Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 1149–1165 | Cite as

Vegetation productivity consequences of human settlement growth in the eastern United States

  • Tingting Zhao
  • Daniel G. Brown
  • Hongliang Fang
  • David M. Theobald
  • Ting Liu
  • Tao Zhang
Research Article

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the impact of human settlement growth on vegetation carbon uptake in the eastern United States between 1992/1993 and 2001. Human settlement growth was measured by changes in the density of housing units. Vegetation carbon uptake was estimated with gross primary production (GPP) based on the light-use efficiency approach applied to satellite imagery. Annual GPP was found to increase by approximately 140 g C m−2 on average for the entire study area in 2001 compared to 1992/1993, accompanied by region-wide increases in downward shortwave radiation and minimum daily temperature. Changes in GPP, however, varied significantly by different types of settlement growth. Exurbanized areas, where the rural settlement (less than 0.025 units per acre) converted to exurbs (0.025–0.6 units per acre), were associated with approximately 157 g C m−2 increase in GPP due to high vegetation proportions. Suburbanization, the conversion from exurban settlement to suburbs (0.6–4 units per acre), was related with a decline of GPP by 152 g C m−2 due to progressive development of built-up land cover. Results help to understand the potential of carbon mitigation in the human-dominated landscapes using vegetation as a natural store of carbon dioxide. This in turn has implications for the low-carbon development planning along the gradient of human settlement densities.

Keywords

Carbon Urban sprawl Suburban sprawl Exurban sprawl Gross primary production Decennial census Remote sensing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Part of the research was funded by the 2008 First-Year Assistant Professor summer grant at Florida State University. The climate data used in this study was acquired as part of the activities of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, and are archived and distributed by the Goddard Earth Sciences (GES) Data and Information Services Center (DISC). We would also like to extend our gratitude to Lisa A. Schulte and the anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9766_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. Albani M, Medvigy D, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR (2006) The contributions of land-use change, CO2 fertilization, and climate variability to the Eastern US carbon sink. Glob Change Biol 12(12):2370–2390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora VK, Boer GJ (2010) Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon budget associated with land use change. Glob Change Biol 16:3327–3348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldocchi D, Falge E, Gu LH, Olson R, Hollinger D, Running S, Anthoni P, Bernhofer C, Davis K, Evans R, Fuentes J, Goldstein A, Katul G, Law B, Lee XH, Malhi Y, Meyers T, Munger W, Oechel W, U KTP, Pilegaard K, Schmid HP, Valentini R, Verma S, Vesala T, Wilson K, Wofsy S (2001) FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82(11):2415–2434Google Scholar
  4. Bierwagen BG, Theobald DM, Pyke CR, Choate A, Groth P (2010) National housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(49):20887–20892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15(6):1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Churkina G (2008) Modeling the carbon cycle of urban system. Ecol Model 216:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churkina G, Brown DG, Keoleian G (2010) Carbon stored in human settlements: the conterminous United States. Glob Change Biol 16(1):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark JK, McChesney R, Munroe DK, Irwin EG (2009) Spatial characteristics of exurban settlement pattern in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan 90(3–4):178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer W, Kicklighter DW, Bondeau A, Moore B, Churkina G, Nemry B, Ruimy A, Schloss AL (1999) Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): overview and key results. Glob Change Biol 5(suppl. 1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeGrove JM (2005) Planning policy and politics: smart growth and the states. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dilling L (2007) Towards science in support of decision making: characterizing the supply of carbon cycle science. Environ Sci Policy 10(1):48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dvorak B, Volder A (2010) Green roof vegetation findings for North American ecoregions: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 97:146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elvidge CD, Imhoff ML, Baugh KE, Hobson VR, Nelson I, Safran J, Dietz JB, Tuttle BT (2001) Night-time lights of the world: 1994–1995. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 56(2):81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Gingrich S, Bondeau A, Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (2009) Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production—processes, trajectories, implications. An introduction. Ecol Econ 69(2):250–259Google Scholar
  16. Ewing R, Bartholomew K, Winkelman S, Walters J, Chen D (2008) Growing Coller: the evidence on urban development and climate change. The Urban Land Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Fry JA, Coan MJ, Homer CG, Meyer DK, Wickham JD (2009) Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit product. U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 2008-1379Google Scholar
  18. Gower ST, Kucharik CJ, Norman JM (1999) Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 70:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granger RJ (1991) Evaporation from natural nonsaturated surfaces. PhD thesis. University of SaskatchewanGoogle Scholar
  20. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu JG, Bai XM, Briggs JM (2008a) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864):756–760Google Scholar
  21. Grimm NB, Foster D, Groffman P, Grove JM, Hopkinson CS, Nadelhoffer KJ, Pataki DE, Peters DPC (2008b) The changing landscape: ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Front Ecol Environ 6(5):264–272Google Scholar
  22. Guindon B, Zhang Y, Dillabaugh C (2004) Landsat urban mapping based on a combined spectral-spatial methodology. Remote Sens Environ 92(2):218–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinsch FA, Reeves M, Votava P, Kang S, Milesi C, Zhao M, Glassy J, Jolly WM, Loehman R, Bowker CF, Kimball JS, Nemani RR, Running SW (2003) User’s guide, GPP and NPP (MOD 17A2/A3) products, NASA MODIS land algorithm. Version 2.0, December 2, 2003Google Scholar
  24. Heinsch FA, Zhao MS, Running SW, Kimball JS, Nemani RR, Davis KJ, Bolstad PV, Cook BD, Desai AR, Ricciuto DM, Law BE, Oechel WC, Kwon H, Luo HY, Wofsy SC, Dunn AL, Munger JW, Baldocchi DD, Xu LK, Hollinger DY, Richardson AD, Stoy PC, Siqueira MBS, Monson RK, Burns SP, Flanagan LB (2006) Evaluation of remote sensing based terrestrial productivity from MODIS using regional tower eddy flux network observations. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44(7):1908–1925Google Scholar
  25. Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Coan M, Hossain N et al (2007) Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73(4):337–341Google Scholar
  26. Houghton RA, Davidson EA, Woodwell GM (1998) Missing sinks, feedbacks, and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon balance. Global Biogeochem Cycles 12(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houghton RA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT (1999) The US carbon budget: contributions from land-use change. Science 285(5427):574–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang C, Homer C, Yang L (2003) Regional forest land cover characterization using Landsat type data. In: Wulder M, Franklin S (eds) Methods and applications for remote sensing of forests: concepts and case studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 389–410Google Scholar
  29. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutyra LR, Yoon B, Alberti M (2010) Terrestrial carbon stocks across a gradient of urbanization: a study of the Seattle, WA region. Glob Change Biol 17(2):783–797Google Scholar
  31. Imhoff ML, Tucker CJ, Lawrence WT, Stutzer DC (2000) The use of multisource satellite and geospatial data to study the effect of urbanization on primary productivity in the United States. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 38(6):2549–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, DeFries R, Lawrence WT, Stutzer D, Tucker CJ, Ricketts T (2004) The consequences of urban land transformation on net primary productivity in the United States. Remote Sens Environ 89:434–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knyazikhin Y, Glassy J, Privette JL, Tian Y, Lotsch A, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Morisette JT, Votava P, Mneni RB, Nemani RR, Running SW (1999) MODIS leaf area index (LAI) and fraction of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by vegetation (FPAR) product (MOD15) algorithm theoretical basis document. http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/atbd/atbd_mod15.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2009
  34. Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiology ecology. Springer, New York, pp 15–20, 86Google Scholar
  35. Lobell DB, Hicke JA, Asner GP, Field CB, Tucker CJ, Los SO (2002) Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982–98. Glob Change Biol 8(8):722–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milesi C, Elvidge CD, Nemani RR, Running SW (2003) Assessing the impact of urban land development on net primary productivity in the southeastern United States. Remote Sens Environ 86:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell KE, Lohmann D, Houser PR, Wood EF, Schaake JC et al (2004) The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J Geophys Res Atmos 109(D7):D07S90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monteith JL (1972) Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 9:747–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Omernick JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77(1):118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pataki DE, Alig RJ, Fung AS, Golubiewski NE, Kennedy CA, McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Pouyat RV, Lankao PR (2006) Urban ecosystems and the North American carbon cycle. Glob Change Biol 12:2092–2102Google Scholar
  42. Pataki DE, Emmi PC, Forster CB, Mills JI, Pardyjak ER, Peterson TR, Thompson JD, Dudley-Murphy E (2009) An integrated approach to improving fossil fuel emissions scenarios with urban ecosystem studies. Ecol Complex 6(1):1–14Google Scholar
  43. Pontius RG, Peethambaram S, Castella JC (2011) Comparison of three maps at multiple resolutions: a case study of land change simulation in Cho Don District, Vietnam. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(1):45–62Google Scholar
  44. Porter DR (2008) Managing growth in America’s communities, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Potter CS, Randerson JT, Field CB, Matson PA, Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Klooster SA (1993) Terrestrial ecosystem production—a process model-based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochem Cycles 7(4):811–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prince SD, Goward SN (1995) Global primary production: a remote sensing approach. J Biogeogr 22:815–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ramachandran S, Ramaswamy V, Stenchikov GL, Robock A (2000) Radiative impact of the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption: lower stratospheric response. J Geophys Res 105(19):24409–24429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robinson DT, Brown DG, Currie WS (2009) Modelling carbon storage in highly fragmented and human-dominated landscapes: linking land-cover patterns and ecosystem models. Ecol Model 220(9–10):1325–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Running SW, Thornton P, Nemani ER, Glassy JM (2000) Global terrestrial gross and net primary productivity from the Earth Observing System. In: Sala OE, Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Howarth RW (eds) Methods in ecosystem science. Springer, New York, pp 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Reeves M, Hashimoto H (2004) A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54:547–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwalm CR, Black TA, Arniro BD, Arain MA, Barr AG, Bourque CPA, Dunn AL, Flanagan LB, Giasson MA, Lafleur PM, Margolis HA, McCaughey JH, Orchansky AL, Wofsy SC (2006) Photosynthetic light use efficiency of three biomes across an east-west continental-scale transect in Canada. Agric For Meteorol 140(1–4):269–286Google Scholar
  52. Scurlock JMO, Olson RJ (2002) Terrestrial net primary productivity—a brief history and a new worldwide database. Environ Rev 10:91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sitch S, Smith B, Prentice IC, Arneth A, Bondeau A, Cramer W, Kaplan JO, Levis S, Lucht W, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Venevsky S (2003) Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Change Biol 9(2):161–185Google Scholar
  54. Syphard AD, Stewart SI, McKeefry J, Hammer RB, Fried JS, Holcomb S, Radeloff VC (2009) Assessing housing growth when census boundaries change. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23(7):859–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Theobald DM (2001) Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringes. Geogr Rev 91(3):544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc 10(1):32Google Scholar
  57. Tucker CJ, Slayback DA, Pinzon JE, Los SO, Myneni RB, Taylor MG (2001) Higher northern latitude normalized difference vegetation index and growing season trends from 1982 to 1999. Int J Biometeorol 45:184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Cohen WB, Maeirsperger TK, Gower ST, Kirschbaum AA, Running SW, Zhao MS, Wofsy SC, Dunn AL, Law BE, Campbell JL, Oechel WC, Kwon HJ, Meyers TP, Small EE, Kurc SA, Gamon JA (2005) Site-level evaluation of satellite-based global terrestrial gross primary production and net primary production monitoring. Glob Change Biol 11(4):666–684Google Scholar
  59. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20666–20671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. U.S. Census Bureau (1995) Urban and rural population: 1900 to 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt. Accessed 10 Sept 2009
  61. U.S. Census Bureau (2009) Current population survey, March and annual social and economic supplements, 2008 and earlier. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html#ht. Accessed 10 Sept 2009
  62. U.S.G.S. EROS Data Center (2006) The conterminous U.S. and Alaska weekly and biweekly AVHRR composites. EROS Data Center, Sioux FallsGoogle Scholar
  63. Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel N (2001) Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from Landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:650–652Google Scholar
  64. Wentz EA, Gober P, Balling RC, Day TA (2002) Spatial patterns and determinants of winter atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in an urban environment. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu JG (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu JG (2010) Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research. Landscape Ecol 25:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xiao J, Zhuang Q, Law BE, Chen J, Baldocchi DD, Cook DR, Oren R, Richardson AD, Wharton S, Ma SY, Martin TA, Verma SB, Suyker AE, Scott RL, Monson RK, Litvak M, Hollinger DY, Sun G, Davis KJ, Bolstad PV, Burns SP, Curtis PS, Drake BG, Falk M, Fischer ML, Foster DR, Gu LH, Hadley JL, Katul GG, Roser Y, McNulty S, Meyers TP, Munger JW, Noormets A, Oechel WC, Paw KT, Schmid HP, Starr G, Torn MS, Wofsy SC (2010) A continuous measure of gross primary production for the conterminous United States derived from MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Remote Sens Environ 114:576–591Google Scholar
  68. Yang L, Huang C, Homer CG, Wylie BK, Coan MJ (2003) An approach for mapping large-area impervious surfaces: synergistic use of Landsat-7 ETM and high spatial resolution imagery. Can J Remote Sens 29(2):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yang FH, Ichii K, White MA, Hashimoto H, Michaelis AR, Votava P, Zhu AX, Huete A, Running SW, Nemani RR (2007) Developing a continental-scale measure of gross primary production by combing MODIS and AmeriFlux data through Support Vector Machine approach. Remote Sens Environ 110:109–122Google Scholar
  70. Zhang C, Tian H, Pan S, Liu M, Lockaby G, Schilling EB, Stanturf J (2008) Effects of forest regrowth and urbanization on ecosystem carbon storage in a rural-urban gradient in the Southeastern United States. Ecosystems 11:1211–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhao M, Running SW (2010) Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 329(5994):940–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhao M, Heinsch FA, Nemani RR, Running SW (2005) Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sens Environ 95:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhao TT, Brown DG, Bergen KM (2007) Increasing gross primary production (GPP) in the urbanizing landscapes of southeastern Michigan. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73(10):1159–1167Google Scholar
  74. Zhao TT, Horner MW, Sulik J (2011) A geographic approach to sectoral carbon inventory: examining the balance between consumption-based emissions and land-use carbon sequestration in Florida. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(4):752–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tingting Zhao
    • 1
  • Daniel G. Brown
    • 2
  • Hongliang Fang
    • 3
  • David M. Theobald
    • 4
  • Ting Liu
    • 1
  • Tao Zhang
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of GeographyFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources & EnvironmentThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.LREIS, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations