Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 11, Issue 8, pp 1211–1222 | Cite as

Effects of Forest Regrowth and Urbanization on Ecosystem Carbon Storage in a Rural–Urban Gradient in the Southeastern United States

  • Chi Zhang
  • Hanqin TianEmail author
  • Shufen Pan
  • Mingliang Liu
  • Graeme Lockaby
  • Erik B. Schilling
  • John Stanturf
Article

Abstract

Forest regrowth after cropland abandonment and urban sprawl are two counteracting processes that have influenced carbon (C) sequestration in the southeastern United States in recent decades. In this study, we examined patterns of land-use/land-cover change and their effect on ecosystem C storage in three west Georgia counties (Muscogee, Harris, and Meriwether) that form a rural–urban gradient. Using time series Landsat imagery data including MSS for 1974, TM for 1983 and 1991, and ETM for 2002, we estimate that from 1974 to 2002, urban land use in the area has increased more than 380% (that is, 184 km2). Most newly urbanized land (63%) has been converted from forestland. Conversely, cropland and pasture area has decreased by over 59% (that is, 380 km2). Most of the cropland area was converted to forest. As a result, the net change in forest area was small over the past 29 years. Based on Landsat imagery and agricultural census records, we reconstructed an annual gridded data set of land-cover change for the three counties for the period 1850 to 2002. These data sets were then used as input to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) to simulate land-use effects on C fluxes and storage for the study area. Simulated results suggest that C uptake by forest regrowth (approximately 23.0 g C m−2 y−1) was slightly greater than the amount of C released due to deforestation (approximately 18.4 g C m−2 y−1), thus making the three counties a weak C sink. However, the relative importance of different deforestation processes in this area changed significantly through time. Although agricultural deforestation was generally the most important C-release process, the amount of C release attributable to urbanization has increased over time. Since 1990, urbanization has accounted for 29% of total C loss from the study area. We conclude that balancing urban development and forest protection is critically important for C management and policy making in the southeastern United States.

Keywords

carbon storage ecosystem model deforestation land use urbanizatioin southeastern United States 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the Auburn University Peak of Excellence Program, the EPA STAR program, the McIntire-Stennis Program, and the USDA Forest Service. We thank David Kicklighter for helpful discussion in the early stages of this study. We are also grateful to Dr. Christine Goodale, Dr. Hua Chen, and two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indication. J Am Plan Assoc 62:243–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birdsey RA, Lewis BM. 2002. Carbon in U.S. Forests and Wood Products, 1987–1997: state-by-state estimates. General Technical Report NE-310. Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 47 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Bousquet P, Peylin P, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Friedlingstein P, Tans PP. 2000. Regional changes in carbon dioxide fluxes of land and oceans since 1980. Science 290:1342–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown SL, Schroeder PE. 1999. Spatial patterns of aboveground production and mortality of woody biomass for eastern US forests. Ecol Appl 9:968–80Google Scholar
  5. Brown SL, Schroeder PE, Kern JS. 1999. Spatial distribution of biomass in forests of the eastern USA. For Ecol Manage 123:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fan S, Gloor M, Mahlman J, Pacala S, Sarmiento J, Takahashi T, Tans P. 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data and models. Science 282:442–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felzer B, Kicklighter DW, Melillo JM, Wang C, Zhuang Q, Prinn R. 2004. Effects of ozone on net primary production and carbon sequestration in the conterminous United States using a biogeochemistry model. Tellus 56B:230–48Google Scholar
  8. Goodale CL, Apps MJ, Birdsey RA, Field CB, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jenkins JC, et al. 2002. Forests carbon sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol Appl 12:891–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo LB, Gifford RM. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biol 8:345–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart JF. 1980. Land use change in a piedmont county. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 70:492–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houghton RA. 1999. The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850–1990. Tellus 51B:298–313Google Scholar
  12. Houghton RA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT. 1999. The US carbon budget: contributions from land-use change. Science 285:574–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imhoff ML, Tucker CJ, Lawrence WT, Stutzer DC. 2000. The use of multisource satellite and geospatial data to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United States. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 38:2549–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen JR, Ed. 1996. Introductory digital image processing. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall Upper saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Lockahy BG, Zhang D, McDaniel J, Tian H, Pan S. 2005. Interdsciplinary research at the urban–rural interface: the Westga Project. Urban Ecosyst 8:7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGuire AD, Sitch S, Clein JS, Dargaville R, Esser G, Foley J, Heimann M, et al. 2001. Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the twentieth century: analyses of CO2, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:183–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McNulty SG, Vose JM, Swank WT, Aber JD, Federer CA. 1994. Regional-scale forest ecosystem modeling: database development, model predictions and validation using a Geographic Information System. Clim Res 4:223–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Milesi C, Elvidge CD, Nemani RR, Ruuning SW. 2002. Assessing the impact of urban land development on net primary productivity in the southeastern United States. Remote Sens Environ 86:401–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller DA, White RA. 1998. A conterminous United States multi-layer soil characteristics data set for regional climate and hydrology modeling. Earth interactions 2: Available Online at: http://www.EarthInteractions.org
  20. Mitchell TD, Jones PD (2005) An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int J Climatol 25: 693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nadelhoffer K, Aber JD, Melillo JM. 1985. Fine roots, net primary production, and soil nitrogen availability: a new hypothesis. Ecology 66:1377–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pacala SW, Hurtt GC, Baker D, Peylin P, Houghton RA, Birdsey RA, Heath L, et al. 2001. Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science 292:2316–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schimel D, Melillo JM, Tian H, McGuire AD, Kicklighter DW, Kittel T, Rosenbloom N, et al. 2000. Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science 287:2004–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Song C, Woodcock CE. 2003. A regional forest ecosystem carbon budget model: impacts of forest age structure and land-use history. Ecol Model 164:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teskey RO, Bongarten BC, Cregg BM, Dougherty PM, Hennessey TC. 1987. Physiology and genetics of tree growth response to moisture and temperature stress: an examination of the characteristics of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Physiol 3:41–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson MT, Thompson LW. 2002. Georgia’s forests, 1997. Resource Bulletin SRS-72. Southern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available online at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/srs/
  27. Tian H, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW, McGuire AD, Helfrich JVK III, Moore B III, Vörösmarty CJ. 1998. Effect of interannual climate variability on carbon storage in Amazonian ecosystems. Nature 396:664–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tian H, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW, McGuire AD, Helfrich J. 1999. The sensitivity of terrestrial carbon storage to historical atmospheric CO2 and climate variability in the United States. Tellus 51B:414–52Google Scholar
  29. Tian H, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW, Pan S, Liu J, McGuire AD, Moore B III. (2003). Regional carbon dynamics in monsoon Asia and its implications for the global carbon cycle. Global Planet Change 37:201–17Google Scholar
  30. Turner DP, Koerper GJ, Harmon ME, Lee JJ. 1995. A carbon budget for forests of the conterminous United States. Ecol Appl 5:421–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide: ver 3: Vol I. Available online at: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/
  32. Waisanen PJ, Bliss N 2002. Changes in population and agricultural land in conterminous United States counties, 1790 to 1997. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16:1137–1156Google Scholar
  33. Wear DN. 2002. Land use. In: Wear DN, Greis JG, Eds. Southern forest resource assessment final report. Available online at: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/
  34. Wofsy SC, Harriss RC. 2002. The North American Carbon Program (NACP). Report of the NACP Committee of the US Interagency Carbon Cycle Science Program. Washington (DC): US Global Change Research Program.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chi Zhang
    • 1
  • Hanqin Tian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shufen Pan
    • 1
  • Mingliang Liu
    • 1
  • Graeme Lockaby
    • 1
  • Erik B. Schilling
    • 2
  • John Stanturf
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forestry and Wildlife SciencesAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Southern Research CenterNational Council for Air and Stream ImprovementNewberryUSA
  3. 3.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations