Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In a suburban neighborhood of Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, we simultaneously measured net CO 2 exchange of trees using sap flow and leaf gas exchange measurements, net CO 2 exchange of a turfgrass lawn using eddy covariance from a portable tower, and total surface‐atmosphere CO 2 fluxes ( F C ) using an eddy covariance system on a tall tower. Two years of continuous measurements showed that net CO 2 exchange varied among vegetation types, with the largest growing‐season (Apr–Nov) net CO 2 uptake on a per cover area basis from evergreen needleleaf trees (−603 g C m −2 ), followed by deciduous broadleaf trees (−216 g C m −2 ), irrigated turfgrass (−211 g C m −2 ), and non‐irrigated turfgrass (−115 g C m −2 ). Vegetation types showed seasonal patterns of CO 2 exchange similar to those observed in natural ecosystems. Scaled‐up net CO 2 exchange from vegetation and soils ( F C(VegSoil) ) agreed closely with landscape F C measurements from the tall tower at times when fossil fuel emissions were at a minimum. Although F C(VegSoil) did not offset fossil fuel emissions on an annual basis, the temporal pattern of F C(VegSoil) did significantly alter the seasonality of F C . Total growing season F C(VegSoil) in recreational land‐use areas averaged −165 g C m −2 and was dominated by turfgrass CO 2 exchange (representing 77% of the total), whereas F C(VegSoil) in residential areas averaged −124 g C m −2 and was dominated by trees (representing 78% of the total). Our results suggest urban vegetation types can capture much of the variability required to predict seasonal patterns and differences in F C(VegSoil) that could result from changes in land use or vegetation composition in temperate cities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peters et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: