首页|不同林龄序列杉木实生林和萌芽林碳储量分配特征

不同林龄序列杉木实生林和萌芽林碳储量分配特征

扫码查看
以赣西南杉木实生林和萌芽林为研究对象,通过野外样地调查和室内化学分析方法,揭示了不同龄组实生林和萌芽林的碳储量分配特征,为其可持续经营提供科学依据.结果表明:不同龄组杉木实生林乔木层碳储量均高于萌芽林乔木层碳储量.杉木实生幼龄林乔木层碳储量为9.63 t/hm2,中龄林为42.14t/hm2,近熟林为69.15 t/hm2,成熟林为105.21 t/hm2;年均固碳量分别为1.69,2.63,3.01,3.39 t/hm2,不同龄组的树干碳储量分别占整个乔木层的50.36%,70.60%,73.86%,77.58%.杉木萌芽幼龄林乔木层碳储量为8.42 t/hm2,中龄林为23.58 t/hm2,近熟林为48.54 t/hm2,成熟林为75.26 t/hm2;年均固碳量分别为1.21,1.57,2.11,2.59 t/hm2,不同龄组的树干碳储量分别占整个乔木层的54.28%,66.12%,71.92%,73.70%.杉木实生林和萌芽林的土壤碳储量均是中龄林最低,成熟林最高.实生林各龄组土壤碳储量大小为:成熟林(153.21 t/hm2)>近熟林(138.17 t/hm2)>幼龄林(128.30 t/hm2)>中龄林(113.11 t/hm2).萌芽林各龄组土壤碳储量大小为:成熟林(154.03 t/hm2)>近熟林(138.28 t/hm2)>幼龄林(130.20 t/hm2)>中龄林(117.05 t/hm2).在密度相近的情况下,除幼龄林外,同一龄组的萌芽林总碳储量均小于实生林.同一龄组实生林和萌芽林的乔木层碳储量均有显著性差异(p<0.05),而总碳储量幼龄林与中龄林无显著性差异,近熟林与成熟林有显著性差异.引起杉木实生林和萌芽林碳储量分配差异性的主要原因是生长规律和经营管理的不同.总体而言,萌芽林的林下植被组成丰富,灌木层、草本层和凋落物层的固碳能力较强,在水土保持功能方面要优于实生林.
Carbon Storage and Its Allocation Characters of Chinese Fir Seedling Forest and Sprout Forest in Different Stand Ages
Combining the field plot survey and laboratory chemical analysis method,Chinese fir seedhng forest and sprout forest in southwest of Jiangxi were studied to reveal the carbon storage allocation characters of different stand ages and regeneration pattern,and to provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management of plantations.Our results showed that the carbon storage in tree layer of seedling plantation within different stand ages was generally higher than that of sprout forest.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir seedling forest within young,mid-mature,nearly mature,mature forest were 9.63 t/hm2,42.14 t/hm2,69.15 t/hm2 and 105.21 t/hm2,respectively,and the average annual amount of carbon sequestration were 1.69 t/hm2,2.63 t/hm2,3.01 t/hm2and 3.39 t/hm2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 50.36%,70.60%,73.86% and 77.58% of the whole tree layer.The carbon storage in tree layer of Chinese fir sprout forest within young,mid-maturation,nearly mature,mature forest were 8.42 t/hm2,23.58 t/hm2,48.54 t/ hm2,and 75.26 t/hm2,respectively,the annual average amount of carbon storage of those were 1.21 t/hm2,1.57 t/hm2,2.11 t/hm2 and 2.59 t/hm2,and the trunk carbon storage of those accounted for 54.28%,66.12%,71.92% and 73.70% of the whole tree layer.The lowest soil carbon sequestration of both Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest were found in young forest,and the highest of those were found in mature forest.The ranking order of soil carbon storage of Chinese fir seedling forest were mature forest (153.21 t/hm2)>nearly mature forest (138.17 t/hm2)>young forest (128.30 t/hm2) > mid-maturation forest (113.11 t/hm2),while that of sprout forest were mature forest (154.03 t/hm2) >nearly mature forest (138.28 t/hm2)>young forest (130.20 t/hm2) >mid-maturation forest (117.05 t/hm2).Under the condition of the same stand density,the total carbon storage of sprout forest was lower than that of seedling forest except for young forest.There were significant difference of carbon storage within different stand ages between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest (p<0.05),however,the total carbon storage was not significantly different between the young and mid-mature forest,while significant difference was found between nearly and mature forest.Different growth rules and management caused different carbon storage allocation characters between Chinese fir seedling forest and sprout forest.In general,Chinese fir sprout forest were rich in understory species,and the ability for carbon sequestration of shrub,herb and litter layer were stronger,which were better than Chinese fir seedling forest in the aspect of soil and water conservation function.

carbon storageallocation charactersChinese fir seedling forestChinese fir sprout foreststand age

唐学君、王伟峰、罗细芳、张现武、张旭东

展开 >

中国林业科学研究院林业研究所,国家林业局林木培育重点实验室,北京100091

国家林业局华东林业调查规划设计院,杭州310019

内蒙古林业科学研究院生态功能与森林碳汇研究所,呼和浩特010010

碳储量 分配特征 杉木实生林 杉木萌芽林 林龄

国家科技支撑计划项目国家科技支撑计划项目

2015BAD07B072015BAD07B04

2017

水土保持学报
中国土壤学会 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所

水土保持学报

CSTPCDCSCD北大核心
影响因子:1.226
ISSN:1009-2242
年,卷(期):2017.31(1)
  • 8
  • 26