车八岭山地常绿阔叶林冰灾后林木受损的生态学评估

doi:10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.02.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

从植物生态学的角度对2008年初南方冻雨冰雪灾害对典型的亚热带山地常绿阔叶林造成的损害情况做了研究。对12个优势种和亚优势种的受灾情况做了对比分析, 对不同径级和不同地形因子下林木抵抗冻雨灾害的差异做了对比。统计检验结果显示林木受损程度存在显著的种间差异、径级差异和地形级差异。优势种米槠(Castanopsis carlesii)比多数亚优势种受害更严重; 各树种抗冻雨灾害能力以山茶科和樟科的种较强, 而壳斗科的多个种, 如米槠、栲(C. fargesii)受灾较为严重; 林木的受损比例随着胸径(diameter at breast height, DBH)增加而增大; 在未受灾的各级林木中, 超过70%的个体集中在最小一级径阶(1-5 cm)。χ²检验显示坡度、坡向、坡位等地形因子对林木受损状况有显著的影响, 随着坡位上升, 林木受损程度逐渐加重, 上坡位的林木受损比例最大, 下坡位最小, 这可能与随着坡位升高, 迎风面降温效果更迅速有关。对于坡向和坡度而言, 位于半阳坡的林木受灾比例显著高于半阴坡, 位于坡度级III (15°-25°)、IV (25°-35°)、V (35°-45°)上的林木受灾最严重。该研究结果对于亚热带常绿阔叶林的保育和应对未来可能再次发生的冰雪灾害有重要意义; 同时对于森林恢复和演替、乡土阔叶树种的选育及森林经营等方面的研究和应用也有重要的参考价值。

关键词: 车八岭国家级自然保护区, 受损等级, 冰雪灾害, 山地常绿阔叶林, 地形因子

Abstract:

Aims The forest ecosystem of north Guangdong Province, China was severely damaged by a freezing rain and ice storm in early 2008. Our aim is to assess tree damage and factors that influence it in a subtropical montane evergreen broadleaved forest.

Methods A 2-hm² plot was set up in the storm-damaged montane evergreen broadleaved forest in Chebaling National Nature Reserve. The plot was divided into 50 subplots, each 400 m², for sampling and measurement of plants and environmental factors. Damages to individual trees were recorded by visual estimation and then translated into a 0-6 scale of damage class. We compared the severity of damage for 12 dominant and co-dominant species. We also assessed variations in tree abundance in different diameter at breast height (DBH) classes and topographic regimes.

Important findings Significant variations in tree damage existed among species, DBH classes and topographic positions. Species of Theaceae and Lauraceae were more resistant to storm damage than species of other families. Most damaged were species of Fagaceae, such as Castanopsis fargesii and the dominant C. carlesii, which was more severely damaged than most co-dominant species. The proportion of damaged trees increased with DBH, with > 70% of the undamaged individuals being concentrated in the smallest DBH class (1-5 cm). χ² test indicated that topographic factors, i.e., slope inclination, aspect and position, had significant effects on the severity of tree damage. Trees on the upslope position were more susceptible to damage than those on the downslope or midslope positions, which might be due to increased cooling by wind on the upper slope. For slope aspects, semi-sunny slopes generally had a significantly higher proportion of damaged trees than semi-shady slopes. For slope inclination, the highest proportion of severely damaged trees was on slope classes of 15°-25°, 25°-35° and 35°-45°. Findings have significant implications for conservation of subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest, protection of forests from possible future damage by ice storms and forest management.

Key words: Chebaling National Nature Reserve, damage class, ice storm, montane evergreen broad-leaved forest, topographic factor

苏志尧, 刘刚, 区余端, 戴朝晖, 李镇魁. 车八岭山地常绿阔叶林冰灾后林木受损的生态学评估. 植物生态学报, 2010, 34(2): 213-222. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.02.013

SU Zhi-Yao, LIU Gang, OU Yu-Duan, DAI Zhao-Hui, LI Zhen-Kui. Storm damage in a montane evergreen broadleaved forest of Chebaling National Nature Reserve, South China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2010, 34(2): 213-222. DOI: 10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.02.013

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.3773/j.issn.1005-264x.2010.02.013

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2010/V34/I2/213

图/表 5

参考文献 41

[1]	Achim A, Ruel JC, Gardiner BA, Laﬂamme G, Meunier S (2005). Modelling the vulnerability of balsam fir forests to wind damage. Forest Ecology and Management, 204, 35-50.
[2]	Attiwill PM (1994). The disturbance of forest ecosystems, the ecological basis for conservative management. Forest Ecology and Management, 63, 247-300. DOI URL
[3]	Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ (2000). Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. The Science of the Total Environment, 262, 263-286. URL PMID
[4]	Beaudet M, Brisson J, Messier C, Gravel D (2007). Effect of a major ice storm on understory light conditions in an old-growth Acer-Fagus forest: pattern of recovery over seven years. Forest Ecology and Management, 242, 553-557. DOI URL
[5]	Cai DS (蔡达深), Song XG (宋相金) (2005). Bio-resource and protection countermeasure in National Reserve of Chebaling in Guangdong Province. Ecologic Science (生态科学), 24, 282-285. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	Canham CD, Papaik MJ, Latty EF (2001). Interspecific variation in susceptibility to windthrow as a function of tree size and storm severity for northern temperate tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31, 1-10.
[7]	Chhetri DBK, Fowler GW (1996). Prediction models for estimating total heights of trees from diameter at breast height measurements in Nepal’s lower temperate broad-leaved forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 84, 177-186. DOI URL
[8]	Evans AM, Camp AE, Tyrrell ML, Riely CC (2007). Biotic and abiotic inﬂuences on wind disturbance in forests of NW Pennsylvania, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 245, 44-53. DOI URL
[9]	Fang ZX, Bailey RL (1998). Height-diameter models for tropical forests on Hainan Island in southern China. Forest Ecology and Management, 110, 315-327.
[10]	Feldpausch TR, Jirka S, Passos CAM, Jasper F, Riha SJ (2005). When big trees fall, damage and carbon export by reduced impact logging in southern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 219, 199-215.
[11]	Foster DR, Boose ER (1992). Patterns of forest damage resulting from catastrophic wind in central New England, USA. Journal of Ecology, 80, 79-98.
[12]	Franklin JF, Spies TA, Pelt RV, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen JQ (2002). Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-ﬁr forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management, 155, 399-423.
[13]	Gardiner BA, Quine CP (2000). Management of forests to reduce the risk of abiotic damage-A review with particular reference to the effects of strong winds. Forest Ecology and Management, 135, 261-277.
[14]	Hauer RJ, Hruska MC, Dawson JO (1994). Trees and ice storms: the development of ice storm-resistant urban tree populations. Special Publication, 94-1, Department of Forestry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana. IL 61801.1-12. http://web.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/pdfpubs/ICESTORM.PDF. Cited 20 Dec. 2008.
[15]	Holmes TP, Blate GM, Zweede JC, Pereira JR, Barreto P, Boltz F, Bauch R (2002). Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 163, 93-110.
[16]	Hooper MC, Arii K, Lechowicz MJ (2001). Impact of a major ice storm on an old-growth hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Botany, 79, 70-75. DOI URL
[17]	Hopkin A, Williams T, Sajan R, Pedlar J, Nielsen C (2003). Ice storm damage to eastern Ontario forests: 1998-2001. The Forestry Chronicle, 79, 47-53. DOI URL
[18]	Irland LC (2000). Ice storms and forest impacts. The Science of the Total Environment, 262, 231-242. URL PMID
[19]	Jiang ZH (江泽慧) (2008). Analysis of damage loss to forestry by freezing rain and ice storm in south China and countermeasures for precautions. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry (中国城市林业), 6(1), 6-8. (in Chinese)
[20]	Kramer MG, Hansen AJ, Taper ML, Kissinger EJ (2001). Abiotic controls on long-term windthrow disturbance and temperate rain forest dynamics in southeast Alaska. Ecology, 82, 2749-2768.
[21]	Lawson BD (2003). Trends in blizzards at selected locations in the Canadian prairies. Natural Hazards, 29, 123-138.
[22]	Lemon PC (1961). Forest ecology of ice storms. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 88, 21-29.
[23]	Lindemann JD, Baker WL (2001). Attributes of blowdown patches from a severe wind event in the Southern Rocky Mountains, USA. Landscape Ecology, 16, 313-325.
[24]	Lu SW (鲁绍伟), Liu FQ (刘凤芹), Yu XX (余新晓), Fan JS (樊金柱), Zhang ZM (张振明), Chen JQ (陈峻崎), Zhao GL (赵广亮) (2006). Health assessment of forest ecosystem in Badaling Forest Center. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 20(3), 79-105. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	Nielsen C, van Dyke O, Pedlar J (2003). Effects of past management on ice storm damage in hardwood stands in eastern Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle, 79, 70-74.
[26]	O’Hare G (1999). Global warming and extreme weather: a cautionary note. Geography, 84, 87-91.
[27]	Parker WC (2003). The effect of ice damage and post-damage fertilization and competition control on understory microclimate of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) stands. The Forestry Chronicle, 79, 82-90.
[28]	Peltola H, Kellomäki S, Hassinen A, Granader M (2000). Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: an analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 135, 143-153.
[29]	Peterson CJ (2000a). Damage and recovery of tree species after two different tornadoes in the same old growth forest: a comparison of infrequent wind disturbances. Forest Ecology and Management, 135, 237-252.
[30]	Peterson CJ (2000b). Catastrophic wind damage to North American forests and the potential impact of climate change. The Science of the Total Environment, 262, 287-311. DOI URL PMID
[31]	Qi J (祁建), Ma KM (马克明), Zhang YX (张育新) (2008). Comparisons on leaf traits of Quercus liaotungensis Koidz on different slope positions in Dongling Moutain of Beijing. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 28, 122-128. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	Siipilehto J (2009). Modelling stand structure in young Scots pine dominated stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 223-232.
[33]	Tang GA (汤国安), Song J (宋佳) (2006). Comparison of slope classification methods in slope mapping from DEMs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (水土保持学报), 20(2), 157-160, 192. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	Tremblay M, Messier C, Marceau DJ (2005). Analysis of deciduous tree species dynamics after a severe ice storm using SORTIE model simulations. Ecological Modelling, 187, 297-313.
[35]	Turner MG, Baker WL, Peterson CJ, Peet RK (1998). Factors influencing succession: lessons from large, infrequent natural disturbances. Ecosystems, 1, 511-523.
[36]	Turner MG, Dale VH (1998). Comparing large, infrequent disturbances: What have we learned? Ecosystems, 1, 493-496. DOI URL
[37]	Weishampel JF, Drake JB, Cooper A, Blair JB, Hofton M (2007). Forest canopy recovery from the 1938 hurricane and subsequent salvage damage measured with airborne LiDAR. Remote Sensing of Environment, 109, 142-153. DOI URL
[38]	Xu YQ (徐燕千) (1993). A comprehensive report of surveys in Chebaling National Nature Reserve. In: Xu YQ (徐燕千) ed. A Collection of Research Papers on the Investigation of Chebaling National Nature Reserve (车八岭国家级自然保护区调查研究论文集), Guangdong Science and Technology Press, Guangzhou. 1-8. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	Zhang CP (张翠萍), Niu JM (牛建明), Dong JJ (董建军), Li M (李民) (2006). Vegetation mapping and spatial pattern analysis using IKONOS data: a case study in the Wufendigou area. Acta Ecologica Sinica (生态学报), 26, 449-456. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[40]	Zhou HR (周惠荣) (2006). Preliminary discussion on intimate natural management of plantations in Yunnan. Forest Inventory and Planning (林业调查规划), 31(3), 145-147. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[41]	Zhu LK (祝列克) (2008). Impact of serious disaster on forestry and ideas of restoration and reconstruction. Forestry Economics (林业经济), (3), 3-7. (in Chinese with English abstract)

受损等级 Damage class	分级描述 Description	分级标准 Grouping criterion
0	未受损 Undamaged	树冠完整没有破坏或者受破坏极不明显 Complete crown and undamaged
1	树冠轻度受损 Very slight crown damage	树冠损坏量<11% <11% crown damage
2	树冠中度受损 Moderate crown damage	树冠损坏量介于11%- 50% 11%-50% crown damage
3	树冠严重受损 Severe crown damage	树冠损坏量>50% >50% crown damage
4	倾斜弯曲 Trunk bent or lean	树干压弯或者倾斜, 但为活树 Trunk bent or lean but alive
5	折干枯死 Trunk broken and dead	树干折断或者枯立木 Trunk broken or snag
6	翻蔸 Uprooted	翻蔸或者树干基部折断 Uprooted or broken at base

受损等级 Damage class	分级描述 Description	分级标准 Grouping criterion
0	未受损 Undamaged	树冠完整没有破坏或者受破坏极不明显 Complete crown and undamaged
1	树冠轻度受损 Very slight crown damage	树冠损坏量<11% <11% crown damage
2	树冠中度受损 Moderate crown damage	树冠损坏量介于11%- 50% 11%-50% crown damage
3	树冠严重受损 Severe crown damage	树冠损坏量>50% >50% crown damage
4	倾斜弯曲 Trunk bent or lean	树干压弯或者倾斜, 但为活树 Trunk bent or lean but alive
5	折干枯死 Trunk broken and dead	树干折断或者枯立木 Trunk broken or snag
6	翻蔸 Uprooted	翻蔸或者树干基部折断 Uprooted or broken at base

受损等级 Damage class	径级DBH class				总个体数 No. of stems	平均胸径¹⁾ Mean DBH (cm)	受损比例²⁾ Proportion of damaged stems (%)
受损等级 Damage class	I 1-5 cm	II 5-15 cm	III 15-45 cm	IV >45 cm	总个体数 No. of stems	平均胸径¹⁾ Mean DBH (cm)	受损比例²⁾ Proportion of damaged stems (%)
0	2 281	592	298	37	3 208	6.32 ± 0.16^a	-
1	27	11	3	1	42	7.46 ± 1.78^a	3.49
2	30	40	77	22	169	23.85 ± 1.70^b	14.05
3	30	88	92	2	212	16.00 ± 0.94^c	17.62
4	157	169	130	15	471	12.83 ± 0.58^d	39.15
5	70	132	58	1	261	10.72 ± 0.53^d	21.70
6	5	15	26	2	48	18.26 ± 1.69^c	3.99
合计 Total	2 600	1 047	684	80	4 411
未受损个体比例 Proportion of undamaged stems (%)	87.73	56.54	43.57	46.25	72.73
受损个体总数 No. of damaged stems	319	455	386	43	1 203
受损个体比例 Proportion of damaged stems (%)	12.27	43.46	56.43	53.75	27.27

受损等级 Damage class	径级DBH class				总个体数 No. of stems	平均胸径¹⁾ Mean DBH (cm)	受损比例²⁾ Proportion of damaged stems (%)
受损等级 Damage class	I 1-5 cm	II 5-15 cm	III 15-45 cm	IV >45 cm	总个体数 No. of stems	平均胸径¹⁾ Mean DBH (cm)	受损比例²⁾ Proportion of damaged stems (%)
0	2 281	592	298	37	3 208	6.32 ± 0.16^a	-
1	27	11	3	1	42	7.46 ± 1.78^a	3.49
2	30	40	77	22	169	23.85 ± 1.70^b	14.05
3	30	88	92	2	212	16.00 ± 0.94^c	17.62
4	157	169	130	15	471	12.83 ± 0.58^d	39.15
5	70	132	58	1	261	10.72 ± 0.53^d	21.70
6	5	15	26	2	48	18.26 ± 1.69^c	3.99
合计 Total	2 600	1 047	684	80	4 411
未受损个体比例 Proportion of undamaged stems (%)	87.73	56.54	43.57	46.25	72.73
受损个体总数 No. of damaged stems	319	455	386	43	1 203
受损个体比例 Proportion of damaged stems (%)	12.27	43.46	56.43	53.75	27.27

地形因子 Topographic factor	受损等级 Damage class
地形因子 Topographic factor	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
坡向 Aspect (I: 半阴坡 Semi-shaded aspect; II: 半阳坡 Semi-sunny aspect)
I	1 638 (51.06)	15 (35.71)	73 (43.20)	78 (36.79)	198 (42.04)	83 (31.80)	27 (56.25)
II	1 570 (48.94)	27 (64.29)	96 (58.80)	134 (63.21)	273 (57.96)	178 (68.20)	21 (43.75)
坡位 Slope position (I: 上坡 Upper slope; II: 中坡 Middle slope; III: 下坡 Lower slope)
I	1 038 (32.36)	24 (57.14)	78 (46.15)	122 (57.55)	165 (35.03)	142 (54.41)	14 (29.17)
II	1 030 (32.11)	12 (28.57)	49 (28.99)	54 (25.47)	154 (32.70)	70 (26.82)	25 (52.08)
III	1 140 (35.53)	6 (14.29)	42 (24.85)	36 (16.98)	152 (32.27)	49 (18.77)	9 (18.75)
坡度 Slope degree (I: 0°-5°; II: 5°-15°; III: 15°-25°; IV: 25°-35°; V: 35°-45°; VI: > 45°)
I	81 (2.52)	2 (4.76)	4 (2.37)	7 (3.30)	11 (2.34)	7 (2.68)	1 (2.08)
II	93 (2.90)	4 (9.52)	10 (5.92)	7 (3.30)	9 (1.91)	16 (6.13)	1 (2.08)
III	186 (5.80)	2 (4.76)	12 (7.10)	14 (6.60)	45 (9.55)	17 (6.51)	1 (2.08)
IV	1 733 (54.02)	19 (45.24)	86 (50.89)	112 (52.83)	246 (52.23)	151 (57.85)	18 (37.50)
V	1 077 (33.56)	15 (35.71)	55 (32.54)	71 (33.49)	159 (33.76)	69 (26.44)	26 (54.17)
VI	38 (1.18)	0 (0)	2 (1.18)	1 (0.47)	1 (0.21)	1 (0.38)	1 (2.08)