间伐对杉木人工林生态系统碳储量的短期影响

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202106021

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 (3): 65-73.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202106021

间伐对杉木人工林生态系统碳储量的短期影响

王有良¹(), 林开敏¹^,^*(), 宋重升¹, 崔朝伟¹, 彭丽鸿¹, 郑宏², 郑鸣鸣³, 任正标¹, 邱明镜⁴

1.福建农林大学林学院,国家林业和草原局杉木工程技术研究中心,福建福州 350002
2.福建省洋口国有林场,福建南平 353211
3.贵州黔南布依族自治州林业局,贵州黔南州 558000
4.福建省沙县官庄国有林场,福建三明 350803

收稿日期:2021-06-18 接受日期:2021-10-13 出版日期:2022-05-30 发布日期:2022-06-10
通讯作者: 林开敏
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YFD0600301)

Short-term effects of thinning on carbon storage in Chinese fir plantation ecosystems

WANG Youliang¹(), LIN Kaimin¹^,^*(), SONG Chongsheng¹, CUI Chaowei¹, PENG Lihong¹, ZHENG Hong², ZHENG Mingming³, REN Zhengbiao¹, QIU Mingjing⁴

1. Forestry College, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Chinese Fir Engineering Technology Research Center, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Fuzhou 350002,China
2. Yangkou State-owned Forest Farm of Fujian Province, Nanping 353211, China
3. Qiannan Buyi Autonomous Prefecture Forestry Bureau of Guizhou Province, Qiannan Prefecture 558000, China
4. Shaxian County Guanzhuang State-owned Forest Farm of Fujian Province, Sanming 350803, China

Received:2021-06-18 Accepted:2021-10-13 Online:2022-05-30 Published:2022-06-10
Contact: LIN Kaimin

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究不同间伐强度下杉木人工林生态系统碳储量及其分配格局,进一步优化林分经营管理措施,准确评估间伐对杉木人工林生物量和碳储量的短期影响,为提高人工林的碳汇能力提供依据。【方法】以福建省三明市官庄国有林场11年生杉木人工林为研究对象,选择坡度、坡位、土壤条件相对一致的林分,按照完全随机区组试验设计,设置弱度间伐(31%,伐后林分2 250株/hm²,LIT)、中度间伐(45%,伐后林分1 800株/hm²,MIT)、强度间伐(63%,伐后林分1 200株/hm²,HIT)等3种间伐强度;共设置9块20 m×20 m样地,采集深度为1 m剖面内不同土层的土壤;并在样地内每木检尺,利用生物量回归方程对乔木层生物量进行估算,同时实测林下植被和凋落物生物量;通过元素分析仪测定植被和土壤碳含量,并根据碳含量估算碳储量。【结果】间伐后3年,杉木人工林乔木层碳储量随着间伐强度的增加而减小,LIT、MIT、HIT处理样地乔木层碳储量依次为66.16、58.78、49.71 t/hm²;杉木人工林灌木层和草本层的碳储量随着间伐强度的增加而显著增加,分别占生态系统碳储量的0.03%~0.19%和0.01%~0.67%;凋落物层碳储量占生态系统碳储量的2.87%~4.32%,间伐对凋落物层碳储量无显著影响;土壤有机碳储量在不同间伐处理间差异显著(P<0.05),杉木人工林土壤层碳储量随着间伐强度的增加而降低,HIT处理土壤层碳储量较LIT和MIT处理降低了32.07%和1.03%。间伐后3年,杉木人工林生态系统碳储量随着间伐强度增加而显著降低(P<0.05),LIT、MIT和HIT处理样地总碳储量依次为173.85、161.12、121.73 t/hm²。乔木层和土壤层碳储量之和占比超过90.00%,表明乔木层和土壤层是巨大的碳库,且间伐短期降低生态系统总碳储量。【结论】间伐后短期内杉木人工林乔木层、凋落物层和土壤层碳储量随着间伐强度的增加而下降,而灌木层和草本层的碳储量则随着间伐强度的增加而增加,表明间伐3年后试验林地还处于恢复期,杉木人工林间伐短期内会降低生态系统总碳储量。研究结果可部分解释间伐后短期内杉木人工林生态系统各组分碳储量的分布格局,并为研究区的人工林碳汇增加和可持续经营提供科学依据。

