摘要
北京西山是市民休闲游憩的重要区域,该地区森林总体上定位为风景游憩林,以满足大众的审美及休闲游憩需求为主要经营目标。自从营建以来,通过当地森林经营者的不懈努力,这些森林在涵养水源、保持水土、改善环境质量、保护生物多样性等方面发挥了重要作用。然而,当前林分仍然存在枯枝较多、林下灌木杂乱等问题,导致风景游憩等多种功能未能充分发挥,急需抚育加以改善。因此,研究构建科学可行的风景游憩林抚育技术体系,成为当地森林培育中需要解决的首要问题。
本文以北京西山侧柏(Platycladus orientalis)、油松(Pinus tabuliformis)游憩林为对象,基于前期的林分美学质量评价结果,于2007年夏季分别对阴、阳坡典型林分进行了不同模式的抚育。其中,侧柏林采取2个修枝高度(2-3m和3-4m)与4个割灌保留盖度(10%、20%、25%和50%)相组合的6个优化模式(A1、A2、A3和B1、B2、B3),油松林采取2个修枝高度(4-5m和5-6m)与3个割灌保留盖度(10%、20%和30%)相组合的4个优化模式(C1、C2和D1、D2)。采用定位监测的手段,共设置34块固定样地连续调查了不同模式抚育前后5年间的林分结构、美学质量、林下植物多样性及天然更新状况。采用Voronoi图法,准确描述并验证了林分空间结构的合理性。分别基于半球影像法和优势度分析法,研究了不同抚育模式对林分冠层和林下植被结构的影响。基于SBE法比较了不同抚育模式的美学效果,同时分析了其植物多样性及天然更新效果,综合评价得出最佳的抚育模式及间隔期。主要研究结论如下：
(1)侧柏、油松游憩林的林分空间结构基本合理,针对林分非空间结构因素开展不同模式抚育具有可行性。林分中普遍存在6-7种空间结构单元,但均以1株参照木和5株相邻木的构成形式为主。大多数样地的聚集指数R显著大于1,林木以均匀分布居多。林分混交度基本在0.4～0.6范围内,树种空间隔离程度大多处于中等水平。林分处于中等竞争状态,其胸径及树高大小比数均在0.5左右。林分开敞度均在0.3以上,林内游憩空间较为开阔。
(2)不同抚育模式均能明显增加侧柏、油松游憩林林下植物种数,新增植物种主要来源于阳性草本。阴坡侧柏林中的A1和A3模式效果更佳,抚育后分别平均增加了17种和15种植物；阳坡侧柏林中的B1和B2模式效果更佳,平均新增植物8种和6种。阴坡油松林中的C2模式效果更佳,平均新增植物11种；而阳坡油松林中的D1和D2模式效果相当,两者分别平均增加了3种和4种植物。
(3)不同抚育模式对林下植物优势种的组成、数量及优势度的影响均不显著,较好地维持了林下植被结构的稳定性。抚育前后5年间,不同抚育模式下灌木层优势种大多为孩儿拳头和荆条,草本层优势种基本为求米草。
(4)不同抚育模式均能在短期内大幅提高林分喜好度,明显改善林分的美学质量。阴坡侧柏林中3种模式效果均较为理想,其喜好度分别平均提高70.0、64.7和73.9。阳坡侧柏林中的B1模式效果更佳,喜好度平均提高79.0。C1和C2模式效果相当,喜好度分别平均提高78.2和58.3。D1和D2模式效果相当,喜好度分别平均提高53.4和42.4。
(5)不同抚育模式均能维持或提高林下植物多样性。阴坡侧柏林中的A3模式效果更佳,灌草层植物H'指数分别比抚育前提高54.7%～73.7%和1.6～2.5倍；阳坡侧柏林中3种模式均能维持灌草层植物多样性。C2模式在阴坡油松林中效果更佳,其灌草层植物H'指数分别平均提高了54.9%～59.3%和0.93～1.25倍；阳坡油松林中的D1和D2模式均能维持林下植物多样性。
(6)不同抚育模式均能促进阔叶更新种数量和密度的增加,而对针叶更新种没有影响。阴坡侧柏林中的A2和A3模式作用效果更佳,其更新密度分别平均增加了4424株/hm2和4456株/hm2。阳坡侧柏林中的B2模式效果更佳,更新密度平均增加了6433株/hm2。阴坡油松林中的C1模式效果更佳,更新密度平均增加了5900株/hm2。阳坡油松林中的D2模式效果更佳,更新密度平均增加了4000株/hm2。
综合考虑抚育的美学及生态效果认为,阴坡侧柏林更适合采用A3模式(修枝高度2～3m+割灌保留盖度20%+林地清理),抚育间隔期宜为2年。阳坡侧柏林更适合采用B1模式(修枝高度2～3m+割灌保留盖度25%+林地清理),抚育间隔期至少应该为4年。阴坡油松林更适合采用C2模式(修枝高度5～6m+割灌保留盖度20%+林地清理),抚育间隔期宜为1年。阳坡油松林更适合采用D2模式(修枝高度4～5m+割灌保留盖度20%+林地清理),相应的抚育间隔期宜为2年。
Xishan Mountain of Beijing is an important recreational area for the local residents. Forests in this area are defined as scenic and recreational forests and managed for aesthetic and recreational needs of the general public. With the great efforts of the local forest managers, these forests have played important roles in water and soil conservation, environment improvement and biodiversity conservation etc since establishment. However, the presence of large amount of deadwoods and messy shrub vegetations make the stand quality a relatively low level at present. Therefore, aesthetic and recreational as well as other functions were not much achieved. Exploration of scientific and feasible tending measures for these forests is a key issue to be resolved in the local silvicultural practices.
To determine the optimal tending regime and corresponding tending interval for the Chinese arborvitae and Chinese pine recreational forests, based on previous research on stand aesthetic quality assessment, different tending regimes were applied to typical stands of these two forests on shady and sunny slope in Xishan Mountain of Beijing in summer2007. The applied tending regimes in Chinese arborvitae forests were six pre-optimized combinations (Al、A2and A3; B1、B2and B3) of two pruning height (2-3m and3-4m) and four remained shrub cover(10%、20%、25%and50%). While in Chinese pine forest, they were four pre-optimized combinations (C1and C2; D1and D2) of two pruning height (4～5m and5～6m) and three remained shrub cover (10%、20%and30%). The dynamics of stand structure, aesthetic quality, understory plant diversity and natural regeneration in34permanent plots were monitored and investigated for five successive years before and after treatment. Stand spatial structure was analyzed based on the Voronoi method, and then the influence of different tending regimes on the characteristics of stand canopy and understory vegetation was explored. Based on Scenic Beauty Estimation Method, scenic effects of applied tending regimes were analyzed. At last, the effects of different tending regimes on understory plant diversity and natural regeneration were analyzed. The major conclusions were as follows:
(1) The stand spatial structure in both Chinese arborvitae and Chinese pine stands were reasonable approximately, therefore different tending regimes were feasible from the perspective of non-spatial structure. There were6to7units of stand spatial structure in these stands, and the unit was mostly formed by one reference tree and five neighbors. The aggregation index of most plots in these stands was significantly larger than one, which indicated that the distribution pattern of tree individuals was uniform. The mingling degree of stands was between0.4and0.6, which indicated that the extent of segregation among tree species was in a middle level. The stand was in a middle level of competition with neighborhood comparison in DBH and height around0.5. Moreover, the stand was relatively open with open degree of above0.3.
(2) Different tending regimes were able to increase the species numbers of understory vegetation within four years after tending, and the newly occurred species were mainly shade-intolerant herbs. The effect of A1and A3regimes in shady slope stand of Chinese arborvitae forest was optimal, under which the average increased number of species was17and15respectively. While in sunny slope stand of Chinese arborvitae, the effect of B1and B2regimes was better with increased number of species of about8and6respectively. In shady slope stand of Chinese pine, the effect of C2regime was better, and the newly occurred species was11in average. However, in sunny slope stand of Chinese pine, both D1and D2regimes had equal effect, under which there was3and4newly occurred species.
(3) The species number, composition and dominance of understory dominant populations were not significantly influenced by tending regimes, thus the structure of understory vegetation remained relatively stable after tending. The dominant species were Vitex negundo var. heterophylla and Grewia biloba var. parviflora in shrub vegetation and Oplismenus undulatifolius in herb vegetation during the investigation periods.
(4) Assessment of stand aesthetic quality based on SBE method indicated that different tending regimes could largely increase the preference degree of stands in a short term after tending, and thus its aesthetic quality was significantly improved. The aesthetic effects was equal for A1、A2and A3regimes in shady slope stand of Chinese arborvitae forest. Under these three tending regimes, the preference degree increased by70.0、64.7and73.9respectively. While in sunny slope stand, B1regimes was better for the increased preference degree of79.0. Different tending regimes in Chinese pine forest had the same excellent effect. C1and C2regimens in shady slope stand increased the preference degree by78.2and58.3respectively. While in sunny slope stand, preference degree of D1and D2regimens increased by53.4and42.4respectively.
(5) Different tending regimes can maintain or improve understory plant diversity in both Chinese arborvitae and Chinese pine forest. In Chinese arborvitae forest, the effect of A3regime was better in shady slope stand and H' index of shrub and herb vegetation under this regime was increased by54.7%-73.7%and1.6-2.5times respectively. In sunny slope stand, all three tending regimes were able to maintain plant diversity in shrub and herb vegetation. In Chinese pine forest, the effect of C2regime was better in shady slope stand and H'index of shrub and herb vegetation under this regime was increased by54.9%-59.3%and0.93～1.25times respectively. In sunny slope stand, D1and D2were able to maintain plant diversity in shrub and herb vegetation.
(6) Different tending regimes can facilitate the increment of species number and density for regenerated broadleaf trees. However, this effect was not found for the coniferous trees in both Chinese arborvitae and Chinese pine forest. In shady slope stand of Chinese arborvitae forest, the effect of A2and A3regimes were better and regeneration density increased by4424stem/hm2and4456stem/hm2respectively. While in sunny slope stand, the effect of B2regime was better with regeneration density increased by6433stem/hm2. In shady slope stand of Chinese pine forest, the effect of C1regime was better and its regeneration density increased by5900stem/hm2. While in sunny slope stand, the effect of D2regime was better with regeneration density increased by4000stem/hm2.
From the perspective of forest aesthetics and ecology, the optimal tending regime and interval for the recreational forests of Chinese arborvitae and Chinese pine were proposed. In Chinese arborvitae forest, A3regime (pruning height of2-3m plus remained shrub cover of about20%plus ground clearance) was better for the shady slope stand, and corresponding tending interval should be2years; while in sunny slope stand, B1regime (pruning height of2-3m plus remained shrub cover of about25%plus ground clearance) was more appropriate and its tending interval should be at least4years. In Chinese pine forest, C2regime (pruning height of5-6m plus remained shrub cover of about20%plus ground clearance) was better for shady slope stand, and corresponding tending interval should be1year; while in sunny slope stand, D2regime (pruning height of4-5m plus remained shrub cover of about20% plus ground clearance) was more appropriate and its tending interval should be2years.
引文
[1]柏广新,牟长城.抚育对长白山幼龄次生林群落结构与动态的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2012,40(10)：48-55.
[2]包战雄.福建省森林景观质量评价与经营研究Ⅰ.春季景观[J].林业勘察设计,2004(1):16-19.
[3]包战雄.福建省森林景观质量评价与经营研究Ⅱ.夏季和秋季景观[J].林业勘察设计,2005(2):27-31.
[4]包战雄.森林生态美学及其对森林生态旅游的启示[J].林业经济问题,2007,27(6):544-548.
[5]包战雄.基于森林生态美学理论的风景游憩林经营[J].北华大学学报：自然科学版,2008,9(2):170-174.
[6]保继刚,楚义芳.旅游地理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1999.
[7]曹云,杨劫,宋炳煜,等.人工抚育措施对油松林生长及结构特征的影响[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(3)：397-402.
[8]陈东莉,郭晋平,杜宁宁.间伐强度对华北落叶松林下生物多样性的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(4)：37-38.
[9]陈厦,桑卫国.暖温带地区3种森林群落叶面积指数和林冠开阔度的季节动态[J].植物生态学报,2007,31(3)：431-436.
[10]陈鑫峰.京西山区森林景观评价和风景游憩林营建研究——兼论太行山区的森林游憩业建设[D].北京：北京林业大学,2000.
[11]陈鑫峰,贾黎明.京西山区森林林内景观评价研究[J].林业科学,2003,39(4)：59-66.
[12]陈鑫峰,沈国舫.森林游憩的几个重要概念辨析[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(1):69-76.
[13]陈鑫峰,王雁.国内外森林景观的定量评价和经营技术研究现状[J].世界林业研究,2000,13(5)： 31-38.
[14]达良俊,杨永川,宋永昌.浙江天童国家森林公园常绿阔叶林主要组成种的种群结构及更新类型[J].植物生态学报,2004,28(3)：376-384.
[15]但新球.森林景观资源美学价值评价指标体系的研究[J].中南林业调查规划,1995,14(3):44-48.
[16]邓送求,间伐强度对城郊生态风景林景观质量的影响[D]：南京林业大学,2009.
[17]邓送求,闫家锋,关庆伟.宝华山紫楠风景林林分空间结构分析[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(4)： 29-32.
[18]邓送求,闫家锋,王宇,等.间伐强度对不同林分类型美景度的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(3)： 4-7.
[19]董建文,章志都,许贤书,等.福建省山地坡面风景游憩林美景度综合评价及构建技术[J].东 北林业大学学报,2010,38(4)：45-48.
[20]董希斌,李耀翔.间伐对兴安落叶松人工林林分结构的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2000,28(1)： 16-18.
[21]董希斌,王立海.采伐强度对林分蓄积生长量与更新影响的研究[J].林业科学,2003,39(6):122-125.
[22]杜志,亢新刚,包昱君,等.长白山云冷杉林不同演替阶段的树种空间分布格局及其关联性[J].北京林业大学学报,2012,34(2):14-19.
[23]段劫,马履一,贾黎明,等.抚育间伐对侧柏人工林及林下植被生长的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(6)： 1431-1441.
[24]方精云,沈泽昊,唐志尧,等.“中国山地植物物种多样性调查计划”及若干技术规范[J].生物多样性,2004,12(1)：5-9.
[25]房城,王成,郭二果,等.城郊森林公园游憩与游人生理健康关系——以北京百望山森林公园为例[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(3)：87-88,107.
[26]甘敬,周荣伍.北京西山森林培育理论与技术研究[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,2010.
[27]韩明跃,李莲芳,郑畹,等.间伐强度对云南松中龄低产林分结构的调整研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2011,31(2)：27-33.
[28]韩文娟,袁晓青,张文辉.油松人工林林窗对幼苗天然更新的影响[J].应用生态学报,2012,23(11)：2940-2948.
[29]韩照祥,朱惠娟,张文辉,等.不同地区不同尺度下栓皮栎种群的空间分布格局[J].西北植物学报,2005,25(6)：1216-1221.
