Next Article in Journal
Water Stress and Seed Color Interacting to Impact Seed and Oil Yield, Protein, Mucilage, and Secoisolariciresinol Diglucoside Content in Cultivated Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Relationships between Phyllosphere Bacterial Communities and Leaf Functional Traits in a Temperate Forest
Previous Article in Journal
A Method for Electroporation of Cre Recombinase Protein into Intact Nicotiana tabacum Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Top Canopy Height and Stem Size Variation Enhance Aboveground Biomass across Spatial Scales in Seasonal Tropical Forests
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/plants12081633
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Relative Importance of Stand Structure and Site Conditions for the Productivity, Species Diversity, and Carbon Sequestration of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei Mixed Forest

by
Yiru Wang
1,2,3,
Zhaohua Liu
1,2,3,
Tao Tang
1,2,3,* and
Jiping Li
1,2,3,*
1
Faculty of Forestry, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
2
Key Laboratory of State Forestry Administration on Forest Resources Management and Monitoring in Southern Area, Changsha 410004, China
3
Research Centre of Forest Remote Sensing and Information Engineering, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(8), 1633; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12081633
Submission received: 3 March 2023 / Revised: 27 March 2023 / Accepted: 7 April 2023 / Published: 12 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Maintenance and Function of Biodiversity in Forests)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Forest stand structure (the characteristics and interrelationships of live trees) and site conditions (the physical and environmental characteristics of a specific location) have been linked to forest regeneration, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat, and climate regulation. While the effects of stand structure (i.e., spatial and non-spatial) and site conditions on the single function of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei (CLPB) mixed forest have been studied in previous studies, the relative importance of stand structure and site conditions in terms of productivity, species diversity, and carbon sequestration remains unresolved. In this study, a structural equation model (SEM) was adopted to analyze the relative importance of stand structure and site conditions for the forest productivity, species diversity, and carbon sequestration of CLPB mixed forest in Jindong Forestry in Hunan Province. Our research demonstrates that site conditions have a greater influence on forest functions than stand structure, and that non-spatial structures have a greater overall impact on forest functions than spatial structures. Specifically, the intensity of the influence of site conditions and non-spatial structure on functions is greatest for productivity, followed by carbon sequestration and species diversity. In contrast, the intensity of the influence of spatial structure on functions is greatest for carbon sequestration, followed by species diversity and productivity. These findings provide valuable insights for the management of CLPB mixed forest in Jindong Forestry and have significant reference value for the close-to-natural forest management (CTNFM) of pure Cunninghamia lanceolata forests.

1. Introduction

Forest ecosystems play a vital role in timber production, biodiversity preservation, and carbon sequestration [1,2,3]. Forests can be separated into mixed forests and pure forests according to the number and volume of tree species. Compared to pure forests, mixed forests contain a greater diversity of tree species and a more complex forest structure, allowing them to serve a greater range of forest ecological functions [4,5]. In this context, forest managers are increasingly accepting of close-to-natural forest management (CTNFM) practices. CTNFM, a production system based on the principles of multifunctional forest management, advocates for mixed uneven forests as an ecologically more stable alternative to uniform monocultures [6,7,8]. Therefore, transforming pure plantations into mixed forests by CTNFM is an effective way to improve ecological functions, which is of vital significance for the implementation of China’s forest quality precision enhancement project.
The pure Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) forests account for the largest proportion of the area of plantations in southern China. Transforming pure Chinese fir forests into mixed forests through CTNFM is an important challenge, aimed at improving the quality of Chinese fir forests. In recent years, a mixed forest management model of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei (CLPB) has been recognized as the most successful CTNFM method for pure Chinese fir forests. In this model, the rare and valuable broad-leaved species Phoebe bournei has been replanted artificially in pure Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations to establish CLPB mixed forests, which can effectively promote the growth of both trees and improve the ecological function of pure Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations [9,10]. In addition, the State Forestry Administration of China has pushed the CLPB mixed forest management model as one of the most successful methods for enhancing the quality of Chinese fir forests in southern China.
The stand structure of forests, which encompasses the characteristics and interrelationships of live trees, is a fundamental attribute of forest ecosystems [11]. A well-designed stand structure has important implications for forest ecosystems, including the provision of wildlife habitat, carbon storage for climate regulation, and effective forest regeneration. By optimizing the structure of the stand, the maximum functional benefits of the forest ecological system can be realized [12,13,14,15,16,17]. The forest stand structure can be subdivided into spatial and non-spatial structures. Spatial structure pertains to the arrangement and interrelationships of living tree features and is typically measured using indicators such as mixing degree, angular scale, and size ratio. Non-spatial structure, on the other hand, characterizes the quality of individual trees and is often gauged by factors such as DBH, tree height, and density [18,19,20,21]. Nevertheless, even within a single tree species, growth rates can fluctuate significantly across different stands due to varying forest site conditions, which encompass the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of a specific location such as soil characteristics, topography, and vegetation. Site conditions may thus be one of the important factors that affect forest functions [22,23].
Jindong Forest Farm is located in the south of Hunan Province, which is the main planting area of Cunninghamia lanceolata in the Province. In recent years, with the increasing attention paid by the Chinese government to the ecological functions of forests, the forest management objectives of Jindong Forest Farm have shifted from producing wood to enhancing the ecological functions of forests. Hence, converting a vast tract of pure Chinese fir plantation into a mixed forest with enhanced biological functions is one of the greatest challenges facing forest management at Jindong Forest Farm. Through repeated studies on the model of mixing Chinese fir with other needles and broadleaves, Jindong Forest Farm discovered CLPB as the most effective CTNFM model for Chinese fir forest. It has thus become a national demonstration site for the CLPB mixed forest model [24,25]. Although previous studies have explored the effects of stand structure and site conditions on the single forest function of CLPB mixed forest in Jindong Forest Farm [26,27,28,29,30], the relative importance of stand structure and site conditions in terms of productivity, species diversity, and carbon sequestration remain unresolved.
The aim of this study was to explore the relative importance of the stand structure and site conditions of CLPB mixed forest to productivity, species diversity and carbon sequestration. To achieve this goal, we have adopted a structural equation model (SEM) approach, which can provide insights into the relative importance of various aspects of stand structure and site condition on forest functions [31,32,33,34]. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) site condition has a greater influence on forest functions (productivity, species diversity and carbon sequestration) than stand structure. (2) The total impact intensity of spatial and non-spatial structures on forest functions is equal.

