不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林碳储量的影响

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.02.001

生态环境学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (2): 215-223.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.02.001

• 研究论文 • 下一篇

不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林碳储量的影响

何亚婷(), 谢和生, 何友均()

中国林业科学研究院林业科技信息研究所,北京 100091

收稿日期:2021-11-13 出版日期:2022-02-18 发布日期:2022-04-14
通讯作者: *何友均（1976年生）,男,研究员,博士,博士研究生导师,研究方向为林业碳汇与碳市场、生态经济与政策、森林多目标管理与评价、林业战略与规划等。E-mail: hyjun163@163.com
作者简介:何亚婷（1980年生）,女,助理研究员,博士,研究方向为林草碳汇经济与政策、森林生态、林业战略与规划。E-mail: yatinghe@caf.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31901297);国家自然科学基金项目(31570633);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项(CAFYBB2018QA003)

Effects of Different Forest Management Regimes on Carbon Stock of Natural Secondary Quercus Mongolica Forests

HE Yating(), XIE Hesheng, HE Youjun()

Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, P. R. China

Received:2021-11-13 Online:2022-02-18 Published:2022-04-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

栎类是中国第一大树种,固碳潜力巨大。以黑龙江省哈尔滨市丹清河实验林场蒙古栎（Quercus mongolica）天然次生林为研究对象,研究了目标树经营（经营强度45%、40%、70%）、综合抚育经营（经营强度45%、40%）、无干扰经营对林分碳储量及其分布的影响,为评估蒙古栎天然次生林的碳汇潜力提供理论依据。结果表明,（1）经过17年的经营实践,无干扰模式下蒙古栎天然次生林林分碳储量（279.01 t∙hm^-2）显著（P<0.05）高于目标树经营（183.01 t∙hm^-2）和综合抚育经营（218.81 t∙hm^-2）,但后两者之间差异不显著。（2）土壤层碳储量占林分碳储量的比重最大（82.71%—89.56%）,乔木层次之（9.53%—16.41%）,灌木层、草本层和凋落物层合计占1%左右。（3）乔木层碳储量在3种经营模式之间差异显著（P<0.05）,碳储量大小顺序为无干扰经营 (45.78 t∙hm^-2)>综合抚育经营 (27.17 t∙hm^-2)>目标树经营 (17.44 t∙hm^-2)。（4）灌木层碳储量在综合抚育经营下显著大于目标树经营（P<0.05）,凋落物层碳储量在无干扰经营下显著大于综合抚育经营和目标树经营（P<0.05）,草本层碳储量在3种经营模式之间无显著差异。（5）土壤层碳储量在无干扰经营模式下显著大于目标树经营（P<0.05）,但与综合抚育经营差异不显著。从提升林分固碳潜力和可持续经营的角度,建议对类似林分降低经营强度,优化经营技术措施,达到固碳增汇和提高林分质量的多目标经营。

关键词: 蒙古栎天然次生林, 目标树经营, 综合抚育经营, 碳储量, 经营模式, 固碳潜力

Abstract:

Quercus is the largest tree species in China with a great potential for carbon sequestration. This study examined the carbon stock and distribution pattern of the natural secondary Quercus mongolica forest under different management modes to provide theoretical bases for evaluating its carbon sink potential in China. To this end, the study employed the random layout and typical sampling method and collected both plant and soil samples for forest ecosystem carbon stock evaluation under three distinctive Q. mongolica forest stands with different management intensities within the Danqinghe Forest Station in Harbin, Heilongjiang province, northeast of China. These three Q. mongolica forest stands were (1) target tree nurture management (40%, 45% and 70% of nurture intensity), (2) comprehensive tree nurture management (45% and 40% of nurture intensity), and (3) undisturbed tree nurture management. The results showed that after 17 years of management practices, the carbon stock of secondary Q. mongolica forest under the undisturbed tree nurture management (279.01 t∙hm^-2) was significantly higher (P<0.05) than that under the other two tree nurture management modes, while the differences between comprehensive tree nurture (218.81 t∙hm^-2) and target tree nurture (183.01 t∙hm^-2) were not significant. The soil layer accounted for the largest share of the stand carbon stock (82.71%-89.56%), followed by the tree layer (9.53%-16.41%), the shrub layer, the herb layer, and the litter layer. The latter three combined only accounted for 1%. Carbon stock of the tree layer varied significantly (P<0.05) among the three management modes. The order of the carbon stock size was: no-disturbance tree nurture (45.78 t∙hm^-2)>comprehensive tree nurture (27.17 t∙hm^-2)>target tree nurture (17.44 t∙hm^-2) (P<0.05). The carbon stock of the shrub layer was significantly larger than that of target tree nurture under comprehensive tree nurture (P<0.05), and the carbon stock of the litter layer was significantly larger than that of comprehensive tree nurture and target tree nurture under no-disturbance tree nurture (P<0.05), while no differences were observed among these three management modes for the herb layer carbon stock. Soil carbon stock under no-disturbance management was significantly higher than that under target tree nurture (P<0.05), but similar with that under comprehensive tree nurture. In conclusion, from the perspective of enhancing the carbon sequestration potential and sustainable management, it is therefore recommended to reduce the management intensity of similar forest stands and optimize management technology measures to achieve multi-objective management of carbon sequestration and improve the quality of forest stands.

Key words: natural secondary Quercus mongolica forests, target tree forest management, comprehensive nurturing management, carbon stock, management mode, carbon sequestration potential

中图分类号:

何亚婷, 谢和生, 何友均. 不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林碳储量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(2): 215-223.

HE Yating, XIE Hesheng, HE Youjun. Effects of Different Forest Management Regimes on Carbon Stock of Natural Secondary Quercus Mongolica Forests[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2022, 31(2): 215-223.

图/表 6

参考文献 40

[1]	ACHAT D L, FORTIN M, LANDMANN G, et al., 2015. Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting[J]. Scientific Reports, DOI: 10.1038/srep15991. DOI
[2]	ADIKU S, AMON N, JONES J, et al., 2010. Simple formulation of the soil water effect on residue decomposition[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 41(1-4): 267-276. DOI URL
[3]	BORYS A, SUCKOW F, REYER C, et al., 2016. The impact of climate change under different thinning managements on carbon sequestration in a German forest district[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 21(6): 861-881. DOI URL
[4]	BRAVO F, LEMAY V, JANDL R, 2017. Managing forest ecosystems: the challenge of climate change[M]. Second edition. Cham (Switzerland): Springer: 1-5.
[5]	FAO, 2020. Global forest resources assessment 2020 [R]. Rome: FAO.
[6]	HARTIKAINEN M, EYVINDSON K, MIETTINEN K, et al., 2016. Data-Based Forest Management with Uncertainties and Multiple Objectives//International Workshop on Machine Learning, Optimization and Big Data[R]. Cham (Switzerland): Springe: 16-29.
[7]	JANDL R, NEUMANN M, ECKMULLNER O, 2007. Productivity increase in Northern Austria Norway spruce forests due to changes in nitrogen cycling and climate[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 170(1): 157-165. DOI URL
[8]	LAL R, 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 220(1-3): 242-258. DOI URL
[9]	MALTAMO M, NAESSET E, VAUHKONEN J, 2014. Forestry applications of airborne laser scanning: Concepts and case studies[R]. Cham (Switzerland): Springer: 18-20.
[10]	MCROBERTS R E, WINTER S, GHIRICI G, 2012. Assessing forest naturalness[J]. Forest Science, 58(3): 294-309. DOI URL
[11]	RAISA M, TAPIO L, SAMI N, et al., 2011. How forest management and climate change affect the carbon sequestration of a Norway spruce stand?[J]. Journal of Forest Planning, 16: 1-15. DOI URL
[12]	SEIDL R, RAMMER W, JAGER D, et al., 2007. Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 248(1): 64-79. DOI URL
[13]	TRIVINO M, JUUTINEN A, MAZZIOTTA A, et al., 2015. Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon[J]. Ecosystem Services, 14: 179-189. DOI URL
[14]	ZANCHI G, BELYAZID S, AKSELSSON C, et al., 2014. Modelling the effects of management intensification on multiple forest services: A Swedish case study[J]. Ecological Model, 284: 48-59. DOI URL
[15]	崔鹏程, 2017. 近自然森林经营中的目标树作业法[J]. 山西林业, 246(1): 20-21.
	CUI P C, 2017. Target tree operation method in near natural forest management[J]. Shanxi Forestry, 246(1): 20-21.
[16]	董莉莉, 刘红民, 汪成成, 等, 2019. 间伐对蒙古栎次生林生态系统碳储量的短期和长期影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 50(5): 614-620.
	DONG L L, LIU H M, WANG C C, et al., 2019. Short-term and long-term effects of thinning on carbon storage of Quercus mongolica secondary forests[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 50(5): 614-620.
[17]	冯琪雅, 陈超凡, 覃林, 等, 2018. 不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林植被的影响研究[J]. 林业科学, 54(1): 12-21.
	FENG Q Y, CHEN C F, QIN L, et al., 2018. Effects of different forest management models on vegetation of natural secondary Quecus Mongolica forests[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 54(1):12-21.
[18]	关继义, 陈义亮, 祝宁, 等, 1999. 灌木层及主要灌木树种在蒙古栎林养分循环中的地位和作用[J]. 植物研究, 19(1): 100-110.
	GUAN J Y, CHEN Y L, ZHU N, et al., 1999. Status and role of the shrub layer and its main shrub species in nutrient cycling of mongolian oak forest[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 19(1): 100-110.
[19]	关松荫, 1986. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社: 68.
	GUAN S Y, 1986. Soil enzymes and its methodology[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press: 68.
[20]	郭诗宇, 胡伯特, 福斯特, 等, 2021. 目标树经营:德国经验与湖北实践[J]. 世界林业研究, 34(2):14-20.
	GUO S Y, HU B T, FU S T, et al., 2021. Target tree management: German experience and Hubei practices[J]. World Forestry Research, 34(2): 14-20.
[21]	何列艳, 亢新刚, 范小莉, 等, 2011. 长白山区林下主要灌木生物量估算与分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报, 35(5): 45-50.
	HE L Y, KANG X G, FAN X L, et al., 2011. Estimation and analysis of understory shrub biomass in Changbai Mountains[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University, 35(5): 45-50.
[22]	何友均, 覃林, 李志勇, 2013. 森林经营对多维目标功能的影响评价与模拟研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社:17.
	HE Y J, QIN L, LI Z Y, 2013. Impact assessment of forest management strategies on multi-purposes and its modeling[M]. Beijing: Since Press: 17.
[23]	侯元兆, 陈幸良, 孙国吉, 2017. 栎类经营[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社.
	HOU Y Z, CHEN X L, SUN G J, 2017. Lilei Jingying[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House.
[24]	胡会峰, 刘国华, 2006. 森林管理在全球CO₂减排中的作用[J]. 应用生态学报, 17(4): 709-714.
	HU H F, LIU G H, 2006. Roles of forest management in global carbon dioxide mitigation[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 17(4): 709-714. DOI URL
[25]	胡雪凡, 张会儒, 周超凡, 等, 2019, 不同抚育间伐方式对蒙古栎次生林空间结构的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 41(5): 137-147.
	HU X F, ZHANG H R, ZHOU C F, et al., 2019. Effects of different thinning patterns on the spatial structure of Quercus mongolica secondary forests[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 41(5): 137-147.
[26]	姜萍, 叶吉, 吴刚, 2005. 长白山阔叶红松林大样地木本植物组成及主要树种的生物量[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 27(增刊): 112-115.
	JIANG P, YE J, WU G, 2005. Woody species composition and biomass of main tree species in a 25 hm² plot of broadleaved and Korean pine mixed forests of Changbai Mountain, northeast China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 27(Supp 2): 112-115.
[27]	梁星云, 何友均, 张谱, 等, 2013. 不同经营模式对丹清河林场天然次生林植物群落结构及其多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 49(3): 93-102.
	LIANG X Y, HE Y J, ZHANG P, et al., 2013. Effects of different forest management managements on plant community structure and biodiversity of natural secondary forests in Danqinghe Forestry Farm[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 49(3): 93-102.
[28]	刘恩, 王晖, 刘世荣, 2012. 南亚热带不同林龄红锥人工林碳贮量与碳固定特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 23(2): 335-340.
	LIU E, WANG H, LIU S R, 2012. Characteristics of carbon storage and sequestration in different age beech (Castanopsis hystrix) plantations in south subtropical area of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(2): 335-340.
[29]	陆元昌, 雷相东, 洪玲霞, 等, 2010. 近自然森林经理计划体系技术应用示范[J]. 西南林学院学报, 30(2): 1-6.
	LU Y C, LEI X D, HONG L X, et al., 2010. Demonstrative application of the close-to-nature forest management planning system to forestry practice[J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 30(2): 1-6.
[30]	全锋, 周超凡, 段光爽, 等, 2020. 基于蓄积生长率的蒙古栎天然次生林抚育间伐研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 33(2): 61-68.
	QUAN F, ZHOU C F, DUAN G S, et al., 2020. Thinning and tending of natural secondary forest of Quercus mongolica based on volume growth rate[J]. Forest Research, 33(2): 61-68.
[31]	戎建涛, 何友均, 2014. 不同森林经营模式对丹清河林场天然次生林碳贮量的影响[J]. 林业科学, 50(9): 26-35.
	RONG J T, HE Y J, 2014. Effects of different forest management managements on carbon stock in natural secondary forests at Danqinghe Forestry Farm[J]. Scientia SilvaeSinicae, 50(9): 26-35.
[32]	孙德权, 2015. 蒙古栎林间伐抚育林龄级及种群变化规律的研究[J]. 防护林科技, 146(11): 48-50.
	SUN D Q, 2015. Variation regularity of population and age class of tending thinning in Quercus mongolica plantation[J]. Protection Forest Science and Technology, 146(11): 48-50.
[33]	魏文俊, 尤文忠, 柴兵, 等, 2015. 辽东山区蒙古栎天然林固碳特征研究[J]. 防护林科技, 137(2): 1-4.
	WEN W J, YOU W Z, CHAI B, et al., 2015. Carbon fixation of Quercus mongolica plantation in mountainous area in eastern Liaoning province[J]. Protection Forest Science and Technology, 137(2): 1-4.
[34]	吴水荣, 海因里希·施皮克尔, 陈绍志, 等, 2015. 德国森林经营及其启示[J]. 林业经济, 37(1): 50-55.
	WU S R, HEINRICH S, CHEN S Z, et al., 2015. Forest management in Germany and its inspirations for China[J]. Forestry Economics, 37(1): 50-55.
[35]	徐振邦, 李昕, 戴洪才, 1985. 长白山阔叶红松林生物生产量的研究[J]. 森林生态系统研究 (5): 33-46.
	XU Z B, L X, DAI H C, 1985. Study on biomass of broad-leaved Korean pine forest in Changbai Mountain[J]. Forest Ecosystem Research (5): 33-46.
[36]	尤文忠, 魏文俊, 邢兆凯, 等, 2011. 辽东山区落叶松人工林和蒙古栎天然次生林的固碳功能[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 39(10): 21-24.
	YOU W Z, WEI W J, XING Z K, et al., 2011. Carbon fixation of larch plantations and natural secondary forests in mountainous regions of eastern Liaoning[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 39(10): 21-24.
[37]	张象君, 王庆成, 王石磊, 等, 2011. 小兴安岭落叶松人工纯林目标树化改造对林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 林业科学, 47(1): 6-14.
	ZHANG X J, WANG Q C, WANG S L et al., 2011. Effect of the close-to-nature transformation of Larix gmelinii Pure stands on plant diversity of Understory Vegetation in Xiaoxing'an mountains of China[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 47(1): 6-14.
[38]	张晓红, 张会儒, 2019. 蒙古栎次生林垂直结构特征对目标树经营的响应[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 41(5): 56-65.
	ZHANG X H, ZHANG H R, 2019. Response of vertical structure characteristics of natural secondary Quercus mongolica forest to crop tree release[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 41(5): 56-65.
[39]	张晓红, 张会儒, 卢军, 等, 2016. 美国目标树经营体系及其经营效果研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 29(1): 91-96.
	ZHANG X H, ZHANG H R, LU J, et al., 2016. Research progress in crop tree release and its effect in the United States[J]. World Forestry Research, 29(1): 91-96.
[40]	张晓红, 张会儒, 卢军, 等, 2020. 目标树抚育间伐对蒙古栎天然次生林生长的初期影响[J]. 林业科学, 56(10): 83-92.
	ZHANG X H, ZHANG H R, LU J, et al., 2020. Early effects of crop tree release tending on growth of natural secondary Quercus mongolica forest[J]. Scientia SilvaeSinicae, 56(10): 83-92.

森林经营模式 Forest management regimes	目标树经营 (MSR1) Target tree management	综合抚育经营 (MSR2) Comprehensive tending management	无干扰经营 (MSR3) No-disturbance management
1999年林龄 Sand age in 2016/a	63	63	63
2016年林龄 Sand age in 2016/a	80	80	80
平均海拔 Elevation/m	330	330	373
坡度 Slope gradient/(°)	6	6	15
坡向 Aspect	南S	南S	南S
初始密度 Initial density/(plant∙hm^-2)	850	850	850
间伐时间 Thinning time	1999/2004/2010	1999/2004	—
间伐强度 Thinning intensity/%	45/40/70	45/40	—
保留密度 Reserve density (plant∙hm^-2)	468/280/84	468/280
是否补植红松 Replanting Pinus koraiensis or not	是	否	否
抚育方式 Tending methods	折灌除草	不清理灌草
1999年树种组成 Species composition in 1999	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄
2016年树种组成 Species composition in 2016	6蒙+3红+1云	8蒙+1黑+1红	8蒙+1黄+1紫

森林经营模式 Forest management regimes	目标树经营 (MSR1) Target tree management	综合抚育经营 (MSR2) Comprehensive tending management	无干扰经营 (MSR3) No-disturbance management
1999年林龄 Sand age in 2016/a	63	63	63
2016年林龄 Sand age in 2016/a	80	80	80
平均海拔 Elevation/m	330	330	373
坡度 Slope gradient/(°)	6	6	15
坡向 Aspect	南S	南S	南S
初始密度 Initial density/(plant∙hm^-2)	850	850	850
间伐时间 Thinning time	1999/2004/2010	1999/2004	—
间伐强度 Thinning intensity/%	45/40/70	45/40	—
保留密度 Reserve density (plant∙hm^-2)	468/280/84	468/280
是否补植红松 Replanting Pinus koraiensis or not	是	否	否
抚育方式 Tending methods	折灌除草	不清理灌草
1999年树种组成 Species composition in 1999	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄	8蒙+1黑+1紫-黄
2016年树种组成 Species composition in 2016	6蒙+3红+1云	8蒙+1黑+1红	8蒙+1黄+1紫

树种 Tree species	干 Stem	枝 Branch	叶 Leaf	根 Root
蒙古栎 Quercus mongolica	B=0.0179D^2.857	B=0.0000197D^4.292	B=0.0000366D^3.49	—
红松 Pinus koraiensis	B=0.0320D^2.8387	B=0.01637D^2.0451	B=0.0475D^1.4018	B=0.0301D^2.3795
紫椴 Tilia amurensis	B=0.03565D^2.391	B=0.004725D^2.5021	B=0.000625D^2.5021	B=0.2704D^1.2991
白桦/黑桦 Betula platyphylla Betula dahurica	B=0.1462D^2.2942	B=0.0354D^1.0804	B=0.02283D^1.0607	B=0.03287D^2.3501
色木槭 Acer mono	B=1.3709D^1.8713	B=0.05579D^1.8093	B=0.09056D^1.8128	B=0.3824D^1.6088
红皮云杉 Picea koraiensis	B=0.0567D^2.4750	B=0.0116D^2.4054	B=0.0083D^2.3733	B=0.0088D^2.538
山杨 Populus davidiana	B=0.4573D^1.921	B=0.0403D^2.0442	B=0.0186D^2.2071	B=0.2105D^1.8717

树种 Tree species	干 Stem	枝 Branch	叶 Leaf	根 Root
蒙古栎 Quercus mongolica	B=0.0179D^2.857	B=0.0000197D^4.292	B=0.0000366D^3.49	—
红松 Pinus koraiensis	B=0.0320D^2.8387	B=0.01637D^2.0451	B=0.0475D^1.4018	B=0.0301D^2.3795
紫椴 Tilia amurensis	B=0.03565D^2.391	B=0.004725D^2.5021	B=0.000625D^2.5021	B=0.2704D^1.2991
白桦/黑桦 Betula platyphylla Betula dahurica	B=0.1462D^2.2942	B=0.0354D^1.0804	B=0.02283D^1.0607	B=0.03287D^2.3501
色木槭 Acer mono	B=1.3709D^1.8713	B=0.05579D^1.8093	B=0.09056D^1.8128	B=0.3824D^1.6088
红皮云杉 Picea koraiensis	B=0.0567D^2.4750	B=0.0116D^2.4054	B=0.0083D^2.3733	B=0.0088D^2.538
山杨 Populus davidiana	B=0.4573D^1.921	B=0.0403D^2.0442	B=0.0186D^2.2071	B=0.2105D^1.8717

经营模式 Management regimes	总碳储量 Total carbon stock/(t∙hm^-2)	乔木层 Tree layer/%	灌木层 Shrub layer/%	草本层 Herb layer/%	凋落物层 Litter layer/%	土壤层 Soil layer/%
目标树经营MSR1	183.01±10.61b	9.53	0.10	0.42	0.39	89.56
综合抚育经营MSR2	218.81±12.19b	12.42	0.41	0.21	0.35	86.62
无干扰经营MSR3	279.01±15.12a	16.41	0.15	0.16	0.58	82.71

不同经营模式对蒙古栎天然次生林碳储量的影响

Effects of Different Forest Management Regimes on Carbon Stock of Natural Secondary Quercus Mongolica Forests

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 40

相关文章 9

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王成武, 罗俊杰, 唐鸿湖. 基于InVEST模型的太行山沿线地区生态系统碳储量时空分异驱动力分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 215-225.
[2]	陈治中, 昝梅, 杨雪峰, 董煜. 新疆森林植被碳储量预测研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 226-234.
[3]	何亚婷, 何友均, 王鹏, 谢和生. 不同经营模式对蒙古栎林土壤有机碳组分的长效性影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 11-17.
[4]	陈科屹, 王建军, 何友均, 张立文. 黑龙江大兴安岭重点国有林区森林碳储量及固碳潜力评估[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1725-1734.
[5]	吴胜义, 王飞, 徐干君, 马浩, 党禹杰, 吴菲. 川西北高山峡谷区森林碳储量及空间分布研究--以四川洛须自然保护区为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(9): 1735-1744.
[6]	王超越, 郭先华, 郭莉, 白丽芳, 夏利林, 王春博, 李廷真. 基于FLUS-InVEST的西北地区土地利用变化及其对碳储量的影响——以呼包鄂榆城市群为例[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(8): 1667-1679.
[7]	杜雪, 王海燕, 邹佳何, 孟海, 赵晗, 崔雪, 董齐琪. 长白山北坡云冷杉阔叶混交林土壤有机碳分布特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 663-669.
[8]	肖军, 雷蕾, 曾立雄, 李肇晨, 马成功, 肖文发. 不同经营模式对华北油松人工林碳储量的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(11): 2134-2142.
[9]	张桂莲. 基于遥感估算的上海城市森林碳储量空间分布特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(9): 1777-1786.