Literature DB >> 28324854

Accounting for urban biogenic fluxes in regional carbon budgets.

Brady S Hardiman1, Jonathan A Wang2, Lucy R Hutyra2, Conor K Gately2, Jackie M Getson2, Mark A Friedl2.   

Abstract

Many ecosystem models incorrectly treat urban areas as devoid of vegetation and biogenic carbon (C) fluxes. We sought to improve estimates of urban biomass and biogenic C fluxes using existing, nationally available data products. We characterized biogenic influence on urban C cycling throughout Massachusetts, USA using an ecosystem model that integrates improved representation of urban vegetation, growing conditions associated with urban heat island (UHI), and altered urban phenology. Boston's biomass density is 1/4 that of rural forests, however 87% of Massachusetts' urban landscape is vegetated. Model results suggest that, kilogram-for-kilogram, urban vegetation cycles C twice as fast as rural forests. Urban vegetation releases (RE) and absorbs (GEE) the equivalent of 11 and 14%, respectively, of anthropogenic emissions in the most urban portions of the state. While urban vegetation in Massachusetts fully sequesters anthropogenic emissions from smaller cities in the region, Boston's UHI reduces annual C storage by >20% such that vegetation offsets only 2% of anthropogenic emissions. Asynchrony between temporal patterns of biogenic and anthropogenic C fluxes further constrains the emissions mitigation potential of urban vegetation. However, neglecting to account for biogenic C fluxes in cities can impair efforts to accurately monitor, report, verify, and reduce anthropogenic emissions.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomass; Carbon emissions; Forest; GEE; NEE; R(E); Urban ecology; Urban heat island

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28324854     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  7 in total

1.  Anthropogenic and biogenic CO2 fluxes in the Boston urban region.

Authors:  Maryann Sargent; Yanina Barrera; Thomas Nehrkorn; Lucy R Hutyra; Conor K Gately; Taylor Jones; Kathryn McKain; Colm Sweeney; Jennifer Hegarty; Brady Hardiman; Jonathan A Wang; Steven C Wofsy
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Large and seasonally varying biospheric CO2 fluxes in the Los Angeles megacity revealed by atmospheric radiocarbon.

Authors:  John B Miller; Scott J Lehman; Kristal R Verhulst; Charles E Miller; Riley M Duren; Vineet Yadav; Sally Newman; Christopher D Sloop
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Worldwide Evaluation of CAMS-EGG4 CO2 Data Re-Analysis at the Surface Level.

Authors:  Danilo Custódio; Carlos Borrego; Hélder Relvas
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2022-06-17

4.  Fluxes of Atmospheric Greenhouse-Gases in Maryland (FLAGG-MD): Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the Baltimore, MD-Washington, D.C. area.

Authors:  D Y Ahn; J R Hansford; S T Howe; X R Ren; R J Salawitch; N Zeng; M D Cohen; B Stunder; O E Salmon; P B Shepson; K R Gurney; T Oda; I Lopez-Coto; J Whetstone; R R Dickerson
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 4.261

5.  Live fast, die young: Accelerated growth, mortality, and turnover in street trees.

Authors:  Ian A Smith; Victoria K Dearborn; Lucy R Hutyra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Influence of landscape management practices on urban greenhouse gas budgets.

Authors:  Wiley J Hundertmark; Marissa Lee; Ian A Smith; Ashley H Y Bang; Vivien Chen; Conor K Gately; Pamela H Templer; Lucy R Hutyra
Journal:  Carbon Balance Manag       Date:  2021-01-07

7.  Urban land cover type determines the sensitivity of carbon dioxide fluxes to precipitation in Phoenix, Arizona.

Authors:  Elí R Pérez-Ruiz; Enrique R Vivoni; Nicole P Templeton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.