2. Results

2.1. Response between Observed Variables

According to the correlation heat map (Figure 1), there is a very significant correlation between the slope position, dominant tree breast diameter and dominant tree height. The slope position has a significant correlation with DBH, and the dominant tree breast diameter is significantly related to the dominant tree height. The DBH is significantly negatively correlated with the stand density. The negative correlation between stand density and DBH is mainly due to the growth factors of the forest trees themselves and competition. Within a certain range, stand density will promote the growth of DBH, and beyond this range, the growth of DBH is inhibited. The DBH, tree height, stand density and stand productivity demonstrate a very significant correlation. Higher tree height and DBH usually mean higher biomass accumulation and higher productivity. In addition, higher density may also have an effect on productivity, but its effect may vary depending on environmental conditions and stand type.
The dominance, mingling and uniform angle index are very significantly correlated. The influence of stand structure indicators on the carbon sequestration function is mainly through aspects such as biomass and tree age. For example, higher tree height and DBH usually imply higher biomass accumulation and higher carbon storage capacity. Due to the conversion relationship between carbon sequestration and productivity, there is a highly significant correlation between them. Forest species diversity is influenced by many factors, and our analysis found a significant correlation between forest species diversity and DBH. Among the possible reasons, higher tree height and DBH may provide more micro-environmental variation in habitat and thus support the presence of more species.
It should be noted that the correlation between stand structure, stand environment and forest productivity, species diversity and carbon sequestration functions is complex and may be influenced by many other factors, such as climate and soil. Therefore, more comprehensive studies and analyses are needed to more accurately assess the correlations between them.

2.2. Path Diagram and Standardized Coefficients in the SEM Analysis

The test results (Table 1) showed that the RMSEA parameter value of the initial model was 0.055, indicating that the model did not adequately fit the observed data, so further modification of the initial model was required. We improved the previous hypothesis, supplemented the relationship between forest species diversity and carbon sequestration, and reconstructed the path map (Figure 2). After calculating the fitting index of the model and comparing this with the detection standards, the Chi-square degrees of freedom ratio of the optimal model was 1.889, which between 1 and 3, indicating a good fit. RMSEA was less than 0.05, which met the evaluation criteria. It is assumed that the optimal model is adapted to the observation data, and that the test indicators of each adaptation statistic have reached the evaluation standard, indicating that the hypothesis model is well adapted to the data [35].
The SEM showed that site conditions had strongly positive effects on the forest productivity function, carbon sequestration function and species diversity function, and the standardized total effects were 1.221, 0.850 and 0.413, respectively (Figure 3). Site conditions also had an indirect influence on productivity, carbon sequestration and species diversity, and these indirect effects were 0.490, 0.321 and 0.102. Comparing stand structure with site conditions, the site conditions had the largest total impact on forest multi-functionality; the coefficient is 2.484, indicating that the forest functions are mainly affected by site conditions. Site conditions had direct and negative effects on spatial structure (−0.409) and direct and positive effects on non-spatial structure (0.593).
There are interactions between spatial structure and non-spatial structure. Spatial structure had indirect and positive effects on non-spatial structure (0.417), while non-spatial structure had direct and positive effects on spatial structure (0.309). The total impact of spatial structure on forest functions (0.267) is less than that of non-spatial structure (1.615). Spatial structure had direct and positive effects on productivity (0.234) and carbon sequestration (0.220), direct and negative effects on species diversity (−0.249), and indirect and positive effects on carbon sequestration (0.062). Non-spatial structure had direct and positive effects on productivity (0.826), species diversity (0.282), and carbon sequestration (0.290), and indirect and positive effects on carbon sequestration (0.217).
There are also interactions between the multiple forest functions. Forest productivity had direct and positive effects on carbon sequestration (0.263). Plant species diversity had a direct impact on carbon sequestration (0.182). Meanwhile, forest carbon sequestration had an indirect impact on species diversity (0.053).

2.3. Multi-Factors Analysis of Stand Structures, Site Conditions and Forest Functions

Factors of stand structure and site condition can be quantitatively analyzed using some indicators that can be directly measured, and the degree of response is different. The total effect coefficients of the site conditions on the forest non-spatial structure and on the spatial structure are 0.593 and −0.409, respectively, that is, when the site conditions change by 1, the forest non-spatial structure changes by 0.593 and the forest spatial structure changes by −0.409. The non-spatial structure of forest stands has a correlation coefficient of 0.82 for the breast diameter and 0.72 for the tree height, indicating that changes in the non-spatial structure of the forest stands are more likely to affect the DBH [36].
We found that in the current phase, forest productivity was most closely related to site conditions, not tree size (that is, non-spatial structure, DBH and height). At present, the mixed forest of CLPB in this study is in the stage of middle-aged and near mature forest, and the influence of tree size (DBH and tree height) on growth is weaker than that of site conditions. That is, the fertile soil and the slope position of the trees played a significant role in the growth of the forest.
Through the analysis of the SEM, we found that plant species diversity had a direct impact on carbon sequestration (0.182). Meanwhile, forest carbon sequestration had an indirect impact on species diversity (0.053). There was a direct relationship between carbon sequestration and productivity, Moreover, carbon sequestration was weakly correlated with species diversity, while species diversity and productivity were not found to be direct related [37,38]. The relationship between species diversity and productivity is affected by species richness, stand type and environmental heterogeneity, and these influencing factors do not exist independently but rather interact with each other [39,40,41]. Therefore, when studying the relationship between stand functions, it is worth considering the factors that may affect the relationship between them.

3. Discussion

The first hypothesis was strongly supported by our results, which showed that site condition has a greater influence on forest functions of CLPB mixed forest than stand structure. Figure 1 indicates that forest functions are directly influenced by site conditions; the intensity of the influence in greatest for productivity, followed by carbon sequestration and species diversity. These findings suggest that environmental factors have a more substantial direct impact on productivity than species diversity and carbon sequestration, indicating that productivity exhibits a more pronounced response to site conditions, which is consistent with Liu’s [42] conclusions on the effects of environmental and stand structure factors on productivity. Improvements in site conditions were found to have a more significant impact on forest functions [43].
Our research demonstrates that non-spatial structures have a greater overall impact on forest functions than spatial structures, which was not exactly the same as our second hypothesis. The non-spatial structure has a direct positive effect on forest functions; the intensity of the influence is greatest for productivity, followed by carbon sequestration and species diversity. Forest spatial structure also has a direct effect on forest functions; the intensity of the influence is greatest for carbon sequestration, followed by species diversity and productivity. In addition to the direct effects, stand structure also has an indirect effect on carbon sequestration; the non-spatial structure has a stronger effect than the spatial structure. The indirect impact of the stand structure on productivity and species diversity is zero, and thus, the direct impact coefficient is equal to the total impact coefficient.
The DBH responds more to the non-spatial structure compared to tree height. Geir et al. also found in their study on the relationship between stand density and DBH and tree height that the response of DBH to changes in stand density is greater than that for tree height, which is consistent with the findings of our study [44]. Among the three quantitative indicators of spatial structure, the uniform angle index has the largest response to spatial structure, followed by dominance and then mingling. This is because the mixed forest of CLPB in our study has low tree species diversity. Most studies have reported a positive relationship between tree growth and the degree of mixing. Zhang discovered that in stands with greater tree species diversity, the effect of mingling on the stand growth would be enhanced, and the importance of mingling on the spatial structure would increase [45].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Site

Jindong Forest Farm is located in the southern part of Qiyang County, Hunan Province, China (Figure 4). It is located in the middle and upper reaches of the Xiangjiang River Basin, with dense mountains and steep slopes, with an average slope of 34° and 95.2% of grade IV and above (26° or above). The highest altitude is 1435 m and the lowest is 108 m. The soil of the forest farms is mainly yellow-red and yellow. The thickness of the soil layer is generally more than 60 cm, the gravel content is about 20% to 30%, and the average soil organic matter content is more than 2%, with the highest value reaching 11%. It belongs to the subtropical southeast monsoon humid climate zone, with an average annual temperature of 18 °C, an extreme maximum temperature of 41 °C and an extreme minimum temperature of −8 °C. The average annual effective sunshine duration is 1617 h, the average annual precipitation is 1600–1890 mm, and the average annual evaporation is 1225 mm. The relative humidity is 75–82%, the annual frost-free period is 265–349 days, and the vegetation has 281–301 natural days [33]. There are 972 species belonging to 135 families in the forest farm. According to the survey, there are over 1500 species of higher plants belonging to more than 200 families. There are 654 species of woody plants in 98 families. At present, Ginkgo biloba, Taxus chinensis and others are first-class plants under state protection. The second-class protected plants are Cinnamomum bodinieri, Pseudotsuga sinensis, Fokienia hodginsii, Phoebe bournei, Eucommia ulmoides, and others. There are more than 190 species of terrestrial vertebrates in this area, of which 31 species are in the category of National Key Protected Animals, such as Syrmaticus ellioti, Moschus berezovskii, Neofelis nebulosa, and others.

