Health assessment and influencing factors of Fraxinus pennsylvanica in Beijing core area
-
摘要:
目的 针对城市树木健康评价的快速化、准确化及生产化，调查并分析北京市首都功能核心区主要绿化树种洋白蜡Fraxinus pennsylvanica的生长、健康及管护现状，为构建精炼、全面的洋白蜡行道树健康评价体系及管护技术措施提供科学依据。 方法 以北京市核心区11条主要街道的洋白蜡行道树为研究对象，采用主成分分析、K-means聚类构建健康评价模型，采用判别分析进行结果验证，将评价结果与评价指标结合建立洋白蜡BP神经网络健康预测模型；同时从生长状况、管护措施以及环境因子3个方面，分析胸径、树高、修枝留茬数量、防踩铺装等因素对洋白蜡行道树健康状况的影响。 结果 研究区域中，健康、亚健康、不健康及濒死单株分别占总数的39.20%、41.26%、16.78%和2.76%；建立的BP神经网络健康预测模型中，训练集、验证集、测试集与总集的期望值与预测值之间的相关系数分别为0.999 7、0.972 0、0.997 6及0.995 3，均大于0.950 0，表明此模型能准确地反映洋白蜡行道树12个评价指标与健康评价类别的关系，可用于对同一地区其他白蜡行道树健康状况预测；方差分析和多重比较表明：胸径、修枝留茬、防踩铺装、株距、树池面积、车道数及车道走向均对洋白蜡行道树的健康状况存在显著影响(P＜0.05)，树高影响较小。当洋白蜡胸径为60~70 cm、树体无修枝留茬、树池铺装透水性好、株距为5~10 m、树池面积为1~2 m2、道路宽度适宜且为南北走向时，洋白蜡健康状况最好。 结论 研究区域内，洋白蜡行道树整体呈亚健康状态，具有良好的保育保养潜力，部分受害严重，亟需处理。在洋白蜡行道树栽植及后期管护中，确保其修剪规范、铺装材料透水强、株距5~10 m、树池面积1~2 m2以及适宜的道路情况，是保证洋白蜡行道树健康状况良好的重要措施。图3表13参26 Abstract:Objective For the rapid, accurate, and productive assessment of urban tree health, this study aims to investigate and analyze the growth, health, and management status of Fraxinus pennsylvanica in Beijing core functional area, so as to provide a scientific basis for comprehensive health assessment and technical measures for management and protection. Method Taking street trees of 11 main streets in the core area of Beijing as the research object, the health assessment model of F. pennsylvanica was constructed by principal component analysis and K-means clustering. The results were verified by discriminant analysis, and the BP neural network health prediction model was established by combining the assessment results with the assessment indexes. Meanwhile, the effects of DBH, tree height, the number of pruning stubble, anti-trampling pavement etc. on the health status of F. pennsylvanica were analyzed. Result The results indicated that healthy, sub-healthy, unhealthy, and dying plants accounted for 39.20%, 41.26%, 16.78%, and 2.76%, respectively. In the BP neural network health prediction model, the correlation coefficients between expected value and predicted value of the training set, verification set, test set, and total set were 0.9997, 0.9720, 0.9976 and 0.9953 respectively, all greater than 0.9500, indicating that the model could accurately reflect the relationship between 12 evaluation indexes and health assessment categories of F. pennsylvanica and could be used to predict the health status of other F. pennsylvanica in the same area. Variance analysis and multiple comparisons showed that DBH, pruning stubble, anti-trampling pavement, plant spacing, tree pool area, number of lanes and lane direction all had significant effects on the health status of F. pennsylvanica (P＜0.05), but tree height had little effect. The health condition of F. pennsylvanica was the best under the following conditions: 60−70 cm DBH, tree body without pruning stubble, tree pool pavement with good water permeability, 5−10 m tree spacing, 1−2 m2 tree pool area, suitable road width, and north-south direction. Conclusion F. pennsylvanica street trees in the study area are in a sub-health state on the whole, with good conservation and maintenance potential. However, some of them are seriously damaged and need to be dealt with urgently. In planting and management process, important measures should be taken to ensure the good status of F. pennsylvanica, such as standard pruning, strong water permeability of pavement materials, 5−10 m plant spacing, 1−2 m2 tree pool area, and suitable road conditions . [Ch, 3 fig. 13 tab. 26 ref.] -
