大兴安岭低质落叶松林补植改造后土壤肥力的综合评价
|
摘要
以大兴安岭林区新林林业局低质落叶松林为研究对象,对其进行不同密度的补植改造,采用灰色关联分析法对各补植改造样地的土壤肥力进行研究。结果表明:到各补植样地的灰色关联度从大到小的顺序是BZ5(0.726)、BZ4(0.671)、BZ3(0.667)、BZ2(0.580)、BZ6(0.570)、BZ1(0.503)、CK(0.472)。与对照样地相比,补植改造后各样地的土壤肥力均有不同程度的提高,说明补植改造对试验样地的土壤肥力均有改善作用;且随着补植密度的增大,土壤肥力的各项指标呈现先增大后减小的趋势,说明补植密度并非越大越好,其中BZ5样地的灰色关联度最高,表明补植密度为700株·hm-2的改造方式最有利于土壤肥力的积累,适宜大兴安岭低质落叶松林的补植改造。
The different densities of replanting alterations were conducted to focus on Larixdahurica low-quality forest in Xinlin Forestry of Daxing'an Mountains. The evaluation system of soil fertility was established with grey relation analysis method and variation coefficients,and the grey relation degrees of soil nutrients in different plots were in the descending order of BZ5(0.726),BZ4(0.671),BZ3(0.667),BZ2(0.580),BZ6(0.570),BZ1(0.503),CK(0.472). The soil fertility was increased compared with the control plot in different degree after replanting alterations,with the increase of replanting density,the soil fertility in different plots was increased firstly and then decreased,and the grey relation degree of BZ5 was the highest,which indicated that the integrated density of 700 tree·hm-2 was the most suitable for the accumulation of soil nutrients,and the best for the replanting alterations of Larix dahurica low-quality forest in Daxing'an Mountains.
The different densities of replanting alterations were conducted to focus on Larixdahurica low-quality forest in Xinlin Forestry of Daxing'an Mountains. The evaluation system of soil fertility was established with grey relation analysis method and variation coefficients,and the grey relation degrees of soil nutrients in different plots were in the descending order of BZ5(0.726),BZ4(0.671),BZ3(0.667),BZ2(0.580),BZ6(0.570),BZ1(0.503),CK(0.472). The soil fertility was increased compared with the control plot in different degree after replanting alterations,with the increase of replanting density,the soil fertility in different plots was increased firstly and then decreased,and the grey relation degree of BZ5 was the highest,which indicated that the integrated density of 700 tree·hm-2 was the most suitable for the accumulation of soil nutrients,and the best for the replanting alterations of Larix dahurica low-quality forest in Daxing'an Mountains.
引文
[1]宋启亮.大兴安岭阔叶混交低质林不同改造模式效果的研究[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2015.
[2]毛波,董希斌.大兴安岭低质山杨林改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(8):7-12.
[3]崔莉.大兴安岭低质林补植改造初期不同林分对苗木的影响[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2015.
[4]唐国华,董希斌,张甜,等.大兴安岭低质林补植改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(8):20-24.
[5]张甜,董希斌.大兴安岭不同类型低质林土壤和枯落物的水文性能[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(10):1-5.
[6]纪浩,董希斌.大兴安岭低质林改造后土壤肥力综合评价[J].林业科学,2012,48(11):117-123.
[7]吕海龙,董希斌.基于主成分分析的小兴安岭低质林不同皆伐改造模式评价[J].林业科学,2011,47(12):172-178.
[8]毛波,董希斌,唐国华.诱导改造对大兴安岭低质山杨林土壤肥力的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2015,43(8):50-53,58.
[9]高明,朱玉杰,董希斌.采伐强度对大兴安岭用材林土壤化学性质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(12):39-41,76.
[10]张泱,宋启亮,董希斌.不同采伐强度改造对小兴安岭低质林土壤理化性质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(11):22-24.
[11]宋启亮,董希斌.大兴安岭低质阔叶混交林不同改造模式综合评价[J].林业科学,2014,50(9):18-25.
[12]曾翔亮,董希斌,宋启亮,等.阔叶混交低质林诱导改造后土壤养分的模糊综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(9):50-53,93.
[13]毛波,董希斌,宋启亮,等.低质山杨林生态改造后土壤肥力综合评价[J].福建林业科技,2015,42(2):40-45.
[14]陈百灵,董希斌,毛波,等.低质林改造后土壤养分变化综合评价[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(9):65-70.
[15]张甜,朱玉杰,董希斌.小兴安岭用材林土壤肥力综合评价及评价方法比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(12):10-14,98.
[16]李湃,李应珍,杨雪峰,等.大兴安岭林区低效林补植改造生态效应分析[J].森林工程,2016,32(3):36-39.
[17]孙楠,郭树平.带状皆伐后更新密度对植物多样性的影响[J].森林工程,2016,32(6):15-19.
[18]曲杭峰,董希斌,马晓波,等.大兴安岭不同类型低质林改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(12):1-5.
[19]KABZEMS R,HAEUSSLER S.Soil properties,aspen,and white spruce responses 5 years after organic matter removal and compaction treatments[J].Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2005,35(8):2045-2055.
[20]MASTO R E,CHHONKAR P K,SINGH D,et al.Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping,fertilisation and manuring for 31 years in the semi-arid soils of India[J].Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,136(1/2/3):419-435.
[21]李芝茹.基于灰色系统理论对大兴安岭白桦低质林改造模式的评析[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2012.
[22]曲杭峰,董希斌,唐国华,等.补植改造对大兴安岭白桦低质林土壤养分的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(4):75-80.
[23]曾翔亮,董希斌,高明.不同诱导改造后大兴安岭蒙古栎低质林土壤养分的灰色关联评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(7):48-52.
[2]毛波,董希斌.大兴安岭低质山杨林改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(8):7-12.
[3]崔莉.大兴安岭低质林补植改造初期不同林分对苗木的影响[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2015.
[4]唐国华,董希斌,张甜,等.大兴安岭低质林补植改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(8):20-24.
[5]张甜,董希斌.大兴安岭不同类型低质林土壤和枯落物的水文性能[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(10):1-5.
[6]纪浩,董希斌.大兴安岭低质林改造后土壤肥力综合评价[J].林业科学,2012,48(11):117-123.
[7]吕海龙,董希斌.基于主成分分析的小兴安岭低质林不同皆伐改造模式评价[J].林业科学,2011,47(12):172-178.
[8]毛波,董希斌,唐国华.诱导改造对大兴安岭低质山杨林土壤肥力的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2015,43(8):50-53,58.
[9]高明,朱玉杰,董希斌.采伐强度对大兴安岭用材林土壤化学性质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(12):39-41,76.
[10]张泱,宋启亮,董希斌.不同采伐强度改造对小兴安岭低质林土壤理化性质的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(11):22-24.
[11]宋启亮,董希斌.大兴安岭低质阔叶混交林不同改造模式综合评价[J].林业科学,2014,50(9):18-25.
[12]曾翔亮,董希斌,宋启亮,等.阔叶混交低质林诱导改造后土壤养分的模糊综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(9):50-53,93.
[13]毛波,董希斌,宋启亮,等.低质山杨林生态改造后土壤肥力综合评价[J].福建林业科技,2015,42(2):40-45.
[14]陈百灵,董希斌,毛波,等.低质林改造后土壤养分变化综合评价[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(9):65-70.
[15]张甜,朱玉杰,董希斌.小兴安岭用材林土壤肥力综合评价及评价方法比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(12):10-14,98.
[16]李湃,李应珍,杨雪峰,等.大兴安岭林区低效林补植改造生态效应分析[J].森林工程,2016,32(3):36-39.
[17]孙楠,郭树平.带状皆伐后更新密度对植物多样性的影响[J].森林工程,2016,32(6):15-19.
[18]曲杭峰,董希斌,马晓波,等.大兴安岭不同类型低质林改造效果的综合评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2016,44(12):1-5.
[19]KABZEMS R,HAEUSSLER S.Soil properties,aspen,and white spruce responses 5 years after organic matter removal and compaction treatments[J].Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2005,35(8):2045-2055.
[20]MASTO R E,CHHONKAR P K,SINGH D,et al.Alternative soil quality indices for evaluating the effect of intensive cropping,fertilisation and manuring for 31 years in the semi-arid soils of India[J].Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,136(1/2/3):419-435.
[21]李芝茹.基于灰色系统理论对大兴安岭白桦低质林改造模式的评析[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学,2012.
[22]曲杭峰,董希斌,唐国华,等.补植改造对大兴安岭白桦低质林土壤养分的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2017,45(4):75-80.
[23]曾翔亮,董希斌,高明.不同诱导改造后大兴安岭蒙古栎低质林土壤养分的灰色关联评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2013,41(7):48-52.