Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 27–37

Carbon sequestration by Quercus ilex L. and Quercus pubescens Willd. and their contribution to decreasing air temperature in Rome

Abstract

Carbon sequestration capability by Quercus ilex L and Quercus pubescens Willd., widely distributed in the city of Rome, and their contribution to decreasing air temperature were investigated. Crown volume is the most significant (p < 0.01) variable explaining variation of air temperature below the tree crown. Q. pubescens gives a higher contribution to decreasing air temperature during the hottest months, due to its inherent larger crown volume than Q. ilex (252 ± 19 and 533 ± 52 m3, respectively for the large size). Moreover, our results show the existence of a strong urban carbon dioxide dome with a peak CO2 concentration (on an average 432 ± 37 ppm) at polluted sites, 16% greater than at control sites. Total carbon sequestration is 84 ± 12 and 111 ± 9 Kg year−1 of CO2 for the small Q. ilex and Q. pubescens tree size, respectively, and 151 ± 10 and 185 ± 7 Kg year−1 of CO2 for the large Q. ilex and Q. pubescen tree size, respectively. Q. pubescens, by its higher total photosynthetic leaf surface area (39% higher than Q. ilex) and its higher mean yearly photosynthetic rates (48% higher than Q. ilex) seems to have a greater role than Q. ilex. However, taking into account the leaf longevity (i.e. 12 ± 3 months for Q. ilex and 4 ± 2 months for Q. pubescens), the evergreen species, by its continuous photosynthetic activity, contributes to reduce CO2 throughout the year, and in particular during the winter months, when traffic volume has a pick, than Q. pubescens.

