ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF URBAN VEGETATION STRUCTURE ON CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION: THE CASE OF ISTANBUL-KADIKÖY

Abstract

This study was conducted to develop a quantitative framework for calculating carbon sequestration and storage at the individual tree level and to provide a structure-based assessment of the contributions of urban trees to carbon dynamics. The study was carried out in six phases. After determining a suitable study area, tree measurements were taken at the individual tree level, and field data was used to create an i-Tree and R-compatible database. Carbon storage and annual carbon sequestration were calculated at the individual tree level, and the relationships between the variables were statistically analyzed. The study findings showed that complex interactions between species-specific structural attributes, growth dynamics, and dominance patterns directly influence carbon sequestration and storage capacities. These findings show that urban C mitigation strategies must move beyond simple tree counting or single-trait approaches and instead integrate species diversity, structural heterogeneity, and growth dynamics to enhance both the effectiveness and resilience of urban forest C services.

Keywords

• Carbon storage
• Carbon sequestration
• Individual tree level
• Istanbul
• Kadikoy
• Structural attributes

Thanks

The authors would like to thank i-Tree Eco and R for the C sequestration and storage analysis used in this study. This research was produced by the thesis "Determination of Carbon Sequestration and Storage Values of Open and Green Spaces in Urban Coastal"

KENTSEL VEJETASYON YAPISININ KARBON DEPOLAMA VE TUTUMU ÜZERINDEKİ ETKİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: İSTANBUL-KADIKÖY ÖRNEĞI

Abstract

Bu çalışma, bireysel ağaç düzeyinde karbon depolama ve tutumunu hesaplamak için nicel bir çerçeve geliştirmek ve kentsel ağaçların karbon dinamiklerine katkılarının yapı tabanlı değerlendirmesini sağlamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma altı aşamada yürütülmüştür. Uygun bir çalışma alanı belirlendikten sonra, bireysel ağaç düzeyinde ağaç ölçümleri alınmış ve saha verileri i-Tree ve R uyumlu bir veri tabanı oluşturulmuştur. Bireysel ağaç düzeyinde karbon depolama ve yıllık karbon tutumu hesaplanmış ve değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma bulguları, türlere özgü yapısal özellikler, büyüme dinamikleri ve baskınlık modelleri arasındaki karmaşık etkileşimlerin, karbon tutma ve depolama kapasitelerini doğrudan etkilediğini gösterdi. Sonuç olarak, bu bulgular, kentsel karbon azaltma stratejilerinin basit ağaç sayımı veya tek özellikli yaklaşımların ötesine geçmesi ve bunun yerine kentsel orman karbon hizmetlerinin hem etkinliğini hem de dayanıklılığını artırmak için tür çeşitliliğini, yapısal heterojenliği ve büyüme dinamiklerini entegre etmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Ağaç düzeyi
• İstanbul
• Kadıköy
• Karbon depolama
• Karbon tutma
• Yapısal özellikler

Thanks

Yazarlar, bu çalışmada karbon tutma ve depolama analizlerininde kullanılan i-Tree Eco ve R yazılımlarına teşekkür eder. Bu araştırma, “Kentsel Kıyı Alanlarındaki Açık ve Yeşil Alanların Karbon Tutma ve Depolama Değerlerinin Belirlenmesi” başlıklı yüksek lisans tez çalışması kapsamında üretilmiştir.

References

1. Akkemik, Ü. (2010). The native plants of Istanbul. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul University Press.
2. Başaran, N., Gültekin, P., & Gültekin, Y. (2023). Evaluation of Düzce urban forests’ climate change mitigation potential with measuring urban carbon footprint. Ecology & Safety, 17, 135–148.
3. Başaran, N., Akdoğan Cinal, G., & Eroğlu, E. (2024). Soil organic carbon exchange due to the change in land use. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 31(3), 725–748.
4. Başaran, N., & Eroğlu, E. (2023). Addressing Ecosystem Regulation Services at the Plant Level in Cities. Developments in the Field of Agriculture, Forestry and Aquaculture 1, 10-30
5. Biondi, F., & Qeadan, F. (2008). A theory-driven approach to tree-ring standardization: Defining the biological trend from expected basal area increment. Tree-Ring Research, 64(2), 81–96.
6. Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M. A., Chambers, J. Q., … Yamakura, T. (2005). Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia, 145(1), 87–99. doi:10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x
7. Dilaver, Z., Yüksel, U. D., & Yılmaz, F. C. (2017). Contribution of university campuses to climate change mitigation: Ankara University Tandoğan campus case. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(12), 7018–7024.
8. Eroğlu, E., Müderrisoğlu, H., Acar, C., Aksoy, N., Yıldız, O., Kahveci, H., Başaran, N., Doğan, T. G., Gülpınar Sekban, D. Ü., & Akdoğan Cinal, G. (2024). Determining the urban-scale impacts of floristic diversity and ecosystem services in mitigating climate change effects: Final report (Project No. 121O403). TÜBİTAK, 1001 – Scientific and Technological Research Projects Funding Program, Turkey.

