湟源县古树调查评价及保护对策研究
|
摘要
为加强古树名木资源的保护管理,采用GPS定位、文献跟踪、资料收集、现地鉴定、数码拍照等方法,开展青海省湟源县古树名木资源调查和评价。结果表明:①湟源县共有古树35株,全部为三级保护古树,没有名木,绝大多数为青杨,全部以散生状态分布在乡村,权属均为集体所有。②古树生长环境为良好的有17株、中等的有17株、差等的有1株,生长环境为中等偏上;生长势为正常的有28株、衰弱的有7株,生长势状况良好。③古树树龄在138～238 a,平均为141 a;树高在12～35 m,平均为22 m;胸围/地围在222～560 cm,平均为364 cm;平均冠幅在7～25 m,平均为16 m。最后提出了古树名木资源保护管理对策建议。
To strengthen the protection and management of ancient trees, ancient trees in Huangyuan County were investigated and evaluated through the GPS positioning, literature review, data collection, in-situ identification and taking pictures and etc.. The results showed that ①There were 35 third-class protected plants of ancient trees in Huangyuan County. Most of them were cathay poplar. They were scattered in the countryside under collective ownership. ②17 plants of them had better growing environment, 17 plants had moderate growing environment and 1 had poor growing environment. 28 plants had normal growth vigor and 7 plants had relatively weak growth vigor. ③Their ages were between 138 a and 238 a with the average of 141 a. The heights were between 12 m and 35 m with the average of 22 m. The chest measurement was between 222 cm and 560 cm with the average of 364 cm. The average canopy was between 7 m and 25 m with the average of 16 m. Finally, the protection and management measures were put forward.
To strengthen the protection and management of ancient trees, ancient trees in Huangyuan County were investigated and evaluated through the GPS positioning, literature review, data collection, in-situ identification and taking pictures and etc.. The results showed that ①There were 35 third-class protected plants of ancient trees in Huangyuan County. Most of them were cathay poplar. They were scattered in the countryside under collective ownership. ②17 plants of them had better growing environment, 17 plants had moderate growing environment and 1 had poor growing environment. 28 plants had normal growth vigor and 7 plants had relatively weak growth vigor. ③Their ages were between 138 a and 238 a with the average of 141 a. The heights were between 12 m and 35 m with the average of 22 m. The chest measurement was between 222 cm and 560 cm with the average of 364 cm. The average canopy was between 7 m and 25 m with the average of 16 m. Finally, the protection and management measures were put forward.
引文
[1]王碧云,修新田,兰思仁.古树名木文化价值货币化评估[J].林业经济问题,2016,36(6):565-570.
[2]蔡施泽. 3种上海市常见古树粗根系分布特征[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版),2017,35(4):7-14.
[3]雷硕.北京市民对古树名木保护支付意愿及影响因素研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2017,31(4):73-79.
[4]甘明旭.应用探地雷达对黄帝陵古柏树干和粗根的研究[J].西北林学院学报,2016,31(4):182-187.
[5]寇建良.福州城区古树名木旅游资源综合评价与旅游产品策划[D].福州:福建师范大学,2009.
[6]王嘉楠,程立,刘慧.城市森林显著树的认定及分布特征[J].浙江农林大学学报,2018,35(2):340-346.
[7]贾恒锋,牟玉梅.西藏尼木县古树年龄鉴定及生长历史分析[J].应用生态学报,2018,29(7):2401-2410.
[8]郑然,乐也,王晓辉,等.古树风险评估与风险管理方法研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2013,35(6):143-150.
[9]李程,罗鹏.古树名木生长状况与环境因子关系研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(11):86-93.
[10]邹嫦,康秀琴.罗开文广西北海市古树名木资源特征分析[J].林业资源管理,2017(3):128-132.
[11]何晓雯.黄浦区古树名木养护标准化管理初探[J].林业调查规划,2018,43(3):188-191.
[12]康乐.北方部分地区古树名木复壮养护技术现状及保护对策研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2015.
[2]蔡施泽. 3种上海市常见古树粗根系分布特征[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版),2017,35(4):7-14.
[3]雷硕.北京市民对古树名木保护支付意愿及影响因素研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2017,31(4):73-79.
[4]甘明旭.应用探地雷达对黄帝陵古柏树干和粗根的研究[J].西北林学院学报,2016,31(4):182-187.
[5]寇建良.福州城区古树名木旅游资源综合评价与旅游产品策划[D].福州:福建师范大学,2009.
[6]王嘉楠,程立,刘慧.城市森林显著树的认定及分布特征[J].浙江农林大学学报,2018,35(2):340-346.
[7]贾恒锋,牟玉梅.西藏尼木县古树年龄鉴定及生长历史分析[J].应用生态学报,2018,29(7):2401-2410.
[8]郑然,乐也,王晓辉,等.古树风险评估与风险管理方法研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2013,35(6):143-150.
[9]李程,罗鹏.古树名木生长状况与环境因子关系研究[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2015,35(11):86-93.
[10]邹嫦,康秀琴.罗开文广西北海市古树名木资源特征分析[J].林业资源管理,2017(3):128-132.
[11]何晓雯.黄浦区古树名木养护标准化管理初探[J].林业调查规划,2018,43(3):188-191.
[12]康乐.北方部分地区古树名木复壮养护技术现状及保护对策研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2015.