| The research was based on the methods of statistical methods, and made a comparison in community characteristics between the 4 different inter-planting Pinus massoniana communities in Fujian Shunchan Pushang national forest farms, including the comparisons of the species composition and quantity characteristics, species diversity features, the spatial distribution patterns of the main species in tree layer, the high scales and diameter scales, various kinds of model fittings, and the contend of the main species. The main results were as following:(1) Analyzed the different species compositions between the 4 kinds of communities, and the results showed that there were 101 kinds of species in all, belonging to 58 families and 93 genus. The analysis of the flora features of the 4 kinds of communities showed that the dispersion patterns of the families include 11 kinds. The distribution types of the communities which took up the most families were world distribution type including 11 families, and then pan-tropical distribution type including 10 families. Based on the distribution of the genera in the world, the 17 distribution types of the genera were divided. According to the geographical distribution types of genus, there were 13 genus in pan-tropical distribution and world distribution was fallowing behind. In a nutshell, the genus with a great proportion both tended to tropics and semi-tropics distribution, no matter what kind of community it was.(2) Analyzed from the quantity characteristics of the main species in the 4 different communities, the results showed the dominant species of the community 1,2,4 were all Pinus massoniana, and only the dominant species of community 3 was Cunninghamia lanceolata. The importance characteristics of the main species in the shrub layer of the 4 different kind communities was that community 3 and 4 included more species the importance value of which was bigger than 10 percent, while the community 1 and 2 included less. The most dominant species which had the biggest importance value in the herb layer of the 4 communities were all Dicranopteris linearis, and grew quickly.(3) The research of species diversity in different communities showed that the community 2 had the most species which included 11 kinds, while the other 3 communities only included 9 kinds. The species diversity of the 4 different inter-planting modes had relatively significant difference. In the three layers of the 4 communities, the order of the species diversity was community 1>community 2>community 4>community 3;in the shrub layer, the species diversity order was:community 1>community 3 >community 4>community 2.The order of the species diversity in herb layer was community 1> community 2>community 3>community 4 while the whole species diversity order showed community 1>community 2>community 4>community 3.(4) The research of the high scales, diameter scales and various kinds of model fittings showed that in general, the DBH distribution curves of the natural Cryptomeria fortunei community showed that with the increase of the DBH scales, the individual quantity decreased quickly. The big ground floor showed that the communities had relatively big growing potentials. The average DBH in the tree layer of the 4 communities was community 2>community 1>community 4>community 3. The average high scale of the four communities had big difference, the order of which was:community 2> community 1>community 4>community 3. Using Beta Distribution, Jama Distribution, Weibull Distribution, Normal Distribution to make a model fitting of the DBH scale and High scale, the fitting effect was very good, and those models could be used to make some prediction.(5) Using different spatial distribution indexes and scales to analyze the dominant species' distribution pattern, and the results were a little different. Pinus massoniana of community 1,3 and Kmeria septentrionalis Dandy of community 4 changed differently according to the research scales, and Taxus chinensis var. mairei (community 1), Cunninghamia lanceolata (community 2), Pinus massoniana (community2), Kmeria septentrionalis Dandy (community3) Pinus massoniana (community 4) didn't change according to the research scale and indexes. In a nut shell, aggregated distribution pattern and even distribution were more, while random distribution pattern less, which were in line with the management model of the planted forest.(6) The Hegyi's signal trees competition index model was used to research the changes of the competition index of the most dominant populations of the four different communities, the CI value order the most dominant species was:â… Taxus chinensis var. mairei>â…£Kmeria septentrionalis Dandy >â…¢Cunninghamia lanceolata>â… Pinus massoniana>â…¡Pinus massoniana>â…¢Pinus massoniana >â…£Pinus massoniana, and the intra-specific competition order was:â…¢Cunninghamia lanceolata>â…£Kmeria septentrionalis Dandy>â…¡Pinus massoniana>â… Taxus chinensis var. mairei>â… Pinus massoniana>â…£Pinus massoniana>â…¢Pinus massoniana. I Taxus chinensis var. mairei andâ…£Kmeria septentrionalis Dandy population had the biggest Inter-specific competition index, while the intense of the inter-specific competition of other populations was small. The relationship between competition intensity and DBH closely followed Weibull distribution model, reached a significant level. The model can be well used to predict the competition intensity of Cryptromeria fortunei populations in this area.(7) Made a model fitting using the biomass of the components of Pinus massoniana, shrub layer and herb layer, and the results were very good. The stand biomass order of the four different communities was: community 2>community 1>community 4> community3, and the component biomass order were all fallowing:trunk>branch>root>bark>leaf. The trunk had the biggest ratio in the biomass, then the branch was fallowing. The production capacity order of each components was trunk>branch>root>bark>leaf, the trunk had the biggest ratio. In the shrub layer, the biomass order were all:community 3>community 2>community 4>community1, the order of the herb layer was community 2>community 1>community 4>community3.
|
PDF Full Text Request