林业研究(英文版)
林業研究(英文版)
임업연구(영문판)
JOURNAL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH
2006年
3期
211-215
,共5页
王顺忠%邵国凡%谷会岩%王庆礼%代力民
王順忠%邵國凡%穀會巖%王慶禮%代力民
왕순충%소국범%곡회암%왕경례%대력민
分类经营%重点公益林%地理信息系统%白河林业局
分類經營%重點公益林%地理信息繫統%白河林業跼
분류경영%중점공익림%지리신식계통%백하임업국
Classified forest management%Key ecological service forest%GIS%Baihe Forestry Bureau
使用GIS区划了白河林业局森林经营类型,并和原有的森林经营类型进行了比较.在数字化区划的森林经营类型中,二级系统被采纳.首先,白河林业局被区划为林地和非林地,其中,总面积的96%为林地,然后,林地区划为重点公益林,一般公益林和商品林.在重新区划的森林经营类型中,商品林达到总面积的45.0%,是最主要的森林经营类型:重点公益林和一般公益林分别为总面积的21.2%和29.9%.两个区划结果有很大的不同,在数字化区划的森林经营类型中,各类型斑块数量较多,面积较小,这些不同主要由使用数据,区划单位和区划方法的不同引起的.研究表明,GIS在区划森林经营类型时是一种有效的方法,二类数据和其它类型数据的结合是必要的.图2表4参22.
使用GIS區劃瞭白河林業跼森林經營類型,併和原有的森林經營類型進行瞭比較.在數字化區劃的森林經營類型中,二級繫統被採納.首先,白河林業跼被區劃為林地和非林地,其中,總麵積的96%為林地,然後,林地區劃為重點公益林,一般公益林和商品林.在重新區劃的森林經營類型中,商品林達到總麵積的45.0%,是最主要的森林經營類型:重點公益林和一般公益林分彆為總麵積的21.2%和29.9%.兩箇區劃結果有很大的不同,在數字化區劃的森林經營類型中,各類型斑塊數量較多,麵積較小,這些不同主要由使用數據,區劃單位和區劃方法的不同引起的.研究錶明,GIS在區劃森林經營類型時是一種有效的方法,二類數據和其它類型數據的結閤是必要的.圖2錶4參22.
사용GIS구화료백하임업국삼림경영류형,병화원유적삼림경영류형진행료비교.재수자화구화적삼림경영류형중,이급계통피채납.수선,백하임업국피구화위임지화비임지,기중,총면적적96%위임지,연후,임지구화위중점공익림,일반공익림화상품림.재중신구화적삼림경영류형중,상품림체도총면적적45.0%,시최주요적삼림경영류형:중점공익림화일반공익림분별위총면적적21.2%화29.9%.량개구화결과유흔대적불동,재수자화구화적삼림경영류형중,각류형반괴수량교다,면적교소,저사불동주요유사용수거,구화단위화구화방법적불동인기적.연구표명,GIS재구화삼림경영류형시시일충유효적방법,이류수거화기타류형수거적결합시필요적.도2표4삼22.
This paper demonstrates a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) procedure of classifying and mapping forest management category in Baihe Forestry Burea, Jilin Province, China. Within the study area, Baihe Forestry Bureau land was classified into a two-hierarchy system. The top-level class included the non-forest and forest. Over 96% of land area is forest in the study area, which was further divided into key ecological service forest (KES), general ecological service forest (GES), and commodity forest (COM).COM covered 45.0% of the total land area and was the major forest management type in Baihe Forest Bureau. KES and GES accounted for 21.2% and 29.9% of the total land area, respectively. The forest management zones designed with GIS in this study were then compared with the forest management zones established using the hand draw by the local agency. There were obvious differences between the two products. It suggested that the differences had some to do with the data sources, basic unit and mapping procedures. It also suggested that the GIS method was a useful tool in integrating forest inventory data and other data for classifying and mapping forest zones to meet the needs of the classified forest management system.