摘要
对小陇山林区锐齿栎、油松、日本落叶松、山核桃、华山松、阔叶混交6种林分凋落物的现存量、持水量、最大持水率和分解速率进行研究。结果表明:不同林分类型的凋落物现存量(t·hm-2)差异较大,依次为华山松(48.16t·hm-2)>油松(35.72t·hm-2)>日本落叶松(25.58t·hm-2)>山核桃(13.20t·hm-2)>锐齿栎(8.52t·hm-2)>阔叶混交(6.16t·hm-2)。华山松年分解速率为11.2%,仅相当于锐齿栎的1/3。6种林分的凋落物持水量也不同,日本落叶松、华山松、油松、锐齿栎、山核桃、阔叶混交林分凋落物的持水量分别为:21.55、19.64、18.23、14.84、9.88t·hm-2和8.07t·hm-2,现存量越高,持水量越大,水源涵养功能越强。6种林分凋落物最大持水率依次为锐齿栎>阔叶混交>山核桃>日本落叶松>油松>华山松,树种间差距较大。锐齿栎凋落物水源涵养能力最强,华山松最弱。
Attributes of litter layers of six types of forest stands (Quercu saliena var. acuteserrata, Pinus tabuli forrnis, Larix kaernpferi, Carya cathayensis, Pinus armandii, and broad leaved mixed stand) oc- curring in Xiaolongshan Mountain were investigated, such as standing crop, water holding capacity, maxi- mal water holding rate, and decomposition rate. The results showed that differences in standing crop in different litter layers were significant, and with an order of P. armandii (48.16 t·hm-2)〉p. tabulifor- mis(35.72 t·hm-2)〉L. kaempferi(25.58 t·hm-2)〉C. cathayensis (13.20t·hm-2)〉Q, alienavar var. acuteserrata(8. 52 t·hm-2)〉broad leaf mixed stand(6. 16 t·hm-2). The decomposition rate of P. arrnandii was 11. 2%, only one third of Q. aliena var. acuteserrata. The water holding capacity of L. kaernpferi, P. armandii , P. tabuliforrnis, Q. aliena var. acuteserrata, C. cathayensis and broad leaved mixed stand were 21.55, 19.64, 18.23, 14.84, 9.88 t·hm-2 and 8.07 t·hm-2, respectively. The water holding capacity and water conservation function increased with the increase of standing crop. The maximal water holding rate of six litter layers were in the order of Q. aliena var. acuteserrata 〉broad leaved mixed stand〉C, cathayensis〉L, teaempferi〉P, tabuliformis〉P, armandii. The maximal wa- ter holding rates were different among different stands. The water conservation function of Q. Aliena vat.acuteserrata was the strongest, and P. armandii was the weakest.
出处
《西北林学院学报》
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第6期48-51,共4页
Journal of Northwest Forestry University
基金
天水市科技支撑项目(2011-02)
关键词
林分凋落物
现存量
持水量
最大持水率
分解速率
litter layers
standing crop
water holding capacity
maximal water holding rates
decomposi-tion rate