中亚热带天然阔叶用材林目标树经营研究
|
摘要
我国中亚热带天然阔叶林分布广泛，植物区系组成丰富，具有重要的生态、经济、社会价值。本研究以福建永安天然米槠林为研究对象，探讨目标树经营在天然米槠林应用中的相关问题，如天然米槠林林分特征、目标树经营依据、目标直径、目标树密度、目标树经营对单木、林分的影响等，以期为我国中亚热带天然阔叶林可持续经营提供参考。研究取得以下结论：
（1）天然米槠林的复杂林分特征是经营的基础，根据天然米槠林划分的林层为基础，研究了天然米槠林物种组成、物种多样性及重要值、直径结构、树高结构、蓄积组成、空间结构等林分特征，为目标树经营提供依据和参考。林分特征主要内容有：天然米槠林明显分化为三个层次，第Ⅰ林层树高≥18m，第Ⅱ林层树高在10.1-16.9m之间，第Ⅲ林层树高≤10m；米槠、木荷、新木姜子、杜英、猴欢喜和丝栗栲是林分该群落的优势种；天然米槠林的第Ⅰ亚层、第Ⅱ亚层、第Ⅲ亚层直径结构使用正态分布、Weibull分布拟合效果最好，全林直径结构Gamma分布、负指数分布拟合最好；全林及主要树种混交频度最大值均在中度混交或强度混交，天然米槠林林分大小比数均值为0.48，天然米槠林林分角尺度均值为0.75。
（2）选择少量优秀个体林木作为经营主体而把大部分林木留给自然调控的目标树经营是具有生态合理性和经济有效性。通过分析发现天然米槠林第I林层林木株数只占林分总株数的15%，却提供了林分70%以上的活立木蓄积量，这种垂直结构分布特征表明能够提供森林经营物质收获的主体部分在为数不多的大径级林木。采用“平均生长量+标准偏差”的方法和数据拟合胸径不同径阶生长的函数模型，结果证明林分的生长过程主要是由生长较快的优势木执行完成的，即胸径在生长旺盛时期的大径级林木具有更快的生长趋势。
（3）通过定量方法计算，研究了天然米槠林当前阶段和收获阶段目标树密度问题。基于Voronoi图计算目标树竞争指数和优势度，通过筛选得到当前阶段天然米槠林平均单位面积目标树密度为105株/hm2，确定当前阶段天然米槠林合理目标树密度为100~110株/hm2。基于目标树生长发育至目标直径所需单元营养面积获得收获阶段天然米槠林平均单株营养面积、平均单元营养面积、平均目标树密度为143.05m2、155.49m2、68株/hm2。利用逐步回归方法模拟目标树冠幅，获得天然米槠林目标树达到收获阶段时目标树密度为68~74株/hm2。最后分析认为后两种方法获得的收获阶段天然米槠林目标树密度是合理的，确定天然米槠林收获阶段目标树合适密度为63~73株/hm2左右。
（4）经过分析择伐后目标树与非目标树生长量、生长率，发现目标树生长量明显高于非目标树生长量，并且明显促进了目标树生长率的增加，证明干扰树择伐后可以明显促进目标树的生长。胸径、蓄积连年生长量和平均生长量排序为目标树T>非目标树NTI>非目标树NT>非目标树NTII>非目标树NTIII，目标树T与其它非目标树生长差异显著。目标树与非目标树断面积生长率、蓄积生长率大小排序为非目标树NT>目标树T>非目标树NTI，择伐2年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率最大，与择伐3.5年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率差异不显著，但与择伐1年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率差异显著。
（5）分析2007-2011年不同经营模式断面积、蓄积生长率，结果表明全林及各林层断面积生长率排序为目标树经营>传统经营>对照。对照全林断面积生长率与传统经营和目标树经营全林断面积生长率差异显著，但后两种经营模式全林断面积生长率差异不显著；全林及各林层蓄积生长率大小顺序为目标树经营>传统经营>对照，对照全林蓄积生长率与传统经营和目标树经营全林蓄积生长率差异显著，但后两种经营模式全林生长率差异不显著。
（6）分析不同经营模式前后重要值的变化情况，结果表明三种模式经营前后米槠、木荷仍然为最主要的优势树种。对照样带米槠、木荷、尖叶水丝梨、少叶黄桤、蓝果树重要值均小幅度下降，新木姜子、猴欢喜、光叶山矾重要值增加幅度较大；传统经营样带米槠、木荷、新木姜子、山黄皮、尖叶水丝梨重要值下降幅度较大；目标树经营样带米槠、木荷、浙江润楠、拟赤杨、薯豆、厚壳桂重要值都呈现下降趋势，新木姜子、华杜英、枫香、虎皮楠、树参、兰果树重要值呈增加趋势。
It has widely distribution and aboundance of resource of natural broad-leavead forest inour mid-subtropical zone and the forest resources have important ecological, economic, socialvalue.The natural broad-leavead Castanopsis carlesii in Yong’an is taken as study objectiveaim to resolve realated problems of target management. Such as charictaristics of naturalbroad-leavead Castanopsis carlesii, basis of target management, target tree diameter, target treedensity, target tree management effect on single and stand. The study hopes to provide areference for sustaninable manangement of broad-levead forest in our mid-subtropical zone.The study made the following conclusions:
(1) Basis on the different tree layers of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii, its standcharacteristics such as species composition, species diversity and importance value, diameterstructure, tree height structure, volume composition, spatial structure were studyed so as toprovide reference for target tree management. The main characteristics of natural broad-leavedCastanopsis carlesii were as follow. Natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii had three treelayers obviously with height more than18meters for first tree layer, height between10.1-16.9meters for second tree layer, height less than10meters for third tree layer. The dominantspecies in the research stand were Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Neolitsea sericea,Elaeocarpus sylvestris, Sloanea sinensis, Castanopsis fargesii.Normal distribution and Weibulldistribution were the best model for diameter structure of each tree layer of naturalbroad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii, Gamma distribution and negative exponential distributionwere best suitable model for the diameter structure of the natural broad-leaved Castanopsiscarlesii stand.Mingling degree of stand and main tree species were medium or intensive. Thedifferiatiation value and uniform angle value of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii standwere0.48,0.75.
(2) Target tree management incorporating selecting a small number of outstandingindividual trees as management main objective and leaving most trees in the stand under natural regulation was ecologically reasonable and ecomomic effective. The number in firsttree layer of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii was only15%of the total stand trees,but the timber volume of first tree layer had more than70%of the total stand volume. Thecharacteristics of vertical structure distribution suggested that few large diameter trees were themain part providing timber volume. Different diameter classes growth model was establishedwith “average growth plus standard deviation” method. The results showed that the standgrowth process was mainly carried out by the dominat trees which grew faster than other trees.That was, larger diameter trees whose DBH was for vigorous growth period had faster growthtrend.
(3) Through quantitative mehods to solve the target tree density problem of naturalCastanopsis carlesii when the stand was in current stage and in harvest stage. Base on Voronoidiagram to get competition index and dominance of target trees, in the current period theaverage density of target trees of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii stand was105stems per hectare. We finally set the range of100~110stems per hectare as reasonable targettree density. In final harvest period, with use of the unite nutrition area of target tree, We gotthe vaverage signle nutrition area, average unit nutrition area and average target tree densitywere143.05m2,155.49m2,68stems per hectare respectively. By stepwise regression method,the crown wide model was established to obtain the average target tree density of Castanopsiscarlesii stand was68~74stems per hectare when target trees reached the harvest period. In theend, we got the results that the last two method for final havest period target tree density wasreasonable and in the final harvest period the appropriate target tree density of Castanopsiscarlesii stand was63~73stems per hectare.
Based on target tree nutrition area and community completion area, we got the suitabletarget tree density was69stems per hectare.
(4) After thinning, research resulsts showed that the growth increment and growth rate oftarget tree was significantly higher than that of non-targert tree. The fact indicated that thinningcould increase target tree growth obviously. The consequence of annual increment, averageincrement of DBH and volulme was target treeT>non-target treeNTI>non-target treeNT>non-target treeNTII>non-target treeNTIII,target treeTdiffered siginificantly with non-targerttree. The order of basal area growth rate, volume growth rate of target tree and non-target treewas non-target treeNT>target treeT>non-target treeNTI. Growth rate of basal area and volumehad the maximum2years after thinning. The growth rates of2year thinning later were notsignificant with that of3.5years thinning later, but had significantly differentce with that of1year thinning later.
(5) By analysis basal area and volume growth rate of different management models from2008to2011, the results showed that the order of basa area growth rate of stand and each treelayer was target tree management>traditional management>control. Stand basal area growthrate of control differed significantly with that of tradional management and target treemanagement, however, the stand basal area growth rate of two latter management models hadno significant difference. The consequence of volume growth rate of stand and each tree layerwas target tree management> traditional management>control. Stand volume growth rate ofcontrol differed significantly with that of traditional management and target tree management,however, the stand volume growth rate of the two latter management models had no significantdifference.
(6) By analysis the importance value changes before and after cutting in differentmanagement models, results showed that Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba were still the dominantspecies. In the control test belt, the importance value of Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Sycopsisdunnii, Alnus trabeculosa, Nyssa sinensis was decreasing with small tendency, importance valueof Neolitsea aurata, Sloanea changii, Symplocos lancifolia increaed. In traditional management test belt,importance value of Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Neolitsea aurata, Randia cochinchinensis,Alnus trabeculosa had increased. In the target tree managemt test belt, the important value ofCastanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Machilus chekiangensis, Alniphyllum fortune,Elacocarpus japonicas, Cryptocarya chinensis showed decreasing trendecy, the importantvalues of Neolitsea aurata,Elaeocarpus chinensis, Liquidambar formosana, Daphniphyllumoldhami, Dendropanax dentiger, Nyssa sinensis had increasing trendency.
（1）天然米槠林的复杂林分特征是经营的基础，根据天然米槠林划分的林层为基础，研究了天然米槠林物种组成、物种多样性及重要值、直径结构、树高结构、蓄积组成、空间结构等林分特征，为目标树经营提供依据和参考。林分特征主要内容有：天然米槠林明显分化为三个层次，第Ⅰ林层树高≥18m，第Ⅱ林层树高在10.1-16.9m之间，第Ⅲ林层树高≤10m；米槠、木荷、新木姜子、杜英、猴欢喜和丝栗栲是林分该群落的优势种；天然米槠林的第Ⅰ亚层、第Ⅱ亚层、第Ⅲ亚层直径结构使用正态分布、Weibull分布拟合效果最好，全林直径结构Gamma分布、负指数分布拟合最好；全林及主要树种混交频度最大值均在中度混交或强度混交，天然米槠林林分大小比数均值为0.48，天然米槠林林分角尺度均值为0.75。
（2）选择少量优秀个体林木作为经营主体而把大部分林木留给自然调控的目标树经营是具有生态合理性和经济有效性。通过分析发现天然米槠林第I林层林木株数只占林分总株数的15%，却提供了林分70%以上的活立木蓄积量，这种垂直结构分布特征表明能够提供森林经营物质收获的主体部分在为数不多的大径级林木。采用“平均生长量+标准偏差”的方法和数据拟合胸径不同径阶生长的函数模型，结果证明林分的生长过程主要是由生长较快的优势木执行完成的，即胸径在生长旺盛时期的大径级林木具有更快的生长趋势。
（3）通过定量方法计算，研究了天然米槠林当前阶段和收获阶段目标树密度问题。基于Voronoi图计算目标树竞争指数和优势度，通过筛选得到当前阶段天然米槠林平均单位面积目标树密度为105株/hm2，确定当前阶段天然米槠林合理目标树密度为100~110株/hm2。基于目标树生长发育至目标直径所需单元营养面积获得收获阶段天然米槠林平均单株营养面积、平均单元营养面积、平均目标树密度为143.05m2、155.49m2、68株/hm2。利用逐步回归方法模拟目标树冠幅，获得天然米槠林目标树达到收获阶段时目标树密度为68~74株/hm2。最后分析认为后两种方法获得的收获阶段天然米槠林目标树密度是合理的，确定天然米槠林收获阶段目标树合适密度为63~73株/hm2左右。
（4）经过分析择伐后目标树与非目标树生长量、生长率，发现目标树生长量明显高于非目标树生长量，并且明显促进了目标树生长率的增加，证明干扰树择伐后可以明显促进目标树的生长。胸径、蓄积连年生长量和平均生长量排序为目标树T>非目标树NTI>非目标树NT>非目标树NTII>非目标树NTIII，目标树T与其它非目标树生长差异显著。目标树与非目标树断面积生长率、蓄积生长率大小排序为非目标树NT>目标树T>非目标树NTI，择伐2年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率最大，与择伐3.5年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率差异不显著，但与择伐1年后目标树断面积、蓄积生长率差异显著。
（5）分析2007-2011年不同经营模式断面积、蓄积生长率，结果表明全林及各林层断面积生长率排序为目标树经营>传统经营>对照。对照全林断面积生长率与传统经营和目标树经营全林断面积生长率差异显著，但后两种经营模式全林断面积生长率差异不显著；全林及各林层蓄积生长率大小顺序为目标树经营>传统经营>对照，对照全林蓄积生长率与传统经营和目标树经营全林蓄积生长率差异显著，但后两种经营模式全林生长率差异不显著。
（6）分析不同经营模式前后重要值的变化情况，结果表明三种模式经营前后米槠、木荷仍然为最主要的优势树种。对照样带米槠、木荷、尖叶水丝梨、少叶黄桤、蓝果树重要值均小幅度下降，新木姜子、猴欢喜、光叶山矾重要值增加幅度较大；传统经营样带米槠、木荷、新木姜子、山黄皮、尖叶水丝梨重要值下降幅度较大；目标树经营样带米槠、木荷、浙江润楠、拟赤杨、薯豆、厚壳桂重要值都呈现下降趋势，新木姜子、华杜英、枫香、虎皮楠、树参、兰果树重要值呈增加趋势。
It has widely distribution and aboundance of resource of natural broad-leavead forest inour mid-subtropical zone and the forest resources have important ecological, economic, socialvalue.The natural broad-leavead Castanopsis carlesii in Yong’an is taken as study objectiveaim to resolve realated problems of target management. Such as charictaristics of naturalbroad-leavead Castanopsis carlesii, basis of target management, target tree diameter, target treedensity, target tree management effect on single and stand. The study hopes to provide areference for sustaninable manangement of broad-levead forest in our mid-subtropical zone.The study made the following conclusions:
(1) Basis on the different tree layers of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii, its standcharacteristics such as species composition, species diversity and importance value, diameterstructure, tree height structure, volume composition, spatial structure were studyed so as toprovide reference for target tree management. The main characteristics of natural broad-leavedCastanopsis carlesii were as follow. Natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii had three treelayers obviously with height more than18meters for first tree layer, height between10.1-16.9meters for second tree layer, height less than10meters for third tree layer. The dominantspecies in the research stand were Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Neolitsea sericea,Elaeocarpus sylvestris, Sloanea sinensis, Castanopsis fargesii.Normal distribution and Weibulldistribution were the best model for diameter structure of each tree layer of naturalbroad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii, Gamma distribution and negative exponential distributionwere best suitable model for the diameter structure of the natural broad-leaved Castanopsiscarlesii stand.Mingling degree of stand and main tree species were medium or intensive. Thedifferiatiation value and uniform angle value of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii standwere0.48,0.75.
(2) Target tree management incorporating selecting a small number of outstandingindividual trees as management main objective and leaving most trees in the stand under natural regulation was ecologically reasonable and ecomomic effective. The number in firsttree layer of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii was only15%of the total stand trees,but the timber volume of first tree layer had more than70%of the total stand volume. Thecharacteristics of vertical structure distribution suggested that few large diameter trees were themain part providing timber volume. Different diameter classes growth model was establishedwith “average growth plus standard deviation” method. The results showed that the standgrowth process was mainly carried out by the dominat trees which grew faster than other trees.That was, larger diameter trees whose DBH was for vigorous growth period had faster growthtrend.
