森林公园发展之我见

参考资料：

　　[1]李沁. 张剑英. 谈国家森林公园总体规划及其完善问题 。山西林业科技。１９９４年０３期（网络检索-清华同方，途经-主题检索）

　　[2]陈戈. 夏正楷. 俞晖. 森林公园的概念、类型与功能 林业资源管理２００１年０３期（同上）

　　[3]古文强 张建文关于森林公园园区道路的规划与设计广东林勘设计-2004年4期（网络检索-重庆维普，途经-主题检索）

　　[4]徐国祯. 在建立森林公园时如何对现有森林进行改造 中南林业调查规划１９９４年０１期（网络检索-清华同方，途经-主题检索）

　　[5]但新球. 森林公园的疗养保健功能及在规划中的应用 中南林业调查规划１９９４年０１期（同上）

　　[6]于伟荪。论森林公园是林业承担“双属性”使命的重要载体中国林业产业-2005年1期（网络检索-重庆维普，途经-主题检索）

　　[7]刘加利. 我国森林公园开发建设的现状与未来 中南林业调查规划１９９４年０３期（网络检索-清华同方，途经-主题检索）

　　[8]秦常玉. 谢民灵。森林公园开发与经营的思考 山西林业１９９５年０３期（同上）

　　[9]周保平. 加强森林公园建设的宏观调控之浅见 能源基地建设１９９５年０５期（同上）

　　[10]李矿明. 包焱. 关于森林公园植物景观规划设计的探讨 中南林业调查规划１９９６年０３期（同上）

　　[11]王长安. 论我国森林公园建设和森林旅游业在林业及国民经济中的地位与作用 林业资源管理１９９７年０５期（同上）

　　[12]林作园. 森林公园是现代城市的“神经细胞” 新疆林业１９９８年０２期（同上）

　　[13]赵彩山. 王禹彬. 彭鹏. 于连华议森林公园的生物多样性保护 林业勘查设计１９９８年０１期（同上）

　　[14]李玉平. 入世:森林公园发展的新契机 湖南林业２００２年０１期（同上）

　　[15] Agroforestry Systems

　　Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V.ISSN: 0167-4366 (Paper) 1572-9680 (Online)DOI: 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028996.92553.eaIssue: Volume 61-62, Numbers 1-3Date:January 2004Pages: 155 - 165Special Issue:New vistas in Agroforestry

　　[16] Biodiversity and Conservation

　　Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V.ISSN: 0960-3115 (Paper) 1572-9710 (Online)DOI: 10.1007/s10531-004-3914-7Issue: Volume 14, Number 3Date:March 2005 Pages: 547 - 560

　

作者:陈健

8.入世与我国森林公园发展的前景

　　进入20世纪90年代以来，休闲已成为人民生活的重要组成部分，旅游也成为了我国重要的经济支柱。党的十六大明确提出要全面建设小康社会，森林公园建设就成为了全面建设小康社会的一个标志。森林公园建设应抓住意境、氛围、美感，体现知识性、野趣性、审美性，改善人类生存条件和生活质量，其中最重要的是有利于塑造健康的体魄。加入WTO后也必然的推动作为森林旅游载体的森林公园的建设。据媒体报道我国2002年以森林公园为主体的森林生态旅游业，仅门票收入所创造的经营产值即达到37亿元，社会综合产值达850亿元，每年参加森林生态旅游的游客已达3亿人次，仅森林公园则达到1亿人次，正在以每年30％的幅度增长。森林生态旅游也已成为我国非贸易重要外汇收入来源之一。我们要树立“大森林.、大旅游”的思想，以取得良好的社会效益、经济效益和环境效益。在加大旅游基础设施建设力度，通过采取优惠政策，吸引国内外大集团、大企业参与森林旅游开发;同时还要在加大人才引进和培养。通过环保宣传和环保知识教育，唤醒人们的环境意识，提倡生态文明，水葆森林公园的旅人、碧水、宁静和绝色确保可持续发展。

　　Nature vs. nurture: managing relationships between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity

　　Abstract Many agroforestry systems are found in places that otherwise would be appropriate for natural forests, and often have replaced them. Humans have had a profound influence on forests virtually everywhere they both are found. Thus ‘natural’ defined as ‘without human influence’ is a hypothetical construct, though one that has assumed mythological value among many conservationists. Biodiversity is a forest value that does not carry a market price. It is the foundation, however, upon which productive systems depend. The relationship between agroforestry and the wild biodiversity contained in more natural forests is a complicated one, depending on the composition of the agroforestry system itself and the way it is managed. Complex forest gardens are more supportive of biodiversity than monocrop systems, shade coffee more than sun coffee, and systems using native plants tend to be more biologically diverse. Nonnative plants, especially potentially invasive alien species, threaten biodiversity and need to be avoided. The relationship between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity can be made most productive through applying adaptive management approaches that incorporate ongoing research and monitoring in order to feed information back into the management system. Maintaining diversity in approaches to management of agroforestry systems will provide humanity with the widest range of options for adapting to changing conditions. Clear government policy frameworks are needed that support alliances among the many interest groups involved in forest biodiversity.

　　Tree diversity in primary forest and different land use systems in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

　　Abstract We studied the tree communities in primary forest and three different land use systems (forest gardens, ca. 5-year-old secondary forests, cacao plantations) at 900–1200 m elevation in the environs of LoreLinduNational Park, Central Sulawesi. The primary forests had ca. 150 tree species =10 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) per hectare, which is unusually high for forests at this elevation in southeast Asia. Basal area in the primary forest was 140 m2 ha-1, one of the highest values ever recorded in tropical forests worldwide. Tree species richness declined gradually from primary forest to forest gardens, secondary forests, and cacao plantations. This decline was paralleled by shifts in tree family composition, with Lauraceae, Meliaceae, and Euphorbiaceae being predominant in primary forests, Euphorbiaceae, Rubiaceae and Myristicaeae dominating in the forest gardens and Euphorbiaceae, Urticaceae, and Ulmaceae in the secondary forests. Cacao plantations were composed almost exclusively of cacao trees and two species of legume shade trees. Forest gardens further differed from primary forests by a much lower density of understorey trees, while secondary forests had fewer species of commercial interest. Comparative studies of birds and butterflies demonstrated parallel declines of species richness, showing the importance of trees in structuring tropical forest habitats and in providing resources.