论文部分内容阅读
利用实测值建模法、估计值建模法和平均标准木法计算中国科学院千烟洲试验站湿地松(Pi-nus elliotii)人工林各器官生物量和总地上生物量,并与利用文献中的湿地松相对生长方程计算的结果进行比较。结果表明,枝条基径与该枝条叶生物量及总生物量之间存在显著的相关关系;不同方法计算的总地上生物量存在一定的差别,其中实测值建模法和估计值建模法的计算结果最接近,分别为7.9×104和8.0×104kg.hm-2,利用平均标准木法得到的生物量偏低,为7.41×104kg.hm-2;3种方法得到的各器官生物量差别较大,尤其是叶生物量,利用实测值建模法的计算结果为8450 kg.hm-2,估计值建模法和平均标准木法的计算结果分别为6 580和1.0×104kg.hm-2,其中平均标准木法的计算结果因取样的不同而有所差异;直接利用他人建立的相对生长方程计算的生物量与以上3种方法计算结果相比差异较大,使用时须谨慎。计算总地上生物量时,实测值建模法是最可靠的方法,估计值建模法在一定程度上可以代替实测值建模法。
The biomass and total biomass of each plantation in Pi-nus elliotii plantation in Qianyanzhou Experimental Station, Chinese Academy of Sciences were calculated by using the measured value modeling method, the estimated value modeling method and the average standard method. The results of relative growth equation of P. elliottii were compared. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between shoot diameter and branch leaf biomass and total biomass. There were some differences in total aboveground biomass calculated by different methods. Among them, the measured value modeling method and the estimated value modeling method The calculated results were the closest, 7.9 × 104 and 8.0 × 104kg.hm-2, respectively. The average biomass of the standard wood method was 7.41 × 104kg.hm-2. Large, especially leaf biomass, calculated using the measured value of the modeling method for the 8450 kg.hm-2, the estimated value of the modeling method and the average standard wood calculation results were 6 580 and 1.0 × 104kg.hm- 2, in which the average standard wood method results vary with different samples; the direct use of others to establish the relative growth equation to calculate biomass compared with the above three methods, the calculated results are quite different and should be used with caution. When calculating the total aboveground biomass, the measured value modeling method is the most reliable method, and the estimated value modeling method can replace the measured value modeling method to a certain extent.