4.6 Article

Impact of Soil Sealing on Soil Carbon Sequestration, Water Storage Potentials and Biomass Productivity in Functional Urban Areas of the European Union and the United Kingdom

期刊

LAND
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land11060840

关键词

land degradation neutrality; land degradation; soil organic carbon; urban expansion; land take

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil sealing has numerous negative impacts, including withdrawal of fertile soil for biomass production, modification of microclimate, and decrease in biodiversity. This study assessed the loss of carbon sequestration potential, water-holding capacity, and biomass productivity due to soil sealing in functional Urban Areas (FUAs) of Europe. The findings showed significant loss in carbon sequestration potential and water-holding capacity in the sealed soil.
The negative impacts of soil sealing are numerous, from withdrawing fertile soil from biomass production to modifying the microclimate and decreasing biodiversity. Many of the processes are interrelated and propagate further undesirable consequences from local to global levels. Three issues are especially important from the viewpoint of multiscale ecological cycles and consequent environmental impacts. One is soil organic carbon (SOC), the other is soil water management and the third is biomass productivity. In this study, we assessed the lost carbon sequestration potential due to soil sealing in functional Urban Areas (FUAs) of Europe, the potential effect of soil sealing on the topsoil to hold water to its full capacity and the loss of biomass productivity potential. Findings revealed that one-fifth of the area of soil that became sealed between 2012 and 2018 was of high productivity potential, and almost two-thirds was of medium productivity potential. New soil sealing caused a loss of carbon sequestration potential estimated at 4 million tons of carbon of the FUAs and also caused an estimated potential loss of water-holding capacity of 668 million m(3).

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

4.6
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