4.2. Data Collection

The field survey was conducted from July to August every year from 2015 to 2019. The sample plots were randomly selected from mixed forests of CLPB with the same stand phase and age, and were representative (Figure 5). A total of 40 plots (20 × 30 m) were monitored for five consecutive periods. Each sample plot was divided into 6 survey units (10 × 10 m), giving a total of 240 data points. According to the growth and dispersion characteristics of undergrowth vegetation, representative shrub quadrats (5 × 5 m) were set up in the upper, middle and lower sample plots of each plot, and one (1 × 1 m) herb quadrat was set in each shrub quadrat. A total of 120 shrub quadrats and 120 herbaceous quadrats were established in this study (Figure 6). Three soil profiles with a width of 0.8~1.0 m and a depth of 0.6~0.8 m were evenly set in each standard land area, and four samples from layers 0~15 cm, 15~30 cm, 30~45 cm and 45~60 cm deep were obtained with a ring knife, each with a volume of 100 cm3. Three soil samples were taken from each layer to determine their physical properties.
All trees in the plots with a diameter at breast height (DBH) larger than 5 cm were investigated. Starting from the lower-left corner of each plot, trees in the plot were numbered according to an “S” shape. For each tree, the tree species, tree height (m), DBH (cm) and position were recorded. The species, number, height (m), and coverage of shrubs (%) and herbs in each plot were recorded. The surveyed information of the plots also included altitude (m), terrain, slope (°), position, aspect, and soil type.

4.3. Data Processing

After collecting preliminary data for the forest and land samples, we proceeded to analyze this data to obtain multifunctional index values for the forest stands.

4.3.1. Productivity Measurement

In this study, the index of the stand’s productivity was denoted by the live wood stock. The storage capacity of living trees was calculated by the binary volume formula (Table 2) and converted into the storage amount per unit area.

4.3.2. Carbon Sequestration of Vegetation and Soil

Forest carbon comprises vegetation and soil carbon reserves. In this study, vegetation carbon was subdivided into tree-layer carbon, undergrowth-layer, shrub-layer and herb-layer carbon and litter-layer carbon. The tree-layer carbon was calculated using the forest biomass allometric growth equation [46,47,48,49,50], while we used the biomass method to estimate forest carbon at all levels (Table 3).
Biomass was measured in the shrub, herb and litter layers using the quadrat all-harvest method. Fresh weights were weighed immediately after harvesting. After returning to the laboratory, the dry biomass was baked at 105 °C for 6–8 h to a constant weight, and the dry biomass was calculated and converted into biomass per unit area. The conversion methods of carbon storage and biomass are as follows:
C = B C C
where C represents carbon storage (t); B stands for forest biomass (t); and Cc represents the carbon content, where the carbon conversion coefficient is 0.5 for coniferous forest and 0.45 for broadleaved forest.
Soil carbon storage is represented by the product of soil bulk density, soil thickness and soil organic carbon content. The calculation formula is as follows:
T O C = θ · D · C
where TOC represents soil carbon storage (t/hm2), θ represents soil bulk density (g/cm3), D represents soil thickness (cm), and C represents soil organic carbon content (%).

4.3.3. Species Diversity

The relative abundance, relative cover (relative significance) and relative frequency of understory vegetation were calculated to represent the important values (IV) of different shrub and herb species in the plots. The species diversity index was calculated based on the species’ importance values. In this paper, we use the Patrick richness index (D), Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H), Simpson dominance index (H’) and Pielou uniformity index (J) to comprehensively evaluate the species diversity of a community, which is calculated as follows:
Ⅳ = (Relative frequency + relative coverage + relative abundance)/3 × 100%
H = − ∑ i = 1 s p i l n p i
J = − ∑ i = 1 s p i l n p i / l n S
H ′ = 1 − ∑ i = 1 s p i 2
D = S
where pi is the ratio of the number of individuals of the i species to the total number of individuals, and S refers to the total number of species in the sample.
This study uses survey units (10 × 10 m) as data points, so all data refer to the average of one survey unit. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20.0 for Windows, and the SEM was constructed with Amos 22.0 software.

