Ecological Benefit Evaluation of Different Types of Artificial Forests in Loess Stone Mountain Area of Northern Shaanxi

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0104

Abstract

Abstract:

This study focused on four typical plantation types (Platycladus orientalis forest, Pinus tabuliformis- Amorpha fruticosa forest, Ziziphus jujuba forest, and Pinus tabuliformis- Rhus typhina forest) in the loess stone mountain area of northern Shaanxi. Their ecological benefits were comprehensively evaluated and a multi-dimensional ecological benefit evaluation system was constructed through community surveys, soil physicochemical property measurements, plant physiological index analyses, diversity index calculations, and using the entropy-weighted TOPSIS method. The results showed that the number of species in Platycladus orientalis forest and Pinus tabuliformis- A. fruticosa forest was 20, which was higher than that in Z. jujuba forest, and Pinus tabuliformis- R. typhina forest, while Pinus tabuliformis- R. typhina forest exhibited significantly higher Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Simpson dominance index, and Pielou evenness index in its tree and shrub layers than other 3 types of forest. However, there were no significant differences in herbaceous layer community characteristic indices among the 4 plantations. The total phosphorus content in the soil of Pinus tabuliformis- R. typhina forest was significantly higher than that in other 3 types of forest. The total potassium content in the soil of Platycladus orientalis forest and Pinus tabuliformis- R. typhina forest was significantly higher than that in the Pinus tabuliformis- A. fruticosa forest and Z. jujuba forest, while the available potassium content was significantly lower than that in the latter 2 forests. The leaves photosynthetic capacity of the broadleaf trees (Z. jujuba and R. typhina) was significantly higher than that of the coniferous tree (Pinus tabuliformis and Platycladus orientalis), while the leaf water content was significantly lower than that of the coniferous tree. Comprehensive analysis revealed that soil physicochemical properties and the physiological state of dominant tree species significantly influenced understory vegetation community composition. The comprehensive ecological benefit evaluation ranked the four plantations in descending order as follows: Pinus tabuliformis- R. typhina forest, Pinus tabuliformis- A. fruticosa forest, Z. jujuba forest, and Platycladus orientalis forest. The study confirmed that the coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest improved community stability and soil nutrient supply capacity through niche complementarity, which was more suitable for ecological restoration along the loess stone mountain area in northern Shaanxi, and the mixed forest of Pinus tabuliformis and R. typhina could be promoted as a preferred model.

Key words: loess stone mountain area, plantation types, vegetation restoration, soil environment, species diversity, entropy-weighted TOPSIS method, ecological benefits, community diversity, soil physical and chemical properties, chlorophyll fluorescence

CHEN Zhenhong, LYU Ni, CAO Dongping, LIU Yajuan, WANG Peng, XUE Ruizhe, HAN Xia, XU Weizhou, TIAN Xianglin, CHEN Shujun. Ecological Benefit Evaluation of Different Types of Artificial Forests in Loess Stone Mountain Area of Northern Shaanxi[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(12): 70-79.

Figures/Tables 11

References 33

[1]	WANG J, ZHAO W W, ZHANG X, et al. Effects of reforestation on plant species diversity on the Loess Plateau of China: A case study in Danangou catchment[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 651(1):979-989. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.266 URL
[2]	罗毓明, 谭向平, 邹晓君, 等. 我国南方4种常见人工林林下植物多样性特征及影响因素[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2022, 30(1):1-10.
[3]	ZENG G, YE M, LI M, et al. The relationships between plant community stability and diversity across different grassland types and their association with environmental factors in the Habahe Forest Area, Xinjiang[J]. Diversity, 2024, 16(8).
[4]	SCHELLER R M, MLADENOFF D J. Understory species patterns and diversity in old-growth and managed northern hardwood forests[J]. Ecological applications, 2002, 12(5):1329-1343. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1329:USPADI]2.0.CO;2 URL
[5]	曲红. 晋西黄土高原人工林营造对植物多样性的影响[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2008.
[6]	崔宁洁, 刘洋, 张健, 等. 林窗对马尾松人工林植物多样性的影响[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2014, 20(1):8-14.
[7]	郭钰, 姚佳峰, 董媛, 等. 油松和刺槐纯林及混交林根系分布特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(11):2881-2888. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202311.008
[8]	吴艳霞, 魏志斌, 王爱琼. 基于DPSIR模型的黄河流域生态安全评价及影响因素研究[J]. 水土保持通报, 2022, 42(6):322-331.
[9]	de ANDRÉS E G. Interactions between climate and nutrient cycles on forest response to global change: The role of mixed forests[J]. Forests, 2019, 10(8):609. doi: 10.3390/f10080609 URL
[10]	张锡唐, 石长春, 高荣, 等. 沿黄土石山区几种针叶树造林生长情况研究[J]. 防护林科技, 2023,(1):10-12.
[11]	MAO R, SONG J, TANG B, et al. Vegetation variation regulates soil moisture sensitivity to climate change on the Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of hydrology, 2023, 617(C):128763.
[12]	于立忠, 朱教君, 孔祥文, 等. 人为干扰(间伐)对红松人工林林下植物多样性的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2006, 26(11):3757-3764.
[13]	MANI S, CAO M. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in leaf litter and soil in Xishuangbanna tropical forests: Does precipitation limitation matter?[J]. Forests, 2019, 10(3):242. doi: 10.3390/f10030242 URL
[14]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:25-114.
[15]	李睿, 邹星晨, 程唱, 等. 青海东部天然次生白桦林林分结构和土壤养分对草本植物多样性的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2025, 42(1):153-162.
[16]	黄运腾, 钱志军, 曹晟烜, 等. 闽东海岛台湾相思人工林群落物种多样性和功能多样性特征及其影响因子[J]. 生态学报, 2025, 45(11):1-14.
[17]	LIU B, LIAO C, CHANG Y. Changing dynamic of tree species composition and diversity: a case study of secondary forests in Northern China in response to climate change[J]. Forests, 2024, 15(2):17. doi: 10.3390/f15010017 URL
[18]	宫正. 黄土高原森林林下植被物种多样性及其影响因素[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2025, 53(2):66-74.
[19]	李洁. 不同密度下柏木人工林林分空间结构与林下植物多样性的关系[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2024.
[20]	宋春阳, 佘维维, 郭焱培, 等. 毛乌素沙地植被恢复过程中物种多样性与功能多样性的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2025, 45(13):6331-6348.
[21]	VILLAGRA M, TRENTINI C P, et al. di FRANCESCANTONIO D, Disturbance as a driver of trait assembly in liana communities in a semi-deciduous Atlantic forest[J]. Plant ecology, 2021, 222:773-790. doi: 10.1007/s11258-021-01142-4
[22]	MENG X, FAN S, DONG L, et al. Response of understory plant diversity to soil physical and chemical properties in urban forests in Beijing, China[J]. Forests, 2023, 14(3): 571. doi: 10.3390/f14030571 URL
[23]	李浩, 何静, 王理德, 等. 祁连山东段高寒草地修复过程中植被物种多样性及土壤理化性质[J]. 水土保持研究, 2025, 32(1):110-120.
[24]	邓子易. 不同沙棘品种人工林光合、生长特征及其林地土壤性质研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2024.
[25]	柴春山, 王子婷, 张洋东, 等. 陇中半干旱黄土丘陵区土壤养分空间分布特征[J]. 林业资源管理, 2021, 4:114-120.
[26]	WEVERKA J, RUNTE G C, PORZIG E L, et al. Exploring plant and soil microbial communities as indicators of soil organic carbon in a California rangeland[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2023, 178:108952.
[27]	PENG J L, MA F F, TIAN D S, et al. Plant C:N ratio predicts community composition changes under N addition in an alpine meadow[J]. Journal of ecology, 2022, 111(3):589-600. doi: 10.1111/jec.v111.3 URL
[28]	韦建杏, 陈海辉, 农寿千, 等. 海南中部丘陵区3种人工林林下植物物种多样性及其与土壤养分的关系[J]. 南方农业学报, 2023, 54(12):3641-3649.
[29]	王树梅, 庞元湘, 宋爱云, 等. 基于林龄的滨海盐碱地杨树刺槐混交林土壤理化性质及草本植物多样性动态[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(18):6539-6548.
[30]	QIN F, YANG F, MING A, et al. Mixture enhances microbial network complexity of soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in eucalyptus plantations[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2024, 553:121632.
[31]	刘海涛. 高寒沙地乌柳林生理生态特性及植被恢复过程研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2012.
[32]	祁小旭, 王红岩, 林峰, 等. 黄顶菊对入侵地群落动态及植物生长生理特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(12):4463-4477.
[33]	杨凯博, 张瑞琦, 王进鑫, 等. 渭北黄土高原不同类型人工林的生态效益评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2024, 38(1):357-367.

林分类型	地理坐标	海拔/m	林龄/a	林分密度/(株/hm²)	地貌	林地主要植物
侧柏林	110°44′E、37°40′N	758	30	1208	梁峁坡地	侧柏、河朔荛花、白莲蒿
枣林	110°46′E、37°39′N	665.7	40	500	河川地	枣树、酸枣、糙隐子草
油松-紫穗槐混交林	110°47′E、37°34′N	830	20	1000	梁峁坡地	油松、紫穗槐、白羊草
油松-火炬混交林	110°30′E、38°12′N	784	11	1917	沟坡地	油松、火炬树、杠柳、阿尔泰狗娃花

林分类型	地理坐标	海拔/m	林龄/a	林分密度/(株/hm²)	地貌	林地主要植物
侧柏林	110°44′E、37°40′N	758	30	1208	梁峁坡地	侧柏、河朔荛花、白莲蒿
枣林	110°46′E、37°39′N	665.7	40	500	河川地	枣树、酸枣、糙隐子草
油松-紫穗槐混交林	110°47′E、37°34′N	830	20	1000	梁峁坡地	油松、紫穗槐、白羊草
油松-火炬混交林	110°30′E、38°12′N	784	11	1917	沟坡地	油松、火炬树、杠柳、阿尔泰狗娃花

植物群落	生活型	物种	科属	相对密度	相对频度	相对盖度	重要值
侧柏-河朔荛花-白莲蒿	乔木	侧柏	柏科侧柏属	98	93	93	95
	乔木	杨树	杨柳科杨属	2	7	7	5
	灌木	河朔荛花	菊科荛花属	63	57	15	45
		柠条	豆科锦鸡儿属	6	15	1	7
		红花锦鸡儿	豆科锦鸡儿属	13	9	5	9
		酸枣	鼠李科枣属	4	7	0	4
	草本	白莲蒿	菊科蒿属	29	26	29	26
		白羊草	禾本科羊草属	22	29	26	12
		胡枝子	豆科胡枝子属	10	13	13	7
		委陵菜	蔷薇科委陵菜属	9	5	8	7
		中华卷柏	卷柏科卷柏属	7	8	5	5
		甘菊	菊科菊属	4	5	5	3
		阿尔泰狗娃花	菊科狗娃花属	2	3	3	3
		米口袋	豆科米口袋属	4	2	3	3
		草木犀	豆科草木犀属	3	3	2	2
		糙隐子草	禾本科隐子草属	3	2	2	1
		芽菜	十字花科芸薹属	2	1	1	1
		地椒	唇形科百里香属	1	1	1	1
		柴胡	伞形科柴胡属	1	1	1	1
		菫菜	堇菜科堇菜属	1	1	1	95

植物群落	生活型	物种	科属	相对密度	相对频度	相对盖度	重要值
侧柏-河朔荛花-白莲蒿	乔木	侧柏	柏科侧柏属	98	93	93	95
	乔木	杨树	杨柳科杨属	2	7	7	5
	灌木	河朔荛花	菊科荛花属	63	57	15	45
		柠条	豆科锦鸡儿属	6	15	1	7
		红花锦鸡儿	豆科锦鸡儿属	13	9	5	9
		酸枣	鼠李科枣属	4	7	0	4
	草本	白莲蒿	菊科蒿属	29	26	29	26
		白羊草	禾本科羊草属	22	29	26	12
		胡枝子	豆科胡枝子属	10	13	13	7
		委陵菜	蔷薇科委陵菜属	9	5	8	7
		中华卷柏	卷柏科卷柏属	7	8	5	5
		甘菊	菊科菊属	4	5	5	3
		阿尔泰狗娃花	菊科狗娃花属	2	3	3	3
		米口袋	豆科米口袋属	4	2	3	3
		草木犀	豆科草木犀属	3	3	2	2
		糙隐子草	禾本科隐子草属	3	2	2	1
		芽菜	十字花科芸薹属	2	1	1	1
		地椒	唇形科百里香属	1	1	1	1
		柴胡	伞形科柴胡属	1	1	1	1
		菫菜	堇菜科堇菜属	1	1	1	95

植物群落	生活型	物种	科属	相对密度	相对频度	相对盖度	重要值
油松-紫穗槐-白羊草	乔木	油松	松科松属	92.59	75.00	97.32	88.31
	乔木	侧柏	柏科侧柏属	7.41	2.68	8.33	6.14
	灌木	柠条	豆科锦鸡儿属	6.13	4.47	0.08	5.73
		紫穗槐	豆科紫穗槐属	60.00	51.53	18.27	59.20
		河朔荛花	瑞香科荛花属	16.53	7.13	1.11	12.00
		灌木铁线莲	毛茛科铁线莲属	0.51	0.67	0.22	0.84
		酸枣	鼠李科枣属	10.13	6.00	0.33	7.80
	草本	白莲蒿	菊科蒿属	8.47	8.22	5.13	7.27
		白羊草	禾本科羊草属	30.24	29.53	27.00	28.92
		刺儿菜	菊科蓟属	4.24	4.54	1.47	3.41
		胡枝子	豆科胡枝子属	17.18	27.14	10.60	18.31
		糙隐子草	禾本科隐子草属	11.96	10.68	15.00	12.56
		菫菜	堇菜科堇菜属	5.27	5.41	3.20	4.62
		米口袋	豆科米口袋属	1.67	0.67	5.95	2.76
		狗尾草	禾本科狗尾草属	0.67	0.67	0.11	0.48
		阿尔泰狗娃花	菊科紫菀属	9.62	6.93	19.60	12.05
		白茅	禾本科白茅属	1.33	0.67	0.23	0.74
		委陵菜	蔷薇科委陵菜属	0.44	0.56	0.89	0.63
		车前	车前科车前属	4.17	0.56	2.05	2.26
		铁线莲	毛茛科铁线莲属	4.74	4.44	8.73	5.98