植物生态学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 554-564.DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0053
收稿日期:
2014-08-12
接受日期:
2015-05-20
出版日期:
2015-06-01
发布日期:
2015-07-02
通讯作者:
喻理飞
作者简介:
*作者简介: E-mail:
基金资助:
HUANG Zong-Sheng1, YU Li-Fei2,*(), FU Yu-Hong3, YANG Rui4
Received:
2014-08-12
Accepted:
2015-05-20
Online:
2015-06-01
Published:
2015-07-02
Contact:
Li-Fei YU
About author:
# Co-first authors
摘要:
为了了解退化喀斯特森林自然恢复中生态系统碳吸存趋势, 采用空间代替时间的方法, 研究了茂兰退化喀斯特森林自然恢复中生态系统碳吸存特征。结果表明: 总体上植被生物量随恢复进程递增, 其中乔木层与其变化一致, 草本层、灌木层则相反; 喀斯特植被的地上与地下生物量之比较低, 尤其灌木层的地上与地下生物量之比最低; 加权平均含碳率随恢复进展递增; 随恢复进程, 植被乔木层碳密度递增, 草本层、灌木层碳密度递减; 总体上生态系统及其植被、土壤的碳密度由恢复早期(草本阶段、草灌阶段)经中期(灌木阶段、灌乔阶段)至后期(乔木阶段、顶极阶段)呈增加趋势, 而凋落物的相反。在贵州茂兰国家级自然保护区喀斯特森林的恢复进程中, 植被对生态系统碳库的影响最大, 尤其是木本植被, 而土壤的影响较小, 因此, 加强植被恢复对喀斯特地区生态系统碳汇具有极重要的意义。
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. 植物生态学报, 2015, 39(6): 554-564. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0053
HUANG Zong-Sheng,YU Li-Fei,FU Yu-Hong,YANG Rui. Characteristics of carbon sequestration during natural restoration of Maolan karst forest ecosystems. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2015, 39(6): 554-564. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2015.0053
恢复阶段Restoration stage | 坡度和海拔Slope and elevation | 坡向 Aspect | 植被特征 Vegetation characteristics | 优势种 Dominant species | 岩石裸露率 Bare rock (%) | 生境 Habitat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
草本阶段Herb stage | 30°-40°, 840 m | NW | 群落层次只有草本层, 高约1.0 m, 盖度达80%以上, 有极少数先锋树种, 地上覆盖有3-6 cm枯枝落叶层。 The vertical structure of the community has an herb layer with height of 1.0 m and coverage of more than 80%. There are a handful of pioneer trees. The thickness of litter layer is 3-6 cm on the ground. | 密毛蕨 Pteridium revolutum, 白茅Imperata cylindrical var. major, 金丝草Pogonatherum crinitum, 三毛草 Trisetum bifidum | 77.52 | 土面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, crevice, gully |
草灌阶段Herb to shrub stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 群落层次一层, 由草本和灌木共同组成, 盖度达80%以上, 草本、灌木盖度约各占一半, 高度1.5-2.0 m, 地表有少量藤刺, 群落下覆盖有2-5 cm枯枝落叶层。 The vertical structure of the community has only a single layer, which was dominated by shrubs and herbs. The mean height and coverage of community are 1.5-2.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The coverage of community is about equally divided into shrub and herb. There are a small amount of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer is 2-5 cm. | 盐肤木 Rhus chinensis, 野牡丹 Mlastoma candidum, 腊莲绣球 Hydrangea strigosa, 算盘子 Glochidion puberum, 密毛蕨Pteridium revolutum,白茅 Imperata cylindrical var. major, 金丝草 Pogonatherum crinitum | 75.61 | 土面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, crevice, gully |
灌木阶段Shrub stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 林分垂直结构单一, 无或有少量乔木, 主要以灌木层为主, 高度2.0-4.0 m, 覆盖度达80%以上, 地表有较多藤刺, 林下覆盖的枯枝落叶层2-4 cm。 The vertical structure of the stand is simple and dominated by the shrub layer, without tree layer or with a small amount of trees. The mean height and coverage of shrub layer are 2.0-4.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. There are a lot of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer was 2-4 cm on forest-floor. | 火棘 Pyracantha fortuneana, 南天竹Nandina domestica, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 齿叶铁仔 Myrsine semiserrata, 齿叶黄皮Clausena dunniana, 榔榆 Ulmus parvifolia | 73.22 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
灌乔阶段Shrub to arbor stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 林分层次结构分化, 乔木层高7.0-12.0 m, 木本植物盖度达80%以上; 林下草本盖度较低, 地表有较多藤刺, 林下枯枝落叶层厚3-5 cm。 The stand structure is stratified with mean height of the tree layer varying between 7.0 and 12.0 m, and the coverage of woody plants at more than 80%. The coverage of herb layer is low. There are a lot of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer is 3-5 cm on forest-floor. | 圆果化香树 Platycarya longipes, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 天峨槭 Acer wangchii, 鸡仔木 Sinoadina racemosa, 川钓樟 Lindera pulcherima var. hemsleyana, 青冈Cyclobalanopsis glauca | 73.94 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
