臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

維護生物多樣性已為現今人造林經營中極為重要的目標。一般認為結構複雜度較高的森林因具有豐富的物種棲地，亦應造就較高的生物多樣性。是以如何提高結構多樣性為人造林撫育經營過程中重要之課題，而疏伐作業已被視為增進人造林結構多樣性重要之撫育方法。本研究以南投縣信義鄉同富村和社營林區25 林班，一佔地10 公頃柳杉(Cryptomeria japonica)人造林為例，經由每木定位與利用結構複雜度指標(Structural Complexity Index, SCI) ，分析不同疏伐方法對結構多樣性之效應。首先本研究以蒙地卡羅法模擬三種疏伐處理(株數疏伐率20%、40%、60%)各1000 次株數以瞭解逢機疏伐對林分SCI 之效應。其次， 本研究分析三種疏伐方式（分上層、中層、下層）結合上述三種疏伐率對林分SCI 值之影響，並比較其與逢機疏伐之差異與優劣。而後，以加入該林分前期殘留杉木(Cunninghamia lanceolata)所生之萌櫱，計算SCI 值，以模擬疏伐後林下栽植對林分結構之變化。最後將地形高程納入SCI 計算，以瞭解微地形變化對SCI 之影響。結果顯示隨機疏伐方式難以改善人造林的結構多樣性。選用中層疏伐方式使林木胸高直徑的變異度增加， 進而提高人造林之垂直結構多樣性。在實施疏伐後，於林下栽植苗木亦有助於增加空間結構複雜度。本研究亦顯示並非任何疏伐均會提升林分結構，唯有事前精密的調查與分析方能有助於達成該目標。

Nowadays, an important objective in managing plantation forests is the maintenance of biodiversity. As it is believed that a structurally more complex stand will harbor more diverse habitats, which in turn will promote species diversity, creating structural complexity is central to the management of plantation forests, and thinning is considered as one of the best methods to achieve that objective. Using a 10-ha sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) plantation located in central Taiwan as an example, this study intended to answer which thinning regime would create the highest structural complexity of that stand, as measured by Structural Complexity Index (SCI). Via Monte Carlo simulations, this study first investigated how a random thinning approach under three stem removal rates (20, 40, and 60%) would affect SCI. This study then proceeded to investigate how the binations of three thinning approaches(thinning-from-top, -middle, and -below) and the three stem removal rates would affect
SCI. Thirdly, to mimic the effects of after-thinning understory planting on SCI, this study included Chinese-fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) sproutings in calculating the SCI values. Finally, this study analyzed how the inclusion of topographic variations would affect SCI values. The results showed that a random thinning approach would not enhance structural complexity, and a thinning-from-middle approach would create a structurally more
complex stand, due to its effects in increasing the variance of stem diameter. After-thinning understory planting would also increase structural complexity. This study showed that not all thinning regimes would promote structural complexity, some may actually reduce it, and only via detailed inventory and analysis will help us to achieve that objective.

中文摘要………………………………………………………i
英文摘要………………………………………………………ii
目錄……………………………………………………………iv
表目錄…………………………………………………………v
圖目錄…………………………………………………………vi
壹、前言………………………………………………………1
貳、前人研究…………………………………………………2
参、研究方法…………………………………………………19
肆、結果………………………………………………………33
伍、討論與建議………………………………………………44
陸、結論………………………………………………………52
柒、參考文獻…………………………………………………53
附錄一、25 林班附近天然林及造林失敗地喬木層分布….59
附錄二、和社25 林班內10 公頃樣區各分區資料…………61
附錄三、R 統計軟體指令……………………………………62
附錄四、A 區疏伐選木範例…………………………………64

林務局(台灣省農林廳林務局)，1995。第三次台灣森林資源及土地利用調查。台灣省農林廳林務局。
邱志明，2006。「疏伐作業」：育林手冊。郭幸榮主編。行政院農業委員會林務局。第157-178 頁。
Acker, S. A., Sabin, T. E., Ganio, L. M., and Mckee, W. A. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands.
Forest Ecology and Management 104: 265-280.
Allen, R., Platt, K., and Wiser, S. 1995. Biodiversity in New Zealand plantation. New Zealand Forest 39: 26-29.
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R. 1986. Ecology. Individuals, Populations, and Communities. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Carey, A. B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest：inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable density thinning.
Forestry 762: 127-136.
Choi, J., Lorimer, C. G., and Vanderwerker, J. M. 2007. A simulation of the development and restoration of old-growth structural features in northern hardwoods. Forest
Ecology and Management 249: 204-220.
Clark, F. J. and Evans, F. C. 1954. Distance to the nearest neighbour as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35: 445-453.
Crow, T. R., Haney, A., and Wailer, D. M. 1994. Report on the scientific round table on biological diversity convened by the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests.
United States Forest Service General Technical Report NC-166, Saint Paul, MN.
Donald,P. F., Haycock, D., and Fuller, R. J. 1997. Winter bird communities in forest plantations in western England and their response to vegetation, growth stage andgrazing. Bird Study 44: 206-219.
Ferris-Kaan, R., Peace, A. J., and Humphrey, J. W. 1998. Assessing structural diversity in managed forests. In: Bachmann, P., Köhl, M., and Päivinen, R. (eds.), Assessment
of biodiversity for improved forest planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Pages 331-342.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993a. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993b. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and
old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. US Government Printing Office, Washing, DC.
Foster, D. R., Orwig, D. A., and McLachlan, J. S. 1996. Ecological and conservation insights from reconstructive studies of temperate old-growth forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11: 419-424.
Franklin, J. F., Berg, D. R., Thornburgh, D. A., and Tappeiner, J. C. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm, K. A. and Franklin, J. F. (eds.), Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The
Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington, D. C. Pages 111-139.
Goff, F. G. and West, D. 1975. Canopy-understory interaction effects on forest population structure. Forest Science 21: 98-108.
Hansen, A. J., Spies, T. A., Swanson, F. J., and Ohmann, J. L. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. Bioscience 41: 382-292.
Hagar, J., Howlin, S., and Ganio, L. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest
Ecology and Management 199: 333-347.Hartly, M. J. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forest. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 81-95.
Holdridge, L. R., 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, San Josá, Costa Rica.
Kannel, M. 1998. Biodiversity: A diversity in definition. In: Bachmann, P., Köhl, M., and Päivinen, R. (eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Pages 71-81.
Kerr, G. 1999. The use of silvicultural systems to enhance the biological diversity of plantation forest in Britain. Forestry 72: 191-205.
Koskela, L., Nummi, L., Wenzel, S., and Kivinen V.-P. 2006. On the analysis of cubic smoothing spline-based stem curve prediction for forest harvesters. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 36: 2909-2919.
Macot, B. G., Holthausen, R. S., Teply, J., and Carrier, W. D. 1991. Old-growth inventories: status, definitions, and visions for the future. In: Ruggerio, L. E., Aubry,
B., Varey, A. B., and Huff, M. H. (eds.), Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Pages 47-60.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Mäkinen, H. and Isomäki, A. 2004. Thinning intensity and long-term changes in increment and stem form of Norway spruce trees. Forest Ecology and Management 201: 295-309.
Neumann, M. and Starlinger, F. 2001. The significance of different indices for stand structure and diversity in forests. Forest Ecology and Management 145: 91-106.
Norton, D. A. 1998. Indigenous biodiversity conservation and plantation forest: options for the future. New Zealand Forest 39: 3-12.Old Growth Definition Task Group (OGDTG), 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. USDA Forest Service Research Note PNW-447.
Pickett, S. T. A. 1989. Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies.
In: Likens. G. E. (eds.), Long-term Studies in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York. Pages 110-135.
Pielou, E. C. 1959. The use of point to plant distances in the study of the pattern of plant populations. The Journal of Ecology 47: 607-613.
Pommerening, A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structure. Forestry 75: 305-324.
Renka R. J. 1996. Algorithm 751: TRIPACK: a constrained two-dimensional Delaunay triangulation package. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software. 22: 1-8.
Rosenvald R. and Lõhmus, A. 2008. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. Forest Ecology and
Management 255: 1-15.
Rubin, B. D., Manion, P. D., and Faber-Langendoen, D. 2006. Diameter distributions and structural sustainability in forests. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 427-438.
Schuler, A. 1998. Sustainability and biodiversity forest historical notes on two main concerns of environmental utilization. In:Bachmann, P., Kohl, M., and Paivinen, R
(eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Pages 353-360.
Shannon, G. E. 1948. The mathematical theory of communication. In: Shannon, C. E.
and Weaver, W. (eds.). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Pages 29-125.
Simberloff, D. 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. ForestEcology and Management 155: 101-111.
Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163: 688.
Smith, D. M. 1986. Practice of Silviculture. 8th edition. Wiley, New York, USA.
Smitinand, T. 1995. Overview of the status of biodiversity in tropical and temperate forests. In: Boyle, T.J.B. and Boontawee, B. (eds.), Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Spies, T. A. and Franklin, J. F. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, L. (eds),
Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. Pages 91-110.
Spies, T. A. and Franklin, J. F. 1988. Old growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas 8: 190-201.
State of the World’s Forests. 1999. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
State of the World’s Forests. 2007. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Tyrrell, L. E., Nowacki, G. J., Crow, T. R., Buckley, D. S., Nauertz, E. A., Niese, J. N., Rollinger, J. L., and Zasada, J. C. 1998. Information about old growth for selected forest type groups in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-197.
Von Gadow, K., Hui, G. 1999. Modelling Forest Development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Zenner, E. K. 1998. A new index for describing the structural complexity of forests.
Ph.D. Disseration, Oregon State University, USA.Zenner, E. K. and Hibbs, D. E. 2000. A new method for modeling the heterogeneity of forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management 129: 75-87.
Zenner, E. K. 2004. Does old-growth condition imply high live-tree structure complexity? Forest Ecology and Management 195: 243-258.