Response of Natural Regeneration of Pinus massoniana and Quercus variabilis Mixed Forest to Thinning Intensity and Environmental Factors

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.02.020

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on target tree management, the effects of different thinning intensities and environmental factors on the natural regeneration of a Pinus massoniana and Quercus variabilis mixed forest were explored in order to provide a theoretical basis for the natural regeneration and sustainable forest management of P. massoniana and Quercus L. mixed forests. Taking the mixed forest after thinning as the research object, three average thinning intensities of WT (7.6%) for weak thinning, LT (15.3%) for light thinning, and MT (24.3%) for moderate thinning were carried out in 5 m×5 m quadrats with 7-10 replicates for each intensity level and 3 replicates for the control. Three years after the thinning, the amount of natural regeneration, growth height, regeneration density, diversity of regenerated tree species and their influencing factors at different thinning intensities were measured and analyzed. The results indicated four main features of the subsequent regeneration. (1) There were 32 species of vascular plants in the 28 quadrats 3 years after thinning, belonging to 22 families and 30 genera, and the dominant species for regeneration were arbor species. The number of regeneration species increased with increasing thinning intensity. (2) As thinning intensity increased, the number of natural regeneration plants between various height classes rose; so, the increased thinning intensity promoted the density of different height classes during regeneration. (3) As thinning intensity increased, so did species abundance S and species evenness. The degree and intrinsic diversity increased, while the Shannon-Weiner and Simpson indices showed no discernible trends. (4) Slope, aspect, and slope position, as well as thinning intensity, all had significant impacts on species richness, species evenness, and regeneration density. MT has the most appropriate promoting effect on natural regeneration and species diversity, so increased thinning intensity can promote natural regeneration and species diversity in the P. massoniana and Q. variabilis mixed forest. In addition, aspect and slope position can increase the species richness S and diversity of natural regeneration, whereas slope has a clear inhibitory effect on the species richness S and diversity during natural regeneration.

Key words: thinning intensity, mixed stand of Pinus massoniana and Quercus variabili, natural regeneration, environmental factors, regeneration diversity

GUO Shiyu, SONG Dekai, XU Zijing, CHEN Shiyun, CHEN Zeyan, DU Peng, WANG Yang. Response of Natural Regeneration of Pinus massoniana and Quercus variabilis Mixed Forest to Thinning Intensity and Environmental Factors[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2023, 14(2): 423-432.