关键词: 间伐, 杉木人工林, 生态系统, 碳储量, 碳分配

Abstract:

【Objective】 Thinning is an important management measure in plantation forest management, which can change the growth environment and affect the growth, productivity and carbon storage of the forest stands. As an important tree species for afforestation in southern China, Chinese fir occupies an indispensable position in forestry production. Therefore, studying the short-term impact of different thinning intensities on carbon storage in Chinese fir plantations helps to optimize forest management measures, and accurately evaluate the short-term effects of thinning on the biomass and carbon storage, which is important in the development of carbon sink forestry, and can provide a basis for improving carbon sink capacity.【Method】 The 11-year-old Chinese fir plantations in Guanzhuang State Forest Farm in Sanming City, Fujian Province, with consistent slopes, slope positions and soil conditions were selected for research. The experiment was designed according to a random block design with three levels of thinning intensity with light thinning (31%, LIT, 2 250 plants/hm² in post-cutting stand), moderately intensive thinning (45%, MIT, 1 800 plants/hm² in post-cutting stand),and highly intensive thinning (63%, HIT, 1 200 plants/hm² in post-cutting stand). A total of nine 20 m×20 m sample plots were set up, and soils from different soil layers in a 1 m section were collected. In the sample plot, the biomass of the tree layer was estimated using the biomass regression equation, and the biomass of the understory vegetation and litter were measured. The carbon content of the vegetation and soil was measured using an element analyzer, and the carbon storage was estimated based on the carbon content. The carbon storage and distribution pattern of each component in the ecosystem were examined after three thinning treatments. The carbon storage of each component of the ecosystem during the growth of the Chinese fir after three thinning treatments was analyzed to evaluate the effects of thinning on the carbon storage of the Chinese fir plantation.【Result】 Three years after thinning, the carbon storage of the tree layer and the soil layer decreased with the increase in thinning intensity. The carbon storage of the tree layer for the LIT, MIT, and HIT plots was 66.16, 58.77, and 49.71 t/hm², respectively. The carbon storage of the shrub layer and herb layer significantly increased with the increase in thinning intensity, accounting for 0.03%-0.19% and 0.01%-0.67% of the carbon storage of the ecosystem, respectively. There was no significant effect on the carbon storage of the litter layer, and the litter layer carbon storage accounted for 2.87%-4.32% of the ecosystem carbon storage. The soil carbon storage decreased with the increase in thinning intensity, and the soil organic carbon storage was significantly different between different thinning treatments (P < 0.05). The soil carbon storage from the HIT treatment reduced 32.07% and 1.03% compared with LIT and MIT treatments. Three years after thinning, the carbon storage significantly decreased with the increase in thinning intensity (P < 0.05). The total carbon storage of the LIT, MIT and HIT plots was 173.85, 161.12 and 121.73 t/hm², with the sum of the carbon storage of the tree layer and soil layer accounting for more than 90.00%. It indicates that the tree layer and soil layer are huge carbon pools, and thinning will reduce the total carbon storage in short-term in the ecosystem.【Conclusion】The carbon storage of the arbor, litter layer and soil layer in the Chinese fir plantation short-term decreased with the increase in thinning intensity after thinning, while the carbon storage of the shrub and herb layer increased with the increase in thinning intensity, indicating that the intensity of thinning increased after three years, and that the experimental forest land is still in the recovery period. The research revealed that thinning of Chinese fir plantations will reduce the total carbon storage of the ecosystem in short-term, provide a scientific basis for the carbon sink and sustainable management of plantations in the study area.

Key words: thinning, Chinese fir plantations, ecosystem, carbon storage, carbon allocation

中图分类号:

王有良,林开敏,宋重升,等. 间伐对杉木人工林生态系统碳储量的短期影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(3): 65-73.

WANG Youliang, LIN Kaimin, SONG Chongsheng, CUI Chaowei, PENG Lihong, ZHENG Hong, ZHENG Mingming, REN Zhengbiao, QIU Mingjing. Short-term effects of thinning on carbon storage in Chinese fir plantation ecosystems[J].Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2022, 46(3): 65-73.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202106021.

图/表 8

表1

表2

表3

表4

Carbon storage of different organs in Chinese fir with different thinning treatments单位:t/hm2"

时间time	间伐处理 thinning treatment	碳储量分配 carbon storage of different organ						总计 total
时间time	间伐处理 thinning treatment	叶 leaf	枝 branch	干皮 bark	去皮干 stem without bark	根蔸 root head	根 root	总计 total
2017年间伐前 before thinning in 2017 (2017年10月)	LIT	2.88±0.14 a (5.63%)	2.24±0.09 a (4.38%)	7.28±0.25 a (14.24%)	29.18±0.97 a (57.09%)	6.63±0.27 a (12.97%)	2.91±0.64 a (5.69%)	51.11±2.27 a
	MIT	3.34±0.48 a (5.54%)	2.62±0.35 a (4.35%)	8.55±1.05 a (14.18%)	34.34±4.19 a (56.91%)	7.75±1.05 a (12.48%)	3.73±0.52 a (6.19%)	60.34±7.64 a
	HIT	2.98±0.39 a (5.53%)	2.40±0.31 a (4.45%)	7.72±0.83 a (14.34%)	31.04±3.29 a (57.65%)	6.94±0.83 a (12.88%)	2.77±0.98 a (5.14%)	53.84±5.84 a
2017年间伐后 after thinning in 2017 (2017年11月)	LIT	2.53±0.22 a (5.72%)	1.94±0.15 a (4.40%)	6.22±0.45 a (14.09%)	24.89±1.75 a (56.41%)	5.75±0.46 a (13.04%)	2.80±0.23 a (6.34%)	44.12±3.26 a
	MIT	2.16±0.34 b (5.86%)	1.66±0.26 b (4.49%)	5.28±0.81 b (14.30%)	21.13±3.25 b (57.20%)	4.32±1.17 b (11.68%)	2.39±0.37 b (6.47%)	36.93±5.82 b
	HIT	1.53±0.29 c (5.88%)	1.05±0.23 c (4.03%)	3.67±0.62 c (14.09%)	14.66±2.46 c (56.31%)	3.44±0.62 c (13.22%)	1.68±0.31 c (6.46%)	26.04±4.47 c
2018年11月	LIT	3.03±0.24 a (5.93%)	2.28±0.17 a (4.45%)	7.16±0.47 a (14.00%)	28.56±1.86 a (55.87%)	6.77±0.49 a (13.25%)	3.32±0.26 a (6.50%)	51.11±3.48 a
	MIT	2.63±0.42 b (5.99%)	1.96±0.31 b (4.47%)	6.13±0.95 b (13.97%)	24.46±3.77 b (55.71%)	5.84±0.91 b (13.30%)	2.87±0.45 b (6.55%)	43.89±6.80 b
	HIT	1.92±0.35 c (6.11%)	1.41±0.24 c (4.50%)	4.36±0.72 c (13.91%)	17.39±2.84 c (55.42%)	4.21±0.74 c (13.42%)	2.08±0.37 c (6.64%)	31.37±5.26 c
2019年11月	LIT	3.57±0.27 a (6.12%)	2.63±0.18 a (4.51%)	8.12±0.50 a (13.91%)	32.32±1.97 a (55.38%)	7.84±0.54 a (13.43%)	3.88±0.28 a (6.65%)	58.37±3.72 a
	MIT	3.15±0.50 b (6.20%)	2.3±0.36 b (4.53%)	7.04±1.08 b (13.87%)	27.99±4.30 b (55.17%)	6.86±1.07 b (13.51%)	3.41±0.54 b (6.71%)	50.74±7.83 b
	HIT	2.37±0.42 c (6.36%)	1.70±0.28 c (4.57%)	5.14±0.82 c (13.80%)	20.40±3.23 c (54.78%)	5.09±0.85 c (13.66%)	2.54±0.44 c (6.83%)	37.25±6.03c
2020年11月	LIT	4.17±0.29 a (6.31%)	3.01±0.19 a (4.55%)	9.15±0.54 a (13.83%)	36.33±2.11 a (54.91%)	9.00±0.58 a (13.61%)	4.50±0.30 a (6.79%)	66.16±4.01a
	MIT	3.78±0.60 a (6.43%)	2.70±0.42 a (4.59%)	8.09±1.25a b (13.77%)	32.09±4.96a b (54.60%)	8.07±1.26 a (13.72%)	4.05±0.64 a (6.89%)	58.78±9.12a
	HIT	3.02±0.59 b (6.08%)	2.02±0.46 b (4.07%)	6.96±1.49 b (14.00%)	27.74±5.97 b (55.79%)	6.68±1.34 b (13.43%)	3.3±0.65 b (6.63%)	49.71±10.30b

