合肥市行道树结构及功能研究
|
摘要
本文运用由美国林务局开发的I-tree tools软件,对合肥市二环内主干道路、典型居住区、典型学校行道树的空间结构、健康状况及生态效益进行比较研究:一方面探讨I-tree tools软件运用于国内城市森林生态效益研究方面的技术;另一方面为合肥行道树种植和管理提供理论依据和指导。具体研究内容包括三个方面:
(1)基于I-tree tools软件、结合实地调查,对合肥市二环内行道树树种组成、结构进行研究,结果表明:
①合肥市二环内主干道行道树有38852株,16个树种,隶属于13科14属。目前合肥市行道树中香樟数量最多,占总数的20.2% ,其次为广玉兰、二球悬铃木和国槐,这4个树种总量达到总数的68.7%。
对合肥市二环内道路、学校、居住区行道树比较研究得出:在这三种立地类型中,广玉兰、香樟、合欢三种树所占的比例都比较大,占所调查株数的55%以上,形成了以这三树种为基调树种,其它树种配置的绿化模式。
对一环内10年间主干道行道树调查资料进行比较研究,结果表明:
一环路以内1998年行道树共10种、13420株,2008年10种、12430株,株数下降7.4%;银杏、侧柏、白玉兰未出现在2008年的调查记录中,而在2008年的记录中,新出现乌桕、无患子、香椿3种。
②对胸径研究表明:二环内主干道行道树以小径阶的树木为主,且胸径分布不均匀。胸径<15 cm的树木占了总数的65%,胸径15-30 cm的占30.4%,胸径>30cm的仅占4.8%。而在胸径>30cm的大树中,仅二球悬铃木就占了53%。
③就种植方式而言,行道树种植形式较单调,缺乏变化,主要种植在院落前、绿化带和树池中;就主干道行道树而言,路带式和树池式占总量的99.4%,这种种植方式不仅影响了景观效果,而且对行道树的健康生长有碍。
④对道路、学校、居住区行道树健康状况比较研究得出:学校行道树健康状况高于其它,96%达到健康,主干道行道树94.5%被评为健康,但广玉兰在三种生长环境下健康状况均较差,这主要是由于树龄、病害和机械损伤导致。
对10年间行道树健康程度比较研究得出:健康状况明显呈整体下降趋势。对树种比较得出,悬铃木、香樟、雪松、黒杨健康下降显著,其中悬铃木下降最为显著,健康指数下降了13%,相比较而言,广玉兰、国槐、女贞略有上升。
(2)对生态效益研究表明:
①二环以内主干道行道树创造的年生态总效益为5145.8万元,单株加权平均效益为1324.5元。从效益分布看,行道树截流降水的效益最为显著,为总效益的89.3%,而改善大气质量效益最低,仅为总效益的0.2%;不同树种单株年生态效益显著不同:最高的是二球悬铃木,平均每株2811元;最小的是乐昌含笑,单株仅为198元。
不同区域行道树比较研究得出:居住区和主干道行道树截留雨水效益占总效益的比值均较大,达到89%以上,而学校行道树截留雨水效益仅占总效益的6.5%。而对于学校来说其美学效益占总效益的比值较大,达到87%,这主要是由于学校整体景观较好,行道树种植易成景。
②合肥二环内主干道行道树储碳共计7582吨,折合经济效益为759.3万元,单株的加权平均效益为195.4元。
③主干道行道树不同配置模式对降温增湿、提高人体舒适度的效果是不同的,其中乔、灌、草三层配置模式及高大乔木的效果显著。
(3)养护管理
目前,行道树养护管理存在一定问题,对于主干道行道树而言,14%的行道树需要不同程度的维护。综合分析得出幼树相对需要较高的养护管理。
In this paper, the I-tree tools software ,developed by the United States Forest Service, was employed to study on street trees within the Second Ring of Hefei city, which including a comparison of structure and ecological benefits for street trees in main roads and typical residential area and typical schools. On the one hand, author explores the techniques using I-tree tools software to estimate ecological benefits of urban forest in China. On the other hand, provided a theoretical basis and guidance for the planting and management of street trees. And specific research includes these three aspects:
(1)Based on field survey data ,I-tree tools software was used to make the analysis. The researches were paid on spices composition、structure and eco-benefits of street trees within second ring road , which cover about 100km2 . Results showed that:
①There are 38852 individuals of street trees classified as 16 species belonging to 13 families 14 genera. Currently, Cinamonum camphora was rated at the top of the list in order of individual number, accounting for 20.2% of total street tree population in study area,followed by Magnolia grandiflora、Platanus hispanica and Sophora japonica , these four species accounting for 68.7% of total population.
Comparative study of street trees living in schools、residential areas and road ,Within the second ring road of Hefei City, show that :In this three site types, Magnolia grandiflora、Cinnamomum camphora、Albizzia julibrissin obtain the main proportion of trees ,coving the total number of 55%,and they became the local basic species.
Through the dynamic comparison study on street trees in main building-up area within the first ring road from 1998-2008 , results indicated that: total 13420 street trees classified as 16 species within the first ring road was recorded in 1998, while there were only 12430 street trees in 2008. It indicated that 7.4% decline in number of trees was recorded in the period of 10 years. Ginkgo biloba ,Magnolia denudate, Platycladus orientalis recorded in 1998 are not at the list of 2008, but Sapium sebiferum、Sapindus mukorossi、Toona sinensis was added into the list of 2008.
②Based on diameter at breast height( DBH ), the 65% of street trees population along major road in study area was classified as small trees (DBH <15 cm) , The tree with DBH 15-30 cm accounted for 30.4%, and trees with DBH > 30cm only accounted for 4.8%. Among Trees that DBH > 30cm, Platanus hispanica accounted for 53%.
③The planting form of street trees was regarded as monotonous and lack of changes, they are mainly planted in front yard,planting trip and cutout, for example street trees in road which living in planting trip and cutout cover the total number of 99.4%,and obviously ,this pattern of planting effect the landscape and also impede healthy growth of street trees.
④Comparative study of street trees in different locations such as along main roads, in schools and residential areas showed that: the street trees in school yard enjoy a better healthy status, and 96% of total population being recognized health, compared to the street trees along main transportation roads that is 94.5%,while the health situation of Magnolia grandiflora is poor in these three locations , mainly due to age、disease and mechanical injury, even the species has improved its health slightly in 10 years.
The 10-year comparative study on health situation of street tree population within the first ring road showed that: generally, healthy situation of street tree population is significantly declining, comparison of single tree species,the health condition of Platanus hispanica、Cinnamomum camphora、Cedrus deodara and Populus nigradeclined significantly, the health index of Platanus hispanica decline by 13%, while the health situation of Ligustrum lucidum、Magnolia grandiflora、Sophora japonica has a slight improvement.
(2)About eco-benefits of street trees,the results show this:
①The annual eco-benefits of street trees in road is 51.458 million Yuan, the weighted average value per tree is 1324.5 Yuan. And also, there are significant different annual eco-benefits for different species: for example, per individual of Platanus Hispanic created 2811yuan every year , which is listed at the top based on benefit value for per tree; while Michelia chapensis only created 198 Yuan.
Comparative study of street trees in different regions showed that: Street trees in both residential areas and along the main traffic roads have higher benefits in cut-off storm rain, reaching more than 89 percent of the total value, while that in school only cover 6.5% of the total benefits. The aesthetic benefits of street trees in school yard account for 87% of total benefits. This is mainly due to a better overall landscape in school yard, street trees easily become scenery.
②The total 38852 individuals of street trees in road sequestrated Carbon of 7582 t ,which equivalent to 759.3 million Yuan ,and the weighted average benefits is195.4 Yuan per tree.
③The different planting models of street trees has different effectiveness in reducing temperate, increasing humidity and improving human comfort, the planting with well designed vertical layers, such as that combined with shrubs, herbal plants and tall arbor have significant benefits.
(3)At present, the conservation and management of street trees also has some problems , 14%of street trees along main transportation roads need different kinds of maintenance .After comprehensive analysis, we know that young trees neeed high level of conservation and management.
