From the University of California – Santa Barbara
In what might be the first study to report continuous measurements of net CO2 exchange of urban vegetation and soils over a full year or more, scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the University of Minnesota conclude that not only is vegetation important in the uptake of the greenhouse gas, but also that different types of vegetation play different roles. Their findings will be published July 4 in the current issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
“There has been little research of this type in the urban landscape,” said Joe McFadden, an associate professor in the UC Santa Barbara Department of Geography, and a co-author of the study. While continuous CO2 measurements have been made in natural ecosystems all around the globe, only in the past few years have researchers attempted to use them in developed areas such as cities and suburbs, which often contain large amounts of green space.
“The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,” said first author Emily Peters, from the University of Minnesota.
Using a method of measuring CO2 exchange that involves placing sensors high above the ground to record tiny changes in CO2, temperature, water vapor and wind, McFadden and Peters set out to monitor the suburbs just outside of St. Paul, Minn., a place with distinct seasonal changes and enough rainfall for plants to grow without irrigation.
“The question was: Can we see what the green space is doing against the backdrop of human activities?” said McFadden.
The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood. Compared to the natural landscape outside the city, the peak daily uptake of CO2 in the suburbs would have been at the low end uptake for a hardwood forest in the region.
However, the activity of the vegetation also differs by type, according to the study.
“Lawns’ peak carbon uptake occurred in the spring and fall, because they are made up of cool-season grass species that are stressed by summer heat,” said Peters, “while trees had higher CO2 uptake throughout the summer.” Evergreen trees maintained their CO2 uptake for a longer period of time than deciduous trees because they keep their leaves year-round; deciduous trees lose their leaves in fall and winter.
The study was funded by NASA and is a “first step” toward quantifying the role of vegetation in extensive developed areas, like suburbs, which are the parts of urban areas growing most rapidly in the country. Potential uses for this type of research include urban planning –– where land use and vegetation choices are major decisions –– and policy decisions based on reducing greenhouse gases.
There are a couple of caveats to consider before deciding to lay out the turf or make any big changes in urban tree planting, McFadden noted. The amount of CO2 taken up by vegetation in the suburban area was not enough to balance out, or “offset”, the total amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels over the course of the year. “Unfortunately, far from it,” said McFadden, “We will still need to find ways to lower our carbon footprint.”
Additionally, in more arid places like the western United States, where irrigation is a must for lawns and landscaping, the delivery of water comes with its own cost in carbon, as water is pumped from elsewhere. McFadden says further projects in California urban areas are underway.
“This study just gives us a lens into what the green spaces in developed areas are doing,” he said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No wonder scientists are held in diminishing regard.
I eat a lot of carbon! Does that mean I am helping to save the planet?
Jaye Bass says:
June 27, 2012 at 11:39 am
“The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,”
Give this man a degree in tautology….sheesh. We needed a study to tell us that???
Burning of fossil fuels only accounts for ~5% of CO2 output 95% of CO2 is from natural sources. Once a forest is mature (i.e. the growth is very limited) it can become a net producer of CO2. So the slanted implication that the main source of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect and meant to keep the team happy.
is this important?
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/235035-rep-sullivans-vanquisher-global-warming-needs-clearer-evidence
Wow. Lots of misplaced derision here. The point is not that plants are part of the CO2 cycle, the point is that — and this is important — the climate folks hadn’t bothered trying to measure or quantify it before. Where “quantify” is the polite form of the pejorative “model”. The first consequence of this is:
1. Climate science has not, as yet, finished modelling the CO2 cycle. Sources, sinks, buffers, etc.
If this were economics, the prior condition would be the same as speaking about MV=PQ, average pay periods for employees, and then completely ignoring the Federal Reserve system. eg. Complete bunkum. So kudos for these folks doing the gritty work of basic research and attempting to move things to Climate Science from the current condition of Climate Seance. And it is an explicit admission that it is Climate Seance or this would not be stated as a: “first step.”
2. That urban vegetation ‘offsets’ fully one-quarter of the local CO2 production within a cityscape per annum.
This is just a restatement of the conclusion of the paper. But if we refer to a post from this site “3% of Earth’s landmass is now urbanized”, from Dec. 23, 2010 then we may draw some obvious conclusions. To wit, if 3% of the earth’s surface is only capable of offsetting one-quarter of it’s annual carbon production, then we only need an additional area equal to 9% of the Earth’s landmass to completely offset the carbon production from city centers. But in a study from 2008[1] we find that fully 11% of the earth’s landmass is used for crop-production alone. Not simply vegetation, but food for consumption. And so we know that human food production alone is sufficient to fully offset the excess urban CO2 production on an annual basis.
This paper, if it is to be believed, fully exonerates the A in AGW. And we should all be raising a good cheer for *finally* seeing some basic science being performed.
[1]Ramankutty, N.; Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C. and Foley, J.A. (2008). “Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000”. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: GB1003
So, one of the results concluded it is cold in St. Paul, MN for most of the year and green things don’t particularly like it. Boy these folks are really smart …
OTOH, since I grew up in the Twin Cities I could have told them that for a lot less money.
I didn’t read the study but did they mention that if the planet warms it will be warmer longer in these kind of northern areas. That will lead to increases CO2 usage by plants. Probably not, they wouldn’t want to imply there’s any kind of negative feedback at work.
Thank you Maus for injecting some common sense and perspective to these comments. There is far too much derision and flippant commenting on what should be considered fundamental quantitative science… the very thing many derisive commenters hold against many who mention or attempt climate change forecasts. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Let’s also not forget that this is a press release, notorious for simplifying science to death and frequently skipping over some of the more pertinent rationale for doing the research.
It would appear that education authorities need to get their act together, especially in the US and UK.
Paramount is the need to eradicate any form of propaganda, especially on the subjects of environment and climate, which modern teachers seem to ram in the ears of their pupils without any regard to truth, honesty or reality. In part, the teachers themselves are to blame, but they have been bombarded with similar drivel at their colleges.
The second item on the agenda that needs to be reinstated forthwith is some basic ‘old-fashioned’ teaching, which not only includes some basic arithmetic, reading and writing, but, leaping ahead (!) also such principles as the carbon cycle.
Maus says:
June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“… ”
______________________
You’ve made some great points!
Your statements are earth- shattering for their creative implications and should be kicked off with a “New Comprehensive Plan”. There is an obvious need for more grants to study just exactly which percentage of landmass we need (9%, 11% or ?%) to implement ‘The Plan”, which could lead to new green jobs and growth of the new Carbon Offset Land Use Credit and Payment Plan and a whole bunch of new industry which means jobs, jobs and more jobs.
This plan would undoubtedly supply much- needed money to the smallest- of- the- small
land owners and other ‘little guys’.
Power to the people!
(This plan should not be expected to cause even more of a land rush by the world’s billionaires than we are already experiencing, anyway.)
Does this mean that if I don’t go mow my lawn that I’m helping to save the planet?
(the dog ate my sarc tag)
Hmmmmmm ….. if they are just studying and measuring this now, how did The Wizard of COz make his predictions?
Maybe CAGW the oceans won’t boil the oceans afterall!
PS If the oceans are going to boil away, how is the sea level going to rise?
@ur momisuglyMaus: I like your arithmetic!
Tim Ball said:
I am shocked! I distinctly remember several years ago when the EPA told Atlanta to cut down all of their urban trees in order to help it meet the clean air standards. This was around the same time the Blue Ridge mountains had failed to meet those same standards. I was waiting for the EPA to require North Carolina to clear cut them.
Joe
Why does this article remind me of my 5th grade science book from the 60’s?
So does this leave the door open to the idea that if we add more plants, and irrigate landscaping in more arid areas, we will not only lower the local and hence the global temps, by virtue of the increased rain fall from the increased secondary moisture and tree generated ions that help to increase precipitation? Thus helping to moderate the extremes in weather and climate, by the addition of more greenery where it is now lacking.
By the use of intensive agriculture for food crops, replanting forest for lumber and pulp cropping and better management, by turning as much tree volume into (long term CO2 storage) lumber as possible instead of letting trees rot or burn, we can stabilize the climate with out “carbon taxes” or quotas on miles driven.
As the USA is carbon neutral, or a net sink for carbon dioxide as it is now, just doing what is environmentally sound is all that is needed to “save the environment” and man can be the good husband to his own yard, farm, or local forest as a contribution, with out donating to the large extensions of the WWF, Sierra club, Greenp*ss, and the other corrupted from the inside mega foundations. It would be better to direct your attentions and limited funds to the local habitat to increase the local greenery diversity, that will create homes for creature diversity, to allow the balance of nature to return to your own neighborhood.
The whole “teachings of the Christ” thingie, was about respecting and helping your friends and neighbors achieve independence, and not to be subservient to large uncaring greedy central controlling governments or churches.
Urban planners have been studying the effects of vegetation on urban areas for a long time. This is an interesting paper on the subject.
http://hokulea.soest.hawaii.edu/ocn435/classes/papers-class12/Taha-10.pdf
It also identifies the cause of UHI. Lack of evapotranspiration from plants.
Note that urban areas generally have a higher albedo than surrounding areas, and vegetation has a lower albedo than urban landscapes. Albedo determines the heat or energy gain from solar insolation.
So, urban areas have higher temperatures, despite the fact they retain less solar energy, because of their lower humidity.
Demonstrating the absurdity of trying to determine if the climate is warming by measuring surface temperatures.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/skyonics-twist-on-carbon-capture-turns-co2-into-baking-soda/17059?tag=nl.e660
capture in NaHCO3
““The net exchange of CO2 between the land and the atmosphere is determined by the balance between things that release CO2, such as burning fossil fuels and respiration of living organisms, and the uptake of CO2 by plant photosynthesis,” said first author Emily Peters, from the University of Minnesota.”
I can’t help myself:
Really, let’s be honest – just HOW MUCH money did it take to for them to come up with that conclusion? A 3rd grader knows that.
Steve Garcia
@David Thomas Bronzich June 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm:
“Why does this article remind me of my 5th grade science book from the 60′s?”
My point exactly.
Steve Garcia
“aerial lift truck”? “Cherry-picker” in the UK and Oz.
All they did was quantify the exchange for different species of plants in situ, lots of uses for the output data some positive, but still any data can be used to push an agenda if displayed in the right context. Both hopes and fears have been expressed already in this thread of the possible motives and uses for their collected data results.
Thank you, quite nice post.
NASA now:
“The researchers found that typical suburban greenery, such as trees and lawns, played significant roles with respect to CO2 uptake. For nine months out of the year, the suburban landscape was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere; but during the summer, the carbon uptake by vegetation was large enough to balance out fossil fuel emissions of carbon within the neighborhood.”
Me two weeks ago (how am I doing so far?):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/global-warming-splodeified/#comment-987456
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in Salt Lake City:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
This daily CO2 data profile is very interesting.
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
These are current CO2 readings taken in May 2012.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~470ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. I assume that human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then this urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I have previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
IF these results are typical of most urban environments (many of which have much larger populations, but also have much greater area, precipitation and plant growth), then the hypothesis that human combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2 seems untenable. Humanmade CO2 emissions are lost in the noise of the much larger natural system, and most humanmade CO2 emissions are probably locally sequestered.
There may be some large urban areas (perhaps in China) where concentrated human activities overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux, but on a global scale these areas are miniscule.
In winter, when plant growth is minimal, concentrated human activities may also overwhelm natural CO2 daily flux.
Our grade-school science books frequently failed to mention the biggest emitter of carbon- the decay of dead plants. Every atom of carbon taken out of the air by photosynthesis during the plant’s lifetime goes back into the air as CO2 from the decay of the plant, except where the plant is eaten, or is buried in whole or in part.
This is what makes forests carbon stores, not carbon consumers.
The news release here makes no mention of this fact at all.
If NASA don’t know by now that plants use CO2, during the hours of daylight, then they don’t deserve to get to Mars.
Maus says: June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Wow. Lots of misplaced derision here. The point is not that plants are part of the CO2 cycle, the point is that — and this is important — the climate folks hadn’t bothered trying to measure or quantify it before…
This paper, if it is to be believed, fully exonerates the A in AGW. And we should all be raising a good cheer for *finally* seeing some basic science being performed.
Maus understands the importance of this work.
Some of the rest of you… … not so much.
Read the full Maus post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/27/new-study-demonstrates-the-role-of-urban-greenery-in-co2-exchange/#comment-1019746