Carbon Accounting for Compost Use in Urban Areas · scraps (Brown 2016). As the biosolids modeled...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucsu20

Compost Science & Utilization

ISSN: 1065-657X (Print) 2326-2397 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Carbon Accounting for Compost Use in UrbanAreas

Sally Brown & Ned Beecher

To cite this article: Sally Brown & Ned Beecher (2019) Carbon Accounting forCompost Use in Urban Areas, Compost Science & Utilization, 27:4, 227-239, DOI:10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224

Published online: 28 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucsu20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ucsu20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ucsu20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-01-28http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-01-28

Carbon Accounting for Compost Use in Urban Areas

Sally Browna and Ned Beecherb

aSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; bNortheast Biosolids and ResidualsAssociation, Tamworth, New Hampshire

ABSTRACTDeveloping biosolids-based composts or soil blends suitable for use in urban areas isincreasingly common. End uses for compost vary and can include use as a soil conditionerfor existing turf, to establish new turf, for tree planting, in urban agriculture, and for usealong highway right-of-ways. The carbon benefits/costs of biosolids compost were modeledfor King County, Washington. Soil carbon sequestration was highest for use on disturbedsoils such as new housing developments, neglected urban soils, or highway right-of-ways(–1.1Mg CO2eq per Mg compost) and lowest for use in well-tended yards or other highlymaintained landscapes (–0.036Mg CO2eq per Mg compost). Compost use for tree growth,calculated over a 30-year period, added above-ground sequestration benefits ranging from–1.53Mg CO2eq per Mg compost for a mature tree grown on a healthy soil to –4.58MgCO2eq per Mg compost for a newly planted tree grown on a disturbed site. Assuming a20 km haul distance, transport costs ranged from 0.005Mg CO2eq per Mg compost for deliv-ery in a 5Mg truck to 0.09Mg CO2eq per Mg compost for pick up in a personal vehicle.Ecosystem services associated with different end uses for compost in urban areas also vary.This model suggests that while uses for biosolids compost will likely be varied, for a pro-gram as a whole, significant carbon benefits can be expected.

Introduction

Carbon accounting can play a role for municipal-ities when deciding appropriate end use optionsfor municipal biosolids and other organic resid-uals. Previous studies have suggested that com-posting and use of compost will result in netcarbon sequestration (Brown, 2016; Brown,Carpenter, and Beecher 2010; Brown et al. 2011;Cogger 2005; Ryals et al. 2014). Carbon benefitsfrom compost can include methane avoidancefrom landfill diversion as well as soil carbon stor-age. Soil carbon storage credits are often basedon agricultural uses for compost rather than usein urban areas (Brown, 2016; Brown, Carpenter,and Beecher 2010; Brown and Cotton, 2011).Urban uses of compost can differ from use incommercial agriculture, both in type and scale.

There are many uses for compost in urbanareas. These include tree plantings, turf grass,topsoil manufacture, landscape plants, mulches,urban agriculture, highway right-of-ways, andrestoration. Each of these end uses may result in

soil carbon storage. Carbon storage in urban soilscan vary based on a number of factors. These caninclude site history, soil type, management practi-ces, and end use. Many of the benefits associatedwith the use of organic amendments, such ascompost, that have been observed for agriculturewould also be expected for varied uses in urbansettings (Cogger 2005; Khaleel, Reddy, andOvercash 1981). Researchers have seen increasesin soil C over time in urban areas, with a poten-tial to exceed pre-urbanization carbon storage(Bae and Ryu 2015; Golubiewski 2006). As withagricultural use, use of composts in urban areascan offer many ecosystem services in addition tocarbon storage.

The King County biosolids program currentlyproduces a ‘Class B’ biosolids that is used forcommercial forest fertilization and dryland wheatfertilization. The carbon benefits associated withthe dryland wheat program have been well docu-mented and are used in the County’s carbonaccounting program (Brown et al. 2011; Cogger,

CONTACT Sally Brown [email protected] School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucsu.� 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

COMPOST SCIENCE & UTILIZATION2019, VOL. 27, NO. 4, 227–239https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-01-14http://www.tandfonline.com/ucsuhttps://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2019.1674224http://www.tandfonline.com

Bary, Kennedy et al. 2013; King County). TheCounty is currently considering producing a ‘ClassA’ biosolids compost that would be available forgeneral use. Other municipalities have also or arecurrently developing biosolids-based products suit-able for general use (City of Tacoma; DC Water;Metropolitan Water Reclamation District).

A detailed accounting was done for the KingCounty biosolids program to provide a moreaccurate estimate of the carbon balance for com-post use. This was done considering a range ofend uses as well as types of individuals. Whiledone specifically for King County, the results areapplicable to other municipalities.

King County

King County covers a total area of 0.55 millionhectares. As of 2016, 342,000 ha are publiclyowned or in easements. Urban area makes up23% of the total area or 131,000 ha. Rural resi-dential comprises 14% or 31,100 ha, and agricul-tural uses total 6900 ha or 3% of the total landarea. As of 2015, total population in the county is2,053,000. The largest cities are Seattle (662,400),Bellevue (135,000), and Kent (122,900). Majorhighways that run through the county include I-90(84 km), I-405 (48 km), and I-5 (87 km).Additional roadways include US 2, State Route 18,State Route 99, 167, 520, and 522. A total of 1600building permits were issued in the county in 2013including both residential and commercial struc-tures (King County). Seattle added approximately6000 single-family homes that year (USDepartment of Housing Urban Development).

As the largest city in the county, informationon land cover in Seattle can be used as character-istic of urban areas in the county. The tree can-opy cover in Seattle is 28%, of which 72% are onresidential properties and 22% are on right-of-ways. An additional 30% of the city is taken upby roads and streets. A majority of the residencesin Seattle are single-family homes (69%)(Rosenberg 2018) and cover 7700 ha or about50% of the total landmass. Another 19% is occu-pied by utilities, institutions, and commercial andmixed-use structures. Parks and open space con-stitute 9% and vacant land constitutes 9%.

This information suggests a range of potentialend uses for compost, including turf grass (bothestablishment and maintenance), tree establish-ment and maintenance, highway right-of-ways,restoration (including brownfields), and urbanagriculture. Compost can be sold or made availablefor pick up by homeowners or can be delivered indump trucks. Carbon sequestration potential fordifferent end use options were estimated based ona review of the literature. These were then used todevelop different scenarios for carbon balances.

Compost versus biosolids

To compare the carbon benefits for the currentKing County ‘Class B’ biosolids program to onefocused on compost, it is important to considerthe quantity of biosolids in a dry ton of compost.Here, we considered compost feedstocks to con-sist of a 3:1 by volume mixture of yard scraps andmunicipal biosolids. We estimated a 45% solidscontent and a wet bulk density of 470 kg m3 foryard scraps (Andrew Bary, Washington StateUniversity, personal communication). For bio-solids, we considered the density to be equal towater and assumed a solid content of 25%. Thiswould make a feedstock combination that wasabout 30% biosolids on a dry weight basis.Assuming that an equal percentage of the yardscraps and biosolids would decompose (50%) dur-ing composting, the final compost would also be30% biosolids. That means that each ton of fin-ished compost would require 0.6Mg biosolids toproduce. Expressed differently, 1Mg of finishedcompost is the equivalent of 1.67Mg biosolids.The composting process may also have associatedemissions. The EPA WARM model suggests fugi-tive emissions of 0.05Mg CO2eq per wet Mg foodscraps (Brown 2016). As the biosolids modeledare anaerobically digested prior to composting, asignificant portion of the methane generationpotential would be dissipated prior to composting(Brown, Carpenter, and Beecher 2010).

Transportation

For agronomic uses of biosolids, long-haul highcapacity trucks are typically used to transportbiosolids from the wastewater treatment plant to

228 S. BROWN AND N. BEECHER

farms. In the case of King County, trucks withattached trailers can carry approximately 30Mg.The round-trip haul distance to the drylandwheat application site where a majority of thebiosolids are land applied is 650 km. Transport-associated emissions are 0.11Mg CO2eq per dryMg biosolids (Brown, Carpenter, and Beecher2010). Despite the long distance, transport-associ-ated emissions are significantly lower than creditsassociated with fertilizer avoidance and soil car-bon sequestration (Brown, Carpenter, andBeecher 2010; Brown et al. 2011). This is the casein part because of the high tonnage capacity ofthe long-haul vehicle. In the case of urban use ofcompost, transport emissions per Mg of materialare expected to be higher because of lower cap-acity vehicles and a significantly higher numberof trips required for each ton of finished material.For example, about half of the biosolids-basedsoil product made in Tacoma, Washington ispicked up by local residents at the wastewatertreatment plant in their personal vehicles (DanEberhardt, Biosolids Program Manager, Tacoma,Washington, personal communication). Deliveriesto local residents also constitute a significant por-tion of their business, with most orders rangingin size from 0.75m3 to 5m3. Only a small frac-tion of the biosolids products are delivered inlarger-capacity vehicles. For this estimate twotypes of transport were considered: personalvehicle and 5Mg dump truck. The driver of thepersonal vehicle was modeled to drive 20 kmround trip to pick up 50 kg of compost in avehicle that gets 10.6 km L�1 (25mpg). A dumptruck with a 5Mg carrying capacity and fuelmileage of 4.25 km L�1 (10mpg) carrying a fullload for a 20 km round trip haul distance was theother type of transport modeled. This would beexpected to be the type of transport for deliveriesto new home construction, larger scale landscap-ing, community gardens, restoration sites, andhighway right-of-way sites. It would require 120retail customers each purchasing 50 kg dry weightof compost to reach the equivalent tonnage ofone long-haul, Class B biosolids delivery to thedryland wheat site (6 dry Mg assuming 25% sol-ids). These 120 customers would drive a total of2400 km in comparison to the 650 km round triphaul distance to the dryland wheat site.

End uses: Turf and trees

Trees and lawns cover the majority of greenspacein urban areas. As such, use of compost for treesand lawns are likely the two largest potential enduses of composted biosolids in urban areas.Instances of direct comparisons of carbon storageunder turf and trees are lacking, with limitedexceptions (Livesley, McPherson, and Calfapietra2016; Livesley, Ossola et al. 2016). There are anumber of studies of soil carbon sequestrationunder turf and response to compost and biosolidsamendments; but there are fewer studies oftree responses.

Turf

Turfgrass systems comprise the largest land areaof any irrigated crop in the United States, cover-ing 163,800 km2 ± 35,850 km2 (Milesi et al. 2005).Across a range of climate and soil types, carbondensity in older lawns was found to be both highand similar (14.4 ± 1.2 kg C m�2 m�1 depth(Pouyat, Yesilonis, and Nowak 2006). While typesof grasses used may vary, management of lawnsin many cases is relatively consistent across thecountry. With sufficient irrigation/rainfall, grassproductivity and the characteristics of soils underturf may converge over time. A study sampledfront and back lawns at 15 homes across threedifferent soil series outside of Baltimore, MD(Martinez, Bettez, and Groffman 2014). Therewere no significant differences across the lawns,with all the lawns having similar soil organicmatter (SOM) and nitrate concentrations, bulkdensity, and root mass. For that study, rainfallwas sufficient and supplemental irrigation wasnot necessary. In cases where irrigation isrequired to maintain turf, differences are likely tobe observed based on the level of management.Golubiewski (2006) sampled yards in theColorado foothills and classified management aslow, medium, or high based on frequency of irri-gation and fertilization. Additional managementled to significantly greater productivity. But, inthat study, there was no discussion of impacts ofmanagement on soil carbon storage. However,time was a significant factor for soil carbon stor-age, with net soil organic carbon (SOC) in the0–30 cm depth of soil increasing for up to 5

COMPOST SCIENCE & UTILIZATION 229

decades after home construction and change indevelopment. Other authors have associated moreintensive management of urban turf with higherrates of soil C storage (Groffman et al. 2009;Pouyat et al. 2010).

Turf C accumulationStudies have found that soils under turf grassaccumulate C with time. Raciti, Burgin et al.(2011) sampled 32 lawns in the Baltimore areathat were located on similar soils but had differ-ent prior land uses. Forest soils from the samearea and soil were also sampled. Residential soilsstored more carbon than forest soils (6.95 vs.5.44 kg C m�2). There was a linear increase insoil C with time for home lawns that were builton former agricultural soils (0.082 kgC m�2 yr�1). The same response was not seenfor conversion from forest to residential.Scharenbroch, Lloyd, and Johnson-Maynard(2005) measured changes in soil properties insmall urban areas, based on site age. Older resi-dential soils had SOM concentrations of15.7 kg m�2, while new residential propertiesstored 10.6 kg SOM m�2. These results suggestthat soils that are converted from conventionalagriculture to residential use can provide a car-bon sink. They also suggest that, after disturban-ces related to conventional construction practices,soils that are maintained as residential yards willaccumulate organic matter over time.

CO2 fugitive gassesRates of CO2 respiration in urban areas may dif-fer from rates in agricultural or natural areas.Studies in Baltimore found higher rates of CO2emissions in urban forests in comparison to for-ests in rural areas (Groffman et al. 2006, 2009;Pouyat et al. 2010). Studies specifically directedto determine N2O emissions from fertilized lawnshave found very low rates of emissions, typicallyonly associated with wet soils (Martinez, Bettez,and Groffman 2014; Raciti, Groffman et al. 2011).

Fertilizer use for maintenance of lawns is a sig-nificant addition to net carbon emissions. Lawncare firms in Maryland apply N at rates rangingfrom 217 to 289 kg N ha�1 yr�1. Individualhomeowners typically use 65–120 kg N ha�1 yr�1,and golf courses apply 168–239 kg N ha�1 yr�1

(Pouyat et al. 2010). Despite high fertilizer use,two studies, done on relatively fine-textured soils,saw limited N2O emissions from turf (Martinez,Bettez, and Groffman 2014; Raciti, Burginet al. 2011).

Compost and biosolids for turf grassComposts in general, and biosolids-based com-posts specifically, have been shown to be aneffective soil amendment for turf grass establish-ment and fertilization (Linde and Hepner 2005;Loschinkohl and Boehm 2001; Sullivan et al.2003; Tester 1990). Biosolids compost appliedand tilled into a subsoil (topsoil removed tosimulate construction practices) at 5 (270 yd3

acre) and 7.5 cm depths (402 yd3 acre) produceda higher % cover, with denser, greener grass, andfewer weeds than conventional fertilizer (Lindeand Hepner 2005). Similar growth responseswere also seen at lower application rates (1.3 cmincorporated into the 10–15 cm depth)(Loschinkohl and Boehm 2001). These resultssuggest that compost can effectively provide botha growing media and an alternative source of fer-tilization for urban turf.

Some studies have measured persistence ofcompost/biosolids-added C for several years afterinitial applications to turf grasses (Table 1).Tester (1990) added biosolids compost to turf at50, 120, and 240Mg ha�1 in Maryland and foundthat about 50% of the compost-added-Cremained in the soil five years after amendmentaddition. Sullivan et al. (2003) added 155Mgcompost ha�1 in Western WA and found that18% of the added C remained 7 years afteramendment addition. Cogger, Bary, Myhre et al.(2013) measured changes in soil C nine yearsafter biosolids application had ceased. Biosolidshad been applied to a mollisol from 1993 to 2002for cumulative loading rates of 67, 134, and201Mg ha�1. Biosolids had increased soil carbonover both the control and fertilizer treatments inthe final year of annual applications for the0–30 cm depth. This increase had decreased9 years after applications ended, but was still sig-nificant. Nine years after applications had ceased,soil C in the control and fertilizer treatments inthe 0–8 cm horizon measured 27 and 28 g C kg�1

soil. For the 134 and 201Mg biosolids ha�1 soils,


carbon in the same horizon measured 34 and36 g C kg�1 soil. Tian et al. (2008) added bio-solids or yard waste compost to sand for golfcourse greens at a 10% volume/volume rate. Soilswere sampled 5 years after amendments wereadded. The control soils had 1.3 g C kg�1, whilethe compost- and biosolids-amended soils had4.47 and 5.3 g C kg�1, respectively. A range ofreplicated, long-term trials were conducted to testchanges in soil properties and fertilizer availabil-ity as a result of biosolids or compost applicationto turf or landscape plants at the WSU PuyallupResearch Station (Brown et al. 2011, Cogger,Bary, Myhre et al. 2013; Sullivan et al. 2003). Thethree studies involving turf grass tested amend-ments at application rates ranging from 67 to298Mg ha�1. While all showed soil C accumula-tion over time, rates of accumulation in terms ofMg of amendment applied were low, rangingfrom 0.01 to 0.09Mg C Mg�1 amendment. Thestudy of compost application to landscape plantsshowed a similar carbon sequestration efficiency(0.08Mg C Mg�1 amendment).

A number of other studies have examinedchanges in soil carbon following biosolids and/orcompost additions (Table 1). While it is ideal tobase carbon sequestration estimates on studieswith similar soils and end use characteristics asthe likely end use of the material, the followingstudies from outside the King County region arealso pertinent to this estimate. Ippolito et al.(2010) used biosolids compost on semi-arid grass-lands in Colorado. Fourteen years after the com-post application, soil carbon remained elevated inthe compost-amended soils. Wuest and Reardon(2016) tested the carbon sequestration potential ofa range of soil amendments on dryland wheat/fallow in Pendleton, Oregon. Biosolids had thehighest rate of C sequestration (0.39–0.49% of Cadded) of any of the amendments tested. A reviewby Powlson et al. (2012) of amendments and notill agriculture as tools for soil C sequestration inEngland and Wales also found biosolids to be themost effective with 180 ± 24 kg C stored per dryton of amendment applied. The biosolids usedhad been anaerobically digested. The authors notethat composted material would be more likely topersist than untreated material, as the compostingprocess effectively stabilizes a portion of theTa

ble1.

Repo

rted

carbon

benefitsassociated

with

theenduseof

compo

stsandbiosolids.

References

Material

Cumulative

loading(M

gha

–1 )

Locatio

nCrop

Time

Carbon

benefits

Brow

net

al.(2011)

Biosolids

andcompo

sts

67–298

Puyallup,

WA

Turf

8yearspo

stapplication

0.06–0.08MgCMgcompo

st,

0.01–0.09MgCMgbiosolids

Tacoma,WA

Roadside

2yearspo

stapplication

0.35–0.47

Cogg

er,B

ary,Myhre

etal.(2013)

Twotypesof

biosolids

67,1

34,2

01Puyallup,

WA

Turf

Applications

endedin

2002,soil

sampled

in2011

27%

ofaddedCremained

Sullivanet

al.(2003)

Compo

st155

Puyallup,

WA

Turf

Soilsampled

7yearsafter

amendm

entadditio

n18%

ofaddedCremained

Tester

(1990)

Biosolidscompo

st135

Beltsville,M

DTurf

3.66

to14.3mgCg

Tian

etal.(2008)

Biosolids,yard

waste

compo

st10%

vol/vol

Glenview,IL

Turf

Applications

1997,

sampled

2002–2003

1.3Co

ntrol,4.47

compo

st,5

.3biosolids(g

Ckg

soil)

Wuest

and

Reardo

n(2016)

Biosolids,compo

st(wheat

residu

ebased)

250gCm

–2yr–2�

7years

Pend

elton,

OR

Wheat/fallow

Applications

for5yearsending

2006,soilssampled

2011

and2013

gm

2biosolids4219

compo

st3766

check3662,sequestratio

nefficiency

biosolids0.39–0.49,

compo

st0.05–0.11

Ippo

litoet

al.(2010)

Biosolidscompo

st0.

2.5,

5,10,2

1and30

Mgha

–1

FortCo

llins,C

OSemi-arid

grasslands

Sing

leapplicationin

1991,split

plot

second

¼application2002

soil

sampled

2005,lon

gterm

1application,

shortterm

2applications

Long

-term

(%C)

–0¼1.53,1

0¼2.11,

21¼2.48,3

0¼2.63

Short-term

–0¼0.16,1

0¼2.07,

21¼2.77,3

0¼3.58

Powlson

etal.(2012)

Digestedbiosolids

Vario

usrates

England,

Wales

Allcrops

180±24

kgCperdryton

solidsapplied

Detailsof

each

stud

yinclud

ingcumulativeloadingrate,location,

crop

,and

timeareshow

n.


organic matter. A study of soil C sequestrationfollowing biosolids or compost amendment to arange of sites in the State of Washingston sup-ports this (Brown et al. 2011). For both the 0–15and 15–30 cm depths measured, soils amendedwith compost had more carbon stored than soilsamended with biosolids.

As was stated earlier, soils used for agriculturethat are converted to residential use tend tosequester carbon over time. This is likely a conse-quence of moving from tillage to no till manage-ment. It is also potentially the result of moreintensive management, including more frequentirrigation and fertilization. With turf, the switchto mulching mowers, which do not remove bio-mass from the site, also increases carbon inputsand sequestration. A combination of amendmentaddition, conversion to no till, returned biomass,and more intensive management would mostlikely result in greater rates of C accumulationthan that associated with use of amendments in atraditional agricultural setting.

This review of available literature also suggeststhat the carbon sequestration potential for com-posts used for turf will vary based on the condi-tion of the soil, the age and level of establishmentof the turf, and whether compost is used in lieuof fertilizers or along with fertilizers. For olderlawns on soils that have been maintained in turfor converted from forest, sequestration rateswould be lowest. A range of 0.01–0.1Mg C perMg compost would be expected (Brown et al.2011; Cogger, Bary, Myhre et al. 2013; Sullivanet al., 2002, 2003). For newer lawns on recentlydisturbed soils, or soils recently converted fromagriculture, sequestration rates would likely behigher. A value of 0.3Mg C per Mg compostcould be used. This is similar to general seques-tration rates for agriculture (Powlson et al. 2012;Wuest and Reardon 2016). In instances wherethe compost is used as a fertilizer substitute, anadditional credit would be granted based on thetotal or available N and P in the compost.

Trees

There are a limited number of studies that evalu-ate changes in tree growth and soil carbonsequestration as a result of compost addition.

Even fewer studies have evaluated the type ofcompost used and the method of application.Scharenbroch (2009) conducted a meta-analysisof articles published in Arboriculture & UrbanForestry that included use of organic amendmentsfor tree growth in urban areas. Of the 33 pertin-ent papers identified, only 3 used compost as asurface amendment, and 4 used compost as back-fill. The studies included little to no detail on thetype of compost used. The most commonamendment used was surface-applied mulch. Itwas also not specified if backfill was solely to fillplanting holes; however, this appears likely, asthe authors refer to root restrictions to the plant-ing holes. Within these restrictions, the authorconcludes that surface application of compostwas more beneficial than backfill for tree growth.Backfill with compost was associated with somenegative responses in shoot growth. In general,positive responses were noted with general use oforganic materials, most commonly for soil phys-ical properties and tree root and shoot growth.No pertinent information was provided forchanges in soil organic matter concentrations.

A limited number of studies have included aquantitative evaluation of the impact of biosolidsor composts on urban tree growth and soil car-bon. Scharenbroch et al. (2013) tested surfaceapplication of biosolids, biochar, compost, woodchips, compost, and compost tea on three soilsand their impacts on urban tree growth. Thethree soils included a silt loam to represent ahigh-quality soil (bulk density (BD)1.12Mg m�3) and a compacted clay (BD of1.65Mg m�3) and a sand (BD 1.41Mg m�3),both to represent different types of poor urbansoils. Amendments were surface applied as a top-dress at 25Mg ha�1 yr�1. The compost used inthe study provided 215 ± 12 kg ha�1 yr�1 of totalN. The biosolids provided 428 ± 11 kg ha�1 yr�1

of total N. The C:N ratio of the compost and bio-solids were 22 ± 1 and 10 ± 1, respectively. Acrossall soil types and tree species (n¼ 2), the bio-solids amendment significantly increased totaltree biomass (38.3 ± 2.9 g) in comparison to theuntreated (24.9 ± 2.1 g) trees. The compost-amended (30.9 ± 2.3 g) and conventionally fertil-ized (33.8 ± 2.6 g) trees were statistically similar toboth the untreated and biosolids-amended trees.


Biosolids also increased soil carbon in compari-son to the untreated control (3.93 ± 0.4 versus2.99 ± 0.4 kg C m2). The total C in the compost-amended soil (3.79 ± 0.4 kg C m2) was statisticallysimilar to both the biosolids-amended and con-trol treatments.

In a study in New York City, biosolids com-post was added to plots as part of an experimentto test both soil amendment and number anddiversity of tree species on survival and growthof trees (Oldfield et al. 2015). Compost was roto-tilled into the urban soil at a rate of 2.5m3 per100m2 (114Mg ha�1) after soils had been roto-tilled to a depth of 15 cm. All treatments (þ/–compost) received a surface layer (5 cm) of hard-wood mulch. Compost addition increased bothbasal area and stem volume for 3 of the 4 treespecies in the multi-species plots, with observedgrowth increases ranging from 50% to greaterthan 100%. Soil properties after site preparationand compost addition were also measured(Oldfield et al. 2014). One year post application,compost increased microbial biomass and water-holding capacity and decreased pH and bulkdensity. Compost addition did not increase the%C in the soil. In studies where compost hasbeen added to planting holes for landscapeplants, rather than to the soil as a whole, no ben-efits have often been observed (Cogger 2005).

As with turf credits associated with compost,use for trees would vary based on the conditionof the soil, how the compost is used (top-dress orfor planting, incorporated into the soil or usedonly in planting hole). A low-end estimate wouldbe 0.01Mg C per Mg compost, and a high-endestimate would be 0.3Mg C per Mg compost.Fertilizer substitution would provide an add-itional credit in cases where the compost is usedinstead of the added fertilizer. For the currentmodeling, the two studies that focused on treeresponse for urban trees were used as a basis forgrowth response estimates (Oldfield et al. 2015;Scharenbroch et al. 2013). These studies used bio-solids/compost application rates ranging from 25to 114Mg ha�1 and saw growth responses rang-ing from 50% to over 100% in comparison tocontrols. For the current modeling, an applica-tion rate of 60Mg ha�1 compost was used forestimates. Trlica and Brown (2013) estimated tree

growth over a 30-year period on a restored sitein the Pacific Northwest as 100Mg above groundC ha�1. This is equivalent to 183Mg CO2. Withbiosolids/compost addition resulting in a50%–75% increase in biomass, this translates toan additional 50–75Mg C ha�1. For older treeson well-maintained lots, low-end above-groundbiomass increases were modeled (25Mg C ha�1

or 1.53Mg CO2 per Mg compost). For newlyestablished trees on disturbed soils, higher endgrowth responses were modeled (75Mg C ha�1

or 4.6Mg CO2 per Mg compost). It is not clearthat this growth response could be maintainedover time or that urban trees would generate suf-ficient biomass to justify using 100Mg C ha�1 asa base assumption. Both of these estimates arebased on the assumption that tree growth will becomparable in an urban environment to modeledtree growth in the Pacific Northwest. It is quitepossible that trees planted in dense urban envi-ronments such as parking strips will show signifi-cantly less growth than modeled here.

Compost use for right of ways

State Departments of Transportation (DOT) areoften the single largest consumer of compostwithin a state (Batjiaka 2016). Compost is pri-marily used to establish vegetation along road-sides during highway construction and forerosion, storm water, and pollution control. Useof compost reduces bulk density of the roadsidesoils and allows for much faster infiltration ofstorm water. Use of compost has been shown tobe highly effective at limiting erosion caused bystorm water (Faucette et al. 2004; Glanville et al.2004; Persyn et al. 2004). The compost absorbswater more effectively than untreated roadsidesoils and so reduces the amount of runoff anderosion. Reducing the volumes of water anderoded soil limits contaminant loadings fromthese systems. Volume of compost use canbe expressed in terms of centerline miles. TheWashington DOT maintained 7056 centerlinemiles in 2015 (Batjiaka 2016). The State used anannual average of 92,700 cubic yards of compostfrom 2004 to 2010. Almost all use by the DOT isfor new project sites, with reapplication of com-posts occurring only rarely. Compost or biosolids


was tilled into roadside soil in Pierce County,WA at 106, 147, or 150Mg ha�1. Soils weresampled two years after amendment addition.The incorporated biosolids and compostincreased soil carbon at a rate equivalent to 0.47and 0.35Mg C per Mg amendment. Highwayright-of-way soil carbon storage was set at0.42Mg C Mg Compost (Brown et al. 2011).

Compost use for agriculture

Compost can also be used for both large scalecommercial agriculture and urban agriculture(Brown and Cotton 2011; Brown, Chaney, andHettiarachchi 2016; McIvor, Cogger, and Brown2012). Use for commercial agriculture is oftenlimited to high value crops and organic certifiedcrops, as compost tends to be costlier than con-ventional fertilizers. Noncommercial agriculture—including home gardeners and communitygardens—often depend on compost as a way toimprove urban soils and address concerns arepotential contaminants in those soils (Brown,Chaney, and Hettiarachchi 2016; Brown andGoldstein 2016; McIvor, Cogger, and Brown2012). The Tagro biosolids program in Tacomaprovides Tagro potting soil to all community gar-dens free of charge each growing season (McIvorand Brown 2016). This is done as a way to sup-port community gardens. It has also proven to bean effective marketing strategy for their product,with sales increasing annually. McIvor, Cogger,and Brown (2012) added two biosolids basedproducts to plots in three community gardens inTacoma, Washington. Both the biosolids compost(Groco) and the biosolids-based soil product(Tagro) increased total C and N and available Pand decreased bulk density in comparison to thecontrol. Responses were much greater in two ofthe three gardens tested, because they did nothave a history of Tagro or other amendmentapplication. As with turf and trees, a low rate ora high rate of soil sequestration can be usedbased on the history of the soils in question.

Ecosystem services

While not directly within the scope of this mod-eling, each of the modeled end uses would also

provide a range of ecosystem services in additionto carbon sequestration. A recent review of bene-fits of trees in urban areas noted that trees canpositively impact urban heat islands and waterand pollution cycles (Livesley, McPherson, andCalfapietra 2016). The authors note that greeninfrastructure—the general term used for greenspaces in urban areas designed to serve multipleecosystem functions—can reduce the impact ofurban heat islands by evapo-transpirative coolingand by providing shade. Impact will vary basedon tree species, canopy size, and water use pat-terns. In bioretention systems, one study sug-gested that water uptake by trees can account for46%–72% of the total water use in these systems(Scharenbroch, Morgenroth, and Maule 2016). Arecent study on urban agriculture put a globalvalue of the ecosystem services provided byurban vegetation at $33 billion annually (Clintonet al. 2018). These services include food produc-tion, reduced energy use as a result of climateregulation, avoided storm water runoff, andnitrogen sequestration as a result of leguminousplants. Another study provided dollar values forecosystem services in agriculture on a per hectarebasis. These included pollination ($23.87), bio-control ($35.80), climate regulation ($445.88),and soil formation ($577.15) (Costanza et al.2014). Different ecosystem services for the mod-eled end uses of compost are shown in Figure 1.

End use examples

Carbon sequestration associated with compostend use can vary widely based on how the mater-ial is delivered to the end use site and how it isused. Different carbon balances associated withdifferent end uses were calculated (Table 2).

The potential worst-case scenario is use by ahome owner on an older property who comes topick up the compost in his/her personal vehicle.The compost is surface applied to an old estab-lished lawn. The homeowner doesn’t consider thefertilizer value of the compost and adds supple-mental nutrients to maintain his/her grass. Thisend use is very close to carbon neutral (0.054MgCO2eq per Mg compost or 0.03Mg CO2eq perMg biosolids).


The same end use (turf) could also result insignificant credits under a different scenario.Here the owner of a new home in a new develop-ment has compost delivered. The compost isbrought to the site in a dump truck and used asboth a soil conditioner and as fertilizer for thegrass. In this case, transport costs are significantlyreduced because of the larger capacity transportvehicle. There is a significant soil carbon storagecredit as it is a new lawn likely from a disturbedsite (due to construction activities). Finally, noadditional use of fertilizer allows for the fertilizercredit to be granted (–1.19Mg CO2eq per Mgcompost or –0.71Mg CO2eq per Mg biosolids).

Other end uses show the same variability incarbon storage potential. If the compost is pickedup from a retailer or other outlet in a personalvehicle in relatively small quantities (50 kg),transport costs associated with end use become asignificant debit (0.09Mg CO2eq per Mg com-post). But all uses that involve compost deliveryby dump truck (assuming a similar round-triphaul distance) had much lower transport emis-sions (0.005Mg CO2eq per Mg Compost). If thecompost is used on a ‘new’ or disturbed site andno supplemental fertilizers are added, carboncredits for both soil carbon storage (1.1MgCO2eq per Mg compost or –0.66 CO2eq per Mgbiosolids) and fertilizer offset (0.09Mg CO2eq per

Mg compost) are similar for turf, tree growth,and agriculture. Trees provide significant add-itional offsets, particularly on disturbed sites(–4.58Mg CO2eq per Mg compost or –2.74MgCO2eq per Mg biosolids).

In general, use on disturbed soils and use fortree growth showed the highest rates of carbonsequestration. Tree growth adds above-groundbiomass credits ranging from –1.53Mg CO2eq forapplication to a mature tree on a healthy soil to–4.58Mg CO2eq for compost applied to youngtrees grown on disturbed soils. Using all compostfor tree growth on disturbed soils, with deliveryby truck, would ensure significant carbon benefitsfor a compost program. However, a singledirected end use is not typical for urban uses ofcompost. We also calculated the carbon balancefor a range of mixed end uses as would likely betypical for compost available in an urban area(Figure 2). The balance for the examples modeledvaried greatly. The lowest credits modeled were–0.25Mg CO2 Mg compost

�1 (–0.42Mg CO2 Mgbiosolids�1) for individual pick up and use onestablished turf (80%) and established trees(20%). The highest credits modeled were for thesame end uses but with home delivery and onnewly established turf and freshly planted trees(–2.34Mg CO2 Mg compost

�1 or –3.88MgCO2 Mg biosolids

�1). It would be possible to

Figure 1. Carbon benefits and ecosystem services for different end uses of compost in urban areas.


Table2.

Mod

eled

enduses

forcompo

stin

anurbanarea

with

associated

carbon

benefits/costs.

Enduse

Assumptions

Transport

Soilcarbon

Fertilizer

offset

Above

grou

ndbiom

ass

Balanceper

Mgcompo

stBalanceper

Mgbiosolids

MgCO

2eqperMgcompo

st

Dryland

wheat

Currentenduseforamajority

ofthe

King

Coun

tybiosolids

Biosolidsfertilizerconcentrations

of6%

Nand2%

P(Brown,

Carpenter,andBeecher2010;

Brow

net

al.2

011)

0.11

–0.35

–0.28

–0.52

Turf

Hom

eownerwith

establishedlawn

drives

ownvehicleto

pick

upcompo

st.U

sescompo

stas

topd

ress

andadds

additio

nalfertilizer

50kg

load,2

0km

roun

dtrip

distance,

6.4km

L–1 ,soilcarbon

of0.01

Mg

CperMgcompo

st

0.09

–0.036

0.054

0.03

Hom

eowner/developerin

anew

home/commun

ityhascompo

stdelivered

inbu

lkto

establisha

lawnanddo

esno

tuse

supp

lementalfertilizer

Compo

stisdelivered

ina5Mgtruck,

20km

roun

dtrip

distance,

4.25

kmL–

1 ,andsoilcarbon

credit

of0.3MgCperMgcompo

st.

Fertilizeroffset

basedon

1.24%

Nand2.04%

P

0.005

–1.1

–0.09

–1.19

–0.71

Trees

Hom

eownerdrives

ownvehicleto

pick

upcompo

stthat

isused

asa

topd

ress

onamaturetree

50kg

load,2

0km

roun

dtrip

distance,6

.4km

liter

-1,soilcarbo

nof

0.01

MgCperMgcompo

st,

abovegrou

ndbiom

assincrease

of25%

over

controlo

vera30-year

perio

d,compo

stappliedat

60Mg

ha-1

0.09

–0.036

–1.53

–1.66

–0.99

Hom

eowner/developerhascompo

stdelivered

inbu

lk.C

ompo

stis

incorporated

into

existin

gsoilto

establishtrees

Compo

stisdelivered

ina5Mgtruck,

20km

roun

dtrip

distance,

4.25

kmL–

1 ,andsoilcarbon

credit

of0.3MgCperMgcompo

st.

Fertilizeroffset

basedon

1.24%

Nand2.04%

P,abovegrou

ndbiom

assincrease

of100%

over

controlo

vera30-yearperio

d(com

post

appliedat

60Mgha

–1 )

0.005

–1.1

–0.09

–4.58

–5.78

–3.46

Highw

ayCo

mpo

stistilledinto

surfacesoilfor

right-of-way

tocontrole

rosion

andestablishavegetativecover

Compo

stisdelivered

ina5Mgtruck,

20km

roun

dtrip

distance,

4.25

kmL–

1 ,andsoilcarbon

credit

of0.3MgCperMgcompo

st.

Fertilizeroffset

basedon

1.24%

Nand2.04%

P

0.005

–1.1

–0.09

–1.20

–0.72

Agriculture

Hom

eownerwith

establishedlawn

drives

ownvehicleto

pick

upcompo

st.U

sescompo

stto

grow

vegetables

onapo

rtionof

that

lawn

50kg

load,2

0km

roun

dtrip

distance,6

.4km

L–1 ,soilcarbon

of0.01–0.1MgCperMgcompo

st

0.09

–0.036

–0.09

–0.22

–0.13

New

lyestablishedcommun

itygarden

onderelicturbansoil.Co

mpo

stis

delivered

inbu

lk

Compo

stisdelivered

ina5Mgtruck,

20km

roun

dtrip

distance,

4.25

kmL–

1 ,andsoilcarbon

credit

of0.3MgCperMgcompo

st.

Fertilizeroffset

basedon

1.24%

Nand2.04%

P

0.005

–1.1

–0.09

–1.20

–0.72

Results

areexpressedas

MgCO

2perdrytonof

compo

stas

wella

sdrytonof

biosolids.Assumptions

associated

with

each

endusearepresented.


come up with a more precise estimate for anestablished program with known end uses.

Conclusion

These results suggest a conundrum. Making acompost product available for general retail usehas the potential to build awareness of the prod-uct. However, as modeled, retail distributioncould result in only net carbon neutrality to rela-tively modest carbon sequestration. Much moresignificant carbon sequestration is modeled withlarge-scale delivery and targeted end uses such astree planting on disturbed lands or use for high-way right-of-way. In actuality, a compost pro-gram will likely include a broad range of enduses. The Tacoma biosolids program has bio-solids based soil products available for pick up inbulk and in bags at the treatment plant. Theyalso provide delivery of materials in quantitiesover 0.75m3. In 2017, about half of the biosolids

products were picked up at the plant, with theremainder delivered in bulk (Dan Eberhardt, per-sonal communication).

For King County biosolids compost, sequestra-tion across all modeled end uses averages–1.6Mg CO2eq per Mg compost or –0.96MgCO2eq per Mg biosolids. These averages indicategreater sequestration potential than the currentbiosolids end use for dryland wheat fertilization(–0.52Mg CO2eq per Mg biosolids). In fact, allurban uses modeled – except for use on healthysoils for turf or agriculture – result in greater car-bon storage than the predominant current enduse for the King County biosolids. Results of thismodeling suggest that developing a biosolid com-post for local use would result in additional car-bon benefits than those realized from agriculturaluse of the materials with its significant haul dis-tance. While, in this case, this model was com-pleted for King County, it is easily adjusted tomodel carbon benefits/costs associated with com-post use in any urban area.

Funding

This study was supported by Northwest Biosolids andWastewater Treatment Division, King County, WA.

References

Bae, J., and Y. Ryu. 2015. Land use and land cover changesexplain spatial and temporal variations of the soil organiccarbon stocks in a constructed urban park. Landscape andUrban Planning 136:57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.015.

Batjiaka, R. 2016. Compost use by state DOTs. Biocycle 57(9):18.

Brown, S. 2016. Greenhouse gas accounting for landfill diver-sion of food scraps and yard waste. Compost Science &Utilization 24:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2015.1026005

Brown, S., A. Carpenter, and N. Beecher. 2010. Calculatortool for determining greenhouse gas emissions for bio-solids processing and end use. Environmental Science &Technology 44 (24):9509–15. doi: 10.1021/es101210k.

Brown, S., and M. Cotton. 2011. Changes in soil propertiesand carbon content following compost application:Results of on-farm sampling. Compost Science &Utilization 19:88–97.

Brown, S., and N. Goldstein. 2016. The role of organicresiduals in urban agriculture. In Sowing Seeds in theCity: Ecological and Municipal Considerations, ed. S. L.

Figure 2. Carbon balances for different mixed end uses forcompost in urban areas. The carbon balance for biosolids todryland wheat is used as a basis of comparison. Eighty percentturf, 20% highway assumes that half of the compost appliedto turf will be picked up in personal vehicles and applied towell established lawns with the other half delivered to newlyestablished lawns. A similar balance between personal vehiclesand delivery, well established and new lawns/trees was usedfor the 33% turf, 33% trees and 33% highway example.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.015.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.015.https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2015.1026005https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2015.1026005https://doi.org/10.1021/es101210k

Brown, K. McIvor, and E. Snyder, 93–106. Dordrecht,Heidelberg, New York and London: Springer Publishers.

Brown, S., K. Kurtz, A. Bary, and C. Cogger. 2011.Quantifying benefits associated with land application oforganic residuals in Washington State. EnvironmentalScience & Technology 45 (17):7451–8. doi: 10.1021/es2010418.

Brown, S. L., R. L. Chaney, and G. M. Hettiarachchi. 2016.Lead in urban soils: A real or perceived concern forurban agriculture? Journal of Environment Quality 45 (1):26–36. doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.07.0376.

City of Tacoma. Accessed October 13, 2019. https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?objectId=16884.

Clinton, N., M. Stuhlmacher, A. Miles, N. U. Aragon, M.Wagner, M. Georgescu, C. Herwig, and P. Gong. 2018. Aglobal geospatial ecosystem services estimate of urbanagriculture. Earth’s Future 6 (1):40–60. doi: 10.1002/2017EF000536.

Cogger, C. G. 2005. Potential compost benefits for restor-ation of soils disturbed by urban development. CompostScience & Utilization 13 (4):243–51. doi: 10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702248.

Cogger, C. G., A. I. Bary, A. C. Kennedy, and A. M.Fortuna. 2013. Long-term crop and soil response to bio-solids applications in dryland wheat. Journal ofEnvironment Quality 42 (6):1872–80. doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.05.0109.

Cogger, C. G., A. I. Bary, E. A. Myhre, and A. M. Fortuna.2013. Biosolids applications to tall fescue have long-terminfluence on soil nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus.Journal of Environment Quality 42 (2):516–22. doi: 10.2134/jeq2012.0269.

Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J.Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K. Turner.2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.Global Environmental Change 26:152–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

DC Water. Accessed October 13, 2019. http://bloomsoil.com/

Faucette, L. B., L. M. Risse, M. A. Nearing, J. W. Gaskin,and L. T. West. 2004. Runoff, erosion, and nutrient lossesfrom compost and mulch blankets under simulated rain-fall. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59 (4):154–60.

Glanville, T. D., R. A. Persyn, T. L. Richard, J. M. Laflen,and P. M. Dixon. 2004. Environmental effects of applyingcomposted organics to new highway embankments: Part2. Water quality. Transactions of the ASAE 47 (2):471–81.

Golubiewski, N. E. 2006. Urbanization increases grassland car-bon pools: Effects of landscaping in Colorado’s front range.Ecological Application 16 (2):555–71. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016.[0555:UIGCPE]2.0.CO;2]

Groffman, P. M., R. V. Pouyat, M. L. Cadenasso, W. C.Zipperer, K. Szlavecz, I. D. Yesilonis, L. E. Band, andG. S. Brush. 2006. Land use context and natural soil con-trols on plant community composition and soil nitrogenand carbon dynamics in urban and rural forests. Forest

Ecology and Management 236 (2–3):177–92. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.002.

Groffman, P. M., C. O. Williams, R. V. Pouyat, L. E. Band,and I. D. Yesilonis. 2009. Nitrate leaching and nitrousoxide flux in urban forests and grasslands. Journal ofEnvironment Quality 38 (5):1848–60. doi: 10.2134/jeq2008.0521.

Ippolito, J. A., K. A. Barbarick, M. W. Paschke, and R. B.Brobst. 2010. Infrequent composted biosolids applicationsaffect semi-arid grassland soils and vegetation. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 91 (5):1123–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.004.

Khaleel, R., K. R. Reddy, and M. R. Overcash. 1981.Changes in soil physical properties due to organic wasteapplications: A review. Journal of Environment Quality 10(2):133–41. doi: 10.2134/jeq1981.00472425001000020002x.

King County. Accessed October 13, 2019. https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/resource-recovery/loop-biosolids/carbon.aspx.

King County. Accessed October 13, 2019. https://www.king-county.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/about/YearlyStats.aspx.

Linde, D. T., and L. D. Hepner. 2005. Turfgrass seed andsod establishment on soil amended with biosolids com-post. HortTechnology 15 (3):577–83. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0577.

Livesley, S. J., E. G. McPherson, and C. Calfapietra. 2016.The urban forest and ecosystem services: Impact onurban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, streetand city scale. Journal of Environment Quality 45 (1):119–24. doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567.

Livesley, S. J., A. Ossola, C. G. Threlfall, A. K. Hahs, andN. S. G. Williams. 2016. Soil carbon and carbon/nitrogenratio change under tree canopy, tall grass, and turf grassareas of urban green space. Journal of EnvironmentQuality 45 (1):215–23. doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.03.0121.

Loschinkohl, C., and M. J. Boehm. 2001. Composted bio-solids incorporation improves turfgrass establishment ondisturbed urban soil and reduces leaf rust severity.HortScience 36 (4):790–4. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.36.4.790.

Martinez, N. G., N. D. Bettez, and P. M. Groffman. 2014.Sources of variation in home lawn soil nitrogen dynam-ics. Journal of Environment Quality 43 (6):2146–51. doi:10.2134/jeq2014.03.0103.

McIvor, K., and S. Brown. 2016. A case study: Integratingurban agriculture into the municipal infrastructure inTacoma, WA. In Sowing seeds in the city: Ecological andmunicipal considerations, ed. S. L. Brown, K. McIvor, andE. Snyder, 385–400, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New Yorkand London: Springer Publishers.

McIvor, K., C. Cogger, and S. Brown. 2012. Effects of bio-solids based soil products on soil physical and chemicalproperties in urban gardens. Compost Science &Utilization 20 (4):199–206. doi: 10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737049.


https://doi.org/10.1021/es2010418https://doi.org/10.1021/es2010418https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.07.0376https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?objectId=16884https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?objectId=16884https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000536https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000536https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702248https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702248https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.05.0109https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.05.0109https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0269https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0269https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002http://bloomsoil.com/http://bloomsoil.com/https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016.[0555:UIGCPE]2.0.CO;2]https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016.[0555:UIGCPE]2.0.CO;2]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.002https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0521https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0521https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.004https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.004https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1981.00472425001000020002xhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/resource-recovery/loop-biosolids/carbon.aspxhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/resource-recovery/loop-biosolids/carbon.aspxhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/wastewater/resource-recovery/loop-biosolids/carbon.aspxhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/about/YearlyStats.aspxhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/about/YearlyStats.aspxhttps://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/permitting-environmental-review/about/YearlyStats.aspxhttps://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0577https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0577https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.03.0121https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.36.4.790https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.36.4.790https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0103https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737049https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737049

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Chicago.Accessed October 13, 2019. https://mwrd.org/biosolids.

Milesi, C., S. W. Running, C. D. Elvidge, J. B. Dietz, B. T.Tuttle, and R. R. Nemani. 2005. Mapping and modelingthe biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the UnitedStates. Environmental Management 36 (3):426–38. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0316-2.

Oldfield, E. E., A. J. Felson, N. Auyeung, T. W. Crowther,N. F. Sonti, Y. Harada, D. S. Maynard, N. W. Sokol,M. S. Ashton, R. J. Warren II, et al. 2015. Growing theurban forest: Tree performance in response to biotic andabiotic land management. Restoration Ecology 23 (5):707–18. doi: 10.1111/rec.12230.

Oldfield, E. E., A. J. Felson, S. A. Wood, R. A. Hallett, M. S.Strickland, and M. A. Bradford. 2014. Positive effects ofafforestation efforts on the health of urban soils. ForestEcology and Management 313:266–73. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.027.

Persyn, R. A., T. D. Glanville, T. L. Richard, J. M. Laflen,and P. M. Dixon. 2004. Environmental effects of applyingcomposted organics to new highway embankments: Part1. Interrill runoff and erosion. Transactions of the ASAE47 (2):463–9.

Pouyat, R. V., K. Szlavecz, I. D. Yesilonis, P. M. Groffman,and K. Schwarz. 2010. Chemical, physical and biologicalcharacteristics of urban soils. In Agronomy Monograph 55Urban Ecosystem Ecology, ed. J. Aitkenhead-Peterson andA. Volder, 119–52. Madison, WI: American Society ofAgronomy, Crop Science Society of America and SoilScience Society of America.

Pouyat, R. V., I. D. Yesilonis, and D. J. Nowak. 2006.Carbon storage by urban soils in the United States.Journal of Environment Quality 35 (4):1566–75. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0215.

Powlson, D. S., A. Bhogal, B. J. Chambers, K. Coleman,A. J. Macdonald, and K.W.T. Goulding, A. P. Whitmore.2012. The potential to increase soil carbon stocks throughreduced tillage or organic material additions in Englandand Wales: A case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 146:23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.004.

Raciti, S. M., A. J. Burgin, P. M. Groffman, D. N. Lewis,and T. J. Fahey. 2011. Denitrification in suburban lawnsoils. Journal of Environment Quality 40 (6):1932–40. doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0107.

Raciti, S. M., P. M. Groffman, J. C. Jenkins, R. V. Pouyat,T. J. Fahey, S. T. A. Pickett, and M. L. Cadenasso. 2011.Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen in residential soilswith different land use histories. Ecosystems 14 (2):287–97. doi: 10.1007/s10021-010-9409-3.

Rosenberg, M. 2018. Rapidly growing Seattle constrains newhousing through widespread single-family zoning. SeattleTimes. Accessed October 13, 2019. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/

Ryals, R., M. Kaiser, M. S. Torn, A. Asefaw, and W. L.Silver. 2014. Impacts of organic matter amendments oncarbon and nitrogen dynamics in grassland soils. SoilBiology and Biochemistry 68:52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.09.011.

Scharenbroch, B. C. 2009. A meta-analysis of studies pub-lished in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry relating toorganic materials and impacts on soil, tree, and environ-mental properties. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35:221–31.

Scharenbroch, B. C., J. E. Lloyd, and J. L. Johnson-Maynard. 2005. Distinguishing urban soils with physical,chemical, and biological properties. Pedobiologia 49 (4):283–96. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2004.12.002.

Scharenbroch, B. C., E. N. Meza, M. Catania, and K. Fite.2013. Biochar and biosolids increase tree growth andimprove soil quality for urban landscapes. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 42 (5):1372–85. doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.04.0124.

Scharenbroch, B. C., J. Morgenroth, and B. Maule. 2016.Tree species suitability to bioswales and impact on theurban water budget. Journal of Environment Quality 45(1):199–206. doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.01.0060.

Sullivan, D. M., A. I. Bary, T. J. Nartea, E. A. Myrhe, C. G.Cogger, and S. C. Fransen. 2003. Nitrogen availabilityseven years after a high-rate food waste compost applica-tion. Compost Science & Utilization 11 (3):265–75. doi:10.1080/1065657X.2003.10702133.

Sullivan, D. M., A. I. Bary, D. R. Thomas, S. C. Fransen,and C. G. Cogger. 2002. Food waste compost effects onfertilizer nitrogen efficiency, available nitrogen and tallfescue yield. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66(1):154–61. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.0154.

Tester, C. F. 1990. Organic amendment effects on physicaland chemical properties of a sandy soil. Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal 54 (3):827–31. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400030035x.

Tian, G., T. C. Granato, F. D. Dinelli, and A. E. Cox. 2008.Effectiveness of biosolids in enhancing soil microbialpopulations and N mineralization in golf course puttinggreens. Applied Soil Ecology 40 (2):381–6.

Trlica, A., and S. Brown. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissionsand the interrelation of urban and forest sectors inreclaiming one hectare of land in the Pacific Northwest.Environmental Science & Technology 47 (13):7250–9. doi:10.1021/es3033007.

US Department of Housing Urban Development. AccessedOctober 13, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publica-tions/pdf/SeattleWA-comp-17.pdf.

Wuest, S. P., and C. L. Reardon. 2016. Surface and rootinputs produce different carbon/phosphorus ratios in soil.Soil Science Society of America Journal 80 (2):463–71. doi:10.2136/sssaj2015.09.0334.


https://mwrd.org/biosolidshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0316-2https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12230https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.027https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.027https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0215https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0215https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.004https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0107https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9409-3https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.09.011https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.09.011https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2004.12.002https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.04.0124https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.04.0124https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.01.0060https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2003.10702133https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.0154https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400030035xhttps://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1990.03615995005400030035xhttps://doi.org/10.1021/es3033007https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/SeattleWA-comp-17.pdfhttps://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/SeattleWA-comp-17.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.09.0334

AbstractIntroductionKing CountyCompost versus biosolids

TransportationEnd uses: Turf and treesTurf

Turf C accumulationCO2 fugitive gassesCompost and biosolids for turf grassTrees

Compost use for right of waysCompost use for agricultureEcosystem servicesEnd use examplesConclusionReferences

Date post:	30-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Carbon Accounting for Compost Use in Urban Areas · scraps (Brown 2016). As the biosolids modeled...

Documents