| Literature DB >> 36235344 |
Ruying Wang1, Clint M Mattox1, Claire L Phillips2, Alec R Kowalewski1.
Abstract
Plants are key components of the terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle. Atmospheric CO2 is assimilated through photosynthesis and stored in plant biomass and in the soil. The use of turfgrass is expanding due to the increasing human population and urbanization. In this review, we summarize recent carbon sequestration research in turfgrass and compare turfgrass systems to other plant systems. The soil organic carbon (SOC) stored in turfgrass systems is comparable to that in other natural and agricultural systems. Turfgrass systems are generally carbon-neutral or carbon sinks, with the exception of intensively managed areas, such as golf course greens and athletic fields. Turfgrass used in other areas, such as golf course fairways and roughs, parks, and home lawns, has the potential to contribute to carbon sequestration if proper management practices are implemented. High management inputs can increase the biomass productivity of turfgrass but do not guarantee higher SOC compared to low management inputs. Additionally, choosing the appropriate turfgrass species that are well adapted to the local climate and tolerant to stresses can maximize CO2 assimilation and biomass productivity, although other factors, such as soil respiration, can considerably affect SOC. Future research is needed to document the complete carbon footprint, as well as to identify best management practices and appropriate turfgrass species to enhance carbon sequestration in turfgrass systems.Entities:
Keywords: biomass; greenhouse gas; hidden carbon cost; lawn; management; net ecosystem exchange; photosynthesis; respiration; soil organic carbon
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235344 PMCID: PMC9571228 DOI: 10.3390/plants11192478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Carbon sequestration rate unit conversion.
| Unit | To Covert Other Units to Mg C ha−1 yr−1, |
|---|---|
| Mg CO2 ha−1 yr−1 | 0.2727 |
| kg CO2 ha−1 yr−1 | 0.0002727 |
| kg C ha−1 yr−1 | 0.001 |
| kg CO2 m−2 yr−1 | 2.727 |
| kg C m−2 yr−1 | 10 |
| g CO2 m−2 yr−1 | 0.002727 |
| g C m−2 yr−1 | 0.01 |
| Mg CO2 km−2 yr−1 | 0.002727 |
Figure 1Biological components of the carbon cycle in a turfgrass–soil system. Blue boxes indicate carbon gains in the turfgrass system, and gray boxes indicate carbon losses in the turfgrass system or carbon emissions to the atmosphere. This figure describes common scenarios in which clippings are returned or composted to be added back to the soil. Some rare scenarios are not described in this figure, such as when clippings are burnt and the carbon captured in clippings is released into the atmosphere.
Figure 2Turfgrass thatch development (approximately 2–3 cm as shown) in different turfgrass systems: creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) maintained at a golf course fairway height (left), fine fescue (Festuca sp.) maintained as a lawn (middle), and tall fescue (F. arundinacea) maintained as a lawn (right).
Carbon sequestration in turfgrass systems compared with other systems.
| Reference | Location | Comparison * |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon gain in the system | ||
| Acuña E. et al. [ | Central Chile | SOC: turfgrass > bare soil |
| Bae and Ryu [ | Seoul, South Korea | SOC: mixed forest > wetland > lawn > bare soil |
| Upadhyay et al. [ | Varanasi, India | SOC: urban plantation ≈ lawn> agriculture ≈ grassland > bare soil |
| Bowne and Johnson [ | Elizabethtown, PA, USA | SOC: lawn ≈ corn field |
| Burghardt and Schneider [ | Ruhr, Germany | SOC: vegetable garden ≈ lawn > meadow |
| Byrne et al. [ | Central PA, USA | SOC: lawn ≈ bark > unmanaged vegetation> gravel |
| Campbell et al. [ | Virginia, USA | Soil carbon: forest ≈ lawn |
| Golubiewski [ | Colorado, USA | SOC: turfgrass ≈ tree |
| Huyler et al. [ | Auburn, AL, USA | SOC (only at 0–15 cm): lawn with tree > lawn without tree |
| Livesley et al. [ | Victoria, Australia | SOC: wood chip mulched bed ≈ lawn |
| Livesley et al. [ | Melbourne, Australia | SOC: tree > fairway |
| Raciti et al. [ | Baltimore, MD, USA | SOC: lawn > forest |
| Singh et al. [ | Knoxville, TN, USA | SOC: unmanaged system > lawn >row crop |
| Pouyat et al. [ | Baltimore, MD, USA | SOC: lawn ≈ urban forest > rural forest |
| Pouyat et al. [ | Denver, CO, USA | SOC: lawn > native grassland |
| Weissert et al. [ | Auckland, New Zealand | SOC: parkland > urban forest |
| Kaye et al. [ | Fort Collins, CO, USA | SOC: lawn > native grassland > corn |
| Jo and McPherson [ | Chicago, IL, USA | Biomass: tress & shrubs> turfgrass > herbaceous plants |
| Groffman and Pouyat [ | Baltimore, MD, USA | Atmospheric CH4 uptake: rural forest > urban forest > lawn |
| Livesley et al. [ | Victoria, Australia | Atmospheric CH4 uptake: wood chip mulched bed > lawn |
| Kaye et al. [ | Fort Collins, CO, USA | Atmospheric CH4 uptake: native grassland > lawn |
| van Delden et al. [ | Samford Valley, Australia | Atmospheric CH4 uptake: forest > turfgrass > fallow > pasture |
|
| ||
| Bae and Ryu [ | Seoul, South Korea | Rs: mixed forest > wetland ≈ lawn > bare soil |
| Ng et al. [ | Singapore | Rs: lawn > bare soil |
| Upadhyay et al. [ | Varanasi, India | Rs: lawn > grassland ≈ urban plantation > agriculture > bare soil |
| Bowne and Johnson [ | Elizabethtown, PA, USA | Rs: lawn > corn field |
| Byrne et al. [ | Central PA, USA | Mean Rs: lawn ≈ bark > unmanaged vegetation ≈ gravel |
| Decina et al. [ | Boston, MA, USA | Rs: urban landscape > lawn > urban forest |
| Livesley et al. [ | Victoria, Australia | Rs: wood chip mulched bed ≈ lawn |
| Kaye et al. [ | Fort Collins, CO, USA | Rs: lawn > corn ≈ native grassland |
| Weissert et al. [ | Auckland, New Zealand | Rs: parkland ≈ urban forest |
* Systems were ranked from high to low; ≈ indicates that the former had a higher mean or median but was not statistically different from others at p < 0.05 level. SOC, soil organic carbon; ANPP, aboveground net primary productivity; Rs, soil respiration.
Soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation rates reported in previous studies.
| Reference | Turf Use | Location | Turf Age (Year) | Soil Depth (cm) | Regression Response | Number of Years to Reach Max SOC * | SOC Accumulation Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Townsend-Small and Czimczik [ | Lawn | Irvine, CA | 2–33 | 20 | Linear | 33 | 1.4 |
| Raciti et al. [ | Lawn | Baltimore, MD | 4–44 | 100 | Linear | 44 | 0.82 |
| Smith et al. [ | Lawn | Salt Lake City, UT | 7–100 | 40 | Linear | 100 | 0.30 |
| Sapkota et al. [ | Lawn | Lubbock, TX | 0–63 | 10 | Quadratic | 53.6 | 0.21 |
| Huh et al. [ | Green | Palmerston North, New Zealand | 5–40 | 25 | Linear | 40 | 0.69 |
| Carley et al. [ | Green | North Carolina, USA | 0–25 | 7.6 | Hyperbolic | 25 | 0.59 |
| Qian and Follett [ | Green | Colorado, USA | 1.5–45 | 11.4 | Quadratic | 45 | 1.0 |
| Qian and Follett [ | Fairway | Colorado, USA | 4–45 | 11.4 | Quadratic with plateau | 31 | 0.9 |
| Gautam et al. [ | Fairway | Lubbock, TX | 13–93 | 7.5 | Quadratic | 46.4 | 0.22 |
| Shi et al. [ | Fairway | North Carolina, USA | 2–100 | 15 | Hyperbolic | 100 | 0.5–6 |
| Selhorst and Lal [ | Fairway | Central Ohio, USA | 2–97 | 15 | Quadratic | 14 (0–2.5 cm) | 3.55 |
| 30 (2.5–5 cm) | |||||||
| 62 (5–10 cm) | |||||||
| 81 (10–15 cm) | |||||||
| Selhorst and Lal [ | Rough | Central Ohio, USA | 2–97 | 15 | Quadratic | 12 (0–2.5 cm) | 2.64 |
| 24 (2.5–5 cm) | |||||||
| 68 (5–10 cm) | |||||||
| 91 (10–15 cm) |
* For studies in which SOC increased linearly and hyperbolically, the max SOC was reached in the oldest reported system. Numbers in parentheses indicate soil depths.