2) Do indicators of soil-based ecosystem services vary primarily among or within land-cover classes, or within sites? 3) What is the relative contribution of urban land- cover classes to soil-based ecosystem services at the citywide scale?
Tis study was conducted during the summer of 2015 in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Madison is a city of 245,000 people with another 162,000 in surrounding suburbs. Madison is similar to many growing, urban areas in that it is situated in an agricultural watershed, developed on former farmland, and surrounded by agricultural farmland still in production. It is dominated primarily by low and medium- density developed land and open space, but also includes forests, high-density developed land, and grassland. For the purposes of this study, low-density developed land includes residential lots with 20-49 percent impervious surfaces, medium-density developed land includes residential lots with 50-79 percent impervious surfaces,
Te large amount of leaf area in managed turfgrasses coupled with their dense, fibrous root systems make them ideal for capturing carbon in urban and suburban areas. Photo by Steve Trusty
open space includes impervious surfaces of less than 20 percent and mostly lawn grasses, grassland includes grassy or other herbaceous vegetation of greater than 80 percent (meadows/prairies), and forests were defined as areas where trees were greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Each site consisted of a 30 m x 30 m (98.43 ft. x 98.43 ft.) area within which four 5 m x 5 m (16.40 ft. x 16.40 ft.) subplots were established where vegetation was measured, and soil samples were collected. Tree biophysical indicators were measured in each site and included soil carbon, available phosphorous, and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Tese indicators were then evaluated using linear mixed models to test for significant differences based on the effects of land cover and time since development.
All three ecosystem services indicators differed among land-cover classes. Carbon density was highest in more developed land covers, including open space and residential areas with low and medium-density developed residential lots. Higher soil carbon in open spaces and residential lots than in forests and grasslands is consistent with previous research in urban and suburban landscapes. Open spaces in this study consisted primarily of lawn grasses and included city parks, golf courses, and cemeteries. Tese areas along with residential lots were able to capture the most carbon of any of the land-cover classes in this research. Te high soil carbon in these areas indicates the high productivity of managed turfgrass systems and their ability to capture carbon.
Figure 3: Map of study area. (A) Land cover in the City of Madison, Wis- consin, USA. Legend indicates land cover classes included in the present study. White circles indicate site locations. (B) Year of development for residential lots within the City of Madison, Wisconsin. Blue areas in panels A and B are lakes. Courtesy of Carly Ziter, PhD
108
A common question often asked though is whether these carbon gains are larger or smaller than carbon emissions from mowing, fertilizer production, etc. Other research in this area has shown that managed turfgrass systems capture more carbon than is produced, even when taking into account carbon emissions from turfgrass management practices. Te large amount of leaf area in managed turfgrasses coupled with their dense, fibrous root systems
TPI Turf News November/December 2018
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