乔木阶段Arbor stage | 30°-40°, 840 m | SW | 层次结构分化明显, 乔木层、灌木层比较发达, 乔木层高14.0-18.0 m, 乔木层覆盖达80%以上; 灌木层高2.0-3.0 m, 盖度10%, 地表有少量藤刺、蕨类、地衣苔藓等分布, 林下枯枝落叶层厚1-3 cm。 The stand structure is clearly stratified, with well-developed tree layer and shrub layer. The mean tree height and coverage of tree layer are 14.0-18.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The shrub layer has a coverage of 10% and height of 2.0-3.0 m. The land is covered by a small amount of thorns, ferns, lichens and mosses, and the thickness of litter layer is 1-3 cm on forest-floor. | 光皮梾木 Swida wilsoniana, 黔桂润楠Machilus chienkweiensis, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 翅荚香槐 Cladrastis platycarpa,南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris, 短萼海桐 Pittosporum brevicalyx | 72.81 | 土面、石面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, rocky flatland, crevice, gully |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 30°-40°, 850 m | SW | 层次结构完整, 乔木层、灌木层和草本层植物之间分化清晰, 以乔木林为主, 高15.0-20.0 m, 乔木层覆盖率达80%以上; 灌木层高4.0-7.0 m, 盖度10%-20%; 林下覆盖有1-3 cm枯枝落叶层。 The stand structure is complete and clearly divided into tree layer, shrub layer and herb layer, with dominance of the tree layer. The mean tree height and coverage of the tree layer are 15.0-20.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The height of shrub layer has a coverage of 10%-20% and height of 4.0-7.0 m. The thickness of litter layer is 1-3 cm on forest-floor. | 光皮梾木 Swida wilsoniana, 短萼海桐Pittosporum brevicalyx, 多脉青冈Cyclobalanopsis multiervis, 天峨槭 Acer wangchii, 云贵鹅耳枥 Carpinus pubescens, 粗柄楠 Phoebe crassipedicella | 71.20 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
表1 各恢复阶段植被的基本概况
Table 1 Basic information of the vegetation at various restoration stages
恢复阶段Restoration stage | 坡度和海拔Slope and elevation | 坡向 Aspect | 植被特征 Vegetation characteristics | 优势种 Dominant species | 岩石裸露率 Bare rock (%) | 生境 Habitat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
草本阶段Herb stage | 30°-40°, 840 m | NW | 群落层次只有草本层, 高约1.0 m, 盖度达80%以上, 有极少数先锋树种, 地上覆盖有3-6 cm枯枝落叶层。 The vertical structure of the community has an herb layer with height of 1.0 m and coverage of more than 80%. There are a handful of pioneer trees. The thickness of litter layer is 3-6 cm on the ground. | 密毛蕨 Pteridium revolutum, 白茅Imperata cylindrical var. major, 金丝草Pogonatherum crinitum, 三毛草 Trisetum bifidum | 77.52 | 土面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, crevice, gully |
草灌阶段Herb to shrub stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 群落层次一层, 由草本和灌木共同组成, 盖度达80%以上, 草本、灌木盖度约各占一半, 高度1.5-2.0 m, 地表有少量藤刺, 群落下覆盖有2-5 cm枯枝落叶层。 The vertical structure of the community has only a single layer, which was dominated by shrubs and herbs. The mean height and coverage of community are 1.5-2.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The coverage of community is about equally divided into shrub and herb. There are a small amount of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer is 2-5 cm. | 盐肤木 Rhus chinensis, 野牡丹 Mlastoma candidum, 腊莲绣球 Hydrangea strigosa, 算盘子 Glochidion puberum, 密毛蕨Pteridium revolutum,白茅 Imperata cylindrical var. major, 金丝草 Pogonatherum crinitum | 75.61 | 土面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, crevice, gully |
灌木阶段Shrub stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 林分垂直结构单一, 无或有少量乔木, 主要以灌木层为主, 高度2.0-4.0 m, 覆盖度达80%以上, 地表有较多藤刺, 林下覆盖的枯枝落叶层2-4 cm。 The vertical structure of the stand is simple and dominated by the shrub layer, without tree layer or with a small amount of trees. The mean height and coverage of shrub layer are 2.0-4.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. There are a lot of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer was 2-4 cm on forest-floor. | 火棘 Pyracantha fortuneana, 南天竹Nandina domestica, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 齿叶铁仔 Myrsine semiserrata, 齿叶黄皮Clausena dunniana, 榔榆 Ulmus parvifolia | 73.22 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
灌乔阶段Shrub to arbor stage | 30°-40°, 820 m | SW | 林分层次结构分化, 乔木层高7.0-12.0 m, 木本植物盖度达80%以上; 林下草本盖度较低, 地表有较多藤刺, 林下枯枝落叶层厚3-5 cm。 The stand structure is stratified with mean height of the tree layer varying between 7.0 and 12.0 m, and the coverage of woody plants at more than 80%. The coverage of herb layer is low. There are a lot of thorns and ferns on the ground. The thickness of litter layer is 3-5 cm on forest-floor. | 圆果化香树 Platycarya longipes, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 天峨槭 Acer wangchii, 鸡仔木 Sinoadina racemosa, 川钓樟 Lindera pulcherima var. hemsleyana, 青冈Cyclobalanopsis glauca | 73.94 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
乔木阶段Arbor stage | 30°-40°, 840 m | SW | 层次结构分化明显, 乔木层、灌木层比较发达, 乔木层高14.0-18.0 m, 乔木层覆盖达80%以上; 灌木层高2.0-3.0 m, 盖度10%, 地表有少量藤刺、蕨类、地衣苔藓等分布, 林下枯枝落叶层厚1-3 cm。 The stand structure is clearly stratified, with well-developed tree layer and shrub layer. The mean tree height and coverage of tree layer are 14.0-18.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The shrub layer has a coverage of 10% and height of 2.0-3.0 m. The land is covered by a small amount of thorns, ferns, lichens and mosses, and the thickness of litter layer is 1-3 cm on forest-floor. | 光皮梾木 Swida wilsoniana, 黔桂润楠Machilus chienkweiensis, 香叶树 Lindera communis, 翅荚香槐 Cladrastis platycarpa,南酸枣 Choerospondias axillaris, 短萼海桐 Pittosporum brevicalyx | 72.81 | 土面、石面、石缝、石沟 Earth flatland, rocky flatland, crevice, gully |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 30°-40°, 850 m | SW | 层次结构完整, 乔木层、灌木层和草本层植物之间分化清晰, 以乔木林为主, 高15.0-20.0 m, 乔木层覆盖率达80%以上; 灌木层高4.0-7.0 m, 盖度10%-20%; 林下覆盖有1-3 cm枯枝落叶层。 The stand structure is complete and clearly divided into tree layer, shrub layer and herb layer, with dominance of the tree layer. The mean tree height and coverage of the tree layer are 15.0-20.0 m and more than 80%, respectively. The height of shrub layer has a coverage of 10%-20% and height of 4.0-7.0 m. The thickness of litter layer is 1-3 cm on forest-floor. | 光皮梾木 Swida wilsoniana, 短萼海桐Pittosporum brevicalyx, 多脉青冈Cyclobalanopsis multiervis, 天峨槭 Acer wangchii, 云贵鹅耳枥 Carpinus pubescens, 粗柄楠 Phoebe crassipedicella | 71.20 | 石面、石缝、土面、石沟 Rocky flatland, crevice, earth flatland, gully |
乔木各部位 Component of arbor | 方程 Equation | R2 | p |
---|---|---|---|
干 Stem | W = 0.09120 (D2H)0.816 | 0.988 | <0.001 |
枝 Branch | W = 0.01510 (D2H)0.844 | 0.986 | <0.001 |
叶 Leaf | W = 0.01442 (D2H)0.693 | 0.972 | <0.001 |
地上 Aboveground | W = 0.11749 (D2H)0.814 | 0.989 | <0.001 |
地下 Underground | W = 0.03811 (D2H)0.896 | 0.951 | <0.001 |
总 Total | W = 0.15524 (D2H)0.841 | 0.987 | <0.001 |
表2 乔木各部位质量(kg)(W)与其胸径(cm)(D)、树高(m)(H)的关系方程
Table 2 Equations for the relationships of the mass (kg) for different components of arbor (W) with diameter (cm) at breast height (D) and tree height (m)(H)
乔木各部位 Component of arbor | 方程 Equation | R2 | p |
---|---|---|---|
干 Stem | W = 0.09120 (D2H)0.816 | 0.988 | <0.001 |
枝 Branch | W = 0.01510 (D2H)0.844 | 0.986 | <0.001 |
叶 Leaf | W = 0.01442 (D2H)0.693 | 0.972 | <0.001 |
地上 Aboveground | W = 0.11749 (D2H)0.814 | 0.989 | <0.001 |
地下 Underground | W = 0.03811 (D2H)0.896 | 0.951 | <0.001 |
总 Total | W = 0.15524 (D2H)0.841 | 0.987 | <0.001 |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 植被 Vegetation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上Aboveground | 地下Belowground | 合计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | ||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 5.16a | 2.81a | 7.97a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.16a | 2.81a | 7.97a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 5.82b | 2.63b | 8.45b | 1.16a | 0.80a | 1.96a | - | - | - | 6.98b | 3.43b | 10.41b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 0.89c | 0.52c | 1.41c | 18.13b | 14.74b | 32.87b | - | - | - | 19.02c | 15.26c | 34.28c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 0.99d | 0.43d | 1.42c | 9.02c | 7.10c | 16.12c | 26.52a | 15.25a | 41.77a | 36.53d | 22.78d | 59.31d | |||
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 0.63e | 0.39e | 1.02d | 5.04d | 3.61d | 8.65d | 56.17b | 33.44b | 89.61b | 61.84e | 37.44e | 99.28e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 0.41f | 0.27f | 0.68e | 0.88e | 0.68e | 1.56e | 101.58c | 63.01c | 164.59c | 102.87f | 63.96f | 166.83f |
表3 不同恢复阶段植被生物量(t·hm-2)
Table 3 Vegetation biomass at different restoration stages (t·hm-2)
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 植被 Vegetation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上Aboveground | 地下Belowground | 合计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below ground | 合计Total | ||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 5.16a | 2.81a | 7.97a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.16a | 2.81a | 7.97a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 5.82b | 2.63b | 8.45b | 1.16a | 0.80a | 1.96a | - | - | - | 6.98b | 3.43b | 10.41b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 0.89c | 0.52c | 1.41c | 18.13b | 14.74b | 32.87b | - | - | - | 19.02c | 15.26c | 34.28c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 0.99d | 0.43d | 1.42c | 9.02c | 7.10c | 16.12c | 26.52a | 15.25a | 41.77a | 36.53d | 22.78d | 59.31d | |||
