| Literature DB >> 32596049 |
Wenjun Liang1, Xi Wei1.
Abstract
Given their complexity, targeted care and management of different areas and tree species are necessary for enhancing the natural regeneration of forests. Thus, an understanding of changes in the overstory and understory is essential for ensuring successful regeneration. Promoting the natural regeneration of Larix principis-rupprechtii plantations is considered challenging; indeed, regional sustainable development through natural regeneration of many stands has often been considered unattainable. Here, we studied several plots with varying extents of regeneration to identify the most important factors that affect regeneration. The plots were divided into three forest types based on the number of regenerating plants. For each type of plot, we measured various factors that might potentially affect regeneration. Representational difference analysis was used to identify the most important factors >9% contribution). Based on these factors, multiple corrections were made to construct a structural equation model of topography, stand structure, soil properties and litter to identify the most important factors driving variation in regeneration. Positive correlations were detected between regeneration with diameter at breast height (0.21) and litter thickness (0.57). Regeneration was negatively correlated with soil (-0.54) and slope (-0.48). Additionally, the number of regenerating plants and the height of regenerating plants were strongly positively correlated. However, there was no significant relationship between regeneration and litter accumulation, stand density, altitude, average tree height, total P and total N. Overall, our study showed that key factors for promoting natural regeneration include appropriate litter thickness, strong parent trees, a gentle slope and sufficient quantities of soil nutrients. Moreover, our findings provide a reference for the design of effective management and restoration plans. ©2020 Liang and Wei.Entities:
Keywords: Environmental factors; Forest plantations; Forest structure; Natural regeneration; Soil nutrients
Year: 2020 PMID: 32596049 PMCID: PMC7305768 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9339
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Ordination diagram of the results of the RDA analysis of stand structure, soil nutrients, litter and topographic variables.
(A) The relationship between number, height, and impact factors; (B) the relationship between plot distribution and impact factors. The direction of the arrows corresponds to the directions of the changes, and the lengths of the arrows indicate the extent to which a factor impacts regeneration. Abbreviations of stand structure, soil nutrients and litter variables are as follows: StaD, stand density; DBH, average diameter at breast height; ATH, average tree height; Avec, average crown; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, total nitrogen ; AP, available phosphorus; AK, available potassium; TP, total phosphorus; AN, ammonia nitrogen; TitT, litter thickness and TitA, litter accumulation.
Correlation coefficients for environmental variables for RDA 1 and RDA 2.
| Factor | RDA1 | RDA2 |
|---|---|---|
| Altitude | 0.200 | 0.528 |
| Slope | −0.356 | 0.126 |
| Litter thickness | 0.414 | −0.277 |
| Litter accumulation | −0.282 | −0.203 |
| Average DBH | 0.309 | −0.282 |
| Average tree height | −0.187 | 0.372 |
| Average crown | −0.330 | 0.278 |
| Stand density | −0.235 | 0.060 |
| Soil organic matter | −0.436 | −0.295 |
| Total N | −0.060 | 0.085 |
| Total P | −0.183 | 0.216 |
| Ammonia nitrogen | −0.412 | −0.238 |
| Available P | 0.421 | −0.102 |
| Available K | −0.481 | −0.278 |
Percent variance explained of the extent of regeneration by each environmental factor.
| Factor | Explains % | Pseudo-F | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AK | 22.5 | 4.7 | 0.058 |
| SOM | 18.6 | 3.6 | 0.086 |
| AP | 17.3 | 3.3 | 0.068 |
| LitT | 16.7 | 3.2 | 0.098 |
| AN | 16.6 | 3.2 | 0.082 |
| Slope | 12.4 | 2.3 | 0.124 |
| AveC | 10.6 | 1.9 | 0.194 |
| DBH | 9.3 | 1.6 | 0.220 |
| LitA | 7.8 | 1.3 | 0.276 |
| StaD | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.338 |
| Altitude | 3.9 | 0.6 | 0.474 |
| ATH | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.444 |
| TP | 3.3 | 0.5 | 0.472 |
| TN | 0.4 | <0.1 | 0.824 |
Correlation analysis of several environmental factors.
| Number | Height | Altitude | Slope | LitT | LitA | DBH | ATH | AveC | StaD | SOM | TN | TP | AN | AP | AK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Height | .983 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Altitude | .194 | .286 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Slope | −.352 | −.325 | .196 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| LitT | .409 | .355 | .310 | .015 | 1 | |||||||||||
| LitA | −.279 | −.311 | .012 | −.201 | .564 | 1 | ||||||||||
| DBH | .305 | .251 | -.734 | −.178 | −.240 | −.392 | 1 | |||||||||
| ATH | −.185 | −.116 | .373 | .831 | −.021 | −.291 | −.143 | 1 | ||||||||
| AveC | −.326 | −.272 | −.258 | −.266 | −.217 | .222 | .109 | −.067 | 1 | |||||||
| StaD | −.227 | −.220 | .563 | .760 | .224 | −.032 | -.588 | .533 | -.607 | 1 | ||||||
| SOM | −.431 | -.478 | −.259 | −.170 | .050 | .460 | −.024 | −.207 | .519 | −.225 | 1 | |||||
| TN | −.059 | −.043 | .069 | −.162 | −.046 | .067 | −.102 | −.296 | −.080 | .015 | −.320 | 1 | ||||
| TP | −.181 | −.140 | .383 | .011 | .344 | .562 | -.607 | .043 | .067 | .177 | −.250 | .321 | 1 | |||
| AN | −.407 | −.444 | −.122 | −.278 | .162 | .665 | −.227 | −.313 | .536 | −.213 | .896 | −.164 | .038 | 1 | ||
| AP | .416 | .392 | −.203 | −.103 | .210 | −.132 | .450 | −.072 | .161 | −.329 | −.177 | .036 | −.045 | −.251 | 1 | |
| AK | -.475 | -.518 ∗ | −.045 | .427 | .082 | .271 | −.271 | .246 | −.127 | .393 | .260 | .148 | −.002 | .190 | −.277 | 1 |
Notes.
showed significant difference at the 0.05 level.
showed significant difference at the 0.01 level.
Figure 2Corrected structural equation model with standardized path coefficients between influence factors and regeneration.
Fitting of the SEM parameters for the most important factors affecting regeneration.
| Baseline Comparisons | Simple with moderate index | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GFI | AGFI | NFI | SRMR | IFI | CFI | RMSEA | ||
| 1.136 | 0.339 | 0.916 | 0.905 | 0.903 | 0.078 | 0.987 | 0.984 | 0.080 |