山西省露天煤矿复垦区典型人工林凋落物持水性能研究

doi:10.13866/j.azr.2023.12.16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了探究煤矿排土场人工林凋落物持水性能对矿区水土保持及生态系统恢复的重要作用，本研究采用野外调查和室内浸提相结合的方法，测定了山西省安太堡露天煤矿排土场4种典型人工林（小叶杨、榆树、油松和刺槐）不同分解阶段凋落物蓄积量、持水率、持水量、吸水速率等持水特性。结果表明：小叶杨和油松凋落物蓄积量显著高于刺槐和榆树（P<0.05）；4种人工林不同分解阶段凋落物持水率和持水量与浸水时间均呈极显著对数关系（P<0.01）；凋落物吸水速率呈现刺槐>榆树>小叶杨>油松，且吸水速率与浸水时间均存在极显著幂函数关系（P<0.01）。凋落物最大持水量和有效拦蓄量分别为：4.59~8.94 t·hm^-2和3.42~7.31 t·hm^-2，顺序均为：小叶杨>油松>刺槐>榆树。小叶杨凋落物的持水能力最强，而刺槐凋落物吸水速率最快。因此，优先栽植小叶杨，并与刺槐适当混交，对山西省露天煤矿复垦区水源涵养有积极作用。

关键词: 复垦区, 人工林, 凋落物, 持水性能, 山西省

Abstract:

To study the important effects of the water-holding capacity of litter in plantation plants in coal mine dumps on soil and water conservation and ecosystem restoration in mining areas, litter accumulation amount, the thickness, water-holding rate, water-holding capacity, and water absorption rate of different decomposition stages were investigated in four typical plantations of the same age (Populus simonii, Ulmus pumila, Pinus tabulaeformis, and Robinia pseudoacacia forests) in the Antaibao opencast coal mine reclamation area, through field investigation and soaking extraction. The results showed that the litter accumulation amount in the P. simonii forest was higher than that in the R. pseudoacacia and U. pumila forests (P < 0.05). The water-holding capacity and litter rate at different decomposition degrees changed logarithmically with immersion time (P < 0.01). The order of the water absorption rate of litter was R. pseudoacacia forest > U. pumila forest > P. simonii forest > P. tabulaeformis forest, and the water absorption rate showed a significant power function with immersion time (P < 0.01). In conclusion, the litter of the P. simonii forest had the strongest water-holding capacity, whereas the R. pseudoacacia forest had the fastest water absorption rate. Therefore, from the perspective of the water conservation capacity of litter, P. simonii forest should be prioritized and mixed with the R. pseudoacacia forest, which is more conducive to water conservation in the reclamation area of opencast coal mines.

Key words: reclamation area, plantation, litters, water-holding capacity, Shanxi Province

张建华, 张琨, 刘勇, 张红, 张凯权, 周晓阳, 徐龙超. 山西省露天煤矿复垦区典型人工林凋落物持水性能研究[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(12): 2043-2052.

ZHANG Jianhua, ZHANG Kun, LIU Yong, ZHANG Hong, ZHANG Kaiquan, ZHOU Xiaoyang, XU Longchao. Study on water-holding capacity of litters from typical artificial forests in reclaimed regions of the opencast coal mine in Shanxi Province[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2023, 40(12): 2043-2052.

图/表 10

表1

表2

图1

表3

图2

表4

图3

表5

图4

图5

参考文献 46

[1]	赵晓春, 刘建军, 任军辉, 等. 贺兰山4种典型森林类型凋落物持水性能研究[J]. 水土保持研究, 2011, 18(2): 107-111.
	[Zhao Xiaochun, Liu Jianjun, Ren Junhui, et al. Study on water-holding capacity of litter in four forest types of Helan Mountain[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 18(2): 107-111. ]
[2]	刘效东, 乔玉娜, 周国逸, 等. 鼎湖山3种不同演替阶段森林凋落物的持水特性[J]. 林业科学, 2013, 49(9): 8-15.
	[Liu Xiaodong, Qiao Yuna, Zhou Guoyi, et al. Water-holding characteristics of litters in three forests at different successional stages in Dinghushan[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2013, 49(9): 8-15. ]
[3]	Walter J, Buchmann C M, Schurr F M. Shifts in plant functional community composition under hydrological stress strongly decelerate litter decomposition[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2020, 10(12): 5712-5724. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6310 pmid: 32607185
[4]	管惠文, 董希斌, 张甜, 等. 间伐强度对大兴安岭落叶松天然次生林水文性能的影响[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42(6): 68-76.
	[Guan Huiwen, Dong Xibin, Zhang Tian, et al. Effects of thinning on hydrological properties of the natural secondary Larix gmelinii forest in the Daxing’an Mountains[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 2018, 42(6): 68-76. ]
[5]	邹奕巧, 孙欧文, 刘海英, 等. 浙江省天台县不同森林类型枯落物及土壤水文特性[J]. 水土保持通报, 2020, 40(3): 170-174.
	[Zou Yiqiao, Sun Ouwen, Liu Haiying, et al. Hydrological characteristics of litters and soils of different forest types in Tiantai County of Zhejiang Province[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2020, 40(3): 170-174. ]
[6]	张志兰, 郑云泽, 于秀娟. 重庆市几种常见经济林凋落物持水性能研究[J]. 中国水土保持, 2019(2): 59-62.
	[Zhang Zhilan, Zheng Yunze, Yu Xiujuan. Study on water-holding characteristics of litters in several common economic forests in Chongqing[J]. Soil and Water Conversation in China, 2019(2): 59-62. ]
[7]	何琴飞, 郑威, 彭玉华, 等. 珠江流域中游主要森林类型凋落物持水特性[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017, 24(1): 128-134.
	[He Qinfei, Zheng Wei, Peng Yuhua, et al. Water-holding characteristics of litter under main forest types in the middle reaches of Pearl River Basin[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017, 24(1): 128-134. ]
[8]	王士永, 余新晓, 贾国栋, 等. 北京山区主要人工林枯落物水文效应[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2011, 9(5): 42-47.
	[Wang Shiyong, Yu Xinxiao, Jia Guodong, et al. Hydrological effects of forest litters of different forests in Beijing mountainous area[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2011, 9(5): 42-47. ]
[9]	孟庆权, 葛露露, 杨馨邈, 等. 滨海沙地不同人工林凋落物现存量及其持水特性[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(3): 146-152.
	[Meng Qingquan, Ge Lulu, Yang Xinmiao, et al. Water-holding capacity and accumulation amount of litters in different plantations in coastal sandy area[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(3): 146-152. ]
[10]	张瑛, 徐庆, 高德强, 等. 湖南会同不同林分类型杉木人工林凋落物水文效应[J]. 林业科学研究, 2021, 34(6): 81-89.
	[Zhang Ying, Xu Qing, Gao Deqiang, et al. Hydrological effects of litters in different types of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations in Huitong of Hunan, China[J]. Forest Research, 2021, 34(6): 81-89. ]
[11]	牟雪, 姜鹏, 王卫军, 等. 北沟林场两种不同林分林下枯落物现存量及持水能力的研究[J]. 河北林果研究, 2014, 29(1): 1-4.
	[Mu Xue, Jiang Peng, Wang Weijun, et al. Study on litter contents and water holding capacity of two stand forests on Beigou forest farm[J]. Hebei Journal of Forestry and Orchard Research, 2014, 29(1): 1-4. ]
[12]	张绍良, 米家鑫, 侯湖平, 等. 矿山生态恢复研究进展: 基于连续三届的世界生态恢复大会报告[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(15): 5611-5619.
	[Zhang Shaoliang, Mi Jiaxin, Hou Huping, et al. Research progress on mining ecological restoration: Based on the report of three consecutive World Ecological Restoration Conferences[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(15): 5611-5619. ]
[13]	谢苗苗, 刘金莹, 陈彬, 等. 生态脆弱区复垦排土场干扰类型划分及影响因素分析[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2022, 50(2): 280-288.
	[Xie Miaomiao, Liu Jinying, Chen Bin, et al. Classification of disturbance types and influencing factors of reclamation dump in ecological fragile area[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2022, 50(2): 280-288. ]
[14]	魏忠义, 白中科. 露天矿大型排土场水蚀控制的径流分散概念及其分散措施[J]. 煤炭学报, 2003, 28(5): 486-490.
	[Wei Zhongyi, Bai Zhongke. Concept and measures of runoff-dispersing on water erosion control in the large dump of opencast mine[J]. Journal of the China Coal Society, 2003, 28(5): 486-490. ]
[15]	吕凯, 李雪飞, 智颖飙. 天煤矿排土场生物修复与生态重建技术[J]. 内蒙古师范大学学报(自然科学汉文版), 2019, 48(5): 458-464.
	[Lv Kai, Li Xuefei, Zhi Yingbiao. Mechanism of phytoremediation and co-reconstruction for waste dump in open-cast collieries[J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 48(5): 458-464. ]
[16]	Houerou H L. Restoration and rehabilitation of arid and semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems in North Africa and West Asia: A review[J]. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation, 2000, 14(1): 3-14. doi: 10.1080/089030600263139
[17]	孙泰森, 白中科. 大型露天煤矿废弃地生态重建的理论与方法[J]. 水土保持学报, 2001, 15(5): 56-59.
	[Sun Taisen, Bai Zhongke. Theories and methods of ecological rehabilitation of abandoned land from large scale opencast coal mine[J]. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2001, 15(5): 56-59. ]
[18]	曹梦, 郭孝理, 赵云泽, 等. 复垦年限及植被模式对矿区土壤质量的影响[J]. 中国矿业, 2020, 29(2): 72-76, 93.
	[Cao Meng, Guo Xiaoli, Zhao Yunze, et al. Effects of regenerated periods and vegetation modes on soil quality in regenerated land of opencast coal mine[J]. China Mining Magazine, 2020, 29(2): 72-76, 93. ]
[19]	Yuan Y, Li X, Xiong D, et al. Effects of restoration age on water conservation function and soil fertility quality of restored woodlands in phosphate mined-out areas[J]. Environmental Earth Sciences, 2019, 78(23): 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s12665-018-7995-0
[20]	吕刚, 李涵哲, 董亮, 等. 暴雨作用下黑岱沟露天煤矿排土场土壤侵蚀泥沙来源解译[J]. 煤炭学报, 2022, 47(S1): 225-234.
	[Lv Gang, Li Hanzhe, Dong Liang, et al. Characteristics and source analysis of erosion sediment in dump of open pit coal mine based on REE tracing[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2022, 47(S1): 225-234. ]
[21]	李刚. 排土场土壤侵蚀研究进展[J]. 山西水土保持科技, 2021(3): 3-6.
	[Li Gang. Research progress of soil erosion in dumps[J]. Soil and Water Conservation Science and Technology in Shanxi, 2021(3): 3-6. ]
[22]	唐骏, 党廷辉, 薛江, 等. 植被恢复对黄土区煤矿排土场土壤团聚体特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(16): 5067-5077.
	[Tang Jun, Dang Tinghui, Xue Jiang, et al. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil aggregate characteristics of an opencast coal mine dump in the loess area[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(16): 5067-5077. ]
[23]	罗炳圣, 林龙勇, 邓一荣, 等. 干旱区排土场重金属污染评价及生态损害估算研究——以某煤矿排土场为例[J]. 环境科学与管理, 2022, 47(1): 174-179.
	[Luo Bingsheng, Lin Longyong, Deng Yirong, et al. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and estimation of ecological damage in waste dump in arid area——a case study of a coal mine waste dump in Xinjiang[J]. Environmental Science and Management, 2022, 47(1): 174-179. ]
[24]	李叶鑫, 吕刚, 刁立夫, 等. 露天煤矿排土场不同植被类型持水能力评价[J]. 水土保持学报, 2017, 31(5): 309-320.
	[Li Yexin, Lv Gang, Diao Lifu, et al. Evaluation of water retention capacity of different vegetation types in dump of open cast coal mine[J]. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2017, 31(5): 309-320. ]
[25]	郭春燕, 李晋川, 岳建英, 等. 安太堡露天煤矿复垦区不同人工林土壤呼吸特征[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(3): 55-61.
	[Guo Chunyan, Li Jinchuan, Yue Jianying, et al. Soil respiration characteristics of different artificial forests in reclaimed region of Antaibao Opencast Coal Mine[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 35(3): 55-61. ]
[26]	张青, 毕润成, 吴兆飞, 等. 安太堡露天煤矿植被恢复区物种天然更新时空动态[J]. 生态学杂志, 2016, 35(12): 3223-3232.
	[Zhang Qing, Bi Runcheng, Wu Zhaofei, et al. Temporal-spatial dynamics of natural regeneration of species in ecological reclamation of Antaibao Opencast Coal Mine[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016, 35(12): 3223-3232. ]
[27]	李晋川, 白中科, 柴书杰, 等. 平朔露天煤矿土地复垦与生态重建技术研究[J]. 科技导报, 2009(17):30-34.
	[Li Jinchuan, Bai Zhongke, Chai Shujie, et al. Study on technology of land reclamation and ecological rehabilitation of waste land in Pingshuo surface mine[J]. Science & Technology Review, 2009(17): 30-34. ]
[28]	蒲嘉霖, 刘亮. 亚热带森林凋落物分解特征及水文效应[J]. 水土保持研究, 2019, 26(6): 165-170.
	[Pu Jialin, Liu Liang. Hydrology functions and decomposition characteristics of litter in subtropical forest[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 26(6): 165-170. ]
[29]	刘小娥, 苏世平. 兰州市南北两山5种典型人工林凋落物的水文功能[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(8): 2574-2582. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202008.019
	[Liu Xiao’e, Su Shiping. Hydrological functions of litters under five typical plantations in southern and northern mountains of Lanzhou City, Northwest China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(8): 2574-2582. ] doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202008.019
[30]	张培, 庞圣江, 杨保国, 等. 不同混交模式对桉树林分生长、凋落物量和土壤养分的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报: 自然科学版, 2021, 49(2): 31-37.
	[Zhang Pei, Pang Shengjiang, Yang Baoguo, et al. Effects of different mixing patterns on growth, litter production and soil nutrients in Eucalyptus plantations[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition), 2021, 49(2): 31-37. ]
[31]	陆卫勇, 叶家义, 李学团, 等. 马尾松、红锥纯林及其混交林凋落物与土壤的水源涵养能力[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2023, 19(2): 83-90.
