Carbon Storage and Flux in Urban Residential Greenspace

Jo, Hyun-Kil; McPherson, Greg

doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0062

Cited by 248 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the presence of non-native trees and lack of European-specific equations for certain species, the remaining equations were from China (4% of subsampled trees (Liu & Li 2012)) and North America (35.7% of subsampled trees; (Jenkins et al 2003)). Overall, our growth rates are different from those reported by Jo and McPherson (1995), Iakovoglou et al (2002), and Lawrence et al (2012) for trees in the United States. The order Fagales, for example, had an AGR estimated at 0.77 cm/year which was lower than the 0.85 cm/year (average growth rates of subtropical Q. laurifolia, Q. nigra, Q. virginiana, O. virginiana) reported by Lawrence et al (2012).…”

Section: Quercus Pubescenscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The order Fagales, for example, had an AGR estimated at 0.77 cm/year which was lower than the 0.85 cm/year (average growth rates of subtropical Q. laurifolia, Q. nigra, Q. virginiana, O. virginiana) reported by Lawrence et al (2012). Also, our growth rates for hardwood trees estimated at 0.78 cm/year (Magnoliophyta) was lower than the 1.09 cm/year reported by Jo and McPherson (1995), but greater for softwood trees 0.72 cm/year (Pinales) instead of 0.51 cm/year (Jo & McPherson 1995). Our results also differ from those reported in Strohbach et al (2012) in Leipzig, Germany, and in Bühler et al (2007) in Copenhagen, Denmark.…”

Section: Quercus Pubescenscontrasting

confidence: 83%

“…The C storage and sequestration results from this study are difficult to assess in terms of accuracy and to compare with other studies because of the use of different estimation methodologies, climatic condition, different species composition, and urban forest structures (Jo & McPherson 1995;Strohbach & Haase 2012). Our estimates are different from those reported in Table 5.…”

Section: Carbon Storage and Sequestrationcontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…composite) allometric equations, or the processes used to assign both species and nonspecies-specific allometric equations to sampled urban trees to estimate biomass and subsequent C storage, is an internationally accepted approach (Jo & McPherson 1995;Strohbach & Haase 2012). Indeed, this approach is the basis of models such as the Eco/UFORE and CTCC (Nowak et al 2008;Aguaron & McPherson 2012;Yoon et al 2013).…”

Section: Allometric Equations and Carbon Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, tree growth is influenced by genetics, climate, soil, moisture, light, and competition (Peper & McPherson 1998;Bühler et al 2007). These effects on tree growth and mortality are well-known in European forests, but the majority of studies of urban trees growth rates have been conducted in the United States of America (USA) (Jo & McPherson 1995;Iakovoglou et al 2002;Lawrence et al 2012;Roy et al 2012). We know only a few studies on urban tree mortality and growth in northern Italy (Sanesi et al 2007;Semenzato et al 2011;Marziliano et al 2013), but no studies providing information specific to urban tree growth rates in South Tyrol, Italy, are known to us.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

Russo

Escobedo

Timilsina

et al. 2014

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent climate change, environmental design, and ecological conservation policies require new and existing urban developments to mitigate and offset carbon dioxide emissions and for cities to become carbon neutral. Some North American models and tools are available and can be used to quantify the carbon offset function of urban trees. But, little information on urban tree carbon storage and sequestration exists from the European Southern Alps. Also, the use of these North American models in Europe has never been assessed. This study developed a protocol to quantify aboveground carbon (C) storage and sequestration using a subsample of urban trees in Bolzano, Italy, and assessed two existing and available C estimation models. Carbon storage and sequestration were estimated using city-specific dendrometrics and allometric biomass equations primarily from Europe and two other United States models; the UFORE (Urban Forest Effects Model) and the CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator (CTCC). The UFORE model carbon storage estimates were the lowest while the CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator (CTCC) C sequestration estimates were the highest. Results from this study can be used to plan, design, and manage urban forests in northern Italy to maximize C offset potential, provide ecosystem services, and for developing carbon neutral policies. Findings can also be used to predict greenhouse gas emissions from tree maintenance operations as well as estimating green waste yield from landscape maintenance activities and its use as biofuel and compost. Managers need to be aware that available models and methods can produce statistically different C storage and sequestration estimates.Keywords: i-Tree Eco; growth rates; allometric equations; ecosystem services; CTCC model Introduction Climate change is one of the most important and pressing environmental, economic, and security issues our world faces today (Barnett 2003;IPCC 2007;Karagiannis & Soldatos 2010). Urban areas are steadily growing throughout the world (Grimm et al. 2008) and by 2030 it is expected that 60% of the world's population will be living in cities (Rydin et al. 2012). Thus, as urban environments become more important as living space for humans, they are an increasing source of carbon emissions.Several studies in North America, China, and Australia (Brack 2002;Zhao et al. 2010;Dobbs et al. 2011;Martin et al. 2012;Roy et al. 2012), and more recently in the United Kingdom and Germany (Davies et al. 2011;Strohbach & Haase 2012;Strohbach et al. 2012), have shown that trees in urban environments remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through growth and photosynthesis, and store excess carbon as biomass in roots, stems, and branches. Indirectly, urban trees also reduce building energy used for cooling through their shade and climate amelioration effects, thereby reducing CO 2 emissions from decreased energy production (Akbari et al. 2001).The estimation of tree carbon sequestration depends on species types and their mortality and growth characteristics as well as their overall con...

show abstract

Section: Quercus Pubescenscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Quercus Pubescenscontrasting

confidence: 83%

Section: Carbon Storage and Sequestrationcontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Allometric Equations and Carbon Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

Russo

Escobedo

Timilsina

et al. 2014

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Carbon lost and carbon gained: a study of vegetation and carbon trade‐offs among diverse land uses inPhoenix,Arizona

McHale

Hall

Majumdar

et al. 2017

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human modification and management of urban landscapes drastically alters vegetation and soils, thereby altering carbon (C) storage and rates of net primary productivity (NPP). Complex social and ecological processes drive vegetation cover in cities, leading to heterogeneity in C dynamics depending on regional climate, land use, and land cover. Recent work has demonstrated homogenization in ecological processes within human-dominated landscapes (the urban convergence hypothesis) in soils and biotic communities. However, a lack of information on vegetation in arid land cities has hindered an understanding of potential C storage and NPP convergence across a diversity of ecosystem types. We estimated C storage and NPP of trees and shrubs for six different land-use types in the arid metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, USA, and compared those results to native desert ecosystems, as well as other urban and natural systems around the world. Results from Phoenix do not support the convergence hypothesis. In particular, C storage in urban trees and shrubs was 42% of that found in desert vegetation, while NPP was only 20% of the total NPP estimated for comparable natural ecosystems. Furthermore, the overall estimates of C storage and NPP associated with urban trees in the CAP ecosystem were much lower (8-63%) than the other cities included in this analysis. We also found that C storage (175.25-388.94 g/m ) and NPP (8.07-15.99 g·m ·yr ) were dominated by trees in the urban residential land uses, while in the desert, shrubs were the primary source for pools (183.65 g/m ) and fluxes (6.51 g·m ·yr ). These results indicate a trade-off between shrubs and trees in arid ecosystems, with shrubs playing a major role in overall C storage and NPP in deserts and trees serving as the dominant C pool in cities. Our research supports current literature that calls for the development of spatially explicit and standardized methods for analyzing C dynamics associated with vegetation in urbanizing areas.

show abstract

Urban net primary production: Concepts, field methods, and Baltimore, Maryland, USA case study

Sonti

Groffman

Nowak

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the large and increasing amount of urban, suburban, and exurban land use on Earth, there is a need to accurately assess net primary productivity (NPP) of urban ecosystems. However, the heterogeneous and dynamic urban mosaic presents challenges to the measurement of NPP, creating landscapes that may appear more similar to a savanna than to the native landscape replaced. Studies of urban biomass have tended to focus on one type of vegetation (e.g., lawns or trees). Yet a focus on the ecology of the city should include the entire urban ecosystem rather than the separate investigation of its parts. Furthermore, few studies have attempted to measure urban aboveground NPP (ANPP) using field‐based methods. Most studies project growth rates from measurements of tree diameter to estimate annual ANPP or use remote sensing approaches. In addition, field‐based methods for measuring NPP do not address any special considerations for adapting such field methods to urban landscapes. Frequent planting and partial or complete removal of herbaceous and woody plants can make it difficult to accurately quantify increments and losses of plant biomass throughout an urban landscape. In this study, we review how ANPP of urban landscapes can be estimated based on field measurements, highlighting the challenges specific to urban areas. We then estimated ANPP of woody and herbaceous vegetation over a 15‐year period for Baltimore, MD, USA using a combination of plot‐based field data and published values from the literature. Baltimore's citywide ANPP was estimated to be 355.8 g m−2, a result that we then put into context through comparison with other North American Long‐Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and mean annual precipitation. We found our estimate of Baltimore citywide ANPP to be only approximately half as much (or less) than ANPP at forested LTER sites of the eastern United States, and more comparable to grassland, oldfield, desert, or boreal forest ANPP. We also found that Baltimore had low productivity for its level of precipitation. We conclude with a discussion of the significance of accurate assessment of primary productivity of urban ecosystems and critical future research needs.

show abstract

Carbon Storage and Flux in Urban Residential Greenspace

Cited by 248 publications

References 42 publications

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

Carbon lost and carbon gained: a study of vegetation and carbon trade‐offs among diverse land uses inPhoenix,Arizona

Urban net primary production: Concepts, field methods, and Baltimore, Maryland, USA case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About