图 3 期望值和预测值的相关系数
Figure 3 Correlation coefficient between measured and predicted values
表 1 研究区域道路概况
Table 1. Roads’ profile in study area
道路名称 单向车道数 道路走向 道路类型 行政区划 道路名称 单向车道数 道路走向 道路类型 行政区划 南礼士路二条 1 东西 支路 西城 青年沟路 1 东西 次干路 东城 南纬路 2 东西 次干路 西城 先农坛西路 1 南北 支路 西城 燕京北街 1 东西 支路 西城 二七剧场路 1 南北 支路 西城 史家胡同 1 东西 支路 东城 南花市大街 2 南北 次干路 东城 西兴隆街 1 东西 支路 东城 德胜门内大街 2 南北 次干路 西城 崇文门西大街 3 东西 主干道 东城 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 主成分特征根及方差贡献率
Table 2. Principal component characteristic root and variance contribution rates
主成分 特征根 方差贡献率(wi)/% 累计方差贡献率(W)/% 主成分 特征根 方差贡献率(wi)/% 累计方差贡献率(W)/% F1 1.952 16.264 16.264 F4 1.137 9.477 52.449 F2 1.712 14.267 30.531 F5 1.102 9.179 61.629 F3 1.493 12.441 42.972 F6 1.008 8.396 70.025 说明：F1~F6为前6个主成分
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 因子载荷矩阵
Table 3. Factor load matrix
指标 主成分 指标 主成分 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 x1 0.492 −0.312 0.211 −0.168 0.351 0.291 x7 0.781 −0.156 −0.398 0.091 −0.180 0.019 x2 0.409 0.109 0.047 −0.325 0.636 0.148 x8 0.722 −0.280 −0.370 0.169 −0.260 0.045 x3 0.328 0.533 0.369 −0.206 −0.300 0.031 x9 0.272 0.319 0.110 −0.320 0.222 −0.401 x4 0.294 0.534 0.234 −0.174 −0.426 0.002 x10 −0.116 0.066 0.263 0.062 −0.104 0.816 x5 0.161 0.060 0.337 0.696 0.258 −0.164 x11 −0.041 0.675 −0.473 0.043 0.219 0.111 x6 0.290 0.364 0.357 0.518 0.108 −0.012 x12 −0.136 0.482 −0.644 0.177 0.125 0.177
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 基于K-均值聚类分析的健康判别结果
Table 4. Health discrimination results based on K-means clustering analysis
健康等级 线性判别分析 健康/株 亚健康/株 不健康/株 濒死/株 总计/株 健康 341 0 0 0 341 亚健康 0 359 0 0 359 不健康 0 0 146 0 146 濒死 0 0 0 24 24 总计 341 359 146 24 870
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 11条道路洋白蜡的健康状况
Table 5. Health condition of F. pennsylvanica in 11 roads
道路名称 健康树 亚健康树 不健康树 濒死树 总数/株 数量/株 比例/% 数量/株 比例/% 数量/株 比例/% 数量/株 比例/% 南礼士路二条 3 5.40 22 39.30 19 33.90 12 21.40 56 南纬路 21 47.70 18 40.90 5 11.40 0 0.00 44 燕京北街 51 63.00 26 32.10 4 4.90 0 0.00 81 史家胡同 10 16.70 34 56.70 13 21.70 3 5.00 60 西兴隆街 38 52.80 29 40.30 4 5.60 1 1.40 72 崇文门西大街 20 30.30 41 62.10 4 6.10 1 1.50 66 青年沟路 69 32.40 79 37.10 60 28.20 5 2.30 213 先农坛西路 18 41.90 22 51.20 3 7.00 0 0.00 43 二七剧场路 24 40.00 22 36.70 13 21.70 1 1.70 60 南花市大街 46 69.70 17 25.80 3 4.50 0 0.00 66 德胜门内大街 41 37.60 49 45.00 18 16.50 1 0.90 109 总数 341 39.20 359 41.26 146 16.78 24 2.76 870
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 胸径对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 6. Effects of DBH on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
胸径/cm 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 ≥10~＜20 82 0.96±0.07 ab 0.71 1.15 0.01 ≥20~＜30 354 0.96±0.08 ab 0.39 1.15 0.00 ≥30~＜40 241 0.93±0.11 a 0.45 1.10 0.01 ≥40~＜50 132 0.93±0.09 a 0.45 1.07 0.01 ≥50~＜60 54 0.92±0.10 a 0.47 1.08 0.01 ≥60~＜70 7 0.99±0.06 b 0.88 1.06 0.02 说明：不同小写字母表示不同胸径间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 树高对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 7. Effects of tree height on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
树高/m 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 ≥0~＜6 8 0.89±0.12 a 0.64 1.00 0.04 ≥6~＜12 494 0.94±0.10 a 0.45 1.15 0.00 ≥12~＜18 339 0.95±0.09 a 0.39 1.15 0.00 ≥18~＜24 29 0.95±0.05 a 0.84 1.05 0.01 说明：不同小写字母表示不同树高间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 修枝留茬对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 8. Effects of pruning stubble on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
