doi:10.12171/j.1000-1522.20210486
Effects of artificial promotion measures on seed germination and early growth ofLarix principis-rupprechtii
?nbsp; 1裂区设计示意国/p>
CK. 对照;CC. 全面清理;BC. 带状清理;SC. 沟状清理。图?类枯落物处理方式在副区中是随机排列的,林分密度由小到大分别表示为T1、T2、T3。下同。CK, control; CC, completely cleaning; BC, banding cleaning ; SC, sulcate cleaning. The order of 4 litter treatments is random in the subplot, and stand densities from small to large are expressed as T1, T2, T3, respectively. The same below.
Figure 1.Schematic diagram of slip plot design
?nbsp; 3幼苗地径、苗高在不同时期的比辂/p>
不同大写字母表示密度间的差异显著'i>P< 0.05),不同小写字母表示年份间的差异显著'i>P< 0.05)。Different capital letters indicate significant difference between varied densities (P< 0.05), and different small letters indicate significant difference between varied years (P< 0.05).
Figure 3.Comparison of seedling ground diameter and seedling height in different periods
?nbsp; 42019?020年不同林分密度下不同枯落物处理方式的更新密度
不同大写字母表示枯落物处理方式间的差异显著(P< 0.05),不同小写字母表示密度间的差异显著'i>P< 0.05)。图6同。Different capital letters indicate the difference between different litter treatment modes (P< 0.05), and different small letters indicate the difference between varied stand densities (P< 0.05). The same as figure 6.
Figure 4.Regenaration density of different litter treatment modes under varied stand densities in 2019 and 2020
?nbsp; 2华北落叶松良种基本参?/p>
Table 2.Basic parameters of high quality seeds ofL. principis-rupprechtii
平均粒径 Average grain diameter/mm |
千粒质量 Thousand-grain mass/g |
发芽玆br/>Germination rate/% | 生活劚br/>Seed viability/% |
1.56 ± 0.14 | 5.90 ± 0.19 | 88.89 ± 4.16 | 97.78 ± 1.57 |
?nbsp; 3裂区设计的样地处理详惄/p>
Table 3.Treatment details of fixed experimental sample plots in slip plot design
林分密度 Stand density |
枯落物处理方弎br/>Litter treatment method |
枯落物清理面?br/>Litter clearing area/m2 | 播种种子密度 Seeding density |
播种种子质量 Quality of seed propagation |
|||
播散野br/>Seeding amount/(g·m?(/td> | 播种密度/(粒·m?(br/>Seeding density/(cap·m?(/td> | 各副区质野br/>Mass of each subplot/g |
各副区粒?br/>Grain number of each subplot |
||||
T1 | CK | 0 | 1.50 | 254.15 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | |
CC | 100 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | ||||
BC | 50 | 75.00 | 12 707.50 | ||||
SC | 19 | 28.50 | 4 828.85 | ||||
T2 | CK | 0 | 1.50 | 254.15 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | |
CC | 100 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | ||||
BC | 50 | 75.00 | 12 707.50 | ||||
SC | 19 | 28.50 | 4 828.85 | ||||
T3 | CK | 0 | 1.50 | 254.15 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | |
CC | 100 | 150.00 | 25 415.00 | ||||
BC | 50 | 75.00 | 12 707.50 | ||||
SC | 19 | 28.50 | 4 828.85 |
?nbsp; 44类种子处理方弎/p>
Table 4.4 kinds of seed treatment methods
处理 Treatment |
播种时间 Sowing time |
越冬保存条件 Wintering preservation condition |
雪藏方式 Snow storage mode |
播种前是否催芼br/>Whether to promote germination before sowing |
ST1 | 2019?1月上?br/>Early November, 2019 | 塞罕坝室外环墂br/>Outdoor environment of Saihanba Area | 室外天然雪藏 Natural snow stratification in the outdoor environment |
No |
ST2 | 2020?月中?br/>Mid-June, 2020 | 塞罕坝室内环墂br/>Indoor environment of Saihanba Area | 不雪藎br/>No snow stratification | No |
ST3 | 2020?月中?br/>Mid-June, 2020 | 塞罕坝室内环墂br/>Indoor environment of Saihanba Area | 不雪藎br/>No snow stratification | Yes |
ST4 | 2020?月中?br/>Mid-June, 2020 | 塞罕坝室内环墂br/>Indoor environment of Saihanba Area | 室内人工雪藏 Artificial snow storage in the indoor environment |
Yes |
?nbsp; 52019年和2020年华北落叶松林各级幼苗的更新频率
Table 5.Regeneration frequency of seedlings at various levels inL. principis-rupprechtiiplantations in 2019 and 2020
林分 密度 Stand density |
枯落?br/>处理方式 Litter treatment mode |
2019 | 2020 | |||||||||||||
1a | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
2a | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
3a+ | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
整体更新频率 Overall regeneration frequency/% |
1a | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
2a | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
3a+ | 更新频率 Regeneration frequency/% |
整体更新频率 Overall regeneration frequency/% |
|||
T1 | CK | ∙/td> | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | ∙/td> | 100 | ∙/td> | 50 | 0 | 100 | ||||
CC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
BC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | |||||||||||||
SC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
T2 | CK | ∙/td> | 75 | ∙/td> | 25 | 0 | 75 | ∙/td> | 100 | ∙/td> | 25 | 0 | 100 | |||
CC | ∙/td> | |||||||||||||||
BC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
SC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
T3 | CK | ∙/td> | 100 | ∙/td> | 25 | 0 | 100 | ∙/td> | 100 | 25 | ∙/td> | 25 | 100 | |||
CC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
BC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | |||||||||||||
SC | ∙/td> | ∙/td> | ||||||||||||||
注:1a. 1年生幼苗?a. 2年生幼苗?a+. 3年生及以上幼苗。存在更新的样地标注符号“√”,没有更新的样地不作任何标注。幼树更新频率均?,故在表中省略。Notes: 1a means 1-year-old seedlings; 2a means 2-year-old seedlings; 3a+ means more than 3 years old seedlings. There is a symbol “√ for the regenerated sample plots; there is no mark for the non-regenerated sample plots, and the regeneration frequency of young trees in all sample plots is 0, it is omitted in the above table. |
?nbsp; 62019年和2020年的华北落叶松更新等级评宙/p>
Table 6.Evaluation of regeneration levels ofL. principis-rupprechtiiin 2019 and 2020
林分密度 Stand density |
枯落物处理方弎br/> Litter treatment mode | 2019 | 2020 | |||
更新密度/(株ˑhm?(br/> Regeneration density/(treeˑha?(/td> | 更新等级 Regeneration grade |
更新密度/(株ˑhm?(br/> Regeneration density/(treeˑha?(/td> | 更新等级 Regeneration grade |
|||
T1 | CK | 266.67 ± 47.14a | 不良 Bad | 1 933.33 ± 758.65a | 不良/中等 Bad or medium | |
CC | 66.67 ± 94.28b | 不良 Bad | 5 700.00 ± 1 489.97a | 良好 Good | ||
BC | 300.00 ± 216.02b | 不良 Bad | 7 466.67 ± 1 901.46a | 良好 Good | ||
SC | 100.00 ± 141.42a | 不良 Bad | 7 200.00 ± 3 706.75a | 中等/良好 Medium or good | ||
T2 | CK | 366.67 ± 449.69b | 不良 Bad | 1 833.33 ± 205.48a | 不良/中等 Bad or medium | |
CC | 0.00 ± 0.00b | 不良 Bad | 4 300.00 ± 565.69a | 中等/良好 Medium or good | ||
BC | 100.00 ± 81.65b | 不良 Bad | 6 000.00 ± 648.07a | 良好 Good | ||
SC | 100.00 ± 141.42a | 不良 Bad | 11 100.00 ± 5 114.68a | 良好 Good | ||
T3 | CK | 566.67 ± 205.48b | 不良 Bad | 2 733.33 ± 449.69a | 中等 Medium | |
CC | 33.33 ± 47.14b | 不良 Bad | 5 300.00 ± 1 737.81a | 中等/良好 Medium or good | ||
BC | 66.67 ± 94.28a | 不良 Bad | 6 433.33 ± 3 492.21a | 中等/良好 Medium or good | ||
SC | 100.00 ± 141.42b | 不良 Bad | 7 600.00 ± 2 698.15a | 良好 Good |
?nbsp; 72019年和2020年不同林分密度下幼苗生长季成活率比较
Table 7.Comparison of survival rate of seedlings in growing season under different standdensities in 2019 and 2020
林分密度 Stand density |
生长季成活率 Survival rate in growing season/% |
|
2019 | 2020 | |
T1 | 70.28 ± 18.57Aa | 73.93 ± 8.54Aa |
T2 | 77.22 ± 9.65Aa | 62.11 ± 14.97Aa |
T3 | 49.65 ± 37.12Aa | 62.26 ± 7.67Aa |
注:大写字母表示密度间的差异,小写字母表示年份间的差异。字母不同表示差异显著,差异显著性水?.05。Notes: capital letters indicate the difference between varied densities, and small letters indicate the difference between varied years. Different letters mean significant difference, and the difference significance level is 0.05. |
?nbsp; 82020年不同林分密度和不同处理方式下幼苗生长季成活率比辂/p>
Table 8.Comparison of survival rate of seedlings in growing season of different litter treatment modes under varied stand densities in 2020
枯落物处理方弎br/>Litter treatment mode | 林分密度 Stand density | ||
T1 | T2 | T3 | |
CK | 68.25 ± 27.31Aa | 57.30 ± 22.44Aa | 72.25 ± 10.81Aa |
CC | 65.85 ± 9.16Aa | 85.22 ± 16.92Aa | 60.50 ± 2.00Aa |
BC | 87.87 ± 1.04Aa | 62.22 ± 10.80Aa | 65.17 ± 18.27Aa |
SC | 73.74 ± 5.18Aa | 43.68 ± 8.25Aa | 51.12 ± 16.89Aa |
注:大写字母表示枯落物处理方式间的差异,小写字母表示密度间的差异。字母不同表示差异显著,差异显著性水?.05。下同。Notes: capital letters indicate the difference between varied litter treatments, and small letters indicate the difference between varied stand densities. Different letters mean significant difference, the difference significance level is 0.05. The same below. |