Research on the ecological compensation mechanism and standards for Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202309044

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2024, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (5): 21-27.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202309044

Previous Articles Next Articles

Research on the ecological compensation mechanism and standards for Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park

YAO Hongwen¹(), WANG Shihong², ZHU Chenghao¹, LI Zuohui¹^,^*(), CHENG Linghong³, LIAN Jihe⁴, LIN Jie⁵

1. Forest Resource Monitoring Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310020, China
2. Zhejiang Forestry Survey Planning and Design Co. Ltd., Hangzhou 310020, China
3. Management Bureau of Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park, Kaihua 324300, China
4. Baishanzu Management Bureau of Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park, Lishui 323000, China
5. College of Forestry and Grassland, College of Soil and Water Conservation, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037,China

Received:2023-09-28 Revised:2024-03-14 Online:2024-09-30 Published:2024-10-03
Contact: LI Zuohui E-mail:yaohongwen2005@163.com;379937228@qq.com

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】The study aims to establish a sound ecological compensation standard, which will provide a sustainable and stable financial guarantee for the construction of national parks. 【Method】 Taking the Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park as an example, this study calculated the upper and lower range of the national park compensation standard by comparing the difference values of provincial public welfare forests inside and outside the national park with regulating services and opportunity cost losses. 【Result】 Considering the value of forest ecosystem regulation services and opportunity cost losses comprehensively, the value of provincial public welfare forests within the national park reached 47 237.01 yuan/(hm²·a).Among them, the value of provincial public welfare forests regulating service function was 45 672.53 yuan/(hm²·a), which was 13 306.25 yuan/(hm²·a) higher than outside the scope, and the value of each regulating service was higher than that outside the implementation area. The opportunity cost loss of public welfare forests within the national park was 1 564.48 yuan/(hm²·a), which still showed a gap of 841.48 yuan/(hm²·a) compared with the current highest compensation standard of 723 yuan/(hm²·a) of the provincial public welfare forests. 【Conclusion】 At present, there was still a large gap between the ecological compensation standard implemented in Qianjiangyuan-Baisanzu National Park and that calculated based on the regulating service unit area and opportunity cost. In the future, we suggest that the compensation standard be gradually increased year by year, taking into account the actual development needs of the National Park.

Key words: Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park, ecosystem service value, opportunity cost, ecological compensation, compensation standard calculation

CLC Number:

S757.2

YAO Hongwen, WANG Shihong, ZHU Chenghao, LI Zuohui, CHENG Linghong, LIAN Jihe, LIN Jie. Research on the ecological compensation mechanism and standards for Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(5): 21-27.

Figures/Tables 2

Table 1

Indicators and evaluation methods of forest ecosystem regulatory services of 2021"

指标 index	物质量 ecosystem product amount	价值量 ecosystem product value	参数说明 parameter description	参数来源 parameter sources
水源涵养 water conservation	Q_wr= $∑ i = 1 n$ 10×A_i×K_f×(P_i-R_i-E_i)	V_wr=Q_wr×C	Q_wr为森林生态系统水源涵养总量,m³;A_i为第i类森林生态系统的面积,hm²;K_f为森林生态系统功能调整系数;P_i为第i类森林生态系统的年产流降雨量,mm;R_i为第i类森林生态系统的年地表径流量,mm;E_i为第i类森林生态系统的年蒸发量,mm;n为森林生态系统类型的数量;V_wr为森林生态系统水源涵养总价值,元;C为水价,元/m³	降雨量参考浙江省及周边气象站点30年的降雨量。蒸散率、地表径流量参数参照文献[22-24]。水价为1.02元/m³
土壤保持 soil retention	Q_sr= $∑ i = 1 n$ (d₀-d_i)×A_i×K_f	V_sr=λ× $Q s r ρ$ ×C₁	Q_sr森林生态系统土壤保持总量,t;d_i第i类森林生态系统土壤侵蚀模数,t/hm²;d₀无立木林地平均土壤侵蚀模数,t/hm²;A_i第i类森林生态系统的面积,hm²; V_sr为森林生态系统土壤保持总价值,元;λ为森泥沙淤积系数;ρ为森土壤容重,t/m³;C₁为单位水库清淤工程费用,元/m³	土壤侵蚀模数、土壤容重参数参照文献[25-26]。泥沙淤积系数取24%。水库单位库容清淤工程费用26.82元/m³
洪水调蓄 flood regulation and storage	C_fc= $∑ i = 1 n$ (P_l,_i-R_f,_i)×A_i× K_f×10 R_f,_i=p_i×β_i	V_wm=C_fc×(C_we+C_wo)	C_fc为森林生态系统洪水调蓄量,m³;P_l,_i为第i类森林生态系统年暴雨降雨量,mm;R_f,_i为第i类森林生态系统年暴雨径流量,mm;β_i为第i类森林生态系统的平均地表暴雨径流系数;V_wm为森林生态系统洪水调蓄总价值,元;C_we为水库单位库容的工程造价,元/m³;C_wo为水库单位库容的运营成本,元/m³	暴雨降雨量和暴雨径流量参数参照文献[27]
空气净化 air purification	Q_ap= $∑ i = 1 n 1 ∑ j = 1 m$ Q_ij×A_i×K_f	V_ap= $∑ i = 1 n 2$ Q_ap×C_i	Q_ap为大气污染物净化总量,t;Q_ij为第i类森林生态系统对第j种大气污染物的单位面积年净化量,t/hm²;n_l为核算地域大气污染物类型的数量;V_ap为森林生态系统空气净化总价值,元;C_i为第i类大气污染物的治理成本,元/t;n₂为大气污染物类型的数量	净化二氧化硫量、氮氧化物量参数参照文献[25,27],净化二氧化硫和氮氧化物的治理成本使用浙江省排污权交易网价格19 057.44元/t、151 40.87元/t
固定二氧化碳 carbon sequestration	$Q C O 2$ = $M C O 2 M C$ ×ΔC	V_cf= $Q C O 2$ × $C C O 2$	$Q C O 2$ 为森林生态系统固碳量,t(CO₂量); $M C O 2$ /M_C为CO₂与C的分子量之比,即44/12;ΔC为前后两期森林生态系统碳储量差值,t;V_cf为森林生态系统固碳总价值,元; $C C O 2$ 为碳交易价格,元
释放氧气 oxygen release	Q_or= $M O 2 M C O 2$ × $Q C O 2$	V_or=Q_or×C_or	Q_or为森林生态系统释氧量,t; $M O 2$ / $M C O 2$ 为O₂与CO₂的分子量之比,即32/44; $Q C O 2$ 为森林生态系统固碳量,t(CO₂量);V_or为森林生态系统释氧总价值,元;C_or为氧气制造成本,元/t	采用浙江省单株生物量模型计算生物量,模型见文献[25]。再通过含碳系数将生物量转换为碳储量[28]。固定二氧化碳采用碳交易价格,即全国碳排放权交易市场43.84元/t;氧气价格1 225.00元/m³
提供负离子 provide negative ions	Q_noi= $∑ i = 1 n 3 5.256 × 1015 × T n o i, i × H i × K f L$	V_noi= $∑ i = 1 n$ 5.256×10¹⁵× H_i×K_f×C_noi/L	Q_noi为森林生态系统提供负离子数量,个;T_noi,_i为森林生态系统实测林分负离子浓度,个/m³;H_i为第i类森林生态系统实测林分高度,m;L为负离子寿命,min;V_noi为森林生态系统提供负离子总价值,元;C_noi为负离子生产费用,元/个;n₃为森林生态系统类别数	参考文献[29],负离子生产价格5.97×10^-18元/个
调整系数 adjustment coefficient	K_a= $b B$	K_b=0.4K₁+0.6K₂= 0.4 $G i G -$ +0.6 $h i h -$	K_a为乔木林的调整系数;b为评估林分生物量,t;B为平均林分生物量,t;K_b为竹林、经济林和灌木林的调整系数;K₁为植被覆盖度系数;K₂为高度系数;G_i为竹林、经济林、灌木林盖度,%; $G -$ 为全部竹林、经济林、灌木林平均盖度,%;h_i为竹林、经济林、灌木林经济林高度,m; $h -$ 为全部竹林、经济林、灌木林平均高度,m	—

Table 1

Table 2

References 29

[1]	SALZMAN J, BENNETT G, CARROLL N, et al. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services[J]. Nat Sustain, 2018, 1: 136-144. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0.
[2]	VAN HECKEN G, BASTIAENSEN J. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view[J]. Environ Sci Policy, 2010, 13(8): 785-792. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.006.
[3]	董海宾, 刘思博, BOLORMAA D, 等. 基于CiteSpace的国内生态补偿研究[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(20): 8521-8529.
	DONG H B, LIU S B, BOLORMAA D, et al. Study on domestic ecological compensation based on CiteSpace[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2022, 42(20): 8521-8529. DOI: 10.5846/stxb202109082529.
[4]	LUNDBERG L, PERSSON U M, ALPIZAR F, et al. Context matters: exploring the cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES[J]. Ecol Econ, 2018, 146: 347-358. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.021.
[5]	李晓光, 苗鸿, 郑华, 等. 生态补偿标准确定的主要方法及其应用[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(8): 4431-4440.
	LI X G, MIAO H, ZHENG H, et al. Main methods for setting ecological compensation standard and their application[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2009, 29(8): 4431-4440. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.08.050.
[6]	吴乐, 孔德帅, 靳乐山. 中国生态保护补偿机制研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(1): 1-8.
	WU L, KONG D S, JIN L S. Research on the progress of the eco-compensation mechanism in China[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2019, 39(1): 1-8. DOI:10.5846/stxb201808281842.
[7]	夏云娇, 王俊华. 国家公园生态补偿地方立法的特点和不足及其完善[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2020, 27(2): 35-41.
	XIA Y J, WANG J H. Local legislation on ecological compensation in National Parks: characteristics,deficiencies and countermeasures[J]. Saf Environ Eng, 2020, 27(2): 35-41. DOI: 10.13578/j.cnki.issn.1671-1556.2020.02.005.
[8]	刘富国, 李姣, 汪杰, 等. 南山国家公园生态补偿标准研究: 基于生态系统服务功能价值和机会成本[J]. 湖南林业科技, 2019, 46(5): 9-16.
	LIU F G, LI J, WANG J, et al. Research on ecological compensation standard of Nanshan National Park: based on ecosystem service value and opportunity cost[J]. Hunan For Sci Technol, 2019, 46(5): 9-16. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5710.2019.05.002.
[9]	赵淼峰, 黄德林. 国家公园生态补偿主体的建构研究[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2019, 26(1): 26-34, 41.
	ZHAO M F, HUANG D L. Construction of ecological compensation subject in National Parks[J]. Saf Environ Eng, 2019, 26(1): 26-34, 41. DOI: 10.13578/j.cnki.issn.1671-1556.2019.01.004.
[10]	闫海明, 张瑜, 李炜, 等. 生态补偿标准估算方法研究进展[J]. 河北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 46(5): 533-540.
	YAN H M, ZHANG Y, LI W, et al. Review of methods to estimate the ecological compensation standard[J]. J Hebei Norm Univ (Nat Sci), 2022, 46(5): 533-540. DOI: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.nse.202205011.
[11]	王振波, 于杰, 刘晓雯. 生态系统服务功能与生态补偿关系的研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2009, 19(6): 17-22.
	WANG Z B, YU J, LIU X W. Research on the relationship between ecosystem services and ecological compensation[J]. China Popul Resour Environ, 2009, 19(6): 17-22. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2009.06.004.
[12]	武萍, 张慧. 三江源国家公园生态补偿适度标准评估: 基于生态系统服务价值供给的视角[J]. 青海社会科学, 2022(1): 50-58.
	WU P, ZHANG H. Evaluation of appropriate criteria for ecological compensation in Sanjiangyuan National Park: based on the supply of ecosystem service value[J]. Qinghai Soc Sci, 2022(1): 50-58. DOI: 10.14154/j.cnki.qss.2022.01.009.
[13]	柳荻, 胡振通, 靳乐山. 生态保护补偿的分析框架研究综述[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(2): 380-392.
	LIU D, HU Z T, JIN L S. Review on analytical framework of eco-compensation[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018, 38(2): 380-392. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201605281028.
[14]	吴娜, 宋晓谕, 康文慧, 等. 不同视角下基于InVEST模型的流域生态补偿标准核算: 以渭河甘肃段为例[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(7): 2512-2522.
	WU N, SONG X Y, KANG W H, et al. Standard of payment for ecosystem services in a watershed based on InVEST model under different standpoints: a case study of the Weihe River in Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2018, 38(7): 2512-2522. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201704130664.
[15]	谭秋成. 关于生态补偿标准和机制[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2009, 19(6): 1-6.
	TAN Q C. Eco-compensation standard and mechanism[J]. China Popul Resour Environ, 2009, 19(6): 1-6. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2009.06.001.
[16]	李屹峰, 罗玉珠, 郑华, 等. 青海省三江源自然保护区生态移民补偿标准[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(3): 764-770.
	LI Y F, LUO Y Z, ZHENG H, et al. Standard of payments for ecosystem services in Sanjiangyuan Natural Reserve[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2013, 33(3): 764-770. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201205280785.
[17]	王昊天, 陈珂, 王玲. 基于机会成本法的退耕还林生态补偿标准: 以辽西北生态脆弱区为例[J]. 沈阳大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 22(2): 176-181.
	WANG H T, CHEN K, WANG L. Eco-compensation standard of sloping land conversion program based on opportunity cost method: taking ecological vulnerable region of northwestern Liaoning as an example[J]. J Shenyang Univ (Soc Sci), 2020, 22(2): 176-181. DOI: 10.16103/j.cnki.21-1582/c.2020.02.010.
[18]	戴家远, 胡淑恒, 张贝尔, 等. 基于机会成本和生态系统服务价值核算的生态补偿标准研究: 以新安江流域为例[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(21): 152-157.
	DAI J Y, HU S H, ZHANG B E, et al. Study on ecological compensation standard based on opportunity cost and ecosystem service value accounting: a case study of Xin’an River Basin[J]. Hubei Agric Sci, 2021, 60(21): 152-157. DOI: 10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2021.21.033.
[19]	姚鸿文, 陶吉兴, 杜群, 等. 浙江省森林生态服务功能评估与分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 36(4): 13-17.
	YAO H W, TAO J X, DU Q, et al. Evaluation and analysis of forest ecosystem services in Zhejiang Province[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2012, 36(4): 13-17. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2012.04.003.
[20]	国家林业和草原局. 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.
[21]	浙江省发展和改革委员会. 生态系统生产总值(GEP)核算技术规范—陆域生态系统:DB33/T 2274—2020[S]. 杭州: 浙江省市场监督管理局, 2020.
[22]	李少宁. 江西省暨大岗山森林生态系统服务功能研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2007.
	LI S N. Study on forest ecosystem services in Jiangxi Province and Dagangshan[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2007.
[23]	刘玉莉, 江洪, 周国模, 等. 安吉毛竹林水汽通量变化特征及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2014, 34(17): 4900-4909.
	LIU Y L, JIANG H, ZHOU G M, et al. Water vapor flux variation characteristic and the relationship with its environment factors in Phyllostachys edulis forest in Anji[J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2014, 34(17): 4900-4909. DOI: 10.5846/stxb201301050025.
[24]	唐小燕. 钱江源典型森林类型地表径流和土壤侵蚀特征研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2012.
	TANG X Y. Characteristics of runoff and soil erosion of typical forest types in the source of Qiantang River[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang A & F University, 2012.
[25]	袁位高, 江波, 葛永金, 等. 浙江省重点公益林生物量模型研究[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2009, 29(2): 1-5.
	YUAN W G, JIANG B, GE Y J, et al. Study on biomass model of key ecological forest in Zhejiang Province[J]. J Zhejiang For Sci Technol, 2009, 29(2): 1-5. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3776.2009.02.001.
[26]	浙江省林业科学研究院. 浙江省公益林建设与效益评价技术报告[R]. 杭州: 浙江省林业科学研究院, 2021.
	Zhejiang Academy of Forestry Sciences. Technical report on the construction and benefit evaluation of public welfare forests in Zhejiang Province[R]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Academy of Forestry Science, 2021.
[27]	国家发展和改革委员会, 国家统计局. 生态产品总值核算规范[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2023.
	National Development and Reform Commission, National Bureau of Statistics. Technical specification for gross ecosystem product accounting[M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2023.
[28]	陶吉兴, 杜群, 季碧勇. 浙江森林碳汇功能监测[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2014.
	TAO J X, DU Q, JI B Y. The forest carbon sequestration function monitoring in Zhejiang[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2014.
[29]	国家林业局. 森林生态系统服务功能评估规范:LY/T 1721—2008[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2008.
	National Forestry Adnimistration. Specifications for assessment of forest ecosystem services in China: LY/T 1721—2008[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2008.

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

调节服务 regulating service	统计类别 accounting categorie	范围内 within the national park	范围外 outside the national park
	面积/hm² area	62 084.37	33 4920.64
水源涵养 water conservation	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	50 873.38	232 284.05
	价值量/万元	51 890.85	236 929.73
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	8 358.12	7 074.21
土壤保持 soil retention	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	306.55	1 361.58
	价值量/万元	1 604.69	7 198.39
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	258.47	214.93
洪水调蓄 flood regulation and storage	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	34 971.84	144 951.80
	价值量/万元	104 216.09	431 956.47
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	16 786.20	12 897.28
空气净化 air purification	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	0.73	3.34
	价值量/万元	12 780.27	58 642.34
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	2 058.53	1 750.93
固定二氧化碳 carbon sequestration	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	118.48	365.90
	价值量/万元	5 360.18	16 553.21
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	863.37	494.24
释放氧气 oxygen release	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	86.17	266.11
	价值量/万元	105 557.76	325 981.54
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	17 002.31	9 733.10
提供负离子 provide negative ions	物质量/(×10⁴ m³)	63 399.88	228 183.23
	价值量/万元	2 145.17	6 751.71
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	345.52	201.59
合计 total	价值量/万元	283 555.01	1 084 013.39
	单位面积价值量/(元·hm^-2)	45 672.53	32 366.28

Research on the ecological compensation mechanism and standards for Qianjiangyuan-Baishanzu National Park

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 2

References 29

Related Articles 11

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

[1]	LI Sirong, SU Tongxiang. Protection policy impacts on landscape pattern changes and ecosystem service value responses in Fuxian Lake basin [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(3): 145-154.
[2]	QI Liping, LUAN Zhaoqing, WEI Mian, YAN Dandan, LI Jingtai, YAO Xiuying, LIU Yao, XIE Siying, SHENG Yufeng. Spatial and temporal variations of ecosystem service values in Jiangsu Province based on land-use change [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(4): 200-208.
[3]	PENG Hongjun, XU Xiao, YU Xiaoping. A review of the value realization path of forestry carbon sink products [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(6): 177-186.
[4]	JIA Yanyan, TANG Xiaolan, REN Yujie. Spatial-temporal evolution and correlation analyses of ecosystem service values and landscape ecological risks in Anhui section of the Yangtze River basin [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(3): 31-40.
[5]	LIU Can, ZHANG Minxin. Literature review and comments on forest ecological compensation [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(5): 149-155.
[6]	ZENG Weizhong, CHENG Ying, YANG Fan. A evaluation index system of forest carbon sequestration poverty alleviation performance based on the CDM Forest Carbon Sequestration Project [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2018, 42(04): 9-17.
[7]	LYU Guoping, LIAO Chengrui, XU Yannan, ZHANG Ting, LI Haidong. Dynamic simulation of future ecosystem service value in Puding County, Guizhou Province based on CA-Markov model [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2017, 41(05): 49-56.
[8]	HAN Huiqing, LUO Xuqiang, CAI Guangpeng. Spatio-temporal changes of garden land from 2000 to 2010 in mountainous city and their effects on ecosystem service value [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2017, 41(01): 103-108.
[9]	GAO Hongjuan,LUO Xuqiang, HAN Huiqing,WANG Houzhen. The change of ecosystem service value along the road in mountainous region— a case study of provincial road 309 in Majiang County, Guizhou Province [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2016, 40(01): 135-141.
[10]	WANG Dong, XU Jingjing, ZHOU Liangguang, WU Jian. Changes of ecosystem service value in Anhui Province and prediction of its changing trend [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2015, 39(04): 88-94.
[11]	GaoZhenhua (Nanjing Forestry University)Wei Mingliang (Nanning Region Research Institute of Forestry)Wei Shanlang. RESEARCH ON ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF SEED ORCHARD OF MASSON PINE [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 1991, 15(04): 83-88.