Carbon Sequestration by Urban Trees

  • Silvano FaresEmail author
  • Elena Paoletti
  • Carlo Calfapietra
  • Teis N. Mikkelsen
  • Roeland Samson
  • Didier Le Thiec
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 7)


Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prominent component of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, resulting mainly from fuel combustion in the built environment – for activities such as heating of buildings, urban mobility and cooking. The concentration of near-surface CO2 in cities is affected by a range of factors, including traffic density and atmospheric stability. Plants have the capacity to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis, and can therefore store carbon in plant biomass and in the soil. Green areas in the city may significantly affect local concentrations of atmospheric CO2, as observed in urban-to-rural comparisons showing lower CO2 concentration in the presence of vegetation. CO2 sequestration over the ‘urban forest’ displays diurnal variation during the growing period, with uptake during daytime when plants are photosynthetically active, and nocturnal emissions in response to respiration. High atmospheric CO2concentrations represent a fertilizer for plants,...


Carbon Stock Urban Forest Traffic Density Isoprene Emission Urban Vegetation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akbari H, Konopacki S (2005) Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-island reduction strategies. Energ Policy 33:721–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai SH, Blumfield TJ, Reverchon F (2015) Human footprints in urban forests: implication of nitrogen deposition for nitrogen and carbon storage. J Soils Sediments 15:1927–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bussotti F, Pollastrini M, Killi D et al (2014) Ecophysiology of urban trees in a perspective of climate change. Agrochimica 58:247–268Google Scholar
  4. Calfapietra C, Peñuelas J, Niinemets Ü (2015) Urban plant physiology: adaptation-mitigation strategies under permanent stress. Trends Plant Sci 20:72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fares S, Vargas R, Detto M et al (2013) Tropospheric ozone reduces carbon assimilation in trees: estimates from analysis of continuous flux measurements. Glob Chang Biol 19:2427–2443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flexas J, Medrano H (2002) Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitation revisited. Ann Bot 89:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gratani L, Varone L (2005) Daily and seasonal variation of CO2 in the city of Rome in relationship with the traffic volume. Atmos Environ 39:2619–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Helfter C, Famulari D, Phillips GJ, Barlow JF, Wood CR, Grimmond CSB, Nemitz E (2011) Controls of carbon dioxide concentrations and fluxes above central London. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1913–1928Google Scholar
  9. Henninger S (2008) Analysis of near surface CO2 variability within the urban area of Essen, Germany. Meteorol Z 17:19–27Google Scholar
  10. Hoornweg D, Sugar L, Trejos-Gomez CL (2011) Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward. Environ Urban 23:207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyvönen R, Agren GI, Linder S et al (2007) The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol 173:463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lahr EC, Schade GW, Crossett CC et al (2015) Photosynthesis and isoprene emission from trees along an urban-rural gradient in Texas. Glob Chang Biol 21:4221–4236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luck MA, Jenerette GD, Wu J et al (2001) The urban funnel model and the spatially heterogeneous ecological footprint. Ecosystems 4:782–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nowak DJ, Crane DE (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut 116:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Osone Y, Kawarasaki S, Ishida A et al (2014) Responses of gas-exchange rates and water relations to annual fluctuations of weather in three species of urban street trees. Tree Physiol 34:1056–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park M, Joo SJ, Lee CS (2013) Effects of an urban park and residential area on the atmospheric CO2 concentration and flux in Seoul, Korea. Adv Atmos Sci 30:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pashera J, Mc Govern M, Khoury M et al (2014) Assessing carbon storage and sequestration by Canada’s urban-forests using high resolution earth observation data. Urban For Urban Gree 13:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pataki DE, Xu T, Luo YQ, Ehleringer JR (2007) Inferring biogenic and anthropogenic carbon dioxide sources across an urban to rural gradient. Oecologia 152:307–322Google Scholar
  19. Ramachandra TV, Aithal BH, Sreejith K (2015) GHG footprint of major cities in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 44:473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rennenberg H, Loreto F, Polle A et al (2006) Physiological responses of forest trees to heat and drought. Plant Biol 8:556–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stoffberg GH, van Rooyen MW, van der Linde MJ et al (2010) Carbon sequestration estimates of indigenous street trees in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. Urban For Urban Gree 9:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ward HC, Kotthaus S, Grimmond CSB et al (2015) Effects of urban density on carbon dioxide exchanges: observations of dense urban, suburban and woodland areas of southern England. Environ Pollut 198:186–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Woodbury PB, Smith JE, Heath LS (2007) Carbon sequestration in the US forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecol Manag 241:14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yang J, McBride J, Zhou J et al (2005) The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution reduction. Urban For Urban Gree 3:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvano Fares
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elena Paoletti
    • 2
  • Carlo Calfapietra
    • 3
    • 4
  • Teis N. Mikkelsen
    • 5
  • Roeland Samson
    • 6
  • Didier Le Thiec
    • 7
  1. 1.Council for Agricultural Research and EconomicsResearch Centre for the Soil-Plant SystemRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Sustainable Plant ProtectionItalian National Research Council (CNR)FlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Agro-Environmental and Forest Biology (IBAF)National Research Council (CNR), Monterotondo (Rome)Porano (TR)Italy
  4. 4.Global Change Research InstituteBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.DTU Environmental EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  6. 6.Faculty of Sciences, Department of Bioscience EngineeringUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  7. 7.UMR EEF, Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA)Université de LorraineNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations