不同林龄序列杉木实生林和萌芽林碳储量分配特征
|
摘要
以赣西南杉木实生林和萌芽林为研究对象,通过野外样地调查和室内化学分析方法,揭示了不同龄组实生林和萌芽林的碳储量分配特征,为其可持续经营提供科学依据。结果表明:不同龄组杉木实生林乔木层碳储量均高于萌芽林乔木层碳储量。杉木实生幼龄林乔木层碳储量为9.63t/hm~2,中龄林为42.14t/hm~2,近熟林为69.15t/hm~2,成熟林为105.21t/hm~2;年均固碳量分别为1.69,2.63,3.01,3.39t/hm~2,不同龄组的树干碳储量分别占整个乔木层的50.36%,70.60%,73.86%,77.58%。杉木萌芽幼龄林乔木层碳储量为8.42t/hm~2,中龄林为23.58t/hm~2,近熟林为48.54t/hm~2,成熟林为75.26t/hm~2;年均固碳量分别为1.21,1.57,2.11,2.59t/hm~2,不同龄组的树干碳储量分别占整个乔木层的54.28%,66.12%,71.92%,73.70%。杉木实生林和萌芽林的土壤碳储量均是中龄林最低,成熟林最高。实生林各龄组土壤碳储量大小为:成熟林(153.21t/hm~2)>近熟林(138.17t/hm~2)>幼龄林(128.30t/hm~2)>中龄林(113.11t/hm~2)。萌芽林各龄组土壤碳储量大小为:成熟林(154.03t/hm~2)>近熟林(138.28t/hm~2)>幼龄林(130.20t/hm~2)>中龄林(117.05t/hm~2)。在密度相近的情况下,除幼龄林外,同一龄组的萌芽林总碳储量均小于实生林。同一龄组实生林和萌芽林的乔木层碳储量均有显著性差异(p<0.05),而总碳储量幼龄林与中龄林无显著性差异,近熟林与成熟林有显著性差异。引起杉木实生林和萌芽林碳储量分配差异性的主要原因是生长规律和经营管理的不同。总体而言,萌芽林的林下植被组成丰富,灌木层、草本层和凋落物层的固碳能力较强,在水土保持功能方面要优于实生林。
Combining the field plot survey and laboratory chemical analysis method,Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest in southwest of Jiangxi were studied to reveal the carbon storage allocation characters of different stand ages and regeneration pattern,and to provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management of plantations.Our results showed that the carbon storage in tree layer of seedling plantation within different stand ages was generally higher than that of sprout forest.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir seedling forest within young,mid-mature,nearly mature,mature forest were 9.63t/hm~2,42.14t/hm~2,69.15t/hm~2 and 105.21t/hm~2,respectively,and the average annual amount of carbon sequestration were 1.69t/hm~2,2.63t/hm~2,3.01t/hm~2 and 3.39t/hm~2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 50.36%,70.60%,73.86%and 77.58% of the whole tree layer.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir sprout forest within young,mid-maturation,nearly mature,mature forest were 8.42t/hm~2,23.58t/hm~2,48.54t/hm~2,and 75.26t/hm~2,respectively,the annual average amount of carbon storage of those were 1.21t/hm~2,1.57t/hm~2,2.11t/hm~2 and 2.59t/hm~2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 54.28%,66.12%,71.92% and 73.70% of the whole tree layer.The lowest soil carbon sequestration of both Chinese firseedling forest and sprout forest were found in young forest,and the highest of those were found in mature forest.The ranking order of soil carbon storage of Chinese fir seedling forest were mature forest(153.21t/hm~2)>nearly mature forest(138.17t/hm~2)>young forest(128.30t/hm~2)>mid-maturation forest(113.11t/hm~2),while that of sprout forest were mature forest(154.03t/hm~2)>nearly mature forest(138.28t/hm~2)>young forest(130.20t/hm~2)>mid-maturation forest(117.05t/hm~2).Under the condition of the same stand density,the total carbon storage of sprout forest was lower than that of seedling forest except for young forest.There were significant difference of carbon storage within different stand ages between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest(p<0.05),however,the total carbon storage was not significantly different between the young and mid-mature forest,while significant difference was found between nearly and mature forest.Different growth rules and management caused different carbon storage allocation characters between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest.In general,Chinese fir sprout forest were rich in understory species,and the ability for carbon sequestration of shrub,herb and litter layer were stronger,which were better than Chinese fir seedling forest in the aspect of soil and water conservation function.