(3) Through quantitative mehods to solve the target tree density problem of naturalCastanopsis carlesii when the stand was in current stage and in harvest stage. Base on Voronoidiagram to get competition index and dominance of target trees, in the current period theaverage density of target trees of natural broad-leaved Castanopsis carlesii stand was105stems per hectare. We finally set the range of100~110stems per hectare as reasonable targettree density. In final harvest period, with use of the unite nutrition area of target tree, We gotthe vaverage signle nutrition area, average unit nutrition area and average target tree densitywere143.05m2,155.49m2,68stems per hectare respectively. By stepwise regression method,the crown wide model was established to obtain the average target tree density of Castanopsiscarlesii stand was68~74stems per hectare when target trees reached the harvest period. In theend, we got the results that the last two method for final havest period target tree density wasreasonable and in the final harvest period the appropriate target tree density of Castanopsiscarlesii stand was63~73stems per hectare.
Based on target tree nutrition area and community completion area, we got the suitabletarget tree density was69stems per hectare.
(4) After thinning, research resulsts showed that the growth increment and growth rate oftarget tree was significantly higher than that of non-targert tree. The fact indicated that thinningcould increase target tree growth obviously. The consequence of annual increment, averageincrement of DBH and volulme was target treeT>non-target treeNTI>non-target treeNT>non-target treeNTII>non-target treeNTIII,target treeTdiffered siginificantly with non-targerttree. The order of basal area growth rate, volume growth rate of target tree and non-target treewas non-target treeNT>target treeT>non-target treeNTI. Growth rate of basal area and volumehad the maximum2years after thinning. The growth rates of2year thinning later were notsignificant with that of3.5years thinning later, but had significantly differentce with that of1year thinning later.
(5) By analysis basal area and volume growth rate of different management models from2008to2011, the results showed that the order of basa area growth rate of stand and each treelayer was target tree management>traditional management>control. Stand basal area growthrate of control differed significantly with that of tradional management and target treemanagement, however, the stand basal area growth rate of two latter management models hadno significant difference. The consequence of volume growth rate of stand and each tree layerwas target tree management> traditional management>control. Stand volume growth rate ofcontrol differed significantly with that of traditional management and target tree management,however, the stand volume growth rate of the two latter management models had no significantdifference.
(6) By analysis the importance value changes before and after cutting in differentmanagement models, results showed that Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba were still the dominantspecies. In the control test belt, the importance value of Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Sycopsisdunnii, Alnus trabeculosa, Nyssa sinensis was decreasing with small tendency, importance valueof Neolitsea aurata, Sloanea changii, Symplocos lancifolia increaed. In traditional management test belt,importance value of Castanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Neolitsea aurata, Randia cochinchinensis,Alnus trabeculosa had increased. In the target tree managemt test belt, the important value ofCastanopsis carlesii, Schima superba, Machilus chekiangensis, Alniphyllum fortune,Elacocarpus japonicas, Cryptocarya chinensis showed decreasing trendecy, the importantvalues of Neolitsea aurata,Elaeocarpus chinensis, Liquidambar formosana, Daphniphyllumoldhami, Dendropanax dentiger, Nyssa sinensis had increasing trendency.
引文
Abetz P, Kladtke J. The target tree management system. Forstw. Cbl.2002,121,73-82.
Alaback B P. Biomass regression equations for understory plants in coastal Alaska: effects of species andsampling design on estimates. Northwest Science,1986,60(2):186-195.
Aust W M. Comparative effects of aerial and ground logging on properties in a treol-cypress Wetland. Forest
Ecology and Management,1992,50:56-73.
Baldwin V C, Peterson K D. The effect of spacing and thinning on stand and tree characteristic of38yearold loblolly pine. Forest Ecology and Management,2000,137(3):91-102.
Baskent E Z. Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscapemanagement. Landscape ecology.1999,14(1):83-96.
Bawa K S, Reinnar S. Natural forest management and conversation of biodiversity in tropical forests,Conversation Biology,1998,12(1):45-55.
Bauer M L. Walddynamik nach Borkenkaeferbefall in den Hochlagen des bayrischeng Waldes. Lehrstuhlfuer Waldbau und Forsteinrichtung.2002.
Bettinger P, Sessions J, Johnson K N. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodityproduction goals ineaster Oregon with a tabu searchprocedure.Forest Science.1998,44:95-112.
Boston K, Bettinger P. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing, and tabusearch heuristics for solving spatial harvest scheduling problem. Forest Science,1999,45:292-301.ChenV B E, Gadow K V. Timber harvest planning with spatial objectives. Forstw.2002,121:25-34.
Crow T R, Buckley D S, Nauertz E A, et a1. Effects of management on the composition and structure ofNorthern hardwood forests in upper Michigan．For Sci,2002,48(1):129-145.
Crow T R, Buckley D S, Nauertz EA. Effects of management on the composition and structure of Northernhardwood forests in upper Michigan. For.Sci.,2002,48(1):129-145.
Dawkins H C.The management of mature tropical height-forest with special reference to Uganda.Universityof Oxford Imperial Forestry Institute,1985,55.
Dixon R K, Brown S, Houghton R A. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science,2001,263:185-190.
Douglas L, Johnson K, Bettinger P. Forest management: to sustainable ecological, economic, and socialvalues, Waveland Press.2006.
Eid T, Hoen, H F. Economic consequences of sustainable forest management regimes at non-industrial forestowner level in Norway. Forest Policy and Economocis,2001,2:213-227.
Eriksson B H. Spatial forest planning: A review. Ecological Modeling.1998,188:45-50.
Fallkowski P, Scholes R J, Boyle E, et al. The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as ssystem. Science,2000,290:291-295.
Fang J Y,Wang G G,Liu G H,etal. Forest biomass of China: an estimate based on the biomass volumerelationship. Ecological Applications,1998,8:1084－1091.
Forget E, Nolet P. Ten-year response of northern hardwood stands to commercial secetion cutting in southernQuebec, Canada.Forest Ecology and Management,2007,42(2):764-775.
Gadow et al. Continous cover forestry assessment, analysis, scenarios. International IUFRO conference,19-21Sep.2001, Goettingen, Germany.
Gilliam F S,Turrill N L, Adams M B. Herbaceous layer and over-story species in clear-cut and maturecentral Appalachian hardwood forest, Ecol.Appl.,1995,5(4):946-955.
Gary D L. Ten year growth response of red and white oak crop trees to intensity of crown release. In: Walrop,T, A. Gen. Tech. Rep. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Sourthen ResearchStation,2007:163-167.
Hazfeldt H G. Okologische Waldwirtschaft grundlagen aspekte Beispiele: Alternative Konzepet.MullerGmbH,Heidelber.1994,305.
Hegyi F. A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands in Sweden. Royal College of Forestry,Stockholm,1974,74-90.
Hoen H F, Solberg B. Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass throughsilvicultural management. Forest Science,1994,40,429-451.
Hofle H H. Naturschutz und Betriebswirtschaft am Beispiel des Niedersachsichen Forstamsts Bovenden.Forst und Holz.2000,55,217-220.
Holmes M J, Reed D D. Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods. Forest Science,1991,37(5):1337-1349.
Hoover, C. M, Leak, W. B, Keel, B. G. Benchmark carbon stocks from old-growth forests in northern NewEngland, USA. Forest Ecology and Management.2012,266:107-114.
Houghton R A. Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,2007,35:313-346.
Hu F, Eriksson K O. Formation of harvest units with genetic algorithms. Ecol. Model,2000,130:56-67.
Hubert H. Sustainable forest management: growth models for Europe. Spring.2005.
Jaakkola T, Makinen H, Saranpaa P.Wood density in Norway spruce: changes with thinning intensity andtree age.Canadian Journal of Forest Reaearch,2005a,35(7):1766-1777.
Jennifer. Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging operations in the eastern Amazon,For.Ecol.Manage.1996,89:56-76.
Johnson K N. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives.Forest Science Monograph,1977,18,31.
J rgen Z, Marc H, Ute S. Financial optimization of target diameter harvest of European beech consideringthe risk of decreasing of timber quality due to red heartwood.Forest Policy andEconomics,2004,6:579-593.
Karlason A, Albrektson A, Elfving B, et a1. Development of Pinus sylvestris main stems following threedifferent commercial thinning methods in a mixed stand．Scand J For Res.2002,17:255-262.
Kittredge J P.Estimation of amount of foliage of trees and shrubs.Forest,1995,8(6):630-633.
Klaedtike J. Konstruktion einer Z-baum Ertagstafel am Beispiel der Fichte. Der ForstlichenForschungsanstalt, Baden Wuertemburg. Heft173.1993.
Knoebol B C, Burkhart H E. A growth and yield model for thinned stands of yellow-poplar. For Sci,1986,32(2):27,62p.
Knoke T.Analyse und optimierung der holzproduktion ineinem plenterwald; Zur Forstbetriebsplanung inungleichaltrigen waldern. Foresl. Forschungsber. Munchen,1998,170.
Laroze A J, Greber B J. Using tabu search to genereate stand level, ruled-based bucking patterns. ForestScience.1997,43:156-169.
Lahde E, laiho O, Nomrpi Y,et a1. Development of Norway spruce dominated stands after single-treeselection and low thinning．Can J For Res,2002,32:1576-1584.
Lockwood C, Moore T. Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach. Can. J.For. Res.1993,23:485-477.
Lei X D, Lu Y C, Peng C H, et al. Growth and structure development of semi-natural larch-spruce-fir forestsin northeast China:12-year results after thinning.Forest Ecology andManagement,2007,40(1-3):165-176.
Liu X D, Silins U, Lieffers V J, et al. Stem hydraulic properties and growth in lodgepole pine standsfollowing thinning and sway treatment.Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2003,33(7):1295-1303.
Mark D. Dynamics of World Forestry.2010(10):10-16.
Mats H. Effects on flora in Norway spruce forests following clear cutting and shelterwood cutting. ForestEcology and Management,1997,90:29-49.
Mcminn J W. Diversity of woody species10years after four harvesting treatments in the oak-pine type,Can.J. For. Res.1992,22:1179-1183.
Meyer H, Arthur. Forest mensuration.Pennsylvania: Penns Valley publishers, INC.,U.S.A,1953.375
Miller G W, Stringer J K. Effect of crown release on tree grade and dbh growth of white oak sawtimberineastern Kentucky. North. J. Appl. For,2004,17(1):25-35.
Moore C T, Conroy M J. Forest management decisions for wildlife objectives: system resolution andoptimality. Comput. Electron. Agric.2000,27:25-39.
Murray A T, Church R L. Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems. ORSpektrum,1995,17:193-203.
Nelson J Brodie J D. Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solvingarea-based forest plants. Can. J. For. Res.1990,20:934-942.
Ni J, Sykes M T. Modeling the vegetation of China using the process based equilibrium terrestrial biospheremodel BIOM3. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2000,9:463-479.
Niese J N, Strong T F. Economic and tree diversity trade-offs in management northern hardwoods, Can.J. For.Res.1992,22:1806-1813.
Nieuwenhuis M, Tiernan D. The impact of the introduction of sustainable forest management objectives onthe optimization of PC-based forest-level harvest schedules.Forest Policy and Economics,2005,7:689-701.
Obergfoell P. Modelle der Nutzungsplanung auf der Basis von Wiederholungsinventuren.
Forstwissenschaftliche Facultaet, university Freiburg, Germany.2000.
Ohman A J, Eriksson B H. Spatial constrained timber harvest scheduling. Can. J. For. Rer.1998,19:715-724.Patona D, Nunez J, Bao D, et al. Forage biomass of22shrub species from Monfrage Natural Parkassessed by log-log regression models. Journal of Ard Environments,2002,52(2):223-231.
Patil G P, Taillie C. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. Journal of American Statistical Association,1982,77(379):547-561.
Parrotta J A, Francis J K, Knowles O H, Harvesting intensity affects forest structure and composition in anupland Amazonian forest. For Eco Manage,2002,169:243-255.
Perkey, Arlyn W, Wilins. Crop tree management in eastern hardwoods. Northeast area, State and PrivateForestry,1994.
Pretzsch H. Structural diversity as a result of silvicultural operation.In: Olsthoom A F M, Bartelink H H,Gardiner J J,etal.(eds).Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics．Dlo Institutefor Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO),Wageningen,1999,157-172.
Ruha T, Varmola M. Precommercial thinning in naturally regenerated Scots pine stands in northernFinland[J].Silva Fennica,1997,31(4):401-415.
Scott T W, Chris C M. conifer response to three silvicultural treatments in the Oresgon Coast Rangefoothills.Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2004,34(9):1966-1977.
Singh, V., Tewari, A., Kushwaha, S. P, Dadhwa V. K.,2011. Formulating allometric equations for estimatingbiomass and carbon stock in small diameter trees. Forest Ecology and Management,261,1945-1949.
Smith H C, Lamson N I. Pre-commercial crop tree release increases diameter growth of applachianhardwood sapling,USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap,1983.
Smith H C, Lamson N I, Miller G W. An eathetic alternative to clearcutting? Journal ofForestry,1983,87(3):14-17.
Smith H C, Miller G W. Managing Appalachian hardwood stands using four regeneration practices-34yearresults, North J Appl. For.1987,4:180-185.
Speicker H. Dynamics of World Forestry.2009,(9):3-11.
Speicker H.世界林业动态(内部参阅专刊).2013,15:30-31.
Strobel G. Gedanken zu Chancen und Grenzen naturnaheer Waldwirstschaft. AFZ/Der Wald1997,24,
124-1285.
Sturm K. DeiNaturlichkeit zweier Forstorte sudostlich Hannovers. Beitrage zur Naturkunde Niederschsen,1984,2Jg., H.3/89,S.154-157.
Sturm K, Haerdtle W, Lu Y C.近自然森林经营工作报告.中德合作“密云水库集水区保护和经营”项目办公室,北京,2004.
Sturm K. Methoden und Ziele der Waldbiotopkartierung.Naturschutz in der Forstwirtschaft Biologie undSchutz der Fledermause im Wald,4Jg.1993.
Thomas E. Measuring and controlling the degree of naturalness of forest stand.Schweizerische Zeitschrift furForstwesen,2003,150(7):245-247.
Thorpe P, Helles F. Modeling near-natural silvi-cultural regimes for beech-an economic sensitivity analysis.For.Ecol. Manage.2005,130,186-197.Vatkinson A R. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plant. Theory of Biology,1980,83:345-356.
Venema H D, Calamai P H. Forest structure optimization using evolutionary programming and landscapeecology metrics. Eur. J. Operat. Res.2005,164:423-439.
Ward J S. Intensity of precommecial crop tree release increases diameter and crown growth in uplandhardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep,1995,196-202.
Webster C R, Lorimer C G. Single tree versus group selection in hemlock hardwood forests: are smalleropenings less productive. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2002,32(4):591-604.
White A, Cannell M G R, Friend A D. The high-latitude terrestrial carbon sink: a model analysis. GlobChange Biol,2000,6:226-245.
Yolasigmaz H A. The concept and the implementation of forest ecosystem management(a case study ofArtvin Planning Uint). PhD thesis,2004.
Zhou W, Gong P. Economic effects of environmental concerns in forest management:An analysis of the cost of achieving environmental goals. Journal of Forest Economics,2004:10,96-113.
陈灵芝.中国植被类型多样性及其保护对策.生物多样性研究进展:中国科学技术出版社，1995,12:295-302.
陈灵芝.中国的生物多样性—现状与保护对策.北京科学出版社,1993.35-89.
陈桢.遗传算法在森林收获调整中的应用以及软件的研究.福建农林大学硕士学位论文.2007,30~44.
陈雄文,王凤友.林窗模型BKPF模拟伊春地区红松针阔叶混交林采伐迹地对气候变化的潜在反应.应用生态学报,2000,11(4):513-516.
丁宝永,1989.落叶松人工林群落生物生产力的研究.植物生态学与植物学学报,4(3):225-235.
董希斌.采伐强度对林分蓄积生长量的影响.东北林业大学学报,2001a,29(1):44-46.
董希斌.采伐强度对林分蓄积生长量的影响.东北林业大学学报,2001b,29(2):35-36.
樊后保,王义弘.不同光照条件下蒙古栎物候期及树高生长节律的研究.福建林学院学报,1992,5(02):23-25.
樊后保,李燕燕,苏兵强,等.马尾松-阔叶树混交异龄林生物量与生产力分配.生态学报,2006,26(8):2463-2473.
方精云,陈安平.中国森林植被碳库的动态变化及其意义.植物学报,2001,43(9):966-973.
方精云,朴世龙,赵淑清. CO2失汇与北半球中高纬度陆地生态系统的碳汇.植物生态学报,2001,25:594-602.
冯宗炜.亚热带天然阔叶林生态系统营养积累.植物生态学,1985,9(4):245-254.
方燕鸿.米槠、甜槠常绿阔叶林的物种组成及多样性分析.物种多样性,2005(02):11-14.
周锦北.目标树择伐林经营技术.造林与经营,2011,9:11-13.
傅校平.杉木人工林不同择伐强度对林分生物量的影响.福建林业科技,2000,27(2):41-43.
郝云庆,王金锡,王启和.柳杉人工林近自然改造过程中林分空间结构变化.四川农业大学学报,2008,3(1):47-52.
侯向阳,韩进轩.长白山红松林主要树种空间格局的模拟分析.植物生态学报,1997,21(3)；242-249.
胡云云,闵志强,高延.择伐对天然云冷杉林林分生长和结构的影响.林业科学,2011,47(2):15-24
黄清麟.亚热带天然阔叶林经营中的五大误区.世界林业研究,1998,11(4):3l-3.
黄清麟,李元红,黄宗杰.福建省天然阔叶林经营现状及对策.福建林学院学报,1991，l1(4):443-447.
黄清麟,李元红.中亚热带天然阔叶林研究综述.福建林学院学报,1999,19(2):189-192.
黄清麟,李元红.一代与二代人健闽粤栲林分特征对比评价.福建林学院学报,1999.18(3):224-227．
黄清麟.中亚热带天然阔叶林可持续经营技术研究.北京;北京林业大学,1998．
黄清麟,郑群瑞,戎建涛,卓鸣秀等.福建中亚热带天然阔叶用材林择伐技术I.基于树种特征的目标树种清单.山地学报,2012,3(2):180-185.
惠刚盈等.结构化森林经营技术指南.中国林业出版社,2006.
惠刚盈,Klaus V G, MatthiasA.角尺度-一个描述林木个体分布格局的结构参数.林业科学,1999,35(1):36-42.
简晓丹,李晓华,刘永敏等.低强度择伐经营技术.北京:中国林业出版社,2006:25-87.
李春明,杜纪山,张会儒.抚育采伐对森林生长的影响极其模型研究.林业科学研究,2003,16(5):635-641.
李法胜,于政中,亢新刚.检查法林分生长预测及择伐模型研究.林业科学,1993,30(6):531-539.
李文华,李飞.中国森林资源研究.北京:中国林业出版社,1995.
李晓娜,国庆喜,王兴昌等.东北天然次生林下舒总生物量的相对生长.东北林业大学学报,2010,46(8):23-32.
李小玲,刘标.福建青冈林林分特征研究.福建林学院学报,2011(03):35-40.
周平惠.福建三明米槠群落林分结构特征研究.福建林学院学报,2007,(08):30-34.
刘昌鹤.浅析用层次分析法评估体育教师教学质量的探讨.北京师范大学,2005.
刘昉勋,邓懋宾等.论江苏省三个植被带的特征及其分解问题.植物生物学,1964,2(2):93-99.
刘慎愕等.关于中国植被区划的若干原则问题.植物学报,1959,8(2):50-59.
刘世荣,柴一新，蔡体久等.兴安落叶松人工群落生物量与净初级生产力的研究.东北林业大学学报,1990,18(2):40-45.
刘新宪,朱道立.选择与判断：AHP（层次分析法）决策.上海科学普及出版社,1990,2.
刘宪钊,陆元昌,周燕华等.加勒比松人工林近自然改造中的发展类型设计.南京林业大学学报(自然
科学版),2009,3(5):20-26.
刘智慧.四川省缙云山栲树种群结构和生态的初步研究.植物生态学报,1990(02):36-41.
陆元昌,雷相东,洪玲霞等.近自然森林经理计划体系技术应用示范.西南林学院学报2010(02):33-37.
陆元昌.近自然森林经营理论与时间[M].2006,北京:科学出版社.
罗菊春,王庆锁,牟长城.干扰对天然红松林植物多样性的研究.林业科学,1997,33(6):497-503.
孟春,王立海.小兴安岭天然次生林经营模拟与评价.东北林业大学学报,2005,06:42-46.
宁金魁,陆元昌.北京西山地区油松林人工近自然化改造效果评价.东北林业大学学报,2009(07):6-13.
钱崇澎等.中国植被区划草案.科学出版社,1957.
宋富年,周春城.优化择伐提高林地经济效益的研究.林业科学,1994,19(5):50-52.
汤景明,翟明普.影响天然树种更新因素的研究进展.福建林学院学报,2005,25(4):379-383.
汤孟平.森林空间结构分析与优化经营模型研究.北京林业大学,2003.
汤孟平,唐守正,雷相东.林分择伐空间结构优化模型研究.林业科学,2004,40(5):25-31.
汤孟平,陈永刚,施拥军等.基于Voronoi图的群落优势树种种内种间竞争.生态学报,2007,11(11):4706-4715.
唐守正.东北天然林生态采伐更新技术研究.北京:中国科学技术出版社,2005:546-553.
唐守正,杜纪山.利用树冠竞争因子确定同龄择伐林分的断面积生长过程.林业科学,1999,35(6):35-41
王伯荪,余世孝.植物群落学实验手册.广东高等教育出版社.1995.
王飞,代力民,邵国凡.非线性状态方程模拟异龄林径阶动态-以长白山阔叶红松林为例.生态学杂志,2004,23(5):101-105.
王国良.不同采集作业措施对马尾松幼林生长的影响.林业科技开发.2000,14(4):21-23.
王效科,冯宗炜.中国森林生态系统中植物固定大气碳的潜力.生态学杂志,2000,19(4):72-74.
王小平.北京近自然森林经营技术指南.中国林业出版社,2007.
王铮峰,安树青,朱学雷.热带森林乔木种群分布格局及其研究方法的比较.应用生态学报,1998,9(6):575-580.
温远光等.不同采伐方式对常绿阔叶林物种多样性保持与恢复的影响.生物多样性研究进展:中国科学技术出版社,1995,12:354-362.
吴承桢,洪伟,廖金兰.马尾松幼中龄林种内竞争的研究.福建林学院学报,1997,17(4):289-292.
吴冬生.阔叶林人工促进天然更新技术及推广.林业科技开发,1997(2):14-15.
吴际友,龙应忠,董云平.湿地松人工林择伐效果初步研究.林业科学研究,2009,2(3):33-35.
邬可义.中德法专家“会诊”中国东北地区的森林经营.世界林业动态,2009,(9):3-11.
吴征镒等.中国植被,科学出版社,1980.
向玮,雷相东,洪玲霞,孙建军等.落叶松云冷杉林矩阵生长模型多目标经营模拟.林业科学.2011,47(6):77-86.
熊利民,钟章成,李旭光.亚热带常绿阔叶树不同演替阶段土壤种子库的初步研究.植物生物生态学报,1992(03):55-60.
熊文愈,骆林川.琅琊山森林群落演替及其经营利用.南京林业大学学报,1989(3):42-46.
修勤绪,陆元昌,曹旭平等.目标树林分作业对黄土高原油松人工林天然更新的影响.西南林学院学报,2009,29(2):13-19.
许炼烽.热带次生林利用与土壤物理性质变化.生态学报,1996,16(6):652-659.
徐六一,虞木奎.湿地松人工林择伐效应的研究.安徽农业大学学报.2001,28(4):416-421.
游水生.南平珍稀植物分析及其保护.福建林学院学报,1992(02):31-35.
于政中,亢新刚,李法胜,等.检查法第一经理期研究.林业科学,1996,32(1):24-34.
臧润国,刘涛.吉林白石山区过伐林的类型、乔木树种多样性及生态位分析.北京林业大学学报,1997,19(1):51-57.
张宏达.海南植被类型区系划分.1954.
张会儒,汤孟平,舒清态.森林生态采伐的理论与实践.北京:中国林业出版社,2006:1-7.
张思玉,郑世群.笔架山常绿阔叶林优势种群种内种间竞争的数量研究.林业科学,2001,37(1):185-187.
赵秀海,范秀华.拖拉机对集材道土壤及苗木生长影响的研究.林业科学,1994,30(2):157-165.
赵秀海.长白山红松针阔混交林倒木对天然更新的影响.吉林林学院学报,1996,12(1):1-4.
郑丽凤,周新年.红松阔叶混交林林分空间结构分析.热带亚热带植物学报,2006,14(4):275-280.
章浩白.福建森林.中国林业出版社,1993.
钟章成.常绿阔叶林生态学研究.重庆:西南师范大学出版社,1987.1l7.
中国科学院南方山区综合科考队.中国亚热带东部丘陵山区典型地区自然资源开发利用研究.北京:科学出版社.1989.
曾慧卿,刘琪璟,冯宗炜等.基于冠幅和植株高度的灌木生物量回归方程.南京林业大学学报,2006,30(4):101-104.
周新年,邱仁辉.不同采伐、集材作业队林地土壤理化性质影响的研究.林业科学,1998,34(3):17-25.
朱万红,何阳,付成群.一种基于权向量的组合赋值法求群权向量的方法.解放军理工大学学
报,2003,06(9):51-56.
Alaback B P. Biomass regression equations for understory plants in coastal Alaska: effects of species andsampling design on estimates. Northwest Science,1986,60(2):186-195.
Aust W M. Comparative effects of aerial and ground logging on properties in a treol-cypress Wetland. Forest
Ecology and Management,1992,50:56-73.
Baldwin V C, Peterson K D. The effect of spacing and thinning on stand and tree characteristic of38yearold loblolly pine. Forest Ecology and Management,2000,137(3):91-102.
Baskent E Z. Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscapemanagement. Landscape ecology.1999,14(1):83-96.
Bawa K S, Reinnar S. Natural forest management and conversation of biodiversity in tropical forests,Conversation Biology,1998,12(1):45-55.
Bauer M L. Walddynamik nach Borkenkaeferbefall in den Hochlagen des bayrischeng Waldes. Lehrstuhlfuer Waldbau und Forsteinrichtung.2002.
Bettinger P, Sessions J, Johnson K N. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodityproduction goals ineaster Oregon with a tabu searchprocedure.Forest Science.1998,44:95-112.
Boston K, Bettinger P. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing, and tabusearch heuristics for solving spatial harvest scheduling problem. Forest Science,1999,45:292-301.ChenV B E, Gadow K V. Timber harvest planning with spatial objectives. Forstw.2002,121:25-34.
Crow T R, Buckley D S, Nauertz E A, et a1. Effects of management on the composition and structure ofNorthern hardwood forests in upper Michigan．For Sci,2002,48(1):129-145.
Crow T R, Buckley D S, Nauertz EA. Effects of management on the composition and structure of Northernhardwood forests in upper Michigan. For.Sci.,2002,48(1):129-145.
Dawkins H C.The management of mature tropical height-forest with special reference to Uganda.Universityof Oxford Imperial Forestry Institute,1985,55.
Dixon R K, Brown S, Houghton R A. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science,2001,263:185-190.
Douglas L, Johnson K, Bettinger P. Forest management: to sustainable ecological, economic, and socialvalues, Waveland Press.2006.
Eid T, Hoen, H F. Economic consequences of sustainable forest management regimes at non-industrial forestowner level in Norway. Forest Policy and Economocis,2001,2:213-227.
Eriksson B H. Spatial forest planning: A review. Ecological Modeling.1998,188:45-50.
Fallkowski P, Scholes R J, Boyle E, et al. The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as ssystem. Science,2000,290:291-295.
Fang J Y,Wang G G,Liu G H,etal. Forest biomass of China: an estimate based on the biomass volumerelationship. Ecological Applications,1998,8:1084－1091.
Forget E, Nolet P. Ten-year response of northern hardwood stands to commercial secetion cutting in southernQuebec, Canada.Forest Ecology and Management,2007,42(2):764-775.
Gadow et al. Continous cover forestry assessment, analysis, scenarios. International IUFRO conference,19-21Sep.2001, Goettingen, Germany.
Gilliam F S,Turrill N L, Adams M B. Herbaceous layer and over-story species in clear-cut and maturecentral Appalachian hardwood forest, Ecol.Appl.,1995,5(4):946-955.
Gary D L. Ten year growth response of red and white oak crop trees to intensity of crown release. In: Walrop,T, A. Gen. Tech. Rep. Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Sourthen ResearchStation,2007:163-167.
Hazfeldt H G. Okologische Waldwirtschaft grundlagen aspekte Beispiele: Alternative Konzepet.MullerGmbH,Heidelber.1994,305.
Hegyi F. A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands in Sweden. Royal College of Forestry,Stockholm,1974,74-90.
Hoen H F, Solberg B. Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass throughsilvicultural management. Forest Science,1994,40,429-451.
Hofle H H. Naturschutz und Betriebswirtschaft am Beispiel des Niedersachsichen Forstamsts Bovenden.Forst und Holz.2000,55,217-220.
Holmes M J, Reed D D. Competition indices for mixed species northern hardwoods. Forest Science,1991,37(5):1337-1349.
Hoover, C. M, Leak, W. B, Keel, B. G. Benchmark carbon stocks from old-growth forests in northern NewEngland, USA. Forest Ecology and Management.2012,266:107-114.
Houghton R A. Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,2007,35:313-346.
Hu F, Eriksson K O. Formation of harvest units with genetic algorithms. Ecol. Model,2000,130:56-67.
Hubert H. Sustainable forest management: growth models for Europe. Spring.2005.
Jaakkola T, Makinen H, Saranpaa P.Wood density in Norway spruce: changes with thinning intensity andtree age.Canadian Journal of Forest Reaearch,2005a,35(7):1766-1777.
Jennifer. Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging operations in the eastern Amazon,For.Ecol.Manage.1996,89:56-76.
Johnson K N. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives.Forest Science Monograph,1977,18,31.
J rgen Z, Marc H, Ute S. Financial optimization of target diameter harvest of European beech consideringthe risk of decreasing of timber quality due to red heartwood.Forest Policy andEconomics,2004,6:579-593.
Karlason A, Albrektson A, Elfving B, et a1. Development of Pinus sylvestris main stems following threedifferent commercial thinning methods in a mixed stand．Scand J For Res.2002,17:255-262.
Kittredge J P.Estimation of amount of foliage of trees and shrubs.Forest,1995,8(6):630-633.
Klaedtike J. Konstruktion einer Z-baum Ertagstafel am Beispiel der Fichte. Der ForstlichenForschungsanstalt, Baden Wuertemburg. Heft173.1993.
Knoebol B C, Burkhart H E. A growth and yield model for thinned stands of yellow-poplar. For Sci,1986,32(2):27,62p.
Knoke T.Analyse und optimierung der holzproduktion ineinem plenterwald; Zur Forstbetriebsplanung inungleichaltrigen waldern. Foresl. Forschungsber. Munchen,1998,170.
Laroze A J, Greber B J. Using tabu search to genereate stand level, ruled-based bucking patterns. ForestScience.1997,43:156-169.
Lahde E, laiho O, Nomrpi Y,et a1. Development of Norway spruce dominated stands after single-treeselection and low thinning．Can J For Res,2002,32:1576-1584.
Lockwood C, Moore T. Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach. Can. J.For. Res.1993,23:485-477.
Lei X D, Lu Y C, Peng C H, et al. Growth and structure development of semi-natural larch-spruce-fir forestsin northeast China:12-year results after thinning.Forest Ecology andManagement,2007,40(1-3):165-176.
Liu X D, Silins U, Lieffers V J, et al. Stem hydraulic properties and growth in lodgepole pine standsfollowing thinning and sway treatment.Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2003,33(7):1295-1303.
Mark D. Dynamics of World Forestry.2010(10):10-16.
