Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment of a field-grown red maple tree to estimate its carbon footprint components

  • CARBON FOOTPRINTING
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study analyzes the interrelated components in the production of a 5-cm caliper, field-grown, spade-dug Acer rubrum ‘October Glory’ tree in terms of their contributions to the carbon footprint, global warming potential (GWP), of this balled and burlapped product during production and its complete life cycle.

Methods

The carbon footprint, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, associated with input materials and equipment use to produce this tree was expressed as global warming potential (GWP) in kilograms of CO2 equivalence (CO2e). A model system was defined encompassing production from rooting cuttings to finished product, the subsequent transport and transplanting in the landscape and the use and end-of-life phases. The model system was defined through nursery manager and arborist interviews and published production recommendations and good agricultural practices.

Results and discussion

Including carbon sequestration during 1 year of liner production and 4 years of field production (0.366 and 12.1 kg CO2e, respectively), the cutting-to-landscape GWP of the tree was calculated to be 8.213 kg CO2e. Contributions to a tree's carbon footprint from input materials (2.85 kg CO2e), fuel or electricity consumption during production (10.342 kg CO2e), transport to the customer at a distance of 386 km (4.040 kg CO2e) and transport 32 km and transplanting into a landscape site (3.333 kg CO2e) were calculated. Fuel and electricity consumption from cutting-to-landscape (17.715 kg CO2e/tree) contributed 86% of the product GWP, before accounting for carbon sequestration during production. The weighted positive impact of sequestered carbon over a 60-year useful life in the landscape would exceed 901 kg CO2e, less the 92.9 kg CO2e required for removal and disposal.

Conclusions

An LCA analyzing input components in field production of a shade tree will allow nursery managers to make informed decisions about the various operational elements. Individual variables that contributed most to model sensitivity included CO2 sequestration during production and the use phase. Other important factors in the model included transport distance for the final product, fertilization, and equipment use for such activities as harvesting. The substantial weighted impact of carbon sequestration of the tree during the use phase would greatly outweigh carbon investment in its production, transport, transplanting, and disposal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldentun Y (2002) Life cycle inventory of forest seedling production—from seed to regeneration site. J Cleaner Prod 10(1):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Nursery and Landscape Association (2004) American standards for nursery stock. ANSI Z60.1–2004. ISBN 1-890148-06-7. 129 p

  • Brentrup F, Palliere C (2008) GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser production and use. Proc Intl Fertiliser Soc 639: 1-26. The International Fertiliser Society, Cambridge, England. ISBN 978-0-85310-276-2

  • Cambria D, Pierangeli D (2011) A life cycle assessment case study for walnut tree (Juglans regia L.) seedlings production. Int J Life Cycle Ass 16(9):859–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center-for-Urban-Forest-Research (2008) CUFR Tree Carbon Calculator. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/ctcc/. Accessed 15 August 15 2011

  • Davis SC, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Dulucia EH (2009) Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of biofuels. Trends Plant Sci 14(3):140–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Debolt S, Campbell JE, Smith R, Montross M, Stork J (2009) Life cycle assessment of native plants and marginal lands for bioenergy agriculture in Kentucky as a model for south-eastern USA. GCB Bioenergy 1(4):308–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Kammon M (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311(5760):506–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fulcher A (2009) IPM calendar for deciduous tree production, University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ca.uky.edu/HLA/Dunwell/2009IPMDeciduousTreeProduction.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2011

  • Gilman EF, Beeson R Jr (1996) Nursery production methods affects root growth. J Environ Hort 14(2):88–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso R, Perumpral J, Vaughan D, Roberson GT, Pitman R (2010) Predicting tractor diesel fuel consumption. Virginia Tech., Virginia Cooperative Extension, pp 442–073

  • Halcomb M (2011) Tennessee Commerical Nursery Production Information, University of Tennessee Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/mtnpi/index.html. Accessed 12 October 2011)

  • Hall CR, Campbell BL, Behe BK, Yue CY, Lopez RG, Dennis JH (2010) The appeal of biodegradable packaging to floral consumers. Hort Science 45(4):583–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi K, Gaillard G, Nemecek T (2006) Life cycle assessment of agricultural production systems: current issues and future perspectives. International Seminar on Technology Development for Good Agricultural Practice in Asia and Oceania, Taipei, Taiwan, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center. pp 98–110

  • Hillier J, Hawes C, Squire G, Hilton A, Wale S, Smith P (2009) The carbon footprints of food crop production. Int J Agr Sustain 7(2):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) Intergovernmental panel on climate change guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf. Accessed October 2011

  • ISO (2006) Life cycle assessment, requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Rule 14044:2006E. 59 p

  • Kendall A, McPherson E (2011) A life cycle greenhouse gas inventory of a tree production system. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0339-x

  • Koerber GR, Edwards-Jones G, Hill PW, Milà i Canals L, Nyeko P, York EH, Jones DL (2009) Geographical variation in carbon dioxide fluxes from soils in agro-ecosystems and its implications for life-cycle assessment. J Appl Ecol 46(2):306–314 (Special profile: integrating ecology and the social sciences.)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2004) Carbon emissions from farm operations. Environ Int 30:981–990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liebig MA, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Soil carbon storage by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bio Energy Res 1(3):215–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Loarie SR, Lobell DB, Asner GP, Mu Q, Field CB (2011) Direct impacts on local climate of sugar-cane expansion in Brazil. Nat Clim Change 1(2):105–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marble SC, Prior SA, Runion GB, Torbert HA, Gilliam CH, Fain GB (2011) The importance of determining carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation potential in ornamental horticulture. Hort Science 46(2):240–244

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McHale MR, Burke IC, Lefsky MA, Peper PJ, McPherson EG (2009) Urban forest biomass estimates: is it important to use allometric relationships developed specifically for urban trees? Urban Ecosyst 12(1):95–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson EG, Simpson JR (1999) Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. USDA/Forest Service PSW-GTR-171. 237 p

  • McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Piper PJ, Xiao Q (1999) Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto's municipal urban forest. J Arboric 25(5):235–248

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson E, Simpson JR, Piper PJ, Gardner SL, Vargas KE, Xiao Q (2007) Community tree guide: benefits, costs and strategic planting. USDA/Forest Service PSW-GTR-199, 85 p

  • Mokany K, Raison RJ, Prokushkin AS (2006) Critical analysis of root:shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biol 12(1):84–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourad AL, Coltro L et al (2007) A simple methodology for elaborating the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. Int J Life Cycle Ass 12(6):408–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Dubois D, Gunst L, Gaillard G (2005) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic farming in the DOC trial. In: Researching sustainable systems. Proceedings of the First Scientific Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research (ISOFAR), held in Cooperation with the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia (NASAA), Adelaide Convention Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, 21-23 September. ISBN 3-906081-76-1, pp 222-226

  • Nemecek T, Dubois D, Huguenin O, Gaillard G (2006) Life cycle assessment of Swiss organic farming systems. Asp Appl Biol 79:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • PAS 2050 (2008) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI British Standards (Publicly Available Specification). ISBN 978 0 580 50978 0, 36 p

  • Payraudeau S, van der Werf HMG (2005) Environmental impact assessment for a farming region: a review of methods. Agri Ecosyst Environ 107(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peper PJ, McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Vargas KE, Xiao Q (2009) Lower Midwest community tree guide: Benefits, costs and strategic planning. USDA/Forest Service PSW-GTR-219, 115 p

  • Prior SA, Runion GB, Marble SC, Rogers HH, Gilliam CH, Torbert HA (2011) A review of elevated atmospheric CO 2 effects on plant growth and water relations: implications for horticulture. Hort Science 46(2):158–162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russo G, De Lucia Zeller B (2008) Environmental evaluation by means of LCA regarding the ornamental nursery production in rose and sowbread greenhouse cultivation. Acta Hort 801(2):1597–1604

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo G, Scarascia Mugnozza G (2005) LCA methodology applied to various typology of greenhouses. Acta Hort 691(2):837–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo G, Buttol P, Tarantini M (2008a) LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) of roses and cyclamens in greenhouse cultivation. Acta Hort 801(1):359–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo G, Scarascia Mugnozza G, De Lucia Zeller B (2008b) Environmental improvements of greenhouse flower cultivation by means of LCA methodology. Acta Hort 801(1):301–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3170–3176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agri Ecosyst Environ 133(3–4):247–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USDOE (1998) Method of calculating carbon sequestration by trees in urban and suburban settings. United States Department of Energy (DOE): p. 15. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/sequester.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2011

  • USEPA (2005) Emission Facts: Average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. EPA420-F-05_001. http://www/epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm. Accessed 7 March 2011)

  • Wang MQ (2007)GREET 1.8a Spreadsheet Model. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/index.html. Accessed 12 October 2011

  • West TO, Marland G (2000) Net carbon flux from agricultural ecosystems: methodology for full carbon cycle analyses. Elsevier Sci Ltd 116:439–444. doi:10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00221-4, Special issue: terrestrial carbon (Part I), presented at the advances in terrestrial ecosystems carbon inventory, measurements, and monitoring conference, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 3-5 October 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • West TO, Marland G (2002) A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agri Ecosyt Environ 91(1/3):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West TO, Marland G (2003) Net carbon flux from agriculture: carbon emissions, carbon sequestration, crop yield, and land-use change. Biogeochem 63(1):73–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture. Asp Appl Biol 79:19–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Yue CY, Hall CR, Behe BK, Campbell BL, Dennis JH, Lopez RG (2010) Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J Agr Appl Econ 42(4):757–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Yue CY, Dennis JH, Behe BK, Hall CR, Campbell BL, Lopez RG (2011) Investigating consumer preference for organic, local, or sustainable plants. Hort Science 46(4):610–615

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky, N-318 Ag Science North, Lexington, KY, 40546-0091, USA

    Dewayne L. Ingram

Authors
  1. Dewayne L. Ingram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dewayne L. Ingram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ingram, D.L. Life cycle assessment of a field-grown red maple tree to estimate its carbon footprint components. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 453–462 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0398-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0398-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation