grass- Cynodon Dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge. The second investigation showed that the vegetation cover rate almost achieves 100% in the study

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) (1) (2) (3) 90.23% 100% 15 Vegetation Characteristic of Landslide Areas after Hydroseeding Shin-Hwei Lin Professor, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. Chi-Sheng Hung, Chun-Jen Huang Graduate Student, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. ABSTRACT The main purpose of this study is to investigate the vegetation on landslide areas, caused by 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. The major places of investigation located in 4 landslide areas with hydroseeding. Based on the results of two field investigations of vegetation datum after hydroseeding, the vegetation restoration, vegetation composition and distribution of invaded plants on landslides are discussed. The first investigation showed that the average vegetation cover rate is 90.23% in the study areas. The dominant plants of the vegetation colonization are herbaceous plants, especially hydroseeding 35

grass- Cynodon Dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge. The second investigation showed that the vegetation cover rate almost achieves 100% in the study areas. Among the invaded herbaceous plants, the most dominant species are the trailing plants, such as Mikania micrantha, Macroptilium atropurpureum, Ipomoea cairica, etc. In addition, the woody plants are one of the dominant species especially Trema irientalis, Buddleja asiatica Lour., Acacia catechu. The percentage of the woody plants is still increasing. According to the results of Matrix Cluster Analysis, the fifteen study areas can be divided into four vegetation types in the first investigation and five vegetation types in the second investigation. Because of the influence of the hydroseeding mixture, the variation and distribution of soil nutrients are considerably wide. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the relationship between environment factors and vegetation species at early stage. (KeywordsHydroseeding, vegetation recovery, vegetation analysis) 21,969 11,297 4 () ( SC) 47 4 SC1SC2SC3 SC4 89.03.27~90.03.14 90.10.23 ~90.12.13 () ( SS) 21,969 11,297 43 47-1 4 89.04.03~89.05.26 89.12. 36

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 22~90.06.16 () ( YT) () ( SJ) 22 93 栀 6 1~4 56 56 90.06.29~90.11.02 89.08.18~89.12.08 1. Figure 1. Location of study areas. 1. GPS () 2. 40 3. () 4. 5. ( ) 37

1. Table 1. The day of vegetation investigation 1. SC 90.09.08 91.04.26 SS 90.10.21 91.09.01 SJ 90.10.23 91.07.06 YT 90.10.06 91.08.16 (Phytosociological parameters) () ( 1983) 92 1 14~19 (1) (frequency) 1/41/23/4 10-20 (Relative frequencyr.f.) 1. R.F.= 100% 2. =( / (2) (cover) )*100 3. Stokes Law (Relative coverr.c.) 4. R.C.= 100% 5. ph 11 (3) (Importance Value Index 30min ph meter IVI) 6. (AA) 7. 2mm = + IVI = R.F.+ R.C. ( 200) () (4) 38

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) Motyka et al.(1950) 3. Motyka 2Mw IS mo = 100% MA + MB matrix of index of similarity value MAA (cluster analysis) MBB (dendrogram) Mw EXCEL 2. 4. Species diversity index ( 1983) (1) Species richnessr 1983) R = S N ( 1987) SPSS S Pearson N (2) Simpson (Simpson s index of diversity)d si D si 2 ( n N ) = 1 ( P) i = 1 C = 1 i n i i Pi= n i /N N ( 1987) (3) Shannon (Shannon s index of diversity) D sh 2 D sh ( n ) ( ) i N log ni N = Pi = logpi (4) Evenness indexe E = D log S sh 2 1. 3 5~8 10 39

1 2500mm 6. ph ph 2000mm 2. SC1pH 7.1SJ 6.7 3.8-6.0 7. 565m 485m 410m ( 1992) 250m 3. 35 35 35 8. ( 2001) 35 48 40 40.5 42.25 4. 40-67ppm 55-2179ppm 28-358ppm 64-273ppm () 5. Y X 2 50% 27% 1. SC3 87% 100% 40

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 2. Table 2. Environment data of study areas. (%) OM ( ) (m) (%) (%) (%) ph (ppm) Ca Mg Na K SC1 E239712 2687427N 40.74 5.36 2.55 45 40 SC2 E239763 2687484N 65.31 12.21 2.42 44 78.12 16.77 5.11 40 485 SC3 E239815 2687546N 52.17 6.95 2.49 ( ) 53 45 0.67 7.13 717 204 50 66 5.81 4.96 579 198 51 189 2.83 5.95 772 207 53 178 SC4 E239828 47.52 11.49 2.51 2687564N 50 45 2.22 5.01 331 273 56 230 SS1 E232290 2685140N 3.21 19.18 2.54 40 80 0.95 4.61 690 240 57 140 SS2 E232290 2685140N 0.51 14.95 2.45 38 0.60 4.97 497 180 43 68 49.75 33.25 17.00 410 SS3 E232280 2685130N 0.58 15.44 2.45 ( ) 41 0.42 5.46 662 256 51 39 72 SS4 E232280 2685130N 0.62 13.47 2.45 43 80 0.15 5.53 524 227 40 36 SJ E226238 27.49 15.17 2.49 2679573N ( 55.70 25.85 18.44 45 ) 565 2.53 6.67 2179 208 67 358 80 YT1 E227830 2649300N 3.66 15.16 2.51 40 20 YT2 E227810 2649290N 2.52 14.86 2.50 40 40 YT3 E227700 2649230N 0.97 14.87 2.49 41 49.19 36.09 14.72 40 250 YT4 E227790 2649260N 1.07 19.70 2.48 ( ) 40 44 YT5 E2277840 2649300N 0.58 23.04 2.52 47.5 50 0.27 4.22 55 64 40 28 1.11 4.19 359 114 49 82 1.29 4.07 55 81 48 77 2.61 3.80 331 128 53 174 1.19 5.69 855 83 48 100 YT6 2277810 2649260N 3.91 16.06 2.58 45 46 0.85 4.38 497 950 49 84 41

3. Table 3. The monthly rainfall at the study areas. 1996-2001 mm 1 (m) (2) 553 239848.2 2686415.0 (2) 337 (2) 330 420 (4) 97 480 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 74.0 170.0 128.0 230.0 297.0 507.0 421.0 504.0 188.0 56.0 7.0 39.0 2621.0 218.4 243912.7 2695119.0 51.0 136.0 113.0 164.0 232.0 454.0 325.0 370.0 119.0 44.0 4.0 32.0 2044.0 170.3 230207.7 2689040.2 49.0 120.0 93.0 173.0 304.0 554.0 362.0 349.0 102.0 46.0 11.0 33.0 2195.0 182.9 231025.7 2668211.7 44.0 103.0 84.0 130.0 224.0 318.0 315.0 440.0 154.0 47.0 6.0 28.0 1892.0 157.6 212393.0 2647852.2 38.0 96.0 73.0 124.0 210.0 314.0 266.0 355.0 111.0 34.0 3.0 24.0 1647.0 137.2 216645.5 2652610.0 51.0 127.0 91.0 163.0 276.0 510.0 338.0 485.0 135.0 42.0 4.0 30.0 2251.0 187.5 100 80 60 0 40 20 0 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS SJ YT1 YT2 YT3 YT4 YT5 YT6 YT 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2. Figure 2. The comparison of vegetation cover in study areas. SC3SC4SS1SS3 (53 ) (52.17%) 100% (6.95% ) 3. SC4 82.25% 2. SC3 97.67% 82.14% 87% 42

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 45 () SS1SS2 IVI 36.61 25.71 45 SS2SS3 SS4IVI 15 1. (SC) 55 SC1SC2 SC3 SS1 26 47.5654.6667.32 SS2 31% 癀 SS3 SC4 IVI 24.96 19.08% SS4 IVI SC4 SC4 SC3 18.7613.51 SC3 IVI 11.16 37 41 SS1 SC1SC4 IVI 24.00 SS2SS3 IVI 15 SS3 40% IVI 64.42 SC2 IVI 92.37 SS1SS2 IVI 38 SS4 IVI 43.76 SC1 IVI 癀 41.68 SC4 IVI 20.71 10.00 SS1 IVI 2. (SS) 12.45 SS1 43

Table 4. The importance value index of plants in study areas at first vegetation investigation. SJ IVI R.C. 54.66 31.53 18.76 13.86 癀 1.13 0.45 56.69 36.69 26.31 15.11 17.94 8.13 0.66 0.32 40.19 19.04 17.87 7.42 16.20 9.34 0.47 0.13 29.80 17.23 14.97 7.51 9.22 4.32 0.47 0.13 20.57 8.00 13.95 7.23 8.86 5.92 200 100 7.79 3.22 9.87 3.15 8.57 1.71 SS2 IVI R.C. 7.50 3.50 9.49 3.52 7.36 4.42 25.71 16.68 7.45 1.73 8.75 2.78 7.00 6.02 18.57 6.07 6.03 2.60 8.00 3.52 6.51 1.61 18.45 11.50 4.54 0.54 7.58 3.11 5.93 2.01 17.33 7.60 4.43 2.14 5.20 3.71 5.63 1.71 17.15 8.82 3.60 0.74 3.44 1.21 4.85 1.91 15.74 12.27 2.83 1.11 3.16 1.67 4.19 3.21 15.04 6.71 2.13 0.99 2.60 1.85 4.05 1.10 10.16 4.60 1.97 0.82 2.60 1.85 4.05 1.10 8.86 1.92 1.72 0.58 2.33 0.83 3.95 1.00 7.98 2.43 1.64 0.49 1.77 1.02 3.79 2.81 6.86 3.39 1.15 0.58 1.67 0.93 2.76 0.80 5.46 2.68 200 100 1.67 0.93 2.56 0.60 4.95 2.17 SC1 IVI R.C. 1.21 0.46 2.36 0.40 4.33 2.94 47.56 31.68 1.02 0.28 2.19 1.20 4.31 1.53 27.76 14.68 0.93 0.19 1.58 0.60 3.93 1.15 24.21 14.86 0.93 0.19 1.38 0.40 3.81 1.73 21.31 7.29 200 100 1.38 0.40 2.61 1.92 12.59 4.18 SC3 IVI R.C. 1.28 0.30 癀 1.96 0.58 8.21 1.67 67.32 39.82 1.28 0.30 1.72 1.02 7.08 3.34 20.71 9.88 1.28 0.30 1.46 0.77 7.08 4.27 17.71 6.05 200 100 1.46 0.77 6.98 5.11 13.51 9.34 SS1 IVI R.C. 1.33 0.64 4.30 0.56 11.16 4.49 36.61 28.45 0.82 0.13 4.28 2.42 8.53 2.69 30.48 11.10 200 100 4.20 0.46 7.76 3.59 27.83 13.55 SS3 IVI R.C. 3.45 1.58 7.70 4.37 26.40 11.10 31.04 14.02 3.45 1.58 6.21 2.87 19.45 8.90 癀 29.30 13.87 2.33 1.39 4.42 2.75 9.89 4.45 28.23 17.06 2.05 1.11 4.12 1.62 9.44 5.35 20.36 9.72 1.77 0.84 3.76 1.26 8.09 2.65 19.22 12.83 1.68 0.74 3.58 1.08 6.30 2.90 12.11 5.19 1.49 0.56 3.10 1.44 3.80 1.42 11.38 3.93 1.31 0.37 1.55 0.72 3.51 1.81 8.57 3.78 1.21 0.28 1.19 0.36 2.67 0.97 7.36 3.64 1.21 0.28 1.01 0.18 2.59 1.23 7.18 4.53 1.21 0.28 1.01 0.18 2.23 1.55 5.73 2.00 1.12 0.19 0.95 0.12 2.01 0.65 3.97 2.37 1.07 0.14 200.00 100.00 1.79 0.77 3.39 1.26 1.07 0.14 SC4 IVI R.C. 1.45 0.77 2.76 2.23 200 100 24.96 19.08 1.39 0.71 2.63 1.04 SC2 IVI R.C. 20.13 5.42 1.33 0.65 1.43 0.37 1.13 0.59 4.58 1.67 1.32 0.46 0.67 0.14 44

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) Table 4. The importance value index of plants in study areas at first vegetation investigation. 0.98 0.45 4.27 2.20 1.25 0.82 0.63 0.09 0.90 0.37 3.75 1.26 1.17 0.31 200 100 0.83 0.30 1.88 1.05 0.74 0.31 YT4 IVI R.C. 0.83 0.30 1.77 0.52 0.69 0.26 17.95 7.54 0.68 0.15 1.56 0.73 0.64 0.21 15.98 10.56 200 100 1.46 0.63 0.64 0.21 12.39 6.14 SS4 IVI R.C. 1.35 0.52 0.64 0.21 12.08 5.42 29.61 15.05 1.04 0.21 0.53 0.10 9.60 2.93 27.52 18.02 0.94 0.52 0.53 0.10 9.58 5.42 16.54 7.68 癀 0.73 0.31 200 100 8.30 2.89 15.58 7.99 0.73 0.31 YT3 IVI R.C. 8.30 2.89 15.55 9.22 0.73 0.31 36.30 21.87 7.22 3.47 13.79 8.09 0.62 0.21 21.42 11.79 6.13 2.80 11.57 4.61 0.62 0.21 19.68 10.58 5.57 3.07 10.12 3.79 0.52 0.10 14.94 6.92 癀 5.21 2.71 癀 7.79 3.99 0.52 0.10 14.85 6.82 4.46 2.80 6.13 2.97 200 100 11.55 4.60 3.99 3.16 5.49 1.69 YT2 IVI R.C. 10.57 7.89 3.96 2.71 4.32 1.79 30.08 20.21 7.41 5.80 3.65 1.99 3.84 1.95 13.53 4.95 7.13 2.32 3.56 1.90 3.33 1.43 12.24 4.95 4.92 2.79 2.91 2.08 3.18 1.28 12.12 5.26 4.67 2.00 2.84 1.17 2.90 1.64 11.34 7.47 4.48 1.81 2.19 1.35 2.72 0.82 11.20 6.91 4.07 1.39 2.01 1.17 2.29 1.02 10.25 3.81 3.88 1.21 2.01 1.17 2.19 0.92 7.92 3.20 3.58 1.44 1.61 0.36 2.19 0.92 7.76 4.33 3.30 1.16 1.56 0.72 2.09 0.82 7.56 5.41 2.93 0.79 1.51 0.68 1.88 0.61 7.26 2.11 2.35 0.74 1.32 0.90 1.14 0.51 7.11 3.25 2.00 0.93 1.24 0.41 1.14 0.51 5.44 2.01 2.00 0.93 1.14 0.72 1.04 0.41 5.00 3.71 1.81 0.74 1.10 0.27 0.94 0.31 4.95 2.37 1.72 0.65 0.87 0.45 0.84 0.20 4.81 1.80 1.53 0.46 0.69 0.27 0.84 0.20 3.74 2.89 1.49 0.42 0.69 0.27 200 100 3.59 1.44 1.28 0.74 0.64 0.23 YT1 IVI R.C. 3.45 0.88 0.91 0.37 200 100 42.64 24.39 3.14 1.86 0.86 0.32 YT5 IVI R.C. 36.26 18.00 2.85 1.13 0.86 0.32 31.17 8.55 33.98 18.63 2.64 0.93 0.86 0.32 29.17 20.83 16.15 7.85 2.63 1.34 0.86 0.32 17.42 7.89 10.00 4.60 1.96 0.67 0.81 0.28 17.06 5.15 8.23 4.50 1.89 1.03 0.77 0.23 16.73 13.16 6.71 2.56 1.89 1.03 0.77 0.23 15.24 6.91 5.93 1.78 1.85 0.57 0.72 0.19 15.19 3.29 5.62 1.88 1.58 0.72 0.72 0.19 14.54 10.96 5.54 4.29 癀 1.37 0.52 0.72 0.19 7.96 4.39 1.87 0.63 0.69 0.26 37.74 19.40 7.52 3.95 45

5. ( ) () Table 5. The importance value index of plants in study areas at second vegetation investigation. 5.58 4.39 0.73 0.25 4.57 0.96 0.97 0.43 3.38 2.19 0.65 0.16 3.58 0.88 0.97 0.43 3.38 2.19 0.61 0.12 3.58 0.88 0.80 0.26 3.26 0.88 0.57 0.08 2.76 0.96 0.71 0.17 2.94 1.75 0.53 0.04 2.28 0.48 癀 0.63 0.09 2.07 0.88 200 100 2.18 1.28 200 100 2.07 0.88 SC1 IVI R.C. 1.54 0.64 SS2 IVI R.C. 1.85 0.66 66.43 34.69 1.30 0.40 41.02 26.88 1.85 0.66 41.68 24.22 1.14 0.24 25.95 14.84 1.63 0.44 24.02 6.56 1.06 0.16 20.90 14.84 200 100 15.49 4.38 1.06 0.16 16.77 10.71 YT6 IVI R.C. 14.09 12.50 1.06 0.16 15.36 3.23 癀 116.58 44.58 13.22 6.88 200 100 9.51 4.46 16.29 14.29 7.24 4.06 SC4 IVI R.C. 9.17 5.13 11.64 7.64 5.05 1.88 57.06 24.27 7.73 1.67 8.93 4.93 4.71 3.13 24.75 14.91 7.73 1.67 8.68 4.68 2.21 0.63 24.29 7.89 7.39 3.35 8.11 3.45 2.21 0.63 20.71 15.79 7.39 3.35 7.59 4.93 1.90 0.31 14.97 11.70 5.83 1.78 10.06 7.39 1.74 0.16 12.00 3.80 4.70 2.68 3.13 2.46 200 100 10.00 6.73 4.09 1.06 3.13 2.46 SC2 IVI R.C. 7.66 4.39 3.59 0.56 2.64 1.97 92.37 61.86 6.79 3.51 2.35 0.33 2.07 0.74 18.43 8.26 3.86 0.58 2.13 1.12 1.16 0.49 14.41 7.63 3.39 1.75 1.68 0.67 200 100 12.29 5.51 2.81 1.17 1.46 0.45 SJ IVI R.C. 12.08 3.60 2.81 1.17 1.46 0.45 85.29 54.71 11.97 3.50 2.37 0.73 1.34 0.33 36.43 16.52 9.32 2.54 2.22 0.58 1.23 0.22 14.43 6.66 7.84 1.06 2.22 0.58 1.23 0.22 12.72 3.99 5.08 1.69 2.08 0.44 200 100 10.97 3.21 4.03 0.64 200 100 SS3 IVI R.C. 7.40 2.55 2.97 1.27 SS1 IVI R.C. 62.42 36.43 5.13 2.22 2.54 0.85 38.36 22.69 40.83 24.29 4.30 0.90 2.33 0.64 38.02 20.72 15.53 4.51 3.13 0.70 2.33 0.64 30.32 16.27 癀 13.94 6.86 2.37 1.40 2.01 0.32 14.65 9.25 12.96 7.44 2.33 1.36 200 100 13.59 7.11 10.61 4.31 1.71 0.74 SC3 IVI R.C. 12.45 6.51 9.53 3.23 1.55 0.58 74.90 38.86 9.62 2.05 7.08 2.35 1.47 0.99 24.22 19.71 7.63 2.23 4.91 1.76 1.46 0.49 16.88 6.97 7.60 2.74 4.52 2.15 2.24 0.78 15.74 3.13 7.04 3.25 3.93 1.57 0.90 0.41 13.90 8.49 5.90 2.65 3.54 1.18 0.81 0.33 10.62 8.81 5.07 1.28 2.55 0.98 0.81 0.33 7.19 4.49 3.02 0.86 2.36 0.78 0.73 0.25 5.71 1.20 1.68 0.60 1.38 0.59 0.73 0.25 4.73 1.12 0.97 0.43 1.38 0.59 46

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 5. ( ) () Table 5. The importance value index of plants in study areas at second vegetation investigation. 1.28 0.49 19.02 6.97 0.93 0.34 4.02 1.17 1.28 0.49 18.98 10.54 0.93 0.34 3.88 1.60 200 100 16.43 4.38 0.87 0.28 3.82 1.54 SS4 IVI R.C. 8.90 6.49 0.76 0.17 3.23 2.09 43.76 21.65 6.07 4.87 200 100 2.94 1.23 22.42 11.36 5.98 3.57 YT4 IVI R.C. 2.64 0.92 16.66 9.93 5.89 2.27 42.43 23.97 2.37 1.23 16.49 8.80 癀 3.15 1.95 27.39 15.85 2.25 1.11 15.37 7.68 2.18 0.97 18.11 6.57 2.13 0.98 11.53 6.24 2.02 0.81 16.83 7.60 2.13 0.98 9.72 4.91 2.02 0.81 16.45 7.99 1.80 1.23 8.63 4.30 1.85 0.65 11.96 6.57 1.76 0.61 癀 7.76 3.43 1.85 0.65 10.92 3.99 1.76 0.61 6.92 3.07 1.85 0.65 10.67 6.06 1.76 0.61 6.74 3.38 1.69 0.49 7.85 5.54 1.70 0.55 鈎 6.74 3.38 1.69 0.49 5.14 2.06 1.63 0.49 4.52 1.64 1.69 0.49 4.37 2.06 1.19 0.61 3.18 1.74 1.53 0.32 2.70 1.93 1.19 0.61 2.67 1.23 1.53 0.32 2.70 1.16 1.19 0.61 2.57 1.13 1.29 0.08 2.57 1.03 0.94 0.37 2.29 1.33 200 100 2.57 1.03 0.88 0.31 1.99 1.02 YT3 IVI R.C. 2.31 0.77 0.82 0.25 1.95 0.51 31.12 19.88 蘝 2.31 0.77 0.76 0.18 1.68 0.72 14.75 5.87 1.80 1.03 200 100 1.58 0.61 13.40 8.07 1.28 0.52 YT6 IVI R.C. 1.09 0.61 12.16 5.65 1.28 0.52 51.82 10.42 0.99 0.51 12.07 6.15 1.28 0.52 癀 51.52 39.80 0.79 0.31 癀 11.42 4.91 1.28 0.52 19.08 6.58 0.69 0.20 10.83 6.10 1.16 0.39 13.42 4.82 0.69 0.20 10.15 4.23 1.16 0.39 12.53 10.96 0.58 0.10 9.05 4.91 1.16 0.39 7.29 4.17 200 100 7.44 2.71 1.16 0.39 5.07 3.51 YT1 IVI R.C. 6.83 3.27 1.16 0.39 4.85 3.29 74.92 39.21 6.37 2.82 200 100 4.22 1.10 42.87 21.44 5.11 4.52 YT5 IVI R.C. 4.19 2.63 28.83 16.93 4.99 2.03 28.21 18.50 4.07 3.29 14.60 5.08 4.74 2.37 16.97 8.97 3.88 1.54 8.02 5.64 4.48 1.52 15.18 9.47 3.10 1.54 7.02 2.26 4.37 1.41 14.64 6.64 2.97 2.19 4.92 2.54 4.29 1.92 14.03 7.74 2.33 0.77 4.64 2.26 4.26 1.30 12.98 4.98 1.89 0.33 3.79 1.41 3.83 1.47 10.65 4.36 1.88 1.10 3.79 1.41 3.64 1.86 7.07 3.07 1.88 1.10 3.51 1.13 2.99 1.81 癀 6.99 3.56 1.00 0.22 3.09 0.71 2.79 1.02 6.77 2.77 1.00 0.22 200 100 1.95 1.36 6.13 2.70 1.00 0.22 YT2 IVI R.C. 1.50 0.90 4.71 3.56 1.00 0.22 56.42 37.15 1.04 0.45 4.62 2.34 200 100 37.98 15.09 0.93 0.34 4.27 1.41 47

IVI 7.63% 3. (SJ) YT3YT5YT6 ( YT1) ( YT1YT2YT3) 17 ( YT2YT3YT4) ( IVI YT4) ( YT5) 56.69 IVI ( YT5YT6) ( YT6) 40.19 (29.8) (20.57) IVI 57 YT2YT3YT4 YT5 20% YT1 IVI 74.92 39.21 26 YT6 癀 IVI 50 IVI 85.29 癀 39.8% (36.43) (14.43) YT4YT5 (12.72) (10.97) YT1 IVI 28.83 16.93% 4. (YT) 63 () YT1YT4 6 YT2YT3 YT2 YT5 (D YT 6 si 0.95D sh 1.42) YT6 (D 癀 si 0.47D sh 0.54) YT3(D YT4YT5 YT6 IVI sh 1.35) YT5(D 17.9517.06 12.53 sh 1.35) YT1(D YT2YT5 sh 0.84)YT6(D sh 0.78) 48

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) YT6 癀 IVI 116.58 44.58% ( 1995) Table 6. Index of species diversity in study areas. R Dsi Dsh E SJ 1 17 175 0.0971 0.8718 1.0168 0.8263 2 26 206 0.1325 0.8343 0.9439 0.7255 YT1 1 28 241 0.1162 0.8909 1.1301 0.7809 2 12 84 0.1429 0.7971 0.8439 0.7819 YT2 1 40 233 0.1717 0.9514 1.4247 0.8893 2 22 83 0.2651 0.8698 1.0502 0.7823 YT3 1 38 187 0.2032 0.9346 1.3409 0.8488 2 31 169 0.1834 0.9462 1.3533 0.9074 YT4 1 34 240 0.1417 0.9263 1.2971 0.8470 2 27 130 0.2077 0.9099 1.1888 0.8305 YT5 1 20 84 0.2381 0.8906 1.0948 0.8415 2 37 175 0.2114 0.9492 1.4040 0.8953 YT6 1 13 150 0.0867 0.4728 0.5416 0.4725 2 22 128 0.1719 0.7871 0.9337 0.6955 SC1 1 26 107 0.2430 0.9105 1.1866 0.8386 2 13 63 0.2063 0.8183 0.8714 0.7823 SC2 1 23 134 0.1716 0.8956 1.1262 0.8270 2 15 59 0.2542 0.8601 1.0066 0.8559 SC3 1 26 120 0.2167 0.8818 1.1435 0.8081 2 21 111 0.1892 0.8311 1.0169 0.7691 SC4 1 29 102 0.2843 0.9383 1.3239 0.9053 2 17 61 0.2787 0.8396 0.9882 0.8031 SS1 1 23 294 0.0782 0.8902 1.0886 0.7994 2 20 185 0.1081 0.8994 1.1001 0.8455 SS2 1 24 144 0.1667 0.9305 1.2366 0.8960 2 23 99 0.2323 0.9258 1.2247 0.8994 SS3 1 22 188 0.1170 0.9020 1.1166 0.8318 2 18 127 0.1417 0.8713 1.0373 0.8263 SS4 1 29 158 0.1835 0.9325 1.2872 0.8802 2 27 208 0.1298 0.9077 1.1985 0.8373 49

() Motyka 3 4 (IS) 1. ( 1983) YT1~YT4 4 IS=35% IS=44% 3. ( ) Figure 3. Dendrogram by matrix cluster analysis of study areas on landslides in the first vegetation. 50

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 4. ( ) Figure 4. Dendrogram by matrix cluster analysis of study areas on landslides in the second vegetation Investigation. 2. SJ SS1~4 4. SC4 SC1~3 8 () 3. 癀 YT5 YT6 癀 1. YT1-5 5 250m ph (3.8~5.7) (55.2~855.0ppm) (28.1~173.5ppm) (64.0~128.0ppm) 51

5. 癀 YT6 2. SC1-4 4 癀 470m 50% (5.36 ~12.21%) () (0.67~5.81%) 15 5 3. SS1SS2SS4 3 15.76% (0.15~0.95%) (180.3~255.9ppm) 4. SS3 SJ SJ 565m 10 SPSS 52

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) (The first vegetation investigation) (The second vegetation investigation) 5. Figure 5. Dendrogram by Matrix cluster analysis of combined study areas. 7 癀 4 (1988) (1989) ph 3 ph 9 ph ( ph (3.80~4.38) ) YT1YT2YT3YT4YT6 癀 53

7. Table 7. The correlation coefficients of dominant plants with environmental factors. ( 2001) ( 2001) 54

36(1)35-56 (2004) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36(1)35-56 (2004) 3. ( 1989 2001) 黄 13.02 8.01% 16.25 9.21% 1. 1989 ( 1989) 20 2 66~78 2. 1994 16 1 1~28 3. 1989 1. 20 2 46~54 90.23% 4. 2001 100% 34 4 377~392 5. 1988 2. 19 2 1~13 6. 2001 55

186 11. 1987 7. 1992 20 1 1~14 8. 200112. Fang. W. and S. L. Peng1997 Develop- ment of species diversity in the restoration 91~112 process of establishing a tropical man-made 9. 1983 forest ecosystem in China Forest ecology and management, 99:185-196. 10. Ghirelli LChiesura 13. Ghanim A. Abbadi and Mohamad A. Lorenzoni F 1995 El-Sheikh 2002 Vegetation analysis of Failaka Island (Kuwait). Journal of Arid 37 5 386~393 Environments, 50: 153-16. 93 02 01 93 03 05 93 03 12 56