Mats H. Effects on flora in Norway spruce forests following clear cutting and shelterwood cutting. ForestEcology and Management,1997,90:29-49.
Mcminn J W. Diversity of woody species10years after four harvesting treatments in the oak-pine type,Can.J. For. Res.1992,22:1179-1183.
Meyer H, Arthur. Forest mensuration.Pennsylvania: Penns Valley publishers, INC.,U.S.A,1953.375
Miller G W, Stringer J K. Effect of crown release on tree grade and dbh growth of white oak sawtimberineastern Kentucky. North. J. Appl. For,2004,17(1):25-35.
Moore C T, Conroy M J. Forest management decisions for wildlife objectives: system resolution andoptimality. Comput. Electron. Agric.2000,27:25-39.
Murray A T, Church R L. Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems. ORSpektrum,1995,17:193-203.
Nelson J Brodie J D. Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solvingarea-based forest plants. Can. J. For. Res.1990,20:934-942.
Ni J, Sykes M T. Modeling the vegetation of China using the process based equilibrium terrestrial biospheremodel BIOM3. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2000,9:463-479.
Niese J N, Strong T F. Economic and tree diversity trade-offs in management northern hardwoods, Can.J. For.Res.1992,22:1806-1813.
Nieuwenhuis M, Tiernan D. The impact of the introduction of sustainable forest management objectives onthe optimization of PC-based forest-level harvest schedules.Forest Policy and Economics,2005,7:689-701.
Obergfoell P. Modelle der Nutzungsplanung auf der Basis von Wiederholungsinventuren.
Forstwissenschaftliche Facultaet, university Freiburg, Germany.2000.
Ohman A J, Eriksson B H. Spatial constrained timber harvest scheduling. Can. J. For. Rer.1998,19:715-724.Patona D, Nunez J, Bao D, et al. Forage biomass of22shrub species from Monfrage Natural Parkassessed by log-log regression models. Journal of Ard Environments,2002,52(2):223-231.
Patil G P, Taillie C. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. Journal of American Statistical Association,1982,77(379):547-561.
Parrotta J A, Francis J K, Knowles O H, Harvesting intensity affects forest structure and composition in anupland Amazonian forest. For Eco Manage,2002,169:243-255.
Perkey, Arlyn W, Wilins. Crop tree management in eastern hardwoods. Northeast area, State and PrivateForestry,1994.
Pretzsch H. Structural diversity as a result of silvicultural operation.In: Olsthoom A F M, Bartelink H H,Gardiner J J,etal.(eds).Management of mixed-species forest: silviculture and economics．Dlo Institutefor Forestry and Nature Research (IBN-DLO),Wageningen,1999,157-172.
Ruha T, Varmola M. Precommercial thinning in naturally regenerated Scots pine stands in northernFinland[J].Silva Fennica,1997,31(4):401-415.
Scott T W, Chris C M. conifer response to three silvicultural treatments in the Oresgon Coast Rangefoothills.Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2004,34(9):1966-1977.
Singh, V., Tewari, A., Kushwaha, S. P, Dadhwa V. K.,2011. Formulating allometric equations for estimatingbiomass and carbon stock in small diameter trees. Forest Ecology and Management,261,1945-1949.
Smith H C, Lamson N I. Pre-commercial crop tree release increases diameter growth of applachianhardwood sapling,USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap,1983.
Smith H C, Lamson N I, Miller G W. An eathetic alternative to clearcutting? Journal ofForestry,1983,87(3):14-17.
Smith H C, Miller G W. Managing Appalachian hardwood stands using four regeneration practices-34yearresults, North J Appl. For.1987,4:180-185.
Speicker H. Dynamics of World Forestry.2009,(9):3-11.
Speicker H.世界林业动态(内部参阅专刊).2013,15:30-31.
Strobel G. Gedanken zu Chancen und Grenzen naturnaheer Waldwirstschaft. AFZ/Der Wald1997,24,
124-1285.
Sturm K. DeiNaturlichkeit zweier Forstorte sudostlich Hannovers. Beitrage zur Naturkunde Niederschsen,1984,2Jg., H.3/89,S.154-157.
Sturm K, Haerdtle W, Lu Y C.近自然森林经营工作报告.中德合作“密云水库集水区保护和经营”项目办公室,北京,2004.
Sturm K. Methoden und Ziele der Waldbiotopkartierung.Naturschutz in der Forstwirtschaft Biologie undSchutz der Fledermause im Wald,4Jg.1993.
Thomas E. Measuring and controlling the degree of naturalness of forest stand.Schweizerische Zeitschrift furForstwesen,2003,150(7):245-247.
Thorpe P, Helles F. Modeling near-natural silvi-cultural regimes for beech-an economic sensitivity analysis.For.Ecol. Manage.2005,130,186-197.Vatkinson A R. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plant. Theory of Biology,1980,83:345-356.
Venema H D, Calamai P H. Forest structure optimization using evolutionary programming and landscapeecology metrics. Eur. J. Operat. Res.2005,164:423-439.
Ward J S. Intensity of precommecial crop tree release increases diameter and crown growth in uplandhardwoods. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep,1995,196-202.
Webster C R, Lorimer C G. Single tree versus group selection in hemlock hardwood forests: are smalleropenings less productive. Canadian Journal of Forest Research,2002,32(4):591-604.
White A, Cannell M G R, Friend A D. The high-latitude terrestrial carbon sink: a model analysis. GlobChange Biol,2000,6:226-245.
Yolasigmaz H A. The concept and the implementation of forest ecosystem management(a case study ofArtvin Planning Uint). PhD thesis,2004.
Zhou W, Gong P. Economic effects of environmental concerns in forest management:An analysis of the cost of achieving environmental goals. Journal of Forest Economics,2004:10,96-113.
陈灵芝.中国植被类型多样性及其保护对策.生物多样性研究进展:中国科学技术出版社，1995,12:295-302.
陈灵芝.中国的生物多样性—现状与保护对策.北京科学出版社,1993.35-89.
陈桢.遗传算法在森林收获调整中的应用以及软件的研究.福建农林大学硕士学位论文.2007,30~44.
陈雄文,王凤友.林窗模型BKPF模拟伊春地区红松针阔叶混交林采伐迹地对气候变化的潜在反应.应用生态学报,2000,11(4):513-516.
丁宝永,1989.落叶松人工林群落生物生产力的研究.植物生态学与植物学学报,4(3):225-235.
董希斌.采伐强度对林分蓄积生长量的影响.东北林业大学学报,2001a,29(1):44-46.
董希斌.采伐强度对林分蓄积生长量的影响.东北林业大学学报,2001b,29(2):35-36.
樊后保,王义弘.不同光照条件下蒙古栎物候期及树高生长节律的研究.福建林学院学报,1992,5(02):23-25.
樊后保,李燕燕,苏兵强,等.马尾松-阔叶树混交异龄林生物量与生产力分配.生态学报,2006,26(8):2463-2473.
方精云,陈安平.中国森林植被碳库的动态变化及其意义.植物学报,2001,43(9):966-973.
方精云,朴世龙,赵淑清. CO2失汇与北半球中高纬度陆地生态系统的碳汇.植物生态学报,2001,25:594-602.
冯宗炜.亚热带天然阔叶林生态系统营养积累.植物生态学,1985,9(4):245-254.
方燕鸿.米槠、甜槠常绿阔叶林的物种组成及多样性分析.物种多样性,2005(02):11-14.
周锦北.目标树择伐林经营技术.造林与经营,2011,9:11-13.
傅校平.杉木人工林不同择伐强度对林分生物量的影响.福建林业科技,2000,27(2):41-43.
郝云庆,王金锡,王启和.柳杉人工林近自然改造过程中林分空间结构变化.四川农业大学学报,2008,3(1):47-52.
侯向阳,韩进轩.长白山红松林主要树种空间格局的模拟分析.植物生态学报,1997,21(3)；242-249.
胡云云,闵志强,高延.择伐对天然云冷杉林林分生长和结构的影响.林业科学,2011,47(2):15-24
黄清麟.亚热带天然阔叶林经营中的五大误区.世界林业研究,1998,11(4):3l-3.
黄清麟,李元红,黄宗杰.福建省天然阔叶林经营现状及对策.福建林学院学报,1991，l1(4):443-447.
黄清麟,李元红.中亚热带天然阔叶林研究综述.福建林学院学报,1999,19(2):189-192.
黄清麟,李元红.一代与二代人健闽粤栲林分特征对比评价.福建林学院学报,1999.18(3):224-227．
黄清麟.中亚热带天然阔叶林可持续经营技术研究.北京;北京林业大学,1998．
黄清麟,郑群瑞,戎建涛,卓鸣秀等.福建中亚热带天然阔叶用材林择伐技术I.基于树种特征的目标树种清单.山地学报,2012,3(2):180-185.
惠刚盈等.结构化森林经营技术指南.中国林业出版社,2006.
惠刚盈,Klaus V G, MatthiasA.角尺度-一个描述林木个体分布格局的结构参数.林业科学,1999,35(1):36-42.
简晓丹,李晓华,刘永敏等.低强度择伐经营技术.北京:中国林业出版社,2006:25-87.
李春明,杜纪山,张会儒.抚育采伐对森林生长的影响极其模型研究.林业科学研究,2003,16(5):635-641.
李法胜,于政中,亢新刚.检查法林分生长预测及择伐模型研究.林业科学,1993,30(6):531-539.
李文华,李飞.中国森林资源研究.北京:中国林业出版社,1995.
李晓娜,国庆喜,王兴昌等.东北天然次生林下舒总生物量的相对生长.东北林业大学学报,2010,46(8):23-32.
李小玲,刘标.福建青冈林林分特征研究.福建林学院学报,2011(03):35-40.
周平惠.福建三明米槠群落林分结构特征研究.福建林学院学报,2007,(08):30-34.
刘昌鹤.浅析用层次分析法评估体育教师教学质量的探讨.北京师范大学,2005.
刘昉勋,邓懋宾等.论江苏省三个植被带的特征及其分解问题.植物生物学,1964,2(2):93-99.
刘慎愕等.关于中国植被区划的若干原则问题.植物学报,1959,8(2):50-59.
刘世荣,柴一新，蔡体久等.兴安落叶松人工群落生物量与净初级生产力的研究.东北林业大学学报,1990,18(2):40-45.
刘新宪,朱道立.选择与判断：AHP（层次分析法）决策.上海科学普及出版社,1990,2.
刘宪钊,陆元昌,周燕华等.加勒比松人工林近自然改造中的发展类型设计.南京林业大学学报(自然
科学版),2009,3(5):20-26.
刘智慧.四川省缙云山栲树种群结构和生态的初步研究.植物生态学报,1990(02):36-41.
陆元昌,雷相东,洪玲霞等.近自然森林经理计划体系技术应用示范.西南林学院学报2010(02):33-37.
陆元昌.近自然森林经营理论与时间[M].2006,北京:科学出版社.
罗菊春,王庆锁,牟长城.干扰对天然红松林植物多样性的研究.林业科学,1997,33(6):497-503.
孟春,王立海.小兴安岭天然次生林经营模拟与评价.东北林业大学学报,2005,06:42-46.
宁金魁,陆元昌.北京西山地区油松林人工近自然化改造效果评价.东北林业大学学报,2009(07):6-13.
钱崇澎等.中国植被区划草案.科学出版社,1957.
宋富年,周春城.优化择伐提高林地经济效益的研究.林业科学,1994,19(5):50-52.
汤景明,翟明普.影响天然树种更新因素的研究进展.福建林学院学报,2005,25(4):379-383.
汤孟平.森林空间结构分析与优化经营模型研究.北京林业大学,2003.
汤孟平,唐守正,雷相东.林分择伐空间结构优化模型研究.林业科学,2004,40(5):25-31.
汤孟平,陈永刚,施拥军等.基于Voronoi图的群落优势树种种内种间竞争.生态学报,2007,11(11):4706-4715.
唐守正.东北天然林生态采伐更新技术研究.北京:中国科学技术出版社,2005:546-553.
唐守正,杜纪山.利用树冠竞争因子确定同龄择伐林分的断面积生长过程.林业科学,1999,35(6):35-41
王伯荪,余世孝.植物群落学实验手册.广东高等教育出版社.1995.
王飞,代力民,邵国凡.非线性状态方程模拟异龄林径阶动态-以长白山阔叶红松林为例.生态学杂志,2004,23(5):101-105.
王国良.不同采集作业措施对马尾松幼林生长的影响.林业科技开发.2000,14(4):21-23.
王效科,冯宗炜.中国森林生态系统中植物固定大气碳的潜力.生态学杂志,2000,19(4):72-74.
王小平.北京近自然森林经营技术指南.中国林业出版社,2007.
王铮峰,安树青,朱学雷.热带森林乔木种群分布格局及其研究方法的比较.应用生态学报,1998,9(6):575-580.
温远光等.不同采伐方式对常绿阔叶林物种多样性保持与恢复的影响.生物多样性研究进展:中国科学技术出版社,1995,12:354-362.
吴承桢,洪伟,廖金兰.马尾松幼中龄林种内竞争的研究.福建林学院学报,1997,17(4):289-292.
吴冬生.阔叶林人工促进天然更新技术及推广.林业科技开发,1997(2):14-15.
吴际友,龙应忠,董云平.湿地松人工林择伐效果初步研究.林业科学研究,2009,2(3):33-35.
邬可义.中德法专家“会诊”中国东北地区的森林经营.世界林业动态,2009,(9):3-11.
吴征镒等.中国植被,科学出版社,1980.
向玮,雷相东,洪玲霞,孙建军等.落叶松云冷杉林矩阵生长模型多目标经营模拟.林业科学.2011,47(6):77-86.
熊利民,钟章成,李旭光.亚热带常绿阔叶树不同演替阶段土壤种子库的初步研究.植物生物生态学报,1992(03):55-60.
熊文愈,骆林川.琅琊山森林群落演替及其经营利用.南京林业大学学报,1989(3):42-46.
修勤绪,陆元昌,曹旭平等.目标树林分作业对黄土高原油松人工林天然更新的影响.西南林学院学报,2009,29(2):13-19.
许炼烽.热带次生林利用与土壤物理性质变化.生态学报,1996,16(6):652-659.
徐六一,虞木奎.湿地松人工林择伐效应的研究.安徽农业大学学报.2001,28(4):416-421.
游水生.南平珍稀植物分析及其保护.福建林学院学报,1992(02):31-35.
于政中,亢新刚,李法胜,等.检查法第一经理期研究.林业科学,1996,32(1):24-34.
臧润国,刘涛.吉林白石山区过伐林的类型、乔木树种多样性及生态位分析.北京林业大学学报,1997,19(1):51-57.
张宏达.海南植被类型区系划分.1954.
张会儒,汤孟平,舒清态.森林生态采伐的理论与实践.北京:中国林业出版社,2006:1-7.
张思玉,郑世群.笔架山常绿阔叶林优势种群种内种间竞争的数量研究.林业科学,2001,37(1):185-187.
赵秀海,范秀华.拖拉机对集材道土壤及苗木生长影响的研究.林业科学,1994,30(2):157-165.
赵秀海.长白山红松针阔混交林倒木对天然更新的影响.吉林林学院学报,1996,12(1):1-4.
郑丽凤,周新年.红松阔叶混交林林分空间结构分析.热带亚热带植物学报,2006,14(4):275-280.
章浩白.福建森林.中国林业出版社,1993.
钟章成.常绿阔叶林生态学研究.重庆:西南师范大学出版社,1987.1l7.
中国科学院南方山区综合科考队.中国亚热带东部丘陵山区典型地区自然资源开发利用研究.北京:科学出版社.1989.
曾慧卿,刘琪璟,冯宗炜等.基于冠幅和植株高度的灌木生物量回归方程.南京林业大学学报,2006,30(4):101-104.
周新年,邱仁辉.不同采伐、集材作业队林地土壤理化性质影响的研究.林业科学,1998,34(3):17-25.
朱万红,何阳,付成群.一种基于权向量的组合赋值法求群权向量的方法.解放军理工大学学
报,2003,06(9):51-56.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |