植物生态学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (1): 53-61.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2016.0019
所属专题: 中国灌丛生态系统碳储量的研究
崔光帅1,2, 张林1,*(), 沈维1, 刘新圣3, 王媛韬1,2
收稿日期:
2016-01-13
接受日期:
2016-05-09
出版日期:
2017-01-10
发布日期:
2017-01-23
通讯作者:
张林
作者简介:
* 通信作者Author for correspondence (E-mail:基金资助:
Guang-Shuai CUI1,2, Lin ZHANG1,*(), Wei SHEN1, Xin-Sheng LIU3, Yuan-Tao WANG1,2
Received:
2016-01-13
Accepted:
2016-05-09
Online:
2017-01-10
Published:
2017-01-23
Contact:
Lin ZHANG
About author:
KANG Jing-yao(1991-), E-mail: 摘要:
灌丛是生态系统碳密度估算中不可或缺的部分, 其面积的增加被认为是我国陆地生态系统碳密度增加的一个重要原因, 也是生态系统碳汇研究中最不确定的一个因素。该文采用相对生长法和收获法测定了西藏雅鲁藏布江中游18个砂生槐(Sophora moorcroftiana)灌丛样点的群落生物量, 并利用实测的各器官全碳含量估算了灌丛碳密度, 主要研究结果如下: 1)灌木层植株盖度和生物量体积(盖度与高度的乘积)均能较好地预测各器官的生物量, 但盖度对地上部分各器官生物量的预测效果优于生物量体积; 2)砂生槐灌丛群落平均总生物量为5.71 Mg·hm-2, 变化范围2.32-8.96 Mg·hm-2, 灌木层是群落总生物量的主体部分, 平均为4.08 Mg·hm-2, 占群落总生物量的71.45%; 就地上、地下生物量的分配而言, 无论是灌木层还是草本层, 分配到根系的生物量更多, 平均为地上部分的1.17倍, 其在灌木层和草本层分别为2.08和0.86 Mg·hm-2; 3)灌丛平均碳密度为2.48 Mg·hm-2, 其空间分布表现为雅鲁藏布江中游西部地区较高, 东部较低。研究结果表明砂生槐生物量更多地分配到用于吸收水分和养分以及固定、支撑植物体的根系, 体现了砂生槐对雅鲁藏布江流域干旱河谷环境的适应。此外, 雅鲁藏布江中游东部地区灌丛群落碳密度低于西部, 主要与自然环境条件(东部海拔较低、气温较高、蒸散量较大, 进一步加剧干旱)和人类活动干扰有关。在未来气候变化背景下, 蒸散持续降低将有助于砂生槐灌丛碳密度的增加。
崔光帅, 张林, 沈维, 刘新圣, 王媛韬. 西藏雅鲁藏布江流域中段砂生槐灌丛生物量分配及碳密度. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(1): 53-61. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2016.0019
Guang-Shuai CUI, Lin ZHANG, Wei SHEN, Xin-Sheng LIU, Yuan-Tao WANG. Biomass allocation and carbon density of Sophora moorcroftiana shrublands in the middle reaches of Yarlung Zangbo River, Xizang, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2017, 41(1): 53-61. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2016.0019
模型 Model | 器官 Organ | 植株高度 Plant height (cm) | 树冠投影面积 Crown projection area (cm2) | 生物量体积 Biomass volume (cm3) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | 回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | 回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | ||||
线性模型 Linear model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 19.21H - 317.6 | 0.56 | Wb = 0.022C - 40.86 | 0.89 | Wb = 0.0009V + 79.98 | 0.83 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 5.41H - 91.10 | 0.50 | Wl = 0.006C - 5.95 | 0.69 | Wl = 0.0003V + 18.96 | 0.78 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 23.69H - 389.38 | 0.61 | Wr = 0.025C - 5.27 | 0.82 | Wr = 0.0011V + 125.47 | 0.80 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 24.63H - 408.70 | 0.58 | Wa = 0.028C - 46.81 | 0.90 | Wa = 0.0012V + 98.94 | 0.87 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 45.47H - 728.58 | 0.60 | Wt = 0.051C - 40.63 | 0.89 | Wt = 0.0022V + 224.32 | 0.86 | |||
对数模型 Logarithm model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 547.73lnH - 1519.40 | 0.44 | Wb = 250lnC - 1920.30 | 0.55 | Wb = 187.5lnV - 1775.10 | 0.56 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 145.97lnH - 401.71 | 0.35 | Wl = 64.62lnC - 490.61 | 0.41 | Wl = 48.87lnV - 457.58 | 0.43 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 457.85lnH - 1817.50 | 0.47 | Wr = 289.76lnC - 2214.10 | 0.53 | Wr = 220.28lnV - 2076.30 | 0.56 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 693.69lnH - 1921.10 | 0.44 | Wa = 314.62lnC - 2410.9 | 0.55 | Wa = 236.37lnV - 2232.7 | 0.56 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 1298lnH - 3578.50 | 0.47 | Wt = 575.63lnC - 4378.2 | 0.56 | Wt = 435.1lnV - 4081.5 | 0.58 | |||
指数模型 Exponential model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 8.3174e0.075H | 0.56 | Wb = 32.188e7E-05C | 0.59 | Wb = 52.298e3E-06V | 0.40 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 4.5053e0.061H | 0.50 | Wl = 13.075e6E-05C | 0.55 | Wl = 19.174e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 17.132e0.068H | 0.65 | Wr = 64.966e6E-05C | 0.56 | Wr = 95.376e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 13.073e0.071H | 0.56 | Wa = 46.723e7E-05C | 0.60 | Wa = 73.903e2E-06V | 0.42 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 29.69e0.070H | 0.60 | Wt = 109.07e6E-05C | 0.58 | Wt = 166.32e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
幂函数模型 Power function model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 0.0183H2.565 | 0.63 | Wb = 0.0011C1.279 | 0.94 | Wb = 0.0028V0.938 | 0.92 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 0.0408H1.999 | 0.53 | Wl = 0.003C1.039 | 0.86 | Wl = 0.0074V0.754 | 0.82 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 0.0694H2.313 | 0.75 | Wr = 0.0135C1.046 | 0.87 | Wr = 0.0237V0.789 | 0.91 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 0.0418H2.415 | 0.62 | Wa = 0.0027C1.211 | 0.94 | Wa = 0.007V0.886 | 0.92 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 0.0979H2.391 | 0.69 | Wt = 0.0112C1.138 | 0.93 | Wt = 0.0241V0.844 | 0.93 |
表1 砂生槐灌丛各器官生物量回归模型
Table 1 Allometric functions for the biomass of different organs of Sophora moorcroftiana
模型 Model | 器官 Organ | 植株高度 Plant height (cm) | 树冠投影面积 Crown projection area (cm2) | 生物量体积 Biomass volume (cm3) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | 回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | 回归方程 Regression equation | 决定系数 Coefficient of deter- mination (R2) | ||||
线性模型 Linear model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 19.21H - 317.6 | 0.56 | Wb = 0.022C - 40.86 | 0.89 | Wb = 0.0009V + 79.98 | 0.83 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 5.41H - 91.10 | 0.50 | Wl = 0.006C - 5.95 | 0.69 | Wl = 0.0003V + 18.96 | 0.78 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 23.69H - 389.38 | 0.61 | Wr = 0.025C - 5.27 | 0.82 | Wr = 0.0011V + 125.47 | 0.80 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 24.63H - 408.70 | 0.58 | Wa = 0.028C - 46.81 | 0.90 | Wa = 0.0012V + 98.94 | 0.87 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 45.47H - 728.58 | 0.60 | Wt = 0.051C - 40.63 | 0.89 | Wt = 0.0022V + 224.32 | 0.86 | |||
对数模型 Logarithm model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 547.73lnH - 1519.40 | 0.44 | Wb = 250lnC - 1920.30 | 0.55 | Wb = 187.5lnV - 1775.10 | 0.56 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 145.97lnH - 401.71 | 0.35 | Wl = 64.62lnC - 490.61 | 0.41 | Wl = 48.87lnV - 457.58 | 0.43 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 457.85lnH - 1817.50 | 0.47 | Wr = 289.76lnC - 2214.10 | 0.53 | Wr = 220.28lnV - 2076.30 | 0.56 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 693.69lnH - 1921.10 | 0.44 | Wa = 314.62lnC - 2410.9 | 0.55 | Wa = 236.37lnV - 2232.7 | 0.56 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 1298lnH - 3578.50 | 0.47 | Wt = 575.63lnC - 4378.2 | 0.56 | Wt = 435.1lnV - 4081.5 | 0.58 | |||
指数模型 Exponential model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 8.3174e0.075H | 0.56 | Wb = 32.188e7E-05C | 0.59 | Wb = 52.298e3E-06V | 0.40 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 4.5053e0.061H | 0.50 | Wl = 13.075e6E-05C | 0.55 | Wl = 19.174e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 17.132e0.068H | 0.65 | Wr = 64.966e6E-05C | 0.56 | Wr = 95.376e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 13.073e0.071H | 0.56 | Wa = 46.723e7E-05C | 0.60 | Wa = 73.903e2E-06V | 0.42 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 29.69e0.070H | 0.60 | Wt = 109.07e6E-05C | 0.58 | Wt = 166.32e2E-06V | 0.41 | |||
