4.6 Article

Variations in Atmospheric CO2 Mixing Ratios across a Boston, MA Urban to Rural Gradient

Journal

LAND
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 304-327

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land2030304

Keywords

CO2; emissions; urban; gradient; land cover

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. US Forest Service Urban Long Term Research Area Exploratory Awards (ULTRA-Ex) program [DEB-0948857]
  3. National Science Foundation CAREER award [DEB-1149471]
  4. US Department of Energy Office of Science program [DE-SC0004985]
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [0948857, 1149471] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urban areas are directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In this study, we characterize observed atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios and estimated CO2 fluxes at three sites across an urban-to-rural gradient in Boston, MA, USA. CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas, but we found significant differences across this gradient in how, where, and when it was exchanged. Total anthropogenic emissions were estimated from an emissions inventory and ranged from 1.5 to 37.3 mg.C.ha(-1).yr(-1) between rural Harvard Forest and urban Boston. Despite this large increase in anthropogenic emissions, the mean annual difference in atmospheric CO2 between sites was approximately 5% (20.6 +/- 0.4 ppm). The influence of vegetation was also visible across the gradient. Green-up occurred near day of year 126, 136, and 141 in Boston, Worcester and Harvard Forest, respectively, highlighting differences in growing season length. In Boston, gross primary production-estimated by scaling productivity by canopy cover-was similar to 75% lower than at Harvard Forest, yet still constituted a significant local flux of 3.8 mg.C.ha(-1).yr(-1). In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must improve our understanding of the space-time variations and underlying drivers of urban carbon fluxes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available