表4

表5

表6

图1

表7

参考文献 31

[1]	陈雅如, 赵金成. 碳达峰、碳中和目标下全球气候治理新格局与林草发展机遇[J]. 世界林业研究, 34(6):1-5.
	CHEN Y R, ZHAO J C. New pattern of global climate governance and opportunities for forest and grassland development under the target of carbon emission peaked and carbon neutral[J]. World For Res, 2021, 34(5):1-6. DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2021.0065. doi: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2021.0065
[2]	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.DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003
[3]	VALENTINI R, MATTEUCCI G, DOLMAN A J, et al. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests[J]. Nature, 2000, 404(6780):861-865.DOI: 10.1038/35009084. doi: 10.1038/35009084
[4]	PAN Y, BIRDSEY R A, FANG J, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests[J]. Science, 2011, 333(6045):988-993.DOI: 10.1126/science.1201609. doi: 10.1126/science.1201609
[5]	LI S Y, LI S G, HUANG M. Effects of thinning intensity on carbon stocks and changes in larch forests in China northeast forest region[J]. J Resour Ecol, 2017, 8(5):538-544.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.05.011. doi: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.05.011
[6]	SIX J, CALLEWAERT P, LENDERS S, et al. Measuring and understanding carbon storage in afforested soils by physical fractionation[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2002, 66(6):1981-1987.DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2002.1981. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.1981
[7]	LI D, NIU S, LUO Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation:a meta-analysis[J]. New Phytol, 2012, 195(1):172-181.DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04150.x.
[8]	HU Z H, HE Z M, HUANG Z Q, et al. Effects of harvest residue management on soil carbon and nitrogen processes in a Chinese fir plantation[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2014, 326:163-170.DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.023. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.023
[9]	THÜRIG E, KAUFMANN E. Increasing carbon sinks through forest management:a model-based comparison for Switzerland with its Eastern Plateau and Eastern Alps[J]. Eur J For Res, 2010, 129(4):563-572.DOI: 10.1007/s10342-010-0354-7. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0354-7
[10]	王祖华, 刘红梅, 王晓杰, 等. 经营措施对森林生态系统碳储量影响的研究进展[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 39(1):83-88.
	WANG Z H, LIU H M, WANG X J, et al. Progress of management on carbon storage of forest ecosystems[J]. J Northwest A F Univ (Nat Sci Ed),2011, 39(1):83-88.DOI: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2011.01.030. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2011.01.030
[11]	高云昌, 张文辉, 何景峰, 等. 黄龙山油松人工林间伐效果的综合评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(5):1313-1319.
	GAO Y C, ZHANG W H, HE J F, et al. Effects of thinning intensity on Pinus tabulaeformis plantation in Huanglong Mountain,Northwest China:a comprehensive evaluation[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2013, 24(5):1313-1319.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2013.0293. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2013.0293
[12]	MALMSHEIMER R W, BOWYER J L, FRIED J S, et al. Managing forests because carbon matters: integrating energy, products, and land management policy[J]. J Forest, 2011, 109(7S): S7-S50. DOI: 10.1139/X11-123. doi: 10.1139/X11-123
[13]	刘慧, 董希斌, 曲杭峰, 等. 抚育间伐对小兴安岭天然针阔混交林碳储量的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2021, 49(2):31-35.
	LIU H, DONG X B, QU H F, et al. Effects of tending and thinning on partial above-ground carbon storage of natural coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest in Xiaoxing’an Mountains[J]. J Northeast For Univ, 2021, 49(2):31-35.DOI: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2021.02.006. doi: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2021.02.006
[14]	TAKI H, INOUE T, TANAKA H, et al. Responses of community structure,diversity,and abundance of understory plants and insect assemblages to thinning in plantations[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2010, 259(3):607-613.DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.019. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.019
[15]	梁晶. 间伐对长白山林区典型林分类型土壤碳储量的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2015.
	LIANG J. The influence of thinning intensity on soil carbon storage in typical forest stands in Changbai Mountain[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2015.DOI: 10.27009/d.cnki.gdblu.2015.000018. doi: 10.27009/d.cnki.gdblu.2015.000018
[16]	郑鸣鸣, 任正标, 王友良, 等. 间伐强度对杉木中龄林生长和结构的影响[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2020, 40(4):369-376.
	ZHENG M M, REN Z B, WANG Y L, et al. Effect of thinning intensity on the growth and structure of a middle-aged Chinese fir forest[J]. J For Environ, 2020, 40(4):369-376.DOI: 10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2020.04.005. doi: 10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2020.04.005
[17]	李燕, 张建国, 段爱国, 等. 杉木人工林生物量估算模型的选择[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(12):3036-3046.
	LI Y, ZHANG J G, DUAN A G, et al. Selection of biomass estimation models for Chinese fir plantation[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2010, 21(12):3036-3046.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2010.0430. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2010.0430
[18]	彭舜磊, 王华太, 陈昌东, 等. 宝天曼自然保护区森林土壤碳氮储量分布格局分析[J]. 水土保持研究, 2015, 22(5):30-34.
	PENG S L, WANG H T, CHEN C D, et al. Distribution patterns of soil organic carbon and nitrogen storage in forestland of Baotianman Nature Reserve[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2015, 22(5):30-34.DOI: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.05.007. doi: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2015.05.007
[19]	殷博, 董鹏飞, 党坤良. 抚育间伐对红桦林生态系统碳密度的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2019, 34(1):105-112.
	YIN B, DONG P F, DANG K L. Effects of thinning on carbon density of Betula albo sinensis ecosystem[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2019, 34(1):105-112.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2019.01.15. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2019.01.15
[20]	董莉莉, 刘红民, 汪成成, 等. 间伐对蒙古栎次生林生态系统碳储量的短期和长期影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2019, 50(5):614-620.
	DONG L L, LIU H M, WANG C C, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of thinning on carbon storage of Quercus mongolica secondary forests[J]. J Shenyang Agric Univ, 2019, 50(5):614-620.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2019.05.014. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2019.05.014
[21]	徐金良, 毛玉明, 成向荣, 等. 间伐对杉木人工林碳储量的长期影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(7):1898-1904.
	XU J L, MAO Y M, CHENG X R, et al. Long-term effects of thinning on carbon storage in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2014, 25(7):1898-1904.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2014.0126. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2014.0126
[22]	武朋辉, 党坤良, 常伟, 等. 抚育间伐对秦岭南坡锐齿栎天然次生林碳密度的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 44(10):75-82.
	WU P H, DANG K L, CHANG W, et al. Effects of forest thinning on carbon density of Quercus aliena var.acuteserrata natural secondary forest on southern slope of Qinling Mountains[J]. J Northwest A F Univ (Nat Sci Ed),2016, 44(10):75-82.DOI: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2016.10.011. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2016.10.011
[23]	刁娇娇, 肖文娅, 费菲, 等. 间伐对杉木人工林生长及生态系统碳储量的短期影响[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2017, 37(3):134-139.
	DIAO J J, XIAO W Y, FEI F, et al. Short effect of thinning on the growth and carbon storage of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation[J]. J Southwest For Univ, 2017, 37(3):134-139.DOI: 10.11929/j.issn.2095-1914.2017.03.021. doi: 10.11929/j.issn.2095-1914.2017.03.021
[24]	SPRING D A, KENNEDY J O S, MAC NALLY R. Optimal management of a forested catchment providing timber and carbon sequestration benefits:climate change effects[J]. Glob Environ Change, 2005, 15(3):281-292.DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.002. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.002
[25]	游伟斌, 梁芳, 贾忠奎, 等. 抚育间伐对北京山区油松林乔木层碳储量的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2011(23):203-206.
	YOU W B, LIANG F, JIA Z K, et al. Influence of thinning on the carbon storage of Pinus tabulaeformis arborescent stratum[J]. North Hortic, 2011(23):203-206.DOI: CNKI:SUN:BFYY.0.2011-23-081. doi: CNKI:SUN:BFYY.0.2011-23-081
[26]	成向荣, 虞木奎, 葛乐, 等. 不同间伐强度下麻栎人工林碳密度及其空间分布[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(5):1175-1180.
	CHENG X R, YU M K, GE L, et al. Carbon density and its spatial distribution in Quercus acutissima plantations under different thinning intensities[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2012, 23(5):1175-1180.DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2012.0162. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.2012.0162
[27]	彭文宏, 牟长城, 常怡慧, 等. 东北寒温带永久冻土区森林沼泽湿地生态系统碳储量[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(6):1526-1538.
	PENG W H, MU C C, CHANG Y H, et al. Carbon storage of forested wetland ecosystems in the cold temperate permafrost region, northeast China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2020, 57(6):1526-1538. DOI: 10.11766/trxb201910210076. doi: 10.11766/trxb201910210076
[28]	RUIZ-PEINADO R, BRAVO-OVIEDO A, LÓPEZ-SENESPLEDA E, et al. Do thinnings influence biomass and soil carbon stocks in Mediterranean maritime pinewoods?[J]. Eur J For Res, 2013, 132(2):253-262.DOI: 10.1007/s10342-012-0672-z. doi: 10.1007/s10342-012-0672-z
[29]	NILSEN P, STRAND L T. Thinning intensity effects on carbon and nitrogen stores and fluxes in a Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] stand after 33 years[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2008, 256(3):201-208.DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.001. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.001
[30]	KURTH V J, D’AMATO A W, PALIK B J, et al. Fifteen-year patterns of soil carbon and nitrogen following biomass harvesting[J]. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2014, 78(2):624-633.DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2013.08.0360. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2013.08.0360
[31]	陈心桐, 徐天乐, 李雪静, 等. 中国北方自然生态系统土壤有机碳含量及其影响因素[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(4):1133-1140.
	CHEN X T, XU T L, LI X J, et al. Soil organic carbon concentrations and the influencing factors in natural ecosystems of northern China[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2019, 38(4):1133-1140.

间伐处理 thinning treatment	间伐强度/% thinning intensity	间伐前 before thinning		间伐后 after thinning			伐后林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) thinning retention forest density
间伐处理 thinning treatment	间伐强度/% thinning intensity	平均胸径/cm average DBH	平均树高/m average height	平均胸径/cm average DBH	平均树高/m average height	单株材积/m³ individual volume	伐后林分密度/ (株·hm^-2) thinning retention forest density
LIT	31	11.79±0.31	11.32±0.14	13.09±0.47	11.89±0.18	0.09±0.00	2 250
MIT	45	11.79±0.61	11.34±0.28	13.47±0.47	12.04±0.09	0.09±0.01	1 800
HIT	63	11.16±0.40	11.06±0.17	13.84±0.73	12.20±0.36	0.10±0.01	1 200

间伐处理 thinning treatment	土壤pH soil pH	有机碳含量/ (g·kg^-1) organic carbon content	全氮含量/ (g·kg^-1) total nitrogen content	全磷含量/ (g·kg^-1) total phosphorus content	全钾含量/ (g·kg^-1) total potassium content	速效钾含量/ (mg·kg^-1) available potassium content	有效磷含量/ (mg·kg^-1) available phosphorus content
LIT	4.97±0.19	11.81±1.64	0.95±0.08	0.42±0.04	11.59±2.51	140.06±12.02	2.70±0.26
MIT	4.74±0.15	11.28±1.12	0.85±0.11	0.49±0.01	11.04±1.49	82.33±15.69	3.19±0.65
HIT	4.64±0.05	8.52±0.56	0.88±0.15	0.70±0.09	10.52±2.02	74.31±17.41	2.63±0.05

器官 organ	拟合方程 fitting equation	决定系数R² coefficient of determination R²	残差平方和 sum of squared residuals
叶 leaf	W=0.003 9 D^{2.445 7}	0.853^**	0.421 6
枝 branch	W=0.007 0 D^{2.133 5}	0.802^**	0.460 7
干皮 bark	W=0.007 4(DH)^{1.305 6}	0.986^**	0.027 6
去皮干 stem without bark	W=0.035 5(DH)^{1.278 2}	0.990^**	0.018 7
根蔸 root head	W=0.018 3 D^{2.175 9}	0.931^**	0.144 8
根 root	W=0.006 8 D^{2.308 2}	0.817^**	0.488 7

间伐处理 thinning	灌木层碳含量 shrub layer carbon content			草本层碳含量 herb layercarbon content		凋落物层碳含量 litter mass carbon content
间伐处理 thinning	枝branch	叶leaf	根root	地上aboveground	地下underground	凋落物层碳含量 litter mass carbon content
LIT	383.17±27.99 b	397.76±25.98 b	372.84±25.15 b	397.30±22.57 b	430.93±27.42 b	458.64±23.48 a
MIT	436.12±27.13 ab	453.68±23.10 a	442.32±18.71 a	469.93±27.82 a	487.71±18.80 a	455.21±21.01 a
HIT	458.80±17.71 a	430.76±21.05 a	418.39±26.85 ab	463.22±13.00 a	410.19±19.14 b	440.91±24.32 a

间伐处理 thinning	灌木层碳储量 shrub layer carbon storage				草本层碳储量 herb layer carbon storage			凋落物层碳储量 litter mass carbon storage
间伐处理 thinning	枝 branch	叶 leaf	根 root	合计 total	地上 above ground	地下 underground	合计 total	凋落物层碳储量 litter mass carbon storage
LIT	19.38±8.86 b (39.30%)	12.09±3.87 b (24.52%)	17.84±7.59 b (36.18%)	49.31± 18.60 a	19.28±5.74 b (79.37%)	5.01±2.47 a (20.87%)	24.29± 6.32 b	7 508.70±500.69 a
MIT	78.84±15.72 a (40.49%)	52.86±15.00 a (27.15%)	63.01±19.40 a (32.36%)	194.71± 37.26 b	32.62±7.25 b (83.19%)	6.59±3.55 ab (16.81%)	39.21± 7.11 b	4 662.44±528.61 a
HIT	101.97±12.99 a (44.66%)	57.40±17.20 a (25.14%)	68.96±22.70 a (30.20%)	228.34± 74.79 b	73.58±16.67 a (89.92%)	8.25±2.14 a (10.81%)	81.83± 46.26 a	4 442.81±344.85 a

间伐对杉木人工林生态系统碳储量的短期影响

Short-term effects of thinning on carbon storage in Chinese fir plantation ecosystems

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 31

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

作者

读者

审稿

间伐处理 thinning	乔木层 tree layer	灌木层 shrub layer	草本层 herb layer	凋落物层 litter mass	土壤层 soil layer	合计 total
LIT	66.16±4.01 a (38.06%)	0.05±0.02 b (0.03%)	0.02±0.00 b (0.01%)	7.51±5.00 a (4.32%)	100.02±19.25 a (57.53%)	173.85±22.99 a
MIT	58.77±9.12 a (36.13%)	0.19±0.04 a (0.12%)	0.04±0.01 b (0.02%)	4.66±5.29 b (2.89%)	98.99±11.62 a (61.44%)	161.12±14.07 a
HIT	49.71±10.30 b (40.84%)	0.23±0.05 a (0.19%)	0.82±0.05 a (0.67%)	4.44±3.44 a (3.65%)	67.30±8.95 b (55.29%)	121.73±15.42 b

[1]	李思荣, 苏同向. 基于保护政策影响的抚仙湖流域景观格局变化及生态系统服务价值响应[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(3): 145-154.
[2]	鲁旭东, 董禹然, 李垚, 毛岭峰. 中国亚热带杉木人工林不同林分发育阶段的群落构建机制[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 48(1): 67-73.
[3]	高谢雨, 董利虎, 郝元朔. 基于TLS的抚育间伐对长白落叶松干形的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(6): 85-94.
[4]	王宇, 易艳灵, 刘海, 文晓晨, 李天一, 尹海锋, 李贤伟, 范川. 两种采伐方式对马尾松人工林林分空间结构的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(5): 138-146.
[5]	杨宇萍, 胡文敏, 贾冠宇, 李果, 李毅. 基于InVEST与ANN-CA模型的环洞庭湖区土地利用碳储量情景模拟[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(4): 175-184.
[6]	沈浩, 姜姜, 周晨, 潘庆全. 江西石城不同起源阔叶林碳储量驱动因子分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(4): 185-190.
[7]	戚丽萍, 栾兆擎, 魏勉, 闫丹丹, 李静泰, 么秀颖, 刘垚, 谢思荧, 盛昱凤. 基于土地利用的江苏省各市生态系统服务价值时空变化研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(4): 200-208.
[8]	张育诚, 韩念龙, 胡珂, 于淼, 黎兴强. 海南岛中部山区土地利用变化对碳储量时空分异的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 115-122.
[9]	董瀚元, 于颖, 范文义. 星载激光雷达GEDI数据林下地形反演性能验证[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 141-149.
[10]	宋磊, 金星姬, PUKKALA Timo, 李凤日. 长白落叶松人工林多目标经营模式研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 150-158.
[11]	赵铭臻, 刘静, 邹显花, 郑宏, 范福金, 林开敏, 马祥庆, 李明. 间伐施肥对杉木中龄林生长和材种结构的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 47(2): 70-78.
[12]	李威, 李吉平, 张银龙, 李萍萍, 韩建刚. 双碳目标背景下湖泊湿地的生态修复技术[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(6): 157-166.
[13]	王大卫, 沈文星. 中国主要树种人工乔木林碳储量测算及固碳潜力分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 11-19.
[14]	雷海清, 孙高球, 郑得利. 温州市森林生态系统碳储量研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 20-26.
[15]	肖君. 福建省天然乔木林碳储量动态变化及增汇策略[J]. 南京林业大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 46(5): 27-32.