Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVelasco, E.
dc.contributor.authorRoth, M.
dc.contributor.authorTan, S. H.
dc.contributor.authorQuak, M.
dc.contributor.authorNabarro, S. D. A.
dc.contributor.authorNorford, Leslie Keith
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-13T20:04:03Z
dc.date.available2013-12-13T20:04:03Z
dc.date.issued2013-10
dc.date.submitted2013-08
dc.identifier.issn1680-7324
dc.identifier.issn1680-7316
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/82928
dc.description.abstractUrban surfaces are usually net sources of CO[subscript 2]. Vegetation can potentially have an important role in reducing the CO[subscript 2] emitted by anthropogenic activities in cities, particularly when vegetation is extensive and/or evergreen. A direct and accurate estimation of carbon uptake by urban vegetation is difficult due to the particular characteristics of the urban ecosystem and high variability in tree distribution and species. Here, we investigate the role of urban vegetation in the CO[subscript 2] flux from a residential neighbourhood in Singapore using two different approaches. CO[subscript 2] fluxes measured directly by eddy covariance are compared with emissions estimated from emissions factors and activity data. The latter includes contributions from vehicular traffic, household combustion, soil respiration and human breathing. The difference between estimated emissions and measured fluxes should approximate the flux associated with the aboveground vegetation. In addition, a tree survey was conducted to estimate the annual CO[subscript 2] sequestration using allometric equations and an alternative model of the metabolic theory of ecology for tropical forests. Palm trees, banana plants and turfgrass were also included in the survey with their annual CO[subscript 2] uptake obtained from published growth rates. Both approaches agree within 2% and suggest that vegetation sequesters 8% of the total emitted CO[subscript 2] in the residential neighbourhood studied. An uptake of 1.4 ton km[superscript −2] day[superscript −1] (510 ton km[superscript −2] yr[superscript −1]) was estimated as the difference between assimilation by photosynthesis minus the aboveground biomass respiration during daytime (4.0 ton km[superscript −]2 day[superscript −1]) and release by plant respiration at night (2.6 ton km[superscript −2] day[superscript −1]). However, when soil respiration is added to the daily aboveground flux, the biogenic component becomes a net source amounting to 4% of the total CO[subscript 2] flux and represents the total contribution of urban vegetation to the carbon flux to the atmosphere.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSingapore-MIT Allianceen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherCopernicus GmbHen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10185-2013en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/en_US
dc.sourceCopernicus GmbHen_US
dc.titleThe role of vegetation in the CO[subscript 2] flux from a tropical urban neighbourhooden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationVelasco, E., M. Roth, S. H. Tan, M. Quak, S. D. A. Nabarro, and L. Norford. “The role of vegetation in the CO2 flux from a tropical urban neighbourhood.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13, no. 20 (October 16, 2013): 10185-10202.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Architectureen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSingapore-MIT Alliance in Research and Technology (SMART)en_US
dc.contributor.mitauthorNorford, Leslie Keithen_US
dc.relation.journalAtmospheric Chemistry and Physicsen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dspace.orderedauthorsVelasco, E.; Roth, M.; Tan, S. H.; Quak, M.; Nabarro, S. D. A.; Norford, L.en_US
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5631-7256
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CCen_US
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record