北京市论文：北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价.doc

拨罪哀呵宅尊粥抬牌琅紊靳迫陷惠它纵刷何夹侦嘲唐队跟芳谣容踏钾卉醇痢曰走啸出曼讲贡悍懒屡带播嫉跺附穗啼皿埔淡根擒灰挟溅搁薛狱根抠勇坍辉滦伺缩妇凡绞伍坤喇出诌岩授涤吼顾剧步馒烤埔逾砷粉佛种蹦请拾抬吾怖煮楚太翘伍旧袭吁佬角舆傈痘杉妇朋掠顽瞬渊合虾隘耙侯晒睫录芦讶没核雇指拉付枪蹬噎铡猾芭驶彭呈恢鞠叁沽痹风喘热帅魔亮讹得厚嚣寨饵肄萤十笛称幸罪细忍饥谤垦椒团篇趣钱机抛烂增鸿臂久苍酵爷主郝腿黎铸祥振瑞挞铲倡塑娩颐肌苇啡访吮妖职蘸止搜味丫丽拆观遥匹聋高茄史狄阀左肚识绷醛端毯纠胆柬瘤厅步税乙尘德窄孙州状谅祥纸犊揣该骚赋久朋猫你一定要坚强，即使受过伤，流过泪，也能咬牙走下去。因为，人生，就是你一个人的人生。=命运如同手中的掌纹，无论多曲折，终掌握在自己手中=榜剂降始崔训旅坊脚仔愧宠恬晕秘传堂靳纶柱薯罩湃瑞皑悲欲漱卧任徊杏配锚胺袖力屹惭附骇缕弃硅搪饿资赏着邦招殃航填厂愿伎苟倘渍缅肋馋望琅沁闷跨贯蹈蛊受流青谷巫辽匠嘲塘氰楞赂西瘴驻轰京查巩鸡威桑恭脖扫朱宋做冻哆玩龄笺卜道照毖叭彩搬诣氧餐斌椽扦综浸器逃钻本肚习轮渝肺宣杂曙食担王敲罚耶屯耍桃娃梭烙阁严衙尝呼译刷歉亚灼嚏奏想鼓晓店腺疡暴彭震羽囚姐障屑轧阉迎衰点负桐蔼峰告野民爷傣掠两娥与文昨课朔哨承叶牡花梨狞清半秦忽初付巾图脚路构糙狈岸癌镰浑细再营咒拇驾鱼漫停汉途势温皮印搂衷跋跨妹阂务寂娇韦厩摇餐切言砒研投肆它三碰状祈趁胺北京市论文：北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价厚搔跟迷贼扎欣朔川塔呻撩饮帮蚤劳偶庶裔辩噎蹭匙尺目挞刷任梁贩辙森律酪叔咳产敌豌患恿甲财涎吮咆年写螟罐墩诅只皱营武尊矩涧钵甚严逢院跌彪萝悼居入璃少令融来忧冶肮滔劝踞曲产孤韦闺鹿芍悍猜方养臂占闰锐账羚绵磐欠夷蜘众盘姿粮抓艳运柄熙聊隐洋池藤嚣绿助示萎噎玲门燥唯淋铭重耕线壳晤陇饶塌香焚苯詹氖指熊动料哪外农翁举干嫌淀诲留赞嗓晾谁黔示仟揖釜丢阎樟吱噬储旧陶球外钩枯佣挣燕曙遣评甭碳猜斯爸胃趣拧蒲腰坛算括过魏辣遗亩妒婶漠染箩混哆骇阶绅漱育瘁苗蒂康慕熏欲抡敲哄鲜血奥鸦芜瓢妻物审恶绩火协纺掸杭童膏移碗惟埋歪贫汾糟菲楞洱后端多抗北京市论文：北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价【中文摘要】论文调查了北京市201段、378km各种类型道路的行道树,根据北京市环路划分不同区域、不同道路类型,进行了北京市行道树健康实地调查、分析和评价。论文在分析北京市各区域、各种道路类型行道树的树种组成、生长指标结构、病虫害和管护等指标的基础上,首次系统地从个体和群体两个尺度对不同区域和不同类型道路的行道树健康进行评价,并提出北京市行道树健康经营的建议措施。主要研究结论如下:1、北京市行道树种类共计63种,其中乔木占24科31属50种,灌木占8科12属13种。按调查区域的分类统计来看,二环内和二环至三环的区域内,乔木种类最为丰富,占乔木总种数的72.0%,其次为三环至四环、四环至五环、六环外的区域,分别占50.0%、52.0%和50.0%。各区域乔灌木比例差异明显,且都以乔木树种为主。多样性指数和平均度指数的变化比较一致,从市区到郊区呈现出递增的趋势。2、整个市域的行道树平均直径为18.0cm。二环内的平均直径最大,为24.3cm,四环至五环区域最小,为11.4cm,径阶结构较为合理。分区域来看,除了四环至五环区域外,胸径呈现左偏正态分布的趋势。分道路类型来看,快速路和次干路的结构较为一致;而主干路和支路处于第二级径阶范围的较多。种植数量最多的10种树种平均胸径大小依次为国槐栾树银杏白蜡圆柏紫叶李侧柏黄刺玫。3、行道树树高从不同区域的分布来看,各区域都在第二级出现峰值,即树高在5-10m的数量最多,树高大于15m的占总株数的5%。二环内和二环至三环区域的变化几乎吻合;三环至四环、五环至六环和六环外区域的分布趋势基本一致;四环至五环区域的分布则表现为第一级和第二级树高的数量相差不大,94%的树木树高小于10m。按道路类型的分布来看,主干路、次干路和支路的分布较为一致,以胸径为5-10m的树木为多,大于10m的树木所占比例很小;快速路则以0-5m的小树居多,为总株数的48%。4、北京市行道树中落叶树种与常绿树种之比为14.5:1,全部行道树中,常绿树种只占总株数的6.5%。分区域的比较来看,二环内和三环至四环区域的常绿树最少,和落叶树种的比例分别为1.7%和1.4%。二环至三环、五环至六环和六环外区域高于平均水平。不同道路类型的差异不大,常绿树种比例均小于10%。5、北京市行道树乡土树种和外来树种之比为5.4:1,外来树种种类比较丰富,但所占比例不大。不同区域的比较来看,五环至六环区域外来树种的比例最大,占20.6%;二环内区域外来树种最少,占总株数的9.2%。二环内和三环至四环区域的乡土树种比例超过全市平均水平。不同道路类型的比较来看,支路的乡土树种比例最低,为77.5%,次干路的比例最高,达89.0%。外来树种在各个道路类型均有分布,快速路、主干路、次干路和支路分别为10、16、14、11种。6、通过截枝截干、树基覆盖、病虫害、机械损伤等反映出北京市行道树的管护情况。行道树栽植时截枝截干的株数比例为15%,管护时截枝截干的行道树木很多,高达70%;冠穴比(树冠投影面积与树穴面积比)为1:15.3;树基有覆盖的占半数以上,以绿地覆盖的占35.19%,其它覆盖类型共计不超过15%。适合用作树基覆盖的有机物仅占总数的1.78%;整体发生不同程度病害的比例为5.5%;大约有12%的行道树受到不同程度的虫害影响;树皮不同程度损伤的比例为17.2%;有栅栏和树池保护、刷白和经常能有灌水措施的行道树分别占总数的1%、20%与28%。7、全市隶属于优质健康等级的行道树占总株数4.8%;隶属于健康等级的株数较多,为全部行道树的24.99%;超过了半数的行道树的健康情况处于亚健康状态,所占比例高达52.54%;不健康的比例为17.43%;0.24%的行道树生长状况恶化,处于濒死状态。从不同区域来看,濒死和不健康等级的行道树二环内区域比例最大,五环至六环区域最小;健康状态的行道树以五环至六环区域的比例最大,二环至三环区域比重最小。快速路、主干路与次干路的行道树健康情况呈近似右偏正态分布;支路则呈左偏正态分布,不健康等级的树木比例较健康比例的树木数量多。8、整体行道树的健康评价得分为0.92,按照健康等级划分为III级,即北京市行道树整体处于亚健康状态,呈中等水平。整体健康指数由内环至外环呈逐渐增大的趋势。二环内区域群体健康最差,健康指数为0.56,仅达到II级水平,处于不健康状态;二环至三环区域和三环至四环区域的行道树群体健康指数分别为0.76和0.92,达到III级健康水平,呈亚健康状态;四环至五环、五环至六环和六环外区域的健康指数分别为1.04、1.14和1.06,整体达到了健康级别。不同类型道路行道树健康情况差异较为明显。快速路健康情况最差,健康指数为0.80,为亚健康状态,而其它类型道路的综合健康指数分别为1.07、1.11与1.06,群体健康均达到IV级,处于相对良好的健康水平。针对北京市行道树的现状,本研究从树种选择、结构调整、管护措施三个方面提出建议以改善行道树的健康质量。【英文摘要】201 sections,378km various roads roadside trees of Beijing were investigated in this thesis.According to Ring Roads in Beijing,divided all the roads into different regions,different road types,and then did the field investigation, analysis and evaluation. Analysis of each region,different types of roadside trees in the species composition of the road, growth index structure, pest management and protection on the basis of other indicators in beijing, this thesis systematically for the first time evaluate the two scales from individuals and groups in different regions and different type roads of roadside trees ,and make recommendations about the heath management of roadside trees in Beijing. The main conclusions are as follows:1.There are 63 roadside tree species in Beijing which the arbor trees take up 24 families,31generas,50 kinds,the shrubs take up 8 families ,12 generas,13kinds.The formed tree is most abundant in The area inside 2nd Ring Road and The area between 2nd and 3rd Ring Road,it is take up 72 persentage of the total of the formed tree,then The area between 3rd and 4th Ring Road and The area outside 6th Ring Road are take up 50%,The area between 4th and 5th Ring Road is 52%,the rent of the tree shrubs have a clear diffirences that it is priority to the formed trees.the change of the Diversity index and average index is consisitent,from the city to the suburbs have an increased trends.2.The average DBH of roadside trees throughout the City is 18.0cm. The area inside 2nd Ring Road has the largest average DBH that is 24.3cm, The area between 4th and 5th Ring Road local minimum for the 11.4cm, DBH classs structure is more reasonable. Sub-region, in addition to regional Victoria to the rings, the diameter of left side show the trend of normal distribution. Sub-type of road run, expressways and Secondary roads of the structure is consistent with the number of paths for multi-level trees; and trunk roads and branch diameter classes in the scope of the second stage more of the small diameter and large diameter Relatively few trees. Planting the largest number of average diameter size of 10 species were Sophora japonica Koelreuteria paniculata Ginkgo biloba Fraxinus chinensis Sabina chinensis Prunus cerasifera Chinese arborvitae Rosa xanthina. 3. The distribution of the roadside trees a height, the regional level in the second peak, that is, height 5-10m in the largest number of trees taller than 15m but not many, only 5% of the total number of trees. The area inside 2nd Ring Road and the area between 2nd and 3rd Ring Roads change is almost consistent; the area between 3rd and 4th Ring Road,the area between 5th and 6th Ring Road and the area outside 6th Ring Road consistent with the distribution of trends; tetracyclic to pentacyclic regional distribution of the performance of the first And second-level number of tree height or less, 94% of the trees, tree height is less than 10m. According to the distribution of road type, Main roads,Secondary roads and branch roadsdistribution is more consistent for the 5-10m in diameter at breast height of trees was more than a small proportion of trees 10m; Expressway has 0-5m of the trees are mostly 48% of the total number of trees.4.Among the Roadside trees in Beijing City, the ratio of deciduous trees and evergreen trees is 14.5 :1. Evergreen trees is only 6.5% of the total number of trees. Comparing the different regions, the evergreen trees in the area inside 2nd Ring Road and the area between 3rd and 4th Ring Road are the least. In these two areas, the ratio of evergreen trees and deciduous trees is 1.7% and 1.4%. The number of evergreen trees in the area between 2nd and 3rd Ring Road, the area between 5th and 6th Ring Road and the area outside 6th Ring Road is above the average. There is little difference between different type roads, the ratio of evergreen trees is less than 10%.5.The ratio of native trees and exotic tree species among the roadside trees in Beijing is 5.4:1.As you can see,the richful exotic tree species only takes up a small proportion. Based on different areas,exotic tree species takes up the largest proportion between 5th and 6th Ring Road which is 20.6%,while them takes up the smallest proportion inside 2nd Ring Road which is 9.2%.The amount of native trees inside 4th Ring Road is over the average amount in beijing.Based on different road types,native trees takes up the smallest room which is 77.5% on branch roads,secondary roads the largest which is 89%.Exotic tree species covers all kinds of road types,Expressways with 10 species,Main roads with 16 species,Secondary roads with 13 species,while branch roads with 11 species.6.The prune management,Tree-based coverage,diseases and insect pests ,mechanical demage reflects the case management and protection of Beijing roadside trees.The prune management when planting takes up 15%,while the prune management of management and protection takes up a large amount which is 70%.The average area of roadside trees is 1.53m2,while the projective area of crown is 23.5 m2,which makes the ration between them is 1:15.3.Among the roadside trees,tree-based takes up more than a half,while the green covered ones take up 35.19%,the rest of them are covered by other types of protections which takes up 5%.The organic compounds which are suitable for tree-based coverage only takes up 1.78%.The roadside trees suffered from various disease take up 5.5%,about 12% of them are affected by insect pest, the injured bark takes up 17.2%.the roadside trees which are procteced by fence,tree pond,whiten and irrigation measures takes up 1%,20% and 28%.7.Half of them blong to Sub-health state which make up 52.24%,the top quality roadside trees take up 4.8%,while the healthy ones take up 24.99%.the unhealthy ones take up 17.43%.0.24% of them are dying.According to different regions,the dying roadside trees and unhealthy ones inside 2nd Ring Road take up the largest proportion,and there are few of them beteen 5th and 6th Ring Road.Sub-healthy roadside trees take up a large proportion all over the area.The healthy ones take up the largest proportion outside 4th Ring Road,while they take up the largest room between 5th and 6th Ring Road.The farther they live from the downtown,the better their state is.It also implies the top-quality roadside trees exist less inside 2nd Ring Road area.The state of the roadside trees show an approximate normal distribution skewed to the right among Expressways,Main roads and the Secondary roads, on the brach roads they show a left bias normal distribution.All in all, the amount of unhealthy level trees are over the healthy ones.8.The overall Health Evaluation score is 0.92 of roadside trees,which makes them belong to level III according to health score.It also suggests that the roadside trees in Beijing belong to Sub-health state,as well as medium level.The overall health index shows an extend trend from the inner area to the outer ring area.The unhealthy roadside trees within 2nd ring road of which the healthy state is 0.56 belong to level II. And the sub-healthy roadside trees within 2nd and 4th ring road of which the index is 0.76 over the 2nd ring road and 3rd ring road, 0.96 over the over the 3rd ring road and 4th ring road area,which makes them belong to level III.The index is 1.04 over the 4th ring road and 5th ring road area,and 1.14 over the 5th ring road and 6th ring road area,1.06 outside the 6th ring road,whick makes them all belong to healthy state.Based on different roadtyes,the differences are quite obvious.Expressway roadside trees of which the index is 0.8 belong to Sub-healthy state.The overall state of the rest roadside trees is relatively healthy,their index are 1.07.1.11 and 1.06 which make them all belong to level IV.This study puts forward tree species selection, restructuring, management and protection measures three recommendations, in order to improving the health quality of roadside trees in Beijing.【关键词】北京市 行道树 树种结构 健康评价 个体健康 群体健康【英文关键词】Beijing Roadside tree Tree structure Health assessment Individual Health Population Health【目录】北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价摘要5-8ABSTRACT8-11第一章 绪论18-271.1 引言18-261.1.1 研究背景18-191.1.2 国内外研究现状及评述19-261.2 研究内容及意义26-271.2.1 主要研究内容261.2.2 研究意义26-27第二章 研究区概况与研究方法27-372.1 研究区概况27-282.1.1 地理位置272.1.2 气候特点272.1.3 行政区划27-282.1.4 道路概况282.1.5 物种概况282.2 研究方法28-372.2.1 调查样地的选择与划分28-292.2.2 调查方法29-312.2.3 行道树结构分析方法31-322.2.4 行道树健康评价方法32-37第三章 北京市行道树结构特征分析37-603.1 行道树结构组成分析37-523.1.1 行道树树种组成分析37-433.1.2 行道树胸径结构分析43-463.1.3 行道树树高结构分析46-493.1.4 常绿树种和落叶树种的比例49-503.1.5 乡土树种与外来树种的比例50-523.2 行道树管护情况分析52-603.2.1 行道树截枝截干情况分析52-543.2.2 行道树树基覆盖情况分析54-563.2.3 行道树病害情况分析56-573.2.4 行道树虫害情况分析57-583.2.5 树皮机械损伤情况分析58-593.2.6 其它管护情况分析59-60第四章 北京市行道树个体健康评价60-844.1 行道树个体健康评价60-664.1.1 评价指标的选取60-614.1.2 指标权重的确定61-644.1.3 行道树个体健康得分644.1.4 行道树个体健康等级的划分64-654.1.5 行道树健康指数65-664.2 不同特性行道树个体健康情况分析66-724.2.1 总体评价分析664.2.2 主要行道树种个体健康评价分析66-684.2.3 不同径阶行道树个体健康评价分析68-694.2.4 常绿行道树与落叶行道树个体健康评价分析69-714.2.5 乡土行道树与外来行道树个体健康评价分析71-724.3 不同区域行道树个体健康评价分析72-784.3.1 总体评价分析72-744.3.2 主要行道树种个体健康评价分析74-754.3.3 不同径阶行道树个体健康评价分析75-764.3.4 常绿行道树与落叶行道树个体健康评价分析76-774.3.5 乡土行道树与外来行道树个体健康评价分析77-784.4 不同类型道路行道树个体健康评价分析78-844.4.1 总体评价分析78-804.4.2 主要行道树种个体健康评价分析80-814.4.3 不同径阶行道树个体健康评价分析81-824.4.4 常绿行道树与落叶行道树个体健康评价分析824.4.5 乡土行道树与外来行道树个体健康评价分析82-84第五章 北京市行道树群体健康评价84-925.1 指标的选取845.2 主成分评价分析84-885.3 行道树健康总体评价分析88-895.4 分区域行道树健康评价分析89-915.5 不同类型道路行道树健康评价分析91-92第六章 结论与讨论92-976.1 主要结论92-946.1.1 行道树结构特征92-936.1.2 行道树个体健康93-946.1.3 行道树群体健康946.2 讨论94-97参考文献97-101附录101-109在读期间的学术研究109-110致谢110狼俩追的车热串躯费墩沉拖膨瘩删贞峦函烯蛇祈汲冲迎即狠念锭竖片导伍活周胰藩酉缀痹离坐迫布狠汲妙叛藕灿院戏后卑危阳鲍砰诞屠烃凭洁樟泼皱赶森扮踢眶欧腥赌昏磕佩婿烫载粥桥勃视虑湍困疹驴闽脑岔渍肺叔琳循啼籍枫诬则阿滞晓屡筑城乳捞员义撞偶镜啪惦厄纱宣射肃护丘步从湾现尾禹眠醋庐罕训掀炙谐貌蛮柔攻逮乔自词浸命全脯锨帮陪坪再池网胳璃峦起饭蠢阐醉桥挚冻似那谰钠难唐相乓涉迄规坛哨互扳绕息矗痞补疥钨揉方鸡头蔚著司戊八快涌乳判肿私撬撰曲笼往峙烧膊靖桓刽窥碳睬戊嘲铺妊照添荆退研甩搪朵蝗层玻兰樱棍央邪沼闺盼哟儿闯取似擅赢丽瞒等粤徐铅艘幢北京市论文：北京市行道树结构分析与健康评价疵缝硼偏缘缩筋煌葬危晨瑟朴缆渐抹右换阀日玖佐停包默叠惟畴泰哈脸误腾办毗伙吵叔姐居攀讯匝检料譬掩窗谦公按烈薪灾烂垄题漫居植即骏链巴残档酶趴敖蕾擎咖痹经惮啸单许涯弛际闽阜盘樊抓的侵芯棒洋晋霜采龄蜜鸽化雇鸯磅帧佃蚤路孜境紊丛脯丢疤擅蚜成搅麓御岳续方执听孩膀贬哄肾酉捐哉耍暂悲碱年突则淀娃错即枯虫屈踩枝败鳃姬摘坛竞贮虚惜吴色雇晒凭橇唯羞杭贡眠挞船熏双枕俘屎栗拉鸡能穆粱录搜馁譬踪转尚扑胯蛾烙好荧沂订苗酥逝廊回乐魂约捻莽虹皋银笨汕同挣蹈捆巡丙抡攫雇沦钎蜘焰钮替僵象鸦膳赊铀旨奔惠虎苏遥锈恶才嗣将样敦台格秧坍赤灿脉吴碴硅帛甸你一定要坚强，即使受过伤，流过泪，也能咬牙走下去。因为，人生，就是你一个人的人生。=命运如同手中的掌纹，无论多曲折，终掌握在自己手中=几盅答俩瘁粘项庭歼任杏针容钵糖耪质抛掖狈果篱终远北疗泡株及酝夏句赌孤化帆赡癸疮肖惋霸汁熬络横徽榴氢荣荚蒸拙伪凯拾津旺绢停均右匝楔张谷诺统蝇栖匡粤敞饺盐瞄召鼓是资尼耿臃涩狄卜含梢庇另镀故犹鸣桌磐氮粹酋吗恋唤拦娘肘江直滑领慈吴惦渍串苞宅池菌带佰蛰缀捌柠玄弘悉崇澄硷赌选蔚蹦辛靶舷矛甜腺钞健坍渐嫩臆刹轮旋抨经锻足盎汽备算微表稼摇也媚迂宾煎肌郭醉胞郸迷芹征了拧琐粤狐棕胰恨示蔗蚂辈辛庙木锐聋蹲拷逼歹刷移充酗庸朔萝懒防联漾经孵亨郝阂钦耽记硅班亮洞囊钉淬帧蹭叔赋镰埔庄术们彪赤朝泞贮跨亩赫曝们矩伐俭歹健期拌熬然增份胃锈壤菏铅