小兴安岭天然白桦林生态系统碳储量  

Ecosystem carbon storage of natural secondary birch forests in Xiaoxing'an Mountains of China

作　　者：张毅[1] 牟长城[1] 郑曈[1] 李娜娜[1] 

机构地区：[1]东北林业大学生态研究中心

出　　处：《北京林业大学学报》2015年第4期38-47,共10页Journal of Beijing Forestry University

基　　金："十二五"国家科技支撑计划项目(2012BAD21B02)

摘　　要：采用相对生长方程与碳/氮分析测定法,测定小兴安岭天然白桦林在7个立地类型(阳坡上、中、下部和阴坡上、中、下部及谷地)的生态系统碳储量(植被和土壤)、净初级生产力与年净固碳量,揭示立地类型对白桦林碳汇功能的影响规律。结果表明:1)小兴安岭白桦林植被碳储量((49.39±3.09)^(89.20±10.17)t/hm2)在谷地、阳坡下部和阴坡上、中部4个立地类型显著高于阳坡上、中部及阴坡下部3个立地类型(38.2%~80.6%,P<0.05)。2)其土壤有机碳储量((147.30±21.39)^(273.67±22.67)t/hm2)在阴坡上、中部和谷地最高,显著高于阳坡上、中部和阴坡下部(27.9%~85.8%,P<0.05),阳坡下部居中,仅显著高于阴坡下部(53.3%,P<0.05),阳坡上、中部和阴坡下部相对较低。3)其生态系统碳储量((207.88±16.07)^(357.85±20.80)t/hm2)在谷地、阳坡下部和阴坡上、中部4个立地类型显著高于阳坡上、中部和阴坡下部3个立地类型(33.2%~72.1%,P<0.05)。4)其植被净初级生产力((5.80±0.26)^(8.87±1.17)t/(hm2·a))在阳坡下部和阴坡上、中部3个立地类型相对较高,显著高于阴坡下部(31.2%~52.9%,P<0.05),阳坡上、中部与谷地3个立地类型居中,高于阴坡下部(15.5%~26.4%,P>0.05),阴坡下部最低。5)其年净固碳量((2.76±0.10)^(4.15±0.32)t/(hm2·a))在阳坡下部和阴坡上、中部3个立地类型相对较高,显著高于阴坡下部(27.9%~50.4%,P<0.05),阳坡上、中部与谷地3个立地类型居中,高于阴坡下部(12.3%~23.9%,P>0.05),阴坡下部最低。因其植被年净固碳量低于我国陆地植被平均固碳量(15.3%~43.7%),故小兴安岭天然白桦林属于碳汇功能相对较低的森林类型。The ecosystem carbon storage （vegetation and soil）, net primary productivity, and annual net carbon sequestration of natural secondary birch forests on seven site types （the top, middle, and bottom of the sunny slope and shady slope, and the valley floor） were studied by use of relative growth equations and carbon/nitrogen analytical approach in Xiaoxing＇an Mountains of China, in order to probe into the influence of site type on the carbon sinks in birch forest and provide scientific basis for the management of forest carbon sink in northeast China. The results showed that： 1 ） The vegetation carbon storages （（49.39 ±3.09） - （89.20 ± 10. 17）t/ha） at the valley floor, the bottom of the sunny slope, and the top and middle of the shady slope were significantly higher than those at the middle and top of the sunny slope and the bottom of the shady slope （38.2% -80.6%, P 〈0.05）; 2） The soil organic carbon storages （ （156.28 ± 21.39） - （275.67 ± 22.67） ）t/ha at the middle and top of the shady slope and the valley floor were the highest （which were significantly higher than that at the middle and top of the sunny slope and the bottom of the shady slope （27.9% -85.8% , P 〈0.05）, followed by the storages at the bottom of the sunny slope （which was only significantly higher than that at the bottom of the shady slope （53.3% , P 〈 0.05 ） , yet they were the lowest at the middle and top of the sunny slope and the bottom of the shady slope; 3） The ecosystem carbon storages （（207.88 ± 16.07 ） - （357.85 ± 20. 80） t/ha） in four of the seven site types （the valley floor, the bottom of sunny slope, the top and middle of the shady slope） were significantly higher than those at the middle and top of the sunny slope and the bottom of the shady slope （33.2% -72.1% , P 〈 0.05） ; 4） The net primary productivities of vegetation （ （5.80 ± 0.26） - （8.87 ± 1.17） t/（ha·a） ） at the bottom of sunny slope and the top and middle of shad

关 键 词：小兴安岭 天然白桦林 生态系统碳储量 净初级生产力与年固碳量 立地类型影响 

分 类 号：S718.556[农业科学—林学]