摘要: 目的揭示透光抚育对不同林型中期“栽针保阔”红松林碳源/汇影响规律，为恢复地带性顶极植被阔叶红松林提供依据、�/sec> 方法运用静态箱−气相色谱分析及相对生长方程法，同步测定小兴安岭3种中期“栽针保阔”红松林（蒙古栎红松林、白桦红松林和山杨红松林冠下栽植红松25 ~ 35年及透光抚育25 ~ 30年）在不同透光抚育强度（对照−未透光和轻、强度透光抚育−伐除上层蓄积比1/7�?/3）下的土壤异养呼吸净碳排放量（CO ₂和CH ₄）、植被年净固碳量及相关环境因子（温度、土壤含水率、有机碳、全氮等），并依据生态系统净碳收支，确定林型和透光抚育强度对中期“栽针保阔”红松林碳源/汇的影响规律及其机制、�/sec> 结果�?�?种林型土壤CO ₂年均通量�?59.94 ~ 207.43 mg/（m ²·h））既受透光抚育强度影响（强度透光抚育使蒙古栎红松林显著提�?8.9%），也受林型影响（对照林分白桦红松林显著大于蒙古栎红松林和山杨红松林，轻、强度透光抚育�?种林型相近）；各透光抚育强度�?者的土壤CH ₄年均通量（−0.047 ~ �?.028 mg/（m ²·h））无显著影响，但白桦红松林和山杨红松林显著高于蒙古栎红松林；（2）轻、强度透光抚育�?种林型的植被年净固碳量（1.66 ~ 3.99 t/（hm ²·a））无显著影响，但在各透光抚育强度下白桦红松林显著高于蒙古栎红松林和山杨红松林�?05.4% ~ 124.1%�?1.0% ~ 32.6%），山杨红松林又显著高于蒙古栎红松林�?5.7% ~ 71.1%）；�?）轻度透光抚育对蒙古栎红松林（�?.93 ~ �?.12 t/（hm ²·a））、白桦红松林（−0.13 ~ 0.46 t/（hm ²·a））和山杨红松林（−0.65 ~ �?.03 t/（hm ²·a））碳汇已无显著影响，而强度透光抚育的影响程度和方向与林型密切相关（蒙古栎红松林源强显著提高72.3%，白桦红松林由碳汇转化为弱源，山杨红松林源强变大但差异性不显著）、�/sec> 结论因此，从中期“栽针保阔”红松林维持森林碳汇方面考虑，对恢复较快的白桦红松林和山杨红松林可以采取强度透光抚育，而对恢复较慢的蒙古栎红松林则适宜采取轻度透光抚育、�/sec>

关键诌�
• 温带小兴安岭/
• “栽针保阔”红松林/
• 碳源/汆�/a> /
• 林型/
• 透光抚育强度

Abstract: ObjectiveTo reveal the influence rule of forest type and light-felling intensity on the carbon source and sink of Korean pine forests by planting conifer and reserving broad-leaved tree (PCRBT), and to provide basis for the restoration of zonal climax vegetation broad-leaved Korean pine forest. MethodThe annual net carbon sequestration of vegetation, net carbon emission (CH ₄, CO ₂) of soil heterotrophic respiration with related environmental factors(temperature, water content of soil, organic carbon, total nitrogen and so on) under different light-felling intensity(Control, Low-intensity LF-1/7, Heavy-intensity LF-1/3) were measured simultaneously by Static chamber-gas chromatograph and relative growth equation in three types of Korean pine forests by PCRB (Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest and white birch-Korean pine forest, which Korean pine planted under secondary crown for 25 ~ 35 years and light-felling for 25 ~ 30 years) in temperate in Xiaoxing’an Mountains., in order to reveal the influence of forest type and light-felling intensity on the carbon source/sink of Korean pine forest according to the net carbon balance of the ecosystem. Results(1) The annual average efflux of soil CO ₂(159.94 ~ 207.43 mg/(m ²·h)) in three forest types, were influenced by both the intensity of light-felling (heavy-intensity LF significantly increased 18.9% from Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest), and the forest type (control was white birch-Korean pine forest significantly higher than aspen-Korean pine forest and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest, low, and heavy LF had no significant impacts among three forest types); low, and heavy LF had no significant impacts on the annual average flux of soil CH ₄uptake (�?.047 ~ �?.028 mg/(m ²·h)) from three forest types but white birch-Korean pine forest and aspen-Korean pine forest has significantly higher than Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest. (2) Low, and heavy-intensity LF made the annual net carbon sequestration of vegetation (1.66 ~ 3.99 t/(ha·year)) from three forest types had no significant effect, but white birch-Korean pine forest significantly higher (105.4% ~ 124.1% and 31.0% ~ 32.6%) than aspen-Korean pine forest and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest , aspen-Korean pine forest has significantly higher(55.7% ~ 71.1%) than Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest. (3) Low-intensity LF had no significant impacts on carbon sink in Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest (�?.93 ~ �?.12 t/(ha·year)) and aspen-Korean pine forest (�?.65 ~ �?.03 t/(ha·year)) and White birch-Korean pine forest (�?.13 ~ 0.46 t/(ha·year)), but the level and direction of the effect of heavy-intensity LF were closely related to the forest type, Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest has significantly increased about 72.3%, White birch-Korean pine forest converted into carbon source, aspen-Korean pine forest has slightly increased carbon source. ConclusionTherefore, considering the maintenance of forest carbon sink in Korean pine forests by planting conifer and reserving broad-leaved tree, the faster recovering White birch-Korean pine forest and aspen-Korean pine forest was more appropriate to take heavy-intensity LF, while the slower recovering Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest are suitable to be low-intensity LF.

Key words:
• Temperate Xiaoxing’an Mountains./
• Korean pine forest restored by planting conifer and reserving broad-leaved tree/
• carbon source/sink/
• forest type/
• light-felling intensity

�?nbsp; 1小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度白桦红松林、山杨红松林和蒙古栎红松林甲烷（A,B,C）、二氧化碳（D,E,F）的季节动�?/p>

Figure 1.Seasonal dynamics of methane (A,B,C）and carbon dioxide(D,E,F) in white birch-Korean pine forest, aspen-Korean pine forest and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains.

下载: 全尺寸图牆�/a> 幻灯牆�/a>

�?nbsp; 2小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度白桦红松林（A）、山杨红松林（B）和蒙古栎红松林（C）碳�?汆�/p>

Figure 2.The source or sink of carbon in white birch-Korean pine forest(A), aspen-Korean pine forest(B) and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest (C) under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains

下载: 全尺寸图牆�/a> 幻灯牆�/a>

�?nbsp; 1试验地概冴�/p>

Table 1.Overview of test site

林型 Forest type	处理 Treatment	郁闭�?br/>Canopy density/%	树种 Tree species	密度/（株·hm�?（�br/>Density/(stem·ha�?)	胸高断面�?(m2·hm�?) Basal area/(m2·ha�?)	平均胸径 Mean DBH/ cm	胸径范围 DBH range/ cm
白桦红松枖�br/>White birch-Korean pine forest	C	75	红松Pinus koraiensis	967	3.32	6.04	2 ~ 12.6
			白桦Betula platyphylla	489	14.17	18.12	7.5 ~ 41
			山杨Populus davidiana	244	5.27	15.97	5.8 ~ 24.2
			其他 Others	483	7.17	14.37	2.7 ~ 32.5
	L	70	红松Pinus koraiensis	695	4.55	8.00	2.8 ~ 16.9
			白桦Betula platyphylla	445	12.83	18.34	8 ~ 30.7
			山杨Populus davidiana	317	7.27	16.94	7.5 ~ 25.5
			其他 Others	194	3.99	13.93	2.2 ~ 35.3
	H	65	红松Pinus koraiensis	650	6.53	9.88	2.8 ~ 29.2
			白桦Betula platyphylla	467	14.03	18.60	8.3 ~ 32.8
			山杨Populus davidiana	150	4.29	16.17	7.9 ~ 31.4
			其他 Others	372	4.3	10.02	2.8 ~ 39.7
山杨红松枖�br/>Aspen-Korean pine forest	C	83	红松Pinus koraiensis	628	19.04	16.9	4.1 ~ 34.1
			山杨Populus davidiana	578	11.70	13.93	4.1 ~ 32
			其他 Others	889	4.13	7.08	1.1 ~ 19.7
	L	77	红松Pinus koraiensis	922	14.19	13.76	4.5 ~ 39.5
			山杨Populus davidiana	572	9.08	11.97	2.7 ~ 32.5
			其他 Others	628	19.04	16.9	4.1 ~ 34.1
	H	63	红松Pinus koraiensis	711	3.49	7.41	2 ~ 13.9
			山杨Populus davidiana	1 094	14.86	12.90	6.5 ~ 26.2
			其他 Others	311	5.78	14.32	4.3 ~ 26.2
蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	C	79	红松Pinus koraiensis	1967	1.23	2.56	1 ~ 5.9
			蒙古�Quercus mongolica	672	14.11	14.64	4 ~ 34.6
			其他 Others	244	3.88	9.75	1 ~ 45.3
	L	72	红松Pinus koraiensis	2183	1.92	3.05	1 ~ 6.5
			蒙古�Quercus mongolica	612	14.36	15.96	4 ~ 29
			其他 Others	156	1.14	7.01	1 ~ 19.6
	H	61	红松Pinus koraiensis	2178	1.91	3.18	1 ~ 7.8
			蒙古�Quercus mongolica	539	14.67	17.31	4 ~ 30.5
			其他 Others	150	1.61	7.34	1.2 ~ 24.1
注：C表示对照；L表示轻度透光抚育(1/7) ；H表示强度透光抚育(1/3)。下同。Note: C. Control; L. Light-intensity light-felling (1/7); H. Heavy-intensity light-felling (1/3).

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 2小兴安岭3种林型不同透光抚育强度下环境因子状冴�/p>

Table 2.Environmental factors in the three forest types under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains

环境因子 Environmental factors	土壤深度 Soil depth/ cm	白桦红松枖�br/> White birch-Korean pine forest				山杨红松枖�br/> Aspen-Korean pine forest				蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest
		C	L	H		C	L	H		C	L	H
气温/ℂ�br/>air temperature/ℂ�/td>		3.35 ± 0.55Aa	4.00 ± 0.80Aa	4.90 ± 1.90Aa		3.06 ± 0.44Ba	3.91 ± 0.39ABa	4.52 ± 0.52Aa		2.86 ± 0.60Aa	3.34 ± 0.44Aa	2.85 ± 0.16Aa
土温/ℂ�br/>soil temperature/ℂ�/td>	0	7.44 ± 0.36A	6.50 ± 0.51B	7.50 ± 0.30A		6.38 ± 0.33A	6.61 ± 0.50A	6.58 ± 0.39A		5.78 ± 0.33B	7.88 ± 0.39A	7.35 ± 0.56A
	10	6.78 ± 0.23A	6.39 ± 0.61A	6.56 ± 0.54A		5.80 ± 0.40A	6.10 ± 0.40A	6.06 ± 0.46A		5.84 ± 0.84A	6.09 ± 0.01A	6.63 ± 0.97A
	20	6.65 ± 0.26A	6.31 ± 0.42A	6.42 ± 0.48A		5.68 ± 0.48A	5.85 ± 0.35A	6.11 ± 0.89A		6.14 ± 0.16A	6.35 ± 1.75A	6.56 ± 1.77A
	30	5.84 ± 0.06A	5.77 ± 1.01A	5.78 ± 0.53A		5.37 ± 0.53A	5.66 ± 0.47A	5.79 ± 0.30A		6.82 ± 0.90A	6.95 ± 0.75A	7.00 ± 1.31A
	40	5.46 ± 1.04A	4.77 ± 0.54A	5.64 ± 0.45A		4.99 ± 0.49A	5.24 ± 0.45A	4.86 ± 0.34A		6.11 ± 0.66A	6.38 ± 0.48A	6.63 ± 1.68A
	年均	6.44 ± 0.39Aa	5.95 ± 0.25Ab	6.38 ± 0.16Ab		5.98 ± 0.63Aa	5.89 ± 0.10Ab	5.88 ± 0.02Ac		6.14 ± 0.24Ba	6.73 ± 0.30Aa	6.84 ± 0.20Aa
含水�?% water content of soil/%	0-10	0.91 ± 0.31A	0.92 ± 0.17A	0.89 ± 0.11A		0.78 ± 0.07A	0.82 ± 0.13A	0.77 ± 0.06A		0.34 ± 0.10A	0.36 ± 0.06A	0.45 ± 0.16A
	10-20	0.74 ± 0.19A	0.63 ± 0.26A	0.59 ± 0.17A		0.55 ± 0.11A	0.53 ± 0.11A	0.50 ± 0.08A		0.26 ± 0.04A	0.24 ± 0.03A	0.24 ± 0.10A
	20-30	0.43 ± 0.06A	0.61 ± 0.21A	0.42 ± 0.01A		0.43 ± 0.07A	0.44 ± 0.06A	0.38 ± 0.03A		0.25 ± 0.10A	0.15 ± 0.03A	0.19 ± 0.02A
	年均	0.69 ± 0.10Aa	0.73 ± 0.15Aa	0.63 ± 0.09Aa		0.59 ± 0.08Aa	0.60 ± 0.09Aa	0.55 ± 0.05Aa		0.28 ± 0.02Ab	0.25 ± 0.01Ab	0.29 ± 0.09Ab
有机�?(g·kg�?) organic carbon/ (g·kg�?)	0-10	110.78 ± 25.51A	88.99 ± 15.79A	107.95 ± 11.69A		93.73 ± 21.52A	85.26 ± 10.63A	91.27 ± 5.33A		49.98 ± 7.93A	47.94 ± 0.60A	38.65 ± 9.36A
	10-20	67.11 ± 18.05A	58.36 ± 15.70A	55.01 ± 6.17A		51.84 ± 9.18A	46.20 ± 11.35A	47.79 ± 6.88A		27.03 ± 4.69A	22.13 ± 0.59A	20.76 ± 4.81A
	20-30	37.51 ± 8.28A	36.86 ± 10.34A	35.32 ± 6.09A		32.39 ± 7.88A	32.04 ± 7.58A	28.44 ± 2.87A		12.82 ± 1.26A	18.29 ± 7.79A	18.63 ± 4.18A
	年均	71.80 ± 17.06Aa	61.40 ± 13.13Aa	66.10 ± 7.27Aa		59.32 ± 12.81Aa	54.50 ± 7.00Aa	55.83 ± 3.85Aa		29.94 ± 0.88Ab	27.71 ± 0.41Ab	25.87 ± 3.53Ab
全氮/(g·kg�?) total nitrogen/ (g·kg�?)	0-10	12.13 ± 2.17A	11.89 ± 2.36A	13.08 ± 0.59A		13.27 ± 4.36A	13.57 ± 2.54A	12.78 ± 0.38A		8.70 ± 1.05A	9.32 ± 0.27A	8.61 ± 0.50A
	10-20	10.23 ± 2.45A	11.62 ± 1.56A	12.26 ± 2.22A		13.68 ± 2.46A	10.06 ± 0.10B	9.76 ± 1.33B		5.77 ± 0.68AB	6.33 ± 0.51A	5.05 ± 0.30B
	20-30	9.63 ± 3.18A	10.21 ± 2.15A	11.78 ± 2.83A		9.39 ± 1.52B	12.46 ± 0.66A	10.87 ± 1.28AB		3.81 ± 0.60AB	4.31 ± 0.07A	3.42 ± 0.13B
	年均	10.66 ± 1.68Aa	11.24 ± 1.69Aa	12.38 ± 0.44Aa		12.12 ± 1.99Aa	12.03 ± 0.34Aa	11.14 ± 0.27Ab		6.10 ± 0.77Ab	6.65 ± 0.21Ab	5.69 ± 0.23Ac
注：同行大写字母表示同林型不同处理，小写字母表示不同林型同处理（P< 0.05）。Notes: Different uppercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences between the different types of plots at 0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different types of plots in the same treatment.