Figures/Tables 8

References 41

[1]	Adams V M, Marsh D M, Knox J S. 2005. Importance of the seed bank for population viability and population monitoring in a threatened wetland herb. Biological Conservation, 124: 425-436.
[2]	Bellow J G, Nair P. 2003. Comparing common methods for assessing understory light availability in shaded-perennial agroforestry systems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 114(3/4): 197-211.
[3]	Cantón Y, Barrio G D, Solé-Benet A, et al. 2004. Topographic controls on the spatial distribution of ground cover in the Tabernas badlands of SE Spain. CATENA, 55(3): 341-365.
[4]	Cao H, Zhang C Y, Gong X F, et al. 2021. Effect of target tree management in subtropical secondary evergreen broad-leaved forest. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry of Sciences and Technology, 41(4): 15-23. (in Chinese)
[5]	Caughlin T T, Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C. 2018. Demographic costs and benefits of natural regeneration during tropical forest restoration. Ecology Letters, 22(1): 34-44.
[6]	Chazdon R L, Guariguata M R. 2016. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: Prospects and challenges. Biotropica, 48(6): 716-730.
[7]	Connell J H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science, 199(4335): 1302-1310.
[8]	Deng S K, Liao S S, Huang B H, et al. 2013. Natural regeneration and its influencing factors of Castanopsis hystrix plantation at Pingxiang, Guangxi. Guangxi Forestry Science, 42(1): 48-51, 60. (in Chinese)
[9]	Dong L L, Zhao J C, Wang C C, et al. 2019. Study on diameter structure and growth dynamics of mixed Quercus mongolica broad-leaved natural stands after tending thinning. Journal of Southwest Forestry University, 39(6): 98-104. (in Chinese)
[10]	Fischer H, Huth F, Hagemann U, et al. 2016. Developing restoration strategies for temperate forests using natural regeneration processes. In: Stanturf J A(Restoration of boreal and temperate forests(second edition). Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press:103-164.
[11]	Gavinet J, Prévosto B, Femandez C. 2016. Do shrubs facilitate oak seedling establishment in Mediterranean pine forest understory? Forest Ecology and Management, 381: 289-296.
[12]	Gong G T, Niu M, Mu C L, et al. 2015. Impacts of different thinning intensities on growth of Cupressus funebris plantation and understory plants. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 51(4): 8-15. (in Chinese)
[13]	Guo S Y, Forster H, Chen X L. 2021a. Target tree management: German experience and Hubei practices. World Forestry Research, 34(2): 14-20. (in Chinese)
[14]	Guo S Y, Zhou X L, Shi L Z, et al. 2021b. Effectiveness of close-to-nature forest management in Bavaria of Germany. Forest Inventory and Planning, 46(1): 129-134. (in Chinese)
[15]	Hari P. 2021. Implications of anthropogenic disturbances for species diversity, recruitment and carbon density in the mid-hills forests of Nepal. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 12(1): 1-10.
[16]	Hosseinzadeh R, Soosani J, Alijani V, et al. 2016. Diversity of woody plant species and their relationship to physiographic factors in central Zagros forests (Case study: Perc forest, Khorramabad, Iran). Journal of Forestry Research, 27(5): 1137-1141.
[17]	Hurlbert S H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology, 52: 577-586.
[18]	Hutchinson T F, Boerner R E J, Iverson L R, et al. 1999. Landscape patterns of understory composition and richness across a moisture and nitrogen mineralization gradient in Ohio (USA) Quercus forests. Plant Ecology, 144: 177-189.
[19]	Peterson J E, Baldwin A H. 2004. Seedling emergence from seed banks of tidal fresh water wetlands: Response to inundation and sedimentation. Aquatic Botany, 78: 243-254.
[20]	Lei X D, Tang S Z. 2002. Community intrinsic diversity ordering and its application. Forest Research, 15(3): 285-290. (in Chinese)
[21]	Li R, Zhang W H, He J F, et al. 2011. Effect of thinning on natural regeneration and growth of Quercus wutaishanica saplings. Journal of Northwest A&F University(Natural Science Edition), 39(1): 52-60. (in Chinese)
[22]	Li Y Y, Tsang E P K, Cui M Y, et al. 2012. Too early to call it success: An evaluation of the natural regeneration of the endangered Metasequoia glyptostroboides. Biological Conservation, 150(1): 1-4.
[23]	Liu L, Cai M K, Liu X, et al. 2019. Effects of thinning on ecological stoichiometry C, N and P in leaves, roots and soil of Larix principis-rupprechtii plantation. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 47(8): 1-7. (in Chinese)
[24]	Lu Y C, Zhang W H, Lu Y C. 2006. Effects of different management practices on population structure and dynamics of Quercus liaotungensis. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 26(7): 1407-1413. (in Chinese)
[25]	Olson M G, Meyer S R, Wagner R G, et al. 2014. Commercial thinning stimulates natural regeneration in spruce-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(3): 173-181.
[26]	Ou Y D, Su Z Y, Li Z K, et al. 2011. Effects of topographic factors on the distribution patterns of ground plants with different growth forms in montane forests in North Guangdong, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 22(5): 1107-1113. (in Chinese)
[27]	Patil G P, Taillie C. 1982. Diversity as a concept and its measurement. Journal of American Statistical Association, 77(379): 548-561.
[28]	Piiroinen T, Valtonen A, Roiniene H. 2017. The seed-to-seedling transition is limited by ground vegetation and vertebrate herbivores in a selectively logged rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 384: 137-146.
[29]	Rocha G P E, Vieira D L M, Simon M F. 2016. Fast natural regeneration in abandoned pastures in southern Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 370: 93-101.
[30]	Sweson N G, Aaglada-Cordero P, Barone J A. 2011. Deterministic tropical tree community turnover: Evidence from patterns of functional beta diversity along all elevational gradient. Biological Sciences, 278(1707): 877-884.
[31]	Tang S Z, Lang J K, Li H S. 2009. Forestry statistics. Beijing, China: Science Press: 447-457. (in Chinese)
[32]	Wang R H, Ge X M, Tang L H. 2014. A review of diversity, biomass and nutrient effect of understory vegetation. World Forestry Research, 27(1): 43-48. (in Chinese)
[33]	Wei A R, Zhang Y Q, Tan L Z, et al. 2019. Effects of tending felling on stand structure and species diversity of mixed coniferous and broadleaved forest, Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 41(5): 148-158. (in Chinese)
[34]	Wen P Y, Jin G Z. 2019. Effects of topography on species diversity in a typical mixed broadleaved-Korean pine forest. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(3): 945-956. (in Chinese)
[35]	Xiao Z L, Jing S H, Liang G Z, et al. 2019. Natural population distribution pattern of Pinus mossoniana in Dayan Nature Reserve of Yuan’an County. Journal of Hunan Ecological Science, 6(2): 20-26. (in Chinese)
[36]	Xu X W, Xu X H, Luo Z J, et al. 2021. Occurrence and control of pine wood nematode disease in Hubei. Hubei Forestry Science and Technology, 50(2): 54-59. (in Chinese)
[37]	Yan D F, Ma R T, Yang Q P, et al. 2019. Effect of thinning intensity on seedling regeneration characteristics in natural secondary oak forests. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 53(2): 187-192. (in Chinese)
[38]	Yang X Y. 2005. Preliminary discussion on closing-to-nature treatment of China’s man-made forest. Central China Forest Inventory and Planning, 24(4): 7-9. (in Chinese)
[39]	Zhang X H, Zhang H R, Lu J, et al. 2020. Early effects of crop tree release tending on growth of natural secondary Quercus mongolica forest. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 56(10): 83-92. (in Chinese)
[40]	Zhang X P, Wang D X, Zhang P, et al. 2017. Effects of thinning on the diversity of undergrowth of Pinus armandii plantation in Xiaolong Mountainous region. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 32(2): 37-42. (in Chinese)
[41]	Zheng J K, Wei T X, Zheng L K, et al. 2009. Effects of landforms on α biodiversity in slope scale. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 18(6): 2254-2259. (in Chinese)

Thinning intensity	Quadrat No.	Composition of trees	Aspect	Slope (°)	Slope position	DBH (cm)	Tree height (m)	Canopy density	Stand density after thinning (plants ha^-1)
WT	1	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	up	13.00±3.72	10.67±1.22	0.82	1577
	2	Pm: Qv :Cf (6:3:1)	NW	7.5	middle	13.36±5.06	11.04±1.21	0.84	1535
	3	Pm: Qv: Cf: Ic (4: 4:1:1)	S	6.5	middle	12.96±5.18	10.54±1.23	0.84	1395
	4	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	SE	5	down	15.14±4.56	12.22±1.24	0.85	1231
	5	Pm: Qv (7:3)	NW	5	down	15.38±4.75	12.56±1.22	0.81	1382
	6	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	middle	17.33±6.98	12.86±1.35	0.79	1425
	7	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	S	10	down	15.56±4.59	12.66±1.23	0.80	1580
	8	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	down	14.00±4.12	11.49±1.22	0.82	1635
LT	9	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	NE	9.5	down	14.67±4.37	11.94±1.23	0.72	1055
	10	Pm: Qv: Cf: Ic (6:2:1:1)	SE	4.5	middle	14.06±4.83	11.82±1.19	0.75	1266
	11	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:2:2)	S	4.5	down	16.67±7.59	13.23±1.26	0.75	1302
	12	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	SE	5	down	15.45±6.05	12.17±1.27	0.65	972
	13	Pm: Qv: (7:3)	S	4.5	middle	14.91±4.43	11.93±1.25	0.75	1569
	14	Pm: Qv (7:3)	SW	6.5	middle	14.41±4.97	12.02±1.20	0.79	1302
	15	Pm: Qv: Cf (8:1:1)	E	15.5	down	15.55±4.52	12.08±1.29	0.77	1149
MT	16	Pm: Qv (8:2)	N	15.5	down	17.45±4.29	13.22±1.32	0.71	935
	17	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	N	11	down	14.26±4.16	11.42±1.25	0.80	1181
	18	Pm: Qv (7:3)	N	15.5	down	14.92±4.81	11.84±1.26	0.70	956
	19	Pm: Qv (8:2)	E	9.5	down	14.70±4.54	11.77±1.25	0.60	680
	20	Pm: Qv (9:1)	S	5	up	17.57±5.56	13.11±1.34	0.71	971
	21	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	W	10	down	15.92±7.12	12.44±1.28	0.68	818
	22	Pm: Qv (9:1)	E	6.5	up	15.71±3.39	12.60±1.25	0.60	649
	23	Pm: Qv (8:2)	S	11	middle	17.72±6.36	13.32±1.33	0.75	894
	24	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	W	9.5	up	15.43±4.78	11.96±1.29	0.65	726
	25	Pm: Qv (8:2)	SE	8.5	up	18.09±7.64	13.11±1.38	0.65	793
CK	26	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	E	10	middle	12.65±6.10	11.307±1.12	0.92	2121
	27	Pm: Qv: Cf: Pc (2:6:1:1)	E	12.5	middle	11.31±4.45	12.64±1.06	0.90	1661
	28	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	13.5	down	12.84±4.48	11.27±1.14	0.90	2052

Thinning intensity	Quadrat No.	Composition of trees	Aspect	Slope (°)	Slope position	DBH (cm)	Tree height (m)	Canopy density	Stand density after thinning (plants ha^-1)
WT	1	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	up	13.00±3.72	10.67±1.22	0.82	1577
	2	Pm: Qv :Cf (6:3:1)	NW	7.5	middle	13.36±5.06	11.04±1.21	0.84	1535
	3	Pm: Qv: Cf: Ic (4: 4:1:1)	S	6.5	middle	12.96±5.18	10.54±1.23	0.84	1395
	4	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	SE	5	down	15.14±4.56	12.22±1.24	0.85	1231
	5	Pm: Qv (7:3)	NW	5	down	15.38±4.75	12.56±1.22	0.81	1382
	6	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	middle	17.33±6.98	12.86±1.35	0.79	1425
	7	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	S	10	down	15.56±4.59	12.66±1.23	0.80	1580
	8	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	6	down	14.00±4.12	11.49±1.22	0.82	1635
LT	9	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	NE	9.5	down	14.67±4.37	11.94±1.23	0.72	1055
	10	Pm: Qv: Cf: Ic (6:2:1:1)	SE	4.5	middle	14.06±4.83	11.82±1.19	0.75	1266
	11	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:2:2)	S	4.5	down	16.67±7.59	13.23±1.26	0.75	1302
	12	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	SE	5	down	15.45±6.05	12.17±1.27	0.65	972
	13	Pm: Qv: (7:3)	S	4.5	middle	14.91±4.43	11.93±1.25	0.75	1569
	14	Pm: Qv (7:3)	SW	6.5	middle	14.41±4.97	12.02±1.20	0.79	1302
	15	Pm: Qv: Cf (8:1:1)	E	15.5	down	15.55±4.52	12.08±1.29	0.77	1149
MT	16	Pm: Qv (8:2)	N	15.5	down	17.45±4.29	13.22±1.32	0.71	935
	17	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	N	11	down	14.26±4.16	11.42±1.25	0.80	1181
	18	Pm: Qv (7:3)	N	15.5	down	14.92±4.81	11.84±1.26	0.70	956
	19	Pm: Qv (8:2)	E	9.5	down	14.70±4.54	11.77±1.25	0.60	680
	20	Pm: Qv (9:1)	S	5	up	17.57±5.56	13.11±1.34	0.71	971
	21	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	W	10	down	15.92±7.12	12.44±1.28	0.68	818
	22	Pm: Qv (9:1)	E	6.5	up	15.71±3.39	12.60±1.25	0.60	649
	23	Pm: Qv (8:2)	S	11	middle	17.72±6.36	13.32±1.33	0.75	894
	24	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	W	9.5	up	15.43±4.78	11.96±1.29	0.65	726
	25	Pm: Qv (8:2)	SE	8.5	up	18.09±7.64	13.11±1.38	0.65	793
CK	26	Pm: Qv: Cf (6:3:1)	E	10	middle	12.65±6.10	11.307±1.12	0.92	2121
	27	Pm: Qv: Cf: Pc (2:6:1:1)	E	12.5	middle	11.31±4.45	12.64±1.06	0.90	1661
	28	Pm: Qv: Cf (7:2:1)	E	13.5	down	12.84±4.48	11.27±1.14	0.90	2052

Family	Genus	Species	CK	WT	LT	MT
Cupressaceae	Cupressus	C. funebris	√	√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Vernicia	V. fordii	√			√
Euphorbiaceae	Triadica	T. sebifera		√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Mallotus	M. apelta	√	√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Glochidion	G. puberum			√	√
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex	I. cornuta			√
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex	I. chinensis	√	√	√	√
Fabaceae	Dalbergia	D. hupeana	√		√	√
Fabaceae	Albizia	A. kalkora		√		√
Ericaceae	Rhododendron	R. simsii				√
Eucommiaceae	Eucommia	E. ulmoides			√
Pittosporaceae	Pittosporum	P. truncatum	√	√	√	√
Juglandaceae	Platycarya	P.strobilacea				√
Fagaceae	Quercus	Q. variabilis	√	√	√	√
Meliaceae	Melia	M. azedarach				√
Verbenaceae	Vitex	V. negundo		√	√	√
Oleaceae	Ligustrum	L. lucidum			√
Anacardiaceae	Cotinus	C. coggygria				√
Anacardiaceae	Rhus	R. chinensis	√	√	√	√
Anacardiaceae	Pistacia	P. chinensis		√	√	√
Rosaceae	Dichotomanthes	D. tristaniicarpa		√	√	√
Rosaceae	Prunus	P. salicina			√
Moraceae	Broussonetia	B. papyrifera		√	√	√
Symplocaceae	Symplocos	S. sumuntia	√	√	√	√
Staphyleaceae	Euscaphis	E. japonica			√
Ebenaceae	Diospyros	D. kaki		√	√	√
Ebenaceae	Diospyros	D. lotus		√	√
Rhamnaceae	Ziziphus	Z. jujuba				√
Pinaceae	Pinus	P. massoniana		√	√	√
Ulmaceae	Celtis	C. sinensis		√	√	√
Rutaceae	Zanthoxylum	Z. avicennae				√
Lauraceae	Lindera	L. glauca	√	√	√	√

Family	Genus	Species	CK	WT	LT	MT
Cupressaceae	Cupressus	C. funebris	√	√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Vernicia	V. fordii	√			√
Euphorbiaceae	Triadica	T. sebifera		√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Mallotus	M. apelta	√	√	√	√
Euphorbiaceae	Glochidion	G. puberum			√	√
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex	I. cornuta			√
Aquifoliaceae	Ilex	I. chinensis	√	√	√	√
Fabaceae	Dalbergia	D. hupeana	√		√	√
Fabaceae	Albizia	A. kalkora		√		√
Ericaceae	Rhododendron	R. simsii				√
Eucommiaceae	Eucommia	E. ulmoides			√
Pittosporaceae	Pittosporum	P. truncatum	√	√	√	√
Juglandaceae	Platycarya	P.strobilacea				√
Fagaceae	Quercus	Q. variabilis	√	√	√	√
Meliaceae	Melia	M. azedarach				√
Verbenaceae	Vitex	V. negundo		√	√	√
Oleaceae	Ligustrum	L. lucidum			√
Anacardiaceae	Cotinus	C. coggygria				√
Anacardiaceae	Rhus	R. chinensis	√	√	√	√
Anacardiaceae	Pistacia	P. chinensis		√	√	√
Rosaceae	Dichotomanthes	D. tristaniicarpa		√	√	√
Rosaceae	Prunus	P. salicina			√
Moraceae	Broussonetia	B. papyrifera		√	√	√
Symplocaceae	Symplocos	S. sumuntia	√	√	√	√
Staphyleaceae	Euscaphis	E. japonica			√
Ebenaceae	Diospyros	D. kaki		√	√	√
Ebenaceae	Diospyros	D. lotus		√	√
Rhamnaceae	Ziziphus	Z. jujuba				√
Pinaceae	Pinus	P. massoniana		√	√	√
Ulmaceae	Celtis	C. sinensis		√	√	√
Rutaceae	Zanthoxylum	Z. avicennae				√
Lauraceae	Lindera	L. glauca	√	√	√	√

Thinning intensity	Different height class (H) regeneration densities (plants ha^-1)
Thinning intensity	H<30 cm	30 cm≤H<50 cm	H≥50 cm	Total
CK	2133	2000	533.2	4667
WT	11300	4600	2150	18050
LT	16857	8000	2914	27771
MT	18667	5200	5156	29022