4.8 Article

Aggravation of reactive nitrogen flow driven by human production and consumption in Guangzhou City China

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-14699-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC0502800]
  2. Funds for Innovative Research Group of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51721093]
  3. Sino-Italian Cooperation of China Natural Science Foundation (CNSC) [71861137001]
  4. Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI, High Relevance Bilateral Projects)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human activities reshape the global nitrogen (N) cycle and affect environment and human health through reactive nitrogen (Nr) loss during production and consumption. In urbanized regions, the N cycle is greatly mediated by complex interactions between human and natural factors. However, the variations in sources, magnitude, spatiotemporal patterns and drivers of Nr flows remain unclear. Here we show by model simulations, anthropogenic perturbations not only intensify Nr input to sustain increasing demands for production and consumption in Guangzhou city, China, but also greatly change the Nr distribution pattern in the urban system, showing a substantial Nr enrichment in the atmosphere and a relatively low retention capacity of Nr in the terrestrial system. Our results highlight the strong anthropogenic effect of urban systems on the N cycle to suggest sustainable human activity changes to harmonize the relationship between Nr behaviors and human drivers. There lacks research to figure out the variations in sources, magnitude, and spatiotemporal patterns of Nr flows in urban system. Here the authors develop a coupled human-natural urban nitrogen flow analysis model and show that anthropogenic perturbations not only intensify Nr input to sustain increasing demands for production and consumption of cities, but also greatly change the Nr distribution pattern in the urban system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据