[30]郝月兰,张会儒,唐守正Voronoi图方法确定云冷杉林最近邻木的适用性研究[J].林业资源管理,2011(6)：59-64.
[31]郝云庆,王金锡,王启和,等.柳杉纯林改造后林分空间结构变化预测[J].林业科学,2006,42(8)： 8-13.
[32]郝云庆,王金锡,王启和,等.柳杉人工林林分不同变量大小比数研究[J].应用生态学报,2006,17(4)：751-754.
[33]胡万良,谭学仁,孔祥文,等.干扰对人工诱导的阔叶红松林群落结构及高等植物多样性的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2007,29(6)：72-78.
[34]胡欣欣,王李进,陈平留.基于投影寻踪模型的森林景观评价[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,31(2)：306-310.
[35]胡艳波,惠刚盈,戚继忠,等.吉林蛟河天然红松阔叶林的空间结构分析[J].林业科学研究,2003,16(5)：523-530.
[36]胡云云,闵志强,高延,等.择伐对天然云冷杉林林分生长和结构的影响[J].林业科学,2011,47(2)： 15-24.
[37]黄丽霞,袁位高,朱锦茹,等.不同经营方式下杨梅林分空间结构比较[J].浙江林学院学报, 2009,26(2)：209-214.
[38]惠刚盈,von Gadow Klaus. Albert Matthias.一个新的林分空间结构参数--大小比数[J].林业科学研究,1999a,12(1)：1-6.
[39]惠刚盈,von Gadow Klaus, Albert Matthias.角尺度——一个描述林木个体分布格局的结构参数[J].林业科学,1999b,35(1)：39-44.
[40]惠刚盈,胡艳波.混交林树种空间隔离程度表达方式的研究[J].林业科学研究,2001,14(1):23-27.
[41]惠刚盈,胡艳波,徐海.结构化森林经营[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2007.
[42]惠刚盈,胡艳波,赵中华.再论“结构化森林经营”[J].世界林业研究,2009,22(1):14-19.
[43]惠刚盈,克劳斯·冯佳多.森林空间结构量化分析方法[M].北京：中国科学技术出版社,2003.
[44]惠刚盈,赵中华,胡艳波.结构化森林经营技术指南[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2010.
[45]贾黎明,李效文,郝小飞,等.基于SBE法的北京山区油松游憩林抚育技术原则[J].林业科学,2007,43(9)：144-]49.
[46]贾忠奎.北京山区油松侧柏生态公益林抚育效果研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2005.
[47]金莹杉,翟明普,马润国,等.北京西山风景林林下更新种空间分布特征研究[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(3)：11-15.
[48]康冰,王得祥,崔宏安,等.秦岭山地油松群落更新特征及影响因子[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(7)：1659-1667.
[49]雷相东,陆元昌,张会儒,等.抚育间伐对落叶松云冷杉混交林的影响[J].林业科学,2005,41(4)： 78-85.
[50]李春明,杜纪山,张会儒.抚育间伐对森林生长的影响及其模型研究[J].林业科学研究,2003,16(5)：636-641.
[51]李春阳,周晓峰.帽几山森林景观质量评价[J].东北林业大学学报,1991,19(6)：91-95.
[52]李春义,马履一,王希群,等.抚育间伐对北京山区侧柏人工林林下植物多样性的短期影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2007,29(3)：60-66.
[53]李春义,马履一,徐听.抚育间伐对森林生物多样性影响研究进展[J].世界林业研究,2006,19(6)： 27-32.
[54]李贵祥,孟广涛,方向京,等.抚育间伐对云南松纯林结构及物种多样性的影响研究[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(5)：164-167.
[55]李国雷,刘勇,徐扬,等.间伐强度对油松人工林植被发育的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2007,29(2)：70-75.
[56]李俊清.森林生态学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
[57]李俊涛,鲍文龙,李国江.东北林业大学帽几山实验林场天然次生林的结构调整[J].东北林业大学学报,2002,30(4)：122-124.
[58]李俊英,闫红伟,唐强,等.天然次生林林内景观评价模型[J].浙江林学院学报,2010,27(6):923-927.
[59]李俊英,闫红伟,唐强,等.沈阳森林植物群落结构与其林内景观美学质量关系研究[J].西北林学院学报,2011,26(2)：212-219.
[60]李荣,张文辉,何景峰,等.不同间伐措施对辽东栎幼苗自然更新及生长状况的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报：自然科学版,2011,39(1):52-60.
[61]李世东.张家界国家森林公园风景质量评价[J].南京林业大学学报：自然科学版,1993,17(4):43-47.
[62]李效文.北京低山主要风景游憩林抚育技术模式研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2008.
[63]李效文,贾黎明,李广德,等.抚育对北京低山侧柏游憩林灌草生物多样性的影响[J].北京林业大学学报,2009,31(6)：193-197.
[64]李效文,田甜,贾黎明,等.北京山区侧柏游憩林抚育技术模式研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2008,30(3)：44-50.
[65]刘翠玲,潘存德,寇福堂,等.新疆喀纳斯旅游区森林景观美学质量与自然火干扰的关系[J].林业科学,2010,46(1)：9-14.
[66]刘明磊,潘存德,寇福堂,等.新疆喀纳斯旅游区主要景点林外景观美景度评价[J].新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(3)：54-58.
[67]鲁庆彬,游卫云,赵昌杰,等.旅游干扰对青山湖风景区植物多样性的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(2)：295-302.
[68]陆兆苏,赵德海,李明阳,等.按照风景林的特点建设森林公园[J].华东森林经理,1994,8(2)： 12-17.
[69]陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿,等.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究[J].华东森林经理,1991,5(1)： 1-6.
[70]罗耀华,陈庆诚,张鹏云.兴隆山阴暗针叶林空间格局及其利用光能的对策[J].生态学报,1984,4(1)：10-20.
[71]马姜明,刘世荣,史作民,等.川西亚高山暗针叶林恢复过程中岷江冷杉天然更新状况及其影响因子[J].植物生态学报,2009,33(4)：646-657.
[72]马克平.试论生物多样性的概念[J].生物多样性,1993,1(1):20-22.
[73]马克平.生物群落多样性的测度方法：Ⅰα多样性的测度方法(上)[J].生物多样性,1994,2(3)： 162-168.
[74]马克平,黄建辉,于顺利,等.北京东灵山地区植物群落多样性的研究：Ⅱ丰富度,均匀度和物种多样性[J].生态学报,1995,15(3)：268-277.
[75]马克平,刘玉明.生物群落多样性的测度方法：Ⅰ α多样性的测度方法(下)[J].生物多样性,1994,2(4)：231-239.
[76]马克平,刘玉明.生物群落多样性的测度方法Ⅱ β多样性的测度方法[J].生物多样性,1995, 3(1)： 38-43.
[77]马履一,李春义,王希群,等.不同强度间伐对北京山区油松生长及其林下植物多样性的影响[J].林业科学,2007,43(5)：1-9.
[78]毛志宏,朱教君,刘足根,等.间伐对落叶松人工林内草本植物多样性及其组成的影响[J].生态学杂志,2006,25(10)：1201-1207.
[79]孟宪宇.测树学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2006.
[80]倪淑萍,施德法.普陀山风景区森林景观研究[J].华东森林经理,1996,10(1)：58-63.
[81]欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.论森林风景资源质量评价与管理[J].江西农业大学学报,2004,26(2)： 169-173.
[82]欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(6)：1388-1392.
[83]屈红军,牟长城,吴云霞.透光抚育对辽东林区人天混红松林群落植物多样性的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2009,37(3)：26-28.
[84]任立忠,罗菊春.抚育采伐对山杨次生林植物多样性影响的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2000,22(4)： 14-17.
[85]邵芳丽,余新晓,宋思铭,等.天然杨-桦次生林空间结构特征[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(11)：2792-2798.
[86]沈国舫,翟明普.森林培育学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2011.
[87]沈海龙,丛健,张鹏,等.开敞度调控对次生林林冠下红松径高生长量和地上生物量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(11)：2781-2791.
[88]苏祖荣.森林美学概论[M].上海：学林出版社,2001.
[89]汤孟平.森林空间结构研究现状与发展趋势[J].林业科学,2010,46(1):117-122.
[90]汤孟平,陈永刚,施拥军,等.基于Voronoi图的群落优势树种种内种间竞争[J].生态学报,2007,27(11)：4707-4716.
[91]汤孟平,徐文兵,陈永刚,等.天目山近自然毛竹林空间结构与生物量的关系[J].林业科学,2011,47(8)：1-6.
[92]汤孟平,周国模,陈永刚,等.基于Voronoi图的天目山常绿阔叶林混交度[J].林业科学,2009,45(6)： 1-5.
[93]汤孟平,周国模,施拥军,等.天目山常绿阔叶林优势种群及其空间分布格局[J].植物生态学报,2006,30(5)：743-752.
[94]汪平,贾黎明,李效文,等.北京西山地区侧柏游憩林群落结构及植物多样性[J].浙江林学院学报,2010,27(4)：565-571.
[95]汪平,贾黎明,李效文,等.侧柏游憩林抚育对林下植物组成及多样性的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2012,40(11)：78-82.
[96]汪平,贾黎明,魏松坡,等.基于Voronoi图的侧柏游憩林空间结构分析[J].北京林业大学学 报,2013,35(2)：39-44.
[97]汪平,贾黎明,邢长山,等.不同抚育模式对侧柏游憩林风景质量的影响[J].林业科学,2013,3(49)： 85-92.
[98]王本洋,余世孝.种群分布格局的多尺度分析[J].植物生态学报,2005,29(2):235-241.
[99]王超.北京西山风景林抚育间伐技术研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2007.
[100]王超,翟明普,金莹杉,等.森林景观质量评价研究现状及趋势[J].世界林业研究,2006,19(6)： 18-22.
[101]王超,翟明普,马润国.基于空间结构单元的风景林抚育间伐研究[J].林业调查规划,2006,31(6)： 6-11.
[102]王小婧.北京市主要风景游憩林两种保健资源及其作用初探[D].北京：北京林业大学,2008.
[103]王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用[J].林业科学,1999,35(5):110-117.
[104]王祖华,李瑞霞,王晓杰,等.间伐对杉木人工林林下植被多样性及生物量的影响[J].生态环境学报,2010,19(12)：2778-2782.
[105]韦翠鸾.北京西山风景林抚育技术研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2004.
[106]文益君,周根苗,张晓蕾,等.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[J].林业科学,2009,45(1):1-7.
[107]吴南生,翟明普,杜天真,等.北京市风景游憩林主要建设类型及其植物配模式研究[J].生态经济,2005(4)：62-65.
[108]邢世岩,周蔚,马颖敏,等.侧柏林天然更新及苗期生长特性[J].林业科技开发,2009,23(1)：52-54.
[109]熊有强,盛炜彤,曾满生.不同间伐强度杉木林下植被发育及生物量研究[J].林业科学研究,1995,8(4)：408-412.
[110]阎海平,李涛.西山林场风景林抚育剩余物处理的初步研究[J].林业资源管理,2005(4):62-65.
[111]于立忠,朱教君,孔祥文,等.人为干扰(间伐)对红松人工林林下植物多样性的影响[J].生态学报,2006,26(11)：3757-3764.
[112]于汝元,范兆飞,范琳科,等.北京西山国家森林公园人工林质量及景观效益分析[J].北京林业大学学报,1995,17(1)：60-67.
[113]于晓梅,屈红军.抚育对不同坡向“栽针保阔”红松林群落结构的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2011,39(6)：10-12.
[114]俞晓凌,廖邦洪,王道模,等.龙门山国家地质公园天台山风景游憩林空间结构分析与美景度评价[J].林业科学,2011,47(7)：50-56.
[115]宇传话.SPSS与统计分析[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2007.
[116]张荣.北京西山风景游憩林抚育的研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2003.
[117]张荣,翟明普,阎海平.国内外风景游憩林抚育研究进展[J].北京林业大学学报,2004,26(2):109-113.
[118]张象君,王庆成,郝龙飞,等.长白落叶松人工林林隙间伐对林下更新及植物多样性的影响[J].林业科学,2011,47(8)：7-13.
[119]章志都.京郊低山风景游憩林质量评价及调控关键技术研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2010.
[120]章志都,徐程扬,董建文,等.郁闭度对风景游憩林林下植被及林内景观的影响[J].中国城市林业,2008,6(2)：10-13.
[121]赵春燕,李际平,李建军.基于Voronoi图和Delaunay三角网的林分空间结构量化分析[J].林业科学,2010,46(6)：78-84.
[122]赵中华,惠刚盈,袁士云,等.小陇山锐齿栎天然林空间结构特征[J].林业科学,2009,45(3):1-6.
[123]赵中华,袁士云,惠刚盈,等.甘肃小陇山5种不同灌木林改造模式对比分析[J].林业科学研究,2008,21(2)：262-267.
[124]郑丽凤,周新年.择伐强度对中亚热带天然针阔混交林林分空间结构的影响[J].武汉植物学研究,2009,27(5)：515-521.
[125]周红敏,惠刚盈,赵中华,等.林分空间结构分析中样地边界木的处理方法[J].林业科学,2009,45(2)：1-5.
[126]周建云,李荣,张文辉,等.不同间伐强度下辽东栎种群结构特征与空间分布格局[J].林业科学,2012,48(5)：149-155.
[127]周蔚,杨华,亢新刚,等.择伐强度对长白山区天然云冷杉针阔混交林空间结构的影响[J].西北林学院学报,2012,27(4)：7-12.
[128]朱教君,刘足根,王贺新.辽东山区长白落叶松人工林天然更新障碍分析[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(4)：695-703.
[129]Aguirre O, Hui G, Gadow K V, et al. An analysis of spatial forest structure using neighbourhood-based variables [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2003,183(1-3):137-145.
[130]Ahmed M R. Outdoor recreation potentials of the Foy's lake area [J]. Bangladesh Journal of Forest Science,1993,22(1/2):30-36.
[131]Ares A, Neill A R, Puettmann K J. Understory abundance, species diversity and functional attribute response to thinning in coniferous stands [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2010, 260(7):1104-1113.
[132]Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests [J]. Forest Science,1977,23(2):151-160.
[133]Bachofen H, Zingg A. Effectiveness of structure improvement thinning on stand structure in subalpine Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands [J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2001,145(1-2):137-149.
[134]Bailey J D, Tappeiner J C. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40-to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,1998,108(1-2):99-113.
[135]Benson R E, Ullrich J R. Visual impacts of forest management activities:findings on public preferences[R]:US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1981.
[136]Bradley G A. Public perceptions of alternative silvicultural treatments. Balancing Ecosystem Values Proceedings,2005.
[137]Bradley G A, Kearney A R. Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting:Different ways of seeing [J]. Western Journal of Applied Forestry,2007,22(1):42-54.
[138]Briggs D J, France J. Landscape evaluation:a comparative study [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,10(3):263-275.
[139]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Modeling forest scenic beauty:concepts and application to ponderosa pine[R]. Fort Collins:US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1984.
[140]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands [J]. Forest Science,1986,32(2): 471-487.
[141]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Scaling of ratings:concepts and methods[R]. Fort Collins:US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1990.
[142]Brunson M W, Reiter D K. Effects of Ecological Information on Judgments about Scenic Impacts of Timber Harvest [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1996,46(1):31-41.
[143]Brush R O. The attractiveness of woodlands:Perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts [J]. Forest Science,1979,25(3):495-506.
[144]Chrimes D, Nilson K. Overstorey density influence on the height of Picea abies regeneration in northern Sweden [J]. Forestry,2005,78(4):433-442.
[145]Clark P J, Evans F C. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations [J]. Ecology,1954,35(4):445-453.
[146]Clay G R, Daniel T C. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,49(1-2):1-13.
[147]Cole E C, Hanley T A, Newton M. Influence of precommercial thinning on understory vegetation of young-growth Sitka spruce forests in southeastern Alaska [J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2010,40(4):619-628.
[148]Curtis J T, McIntosh R P. An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin [J]. Ecology,1951,32(3):476-496.
[149]Daniel T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4):267-281.
[150]Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method[R]. Fort Collins:US Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1976.
[151]Daniel T C, Meitner M M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations:the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2001,21(1):61-72.
[152]Daniel T, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality [J]. Human Behavior and Environment,1983,6:39-84.
[153]Deal R L. The effects of partial cutting on forest plant communities of western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in southeast Alaska [J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2001,31(12):2067-2079.
[154]Dearden P. Factors influencing landscape preferences:An empirical investigation [J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(4):293-306.
[155]Deng S, Yan J, Guan Q, et al. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands [J]. Journal of Forest Research,2013,18(3):209-219.
[156]Dodson E K, Peterson D W, Harrod R J. Understory vegetation response to thinning and burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests of the eastern Cascades, USA [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2008,255(8-9):3130-3140.
[157]Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen F S, et al. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective [J]. Forest Policy and Economics,2012,19:12-19.
[158]Fujii S, Kubota Y. Understory thinning reduces wood-production efficiency and tree species diversity in subtropical forest in southern Japan [J]. Journal of Forest Research,2011,16(3):253-259.
[159]Gobster P H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management [J]. Landscape Journal, 1999,18(1):54-64.
[160]Gobster P. Aldo Leopold's ecological aesthetic:integrating esthetic and biodiversity values [J]. Journal of Forestry,1995,93(2):6-10.
[161]Gobster P, Nassauer J, Daniel T, et al. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? [J]. Landscape Ecology,2007,22(7):959-972.
[162]Golivets M. Aesthetic values of forest landscapes [D]. Stockholm:Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,2011.
[163]Gundersen V S, Frivold L H. Public preferences for forest structures:A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden [J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2008,7(4):241-258.
[164]Gundersen V, Frivold L H. Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests:public preferences and the effect of information [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,2011,26(2): 110-119.
[165]Haider W, Hunt L. Visual aesthetic quality of Northern Ontario's forested shorelines. [J]. Environmental Management,2002,29(3):324-334.
[166]Hull IV R B, Buhyoff G J. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method:an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts [J]. Forest Science,1986,32(2): 271-286.
[167]Hull IV R B, Buhyoff G J, Daniel T C. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures [J]. Forest Science,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
[168]Hull IV R B, Stewart W. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1992,12(2):101-114.
[169]Hunt L M, Haider W. Aesthetic impacts of disturbances on selected boreal forested shorelines [J]. Forest Science,2004,50(5):729-738.
[170]Ishii H, Maleque M, Taniguchi S. Line thinning promotes stand growth and understory diversity in Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) plantations [J]. Journal of Forest Research,2008, 13(1):73-78.
[171]Jensen F S N, Skovsgaard J P. Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak:Recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,2009,24(1):28-36.
[172]Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. The visual effect of felling on small-and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1999,55(3):167-181.
[173]Karjalainen E, Tyrv Inen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research:a Finnish perspective [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,59(1):13-28.
[174]Kellomaki S, Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory [J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(2):97-107.
[175]Kint V. Structural development in ageing temperate Scots pine stands [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2005,214(1-3):237-250.
[176]Liao W, Nogami K. Prediction of near-view scenic beauty in artificial stands of hinoki [J]. Journal of Forest Research,1999,4(2):93-98.
[177]Lindhagen A, Hornsten L. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden:changes in public preferences and behaviour [J]. Forestry,2000,73(2):143-153.
[178]Litton R B. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes [J]. Journal of Forestry,1974,72(7):392- 397.
[179]Macfarlane C, Grigg A, Evangelista C. Estimating forest leaf area using cover and fullframe fisheye photography:Thinking inside the circle [J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,2007, 146(1-2):1-12.
[180]Mason W L, Connolly T, Pommerening A, et al. Spatial structure of semi-natural and plantation stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in northern Scotland [J]. Forestry,2007,80(5):564-583.
[181]Montes F, Canellas I, Del RIO M, et al. The effects of thinning on the structural diversity of coppice forests [J]. Annals of Forest Science,2004,61(8):771-779.
[182]North M, Chen J Q, Oakley B, et al. Forest stand structure and pattern of old-growth western hemlock/Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests [J]. Forest Science,2004,50(3):299-311.
[183]Ohsawa M. Differentiation of vegetation zones and species strategies in the subalpine region of Mt. Fuji [J]. Plant Ecology,1984,57(1):15-52.
[184]Palmer J F. The perceived scenic effects of clearcutting in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, USA [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2008,89(3):167-183.
[185]Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4):149-161.
[186]Paquet J, Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes [J]. Forest Science,1997,43(1):46-55.
[187]Patey R C, Evans R M. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. Proceedings of our national landscape:a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, Incline Village, Nevada,1979.
[188]Ribe R G. The aesthetics of forestry:What has empirical preference research taught us? [J]. Environmental Management,1989,13(1):55-74.
[189]Ribe R G. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests [J]. Landscape Journal,1990,9(2):86-101.
[190]Ribe R G. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management?:The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions [J]. Environment and Behavior,2002,34(6):757-780.
[191]Ribe R G. Comparing changes in scenic beauty produced by green-tree retention harvests, thinnings and clearcuts:evidence from three Pacific Northwest experiments. Balancing ecosystem values:innovative experiments for sustainable forestry, Portland, Oregon,2005.
[192]Ribe R G. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest:The effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood [J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2009,91(1):245-260.
[193]Rosenberger R S, Smith E L. Assessing forest scenic beauty impacts of insects and management[R]:US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team,1998.
[194]Roth M. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-An empirical study from Germany [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78(3):179-192.
[195]Ruddell E J, Gramann J H, Rudis V A, et al. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models [J]. Environment and Behavior,1989,21(4):393-412.
[196]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands [J]. Forest Science,1988,34(4):846-863.
[197]Rutherford W, Shafer E L. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands [J]. Journal of Forestry,1969,67(6):415-419.
[198]Saunders M R, Wagner R G. Long-term spatial and structural dynamics in Acadian mixedwood stands managed under various silvicultural systems [J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2008, 38(3):498-517.
[199]Schweitzer C J, Dey D C. Forest structure, composition, and tree diversity response to a gradient of regeneration harvests in the mid-Cumberland Plateau escarpment region, USA [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2011,262(9):1729-1741.
[200]Seiwa K, Etoh Y, Hisita M, et al. Roles of thinning intensity in hardwood recruitment and diversity in a conifer, Criptomeria japonica plantation:A 5-year demographic study [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2012,269:177-187.
[201]Shelby B, Thompson J, Brunson M, et al. Changes in scenic quality after harvest:A decade of ratings for six silviculture treatments [J]. Journal of Forestry,2003,101(2):30-35.
[202]Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T, Tahvanainen L. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,2002,17(3):263-273.
[203]Sullivan T P, Sullivan D S, Lindgren P M F, et al. Influence of conventional and chemical thinning on stand structure and diversity of plant and mammal communities in young lodgepole pine forest [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2002,170(1-3):173-187.
[204]Tahvanainen L, Tyrvainen L, Ihalainen M, et al. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,53(1-4):53-70.
[205]Tahvanainen L, Tyrvainen L, Nousiainen I. Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,1996,11(1-4):397-405.
[206]Thomas S C, Halpern C B, Falk D A, et al. Plant diversity in managed forests:understory responses to thinning and fertilization [J]. Ecological Applications,1999,9(3):864-879.
[207]Tonnes S, Karjalainen E, Lofstrom I, et al. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas [J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,2004,19(4):348-357.
[208]Tsunetsugu Y, Lee J, Park B, et al. Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2013, 113(0):90-93.
[209]Tyrvainen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management [J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2003,1(3):135-149.
[210]Ulrich R S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. [J]. Science,1984, 224(4647):420-421.
[211]Verschuyl J, Riffell S, Miller D, et al. Biodiversity response to intensive biomass production from forest thinning in North American forests-A meta-analysis [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2011,261(2):221-232.
[212]Vodak M C, Roberts P L, Wellman J D, et al. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management [J]. Forest Science,1985,31(2):289-301.
[213]Watkins R Z, Chen J, Pickens J, et al. Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape [J]. Conservation Biology,2003,17(2):411-419.
[214]Widenfalk O, Weslien J. Plant species richness in managed boreal forests-Effects of stand succession and thinning [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2009,257(5):1386-1394.
[215]Youngblood A, Metlen K L, Coe K. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2006,234(1-3):143-163.
[216]Zhu J, Matsuzaki T, Lee F, et al. Effect of gap size created by thinning on seedling emergency, survival and establishment in a coastal pine forest [J]. Forest Ecology and Management,2003, 182(1-3):339-354.
[217]Zhu J, Yang K, Yan Q, et al. Feasibility of implementing thinning in even-aged (Larix olgensis) plantations to develop uneven-aged larch-broadleaved mixed forests [J]. Journal of Forest Research,2010,15(1):71-80.