石灰岩山地不同整地方式对造林效果的影响
The Afforestation Effects of Different Soil Preparation on the Limestone Mountainous Region

作者: 谢红梅 , 柏劲松 :永州市林业科学研究所,湖南 永州;

关键词: 成活率新梢生长量造林整地方式干旱瘠薄山地The Survival Rate New Treetop Growth Afforestation Site Soil Preparation Dry and Barren Mountain

摘要:
为了提高造林成活率、增加林分的生长量,以尽快绿化裸露山地,我们在永州市金洞管理区石鼓源工区黄家山选取一块典型的干旱瘠薄石灰岩山地进行了不同整地方式的造林试验。采用鱼鳞坑整地、水平阶整地、水平沟整地、梯田整地和穴状整地5种整地方式造林,分别对9个树种的造林成活率和栽植初期的新梢生长量进行统计分析。结果表明:在干旱瘠薄的石灰岩山地造林,整地方式的选择对柏木、湿地松、马尾松、木荷、枫香和杜英的造林成活率产生了显著的影响,对桉树的造林成活率产生了极显著的影响;对杉木、柏木、湿地松、马尾松、木荷、枫香、杜英、桉树和桤木的新梢生长量都产生了极显著的影响。采用水平沟整地方式造林的效果最好,采用穴状整地造林的效果最差。在水平沟整地方式下柏木的造林成活率是95.7%,而穴状整地造林柏木的成活率是88%,二者相差7.7%;在水平沟整地方式下湿地松的新梢生长量达到了43 cm,而穴状整地造林湿地松的新梢生长量是20 cm,二者相差23 cm,后者仅为前者的46.5%。从造林效果上排序依次是:水平沟整地 > 梯田整地 > 水平阶整地 > 鱼鳞坑整地 > 穴状整地。

Abstract: In order to improve the survival rate of afforestation, and increase forest stand growth as well as afforesting the barren land as soon as possible, we chose a typical drought and poor limestone area as our forestating tests with different soil preparation methods (In Huangjiashan, Shiguyuan Township, Jindong Managing District, City of Yongzhou). The survival rate, new treetop growth in early days after plantation of 5 planting techniques and 9 tree species on the dry and barren land in the mountainous region were studied, using scale-shaped pit soil preparation, level step soil preparation, level trench soil preparation, method terraced field and hole shape soil preparation. The result showed that soil preparation selection has a great influence on the survival rate and the new treetop growth on the dry and barren land in the mountains region afforestation, and also has a very significant impact on the afforestation survival rate of eucalyptus and the growth of new shoots of Chinese fir, cedar, slash pine, pine, superba, Liquidambar, Du Ying, eucalyptus and alder. The level trench soil preparation method got the best afforestation effect, compared with the worst one with hole shape soil preparation method. Cypress afforestation survival rate is 95.7% with the former method while 88% in the latter way. The two differs by 7.7%. New shoots of pinus elliottii reached 43 cm by using the former method, compared with 20 cm in the latter one. The two differs by 23 cm—the latter is only 46.5% of the former. Sorting from afforestation effect in order is: level trench soil preparation > method terraced field > level step soil preparation > scale- shaped pit soil preparation > hole shape soil preparation.

文章引用: 谢红梅 , 柏劲松 (2015) 石灰岩山地不同整地方式对造林效果的影响。 林业世界, 4, 29-34. doi: 10.12677/WJF.2015.43006

参考文献

[1] 白玉峰, 赵玉珍 (2000) 干旱丘陵山区造林技术. 中国水土保持, 5, 23-24.

[2] 房用, 孙成南, 孟振农, 等 (2003) 山东省灌藤植物资源及荒山造林技术. 水土保持研究, 5, 101-103.

[3] 杨吉华, 张永涛, 张光灿, 等 (2001) 干旱瘠薄山区绿化技术的研究. 水土保持学报, 4, 11-12.

[4] 王月海 (2007) 山东干旱瘠薄山地造林新技术试验. 中国水土保持科学, 2, 60-64.

[5] 王月海, 房用, 隋日光, 等 (2006) 山东石灰岩山地荒山植被恢复技术的研究. 水土保持研究, 4, 240-242.

[6] 高福军, 张立文, 庞福生, 等 (2000) 石灰岩山地水土保持生态环境建设效果浅析. 水土保持研究, 3, 112-114.

[7] 李根柱, 韩海荣, 张增志 (2003) 使用新材料蓄水渗膜造林试验研究初报. 中国水土保持科学, 4, 92-95.

[8] 程积民, 万惠娥, 王静, 等 (2003) 干旱区不同整地方式与灌草配置对土壤水分的影响. 中国水土保持科学, 3, 10-14.

[9] 王九龄, 孙健, 王志明 (1991) 吸水剂在北京低山阳坡造林中应用的系列研究. 北京林业大学学报, 增刊, 53-79.

[10] 王月海, 房用, 乔秀良, 等 (2006两种新技术在荒山造林中的应用试验初报. 山东林业科技, 4, 18-19.

[11] 王月海, 房用, 王卫东, 等 (2003) 石灰岩山地保水播种造林技术研究初报. 山东林业科技, 5, 24-25.

[12] 赵昌军, 卢东平 (2000) 干旱半干旱地区先进造林技术与效益分析. 中国水土保持, 12, 21-22.

分享
Top