Struktuurianalüüs erineva looduslikkuse tasemega puistutes
Laen...
Kuupäev
2017
Kättesaadav alates
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Eesti Maaülikool
Abstrakt
Majandusmetsade ja loodusmetsade erinevus tuleneb peamiselt inimtegevusest metsas.
Majandusmetsades on selgelt näha inimtegevuse märgid, mis mõjutavad puistu struktuuri
ja arengut. Loodusmetsades võib näha varasemate metsatööde jälgi, aga see enam puistu
arengut ja struktuuri ei mõjuta. Töö eesmärgiks on analüüsida puistu ruumilisi
struktuuriindekseid erineva looduslikkuse tasemega puistutes ning erinevates
kasvukohatüüpides puistu püsiproovitükkidel. Käesolev uurimustöö põhineb Eesti metsa
kasvukäigu proovitükkide (KKPRT) ja Natura 2000 elupaigatüübi 9010*(EMKAV)
andmetel. Kokku uuriti töös nelja erinevat struktuuriindeksit 239 püsiproovitükil.
Dispersioonianalüüsi käigus selgus, et KKPRT ja EMKAV alade vahel esinesid suurimad
erinevused puude ruumilise paiknemise suremisindeksi (EMKAV=0,33 ja KKPRT=0,16)
ja liikide segunemisindeksi puhul (EMKAV=0,39 ja KKPRT=0,20). Uurimustöö näitab,
et struktuuriindeksid võivad majandusmetsade ja loodusmetsade vahel erineda üsnagi
suuresti, aga samas leidub ka sarnasusi. Antud tööd saab kasutada, uurimaks
püsiproovitükkide muutusi aastate pärast nii alade siseselt kui ka omavaheliselt. Tööd on
võimalik edasi arendada, jätkates uuringuid majandus- ja loodusmetsade vahel,
selgitamaks välja efektiivsem moodus toota tarbepuitu, kuid samas arendada uusi viise
bioloogilise mitmekesisuse suurendamiseks ja säilitamiseks loodusmetsades.
Uurimusprojekti saab koostada uurides proovitükke, millel on suurem puistu tagavara
ning analüüsides antud proovitükkide eripära ja kuidas saaks inimene kaasa aidata, et luua
suurema tootlikkusega puistu. Samuti saaks uurida edasi kõrgema looduskaitse
hinnanguga metsasid ning kuidas nende tekkeprotsessidele kaasa aidata.
The main differences between managing and natural forests is the rating of human activity in the forest. Clearly visible human activity that affects structure and development of the forest is a managing forest. In a forest where you can still barely see human impact, but it does not affect forest’s structure and development is a natural forest. The purpose of this research is to analyse different structural indices between forest site types and naturalness level, which has not been done yet on such a large amount of data. Research is based on data collected from KKPRT and Natura 2000 habitat type 9010* (EMKAV). Many differences occurred between KKPRT and EMKAV plots and also between forest types and naturalness levels, after doing analysis of variance. The biggest differences between KKPRT and EMKAV occurred in deadwood mingling index (EMKAV=0,33) and KKPRT=0,16) and mingling index (EMKAV=0,39 and KKPRT=0,20) during analysis of variance. According to research the results of indices can differ a lot between managing and natural forests, however there are also similarities. Research can be used to examine the differences between the plots, internally and externally further in the coming years. Research can be continued to examine the differences to find an effective method to produce more timber or find a way to maintain and expand biodiversity in natural forests. A project can be created to inspect the plots which has bigger wood supply and how can humans help to make a more productive forest. Also natural forests can be examined to find out how forests can get faster to higher naturalness level.
The main differences between managing and natural forests is the rating of human activity in the forest. Clearly visible human activity that affects structure and development of the forest is a managing forest. In a forest where you can still barely see human impact, but it does not affect forest’s structure and development is a natural forest. The purpose of this research is to analyse different structural indices between forest site types and naturalness level, which has not been done yet on such a large amount of data. Research is based on data collected from KKPRT and Natura 2000 habitat type 9010* (EMKAV). Many differences occurred between KKPRT and EMKAV plots and also between forest types and naturalness levels, after doing analysis of variance. The biggest differences between KKPRT and EMKAV occurred in deadwood mingling index (EMKAV=0,33) and KKPRT=0,16) and mingling index (EMKAV=0,39 and KKPRT=0,20) during analysis of variance. According to research the results of indices can differ a lot between managing and natural forests, however there are also similarities. Research can be used to examine the differences between the plots, internally and externally further in the coming years. Research can be continued to examine the differences to find an effective method to produce more timber or find a way to maintain and expand biodiversity in natural forests. A project can be created to inspect the plots which has bigger wood supply and how can humans help to make a more productive forest. Also natural forests can be examined to find out how forests can get faster to higher naturalness level.
Kirjeldus
Bakalaureusetöö
Loodusvarade kasutamise ja kaitse õppekaval
Märksõnad
bakalaureusetööd, liigiline segunemine, diameetrite domineerivus, puude paiknemine, proovitükid, puistud