Evaluating forest ecosystem restoration ability of natural forest in northern Greater Khingan Mountains by a structural equation model

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202202029

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2024, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1): 196-204.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202202029

Previous Articles Next Articles

Evaluating forest ecosystem restoration ability of natural forest in northern Greater Khingan Mountains by a structural equation model

SA Rula(), WANG Zirui, HUA Yongchun(), HU Richa, LIU Lei, GAO Minglong, YU Xiaoyu

College of Forestry, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010019,China

Received:2022-02-28 Revised:2022-05-09 Online:2024-01-30 Published:2024-01-24
Contact: HUA Yongchun E-mail:sarula213@163.com;398721962@qq.com

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】This study aimed to investigate the dynamic changes of forest ecosystem structure, function, climate and site type factors during the restoration of natural forest ecosystems in northern Greater Khingan Mountains, screen out the key influencing factors, and use scientific methods to scientifically evaluate its forest ecosystem restoration capacity. This study provides a reference for exploring effective management measures to improve the ecological function of Greater Khingan Mountain natural forest. 【Method】Based on field survey data, discriminant validity test was used to determine the evaluation index system of forest ecosystem restoration capacity, and a structural equation model for forest ecological restoration capacity evaluation was established according to the conduction mechanism to determine the index weights. Based on K-means cluster analysis and the equidistant division method, a classification standard for the forest ecological restoration capacity in Greater Khingan Mountains was established. 【Result】The weights of four criterion factors in the evaluation index system of forest ecological restoration capacity in Greater Khingan Mountains-forest productivity, stand structure, climate factor and site type are 0.339, 0.192, 0.256 and 0.213 respectively; The comprehensive scores of the ecological restoration capacity evaluation of the two kinds of forest in the study area are in the range of 1.70 to 3.53, and the distribution of restoration capacity grades conformed to a normal distribution. The restoration capacity grades were mainly concentrated in difference, poor and good states. Overall, the ecological restoration capacity grades of the two forest types were as follows: mixed forest > pure forest. 【Conclusion】The forest ecosystem restoration capacity is mainly affected by forest productivity, whereas stand structure, climate factors and site types have relatively little impacts on ecological restoration capacity, and the ecological restoration capacity of some areas of the Greater Khingan Mountains is still poor.

Key words: forest ecological restoration capacity, structural equation model, index weight, northern Greater Khingan Mountains

CLC Number:

S718.5

SA Rula, WANG Zirui, HUA Yongchun, HU Richa, LIU Lei, GAO Minglong, YU Xiaoyu. Evaluating forest ecosystem restoration ability of natural forest in northern Greater Khingan Mountains by a structural equation model[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(1): 196-204.

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1

Table 2

Scoring standard for the evaluation index of forest ecosystem resilience"

准则层 criterion layer	指标层 index layer	等级分值grade score
准则层 criterion layer	指标层 index layer	5	4	3	2	1
森林生产力 forest productive	平均树高/m average height	≥27.61	[17.98,27.61)	[14.03,17.98)	[10.24,14.03)	<10.24
	平均胸径/cm mean DBH	≥31.93	[21.60,31.93)	[16.14,21.60)	[11.53,16.14)	<11.53
	单位面积蓄积量/(m³·hm^-2) volume per unit area	≥316.90	[197.97,316.90)	[123.26,197.97)	[49.91,123.26)	<49.91
	平均冠幅/m average crown width	≥6.53	[4.50,6.53)	[3.56,4.50)	[2.57,3.56)	<2.57
	株数密度/(株·hm^-2) plant number density	<450.00	[450.00,988.85)	[988.85,2 016.67)	[2 016.67,3 616.67)	≥3 616.67
林分结构 stand structure	大小比数 size ratio	<0.356 5	[0.356 5,0.467 0)	[0.467 0,0.513 9)	[0.513 9,0.566 5)	≥0.566 5
	混交度 degree of mixing	≥0.52	[0.32,0.52)	[0.17,0.32)	[0.04,0.17)	<0.04
	角尺度 angular scale	<0.43	[0.43,0.50)	[0.50,0.55)	[0.55,0.61)	≥0.61
气候因子 climate factor	年均气温/℃ average annual temperature	<-2.003	[-2.003, -1.340)	[-1.340,0.024)	[0.024,0.371)	≥0.371
	年均降水量/mm average annual precipitation	≥1 001.128	[992.740,1 001.128)	[816.475,992.740)	[673.422,816.475)	<673.422
	蒸散量/(W·m^-2) evapotranspiration	<30.370	[30.370,492.001)	[492.001,520.216)	[520.216,580.338)	≥580.338
	短波辐射净强度/(J·m^-2) net shortwave radiation intensity	≥137.492	[136.716,137.492)	[121.296,136.716)	[67.130,121.296)	<67.130
立地类型 site type	海拔/m altitude	<334.44	[334.44,508.90)	[508.90,705.35)	[705.35,891.22)	≥891.22
	坡度/(°) slope	<2.868	[2.868,6.563)	[6.563,11.995)	[11.995,21.267)	≥21.267
	有机碳质量分数/(g·kg^-1) organic carbon content	≥2.265	[1.775,2.265)	[1.130,1.775)	[0.570,1.130)	<0.570
	土壤容重/(g·cm^-3) soil bulk density	<1.25	[1.25,1.37)	[1.37,1.40)	[1.40,1.70)	≥1.70
	土壤饱和度/(cm³·cm^-3) soil saturation	<84.0	[84.0,87.0)	[87.0,92.0)	[92.0,99.5)	≥99.5

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 1

Table 4

Table 5

References 28

[1]	赵其国, 黄国勤, 王礼献. 中国南方森林生态系统的功能、问题及对策[J]. 森林与环境学报, 2015, 35(4):289-296.
	ZHAO Q G, HUANG G Q, WANG L X. Forest ecosystems in the south China: functions, problems and countermeasures[J]. J For Environ, 2015, 35(4): 289-296. DOI: 10.13324/j.cnki.jfcf.2015.04.001.
[2]	徐欢, 李美丽, 梁海斌, 等. 退化森林生态系统评价指标体系研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(24) : 9034-9042.
	XU H, LI M L, LIANG H B, et al. Review of the evaluation index system for degraded forest ecosystems[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018, 38(24) : 9034-9042. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201805301196.
[3]	刘国华, 傅伯杰, 陈利顶, 等. 中国生态退化的主要类型、特征及分布[J]. 生态学报, 2000, 20(1) : 13-19.
	LIU G H, FU B J, CHEN L D, et al. Characteristics and distributions of degraded ecological types in China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2000, 20(1) : 13-19. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2000.01.003.
[4]	HOUGHTON R A. The worldwide extent of land-use change[J]. BioScience, 1994, 44(5): 305-313.DOI: 10.2307/1312380.
[5]	DOBSON A P, BRADSHAW A D, BAKER A J M. Hopes for the future:restoration ecology and conservation biology[J]. Science, 1997, 277(5325):515-522.DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5325.515.
[6]	王丽艳, 孙志华, 林小凡, 等. 江西德兴地区阔叶林生态系统恢复评价[J]. 南方林业科学, 2018, 46(1):9-12.
	WANG L Y, SUN Z H, LIN X F, et al. Evaluation on broad-leaved forest ecosystem restoration in Dexing City of Jiangxi Province[J]. South China For Sci, 2018, 46(1):9-12.DOI: 10.16259/j.cnki.36-1342/s.2018.01.003.
[7]	战金艳, 闫海明, 邓祥征, 等. 森林生态系统恢复力评价:以江西省莲花县为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2012, 27(8):1304-1315.
	ZHAN J Y, YAN H M, DENG X Z, et al. Assessment of forest ecosystem resilience in Lianhua County of Jiangxi Province[J]. J Nat Resour, 2012, 27(8):1304-1315.
[8]	甘敬, 张振明, 余新晓, 等. 森林健康监测与评价研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2006, 13(3):177-180.
	GAN J, ZHANG Z M, YU X X, et al. Study on monitoring and assessment of forest health[J]. Res Soil Water Conserv, 2006, 13(3):177-180.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3409.2006.03.059.
[9]	王长义, 王大鹏, 赵晓雯, 等. 结构方程模型中拟合指数的运用与比较[J]. 现代预防医学, 2010, 37(1):7-9.
	WANG C Y, WANG D P, ZHAO X W, et al. The comparision of goodness index of structural equation model[J]. Mod Prev Med, 2010, 37(1):7-9.
[10]	JONSSON M, WARDLE D A. Structural equation modelling reveals plant-community drivers of carbon storage in boreal forest ecosystems[J]. Biol Lett, 2010, 6(1):116-119.DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0613.
[11]	董灵波, 刘兆刚. 森林健康评价及其多尺度转换方法[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(3):206-216.
	DONG L B, LIU Z G. Forest health assessments and multi-scale conversion methods[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2021, 45(3):206-216.DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.201911007.
[12]	李冰. 大兴安岭兴安落叶松林健康评价研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2009.
	LI B. Research on forest health evaluation of Larix gmelini in the Great Xing’an Mountains[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2009.
[13]	吴嘉禹. 基于结构方程模型的私立医院消防安全绩效考核研究[D]. 绵阳: 西南科技大学, 2021.
	WU J Y. Research on fire safety performance assessment in private hospitals based on structural equation model[D]. Mianyang: Southwest University of science and Technology, 2021.DOI: 10.27415/d.cnki.gxngc.2021.000248.
[14]	委霞. 基于结构方程模型的福寿林场三种典型林分健康评价[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2021.
	WEI X. Health evaluation of three typical stands in Fushou Forest Farm based on structural equation model[D]. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2021.
[15]	O’LEARY-KELLY S W, VOKURKA R J. The empirical assessment of construct validity[J]. J Ops Management, 1998, 16(4):387-405.DOI: 10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00020-5.
[16]	姜帆. 山地退化森林生态系统恢复效果评价[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2009.
	JIANG F. Assessment of restoration result to mountainous region degeneration forest ecosystem[D]. Harbin:Northeast Forestry University, 2009.
[17]	曹小玉, 李际平, 闫文德. 杉木林改造前后的土壤肥力对比分析及综合评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2016, 47(5):1231-1237.
	CAO X Y, LI J P, YAN W D. Comprehensive evaluation and variation of soil fertility before and after reconstruction with broadleaved trees in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations[J]. Chin J Soil Sci, 2016, 47(5):1231-1237.DOI: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2016.05.32.
[18]	甘敬. 北京山区森林健康评价研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2008.
	GAN J. Forest health assessment for mountainous area of Beijing[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2008.
[19]	SUN W, CHOU C P, STACY A W, et al. SAS and SPSS macros to calculate standardized Cronbach’s alpha using the upper bound of the Phi coefficient for dichotomous items[J]. Behav Res Methods, 2007, 39(1):71-81.DOI: 10.3758/bf03192845.
[20]	李俊清. 森林生态学[M]. 2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010.
	LI J Q. Forest ecology[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2010.
[21]	DAGLEY C M, BERRILL J P, LEONARD L P, et al. Restoration thinning enhances growth and diversity in mixed redwood/Douglas-fir stands in northern California,USA[J]. Restor Ecol, 2018, 26(6):1170-1179.DOI: 10.1111/rec.12681.
[22]	魏安然, 张雨秋, 谭凌照, 等. 抚育采伐对针阔混交林林分结构及物种多样性的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2019, 41(5):148-158.
	WEI A R, ZHANG Y Q, TAN L Z, et al. Effects of tending felling on stand structure and species diversity of mixed coniferous and broadleaved forest[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2019, 41(5):148-158.DOI: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20190018.
[23]	刘世荣, 温远光, 蔡道雄, 等. 气候变化对森林的影响与多尺度适应性管理研究进展[J]. 广西科学, 2014, 21(5):419-435.
	LIU S R, WEN Y G, CAI D X, et al. Impacts of climate change on forests and adaptive multi-scales management:a review[J]. Guangxi Sci, 2014, 21(5):419-435.DOI: 10.13656/j.cnki.gxkx.20141024.003.
[24]	王姮, 李明诗. 气候变化对森林生态系统的主要影响述评[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 40(6):167-173.
	WANG H, LI M S. A review of the major impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2016, 40(6):167-173.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2016.06.026.
[25]	汤孟平, 娄明华, 陈永刚, 等. 不同混交度指数的比较分析[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(8):46-53.
	TANG M P, LOU M H, CHEN Y G, et al. Comparative analyses on different mingling indices[J]. Sci Silvae Sin, 2012, 48(8):46-53.
[26]	陈亚南, 杨华, 马士友, 等. 长白山2种针阔混交林空间结构多样性研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2015, 37(12):48-58.
	CHEN Y N, YANG H, MA S Y, et al. Spatial structure diversity of semi-natural and plantation stands of Larix gmelini in Changbai Mountains,northeastern China[J]. J Beijing For Univ, 2015, 37(12):48-58.DOI: 10.13332/j.1000-1522.20150171.
[27]	LI Y F, HUI G Y, ZHAO Z H, et al. Spatial structural characteristics of three hardwood species in Korean pine broad-leaved forest: validating the bivariate distribution of structural parameters from the point of tree population[J]. For Ecol Manag, 2014, 314:17-25.DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.012.
[28]	苏棣坤, 李保军, 袁俊, 等. 火力楠混交林早期生长效果分析[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2018, 34(4):54-57.
	SU D K, LI B J, YUAN J, et al. Analysis on the early growth effect of mixed planting of Michelia macclurei with Manglietia conifera and Pinus elliottii × P.caribaea[J]. For Environ Sci, 2018, 34(4):54-57.

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

优势树种 dominant tree species	平均胸径/m average DBH	平均树高/m average tree height	坡度/(°) slope	海拔/m altitude	样地数量 number of plots
落叶松Larix gmelinii	5.34~28.01	6.37~28.42	3~21	342.2~890.7	56
白桦Betula platyphylla	5.29~27.76	6.70~22.18	3~16	430.0~1 060.0	31
山杨Populus davidiana	8.26~20.85	10.35~20.90	6~20	473.9~773.4	4
樟子松Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica	11.50~12.25	7.50~16.99	9~10	590.0~822.7	2
蒙古栎Quercus mongolica	11.64~11.70	11.55~14.33	9~15	867.9~1 003.0	2
黑桦Betula dahurica	17.88	12.77	20	437.1	1

变量 variable	可测变量个数 number of items	克朗巴哈系数 Cronbach’s coefficient	KMO 系数 KMO coefficient
森林生产力forest productive	5	0.762	0.791
林分结构stand structure	3	0.715	0.677
气候因子climate factor	4	0.803	0.768
立地类型site type	5	0.701	0.720

等级 grade	纯林 pure forest		混交林 mixed forest
等级 grade	平均综合分值 average comprehensive score	数量 number	平均综合分值 average comprehensive score	数量 number
差difference	1.77	10	1.70	14
较差poor	2.08	13	2.09	23
良好good	2.83	3	2.91	17
较好better	2.55	7	2.57	7
优excellent	3.31	1	3.53	1

Evaluating forest ecosystem restoration ability of natural forest in northern Greater Khingan Mountains by a structural equation model

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 28

Related Articles 2

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

目标层 target layer	准则层 criterion layer	权重 weights	指标层 index layer	权重 weights
森林生态系统恢复能力评价 assessment of forest ecosystem restoration ability	森林生产力 forest productive	0.339	平均树高	0.189
			平均胸径	0.220
			单位面积蓄积量	0.207
			平均冠幅	0.194
			株数密度	0.190
	林分结构 stand structure	0.192	大小比数	0.313
			混交度	0.350
			角尺度	0.336
	气候因子 climate factors	0.256	年均气温	0.302
			年均降水	0.229
			蒸散量	0.250
			短波辐射净强度	0.220
	立地类型 site type	0.213	海拔	0.218
			坡度	0.229
			有机碳含量	0.209
			土壤容重	0.192
			土壤饱和度	0.152

[1]	GAO Yu, LI Jing, LIU Yang, WU Yahan, GONG Jiaxing, XIN Qirui. Application of structural equation model in growth of Larix gmelinii stand [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(1): 38-46.
[2]	GUO Hongting, JI Xiaofang, WANG Cheng, ZOU Hanlu, WANG Liyan, JIANG Jiang. Spatial variability and influencing factors of plant diversity in the shrub layers of artificial forests in China [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(4): 144-152.