Next Article in Journal
Carbon Sequestration and Sedimentation in Mangrove Swamps Influenced by Hydrogeomorphic Conditions and Urbanization in Southwest Florida
Next Article in Special Issue
Managing Tree Diversity: A Comparison of Suburban Development in Two Canadian Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Socioeconomic Predictors of Family Forest Owner Awareness and Use of U.S. Federal Income Tax Provisions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tree Species and Their Space Requirements in Six Urban Environments Worldwide

Forests 2016, 7(6), 115; https://doi.org/10.3390/f7060115

Communication
Surface Soil Carbon Storage in Urban Green Spaces in Three Major South Korean Cities
1
Environmental Planning Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
2
Forest Practice Research Center, National Institute of Forest Science, Pocheon 11186, Korea
3
Department of Environment and Forest Resources, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea
4
Division of Forest Industry Research, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
5
Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
6
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Academic Editors: Francisco Escobedo, Stephen John Livesley and Justin Morgenroth
Received: 17 March 2016 / Accepted: 23 May 2016 / Published: 28 May 2016

Abstract

:
Quantifying and managing carbon (C) storage in urban green space (UGS) soils is associated with the ecosystem services necessary for human well-being and the national C inventory report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Here, the soil C stocks at 30-cm depths in different types of UGS’s (roadside, park, school forest, and riverside) were studied in three major South Korean cities that have experienced recent, rapid development. The total C of 666 soil samples was analyzed, and these results were combined with the available UGS inventory data. Overall, the mean soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density at 30-cm depths were 1.22 g·cm−3, 7.31 g·C·kg−1, and 2.13 kg·C·m−2, respectively. The UGS soil C stock (Gg·C) at 30-cm depths was 105.6 for Seoul, 43.6 for Daegu, and 26.4 for Daejeon. The lower C storage of Korean UGS soils than those of other countries is due to the low soil C concentration and the smaller land area under UGS. Strategic management practices that augment the organic matter supply in soil are expected to enhance C storage in South Korean UGS soils.
Keywords:
park; riverside; roadside; settlement; soil carbon sequestration

1. Introduction

Enhancing ecosystem services and human well-being is especially vital for urbanized lands (see the definition in the footnotes of Table 1) [1,2] where half of the global population and 90% of the South Korean population lives. Designing, establishing, and managing urban green spaces (UGS’s), as well as preserving remnant ecosystems in a city, could be one way to secure or restore ecosystem services in urbanized lands [3]. Soils support various ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, habitat provision, food production, storm water management, and carbon (C) storage [3,4,5,6]. Here, the emphasis on the conservation or sequestration of soil C, with a C stock greater than that of atmosphere and biomass combined [7,8,9,10,11], is extended to urban soil C, both organic and inorganic C [12,13,14]. The significance of UGS’s for terrestrial C inventories and the need to treat them distinctly from other major land types (e.g., forest, agricultural land, grassland, and wetland) is underscored by its special treatment as a separate land category, settlements, which encompasses all developed land according to the Good Practice Guidance (GPG) and Guidelines (GL) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [15,16]. Moreover, organic and inorganic C in soils increases their quality, indirectly supporting other ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and pollution mitigation [3]. Not surprisingly, there is an increasing concern to manage UGS soil C among various interested stakeholders, including scientists, local governments and NGOs, and international institutions [3,4,15,16]. To date, most studies on UGS soil C have focused on old cities, that is, cities with a relatively long history of urbanization and hence more potential to store abundant C in UGS soils [3,17,18]. Given the changing global trends of urbanization in the last 100 years, UGS soil C of young cities with a relatively recent history of urbanization has not been adequately studied. In South Korea, a few studies have reported on UGS soil C [19,20]; however, these studies investigated UGS soil C at a single site or in a single city.
Here, we sought to quantify the soil C stocks of the UGS’s at 30-cm depths in three South Korean cities and thereby provide a current estimate of the soil C status. Because land use, land cover change, and/or urbanization history can all affect UGS soil C [17,20,21,22], soil C densities in different types of UGS’s such as roadside, park, school forest, and riverside were quantified and then compared to vegetation C density and site history. In addition, we reviewed the management of soil C in UGS’s to enhance the ecosystem services of C storage. South Korea is a populous urbanized country with 505 people·km−2 and has experienced rapid urbanization since the 1960s; for instance, since then, its urban population has increased from 10 million to 45 million (Korean Statistical Information Service; http://www.kosis.kr). By studying UGS soils in multiple South Korean cities, we can provide needed information on baselines of UGS soil C in recently developed cities.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in three major South Korean cities: Seoul, Daegu, and Daejeon (Table 1). Seoul, the capital city since the late 14th century, has the highest population, and its population density and urbanized land cover are also high compared to the other cities [23,24]. Daegu, a principal city in Southeastern Korea since the 15th century, has the fourth highest population in South Korea, while Daejeon, which was established early in the 20th century, now has the fifth highest population [25]. The population density and relative urbanized land cover is now similar between Daegu and Daejeon. In tandem with human population growth, the expansion of road networks and residential developments was mostly completed by the early 1990s in Seoul and Daegu [23,24,25]. Since then, their infrastructure has been renovated for the well-being of citizens in various ways, for example, by restoring streams and establishing UGS’s [24]. Being the youngest city in this study, the population growth and infrastructure development in Daejeon has remained steady until 2014 [25]. The three cities have a climate best described as Dfa (hot summer continental climate) under the Köppen climate classification; however, Daegu is moderately warmer with less precipitation than the other two cities.
We investigated total soil C in the roadside, park, school forest, and riverside, following the legal classification of UGS’s as defined by the National Urban Forest Inventory [27] and the Environmental Geographic Information Service (http://egis.me.go.kr) (full details in the footnotes of Table 1). Because the inorganic C produced by carbonation reactions in calcareous materials (e.g., concrete, cement, parent material) can form a fraction of soil C, in the present study, in addition to organic C [12,13,14,28], we focused on total C, covering both organic and inorganic C. The UGS’s exclude remnant, non-urbanized, and mountainous forest areas, such as green belt and conservation areas in the city districts (as defined by the administrative system of Korea). The four UGS types represent approximately 90% of all the UGS areas in South Korea. Since mountainous forests dominate the land cover of Korea, urban areas are developed in the lowland basins of the city districts; together, the remnant, non-urbanized, and mountainous forests account for an appreciable or considerable portion of city land cover (27.5% for Seoul, 63.8% for Daegu, and 70.4% for Daejeon) and of ecosystem C sequestration [29], even in highly inhabited cities [26]. However, this study excluded measurement of soil C in these non-UGS types, which are accounted for in the forest category of IPCC [15,16] and the National Forest Inventory of Korea [30]. It should be noted that soils beneath impervious surfaces (e.g., paved roads), which may have a significant potential C storage capacity with C density equivalent to that of UGS’s soils [31], were not investigated in this study.
In each city, we selected 3 to 10 replicate sites per each UGS type—except at riverside due to its lack of suitable sites for replication or limited accessibility—considering their distribution, history, area, location, vegetation cover, and accessibility after discussion with experts (see Table 2). Unfortunately, detailed records of soil management practices undertaken at each UGS site were unavailable to us; however, it is commonly agreed upon that this management had been poor and lacked specific guidelines, regulations, or acts. In general, UGS soils have an insufficient supply of organic matter from aboveground. For the park and school forest UGS’s, the grass was regularly mowed, and grass clippings and leaf litter were removed to maintain surface cleanliness and prevent inconvenience for users. Park, school forest, and riverside soils were irrigated but generally not fertilized, whereas roadside soils were hardly managed. These aspects of UGS soil management have been listed in local government ordinances or guidelines since 2010. Site history (year of construction) was available for 34 of the 64 sites. Tree C density at each site (unpublished data)—a corollary of vegetation cover—was estimated by a biometric approach that used measurements of tree stem diameters at breast height and urban-specific allometric equations [32].
Soil cores 30 cm deep were taken in random triplicate using a soil sampler (Ø 5.5 cm, 50-cm length; Shinill Science Inc., Seoul, Korea) at each UGS site in August 2009 for Seoul, August 2010 for Daejeon, and August 2011 for Daegu. The soil sampler using a manually driving hammer probe may result in a potential error in determining bulk density due to compaction or stretching of the soil core [33]; nonetheless, this method is considered best practice for sampling urban soils and has been documented to present minimal site disturbance, soil excavation, and error [33]. A total of 666 soil samples were taken: 252 from roadside, 171 from park, 204 from school, and 39 from riverside UGS’s (see Table 2).
The soil cores were separated into 10-cm sections in the field. In laboratory, the samples were air-dried and filtered through 2-mm sieves to exclude roots and gravel (i.e., >2 mm). The oven-dried (105 °C) weight of soils (<2 mm) and gravel were determined separately. The bulk density was determined by the ratio of the oven-dried weight to the volume of the sieved soils, which was calculated by extracting the volume of the gravel from the volume of the original soil core (Equation (1)). The volume of the gravel was determined from its weight, assuming a gravel density of 2.65 g·cm−3 [34,35]. This correction procedure is required to accurately report bulk density, which can be affected by the gravel content. The subsamples of air-dried soils were ball-milled before their C concentrations were determined by an elemental analyzer (Vario Macro CN analyzer, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany).
The soil C concentration (g·C·kg−1) was converted to soil C density (mg·C·cm−3 or kg·C·m−2) by multiplying the density of fine soil in the soil core (see Equations (2) and (3)) instead of multiplying the bulk density, to avoid the miscalculation of C density due to gravel content in the soil core. The total UGS’s C stock (Gg·C) of each city was estimated as the product of the land area covered by each UGS type and their corresponding soil C density (Equation (4)).
Bulk density (g·cm−3) = DWs/(VtVg),
Soil C density (mg·C·cm−3) = Cs × DWs/Vt,
Area-based soil C density (kg·C·m−2; 30 cm deep) = mean soil C density (mg·C·cm−3) in each soil profile × 0.3 (m), and
Soil C stock (Gg·C; 30 cm deep) = area-based soil C density (kg·C·m−2; 30 cm deep) × land cover (km2),
where DWs is the dry weight of soil (g), Vt is the total volume of soil and gravel (cm3), Vg is the volume of gravel (cm3), and Cs is the soil C concentration (g·C·kg−1).
All response variables satisfied data normality, according to the Shapiro–Wilk test. The effects of city, UGS type, and soil depth on the variables of soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density were tested using a factorial three-way ANOVA. When the ANOVA model was significant (p < 0.05), Duncan’s multiple range test was performed to determine the differences between the means for each city, UGS type, and/or soil depth. Regression analysis was performed among soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density. In addition, the effects of site history and tree C density on soil C density were determined using regression analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 3.2.3) [36].

3. Results

The main effects of city, UGS type, and soil depth all significantly affected soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density at 30-cm depths (Table 2 and Table 3). The soil C density was greatest in Seoul (2.37 kg·C·m−2), followed by Daegu (2.07 kg·C·m−2), and then Daejeon (1.39 kg·C·m−2); this order seemed largely due to the higher bulk density of Seoul (1.28 g·cm−3) and higher soil C concentrations of Seoul (7.58 g·C·kg−1) and Daegu (8.22 g·C·kg−1) (Table 3, Figure 1). Considering the four UGS types, the soil C density values were significantly higher in soils at riverside (2.62 kg·C·m−2) and roadside (2.41 kg·C·m−2) than at park (2.05 kg·C·m−2) and school (1.76 kg·C·m−2), which corresponded to the order of their soil C concentrations (Table 3). Bulk density increased, while both soil C concentration and C density decreased significantly with soil depth, from surface (0–10 cm) to deeper soil depths (10–30 cm) (Table 3). The descriptive summary for mean values of soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density in each city and UGS type are presented in Table 2.
Pairwise correlations among soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density suggested that soil C density was largely regulated by soil C concentration, rather than bulk density (Figure 1). In most cases, the soil C concentration showed a strong relationship with soil C density; while the bulk density did not. However, the soil C concentration and bulk density variables were independent of, or weakly dependent on, each other. The mean soil C density was not significant correlated with either tree C density (p = 0.20; data not shown) or year since construction (p = 0.85; data not shown) for all UGS types.
The total soil C stocks of each city at 30-cm depths were estimated by combining our empirical data with known UGS inventory data (Table 1). The total UGS soil C stocks in Seoul, Daegu, and Daejeon were estimated to be 105.6, 43.6, and 26.4 Gg·C, respectively (Figure 2). Parks contributed the most to the soil C stocks, accounting for more than two thirds of the total UGS soil C stock. Soil C stocks in other UGS types were consistent with their relative ranking in land cover in each city. For example, riverside had a more abundant soil C stock in Seoul than the other cities due to its relatively large coverage there. Similarly, the school contributed negligible soil C stocks (<2%) due to its limited cover in all cities. Nationwide, UGS soils (385.1 km2) stored 812.8 Gg·C, as estimated by applying mean soil C densities for each UGS type to nationwide UGS areas.

4. Discussion

The soil C density of UGS’s in Korea was lower than those in other countries. For instance, area-based total C densities of urban soils at 30-cm depths are reported to be 8.2 kg·C·m−2 for turf and 7.9 kg·C·m−2 for tree-planted areas in urban parks of Tokyo, Japan [21], 7.3 kg·C·m−2 for urban lawns in Fort Collins, USA [37], 5.0–17.2 kg·C·m−2 for golf courses in Melbourne, Australia [38], and 4.9–17.5 kg·C·m−2 for UGS’s and urban forests in Auckland, New Zealand [22,39]. These values are much higher than the range of C densities, also at 30-cm depths, found in this study (1.55–3.02 kg·C·m−2; Table 2). However, the bulk density in the present study (1.22 g·cm−3) was comparable to that in other studies [31,40], apart from a few extraordinary cases of high bulk densities in compacted soils (>1.6 g·cm−3) [41,42]. In contrast, the soil C concentrations found in this study (5.38–9.97 g·C·kg−1) were much lower than not only other UGS soils, such as 20.9–32.0 g·C·kg−1 for golf courses in Melbourne, Australia [38], 39.2 g·C·kg−1 for UGS’s in Auckland, New Zealand [39], and 12.3 g·C·kg−1 for lawns in Phoenix, USA [43], but also the 19.2 C·kg−1 for remnant urban forests in South Korea [44].
The factors driving the exceptionally low soil C concentration and density of UGS’s in South Korea relative to other cities worldwide are not understood. Conceivably, the relatively short history of UGS (<~30 years) and the inappropriate management of UGS soils (e.g., loss of organic matter supply [3,45]) might explain the low soil C storage. That Daejeon had the lowest soil C density among the three cities (Table 2 and Table 3) might reflect its relatively short history of urbanization and limited UGS development. Different management practices might also affect the C densities in UGS types. For instance, the riverside soils, which were less disturbed (i.e., not subject to leaf litter and clipping removal) than other UGS soils, also stored the highest C content (Table 2 and Table 3). On the other hand, human interference could reduce the input of organic matter and consequently the soil C concentration of park and school soils. In one of the park sites used in our study, Bae and Ryu [20] reported a noticeable increase in total soil C concentration (256%) over a decade as a result of sound management practices, such as proper irrigation and the application of a compost amendment made from removed site litter. It has been further suggested that management practices to enhance organic matter supply and soil environment should also be considered for enhancing C storage in UGS soils [46].
To better manage UGS soil C including organic and inorganic C, sufficient organic matter supply from litter, most of all, must first be designed [3]. The litter cycling of natural ecosystems may not be applicable to urban settings where social demands and services predominate, namely for maintaining surface cleanliness and users’ convenience. Nonetheless, leaving a minimum amount of litter and grass clippings or alternative practices which offset the loss of organic matter supply to UGS soils, could be adopted. Compost amendment application and mulching, or both, can increase urban soil C storage [46,47]. Recently, in South Korea, collected litter has been reutilized as compost amendments for agriculture. Thus, these composts can be applied to UGS soils. Black C or biochar applications to urban soils may be effective not only for increasing soil organic C storage but also for enhancing soil fertility for vegetation growth [3,4]. On the other hand, inorganic C from carbonate reactions may be difficult to control through management practices, given the current dearth of knowledge in this field [3].
Bulk density estimates in the present study were within the normal range. Hence, soil compaction, which represents soil physical structures, might not be a critical concern for soil C density in this study. Nevertheless, we note that soil physical structures could be improved by having sufficient pore spaces, silt, and clay to support rhizosphere activity and soil organic matter accumulation [45,48]. Compost practices are also effective at reducing soil compaction and improving soil physical structure [49,50,51]. The resulting enhanced physical and chemical soil characteristics could support more vigorous vegetation growth, which in turn leads to more organic matter supply from aboveground and belowground [45,48], and consequently more soil organic C too. For instance, compost amendment practices during soil rehabilitation activities have successfully reduced bulk density and enhanced tree growth in highly urbanized soils [52]. Here, constructing physically fine soils at the beginning of the establishment phase is essential because, unlike agricultural soils, the practices that improve the physical properties of UGS soils are not easily undertaken later. In South Korea, specific guidelines on the construction and management of UGS soils, which were unavailable in the past, have been developed recently [53], and applying them can promote conditions for C sequestration. The citywide assessments in this study described the current status of UGS soil C; however, we could not analyze the full effects of management practices on UGS soil C. For this reason, further experimental studies and long-term monitoring on UGS soil C stocks are warranted.
A comparison of C storage across land uses would suggest that the C storage in UGS’s is negligible in South Korea, due to its small land cover and low soil C density when compared to major land uses such as forests and agricultural lands. Soil C stock in South Korean forests covering approximately 60,000 km2 is estimated to be 341.7 Tg·C at 30-cm depths, according to the Korean Forest Soil Carbon model [30]. The UGS’s of South Korea have neither noteworthy land cover (0.4%) nor high soil C density, resulting in their low C storage (0.8 Tg·C; 30 cm deep) being an order of magnitude different from the nationwide values.
In summary, we report the current status of total C storage in UGS soils in three South Korean cities. These results may provide a baseline to help construct the inventory of settlements on the IPCC-GPG and GL, develop sound management guidelines for improving UGS soil C, and safeguard the ecosystem services of UGS soils in terms of C storage.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (2015R1A6A3A01058445) and the Korean Ministry of Environment (2016001300004). This study is a result of reworking the dissertation of Kyung Won Seo [54].

Author Contributions

Tae Kyung Yoon, Kyung Won Seo, and Gwan Soo Park were responsible for the fieldwork data from Daegu, Seoul, and Daejeon, respectively; Tae Kyung Yoon and Kyung Won Seo analyzed the data; Yowhan Son and Yeong Mo Son conceived and designed the experiments; Tae Kyung Yoon wrote the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Managing soil carbon stocks to enhance the resilience of urban ecosystems. Carbon Manag. 2015, 6, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Renforth, P.; Leake, J.R.; Edmondson, J.; Manning, D.A.; Gaston, K.J. Designing a carbon capture function into urban soils. Proc. ICE-Urban Des. Plan. 2011, 164, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. Urbanization, soils, and ecosystem services. In Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services; Wall, D.H., Bardgett, R.D., Behan-Pelletier, V., Herrick, J.E., Jones, T.H., Ritz, K., Six, J., Strong, D.R., van der Putten, W.H., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 270–281. [Google Scholar]
  6. Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. AMBIO 2014, 43, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Houghton, R.A. Why are estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance so different? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Tanner, E.V.J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global soil carbon: Understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Manag. 2014, 5, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Köchy, M.; Hiederer, R.; Freibauer, A. Global distribution of soil organic carbon—Part 1: Masses and frequency distributions of SOC stocks for the tropics, permafrost regions, wetlands, and the world. SOIL 2015, 1, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Batjes, N.H. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 2016, 269, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Washbourne, C.L.; Renforth, P.; Manning, D.A.C. Investigating carbonate formation in urban soils as a method for capture and storage of atmospheric carbon. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 431, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Washbourne, C.-L.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Renforth, P.; Ascough, P.L.; Manning, D.A.C. Rapid removal of atmospheric CO2 by urban soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 5434–5440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Whitmore, A.P.; Kirk, G.J.D.; Rawlins, B.G. Technologies for increasing carbon storage in soil to mitigate climate change. Soil Use Manag. 2015, 31, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pouyat, R.V.; Yesilonis, I.D.; Nowak, D.J. Carbon storage by urban soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1566–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Biogeochemical C and N cycles in urban soils. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jo, H.-K. Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 64, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bae, J.; Ryu, Y. Land use and land cover changes explain spatial and temporal variations of the soil organic carbon stocks in a constructed urban park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Takahashi, T.; Amano, Y.; Kuchimura, K.; Kobayashi, T. Carbon content of soil in urban parks in Tokyo, Japan. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 4, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Weissert, L.F.; Salmond, J.A.; Schwendenmann, L. Variability of soil organic carbon stocks and soil CO2 efflux across urban land use and soil cover types. Geoderma 2016, 271, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, H.M.; Han, S.S. Seoul. Cities 2012, 29, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, K.J.; Choe, S.C. In search of sustainable urban form for Seoul. In Megacities: Urban Form, Governance, and Sustainability; Sorensen, A., Okata, J., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2011; pp. 43–65. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nam, J.; Yun, B.-H.; Park, G.-W. The analysis on feasibility of urban regeneration through the evaluation of urban growth stage—The application of differential urbanization model and cyclic urbanization model. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2015, 50, 153–177, (In Korean with English Abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Demographia. Demographia World Urban Areas: 11th Annual Edition; Demographia, 2015. Available online: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2016).
  27. Korea Forest Service. National Urban Forest Inventory; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2014. (In Korean)
  28. Xu, N.; Liu, H.; Wei, F.; Zhu, Y. Urban expanding pattern and soil organic, inorganic carbon distribution in Shanghai, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 66, 1233–1238. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, J.; Lee, G.; Kim, J. Calculating total urban forest volume considering the carbon cycle in an urban area —Focusing on the city of Chuncheon in South Korea. For. Sci. Technol. 2014, 10, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, J.; Yoon, T.K.; Han, S.; Kim, S.; Yi, M.J.; Park, G.S.; Kim, C.; Son, Y.M.; Kim, R.; Son, Y. Estimating the carbon dynamics of South Korean forests from 1954 to 2012. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 4637–4650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  31. Edmondson, J.L.; Davies, Z.G.; McHugh, N.; Gaston, K.J.; Leake, J.R. Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 2012, 2, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Yoon, T.K.; Park, C.-W.; Lee, S.J.; Ko, S.; Kim, K.N.; Son, Y.; Lee, K.H.; Oh, S.; Lee, W.-K.; Son, Y. Allometric equations for estimating the aboveground volume of five common urban street tree species in Daegu, Korea. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Walter, K.; Don, A.; Tiemeyer, B.; Freibauer, A. Determining soil bulk density for carbon stock calculations—A systematic method comparison. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rowell, D.L. Soil Science: Methods & Applications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Throop, H.L.; Archer, S.R.; Monger, H.C.; Waltman, S. When bulk density methods matter: Implications for estimating soil organic carbon pools in rocky soils. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 77, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2016; Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 14 April 2016).
  37. Kaye, J.P.; McCulley, R.L.; Burke, I.C. Carbon fluxes, nitrogen cycling, and soil microbial communities in adjacent urban, native and agricultural ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Livesley, S.J.; Ossola, A.; Threlfall, C.G.; Hahs, A.K.; Williams, N.S.G. Soil carbon and carbon/nitrogen ratio change under tree canopy, tall grass, and turf grass areas of urban green space. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Curran-Cournane, F.; Lear, G.; Schwendenmann, L.; Khin, J. Heavy metal soil pollution is influenced by the location of green spaces within urban settings. Soil Res. 2015, 53, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pouyat, R.V.; Yesilonis, I.D.; Russell-Anelli, J.; Neerchal, N.K. Soil chemical and physical properties that differentiate urban land-use and cover types. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1010–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jim, C.Y. Urban soil characteristics and limitations for landscape planting in Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 40, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Scharenbroch, B.C.; Lloyd, J.E.; Johnson-Maynard, J.L. Distinguishing urban soils with physical, chemical, and biological properties. Pedobiologia 2005, 49, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Green, D.M.; Oleksyszyn, M. Enzyme activities and carbon dioxide flux in a Sonoran desert urban ecosystem. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 2002–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yoon, T.K.; Noh, N.J.; Han, S.; Kwak, H.; Lee, W.-K.; Son, Y. Small-scale spatial variability of soil properties in a Korean swamp. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 11, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Craul, P.J. Urban Soils: Applications and Practices; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  46. Brown, S.; Miltner, E.; Cogger, C. Carbon sequestration potential in urban soils. In Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems; Lal, R., Augustin, B., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 173–196. [Google Scholar]
  47. Beesley, L. Carbon storage and fluxes in existing and newly created urban soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 104, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Day, S.D.; Eric Wiseman, P.; Dickinson, S.B.; Roger Harris, J. Tree root ecology in the urban environment and implications for a sustainable rhizosphere. J Arboric. 2010, 36, 193–205. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sæbø, A.; Ferrini, F. The use of compost in urban green areas—A review for practical application. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Larney, F.J.; Angers, D.A. The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sloan, J.J.; Ampim, P.A.Y.; Basta, N.T.; Scott, R. Addressing the need for soil blends and amendments for the highly modified urban landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 7, 1133–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Layman, R.M.; Day, S.D.; Mitchell, D.K.; Chen, Y.; Harris, J.R.; Daniels, W.L. Below ground matters: Urban soil rehabilitation increases tree canopy and speeds establishment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chungnam National University. Development of Soil Management Guideline and Monitoring Manual for Urban Forest in Living Area; Chungnam National University: Daejeon, Korea, 2014. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  54. Seo, K.W. Estimation of Soil Carbon Storage by Urban Green Spaces. Ph.D. Thesis, Korea University, Seoul, Korea, August 2015. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Pairwise relationships among soil bulk density, C concentration, and volume-based C density of soils in different urban green space types for three cities in South Korea (a): soil C concentration-C density, (b): soil bulk density-C density, (c): soil C concentration-bulk density). Where the linear regression was significant (p < 0.05), a solid line and an R2 value number are drawn (numbers in the upper right corner of each sub-panel). Abbreviations are explained in Table 1.
Figure 1. Pairwise relationships among soil bulk density, C concentration, and volume-based C density of soils in different urban green space types for three cities in South Korea (a): soil C concentration-C density, (b): soil bulk density-C density, (c): soil C concentration-bulk density). Where the linear regression was significant (p < 0.05), a solid line and an R2 value number are drawn (numbers in the upper right corner of each sub-panel). Abbreviations are explained in Table 1.
Forests 07 00115 g001
Figure 2. Soil C stock at 30-cm depths of urban green spaces in Seoul, Daegu, and Daejeon (South Korea).
Figure 2. Soil C stock at 30-cm depths of urban green spaces in Seoul, Daegu, and Daejeon (South Korea).
Forests 07 00115 g002
Table 1. Environmental, demographic, and land use characteristics of the three studied cities.
Table 1. Environmental, demographic, and land use characteristics of the three studied cities.
SeoulDaeguDaejeon
Environment *
Location37°34′ N, 126°58′ E35°52′ N, 128°36′ E36°21′ N, 127°23′ E
Mean annual temperature12.5 °C14.1 °C13.0 °C
Mean annual precipitation1451 mm1064 mm1459 mm
Demography
Area605.18 km2883.63 km2540.1 km2
Population10.02 million 2.52 million1.54 million
Population density16,659 people·km−22857 people·km−22873 people·km−2
World urban areas rank by population density #238#272#181
Land uses §
Urbanized land area (% of total city area)316.5 km2 (52.1%)154.1 km2 (17.5%)89.0 km2 (16.5%)
Impervious area (% of total city area)347.3 km2 (57.2%)172.2 km2 (19.5%)102.4 km2 (19.0%)
Forest (% of total city area)127.8 km2 (21.1%)274.1 km2 (31.0%)249.9 km2 (46.3%)
Green space area (% of total city area)44.1 km2 (7.3%)19.4 km2 (2.2%)18.5 km2 (3.4%)
Roadside area4.06 km21.30 km21.01 km2
Park area30.31 km212.69 km214.10 km2
School forest area0.98 km20.85 km20.36 km2
Riverside area6.19 km20.15 km20.54 km2
* Korea Meteorological Administration (http://www.kma.go.kr). Korean Resident Registration Demographics (http://rcps.egov.go.kr:8081). Demographia World Urban Areas [26]. Note that the population density rank of Seoul is downgraded because it includes other cities near Seoul (e.g., Incheon, Ansan, and Suwon) in the database. § The categories of land uses are based on the National Urban Forest Inventory [27] and the Environmental Geographic Information Service (http://egis.me.go.kr) and defined as follows: Urbanized land is the city district area excluding forest, agriculture land, grassland, wetland, bare land, and water cover. Forest is the forested land excluding green space. Green space is the aggregate of vegetated area close to the living space of inhabitants. Roadside is the vegetated area of sidewalk, roadway, and traffic island. Park is the artificially vegetated area, as defined by the Urban Park Act. School forest is the vegetated area on school grounds. Riverside is the vegetated area adjacent to flowing water, as defined by the River Act.
Table 2. Soil bulk density, C concentration, and area-based C density in urban green spaces (UGS) soils for 0–30 cm depth. Values in parentheses represent one standard deviation.
Table 2. Soil bulk density, C concentration, and area-based C density in urban green spaces (UGS) soils for 0–30 cm depth. Values in parentheses represent one standard deviation.
NBulk DensitySoil C ConcentrationSoil C Density
SiteSoil(g·cm−3) *(g·C·kg−1)(kg·C·m−2)
Roadside
Seoul121201.24 (0.22)9.97 (7.31)3.03 (2.15)
Daegu9601.04 (0.34)9.08 (6.97)2.10 (1.33)
Daejeon10721.07 (0.23)6.62 (5.62)1.56 (1.23)
Total312521.14 (0.27)8.92 (6.95)2.41 (1.85)
Park
Seoul31171.34 (0.19)6.66 (3.94)2.24 (1.34)
Daegu3361.07 (0.31)8.37 (6.26)2.34 (1.94)
Daejeon3181.11 (0.13)4.96 (3.99)1.28 (0.97)
Total91711.27 (0.23)6.48 (4.32)2.05 (1.40)
School forest
Seoul131501.27 (0.22)6.13 (4.38)1.88 (1.39)
Daegu3301.18 (0.31)5.38 (3.48)1.49 (0.89)
Daejeon4241.28 (0.15)4.62 (3.69) 1.36 (0.97)
Total202041.26 (0.23)5.82 (4.21)1.76 (1.30)
Riverside
Seoul1181.27 (0.25)9.61 (6.31)2.96 (1.73)
Daegu2121.23 (0.34)8.58 (3.34)2.90 (1.24)
Daejeon191.32 (0.14)6.09 (2.57)1.92 (0.83)
Total4391.28 (0.24)8.29 (4.94)2.63 (1.45)
All
Total646661.22 (0.25)7.31 (5.63)2.13 (1.59)
* Bulk density was corrected by gravel content (see Equation (1)). Soil C concentration was multiplied by a ratio of soil dry weight to total volume of soil and gravel (see Equation (2)).
Table 3. A three-way factorial ANOVA that tested for significant differences in soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density by city, UGS type, and soil depth. The table gives the p-values; those highlighted in bold are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 3. A three-way factorial ANOVA that tested for significant differences in soil bulk density, C concentration, and C density by city, UGS type, and soil depth. The table gives the p-values; those highlighted in bold are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
dfBulk DensitySoil C ConcentrationSoil C Density
City (C)2<0.001<0.001<0.001
SE > DJ > DG DG = SE > DJSE > DG > DJ
Type (T)3<0.001<0.001<0.001
RV = P = S > RD RD = RV > P = SRV ≥ RD ≥ P > S
Depth (D)2<0.001<0.001<0.001
20–30 = 10–20 > 0–100–10 > 10–20 = 20–300–10 > 10–20 > 20–30
C × T *6<0.0010.46<0.05
C × D4<0.001<0.050.33
T × D60.090.440.07
C × T × D120.180.800.81
* ×: interaction effect; SE: Seoul, DG: Daegu, DJ: Daejeon; RD: roadside, P: park, S: school forest, RV: riverside.
Forests EISSN 1999-4907 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top