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 3小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度白桦红松林、山杨红松林和蒙古栎红松林土壤CH₄季节通量

Table 3.Seasonal methane flux from the soil in the white birch-Korean pine forest, aspen-Korean pine forest, and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains mg/(m ²·h)

林型 Forest type	观测时期 Observation period	处理 Treatment
		C	L	H
白桦红松枖�br/>White birch-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	�?.053 ± 0.009Abc	�?.051 ± 0.005Abc	�?.047 ± 0.010Abc
	夏季 Summer	�?.064 ± 0.011Ac	�?.064 ± 0.011Ac	�?.061 ± 0.013Ac
	秋季 Autumn	�?.046 ± 0.007Ab	�?.042 ± 0.008Ab	�?.035 ± 0.004Ab
	冬季 Winter	�?.016 ± 0.001Aa	�?.014 ± 0.002Aa	�?.015 ± 0.002Aa
	生长� Growing season	�?.062 ± 0.010Ab	�?.061 ± 0.008Ab	�?.057 ± 0.014Ab
	非生长季 Non-growing season	�?.027 ± 0.003Aa	�?.024 ± 0.003Aa	�?.021 ± 0.001Aa
	年平均� Annual average	�?.045 ± 0.006AⅠ�/td>	�?.045 ± 0.004AⅠ�/td>	�?.041 ± 0.007AⅠ�/td>
山杨红松枖�br/>Aspen-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	�?.044 ± 0.005Bb	�?.040 ± 0.012ABb	�?.027 ± 0.002Ab
	夏季 Summer	�?.062 ± 0.005Ac	�?.069 ± 0.018Ac	�?.053 ± 0.005Ac
	秋季 Autumn	�?.043 ± 0.011ABb	�?.061 ± 0.006Bc	�?.035 ± 0.013Ab
	冬季 Winter	�?.016 ± 0.005Aa	�?.014 ± 0.004Aa	�?.010 ± 0.006Aa
	生长� Growing season	�?.054 ± 0.005Ab	�?.060 ± 0.017Ab	�?.045 ± 0.009Ab
	非生长季 Non-growing season	�?.028 ± 0.006ABa	�?.030 ± 0.002Ba	�?.018 ± 0.006Aa
	年平均� Annual average	�?.043 ± 0.006AⅠ�/td>	�?.047 ± 0.010AⅠ�/td>	�?.033 ± 0.002A⅟�/td>
蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	�?.026 ± 0.003Ab	�?.024 ± 0.002Ab	�?.027 ± 0.004Ab
	夏季 Summer	�?.044 ± 0.005Ac	�?.049 ± 0.001ABc	�?.054 ± 0.003Bc
	秋季 Autumn	�?.029 ± 0.004Ab	�?.025 ± 0.003Ab	�?.026 ± 0.001Ab
	冬季 Winter	�?.013 ± 0.001Aa	�?.010 ± 0.001Aa	�?.014 ± 0.004Aa
	生长� Growing season	�?.041 ± 0.005Ab	�?.045 ± 0.002Ab	�?.053 ± 0.002Bb
	非生长季 Non-growing season	�?.014 ± 0.001Aa	�?.011 ± 0.003Aa	�?.012 ± 0.002Aa
	年平均� Annual average	�?.029 ± 0.003A⅟�/td>	�?.028 ± 0.001A⅟�/td>	�?.032 ± 0.001A⅟�/td>
�?大写字母表示同季节不同处理（P< 0.05），小写字母表示同处理不同季节（P< 0.05），罗马数字表示相同处理不同林型＇�i>P< 0.05）。Notes: Capital letters indicate significant differences between the different treatments of the same stand type in the same season at 0.05 level; lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different seasons of the same stand type in the same treatment at 0.05 level; roman numerals indicate significant differences between stand types in the same treatment at 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 4小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度白桦红松林、山杨红松林和蒙古栎红松林土壤CO₂季节通量

Table 4.Seasonal average flux of carbon dioxide emission from the soil of white birch-Korean pine forest, aspen-Korean pine forest, and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains mg/(m ²·h)

林型 Forest type	观测时期 Observation period	处理 Treatment
		C	L	H
白桦红松枖�br/>White birch-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	197.66 ± 5.38Ab	199.69 ± 5.79Ab	208.50 ± 12.87Ab
	夏季 Summer	381.66 ± 44.28Aa	391.16 ± 39.10Aa	429.94 ± 37.71Aa
	秋季 Autumn	98.49 ± 19.77Ac	100.02 ± 19.72Ac	108.82 ± 12.41Ac
	冬季 Winter	26.30 ± 4.20Ad	24.60 ± 4.00Ad	22.48 ± 3.41Ad
	生长� Growing season	300.45 ± 30.23Aa	303.42 ± 20.50Aa	327.99 ± 16.05Aa
	非生长季 Non-growing season	48.90 ± 6.68Ab	52.32 ± 4.18Ab	54.69 ± 5.19Ab
	年平均� Annual average	188.65 ± 15.21AⅠ�/td>	191.82 ± 9.77A⅟�/td>	206.52 ± 8.87A⅟�/td>
山杨红松枖�br/>Aspen-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	171.62 ± 9.52Ab	289.30 ± 72.82Aa	239.98 ± 85.34Ab
	夏季 Summer	288.66 ± 27.06Aa	300.13 ± 35.29Aa	341.90 ± 42.42Aa
	秋季 Autumn	134.93 ± 28.37ABb	111.06 ± 25.10Bb	174.07 ± 24.04Ab
	冬季 Winter	33.48 ± 16.36Ac	30.27 ± 5.87Ac	32.01 ± 14.30Ac
	生长� Growing season	244.85 ± 18.34Aa	303.87 ± 53.52Aa	309.05 ± 63.20Aa
	非生长季 Non-growing season	65.83 ± 8.21Bb	59.22 ± 6.52Bb	80.40 ± 4.81Ab
	年平均� Annual average	165.28 ± 10.95A⅟�/td>	195.14 ± 26.97A⅟�/td>	207.43 ± 36.37A⅟�/td>
蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	春季 Spring	170.94 ± 9.82Bb	193.09 ± 8.05Ab	189.87 ± 5.96Ab
	夏季 Summer	338.58 ± 10.41Ba	333.69 ± 23.49Ba	393.77 ± 30.19Aa
	秋季 Autumn	57.23 ± 9.69Bc	62.31 ± 2.81Bc	79.61 ± 6.72Ac
	冬季 Winter	25.58 ± 7.48Bd	37.43 ± 4.93Ad	46.71 ± 2.68Ad
	生长� Growing season	261.82 ± 10.14ABa	269.35 ± 8.22Ba	294.32 ± 18.26Aa
	非生长季 Non-growing season	32.58 ± 2.12Cb	42.41 ± 2.85Bb	60.03 ± 5.13Ab
	年平均� Annual average	159.94 ± 6.48B⅟�/td>	168.49 ± 3.55B⅟�/td>	190.19 ± 9.30A⅟�/td>
注：大写字母表示同季节不同处理（P< 0.05），小写字母表示同处理不同季节（P< 0.05），罗马数字表示同处理不同林型（P< 0.05）。Notes: different capital letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 level between different treatments in the same season, different lowercase letters indicate significant difference at 0.05 level between different seasons in the same treatment, roman numerals indicate different forest types at 0.05 level for the same treatment.