(1)基于I-tree tools软件、结合实地调查,对合肥市二环内行道树树种组成、结构进行研究,结果表明:
①合肥市二环内主干道行道树有38852株,16个树种,隶属于13科14属。目前合肥市行道树中香樟数量最多,占总数的20.2% ,其次为广玉兰、二球悬铃木和国槐,这4个树种总量达到总数的68.7%。
对合肥市二环内道路、学校、居住区行道树比较研究得出:在这三种立地类型中,广玉兰、香樟、合欢三种树所占的比例都比较大,占所调查株数的55%以上,形成了以这三树种为基调树种,其它树种配置的绿化模式。
对一环内10年间主干道行道树调查资料进行比较研究,结果表明:
一环路以内1998年行道树共10种、13420株,2008年10种、12430株,株数下降7.4%;银杏、侧柏、白玉兰未出现在2008年的调查记录中,而在2008年的记录中,新出现乌桕、无患子、香椿3种。
②对胸径研究表明:二环内主干道行道树以小径阶的树木为主,且胸径分布不均匀。胸径<15 cm的树木占了总数的65%,胸径15-30 cm的占30.4%,胸径>30cm的仅占4.8%。而在胸径>30cm的大树中,仅二球悬铃木就占了53%。
③就种植方式而言,行道树种植形式较单调,缺乏变化,主要种植在院落前、绿化带和树池中;就主干道行道树而言,路带式和树池式占总量的99.4%,这种种植方式不仅影响了景观效果,而且对行道树的健康生长有碍。
④对道路、学校、居住区行道树健康状况比较研究得出:学校行道树健康状况高于其它,96%达到健康,主干道行道树94.5%被评为健康,但广玉兰在三种生长环境下健康状况均较差,这主要是由于树龄、病害和机械损伤导致。
对10年间行道树健康程度比较研究得出:健康状况明显呈整体下降趋势。对树种比较得出,悬铃木、香樟、雪松、黒杨健康下降显著,其中悬铃木下降最为显著,健康指数下降了13%,相比较而言,广玉兰、国槐、女贞略有上升。
(2)对生态效益研究表明:
①二环以内主干道行道树创造的年生态总效益为5145.8万元,单株加权平均效益为1324.5元。从效益分布看,行道树截流降水的效益最为显著,为总效益的89.3%,而改善大气质量效益最低,仅为总效益的0.2%;不同树种单株年生态效益显著不同:最高的是二球悬铃木,平均每株2811元;最小的是乐昌含笑,单株仅为198元。
不同区域行道树比较研究得出:居住区和主干道行道树截留雨水效益占总效益的比值均较大,达到89%以上,而学校行道树截留雨水效益仅占总效益的6.5%。而对于学校来说其美学效益占总效益的比值较大,达到87%,这主要是由于学校整体景观较好,行道树种植易成景。
②合肥二环内主干道行道树储碳共计7582吨,折合经济效益为759.3万元,单株的加权平均效益为195.4元。
③主干道行道树不同配置模式对降温增湿、提高人体舒适度的效果是不同的,其中乔、灌、草三层配置模式及高大乔木的效果显著。
(3)养护管理
目前,行道树养护管理存在一定问题,对于主干道行道树而言,14%的行道树需要不同程度的维护。综合分析得出幼树相对需要较高的养护管理。
In this paper, the I-tree tools software ,developed by the United States Forest Service, was employed to study on street trees within the Second Ring of Hefei city, which including a comparison of structure and ecological benefits for street trees in main roads and typical residential area and typical schools. On the one hand, author explores the techniques using I-tree tools software to estimate ecological benefits of urban forest in China. On the other hand, provided a theoretical basis and guidance for the planting and management of street trees. And specific research includes these three aspects:
(1)Based on field survey data ,I-tree tools software was used to make the analysis. The researches were paid on spices composition、structure and eco-benefits of street trees within second ring road , which cover about 100km2 . Results showed that:
①There are 38852 individuals of street trees classified as 16 species belonging to 13 families 14 genera. Currently, Cinamonum camphora was rated at the top of the list in order of individual number, accounting for 20.2% of total street tree population in study area,followed by Magnolia grandiflora、Platanus hispanica and Sophora japonica , these four species accounting for 68.7% of total population.
Comparative study of street trees living in schools、residential areas and road ,Within the second ring road of Hefei City, show that :In this three site types, Magnolia grandiflora、Cinnamomum camphora、Albizzia julibrissin obtain the main proportion of trees ,coving the total number of 55%,and they became the local basic species.
Through the dynamic comparison study on street trees in main building-up area within the first ring road from 1998-2008 , results indicated that: total 13420 street trees classified as 16 species within the first ring road was recorded in 1998, while there were only 12430 street trees in 2008. It indicated that 7.4% decline in number of trees was recorded in the period of 10 years. Ginkgo biloba ,Magnolia denudate, Platycladus orientalis recorded in 1998 are not at the list of 2008, but Sapium sebiferum、Sapindus mukorossi、Toona sinensis was added into the list of 2008.
②Based on diameter at breast height( DBH ), the 65% of street trees population along major road in study area was classified as small trees (DBH <15 cm) , The tree with DBH 15-30 cm accounted for 30.4%, and trees with DBH > 30cm only accounted for 4.8%. Among Trees that DBH > 30cm, Platanus hispanica accounted for 53%.
③The planting form of street trees was regarded as monotonous and lack of changes, they are mainly planted in front yard,planting trip and cutout, for example street trees in road which living in planting trip and cutout cover the total number of 99.4%,and obviously ,this pattern of planting effect the landscape and also impede healthy growth of street trees.
④Comparative study of street trees in different locations such as along main roads, in schools and residential areas showed that: the street trees in school yard enjoy a better healthy status, and 96% of total population being recognized health, compared to the street trees along main transportation roads that is 94.5%,while the health situation of Magnolia grandiflora is poor in these three locations , mainly due to age、disease and mechanical injury, even the species has improved its health slightly in 10 years.
The 10-year comparative study on health situation of street tree population within the first ring road showed that: generally, healthy situation of street tree population is significantly declining, comparison of single tree species,the health condition of Platanus hispanica、Cinnamomum camphora、Cedrus deodara and Populus nigradeclined significantly, the health index of Platanus hispanica decline by 13%, while the health situation of Ligustrum lucidum、Magnolia grandiflora、Sophora japonica has a slight improvement.
(2)About eco-benefits of street trees,the results show this:
①The annual eco-benefits of street trees in road is 51.458 million Yuan, the weighted average value per tree is 1324.5 Yuan. And also, there are significant different annual eco-benefits for different species: for example, per individual of Platanus Hispanic created 2811yuan every year , which is listed at the top based on benefit value for per tree; while Michelia chapensis only created 198 Yuan.
Comparative study of street trees in different regions showed that: Street trees in both residential areas and along the main traffic roads have higher benefits in cut-off storm rain, reaching more than 89 percent of the total value, while that in school only cover 6.5% of the total benefits. The aesthetic benefits of street trees in school yard account for 87% of total benefits. This is mainly due to a better overall landscape in school yard, street trees easily become scenery.
②The total 38852 individuals of street trees in road sequestrated Carbon of 7582 t ,which equivalent to 759.3 million Yuan ,and the weighted average benefits is195.4 Yuan per tree.
③The different planting models of street trees has different effectiveness in reducing temperate, increasing humidity and improving human comfort, the planting with well designed vertical layers, such as that combined with shrubs, herbal plants and tall arbor have significant benefits.
(3)At present, the conservation and management of street trees also has some problems , 14%of street trees along main transportation roads need different kinds of maintenance .After comprehensive analysis, we know that young trees neeed high level of conservation and management.
引文
[1]江泽慧.加快城市森林建设,走进生态化城市发展道路[J].中国城市林业,2005,1(1):4～11
[2]张斌强,沈国志,张勇等.城市森林及其效益评价研究[J].河北农业科学,2009,13(2):108～ll0
[3]Miller R. W.Urban forester visited [J].Unasylva, 996,173(44) :13～18
[4]朱银辉,潘百红,袁荣焱.植物景观在宜春市城市森林建设中的应用研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,6(29):186～189
[5]彭镇华.城市森林[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2003.
[6]Fergal M.1997.Forestry and the environment—a sustainable prospect [J].Irish for. 2:33～41
[7]Gene W.G , FrederickJD.1986.Urban forestry[M].New York: Wiley , 15～20
[8]Gordoon A.B.1995.Urban Forestry Landscapes: Integrating Multidi sciplinary Perspectives [M]. Seattle: University of Washington Press,22～28
[9]Hildebrandt,etal. 1993. Are view of urban forestry education in the 1990s [J].J. For. 91 (3):40～42
[10]Holling C.S. 2001.Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social system [J].Ecosystems,4(5):390～405
[11]Lawrence H.W,etal. 1993. The neo classical origins of modern urban forests [J]. For .Conser .History,37(1):26～36
[12] Mark J. 1996. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States[J].Arbor cult . J,3:257～275
[13]Mark J. 1997.The development of urban forestry in Britain- part[J]. Arbor cult. J. 4:317～330
[14]Mark J.1997.The development of urban forestry in the Republic Of Ireland[J].Irish For. 2:14～32
[15]Mc Neil J. 1991. Sustainable development in the urban forest [J]. J. Arbor cult. 17(4):94～97
[16]Roger B. 1996. The role of trees in the urban environment: The Example of Geneva [J].Arbor cult. J. 4:437～445
[17]Sudha P,Ravindranath N. H. A study of Bangalore urban forest [J]. Landscape and Planning,2000,47:47～63
[18]Tipple T. J. Urban forestry administration in the Netherlands [J]. Soc. Nat. Resour.1990 ,3(4):395～403
[19]Urs P.K,Heather G..H,Marty D M etal. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Autonio area,Texus [J].Ecol. Econ.,2001, 39(3):333～346
[20]Wu Z .M.. Urban forest pest management [J] . J. Arbor cult,1997,11 (6):150～158
[21]朱文泉,何兴元,陈玮.2001.城市森林研究进展[J].生态学杂志,20(5):55～59
[22] Nylon C. H. Classification of urban forests in three US cities: attest of Moll’s urban forest zone model[J].Arbor cult. J.1991,15(3):255～263
[23]汪永华,苏志尧,陈北光等.城市林业研究进展[J].广东林业科技,2001,17(1):40～44
[24]Roger B. The role of trees in the urban environment: The example of Geneva [J].Arbor cult. J. 1996, 4:437～445
[25]Dwyer M. C,Miller R.W. Using GIS to assess urban tree canopy benefits and surrounding green space distributions. Journal of Arboriculture. 1999,30(1):102～106
[26]Mc Pherson E .G. Abenefit–costan alysis of ten street tree species In Modes to,California,U.S. Journal of Arboriculture .2003,29(1):1～8
[27]上海市农业委员会、上海市农林局、华东师范大学。城市森林与生态城市国际学术研讨会论文辑要[C].12002,1～8;74～83;100～108
[28]中华人民共和国林业部.中国21世纪议程林业行动计划[M]. 1995,56～58
[29]孙冰,粟娟,谢左章.城市林业的研究现状与前景[J].南京林业大学学报,1997,21(2):83～88
[30]郑芷青.广州城市行道树特征分析.城市环境与城市生态.1996,9 (3) : 38～41
[31]张敬丽,王锦,王昌命.昆明市建成区行道树结构研究[J].西南林学院学报.2004,24(3);36～39
[32]李秀芹,张国斌.黄山市城区行道树结构特征分析.中国农学通报.2007,4(23):139～143
[33]谢盛强.依据城市自然条件和规划性质做好行道树树种规划[M].中国园林.1998,14(57):20～21
[34]李海梅,刘常富,何兴元,等.沈阳市行道树树种的选择与配置[J].生态学杂志.2003,22(5):157～160
[35]熊祚元.城市行道树生态环境分析及养护措施.湖南林业科技.2008,35(2):56～60
[36]刘振威,孙丽,沈军.校园内不同树种行道树生态效应研究.中国生态农业学报.2007,15(4):208～210
[37]刘江涛,赵林森.昆明市区6种常绿行道树种经营管理效益成本比较分析[J].林业调查规划,2007,Apr.32(2):101～105
[38]杜克勤.绿化树木滞尘能力的测定与探讨[J].环境污染与防治,1998(3):47～48
[39]蒋美珍.园林绿化改善小气候的功能.绿化环境效益研究[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1992
[40]韩红霞,高峻,刘广亮.遥感和GIS支持下的城市植被生态效益评价[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2301～2304
[41]鲍淳松,楼建华,曾新宇等.杭州城市园林绿化对小气候的影响[J].浙江大学学报,2001,27(4): 415～418
[42] Scott R. Templeton and George Goldman Estimating economic activity and impacts of urban forestry in California with multiple data sources from the 1990s. Journal of Arboriculture,1996,22(3):55～59
[43]马新辉,孙根年,任志远.西安市植被净化大气物质量的测定及其价值评价.干区资源与环境,2002,16(4):83～86
[44]戴天兴编著.城市环境生态学[M].北京:中国建材工业出版社, 2002
[45] Brack.C.L. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental pollution 116 (2002) S195～2001
[46]陈自新.北京城市园林绿化生态效益的研究.天津建设科技2001园林专刊
[47]周志翔,邵天一,周小青等.武钢厂区景观结构与绿地空间布局研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(2):190～194
[48]韩素梅,沈阳地区主要树木净化二氧化硫潜力的研究.辽宁大学学报,2001,28(2):174～179
[49]何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎等沈阳城市森林树种沙地云杉引种实验研究城市森林生态研究进展.北京:中国林业出版社.2002
[50]陈自新,苏雪痕,刘少宗等.北京城市园林绿化生态效益研究[J].中国园林,1998,14(5):57～60
[51]陆贵巧,尹兆芳,谷建才等.大连市主要行道绿化树种固碳释氧功能研究.河北农业大学学报,2006,29(6):49～51
[52]柴一新,祝宁等.城市绿化树种的滞尘效应—以哈尔滨市为例.应用生态学报,2002,13(9):1121～1126
[56]吴泽民,Joe R. McBride, David J. Nowak等.合肥城市森林减少大气污染的效果[J].中国城市林业,2003,1(1): 39～43
[53]Per Bolund ,Sven Hunhammar Ecosystem services in urban area Ecological Economics ,1999 ,29 (1):293～3011
[54]魏士衡.中国自然美学思想探源[M].北京:中国城市出版社,1994
[55]严贤春.观赏树木在园林造景中的美学探讨[J].西华师范大学学报,2005,26(1):97～l0l
[56]吴泽民,Joe R. McBride, David J. Nowak,杨军等.合肥城市森林减少大气污染的效果[J].中国城市林业,2003.1(1):39～43
[57]国家环境保护局.中国生物多样性国情研究报告.北京:中国环境科学出版社,1998.2
[58]Urban Ecosystem Analysis, Town of Flower Mound, TX. American Forests Report, August 23, 2006
[59]Urban Ecosystem Analysis City of Jacksonville, Florida. American Forests Report, March 2005
[60]Urban Ecosystem Analysis Montgomery, AL. American Forests Report. July 2004
[61]高建,吴泽民,王成.城市不同土地利用类型小气候状况及对人体舒适度的影响[J].城市林业,2004,(2):41～48
[62]Daniel T.C and Booster R.S. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method [A] Range Experiment Station. USD Forest Service Research[C] 1976
[63]James R, Clarkand ,Nelda P,Matheny. A model of urban forest sustainability : application to cities in the united states .Journal of Arboriculture.1998,24(2): 17～39
[64] Schroeder H W, Cannon W N. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. J. Arboric. 1983, 9:237～243
[65] Wolf K L. Nature and commerce: human ecologyIn business districts.In: Kollin, C. (Ed). Building Cities of Green: Proceedings of the 1999 National Urban Forest Conference. Washington, DC: American Forests. 1999:6～59
[66]Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1989
[67]McPherson E .G , Simpson J .R etal. Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003
[2]张斌强,沈国志,张勇等.城市森林及其效益评价研究[J].河北农业科学,2009,13(2):108～ll0
[3]Miller R. W.Urban forester visited [J].Unasylva, 996,173(44) :13～18
[4]朱银辉,潘百红,袁荣焱.植物景观在宜春市城市森林建设中的应用研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,6(29):186～189
[5]彭镇华.城市森林[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2003.
[6]Fergal M.1997.Forestry and the environment—a sustainable prospect [J].Irish for. 2:33～41
[7]Gene W.G , FrederickJD.1986.Urban forestry[M].New York: Wiley , 15～20
[8]Gordoon A.B.1995.Urban Forestry Landscapes: Integrating Multidi sciplinary Perspectives [M]. Seattle: University of Washington Press,22～28
[9]Hildebrandt,etal. 1993. Are view of urban forestry education in the 1990s [J].J. For. 91 (3):40～42
[10]Holling C.S. 2001.Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social system [J].Ecosystems,4(5):390～405
[11]Lawrence H.W,etal. 1993. The neo classical origins of modern urban forests [J]. For .Conser .History,37(1):26～36
[12] Mark J. 1996. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States[J].Arbor cult . J,3:257～275
[13]Mark J. 1997.The development of urban forestry in Britain- part[J]. Arbor cult. J. 4:317～330
[14]Mark J.1997.The development of urban forestry in the Republic Of Ireland[J].Irish For. 2:14～32
[15]Mc Neil J. 1991. Sustainable development in the urban forest [J]. J. Arbor cult. 17(4):94～97
[16]Roger B. 1996. The role of trees in the urban environment: The Example of Geneva [J].Arbor cult. J. 4:437～445
[17]Sudha P,Ravindranath N. H. A study of Bangalore urban forest [J]. Landscape and Planning,2000,47:47～63
[18]Tipple T. J. Urban forestry administration in the Netherlands [J]. Soc. Nat. Resour.1990 ,3(4):395～403
[19]Urs P.K,Heather G..H,Marty D M etal. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Autonio area,Texus [J].Ecol. Econ.,2001, 39(3):333～346
[20]Wu Z .M.. Urban forest pest management [J] . J. Arbor cult,1997,11 (6):150～158
[21]朱文泉,何兴元,陈玮.2001.城市森林研究进展[J].生态学杂志,20(5):55～59
[22] Nylon C. H. Classification of urban forests in three US cities: attest of Moll’s urban forest zone model[J].Arbor cult. J.1991,15(3):255～263
[23]汪永华,苏志尧,陈北光等.城市林业研究进展[J].广东林业科技,2001,17(1):40～44
[24]Roger B. The role of trees in the urban environment: The example of Geneva [J].Arbor cult. J. 1996, 4:437～445
[25]Dwyer M. C,Miller R.W. Using GIS to assess urban tree canopy benefits and surrounding green space distributions. Journal of Arboriculture. 1999,30(1):102～106
[26]Mc Pherson E .G. Abenefit–costan alysis of ten street tree species In Modes to,California,U.S. Journal of Arboriculture .2003,29(1):1～8
[27]上海市农业委员会、上海市农林局、华东师范大学。城市森林与生态城市国际学术研讨会论文辑要[C].12002,1～8;74～83;100～108
[28]中华人民共和国林业部.中国21世纪议程林业行动计划[M]. 1995,56～58
[29]孙冰,粟娟,谢左章.城市林业的研究现状与前景[J].南京林业大学学报,1997,21(2):83～88
[30]郑芷青.广州城市行道树特征分析.城市环境与城市生态.1996,9 (3) : 38～41
[31]张敬丽,王锦,王昌命.昆明市建成区行道树结构研究[J].西南林学院学报.2004,24(3);36～39
[32]李秀芹,张国斌.黄山市城区行道树结构特征分析.中国农学通报.2007,4(23):139～143
[33]谢盛强.依据城市自然条件和规划性质做好行道树树种规划[M].中国园林.1998,14(57):20～21
[34]李海梅,刘常富,何兴元,等.沈阳市行道树树种的选择与配置[J].生态学杂志.2003,22(5):157～160
[35]熊祚元.城市行道树生态环境分析及养护措施.湖南林业科技.2008,35(2):56～60
[36]刘振威,孙丽,沈军.校园内不同树种行道树生态效应研究.中国生态农业学报.2007,15(4):208～210
[37]刘江涛,赵林森.昆明市区6种常绿行道树种经营管理效益成本比较分析[J].林业调查规划,2007,Apr.32(2):101～105
[38]杜克勤.绿化树木滞尘能力的测定与探讨[J].环境污染与防治,1998(3):47～48
[39]蒋美珍.园林绿化改善小气候的功能.绿化环境效益研究[M].北京:中国环境科学出版社,1992
[40]韩红霞,高峻,刘广亮.遥感和GIS支持下的城市植被生态效益评价[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2301～2304
[41]鲍淳松,楼建华,曾新宇等.杭州城市园林绿化对小气候的影响[J].浙江大学学报,2001,27(4): 415～418
[42] Scott R. Templeton and George Goldman Estimating economic activity and impacts of urban forestry in California with multiple data sources from the 1990s. Journal of Arboriculture,1996,22(3):55～59
[43]马新辉,孙根年,任志远.西安市植被净化大气物质量的测定及其价值评价.干区资源与环境,2002,16(4):83～86
[44]戴天兴编著.城市环境生态学[M].北京:中国建材工业出版社, 2002
[45] Brack.C.L. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental pollution 116 (2002) S195～2001
[46]陈自新.北京城市园林绿化生态效益的研究.天津建设科技2001园林专刊
[47]周志翔,邵天一,周小青等.武钢厂区景观结构与绿地空间布局研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(2):190～194
[48]韩素梅,沈阳地区主要树木净化二氧化硫潜力的研究.辽宁大学学报,2001,28(2):174～179
[49]何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎等沈阳城市森林树种沙地云杉引种实验研究城市森林生态研究进展.北京:中国林业出版社.2002
[50]陈自新,苏雪痕,刘少宗等.北京城市园林绿化生态效益研究[J].中国园林,1998,14(5):57～60
[51]陆贵巧,尹兆芳,谷建才等.大连市主要行道绿化树种固碳释氧功能研究.河北农业大学学报,2006,29(6):49～51
[52]柴一新,祝宁等.城市绿化树种的滞尘效应—以哈尔滨市为例.应用生态学报,2002,13(9):1121～1126
[56]吴泽民,Joe R. McBride, David J. Nowak等.合肥城市森林减少大气污染的效果[J].中国城市林业,2003,1(1): 39～43
[53]Per Bolund ,Sven Hunhammar Ecosystem services in urban area Ecological Economics ,1999 ,29 (1):293～3011
[54]魏士衡.中国自然美学思想探源[M].北京:中国城市出版社,1994
[55]严贤春.观赏树木在园林造景中的美学探讨[J].西华师范大学学报,2005,26(1):97～l0l
[56]吴泽民,Joe R. McBride, David J. Nowak,杨军等.合肥城市森林减少大气污染的效果[J].中国城市林业,2003.1(1):39～43
[57]国家环境保护局.中国生物多样性国情研究报告.北京:中国环境科学出版社,1998.2
[58]Urban Ecosystem Analysis, Town of Flower Mound, TX. American Forests Report, August 23, 2006
[59]Urban Ecosystem Analysis City of Jacksonville, Florida. American Forests Report, March 2005
[60]Urban Ecosystem Analysis Montgomery, AL. American Forests Report. July 2004
[61]高建,吴泽民,王成.城市不同土地利用类型小气候状况及对人体舒适度的影响[J].城市林业,2004,(2):41～48
[62]Daniel T.C and Booster R.S. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method [A] Range Experiment Station. USD Forest Service Research[C] 1976
[63]James R, Clarkand ,Nelda P,Matheny. A model of urban forest sustainability : application to cities in the united states .Journal of Arboriculture.1998,24(2): 17～39
[64] Schroeder H W, Cannon W N. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. J. Arboric. 1983, 9:237～243
[65] Wolf K L. Nature and commerce: human ecologyIn business districts.In: Kollin, C. (Ed). Building Cities of Green: Proceedings of the 1999 National Urban Forest Conference. Washington, DC: American Forests. 1999:6～59
[66]Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.1989
[67]McPherson E .G , Simpson J .R etal. Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Davis, CA: Center for Urban Forest Research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003