长江流域资源与环境 >> 2006, Vol. 15 >> Issue (4): 511-516.

• 生态环境 • 上一篇    下一篇

岷江上游土地岭生态恢复过程中植被特征研究

王永健1,陶建平1,张炜银2,臧润国2,王 微1,李宗峰1   

  • 收稿日期:2005-08-02 修回日期:2005-11-09 出版日期:2006-07-20
  • 通讯作者: 陶建平

VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROCESS OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN TUDILING OF MAO COUNTY, UPPER REACH OF MINJIANG RIVER

WANG Yong-jian1,TAO Jian-ping1,ZHANG Wei-yin2,ZANG Run-guo2,WANG Wei1,LI Zong-feng1   

  • Received:2005-08-02 Revised:2005-11-09 Online:2006-07-20
  • Contact: TAO Jian-ping

摘要: 对岷江上游土地岭生态恢复过程中的群落外貌、物种组成和结构进行了研究。结果表明,恢复后群落外貌以小型叶、单叶、非全缘、草质的高位芽植物为主,表现出与演替前期相符的类似温带针阔混交林特征。恢复形成的四类不同群落组成有一定差异,造林并封育效果最好,干扰下的恢复效果最差。在恢复的进程中,四类群落垂直结构层次更复杂,川莓在各灌木层都占优势地位。放牧干扰是灌木层与草本层物种丰富度与均匀度较低及灌丛难以实现进展演替的主要原因。恢复后群落的上层盖度影响下层盖度,放牧引起了少数口食性差的草本迅速占优。从径级结构上看,处于演替前期的华山松林有被云杉类取代的趋势,加入演替后期种的封育造林是更理想的恢复模式。

关键词: 土地岭, 生态恢复, 群落外貌, 放牧干扰, 更新

Abstract: The physiognomy, species composition and the structure of communities in the restoration process in Tudiling of Mao County on upper reach of Minjiang River were studied. The results showed that the physiognomy, after afforestation, was characterized by phanerophytes with microphylls, simple, unentire, herbaceous leaves, which represented some features of temperate coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest matched with the early successional stage. There were obvious differences in species composition of four communities, and the richness was the highest under closed afforestation and the lowest under disturbance. The vertical structure was more complicated, Rubus setchuenensis dominated in shrub layer of all four communities in the restorational processes of vegetation. The low species richness and evenness, and restricted progressive succession were mainly determined by grazing. The coverage of upper layer had a significant effect on the lower layer. The unpalatable grasses quickly predominated in herb was also caused by grazing. The DBH structure indicated a trend that Pinus armandii forest would be replaced by Picea spp. The closed afforestation adding some species of climax was the more suitable type of restoration here.

Key words: Tudiling, ecological restoration, community physiognomy, grazing disturbance, regeneration

[1] 杨渺, 谢强, 方自力, 刘孝富, 廖蔚宇, 王萍. “5·12”汶川地震极重灾区生态服务功能恢复总体评估[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016, 25(04): 685-694.
[2] 匡武, 芮明, 张彦辉, 严云志, 吴添天. 巢湖湖滨带生态恢复工程对暴雨径流氮磷削减效果研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2015, 24(11): 1906-1912.
[3] 曾 旭, 陈芳清, 许文年, 王建柱, 夏振尧. 大型水利水电工程扰动区植被的生态恢复[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2009, 18(11): 1074-.
[4] 杜耘,蔡述明,王学雷,何报寅,徐贵来,江明喜,薛怀平,肖飞. 神农架大九湖亚高山湿地环境背景与生态恢复[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2008, 17(6): 915-915.
[5] 刘世梁, 傅伯杰,刘国华,马克明. 岷江上游退耕还林与生态恢复的问题和对策[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2006, 15(4): 506-510.
[6] 张一平,段泽新,窦军霞,. 岷江上游干暖河谷与元江干热河谷的气候特征比较研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2005, 14(1): 76-82.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!