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 5小兴安岭3种林型不同透光抚育强度下土壤CO₂和CH₄排放的主要影响因孏�/p>

Table 5.Main factors affecting methane and carbon dioxide emission from soil in three forests types under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains

林型 Forest type	气体 Gas	处理 Treatment	气温 Air temperature	有机碲�br/> Organic carbon	土壤温度 Soil temperature	含水玆�br/> Water content	全氮 Total nitrogen	截距 Intercept	R2
白桦红松枖�br/>white birch-Korean pine forest	CH4	C	0.001**					0.036**	0.408
		L			0.001*	�?.076*		�?.096**	0.576
		H	0.001**					�?.033**	0.414
	CO2	C			11.437**			�?91.588*	0.722
		L			10.275**			444.165**	0.604
		H			9.577**			�?32.638*	0.585
山杨红松枖�br/>aspen-Korean pine forest	CH4	C	0.001**					0.037**	0.395
		L	0.002**					0.040**	0.521
		H			0.002**			0.024**	0.568
	CO2	C		�?.509**	10.926**			382.465**	0.548
		L		�?75.047**	14.311**			381.745**	0.770
		H			15.363**			115.820**	0.676
蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	CH4	C			0.001**	�?.071**		0.041**	0.899
		L			0.001*			0.018**	0.716
		H			0.002**			0.019**	0.753
	CO2	C	3.418*	�?.693**	9.862**			�?8.633	0.093
		L	6.475**	�?.130*	5.678+			158.837**	0.837
		H			22.966**			10.047	0.667
�?+�?�?*分别表示�?i>P< 0.1�?i>P< 0.05�?i>P< 0.01水平上差异显著。Note:+, *, ** represent significant difference atP< 0.1,P< 0.05,P< 0.01 levels, respectively.

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 6小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度下白桦红松林、山杨红松林和蒙古栎红松林的植被净初生产力与年净固碳野�/p>

Table 6.Net primary productivity and net carbon sequestration of white birch-Korean pine forest, aspen-Korean pine forest, and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains

指标 Item	林型 Forest type	处理 Treatment	层次 Layers
			红松 Korean pine	阔叶树种 Broadleaf tree	乔木 Tree	灌木 Shrub	草本 Herb	植被 Vegetation
NPP/(t·hm�?·a�?) NPP/(t·ha�?·year�?)	白桦红松枖�br/>White birch-Korean pine forest	C	0.90 ± 0.09Aa	6.24 ± 0.44Aa	7.14 ± 0.46Aa	1.13 ± 0.27Aa	0.15 ± 0.03Aa	8.42 ± 0.66Aa
		L	0.92 ± 0.13Aa	5.86 ± 0.26Aa	6.78 ± 0.25Aa	1.12 ± 0.31Aa	0.15 ± 0.04Aa	8.05 ± 0.17Aa
		H	1.12 ± 0.10Aa	6.01 ± 0.61Aa	7.13 ± 0.82Aa	0.73 ± 0.17Aab	0.16 ± 0.03Aa	8.02 ± 0.79Aa
	山杨红松枖�br/>Aspen-Korean pine forest	C	0.67 ± 0.08Cb	4.88 ± 0.26Ab	5.55 ± 0.24Ab	0.84 ± 0.06Aab	0.16 ± 0.01Aa	6.55 ± 0.27Ab
		L	0.84 ± 0.05Ba	4.45 ± 0.13ABb	5.29 ± 0.15Ab	0.86 ± 0.17Aa	0.13 ± 0.04Aa	6.27 ± 0.18Ab
		H	1.05 ± 0.09Aa	4.13 ± 0.42Bb	5.18 ± 0.49Ab	0.90 ± 0.11Aa	0.15 ± 0.05Aa	6.22 ± 0.46Ab
	蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	C	0.40 ± 0.01Cc	2.88 ± 0.28Ac	3.28 ± 0.28Ac	0.57 ± 0.15Ab	0.17 ± 0.05Aa	4.02 ± 0.21Ac
		L	0.60 ± 0.03Bb	2.35 ± 0.03Bc	2.95 ± 0.05Ac	0.78 ± 0.22Aa	0.21 ± 0.03Aa	3.94 ± 0.27Ac
		H	0.75 ± 0.07Ab	2.16 ± 0.12Bc	2.91 ± 0.19Ac	0.47 ± 0.17Ab	0.17 ± 0.06Aa	3.55 ± 0.32Ac
VNCS/(t·hm�?·a�?) VNCS/(t·ha�?·year�?)	白桦红松枖�br/>White birch-Korean pine forest	C	0.43 ± 0.05Aa	2.96 ± 0.25Aa	3.39 ± 0.28Aa	0.53 ± 0.13Aa	0.07 ± 0.01Aa	3.99 ± 0.37Aa
		L	0.43 ± 0.06Aa	2.77 ± 0.22Aa	3.20 ± 0.09Aa	0.53 ± 0.15Aa	0.07 ± 0.02Aa	3.80 ± 0.73Aa
		H	0.52 ± 0.12Aa	2.79 ± 0.29Aa	3.31 ± 0.38Aa	0.34 ± 0.08Aab	0.07 ± 0.01Aa	3.72 ± 0.37Aa
	山杨红松枖�br/>Aspen-Korean pine forest	C	0.33 ± 0.04Cb	2.20 ± 0.12Ab	2.54 ± 0.24Ab	0.40 ± 0.04Aab	0.07 ± 0.01Aa	3.01 ± 0.14Ab
		L	0.42 ± 0.02Ba	1.95 ± 0.11ABb	2.37 ± 0.13Ab	0.40 ± 0.09Aa	0.06 ± 0.02Aa	2.88 ± 0.15Ab
		H	0.53 ± 0.04Aa	1.86 ± 0.20Bb	2.39 ± 0.24Ab	0.42 ± 0.06Aa	0.07 ± 0.02Aa	2.84 ± 0.23Ab
	蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	C	0.19 ± 0.01Cc	1.37 ± 0.14Ac	1.56 ± 0.14Ac	0.25 ± 0.06Ab	0.07 ± 0.02Aa	1.88 ± 0.11Ac
		L	0.28 ± 0.02Bb	1.12 ± 0.01Bc	1.40 ± 0.01Ac	0.35 ± 0.10Aa	0.09 ± 0.02Aa	1.85 ± 0.12Ac
		H	0.35 ± 0.03Ab	1.02 ± 0.06Bc	1.38 ± 0.09Ac	0.21 ± 0.08Ab	0.07 ± 0.03Aa	1.66 ± 0.15Ac
注：NPP为净初级生产力，VNCS为植被年净固碳量。大写字母表示同林型不同处理＇�i>P< 0.05），小写字母表示相同处理不同林型＇�i>P< 0.05）。Notes: Capital letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the same type at 0.05 level; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the same treatments of three forest types at 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV

�?nbsp; 7小兴安岭不同透光抚育强度下白桦红松林、山杨红松林和蒙古栎红松林植被固碳的主要影响因子

Table 7.Main affecting factors of vegetation carbon sequestration of white birch-Korean pine forest, aspen-Korean pine forest and Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest under different light-felling intensities in Xiaoxing’an Mountains

指标 Item	林型 Forest type	土壤温度 Soil temperature	含水玆�br/>Water content	有机碲�br/>Organic carbon	截距 Intercept	R2
净初级生产劚�br/>NPP	白桦红松� White birch-Korean pine forest			0.026*	6.450**	0.581
	山杨红松� Aspen-Korean pine forest			0.049**	3.582**	0.635
	蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	�?.257**	9.044**		3.017**	0.951
年净固碳野�br/>VNCS	白桦红松� White birch-Korean pine forest			0.010*	3.165**	0.453
	山杨红松� Aspen-Korean pine forest			0.027**	1.367*	0.597
	蒙古栎红松林 Mongolian oak-Korean pine forest	�?.121**	4.357**		1.381**	0.951
�? *�?*分别表示�?i>P< 0.05�?i>P< 0.01水平上差异显著。Note: *, ** represent significant difference atP< 0.05,P< 0.01 levels, respectively.

