生物多样性 ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (4): 449-456.DOI: 10.17520/biods.2018341

• 方法 • 上一篇    下一篇

7个林木大小多样性指数表达能力比较

娄明华1,白超2,*(),惠刚盈3,汤孟平4   

  1. 1 宁波市农业科学研究院, 浙江宁波 315040
    2 宁波市环境保护科学研究设计院, 浙江宁波 315010
    3 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
    4 浙江农林大学森林生态系统碳循环与固碳减排省重点实验室, 杭州 311300
  • 收稿日期:2018-12-26 接受日期:2019-03-19 出版日期:2019-04-20 发布日期:2019-06-05
  • 通讯作者: 白超
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(31800539);国家自然科学基金(31700563);国家自然科学基金(31870617);国家林业局林业公益性行业科研专项(20150430303);宁波市农业科学研究院院长基金(2018NKYP005)

Comparison of distinguish ability on seven tree size diversity indices

Lou Minghua1,Bai Chao2,*(),Hui Gangying3,Tang Mengping4   

  1. 1 Ningbo Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040
    2 Ningbo Scientific Research and Design Institute of Environmental Protection, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315010
    3 Key Laboratory of Tree Breeding and Cultivation of State Forestry Administration, Research Institute of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091
    4 Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Carbon Cycling in Forest Ecosystems and Carbon Sequestration, Zhejiang A & F University, Hangzhou 311300;
  • Received:2018-12-26 Accepted:2019-03-19 Online:2019-04-20 Published:2019-06-05
  • Contact: Bai Chao

摘要:

林木大小多样性直接反映森林生态系统的健康与稳定, 客观恰当地表达大小多样性对于评价天然林或人工林的经济、生态、社会价值及其经营效果至关重要。本研究选用7个林木大小多样性指数, 其中4个与距离无关(Simpson大小多样性指数DN、Shannon大小多样性指数HN、断面积Gini系数GC和直径变异系数CVd), 3个与距离有关(Simpson大小分化度指数DT、Shannon大小分化度指数HT和大小分化度均值指数$\bar{T}$), 通过6组模拟林分和4块实测林分比较分析了它们的表达能力。结果表明: 不考虑极端情况(极端情况为对比林分林木大小混交不同但林木直径构成完全相同), GCCVd、$\bar{T}$、DTHT能客观恰当地表达不同径级分布林分的林木大小多样性差异, 其中CVd区分能力最强, GC次之。若考虑极端情况, 只有$\bar{T}$、DTHT能区分出不同大小混交程度林分的林木大小多样性差异。本研究认为CVdGC因计算简单, 易于实际应用, 在营林活动中可作为分析林木大小多样性的首选指数; $\bar{T}$因能识别不同大小混交程度林分的空间差异, 即对林分更新变化敏感, 适用于动态分析林分的结构特征。

关键词: 林木大小多样性, 直径分布, 大小分化度, 大小混交, 大小隔离

Abstract:

Tree size diversity directly reflects forest ecosystem health and stability. Objective and appropriate evaluation of tree size is essential for understanding the economic, ecological and social value of natural forests or plantations as well as for effective forest stand management. Four distance-free diversity indices (simpson size diversity index, DN; shannon size diversity index, HN; gini coefficient index of basal area, GC; diameter coefficient of variation index, CVd) and three distance-related indices (simpson size differentiation index, DT; shannon size differentiation index, HT; mean size differentiation index, $\bar{T}$) were selected to analyze the tree size diversity of six types of simulated stands and four measured stand plots with different diameter distribution and spatial patterns. The results show that regardless of extreme that such as compared stands have the same diameter composition but have different size mingling, GC, CVd, $\bar{T}$, DT and HT can distinguish tree size diversity between stand types which have different diameter distributions objectively and properly. CVd had the best result followed by GC. Accounting for extreme, the distance-related indices, namely $\bar{T}$, DT and HT can distinguish the difference between different size mingling stands. CVd and GC can be used as the preferred indices in the practical application for calculating simple facilitate. $\bar{T}$can be used to analyze the dynamic changes of forest structural characteristics for its high distinction ability of spatial difference that due to its sensitivity to regeneration.

Key words: tree size diversity, diameter distribution, size differentiation, size mingling, size segregation