摘要:为探析黔中城市喀斯特山体遗存植物群落对公园化利用的响应，以贵阳市为研究区域，运用群落生态学相关理论及方法，对比分析了已公园化利用城市山体（山体公园）和未开发利用的城市山体（自然山体）植物群落的数量特征及其影响因素。结果表明：（1）山体公园生态环境相对稳定，植物群落垂直结构完整性较高，自然山体在内部生态环境严酷与外部城市基质干扰的共同作用下群落结构断层严重；两类型山体乔木数量均呈倒"J"分布型，但山体公园≤10 cm径级乔木平均株数明显高于自然山体，与山体公园相比自然山体林下更新能力相对较弱；两类型山体乔木高度随胸径增加而升高；（2）本次调查共计记录植物604种隶属155科457属，自然山体共474种隶属142科377属，山体公园共437种隶属132科349属；总体上两类型山体平均物种数无显著性差异，但不同样山之间物种数差异较大；两类型山体各生活型物种数量都呈现出草本>灌木>乔木>藤本的趋势；两类型山体落叶乔木和藤本、多年生草本植物所占比例明显高于常绿乔木和藤本、一年生草本植物，灌木均表现为常绿物种高于落叶物种；（3）两类型山体植物多样性指数偏低，存在显著性差异，山体公园多样性指数略高于自然山体；两类型山体植物多样性指数在核密度上表现为核密度低值区域（4-6级）多样性指数高于核密度高值区域（2-3级）；山体公园多样性指数在公园化程度上表现为重度公园化利用时多样性指数最低，中度、轻度公园化利用时多样性最高；（4）自然山体多样性指数整体表现为山腰/山脚 > 山顶，山体公园多样性指数整体表现为山腰 > 山脚 > 山顶；两类型山体植物多样性指数在坡向上无明显分布规律。总体而言，一般程度的公园化利用对黔中城市喀斯特山体遗存植物群落的影响不突出，且中度以下程度公园化利用对植物群落物种多样性具有一定的促进作用，重度公园化利用存在明显的负面影响。



Abstract:In order to explore the response of plant communities in karst mountains of Central Guizhou to park utilization, the quantitative characteristics and influencing factors of plant communities in urban mountains (Mountain Parks) with park utilization and urban mountains (Natural Mountains) without development and utilization were compared and analyzed by using the relevant theories and methods of community ecology, taking Guiyang City as the research area. The results show that:(1) the ecological environment of the mountain park is relatively stable. The integrity of plant community's vertical structure is relatively high. There's a serious fault in community structure of the natural mountain under the combined action of the harsh internal ecological environment and the interference of the external urban matrix. The quantity of trees in both types of mountains show inverted "J" distribution, but the average quantity of trees which DBH ≤ 10 cm in the mountain park is significantly higher than that of the natural mountain. Compared with the mountain park, the regeneration capacity of the understory of the natural mountain is relatively weak; the height of trees in two types mountains increase with the increase of the DBH. (2) There are 604 species of plants belonging to 155 families and 457 genera, 474 species of natural mountains belonging to 142 families and 377 genera, and 437 species of mountain parks belonging to 132 families and 349 genera were recorded in the survey. On the whole, the difference of average number of species for two types of mountains is not significant, but the number of species varies widely in different mountain samples. The number of each living specie in two types of mountains shows a trend that herbs > shrubs > trees > vines. The proportion of deciduous trees and vines and perennial plant in the two types of mountains is significantly higher than that of evergreen trees and vines and annual herbs. Shrubs are usually more likely to have a percentage of evergreen species than deciduous species. (3) Plant diversity index is low in both types of mountains and there is a significant difference, the mountain park diversity index is slightly higher than the natural mountain. Plant diversity index in both types of mountains shows that the diversity index in the area with low nuclear density (level 4-6) is higher than in the area with high nuclear density (level 2-3). The diversity index of mountain parks shows the degree of parking, which is the lowest diversity index in the case of heavy park utilization and the diversity index was the highest in moderate and mild park use. (4) The overall diversity index of natural mountain is mountainside/Piedmont > mountaintop, and the diversity index of mountain park is mountainside > Piedmont > mountaintop. Plant diversity indexes of two types of mountains have no obvious distribution rule on the slope aspect. Overall, the average degree of park utilization has little effect on the karst mountain relics plant communities in the middle city of Guizhou, and the moderate degree of park utilization has a certain promotion effect on the plant community species diversity, and the heavy degree of park utilization has obviously negative effects.





PDF全文下载地址:

https://www.ecologica.cn/stxb/article/pdf/stxb202005021084