幂函数模型 Power function model | 枝 Branch | Wb = 0.0183H2.565 | 0.63 | Wb = 0.0011C1.279 | 0.94 | Wb = 0.0028V0.938 | 0.92 | ||
叶 Leaf | Wl = 0.0408H1.999 | 0.53 | Wl = 0.003C1.039 | 0.86 | Wl = 0.0074V0.754 | 0.82 | |||
根 Root | Wr = 0.0694H2.313 | 0.75 | Wr = 0.0135C1.046 | 0.87 | Wr = 0.0237V0.789 | 0.91 | |||
地上部分 Aboveground | Wa = 0.0418H2.415 | 0.62 | Wa = 0.0027C1.211 | 0.94 | Wa = 0.007V0.886 | 0.92 | |||
总生物量 Total biomass | Wt = 0.0979H2.391 | 0.69 | Wt = 0.0112C1.138 | 0.93 | Wt = 0.0241V0.844 | 0.93 |
样点 Plot No. | 地上部分生物量 Aboveground biomass | 根生物量 Root biomass | 合计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 小计 Total | |||
1 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.79 | 0.84 ± 0.16 | 1.63 |
2 | 1.07 ± 0.17 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 1.39 | 1.28 ± 0.06 | 2.67 |
3 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.84 | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 1.87 |
4 | 1.46 ± 0.18 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 1.84 | 1.66 ± 0.19 | 3.50 |
5 | 0.72 ± 0.09 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.90 | 1.00 ± 0.06 | 1.90 |
6 | 1.07 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 1.46 | 2.14 ± 0.19 | 3.60 |
7 | 1.34 ± 0.21 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 1.67 | 1.71 ± 0.30 | 3.38 |
8 | 1.58 ± 0.28 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 2.00 | 1.75 ± 0.24 | 3.74 |
9 | 1.63 ± 0.32 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 2.03 | 1.92 ± 0.52 | 3.95 |
10 | 1.59 ± 0.55 | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 1.99 | 2.17 ± 0.66 | 4.16 |
11 | 2.07 ± 0.25 | 0.76 ± 0.08 | 2.83 | 3.06 ± 0.47 | 5.89 |
12 | 1.74 ± 0.14 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 2.22 | 2.32 ± 0.18 | 4.55 |
13 | 1.30 ± 0.32 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 1.65 | 1.78 ± 0.33 | 3.43 |
14 | 2.17 ± 0.09 | 0.64 ± 0.02 | 2.81 | 3.21 ± 0.02 | 6.02 |
15 | 2.92 ± 0.55 | 0.67 ± 0.10 | 3.59 | 4.12 ± 0.90 | 7.71 |
16 | 3.16 ± 0.37 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | 3.87 | 3.35 ± 0.38 | 7.21 |
17 | 1.03 ± 0.13 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 1.34 | 1.05 ± 0.15 | 2.39 |
18 | 2.20 ± 0.38 | 0.57 ± 0.10 | 2.77 | 2.98 ± 0.60 | 5.75 |
平均Mean | 1.57 ± 0.17 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 2.00 | 2.08 ± 0.22 | 4.08 |
表2 砂生槐灌丛灌木层生物量(平均值±标准误差)
Table 2 Biomass (mean ± SE, Mg·hm-2) of the shrub layer of Sophora moorcroftiana communities
样点 Plot No. | 地上部分生物量 Aboveground biomass | 根生物量 Root biomass | 合计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 小计 Total | |||
1 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.79 | 0.84 ± 0.16 | 1.63 |
2 | 1.07 ± 0.17 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 1.39 | 1.28 ± 0.06 | 2.67 |
3 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.84 | 1.03 ± 0.07 | 1.87 |
4 | 1.46 ± 0.18 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 1.84 | 1.66 ± 0.19 | 3.50 |
5 | 0.72 ± 0.09 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.90 | 1.00 ± 0.06 | 1.90 |
6 | 1.07 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 1.46 | 2.14 ± 0.19 | 3.60 |
7 | 1.34 ± 0.21 | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 1.67 | 1.71 ± 0.30 | 3.38 |
8 | 1.58 ± 0.28 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 2.00 | 1.75 ± 0.24 | 3.74 |
9 | 1.63 ± 0.32 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 2.03 | 1.92 ± 0.52 | 3.95 |
10 | 1.59 ± 0.55 | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 1.99 | 2.17 ± 0.66 | 4.16 |
11 | 2.07 ± 0.25 | 0.76 ± 0.08 | 2.83 | 3.06 ± 0.47 | 5.89 |
12 | 1.74 ± 0.14 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 2.22 | 2.32 ± 0.18 | 4.55 |
13 | 1.30 ± 0.32 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 1.65 | 1.78 ± 0.33 | 3.43 |
14 | 2.17 ± 0.09 | 0.64 ± 0.02 | 2.81 | 3.21 ± 0.02 | 6.02 |
15 | 2.92 ± 0.55 | 0.67 ± 0.10 | 3.59 | 4.12 ± 0.90 | 7.71 |
16 | 3.16 ± 0.37 | 0.71 ± 0.05 | 3.87 | 3.35 ± 0.38 | 7.21 |
17 | 1.03 ± 0.13 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 1.34 | 1.05 ± 0.15 | 2.39 |
18 | 2.20 ± 0.38 | 0.57 ± 0.10 | 2.77 | 2.98 ± 0.60 | 5.75 |
平均Mean | 1.57 ± 0.17 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 2.00 | 2.08 ± 0.22 | 4.08 |
样点 Plot No. | 草本层 Herb layer | 凋落物 Litterfall | 合计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上 Aboveground | 地下 Underground | 小计 Total | |||
1 | 0.53 ± 0.36 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.08 ± 0.07 | 0.69 |
2 | 2.93 ± 0.76 | 1.16 ± 0.43 | 4.09 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 4.12 |
3 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.50 ± 0.18 | 1.12 | 0.27 ± 0.12 | 1.39 |
4 | 0.25 ± 0.15 | 0.17 ± 0.12 | 0.42 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.53 |
5 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.93 | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 1.13 |
6 | 1.02 ± 0.91 | 0.81 ± 0.54 | 1.83 | 0.18 ± 0.10 | 2.01 |
7 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.93 | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 1.03 |
8 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.37 | 1.74 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 1.79 |
9 | 2.11 ± 0.41 | 2.81 ± 0.30 | 4.92 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 5.01 |
10 | 0.27 ± 0.07 | 0.13 ± 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.45 |
11 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 0.35 ± 0.13 | 0.48 | 0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.65 |
12 | 0.81 ± 0.17 | 1.07 ± 0.18 | 1.88 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 1.90 |
13 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.44 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.51 |
14 | 0.33 ± 0.11 | 2.17 ± 0.96 | 2.50 | 0.15 ± 0.08 | 2.65 |
15 | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.63 ± 036 | 0.78 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.92 |
16 | 0.26 ± 0.10 | 0.75 ± 0.14 | 1.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 1.03 |
17 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.76 |
18 | 0.70 ± 0.22 | 2.09 ± 0.47 | 2.79 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 2.83 |
平均 Mean | 0.67 ± 0.17 | 0.86 ± 0.18 | 1.53 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 1.63 |
表3 砂生槐灌丛群落草本层及凋落物生物量(平均值±标准误差)
Table 3 Biomass (mean ± SE, Mg·hm-2) of the herb layer and litterfall of Sophora moorcroftiana communities
样点 Plot No. | 草本层 Herb layer | 凋落物 Litterfall | 合计 Total | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上 Aboveground | 地下 Underground | 小计 Total | |||
1 | 0.53 ± 0.36 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.61 | 0.08 ± 0.07 | 0.69 |
2 | 2.93 ± 0.76 | 1.16 ± 0.43 | 4.09 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 4.12 |
3 | 0.62 ± 0.17 | 0.50 ± 0.18 | 1.12 | 0.27 ± 0.12 | 1.39 |
4 | 0.25 ± 0.15 | 0.17 ± 0.12 | 0.42 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.53 |
5 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.93 | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 1.13 |
6 | 1.02 ± 0.91 | 0.81 ± 0.54 | 1.83 | 0.18 ± 0.10 | 2.01 |
7 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.20 | 0.93 | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 1.03 |
8 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.37 | 1.74 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 1.79 |
9 | 2.11 ± 0.41 | 2.81 ± 0.30 | 4.92 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 5.01 |
10 | 0.27 ± 0.07 | 0.13 ± 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.45 |
11 | 0.13 ± 0.06 | 0.35 ± 0.13 | 0.48 | 0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.65 |
12 | 0.81 ± 0.17 | 1.07 ± 0.18 | 1.88 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 1.90 |
13 | 0.17 ± 0.02 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.44 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.51 |
14 | 0.33 ± 0.11 | 2.17 ± 0.96 | 2.50 | 0.15 ± 0.08 | 2.65 |
15 | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.63 ± 036 | 0.78 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.92 |
16 | 0.26 ± 0.10 | 0.75 ± 0.14 | 1.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 1.03 |
17 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.06 | 0.70 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.76 |
18 | 0.70 ± 0.22 | 2.09 ± 0.47 | 2.79 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 2.83 |
平均 Mean | 0.67 ± 0.17 | 0.86 ± 0.18 | 1.53 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 1.63 |
区域 Region | 平均海拔 Mean altitude (m) | 灌木层盖度 Coverage of shrub layer (%) | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 草本层 Herb layer | 凋落物 Litterfall | 合计 Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
东部 Eastern | 3 625 | 23.00a | 1.40a | 0.62a | 0.053a | 2.07a |
西部 Western | 3 900 | 39.88b | 2.49b | 0.46a | 0.039a | 2.98b |
表4 雅江流域中段砂生槐灌丛碳密度东西部差异
Table 4 Difference of carbon density (Mg·hm-2) between east and west regions of Sophora moorcroftiana shrublands in the middle reaches of Yarlung Zangbo River
区域 Region | 平均海拔 Mean altitude (m) | 灌木层盖度 Coverage of shrub layer (%) | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 草本层 Herb layer | 凋落物 Litterfall | 合计 Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
东部 Eastern | 3 625 | 23.00a | 1.40a | 0.62a | 0.053a | 2.07a |
西部 Western | 3 900 | 39.88b | 2.49b | 0.46a | 0.039a | 2.98b |
方法 Method | 灌木层碳密度 Carbon density for shrub layer | 草本层碳密度 Carbon density for herb layer | 凋落物碳密度 Carbon density for litterfall | 合计 Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 根 Root | 小计 Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 小计 Total | ||||
实测法 Actual measurement | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.95 | 1.88 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.54 | 0.047 | 2.48 | |
换算系数0.5 Conversion factor 0.5 | 0.79 | 0.21 | 1.04 | 2.04 | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.77 | 0.051 | 2.85 | |
(误差 Error %) | (6.8) | (10.5) | (9.5) | (8.5) | (36.0) | (43.3) | (42.6) | (8.5) | (14.9) | |
换算系数0.45 Conversion factor 0.45 | 0.71 | 0.19 | 0.93 | 1.83 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.046 | 2.57 | |
(误差 Error %) | (4.1) | (0.0) | (2.1) | (2.7) | (20.0) | (30.0) | (27.8) | (2.1) | (3.6) |
表5 碳密度不同估算方法的误差比较(Mg·hm-2)
Table 5 Comparisons of errors between different methods for the estimation of carbon density (Mg·hm-2)
方法 Method | 灌木层碳密度 Carbon density for shrub layer | 草本层碳密度 Carbon density for herb layer | 凋落物碳密度 Carbon density for litterfall | 合计 Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 根 Root | 小计 Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 小计 Total | ||||
实测法 Actual measurement | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.95 | 1.88 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.54 | 0.047 | 2.48 | |
换算系数0.5 Conversion factor 0.5 | 0.79 | 0.21 | 1.04 | 2.04 | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.77 | 0.051 | 2.85 | |
(误差 Error %) | (6.8) | (10.5) | (9.5) | (8.5) | (36.0) | (43.3) | (42.6) | (8.5) | (14.9) | |
换算系数0.45 Conversion factor 0.45 | 0.71 | 0.19 | 0.93 | 1.83 | 0.30 | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.046 | 2.57 | |
(误差 Error %) | (4.1) | (0.0) | (2.1) | (2.7) | (20.0) | (30.0) | (27.8) | (2.1) | (3.6) |
[1] | Dai L, Jia J, Yu D, Lewis BJ, Zhou L, Zhou W, Zhao W, Jiang L (2013). Effects of climate change on biomass carbon sequestration in old-growth forest ecosystems on Changbai Mountain in Northeast China.Forest Ecology and Management, 300, 106-116. |
[2] | Fu DF (2014). Shrub wood carbon reserve estimation in Tibet Autonomous Region.Central South Forest Inventory and Planning, 33, 4-7. (in Chinese with English abstract)[付达夫 (2014). 西藏自治区灌木林碳储量估算. 中南林业调查规划, 33, 4-7.] |
[3] | Gao Q, Yang XC, Yin CY, Liu Q (2014). Estimation of biomass allocation and carbon density in alpine dwarf shrubs in Ganzi Zangzu Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province, China.Journal of Plant Ecology, 38, 355-365. (in Chinese with English abstract)[高巧, 阳小成, 尹春英, 刘庆 (2014). 四川省甘孜藏族自治州高寒矮灌丛生物量分配及其碳密度的估算. 植物生态学报, 38, 355-365.] |
[4] | Guo QQ, Luo DQ, Fang JP, Ren DZ, Wang ZH, Fu JF (2009). Research status, utilization and protection measures of Sophora moorcroftiana in Tibet. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 24, 98-101. (in Chinese with English abstract)[郭其强, 罗大庆, 方江平, 仁德智, 王贞红, 傅军锋 (2009). 西藏砂生槐的研究现状及其利用与保护对策. 西北林学院学报, 24, 98-101.] |
[5] | Hu HF, Wang ZH, Liu GH, Fu BJ (2006). Vegetation carbon storage of major shrublands in China.Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 30, 539-544. (in Chinese with English abstract)[胡会峰, 王志恒, 刘国华, 傅伯杰 (2006). 中国主要灌丛植被碳储量. 植物生态学报, 30, 539-544.] |
[6] | Keeling HC, Phillips OL (2007). The global relationship between forest productivity and biomass.Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16, 618-631. |
[7] | Li HD, Shen WS, She GH, Sun M, Yuan L, Lin NF (2011). Population structure and point pattern of Sophora moor- croftiana in Tibet. Journal of Desert Research, 31, 1443-1448. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李海东, 沈渭寿, 佘光辉, 孙明, 袁磊, 林乃峰 (2011). 西藏砂生槐种群结构与点格局分析. 中国沙漠, 31, 1443-1448.] |
[8] | Li YN, Yu XF, Xu ZQ, Liu LL, Yao WX, Wang L (2014). Carbon density characteristics of two typical shrub communities in the northern mountain region of Hebei.Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 50(6), 28-33. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李亚男, 虞晓凡, 许中旗, 刘乐乐, 姚卫星, 王丽 (2014). 冀北山地2种典型灌丛的碳密度特征. 林业科学, 50(6), 28-33.] |
[9] | Li YN, Zhao L, Wang QX, Du MY, Gu S, Xu SX, Zang FW, Zhao XQ (2006). Estimation of biomass and annual turnover quantities of Potentilla froticosa shrub. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 14, 72-76. (in Chinese with English abstract)[李英年, 赵亮, 王勤学, 杜明远, 古松, 徐世晓, 张发伟, 赵新全 (2006). 高寒金露梅灌丛生物量及年周转量. 草地学报, 14, 72-76.] |
[10] | Liang B, Di L, Zhao CY, Peng SZ, Peng HH, Wang C (2013). Spatial distribution of aboveground biomass of shrubs in Tianlaochi catchment of the Qilian Mountains.Chinese. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 367-373. (in Chinese with English abstract)[梁倍, 邸利, 赵传燕, 彭守璋, 彭焕华, 王超 (2013). 祁连山天老池流域灌丛地上生物量空间分布. 应用生态学报, 25, 367-373.] |
[11] | Liu GH, Zhang JY, Zhang YX, Zhou JY, Guan WB, Ma KM, Fu BJ (2003). Distribution regulation of aboveground biomass of three main shrub types in the dry valley of Minjiang River.Journal of Mountain Science, 21, 24-32. (in Chinese with English abstract)[刘国华, 张洁瑜, 张育新, 周建云, 关文彬, 马克明, 傅伯杰 (2003). 岷江干旱河谷三种主要灌丛地上生物量的分布规律. 山地学报, 21, 24-32.] |
[12] | Lü CQ, Sun SC (2004). A review on the distribution patterns of carbon density in density in terrestrial ecosystems.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 28, 692-703. (in Chinese with English abstract)[吕超群, 孙书存 (2004). 陆地生态系统碳密度格局研究概述. 植物生态学报, 28, 692-703.] |
[13] | Montane F, Rovira P, Casals P (2007). Shrub encroachment into mesic mountain grasslands in the Iberian peninsula: Effects of plant quality and temperature on soil C and N stocks.Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 21, 1-10. |
[14] | Peng YM (1997). Study on sand fixation effect of Sophora moorcroftiana in Yaluzangbu river middle valley, Tibet. Forestry Science and Technology, 22, 6-8. (in Chinese with English abstract)[彭跃明 (1997). 西藏雅鲁藏布江中部流域砂生槐固沙作用研究. 林业科技, 22, 6-8.] |
[15] | Piao SL, Fang JY, Ciais P, Peylin P, Huang Y, Sitch S, Wang T (2009). The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China.Nature, 458, 1009-1014. |
[16] | Piao SL, Fang JY, Huang Y (2010). The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China.China Basic Science, 12, 20-22. (in Chinese with English abstract)[朴世龙, 方精云, 黄耀 (2010). 中国陆地生态系统碳收支. 中国基础科学, 12, 20-22.] |
[17] | Song YC (2001). Vegetation Ecology. East China Normal University Press, Shanghai. 353-422. (in Chinese)[宋永昌 (2001). 植被生态学. 华东师范大学出版社, 上海. 353-422.] |
[18] | Sturm M, Racine C, Tape K (2001). Increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic.Nature, 411, 546-547. |
[19] | Sun X (2010). Study on Community Structure and Biomass of Xizang Sophora moorcroftiana. Master degree disserta- tion, Agricultural and Animal Husbandry College of Tibet University, Linzhi, Xizang. (in Chinese with English abstract)[孙旭 (2010). 西藏砂生槐群落结构与生物量研究. 硕士学位论文, 西藏大学农牧学院, 西藏林芝.] |
[20] | The Editorial Committee of Vegetation Map of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2001). 1:1000000 Vegetation Atlas of China. Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)[中国科学院中国植被图编辑委员会 (2001). 1:1000000中国植被图集. 科学出版社, 北京.] |
[21] | Wang L (2009). Study of Biomass and Its Models of Main Shrub Community Type in Northwest Sichuan. Master degree dissertation, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya’an, Sichuan. (in Chinese with English abstract)[王玲 (2009). 川西北地区主要灌丛类型生物量及其模型研究. 硕士学位论文, 四川农业大学, 四川雅安.] |
[22] | Wang QJ, Zhou XM, Zhang YQ, Zhao XQ (1991). Structure characteristics and biomass of Potentilla froticosa shrub in Qinghai Plateau. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 11, 333-340. (in Chinese with English abstract)[王启基, 周兴民, 张堰青, 赵新全 (1991). 青藏高原金露梅灌丛的结构特征及其生物量. 西北植物学报, 11, 333-340.] |
[23] | Wang WJ, He DH, Tang XQ, Gong WF (2011). Effects of different temperature and sand burial depths on seed germination seedling growth ofSophora moorcroftiana. Journal of Desert Research, 31, 1437-1442. (in Chinese with English abstract)[王文娟, 贺达汉, 唐小琴, 巩文峰 (2011). 不同温度和沙埋深度对砂生槐种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 中国沙漠, 31, 1437-1442.] |
[24] | Wang YJ, Huang CD, Zhang J, Yang WQ, Wang XS (2010). Species diversity, biomass and their relationship of shrubberies in an arid valley of the Minjiang River.Arid Zone Research, 27, 567-572. (in Chinese with English abstract)[王勇军, 黄从德, 张健, 杨万勤, 王宪帅 (2010). 岷江干旱河谷灌丛物种多样性、生物量及其关系. 干旱区研究, 27, 567-572.] |
[25] | Wu SH, Yin YH, Zheng D, Yang QY (2005). Climate changes in the Tibetan Plateau during the last three decades.Acta Geographica Sinica, 60, 3-11. (in Chinese with English abstract)[吴绍洪, 尹云鹤, 郑度, 杨勤业 (2005). 青藏高原近30年气候变化趋势, 地理学报, 60, 3-11.] |
[26] | Yang ZG, Tang XP, Lu HY, Ma PF, Hong JC (2013). The hanges of potential evapotranspiration over Yarlung Zangbo River Basin during 1961-2010.Acta Geographica Sinica, 68, 1263-1268. (in Chinese with English abstract)[杨志刚, 唐小萍, 路红亚, 马鹏飞, 洪建昌 (2013). 近50年雅鲁藏布江流域潜在蒸散量的变化特征. 地理学报, 68, 1263-1268.] |
[27] | Yang ZP, Shen WS, Sun M, Sun J, Li HD (2011). Structural characteristics ofSophora moorcroftiana community on wind-sandy land in middle reaches of Yaluzangbu River. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 1121-1126. (in Chinese with English abstract)[杨兆平, 沈渭寿, 孙明, 孙俊, 李海东 (2011). 雅鲁藏布江中游河谷风沙化土地砂生槐群落结构特征. 应用生态学报, 21, 1121-1126.] |
[28] | Yin YH, Wu SH, Zhao DS (2013). Past and future spatiotemporal changes in evapotranspiration and effective moisture on the Tibetan Plateau.Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 118, 10850-10860. |
[29] | Zhao KT, Yang XL, Ma HP, Zhang XJ (2013). Analyses on community characteristics and soil microorganism dynamics during ecological restoration ofSophora moorcroftiana in the semi-arid valley of Lhasa. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 49(2), 25-20. (in Chinese with English abstract)[赵垦田, 杨小林, 马和平, 张新军 (2013). 拉萨半干旱河谷砂生槐灌丛生态恢复过程的群落特征与土壤微生物动态分析. 林业科学, 49(2), 25-20.] |
[30] | Zhao WZ (1998). A preliminary study on the arenaceous adaptability ofSophora moorcroftiana. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 22, 379-384. (in Chinese with English abstract)[赵文智 (1998). 砂生槐沙生适应性初步研究. 植物生态学报, 22, 379-384.] |
[1] | 岑宇, 王成栋, 张震, 任侠, 刘美珍, 杨帆. 河北省天然草地生物量和碳密度空间分布格局[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(3): 265-276. |
[2] | 杨昊天, 王增如, 贾荣亮. 腾格里沙漠东南缘荒漠草地不同群落类型土壤有机碳分布及储量特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(3): 288-296. |
[3] | 闫宝龙, 王忠武, 屈志强, 王静, 韩国栋. 围封对内蒙古典型草原与荒漠草原植被-土壤系统碳密度的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(3): 327-336. |
[4] | 李茜, 王芳, 曹扬, 彭守璋, 陈云明. 陕西省森林土壤固碳特征及其影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(9): 953-963. |
[5] | 杨路存, 李长斌, 宁祎, 聂秀青, 徐文华, 周国英. 青海高寒金露梅灌丛碳密度及其分配格局[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(1): 62-70. |
[6] | 赵玮, 胡中民, 杨浩, 张雷明, 郭群, 乌志颜, 刘德义, 李胜功. 浑善达克沙地榆树疏林和小叶杨人工林碳密度特征及其与林龄的关系[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 318-326. |
[7] | 汲玉河, 郭柯, 倪健, 徐小牛, 王志高, 王树东. 安徽省森林碳储量现状及固碳潜力[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 395-404. |
[8] | 李银, 陈国科, 林敦梅, 陈彬, 高雷明, 简兴, 杨波, 徐武兵, 苏宏新, 赖江山, 王希华, 杨海波, 马克平. 浙江省森林生态系统碳储量及其分布特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 354-363. |
[9] | 许文强, 杨辽, 陈曦, 高亚琪, 王蕾. 天山森林生态系统碳储量格局及其影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 364-373. |
[10] | 黄晓琼, 辛存林, 胡中民, 李钢铁, 张铜会, 赵玮, 杨浩, 张雷明, 郭群, 岳永杰, 高润宏, 乌志颜, 闫志刚, 刘新平, 李玉强, 李胜功. 内蒙古森林生态系统碳储量及其空间分布[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 327-340. |
[11] | 杨怀, 李意德, 任海, 骆土寿, 陈仁利, 刘文杰, 陈德祥, 许涵, 周璋, 林明献, 杨秋, 姚海荣, 周国逸. 海南岛热带原始森林主要分布区土壤有机碳密度及影响因素[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 292-303. |
[12] | 关晋宏, 杜盛, 程积民, 吴春荣, 李国庆, 邓磊, 张建国, 何秋月, 时伟宇. 甘肃省森林碳储量现状与固碳速率[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 304-317. |
[13] | 范春楠, 韩士杰, 郭忠玲, 郑金萍, 程岩. 吉林省森林植被固碳现状与速率[J]. 植物生态学报, 2016, 40(4): 341-353. |
[14] | 黄宗胜, 喻理飞, 符裕红, 杨瑞. 茂兰退化喀斯特森林植被自然恢复中生态系统碳吸存特征[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(6): 554-564. |
[15] | 胡海清, 罗碧珍, 魏书精, 魏书威, 孙龙, 罗斯生, 马洪斌. 小兴安岭7种典型林型林分生物量碳密度与固碳能力[J]. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(2): 140-158. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2022 版权所有 《植物生态学报》编辑部
地址: 北京香山南辛村20号, 邮编: 100093
Tel.: 010-62836134, 62836138; Fax: 010-82599431; E-mail: apes@ibcas.ac.cn, cjpe@ibcas.ac.cn
备案号: 京ICP备16067583号-19