New study demonstrates the role of urban greenery in CO2 exchange

From the University of California – Santa Barbara

These are views of vegetation in summer and winter of suburban Minneapolis landscapes from the 500 foot tall KUOM radio tower where measurements for the study were made.

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.

Emily Peters measures photosynthesis on trees in a suburban neighborhood from an aerial lift truck.

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.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 28, 2012 2:58 am

The great comedian Shelley Berman put it all into a famous monologue.
Humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Plants, however, breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.
So no matter how good or evil you are, every time you breathe, you make a little flower happy.

June 28, 2012 8:26 am

Legalize Marijuana. It is a carbon sink.Save the planet.

H.R.
June 28, 2012 2:28 pm

It’s been a day and I’m still ticked off by the use of “carbon” instead of CO2 by the researcherand whoever wrote the release.
Didn’t Beck already take care of urban CO2 measurements?

June 30, 2012 8:16 am

Leo Morgan says: June 28, 2012 at 12:19 am
“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…”
Yes Leo, but Earth’s biomass can increase or decrease, depending upon factors such as temperature, moisture , and atmospheric CO2. Trees store carbon for long periods of time and grow throughout their lives. Perhaps “carbon banks” is a better term, although “carbon stores” will also suffice.
Please examine the following animation of seasonal variation in global atmospheric CO2 and try to find the hand of mankind in this display of nature’s beauty and power – I cannot and I suggest that you won’t either.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
Also, we know that Co2 variations lag temperature changes at all measured time scales, so BOTH SIDES of the rancorous “mainstream global warming debate rely upon the premise that the cause (rising CO2) lags in time the effect (Increasing temperature). This is a logical leap with which I am not at all comfortable.
Also, there has been no net global warming in 10-15 years despite continued increases in atmospheric CO2.
Maybe there is more to this scientific question than either side of the mainstream debate is prepared to consider.
Maybe, for example, temperature primarily drives CO2, not CO2 drives temperature.
I came to this conclusion and documented my hypothesis in 2008.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Murry Salby spoke about the same conclusion in ~2011 and added further evidence to support this hypothesis.
Sydney Institute: Salby Aug 3, 2011
http://youtu.be/YrI03ts–9I

July 5, 2012 8:07 pm

Maus says (June 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm): “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.”
Do you really believe your simplistic analysis? How many power plants or concrete plants or other large CO2 emitters are there in the neighborhood measured in the study? How about none? Do you think the measurements of increasing CO2 on the top of Mona Loa is made up?
What’s up with this site? Most incredibly ignorant and fear driven set of comments I’ve wasted time on in a while.
[Moderator’s Observation: This is apparently your first comment here and all you can manage is snark and derision. Your comment is absolutely data free… so many questions, so few answers…. but definitive judgements from an anonymous authority. Well done, Sir! -REP]

July 5, 2012 8:20 pm

[SNIP: That sure looked like an assault on a fellow commenter. This is your second comment and you are on your way to setting a record. Check the site policy here and either conform or get lost. -REP]

July 5, 2012 11:03 pm

[SNIP: Site policy is here. We are not interested in whether you have been welcomed, or tossed out of, far classier sites than ours. Snark gets snipped. So far you’ve offered nothing that talks and everything that walks. -REP]