阔叶红松林不同林层和生长阶段树木生长对采伐强度的响应

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2021.0454

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采伐是调整林分结构的重要手段。不同林层的树木对采伐强度有着不同的响应方式。但以往考察采伐对树木生长的影响时多采用定性或简单定量的方法(如按树高等距)划分森林的垂直层次, 这就忽略了同一林层内不同树种间和不同发育阶段树木生长的差异。该研究在吉林蛟河天然阔叶红松(Pinus koraiensis)林内建立轻度(胸高断面积采伐强度17.3%)、中度(34.7%)、重度(51.9%)采伐以及对照(不采伐)样地, 跟踪调查采伐后自然恢复2、4、7年保留木的生长动态。根据不同树种每一个体所处的林层位置和生长发育阶段, 将保留木划分为3个组别: 林冠层树种的成熟个体(I)、林冠层树种的未成熟个体(II)以及林下层树种的全部个体(III), 比较不同恢复时期各组别树木的生长对于采伐强度的响应差异。结果表明, 第II组树木的平均胸径相对生长速率(0.033 cm·cm^-1·a^-1)显著高于第I (0.016 cm·cm^-1·a^-1)和III组(0.018 cm·cm^-1·a^-1)。总体来看, 采伐促进了大多数林冠层优势树种(第I、II组)的生长, 尤其是第II组树木的相对生长速率随采伐强度的增加而增加, 但第I组树木的相对生长速率只在重度采伐样地显著高于对照样地。然而林冠层少见种的生长速率并未受到采伐活动的显著影响。值得注意的是, 第I和II组树木生长对于采伐的响应都存在一定的时间滞后, 伐后短期内(2年)采伐样地与对照样地的生长速率没有显著差异, 而采伐对树木生长的促进效果在伐后2-4年才开始出现, 并在随后的监测期内持续存在。各组别树木的相对生长速率均随初始胸径的增大而降低, 且这种负相关关系的斜率随采伐强度增加逐渐增大, 表明随着采伐强度增加, 较小的树木个体从减弱的竞争中获益更多, 呈现出更加明显的生长释放现象。

关键词: 阔叶红松林, 采伐强度, 相对生长速率, 林层, 个体大小, 恢复时期

Abstract:

Aims Harvesting is an important way to adjust stand structure. Trees in different forest strata have different responses to harvesting intensity. Traditionally, qualitative or simple quantitative methods (e.g., with equal distance of tree height) were used to identify the vertical layers of the forest, and the impact of harvesting on each layer were analyzed subsequently. However, these methods of specification ignore the differences in tree growth between different tree species and different developmental stages within the same layer.

Methods Four permanent plots were established in a broadleaved Korean pine forest in Jiaohe, Jilin Province, ranging in harvesting intensities from low (17.3% of basal area removed), medium (34.7%) to high (51.9%), together with an unharvested control plot. Tree growth rates were documented 2, 4 and 7 years after harvesting. According to the position of an individual tree in the forest layer, as well as its development stages, we aggregated all individuals into three cohorts: mature canopy trees (I), immature canopy trees (II), and understory species of any size (III). Tree diameter growth of each cohort were compared during different recovery periods.

Important findings The average relative growth rate (RGR) of diameter at breast height (DBH) for cohort II (0.033 cm·cm^-1·a^-1) was significantly higher than that of cohort I (0.016 cm·cm^-1·a^-1) and II (0.018 cm·cm^-1·a^-1). Overall, harvesting promoted the DBH growth of most canopy dominant tress (I and II). In particular, RGR of cohort II increased progressively with increasing harvesting intensity, while only the greatest harvesting intensity showed a significant positive effect on RGR of cohort I. In contrast, rare species showed weak responses to harvesting treatment. It should be noted that there was a response lag of tree growth to harvesting: no detectable difference in RGR was found between control and harvested plots within the first two years after harvesting, whereas the positive effect of harvesting on RGR began to appear 2-4 years after harvesting and continued during the subsequent monitoring period. The RGR of each cohort decreased with the increase of initial DBH. Moreover, the slopes of initial DBH-RGR relationship increased with harvesting intensity, suggesting that smaller trees benefited more from reduced competition. Our results may provide scientific basis for a more accurate monitoring of the post-harvesting forest dynamics, and would be helpful to future sustainable management of temperate mixed forests.

Key words: broadleaved Korean pine forest, harvesting intensity, relative growth rate, forest strata, tree size, recovery period

魏龙鑫, 耿燕, 崔可达, 乔雪涛, 岳庆敏, 范春雨, 张春雨, 赵秀海. 阔叶红松林不同林层和生长阶段树木生长对采伐强度的响应. 植物生态学报, 2022, 46(6): 642-655. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0454

WEI Long-Xin, GENG Yan, CUI Ke-Da, QIAO Xue-Tao, YUE Qing-Min, FAN Chun-Yu, ZHANG Chun-Yu, ZHAO Xiu-Hai. Responses of tree growth to harvesting intensity among forest strata and growth stages in a broadleaved Korean pine forest. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2022, 46(6): 642-655. DOI: 10.17521/cjpe.2021.0454

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/10.17521/cjpe.2021.0454

https://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/Y2022/V46/I6/642

图/表 10

参考文献 45

[1]	Baker TR, Swaine MD, Burslem DFRP (2003). Variation in tropical forest growth rates: combined effects of functional group composition and resource availability. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 6, 21-36. DOI URL
[2]	Bose AK, Wagner RG, Weiskittel AR, D'Amato AW (2021). Effect magnitudes of operational-scale partial harvesting on residual tree growth and mortality of ten major tree species in Maine USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 484, 118953. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.118953. DOI URL
[3]	Castagneri D, Nola P, Cherubini P, Motta R (2012). Temporal variability of size-growth relationships in a Norway spruce forest: the influences of stand structure, logging, and climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42, 550-560. DOI URL
[4]	Chen YJ, Cao KF, Cai ZQ (2008). Above- and below-ground competition between seedlings of lianas and trees under two light irradiances. Journal of Plant Ecology (Chinese Version), 32, 639-647.
	[陈亚军, 曹坤芳, 蔡志全 (2008). 两种光强下木质藤本与树木幼苗的竞争关系. 植物生态学报, 32, 639-647.] DOI
[5]	Chi XL, Tang ZY, Xie ZQ, Guo Q, Zhang M, Ge JL, Xiong GM, Fang JY (2015). Effects of size, neighbors, and site condition on tree growth in a subtropical evergreen and deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest, China. Ecology and Evolution, 5, 5149-5161. DOI URL
[6]	Darrigo MR, Venticinque EM, Santos FAMD (2016). Effects of reduced impact logging on the forest regeneration in the central Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 360, 52-59. DOI URL
[7]	de Avila AL, Schwartz G, Ruschel AR, Lopes JDC, Silva JNM, Dormann CF, Mazzei L, Soares MHM, Bauhus J (2017). Recruitment, growth and recovery of commercial tree species over 30 years following logging and thinning in a tropical rain forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 385, 225-235. DOI URL
[8]	Dionisio LFS, Schwartz G, Lopes JDC, de Assis Oliveira F, (2018). Growth, mortality, and recruitment of tree species in an Amazonian rainforest over 13 years of reduced impact logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 430, 150-156. DOI URL
[9]	Everett R, Baumgartner D, Ohlson P, Schellhaas R (2008). Defining and quantifying canopy strata. Northwest Science, 82, 48-64.
[10]	Fan CY, Zhang CY, Zhao XH (2017). Effects of selective harvest on community structure and dynamics in a mixed broadleaved Korean pine forest in Jiaohe, Jilin Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37, 6668-6678.
	[范春雨, 张春雨, 赵秀海 (2017). 择伐对吉林蛟河阔叶红松林群落结构及动态的影响. 生态学报, 37, 6668-6678.]
[11]	Fernández-Tschieder E, Binkley D, Bauerle W (2020). Production ecology and reverse growth dominance in an old-growth ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 460, 117891. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.117891. DOI URL
[12]	Gadow K, González JGÁ, Zhang CY, Pukkala T, Zhao XH (2021). Sustaining Forest Ecosystems. Springer Nature, Switzerland.
[13]	Geng Y, Yue QM, Zhang CY, Zhao XH, Gadow K (2021). Dynamics and drivers of aboveground biomass accumulation during recovery from selective harvesting in an uneven-aged forest. European Journal of Forest Research, 140, 1163-1178. DOI URL
[14]	Guo Q, Chi XL, Xie ZQ, Tang ZY (2017). Asymmetric competition for light varies across functional groups. Journal of Plant Ecology, 10, 74-80. DOI URL
[15]	Hartmann H, Messier C (2011). Interannual variation in competitive interactions from natural and anthropogenic disturbances in a temperate forest tree species: implications for ecological interpretation. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1936-1944. DOI URL
[16]	Hao MH, Li XY, Xia MJ, He HJ, Zhang CY, Zhao XH (2018). Effects of tending felling on functional and phylogenetic structures in a multi-species temperate secondary forest at Jiaohe in Jilin Province. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 54(5), 1-9.
	[郝珉辉, 李晓宇, 夏梦洁, 何怀江, 张春雨, 赵秀海 (2018). 抚育采伐对蛟河次生针阔混交林功能结构和谱系结构的影响. 林业科学, 54(5), 1-9.]
[17]	He HJ, Zhang ZH, Zhang CY, Hao MH, Yao J, Xie Z, Gao HT, Zhao XH (2019). Short-term effects of thinning intensity on stand growth and species diversity of mixed coniferous and broad-leaved forest in northeastern China. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 55(2), 1-12.
	[何怀江, 张忠辉, 张春雨, 郝珉辉, 姚杰, 解蛰, 高海涛, 赵秀海 (2019). 采伐强度对东北针阔混交林林分生长和物种多样性的短期影响. 林业科学, 55(2), 1-12.]
[18]	Hu J, Herbohn J, Chazdon RL, Baynes J, Vanclay JK (2020). Long-term growth responses of three Flindersia species to different thinning intensities after selective logging of a tropical rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 476, 118442. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118442. DOI URL
[19]	Jiang J, Zhang CY, Zhao XH (2012). Plant species-area relationship in a 42-hm² research plot of coniferous and board-leaved mixed forest in Jiaohe, Jilin Province, China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36, 30-38. DOI URL
	[姜俊, 张春雨, 赵秀海 (2012). 吉林蛟河42 hm²针阔混交林样地植物种-面积关系. 植物生态学报, 36, 30-38.] DOI
[20]	Jiang ZH, Jin GZ (2010). Effects of selection cutting on diameter growth and vertical growth among major tree species in the mixed broadleaved-Korean pine forest. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 30, 5843-5852.
	[蒋子涵, 金光泽 (2010). 择伐对阔叶红松林主要树种径向与纵向生长的影响. 生态学报, 30, 5843-5852.]
[21]	King DA, Wright SJ, Connell JH (2006). The contribution of interspecific variation in maximum tree height to tropical and temperate diversity. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 11-24. DOI URL
[22]	Kunstler G, Falster D, Coomes DA, Hui F, Kooyman RM, Laughlin DC, Poorter L, Vanderwel M, Vieilledent G, Wright SJ, Aiba M, Baraloto C, Caspersen J, Cornelissen JHC, Gourlet-Fleury S, et al. (2016). Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature, 529, 204-207. DOI URL
[23]	Lewis SL, Tanner EVJ (2000). Effects of above- and belowground competition on growth and survival of rain forest tree seedlings. Ecology, 81, 2525-2538. DOI URL
[24]	Li YP, Ni YL, Xu H, Lian JY, Ye WH (2021). Relationship between variation of plant functional traits and individual growth at different vertical layers in a subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest of Dinghushan. Biodiversity Science, 29, 1186-1197. DOI URL
	[李艳朋, 倪云龙, 许涵, 练琚愉, 叶万辉 (2021). 鼎湖山南亚热带常绿阔叶林植物功能性状变异与不同垂直层次个体生长的关联. 生物多样性, 29, 1186-1197.] DOI
[25]	Liu Y, Blanco JA, Wei XH, Kang XG, Wang WF, Guo YR (2014). Determining suitable selection cutting intensities based on long-term observations on aboveground forest carbon, growth, and stand structure in Changbai Mountain, Northeast China. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 436-454. DOI URL
[26]	Lu JY, Zhang CY, Zhao XH (2021). Relationship between forest strata structure and topography of coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest in Jiaohe City, Jilin Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41, 6613-6620.
	[鲁君悦, 张春雨, 赵秀海 (2021). 吉林省蛟河市针阔混交林林层结构与地形的关系. 生态学报, 41, 6613-6620.]
[27]	Niinemets U (2006). The controversy over traits conferring shade-tolerance in trees: ontogenetic changes revisited. Journal of Ecology, 94, 464-470. DOI URL
[28]	Onoda Y, Saluñga JB, Akutsu K, Aiba SI, Yahara T, Anten NPR (2014). Trade-off between light interception efficiency and light use efficiency: implications for species coexistence in one-sided light competition. Journal of Ecology, 102, 167-175. DOI URL
[29]	Poorter L, Bongers F, Sterck FJ, Wöll H (2003). Architecture of 53 rain forest tree species differing in adult stature and shade tolerance. Ecology, 84, 602-608. DOI URL
[30]	Prévost M, Charette L (2015). Selection cutting in a yellow birch-conifer stand, in Quebec, Canada: comparing the single-tree and two hybrid methods using different sizes of canopy opening. Forest Ecology and Management, 357, 195-205. DOI URL
[31]	Rodrigues DR, Bovolenta YR, Pimenta JA, Bianchini E (2019). Selective logging alters allometric relationships of five tropical tree species in seasonal semi-deciduous forests. Journal of Forestry Research, 30, 1633-1639. DOI
[32]	Scrucca L, Fop M, Murphy TB, Raftery AE (2016). mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal, 8, 289-317. DOI URL
[33]	Shao GF, Wang H, Dai LM, Wu G, Li YS, Lang RL, Song B (2005). Integrating stand and landscape decisions for multi-purposes of forest harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 233-243. DOI URL
[34]	Sheil D, Eastaugh CS, Vlam M, Zuidema PA, Groenendijk P, Sleen P, Jay A, Vanclay J (2017). Does biomass growth increase in the largest trees? Flaws, fallacies and alternative analyses. Functional Ecology, 31, 568-581. DOI URL
[35]	Stephenson NL, Das AJ, Condit R, Russo SE, Baker PJ, Beckman NG, Coomes DA, Lines ER, Morris WK, Rüger N, Álvarez E, Blundo C, Bunyavejchewin S, Chuyong G, Davies SJ, et al. (2014). Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature, 507, 90-93. DOI URL
[36]	Tang Y, Chen H, Tong YW, Zhu Q, Zhou WM, Zhou L, Dai LM, Yu DP (2019). Competition of key tree species with selective cutting at different intensities in broadleaved- Korean pine mixed forest in the Changbai Mountain, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 1469-1478.
	[唐杨, 陈红, 童跃伟, 朱琪, 周旺明, 周莉, 代力民, 于大炮 (2019). 长白山阔叶红松林不同强度择伐后关键树种的竞争关系. 应用生态学报, 30, 1469-1478.] DOI
[37]	Tasiken H, Cai HY, Jin GZ (2021). Effects of canopy structure on productivity in a typical mixed broadleaved-Korean pine forest. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 45, 38-50. DOI URL
	[哈努拉·塔斯肯, 蔡慧颖, 金光泽, (2021). 树冠结构对典型阔叶红松林生产力的影响. 植物生态学报, 45, 38-50.]
[38]	Vatraz S, Carvalho J, Silva JNM, Castro TDC (2016). Effect of the reduced impact exploration on growth dynamics of a natural forest. Scientia Forestalis, 44, 261-271.
[39]	Wu ZL, Zhou CJ, Zhou XN, Hu XS, Gan JB (2018). Variability after 15 years of vegetation recovery in natural secondary forest with timber harvesting at different intensities in southeastern China: community diversity and stability. Forests, 9, 40. DOI: 10.3390/f9010040. DOI URL
[40]	Xuan HC, Guo MZ, Gao LS, Fan CY (2020). Effect of competition environment changes on the radial growth of Pinus koraiensis and Fraxinus mandshurica in mixed coniferous- broad-leaved forest. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40, 4087-4093.
	[宣海憧, 郭梦昭, 高露双, 范春雨 (2020). 竞争强度变化对针阔混交林红松和水曲柳径向生长的影响. 生态学报, 40, 4087-4093.]
[41]	Zhang CY, Zhao XH, Gadow KV (2014). Analyzing selective harvest events in three large forest observational studies in North Eastern China. Forest Ecology and Management, 316, 100-109. DOI URL
[42]	Zhao YT (2009). Iconographia Plantarum Lignosarum Jilinica. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.
	[赵毓棠 (2009). 吉林树木图志. 中国林业出版社, 北京.]
[43]	Zheng JM, Zhang CY, Zhou JX, Zhao XH, Yu XX, Qin YS (2007). Study on vertical structure of forest communities in Yunmengshan. Forest Research, 20, 768-774.
	[郑景明, 张春雨, 周金星, 赵秀海, 余新晓, 秦永胜 (2007). 云蒙山典型森林群落垂直结构研究. 林业科学研究, 20, 768-774.]
[44]	Zhuang CY, Huang QL, Ma ZB, Luo F, Zhang Y (2014). Review on defining methods for canopy stratification. World Forestry Research, 27(6), 34-40.
	[庄崇洋, 黄清麟, 马志波, 罗芬, 张寅 (2014). 林层划分方法综述. 世界林业研究, 27(6), 34-40.]
[45]	Zucchini W, Schmidt M, Gadow K (2001). A model for the diameter-height distribution in an uneven-aged beech forest and a method to assess the fit of such models. Silva Fennica, 35, 169-183.

样地 Sample plot	海拔 Altitude (m)	坡度 Slope (°)	坡向 Aspect	郁闭度 Canopy density	平均胸径 Mean diameter at breast height (cm)	平均树高 Mean tree height (m)	主要乔木树种组成 Composition of main tree species
CK	453	1	东北 Northeast	0.9	14.6	9.7	3春榆; 2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1胡桃楸; 1五角枫; +红松; +蒙古栎; +黄檗; -山杨; -朝鲜槐; -三花槭; -硕桦; -白桦; -东北槭; -稠李; -裂叶榆 3 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Juglans mandshurica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; + Pinus koraiensis; + Quercus mongolica; + Phellodendron amurense; - Populus davidiana; - Maackia amurensis; - Acer triflorum; - Betula costata; - Betula platyphylla; - Acer mandshuricum; - Padus racemosa; - Ulmus laciniata
Low	443	4	东北 Northeast	0.9	13.9	9.6	2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1红松; 1五角枫; 1蒙古栎; 1白桦; 1春榆; +东北槭; +胡桃楸; -香杨; -黄檗; -千金榆; -朝鲜槐; -稠李; -茶条槭; -裂叶榆 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Pinus koraiensis; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Betula platyphylla; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; + Acer mandshuricum; + Juglans mandshurica; - Populus koreana; - Phellodendron amurense; - Carpinus cordata; - Maackia amurensis; - Padus racemosa; - Acer ginnala; - Ulmus laciniata
Medium	430	5	东北 Northeast	0.9	14.8	9.7	2红松; 2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1蒙古栎; 1五角枫; 1三花槭; 1春榆; 1白桦; +山杨; +东北槭; +胡桃楸; -朝鲜槐; -硕桦; -稠李; -茶条槭; -青楷槭; -香杨; -黄檗 2 Pinus koraiensis; 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Acer triflorum; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; 1 Betula platyphylla; + Populus davidiana; + Acer mandshuricum; + Juglans mandshurica; - Maackia amurensis; - Betula costata; - Padus racemosa; - Acer ginnala; - Acer tegmentosum; - Populus koreana; - Phellodendron amurense
High	447	3	东北 Northeast	0.9	12.4	8.8	2水曲柳; 2白桦; 1红松; 1紫椴; 1蒙古栎; 1五角枫; 1三花槭; 1春榆; +香杨; -山杨; -朝鲜槐; -硕桦; -东北槭; -稠李; -辽椴; -胡桃楸; -茶条槭; -裂叶榆; -黄檗 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 2 Betula platyphylla; 1 Pinus koraiensis; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Acer triflorum; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; + Populus koreana; - Populus davidiana; - Maackia amurensis; - Betula costata; - Acer mandshuricum; - Padus racemosa; - Tilia mandshurica; - Juglans mandshurica; - Acer ginnala; - Ulmus laciniate; - Phellodendron amurense

样地 Sample plot	海拔 Altitude (m)	坡度 Slope (°)	坡向 Aspect	郁闭度 Canopy density	平均胸径 Mean diameter at breast height (cm)	平均树高 Mean tree height (m)	主要乔木树种组成 Composition of main tree species
CK	453	1	东北 Northeast	0.9	14.6	9.7	3春榆; 2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1胡桃楸; 1五角枫; +红松; +蒙古栎; +黄檗; -山杨; -朝鲜槐; -三花槭; -硕桦; -白桦; -东北槭; -稠李; -裂叶榆 3 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Juglans mandshurica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; + Pinus koraiensis; + Quercus mongolica; + Phellodendron amurense; - Populus davidiana; - Maackia amurensis; - Acer triflorum; - Betula costata; - Betula platyphylla; - Acer mandshuricum; - Padus racemosa; - Ulmus laciniata
Low	443	4	东北 Northeast	0.9	13.9	9.6	2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1红松; 1五角枫; 1蒙古栎; 1白桦; 1春榆; +东北槭; +胡桃楸; -香杨; -黄檗; -千金榆; -朝鲜槐; -稠李; -茶条槭; -裂叶榆 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Pinus koraiensis; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Betula platyphylla; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; + Acer mandshuricum; + Juglans mandshurica; - Populus koreana; - Phellodendron amurense; - Carpinus cordata; - Maackia amurensis; - Padus racemosa; - Acer ginnala; - Ulmus laciniata
Medium	430	5	东北 Northeast	0.9	14.8	9.7	2红松; 2水曲柳; 1紫椴; 1蒙古栎; 1五角枫; 1三花槭; 1春榆; 1白桦; +山杨; +东北槭; +胡桃楸; -朝鲜槐; -硕桦; -稠李; -茶条槭; -青楷槭; -香杨; -黄檗 2 Pinus koraiensis; 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Acer triflorum; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; 1 Betula platyphylla; + Populus davidiana; + Acer mandshuricum; + Juglans mandshurica; - Maackia amurensis; - Betula costata; - Padus racemosa; - Acer ginnala; - Acer tegmentosum; - Populus koreana; - Phellodendron amurense
High	447	3	东北 Northeast	0.9	12.4	8.8	2水曲柳; 2白桦; 1红松; 1紫椴; 1蒙古栎; 1五角枫; 1三花槭; 1春榆; +香杨; -山杨; -朝鲜槐; -硕桦; -东北槭; -稠李; -辽椴; -胡桃楸; -茶条槭; -裂叶榆; -黄檗 2 Fraxinus mandshurica; 2 Betula platyphylla; 1 Pinus koraiensis; 1 Tilia amurensis; 1 Quercus mongolica; 1 Acer pictum subsp. mono; 1 Acer triflorum; 1 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica; + Populus koreana; - Populus davidiana; - Maackia amurensis; - Betula costata; - Acer mandshuricum; - Padus racemosa; - Tilia mandshurica; - Juglans mandshurica; - Acer ginnala; - Ulmus laciniate; - Phellodendron amurense

物种 Species	林层 Forest strata	划分I和II组的方法 Method used to differentiate between mature (I) and immature (II) trees	组别 Cohort		监测株数 Number of stems	耐阴性 Shade- tolerance
白桦 Betula platyphylla	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (53.5): DBH ≥ 22 cm	II (43.5): DBH < 22 cm	178	喜光 LD
东北槭 Acer mandshuricum	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (87.4): DBH ≥ 8 cm	II (55.6): DBH < 8 cm	270	喜光 LD
春榆 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (67.8): DBH ≥ 12 cm	II (39.2): DBH < 12 cm	>627	喜光且耐阴 LD and ST
硕桦 Betula costata	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 10.2 m	II: H < 10.2 m	7	喜光 LD
红松 Pinus koraiensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (62.5): DBH ≥ 20 cm	II (42.4): DBH < 20 cm	387	喜光 LD
胡桃楸 Juglans mandshurica	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (50.0): H ≥ 11.9 m	II (35.9): H < 11.9 m	90	喜光 LD
朝鲜槐 Maackia amurensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (60.3): DBH ≥ 12 cm	II (47.3): DBH < 12 cm	94	喜光 LD
黄檗 Phellodendron amurense	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (66.1): H ≥ 9.3 m	II (52.9): H < 9.3 m	61	喜光 LD
辽椴 Tilia mandshurica	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 11 m	II: H < 11 m	16	喜光 LD
裂叶榆 Ulmus laciniata	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (68.4): H ≥ 10.2 m	II (52.1): H < 10.2 m	>15	耐阴 ST
蒙古栎 Quercus mongolica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (59.2): DBH ≥ 20 cm	II (44.2): DBH < 20 cm	177	喜光 LD
三花槭 Acer triflorum	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (86.6): DBH ≥ 13 cm	II (50.0): DBH < 13 cm	>379	耐阴 ST
五角枫 Acer pictum subsp. mono	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (81.3): DBH ≥ 13 cm	II (60.8): DBH < 13 cm	851	喜光 LD
山杨 Populus davidiana	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (28.0): H ≥ 11.7 m	II (20.6): H < 11.7 m	20	喜光 LD
水曲柳 Fraxinus mandschurica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (60.1): DBH ≥ 21 cm	II (49.6): DBH < 21 cm	323	喜光 LD
香杨 Populus koreana	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 13.7 m	II: H < 13.7 m	10	喜光 LD
紫椴 Tilia amurensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (68.3): DBH ≥ 18 cm	II (43.6): DBH < 18 cm	493	喜光 LD
暴马丁香 Syringa reticulata subsp. amurensis	U	-	III		>171	耐阴 ST
茶条槭 Acer ginnala	U	-	III		20	喜光 LD
稠李 Padus racemosa	U	-	III		32	耐阴 ST
簇毛槭 Acer barbinerve	U	-	III		34	耐阴 ST
花楸树 Sorbus pohuashanensis	U	-	III		1	耐阴 ST
楤木 Aralia elata	U	-	III		1	喜光 LD
毛榛 Corylus mandshurica	U	-	III		16	耐阴 ST
千金榆 Carpinus cordata	U	-	III		1	耐阴 ST
青楷槭 Acer tegmentosum	U	-	III		44	喜光 LD
山荆子 Malus baccata	U	-	III		68	耐阴 ST
鼠李 Rhamnus davurica	U	-	III		9	耐阴 ST
卫矛 Euonymus alatus	U	-	III		>12	喜光且耐阴 LD and ST

物种 Species	林层 Forest strata	划分I和II组的方法 Method used to differentiate between mature (I) and immature (II) trees	组别 Cohort		监测株数 Number of stems	耐阴性 Shade- tolerance
白桦 Betula platyphylla	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (53.5): DBH ≥ 22 cm	II (43.5): DBH < 22 cm	178	喜光 LD
东北槭 Acer mandshuricum	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (87.4): DBH ≥ 8 cm	II (55.6): DBH < 8 cm	270	喜光 LD
春榆 Ulmus davidiana var. japonica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (67.8): DBH ≥ 12 cm	II (39.2): DBH < 12 cm	>627	喜光且耐阴 LD and ST
硕桦 Betula costata	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 10.2 m	II: H < 10.2 m	7	喜光 LD
红松 Pinus koraiensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (62.5): DBH ≥ 20 cm	II (42.4): DBH < 20 cm	387	喜光 LD
胡桃楸 Juglans mandshurica	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (50.0): H ≥ 11.9 m	II (35.9): H < 11.9 m	90	喜光 LD
朝鲜槐 Maackia amurensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (60.3): DBH ≥ 12 cm	II (47.3): DBH < 12 cm	94	喜光 LD
黄檗 Phellodendron amurense	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (66.1): H ≥ 9.3 m	II (52.9): H < 9.3 m	61	喜光 LD
辽椴 Tilia mandshurica	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 11 m	II: H < 11 m	16	喜光 LD
裂叶榆 Ulmus laciniata	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (68.4): H ≥ 10.2 m	II (52.1): H < 10.2 m	>15	耐阴 ST
蒙古栎 Quercus mongolica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (59.2): DBH ≥ 20 cm	II (44.2): DBH < 20 cm	177	喜光 LD
三花槭 Acer triflorum	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (86.6): DBH ≥ 13 cm	II (50.0): DBH < 13 cm	>379	耐阴 ST
五角枫 Acer pictum subsp. mono	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (81.3): DBH ≥ 13 cm	II (60.8): DBH < 13 cm	851	喜光 LD
山杨 Populus davidiana	C	最大树高法 H_max	I (28.0): H ≥ 11.7 m	II (20.6): H < 11.7 m	20	喜光 LD
水曲柳 Fraxinus mandschurica	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (60.1): DBH ≥ 21 cm	II (49.6): DBH < 21 cm	323	喜光 LD
香杨 Populus koreana	C	最大树高法 H_max	I: H ≥ 13.7 m	II: H < 13.7 m	10	喜光 LD
紫椴 Tilia amurensis	C	树高胸径分布法 DBH-H distribution	I (68.3): DBH ≥ 18 cm	II (43.6): DBH < 18 cm	493	喜光 LD
暴马丁香 Syringa reticulata subsp. amurensis	U	-	III		>171	耐阴 ST
茶条槭 Acer ginnala	U	-	III		20	喜光 LD
稠李 Padus racemosa	U	-	III		32	耐阴 ST
簇毛槭 Acer barbinerve	U	-	III		34	耐阴 ST
花楸树 Sorbus pohuashanensis	U	-	III		1	耐阴 ST
楤木 Aralia elata	U	-	III		1	喜光 LD
毛榛 Corylus mandshurica	U	-	III		16	耐阴 ST
千金榆 Carpinus cordata	U	-	III		1	耐阴 ST
青楷槭 Acer tegmentosum	U	-	III		44	喜光 LD
山荆子 Malus baccata	U	-	III		68	耐阴 ST
鼠李 Rhamnus davurica	U	-	III		9	耐阴 ST
卫矛 Euonymus alatus	U	-	III		>12	喜光且耐阴 LD and ST

	林木株数 Number of stems			胸高断面积 Basal area (m²·hm^-2)
	I	II	III	I	II	III
伐前 Pre-harvesting
CK	354	516	76	23.01	3.63	0.36
Low	345	621	60	25.77	3.36	0.26
Medium	339	589	71	25.86	3.67	0.39
High	296	595	134	23.63	3.41	0.35
伐后 Post-harvesting
CK	354	516	76	23.01	3.63	0.36
Low	303 (12%)	580 (7%)	48 (20%)	21.24 (18%)	3.11 (7%)	0.25 (4%)
Medium	251 (26%)	504 (14%)	58 (18%)	16.94 (34%)	3.25 (11%)	0.27 (31%)
High	149 (50%)	379 (36%)	68 (49%)	8.47 (64%)	2.61 (23%)	0.21 (40%)