4.3 Article

Monitoring of hourly carbon dioxide concentration under different land use types in arid ecosystem

Journal

OPEN LIFE SCIENCES
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

DE GRUYTER POLAND SP Z O O
DOI: 10.1515/biol-2022-0534

Keywords

air pollution; carbon dioxide; land use; land cover

Categories

Funding

  1. King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia
  2. [NA000251]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was conducted in the Al-Ahsa district in Eastern Saudi Arabia to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration over different land-use types. The results showed that urban land had the highest CO2 concentration, while cropland and bare land had lower CO2 concentrations.
Air pollution is a major factor affecting human life and living quality in arid and semiarid regions. This study was conducted in the Al-Ahsa district in the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia to measure carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration over different land-use types. Initially, the study's land use/land cover (LULC) was classified using the spectral characteristics of Landsat-8 data. Then, sensors were placed in five sites of different LULC types to detect CO2, air temperature, and relative humidity. The Friedman test was used to compare CO2 concentration among the five sites. Five LULC types were identified over the study area: date palm, cropland, bare land, urban land, and water. The results indicated that CO2 concentration showed a maximum mean value of 577 ppm recorded from a site dominated by urban lands. During the peak time of human transportation, a maximum value of 659 ppm was detected. The CO2 concentration mean values detected for the other LULC types showed 535, 515, and 484 ppm for the bare land, cropland, and date palm, respectively. This study's sensors and procedures helped provide information over relatively small areas. However, modelling CO2 fluctuations with time for LULC changes might improve management and sustainability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available