Construction of a comprehensive assessment system for road greening tree species in coastal cities

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202007030

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (2): 187-196.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202007030

Previous Articles Next Articles

Construction of a comprehensive assessment system for road greening tree species in coastal cities

WANG Zhen¹(), GAO Yajun¹, YAN Fanfeng², WANG Xiaowei³, LI Huaqing¹, JIANG Lei¹

1. Lianyungang City Forestry Technology Guidance Station, Lianyungang 222100,China
2. Lianyungang Construction Bureau, Lianyungang 222100,China
3. Lianyungang Agricultural and Rural Bureau, Lianyungang 222100,China

Received:2020-07-15 Accepted:2020-12-11 Online:2021-03-30 Published:2021-04-09

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】Comprehensive assessment of tree species can provide scientific references for road greening and gallery ecosystem construction in coastal cities with complex natural conditions.【Method】Lianyungang City was chosen as the case study. Fifty-five commonly seen tree species were scientifically monitored, surveyed and analyzed. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted, and five Level-Ⅰ indexes were designed, including the ecological indexes, landscape indexes, adaptability indexes, economic indexes and negative consequences. On this basis, 30 Level-Ⅱ indexes were put forward and quantitatively marked. The weights and assignments of each assessment index were identified. Subsequently, a comprehensive assessment system for road greening tree species in coastal cities was developed. The assessment system is used to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of tree species in practical situations. The tree species were graded according to final scores.【Result】In terms of ecological indexes, the weight of overshadow and cooling performance was the highest (0.513 7). In terms of landscape indexes, the weight of leaf color, leaf amount and flower were the highest (0.181 8). In terms of adaptability indexes, the weight of resistance against wind, plant diseases, insect diseases, and salt and alkali were the highest (0.174 0). In terms of economic indexes, the weights of the seedling price and maintenance intensity at the index layer were both 0.4. In terms of negative consequences, the weight of fluffy catkin and pollen was the highest (0.6). At the criterion layer, the weight of ecological indexes, landscape indexes and adaptability was 0.3, accounting for 90% of the total; the weight of economic indexes and negative consequence was only 0.05. The assessment results suggest tree species are tall and large, with dense branches and leaves, and which are resistant to adverse conditions, scored higher.【Conclusion】Improving the ecological environment is the main greening goal of coastal cities. In choosing tree species, the authorities should increase the percentage of local tree species and promote them as backbone tree species for future road greening. At the same time, the economic performance of maintenance and management, and the negative consequences of fluffy catkin and pollen should be taken into consideration.

Key words: coastal city, road greening, Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), comprehensive assessment of trees

CLC Number:

S731.8

WANG Zhen, GAO Yajun, YAN Fanfeng, WANG Xiaowei, LI Huaqing, JIANG Lei. Construction of a comprehensive assessment system for road greening tree species in coastal cities[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(2): 187-196.

Figures/Tables 5

Table 1

Table 2

Comprehensive assessment system of road greening tree species in coastal cities"

准则层 rule layer
生态性 B1	遮阴降温能力C1	冠幅、树高、总叶面积、叶片大小	实验测量
	蒸腾增湿能力C2	蒸腾速率、总叶面积、叶片大小、光合速率、树种喜水性	实验测量、文献查询
	固碳释氧能力C3	光合速率、叶面积指数、单株最大生物量	实验测量、文献查询
	降低噪音能力C4	树木高度、叶面积指数、叶片大小、叶期	实验测量、文献查询
	滞尘能力C5	枝叶粗糙程度、叶面积指数、叶期	实验测量、文献查询
	吸收污染物能力C6	植物特性、叶面积指数、单株生物量	实验测量、文献查询
	营养物质积累能力C7	光合速率、叶面积指数、单株最大生物量	实验测量、文献查询
景观性 B2	叶色C8	常绿、彩叶、一般落叶	常年监测资料
	叶量C9	总叶面积	实验测量
	冠形C10	树冠的整齐度、景观效果、冠高比	实验测量、专家测评
	树干C11	树高、干型、胸径、树皮	专家测评
	花C12	花色、花形、花期、花量	常年监测资料
	果C13	果形、果色、果期、果用	常年监测资料
	气味C14	芳香类型、浓度、持续时间	常年监测资料
	文化内涵C15	珍贵濒危、特殊寓意、地方特色	资料查阅、民众测评
适应性 B3	抗风能力C16	木材材性、根系特性	文献查询
	抗病虫害能力C17	存活状况、病虫害对生长势影响	常年监测资料
	抗有害气体能力C18	NO₂、SO₂、O₃耐受性	环保监测数据、常年监测资料
	耐盐碱性C19	pH、土壤含盐量	实验测量、常年监测资料
	耐寒性C20	极端低温下生长状况	常年监测资料
	耐旱性C21	干旱胁迫下生长状况	常年监测资料
	耐贫瘠性C22	贫瘠立地条件下生长状况	常年监测资料
	耐强光高温性C23	高温环境下生长状况	常年监测资料
	耐水湿性C24	高地下水位、高湿度环境下生长状况	常年监测资料
经济性 B4	苗木价格C25	单株相当规格苗木市场时价、苗木就近供应难易程度	苗木交易网、杂志查询
	养护强度C26	修剪、支撑、浇灌、松土、防虫害等人工管护成本及缓苗期长短	常年监测资料、文献查询
	苗木更新率C27	树木寿命、多因素影响下植物死亡或树势衰退影响景观导致树木更换率	常年监测资料、文献查询
负面性 B5	飞絮花粉C28	对人生活造成明显影响的毛絮花粉量	常年监测资料
	黏液分泌物C29	对林下道路、车辆、行人造成影响的黏液分泌物	常年监测资料
	果实污染C30	带刺鼻气味、丰富带颜色浆液、超量明显有负面影响的果实	常年监测资料

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Comprehensive assessment results of road greening tree species"

树种 tree species	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	综合得分 comprehensive score	分类 classification
二球悬铃木	1.000 002	0.613 636	0.711 298	1.00	0.20	0.757 481	Ⅰ
女贞	0.336 398	0.409 091	0.291 104	0.50	0.50	0.360 978	Ⅳ
全缘叶栾树	0.674 404	0.772 727	0.247 598	0.40	0.40	0.548 418	Ⅲ
槐	0.604 206	0.469 697	0.563 742	0.55	0.55	0.546 293	Ⅲ
银杏	0.451 403	0.462 121	0.497 377	0.55	0.70	0.485 770	Ⅳ
榉树	0.755 401	0.545 454	0.613 085	0.50	1.00	0.649 182	Ⅱ
香樟	0.777 001	0.818 181	0.305 739	0.10	0.70	0.610 276	Ⅱ
红叶石楠	0.080 998	0.446 969	0.645 552	0.55	0.85	0.422 056	Ⅳ
广玉兰	0.374 197	0.765 151	0.237 768	0.25	1.00	0.475 634	Ⅳ
落羽杉	0.721 547	0.568 181	0.759 212	0.80	0.70	0.689 682	Ⅱ
雪松	0.629 597	0.772 727	0.447 459	0.45	0.40	0.597 435	Ⅲ
合欢	0.419 004	0.643 939	0.491 364	0.30	0.55	0.508 792	Ⅲ
刺槐	0.545 976	0.492 424	0.738 166	0.85	1.00	0.625 470	Ⅱ
苦楝	0.771 601	0.590 909	0.853 652	0.90	0.75	0.747 348	Ⅰ
白榆	0.956 803	0.363 636	0.883 718	0.90	0.85	0.748 747	Ⅰ
东京樱花	0.233 801	0.500 000	0.277 840	0.20	0.85	0.355 992	Ⅳ
意杨	1.000 002	0.409 091	0.888 124	1.00	0.40	0.759 165	Ⅰ
白蜡	0.586 398	0.356 060	0.553 912	0.40	0.70	0.503 911	Ⅲ
杂交马褂木	0.975 626	0.840 908	0.482 963	0.35	1.00	0.757 349	Ⅰ
黑松	0.202 570	0.613 636	0.752 403	0.25	0.40	0.503 083	Ⅲ
红叶李	0.266 200	0.583 333	0.725 933	0.90	0.85	0.560 140	Ⅲ
紫薇	0.032 399	0.613 636	0.657 785	0.40	1.00	0.461 146	Ⅳ
桂花	0.224 170	0.810 605	0.276 867	0.10	1.00	0.448 493	Ⅳ
朴树	0.849 975	0.477 272	1.000 000	0.70	1.00	0.783 174	Ⅰ
臭椿	0.763 425	0.500 000	0.854 050	0.85	0.95	0.725 242	Ⅰ
七叶树	0.306 775	0.712 121	0.524 244	0.45	0.70	0.520 442	Ⅲ
乌桕	0.635 150	0.613 636	0.861 478	0.90	0.85	0.720 579	Ⅰ
白玉兰	0.282 400	0.712 121	0.208 498	0.25	0.85	0.415 905	Ⅳ
泡桐	0.967 603	0.613 636	0.623 887	0.80	0.85	0.744 038	Ⅰ
枫香	0.483 802	0.628 787	0.557 743	0.45	0.85	0.566 100	Ⅲ
枫杨	0.736 578	0.636 363	0.715 705	0.80	0.55	0.694 094	Ⅱ
三角枫	0.521 600	0.628 787	0.783 677	0.45	1.00	0.652 719	Ⅱ
五角枫	0.777 001	0.704 545	0.900 357	0.45	0.95	0.784 571	Ⅰ
重阳木	0.733 802	0.545 454	0.497 598	0.40	0.80	0.593 056	Ⅲ
青桐	0.483 802	0.636 363	0.835 009	0.65	0.90	0.664 052	Ⅱ
中山杉	0.726 947	0.568 181	0.746 404	0.65	0.70	0.679 960	Ⅱ
水杉	0.279 776	0.431 818	0.516 242	0.35	0.90	0.430 851	Ⅳ
池杉	0.368 950	0.409 091	0.705 300	0.50	0.40	0.490 002	Ⅳ
垂柳	0.743 147	0.522 727	0.599 820	0.65	0.30	0.607 208	Ⅱ
旱柳	0.983 803	0.522 727	0.782 468	0.70	0.30	0.736 699	Ⅰ
榔榆	0.793 200	0.590 909	1.000 000	0.60	1.00	0.795 233	Ⅰ
香椿	0.583 775	0.696 969	0.680 024	0.75	0.95	0.673 230	Ⅱ
毛白杨	1.000 002	0.431 818	0.897 955	1.00	0.40	0.768 932	Ⅰ
黄连木	0.591 798	0.643 939	0.869 083	0.50	1.00	0.706 446	Ⅰ
无患子	0.559 399	0.643 939	0.477 760	0.35	0.45	0.544 329	Ⅲ
桑	1.000 002	0.628 787	0.801 111	0.80	0.25	0.781 470	Ⅰ
构树	0.624 197	0.250 000	0.757 207	0.45	0.30	0.526 921	Ⅲ
楸树	0.578 375	0.621 212	0.393 327	0.45	1.00	0.550 374	Ⅲ
柿	0.384 996	0.560 606	0.926 826	0.55	1.00	0.639 228	Ⅱ
豆梨	0.859 606	0.674 242	0.844 220	0.45	0.85	0.778 420	Ⅰ
杜梨	0.233 801	0.590 909	0.636 518	0.35	0.85	0.498 368	Ⅳ
喜树	0.537 800	0.530 303	0.480 163	0.25	0.80	0.516 979	Ⅲ
薄壳山核桃	0.782 401	0.674 242	0.696 266	0.40	0.85	0.708 372	Ⅰ
弗吉尼亚栎	0.279 623	0.462 121	0.380 917	0.05	1.00	0.389 298	Ⅳ
北美红栎	0.473 002	0.492 424	0.327 979	0.20	1.00	0.448 021	Ⅳ

