不同林分密度青海云杉林碳氮储量及其分配格局

doi:10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2022.481

干旱区地理 ›› 2023, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (7): 1133-1144.doi: 10.12118/j.issn.1000-6060.2022.481

不同林分密度青海云杉林碳氮储量及其分配格局

冯宜明¹(),吕春燕¹,王零²(),赵维俊³,马雪娥³,杜军林¹,何俊龄¹

1.河西学院，甘肃张掖 734000
2.甘肃祁连山国家级自然保护区管护中心，甘肃张掖 734000
3.甘肃省祁连山水源涵养林研究院，甘肃张掖 734000

收稿日期:2022-09-22 修回日期:2022-11-06 出版日期:2023-07-25 发布日期:2023-08-03
通讯作者: 王零（1978-），男，硕士，正高级工程师，主要从事森林资源调查及经营管理研究. E-mail: 33936046@qq.com
作者简介:冯宜明（1985-），男，博士，正高级工程师，主要从事森林生态与可持续经营研究. E-mail: fym850321@126.com
基金资助:
甘肃省自然科学基金项目(21JR7RA554);甘肃省自然科学基金项目(22JR5RA771);甘肃省陇原青年创新创业人才项目(2022LQGR28);国家自然科学基金项目(32060247);2022年度中央引导地方科技发展资金项目(22ZY2QG001);河西学院2020博士科研启动金项目(KYQD2020003)

Carbon and nitrogen storage and allocation patterns of Picea crassifolia forest with different stand density

FENG Yiming¹(),LYU Chunyan¹,WANG Ling²(),ZHAO Weijun³,MA Xue’e³,DU Junlin¹,HE Junling¹

1. Hexi University, Zhangye 734000, Gansu, China
2. Gansu Qilian Mountain National Nature Reserve Management Center, Zhangye 734000, Gansu, China
3. Academy of Water Resources Conservation Forests in Qilian Mountains of Gansu Province, Zhangye 734000, Gansu, China

Received:2022-09-22 Revised:2022-11-06 Online:2023-07-25 Published:2023-08-03

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为深入了解青海云杉林生态系统碳、氮固持能力与循环及其影响机制，以不同林分密度（350株·hm^-2、850株·hm^-2、1000株·hm^-2、1400株·hm^-2、1600株·hm^-2、1950株·hm^-2、2100株·hm^-2、2300株·hm^-2、3000株·hm^-2）青海云杉林为研究对象，通过野外调查、样品采集和室内分析，研究不同林分密度青海云杉林生态系统碳、氮储量及其分配格局。结果表明：（1）青海云杉林乔木碳、氮含量均值分别为497.11 g·kg^-1和4.43 g·kg^-1，各器官碳含量分配格局表现为干>根>叶>枝>皮，氮含量为叶>枝>根>皮>干；林下植被层碳、氮含量总体呈现灌木层>草本层>枯落物层，地上部分>地下部分；土壤层碳、氮含量随着林分密度的增加均呈下降趋势，并且随土层加深也逐渐减小。（2）青海云杉林生态系统碳储量随林分密度的增加呈双峰型分布，氮储量呈现先增加后波动降低的趋势，林分密度为850株·hm^-2时林分碳、氮储量最高，分别为500.76 t·hm^-2和25.00 t·hm^-2，林分密度为3000株·hm^-2时林分碳、氮储量均最低，分别为315.52 t·hm^-2和12.52 t·hm^-2；随林分密度增加，植被碳、氮储量占比逐渐升高，土壤碳、氮储量占比逐渐降低。碳储量分配格局为：土壤层（73.53%）>乔木层（17.03%）>灌草层和枯落物层（9.44%），氮储量分配格局为：土壤层（87.63%）>灌草层和枯落物层（9.90%）>乔木层（2.47%）。（3）林分密度与森林碳、氮储量及分配格局密切相关，低密度（850株·hm^-2）利于植被和土壤碳、氮固持能力显著提高，是祁连山青海云杉中龄林的最佳留存密度。研究结果为揭示林分密度对森林生态系统碳氮固持能力的影响机制和森林结构化经营提供科学依据。

关键词: 林分密度, 青海云杉林, 碳、氮储量, 祁连山

Abstract:

This study investigated the carbon and nitrogen sequestration capacity and the recycling and influence mechanisms of the Picea crassifolia forest ecosystem in the Qilian Mountains, northwest China. The stand densities of 350 plants·hm⁻², 850 plants·hm⁻², 1000 plants·hm⁻², 1400 plants·hm⁻², 1600 plants·hm⁻², 1950 plants·hm⁻², 2100 plants·hm⁻², 2300 plants·hm⁻², and 3000 plants·hm⁻² of P. crassifolia forest were considered for field investigation, sample collection and analysis, carbon and nitrogen storage, and allocation patterns of the P. crassifolia forest ecosystem. The results revealed that: (1) The mean carbon content value of the arbor layer in the P. crassifolia forest was 497.11 g·kg⁻¹, and the nitrogen content was 4.43 g·kg⁻¹. The allocation patterns of the carbon content in each organ followed the order of stem>root>leaf>branch>bark, and the distribution pattern of nitrogen content was leaf>branch>root>bark>trunk. The carbon and nitrogen content of the understorey vegetation layer generally exhibited a sequence of shrub layer>herb layer>litter layer, and the aboveground part>underground part. The content of carbon and nitrogen in the soil layer decreased with the increase in the stand density and decreased with the increase in the soil depth. (2) The carbon storage of the P. crassifolia forest ecosystem revealed a two-peak pattern distribution with the increase in the stand density. Nitrogen storage first increased and subsequently fluctuated with the increase in the stand density. When the density was 850 plants·hm⁻², carbon and nitrogen storage were the highest (500.76 t·hm⁻²and 25.00 t·hm⁻², respectively), and when the density was 3000 plants·hm⁻², the carbon and nitrogen storage were the lowest (315.52 t·hm⁻² and 12.52 t·hm⁻², respectively). With the increase in the stand density, the proportion of vegetation carbon and nitrogen storage gradually increased, and the proportion of soil carbon and nitrogen storage gradually decreased. The allocation patterns of carbon storage followed the order of the soil layer (73.53%)>tree layer (17.03%)>understory layer (9.44%), and nitrogen storage followed the soil layer (87.63%)>understory layer (9.90%)>tree layer (2.47%). (3) The results revealed that the stand density is closely related to forest carbon and nitrogen storage and allocation patterns. Low density (850 plants·hm⁻²) can improve carbon and nitrogen sequestration capacities of vegetation and soil, which is the best retention density of middle-aged P. crassifolia forest in the Qilian Mountains. The results provide a scientific basis for explaining the influence of the stand density on the carbon and nitrogen sequestration capacity of forest ecosystems and the structural management of forests.

Key words: stand density, Picea crassifolia forest, carbon and nitrogen storage, Qilian Mountains

冯宜明, 吕春燕, 王零, 赵维俊, 马雪娥, 杜军林, 何俊龄. 不同林分密度青海云杉林碳氮储量及其分配格局[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(7): 1133-1144.

FENG Yiming, LYU Chunyan, WANG Ling, ZHAO Weijun, MA Xue’e, DU Junlin, HE Junling. Carbon and nitrogen storage and allocation patterns of Picea crassifolia forest with different stand density[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2023, 46(7): 1133-1144.

