不同修复模式杨桦次生林植物多样性及其影响因子

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2026.04.001

生态环境学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (4): 499-508.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2026.04.001

• 研究论文【生态学】 • 下一篇

不同修复模式杨桦次生林植物多样性及其影响因子

李云红¹^,²(), 陈瑶¹^,², 刘玉龙¹^,³, 张鹤东¹^,³, 王帅¹^,², 刘延坤¹^,³^,^*()

¹ 黑龙江省生态研究所（黑龙江省湿地研究中心/黑龙江省草原研究中心），黑龙江哈尔滨 150081
² 黑龙江牡丹江森林生态系统国家定位观测研究站，黑龙江牡丹江 157500
³ 黑龙江省森林生态与林业生态工程重点实验室，黑龙江哈尔滨 150081

收稿日期:2025-08-25 修回日期:2025-12-28 接受日期:2026-01-21 出版日期:2026-04-18 发布日期:2026-04-14
通讯作者: *E-mail: liuyankun1979@126.com
作者简介:李云红（1979年生），女，副研究员，硕士，研究方向为森林生态。E-mail: 704415@qq.com
基金资助:
黑龙江省自然科学基金联合引导项目(LH2023C107);黑龙江省省属科研院所科研业务费项目(CZKYF2025-1-B040);黑龙江省重点研发计划项目(GA21C030)

Plant Diversity and Influencing Factors of Poplar-Birch Secondary Forests to Restoration Models

LI Yunhong¹^,²(), CHEN Yao¹^,², LIU Yulong¹^,³, ZHANG Hedong¹^,³, WANG Shuai¹^,², LIU Yankun¹^,³^,^*()

¹ Heilongjiang Institute of Ecology (Heilongjiang Wetland Research Center/Heilongjiang Grassland Research Center), Harbin 150081, P. R. China
² Mudanjiang Forest Ecosystem Research Station, Mudanjiang 157500, P. R. China
³ Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Forestry Ecological Engineering of Heilongjiang Province, Harbin 150081, P. R. China

Received:2025-08-25 Revised:2025-12-28 Accepted:2026-01-21 Online:2026-04-18 Published:2026-04-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

由于长期受到干扰，东北林区面临森林生态系统功能下降的严峻挑战，生态修复势在必行，而目前对于次生林不同修复模式下生物与非生物因子协同驱动生态恢复的机制仍缺乏深入认识。以3种修复模式的杨桦（Populus spp. & Betula spp.）次生林以及地带性顶级群落阔叶红松（Pinus koraiensis Sieb. et Zucc.）林为研究对象，分析植物多样性和土壤理化特征对不同经营修复模式的响应，采用冗余分析的方法，探讨森林生态系统恢复过程中生物-非生物因子相互作用机制，为东北林区的退化森林生态系统修复提供科学依据。结果表明：1）乔木层Simpson index（D）、Shannon-Wiener index（H）、Pielou index（J）均呈现目标树经营模式（Ⅲ）显著高于树种结构调整模式Ⅰ，灌木层Number of species（S）以对照处理显著高于模式Ⅲ和模式Ⅰ；2）3种修复模式土壤容重SBD均高于对照，土壤pH值、土壤最大持水率WHC均低于对照，土壤总孔隙度TPOR树种结构调整模式Ⅱ略高于对照，但无显著差异。3）3种经营修复模式之间及其与对照间土壤有机碳SOC、全氮TN、全磷TP、碳氮比C/N、碳磷比C/P以及氮磷比N/P均存在一定的显著差异；4）显著影响乔木层物种多样性的土壤因子主要为TN、C/N和TPOR，显著影响灌木层物种多样性的土壤因子为TN、SBD和WHC。在杨桦次生林经营修复模式选择中，需优先考虑能有效改良土壤理化性质，即通气透水性及养分状况的技术措施，以促进林分物种多样性的提升。

关键词: 杨桦次生林, 修复模式, 物种多样性, 土壤理化特征, 冗余分析

Abstract:

Forest ecosystems play an irreplaceable ecological role in maintaining global biodiversity, regulating climate, and other aspects. Due to long-term disturbance, the Northeast Forest area is facing severe challenges from declining forest ecosystem function. Poplar-birch secondary forests are early or mid-stage forest types formed by natural succession on secondary bare land after natural or human disturbance and destruction of primary forests such as broad-leaved Pinus koraiensis natural forests and spruce forests. It is one of the most common secondary forest types in temperate and cold temperate forest areas. If subjected to high-intensity human or natural disturbance, it will form degraded forests, thereby affecting the positive succession process of forests. Therefore, it is particularly important to carry out active ecological restoration, such as replanting, nurturing, soil improvement, etc., to rebuild community structure and function and reactivate natural succession processes. This study aims to investigate the response of Poplar-birch secondary forest species diversity to different management and restoration modes by integrating two key dimensions: biodiversity and soil physicochemical characteristics to explore the following questions: 1) are there differences in species diversity among different restoration modes? 2) How do soil physicochemical characteristics respond to different restoration modes? 3) What is the relationship between biotic and abiotic factors in various restoration modes, specifically regarding species diversity and soil physicochemical characteristics? In response to the above three questions, we focused on three historical management and restoration models (with a management duration of about 15 years) of Poplar-birch secondary forests, namely tree species structure adjustment (I: Nurturing+Replanting of Pinus koraiensis, II: Nurturing+Replanting of Picea koraiensis), target-tree cultivation and management (III: nurturing management), and using the zonal top community broad-leaved Pinus koraiensis natural forest as a control (IV). The response of plant diversity and soil physicochemical characteristics to different management and restoration modes is analyzed. SPSS 21.0 software is used to perform one-way ANOVA on the species diversity index and soil physicochemical characteristics of different management and restoration modes. The R language Vegan package is used to perform redundancy analysis (RDA) on the species diversity index and soil physicochemical characteristics, and Monte Carlo permutation test is used to determine the main soil physicochemical factors affecting the species diversity index. The interaction mechanism between biotic and abiotic factors in the forest ecosystem restoration process is explored, to provide scientific basis for the restoration of degraded forest ecosystems in Northeast China. The results showed that: 1) the dominance index (D), Shannon-Wiener index (H), and evenness index (J) of the tree layer were significantly higher in the target tree management mode (III) compared to the tree structure adjustment mode I (p<0.05), while the number of shrub layer species (S) was significantly greater in the control treatment than in modes III and I. There was no significant difference in D and H among the four modes (p>0.05), and there was no significant difference in the S, D, H, and J index of the herb layer among different management and restoration modes (p>0.05); 2) The soil bulk density (SBD) of the three management and restoration modes was higher than the control, and the soil pH value and maximum water holding capacity (WHC) were lower than the control. However, there was no significant difference among the three modes (p>0.05). The total soil porosity (TPOR) tree species structure adjustment mode II was slightly higher than the control, but there was no significant difference (p>0.05). 3) There were significant differences in soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), carbon nitrogen ratio (C/N), carbon phosphorus ratio (C/P), and nitrogen phosphorus ratio (N/P) among the three management and restoration models and between them and the control group. Among them, SOC, TP, and C/N ratio were significantly higher in model I and model II than in model III, and TN and N/P were significantly higher in model III than in model I; 4) The changes in soil TN, N/P, WHC, and TPOR in the tree layer are mainly reflected in the RDA1 axis, while S, H, D, and J all increase with the increase of soil TN, N/P, WHC, and TPOR. The changes in soil C/P are mainly reflected in the RDA2 axis, while D, J, S, and H all increase with the increase of soil C/P. The soil factors that significantly affect species diversity in the tree layer are mainly TN, C/N, and TPOR. The changes in soil SOC and WHC in the shrub layer are mainly reflected in the RDA1 axis. H, D, and S decrease with the decrease of soil SOC and WHC on the RDA1 axis, while J increases. The changes in N/P are mainly reflected in the RDA2 axis. On the RDA2 axis, S decreases as soil N/P decreases, while H, D, and J increase. The soil factors that significantly affect shrub layer species diversity are TN, SBD, and WHC, and there is no significant relationship between soil factors and herbaceous layer species diversity. The conclusion of this study is that: 1) the management and restoration mode of Poplar-birch secondary forests has differentiated effects, and the target tree management mode significantly improves the species diversity of the tree layer (with higher D, H, and J indices), and improves the nitrogen status of the soil. The tree species structure adjustment mode promotes uniform growth of the shrub layer (with higher J index of shrub layer uniformity), and increases the organic matter and phosphorus content of the soil, while also having a higher soil C/N ratio; 2) The core soil factors that affect species diversity at different levels are TN, C/N, and TPOR, which significantly affect species diversity in the tree layer under different management and restoration modes. TN, SBD, and WHC are soil factors that significantly affect species diversity in the shrub layer under different management and restoration modes. The scientific and technological problem that needs to be solved in the future: there is a clear “trade-off” between the target tree management model and the tree species structure adjustment model in terms of ecological benefits. How to quantify the comprehensive ecological benefits of these two models at the ecosystem scale? Is there an optimal collaborative solution that can simultaneously maximize the diversity of tree and shrub layers and the theoretical threshold of soil multifunctionality? How can we technically integrate the advantages of the two modes in practice? In addition, this study only focuses on middle-aged forests, and further research is needed to determine whether the restoration effect is consistent in other forest age stages.