4.4. Structural Equation Model

The structural equation model consists of a measurement model and a structural model [24,51,52]. SEM can analyze the causal relationships between multiple variables in a system and clearly determine the relative importance of each relationship. The model can test the relationship between the explicit variables, latent variables, and error variables of the data, and then obtain the total, direct and indirect effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables [53,54,55].
Based on the field survey as well as the theoretical and experimental studies con-ducted in these forest ecosystems [56,57,58,59], we established an initial SEM to assess the relative importance of structure variables (spatial structure and non-spatial structure) and site characteristics as the drivers of the response variables to forest functions. In the SEM, three latent variables were established, namely site conditions (determined by observed variables of slope position, dominant tree breast diameter and dominant tree height), spatial structure (determined by observed variables of dominance, mingling and uniform angle index), and non-spatial structure (determined by observed variables of DBH, tree height, and stand density). To test whether these indicators related to the functions of the forest area, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated before establishing the SEM. The indicators showing significant relationship effects were selected for constructing the SEM. We built an initial model based on the a priori hypothesis (Figure 7), and the model was tested using the goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) [60,61]. The optimal model should have the lowest RMSEA value < 0.05, and the highest GFI value and CFI value > 0.90.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we used the SEM to quantify the relative importance of the stand structure and site conditions of CLPB to productivity, species diversity and carbon sequestration in Jindong Forest Farm, Hunan Province. Using data from 40 plots, with 240 survey units, we found that site conditions have a greater impact on forest function than stand structure. In addition, compared to spatial structures, non-spatial structures have a greater overall impact on forest functions. The results demonstrated that the close-to-natural forest management practices should be prioritized for pure Chinese fir forests with better site conditions, which can improve the ecological function of pure Chinese fir forests more effectively. In addition, adjusting the stand structure of Chinese fir forests can substantially improve the ecological performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.W., Z.L. and T.T.; methodology, Y.W. and Z.L.; software, Y.W.; validation, T.T. and J.L.; formal analysis, Y.W., Z.L. and T.T.; investigation, Y.W., Z.L., T.T. and J.L.; resources, Y.W., T.T. and J.L.; data curation, Y.W. and T.T.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W. and Z.L.; writing—review and editing,, T.T. and J.L.; visualization, Y.W. and T.T.; supervision, J.L. and T.T.; project administration, J.L. and T.T.; funding acquisition, J.L. and T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Hunan Province (Project number: 22B0252), the National Forest Management Science and Technology Support Research Project: Research and Demonstration of Multifunctional Forest Management Operation Method in Jindong Forest Farm, Hunan Province (Project number: 169201531-6).