Combining the field plot survey and laboratory chemical analysis method,Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest in southwest of Jiangxi were studied to reveal the carbon storage allocation characters of different stand ages and regeneration pattern,and to provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management of plantations.Our results showed that the carbon storage in tree layer of seedling plantation within different stand ages was generally higher than that of sprout forest.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir seedling forest within young,mid-mature,nearly mature,mature forest were 9.63t/hm~2,42.14t/hm~2,69.15t/hm~2 and 105.21t/hm~2,respectively,and the average annual amount of carbon sequestration were 1.69t/hm~2,2.63t/hm~2,3.01t/hm~2 and 3.39t/hm~2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 50.36%,70.60%,73.86%and 77.58% of the whole tree layer.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir sprout forest within young,mid-maturation,nearly mature,mature forest were 8.42t/hm~2,23.58t/hm~2,48.54t/hm~2,and 75.26t/hm~2,respectively,the annual average amount of carbon storage of those were 1.21t/hm~2,1.57t/hm~2,2.11t/hm~2 and 2.59t/hm~2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 54.28%,66.12%,71.92% and 73.70% of the whole tree layer.The lowest soil carbon sequestration of both Chinese firseedling forest and sprout forest were found in young forest,and the highest of those were found in mature forest.The ranking order of soil carbon storage of Chinese fir seedling forest were mature forest(153.21t/hm~2)>nearly mature forest(138.17t/hm~2)>young forest(128.30t/hm~2)>mid-maturation forest(113.11t/hm~2),while that of sprout forest were mature forest(154.03t/hm~2)>nearly mature forest(138.28t/hm~2)>young forest(130.20t/hm~2)>mid-maturation forest(117.05t/hm~2).Under the condition of the same stand density,the total carbon storage of sprout forest was lower than that of seedling forest except for young forest.There were significant difference of carbon storage within different stand ages between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest(p<0.05),however,the total carbon storage was not significantly different between the young and mid-mature forest,while significant difference was found between nearly and mature forest.Different growth rules and management caused different carbon storage allocation characters between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest.In general,Chinese fir sprout forest were rich in understory species,and the ability for carbon sequestration of shrub,herb and litter layer were stronger,which were better than Chinese fir seedling forest in the aspect of soil and water conservation function.
引文
[1]王伟峰,段玉玺,张立欣,等.适应全球气候变化的森林固碳计量方法评述[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2016,40(3):170-176.
[2]魏晓华,郑吉,刘国华,等.人工林碳汇潜力新概念及应用[J].生态学报,2015,35(12):3881-3885.
[3]姚利辉,康文星,赵仲辉,等.会同杉木人工林不同生长阶段植物固碳特征[J].生态学报,2015,35(4):1187-1197.
[4]王伟峰,段玉玺,张立欣,等.不同轮伐期对杉木人工林碳固存的影响[J].植物生态学报,2016,40(7):669-678.
[5]周丽丽,蔡丽平,马祥庆,等.不同发育阶段杉木人工林凋落物的生态水文功能[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(5):249-253.
[6]范广阔,邹双全,林开敏,等.不同更新方式对杉木林土壤肥力的影响[J].福建林学院学报,2009,29(3):210-214.
[7]徐桂林,方晰,田大伦,等.杉木林地不同更新方式土壤有机碳垂直分布及储量[J].浙江林学院学报,2009,26(3):333-340.