下载: 导出CSV

[2]Pan Y, Birdsey R A, Fang J, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests[J]. Science, 2011, 333: 988�?93. doi:10.1126/science.1201609 [3]Denman K. L, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, et al. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller)[M]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2007. [4]Dixon R K, Solomon A, Brown S, et al. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems[J]. Science, 1994, 263: 185�?90. doi:10.1126/science.263.5144.185 [5]Vayreda J, Martinez-vilalta J, Gracia M, et al. Recent climate changes interact with stand structure and management to determine changes in tree carbon stocks in Spanish forests[J]. Global Change Biology, 2012, 18(3): 1028�?041. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02606.x [6]Alvarez S, Ortiz C, Díaz-pinés E, et al. Influence of tree species composition, thinning intensity and climate change on carbon sequestration in Mediterranean mountain forests: A case study using the CO ₂fix model[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2016, 21(7): 1045�?058. [7]Fernandez I, Älvarez-gonzalez J G, Carrasco B, et al. Post-thinning soil organic matter evolution and soil CO ₂effluxes in temperate radiata pine plantations: Impacts of moderate thinning regimes on the forest C cycle[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2012, 42(11): 1953�?964. doi:10.1139/x2012-137 [8]Boncina A, Kadunc A, Robic D. Effects of selective thinning on growth and development of beech ( Fagus sylvaticaL. ) forest stands in south-Eastern Slovenia[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2007, 64(1): 47�?7. doi:10.1051/forest:2006087 [9]Olajuyigbe S, Tobin B, Saunders M, et al. Forest thinning and soil respiration in a Sitka spruce forest in Ireland[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2012, 157: 86�?5. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.01.016 [10]Lena G, Baker S C, Jürgen B, et al. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective[J]. BioScience, 2012, 7: 633�?45. [11]Lei L, Xiao W, Zeng L, et al. Thinning but not understory removal increased heterotrophic respiration and total soil respiration in Pinus massonianastands[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 621: 1360�?369. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.092 [12]Doukalianou F, Radoglou K, Agnelli A E, et al. Annual greenhouse-gas emissions from forest soil of a peri-urban conifer forest in greece under different thinning intensities and their climate-change mitigation potential[J]. Forest Science, 2019, 65(4): 387�?00. doi:10.1093/forsci/fxy069 [13]Han M G, Gao W F, Shi B K, et al. Long-term (42 years) effect of thinning on soil CO ₂emission in a mixed broadleaved-Korean pine ( Pinus koraiensis) forest in northeast China[J]. Pedosphere, 2021, 31(2): 353�?62. doi:10.1016/S1002-0160(20)60066-2 [14]Sullivan B W, Kolb T E, Hart S C, et al. Thinning reduces soil carbon dioxide but not methane flux from southwestern USA ponderosa pine forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 255(12): 4047�?055. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.051 [15]Yang L, Niu S L, Tian D S, et al. A global synthesis reveals increases in soil greenhouse gas emissions under forest thinning[J/OL]. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 804: 150225[2022?01?18]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150225. [16]Chiang J-M, Mcewan R W, Yaussy D A, et al. The effects of prescribed fire and silvicultural thinning on the aboveground carbon stocks and net primary production of overstory trees in an oak-hickory ecosystem in southern Ohio[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2008, 255(5-6): 1584�?594. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.11.016 [17]Saunders M, Tobin B, Black K, et al. Thinning effects on the net ecosystem carbon exchange of a Sitka spruce forest are temperature-dependent[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2012, 157: 1�?0. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.01.008 [18]Ogaya R, Escolà A, Liu D, et al. Effects of thinning in a water-limited holm oak forest[J]. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 2020, 39(4): 365�?78. doi:10.1080/10549811.2019.1673179 [19]Dore S, Kolb T E, Montes-Helu M, et al. Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine forests disturbed by wildfire and thinning[J]. Ecological applications, 2010, 20(3): 663�?83. doi:10.1890/09-0934.1 [20]Aun K, Kukumgi M, Varik M, et al. Short-term effect of thinning on the carbon budget of young and middle-aged silver birch ( Betula pendula Roth) stands[J/OL]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2021, 11: 118660[2022?01?12]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118660. [21]Dore S, Fry D L, Collins B M, et al. Management impacts on carbon dynamics in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest[J/OL]. Plos One, 2016, 11(2): e0150256[2022?01?17]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150256. [22]Davis S C, Hessl A E, Scott C J, et al. Forest carbon sequestration changes in response to timber harvest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 258(9): 2101�?109. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.08.009 [23]Moreno-Fernández D, Díaz-Pinés E, Barbeito I, et al. Temporal carbon dynamics over the rotation period of two alternative management systems in Mediterranean mountain Scots pine forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2015, 348: 186�?95. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.043 [24]Pukkala T. Does management improve the carbon balance of forestry[J]? Forestry, 2017, 90(1): 125-135. [25]Thornton P E, Law B E, Gholz H L, et al. Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2002, 113(1-4): 185�?22. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(02)00108-9 [26]Pregitzer K S, Euskirchen E S. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: Biome patterns related to forest age[J]. Global Change Biology, 2010, 10(12): 2052�?077. [27]李俊�? 王业�? 天然林内红松种群数量变化的波动性[J]. 生态学杂志, 1986, 5(5): 1�?.

Li J Q, Wang Y J. Wave features of population changes of Pinus Koraiensisin natural forest[J]. Journal of Ecology, 1986, 5(5): 1�?. [28]李景�? 红松混交林生态与经营[M]. 哈尔�? 东北林业大学出版�? 1997.

Li J W. Ecology and management of Korean pine mixed forest[M]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University Press, 1997. [29]特喜�? 邓庆�? 戎可. 红松资源的合理开发与东北地区生态安全[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39(23): 14082�?4083,14132. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2011.23.071

Te X T, Deng Q H, Rong K. Rational exploitation of Korean Pines resources and ecological security in northeast China[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 39(23): 14082�?4083,14132. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2011.23.071 [30]于大�? 周莉, 代力�? 长白山区阔叶红松林经营历史与研究历程[J]. 应用生态学�? 2019, 30(5): 1426�?434.

Yu D P, Zhou L, Dai L M. Exploring the history of the management theory and technology of broad-leaved Korean pine forest in Changbai Mountain Region, Northeast China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(5): 1426�?434. [31]陈大�? 周晓�? 丁宝�? �? 黑龙江省天然次生林研�?�?-栽针保阔的经营途径[J]. 东北林学院学�? 1984, 12(4): 1�?2.

Chen D K, Zhou X F, Ding B Y, et al. Research on natural secondary forest in Hei Long Jiang Province- the management way of Korean pine forest restored by planting conifer and reserving broad-leaved tree[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 1984, 12(4): 1�?2. [32]牟长�? 庄宸, 韩阳�? �? 透光抚育对长白山"栽针保阔"红松林植被碳储量影响[J]. 植物研究, 2014, 34(4): 529�?36. doi:10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2014.04.017

Mu C C, Zhuang C, Han Y R, et al. Effect of liberation cutting on the vegetation carbon storage of Korean pine forests by planting conifer and reserving broad-leaved tree in Changbai Mountains of China[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2014, 34(4): 529�?36. doi:10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2014.04.017 [33]韩丽�? 牟长�? 张军�? 透光抚育对长白山阔叶红松林冠下红松光合作用的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2016(4): 38�?0. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2016.04.008

Han L D, Mu C C, Zhang J H. Effect of crown thinning on photosynthesis of understory Korean pine of broadleaved Korean pine mixed forests in Changbai Mountain[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2016(4): 38�?0. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2016.04.008 [34]韩阳�? 牟长�? 张晓�? �? 透光抚育对“栽针保阔”红松林中红松生长过程的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014, 42(8): 2365�?367. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2014.08.057

Han Y R, Mu C C, Zhang X L, et al. The influence of light transmittance felling on Pinus Koraiensisgrowth process in the “preserving deciduous while planting coniferous� Korean pine[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 42(8): 2365�?367. doi:10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2014.08.057 [35]张迪�? 伊春市带岭地区自然地理条件对植物群落分布的影响[J]. 植物科学学报, 1983, 1(2): 229�?36.

Zhang D X. The influence of natural geographical condition of dailing area in Yichun city to the distribution of plant community[J]. Plant Science Journal, 1983, 1(2): 229�?36. [36]张悦, 牟长�? 刘辉, �? 透光抚育对温带帽儿山红松林非生长季土壤温室气体排放的影响[J]. 应用生态学�? 2018, 29(7): 2183�?194.

Zhang Y, Mu C C, Liu H, et al. Effects of light-felling on non-growing season greenhouse gas emission from soils in Korean pine forests in Maoer Mountain[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(7): 2183�?194. [37]姜宁, 牟长�? 韩丽�? �? 采伐对大兴安岭非连续冻土区毛赤杨沼泽碳源/汇的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2020, 42(3): 1�?3. doi:10.12171/j.1000-1522.20190074

Jiang N, Mu C C, Han L D, et al. Impact of harvesting on carbon source/sink of Alnus sibiricavar. hirsutaswamps in Daxing’anling Mountains discontinuous permafrost region of northeastern China[J]. Journal Of Beijing Forestry University, 2020, 42(3): 1�?3. doi:10.12171/j.1000-1522.20190074 [38]Wang, C K. Biomass allometric equations for 10 co-occurring tree species in Chinese temperate forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2006, 222(1-3): 9�?6. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.074 [39]Smith K A, Ball T, Conen F, et al. Exchange of greenhouse gases between soil and atmosphere: Interactions of soil physical factors and biological processes[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2018, 69(1): 10�?0. doi:10.1111/ejss.12539 [40]Curry C L. Modeling the soil consumption of atmospheric methane at the global scale[J/OL]. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2007, 21: G84012[2022?01?10]. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002818. [41]Borken W, Beese F. Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes of soils in pure and mixed stands of European beech and Norway spruce[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 2005, 57(5): 617�?25. [42]Henri V K, Bodelier P, AD Rian H, et al. Resistance and recovery of methane-oxidizing communities depends on stress regime and history; a microcosm study[J/OL]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018, 9: 1714[2022?01?15]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01714. [43]Ryan M, Law B. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2005, 73(1): 3�?7. doi:10.1007/s10533-004-5167-7 [44]Wu X, Brüggemann N, Gasche R, et al. Long-term effects of clear-cutting and selective cutting on soil methane fluxes in a temperate spruce forest in southern Germany. Environmental Pollution, 2011, 159(10): 2467-2475. [45]潘新�? 林波, 刘庆. 模拟增温对川西亚高山人工林土壤有机碳含量和土壤呼吸的影响[J]. 应用生态学�? 2008, 19(8): 1637�?643.

Pan X L, Lin B, Liu Q. Effects of elevated temperature on soil organic carbon and soil respiration under subalpine coniferous forestin western Sichuan Province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008, 19(8): 1637�?643. [46]Yawei W, Maihe L, Hua C, et al. Variation in carbon storage and its distribution by stand age and forest type in boreal and temperate forests in northeastern China. Plos One, 2013, 8(8): e72201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072201. [47]岳军�? 甘肃主要森林类型固碳动�? 潜力及影响机制[D]. 咸阳: 中国科学院大�?中国科学院教育部水土保持与生态环境研究中�?, 2018.

Yue J W. Dynamics, potential and mechanism of carbon sequestration in major forest types in Gansu province, China[D]. Xianyang: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Research Center for Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment, Ministry of Education, Chinese Academy of Sciences), 2018. [48]Howard E A, Gower S T, Foley J A, et al. Effects of logging on carbon dynamics of a jack pine forest in Saskatchewan, Canada[J]. Global Change Biology, 2010, 10: 1267�?284. [49]齐麟, 于大�? 周旺�? �? 采伐对长白山阔叶红松林生态系统碳密度的影响[J]. 生态学�? 2013, 33(10): 3065�?073. doi:10.5846/stxb201203060303

Qi L, Yu D P, Zhou W, et al. Impact of logging on carbon density of broadleaved-Korean pine mixed forests on Changbai Mountains[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013, 33(10): 3065�?073. doi:10.5846/stxb201203060303