Single-wood Health Assessment in Casuarina Protection Forests at Different Distances from the Coastline

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.11.025

Abstract

Abstract:

Single-wood health assessment is an important part of forest health monitoring. Coast protect forest is one of the critical plantation ecosystems in China, which is damaged to some extent in a strong variation environment with intense differences from the ocean to the land. But, at present the research on the assessment of forest health in a single-wood scale and in different distances from the coast line is so scarce due to overlooking the health of the trees growing in the weakness of the ecosystem. In order to make up the gap, we took different Casuarina forests as the study objects, divided their distances into five gradients from near to far, which was from the forest edge facing the sea to the forest interior, and established a single-wood health assessment system including the indexes of root damage, crown deciduous degree, canopy transparency, crown overlap, crown dieback, canopy weight and crown deviation. The overall health of single-wood trees in the coastal Casuarina forest was poor with 17.78% unhealthy and only 4.44% in good health. The different gradients of the coastal Casuarina forest showed obvious significant from the coast forest trees to the interior ones. The unhealthy grade trees in the first gradient were up to 33.33%, which was significantly more than that in the second one (P<0.05), and there were no high grade trees. The unhealthy trees in the fifth gradient were significantly less than that in the third and fourth gradients (P<0.05) with 93.33% of the health and above grades. The study would lay a basis for the health management of coastal Casuarina protection forests.

Key words: single-wood health assessment, coastal shelter forest, forest health, Casuarina

CLC Number:

S792.93

LIU Hena,LI Maojin,WANG Yanyan,JIANG Chuanyang,LI Kunling,WU Chengzhen,CHEN Can. Single-wood Health Assessment in Casuarina Protection Forests at Different Distances from the Coastline[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(11): 2322-2328.

Figures/Tables 3

References 31

[1]	Meng Y, Cao B, Dong C, et al. Mount Taishan forest ecosystem health assessment based on forest inventory data[J]. Forests, 2019,10(8):657. DOI URL
[2]	陈高, 邓红兵, 王庆礼, 等. 森林生态系统健康评估的一般性途径探讨[J]. 应用生态学报, 2003,14(6):995-999.
[3]	肖风劲, 欧阳华, 傅伯杰, 等. 森林生态系统健康评价指标及其在中国的应用[J]. 地理学报, 2003,58(6):803-809. DOI URL
[4]	陈小梅, 王军. 森林健康评价研究综述[J]. 广东林业科技, 2007,23(4):61-65.
[5]	王彦辉, 肖文发, 张星耀. 森林健康监测与评价的国内外现状和发展趋势[J]. 林业科学, 2007,43(7):78-85. DOI URL
[6]	刘君昂, 刘红娟. 森林健康评价方法与应用[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2009,29(6):197-200.
[7]	李静锐, 张振明, 罗凯. 森林生态系统健康评价指标体系的建立[J]. 水土保持研究, 2007,14(3):173-175, 179.
[8]	施明辉, 赵翠薇, 郭志华, 等. 森林健康评价研究进展[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010,29(12):2498-2506.
[9]	王懿祥, 陆元昌, 张守攻, 等. 森林生态系统健康评价现状及展望[J]. 林业科学, 2010,46(2):134-140. DOI URL
[10]	朱宇, 刘兆刚, 金光泽. 大兴安岭天然落叶松林单木健康评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013,24(5):1320-1328.
[11]	张凌宇. 大兴安岭天然落叶松单木健康评价指标[J]. 林业科技情报, 2013,45(1):41-43.
[12]	罗美娟. 沿海木麻黄防护林生态作用研究进展[J]. 防护林科技, 2002 (3):46-47, 57.
[13]	于金涛, 肖文发, 王鹏程, 等. 防护林健康评价研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2013,26(1):31-36.
[14]	程志楚, 曹迎春. 国家森林资源连续清查森林健康监测方法的探讨[J]. 河北林果研究, 2008,23(2):142-145.
[15]	Alexander S A, Palmer C J. Forest health monitoring in the United States: First four years[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 1999,55(2):267-277. DOI URL
[16]	沈剑波, 雷相东, 舒清态, 等. 国内外森林健康评价指标体系综述[J]. 科技导报, 2011,29(33):72-79. DOI URL
[17]	宋丹丹, 郭辉. 基于AHP和熵值法的新疆水资源承载力综合评价研究[J]. 广西师范学院学报(自然科学版), 2014,31(3):57-64.
[18]	张秋根, 王桃云, 钟全林. 森林生态环境健康评价初探[J]. 水土保持学报, 2003,17(5):16-18.
[19]	王忠春, 亢新刚, 罗仙仙, 等. 森林健康评价研究进展[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2010,25(5):163-169.
[20]	陈灿, 洪伟, 吴承祯, 等. 东南沿海防护林木麻黄种群生命表及生存分析[J]. 农学学报, 2011,1(6):37-42.
[21]	叶功富, 俞新妥. 木麻黄营林研究综述[J]. 福建林学院学报, 1998,18(3):273-276.
[22]	叶功富, 张立华, 侯杰, 等. 滨海沙地木麻黄人工林细根生物量及其动态研究[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2007,13(4):481-485.
[23]	张广帅, 邓浩俊, 俞伟, 等. 不同密度下木麻黄幼苗枝系特征变化的研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2014,35(6):1062-1066.
[24]	罗时龙, 蔡锋, 王厚杰. 海岸侵蚀及其管理研究的若干进展[J]. 地球科学进展, 2013,28(11):1239-1247. DOI URL
[25]	罗时龙, 蔡锋, 刘建辉, 等. 福建海岸侵蚀风险评价研究[J]. 海洋学报(中文版), 2014,36(9):132-141.
[26]	何学友. 福建省沿海木麻黄衰枯原因的研究[J]. 福建林业科技, 1998,25(3):40-45.
[27]	陈玉生, 张卓文, 韩兰, 等. 连峡河小流域不同森林类型凋落物持水特性研究[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2005,24(2):207-212.
[28]	陈洪, 叶功富, 林金顺, 等. 模拟海风对木麻黄苗木生理生化特性影响的研究[J]. 防护林科技, 2000(S1):190-193.
[29]	李茂瑾. 惠安赤湖林场木麻黄毒蛾发生和防治现状[J]. 防护林科技, 2010 (3):55-57.
[30]	陈绶柱, 岑奋, 吴泽鹏. 沿海沙岸防风固沙木麻黄试验示范林抗御台风分析[J]. 广东林业科技, 1999,15(1):26-30.
[31]	邱明红, 王荣丽, 丁冬静, 等. 台风“威马逊”对东寨港红树林灾害程度影响因子分析[J]. 生态科学, 2016,35(2):118-122.

根部状态 Root damage		树冠落叶程度 Crown deciduous degree		树冠透视度 Canopy transparency		树冠重叠度 Crown overlap		树冠枯梢度 Crown dieback		树冠层比重 Canopy weight		树冠偏斜度 Crown deviation
无损伤	3	无落叶	6	0~15%	10	无重叠	6	无枯死	7	>90%	8	0~0.8	4
裸露无伤	2	<25%	5	15%~25%	9	<25%	5	<15%	6	75%~90%	7	0.8~1.6	3
裸露有伤	1	25%~50%	4	25%~35%	8	25%~50%	4	15%~30%	5	60%~75%	6	1.6~2.4	2
死亡	0	50%~75%	3	35%~45%	7	50%~75%	3	30%~45%	4	45%~60%	5	2.4~3.2	1
		75%~90%	2	45%~55%	6	75%~100%	2	45%~60%	3	30%~45%	4	3.2~4.0	0
		>90%	1	55%~65%	5	100%	1	60%~75%	2	15%~30%	3
		林木枯死	0	65%~75%	4	树冠枯死	0	75%~90%	1	0~15%	2
				75%~85%	3			>90%	0	完全落叶,但树木未死	1
				85%~95%	2					树木枯死	0
				>95%	1
				树冠枯死	0

根部状态 Root damage		树冠落叶程度 Crown deciduous degree		树冠透视度 Canopy transparency		树冠重叠度 Crown overlap		树冠枯梢度 Crown dieback		树冠层比重 Canopy weight		树冠偏斜度 Crown deviation
无损伤	3	无落叶	6	0~15%	10	无重叠	6	无枯死	7	>90%	8	0~0.8	4
裸露无伤	2	<25%	5	15%~25%	9	<25%	5	<15%	6	75%~90%	7	0.8~1.6	3
裸露有伤	1	25%~50%	4	25%~35%	8	25%~50%	4	15%~30%	5	60%~75%	6	1.6~2.4	2
死亡	0	50%~75%	3	35%~45%	7	50%~75%	3	30%~45%	4	45%~60%	5	2.4~3.2	1
		75%~90%	2	45%~55%	6	75%~100%	2	45%~60%	3	30%~45%	4	3.2~4.0	0
		>90%	1	55%~65%	5	100%	1	60%~75%	2	15%~30%	3
		林木枯死	0	65%~75%	4	树冠枯死	0	75%~90%	1	0~15%	2
				75%~85%	3			>90%	0	完全落叶,但树木未死	1
				85%~95%	2					树木枯死	0
				>95%	1
				树冠枯死	0

梯度Gradients	A₁	A₂	A₃	A₄	A₅	A₆	A₇
T₁	0.73±0.10^bc	0.42±0.06^c	0.39±0.07^b	0.65±0.11^a	0.24±0.05^d	0.33±0.05^c	0.57±0.07^b
T₂	0.67±0.07^c	0.58±0.03^b	0.60±0.04^a	0.78±0.03^a	0.35±0.05^cd	0.43±0.02^c	0.72±0.06^ab
T₃	0.58±0.08^c	0.58±0.05^b	0.60±0.07^a	0.71±0.08^a	0.44±0.07^bcd	0.49±0.06^bc	0.72±0.08^ab
T₄	0.71±0.07^bc	0.69±0.02^ab	0.59±0.04^a	0.82±0.09^a	0.49±0.09^bc	0.48±0.07^c	0.70±0.07^ab
T₅	0.98±0.02^a	0.67±0.04^ab	0.63±0.05^a	0.83±0.06^a	0.59±0.06^ab	0.66±0.03^ab	0.65±0.06^ab
T_ck	0.91±0.04^ab	0.77±0.04^a	0.68±0.06^a	0.82±0.02^a	0.77±0.04^a	0.71±0.06^a	0.83±0.05^a
Total	0.76±0.03	0.62±0.02	0.58±0.02	0.77±0.03	0.48±0.03	0.51±0.03	0.70±0.03

梯度Gradients	A₁	A₂	A₃	A₄	A₅	A₆	A₇
T₁	0.73±0.10^bc	0.42±0.06^c	0.39±0.07^b	0.65±0.11^a	0.24±0.05^d	0.33±0.05^c	0.57±0.07^b
T₂	0.67±0.07^c	0.58±0.03^b	0.60±0.04^a	0.78±0.03^a	0.35±0.05^cd	0.43±0.02^c	0.72±0.06^ab
T₃	0.58±0.08^c	0.58±0.05^b	0.60±0.07^a	0.71±0.08^a	0.44±0.07^bcd	0.49±0.06^bc	0.72±0.08^ab
T₄	0.71±0.07^bc	0.69±0.02^ab	0.59±0.04^a	0.82±0.09^a	0.49±0.09^bc	0.48±0.07^c	0.70±0.07^ab
T₅	0.98±0.02^a	0.67±0.04^ab	0.63±0.05^a	0.83±0.06^a	0.59±0.06^ab	0.66±0.03^ab	0.65±0.06^ab
T_ck	0.91±0.04^ab	0.77±0.04^a	0.68±0.06^a	0.82±0.02^a	0.77±0.04^a	0.71±0.06^a	0.83±0.05^a
Total	0.76±0.03	0.62±0.02	0.58±0.02	0.77±0.03	0.48±0.03	0.51±0.03	0.70±0.03

梯度Gradients	不健康Unhealthy/%	亚健康Sub-health/%	健康Health/%	良好健康Good/%	优质健康Quality/%
T₁	33.33±6.67^b	13.33±6.67^a	53.33±6.67^cd	0.00±0.00^a	0.00±0.00^a
T₂	6.67±6.67^a	20.00±11.55^a	73.33±6.67^d	0.00±0.00^a	0.00±0.00^a
T₃	33.33±6.67^b	13.33±6.67^a	26.67±6.67^ab	26.67±17.64^b	0.00±0.00^a
T₄	26.67±6.67^b	6.67±6.67^a	20.00±0.00^ab	40.00±0.00^b	6.67±6.67^a
T₅	6.67±6.67^a	0.00±0.00^a	40.00±11.55^bc	46.67±6.67^b	6.67±6.67^a
T_ck	0.00±0.00^a	0.00±0.00^a	13.33±6.67^a	73.33±6.67^c	13.33±6.67^a
Total	17.78±3.92	8.89±2.90	37.78±5.58	31.11±6.90	4.44±2.02