How green is an urban tree? The impact of species selection in reducing the carbon footprint of park trees in Swedish cities

Introduction Planting trees in urban areas can mitigate some of the emissions generated in cities by carbon sequestration (annual uptake of CO2 through the process of photosynthesis) and carbon storage (amount of carbon stored in the tree's biomass throughout its lifespan). The aim of this study was to calculate the carbon footprint from nursery production to final establishment of different tree species grown for planting in urban parks in a northern European context. Material and methods The analysis included a cradle-to-gate approach and investigated the amount of carbon the adult trees needed to sequester in order to compensate for initial carbon emissions and which temporal perspectives are of concern. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated based on an inventory of consumption of fuels, energy, materials and other production inputs during cultivation, delivery, planting and establishment of three different tree species in three different locations in Sweden. The tree species considered in the analysis (Salix alba, Quercus rubra, Pinus sylvestris) were selected due to significant differences in their growth rates. Salix alba is a competitive strategist in resource-rich habitats, and is proficient at converting these resources into vigorous growth. Pinus sylvestris is a pronounced stress strategist with good ability to handle resource-limited habitats, and invests in traits accordingly, resulting in significantly slower development. Quercus rubra has its main distribution in cool and moderately resource-rich habitats, but has relatively high stress tolerance and can be considered intermediate between the other two species in terms of growth rate. Results and discussion The results showed that within 16 years of planting, all species in all three cities, except Pinus sylvestris planted in Umeå, compensated for initial carbon emissions, i.e. showed net absorption of CO2 after emissions from cultivation, delivery, planting and establishment of the trees had been deducted. There was a clear link between the time by which compensation of initial carbon emissions was achieved and growth rate of the different species, with the fast-growing Salix alba showing the best results. The single largest source of emissions among all activities carried out during cultivation, delivery and planting of all species, regardless of the city in which they were planted, was fuel consumption during tree planting.

[1]  A. Arneth,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[2]  A. Nikologianni,et al.  A Review of Embodied Carbon in Landscape Architecture. Practice and Policy , 2022, C.

[3]  M. Kuittinen,et al.  Environmental Product Declarations for plants and soils: how to quantify carbon uptake in landscape design and construction? , 2021, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  D. Haase,et al.  Carbon Pools of Berlin, Germany: Organic Carbon in Soils and Aboveground in Trees , 2020 .

[5]  T. Randrup,et al.  Challenges to implementing the urban ecosystem service concept in green infrastructure planning: a view from practitioners in Swedish municipalities , 2020, Socio-Ecological Practice Research.

[6]  Lara A. Roman,et al.  Urban Tree Mortality: A Literature Review , 2019, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[7]  H. Jo,et al.  Carbon reduction and planning strategies for urban parks in Seoul , 2019, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.

[8]  Yuebo Su,et al.  Land pavement depresses photosynthesis in urban trees especially under drought stress. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[9]  C. Hall,et al.  Understanding Carbon Footprint in Production and Use of Landscape Plants , 2019, HortTechnology.

[10]  M. Jansson,et al.  The governance of landscape management: new approaches to urban open space development , 2018, Landscape Research.

[11]  N. Bassuk,et al.  Improving confidence in tree species selection for challenging urban sites: a role for leaf turgor loss , 2018, Urban Ecosystems.

[12]  M. Disney,et al.  Estimating urban above ground biomass with multi-scale LiDAR , 2018, Carbon Balance and Management.

[13]  K. Seto,et al.  Carbon footprints of 13 000 cities , 2018, Environmental Research Letters.

[14]  Devin A. Rippner,et al.  Substitution of peat moss with softwood biochar for soil-free marigold growth , 2018 .

[15]  Mariarosaria Lombardi,et al.  Assessing the urban carbon footprint: An overview , 2017 .

[16]  Andrew K. Koeser,et al.  How Green Are Trees? — Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods to Assess Net Environmental Benefits , 2017 .

[17]  C. Hall,et al.  Comparison of Carbon Footprint and Variable Costs of Selected Nursery Production Systems for a 5-cm-caliper Red Maple , 2016 .

[18]  Jess Vogt,et al.  Tree Mortality Undercuts Ability of Tree-Planting Programs to Provide Benefits: Results of a Three-City Study , 2016 .

[19]  G. Fascella Growing Substrates Alternative to Peat for Ornamental Plants , 2015 .

[20]  Lara A. Roman,et al.  The balance of planting and mortality in a street tree population , 2014, Urban Ecosystems.

[21]  P. Reich The world‐wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto , 2014 .

[22]  S. Maruthaveeran,et al.  Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence , 2014, Urban Ecosystems.

[23]  C. Hall,et al.  Carbon Footprint and Related Production Costs of System Components of a Field-Grown Cercis canadensis L. ‘Forest Pansy’ Using Life Cycle Assessment , 2013 .

[24]  Robert E. Hoehn,et al.  Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. , 2013, Environmental pollution.

[25]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  A life cycle greenhouse gas inventory of a tree production system , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[26]  J. P. Grime,et al.  The Evolutionary Strategies that Shape Ecosystems: Grime/The Evolutionary Strategies that Shape Ecosystems , 2012 .

[27]  L. Hutyra,et al.  Inconsistent definitions of "urban" result in different conclusions about the size of urban carbon and nitrogen stocks. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[28]  D. Ingram Life cycle assessment of a field-grown red maple tree to estimate its carbon footprint components , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  Michael W. Strohbach,et al.  The carbon footprint of urban green space—A life cycle approach , 2012 .

[30]  Mark A. Berhow,et al.  Extracted sweet corn tassels as a renewable alternative to peat in greenhouse substrates , 2011 .

[31]  Shobhakar Dhakal,et al.  GHG emissions from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation , 2010 .

[32]  Stanley B. Zdonik,et al.  A*-tree , 2010, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[33]  G. Mohren,et al.  Carbon storage and sequestration potential of selected tree species in India , 2010 .

[34]  Paul Selman,et al.  Learning to Love the Landscapes of Carbon-Neutrality , 2010 .

[35]  F. Escobedo,et al.  Impacts of urban forests on offsetting carbon emissions from industrial energy use in Hangzhou, China. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[36]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Effects of Urban Tree Management and Species Selection on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide , 2002, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[37]  D. Nowak,et al.  Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. , 2002, Environmental pollution.

[38]  C. Loehle Height growth rate tradeoffs determine northern and southern range limits for trees , 1998 .

[39]  E. Gregory McPherson,et al.  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Reduction by Sacramento's Urban Forest , 1998, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[40]  C. Newsholme Willows: The Genus Salix , 1992 .

[41]  A. Farjon Pines: Drawings and Descriptions of the Genus Pinus , 1986 .

[42]  F. Li CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN FOREST IN CHINA , 2018 .

[43]  M. Asaduzzaman Soilless Culture Use Of Substrates For The Production Of Quality Horticultural Crops , 2017 .

[44]  A. R. Ennos,et al.  What we know and don ’ t know about the carbon storage and sequestration of urban trees , 2016 .

[45]  P. Peper,et al.  Urban tree database and allometric equations , 2016 .

[46]  Lara A. Roman,et al.  Stewardship matters: Case studies in establishment success of urban trees , 2015 .

[47]  A. Kendall,et al.  Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide for different arboricultural practices in Los Angeles, CA , 2015 .

[48]  Andrew K. Koeser,et al.  Factors influencing urban tree planting program growth and survival in Florida, United States , 2014 .

[49]  Dewayne L. Ingram,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment to Study the Carbon Footprint of System Components for Colorado Blue Spruce Field Production and Use , 2013 .

[50]  B. Scharenbroch Urban Trees for Carbon Sequestration , 2012 .

[51]  J. Terradas,et al.  Ecological services of urban forest in Barcelona , 2009 .

[52]  S. J. Khajeddin,et al.  THE INVESTIGATION OF DROUGHT RESISTANCE IN WOOD SPECIES FOR ISFAHAN GREENERY DEVELOPMENT , 2009 .

[53]  David J. Nowak,et al.  Newly planted street tree growth and mortality. , 1990 .