修枝留茬/个 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 0 375 0.97±0.08 b 0.58 1.15 0.00 1 215 0.94±0.10 a 0.39 1.08 0.01 2~3 180 0.92±0.11 a 0.45 1.10 0.01 ＞3 100 0.92±0.08 a 0.56 1.06 0.01 说明：不同小写字母表示不同修枝留茬数间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 9 树池防踩铺装情况对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 9. Effects of anti-stepping paving condition on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
防踩铺装 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 无铺装 103 0.88±0.12 a 0.45 1.05 0.01 透水性强铺装 748 0.95±0.09 b 0.39 1.15 0.00 透水性差铺装 19 0.91±0.10 a 0.62 1.03 0.02 说明：不同小写字母表示不同防踩铺装间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 10 株距对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 10. Effects of plant spacing on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
株距/m 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 ≥0~＜5 68 0.90±0.11 a 0.45 1.09 0.01 ≥5~＜10 750 0.95±0.09 b 0.39 1.15 0.00 ≥10 52 0.94±0.09 b 0.66 1.05 0.01 说明：不同小写字母表示不同株距间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 11 树池面积对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 11. Effects of tree pool area on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
树池面积/㎡ 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 ≥0~＜1 9 0.90±0.10 a 0.64 0.99 0.03 ≥1~＜2 772 0.95±0.09 b 0.39 1.15 0.00 ≥2 89 0.90±0.11 a 0.45 1.04 0.01 说明：不同小写字母表示不同树池面积间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 12 单向车道数对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 12. Effects of the number of unidirectional traffic lanes on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
单向车
道数/条样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 1 585 0.93±0.10 a 0.39 1.12 0.00 2 219 0.97±0.07 b 0.64 1.15 0.00 3 66 0.95±0.06 ab 0.70 1.07 0.01 说明：不同小写字母表示不同单向车道数间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
表 13 车道走向对洋白蜡健康状况的影响
Table 13. Effects of directions of traffic lanes on the health status of F. pennsylvanica
车道走向 样本量 健康综合得分 平均值±标准差 极小值 极大值 标准误 东西 592 0.94±0.10 a 0.39 1.15 0.00 南北 278 0.96±0.07 b 0.64 1.15 0.00 说明：不同小写字母表示不同车道走向间差异显著(P＜0.05)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 周姝雯, 高菲, 马克明. 基于ENVI-met模型的北京市典型道路行道树树种优化研究[J]. 中国园林, 2020, 36(6): 141 − 144. ZHOU Shuwen, GAO Fei, MA Keming. Research on species optimization of typical road trees in Beijing based on ENVI-met [J]. Chin Landscape Archit, 2020, 36(6): 141 − 144. [2] 汪瑛. 北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2011. WANG Ying. The Structural Analysis and Health Assessment of Roadside Trees in Beijing [D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2011. [3] CHOW W T L, ROTH M. Temporal dynamics of the urban heat island of Singapore [J]. Int J Climatol, 2006, 26(15): 2243 − 2260. doi: 10.1002/joc.1364 [4] 潘辉, 刘晓华, 黄石德, 等. 城市行道树对道路空间CO浓度的影响[J]. 福建林学院学报, 2008, 28(4): 356 − 360. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2008.04.015 PAN Hui, LIU Xiaohua, HUANG Shide, et al. Effects of urban forest trees on CO concentration in street space [J]. J Fujian Coll For, 2008, 28(4): 356 − 360. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-389X.2008.04.015 [5] FERNÁNDEZ-JURICIC E. Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape [J]. Conserv Biol, 2000, 14(2): 513 − 521. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98600.x [6] 邵鹏. 