林龄对侧柏人工林碳储量以及细根形态和生物量的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2013.02.004

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） ›› 2013, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (02): 21-27.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2013.02.004

• 森林生态系统碳储量及碳密度研究专栏 • 上一篇下一篇

林龄对侧柏人工林碳储量以及细根形态和生物量的影响

李瑞霞,凌宁,郝俊鹏,闵建刚,陈信力,关庆伟^*

南京林业大学森林资源与环境学院,江苏南京 210037

出版日期:2013-04-18 发布日期:2013-04-18
基金资助:
收稿日期:2012-07-01 修回日期:2013-01-14
基金项目:国家林业公益性行业科研专项项目(201104075); 国家重点基础研究发展计划(2012CB416904)
第一作者:李瑞霞,博士生。*通信作者:关庆伟,教授。E-mail: guanjapan999@yahoo.com.cn。
引文格式:李瑞霞,凌宁,郝俊鹏,等. 林龄对侧柏人工林碳储量以及细根形态和生物量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2013,37(2):21-27.

Effects of stand ages on carbon storage, fine root morphology and biomass in Platycladus orientalis plantation

LI Ruixia, LING Ning, HAO Junpeng, MIN Jiangang, CHEN Xinli, GUAN Qingwei^*

College of Forest Resources and Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

Online:2013-04-18 Published:2013-04-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以徐州侧柏人工林为研究对象,运用生物量转化方程及土壤调查数据分析了3种林龄下(40、48和55 a)生态系统碳储量的变化及其机制。结果表明:(1)乔木层碳储量在系统碳储量中所占比例随林龄增加呈上升趋势,土壤层碳储量比例呈下降趋势,灌草层和枯落物层碳储量随林龄增加无明显变化。整个系统的碳储量随着林龄增加而增加,其中55年生侧柏人工林生态系统碳储量为109.55 t/hm²,分别是40和48年生的1.22倍和1.09倍,而这种差异主要是由乔木层和土壤层碳储量差异引起。(2)细根生物量方面,细根中低级根(1～3级根)生物量在不同林龄林分中无显著差异,高级根(4、5级根)和总生物量随林龄的增大而明显减少。细根形态方面,与40 a的相比,在表层土壤中,48年生林5级根的直径显著降低,5级根的根长和1级根的比根长显著提高; 55年生林4级根的直径和根长以及1级根的比根长显著提高。在亚表层土壤,48年生林3级根的直径和4级根的根长显著增加,1级和2级根的比根长显著降低; 55年生林3～5级根的直径和5级根的根长显著提高,3级根的根长以及1级和5级根的比根长显著降低。(3)3级根的直径与土壤层碳储量显著负相关,5级根与生态系统总碳储量显著正相关。2级和3级根的比根长与土壤层碳储量显著正相关,而3级根的比根长与乔木层碳储量、枯落物层碳储量和生态系统总碳储量显著负相关。4级和5级根的生物量与枯落物层碳储量显著正相关,与土壤层碳储量极显著负相关; 细根总生物量与乔木层碳储量和总碳储量极显著负相关,与灌木层和草本层碳储量显著负相关。因此,细根形态和生物量的变化可能是导致生态系统碳储量变化的因素之一。

Abstract: The research focused on Xuzhou Platycladus orientalis plantation, to study the changes on carbon storage of the ecosystem and related mechanism in different stand ages(40, 48 and 55-yr-old)by applying biomass transformative equation and soil survey data. The results were as follows:(1)The percentage of carbon storage in tree layer rised with the increase of stand age. On contrast, the proportion of soil carbon storage was decreased. The carbon storage of the shrub, herb and floormass had no changes with the increase of stand age, while the whole ecosystem carbon storage rised with growing stand age. The total carbon storage of 55-yr-old stand was 109.55 t / hm², respectively 1.22 times and 1.09 times as much as that of 40-yr-old stand and 48-yr-old stand. Yet, this difference was mainly caused by the different carbon storage of tree layer and soil layer.(2)Fine root biomass indicated that the 1^st-3^rd root order biomass was found non-significantly changed. Although the 4^th-5^throot order and total biomass significantly decreased with stand age. Fine root morphology showed: compared with 40-yr-old stand, in the surface soil layer, the diameter of 5^th root order significantly decreased, while the root length of 5^th root order and specific root length of 1^st root order significantly increased in the 48-yr-old stand. The diameter and root length of 4^th root order, and the specific root length of 1^st root order significantly increased in the 55-yr-old stand. In the subsurface soil layer, the diameter of 3^rd root order and the root length of 4^th root order significantly increased, but the specific root length of 1^st and 2^nd root order significantly decreased in the 48-yr-old stand. The diameter of 3^rd - 5^th root order and the length of 5^th root order significantly increased, although the length of 3^rd root order and the specific root length of 1^st and 5^th root order significantly reduced in the 55-yr-old stand.(3)The relationship between the diameter of 3^rd root order and soil carbon storage was significant negatively correlated, but the diameter of 5^th root order positively correlated with total ecosystem carbon storage. The specific root length of 2^nd and 3^rd root order significant positively correlated with soil carbon storage, while the specific root length of 3^rd root order significant negatively correlated with tree layer carbon storage and litter layer carbon storage and ecosystem carbon storage. The biomass of 4^th and 5^th root order with litter layer carbon storage significant positively correlated, and with soil carbon storage in very significant negative correlation. Total fine root biomass significantly positive correlated with tree layer carbon storage and total carbon storage, and positively correlated with shrub layer carbon storage and herb layer carbon storage. As the results, the changes of fine root morphology and biomass may be one of the factors that cause the changes of ecosystem carbon storage.

中图分类号:

S718

李瑞霞,凌宁,郝俊鹏,等. 林龄对侧柏人工林碳储量以及细根形态和生物量的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2013, 37(02): 21-27.

LI Ruixia, LING Ning, HAO Junpeng, MIN Jiangang, CHEN Xinli, GUAN Qingwei. Effects of stand ages on carbon storage, fine root morphology and biomass in Platycladus orientalis plantation[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2013, 37(02): 21-27.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2013.02.004.

参考文献

[1] Lal R. Forest soils and carbon sequestration [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2005, 220(1):242-258.
[2] Schulp C J E, Nabuurs G J, Verburg P H, et al. Effect of tree species on carbon stocks in forest floor and mineral soil and implications for soil carbon inventories [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 256(3):482-490.
[3] Vallet P, Meredieu C, Seynave I, et al. Species substitution for carbon storage:Sessile oak versus Corsican pine in France as a case study [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257(4):1314-1323.
[4] Jiang H, Apps M J, Peng C H, et al. Modelling the influence of harvesting on Chinese boreal forest carbon dynamics[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 169(1):65-82.
[5] Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, et al. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration[J]. Geoderma, 2007, 137(3/4):253-268.
[6] Nave L E, Vance E D, Swanston C W, et al. Impact of elevated N inputs on north temperate forest soil storage, C/N, and net N mineralization [J]. Geoderma, 2009,153(2):231-240.
[7] Moscatelli M C, Lagornarsino A, De Angelis P, et al. Short-and medium-term contrasting effects of nitrogen fertilization on C and N cycling in a poplar plantation soil[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 255(3):447-454.
[8] Alam A, Kilpelainen A, Kellomaki S. Impact of thinning on growth, timber production and carbon stocks in Finland under changing climate Scandinavian [J]. Journal of Forest Research, 2009, 23(6):501-512.
[9] Ryu S R, Concilio A, Chen J, et al. Prescribed burning and mechanical thinning effects on belowground conditions and soil respiration in a mixed-conifer forest, California [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257(4):1324-1332.
[10] 方晰,田大伦,项文化. 速生阶段杉木人工林碳素密度、贮量和分布[J]. 林业科学,2002,38(3):14-19. Fang X, Tian D L, Xiang W H. Density, storage and distribution of carbon in Chinese fir plantation at fast growing stage[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2002, 38(3):14-19.
[11] Matthias Peichl, Altaf Arain M. Above-and belowground ecosystem biomass and carbon pools in an age-sequence of temperate pine plantation forests[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2006,140:51-63.
[12] 尉海东,马祥庆. 中亚热带不同发育阶段杉木人工林生态系统碳贮量研究[J]. 江西农业大学学报,2006,28(2):239-243. Wei H D, Ma X Q. A study on the carbon storage and distribution in Chinese fir plantation ecosystem of different growing stages in mid-subtropical zone[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2006, 28(2):239-243.
[13] 王婷,袁志良,叶永忠,等. 嵩山国家森林公园不同年龄侧柏人工林生物量初步研究[J]. 河南科学,2009,27(7):817-820. Wang T, Yuan Z L, Ye Y Z, et al. Primary study on biomass of platycladus orientalis plantation at different age stands in the Songshan Mountains National Forest Park[J]. Henan Science, 2009, 27(7):817-820.
[14] 马炜,孙玉军,郭孝玉,等. 不同林龄长白落叶松人工林碳储量[J]. 生态学报,2010,30(17):4659-4667. Ma W, Sun Y J, Guo X Y, et al. Carbon storage of Larix olgensis plantation at different stand ages[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(17):4659-4667.
[15] 曹吉鑫. 北京北部山区不同林龄的油松和侧柏人工林碳库研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学,2011. Can J X. Above-and belowground carbon pools in different ages of Chinese pine and oriental arborvitae plantation forests in northern mountain areas of Beijing[D]. Beijing:Beijing Forestry University, 2011.
[16] 巨文珍,王新杰,孙玉军. 长白落叶松林龄序列上的生物量及碳储量分配规律[J]. 生态学报,2011, 31(4):1139-1148. Ju W Z, Wang X J, Sun Y J. Age structure effects on stand biomass and carbon storage distribution of Larix olgensis plantation[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(4):1139-1148.
[17] Vesterdal L, Riter E, Gundersen P. Change in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former arable land[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002, 169:137-147.
[18] 黄宇,冯宗炜,汪思龙,等. 杉木、火力楠纯林及其混交林生态系统C、N贮量[J]. 生态学报,2005,25(12):3146-3154. Huang Y, Feng Z W, Wang S L. C and N stocks under three plantation forest ecosystems of Chinese-fir, Michelia macclurei and their mixture[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2005, 25(12):3146-3154.
[19] Vogt K A, Vogt D J, Palmiotto P A, et al. Review of root dynamics in forest ecosystems grouped by climate, climatic forest type and species[J]. Plant and Soil, 1995, 187:159-219.
[20] 张莉,刘建忠,钱桂芝. 徐州城市森林建设探讨[J]. 中国林业,2008(11):38-39. Zhang L, Liu J Z, Qian G Z. Discussion on Xuzhou city forest construction[J]. China Forestry, 2008(11):38-39.
[21] 李朝. 侧柏人工林生物量研究[D].南京:南京林业大学,2010. Li Z. Study on biomass of Platyclatdus orientalis plantation in Xuzhou [D]. Nanjing:Nanjing Forestry University, 2010.
[22] IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, prepared by the national greenhouse gas Inventories programme[C]∥Eggleston H S, Buendia L, Miwa K, et al. IPCC. IPCC/IGES. Hayama:Japan, 2006.
[23] Pregitzer K S, Deforest J L, Burton A J, et al. Fine root architecture of nine North American trees [J]. Ecological Monographs, 2002, 72:293-309.
[24] Guo D L, Mitchell R J, Hendricks J J. Fine root branch orders respond differentially to carbon source-sink manipulations in a longleaf pine forest [J]. Oecologia, 2004, 140:450-457.
[25] Wang Z Q, Guo D L, Wang X R, et al. Fine root architecture, morphology and biomass of different branch orders of two Chinese temperate tree species[J]. Plant and Soil, 2006, 288:155-171.
[26] Guo D, Xia M X, Wei X, et al. Anatomical traits associated with absorption and mycorrhizal colonization are linked to root branch order in twenty-three Chinese temperate tree species[J]. New Phytol, 2008b, 180(3):673 683.
[27] Pregitzer K S, DeForest J L, Burton A J, et al. Fine root architecture of nine North American trees[J]. Ecol Monogr, 2002, 72:293 309.
[28] 贾淑霞,赵妍丽,丁国泉,等. 落叶松和水曲柳不同根序细根形态结构、组织氮浓度与根呼吸的关系[J]. 植物学报,2010,45:174-181. Jia S X, Zhao Y L, Ding G Q, et al. Relationship among fine-root morphology, anatomy, tissue nitrogen concentration and respiration in different branch root orders in Larix gmelinii and Fraxinus mandshurica[J]. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2010, 45:174-181.
[29] Agren G I, Bosatta E. Theoretical Ecosystem Ecology:Understanding Nutrient Cycles [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, UK,1996.
[30] Guo L B, Halliday M J, Siakimotu S J M, et al. Fine root production and litter input:Its effects on soil carbon [J]. Plant Soil,2005, 272:1-10.
[31] 林希昊,王真辉,陈秋波,等. 不同树龄橡胶(Hevea brasiliensis)林细根生物量的垂直分布和年内动态[J]. 生态学报,2008,28(9):4128-4135. Lin X H, Wang Z H, Chen Q B, et al. Vertical distribution and annual dynamics of fine roots of Hevea brasiliensis at different ages[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008, 28(9):4128-4135.
[32] Reiji F, Ryunosuke T, Naoko T. Root development across a chronosequence in a Japanese cedar(Cryptomeria japonica D.Don)plantation[J]. Journal of Forest Research, 2007(4):96-102.
[33] Eissenstat D M, Yanai R D. The ecology of root lifespan[J]. Advances in Ecological Research, 1997, 27:1-60.
[34] Wells C E, Eissenstat D M. Beyond the roots of young seedlings:The influence of age and order on fine root physiology [J]. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 2002, 21:324-334.
[35] 康冰,刘世荣,蔡道雄,等. 马尾松人工林林分密度对林下植被及土壤性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报,2009,20(10):2323-2331. Kang B, Liu S R, Cai D X, et al. Effects of Pinus massoniana plantation stand density on understory vegetation and soil properties[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2009, 20(10):2323-2331.
[36] Burton A J, Pregitzer K S, Hendrick R L. Relationships between fine root dynamics and nitrogen availability in Michigan Northern Hardwood forests [J]. Oecologia, 2000, 125(3):389-399.
[37] Pregizer K, King J S, Burton A J, et al. Research review:responses of tree fine roots to temperature [J]. New Phytol,2000, 147:105-115.

