. 我国西南桦研究进展[J]. 广西科学院学报, 2011, 27(3):243-250.
	PANG Z H. The study progress of Betula alnoides in China[J]. J Guangxi Acad Sci, 2011, 27(3):243-250.DOI: 10.13657/j.cnki.gxkxyxb.2011.03.002. doi: 10.13657/j.cnki.gxkxyxb.2011.03.002
[18]	何友均, 覃林, 李智勇, 等. 西南桦纯林与西南桦×红椎混交林碳贮量比较[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(23):7586-7594.
	HE Y J, QIN L, LI Z Y, et al. Carbon storage capacity of a Betula alnoides stand and a mixed Betula alnoides × Castanopsis hystrix stand in southern subtropical China: a comparison study[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2012, 32(23):7586-7594.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201205160722. doi: 10.5846/stxb201205160722
[19]	孟宪宇. 测树学[M].3版. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2006.
	MENG X Y. Forest measurement [M].3rd Ed. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2006.
[20]	尤健健, 张文辉, 邓磊. 黄龙山不同郁闭度油松中龄林林木形质评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(7):1945-1953.
	YOU J J, ZHANG W H, DENG L. Evaluation of the tree form quality of middle-aged Pinus tabuliformis plantation under different canopy densities in Huanglong Mountains,northwest China[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2015, 26(7):1945-1953.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.20150506.019. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.20150506.019
[21]	郭文福, 蔡道雄. 红椎大径材近自然培育适用性分析[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2015, 42(1):79-82.
	GUO W F, CAI D X. The applicability analysis on growing for large diameter valuable wood of Castanopsis hystrix by close-to-nature forest management[J]. Hunan For Sci Technol, 2015, 42(1):79-82.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5710.2015.01.019. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5710.2015.01.019
[22]	王春胜, 赵志刚, 曾冀, 等. 广西凭祥西南桦中幼林林木生长过程与造林密度的关系[J]. 林业科学研究, 2013, 26(2):257-262.
	WANG C S, ZHAO Z G, ZENG J, et al. Relationship between planting density and tree growth process of Betula alnoides mid-young plantations in Pingxiang,Guangxi[J]. For Res, 2013, 26(2):257-262.DOI: 10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj.2013.02.020. doi: 10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj.2013.02.020
[23]	卢立华, 汪炳根, 何日明. 立地与栽培模式对红椎生长的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 1999, 12(5):519-523.
	LU L H, WANG B G, HE R M. The effect of site and cultivation model on growth of Castanopsis hystrix[J]. For Res, 1999, 12(5):519-523.DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.1999.05.013. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-1498.1999.05.013

径阶/cm diameter	径阶株数百分比/% percent of tree number in the diameter class
径阶/cm diameter	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B
≤4	0.33	0.51	—	—	—	—	—	—
6	3.45	13.90	—	—	—	—	—	—
8	10.51	22.96	—	—	—	—	—	—
10	14.12	26.15	—	5	—	10.42	—	13.60
12	15.60	19.01	—	—	—	—	—	—
14	18.72	10.71	4	—	14.05	—	18.68	—
16	19.54	4.08	1	—	16.10	—	17.90	—
18	11.66	1.91	—	4	—	17.24	—	17.80
20	4.43	0.51	2	1	19.75	19.90	22.60	18.30
22	1.15	0.13	—	—	—	—	—	—
≥24	0.49	0.13	2	—	24.10	—	21.85	—
合计total	100	100	9	10	—	—	—	—

树种 tree species	模型 model	样本数 sample number	参数parameter			模型评价指标evaluated index of model
树种 tree species	模型 model	样本数 sample number	a	b	c	R²	σ(RMD)/%	σ(RRMSE)/%
西南桦 B. alnoides	(4)	9	0.528 1±0.149 0	1.999 0±0.067 6	0.865 4±0.100 8	0.997 0	-0.07	3.10
红椎 C. hystrix	(4)	10	1.061 4±0.417 8	2.151 9±0.147 6	0.453 7±0.190 0	0.993 2	0.33	5.17

树种 tree species	不同干形等级占比/% percentage of diffrent grade of stem form				不同冠高比等级占比/% percentage of diffrent grade of crown height ratio				分杈率/% bifurcation percentage
树种 tree species	优 best grade	良 second grade	中 third grade	差 last grade	优 best grade	良 second grade	中 third grade	差 last grade	分杈率/% bifurcation percentage
西南桦 B. alnoides	30.21	37.50	29.17	3.13	36.46	58.33	5.21	0.00	5.10
红椎 C. hystrix	82.96	14.35	2.69	0.00	0.90	4.04	69.96	25.11	0.51

树种 tree species	占比/% percentage
树种 tree species	A级 grade A	B级 grade B	C级 grade C	D级 grade D	E级 grade E
西南桦 B. alnoides	7.89	47.04	38.49	4.61	1.97
红椎 C. hystrix	10.46	52.68	36.48	0.38	0

西南桦红椎混交林的生长动态及林木形质分析

Growth dynamics and tree form quality of mixed Betula alnoides-Castanopsis hystrix plantation

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 23

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	朱锦迪, 韦新良, 杨晶晶, 张继艳. 地形因子对亚热带针阔混交林树种多样性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(4): 153-161.
[2]	孙杰杰, 李领寰, 黄玉洁, 金超, 袁位高, 江波, 沈爱华, 王维枫, 焦洁洁. 浙江省公益林中杉阔混交林群落组成与环境解释[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(2): 179-186.
[3]	贺梦莹, 董利虎, 李凤日. 长白落叶松-水曲柳混交林不同混交方式单木冠长预测模型[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 45(4): 13-22.
[4]	王冬至, 胡雪娇, 李大勇, 高雨珊, 李天宇. 基于非线性混合效应模型的针阔混交林地位指数研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 159-166.
[5]	赵家豪, 袁景西, 袁在翔, 王小民, 陈斌, 郑元庆, 关庆伟. 武夷山南方铁杉针阔混交林不同地形土壤营养元素分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(4): 176-182.
[6]	冯烨, 张焕朝, 杨瑞珍, 胡立煌. 杨-桤混交林及其凋落物对土壤氮矿化的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2020, 44(2): 191-196.
[7]	刘士玲, 陈琳, 杨保国, 贾宏炎, 庞圣江, 张培, 王晖. 氮磷肥对西南桦无性系生物量分配和根系形态的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2019, 43(5): 23-29.
[8]	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, 61(06): 84-90.
[9]	孟苗婧,张金池,郭晓平,吴家森,赵有朋,叶立新,刘胜龙. 海拔变化对黄山松阔叶混交林土壤有机碳组分的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2018, 61(06): 106-112.
[10]	孟苗婧,张金池,郭晓平,吴家森,赵有朋,叶立新,刘胜龙. 海拔对黄山松阔叶混交林土壤微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 60(04): 209-214.
[11]	吴迪,张萌萌,张钰莹,李阳,张潆心,迟琦,逄好胜,孙广玉. 帽儿山针阔混交林及纯林土壤碳代谢微生物群落特征研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 60(02): 81-89.
[12]	陈立新,李少博,乔璐,步凡,段文标. 凋落物叶和土壤浸提液对红松种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(02): 81-87.
[13]	吴金卓,孔琳琳,王娇娇,林文树. 吉林蛟河不同演替阶段针阔混交林凋落物持水特性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(02): 113-120.
[14]	高伟峰,史宝库,金光泽. 模拟氮沉降对典型阔叶红松林土壤呼吸的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 59(01): 8-14.
[15]	吴雁雯,张金池,刘鑫,韩诚,顾哲衍. 凤阳山阔叶混交林主要树种光合蒸腾特性研究——基于灰色关联法[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2015, 58(01): 55-61.