| 83 | 0 | 28 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
[目的]揭示沙地云杉生长对气候因子的响应及遭受各类干旱事件时的抵抗力、恢复力及生长稳定性。[方法]选取耐旱树种油松与沙地云杉进行对比研究，分析2个树种径向生长对主要气候因子的响应过程及遭受单年和连年干旱事件时的生态弹性差异。[结果]沙地云杉和油松径向生长均受到高温和降水不足引发的干旱限制，沙地云杉与全年SPEI的相关系数均值达到0.47,油松为0.32,表明沙地云杉对干旱的敏感性更高。单年干旱中，沙地云杉和油松的弹性指数均在1.0左右，表现出较强抗旱能力且无明显差异性。但在连年干旱中，沙地云杉的抵抗力和恢复弹力指数分别下降56.04%和53.85%,恢复力指数仅增加11.76%;相比之下，油松的抵抗力和恢复弹力指数分别减少38.78%和24.30%,恢复力指数增加23.64%。[结论]沙地云杉在应对连年干旱事件时的抗旱性和恢复能力相较于油松更弱。在未来极端气候事件频发背景下，更应加强对珍稀树种沙地云杉天然林的保护与经营管理。
Abstract：[Objective]To elucidate the response of Picea mongolica growth to climatic factors and its resistance, resilience, and growth stability under various drought events.[Method]Two drought-tolerant tree species, Pinus tabuliformis and Picea mongolica were selected for comparative analysis. The research focuses on examining the radial growth responses of these species to primary climatic factors and the differences in their ecological resilience during both single-year and multi-year drought events.[Result]The radial growth of both Picea mongolica and Pinus tabuliformis was constrained by drought conditions resulting from high temperatures and inadequate precipitation. The mean correlation coefficient between Picea mongolica and the standardized precipitation-evapotranspiration index(SPEI) over the entire year was 0.47, whereas for Pinus tabuliformis it was 0.32. This suggested that Picea mongolica exhibits a higher sensitivity to drought conditions.During a single year of drought, the resilience indices of both Picea mongolica and Pinus tabuliformis in sandy areas were approximately 1.0, indicating comparable and robust drought resistance. However, during consecutive years of drought, the resistance and recovery resilience indices of Picea mongolica decreased by 56.04% and 53.85%, respectively, while the recovery index increased marginally by only 11.76%. In contrast, for Pinus tabuliformis, the resistance and recovery resilience indices decreased by 39.78% and 24.30%, respectively, but the recovery index showed a more substantial increase of 23.64%.[Conclusion]The drought resistance and recovery capacity of Picea mongolica in sandy areas are weaker than those of Pinus tabuliformis when facing consecutive drought events. Under the background of frequent extreme climate events in the future, more efforts should be made to protect and manage the natural forests of Picea mongolica, a rare tree species, effectively.
[1] GROSSIORD C,BUCKLEY T N,CERNUSAK L A,et al.Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit[J].New phytologist,2020,226(6):1550-1566.
[2] BOUCHER D,GAUTHIER S,THIFFAULT N,et al.How climate change might affect tree regeneration following fire at northern latitudes:A review[J].New forests,2020,51(4):543-571.
[3] YUAN W P,ZHENG Y,PIAO S L,et al.Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth[J].Science advances,2019,5(8):1-12.
[4] WU X C,LIU H Y,HARTMANN H,et al.Timing and order of extreme drought and wetness determine bioclimatic sensitivity of tree growth[J].Earth’s future,2022,10(7):e2021EF002530.
[5] D’ORANGEVILLE L,MAXWELL J,KNEESHAW D,et al.Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought[J].Global change biology,2018,24(6):2339-2351.
[6] HUANG M T,WANG X H,KEENAN T F,et al.Drought timing influences the legacy of tree growth recovery[J].Global change biology,2018,24(8):3546-3559.
[7] CHOAT B,BRODRIBB T J,BRODERSEN C R,et al.Triggers of tree mortality under drought[J].Nature,2018,558(7711):531-539.
[8] LLORET F,KEELING E G,SALA A.Components of tree resilience:Effects of successive low-growth episodes in old ponderosa pine forests[J].Oikos,2011,120(12):1909-1920.
[9] FANG O Y,ZHANG Q B.Tree resilience to drought increases in the Tibetan Plateau[J].Global change biology,2019,25(1):245-253.
[10] FANG O Y,ZHANG Q B,VITASSE Y,et al.The frequency and severity of past droughts shape the drought sensitivity of juniper trees on the Tibetan Plateau[J].Forest ecology and management,2021,486:118968.
[11] GAZOL A,CAMARERO J J,ANDEREGG W R L,et al.Impacts of droughts on the growth resilience of Northern Hemisphere forests[J].Global ecology and biogeography,2017,26(2):166-176.
[12] BOSE A K,SCHERRER D,CAMARERO J J,et al.Climate sensitivity and drought seasonality determine post-drought growth recovery of Quercus petraea and Quercus robur in Europe[J].Science of the total environment,2021,784:1-13.
[13] 刘云超，陈立新，段文标，等.沙地云杉林研究述评[J].生态学报，2020,40(1):34-42.
[14] 王逸然，郑成洋，曾发旭.内蒙古白音敖包沙地云杉生长季非结构性碳水化合物含量动态[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2016,52(5):967-976.
[15] 韦晓旭，彭剑峰，彭猛，等.中国南北过渡带油松径向生长对气候因子的响应研究：以鸡公山国家级自然保护区为例[J].地理科学，2024,44(9):1643-1652.
[16] 史倩，同小娟，许玲玲，等.油松早晚材径向生长对气候因子的响应[J].植物生态学报，2024,48(8):988-1000.
[17] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局，中国国家标准化管理委员会.气象干旱等级：GB/T 20481—2017[S].北京：中国标准出版社，2017.
[18] 刘云超.不同林龄沙地云杉林凋落物分解及土壤养分动态研究[D].哈尔滨：东北林业大学，2022.
[19] 段秀梅.油松与山杏树种的混合造林技术[J].绿色科技，2020,22(19):129-130.
[20] LUO D D,WANG C K,JIN Y,et al.Different hydraulic strategies under drought stress between Fraxinus mandshurica and Larix gmelinii seedlings[J].Journal of forestry research,2023,34(1):99-111.
[21] NING Q R,GONG X W,LI M Y,et al.Differences in growth pattern and response to climate warming between Larix olgensis and Pinus koraiensis in Northeast China are related to their distinctions in xylem hydraulics[J].Agricultural and forest meteorology,2022,312:108724.
[22] LEVIONNOIS S,JANSEN S,WANDJI R T,et al.Linking drought-induced xylem embolism resistance to wood anatomical traits in Neotropical trees[J].New phytologist,2021,229(3):1453-1466.
[23] 刘青，徐肖阳，王云霞，等.水分胁迫对油松抗旱生理特征的影响[J].水土保持学报，2024,38(5):129-138.
[24] GAMPE D,ZSCHEISCHLER J,REICHSTEIN M,et al.Increasing impact of warm droughts on northern ecosystem productivity over recent decades[J].Nature climate change,2021,11(9):772-779.
[25] MORRIS H,PLAVCOVá L,CVECKO P,et al.A global analysis of parenchyma tissue fractions in secondary xylem of seed plants[J].The new phytologist,2016,209(4):1553-1565.
[26] 孙慧珍.东北东部山区主要树种树干液流动态及与环境因子关系[D].哈尔滨：东北林业大学，2002.
[27] 李晓琴，张凌楠，曾小敏，等.黄土高原中部针叶树与灌木径向生长对气候的响应差异[J].生态学报，2020,40(16):5685-5697.
基本信息:
中图分类号:S791.254;S791.18
引用信息:
[1]张海悦,白学平,刘海婷,等.白音敖包自然保护区沙地云杉和油松响应极端干旱的生态弹性差异[J].安徽农业科学,2025,53(21):108-112.
基金信息:
国家自然科学基金项目(32001136); 博士科研启动基金项目(BS592)