欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

生态学杂志

• 技术与方法 • 上一篇    

不同方法计算湿地松林生物量的比较

李轩然1,2,3;刘琪璟2;胡理乐4;马泽清2,3   

  1. 1赤峰学院环境与资源管理系, 赤峰 024001;
    2中国科学院地理科学与资源 研究所, 北京 100101;
    3中国科学院研究生院, 北京 100039;
    4中国科学 院沈阳应用生态研究所, 沈阳 110016
  • 收稿日期:2006-01-07 修回日期:2006-09-12 出版日期:2006-12-10 发布日期:2006-12-10

Calculation of Pinus elliotii biomass: A comparison of different methods

LI Xuanran1,2,3;LIU Qijing2;HU Lile4;MA Zeqing2,3   

  1. 1Department of Environment and Resources Management, Chifeng College,Chifeng 024001, China;
    2Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
    3Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100039, China;
    4Institute of Applied Ecology,Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China
  • Received:2006-01-07 Revised:2006-09-12 Online:2006-12-10 Published:2006-12-10

摘要: 利用实测值建模法、估计值建模法和平均标准木法计算中国科学院千烟洲试验站湿地松(Pinus elliotii)人工林各器官生物量和总地上生物量,并与利用文献中的湿地松相对生长方程计算的结果进行比较。结果表明,枝条基径与该枝条叶生物量及总生物量之间存在显著的相关关系;不同方法计算的总地上生物量存在一定的差别,其中实测值建模法和估计值建模法的计算结果最接近,分别为7.9×104和8.0×104kg·hm-2,利用平均标准木法得到的生物量偏低,为7.41×10.4kg·hm-2;3种方法得到的各器官生物量差别较大,尤其是叶生物量,利用实测值建模法的计算结果为8450kg·hm-2,估计值建模法和平均标准木法的计算结果分别为6580和1.0×104kg·hm-2,其中平均标准木法的计算结果因取样的不同而有所差异;直接利用他人建立的相对生长方程计算的生物量与以上3种方法计算结果相比差异较大,使用时须谨慎。计算总地上生物量时,实测值建模法是最可靠的方法,估计值建模法在一定程度上可以代替实测值建模法。

关键词: 土地利用变化, 陆地生态系统, 碳贮量, 森林砍伐, 森林恢复, 耕作, 轮作, 施肥

Abstract: In this paper, three methods including allometry with observed data (AMOD), allometry with calculated data (AMCD), and average sample tree determination(ASTD)were used to estimate the foliage biomass, branch biomass, trunk biomass, and to tal biomass of Pinus elliotii in Qianyanzhou station. The results showed tha t branch diameter was highly correlated to branch biomass and branch leaf biomass, and the linear equation with single parameter (d3) was the best type of equation to describe the correlation. The total biomass calculated by these three methods was adjacent, being 7.9×104kg·hm-2by AMOD, 8.0×104kg·hm-2 by AMCD, and 7.41×104 kg·hm-2 by ASTD. The foliage biomass , branch biomass and trunk biomass, especially the foliage biomass,had a distinct difference when estimated by the three methods, being >20% higher or lower by ASTD than by the other two methods. In related literatures, allometric equation s were also used to estimate the total biomass and apparatus biomass of P. elliotii, but the calculated values were all higher than those by the three methods. AMOD was most reliable when estimating forest biomass, while AMCD could take the place of AMOD in some extent.

Key words: Land use change, Terrestrial ecosystem, Carbon storage, Deforestation, Reforestation, Tillage, Rotation, Fertilization