林龄对侧柏人工林碳储量以及细根形态和生物量的影响

Effects of stand ages on carbon storage, fine root morphology and biomass in Platycladus orientalis plantation

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

[1]	丛明珠, 刘琪璟, 孙震, 董淳超, 钱尼澎. 长白山北坡植物群落β多样性及其组分驱动因素分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 99-106.
[2]	曹荔荔, 阮宏华, 李媛媛, 倪娟平, 王国兵, 曹国华, 沈彩芹, 徐亚明. 不同林龄水杉人工林地表大型土壤动物群落特征比较研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 91-98.
[3]	张怡婷, 夏念和, 林树燕, 丁雨龙. 我国寒竹属空间分布特征及影响因素[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 107-114.
[4]	胡衍平, 刘卫东, 张珉, 陈明皋, 程勇, 魏志恒, 庞文胜, 吴际友. 山乌桕家系叶片叶色参数和色素含量及其解剖结构研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 123-133.
[5]	王一洁, 王璐冕, 丁真慧, 钱程, 曹加杰. 城市滨水绿地空间夏季微气候效应研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 233-241.
[6]	赵国扬, 洪波, 高俊平, 赵鑫, 黄洪峰, 徐彦杰. 菊属新品种‘雀欢’[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 254-255.
[7]	任佳辉, 高捍东, 陈哲楠, 李浩, 刘强, 陈澎军. 杂交新美柳苗对盐涝胁迫的生长和生理响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(2): 57-66.
[8]	董亚文, 陈双林, 谢燕燕, 郭子武, 张景润, 汪舍平, 徐勇敢. 林下植被演替过程中毛竹和主要优势树种叶片建成成本变化特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 179-186.
[9]	徐薪璐, 孔淑鑫, 吕卓, 江帅君, 赵婉琪, 林树燕. 靓竹叶色表型叶片形态、结构与光合特性相关性研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 145-154.
[10]	曹永慧, 陈庆标, 周本智, 葛晓改, 王小明. 不同截雨干旱时间对毛竹叶片氮含量时空分布的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 155-161.
[11]	隋夕然, 李军, 陈娟, 华军, 沈谦, 杨洪胜, 何前程, 李由, 王伟, 彭冶, 葛之葳, 张增信. 徐州市侧柏人工林群落不同演替阶段物种多样性变化[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 171-178.
[12]	尹华康, 张晋东, 黄金燕, 蒲冠桦, 毛泽恩, 周材权, 黄耀华, 付励强. 四川马边大风顶自然保护区大熊猫主食竹空间分布特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 187-193.
[13]	孔凡斌, 金晨涛, 徐彩瑶. 罗霄山地区生态系统服务与居民福祉耦合协调关系变化及其影响因素[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 245-254.
[14]	龚霞, 吴银明, 王海峰, 曾攀, 唐亚, 温铿, 焦文献. 花椒新品种‘蜀椒1号’[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 265-266.
[15]	吴桐, 王贤荣, 伊贤贵, 周华近, 陈洁, 李蒙, 陈祥珍, 高书成. 樱花新品种‘胭脂雪’[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 49(1): 267-268.