Keywords

Carbon sequestration “Heat island” Tree structure LAI Evergreen and Deciduous species 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akbari H (2002) Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Env Poll 116:119–126.Google Scholar
  2. Akbari H, Davis S, Dorsano S, Huang J, Winnett S (1992) Cooling our communites: A guidebook on tree planting and light—colored surfacing. Lawrence—Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-31587. US EPA Climate Change Division, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Attorre F, Bruno M, Francesconi F, Valenti R, Bruno F (2000) Landscape changes of Rome through tree-lined roads. Landscape Urban Plann 49:115–128.Google Scholar
  4. Birdsey R (1992) Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-59. Radnor, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 51 p.Google Scholar
  5. Brack CL (2002) Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Env Poll 116:195–200.Google Scholar
  6. Cadahia D, Cobos JM, Soria S, Clauser F, Gellini R, Grossoni P, Ferreira MC (1991) Observation des dommages sur les essences forestierès méditerranéennes. Commision des Communantés Européennes, Direction Générale de l'Agriculture.Google Scholar
  7. Capannesi G, Gratani L, Amadori M, Bruno F (1980) Livelli di accumulo di 36 elementi in foglie di Quercus ilex nella città di Roma (Italia). Atti del primo congresso Nazionale della S.IT.E., Salsomaggiore Terme (Parma): 21–24 Ottobre 1980, p. 514.Google Scholar
  8. Capannesi G, Gratani L, Amadori M, Bruno F (1981) Le foglie di Quercus ilex monitor del grado di inquinamento in area urbana. Notiziario CNEN 3:33–56.Google Scholar
  9. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assesing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18:227–234.Google Scholar
  10. Funiciello R, Marra F, Rosa C (1995) I caratteri geologici—stratigrafici. In: Cignini B, Massari G, Pignatti S, (eds) L'Ecosistema Roma. Ambiente e territorio. Fratelli Palombi Editori, Roma, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar
  11. Gratani L, Crescente MF (1999) Indici di valutazione del grado di inquinamento in area urbana. Arch Geob 5:43–50.Google Scholar
  12. Gratani L, Crescente MF (2000) Map—making of plant biomass and leaf area index for management of protected areas. Aliso 19:1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Gratani L, Varone L (2005) Daily and sesonal variation of CO2 in the city of Rome in relationship with the traffic volume. Atmos Environ (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Gratani L, Pesoli P, Crescente MF (1998) Relationship between photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content in an isolated Quercus ilex L. tree during the year. Photosynthetica 35:507–516.Google Scholar
  15. Gratani L, Crescente MF, Petruzzi M (2000) Relationship between leaf life—span and photosynthetic activity of Quercus ilex in polluted urban areas (Rome). Env Poll 110:19–28.Google Scholar
  16. Gratani L, Crescente MF, Varone L, Blasi C (2003) Trees presence in urban area to improve air quality. Proceedings of the EuroMAB 2002 Meeting, Roma 7–11 ottobre 2002. Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, Scritti e Documenti 31:101–102Google Scholar
  17. Groffman RM, Pouyat RV, McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Zipperer WC (1995) Carbon pools and trace gas fluxes in urban forests. In: Lai R, Kimble J, Levine E, Stewart BA (eds) Soils management and greenhouse effect. Advances in Soil Science. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
  18. Heisler GM, Grimmond S, Grant RH, Souch C (1994) Investigation of the influence of Chicago's urban forests on wind and air temperature. In: McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (eds) Chicago's Urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. General Technical Report No. NE-186, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
  19. Horbert M, Blume HP, Elvers H, Sukopp H (1982) Ecological contributions to urban planning. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 255–275.Google Scholar
  20. Idso CD, Idso SB, Balling RC, Jr. (2001) An intensive two—week study of an urban CO2 dome in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Atmos Environ 35:995–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karlik JF, Winer AM (2001) Plant species composition, calculated leaf masses and estimated biogenic emissions of urban landscape types from a field survey in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape Urban Plann 53:123–134.Google Scholar
  22. Koerner B, Klopatek J (2002) Anthropogenic and natural CO2 emission sources in an arid urban environment. Env Poll 116:45–51.Google Scholar
  23. Küppers M (2003) Space filling by foliage: The effect of growth form and architecture on the light environment. In: Larcher W (ed), Physiological plant ecology, 4th edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar
  24. McPherson EG, Nowak D, Heisler G, Grimmond S, Souch C, Grant R, Rowntree R (1997) Quantifying urban forest structure, function and value: The Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosystems 1: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moulton RJ, Richards KR (1990) Costs of sequestering carbon through tree planting and forest management in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-58. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 46 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Nasrallah HA, Balling RC Jr, Madi SM, Al-Ansari L (2003) Temporal variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Kuwait city, Kuwait with comparisons to Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Env Poll 121: 301–305.Google Scholar
  27. Nowak DJ (2000) The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In: Abdollahi KK, Ning ZH, Appeaning A (eds) Global change and urban forest. GCRCC and Franklin Press, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
  28. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2000) The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen M, Burk T (eds) Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-212, St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, pp. 714–720.Google Scholar
  29. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Env Poll 116:381–389.Google Scholar
  30. Pal A, Kulshreshtha K, Ahmad KJ, Behl HM (2002) Do leaf surface characters play a role in plant resistance to auto—exhaust pollution? Flora 197:47–55.Google Scholar
  31. Pignatti S (1995) La vegetazione naturale. In: Cignini B, Massari G, Pignatti S (eds) L'Ecosistema Roma. Ambiente e Territorio. Fratelli Palombi Editori, Roma, pp. 54–61.Google Scholar
  32. Pearson RL, Wachtel H, Ebi KL (2000) Distance—weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor to leukemia and other childhood cancers. J. Air and waste Management Association 50: 175–180.Google Scholar
  33. Sanders RA (1984) Some determinants of urban forest structure. Urban Ecol 8:13–28.Google Scholar
  34. Zapparoli M (1997) Gli insetti di Roma. Considerazioni introduttive ad uno studio di Entomologia urbana. In: Zapparoli M (ed) Gli insetti di Roma. Fratelli Palombi Editori, Roma, pp. 21–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations