Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 8190–8205 | Cite as

Modeling ozone uptake by urban and peri-urban forest: a case study in the Metropolitan City of Rome

  • Lina FusaroEmail author
  • Simone Mereu
  • Elisabetta Salvatori
  • Elena Agliari
  • Silvano Fares
  • Fausto Manes
Ozone and plant life: the Italian state-of-the-art

Abstract

Urban and peri-urban forests are green infrastructures (GI) that play a substantial role in delivering ecosystem services such as the amelioration of air quality by the removal of air pollutants, among which is ozone (O3), which is the most harmful pollutant in Mediterranean metropolitan areas. Models may provide a reliable estimate of gas exchanges between vegetation and atmosphere and are thus a powerful tool to quantify and compare O3 removal in different contexts. The present study modeled the O3 stomatal uptake at canopy level of an urban and a peri-urban forest in the Metropolitan City of Rome in two different years. Results show different rates of O3 fluxes between the two forests, due to different exposure to the pollutant, management practice effects on forest structure and functionality, and environmental conditions, namely, different stressors affecting the gas exchange rates of the two GIs. The periodic components of the time series calculated by means of the spectral analysis show that seasonal variation of modeled canopy transpiration is driven by precipitation in peri-urban forests, whereas in the urban forest seasonal variations are driven by vapor pressure deficit of ambient air. Moreover, in the urban forest high water availability during summer months, owing to irrigation practice, leads to an increase in O3 uptake, thus suggesting that irrigation may enhance air phytoremediation in urban areas.

Keywords

Urban forest Ecosystem services Air quality Ozone fluxes Mediterranean region GOTILWA+ 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the national projects financed by Regione Lazio-Lazio Innova URBANFOR3. The research was also made possible thanks to the Scientific Commission of Castelporziano and the Multi-disciplinary Center for the Study of Coastal Mediterranean Ecosystems. We thank the Servizio Integrato Agrometeorologico della Regione Lazio for climatic data provisioning.

Funding information

This research has been supported by the following grants: MIUR, Rome, Project PRIN 2010–2011 “TreeCity” (Prot. no. 20109E8F95); Sapienza Research Project “Avvio alla Ricerca” 2015 (Prot. no. C26N15CHHN); and Sapienza Ateneo Research Project 2015 (Prot. no. C26A15PWLH).

Supplementary material

11356_2017_474_MOESM1_ESM.docx (108 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 108 kb)
11356_2017_474_MOESM2_ESM.docx (827 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 827 kb)
11356_2017_474_MOESM3_ESM.docx (627 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 627 kb)

References

  1. Allegrini I, Cortiello M, Manes F, Tripodo P (1994) Physico-chemical and biological monitoring as integrated tools in evaluating tropospheric ozone in urban and semi-rural areas. Sci Total Environ 141:75–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(94)90019-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso R, Elvira S, Sanz MJ et al (2008) Sensitivity analysis of a parameterization of the stomatal component of the DO3SE model for Quercus ilex to estimate ozone fluxes. Environ Pollut 155:473–480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.01.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alonso R, Vivanco MG, González-Fernández I et al (2011) Modelling the influence of peri-urban trees in the air quality of Madrid region (Spain). Environ Pollut 159:2138–2147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alonso R, Elvira S, González-Fernández I et al (2014) Drought stress does not protect Quercus ilex L. from ozone effects: results from a comparative study of two subspecies differing in ozone sensitivity. Plant Biol 16:375–384.  https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anthoni PM, Law BE, Unsworth MH (1999) Carbon and water vapor exchange of an open-canopied ponderosa pine ecosystem. Agric For Meteorol 95:151–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(99)00029-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnfield AJ (2003) Two decades of urban climate research: a review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Int J Climatol 23:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson R (2000) Atmospheric chemistry of VOCs and NOx. Atmos Environ 34:2063–2101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00460-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baró F, Chaparro L, Gómez-Baggethun E et al (2014) Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43:466–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blasi C, Capotorti G, Marchese M et al (2008) Interdisciplinary research for the proposal of the urban biosphere reserve of Rome municipality. Plant Biosyst - Int J Deal Asp Plant Biol 142:305–312.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500802150571 Google Scholar
  10. Bracewell RN, Bracewell RN (1986) The Fourier transform and its applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckley TN, Mott KA (2013) Modelling stomatal conductance in response to environmental factors. Plant Cell Environ 36:1691–1699.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calfapietra C, Peñuelas J, Niinemets Ü (2015) Urban plant physiology: adaptation-mitigation strategies under permanent stress. Trends Plant Sci 20:72–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2014.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron RWF, Blanuša T (2016) Green infrastructure and ecosystem services—is the devil in the detail? Ann Bot mcw129. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcw129
  14. Clapp RB, Hornberger GM (1978) Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water Resour Res 14:601–604.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR014i004p00601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edmondson JL, Davies ZG, McHugh N et al (2012) Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci Rep 2:srep00963.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Escobedo FJ, Nowak DJ (2009) Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc Urban Plan 90:102–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fang Y, Yoh M, Koba K et al (2011) Nitrogen deposition and forest nitrogen cycling along an urban–rural transect in southern China. Glob Change Biol 17:872–885.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02283.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fares S, Matteucci G, Scarascia Mugnozza G et al (2013a) Testing of models of stomatal ozone fluxes with field measurements in a mixed Mediterranean forest. Atmos Environ 67:242–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fares S, Schnitzhofer R, Jiang X et al (2013b) Observations of diurnal to weekly variations of monoterpene-dominated fluxes of volatile organic compounds from Mediterranean forests: implications for regional modeling. Environ Sci Technol 47:11073–11082.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es4022156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fares S, Savi F, Muller J et al (2014) Simultaneous measurements of above and below canopy ozone fluxes help partitioning ozone deposition between its various sinks in a Mediterranean Oak Forest. Agric For Meteorol 198–199:181–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.08.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fares S, Savi F, Fusaro L et al (2016) Particle deposition in a peri-urban Mediterranean forest. Environ Pollut 218:1278–1286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flato G, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, et al (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2013. Cambridge University Press, pp 741–866Google Scholar
  23. Fuhrer J, Skärby L, Ashmore MR (1997) Critical levels for ozone effects on vegetation in Europe. Environ Pollut 97:91–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(97)00067-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fusaro L, Salvatori E, Mereu S et al (2015a) Urban and peri-urban forests in the metropolitan area of Rome: ecophysiological response of Quercus ilex L. in two green infrastructures in an ecosystem services perspective. Urban For Urban Green 14:1147–1156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fusaro L, Salvatori E, Mereu S et al (2015b) Researches in Castelporziano test site: ecophysiological studies on Mediterranean vegetation in a changing environment. Rendiconti Lincei:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-014-0374-1
  26. Fusaro L, Gerosa G, Salvatori E et al (2016) Early and late adjustments of the photosynthetic traits and stomatal density in Quercus ilex L. grown in an ozone-enriched environment. Plant Biol 18:13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerosa G, Vitale M, Finco A et al (2005) Ozone uptake by an evergreen Mediterranean Forest (Quercus ilex) in Italy. Part I: micrometeorological flux measurements and flux partitioning. Atmos Environ 39:3255–3266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerosa G, Finco A, Mereu S et al (2009) Comparison of seasonal variations of ozone exposure and fluxes in a Mediterranean Holm oak forest between the exceptionally dry 2003 and the following year. Environ Pollut 157:1737–1744.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerosa G, Mereu S, Finco A, Marzuoli R (2012) Stomatal conductance modeling to estimate the evapotranspiration of natural and agricultural ecosystems. Evapotranspiration-remote sensing and modeling. InTech, InCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gerosa G, Fusaro L, Monga R et al (2015) A flux-based assessment of above and below ground biomass of Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) seedlings after one season of exposure to high ozone concentrations. Atmos Environ 113:41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gracia CA, Tello E, Sabaté S, Bellot J (1999) GOTILWA: an integrated model of water dynamics and forest growth. In: Rodà F, Retana J, Gracia CA, Bellot J (eds) Ecology of Mediterranean evergreen oak forests. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 163–179Google Scholar
  32. Gregg JW, Jones CG, Dawson TE (2003) Urbanization effects on tree growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424:183–187.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grimmond CSB, King TS, Cropley FD et al (2002) Local-scale fluxes of carbon dioxide in urban environments: methodological challenges and results from Chicago. Environ Pollut 116(Supplement 1):S243–S254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00256-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grote R, Samson R, Alonso R, et al (2016) Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential. Front Ecol Environ n/a-n/a doi:  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1426
  35. Guidolotti G, Calfapietra C, Pallozzi E et al (2017) Promoting the potential of flux-measuring stations in urban parks: an innovative case study in Naples, Italy. Agric For Meteorol 233:153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrington R, Anton C, Dawson TP et al (2010) Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers Conserv 19:2773–2790.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hemery GE, Savill PS, Pryor SN (2005) Applications of the crown diameter–stem diameter relationship for different species of broadleaved trees. For Ecol Manag 215:285–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hicks BB (2008) On estimating dry deposition rates in complex terrain. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47:1651–1658.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2006JAMC1412.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones HG (2013) Plants and microclimate: a quantitative approach to environmental plant physiology. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Kramer K, Leinonen I, Bartelink HH et al (2002) Evaluation of six process-based forest growth models using eddy-covariance measurements of CO2 and H2O fluxes at six forest sites in Europe. Glob Chang Biol 8:213–230.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00471.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N (2012) Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29:521–535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lafortezza R, Chen J (2016) The provision of ecosystem services in response to global change: evidences and applications. Environ Res 147:576–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leuning R (1995) A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C3 plants. Plant Cell Environ 18:339–355.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00370.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lombardozzi D, Sparks JP, Bonan G (2013) Integrating O3 influences on terrestrial processes: photosynthetic and stomatal response data available for regional and global modeling. Biogeosciences 10:6815–6831.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-6815-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manes F, Grignetti A, Tinelli A et al (1997) General features of the Castelporziano test site. Atmos Environ 31:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00070-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manes F, Vitale M, Traglia MD (2005) Monitoring tropospheric ozone impact on plants in natural and urban areas with a Mediterranean climate. Plant Biosyst Int J Deal Asp Plant Biol 139:265–278.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500500333966 Google Scholar
  48. Manes F, Vitale M, Maria Fabi A et al (2007) Estimates of potential ozone stomatal uptake in mature trees of Quercus ilex in a Mediterranean climate. Environ Exp Bot 59:235–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manes F, Incerti G, Salvatori E et al (2012) Urban ecosystem services: tree diversity and stability of tropospheric ozone removal. Ecol Appl 22:349–360.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0561.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manes F, Marando F, Capotorti G et al (2016) Regulating ecosystem services of forests in ten Italian metropolitan cities: air quality improvement by PM10 and O3 removal. Ecol Indic 67:425–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marando F, Salvatori E, Fusaro L, Manes F (2016) Removal of PM10 by forests as a nature-based solution for air quality improvement in the Metropolitan City of Rome. Forests 7:150.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f7070150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Medlyn BE, Dreyer E, Ellsworth D, Forstreuter M, Harley PC, Kirschbaum MUF, Le Roux X, Montpied P, Strassemeyer J, Walcroft A, Wang K, Loustau D (2002) Temperature response of parameters of a biochemically based model of photosynthesis. II. A review of experimental data. Plant, Cell Environ 25(9):1167–1179Google Scholar
  53. Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, Eamus D, Ellsworth DS, Prentice IC, Barton CVM, Crous KY, De Angelis P, Freeman M, Wingate L (2011) Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob Chang Biol 17(6):2134–2144Google Scholar
  54. Meinzer FC, Smith DD, Woodruff DR et al (2017) Stomatal kinetics and photosynthetic gas exchange along a continuum of isohydric to anisohydric regulation of plant water status. Plant Cell Environ 40:1618–1628.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morales P, Sykes MT, Prentice IC et al (2005) Comparing and evaluating process-based ecosystem model predictions of carbon and water fluxes in major European forest biomes. Glob Chang Biol 11:2211–2233.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01036.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morani A, Nowak D, Hirabayashi S et al (2014) Comparing i-Tree modeled ozone deposition with field measurements in a periurban Mediterranean forest. Environ Pollut 195:202–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J et al (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front Ecol Environ 9:27–36.  https://doi.org/10.1890/090220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sabaté S, Gracia CA, Sánchez A (2002) Likely effects of climate change on growth of Quercus ilex, Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinaster, Pinus sylvestris and Fagus sylvatica forests in the Mediterranean region. For Ecol Manag 162:23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00048-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Selmi W, Weber C, Rivière E et al (2016) Air pollution removal by trees in public green spaces in Strasbourg city, France. Urban For Urban Green 17:192–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Seufert G, Bartzis J, Bomboi T et al (1997) An overview of the Castelporziano experiments. Atmos Environ 31:5–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00334-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van der Zande D, Mereu S, Nadezhdina N et al (2009) 3D upscaling of transpiration from leaf to tree using ground-based LiDAR: application on a Mediterranean Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) tree. Agric For Meteorol 149:1573–1583.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams NSG, Hahs AK, Vesk PA (2015) Urbanisation, plant traits and the composition of urban floras. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 17:78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2014.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental BiologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Impacts on Agriculture, Forests and Natural Ecosystems (IAFES) DivisionCMCC, Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate ChangeSassariItaly
  3. 3.Department of Science for Nature and Environmental Resources (DipNET)University of SassariSassariItaly
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  5. 5.Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (GNFM-INdAM)RomeItaly
  6. 6.Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), Research Centre for Forestry and WoodArezzoItaly

Personalised recommendations