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

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202009009

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

Previous Articles Next Articles

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 E-mail:tangjixin999@126.com;rlzxjhy@126.com

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

S757

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, 2022, 46(1): 97-105.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Table 1

Fig.2

Table 2

Student’s t test and growth performance of different tree species of the mixed plantation"

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^*

Table 2

Fig.3

Table 3

Fig.4

Table 4

Table 5

References 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

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

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

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

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 23

Related Articles 5

Recommended Articles 0

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

[1]	XU Fang, YANG Xiaohui, PAN Wen, LIAO Huanqin, YANG Huixiao, ZHANG Weihua, ZHU Baozhu, CHEN Xinyu, XU Bin, WANG Yuxia. Distributions of knots in trunks and pruning effects on growth in Castanopsis hystrix [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(5): 121-126.
[2]	HE Mengying, DONG Lihu, LI Fengri. Tree crown length prediction models for Larix olgensis and Fraxinus mandshurica in mixed plantations with different mixing methods [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(4): 13-22.
[3]	LIU Shiling, CHEN Lin, YANG Baoguo, JIA Hongyan, PANG Shengjiang, ZHANG Pei, WANG Hui. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on biomass allocation and root morphology in Betula alnoides clones [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(5): 23-29.
[4]	LI Shu-lan~1,CHEN Yong-liang~(1,2). Decomposition and Nutrient Return of the Leaf Litter under the Pure and Mixed Plantations of Juglans mandshrica and Larix gmelinii [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2004, 28(05): 59-62.
[5]	FANG Sheng zuo 1,XU Xi zeng 1,YAN Xiang jin 2,DENG Jian guo 3. Effects of Pruning Intensities and Pruning Seasons on the Growth Dynamics of the Poplar Plantation [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2000, 24(06): 6-10.