欢迎访问《应用生态学报》官方网站,今天是 分享到:

应用生态学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (5): 1699-1712.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201905.011

• • 上一篇    下一篇

气候变化、林火和营林措施对寒温带典型森林生态弹性的影响

罗旭1*, 梁宇2, 贺红士3, 黄超2, 张庆龙2   

  1. 1宁波大学地理与空间信息技术系, 浙江宁波 315211;
    2中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所森林生态与管理重点实验室, 沈阳 110016;
    3东北师范大学地理科学学院, 长春 130024
  • 收稿日期:2018-07-20 修回日期:2018-07-20 出版日期:2019-05-15 发布日期:2019-05-15
  • 通讯作者: E-mail: luoxu@nbu.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:罗 旭,男,1984年生,博士,讲师.主要从事景观生态学和生态学模型研究.E-mail: luoxu@nbu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(31600373,41371199)

Effects of climate change, fire and silvicultural management on ecological resilience of typical cold-temperate forests in China.

LUO Xu1*, LIANG Yu2, HE Hong-shi3, HUANG Chao2, ZHANG Qing-long2   

  1. 1Department of Geography & Spatial Information Technology, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, Zhejiang, China;
    2Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Mangement, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China;
    3School of Geographical Science, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
  • Received:2018-07-20 Revised:2018-07-20 Online:2019-05-15 Published:2019-05-15
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31600373, 41371199).

摘要: 生态弹性是森林生态系统在遭受外在扰动后恢复到稳定状态的能力,是森林资源可持续发展的重要目标之一,且森林生态弹性对诸如气候变化、林火和营林措施等外部因子的影响较为敏感.探究这些外部因子对森林生态弹性的影响在未来森林生态系统管理方面有重要意义.本研究首先从森林组成、结构和功能等方面选取指标因子并估算了森林生态弹性值,然后运用LANDIS PRO模型,模拟气候变化、林火干扰和营林措施等对寒温带典型森林生态弹性的影响,并探讨了当前抚育采伐方案在未来气候下的可持续性.结果表明: 模型初始化的2000年林分密度和胸高断面积与2000年真实景观较为吻合,模拟的2010年森林景观与野外调查数据无明显差异,基于当前林火干扰状况的模拟结果与火烧迹地调查数据基本匹配,说明林火模块能很好地模拟当前研究区林火发生状况.林火干扰增加30%将会使该区模拟期内景观水平上森林生态弹性提高15.7%~40.8%,而林火干扰增加200%则会降低该区4.4%~24.6%的森林生态弹性.短期和中期林火干扰增加对森林生态弹性的影响大于气候变化的影响.与当前预案相比,B1气候(林火增加30%预案)和A2气候(林火增加200%预案)对整个模拟阶段景观尺度森林生态弹性的影响分别处于-15.9%~38.9%和-60.4%~34.8%范围内.与无采伐预案相比,B1和A2气候下在整个模拟时期内若继续实施当前抚育采伐方案,将不利于景观水平森林生态弹性的提高.在B1气候(林火增加30%预案)下,在各模拟时期内无需实施任何营林措施;而在A2气候(林火增加200%预案)下,建议实施中、高强度种植的营林措施以提升景观水平森林生态弹性.

Abstract: Ecological resilience is characterized by the recovery capacity of forest ecosystem from a status affected by external disturbance to a stable status, which is one of the important targets for sustainable development of forests. Ecological resilience is sensitive to external factors, such as climate change, forest fire, and silvicutural management at large scales. Understanding the effects of those factors on ecological resilience is important for forest ecosystem management. In this study, we calculated ecological resilience with indicators including forest structure, composition and function. We used a landscape model LANDIS PRO to evaluate the effects of climate change, climate-induced fire, and silvicultural management on ecological resilience in boreal forests. We also evaluated whether the current thinning treatment could be implemented under the scenarios of climate change. The results showed that the initialized stand density and basal area from the year 2000 could represent the real forest landscape in year 2000, with no significant difference between the simulated landscape and the forest inventory data in the year 2010 at landscape scale. The results of simulated fire disturbance were consistent with the results from the field inventories in burned areas. The fire module parameters set adequately represented the current fire regimes in model simulation. The ecological resilience could increase by 15.7%-40.8% at landscape scale when fire intensity increased by 30%, whereas the ecological resilience decreased by 4.4%-24.6% when fire intensity increased by 200%. At the short and medium term, the effects of increased fire on forest ecological resilience were greater than that of climate change. Compared to the current base scenario, forest ecological resilience under B1 climate with fire intensity increased by 30% scenario and A2 climate with fire intensity increased by 200% scenario fluctuated in the ranges of -15.9%-38.9% and -60.4%-34.8% in the whole simulation period at landscape scale. Compared to no harvesting scenario, the current thinning strategy would decrease the ecological resilience at landscape scale under both B1 and A2 scenarios in all simulated periods. Under the scenario of B1 climate with 30% increases of fire intensity, no silvicultural management would be needed in the whole simulation period at landscape scale, whereas medium and high intensity of silvicultural management were suggested under the scenario of A2 climate with 200% increase of fire intensity.