9. Fini, A., Vigevani, I., Corsini, D., Wężyk, P., Bajorek-Zydroń, K., Failla, O., ... & Viskanic, P. (2023). CO2-assimilation, sequestration, and storage by urban woody species growing in parks and along streets in two climatic zones. Science of the Total Environment, 903, 166198.
10. Hou, J., Feng, H., & Wu, M. (2022). Incorporating effect factors into the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). Diversity, 14(4), 274.
11. Houghton, R. A., & Nassikas, A. A. (2017). Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 31(3), 456–472.
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers – Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Secretariat.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157926
14. i-Tree Team. (2023, February 7). i-Tree Eco user’s manual [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Retrieved from https://www.itreetools.org/support/resources-overview/i-tree-manualsworkbooks
15. Kadıköy Municipality. (2024). 2025–2029 strategic plan supported by an integrated perspective and 2030 resilience vision. Istanbul, Turkey: Kadıköy Municipality.
16. Kangas, A., Pitkänen, T. P., Mehtätalo, L., & Heikkinen, J. (2023). Mixed linear and non-linear tree volume models with regional parameters to main tree species in Finland. Forestry, 96(2), 188–206.
17. Kumar, A., Tewari, S., Singh, H., Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Bisht, S., … Kaushal, R. (2021). Biomass accumulation and carbon stock in different agroforestry systems prevalent in the Himalayan foothills, India. Current Science, 120(6), 1083–1088.
18. Lázaro‐Lobo, A., Ruiz‐Benito, P., Cruz‐Alonso, V., & Castro‐Díez, P. (2023). Quantifying carbon storage and sequestration by native and non‐native forests under contrasting climate types. Global Change Biology, 29(16), 4530-4542.
19. Li, N., Zhao, F., Chen, S., Li, C., Wang, Y., Ma, Y., & Chen, L. (2024). Indirect non-linear effects of landscape patterns on vegetation growth in Kunming City. npj Urban Sustainability, 4(1), 30.
20. Liu, H., Li, J., Wu, J., Li, B., & Nie, M. (2026). Large slow-growing hydrophytes increase wetland carbon storage. Nature Plants, 1-14.
21. Matasov, V., Belelli Marchesini, L., Yaroslavtsev, A., Sala, G., Fareeva, O., Seregin, I., … Valentini, R. (2020). IoT monitoring of urban tree ecosystem services: Possibilities and challenges. Forests, 11(7), 775.
22. McPherson, E. G., & Simpson, J. R. (1999). Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: Guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters (General Technical Report No. PSW-GTR-171). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
23. Mensah, S., Veldtman, R., Assogbadjo, A. E., Glèlè Kakaï, R., & Seifert, T. (2016). Tree species diversity promotes aboveground carbon storage through functional diversity and functional dominance. Ecology and Evolution, 6(20), 7546–7557. doi:10.1002/ece3.2525
24. Mensah, S., Noulèkoun, F., Salako, V. K., Lokossou, C. S., Akouété, P., Seifert, T., & Glèlè Kakaï, R. (2023). Structural and taxonomic diversity predict above‐ground biomass better than functional measures of maximum height in mixed‐species forests. Applied vegetation science, 26(2), e12732.
25. Nowak, D. J. (1994). Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In Chicago's urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project (pp. 83–94). Chicago, IL: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.
26. Nowak, D. J. (2000). The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In J. E. Kuser (Ed.), Global climate change and the urban forest (pp. 31–44). New York, NY: Springer.
27. Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 381–389.
28. Nowak, D. J., & Dwyer, J. F. (2007). Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In J. E. Kuser (Ed.), Urban and community forestry in the northeast (pp. 25–46). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
29. Nowak, D. J. (2018). Improving city forests through assessment, modelling and monitoring. Unasylva, 69(250), 30–36.
30. Nowak, D. J., van den Bosch, M., Falvo, C. E., Jensen, G. K., Karliner, J., & Stancliffe, R. (2018). Bringing nature into public health plans and actions. In Oxford textbook of nature and public health: The role of nature in improving the health of a population (p. 291). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31. Parmesan, C., Morecroft, M. D., Trisurat, Y., Adrian, R., Anshari, G. Z., Arneth, A., … Talukdar, G. H. (2022). Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and their services. In Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
32. Pregitzer, C. C., Hanna, C., Charlop-Powers, S., & Bradford, M. A. (2022). Estimating carbon storage in urban forests of New York City. Urban Ecosystems, 25(2), 617-631.
33. Rizvi, R. H., Dhyani, S. K., Yadav, R. S., & Singh, R. (2011). Biomass production and carbon stock of poplar agroforestry systems in Yamunanagar and Saharanpur districts of northwestern India. Current Science, 736–742.
34. Ruiz‐Jaen, M. C., & Potvin, C. (2011). Can we predict carbon stocks in tropical ecosystems from tree diversity? Comparing species and functional diversity in a plantation and a natural forest. New Phytologist, 189, 978–987.
35. Safi, M. N., & Zobitz, J. M. (2016). Quantifying distribution in carbon uptake and environmental measurements with the Gini coefficient. Letters in Biomathematics, 3(1), 1–12.
36. Salbitano, F. (2016). Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
37. Schepaschenko, D., Moltchanova, E., Shvidenko, A., Blyshchyk, V., Dmitriev, E., Martynenko, O., … Kraxner, F. (2018). Improved estimates of biomass expansion factors for Russian forests. Forests, 9(6), 312.
38. Schreyer, J., Tigges, J., Lakes, T., & Churkina, G. (2014). Using airborne LiDAR and QuickBird data for modelling urban tree carbon storage and its distribution: A case study of Berlin. Remote Sensing, 6, 10636–10655.
39. Sharma, S., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., & Singh, A. N. (2024). Urban trees’ potential for regulatory services in the urban environment: An exploration of carbon sequestration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196(6), 504.
40. Sjöman, H., Hirons, A., & Sjöman, J. D. (2017). Criteria in the selection of urban trees for temperate urban environments. In F. Ferrini, C. C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, & A. Fini (Eds.), Routledge handbook of urban forestry (pp. 339–362). London, UK: Routledge.
41. Skrzypczak, D., Gorazda, K., Mikula, K., Mironiuk, M., Kominko, H., Sawska, K., … Chojnacka, K. (2025). Towards carbon neutrality: Enhancing CO₂ sequestration by plants to reduce carbon footprint. Science of the Total Environment, 966, 178763.
42. Tanfer, M., & Yener, Ş. D. (2020). A study on the campus flora of Istanbul University–Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Forestry. Bartın Faculty of Forestry Journal, 22(3), 726–737.
43. Teng, F., He, J., Pan, X., & Zhang, C. (2011). Metric of carbon equity: Carbon Gini index based on historical cumulative emission per capita. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2(3), 134–140.
44. Tew, S. (2025). Leveraging street-level predictive modelling with green infrastructure for urban resilience (Unpublished manuscript).
45. Tolunay, D. (2019). Biomass factors used to calculate carbon storage of Turkish forests. Forestist, 69(2), 145–155.
46. Tuğluer, M. (2019). Determination of biomass and carbon storage capacity of selected urban tree species (Doctoral dissertation). Süleyman Demirel University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Isparta, Turkey.
47. Zhang, L., Hua, Y., Zhou, Y., Zheng, K., Song, F., Chang, Z., & Zheng, C. (2025). Near-infrared mobile cloud OA-ICOS sensor system for atmospheric carbon dioxide monitoring. Analytical Chemistry, 97(7), 4021–4030.
48. Zhao, L., Li, X., Li, X., & Ai, C. (2022). Dynamic changes and regional differences of net carbon sequestration of food crops in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13229.
49. Zhong, B., & Xu, Y. J. (2009). Topographic effects on soil organic carbon in Louisiana watersheds. Environmental Management, 43, 662–672. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9182-7