---

作 者 ：董灵波;刘兆刚*;李凤日;蒋蕾

期 刊 ：植物研究 2014年 34卷 1期 页码：114-120

关键词：阔叶红松林；林分空间结构；影响因子；典范对应分析；

Keywords:broad-leaved Korean pine(Pinus koraiensis) forest, stand spatial structure, influencing factors, canonical correspondence analysis(CCA), nature reserve,

摘 要 ：根据凉水自然保护区28块典型阔叶红松林样地的5个林分空间结构参数和18个影响因子数据，采用典范对应分析（CCA）方法，对凉水自然保护区阔叶红松林林分空间结构与影响因子间关系进行分析。研究结果表明：（1）研究区域阔叶红松林整体具有较好的林分空间结构，其水平分布格局主要表现为随机分布，树木生长整体处于中庸状态，林木的整体混交程度较高；（2）林分空间结构的CCA排序较好的揭示了该区林分空间结构与影响因子的关系；CCA第一排序轴反映了林龄、坡度、阔叶比和坡向的变化，第二排序轴反映了坡向、土壤有机质和平均胸径的变化，上述6因子的组合是决定林分空间结构特征的主要影响因子；（3）影响林分空间结构的变量中，地形、土壤和林分因子共解释了林分空间结构变化的59.20%，其中纯地形因子占30.68%，纯林分因子占19.01%，纯土壤因子占8.21%，未能解释部分为40.80%。

Abstract:The relationships between stand spatial structure and influencing factors of broadleaved Korean pine forest in Liangshui Nature Reserve of northeast China, was studied with the method of canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). The data were collected form the forest resource inventory of the study area in 2009, which contain 60 plots. However, only 28 plots of typical broad-leaved Korean pine were selected in this paper, including five stand spatial structure parameters and eighteen influencing factors. The results showed that the broad-leaved Korean pine forest of the study area had a reasonable stand spatial structure overall, e.g., the horizontal distribution pattern of stands was mainly random distribution, the states of tree growth were at the doctrine of mean as a whole, and the mixed degree of species were also high. The relationships between stand spatial structure and influencing factors could be reflected by the CCA. The first CCA axis accounted for the stand age, slope, hardwood ratio and aspect, and the second CCA axis showed variation due to aspect, soil organic matter and mean diameter at breast height. On the whole, the combination of these six factors largely determined the stand spatial structure characteristics. Furthermore, the influencing factors were quantitatively assessed. The stand spatial structure of broadleaved Korean pine forest explained by stand, terrain and soil factors reached 59.20%. Within that, pure terrain factors accounted for up to 30.68% of the variation, stand factors for 19.01%, and soil factors for 8.21%. Other undermined factors accounted for an additional 40.80% of the variation.

---