	[Lu Weiyong, Ye Jiayi, Li Xuetuan, et al. Water conservation capacity of litter and soil of pure and mixed-forest of Pinus massoniana and Castanopsis hystrix[J]. Subtropical Agriculture Research, 2023, 19(2): 83-90. ]
[32]	温丁, 何念鹏. 中国森林和草地凋落物现存量的空间分布格局及其控制因素[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(10): 2876-2884.
	[Wen Ding, He Nianpeng. Spatial patterns of litter density and their controlling factors in forests and grasslands of China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016, 36(10): 2876-2884. ]
[33]	刘尚华, 冯朝阳, 吕世海, 等. 京西百花山区6种植物群落凋落物持水性能研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2007, 21(6): 179-182.
	[Liu Shanghua, Feng Chaoyang, Lv Shihai, et al. Study on water-holding capacity of litter in six vegetation communities in Baihua mountainous areas of West Beijing[J]. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 2007, 21(6): 179-182. ]
[34]	方精云, 刘国华, 朱彪, 等. 北京东灵山三种温带森林生态系统的碳循环[J]. 中国科学: D辑, 2006, 36(6): 533-543.
	[Fang Jingyun, Liu Guohua, Zhu Biao, et al. Carbon cycling of three types of temperate forest in Beijing Dongling Mountains[J]. Science in China Ser D Earth Science, 2006, 36(6): 533-543.]
[35]	陈方清. 不同覆盖材料对油茶果实及产量的影响[J]. 河北林业科技, 2016(5): 28-31.
	[Chen Fangqing. Effect of different cover materials on fruit and fruit yield of Camellia oleifera Abel.[J]. The Journal of Hebei Forestry Science and Technology, 2016(5): 28-31. ]
[36]	常雅军, 曹靖, 马建伟, 等. 秦岭西部山地针叶林凋落物持水特性[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(11): 2346-2351. pmid: 19238830
	[Chang Yajun, Cao Jing, Ma Jianwei, et al. Water-holding characteristics of coniferous forest litters in west Qinling Mountains[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008, 19(11): 2346-2351. ] pmid: 19238830
[37]	Couteaux M M, Bottner B, Berg B. Litter decomposition, climate and litter quality[J]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1995, 10(2): 63-66. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88978-8
[38]	陈进, 徐明, 邹晓, 等. 贵阳市不同林龄马尾松林凋落物储量及持水特性[J]. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(6): 146-151.
	[Chen Jin, Xu Ming, Zou Xiao, et al. Litter layer reserve and water holding capacity of Pinus massoniana in different successional stages in Guiyang[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 25(6): 146-151. ]
[39]	郭婧, 喻林华, 方晰, 等. 中亚热带4种森林凋落物量、组成、动态及其周转期[J]. 生态学报, 2015. 35(14): 4668-4677.
	[Guo Jing, Yu Linhua, Fang Xi, et al. Litter production and turnover in four types of subtropical forests in China[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015, 35(14): 4668-4677. ]
[40]	李文影, 满秀玲, 张阳武. 不同林龄白桦次生林土壤特性及其水源涵养功能[J]. 中国水土保持科学, 2009, 7(5): 63-69.
	[Li Wenying, Man Xiuling, Zhang Yangwu. Soil properties and water conservation function of Betula platyphylla secondary forest with different stand ages[J]. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2009, 7(5): 63-69. ]
[41]	刘琳, 熊东红, 张宝军, 等. 拉萨河谷杨树人工林枯落物蓄积特征及持水性能[J]. 干旱区研究, 2021, 38(6): 1674-1682.
	[Liu Lin, Xiong Donghong, Zhang Baojun, et al. Litter storage and its water-holding capacity of Populus plantations in Lhasa River Valley[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2021, 38(6): 1674-1682. ]
[42]	赵鸿杰, 谭家得, 张学平, 等. 南亚热带3种人工松林的凋落物水文效应研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2009, 24(5): 54-57, 139.
	[Zhao Hongjie, Tan Jiade, Zhang Xueping, et al. Hydrological effect on 3 pine plantations in south subtropical China[J]. Journal of Northwest of Forest University, 2009, 24(5): 54-57, 139. ]
[43]	张建利, 王加国, 李苇洁, 等. 贵州百里杜鹃自然保护区杜鹃林枯落物储量及持水功能[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(3): 167-173.
	[Zhang Jianli, Wang Jiaguo, Li Weijie, et al. Litter reserves and water holding characteristics of Rhododendron forest in Baili Rhododendron Nature Reserve of Guizhou[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 32(3): 167-173. ]
[44]	王凯, 齐悦彤, 刘建华, 等. 油松与榆树人工林植物-凋落叶-土壤碳、氮、磷化学计量特征[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(3): 427-434.
	[Wang Kai, Qi Yuetong, Liu Jianhua, et al. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometric characteristics of plants, leaf litter and soils in Pinus tabuliformis and Ulmus pumila plantations[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2022, 41(3): 427-434. ]
[45]	何应会, 曾佩玲, 韦铄星, 等. 珍贵树种多树种混交林的凋落物现存量及持水性能[J]. 南方农业学报, 2015, 46(1): 85-90.
	[He Yinghui, Zeng Peiling, Wei Shuoxing, et al. Litter standing crop and its water-holding capacity of the mixed forest of rare tree multi-species[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2015, 46(1): 85-90. ]
[46]	杜晨曦, 史常青, 杨建英, 等. 小五台山典型林分枯落物持水恢复能力研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2021, 35(3): 236-243.
	[Du Chenxi, Shi Changqing, Yang Jianying, et al. Recovery characteristics of water-holding capacity of litter in typical stands of Xiaowutai Mountain[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2021, 35(3): 236-243. ]

林型	纬度	经度	海拔 /m	人工林类型	林龄 /a	林下优势种	平均胸径/cm	平均树高/m	密度 /(株·hm^-2)	郁闭度 /%
小叶杨	39°29′26.15″N	112°18′55.30″E	1469	纯林	25	赖草、早熟禾、阿尔泰狗娃花	10.90	5.50	2133	40
榆树	39°29′28.64″N	112°18′44.41″E	1474	纯林	25	兴安胡枝子、早熟禾、阿尔泰狗娃花	12.90	5.50	1100	56
油松	39°29′29.80″N	112°18′46.49″E	1471	纯林	25	兴安胡枝子、早熟禾、阿尔泰狗娃花	10.70	4.70	1500	75
刺槐	39°29′33.35″N	112°18′44.08″E	1474	纯林	25	角蒿、铁杆蒿、早熟禾	9.80	4.80	2033	70

林型	总厚度 /cm	总蓄积量/（t·hm^-2）	未分解层（U）		半分解层（S）
林型	总厚度 /cm	总蓄积量/（t·hm^-2）	蓄积量/（t·hm^-2）	比例/%	蓄积量/（t·hm^-2）	比例/%
小叶杨	2.33±0.44b	3.53±0.72a	1.78±0.23a	53.25±8.13ab	1.76±0.58ab	46.75±8.13ab
榆树	2.60±0.31b	1.38±0.02b	0.93±0.03b	67.26±2.79a	0.45±0.05b	32.74±2.79a
油松	3.60±0.06a	3.14±0.81ab	1.07±0.11b	36.53±4.88b	2.07±0.09a	63.47±4.88b
刺槐	2.70±0.15ab	1.73±0.24ab	0.90±0.03b	53.35±5.63ab	0.83±0.21ab	46.65±5.63ab

人工林类型	凋落物层	方程	R²
小叶杨	半分解层	W=3.5359+0.2899lnt	0.9507^**
小叶杨	未分解层	W=1.3222+0.1070lnt	0.9564^**
榆树	半分解层	W=3.6787+0.3759lnt	0.9739^**
榆树	未分解层	W=2.5010+0.1179lnt	0.9955^**
油松	半分解层	W=3.0141+0.4581lnt	0.9229^**
油松	未分解层	W=1.8658+0.1959lnt	0.9691^**
刺槐	半分解层	W=1.1334+0.2441lnt	0.9814^**
刺槐	未分解层	W=2.0821+0.1668lnt	0.9650^**

人工林类型	凋落物层	方程	R²
小叶杨	半分解层	R=210.21+16.506lnt	0.9760^**
小叶杨	未分解层	R=290.25+24.142lnt	0.9959^**
榆树	半分解层	R=181.71+18.376lnt	0.9845^**
榆树	未分解层	R=301.38+13.745lnt	0.9933^**
油松	半分解层	R=169.70+25.719lnt	0.9199^**
油松	未分解层	R=200.68+21.030lnt	0.9693^**
刺槐	半分解层	R=106.10+23.170lnt	0.9812^**
刺槐	未分解层	R=231.85+18.470lnt	0.9689^**

人工林类型	凋落物层	方程	R²
小叶杨	半分解层	V=2.0981t^-0.927	0.9998^**
小叶杨	未分解层	V=1.7015t^-0.875	0.9986^**
榆树	半分解层	V=2.8951t^-0.923	0.9995^**
榆树	未分解层	V=2.0062t^-0.907	0.9997^**
油松	半分解层	V=1.8133t^-0.909	0.9998^**
油松	未分解层	V=1.058t^-0825	0.9994^**
刺槐	半分解层	V=3.013t^-0.957	0.9999^**
刺槐	未分解层	V=2.3135t^-0.926	0.9997^**