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 0.63e | 0.39e | 1.02d | 5.04d | 3.61d | 8.65d | 56.17b | 33.44b | 89.61b | 61.84e | 37.44e | 99.28e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 0.41f | 0.27f | 0.68e | 0.88e | 0.68e | 1.56e | 101.58c | 63.01c | 164.59c | 102.87f | 63.96f | 166.83f |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 三层合计 Total of three layers |
---|---|---|---|---|
草本阶段 Herb stage | 1.84a | - | - | 1.84a |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 2.21b | 1.45a | - | 2.03b |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 1.71c | 1.23b | - | 1.26c |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 2.30d | 1.27bc | 1.74a | 1.60d |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 1.63e | 1.39d | 1.68a | 1.65d |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 1.52f | 1.29c | 1.61b | 1.61d |
表4 植被地上生物量与地下生物量之比
Table 4 The ratio of aboveground biomass to below ground biomass of the vegetation
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 三层合计 Total of three layers |
---|---|---|---|---|
草本阶段 Herb stage | 1.84a | - | - | 1.84a |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 2.21b | 1.45a | - | 2.03b |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 1.71c | 1.23b | - | 1.26c |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 2.30d | 1.27bc | 1.74a | 1.60d |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 1.63e | 1.39d | 1.68a | 1.65d |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 1.52f | 1.29c | 1.61b | 1.61d |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 加权平均含碳率 The weighted average of carbon content | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 干 Stem | 枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 根 Root | |||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 38.64a | 33.30a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 36.76a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 37.61b | 38.06b | 43.25a | 42.34a | - | - | - | - | 38.71b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 34.32c | 31.63c | 46.68b | 45.26b | - | - | - | - | 45.51c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 35.74d | 36.59d | 46.33bc | 46.17b | 47.98a | 44.23a | 45.68a | 46.53a | 46.55d | |||
顶极阶段 Arbor stage | 33.68ce | 34.88e | 44.52d | 42.61a | 48.66a | 45.11a | 46.34a | 47.39ab | 47.24e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 33.27e | 33.62a | 45.36cd | 43.22a | 49.35a | 46.81b | 42.13b | 49.26b | 48.74f |
表5 不同恢复阶段中植被含碳率(%)
Table 5 Vegetation carbon content at different restoration stages (%)
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 加权平均含碳率 The weighted average of carbon content | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 地上 Aboveground | 地下 Belowground | 干 Stem | 枝 Branch | 叶 Leaf | 根 Root | |||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 38.64a | 33.30a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 36.76a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 37.61b | 38.06b | 43.25a | 42.34a | - | - | - | - | 38.71b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 34.32c | 31.63c | 46.68b | 45.26b | - | - | - | - | 45.51c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 35.74d | 36.59d | 46.33bc | 46.17b | 47.98a | 44.23a | 45.68a | 46.53a | 46.55d | |||
顶极阶段 Arbor stage | 33.68ce | 34.88e | 44.52d | 42.61a | 48.66a | 45.11a | 46.34a | 47.39ab | 47.24e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 33.27e | 33.62a | 45.36cd | 43.22a | 49.35a | 46.81b | 42.13b | 49.26b | 48.74f |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 植被 Vegetation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上Aboveground | 地下 Below- ground | 小计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 小计Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 小计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 合计Total | ||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 1.99a | 0.94a | 2.93a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.99a | 0.94a | 2.93a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 2.19b | 1.00b | 3.19b | 0.50a | 0.34a | 0.84a | - | - | - | 2.69b | 1.34b | 4.03b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 0.31c | 0.16c | 0.47c | 8.46b | 6.67b | 15.13b | - | - | - | 8.77c | 6.83c | 15.60c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 0.35d | 0.16c | 0.51c | 4.18c | 3.28c | 7.46c | 12.54a | 7.10a | 19.64a | 17.07d | 10.54d | 27.61d | |||
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 0.21e | 0.14d | 0.35d | 2.24d | 1.54d | 3.78d | 26.92b | 15.85b | 42.77b | 29.37e | 17.53e | 46.90e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 0.14f | 0.09e | 0.23e | 0.40e | 0.29e | 0.69e | 49.36c | 31.03c | 80.40c | 49.90f | 31.41f | 81.31f |
表6 不同恢复阶段中植被碳密度(t·hm-2)
Table 6 Vegetation carbon density at different restoration stages (t·hm-2)
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 草本层 Herb layer | 灌木层 Shrub layer | 乔木层 Arbor layer | 植被 Vegetation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
地上Aboveground | 地下 Below- ground | 小计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 小计Total | 地上 Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 小计 Total | 地上Aboveground | 地下Below- ground | 合计Total | ||||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 1.99a | 0.94a | 2.93a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.99a | 0.94a | 2.93a | |||
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 2.19b | 1.00b | 3.19b | 0.50a | 0.34a | 0.84a | - | - | - | 2.69b | 1.34b | 4.03b | |||
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 0.31c | 0.16c | 0.47c | 8.46b | 6.67b | 15.13b | - | - | - | 8.77c | 6.83c | 15.60c | |||
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 0.35d | 0.16c | 0.51c | 4.18c | 3.28c | 7.46c | 12.54a | 7.10a | 19.64a | 17.07d | 10.54d | 27.61d | |||
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 0.21e | 0.14d | 0.35d | 2.24d | 1.54d | 3.78d | 26.92b | 15.85b | 42.77b | 29.37e | 17.53e | 46.90e | |||
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 0.14f | 0.09e | 0.23e | 0.40e | 0.29e | 0.69e | 49.36c | 31.03c | 80.40c | 49.90f | 31.41f | 81.31f |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 碳密度 Carbon density | 生态系统 Ecosystems | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
植被 Vegetation | 凋落物 Litter | 土壤 Soil | ||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 2.93a | 4.97a | 10.71a | 18.61a |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 4.03b | 3.43b | 8.26b | 15.72b |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 25.60c | 1.81c | 12.36c | 29.77c |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 27.61d | 1.88d | 17.60d | 47.09d |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 46.90e | 1.64e | 18.80e | 67.34e |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 81.31f | 1.53f | 16.53f | 99.37f |
表7 各恢复阶段生态系统碳密度(t·hm-2)
Table 7 Ecosystems carbon density at different restoration stages (t·hm-2)
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 碳密度 Carbon density | 生态系统 Ecosystems | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
植被 Vegetation | 凋落物 Litter | 土壤 Soil | ||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 2.93a | 4.97a | 10.71a | 18.61a |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 4.03b | 3.43b | 8.26b | 15.72b |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 25.60c | 1.81c | 12.36c | 29.77c |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 27.61d | 1.88d | 17.60d | 47.09d |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 46.90e | 1.64e | 18.80e | 67.34e |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 81.31f | 1.53f | 16.53f | 99.37f |
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 恢复时间Restoration time (a) | 碳吸存速率 Carbon sequestration rate (t·hm-2·a-1) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
始于草本阶段 From herb stage | 始于草灌阶段 From herb to shrub stage | 始于灌木阶段 From shrub stage | 始于灌乔阶段 From shrub to arbor stage | 始于乔木阶段 From arbor stage | ||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 9 | -0.72 (0.28, -0.39, -0.61) | - | - | - | - |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 15 | 1.12 | 2.34 (1.93, -0.27, 0.68) | - | - | - |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 23 | 1.58 | 2.24 | 2.17 (1.50, 0.01, 0.66) | - | - |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 34 | 1.68 | 2.06 | 1.98 | 1.84 (1.75, -0.02, 0.11) | - |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 103 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.46 (0.50, -0.01 ,-0.03) |
表8 自然恢复中生态系统碳吸存速率
Table 8 The carbon sequestration rate of ecosystem during natural restoration process
恢复阶段 Restoration stage | 恢复时间Restoration time (a) | 碳吸存速率 Carbon sequestration rate (t·hm-2·a-1) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
始于草本阶段 From herb stage | 始于草灌阶段 From herb to shrub stage | 始于灌木阶段 From shrub stage | 始于灌乔阶段 From shrub to arbor stage | 始于乔木阶段 From arbor stage | ||
草本阶段 Herb stage | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
草灌阶段 Herb to shrub stage | 9 | -0.72 (0.28, -0.39, -0.61) | - | - | - | - |
灌木阶段 Shrub stage | 15 | 1.12 | 2.34 (1.93, -0.27, 0.68) | - | - | - |
灌乔阶段 Shrub to arbor stage | 23 | 1.58 | 2.24 | 2.17 (1.50, 0.01, 0.66) | - | - |
乔木阶段 Arbor stage | 34 | 1.68 | 2.06 | 1.98 | 1.84 (1.75, -0.02, 0.11) | - |
顶极阶段 Climax stage | 103 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.46 (0.50, -0.01 ,-0.03) |
[1] | An MT (2008). Community Structure and Forest Health Assessment in Natural Restoration of Maolan Degraded Karst Vegetation. Master degree dissertation, Guizhou University, Guiyang.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[安明态 (2008). 茂兰喀斯特植被恢复过程群落结构与健康评价. 硕士学位论文, 贵州大学, 贵阳.] | |
[2] | Bao SD (1999). Agricultural Chemistry Analysis of Soil. 3rd edn. China Agriculture Press, Beijing.(in Chinese) |
[鲍士旦 (1999). 土壤农化分析(第三版). 中国农业出版社, 北京.] | |
[3] | Dixon RK, Winjum JK, Schroeder PE (1993). Conservation and sequestration of carbon: The potential of forest and agriforest management practices.Global Environmental Change, 2, 159-173. |
[4] | Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems.Science, 263, 185-190. |
[5] | Dong D, Ni J (2011). Modeling changes of net primary productivity of karst vegetation in southwestern China using the CASA model.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31, 1855-1866.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[董丹, 倪健 (2011). 利用CASA模型模拟西南喀斯特植被净第一性生产力. 生态学报, 31, 1855-1866.] | |
[6] | Dong M (1996). Investigation and Analysis of the Terrestrial Biological Community. Standards Press of China, Beijing.(in Chinese) |
[董鸣 (1996). 陆地生物群落调查观测与分析. 中国标准出版社, 北京.] | |
[7] | Fang JY, Chen AP, Peng CH, Zhao SQ, Ci LJ (2001). Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in China between 1949 and 1998.Science, 292, 2320-2322. |
[8] | Fang JY, Liu GH, Xu SL (1996). Biomass and net production of forest vegetation in China.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 16, 497-508.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[方精云, 刘国华, 徐嵩龄 (1996). 我国森林植被的生物量和净生产量. 生态学报, 16, 497-508.] | |
[9] | Fang YT, Mo JM, Peng SL, Li DJ (2003). Role of forest succession on carbon sequestration of forest ecosystems in lower subtropical China.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 23, 1685-1694.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[方运霆, 莫江明, 彭少麟, 李德军 (2003). 森林演替在南亚热带森林生态系统碳吸存中的作用. 生态学报, 23, 1685-1694.] | |
[10] | Gong C, Wang SL, Zeng ZQ, Deng SJ, Chen JP, Long KS (2011). Carbon storage and its distribution pattern of evergreen broad-leaved forests at different succession stages in mid-subtropical China.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 30, 1935-1941.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[宫超, 汪思龙, 曾掌权, 邓仕坚, 陈建平, 龙康寿 (2011). 中亚热带常绿阔叶林不同演替阶段碳储量与格局特征. 生态学杂志, 30, 1935-1941.] | |
[11] | Huang DZ (2006). Biomass characteristics of secondary forest community of Cyclobalanopsis chungii in the lower Minjiang River.Protection Forest Science and Technology, (1), 16-18.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[黄典忠 (2006). 闽江下游福建青冈次生林群落的生物量特征. 防护林科技, (1), 16-18.] | |
[12] | Huang M, Ji JJ, Cao MK, Li KR (2006). Modeling study of vegetation shoot and root biomass in China.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 26, 4156-4163.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[黄玫, 季劲钧, 曹明奎, 李克让 (2006). 中国区域植被地上与地下生物量模拟. 生态学报, 26, 4156-4163.] | |
[13] | Huang WL, Tu YL, Yang L (1988). Guizhou Vegetation. Guizhou People’s Publishing House, Guiyang.(in Chinese) |
[黄威廉, 屠玉麟, 杨龙 (1988). 贵州植被. 贵州人民出版社, 贵阳.] | |
[14] | Huang ZS, Fu YH, Yu LF (2013a). Characteristic evolution of soil organic carbon pool with the process of natural restoration of karst forest vegetation.Acta Pedologica Sinica, 50, 306-314.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[黄宗胜, 符裕红, 喻理飞 (2013a). 喀斯特森林植被自然恢复过程中土壤有机碳库特征演化. 土壤学报, 50, 306-314.] | |
[15] | Huang ZS, Fu YH, Yu LF (2013b). Evolution of litterfall accumulation and the characteristics of its carbon pool in the process of natural restoration of karst forest vegetation.Forest Research, 26, 8-14.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[黄宗胜, 符裕红, 喻理飞 (2013b). 喀斯特森林植被自然恢复中凋落物现存量及其碳库特征演化. 林业科学研究, 26, 8-14.] | |
[16] | Körner C (2000). Biosphere responses to CO2 enrichment.Ecological Application, 10, 1590-1619. |
[17] | Li YD, Wu ZM, Zeng QB, Zhou GY, Chen BF, Fang JY (1998). Estimation of community productivity and net CO2 accumulation of a tropical mountain rain forest in Jianfengling, Hainan Island, China.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 22, 127-134.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[李意德, 吴仲民, 曾庆波, 周光益, 陈步锋, 方精云 (1998). 尖峰岭热带山地雨林群落生产和二氧化碳同化净增量的初步研究. 植物生态学报, 22, 127-134.] | |
[18] | Lin F (2006). Biomass characteristics and allocation of Castanopsis fargesii natural stand in Wuyishan Mountains.Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 28(1), 74-77.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[林芳 (2006). 武夷山丝栗栲天然林群落的生物量及其分配规律. 江西农业大学学报, 28(1), 74-77.] | |
[19] | Liu CC, Wei YF, Liu YG, Guo K (2009). Biomass of canopy and shrub layers of karst forests in Puding, Guizhou, China.Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 33, 698-705.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[刘长成, 魏亚芬, 刘玉国, 郭柯 (2009). 贵州普定喀斯特次生林乔灌层地上生物量. 植物生态学报, 33, 698-705.] | |
[20] | Luo DH (2009). Biomass and Net Primary Productivity in Different Successional Stages of Karst Vegetation in Maolan, Guizhou Province, SW China. Master degree dissertation, East China Normal University, Shanghai.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[罗东辉 (2009). 贵州茂兰喀斯特植被不同演替阶段的生物量与净初级生产力. 硕士学位论文, 华东师范大学, 上海.] | |
[21] | Luo DH, Xia J, Yuan JW, Zhang ZH, Zhu JD, Ni J (2010). Root biomass of karst vegetation in a mountainous area of southwestern China.Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 34, 611-618.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[罗东辉, 夏婧, 袁婧薇, 张忠华, 祝介东, 倪健 (2010). 我国西南山地喀斯特植被的根系生物量初探. 植物生态学报, 34, 611-618.] | |
[22] | Ni JP, Yuan DX, Xie DT, Wei CF (2009). Estimation of soil organic carbon storage and the characteristic of carbon spatial distributions in karst area, Chongqing, China.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29, 6292-6301.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[倪九派, 袁道先, 谢德体, 魏朝富 (2009). 重庆岩溶区土壤有机碳库的估算及其空间分布特征. 生态学报, 29, 6292-6301.] | |
[23] | Protocols for Standard Biological Observation and Measurement in Terrestrial Ecosystems Editorial Board (2007). Protocols for Standard Biological Observation and Measurement in Terrestrial Ecosystems. China Environmental Sciences Press, Beijing.(in Chinese) |
[中国生态系统研究网络科学委员会 (2007). 陆地生态系统生物观测规范. 中国环境科学出版社, 北京.] | |
[24] | Qiu XZ, Xie SC, Jin GF (1984). A preliminary study on biomass of Lithocarpus xylocarpus forest in Xujiaba region, Ailao Mountains, Yunnan.Acta Botanica Yunnanica, 6, 85-92.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[邱学忠, 谢寿昌, 荆桂芬 (1984). 云南哀牢山徐家坝地区木果石栎林生物量的初步研究. 云南植物研究, 6, 85-92.] | |
[25] | Tang XL, Zhou GY, Wen DZ, Zhang DQ, Yan JH (2003). Distribution of carbon storage in a lower subtropical monsoon evergreen broad-leaved forest in Dinghushan Nature Reserve.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 23, 90-97.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[唐旭利, 周国逸, 温达志, 张德强, 闫俊华 (2003). 鼎湖山南亚热带季风常绿阔叶林植被C贮量分布. 生态学报, 23, 90-97.] | |
[26] | Tian DL, Wang XK, Fang X, Yan WD, Ning XB, Wang GJ (2011). Carbon storage and spatial distribution in different vegetation restoration patterns in karst area, Guizhou Province.Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 47(9), 7-14.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[田大伦, 王新凯, 方晰, 闫文德, 宁晓波, 王光军 (2011). 喀斯特地区不同植被恢复模式幼林生态系统碳储量及其空间分布. 林业科学, 47(9), 7-14.] | |
[27] | Wang L, Niu KC, Yang YH, Zhou P (2010). Patterns of above- and below-ground biomass allocation in China’s grasslands: Evidence from individual-level observations.Science China: Life Sciences, 53, 851-857.(in Chinese) |
[王亮, 牛克昌, 杨元合, 周鹏 (2010). 中国草地生物量地上-地下分配格局: 基于个体水平的研究. 中国科学: 生命科学, 40, 642-649.] | |
[28] | Wang SQ, Zhou CH, Luo CW (1999). Studying carbon storage spatial distribution of terrestrial natural vegetation in China.Progress in Geography, 18, 238-244.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王绍强, 周成虎, 罗承文 (1999). 中国陆地自然植被碳量空间分布特征探讨. 地理科学进展, 18, 238-244.] | |
[29] | Wang XK (2011). Study of Biomass and Carbon Sequestration on Urban Forests in Karst Landform. PhD dissertation, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha.(in Chinese) |
[王新凯 (2011). 喀斯特城市森林生物量及其碳吸存功能研究. 博士学位论文, 中南林业科技大学, 长沙.] | |
[30] | Wang XK, Feng ZW, Ouyang ZY (2001). Vegetation carbon storage and density of forest ecosystems in China.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 12, 13-16.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[王效科, 冯宗炜, 欧阳志云 (2001). 中国森林生态系统的植物碳储量和碳密度研究. 应用生态学报, 12, 13-16.] | |
[31] | Wen SZ, Tian DL, Yang LL, Fang X (2010). Carbon density carbon stock and carbon sequestration in Alnus cremastogyne plantation.Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 46(6), 15-21.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[文仕知, 田大伦, 杨丽丽, 方晰 (2010). 桤木人工林的碳密度、碳库及碳吸存特征. 林业科学, 46(6), 15-21.] | |
[32] | Whittaker RH, Likens GE (1973). Carbon in the Biota. In: Woodlwell GM, Pecan EV eds. Carbon and the Biosphere. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Springfield, USA. 281-302. |
[33] | Yang HK, Cheng SZ (1991). Study on biomass of the karst forest community in Maolan, Guizhou Province.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 11, 307-312.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[杨汉奎, 程世泽 (1991). 贵州茂兰喀斯特森林群落生物量研究. 生态学报, 11, 307-311.] | |
[34] | Yang TH, Da LJ, Li XP (2007). Biomass of evergreen broad-leaved forest in Tiantong National Forest Park, Zhejiang Province (II): Aboveground biomass and its allocation pattern.Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 24, 389-395.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[杨同辉, 达良俊, 李修鹏 (2007). 浙江天童国家森林公园常绿阔叶林生物量研究(II): 群落生物量及其分配规律. 浙江林学院学报, 24, 389-395.] | |
[35] | Yu LF, Zhu SQ, Wei LM, Chen ZR, Xiong ZB (1998). Study on the natural restoration process of degraded karst communities―Successional sere.Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology, 17(2), 71-77.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[喻理飞, 朱守谦, 魏鲁明, 陈正仁, 熊志斌 (1998). 退化喀斯特群落自然恢复过程研究―自然恢复演替系列. 山地农业生物学报, 17(2), 71-77.] | |
[36] | Yu LF, Zhu SQ, Ye JZ, Wei LM, Chen ZR (2000). A study on evaluation of natural restoration for degraded karst forest.Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 36(6), 12-19.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[喻理飞, 朱守谦, 叶镜中, 魏鲁明, 陈正仁 (2000). 退化喀斯特森林自然恢复评价研究. 林业科学, 36(6), 12-19.] | |
[37] | Yu WL, Dong D, Ni J (2010). Comparisons of biomass and net primary productivity of karst and non-karst forests in mountainous areas, Southwestern China.Journal of Subtropical Resources and Environment, 5(2), 25-30.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[于维莲, 董丹, 倪健 (2010). 中国西南山地喀斯特与非喀斯特森林的生物量与生产力比较. 亚热带资源与环境学报, 55(2), 25-30.] | |
[38] | Zhang L, Luo TX, Deng KM, Dai Q, Huang Y, Jiang ZF, Tao MY, Zeng KY (2004). Biomass and net primary productivity of secondary evergreen broad-leaved forest in Huangmian Forest Farm, Guangxi.Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 15, 2029-2033.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[张林, 罗天祥, 邓坤枚, 戴强, 黄永, 蒋正富, 陶明友, 曾开益 (2004). 广西黄冕林场次生常绿阔叶林生物量及净第一性生产力. 应用生态学报, 15, 2029-2033.] | |
[39] | Zheng WJ, Bao WK, Gu B, He X, Leng L (2007). Carbon concentration and its characteristics in terrestrial higher plants.Chinese Journal of Ecology, 26, 307-313.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[郑帷婕, 包维楷, 辜彬, 何晓, 冷俐 (2007). 陆生高等植物碳含量及其特点. 生态学杂志, 26, 307-313.] | |
[40] | Zhou YR, Yu ZL, Zhao SD (2000). Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest types.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 24, 518-522.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[周玉荣, 于振良, 赵士洞 (2000). 我国主要森林生态系统碳贮量和碳平衡. 植物生态学报, 24, 518-522.] | |
[41] | Zhou ZX (1987). Scientific Survey of the Maolan Karst Forest. Guizhou People’s Publishing House, Guiyang.(in Chinese) |
[周政贤 (1987). 茂兰喀斯特森林科学考察集. 贵州人民出版社, 贵阳.] | |
[42] | Zhu SQ, Wei LM, Chen ZR, Zhang CG (1995). A preliminary study on biomass components of karst forest in Maolan of Guizhou Province, China.Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 19, 358-367.(in Chinese with English abstract) |
[朱守谦, 魏鲁明, 陈正仁, 张从贵 (1995). 茂兰喀斯特森林生物量构成初步研究. 植物生态学报, 19, 358-367.] |
[1] | 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. |
[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] | 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. |
[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] | 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[J]. 植物生态学报, 2017, 41(1): 53-61. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 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. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 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. |
[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