Data Availability Statement

The data from the sample plots in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Those data are not publicly available due to privacy and confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Yong Lv for his great support and help in improving our work. We also appreciate Yu Sun, Pengcheng Liao, Xue Wang, Xia Wei, Qian Tang, Danmei Wang, and Yifan Pang for their assistance in the fieldwork. We acknowledge the Jindong Forest Farm in Hunan Province for their support during our research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aubinet, M.; Chermanne, B.; Vandenhaute, M.; Longdoz, B.; Yernaux, M.; Laitat, E. Long term carbon dioxide exchange above a mixed forest in the Belgian Ardennes. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2001, 108, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lagergren, F.; Eklundh, L.; Grelle, A.; Lundblad, M.; Molder, M.; Lankreijer, H.; Lindroth, A. Net primary production and light use efficiency in a mixed coniferous forest in Sweden. Plant Cell Environ. 2005, 28, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lu, Y. From Normal Forest to Close-to-nature Forest: Multi-functional Forestry and Its Practice at National, Regional and Forest Management Unit Levels in Germany. World For. Res. 2010, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Song, G.T. Comparison of species diversity between Larix gmelini pure forest and Larix gmelini-betula platyphylla mixed forest in Daxing’an Mountains. J. For. Res. 2001, 12, 136–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ghareghiye, Z.N.; Etemed, V. Estimating the economic value of stored carbon in growing stocks of mixed and pure forest stands. Int. J. Agrisci. 2013, 3, 543–549. [Google Scholar]
  6. Möller, A. Der Dauerwaldgedanke—Sein Sinn und Seine Bedeutung; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1922; 136p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gayer, K. Der Gemischte Wald—Seine Begründung und Pflege, Insbesondere Durch Horst-und Gruppenwirtschaft; Paul Parey Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1886. [Google Scholar]
  8. Schütz, J.P. Der Plenterwald und Weitere Formen strukturierter und Gemischter Wälder; Parey: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; 207p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, Y.T.; Ding, K.; Yrjala, K.; Liu, H.Y.; Tong, Z.K.; Zhang, J.H. Introduction of broadleaf species into monospecific Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations changed the soil Acidobacteria subgroups composition and nitrogen-cycling gene abundances. Plant Soil 2021, 467, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ding, K.; Zhang, Y.T.; Yrjala, K.; Tong, Z.K.; Zhang, J.H. The introduction of Phoebe bournei into Cunninghamia lanceolata monoculture plantations increased mi-crobial network complexity and shifted keystone taxa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 509, 120072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brassard, B.W.; Chen, H.Y.H. Stand Structural Dynamics of North American Boreal Forests. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2006, 25, 115–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Staudhammer, C.L.; Lemay, V.M. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Can. J. For. Res. 2001, 31, 1105–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ishii, H.T.; Tanabe, S.; Hiura, T. Exploring the Relationships Among Canopy Structure, Stand Productivity, and Bio-diversity of Temperate Forest Ecosystems. For. Sci. 2004, 50, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yin, G.F.; Li, J.; Liu, Q.H.; Fan, W.L.; Xu, B.D.; Zeng, Y.L.; Zhao, J. Regional Leaf Area Index Retrieval Based on Remote Sensing: The Role of Radiative Transfer Model Selection. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 4604–4625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Zhou, H.M.; He, B.T.; Peng, H.; Shen, B.; Wu, K.L.; Lin, F.; Liu, C.H. Research on Spatial Structure of Cunninghamia lanceolata Coppice Forest. For. Res. 2015, 28, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yin, Z.S.; Sun, C.Z.; Zhao, M.Y. Study on canopy interception model and its parameter characteristics of Pinus tabu-laeformis artificial plantation in the loess plateau. For. Res. 2015, 28, 261–264. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shi, B.K.; Gao, W.F.; Cai, H.Y.; Jin, G.Z. Spatial variation of soil respiration is linked to the forest structure and soil parameters in an old-growth mixed broadleaved-Korean pine forest in northeastern China. Plant Soil 2016, 400, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hu, Y.J.; Li, J.P.; Cao, X.Y.; Chen, J. Dynamic changes and their relationship of spatial structure and soil’s water conservation function in Cunninghamia lanceolata forest after stand improvement. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. 2018, 38, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yasuhiro, K. Effects of disturbance and size structure on the regeneration process in a sub-boreal coniferous forest, northern Japan. Ecol. Res. 1995, 10, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ryan, M.G.; Stape, J.L.; Binkley, D.; Fonseca, S.; Loos, R.A.; Takahashi, E.N.; Silva, C.R.; Silva, S.R.; Hakamada, R.E.; Ferreira, J.M.; et al. Factors controlling Eucalyptus productivity: How water availability and stand structure alter production and carbon allocation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1695–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pretzsch, H.; Biber, P.; Uhl, E.; Dauber, E. Long-term stand dynamics of managed spruce–fir–beech mountain forests in Central Europe: Structure, productivity and regeneration success. Forestry 2015, 88, 407–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Saha, S.; Rajwar, G.S.; Kumar, M. Forest structure, diversity and regeneration potential along altitudinal gradient in Dhanaulti of Garhwal Himalaya. For. Syst. 2016, 25, e058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Zhao, Y.; Duan, X.; Shu, S.H. Relationship between space structure characteristics and site environment of Pinus Yunnanensis secondary forests on Mopan Mountain in the middle of Yunnan, Southern China. Bulg. Chem. Commun. 2017, 49, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, D.M.; Li, J.P.; Tang, T. Determining the Optimal Density of Phoebe bournei Plantations Based on Dynamic Programming under Close-to-Nature Management Measures. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tang, Q.; Li, J.P.; Tang, T.; Liao, P.C.; Wang, D.M. Construction of a Forest Ecological Network Based on the Forest Ecological Suitability Index and the Morphological Spatial Pattern Method: A Case Study of Jindong Forest Farm in Hunan Province. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grime, J.P. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: Immediate, filter and founder effects. J. Ecol. 1998, 86, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, S.Y.; Mi, F.; Pan, W.J.; Zhang, C.H. The Research on the Influential Factors of Forest Biomass Energy Industry Chain. In Proceedings of the International Conference On New Energy and Renewable Resources, Guangzhou, China, 2 June 2015; pp. 181–189. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yamamoto, T.; Ikeda, S. Relationship between changes of the forests and runoff property in soil and water conservation function reinforcement synthesis model basin: Direction of forest management for improving of water conservation func-tion. Bull. Hiroshima Prefect. For. Res. Cent. 2005, 37, 15–33. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sherk, J.T.; Fu, W.Y.; Neal, J.C. Site Conditions, Maintenance Costs, and Plant Performance of 10 Extensive Green Roofs in the Research Triangle Area of Central North Carolina. HortTechnology 2020, 30, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elliott, K.J.; Miniat, C.F.; Pederson, N.; Laseter, S.H. Forest tree growth response to hydroclimate variability in the southern Appalachians. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 4627–4641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, X.C.; Liu, D.P.; Fu, Q.; Li, T.X.; Hou, R.J.; Li, Q.L.; Li, M.; Meng, F.X. Characteristics of greenhouse gas emissions from farmland soils based on a structural equation model: Regulation mechanism of biochar. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singhai, S.; Singh, R.; Sardana, H.K.; Madhukar, A. Analysis of Factors Influencing Technology Transfer: A Structural Equation Modeling Based Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Howard, J.L.; Gagne, M.; Morin, A.J.S.; Forest, J. Using Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to Test for a Continuum Structure of Motivation. J. Manag. 2016, 44, 2638–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Guo, J.S.; Marsh, H.W.; Parker, P.D.; Dicke, T.; Lüdtke, O.; Diallo, T.M.O. A Systematic Evaluation and Comparison Between Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling and Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2019, 26, 529–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fan, X.; Thompson, B.; Wang, L. Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 56–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santangelo, G.M.; Drubin, D.G. Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research. Mol. Biol. Cell 2017, 28, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kirkman, L.K.; Mitchell, R.J.; Helton, R.C.; Drew, M.B. Productivity and species richness across an environmental gradient in a fire-dependent ecosystem. Am. J. Bot. 2001, 88, 2119–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kahmen, A.; Perner, J.; Audorff, V.; Weisser, W.; Buchmann, N. Effects of plant diversity, community composition and environmental parameters on productivity in montane European grasslands. Ecosyst. Ecol. 2005, 142, 606–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Georges, M.; Anne, F.; Cyril, F.; Bodil, B.; Claire, M.; Stine, H.K.; Ola, M.; Florence, P. 11q13 Alterations in two cases of hibernoma: Large heterozygous deletions and rearrangement breakpoints near GARP in 11q13.5. Aust. J. Bot. 2003, 37, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Caspersen, J.P.; Pacala, S.W. Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecol. Res. 2001, 16, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Palik, B.J.; Montgomery, R.A.; Reich, P.B.; Boyden, S.B. Biomass growth response to spatial pattern of variable-retention harvesting in a northern Minnesota pine ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 2078–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, Y.; Yu, D.; Xun, B.; Sun, Y.; Hao, R. The potential effects of climate change on the distribution and productivity of Cunninghamia lanceolatain China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bustamante, R.; Badano, E.; Pickett, S. Impacts of land use change on seed removal patterns of native and exotic species in a forest landscape. Community Ecol. 2012, 13, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Geir, S.V.; Colin, F.; Loubère, M. Influence of Progeny and Initial Stand Density on the Relationship between Diameter at Breast Height and Knot Diameter of Picea abies. Scand. J. For. Res. 1999, 14, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, J.; Bruelheide, H.; Chen, X.; Eichenberg, D.; Kröber, W.; Xu, X.; Xu, L.; Schuldt, A. Tree diversity promotes generalist herbivore community patterns in a young subtropical forest experiment. Oecologia 2007, 183, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ma, Z.Q.; Liu, Q.J.; Xu, W.J.; Li, X.R.; Liu, Y.C. Carbon Storage of Artificial Forest in Qianyanzhou, Jiangxi Province. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2007, 43, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dai, W.; Fu, W.J.; Jiang, P.K.; Zhao, K.L.; Li, Y.H.; Tao, J.X. Spatial pattern of carbon stocks in forest ecosystems of a typical subtropical region of southeastern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 409, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Z.C.; Du, H.; Song, T.Q.; Peng, W.X.; Zhang, H. Allometric models of major tree species and forest biomass in Guangxi. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 4462–4472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Luo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Fei, L. Biomass and its allocation of Chinese forest ecosystems. Ecology 2016, 95, 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Lu, J.; Feng, J.K.; Zhu, Y. Estimation of Forest Biomass and Carbon Storage in China Based on Forest Resources Inventory Data. Forests 2019, 10, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Laughlin, D.C.; Abella, S.R.; Covington, W.W.; Grace, J.B. Species richness and soil properties in Pinus ponderosa forests: A structural equation modeling analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 2007, 18, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmidt, T.S.; Van, M.P.C.; Carlisle, M.M.; Carlisle, D.M. Linking the Agricultural Landscape of the Midwest to Stream Health with Structural Equation Modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Feng, M.I.; Pan, W.; Chen, K. Study on Forest Biomass Energy Industry Chain External Driving Force Based on Structural Equation Modeling. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2015, 35, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhu, Y.W.; Bathelt, H.; Zeng, G. Learning in Context: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Analyze Knowledge Acquisition at Trade Fairs. Z. Für Wirtsch. 2020, 64, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goodboy, A.K.; Bolkan, S.; Brisini, K.; Solomon, D.H. Relational Uncertainty Within Relational Turbulence Theory: The Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Model. J. Commun. 2021, 71, 403–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, J.H.; Tong, H.; Jiao, G.; Zhao, L. Research on soil organic carbon spatial distribution in Qilian Mountain based on geographic infor-mation system and spatial analysis technology. In Proceedings of the SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, San Diego, CA, USA, 12–16 August 2012; Volume 8334, p. 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tian, X.; Zheng, J.; Wang, D.; Huang, X.R.; Zhang, Z.D. Structural equation modeling analysis of the response of herbaceous species richness to landscape factors in a forest-steppe zone. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2018, 38, 4649–4656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, S.L.; Han, Y.H.C. Diversity of northern plantations peaks at intermediate management intensity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Torresan, C.; del Río, M.; Hilmers, T.; Notarangelo, M.; Bielak, K.; Binder, F.; Boncina, A.; Bosela, M.; Forrester, D.I.; Hobi, M.L.; et al. Importance of tree species size dominance and heterogeneity on the productivity of spruce-fir-beech mountain forest stands in Europe. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 457, 117716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wolf, E.J.; Harrington, K.M.; Clark, S.L.; Miller, M.W. Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models: An Evaluation of Power, Bias, and Solution Propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2013, 73, 913–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Shi, F.; Liu, S.; Sun, Y.; An, Y.; Zhao, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, M. Ecological network construction of the heterogeneous agro-pastoral areas in the upper Yellow River basin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 302, 107069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 01633 g001 550
Figure 1. Correlation heat map between structure variables and function variables.
Figure 1. Correlation heat map between structure variables and function variables.
Plants 12 01633 g001
Plants 12 01633 g002 550
Figure 2. The optimal SEM between stand structures, site conditions and forest functions. The slope position, dominant tree breast diameter and dominant tree height are the explicit variables of site conditions. The DBH, height and density are the explicit variables of non-spatial structure. The mingling, uniform angle index and dominance are the explicit variables of spatial structure.
Figure 2. The optimal SEM between stand structures, site conditions and forest functions. The slope position, dominant tree breast diameter and dominant tree height are the explicit variables of site conditions. The DBH, height and density are the explicit variables of non-spatial structure. The mingling, uniform angle index and dominance are the explicit variables of spatial structure.
Plants 12 01633 g002
Plants 12 01633 g003 550
Figure 3. Standardized total, direct and indirect effects of site conditions, spatial structure and non-spatial structure on forest functions. (SC is site conditions, SS is spatial structure, n-SS is non-spatial structure, CF is carbon fixation, P is productivity, SD is species diversity.)
Figure 3. Standardized total, direct and indirect effects of site conditions, spatial structure and non-spatial structure on forest functions. (SC is site conditions, SS is spatial structure, n-SS is non-spatial structure, CF is carbon fixation, P is productivity, SD is species diversity.)
Plants 12 01633 g003
Plants 12 01633 g004 550
Figure 4. Location of the study site.
Figure 4. Location of the study site.
Plants 12 01633 g004
Plants 12 01633 g005 550
Figure 5. Our sample plots were replanted with Phoebe bournei in the understory of Cunninghamia lanceolata trees to create a mixed forest of CLPB, changing the stand structure to form a heterogeneous, complex, mixed forest.
Figure 5. Our sample plots were replanted with Phoebe bournei in the understory of Cunninghamia lanceolata trees to create a mixed forest of CLPB, changing the stand structure to form a heterogeneous, complex, mixed forest.
Plants 12 01633 g005
Plants 12 01633 g006 550
Figure 6. Survey units for trees, shrubs, herbs, and soils.
Figure 6. Survey units for trees, shrubs, herbs, and soils.
Plants 12 01633 g006
Plants 12 01633 g007 550
Figure 7. The a priori model based on the hypothesis relating stand structures, site conditions and stand functions. Structure factors include non-spatial structure and spatial structure; function factors include productivity, carbon sequestration and species diversity functions.
Figure 7. The a priori model based on the hypothesis relating stand structures, site conditions and stand functions. Structure factors include non-spatial structure and spatial structure; function factors include productivity, carbon sequestration and species diversity functions.
Plants 12 01633 g007
Table
Table 1. Fitting parameters of structural equation model.
Table 1. Fitting parameters of structural equation model.
StatisticsFitting IndexEvaluation StandardA Priori ModelOptimal Model
Absolute fit statistics χ 2 / d f Between 1–3 means the model fits well1.8891.889
GFI>0.900.9490.935
RMSEA<0.050.0550.038
NCPThe smaller the better39.99528.367
Value-added adaptation statisticsNFIBetween 0–1, the closer to 1, the better the model fit0.9480.954
RFI0.9310.933
IFI0.9750.978
TLI0.9620.967
CFI0.9740.978
Minimal adaptation statisticsPGFI>0.5, The higher the value, the better0.5480.550
PNFI>0.5, The higher the value, the better0.6490.651
Table
Table 2. Two-dimensional volume table of main trees.
Table 2. Two-dimensional volume table of main trees.
SpeciesFormulaabc
Cunninghamia lanceolataV = a × Db × Hc0.0000587770421.9699830.896462
Other coniferV = a × Db × Hc0.0000623418031.8551500.956825
One type of hardwood broad-leafV = a × Db × Hc0.0000685634001.9332210.867885
Second type of hardwood broad-leafV = a × Db × Hc0.0000504790551.884520.990765
Soft broad-leafV = a × Db × Hc0.0000410280051.800631.130599
Note: D is DBH (cm), H is tree height (m). Phoebe bournei is a type of hardwood broad-leaf tree.
Table
Table 3. Biomass allometric growth equation of different tree species in the tree layer.
Table 3. Biomass allometric growth equation of different tree species in the tree layer.
SpeciesBiomass EquationR2
Cunninghamia lanceolataWtrunk = 37.9323D2.5980.975
Wbranch = 1.6255D2.00740.764
Wleaf = 5.2619D2.15150.788
lgWroot = −1.995 + 2.4541lgD0.962
Hard broad-leaf classWtrunk = 0.065D2.5480.972
Wbranch = 0.025D2.3900.91
Wleaf = 0.036D1.8180.876
Wroot = 0.027D2.3940.922
Soft broad-leaf classWtrunk = 0.080D2.3480.995
Wbranch = 0.027D1.7620.975
Wleaf = 0.027D1.3710.954
Wroot = 0.027D2.1650.873
Note: D is DBH (cm). See references [46,47,48,49,50].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Tang, T.; Li, J. Analysis of the Relative Importance of Stand Structure and Site Conditions for the Productivity, Species Diversity, and Carbon Sequestration of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei Mixed Forest. Plants 2023, 12, 1633. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12081633

AMA Style

Wang Y, Liu Z, Tang T, Li J. Analysis of the Relative Importance of Stand Structure and Site Conditions for the Productivity, Species Diversity, and Carbon Sequestration of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei Mixed Forest. Plants. 2023; 12(8):1633. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12081633

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yiru, Zhaohua Liu, Tao Tang, and Jiping Li. 2023. "Analysis of the Relative Importance of Stand Structure and Site Conditions for the Productivity, Species Diversity, and Carbon Sequestration of Cunninghamia lanceolata and Phoebe bournei Mixed Forest" Plants 12, no. 8: 1633. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12081633

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop