See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228633757

Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States

Article in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry · May 2007

DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2007.026

CITATIONS READS
111 4,932

3 authors, including:

David J. Nowak Daniel E Crane

US Forest Service USDA Forest Service
241 PUBLICATIONS 19,715 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 6,576 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

i-Tree Tools: Representing Tree-based Urban Restoration with Computer Algorithms View project

Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Morphology of Urban Green Space View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David J. Nowak on 19 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

220 Nowak et al.: Oxygen Production by Urban Trees

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007. 33(3):220–226.

Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States

David J. Nowak, Robert Hoehn, and Daniel E. Crane

Abstract. Urban forests in the coterminous United States are estimated to produce ≈61 million metric tons (67 million tons)
of oxygen annually, enough oxygen to offset the annual oxygen consumption of approximately two-thirds of the U.S.
population. Although oxygen production is often cited as a significant benefit of trees, this benefit is relatively insignificant
and of negligible value as a result of the large oxygen content of the atmosphere. Other benefits of the urban forest are more
critical to environmental quality and human health than oxygen production by urban trees.
Key Words. Air quality; environmental quality; tree benefits; urban forests.

Urban vegetation, particularly trees, provides numerous ben- forest research projects (e.g., Nowak and Crane 2000; Nowak
efits that can improve environmental quality and human et al. 2005). Data collection included land use, tree species,
health in and around urban areas. These benefits include im- stem diameter at 1.37 m (4.5 ft) above the ground (dbh), tree
provements in air and water quality, building energy conser- and crown heights, crown width, and canopy condition.
vation, cooler air temperatures, reductions in ultraviolet ra-
diation, and many other environmental and social benefits Oxygen Production by Trees
(Nowak and Dwyer 2007). Although many ecology textbooks Net oxygen production by trees is based on the amount of
reveal that the vast majority of oxygen-producing organisms oxygen produced during photosynthesis minus the amount of
in the world are aquatic, oxygen production is one of the most oxygen consumed during plant respiration (Salisbury and
commonly cited benefits of urban trees. Common questions Ross 1978):
related to the benefits of urban forests are directed toward
Photosynthesis: n(CO2) + n(H2O) + light → (CH2O)n + nO2
understanding the amount of oxygen produced by urban for-
Respiration: (CH2O)n + nO2 → n(CO2) + n(H2O) + energy
ests, often in relation to the amount of oxygen consumed by
humans. It is well known that trees produce oxygen, but how If carbon dioxide uptake during photosynthesis exceeds car-
significant is the oxygen production benefit provided by ur- bon dioxide release by respiration during the year, the tree
ban forests? will accumulate carbon (carbon sequestration). Thus, a tree
The purpose of this article is to estimate the oxygen pro- that has a net accumulation of carbon during a year (tree
duction by urban forests in select cities and nationally, com- growth) also has a net production of oxygen. The amount of
pare it with estimated oxygen consumption by the U.S. popu- oxygen produced is estimated from carbon sequestration
lation, illustrate why oxygen production by urban trees is a based on atomic weights:
relatively unimportant benefit, and compare this benefit with
other environmental benefits provided by urban trees and net O2 release (kgⲐyr) = net C sequestration (kgⲐyr) × 32Ⲑ12
forests.
Tree Biomass
The net amount of oxygen produced by a tree during a year
METHODS is directly related to the amount of carbon sequestered by the
tree, which is tied to the accumulation of tree biomass. Bio-
Field Data mass for each measured tree was calculated using equations
Randomly located 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) field plots were measured from the literature with inputs of dbh and tree height (see
in 16 cities to sample the entire urban forest structure of that Nowak 1994; Nowak et al. 2002a). Equations that predict
city (e.g., tree species composition, number of trees on all aboveground biomass were converted to whole tree biomass
land uses) (Table 1). These cities were sampled in collabo- based on a belowground to aboveground ratio of 0.26 (Cairns
ration with a number of cooperators, all of whom used meth- et al. 1997). Equations that compute fresh weight biomass
ods developed by the USDA Forest Service for various urban were multiplied by species- or genus-specific conversion fac-

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(3): May 2007 221

Table 1. Summary of data collection in cities using 0.04 average of results from all broadleaf or conifer equations was
ha circular plots. used.
City Year Number of plots Standard errors given for carbon report sampling error
rather than error of estimation. Estimation error is unknown
Atlanta, GA 1997 205
Baltimore, MD 1999 200 and likely larger than the reported sampling error. Estimation
Boston, MA 1996 217 error also includes the uncertainty of using biomass equations
Calgary, Alberta 1998 350 and conversion factors, which may be large, as well as mea-
Freehold, NJ 1998 144 surement error, which is typically small.
Jersey City, NJ 1998 220
Minneapolis, MNz 2004 110 Urban Tree Growth and Carbon Sequestration
Moorestown, NJ 2000 206 Average diameter growth from the appropriate land use and
Morgantown, WV 2004 136 diameter class was added to the existing tree diameter (year x)
New York, NY 1996 206 to estimate tree diameter in year x + 1. For urban trees in
Philadelphia, PA 1996 210
forest stands, average dbh growth was estimated as 0.38 cm/
San Francisco, CA 2004 194
Syracuse, NYy
year (0.15 in/year) (Smith and Shifley 1984); for trees on land
2001 197
Toronto, Ontariox 2000 211 uses with a park-like structure (e.g., parks, cemeteries, golf
Washington. DCw 2004 201 courses), average dbh growth was 0.61 cm/year (0.24 in/year)
Woodbridge, NJ 2000 215 (deVries 1987); for more open-grown trees, dbh class-
z
Nowak et al. 2006b. specific growth rates were based on Nowak (1994). Average
y
Nowak and O’Connor 2001. height growth was calculated based on formulas from Fleming
x
Kenney et al. 2001. (1988) and the specific dbh growth factor used for the tree.
w
Nowak et al. 2006c. Growth rates were adjusted based on tree canopy condi-
tion. Adjustment factors were proportional to percent crown
dieback (i.e., the greater the crown dieback, the slower the
tors to yield dry weight biomass. These conversion factors, growth rate) and the assumption that less than 25% crown
derived from average moisture contents of species given in dieback had a limited effect on dbh growth rates. For trees
the literature, averaged 0.48 for conifers and 0.56 for hard- with fair to excellent condition (less than 25% dieback), no
woods (Nowak 1994). adjustment was made to the growth rate; for poor condition
Open-grown, maintained trees tend to have less above- trees (26% to 50% dieback), growth rates were multiplied by
ground biomass than predicted by forest-derived biomass 0.76; critical trees (51% to 75% dieback) by 0.42; dying trees
equations for trees of the same diameter at breast height (76% to 99% dieback) by 0.15; and dead trees by 0. The
(Nowak 1994). To adjust for this difference, biomass results difference in estimates of carbon storage between year x and
for open-grown urban trees were multiplied by a factor of 0.8 year x + 1 is the net amount of carbon sequestered annually.
(Nowak 1994). No adjustment was made for trees found in Tree death leads to the eventual release of stored carbon.
more natural stand conditions (e.g., vacant lands, forest pre- To estimate the net amount of carbon sequestered by the
serves). Because deciduous trees drop their leaves annually, urban trees after decomposition, carbon emissions resulting
only carbon stored in woody biomass was calculated for these from decomposition after tree death must be considered. To
trees. Total tree dry weight biomass (above- and below- calculate the potential release of carbon resulting from tree
ground) was converted to total stored carbon by multiplying death and decomposition, estimates of annual mortality rates
by 0.5. by condition class were derived from a study of street-tree
Multiple equations developed for a single tree species were mortality (Nowak 1986). Annual mortality was estimated as
combined to produce one predictive equation for a wide range 1.9% for trees 0 to 3 in dbh in the good–excellent condition
of diameters for each species. The process of combining the class (less than 10% dieback); 1.5% for trees greater than 3 in
individual formulas (each with limited diameter ranges) into dbh in the good–excellent condition class; 3.3% for trees in
one more general species formula produced results that were fair condition (11% to 25% dieback); 8.9% for poor condi-
typically within 2% of the original estimates for total carbon tion; 13.1% for critical condition; 50% for dying; and 100%
storage of the urban forest (i.e., the estimates using the mul- for dead.
tiple equations). Formulas were combined to prevent dis- Two types of decomposition rates were used: 1) rapid re-
jointed sequestration estimates that can occur when calcula- lease for aboveground biomass of trees that are projected to
tions switch between individual biomass equations. be removed and 2) delayed release for standing dead trees and
If no biomass equation could be found for an individual tree roots of removed trees. Trees that are removed from
species, the average of results from equations of the same urban sites are not normally developed into wood products
genus was used. If no equations for the genus were found, the that provide for long-term carbon storage (i.e., removed trees

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

222 Nowak et al.: Oxygen Production by Urban Trees

are often burned or mulched); therefore, they will most likely offset by urban forest oxygen production annually. To esti-
release their carbon relatively soon after removal. mate how much human oxygen consumption would be offset,
If dead trees are not removed annually, they have an in- oxygen production was divided by average annual oxygen
creased probability of being measured in the tree sample, and consumption per person.
decomposition rates must reflect this difference. All trees on
vacant, transportation, and agriculture land uses, and 50% of
RESULTS
trees in parks, were assumed to be left standing (i.e., not
Net annual oxygen production by urban forests (after ac-
removed) because these trees are likely within forest stands
counting for decomposition) in selected cities ranged from
and/or away from intensively maintained sites. These trees
1,000 metric tons (1,100 tons) in Freehold, New Jersey, U.S.
were assumed to decompose over a period of 20 years. Data
to 86,000 metric tons (94,800 tons) in Atlanta, Georgia
on tree decomposition rates are limited. However, using de-
(Table 2). This net oxygen production offsets oxygen con-
composition rates from 10 to 50 years had little effect on
sumption from between 2% of the human population in Jer-
overall net decomposition within a single year. Trees on all
sey City, New Jersey, and New York, New York, to greater
other land uses were assumed to be removed within 1 year of
than 100% in Moorestown, New Jersey. Mean net annual
tree death. For removed trees, aboveground biomass was as-
oxygen production (after accounting for decomposition) per
sumed to be mulched with a decomposition rate of 3 years;
hectare of trees (100% tree canopy) offsets oxygen consump-
below-ground biomass was assumed to decompose in 20
tion of 19 people per year (eight people per acre of tree
years. Although no mulch decomposition studies could be
cover), but ranges from nine people per hectare of canopy
found, studies on decomposition reveal that 37% to 56% of
cover (four people/ac cover) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to
carbon in tree roots and 48% to 67% of carbon in twigs is
28 people/ha cover (12 people/ac cover) in Calgary, Alberta.
released within the first 3 years (Scheu and Schauermann
The average number of trees needed to offset the annual
1994).
oxygen consumption of one adult was 30 trees (net oxygen
Estimates of carbon emissions resulting from decomposi-
production after accounting for decomposition) but ranged
tion were based on the probability of the tree dying within the
from 17 trees in Freehold, New Jersey, to 81 trees in Calgary,
next year and the probability of the tree being removed using
Alberta. This difference is a reflection of different tree sizes,
the formula:
conditions, and growth rates among these cities.
Emission = C × Mc × ∑pi((Dremove) + (Dstand)) Tree oxygen production varies by tree size. Based on data
Dremove = (pabⲐyi)(1Ⲑdm) + ((1−pab)Ⲑyi)(1Ⲑdr) from Minneapolis, Minnesota (Nowak et al. 2006b), trees
Dstand = ((yi−1)Ⲑyi)(1Ⲑdr) 1–3⬙ dbh produced ≈2.9 kg O2/year (6.4 lb O2/year); trees
9–12⬙ dbh: 22.6 kg O2/year (49.9 lb O2/year); 18–21⬙ dbh:
where emission ⳱ individual tree contribution to carbon 45.6 kg O2/year (100.5 lb O2/year); 27–30⬙ dbh: 91.1 kg
emissions; C ⳱ carbon storage in the next year; Mc ⳱ prob- O2/year (200.8 lb O2/year); and greater than 30⬙ dbh: 110.3
ability of mortality based on condition class; i ⳱ decompo- kg O2/year (243.2 lb O2/year).
sition class (based on number of years left standing before Based on the national estimate of net carbon sequestration
removal); pi ⳱ proportion of the land use tree population in in the coterminous United States of 22.8 million metric
decomposition class i; pab ⳱ proportion of tree biomass tonsC/year (25.1 million tonsC/year) (Nowak and Crane
aboveground; yi ⳱ number of years left standing before re- 2002), urban forests in the United States produce ≈61 million
moval (yi → ⬁ for dead trees that will never be cut down metric tons (67 million tons) of oxygen annually, which is
(natural decomposition)); dm ⳱ decomposition rates for enough oxygen to offset human oxygen consumption for ap-
mulched aboveground biomass (3 years); and dr ⳱ decom- proximately two-thirds of the U.S. population.
position rate for standing trees and tree roots (20 years).
Individual tree estimates of mortality probability and de-
composition rates were aggregated upward to yield total es- DISCUSSION
timates of decomposition for the tree population. The amount Oxygen production by trees varies among cities based on
of carbon sequestered as a result of tree growth was reduced differences in number of healthy trees, growth rates, and di-
by the amount lost resulting from tree mortality to estimate a ameter distributions. Cities with mostly small trees would
net carbon sequestration rate that accounts for carbon loss require more trees on average to offset the oxygen consump-
resulting from decomposition. tion of one person. Percent of the population’s oxygen con-
sumption offset by urban forests varies depending on popu-
Human Oxygen Consumption lation density and total oxygen production. Cities with high
An average adult human oxygen consumption rate of 0.84 human population density (e.g., Jersey City and New York)
kg/day (1.85 lb/day) (Perry and LeVan c. 2003) was used to tend to have the lowest proportion of their oxygen consump-
estimate how much human oxygen consumption would be tion offset by their urban forest. A commonly cited statement

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(3): May 2007 223

Table 2. Oxygen production by urban forests in various cities and its relative effect compared with the city
population.
Oxygen prod.z
Trees (×1,000) (t/year × 1,000) Oxygen offsety Per person offsetx
Net Net w/d Net no. of people Net w/d no. of Net Net w/d Net no. Net w/d
City Total SE total SE total SE (% pop) people (% pop) no./ha no./ha of trees no. of trees
Atlanta, GA 9,415 749 112 8 86 12 366,400 (88%) 280,300 (67%) 29 22 26 34
Baltimore, MD 2,627 570 39 5 25 4 127,700 (20%) 82,500 (13%) 29 19 21 32
Boston, MA 1,183 109 25 2 19 2 82,900 (14%) 60,400 (10%) 26 19 14 20
Calgary, Alberta 11,889 2,777 52 7 45 6 169,000 (19%) 147,700 (17%) 33 28 70 81
Freehold, NJ 48 6 1 0 1 0 4,300 (39%) 2,800 (25%) 25 16 11 17
Jersey City, NJ 136 22 2 0 2 0 7,000 (3%) 5,100 (2%) 16 11 19 27
Minneapolis, MN 979 165 22 3 11 6 70,200 (18%) 36,200 (9%) 18 9 14 27
Moorestown, NJ 583 53 9 1 7 1 29,700 (160%) 22,300 (120%) 28 21 20 26
Morgantown, WV 658 79 7 1 5 1 22,800 (85%) 17,800 (66%) 29 22 29 37
New York, NY 5,212 719 102 11 55 12 333,600 (4%) 180,500 (2%) 20 11 16 29
Philadelphia, PA 2,113 211 39 4 29 4 127,200 (8%) 93,000 (6%) 24 17 17 23
San Francisco, CA 668 98 12 2 11 1 40,200 (5%) 36,900 (5%) 28 26 17 18
Syracuse, NY 876 119 13 1 11 1 42,800 (29%) 37,200 (25%) 29 25 20 24
Toronto, Ontario 7,542 889 98 10 76 10 318,300 (13%) 246,500 (10%) 25 19 24 31
Washington, DC 1,928 224 39 4 31 3 127,400 (22%) 101,400 (18%) 28 22 15 19
Woodbridge, NJ 986 97 13 1 10 1 43,900 (44%) 32,000 (32%) 25 18 22 31
z
Annual oxygen production by the urban forest (thousands of metric tons per year). Multiply by 1.102 to convert to tons.
y
Number of people and percent of city population that urban forest oxygen production offsets in terms of average adult human oxygen consumption per year.
x
Average number of people whose oxygen consumption is offset by oxygen production per hectare of tree cover in the city (no./ha; divide by 2.471 to convert
to no./ac) and average number of trees needed in city to offset the oxygen consumption of one adult human (no. of trees).
Net ⳱ net oxygen production of population without consideration of decomposition; Net w/d ⳱ net oxygen production of population considering decomposition;
net production minus estimated oxygen consumed resulting from decomposition; SE ⳱ standard error.

is an acre of trees (100% tree canopy) can provide enough within the atmosphere (approximately 21% of the atmo-
oxygen for 18 people (e.g., American Forests 2006; Tree- sphere’s volume is oxygen). As stated by Miller (1979): “We
People 2006), but based on this study, this estimate appears to have a large number of serious ecological problems, but suf-
be high by at least a factor of two. The number is more on the focation from lack of oxygen is not one of them (Broecker
order of eight people per acre of tree cover (100% tree 1970; SCEP 1970). The oxygen content of the atmosphere
canopy). Oxygen production per acre of tree cover will vary remains essentially constant with the oxygen consumed by
based on tree density, diameter distribution, and tree health all animals, bacteria, and respiration processes roughly bal-
and growth. anced by the oxygen released by land and sea plants during
Oxygen production is one of many environmental benefits photosynthesis. The present atmospheric oxygen content
that trees produce, and urban trees can produce a significant seems not to have changed since 1910 (SCEP 1970). Further-
amount of oxygen. However, is this oxygen production ac- more, because air is about 20 percent oxygen, the total supply
tually creating a significant environmental benefit in com- is immense (Broecker 1970).” Our atmosphere has such an
parison with other environmental benefits of trees such as enormous reserve of oxygen that even if all fossil fuel re-
carbon sequestration and air pollution removal? In the cote- serves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were burned,
rminous United States, annual carbon sequestration by urban atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent (Broecker
forests is estimated at 22.8 million metric tons (25.1 million 1996). Also, waters of the world are the main oxygen gen-
tons) with a societal value of ≈$460 million per year (Nowak erators of the biosphere; their algae are estimated to replace
and Crane 2002). Air pollution removal in the coterminous ≈90% of all oxygen used (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1994).
United States is estimated at 711,000 metric tons (784,000 Thus, although urban trees do produce significant amounts of
tons) with a $3.8 billion annual value (Nowak et al. 2006a). oxygen, it is not a significant ecologic benefit given the glob-
Oxygen production by U.S. urban forests is estimated at 61 al nature of oxygen and the sheer volume of oxygen in the
million metric tons (67 million tons), but the value to society atmosphere.
is negligible. A growing forest will remove carbon dioxide and produce
The reason the oxygen production value of urban trees is oxygen. Conversely, a decaying or declining forest will
insignificant has to do with the large amount of oxygen release carbon dioxide and consume oxygen through

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

224 Nowak et al.: Oxygen Production by Urban Trees

decomposition processes. If forest canopy cover is increased tree benefit is relatively insignificant. Tree impacts on im-
(more trees are added) and sustained through time, net carbon portant atmospheric trace chemicals such as carbon dioxide
dioxide will be removed and oxygen produced. Given the and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criteria air pol-
carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere (≈0.03%) is much less lutants (ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen di-
than the oxygen level (21%), the relative impact of urban oxide, carbon monoxide, and lead) will have greater signifi-
forests and their management are much more significant for cant impacts on human health and environmental quality.
carbon dioxide than for oxygen. Urban forest carbon sequestration and air pollution removal
Fossil fuel combustion also consumes oxygen and as a along with other environmental impacts of urban forests (e.g.,
result of fossil fuel use, the oxygen content of the atmosphere water quality improvement, lower air temperatures, reduced
is slowly declining. Between 1989 and 1994, the oxygen ultraviolet radiation loads) need to be better incorporated
content of the atmosphere dropped at an annual rate of 2 ppm within local and regional planning efforts to improve envi-
out of 210,000 ppm (Broecker 1996). Thus, reducing fossil ronmental quality and enhance the quality of urban life.
fuel use in the management of urban forests not only reduces
emission of carbon dioxide, but also the consumption of oxy- Acknowledgments. This work was funded, in part, by the USDA
gen. If fossil fuels are consistently used to maintain an urban Forest Service, RPA Assessment Staff, and State and Private For-
forest, the net effect of the forest and its management will be estry, Cooperative Forestry’s Urban and Community Forestry Pro-
carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption. The gram. Data collection in Baltimore, funded by the USDA Forest
point in the future when carbon emissions from maintenance Service, is part of the National Science Foundation’s Long-Term
Ecosystem Research project. Data from cities in New Jersey were
exceed carbon sequestration by the forest varies by tree spe-
collected and analyzed in cooperation with Mike D’Errico and the
cies and intensity of fossil fuel-based management (Nowak et
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and
al. 2002b). Energy, Division of Parks and Forestry; Calgary data collection was
Urban trees can improve air quality (e.g., Cardelino and by Simon Wilkins, City of Calgary; Minneapolis data collection was
Chameides 1990; Taha 1996; Nowak et al. 2000, 2006a). by Davey Resource Group; San Francisco data collection was by
Because small changes in air pollution concentrations can Alexis Harte and the City of San Francisco; Toronto data collection
have relatively considerable impacts on air quality and human was by Andy Kenney and the University of Toronto; Washington,
health, the effects of urban forests on air pollution can be DC, data collection was by Casey Trees Endowment Fund and the
significant. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection National Park Service; Morgantown data collection was by Jonathan
Agency has introduced urban tree cover as a potential emerg- Cumming and Sandhya Mohan (University of West Virginia); and
ing measure to help meet air quality standards (U.S. Envi- Atlanta, Georgia, Boston, Massachusetts, New York, New York,
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, data were collected by ACRT, Inc.
ronmental Protection Agency 2004; Nowak 2005). In general,
tree effects on trace chemicals in the atmosphere (chemicals
that are minor components of the total atmosphere) will have LITERATURE CITED
a much greater relative impact on environmental quality and American Forests. 2006. American Forests Kicks Off the
human health than chemicals such as oxygen that comprise a Holiday Season With Tips on How to Care for Your
large proportion of the atmosphere. Relatively minor changes Christmas Trees. http://www.americanforests.org/news/
in trace chemicals can have significant effects on environ- display.php?id⳱125 (accessed 6/06).
mental and human health (e.g., impacts of ozone, particulate
matter, nitrogen, and sulfur oxides) and climate change (e.g., Broecker, W.S. 1970. Man’s oxygen reserve. Science 168:
impact of carbon dioxide). 1537–1538.
Although the absolute magnitude of oxygen production by ———. 1996. Et tu, O2? 21stC, The World of Research at
urban forests is over 2.5 times greater than for carbon se- Columbia University. Special Issue: Biospheres. http://
questration and 85 times greater than for air pollution re- www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm (ac-
moval nationally, the relative impacts of carbon sequestration cessed 6/06).
and air pollution removal are much more significant than Cairns, M.A., S. Brown, E.H. Helmer, and G.A. Baumgard-
oxygen production. Urban forest effects on trace chemicals ner. 1997. Root biomass allocation in the world’s upland
can lead to significant improvements in environmental qual- forests. Oecologia 111:1–11.
ity and human health and well-being. Cardelino, C.A., and W.L. Chameides. 1990. Natural hydro-
carbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. Journal of Geo-
CONCLUSION physical Research 95:13971–13979.
Urban forests produce large amounts of oxygen. However, deVries, R.E. 1987. A preliminary investigation of the growth
with the large and relatively stable amount of oxygen in the and longevity of trees in Central Park. New Brunswick,
atmosphere and extensive production by aquatic systems, this NJ, Rutgers University, MS thesis.

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(3): May 2007 225

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1994. Oxygen, p. 35. Volume 9. Nowak, D.J., and J.F. Dwyer. 2007. Understanding the ben-
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition. Ency- efits and costs of urban forest ecosystems, pp. 25–46. In
clopedia Britannica, Chicago. Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kuser,
Fleming, L.E. 1988. Growth estimation of street trees in cen- J., Ed. Springer Science and Business Media, New York,
tral New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University. NY.
MS thesis. Nowak, D.J., R. Hoehn, D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and J.T.
Kenney, W.A., and Associates. 2001. The Role of Urban Walton. 2006b. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Val-
Forests in Greenhouse Gas Reduction. W.A. Kenney and ues: Minneapolis’ Urban Forest. Resource Bulletin NE-
Associates, ON ENV (99) 4691, Toronto, Canada. 202 pp. 166. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
eastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 20 pp.
Miller, G.T. 1979. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth
Publ. Co., Belmont, CA. p. 91. ———. 2006c. Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values:
Washington DC’s Urban Forest. Resource Bulletin NRS-
Nowak, D.J. 1986. Silvics of an urban tree species: Norway
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
maple (Acer platanoides L.). Syracuse, NY, State Univer-
ern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 24 pp.
sity of New York, College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, MS thesis. Nowak, D.J., and P. O’Connor. 2001. Syracuse Urban Forest
Master Plan: Guiding the City’s Forest Resource in the
———. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chi-
21st Century. General Technical Report NE-287. U.S. De-
cago’s urban forest, pp. 83–94. In Chicago’s Urban Forest partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Re-
Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate
search Station, Newtown Square, PA. 50 pp.
Project. McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D.J., and Rowntree,
Nowak, D.J., J.C. Stevens, S.M. Sisinni, and C.J. Luley.
R.A., Eds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Re-
2002b. Effects of urban tree management and species se-
port NE-186, Radnor, PA.
lection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arbo-
———. 2005. Strategic tree planting as an EPA encouraged riculture 28:113–122.
pollutant reduction strategy: How urban trees can obtain Perry, J., and M.D. LeVan. c. 2003. Air Purification in Closed
credit in State Implementation Plans. Sylvan Communi- Environments: Overview of Spacecraft Systems. U.S.
ties. Summer/Fall:23–27. Army Natrick Soldier Center. http://nsc.natick.army.mil/
Nowak, D.J., K.L. Civerolo, S.T. Rao, G. Sistla, C.J. Luley, jocotas/ColPro_Papers/Perry-LeVan.pdf (accessed 6/06).
and D.E. Crane. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of Salisbury, F.B., and C.W. Ross. 1978. Plant Physiology.
urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment 34: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA. 422 pp.
1610–1613. Scheu, S., and J. Schauermann. 1994. Decomposition of roots
Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 2000. The urban forest effects and twigs: Effects of wood type (beech and ash), diam-
(UFORE) model: Quantifying urban forest structure and eter, site of exposure and macro fauna exclusion. Plant
functions, pp. 714–720. In Proceedings: Integrated Tools and Soil 163:13–24.
for Natural Resources Inventories in the 21st Century. Smith, W.B., and S.R. Shifley. 1984. Diameter Growth, Sur-
Hansen, M., and Burk, T., Eds. IUFRO Conference, vival, and Volume Estimates for Trees in Indiana and
16–20 August 1998, Boise, ID. General Technical Report Illinois. Res. Pap. NC-257. U.S. Department of Agricul-
NC-212, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Sta-
North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. tion, St. Paul, MN.
———. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 1970.
trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 116:381–389. Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. MIT Press,
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, and J.C. Stevens. 2006a. Air pol- Cambridge, MA.
lution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United Taha, H. 1996. Modeling impacts of increased urban vegeta-
States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4:115–123. tion on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin.
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and R. Hoehn. 2005. Atmospheric Environment 30:3423–3430.
The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: Field Data TreePeople. 2006. Get Involved—Why Trees? http://
Collection Procedures. USDA Forest Service, Syracuse, www.treepeople.org/vfp.dll?OakTree∼getPage∼&PNPK⳱
NY. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Tools/downloads/ 59 (accessed 6/06).
UFORE_Manual.pdf (accessed 3/07). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Incorporating
Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and M. Ibarra. 2002a. Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implemen-
Brooklyn’s Urban Forest. General Technical Report NE- tation Plan (SIP). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
290, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North- Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
eastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 107 pp. oarpg/t1/memoranda/evm_ievm_g.pdf (accessed 6/06).

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

226 Nowak et al.: Oxygen Production by Urban Trees

David J. Nowak (corresponding author) d’oxygène annuellement, soit suffisamment d’oxygène pour la con-
Project Leader sommation annuelle moyenne du 2/3 de la population américaine.
USDA Forest Service Même si la production en oxygène est souvent citée comme un
Northern Research Station 5 Moon Library bénéfice significatif des arbres, ce bénéfice est relativement insig-
SUNY-ESF nifiant et est d’une valeur négligeable en raison du vaste contenu en
oxygène de l’atmosphère. D’autres bénéfices de la forêt urbaine sont
Syracuse, NY 13210, U.S.
plus critiques pour la qualité de l’environnement et la santé humaine
[email protected]
que la production en oxygène des arbres urbains.
Zusammenfassung. Urbane Wälder und den USA produzieren
Robert Hoehn
schätzungsweise 61 Millionen Tonnen Sauerstoff jährlich, genug
Biological Science Technician
Sauerstoff, um den jährlichen Verbrauch an Sauerstoff von 2/3 der
USDA Forest Service amerikanischen Bevölkerung zu decken. Obwohl die Sauerstoff-
Northern Research Station 5 Moon Library produktion von Bäumen oft als Vorteil zitiert wird, ist dieser Vorteil
SUNY-ESF relativ unsignifikant und von untergeordnetem Wert, gemessen am
Syracuse, NY 13210, U.S. dem hohen Sauerstoffgehalt der Atmosphäre. Andere Vorteile der
[email protected] urbanen Wälder sind relevanter für die Qualität der Umwelt und der
menschlichen Gesundheit als die Sauerstoffproduktion durch
Daniel E. Crane Bäume.
Information Technology Specialist Resumen. Se estima que los bosques urbanos en los Estados
USDA Forest Service Unidos producen 61 millones de toneladas métricas de oxígeno an-
Northern Research Station 5 Moon Library ualmente, suficiente oxígeno para compensar el consumo anual de
SUNY-ESF cerca de 2/3 partes de la población de los U.S. Si bien la producción
Syracuse, NY 13210, U.S. de oxígeno es con frecuencia citada como un beneficio significativo
[email protected] de los árboles, esta bondad es relativamente insignificante y de poco
valor debido a la gran cantidad de oxígeno en la atmósfera. Otros
beneficios del bosque urbano son más críticos para la calidad am-
Résumé. Les forêts urbaines à l’intérieur des États-Unis produ- biental y la salud humana que la producción de oxígeno por los
isent, selon les estimations faites, environ 61 millions de tonnes árboles urbanos.

©2007 International Society of Arboriculture

View publication stats