Key words: polar-birch secondary forests, restoration models, species diversity, soil physical and chemical characteristics, redundancy analysis

中图分类号:

李云红, 陈瑶, 刘玉龙, 张鹤东, 王帅, 刘延坤. 不同修复模式杨桦次生林植物多样性及其影响因子[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(4): 499-508.

LI Yunhong, CHEN Yao, LIU Yulong, ZHANG Hedong, WANG Shuai, LIU Yankun. Plant Diversity and Influencing Factors of Poplar-Birch Secondary Forests to Restoration Models[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2026, 35(4): 499-508.

图/表 6

参考文献 40

[1]	ALLEN C D, MACALADY A K, CHENCHOUNJI H, et al., 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): 660-684. DOI URL
[2]	BEVER J D, WESTOVER K M, 1997. Incorporating the soil community into plant population dynamics: The utility of the feedback approach[J]. Journal of Ecology, 85: 561-573. DOI URL
[3]	CLEVELAND C C, LIPTZIN D, 2007. C꞉N꞉P stoichiometry in soil: Is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass[J]. Biogeochemistry, 85: 235-252. DOI URL
[4]	DÍAZ-GARCÍA J M, LÓPEZ-BARRERA F, PINEDA E, et al., 2020. Comparing the success of active and passive restoration in a tropical cloud forest landscape: A multi-taxa fauna approach[J]. PloS One, 15(11): e0242020.
[5]	GÜSEWELL S, KOERSELMAN W, 2002. Variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of wetland plants[J]. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 5(1): 37-61. DOI URL
[6]	HUA F, BRUIJNZEEL L A, MELI P, et al., 2022. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches[J]. Science, 376(6595): 839-844. DOI URL
[7]	LEBAUER D S, TRESEDER K K, 2008. Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed[J]. Ecology, 89(2): 371-379. DOI PMID
[8]	LOHBECK M, POORTER L, LEBRIJA-TREJOS E, et al., 2013. Successional changes in functional composition contrast for dry and wet tropical forest[J]. Ecology, 94(6): 1211-1216. PMID
[9]	PENNEKAMP F, PONTARP M, TABI A, et al., 2018. Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability[J]. Nature, 563(7729): 109-112. DOI
[10]	REICH P B, TILMAD D, ISBELL F, et al., 2012. Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades[J]. Science, 336(6081): 589-592. DOI PMID
[11]	REID J L, HOLL K D, ZAHAWI R A, 2015. Seed dispersal limitations shift over time in tropical forest restoration[J]. Ecological Applications, 25(4): 1072-1082. PMID
[12]	ROZENDAAL D M A, BONGERS F, AIDE T M, et al., 2019. Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests[J]. Science Advances, 5(3): eaau3114.
[13]	WANG W, SARDANS J, ZENG C, et al., 2014. Responses of soil nutrient concentrations and stoichiometry to different human land uses in a subtropical tidal wetland[J]. Geoderma, 232: 459-470.
[14]	YOUNG D J N, STEVENS J T, EARLES J M, et al., 2017. Long-term climate and competition explain forest mortality patterns under extreme drought[J]. Ecology Letters, 20(1): 78-86. DOI PMID
[15]	陈瑶, 李云红, 邵英男, 等, 2022. 阔叶红松林物种多样性与土壤理化特征研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(4): 679-687. DOI
	CHEN Y, LI Y H, SHAO Y N, et al., 2022. Study on species diversity and soil physical and chemical characteristics of broad-leaved Pinus koraiensis forest[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(4): 679-687.
[16]	崔宁洁, 张丹桔, 刘洋, 等, 2014. 不同林龄马尾松人工林林下植物多样性与土壤理化性质[J]. 生态学杂志, 33(10): 2610-2617.
	CUI N H, ZHANG D J, LIU Y, et al., 2014. Plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties under different aged Pinus massoniana plantations[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 33(10): 2610-2617.
[17]	冯健, 王骞春, 陆爱君, 等, 2021. 辽东山区落叶松-水曲柳混交林植物多样性和土壤特性研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 49(6): 27-37.
	FENG J, WANG Q, LU A J, et al., 2021. Plant Diversity and soil characteristics of Larch-manchurianssh mixed stand in eastern Liaoning[J]. Journal of Northwest & Funiversity, 49(6): 27-37.
[18]	关玉亮, 甘先华, 殷祚云, 等, 2024. 南岭自然保护区不同海拔梯度植物多样性分布格局[J]. 生态环境学报, 33(6): 877-887. DOI
	GUAN Y L, GAN X H, YIN Z Y, et al., 2024. Distribution pattern of plant diversity at different elevations in Nanling Nature Reserve[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 33(6): 877-887.
[19]	兰倩, 陈绍志, 邬可义, 等, 2021. 退化林修复研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 34(5): 50-57.
	LAN Q, CHEN S Z, WU Y K, et al., 2021. Progress of degraded forests restoration research[J]. World Forestry Research, 34(5): 50-57.
[20]	李婷婷, 唐永彬, 周润惠, 等, 2021. 云顶山不同人工林林下植物多样性及其土壤理化性质的关系[J]. 生态学报, 41(3): 1168-1177.
	LI T T, TANG Y B, ZHOU R H, 2021. Understory plant diversity and its relationship with soil physicochemical properties in different plantations in Yunding Mountain[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(3): 1168-1177.
[21]	李雪梅, 2014. 长白山北坡阔叶红松林树木多样性与稳定性研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学.
	LI X M, 2014. Study on the tree diversity and stand stability of the broad-leaved Korean pine forest on the northern slope of Changbai mountain[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University.
[22]	刘兵兵, 张波, 赵鹏武, 等, 2020. 林窗对大兴安岭南段杨桦次生林林下物种多样性的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 48(4): 65-74.
	LIU B B, ZHANG B, ZHAO P W, et al., 2020. Effects of forest gap on understory species diversity of poplar and birch secondary forests in southern section of the Da Xing’an Mountains[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Edition), 48(4): 65-74.
[23]	刘道锟, 孙海龙, 甘秋妹, 等, 2016. 大兴安岭干旱阳坡不同植被退化阶段土壤理化性质与物种多样性研究[J]. 森林工程, 32(2): 1-6.
	LIU D K, SUN H L, GAN Q M, et al., 2016. Soil physicochemical properties and plant species diversity of different vegetation degradation stages in arid sunny-slope of Great Xing’an Mountains[J]. Forest Engineering, 32(2): 1-6.
[24]	刘婕, 勾晓华, 刘建国, 等, 2023. 甘南黄河流域4种典型林分土壤C、N、P化学计量特征[J]. 生态学报, 43(13): 5627-5637.
	LIU J, GOU X H, LIU J G, et al., 2023. The stoichiometric characteristics of soil C, N and P in four typical forest stands in the Yellow River Basin in Gannan[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 43(13): 5627-5637.
[25]	刘赛思, 2014. 不同间伐强度对杨桦次生林林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 林业勘查设计 (1): 28-31.
	LIU S S, 2014. Effects of different thinning intensity on the Poplar and Birch secondary forest plant diversity[J]. Forestry Survey and Design (1): 28-31.
[26]	刘亚培, 陈绍志, 赵荣, 等, 2022. 我国天然林保护修复研究概述[J]. 世界林业研究, 35(1): 82-87.
	LIU Y P, CHEN S Z, ZHAO R, et al., 2022. Researches on protection and restoration of natural forests in China[J]. World Forestry Research, 35(1): 82-87.
[27]	谭许脉, 张文, 肖纳, 等, 2022. 杉木林改造成乡土阔叶林对林下植物物种组成和多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 42(7): 2931-2942.
	TAN X M, ZHANG W, XIAO N, et al., 2022. Effects of understory plant species composition and diversity under transforming Chinese fir into precious indigenous broadleaf plantations[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 42(7): 2931-2942.
[28]	汤铭阳, 宋佩东, 孟庆娇, 2020. 辽东山区典型退化次生林生态修复技术探究[J]. 现代园艺, 43(14): 134-136.
	TANG M Y, SONG P D, MENG Q J, 2020. Exploration of ecological restoration techniques for typical degraded secondary forests in Liaodong mountainous areas[J]. Xiandai Horticulture, 43(14): 134-136.
[29]	王嘉瑞, 周俊菊, 朱国锋, 2024. 中国土壤碳氮磷及生态化学计量研究综述[J]. 生态学杂志, 43(8): 2493-2501.
	WANG J R, ZHOU J J, ZHU G F, 2024. A review of soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and stoichiometry studies in China[J]. Chinese Journal Ecology, 43(8): 2493-2501.
[30]	魏晨辉, 沈光, 裴忠雪, 等, 2015. 不同植物种植对松嫩平原盐碱地土壤理化性质与细根生长的影响[J]. 植物研究, 35(5): 759-764. DOI
	WEI C H, SHEN G, PEI Z X, et al., 2015. Effects of different plant planting on physical and chemical properties and fine root growth of saline alkali soil in Songnen Plain[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 35(5): 759-764.
[31]	肖军, 雷蕾, 李肇晨, 等, 2023. 不同经营方式对油松成熟人工林生长和植物多样性的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 45(12): 1-10.
	XIAO J, LEI L, LI Z C, et al., 2023. Effects of different management methods on growth and plant diversity in mature Pinus tabuliformis plantations[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 45(12): 1-10.
[32]	薛沛沛, 齐代华, 陈本文, 等, 2025. 马尾松林阔叶化改造对土壤C、N、P含量及其生态化学计量特征的影响[J/OL]. 生态学杂志, 1-11 [2025-08-17]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/21.1148.Q.20250630.1436.002.
	XUE P P, QI D H, CHEN B W, et al., 2025. The effects of broadleaved transformation of Pinus massoniana forests on the contents and ecological stoichiometry of C, N and P in soil[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 1-11 [2025-08-17]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/21.1148.Q.20250630.1436.002.
[33]	闫玮明, 孙冰, 裴男才, 等, 2019. 粤北阔叶人工林和次生林植物多样性与土壤理化性质相关性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 28(5): 898-907. DOI
	YAN W M, SUN B, PEI N C, et al., 2019. Correlation analyses on plant diversity and soil physical-chemical properties between evergreen broad-leaved plantations and natural secondary forests in North Guangdong, China[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 28(5): 898-907.
[34]	张博文, 秦娟, 任忠明, 等, 2022. 坡向对北亚热带区马尾松纯林及不同针阔混交林型林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(6): 1091-1100. DOI
	ZHANG B W, QIN J, REN Z M, et al., 2022. Effects of slope aspect on understory plant diversity of Pinus massoniana pure forest and different coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest types in north subtropical region[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(6): 1091-1100.
[35]	张梦弢, 张青, 亢新刚, 等, 2015. 长白山云冷杉林不同演替阶段群落稳定性[J]. 应用生态学报, 26(6): 1609-1616.
	ZHANG M T, ZHANG Q, KANG X G, et al., 2015. Community stability for spruce-fir forest at different succession stages in Changbai Mountains, Northeast China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 26(6): 1609-1616.
[36]	赵榕江, 陈焘, 董丽佳, 等, 2023. 植物-土壤反馈及其在生态学中的研究进展[J]. 植物生态学报, 47(10): 1333-1355. DOI
	ZHAO R J, CHEN T, DONG L J, et al., 2023. Progress of plant- soil feedback in ecology studies[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 47(10): 1333-1355.
[37]	甄广韵, 2023. 辽东山区天然次生林修复技术与模式[J]. 林业科技通讯 (10): 78-81.
	ZHEN G Y, 2023. Restoration technology and model of natural secondary forests in Liaodong mountain area[J]. Forest Science and Technology (10): 78-81.
[38]	周立峰, 2025. 杨桦次生林生态修复技术探析[J]. 绿色中国 (3): 112-114.
	ZHOU L F, 2025. Exploration on ecological restoration Technology of Poplar-Birch secondary forests[J]. Green China (3): 112-114.
[39]	周晓果, 2016. 林下植物功能群丧失对桉树人工林土壤生态系统多功能性的影响[D]. 南宁: 广西大学.
	ZHOU X G, 2016. Effects of understory plant functional groups loss on soil ecosystem multifunctionlity in Eucalyptus plantations[D]. Nanning: Guangxi University.
[40]	朱凡, 李天平, 郁培义, 等, 2014. 施氮对樟树林土壤微生物碳源代谢的影响[J]. 林业科学, 50(8): 82-89.
	ZHU F, LI T P, YU P Y, et al., 2014. Carbon source utilization of soil microbial communities in response to nitrogen addition in the Cinnamomum camphora plantation[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 50(8): 82-89.