Table 5

References 41

[1]	徐彩瑶, 濮励杰, 朱明. 沿海滩涂围垦对生态环境的影响研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(3):1148-1162.
	XU C Y, PU L J, ZHU M. Effect of reclamation activity on coastal ecological environment:progress and perspectives[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018,38(3):1148-1162. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201611142316.
[2]	孟紫琪, 龙凌波, 佘倩楠, 等. 基于土地利用/覆盖变化的中国大陆沿海地区生态状况评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2018,29(10):3337-3346.
	MENG Z Q, LONG L B, SHE Q N, et al. Assessment of ecological conditions over China’s coastal areas based on land use/cover change[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2018,29(10):3337-3346. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201810.016.
[3]	许凤娇, 吕晓. 基于土地利用变化的江苏沿海地区生态风险格局[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(20):7312-7325.
	XU F J, LYU X. Ecological risk pattern based on land use changes in Jiangsu coastal areas[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018,38(20):7312-7325.DOI: 10.5846/stxb201709041596.
[4]	高宾, 李小玉, 李志刚, 等. 基于景观格局的锦州湾沿海经济开发区生态风险分析[J]. 生态学报, 2011,31(12):3441-3450.
	GAO B, LI X Y, LI Z G, et al. Assessment of ecological risk of coastal economic developing zone in Jinzhou Bay based on landscape pattern[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2011,31(12):3441-3450.
[5]	HUBBARD R K, STRICKLAND T C, PHATAK S. Effects of cover crop systems on soil physical properties and carbon/nitrogen relationships in the coastal plain of southeastern USA[J]. Soil Tillage Res, 2013,126:276-283. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2012.07.009.
[6]	毛志刚, 谷孝鸿, 刘金娥, 等. 盐城海滨盐沼湿地及围垦农田的土壤质量演变[J]. 应用生态学报, 2010,21(8):1986-1992.
	MAO Z G, GU X H, LIU J E, et al. Evolvement of soil quality in salt marshes and reclaimed farmlands in Yancheng coastal wetland[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2010,21(8):1986-1992.
[7]	张濛, 濮励杰, 王小涵, 等. 长期耕种对江苏沿海围垦区滨海盐土理化性质和小麦产量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016,36(16):5088-5097.
	ZHANG M, PU L J, WANG X H, et al. Effects of long-time cultivation on physicochemical properties of coastal saline soil and wheat production at reclamation areas of Jiangsu Province[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2016,36(16):5088-5097. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201502060296.
[8]	牛东玲, 王启基. 盐碱地治理研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2002,33(6):449-455.
	NIU D L, WANG Q J. Research progress on saline-alkali field control[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2002,33(6):449-455. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3945.2002.06.014.
[9]	赖小红, 李名扬, 刘聪, 等. 植物物候对重庆主城区热岛效应的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2019,39(19):7025-7034.
	LAI X H, LI M Y, LIU C, et al. The phenological responses of plants to the heat island effect in the main urban area of Chongqing[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019,39(19):7025-7034. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201809252082.
[10]	武小钢, 蔺银鼎. 城市道路隔离带绿化模式对人行道空气质量的影响评价[J]. 环境科学学报, 2015,35(4):984-990.
	WU X G, LIN Y D. Impact of plant configuration mode of greening segregating belt on air quality of adjacent sidewalk in urban street[J]. Acta Sci Circumstantiae, 2015,35(4):984-990. DOI: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2014.0863.
[11]	李萍, 王松, 王亚英, 等. 城市道路绿化带 “微峡谷效应” 及其对非机动车道污染物浓度的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2011,31(10):2888-2896.
	LI P, WANG S, WANG Y Y, et al. “Micro-canyon effect” of city road green belt and its effect on the pollutant concentration above roads for non-motorized vehicles[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2011,31(10):2888-2896.
[12]	蔡红艳, 杨小唤, 张树文. 植物物候对城市热岛响应的研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2014,33(1):221-228.
	CAI H Y, YANG X H, ZHANG S W. Research advances in plant phenological responses to urban heat island[J]. Chin J Ecol, 2014,33(1):221-228.DOI: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.20131220.0003.
[13]	许格希, 裴顺祥, 郭泉水, 等. 城市热岛效应对气候变暖和植物物候的影响[J]. 世界林业研究, 2011,24(6):12-17.
	XU G X, PEI S X, GUO Q S, et al. Influence of urban heat island effect on climate warming and plant phenology[J]. World For Res, 2011,24(6):12-17.DOI: 10.13348/j.cnki.sjlyyj.2011.06.003.
[14]	MORRIS C J G, SIMMONDS I. Associations between varying magnitudes of the urban heat island and the synoptic climatology in Melbourne,Australia[J]. Int J Climatol, 2000,20(15):1931-1954. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0088(200012)20:151931::AID-JOC578>3.0.CO;2-D.
[15]	马赫, 张天海, 罗宏森, 等. 沿海快速城市化地区能值生态足迹变化分析[J]. 生态学报, 2018,38(18):6465-6472.
	MA H, ZHANG T H, LUO H S, et al. Analysis of emergy ecological footprint change of coastal rapid urbanization areas[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018,38(18):6465-6472. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201803010409.
[16]	马静娜. 防护林生态效益评价研究综述[J]. 防护林科技, 2012(1):79-82.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-5215.2012.01.027.
[17]	李庆贱, 陈志强, 时瑞亭, 等. 白榆家系苗期耐盐碱研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2010,32(5):74-81.
	LI Q J, CHEN Z Q, SHI R T, et al. Alkaline-salt tolerance indices of Ulmus pumila L.seedling and family evaluation on alkaline-salt tolerance[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2010,32(5):74-81.DOI: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.2010.05.023.
[18]	张华新, 刘正祥, 刘秋芳. 盐胁迫下树种幼苗生长及其耐盐性[J]. 生态学报, 2009,29(5):2263-2271.
	ZHANG H X, LIU Z X, LIU Q F. Seedling growth and salt tolerance of tree species under NaCl stress[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2009,29(5):2263-2271. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.05.010.
[19]	韩燕燕, 鲁艳, 吕光辉. 植物耐盐的生理机制及基因工程新进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2007(4):10-14,18.
	HAN Y Y, LU Y, LYU G H. Advances in research on the mechanism of plant salinity tolerance and recent experimentation with transgenic plants[J]. Biotechnol Bull, 2007(4):10-14,18. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5464.2007.04.003.
[20]	ZHU J K. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants[J]. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2002,53:247-273. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329.
[21]	唐桂兰, 游良旺, 芦建国. 城市道路绿化对行车视线诱导的植物合理种植间距[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017,41(5):180-184.
	TANG G L, YOU L W, LU J G. The reasonable planting distance of urban road greening induced by driving sight line[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2017,41(5):180-184. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201605002.
[22]	LI H E, LI B T. Relation between traffic environment and heavy metal, Lead and Cadium contents of roadside trees in urban[J]. Environmental Protection in Transportation, 2001,22(5):10-14.
[23]	CHRISTOFOROU C S, SALMON L G, HANNIGAN M P, et al. Trends in fine particle concentration and chemical composition in southern California[J]. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2000,50(1):43-53. DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2000.10463985.
[24]	FREER-SMITH P H, HOLLOWAY S, GOODMAN A. The uptake of particulates by an urban woodland:Site description and particulate composition[J]. Environ Pollut, 1997,95(1):27-35. DOI: 10.1016/S0269-7491(96)00119-4.
[25]	ZHOU X H, BRANDLE J R, MIZE C W, et al. Three-dimensional aerodynamic structure of a tree shelterbelt:definition,characterization and working models[J]. Agroforest Syst, 2005,63(2):133-147. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-004-3147-5.
[26]	SHASHUA-BAR L, POTCHTER O, BITAN A, et al. Microclimate modelling of street tree species effects within the varied urban morphology in the Mediterranean City of Tel Aviv,Israel[J]. Int J Climatol, 2010,30(1):44-57. DOI: 10.1002/joc.1869.
[27]	于金涛, 肖文发, 王鹏程, 等. 防护林健康评价研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2013,26(1):31-36.
	YU J T, XIAO W F, WANG P C, et al. Research advances of health assessment of shelterbelts[J]. World For Res, 2013,26(1):31-36.
[28]	杨琴军, 苏洪明, 夏欣, 等. 基于植物多样性的武汉市道路绿化研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2007,31(4):98-102.
	YANG Q J, SU H M, XIA X, et al. Researches of street greening based on plant diversity investigation in Wuhan[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2007,31(4):98-102. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2007.04.022.
[29]	赵瑾, 李文银, 魏国仁, 等. 宝鸡市5种乡土树种抗旱性综合评价和研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2019,34(6):74-81.
	ZHAO J, LI W Y, WEI G R, et al. Comprehensive study and evaluationon drought resistance of nativetress speciesin BaoJi[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2019,34(6):74-81. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2019.06.12.
[30]	闫晓云, 张秋良, 韩鹏, 等. 呼和浩特市绿化树种综合评价及树种选择[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2011,25(3):135-140.
	YAN X Y, ZHANG Q L, HAN P, et al. Comprehensive assessment and selection for urban tree species in Hohhot[J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 2011,25(3):135-140.DOI: 10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2011.03.026.
[31]	丁纯璐, 马健霄, 朱宁. 基于层次分析法的城市绿道综合评价研究[J]. 森林工程, 2020,36(2):81-90.
	DING C L, MA J X, ZHU N. Research on comprehensive evaluation of urban greenway based on AHP[J]. Forest Engineering, 2020,36(2):81-90.
[32]	林玮, 白青松, 陈雪梅, 等. 华南主要造林树种碳汇能力评价体系构建及优良碳汇树种筛选[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2020,40(1):28-37.
	LIN W, BAI Q S, CHEN X M, et al. Construction of the carbon sink capacity evaluation system of main afforestation tree species in south China and selection of the fine carbon sink species[J]. J Southwest For Univ, 2020,40(1):28-37. DOI: 10.11929/j.swfu.201812070.
[33]	张锁成, 谷建才, 王秀芳, 等. 基于AHP方法的高速公路中央分隔带绿化植物综合评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2012,27(4):100-102,107.
	ZHANG S C, GU J C, WANG X F, et al. Evaluation of greening plants in expressway divider based on AHP method[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2012,27(4):100-102,107. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2012.04.18.
[34]	国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 森林生态系统服务功能评估规范 GB/T 38582—2020[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2020.
[35]	王嘉楠, 赵德先, 刘慧, 等. 不同类型参与者对城市绿地树种的评价与选择[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2017,34(6):1120-1127.
	WANG J N, ZHAO D X, LIU H, et al. Selection of tree species in an urban green space by local participants[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A & F University, 2017,34(6):1120-1127. DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2017.06.021.
[36]	黄少雄, 卢明明, 陈捷, 等. 层次分析法在粤北高速公路沿线绿化树种选择中的运用[J]. 亚热带植物科学, 2016,45(2):177-182.
	HUANG S X, LU M M, CHEN J, et al. The application of analytic hierarchy process on choice of greening tree species along expressway in north of Guangdong Province[J]. Subtrop Plant Sci, 2016,45(2):177-182.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2016.02.017.
[37]	许秀玉, 肖莉, 王明怀, 等. 沿海抗台风树种评价体系构建与选择[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2015,32(4):516-522.
	XU X Y, XIAO L, WANG M H, et al. A comprehensive evaluation system for anti-typhoon performance of trees in coastal areas[J]. J Zhejiang For Coll, 2015,32(4):516-522.DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2015.04.004.
[38]	林玮, 白青松, 陈雪梅, 等. 华南主要造林树种碳汇能力评价体系构建及优良碳汇树种筛选[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2020,40(1):28-37.
	LIN W, BAI Q S, CHEN X M, et al. Construction of the carbon sink capacity evaluation system of main afforestation tree species in south China and selection of the fine carbon sink species[J]. J Southwest For Univ, 2020,40(1):28-37.DOI: 10.11929/j.swfu.201812070.
[39]	谢春平, 方彦, 刘大伟, 等. 基于层次分析法的江苏宁镇山脉乡土树种评价[J]. 亚热带植物科学, 2019,48(2):161-168.
	XIE C P, FANG Y, LIU D W, et al. Evaluation of native trees species in Ningzhen Mountains of Jiangsu Province by analytic hierarchy process[J]. Subtrop Plant Sci, 2019,48(2):161-168.DOI: 10.16590/j.cnki.1001-4705.2019.04.148.
[40]	杨静怡, 张政文, 吴峰. 贵阳市主要绿化树种功能评价[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020,48(3):156-161. DOI: 10.15889/j.issn.1002-1302.2020.03.027.
[41]	张德顺, 刘鸣. 基于“植物功能性状-生态系统服务”评价框架的园林树种选择方法:以上海为例[J]. 中国园林, 2020,36(2):106-111.
	ZHANG D S, LIU M. A “Plant Functional Traits-ecosystem Services” approach for the selection of landscape trees:a case study in Shanghai[J]. Chin Landsc Archit, 2020,36(2):106-111. DOI: 10.19775/j.cla.2020.02.0106.

Metrics

Comments

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

Construction of a comprehensive assessment system for road greening tree species in coastal cities

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 41

Related Articles 8

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

树种 tree species	学名 scientific name	树种 tree species	学名 scientific name
二球悬铃木	Platanus ×acerifolia	泡桐	Paulownia duclouxii
女贞	Ligustrum lucidum	枫香	Liquidambar formosana
全缘叶栾树	Koelreuteria bipinnata var. integrifolioa	枫杨	Pterocarya stenoptera
槐	Sophora japonica	三角枫	Acer buergerianum
银杏	Ginkgo biloba	五角枫	Acer pictum subsp. mono
榉树	Zelkova serrata	重阳木	Bischofia polycarpa
香樟	Cinnamomum camphora	青桐	Firmiana platanifolia
红叶石楠	Photinia × fraseri	中山杉	Taxodium ‘Zhongshansha’
广玉兰	Magnolia grandiflora	水杉	Metasequoia glyptostroboides
落羽杉	Taxodium distichum	池杉	Taxodium distichum var. imbricarium
雪松	Cedrus deodara	垂柳	Salix babylonica
合欢	Albizia julibrissin	旱柳	Salix matsudana
刺槐	Robinia pseudoacacia	榔榆	Ulmus parvifolia
苦楝	Melia azedarach	香椿	Toona sinensis
白榆	Celtis pumila	毛白杨	Populus tomentosa
东京樱花	Cerasus yedoensis	黄连木	Pistacia chinensis
意杨	Carolina poplar	无患子	Sapindus saponaria
白蜡	Fraxinus chinensis	桑	Morus alba
杂交马褂木	Liriodendron × sinoamericanum	构树	Broussonetia papyrifera
黑松	Pinus thunbergii	楸	Catalpa bungei
红叶李	Prunus cerasifera f. atropurpurea	柿	Diospyros kaki
紫薇	Lagerstroemia indica	豆梨	Pyrus calleryana
桂花	Osmanthus fragrans	杜梨	Pyrus betulifolia
朴树	Celtis sinensis	喜树	Camptotheca acuminata
臭椿	Ailanthus altissima	薄壳山核桃	Carya illinoensis
七叶树	Aesculus chinensis	弗吉尼亚栎	Quercus virginiana
乌桕	Triadica sebifera	北美红栎	Quercus rubra
白玉兰	Magnolia denudata

准则层 rule layer	指标层 index layer	权重值 weight	准则层 rule layer	指标层 index layer	权重值 weight
生态性 B1	遮阴降温能力C1	0.513 7	适应性 B3	抗风能力C16	0.174 0
	蒸腾增湿能力C2	0.064 8		抗病虫害能力C17	0.174 0
	固碳释氧能力C3	0.129 6		抗有害气体能力C18	0.058 5
	降低噪音能力C4	0.064 8		耐盐碱性C19	0.174 0
	滞尘能力C5	0.064 8		耐寒性C20	0.136 3
	吸收污染物能力C6	0.129 6		耐旱性C21	0.107 5
	营养物质积累能力C7	0.032 7		耐贫瘠性C22	0.058 5
景观性 B2	叶色C8	0.181 8		耐强光高温性C23	0.058 5
	叶量C9	0.181 8		耐水湿性C24	0.058 5
	冠形C10	0.090 9	经济性 B4	苗木价格C25	0.400 0
	树干C11	0.090 9		养护强度C26	0.400 0
	花C12	0.181 8		苗木更新率C27	0.200 0
	果C13	0.090 9	负面性 B5	飞絮花粉C28	0.600 0
	气味C14	0.090 9		黏液分泌物C29	0.200 0
	文化内涵C15	0.090 9		果实污染C30	0.200 0

[1]	CAO Jiajie, ZHU Yinglu, CHEN Yu, FU Jianwei, FENG Xiao, YANG Peiying, WANG Hao. The landscape quality evaluation model and method of urban water-sensitive river course [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(6): 288-293.
[2]	SHENG Qianqian, DAI Anqi, ZHANG Huihui, XU Jingyuan, ZHU Zunling. Effects of common garden plants on tolerance, absorption and recovery abilities to NO₂ stress [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(2): 127-134.
[3]	CAO Jiajie, WANG Jie, WU Xiangchong, DING Changhui, WANG Weixi, WANG Hao. Post⁃evaluation of urban river open space landscape restoration：a case study of the eastern part of the Inner Qinhuai River in Nanjing [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(3): 195-201.
[4]	ZHANG Caihong, XUE Wei, XIN Ying, GAO Yujuan. Suitability evaluation of rest and recuperation sites in Guizhou Yushe National Forest Park by analytic hierarchy process(AHP) [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(2): 215-219.
[5]	HUANG Zhengjin, WEI Yunli, ZHANG Chunhong, LYU Lianfei, LI Weilin, WU Wenlong. Comprehensive evaluation of five blackberry hybrid strains by analytic hierarchy process(AHP) [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(01): 135-140.
[6]	SHI Youhai, ZHU Xiaohang. Resources of flowering trees & shrubs and quantitative evaluation of ornamental characters in urban parks of Haikou [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2014, 38(增刊): 118-124.
[7]	WANG Jinxiu，QI Shi，ZHANG Yaoqi，WANG Hui，LI Linying，WANG Di，YU Xiaoyan，LIU Jin. Comprehensive evaluation of riparian buffer strips on the upper reaches of the Qin river, Shanxi province [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2012, 36(01): 152-155.
[8]	Liu Ying’an Hong Yan(Nanjing Forestry University Nanjing 210037) (Xuanzhou Prefectural Forestry Bureall)Ye Jinshan. CHINESE FIR MANMADE FOREST SITE QUALITY QUANTITATIVEEVALUATION AND YIELD PREDICTION OF THE MOUNTAINAREA IN THE SOUTHEAST OF ANHUI PROVINCE [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 1998, 22(03): 51-55.