Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal by protected and maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA

Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy

“…In particular, the comparison between our C estimates with the UFORE model and other European studies that have used the UFORE/i-Tree Eco model in Europe show that the average carbon storage and sequestration per tree was higher in our study than estimates reported by Wälchli (2012) in Zurich in Switzerland (about 235 km from Bolzano) and Paoletti et al (2011) in Florence, Italy (about 300 km from Bolzano). The difference is likely due to Bolzano's species composition, tree size, and health (Martin et al 2012).…”

“…Urban areas are steadily growing throughout the world (Grimm et al 2008) and by 2030 it is expected that 60% of the world's population will be living in cities (Rydin et al 2012). Thus, as urban environments become more important as living space for humans, they are an increasing source of carbon emissions.Several studies in North America, China, and Australia (Brack 2002;Zhao et al 2010;Dobbs et al 2011;Martin et al 2012;Roy et al 2012), and more recently in the United Kingdom and Germany (Davies et al 2011;Strohbach & Haase 2012;Strohbach et al 2012), have shown that trees in urban environments remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through growth and photosynthesis, and store excess carbon as biomass in roots, stems, and branches. Indirectly, urban trees also reduce building energy used for cooling through their shade and climate amelioration effects, thereby reducing CO 2 emissions from decreased energy production (Akbari et al 2001).…”

The role of ecosystem services in climate and air quality in urban areas: Evaluating carbon sequestration and air pollution removal by street and park trees in Szeged (Hungary)

“…The share of different species in the total leaf area provides information on the performance of the populations from an ecosystem service point of view. The tree condition is calculated automatically by the i-Tree Eco software, and a quite large share of "good" and "excellent" categories was reported in other i-Tree studies as well (Martin et al, 2012). The main reason for this is that this categorisation is based on the percentage of branch crown dieback in the crown data.…”

“…The compared street and avenue pairs are similar in the number of trees, but, due partly to management-related interventions, they are different in size distribution. Therefore, the comparisons of the stands are more informative with categorisation based on DBH (Martin et al, 2012).…”

“…What kind of tree maintenance works should be used to keep the trees' service-providing capacity as high as possible? There are some published results aimed at the comparison of different-aged, differently-managed tree stands, mainly from the U.S. (Martin et al, 2012;McPherson, 2003;McPherson and Kendall, 2014). To date, however, we have rather few empirical studies on the effects of different species selection policies and treatment practices from the point of view of ecosystem services.…”