修复模式	海拔/m	坡度/°	坡位	坡向	林龄组	郁闭度	平均胸径/cm	经营方式
Ⅰ	706.70±5.65	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	13.29±0.24	抚育+林冠下补植红松
Ⅱ	664.70±9.62	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	17.77±1.82	抚育+林冠下补植云杉
Ⅲ	712.17±5.12	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	13.48±1.33	目标树抚育经营
Ⅳ	584.87±24.42	11.00±3.61	中	南	中龄林	0.8	17.21±1.18	对照

修复模式	海拔/m	坡度/°	坡位	坡向	林龄组	郁闭度	平均胸径/cm	经营方式
Ⅰ	706.70±5.65	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	13.29±0.24	抚育+林冠下补植红松
Ⅱ	664.70±9.62	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	17.77±1.82	抚育+林冠下补植云杉
Ⅲ	712.17±5.12	3.00±0.00	中	南	中龄林	0.8	13.48±1.33	目标树抚育经营
Ⅳ	584.87±24.42	11.00±3.61	中	南	中龄林	0.8	17.21±1.18	对照

植被层	多样性指数	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
乔木	S	8.00±0.00a	8.00±1.15a	9.33±1.20a	8.33±0.67a
	D	0.66±0.03b	0.78±0.04a	0.82±0.02a	0.78±0.02a
	H	1.46±0.06b	1.74±0.17ab	1.91±0.13a	1.74±0.17ab
	J	0.70±0.03b	0.84±0.02a	0.86±0.01a	0.83±0.01a
灌木	S	1.67±0.67b	2.00±0.58ab	1.67±0.33b	3.67±0.33a
	D	0.49±0.07a	0.45±0.06a	0.39±0.07a	0.54±0.07a
	H	0.78±0.17a	0.78±0.14a	0.65±0.12a	1.05±0.14a
	J	0.86±0.03a	0.74±0.04ab	0.67±0.04b	0.68±0.07b
草本	S	12.00±0.00a	12.00±0.58a	10.67±0.67a	13.00±2.65a
	D	0.74±0.01a	0.79±0.04a	0.79±0.04a	0.75±0.09a
	H	1.70±0.05a	1.91±0.16a	1.89±0.09a	1.82±0.34a
	J	0.66±0.02a	0.74±0.05a	0.77±0.05a	0.69±0.09a

植被层	多样性指数	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ
乔木	S	8.00±0.00a	8.00±1.15a	9.33±1.20a	8.33±0.67a
	D	0.66±0.03b	0.78±0.04a	0.82±0.02a	0.78±0.02a
	H	1.46±0.06b	1.74±0.17ab	1.91±0.13a	1.74±0.17ab
	J	0.70±0.03b	0.84±0.02a	0.86±0.01a	0.83±0.01a
灌木	S	1.67±0.67b	2.00±0.58ab	1.67±0.33b	3.67±0.33a
	D	0.49±0.07a	0.45±0.06a	0.39±0.07a	0.54±0.07a
	H	0.78±0.17a	0.78±0.14a	0.65±0.12a	1.05±0.14a
	J	0.86±0.03a	0.74±0.04ab	0.67±0.04b	0.68±0.07b
草本	S	12.00±0.00a	12.00±0.58a	10.67±0.67a	13.00±2.65a
	D	0.74±0.01a	0.79±0.04a	0.79±0.04a	0.75±0.09a
	H	1.70±0.05a	1.91±0.16a	1.89±0.09a	1.82±0.34a
	J	0.66±0.02a	0.74±0.05a	0.77±0.05a	0.69±0.09a

环境因子	乔木			灌木			草本
环境因子	RDA1	RDA2	p	RDA1	RDA2	p	RDA1	RDA2	p
SOC	−0.999	0.039	0.604	−0.984	0.178	0.493	−0.374	0.927	0.129
TN	0.748	−0.664	0.008	−0.326	−0.946	0.027	0.503	0.864	0.793
C/N	−0.853	0.521	0.006	−0.058	0.998	0.086	−0.629	0.777	0.511
TP	−0.654	−0.757	0.235	−0.819	0.573	0.357	−0.867	0.498	0.105
C/P	0.311	0.951	0.166	0.250	−0.968	0.760	0.991	0.131	0.148
N/P	1.000	0.024	0.069	0.188	−0.982	0.127	0.897	−0.442	0.239
pH	−0.413	0.911	0.821	−0.816	0.579	0.155	−0.808	0.589	0.954
SBD	−0.949	−0.315	0.419	0.971	0.238	0.001	0.876	−0.483	0.935
WHC	0.994	−0.110	0.242	−0.860	−0.511	0.001	−0.108	0.994	0.919
TPOR	0.900	−0.435	0.050	−0.617	−0.787	0.087	0.956	0.294	0.540
特征值	3.268	0.691		2.496	1.164		2.461	0.474
累计解释变异	82.230	99.630		67.830	99.460		83.350	99.380

不同修复模式杨桦次生林植物多样性及其影响因子

Plant Diversity and Influencing Factors of Poplar-Birch Secondary Forests to Restoration Models

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 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李林, 张朝阳, 储小雪, 周景钢, 王雪, 魏识广. 鼎湖山不同类型森林物种多样性和功能多样性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(8): 1219-1227.
[2]	徐茂宏. 暖温带森林土壤微生物α多样性海拔梯度格局及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(5): 678-687.
[3]	邓鹏飞, 肖永有, 曾常金, 高雨, 张秀兰, 陈兴彬, 肖复明, 徐小牛. 长期弃管杉木人工林群落结构及其物种多样性特点[J]. 生态环境学报, 2025, 34(4): 511-520.
[4]	王梓晗, 吕世杰, 王忠武, 刘红梅. 放牧强度对优势种群重要值和物种多样性及其二者典型关系的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(6): 869-876.
[5]	关玉亮, 甘先华, 殷祚云, 黄钰辉, 陶玉柱, 李宽, 张卫强, 邓彩琼, 曾祥尧, 黄芳芳. 南岭自然保护区不同海拔梯度植物多样性分布格局[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(6): 877-887.
[6]	卿彩霞, 陈圣宾, 邓杰文, 邓惺位, 李喆, 邱鹭. 生境数量和生境质量以及气象因子对成都市粪食性金龟物种多样性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(5): 708-719.
[7]	卫玺玺, 晁鑫艳, 郑景明, 唐可欣, 万龙, 周金星. 贺兰山东、西侧典型植物群落物种多样性差异及其影响因子[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(4): 520-530.
[8]	崔盼盼, 于洋, 曲波, 苏芳莉. 封育对退化河岸草地植物多样性和植被景观的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(11): 1708-1716.
[9]	宋思梦, 林冬梅, 周恒宇, 罗宗志, 张丽丽, 易超, 林辉, 林兴生, 刘斌, 苏德伟, 郑丹, 余世葵, 林占熺. 种植巨菌草对乌兰布和沙漠植物物种多样性与土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(9): 1595-1605.
[10]	杜丹丹, 高瑞忠, 房丽晶, 谢龙梅. 旱区盐湖盆地土壤重金属空间变异及对土壤理化因子的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(6): 1123-1132.
[11]	李善家, 王兴敏, 刘海锋, 孙梦格, 雷雨昕. 河西走廊荒漠植物多样性及其对环境因子的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(3): 429-438.
[12]	赵蔓, 张晓曼, 杨明洁. 林火干扰对栓皮栎-辽东栎混交林植物多样性与土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(10): 1732-1740.
[13]	张立进, 杜虎, 曾馥平, 黄国勤, 宋敏, 宋同清. 喀斯特峰丛洼地植被恢复过程中生产力与多样性关系探讨[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(1): 26-35.
[14]	马辉英, 李昕竹, 马鑫钰, 贡璐. 新疆天山北麓中段不同植被类型下土壤有机碳组分特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6): 1124-1131.
[15]	冯凌, 喻理飞, 王阳, 张丽敏, 赵庆, 李方兵. 喀斯特地区植被不同恢复阶段功能冗余和功能多样性对群落稳定性的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(4): 670-678.