北京山区森林健康评价研究
|
摘要
本文以系统科学、景观生态学等理论为依据,以样地调查、北京市“十五”森林资源二类调查结果和其它途径收集的图件为基础数据,从探讨森林健康的内涵与实质入手,在对森林景观进行区划的基础上,确立评价指标,采用正态分析及等距分组法确定评价指标标准,采用层次分析法确定评价指标权重,采用多级模糊综合评价法确定健康等级隶属度,并将北京山区森林健康评价等级划分为优质、健康、亚健康、不健康和疾病五级,从森林经营小班、景观和区域三个尺度对北京山区森林健康状况进行了评价,旨在为北京市森林健康可持续经营提供理论依据。主要研究结果与结论如下:
(1)运用森林资源二类调查与遥感影像相结合的方法,以地类、森林类型、起源和优势树种作为北京山区森林景观区划的主要因子,区划得到北京山区共18个森林景观类型。森林景观分类精度达到83%以上。
(2)在森林经营小班尺度上,以现代系统科学理论为基础,从完整性、稳定性和可持续性三个方面初步构建健康评价指标14个,经筛选,得到小班健康评价指标8个;在景观尺度上,以景观生态学理论为基础,从结构与格局、功能与过程两个方面初步构建健康评价指标6个,经筛选,得到景观健康评价指标4个。
(3)在森林经营小班尺度上,建立了森林景观类型林分蓄积量—生物量回归模型、灌木层生物量—灌木高度回归模型、草本层生物量—草本高度回归模型各18类,以推求单位面积总生物量;建立了树高、胸径—叶面积指数回归模型18类,以推求小班叶面积指数。在景观尺度上,采用景观格局计算公式得到了分形维数、景观多样性、景观优势度、景观均匀度各18个指标值;通过统计各类景观样地每木调查数据的病虫害等级数量比例,计算其模糊隶属度的相对位置而得到了病虫害程度18个指数。
(4)在小班尺度上,将小班评价指标分类为定性描述指标、无限制可比定量指标和半限制可比定量指标三种。确立了无限制可比定量指标、半限制可比定量指标标准各5级,在景观尺度上,确立分形维数、景观多样性指数指标标准各5级。
(5)采用层次分析法确定指标权重,得到:
小班健康评价指标权重向量为A_p=(0.0211 0.0646 0.2476 0.0333 0.3000 0.0861 0.2123 0.0349);景观健康评价指标权重向量为A_L=(0.1250 0.3750 0.4375 0.0625);北京山区森林整体健康评价指标权重向量为A_T=(0.0719 0.0602 0.0632 0.0618 0.0495 0.0670 0.0414 0.0476 0.0640 0.05230.0493 0.0496 0.0536 0.0477 0.0451 0.0668 0.0677 0.0411)。
(6)评价结果表明:在小班尺度上,北京山区30164个森林经营小班中,处于亚健康的最多,达11265个,面积比例为42.21%,属于优质和疾病的小班较少,面积比分别占10%左右。在景观尺度上,北京山区18类森林景观中属于健康的4类,亚健康的12类,不健康的2类,无优质和疾病的景观类型。在区域尺度上,北京山区整体的健康状况为亚健康。以上结论说明北京市急需进行森林健康可持续经营,提高森林健康等级。
Based on theories of systemic science and landscape ecology and in terms of data consisting of standard plots investigation, forest resources inventory and collected charts else, evaluation index system of forest health is built by exploring the conception and essence of forest health. A forest health evaluation study for Beijing mountain area is conducted, based on forest landscape zoning in this research. The evaluation indices of forest health is assigned by adopting the method of normal regression analysis and the way of equidistant dividing, the index weight is determined by applying the method of AHP, and membership degree is determined by the method of multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Five forest health degrees, namely, Robust (Perfect), Healthy, Sub-healthy, Unhealthy and Disease are assigned, forest health status of Mountainous Beijing is evaluated at compartment, landscape and Region level respectively, in order to provide theoretical base for Beijing's sustainable forest management. Main outputs of the paper conclude:
(1) Eighteen forest landscape divisions in total are found in Beijing from this study, by using land tape, forest type, forest origin and dominant tree species as the main indices to analyze forest in Beijing mountainous area. Based on the forest management inventory data and remote sensing image classification, the classification accuracy is above 83%.
(2) On the scale of sub-compartment, based on the theory of modern system science, this paper conducts 14 preliminary forest health indices by considering integrality, stability and sustainability of forest ecosystem, 8 forest health indices are selected after screening. On the scale of forest landscape division, based on the theory of landscape ecology, 6 preliminary forest health indices are conducted by considering the relationship of ecosystem structure and distribution pattern and relationship between ecosystem function and process, 4 forest health indices are selected after screening.
(3) Regression analysis models are established to measure the indices that cannot obtain directly. On the scale of sub-compartment, to calculate the total biomass of each unit area, 18 volume-biomass regression models of stand layer, 18 height-biomass regression models of shrub layer and 18 height-biomass regression models of grass layer are established; Eighteen tree height, DBH and leaf area index models are established, to calculate leaf area index,.
On the scale of forest landscape division, 18 indices are calculated, such as fractal dimension, landscape diversity, landscape dominance, evenness; based on the investigation data of forest pests and disaster grades collected from each landscape sample plot, 18 indices of forest pest and disease are calculated by calculating the relative position of fuzzy membership degree.
(4). On the scale of sub-compartment, the healthy indices are categorized into 3 classes, namely, qualitative index, unrestricted comparable quantitative index, and semi-restricted comparable quantitative index. The standards of each unrestricted comparable quantitative index and semi-restricted comparable quantitative index are divided into 5 classes respectively. On the scale of forest landscape division, the standard of fractal dimension and landscape diversity is divided into 5 classes respectively.
(5) Applying the method of AHP to confirm the index weight, index weight vectors are calculated as follow:
The forest health index weight vector of sub-compartment scale is:
A_P =(0-0211 0.0646 0.2476 0.0333 0.3000 0.0861 0.2123 0.0349);
The index weight vector of landscape scale is:
A_L =(0.1250 0.3750 0.4375 0.0625);
The index weight vector of total Beijing mountain area forest health is:
A_T =(0.0719 0.0602 0.0632 0.0618 0.0495 0.0670 0.0414 0.0476 0.0640 0.0523 0.0493 0.0496 0.0536 0.0477 0.0451 0.0668 0.0677 0.0411),
(6) The evaluation results show that, in the scale of sub-compartment, 11265 sub-compartments are classified as in sub-healthy category, which accounts for 42.21% of the total Beijing Mountainous area, while sub-compartments are classified as in either robust or disease occupy 10% of the total area respectively. On the scale of forest landscape, there are 4 kinds that are classified as robust, 12 kinds as sub-healthy and 2 kinds as unhealthy among the total 18 forest landscape types. Neither high-quality nor diseased forest landscape types is found in Beijing mountainous area in this study. On the scale of whole Beijing mountain region, the healthy condition of Beijing mountainous forest is classified as sub health.
The above conclusions shows that it is both urgent and necessary carry on forest health management, so as to improve forest health grade in Mountainous Beijing.
(1)运用森林资源二类调查与遥感影像相结合的方法,以地类、森林类型、起源和优势树种作为北京山区森林景观区划的主要因子,区划得到北京山区共18个森林景观类型。森林景观分类精度达到83%以上。
(2)在森林经营小班尺度上,以现代系统科学理论为基础,从完整性、稳定性和可持续性三个方面初步构建健康评价指标14个,经筛选,得到小班健康评价指标8个;在景观尺度上,以景观生态学理论为基础,从结构与格局、功能与过程两个方面初步构建健康评价指标6个,经筛选,得到景观健康评价指标4个。
(3)在森林经营小班尺度上,建立了森林景观类型林分蓄积量—生物量回归模型、灌木层生物量—灌木高度回归模型、草本层生物量—草本高度回归模型各18类,以推求单位面积总生物量;建立了树高、胸径—叶面积指数回归模型18类,以推求小班叶面积指数。在景观尺度上,采用景观格局计算公式得到了分形维数、景观多样性、景观优势度、景观均匀度各18个指标值;通过统计各类景观样地每木调查数据的病虫害等级数量比例,计算其模糊隶属度的相对位置而得到了病虫害程度18个指数。
(4)在小班尺度上,将小班评价指标分类为定性描述指标、无限制可比定量指标和半限制可比定量指标三种。确立了无限制可比定量指标、半限制可比定量指标标准各5级,在景观尺度上,确立分形维数、景观多样性指数指标标准各5级。
(5)采用层次分析法确定指标权重,得到:
小班健康评价指标权重向量为A_p=(0.0211 0.0646 0.2476 0.0333 0.3000 0.0861 0.2123 0.0349);景观健康评价指标权重向量为A_L=(0.1250 0.3750 0.4375 0.0625);北京山区森林整体健康评价指标权重向量为A_T=(0.0719 0.0602 0.0632 0.0618 0.0495 0.0670 0.0414 0.0476 0.0640 0.05230.0493 0.0496 0.0536 0.0477 0.0451 0.0668 0.0677 0.0411)。
(6)评价结果表明:在小班尺度上,北京山区30164个森林经营小班中,处于亚健康的最多,达11265个,面积比例为42.21%,属于优质和疾病的小班较少,面积比分别占10%左右。在景观尺度上,北京山区18类森林景观中属于健康的4类,亚健康的12类,不健康的2类,无优质和疾病的景观类型。在区域尺度上,北京山区整体的健康状况为亚健康。以上结论说明北京市急需进行森林健康可持续经营,提高森林健康等级。
Based on theories of systemic science and landscape ecology and in terms of data consisting of standard plots investigation, forest resources inventory and collected charts else, evaluation index system of forest health is built by exploring the conception and essence of forest health. A forest health evaluation study for Beijing mountain area is conducted, based on forest landscape zoning in this research. The evaluation indices of forest health is assigned by adopting the method of normal regression analysis and the way of equidistant dividing, the index weight is determined by applying the method of AHP, and membership degree is determined by the method of multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Five forest health degrees, namely, Robust (Perfect), Healthy, Sub-healthy, Unhealthy and Disease are assigned, forest health status of Mountainous Beijing is evaluated at compartment, landscape and Region level respectively, in order to provide theoretical base for Beijing's sustainable forest management. Main outputs of the paper conclude:
(1) Eighteen forest landscape divisions in total are found in Beijing from this study, by using land tape, forest type, forest origin and dominant tree species as the main indices to analyze forest in Beijing mountainous area. Based on the forest management inventory data and remote sensing image classification, the classification accuracy is above 83%.
(2) On the scale of sub-compartment, based on the theory of modern system science, this paper conducts 14 preliminary forest health indices by considering integrality, stability and sustainability of forest ecosystem, 8 forest health indices are selected after screening. On the scale of forest landscape division, based on the theory of landscape ecology, 6 preliminary forest health indices are conducted by considering the relationship of ecosystem structure and distribution pattern and relationship between ecosystem function and process, 4 forest health indices are selected after screening.
(3) Regression analysis models are established to measure the indices that cannot obtain directly. On the scale of sub-compartment, to calculate the total biomass of each unit area, 18 volume-biomass regression models of stand layer, 18 height-biomass regression models of shrub layer and 18 height-biomass regression models of grass layer are established; Eighteen tree height, DBH and leaf area index models are established, to calculate leaf area index,.
On the scale of forest landscape division, 18 indices are calculated, such as fractal dimension, landscape diversity, landscape dominance, evenness; based on the investigation data of forest pests and disaster grades collected from each landscape sample plot, 18 indices of forest pest and disease are calculated by calculating the relative position of fuzzy membership degree.
(4). On the scale of sub-compartment, the healthy indices are categorized into 3 classes, namely, qualitative index, unrestricted comparable quantitative index, and semi-restricted comparable quantitative index. The standards of each unrestricted comparable quantitative index and semi-restricted comparable quantitative index are divided into 5 classes respectively. On the scale of forest landscape division, the standard of fractal dimension and landscape diversity is divided into 5 classes respectively.
(5) Applying the method of AHP to confirm the index weight, index weight vectors are calculated as follow:
The forest health index weight vector of sub-compartment scale is:
A_P =(0-0211 0.0646 0.2476 0.0333 0.3000 0.0861 0.2123 0.0349);
The index weight vector of landscape scale is:
A_L =(0.1250 0.3750 0.4375 0.0625);
The index weight vector of total Beijing mountain area forest health is:
A_T =(0.0719 0.0602 0.0632 0.0618 0.0495 0.0670 0.0414 0.0476 0.0640 0.0523 0.0493 0.0496 0.0536 0.0477 0.0451 0.0668 0.0677 0.0411),
(6) The evaluation results show that, in the scale of sub-compartment, 11265 sub-compartments are classified as in sub-healthy category, which accounts for 42.21% of the total Beijing Mountainous area, while sub-compartments are classified as in either robust or disease occupy 10% of the total area respectively. On the scale of forest landscape, there are 4 kinds that are classified as robust, 12 kinds as sub-healthy and 2 kinds as unhealthy among the total 18 forest landscape types. Neither high-quality nor diseased forest landscape types is found in Beijing mountainous area in this study. On the scale of whole Beijing mountain region, the healthy condition of Beijing mountainous forest is classified as sub health.
The above conclusions shows that it is both urgent and necessary carry on forest health management, so as to improve forest health grade in Mountainous Beijing.
引文
[1]北京市林业勘查设计院.北京市“十五”森林资源二类调查报告[R].北京:北京市园林绿化局内部资料,2005:20-45.
[2]蔡登谷.森林文化初论[J].世界林业研究,2002,15(1):12-18.
[3]曹宇,哈斯巴根,宋冬梅.景观健康概念、特征及其评价[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(11):1511-1515.
[4]曾德慧,姜凤岐.生态系统健康与人类可持续发展[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(6):751-756.
[5]车生泉.持续农业的生态学理论体系[J].生态经济,1998,(2):34-35.
[6]陈高,代力民,范竹华,等.森林生态系统健康及其评估监测[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(5):605-610.
[7]陈高,代力民,姬兰柱.森林生态系统健康评估I:模式、计算方法和指标体系[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(10):1743-1749.
[8]陈高,邓红兵,王庆礼.森林生态系统健康评估的一般性途径探讨[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(6):995-999.
[9]陈利顶,傅伯杰.干扰的类型、特征及其生态学意义[J].生态学报,2000,20(4):581-586.
[10]陈云明,侯喜禄,刘文兆.黄上丘陵半干旱不同类型植被水保生态效益研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(3):57-61.
[11]程平.浅论林业可持续发展的对策[J].林业建设,2005,(1):20-24.
[12]但新球.森林文化的社会、经济及系统特征[J].中南林业调查规划,2002,21(3):58-61.
[13]段澈.区域可持续发展评价指标体系及综合评价[J].技术经济与管理研究,2005(3):27-28.
[14]方秀琴,张万昌.叶面积指数(LAI)的遥感定量方法综述[J].国土资源遥感,2003,(3):58-62.
[15]傅伯杰,陈利顶.景观多样性的类型及其生态意义[J].地理学报,1996,51(5):454-462.
[16]傅伯杰,等.景观生态学原理及应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2001:224
[17]傅伯杰,汪西林.DEM在研究黄土丘陵沟壑区土壤侵蚀类型和过程中的应用[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(3):17-21.
[18]傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析[J].生态学报,1995,15(2):113-120.
[19]傅瓦利.利用格局变化及优化设计研究—以三峡库区开县为例[D].四川:西南农业大学,2001:30-46.
[20]谷建才.华北土石山区典型区域主要类型森林健康分析与评价[D].北京:北京林业大学,2006a:76-80.
[21]何东进,洪伟,胡海清.景观生态学的基本理论及中国景观生态学的研究进展[J].江西农 大学学报,2003,25(2):276-282.
[22]洪玲霞,陆元昌,雷相东.金沟岭林场森林景观分类及景观变化研究[J].林业科学研究,2004,17(6):717-725.
[23]胡良军,邵明安.论水土流失研究中的植被覆盖度量指标[J].西北林学院学报,1996,16(1):40-43.
[24]胡守忠,顾建勤.模糊综合评价法及应用[J].中国纺织大学学报,1995,21(1):74-80.
[25]虎陈霞,傅伯杰,陈利顶.可持续农业评价研究进展[J].中国生态农业学报,2005,13(2):11-14.
[26]黄宝荣,欧阳志云,郑华等.生态系统完整性内涵及评价方法研究综述[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(11):2196-2202.
[27]黄河水利委员会天水水土保持科学试验站,土丘陵沟壑第三幅区水土流失原型观测及规律研究[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2004:125-148.
[28]黄志强.从景观异质性分析近自然森林经营[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(5):9-12.
[29]姬兰柱.森林昆虫对长白山森林生态系统健康的影响[D].沈阳:中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所,2003.
[30]贾忠奎,马履一,徐程扬,等.北京市森林资源动态及可持续经营对策[J].干旱区资源与环境,2006,20(3):30-36.
[31]江忠善,王志强,刘志.黄土丘陵区小流域土壤侵蚀空间变化定量研究[J].水土保持学报,1996,2(1):1-9.
[32]蒋有绪.国际森林可持续经营问题的进展[J].资源科学,2002,22(6):77-82.
[33]蒋有绪.森林可持续经营与林业的可持续发展[J].世界林业研究,2001,14(2):1-8.
[34]焦学军.对森林健康和生态监测发展的认识[J].防护林科技,2003,(3):41-42.
[35]孔红梅.森林生态系统健康理论与评估指标体系研究[D].沈阳:中国科学院应用生态研究所,2002.
[36]李博.生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
[37]李德仁.论RS、GPS与GIS集成的定义、理论与关键技术[J].遥感学报,1997,1(1):64-68.
[38]李典谟,郭中伟,周立阳.生态学研究中的若干新理论与新方法[J].科技导报,1996,2:10-13.
[39]李哈滨,Franklin J F.景观生态学—生态学领域里的新概念[J].生态学进展,1988,5(1):23-33.
[40]李海涛,严茂超,沈文清.可持续发展与生态经济学刍议[J].江西农业大学学报,2001,23(3):410-415.
[41]李金良,郑小贤.北京地区水源涵养林健康评价指标体系的探讨[J].林业资源管理,2004(1):31-34.
[42]李明阳.浙江临安森林景观生态动态变化分析[D].南京:南京林业大学,2000.
[43]李小文,王锦地.植被光学遥感模型与植被结构参数化[M].北京:科学出版社,1995.
[44]李秀英.森林健康评估指标体系初步研究与应用[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与保护研究所,2006.
[45]李艳梅,王静爱,雷勇鸿,等.基于承灾体的中国森林火灾危险性评价[J],北京师范大学学报:自然科学版,2005,41(1):92-96.
[46]刘红辉.资源遥感:从区域调查到全球变化研究[J].资源科学,2000(3):34-38.
[47]刘克英.生态经济学发展前沿问题透视[J].前沿,2005(2):44-46.
[48]陆凡,李自珍.沙坡头地区人工林生态系统健康的评价分析[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1731-1734.
[49]陆元昌.森林健康状态监测技术体系综述[J].世界林业研究,2003,16(1):20-25.
[50]鲁绍伟,刘凤芹,余新晓,等.北京市八达岭林场森林生态系统健康性评价[J].水土保持学报,2006a,20(3):79-81,105.
[51]鲁绍伟,余新晓,刘凤芹,等.北京八达岭林场森林燃烧性及防火措施研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2006b,28(3):109-114.
[52]骆期邦,吴志德,蒋菊生.Richards函数拟合多形地位指数曲线模型的研究[J].林业科学研究,1989,2(6):534-539.
[53]马建路,宣立峰,刘德君.用优势树全高和胸径的关系评价红松林的立地质量[J].东北林业大学学报,1995,13(2):20-27.
[54]马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山地区的景观格局及其破碎化评价[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(3):320-326.
[55]马立,韩海荣,马钦彦,等.森林生态系统健康的研究进展[J].林业调查规划,2007,32(1):103-110.
[56]马世骏,王如松.社会-经济-自然复合生态系统[J].生态学报,1984,4(1):1-9.
[57]孟宪宇.测树学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1996:49-52.
[58]欧阳勋志.森林生态系统经营探讨[J].林业资源管理,2002(5):43-47.
[59]潘存德.实践可持续发展的空间系统途径[J].北京林业大学学报,1994,16(增刊1):22-28.
[60]彭少麟,张祝平.鼎湖山森林植被优势种云南银柴和柏拉木的生物最及第一性生产力研究[J].应用生态学报,1992,3(3):202-206.
[61]彭少麟,张祝平.鼎湖山森林植被生物量、生产力和能量利用效率[J].中国科学:B辑,1994,(5):497-502.
[62]彭少麟.恢复生态学与植被重建[J].生态科学,1996,15(2):26-31.
[63]齐联.我国森林期待健康[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(3):177-180.
[64]乔家君,许萍,王宜晓.区域可持续发展指标体系研究综述[J].河南大学学报:自然科学版,2002,32(4):71-75.
[65]任海,彭少麟.恢复生态学导论[M].北京:科学出版社,2001.
[66]阮本清,韩宇平,王浩等.水资源短缺风险的模糊综合评价[J].水利学报,2005,36(8):906-912.
[67]邵青还.德国:接近自然的林业—技术政策和技术路线[J].世界林业研究,1993,6(3):63-72.
[68]邵青还.对近自然林业理论的诠释和对我国林业建设的几项建议[J].世界林业研究,2003,16(6):1-5.
[69]沈进建.联合国可持续发展的理念及欧盟的行动[J].国外社会科学,2006(1):40-44.
[70]苏祖荣.森林文化形态的划分问题[J].北京林业大学学报:社会科学版,2005,4(2):18-21.
[71]汪永华.景观生态学研究进展[J].长江大学学报:自科版,2005,(8):19-83.
[72]王兵,李少宁,白秀兰,等.森林生态系统管理的发展回顾与展望[J].世界林业研究,2002,15(4):1-6.
[73]王兵,郭浩,王燕,等.森林生态系统健康评估研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(3):114-121.
[74]王继兴.北京市森林资源现状及其分析研究[J].林业资源管理,2005,(增刊):1-6.
[75]王绍强,朱松丽,周成虎.中国土壤土层厚度的空间变异性特征[J].地理研究,2001,20(2):161-169.
[76]王松霈.生态经济学[M].西安:陕西人民教育出版社,2000:56-77.
[77]王薇,陈为峰.区域生态系统健康评价方法与应用研究[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(8):440-444.
[78]王宪礼,肖笃宁.辽河三角洲湿地的景观格局分析[J].生态学报,1997,17(3):318-323.
[79]王彦辉,肖文发,张星耀.森林健康监测与评价的国内外现状和发展趋势[J].林业科学,2007,43(7):78-85.
[80]王子迎,吴芳芳,檀根甲.生态位理论及其在植物病害研究中的应用前景[J].安徽农业大学学报,2000,27(3):250-253.
[81]文定元,周国林.森林防火[M].长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1987.
[82]邬建国,景观生态学—概念与理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1):42-52.
[83]吴锡麟,叶功富,陈德旺,等.森林生态系统管理概述[J].福建林业科技,2002,29(3):84-87.
[84]吴秀芹,蒙吉军.基于NOAA/AVHRR影像和地理空间数据的中国东北区景观分类[J].资源科学,2004,26(4):132-139.
[85]吴延熊.区域森林资源预警系统的研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,1998.
[86]吴延熊,周国模.区域森林资源系统的“新三论”[J].浙江林学院学报,1999,16(1):34-40.
[87]肖笃宁,李晓文.试论景观规划的目标、任务和基本原则[J].生态学杂志,1998(3):46-52.
[88]肖风劲,欧阳华,孙江华,等.森林生态系统健康评价指标与方法[J].林业资源管理,2004(1):27-30.
[89]肖风劲,欧阳华,傅伯杰,等.森林生态系统健康评价指标及其在中国的应用[J].地理学报,2003,58(6):803-809.
[90]肖文发,韩景军.等.美国国家森林健康监测与评价计划及对我国的启示[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2002,26(1):5-9.
[91]谢运球.恢复生态学[J].中国岩溶,2003,22(1):28-34.
[92]熊德国,鲜学福.模糊综合评价方法的改进[J].重庆大学学报,2003,26(6):93-95.
[93]阳含熙,李飞.生态系统浅说[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
[94]杨文姬,王秀茹.国内立地质量评价研究浅析[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(3):289-292.
[95]杨馥宁,郑小贤,白降丽.森林文化与森林旅游[J].林业建设,2006(6):21-23.
[96]杨学民,姜志林.森林生态系统管理及其与传统森林经营的关系[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2003,27(4):91-94.
[97]叶峻.社会生态学的基本概念和基本范畴[J].烟台大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2001,14(3):250-258.
[98]尤飞,王传胜.生态经济学基础理论、研究方法和学科发展趋势探讨[J].中国软科学,2003(3):131-138.
[99]余新晓,牛健植.景观生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[100]张娜,于振良,赵士洞.长白山植被蒸腾量空间变化特征的模拟[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):91-96.
[101]张佳华,符淙斌.生物量估测模型中遥感信息与植被光合参数的关系研究[J].测绘学报,1999,28(2):128-132.
[102]张建国.森林经营与林业可持续发展[J].林业经济问题,2002,22(3):131-133.
[103]张晋昌.油松天然林合理密度初探[J].内蒙古林业调查设计,2004(2):25-27.
[104]张景群,余兴弟,陈浩,等.对森林火险区划“标准”的商榷[J].森林防火,1994(1):4-7.
[105]张秋根,王桃云,钟全林.森林生态环境健康评价初探[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(5):16-18.
[106]章家恩,徐琪.恢复生态学研究的一些基本问题探讨[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(1):109-113.
[107]郑景明,罗菊春,曾德慧.森林生态系统管理的研究进展[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(3):103-109.
[108]郑小贤,刘东兰.森林文化论[J].林业资源管理,1999(5):19-21.
[109]郑小贤.森林文化、森林美学与森林经营管理[J],北京林业大学学报,2001,23(2):93-95
[110]祝国民.恢复生态学理论在退耕还林工程中应用与发展浅议[J].华东森林经 理, 2004, 18(4) :5-7.
[111] 朱建华, 张再福,吴建勤. 桉树白蚁综合防治技术[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2003,22(1): 10-12.
[112] CieslaW. M, Donabuauer E. Decline and dieback of trees and forests[R]. In: A global overview. Forestry Paper. Rome:FAO, 1994.
[113] Costanza R. Assuring Sustainability of ecological economic systems[A]. In:Costanza R et al (eds). Ecological economies: The science and management of Sustainability: Building on Brundtland[C]. UNESSCO, Paris, 1991,83-90.
[114] Costanza R, Norton B G, Haskell B D. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management[M]. Washington DC:Island Press, 1992.
[115] Covington W W, Fule P Z, Margaret M, et al. Restorating ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1997 (4): 23-29.
[116] Craig G A, Forest Health on Nonindustrial Private Lands: Meeting Owners' Needs and Wants[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1994, 92(7):27-28.
[117] Fassnacht K S , Gower S T , Norman J M, et al. A comparison of optical and direct methods for estimating foliage surface area index in forests[J]. Agriculturaland Forest Meteorology, 1994 ,71 :183-207.
[118] Ferretti M. Forest Health Assessment and Monitoring-Issues for Consideration[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1997, 48:45-72.
[119] Forman R T T, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:405-434.
[120] Fries C, Carisson M, Dahlin B, et al. A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden[J]. Canadian journal of forest research, 1998, (28):159-167.
[121] Gower S T , Vogt KA , Grier C C. Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglas-Fir: Influence of water and nutrient availability[J]. Ecological Monographs, 1992, 62(1): 43-65.
[122] Hodges D G, Regens J L. Methodological issues in valuing forest ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996,2(1):52-56.
[123] Holmes T P, Kramer R A. Contingent valuation of ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996, 2(1):56-61.
[124] Hudson N W. Soil conservation[M]. lowa: lowa State University pree,1995.
[125] Jenkins A F, Forest Health: A Crisis of Human Proportions [J]. Journal of Forestry, 1997, 95(9): 11-14.
[126] Jing M C , Pavlic G, Brown L.Derivation and validation of Canada wide coarse resolution leaf index maps using high resolution satellite imagery and ground measurements[J]. Remote Sens. Envion. 2002,80 (1) :165-184.
[127] Kolb T E , Wagner M R .Covington W W. Concepts of forest health-utilitarian and ecosystem perspectives[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1994,6:10-15.
[128] Landsberg J J , Kaufmann M R , Binkley D , et al . Evaluating progress toward closed forest models based on fluxes of carbon, water and land nutrients[J]. Tree Physiology, 1991,9 :1-15.
[129] Lorenz M, Mues V. Forest health status in Europe[J]. Scientific World Journal, 2007, 7(S1) :22-27.
[130] Lubchenco J, Olson A M, Brubaker L B et al., The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda[J]. Ecology, 1991,72:371-412.
[131] Manguson J J. The invisible present[J]. BioScience, 1990, 40(7):495-501.
[132] McNaughton K G, Jarvis P G. Predicting effects of vegetation changes on transpiration and evaporation[A]. In :Kozlowski TT. eds. Water Deficits and Plant Growth[C]. Academic , London , 1983, 7 :1-47.
[133] O' Laughlin J. Forest ecosystem health assessment issues: definition, measurement and management implications[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996(2):19-39.
[134] O' Laughlin J, Cook P S. Inventory-based forest health indicators: Implications for national forest management[J]. Journal of forestry,2003,101(2):11-17.
[135] Oliver C D, A landscape approach. Achieving and maintaining biodiversity and economic productivity[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1992:20-25.
[136] O'Neill K P, Amacher M C, Perry C H. Soils as an indicator of forest health: a guide to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of soil indicator data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis program[R] In:St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 2005,53.
[137] Paul G R. Long-term Ecological Research:an International Perspective[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1991:51-65.
[138] Percy K E, Ferretti M. Air pollution and forest health: toward new monitoring concepts[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2004,130(1):113-126.
[139] Pierce L L , Running S W. Rapid estimation of coniferous forest leaf area index using a portable integrating radiometer[J]. Ecology , 1988 , 69 :1726-1767.
[140] Stephen F M. Forest health and forest insects[R]. The 2006 ESA Annual Meeting, 2006,12:10-13.
[141] Turner M G. Gardner R H. Landscape ecology in theory and practice[M]. New York: Springer Verlag, 2001.
[142] USDA Forest Service. Healthy Forests Report[R]. 2005,12, http://www. healthy- forests.gov/community.
[143] Wicklum D, Davies R W. Ecosystem health and integrity? [J].Canadian Journal of Botany/Revue Canadienne de Botanique, 1995, 73(7):997-1000.
[144] Yazvenko S, Rapport D J. Framework for assessing forest ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996(2): 40-51.
[145] Zarnoch S J, Bechtold W A, Stolte K W. Using crown condition variables as indicators of forest health[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2004, 34(5):1057-1070.
[2]蔡登谷.森林文化初论[J].世界林业研究,2002,15(1):12-18.
[3]曹宇,哈斯巴根,宋冬梅.景观健康概念、特征及其评价[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(11):1511-1515.
[4]曾德慧,姜凤岐.生态系统健康与人类可持续发展[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(6):751-756.
[5]车生泉.持续农业的生态学理论体系[J].生态经济,1998,(2):34-35.
[6]陈高,代力民,范竹华,等.森林生态系统健康及其评估监测[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(5):605-610.
[7]陈高,代力民,姬兰柱.森林生态系统健康评估I:模式、计算方法和指标体系[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(10):1743-1749.
[8]陈高,邓红兵,王庆礼.森林生态系统健康评估的一般性途径探讨[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(6):995-999.
[9]陈利顶,傅伯杰.干扰的类型、特征及其生态学意义[J].生态学报,2000,20(4):581-586.
[10]陈云明,侯喜禄,刘文兆.黄上丘陵半干旱不同类型植被水保生态效益研究[J].水土保持学报,2000,14(3):57-61.
[11]程平.浅论林业可持续发展的对策[J].林业建设,2005,(1):20-24.
[12]但新球.森林文化的社会、经济及系统特征[J].中南林业调查规划,2002,21(3):58-61.
[13]段澈.区域可持续发展评价指标体系及综合评价[J].技术经济与管理研究,2005(3):27-28.
[14]方秀琴,张万昌.叶面积指数(LAI)的遥感定量方法综述[J].国土资源遥感,2003,(3):58-62.
[15]傅伯杰,陈利顶.景观多样性的类型及其生态意义[J].地理学报,1996,51(5):454-462.
[16]傅伯杰,等.景观生态学原理及应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2001:224
[17]傅伯杰,汪西林.DEM在研究黄土丘陵沟壑区土壤侵蚀类型和过程中的应用[J].水土保持学报,1994,8(3):17-21.
[18]傅伯杰.黄土区农业景观空间格局分析[J].生态学报,1995,15(2):113-120.
[19]傅瓦利.利用格局变化及优化设计研究—以三峡库区开县为例[D].四川:西南农业大学,2001:30-46.
[20]谷建才.华北土石山区典型区域主要类型森林健康分析与评价[D].北京:北京林业大学,2006a:76-80.
[21]何东进,洪伟,胡海清.景观生态学的基本理论及中国景观生态学的研究进展[J].江西农 大学学报,2003,25(2):276-282.
[22]洪玲霞,陆元昌,雷相东.金沟岭林场森林景观分类及景观变化研究[J].林业科学研究,2004,17(6):717-725.
[23]胡良军,邵明安.论水土流失研究中的植被覆盖度量指标[J].西北林学院学报,1996,16(1):40-43.
[24]胡守忠,顾建勤.模糊综合评价法及应用[J].中国纺织大学学报,1995,21(1):74-80.
[25]虎陈霞,傅伯杰,陈利顶.可持续农业评价研究进展[J].中国生态农业学报,2005,13(2):11-14.
[26]黄宝荣,欧阳志云,郑华等.生态系统完整性内涵及评价方法研究综述[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(11):2196-2202.
[27]黄河水利委员会天水水土保持科学试验站,土丘陵沟壑第三幅区水土流失原型观测及规律研究[M].郑州:黄河水利出版社,2004:125-148.
[28]黄志强.从景观异质性分析近自然森林经营[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(5):9-12.
[29]姬兰柱.森林昆虫对长白山森林生态系统健康的影响[D].沈阳:中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所,2003.
[30]贾忠奎,马履一,徐程扬,等.北京市森林资源动态及可持续经营对策[J].干旱区资源与环境,2006,20(3):30-36.
[31]江忠善,王志强,刘志.黄土丘陵区小流域土壤侵蚀空间变化定量研究[J].水土保持学报,1996,2(1):1-9.
[32]蒋有绪.国际森林可持续经营问题的进展[J].资源科学,2002,22(6):77-82.
[33]蒋有绪.森林可持续经营与林业的可持续发展[J].世界林业研究,2001,14(2):1-8.
[34]焦学军.对森林健康和生态监测发展的认识[J].防护林科技,2003,(3):41-42.
[35]孔红梅.森林生态系统健康理论与评估指标体系研究[D].沈阳:中国科学院应用生态研究所,2002.
[36]李博.生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000.
[37]李德仁.论RS、GPS与GIS集成的定义、理论与关键技术[J].遥感学报,1997,1(1):64-68.
[38]李典谟,郭中伟,周立阳.生态学研究中的若干新理论与新方法[J].科技导报,1996,2:10-13.
[39]李哈滨,Franklin J F.景观生态学—生态学领域里的新概念[J].生态学进展,1988,5(1):23-33.
[40]李海涛,严茂超,沈文清.可持续发展与生态经济学刍议[J].江西农业大学学报,2001,23(3):410-415.
[41]李金良,郑小贤.北京地区水源涵养林健康评价指标体系的探讨[J].林业资源管理,2004(1):31-34.
[42]李明阳.浙江临安森林景观生态动态变化分析[D].南京:南京林业大学,2000.
[43]李小文,王锦地.植被光学遥感模型与植被结构参数化[M].北京:科学出版社,1995.
[44]李秀英.森林健康评估指标体系初步研究与应用[D].北京:中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与保护研究所,2006.
[45]李艳梅,王静爱,雷勇鸿,等.基于承灾体的中国森林火灾危险性评价[J],北京师范大学学报:自然科学版,2005,41(1):92-96.
[46]刘红辉.资源遥感:从区域调查到全球变化研究[J].资源科学,2000(3):34-38.
[47]刘克英.生态经济学发展前沿问题透视[J].前沿,2005(2):44-46.
[48]陆凡,李自珍.沙坡头地区人工林生态系统健康的评价分析[J].西北植物学报,2003,23(10):1731-1734.
[49]陆元昌.森林健康状态监测技术体系综述[J].世界林业研究,2003,16(1):20-25.
[50]鲁绍伟,刘凤芹,余新晓,等.北京市八达岭林场森林生态系统健康性评价[J].水土保持学报,2006a,20(3):79-81,105.
[51]鲁绍伟,余新晓,刘凤芹,等.北京八达岭林场森林燃烧性及防火措施研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2006b,28(3):109-114.
[52]骆期邦,吴志德,蒋菊生.Richards函数拟合多形地位指数曲线模型的研究[J].林业科学研究,1989,2(6):534-539.
[53]马建路,宣立峰,刘德君.用优势树全高和胸径的关系评价红松林的立地质量[J].东北林业大学学报,1995,13(2):20-27.
[54]马克明,傅伯杰.北京东灵山地区的景观格局及其破碎化评价[J].植物生态学报,2000,24(3):320-326.
[55]马立,韩海荣,马钦彦,等.森林生态系统健康的研究进展[J].林业调查规划,2007,32(1):103-110.
[56]马世骏,王如松.社会-经济-自然复合生态系统[J].生态学报,1984,4(1):1-9.
[57]孟宪宇.测树学[M].北京:中国林业出版社,1996:49-52.
[58]欧阳勋志.森林生态系统经营探讨[J].林业资源管理,2002(5):43-47.
[59]潘存德.实践可持续发展的空间系统途径[J].北京林业大学学报,1994,16(增刊1):22-28.
[60]彭少麟,张祝平.鼎湖山森林植被优势种云南银柴和柏拉木的生物最及第一性生产力研究[J].应用生态学报,1992,3(3):202-206.
[61]彭少麟,张祝平.鼎湖山森林植被生物量、生产力和能量利用效率[J].中国科学:B辑,1994,(5):497-502.
[62]彭少麟.恢复生态学与植被重建[J].生态科学,1996,15(2):26-31.
[63]齐联.我国森林期待健康[J].水土保持研究,2006,13(3):177-180.
[64]乔家君,许萍,王宜晓.区域可持续发展指标体系研究综述[J].河南大学学报:自然科学版,2002,32(4):71-75.
[65]任海,彭少麟.恢复生态学导论[M].北京:科学出版社,2001.
[66]阮本清,韩宇平,王浩等.水资源短缺风险的模糊综合评价[J].水利学报,2005,36(8):906-912.
[67]邵青还.德国:接近自然的林业—技术政策和技术路线[J].世界林业研究,1993,6(3):63-72.
[68]邵青还.对近自然林业理论的诠释和对我国林业建设的几项建议[J].世界林业研究,2003,16(6):1-5.
[69]沈进建.联合国可持续发展的理念及欧盟的行动[J].国外社会科学,2006(1):40-44.
[70]苏祖荣.森林文化形态的划分问题[J].北京林业大学学报:社会科学版,2005,4(2):18-21.
[71]汪永华.景观生态学研究进展[J].长江大学学报:自科版,2005,(8):19-83.
[72]王兵,李少宁,白秀兰,等.森林生态系统管理的发展回顾与展望[J].世界林业研究,2002,15(4):1-6.
[73]王兵,郭浩,王燕,等.森林生态系统健康评估研究进展[J].中国水土保持科学,2007,5(3):114-121.
[74]王继兴.北京市森林资源现状及其分析研究[J].林业资源管理,2005,(增刊):1-6.
[75]王绍强,朱松丽,周成虎.中国土壤土层厚度的空间变异性特征[J].地理研究,2001,20(2):161-169.
[76]王松霈.生态经济学[M].西安:陕西人民教育出版社,2000:56-77.
[77]王薇,陈为峰.区域生态系统健康评价方法与应用研究[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(8):440-444.
[78]王宪礼,肖笃宁.辽河三角洲湿地的景观格局分析[J].生态学报,1997,17(3):318-323.
[79]王彦辉,肖文发,张星耀.森林健康监测与评价的国内外现状和发展趋势[J].林业科学,2007,43(7):78-85.
[80]王子迎,吴芳芳,檀根甲.生态位理论及其在植物病害研究中的应用前景[J].安徽农业大学学报,2000,27(3):250-253.
[81]文定元,周国林.森林防火[M].长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,1987.
[82]邬建国,景观生态学—概念与理论.生态学杂志,2000,19(1):42-52.
[83]吴锡麟,叶功富,陈德旺,等.森林生态系统管理概述[J].福建林业科技,2002,29(3):84-87.
[84]吴秀芹,蒙吉军.基于NOAA/AVHRR影像和地理空间数据的中国东北区景观分类[J].资源科学,2004,26(4):132-139.
[85]吴延熊.区域森林资源预警系统的研究[D].北京:北京林业大学,1998.
[86]吴延熊,周国模.区域森林资源系统的“新三论”[J].浙江林学院学报,1999,16(1):34-40.
[87]肖笃宁,李晓文.试论景观规划的目标、任务和基本原则[J].生态学杂志,1998(3):46-52.
[88]肖风劲,欧阳华,孙江华,等.森林生态系统健康评价指标与方法[J].林业资源管理,2004(1):27-30.
[89]肖风劲,欧阳华,傅伯杰,等.森林生态系统健康评价指标及其在中国的应用[J].地理学报,2003,58(6):803-809.
[90]肖文发,韩景军.等.美国国家森林健康监测与评价计划及对我国的启示[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2002,26(1):5-9.
[91]谢运球.恢复生态学[J].中国岩溶,2003,22(1):28-34.
[92]熊德国,鲜学福.模糊综合评价方法的改进[J].重庆大学学报,2003,26(6):93-95.
[93]阳含熙,李飞.生态系统浅说[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
[94]杨文姬,王秀茹.国内立地质量评价研究浅析[J].水土保持研究,2004,11(3):289-292.
[95]杨馥宁,郑小贤,白降丽.森林文化与森林旅游[J].林业建设,2006(6):21-23.
[96]杨学民,姜志林.森林生态系统管理及其与传统森林经营的关系[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2003,27(4):91-94.
[97]叶峻.社会生态学的基本概念和基本范畴[J].烟台大学学报:哲学社会科学版,2001,14(3):250-258.
[98]尤飞,王传胜.生态经济学基础理论、研究方法和学科发展趋势探讨[J].中国软科学,2003(3):131-138.
[99]余新晓,牛健植.景观生态学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[100]张娜,于振良,赵士洞.长白山植被蒸腾量空间变化特征的模拟[J].资源科学,2001,23(6):91-96.
[101]张佳华,符淙斌.生物量估测模型中遥感信息与植被光合参数的关系研究[J].测绘学报,1999,28(2):128-132.
[102]张建国.森林经营与林业可持续发展[J].林业经济问题,2002,22(3):131-133.
[103]张晋昌.油松天然林合理密度初探[J].内蒙古林业调查设计,2004(2):25-27.
[104]张景群,余兴弟,陈浩,等.对森林火险区划“标准”的商榷[J].森林防火,1994(1):4-7.
[105]张秋根,王桃云,钟全林.森林生态环境健康评价初探[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(5):16-18.
[106]章家恩,徐琪.恢复生态学研究的一些基本问题探讨[J].应用生态学报,1999,10(1):109-113.
[107]郑景明,罗菊春,曾德慧.森林生态系统管理的研究进展[J].北京林业大学学报,2002,24(3):103-109.
[108]郑小贤,刘东兰.森林文化论[J].林业资源管理,1999(5):19-21.
[109]郑小贤.森林文化、森林美学与森林经营管理[J],北京林业大学学报,2001,23(2):93-95
[110]祝国民.恢复生态学理论在退耕还林工程中应用与发展浅议[J].华东森林经 理, 2004, 18(4) :5-7.
[111] 朱建华, 张再福,吴建勤. 桉树白蚁综合防治技术[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2003,22(1): 10-12.
[112] CieslaW. M, Donabuauer E. Decline and dieback of trees and forests[R]. In: A global overview. Forestry Paper. Rome:FAO, 1994.
[113] Costanza R. Assuring Sustainability of ecological economic systems[A]. In:Costanza R et al (eds). Ecological economies: The science and management of Sustainability: Building on Brundtland[C]. UNESSCO, Paris, 1991,83-90.
[114] Costanza R, Norton B G, Haskell B D. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management[M]. Washington DC:Island Press, 1992.
[115] Covington W W, Fule P Z, Margaret M, et al. Restorating ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1997 (4): 23-29.
[116] Craig G A, Forest Health on Nonindustrial Private Lands: Meeting Owners' Needs and Wants[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1994, 92(7):27-28.
[117] Fassnacht K S , Gower S T , Norman J M, et al. A comparison of optical and direct methods for estimating foliage surface area index in forests[J]. Agriculturaland Forest Meteorology, 1994 ,71 :183-207.
[118] Ferretti M. Forest Health Assessment and Monitoring-Issues for Consideration[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 1997, 48:45-72.
[119] Forman R T T, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:405-434.
[120] Fries C, Carisson M, Dahlin B, et al. A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden[J]. Canadian journal of forest research, 1998, (28):159-167.
[121] Gower S T , Vogt KA , Grier C C. Carbon dynamics of Rocky Mountain Douglas-Fir: Influence of water and nutrient availability[J]. Ecological Monographs, 1992, 62(1): 43-65.
[122] Hodges D G, Regens J L. Methodological issues in valuing forest ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996,2(1):52-56.
[123] Holmes T P, Kramer R A. Contingent valuation of ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996, 2(1):56-61.
[124] Hudson N W. Soil conservation[M]. lowa: lowa State University pree,1995.
[125] Jenkins A F, Forest Health: A Crisis of Human Proportions [J]. Journal of Forestry, 1997, 95(9): 11-14.
[126] Jing M C , Pavlic G, Brown L.Derivation and validation of Canada wide coarse resolution leaf index maps using high resolution satellite imagery and ground measurements[J]. Remote Sens. Envion. 2002,80 (1) :165-184.
[127] Kolb T E , Wagner M R .Covington W W. Concepts of forest health-utilitarian and ecosystem perspectives[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1994,6:10-15.
[128] Landsberg J J , Kaufmann M R , Binkley D , et al . Evaluating progress toward closed forest models based on fluxes of carbon, water and land nutrients[J]. Tree Physiology, 1991,9 :1-15.
[129] Lorenz M, Mues V. Forest health status in Europe[J]. Scientific World Journal, 2007, 7(S1) :22-27.
[130] Lubchenco J, Olson A M, Brubaker L B et al., The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda[J]. Ecology, 1991,72:371-412.
[131] Manguson J J. The invisible present[J]. BioScience, 1990, 40(7):495-501.
[132] McNaughton K G, Jarvis P G. Predicting effects of vegetation changes on transpiration and evaporation[A]. In :Kozlowski TT. eds. Water Deficits and Plant Growth[C]. Academic , London , 1983, 7 :1-47.
[133] O' Laughlin J. Forest ecosystem health assessment issues: definition, measurement and management implications[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996(2):19-39.
[134] O' Laughlin J, Cook P S. Inventory-based forest health indicators: Implications for national forest management[J]. Journal of forestry,2003,101(2):11-17.
[135] Oliver C D, A landscape approach. Achieving and maintaining biodiversity and economic productivity[J]. Journal of Forestry, 1992:20-25.
[136] O'Neill K P, Amacher M C, Perry C H. Soils as an indicator of forest health: a guide to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of soil indicator data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis program[R] In:St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 2005,53.
[137] Paul G R. Long-term Ecological Research:an International Perspective[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1991:51-65.
[138] Percy K E, Ferretti M. Air pollution and forest health: toward new monitoring concepts[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2004,130(1):113-126.
[139] Pierce L L , Running S W. Rapid estimation of coniferous forest leaf area index using a portable integrating radiometer[J]. Ecology , 1988 , 69 :1726-1767.
[140] Stephen F M. Forest health and forest insects[R]. The 2006 ESA Annual Meeting, 2006,12:10-13.
[141] Turner M G. Gardner R H. Landscape ecology in theory and practice[M]. New York: Springer Verlag, 2001.
[142] USDA Forest Service. Healthy Forests Report[R]. 2005,12, http://www. healthy- forests.gov/community.
[143] Wicklum D, Davies R W. Ecosystem health and integrity? [J].Canadian Journal of Botany/Revue Canadienne de Botanique, 1995, 73(7):997-1000.
[144] Yazvenko S, Rapport D J. Framework for assessing forest ecosystem health[J]. Ecosystem Health, 1996(2): 40-51.
[145] Zarnoch S J, Bechtold W A, Stolte K W. Using crown condition variables as indicators of forest health[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2004, 34(5):1057-1070.