Quantifying carbon footprint for ecological river restoration

Chiu, Yi‐Wen; Yang, Yi; Morse, Cody

doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01477-y

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to note that the results reported here only offer a coarse perspective on the positive influence of ecological restoration on CO 2 emission mitigation in polluted urban rivers because they do not differentiate the effects of various restoration measures and do not cover whole‐stream carbon metabolism. Given the widespread CO 2 supersaturation, local physical aeration in river channels can degas a mass of CO 2 and CH 4 (Chiu et al., 2021), which would increase the CO 2 emissions from restored rivers. Meanwhile, previous studies suggested that many engineered microorganism inputs during nutrient removal could strongly alter the microbial flora structure and carbon metabolism in urban rivers, resulting more CO 2 and CH 4 production in the water column (Rafeeq et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Wang,

Liu

et al. 2023

JGR Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban rivers are significant hotspots of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, playing important roles in global carbon emission inventories. However, little is known about the effect of ecological restoration on CO2 dynamics in severely polluted urban rivers, and this strongly hindering our understanding of the positive effects of human activities on CO2 emissions in urbanized aquatic ecosystems. We measured CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) and fluxes in nine severely polluted urban rivers with varying degrees of ecological restoration, and assessed the relationships with water physicochemical parameters, pollution levels and basin environmental investment. Our results indicate that urban rivers with high pollution loadings were indeed hotspots of CO2 evasion. However, fully restored rivers had generally lower pCO2 and CO2 emissions than partially restored rivers and were observably lower than unrestored rivers, suggesting that watershed eco‐restoration could effectively reduce CO2 evasion. In particular, environmental investment per unit basin area had a significant negative correlation with CO2 evasion and could explain 51%–85% and 51% of total variability in pCO2 and CO2 fluxes among nine urban rivers respectively, emphasizing the potential benefits of carbon emission regulation resulting from positive environmental management. Nutrient removal and sewage interception during watershed eco‐restoration were key processes reducing pCO2 and CO2 fluxes in polluted urban rivers. pH alteration kept close correlations with pCO2 and acted as a sensitive regulator of CO2 evasion in the nine rivers. We highlight the importance of considering the coupling effects of pollution and restoration on the spatiotemporal variability of CO2 evasion and the uncertainty of related monitoring methods in urban watersheds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Wang,

Liu

et al. 2023

JGR Biogeosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The process of stream restoration implementation has a non-zero carbon footprint, estimated by Chiu et al (2022) as 9-14 kg CO 2 per meter of stream restored. However, ecological restoration can transform the relative proportions of landscapes considered as carbon sources versus sinks and provide significant capacity to more efficiently sequester, rather than emit, carbon over decadal timescales (Zhou et al, 2020).…”

Section: Human Alterations and Restoration Of Floodplain Carbon Stocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon sequestration potential of process‐based river restoration

Hinshaw

Wohl

2023

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floodplain restoration can enhance the capacity for carbon sequestration by facilitating higher water tables, deposition of fine sediment, and increased input and residence time of organic matter. We measured floodplain soil organic carbon stocks in nine stream restoration projects across the western United States and compared them to nearby degraded and reference condition floodplains. Degraded floodplains had the lowest soil mean carbon stocks in the majority of floodplains measured (range 161–894 Mg C/ha), and reference stocks had the highest stocks (range 391–904 Mg C/ha) of those with statistically significant differences between the three categories. Across all sites measured, stream restoration sites, referred to as treatment sites, had stocks (range 203–1028 Mg C/ha) similar to degraded condition floodplains but the largest range. When modeled under degraded conditions, four out of nine of the treatment sites had significantly higher OC stocks than predicted. Climate and geologic variables are most influential in predicting carbon stocks, and floodplains in the interior western USA have the highest carbon stocks. As the demand for carbon sequestration increases due to climate change, ecologically responsible floodplain restoration provides a significant opportunity for carbon storage. However, despite the statistically significant relationships we observed in this dataset, the variations within the data in relation to degraded/treatment/reference categories illustrate the uncertainties in quantifying the effects of restoration on floodplain carbon stocks.

show abstract

“…Recent studies have considered the carbon footprint of ecological restoration projects through the LCA approach. For example, Chiu et al (2021) conducted a framework for the carbon footprint of ecological restoration project in California. For landscaping hard work, Lin and Lin (2022) established an embodied carbon database in Taiwan based on the LCA concept.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of ecological restoration projects on carbon footprint in a grassland ecosystem on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau

Yu,

Liu,

Wang

et al. 2023

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigating the cost‐effective and low‐carbon pathways for grassland ecological restoration projects is vital to achieving carbon neutrality and Sustainable Development Goals. To fill the gap of incorporating ecological and socioeconomic systems of ecological restoration projects, this study established a cost‐benefit evaluation framework that integrated the carbon footprint based on life cycle assessment and a carbon price measurement model based on the Slack‐Based Measure‐Data Envelopment Analysis model. Taking a ‘Returning Grazing Land to Grassland Project’ on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau as a case, this study quantified the carbon footprint of three different ecological measurements, including fences construction (released 107 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2 and absorbed 322 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2), degenerated grassland improvement (released 1080 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2 and absorbed 580 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2) and artificial grassland planting (released 2540 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2 and absorbed 6540 kgCO2‐eq·hm−2). Raw material production was the largest emitter. In addition, we calculated the carbon price in the grassland ecosystem by the carbon price measurement model, at 1.06 yuan·kgCO2‐eq−1 on average during 2011–2018. In the cost‐benefit analysis, the total carbon sequestration benefits (8.90 × 106 yuan) outweighed the total carbon emission costs (4.26 × 106 yuan). Optimizing the usage and transportation of building materials and the application of fertilizer can benefit carbon emission mitigation and enhancement of carbon sequestration capacity in grassland. This study provided a theoretical basis for ecological restoration projects and grassland carbon pricing mechanisms aiming for sustainable management.

show abstract

Quantifying carbon footprint for ecological river restoration

Cited by 4 publications

References 54 publications

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Carbon sequestration potential of process‐based river restoration

Effect of ecological restoration projects on carbon footprint in a grassland ecosystem on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Quantifying carbon footprint for ecological river restoration

Cited by 4 publications

References 54 publications

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO2 and CO2 Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO2 and CO2 Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Carbon sequestration potential of process‐based river restoration

Effect of ecological restoration projects on carbon footprint in a grassland ecosystem on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers

Ecological Restoration Effectively Mitigated pCO₂ and CO₂ Evasions From Severely Polluted Urban Rivers