北京城市核心区国槐行道树健康评价研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020. SHAO Peng. A Study on Health Assessment of Sophora japonica Street Trees in Beijing Urban Core Area [D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2020. [7] 翁殊斐, 黎彩敏, 庞瑞君. 用层次分析法构建园林树木健康评价体系[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2009, 24(1): 177 − 181. WENG Shufei, LI Caimin, PANG Ruijun. Establishment of landscaping tree health assessment model using analytic hierarchy process [J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2009, 24(1): 177 − 181. [8] 游惠明, 游秀花, 陈笑玲, 等. 福州市行道树种综合评价与分级选择[J]. 中国城市林业, 2009, 7(1): 15 − 17. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4925.2009.01.004 YOU Huiming, YOU Xiuhua, CHEN Xiaoling, et al. Integrated evaluation and selection of street trees species in Fuzhou City [J]. J Chin Urban For, 2009, 7(1): 15 − 17. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4925.2009.01.004 [9] 罗贵斌. 汉中市中心城区常绿行道树综合评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2016, 31(2): 302 − 308. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2016.02.51 LUO Guibin. Comprehensive evaluation of the evergreen streettrees planted in the downtown of Hanzhong city [J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2016, 31(2): 302 − 308. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2016.02.51 [10] 李佳慧, 彭祚登, 刘勇, 等. 北京市首都功能核心区国槐健康评价及其影响因素研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(1): 64 − 73. LI Jiahui, PENG Zuodeng, LIU Yong, et al. Health evaluation and influencing factors of Sophora japonica in the capital functional core area of Beijing [J]. J Northwest A&F Univ Nat Sci Ed, 2021, 49(1): 64 − 73. [11] 杜甲宝, 潘盼, 杨芳绒. 主成分分析法在郑州市行道树综合性能评价研究中的应用[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2009, 24(3): 190 − 193. DU Jiabao, PAN Pan, YANG Fangrong. Application of principal component analysis method in the comprehensive function assessment of the street trees in Zhengzhou [J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2009, 24(3): 190 − 193. [12] 郄光发, 彭镇华, 王成. 北京城区银杏行道树生长现状与健康状况研究[J]. 林业科学研究, 2013, 26(4): 511 − 515. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1498.2013.04.019 QIE Guangfa, PENG Zhenhua, WANG Cheng. Growth and health status of Ginkgo biloba in Beijing urban street area [J]. Res For, 2013, 26(4): 511 − 515. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1498.2013.04.019 [13] 莫训强, 闫维, 陈小奎, 等. 活力度分级法在天津空港经济区行道树健康评价中的应用[J]. 国土与自然资源研究, 2012(1): 88 − 90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7853.2012.01.035 MO Xunqiang, YAN Wei, CHEN Xiaokui, et al. Application of street trees’ vigorous degree in greening management: a case of Tianjin airport economic area [J]. Territ Nat Resour Study, 2012(1): 88 − 90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-7853.2012.01.035 [14] 马志林, 陈丽华, 于显威, 等. 北京西山地区不同林分健康状况比较研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(3): 646 − 651. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2010.03.027 MA Zhilin, CHEN Lihua, YU Xianwei, et al. Study on health assessment and comparison of different tree species in the west-mountains area, Beijing [J]. Ecol Environ Sci, 2010, 19(3): 646 − 651. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-5906.2010.03.027 [15] 姬文元, 邢韶华, 郭宁, 等. 川西米亚罗林区云冷杉林健康状况评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 45(3): 13 − 18. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.03.003 JI Wenyuan, XING Shaohua, GUO Ning, et al. Health evaluation on spruce and fir forests in Miyaluo of the western Sichuan [J]. Sci Silv Sin, 2009, 45(3): 13 − 18. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.2009.03.003 [16] 朱宇, 刘兆刚, 金光泽. 大兴安岭天然落叶松林单木健康评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(5): 1320 − 1328. ZHU Yu, LIU Zhaogang, JIN Guangze. Health assessment of individual trees in natural Larix gmelinii forest in Great Xing’ an mountains of China [J]. Chin J ApplEcol, 2013, 24(5): 1320 − 1328. [17] 张楠, 董丽, 郝培尧, 等. 北京市中心城区行道树结构的研究[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2014, 34(5): 101 − 106. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-923X.2014.05.022 ZHANG Nan, DONG Li, HAO Peiyao, et al. Study on structure of street trees in central districts of Beijing [J]. J Cent South Univ For Technol, 2014, 34(5): 101 − 106. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-923X.2014.05.022 [18] 余韵. 北京城市核心区白蜡行道树健康评价研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020. YU Yun. A Study on Health Assessment of Roadside Trees Fraxinus ssp. in Core Area of Beijing [D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2020. [19] 北京市市场监督管理局. 城市树木健康诊断技术规程: DB11/T 1692—2019 [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2019. Beijing Municipal Bureau of Market Supervision and Administration. Technical Regulations for Health Diagnosis of Urban Trees: DB11/T 1692−2019 [S]. Beijing: China Quality and Standards Publishing & Media Co. , Ltd. [20] HAN Xin, WEI Zheng, ZHANG Baozhong, et al. Crop evapotranspiration prediction by considering dynamic change of crop coefficient and the precipitation effect in back-propagation neural network model[J/OL]. J Hydrol, 2021, 596(3/4): 126104[2021-12-10]. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126104. [21] 雷廷, 贾军元, 田福金, 等. 基于BP神经网络预测岩石导热系数[J]. 世界地质, 2021, 40(1): 131 − 139. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5589.2021.01.014 LEI Ting, JIA Junyuan, TIAN Fujin, et al. Prediction of rock thermal conductivity based on BP neural network [J]. Glob Geol, 2021, 40(1): 131 − 139. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5589.2021.01.014 [22] KUMAR M, RAGHUWANSHI N S, SINGH R. Artificial neural networks approach in evapotranspiration modeling: a review [J]. Irrig Sci, 2011, 29(1): 11 − 25. [23] HUANG Xiaoqiao, LI Qiong, TAI Yonghang, et al. Hybrid deep neural model for hourly solar irradiance forecasting [J]. Renewable Energy, 2021, 171: 1041 − 1060. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.161 [24] 赵丹, 李锋, 王如松. 城市地表硬化对植物生理生态的影响研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2010, 30(14): 3923 − 3932. ZHAO Dan, LI Feng, WANG Rusong. Effects of ground surface hardening on plant eco-physiological progress inurban landscape [J]. Acta Ecol Sin, 2010, 30(14): 3923 − 3932. [25] 李科科, 李延明, 丛日晨, 等. 模拟道路种植环境对银杏生长的影响[J]. 中国园林, 2020, 36(7): 117 − 122. LI Keke, LI Yanming, CONG Richen, et al. Simulating the influence of road planting environment on the growth of Ginkgo biloba [J]. Chin Landscape Archit, 2020, 36(7): 117 − 122. [26] 吴迪. 基于日照分析的郑州市行道树配置模式研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2018. WU Di. Configuration Models Research of Avenue Trees Based on Sunlight Analysis in Zhengzhou City[D]. Zhengzhou: Henan Agricultural University, 2018. -
-
链接本文:
https://zlxb.zafu.edu.cn/article/doi/10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20220109
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 30
- 被引次数: 0