[8]兰斯安,杜虎,曾馥平,等.不同林龄杉木人工林碳储量及其分配格局[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(4):1125-1134.
[9]曾伟,江斌,熊彩云,等.江西省不同林龄杉木碳储量分配格局[J].中国农学通报,2015,31(28):1-5.
[10]王伟峰,魏晓华,段玉玺,等.采伐剩余物处理方式对杉木人工林固碳量的长期影响[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(6):198-203.
[11]李玉平.不同更新方式杉木林土壤有机碳与土壤呼吸的动态研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2010.
[12]田晓萍.杉木萌芽更新的研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2008.
[13]周德明,马玉莹,梅杰.不同林龄杉木林地土壤特性分析[J].土壤通报,2012,43(2):353-356.
[14]田大伦,杨超,闫文德,等.连栽杉木林不同生育阶段林下植被生物量[J].林业科学,2011,47(5):145-149.
[15]Chen G S,Yang Z J,Gao R,et al.Carbon storage in a chronosequence of Chinese fir plantations in southern China[J].Forest Ecology and Management,2013,300(4):68-76.
[16]刘延惠,丁访军,崔迎春,等.黔中地区不同林龄杉木人工林碳贮量及其分配特征[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(8):278-283.
[17]周纯亮,吴明,刘满强,等.中亚热带3种人工林土壤有机碳含量与碳密度的动态变化[J].土壤通报,2010,41(3):568-572.
[18]曹小玉,李际平,张彩彩,等.不同龄组杉木林土壤有机碳和理化性质的变化特征及其通径分析[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(4):200-205.
[19]王丹,王兵,戴伟.不同发育阶段杉木林土壤有机碳变化特征及影响因素[J].林业科学研究,2009,22(5):667-671.
[20]邓华平,李树战,何明山,等.豫南不同年龄杉木林生态系统碳储量及其空间动态特征[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2011,31(8):83-90.
[21]叶镜中.杉木萌芽更新[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2007,31(2):1-4.
[22]马祥庆,刘爱琴,何智英,等.杉木免耕萌芽更新生态效果研究[J].中南林学院学报,2000,20(1):14-18.
[23]薛秀康,童书振,吴克选,等.江西乐安县杉木实生与多代萌芽林比较研究[J].林业科学,1996,32(3):277-284.
[24]汪传佳.杉木萌芽更新研究[J].林业科技开发,2000,14(2):23-25.
[25]黄旺志,郑芳,李党法,等.豫南杉木萌芽林生长规律的研究[J].信阳师范学院学报(自然科学版),2006,19(2):191-194.
[26]詹承雄.杉木萌芽更新数量特征的初步研究[J].福建林学院学报,2008,28(3):281-284.
[27]沈启昌.杉木萌芽林与木荷混交效应试验[J].中南林业调查规划,2006,25(3):57-59.
[28]邵可满,汪长根.杉木皆伐更新地山核桃与杉木萌芽林复合混交经营试验[J].江苏林业科技,2003,30(2):37-38.
[29]汪炎明.杉木萌芽林中套种刨花楠经营技术及生长效应[J].林业科技开发,2009,23(5):119-121.
[30]刘正忠.杉木萌芽纯林与混交林生长量及经济效益的研究[J].福建林业科技,2003,30(4):49-51.
[31]巫基有.枫香杉木(萌芽)混交造林观测分析[J].林业科技开发,2002,16(增刊):84-85.
[2]魏晓华,郑吉,刘国华,等.人工林碳汇潜力新概念及应用[J].生态学报,2015,35(12):3881-3885.
[3]姚利辉,康文星,赵仲辉,等.会同杉木人工林不同生长阶段植物固碳特征[J].生态学报,2015,35(4):1187-1197.
[4]王伟峰,段玉玺,张立欣,等.不同轮伐期对杉木人工林碳固存的影响[J].植物生态学报,2016,40(7):669-678.
[5]周丽丽,蔡丽平,马祥庆,等.不同发育阶段杉木人工林凋落物的生态水文功能[J].水土保持学报,2012,26(5):249-253.
[6]范广阔,邹双全,林开敏,等.不同更新方式对杉木林土壤肥力的影响[J].福建林学院学报,2009,29(3):210-214.
[7]徐桂林,方晰,田大伦,等.杉木林地不同更新方式土壤有机碳垂直分布及储量[J].浙江林学院学报,2009,26(3):333-340.
[8]兰斯安,杜虎,曾馥平,等.不同林龄杉木人工林碳储量及其分配格局[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(4):1125-1134.
[9]曾伟,江斌,熊彩云,等.江西省不同林龄杉木碳储量分配格局[J].中国农学通报,2015,31(28):1-5.
[10]王伟峰,魏晓华,段玉玺,等.采伐剩余物处理方式对杉木人工林固碳量的长期影响[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(6):198-203.
[11]李玉平.不同更新方式杉木林土壤有机碳与土壤呼吸的动态研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2010.
[12]田晓萍.杉木萌芽更新的研究[D].福州:福建农林大学,2008.
[13]周德明,马玉莹,梅杰.不同林龄杉木林地土壤特性分析[J].土壤通报,2012,43(2):353-356.
[14]田大伦,杨超,闫文德,等.连栽杉木林不同生育阶段林下植被生物量[J].林业科学,2011,47(5):145-149.
[15]Chen G S,Yang Z J,Gao R,et al.Carbon storage in a chronosequence of Chinese fir plantations in southern China[J].Forest Ecology and Management,2013,300(4):68-76.
[16]刘延惠,丁访军,崔迎春,等.黔中地区不同林龄杉木人工林碳贮量及其分配特征[J].水土保持学报,2015,29(8):278-283.
[17]周纯亮,吴明,刘满强,等.中亚热带3种人工林土壤有机碳含量与碳密度的动态变化[J].土壤通报,2010,41(3):568-572.
[18]曹小玉,李际平,张彩彩,等.不同龄组杉木林土壤有机碳和理化性质的变化特征及其通径分析[J].水土保持学报,2014,28(4):200-205.
[19]王丹,王兵,戴伟.不同发育阶段杉木林土壤有机碳变化特征及影响因素[J].林业科学研究,2009,22(5):667-671.
[20]邓华平,李树战,何明山,等.豫南不同年龄杉木林生态系统碳储量及其空间动态特征[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2011,31(8):83-90.
[21]叶镜中.杉木萌芽更新[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2007,31(2):1-4.
[22]马祥庆,刘爱琴,何智英,等.杉木免耕萌芽更新生态效果研究[J].中南林学院学报,2000,20(1):14-18.
[23]薛秀康,童书振,吴克选,等.江西乐安县杉木实生与多代萌芽林比较研究[J].林业科学,1996,32(3):277-284.
[24]汪传佳.杉木萌芽更新研究[J].林业科技开发,2000,14(2):23-25.
[25]黄旺志,郑芳,李党法,等.豫南杉木萌芽林生长规律的研究[J].信阳师范学院学报(自然科学版),2006,19(2):191-194.
[26]詹承雄.杉木萌芽更新数量特征的初步研究[J].福建林学院学报,2008,28(3):281-284.
[27]沈启昌.杉木萌芽林与木荷混交效应试验[J].中南林业调查规划,2006,25(3):57-59.
[28]邵可满,汪长根.杉木皆伐更新地山核桃与杉木萌芽林复合混交经营试验[J].江苏林业科技,2003,30(2):37-38.
[29]汪炎明.杉木萌芽林中套种刨花楠经营技术及生长效应[J].林业科技开发,2009,23(5):119-121.
[30]刘正忠.杉木萌芽纯林与混交林生长量及经济效益的研究[J].福建林业科技,2003,30(4):49-51.
[31]巫基有.枫香杉木(萌芽)混交造林观测分析[J].林业科技开发,2002,16(增刊):84-85.