论文部分内容阅读
对《试论》一文在同意其中一些基本观点的同时,提出了几方面的意见: 1.指出《试论》中对我国立地分类研究状况的评论还欠完整,我国研究立地分类要走适合我国国情的独创道路,但这应建立在通晓世界各国同类研究并博采众长的基础之上。 2.认为造林区划不应属于自然区划,而应从属于作为部门经济区划的林业区划。建议当前可直接把林业区划成果作为立地分类的高层次来应用,而不必另起炉灶。 3.认为《试论》中按地形因子来划分立地类型组和按土壤因子来划分立地类型的规定不能作为普遍准则来接受。指出还有研究立地类型之下的细小分异的必要性。 4.指出当前有必要研究立地分类的理论基础,但它应当有更丰富的内容和更深入的探索。
While agreeing with some of these basic views, the article on “Trial” put forward several views: 1. It points out that the review of the research on the classification of the standings in our country still lacks completeness. The classification of the study sites in our country needs to be suitable for our country National conditions, but this should be based on the understanding of similar studies in various countries in the world and draw upon others. 2. Think afforestation zoning should not belong to the natural zoning, but should be subordinate to the department as a regional economic zoning of forestry zoning. It is suggested that forestry zoning results can be directly applied as a high-level site classification without having to start a new stove. 3. It is not accepted as a general guideline that the division of site type groups by landform factor in the Trial and the classification of site type by soil factor should be accepted. Pointing out that there is also a need to study minor differences under site types. 4. It is pointed out that it is necessary to study the theoretical basis of site classification at present, but it should have richer contents and deeper exploration.