图/表 11

表1

表2

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

表3

表4

参考文献 37

[1]	Dixon R K, Solomon A M, Brown S, et al. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems[J]. Science, 1994, 263(5144): 185-190. doi: 10.1126/science.263.5144.185 pmid: 17839174
[2]	陈东升, 孙晓梅, 张守攻. 不同年龄日本落叶松人工林生物量、碳储量及养分特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(12): 3759-3768. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201612.039
	[Chen Dongsheng, Sun Xiaomei, Zhang Shougong. Biomass, carbon storage and nutrient characteristics in Larix kaempferi plantations at different stand ages[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(12): 3759-3768.] doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201612.039
[3]	Lu X T, Yin J X, Jepsen M R, et al. Ecosystem carbon storage and partitioning in a tropical seasonal forest in southwestern China[J]. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010, 260: 1798-1803. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.024
[4]	李威, 黄玫, 张远东, 等. 中国国家森林公园碳储量及固碳速率的时空动态[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(3): 799-809. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202103.015
	[Li Wei, Huang Mei, Zhang Yuandong, et al. Spatial-temporal variations of carbon storage and carbon sequestration rate in China’s national forest parks[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 32(3): 799-809.] doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202103.015
[5]	Fowler Z K, Adams M B, Peterjohn W T. Will more nitrogen enhance carbon storage in young forest stands in central Appalachia[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2015, 337: 144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.023
[6]	Eldegard K, Scholten J, Stokland J N, et al. The influence of stand density on bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) cover depends on stand age, solar irradiation, and tree species composition[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2019, 432: 582-590. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.054
[7]	卢立华, 农友, 李华, 等. 保留密度对杉木人工林生长和生物量及经济效益的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(3): 717-724.
	[Lu Lihua, Nong You, Li Hua, et al. Effects of retention density on growth, biomass, and economic benefit of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantation[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(3): 717-724.]
[8]	代林利, 周丽丽, 伍丽华, 等. 不同林分密度杉木林生态系统碳密度及其垂直空间分配特征[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(2): 710-719.
	[Dai Linli, Zhou Lili, Wu Lihua, et al. Carbon density and vertical spatial distribution characteristics of Cunninghamia lanceolata forest ecosystem with different stand density[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(2): 710-719.]
[9]	Noh N J, Kim C, Bae S W, et al. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a Pinus densiflora forest with low and high stand densities[J]. Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013, 6(5): 368-379. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtt007
[10]	Mayer M, Prescott C E, Abaker W E A, et al. Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2020, 466: 118-127.
[11]	王金叶, 王艺林, 金博文, 等. 干旱半干旱区山地森林的水分调节功能[J]. 林业科学, 2001, 37(5): 120-125.
	[Wang Jinye, Wang Yilin, Jin Bowen, et al. Studies on regulation of forest hydrology and microclimate in arid and semi-arid area of west China[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2001, 37(5): 120-125.]
[12]	拓锋, 刘贤德, 黄冬柳, 等. 祁连山大野口流域青海云杉种群数量动态[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(17): 6871-6882.
	[Ta Feng, Liu Xiande, Huang Dongliu, et al. Quantitative dynamica of Picea crassifolia population in Dayekou Basin of Qilian Mountains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(17): 6871-6882.]
[13]	刘思敏, 马剑, 牛赟, 等. 祁连山青海云杉林分结构及其与环境因子的关系[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2021, 41(7): 107-114.
	[Liu Simin, Ma Jian, Niu Yun, et al. Stand structure and its relationship with environmental factors of Picea crassifolia in Qilian Mountains[J]. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2021, 41(7): 107-114.]
[14]	杜苗苗, 张芬, 勾晓华, 等. 祁连山中东部青海云杉径向生长对气候变暖的响应差异[J]. 冰川冻土, 2022, 44(1): 14-23. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0240.2021.0130
	[Du Miaomiao, Zhang Fen, Gou Xiaohua, et al. Different responses of radial growth of Picea crassifolia to climate warming in the middle and eastern Qilian Mountains[J]. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 2022, 44(1): 14-23.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-0240.2021.0130
[15]	高海宁, 李彩霞, 孙小妹, 等. 祁连山北麓不同海拔土壤化学计量特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2021, 41(1): 219-227. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00125
	[Gao Haining, Li Caixia, Sun Xiaomei, et al. Stoichiometry characteristics of soil at different altitudes in the Qilian Mountains[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2021, 41(1): 219-227.] doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2020.00125
[16]	拓锋, 刘贤德, 刘润红, 等. 祁连山大野口流域青海云杉种群空间格局及其关联性[J]. 植物生态学报, 2020, 44(11): 1172-1183. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2020.0177
	[Ta Feng, Liu Xiande, Liu Runhong, et al. Spatial distribution patterns and association of Picea crassifolia population in Dayekou Basin of Qilian Mountains, northwestern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2020, 44(11): 1172-1183.] doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2020.0177
[17]	曾立雄, 雷蕾, 王晓荣, 等. 海拔梯度对祁连山青海云杉林乔木层和土壤层碳密度的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(20): 7168-7177.
	[Zeng Lixiong, Wang Xiaorong, et al. Effect of altitudinal variation on carbon density in arbor layer and soil layer of Picea crassifolia forest in Qilian Mountains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(20): 7168-7177.]
[18]	Qi C L, Jiao L, Xue R H, et al. Time scale effects of radial growth responses of two dominant coniferous trees on climate change in the eastern Qilian Mountains[J]. Forests, 2022, 13(1): 72-72. doi: 10.3390/f13010072
[19]	Wan Y Y, Yu P T, Li X Q, et al. Divergent seasonal patterns of Qinghai spruce growth with elevation in northwestern China[J]. Forests, 2022, 13(3): 388-388. doi: 10.3390/f13030388
[20]	王金叶, 车克钧, 蒋志荣. 祁连山青海云杉林碳平衡研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2000, 15(1): 9-14.
	[Wang Jinye, Che Kejun, Jiang Zhirong. Study on carbon balance of Picea crassifolia in Qilian Mountains[J]. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2000, 15(1): 9-14.]
[21]	刘光崧. 土壤理化分析与剖面描述[M]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1996: 31-33.
	[Liu Guangsong. Soil physicochemical analysis and profile description[M]. Beijing: China Standard Press, 1996: 31-33.]
[22]	齐瑞, 刘锦乾, 李波, 等. 青藏高原东缘亚高山针叶林碳氮磷生态化学计量特征[J]. 西北植物学报, 2020, 40(12): 2140-2147.
	[Qi Rui, Liu Jinqian, Li Bo, et al. Stoichiometry of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus of subalpine coniferous forests on the eastern edge of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2020, 40(12): 2140-2147.]
[23]	那萌, 刘婷岩, 张彦东, 等. 林分密度对水曲柳人工林碳储量的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2017, 39(1): 20-26.
	[Na Meng, Liu Tingyan, Zhang Yandong, et al. Effects of stock density on carbon storage in Fraxinus mandshurica plantations[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2017, 39(1): 20-26.]
[24]	张雨鉴, 宋娅丽, 王克勤. 滇中亚高山森林乔木层各器官生态化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(6): 1669-1678.
	[Zhang Yujian, Song Yali, Wang Keqin. Ecological stoichiometry of various organs in the tree layer of subalpine forests in central Yunnan, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2019, 38(6): 1669-1678.]
[25]	马鑫钰, 贡璐, 朱海强, 等. 不同碳输入对天山雪岭云杉林土壤化学计量特征的影响[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(5): 2715-2723. doi: 10.1021/es902956e
	[Ma Xinyu, Gong Lu, Zhu Haiqiang, et al. Effects of different carbon inputs on soil stoichiometry in Tianshan Mountains[J]. Environmental Science, 2023, 44(5): 2715-2723.] doi: 10.1021/es902956e
[26]	辜翔, 张仕吉, 刘兆丹, 等. 中亚热带植被恢复对土壤有机碳含量、碳密度的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2018, 42(5): 595-608. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2018.0021
	[Gu Xiang, Zhang Shiji, Liu Zhaodan, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil organic carbon concentration and density in the mid-subtropical region of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2018, 42(5): 595-608.] doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2018.0021
[27]	郭鑫, 魏天兴, 陈宇轩, 等. 黄土丘陵区典型退耕恢复植被土壤生态化学计量特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2022, 45(6): 1899-1907.
	[Guo Xiaoxia, Wei Tianxing, Chen Yuxuan, et al. The characteristics of soil ecological stoichiometry in typical fallow restored vegetations in the loess hilly areas[J]. Arid Land Geography, 2022, 45(6): 1899-1907.]
[28]	刘丽贞, 陈林, 庞丹波, 等. 基于稳定碳同位素分析宁夏典型林分土壤有机碳分布格局及影响因素[J]. 西北植物学报, 2021, 41(5): 846-853.
	[Liu Lizhen, Chen Lin, Pang Danbo, et al. Soil organic carbon distribution patterns and influencing factors in Ningxia typical stand based on stable carbon isotope analysis[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2021, 41(5): 846-853.]
[29]	岳军伟, 关晋宏, 邓磊, 等. 甘肃亚高山云杉人工林生态系统碳、氮储量动态和分配格局[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(21): 7790-7800.
	[Yue Junwei, Guan Jinhong, Deng Lei, et al. Dynamics and allocation patterns of carbon and nitrogen storage in Picea asperata plantations in subalpine areas of Gansu Province[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(21): 7790-7800.]
[30]	Tian H Q, Chen G S, Zhang C, et al. Pattern and variation of C:N:P ratios in China’s soils: A synthesis of observational data[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2010, 98(1): 139-151. doi: 10.1007/s10533-009-9382-0
[31]	周玉荣, 于振良, 赵士洞. 我国主要森林生态系统碳贮量和碳平衡[J]. 植物生态学报, 2000, 24(5): 518-522.
	[Zhou Yurong, Yu Zhenliang, Zhao Shidong. Carbon storage and budget of major Chinese forest types[J]. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 2000, 24(5): 518-522.]
[32]	Zheng X L, Zhao C Y, Peng S Z, et al. Soil CO₂ efflux along an elevation gradient in Qinghai spruce forests in the upper reaches of the Heihe River, northwest China[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2014, 71(5): 2065-2076. doi: 10.1007/s12665-013-2608-4
[33]	刘顺, 罗达, 刘千里, 等. 川西亚高山不同森林生态系统碳氮储量及其分配格局[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(4): 1074-1083.
	[Liu Shun, Luo Da, Liu Qianli, et al. Carbon and nitrogen storage and distribution in different forest ecosystems in the subalpine of western Sichuan[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(4): 1074-1083.]
[34]	徐丽, 何念鹏. 中国森林生态系统氮储量分配特征及其影响因素[J]. 中国科学: 地球科学, 2020, 50(10): 1374-1385.
	[Xu Li, He Nianpeng. Nitrogen storage and allocation in China’s forest ecosystems[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2020, 50(10): 1374-1385.]
[35]	王志杰, 房子怡, 张菲, 等. 塞罕坝地区典型人工林生物碳贮量的比较[J]. 林业与生态科学, 2022, 37(2): 174-179.
	[Wang Zhijie, Fang Ziyi, Zhang Fei, et al. Comparison of biocarbon storage of typical plantation in Saihanba area[J]. Forestry and Ecological Sciences, 2022, 37(2): 174-179.]
[36]	杨支齐, 杜虎, 曾馥平, 等. 广西主要人工林生态系统氮储量格局[J]. 生态学报, 2022, 42(13): 5446-5457.
	[Yang Zhiqi, Du Hu, Zeng Fuping, et al. Nitrogen storage patterns of main plantation ecosystems in Guangxi[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(13): 5446-5457.]
[37]	何潇, 周超凡, 雷相东, 等. 长白落叶松人工林林分碳储量生长模型系研究[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2021, 43(11): 1-10.
	[He Xiao, Zhou Chaofan, Lei Xiangdong, et al. Stand carbon stock growth model system for Larix olgensis plantation[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2021, 43(11): 1-10.]

林分密度/株·hm^-2	样地数量	海拔/m	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/m	坡向	坡位	坡度/(°)	郁闭度
350	3	2880	15.61±1.32	8.93±1.76	NE	上坡	34	0.35
850	3	2855	20.58±3.53	12.68±0.47	NE	中坡	35	0.66
1000	3	2800	17.33±2.33	10.44±2.42	NE	中下	25	0.60
1400	3	2900	14.10±0.87	9.49±1.19	N	中下	25	0.67
1600	3	2800	14.09±0.39	9.69±0.68	N	中坡	28	0.58
1950	3	2900	15.04±0.28	12.41±1.68	N	中坡	26	0.84
2100	3	2800	11.88±0.52	8.36±0.81	N	下坡	25	0.69
2300	3	2861	12.36±0.66	8.75±0.77	N	中坡	22	0.78
3000	3	2872	10.37±0.59	7.75±1.12	NE	下坡	35	0.69

器官	相对生长方程	相关系数（r）
干	W_S=0.0478(D²H)^0.8665	0.9887
枝	W_B=0.0122(D²H)^0.8905	0.9568
叶	W_L=0.2650(D²H)^0.4701	0.8622
根	W_R=3.3756(D²H)^0.2725	0.9707
皮	W_P=0.0100D^2.0983H^0.2566	0.9168

林分密度/株·hm^-2	碳库/t·hm^-2			氮库/t·hm^-2
林分密度/株·hm^-2	植被	土壤	生态系统	植被	土壤	生态系统
350	52.80±3.99d	435.65±8.01a	488.44±8.06a	1.46±0.15e	23.20±0.71a	24.66±0.72a
850	111.04±4.03b	389.72±3.78b	500.76±5.37a	1.93±0.11d	23.07±0.07a	25.00±0.12a
1000	100.08±3.68c	370.05±15.66b	470.13±16.03a	1.95±0.11d	18.12±1.01b	20.07±1.03c
1400	104.51±2.37bc	335.93±7.11c	440.43±7.32b	2.11±0.09cd	21.75±0.36a	23.85±0.36a
1600	113.19±2.81b	308.82±27.56c	422.00±26.91b	2.52±0.08bc	13.14±0.51c	15.66±0.49d
1950	162.14±2.69a	303.45±7.18c	465.59±7.68ab	3.22±0.08a	18.82±0.23b	22.03±0.24b
2100	108.58±3.42bc	216.94±3.08d	325.52±5.28c	2.77±0.17b	10.71±0.52d	13.47±0.53e
2300	109.61±5.26bc	216.04±6.98d	325.65±8.65c	2.19±0.28cd	13.79±0.01c	15.98±0.28d
3000	99.47±2.25c	216.05±4.41d	315.52±5.80c	1.78±0.12de	10.74±0.01d	12.52±0.12e

不同林分密度青海云杉林碳氮储量及其分配格局

Carbon and nitrogen storage and allocation patterns of Picea crassifolia forest with different stand density

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 37

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	芦雄英, 刘贤德, 马瑞, 赵维俊, 敬文茂, 何晓玲, 赵长兴. 祁连山排露沟流域青海云杉林更新特征对地形因子的响应[J]. 干旱区地理, 2023, 46(4): 604-613.
[2]	尚海洋,宋妮妮. 返贫风险、生计抵御力与规避策略实践——祁连山国家级自然保护区内8县的调查与分析[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(6): 1784-1795.
[3]	温煜华,吕越敏,李宗省. 近60a祁连山极端降水变化研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(5): 1199-1212.
[4]	马剑,刘贤德,何晓玲,王顺利,贺永岩,武秀荣,赵晶忠,马雪娥. 祁连山典型灌丛群落结构特征及其多样性研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(5): 1427-1437.
[5]	宋洁,刘学录. 祁连山国家公园森林地上碳密度遥感估算[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(4): 1045-1057.
[6]	孙美平,史继花,姚晓军,张海瑜,赵琳林,马维谦. 冰川下垫面对夏季云结构和云水含量的影响——以祁连山区疏勒南山为例[J]. 干旱区地理, 2021, 44(1): 141-148.
[7]	张坤, 肖燕, 何振芳, 高敏 . 基于 SRTM DEM 的祁连山自然保护区地形特征研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(6): 1559-1566.
[8]	刘佳茹, 赵军, 沈思民, 赵彦军. 基于 SRP 概念模型的祁连山地区生态脆弱性评价[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(6): 1573-1582.
[9]	程鹏, 孔祥伟, 罗汉, 李宝梓, 王研峰 . 近 60 a 以来祁连山中部气候变化及其径流响应研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(5): 1192-1201.
[10]	王清涛, 赵传燕, 王小平, 胡姗姗, 刘美艳, 史文宇, 王晓雨, 单文荣 . 基于 FAREAST 模型的青海云杉中-幼龄林生物量碳沿海拔梯度分布特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(5): 1316-1326.
[11]	马剑, 刘贤德, 李广, 赵维俊, 王顺利, 敬文茂, 马雪娥. 祁连山北麓中段青海云杉林土壤水热时空变化特征[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(4): 1033-1040.
[12]	邱丽莎, 何毅, 张立峰, 王文辉, 唐源蔚. 祁连山MODIS LST时空变化特征及影响因素分析 [J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(3): 726-737.
[13]	赵建林, 康德奎, 彭维恩, 王建礼, 史中兴, 陈天顺, 董志洋, 汪杰, 常兆丰. 景电灌区移民对祁连山植被恢复的相对生态价值[J]. 干旱区地理, 2020, 43(1): 182-189.
[14]	马剑, 刘贤德, 李广, 赵维俊, 王顺利, 敬文茂, 王荣新, 赵永宏. 祁连山中段青海云杉林土壤肥力质量评价研究[J]. 干旱区地理, 2019, 42(6): 1368-1377.
[15]	马兴刚, 贾文雄, 丁丹, 朱国锋, 巩宁刚, 徐秀婷, 袁瑞丰. 祁连山东部大气降水δ17O变化特征及水汽输送 [J]. 干旱区地理, 2019, 42(3): 517-525.