Trees have significant positive environmental impacts in the landscape. Urban foresters have published significant evidence for air quality improvement, carbon sequestration, microclimate modification, storm water mitigation, and reduced requirements for heating and cooling buildings (McPherson and Simpson, 1999; Nowak et al., 2008; Peper et al., 2009). However, processes used during tree production at the farm level can negatively affect environmental impact factors. LCA has been used to determine the carbon footprint or GWP reported as kilogram CO2-equivalent (CO2e) of 5-cm-caliper, field-grown, spade-dug trees (Ingram, 2012, 2013; Ingram and Hall, 2013). Fortunately, when considering the entire life cycle from cradle to grave, trees represent a significant positive contribution to the environment.
Field-grown tree production results in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), which contribute 13.3 (adjusted to 16.5 for a consistent, more inclusive GWP of fuels), 17.1 and 17.1 kg CO2e to the GWP for Acer rubrum (red maple) (Ingram, 2012), Picea pungens (blue spruce) (Ingram, 2013), and Cercis canadensis (redbud) (Ingram and Hall, 2013), respectively, from propagation to the nursery gate. Accounting for carbon sequestration during production, the nursery-gate GWP was reported to be 0.8 (adjusted to 4.1), 8.1, and 6.6 kg CO2e for red maple, blue spruce, and redbud, respectively. Carbon sequestration during a useful life in the landscape reduces atmospheric CO2 during a 100-year assessment period, even when allowing for GHG emissions during takedown and disposal at end of life. The major contributor (71% to 76%) to the GWP during production of field-grown trees was shown to be equipment use or diesel and gasoline consumption (Ingram, 2012, 2013; Ingram and Hall, 2013). Equipment use also contributes significantly to the variable costs of production (Hall and Ingram, 2014).
Previous LCA research on field tree production has only focused on GWP of input products and processes. GHG emissions were calculated for input products embedded in and resulting from processes used in the production system (Ingram, 2012, 2013; Ingram and Hall, 2013). However, these products and process may have other environmental impacts, including ozone depletion, smog, acidification, eutrophication, carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic human toxicity, respiratory effects, ecotoxicity, and fossil fuel depletion [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2008]. These are categorized as midpoint impact potentials with analyses that minimize the amount of forecasting and yield predictable environmental impact suitable for relative comparisons. Endpoint analysis requires estimating specific damage to human health or the environment (i.e., crop damage, skin cancer, cataracts, and immune system suppression) and is characterized by higher levels of uncertainty than midpoint impact potentials (Bare et al., 2003; USEPA, 2008).
Water footprint, expressed in cubic meters of water per functional unit produced, is another calculation that can be performed with the production and process data from LCA analyses. It is not a direct measure of water use or withdrawal from the ecosystem but is a term adjusted for water use or withdrawal on a country or river basin scale. Calculations based on water use instead of water withdrawal may be a more complete and accurate method of measuring WF for agriculture because ≈40% of withdrawals typically flow to local streams and aquifers (Perry, 2007; Shiklomanov, 2000).
Input to WF calculations includes withdrawal or consumption from surface and groundwater flows required by a product or process using a correction factor for the availability and consumption of water in a global region on a monthly basis, defined as the water scarcity indicator (WSI). The WSI also takes into consideration the water requirements for healthy ecosystems in the region in defining available “blue” water as the volume of water that can be consumed without adverse ecological impacts. Blue water is generally characterized as the consumptive use of surface and groundwater flows. “Green” water is considered the direct precipitation that does not run off or recharge the groundwater but is stored in the soil and evaporated from the surface or through the crop. For the lower midwestern region of the United States, the WSI reflects low stress when adjusted by a water use-to-availability ratio for the region (Alcamo et al., 2000; Smakthin et al., 2004). When considered on a monthly basis, there is more WSI stress during the summer months, the time that blue water is added by irrigation to augment available soil moisture. Green water is replenished on an annual basis in this region, and therefore, its use by crops has little impact on the WF. This would not necessarily be true in an arid region or country.
The leading internationally reviewed methods of calculating WF with adjustments for WSI include the Boulay et al. (2011), Hoekstra et al. (2012), and Pfister et al. (2009) methods. The Pfister method is based on a water withdrawal-to-availability ratio. The Hoekstra and Boulay methods use a consumption-to-availability ratio. Average global WF, using the Hoekstra method, for tomatoes and fresh apples were reported as 214 and 822 m3·t−1, respectively (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010b).
The purpose of the research presented here is to assess several midpoint environmental and human impact factors as well as the WF from previously published LCA analyses of tree production models focused on GWP.
Alcamo, J., Henrichs, T. & Rosch, T. 2000 World water in 2025: Global modeling and scenario analysis for the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century. Kassel World Water Ser. Rpt. No. 2
Bare, J. 2011 TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13 687 696
Bare, J.C., Norris, G.A., Pennington, D.W. & McKone, T. 2003 TRACI—The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts J. Ind. Ecol. 6 49 78
Boulay, A.-M., Bulle, C., Bayart, J.-B., Deschenes, L. & Margni, M. 2011 Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: Modeling direct impacts on human health Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 8948 8957
British Standards Institute 2011 PAS 2050:2011: Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institute, London, UK
Cambria, D. & Pierangeli, D. 2011 A life cycle assessment case study for walnut tree (Juglans regia L.) seedlings production Intl. J. Life Cycle Assessment 16 859 868
Ecoinvent Centre 2014 Ecoinvent 3.0. Competence Centre of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/>
Fekete, B.M., Vörösmarty, C.J. & Grabs, W. 2002 High-resolution fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated water balances Global Biogeochem. Cycles 16 1042
Gleick, P.H., Allen, L., Christian-Smith, J., Cohen, M.J., Cooley, H., Heberger, M., Morrison, J., Palaniappan, M. & Schulte, P. 2011 The world’s water. Vol. 7. Island Press, Washington, DC
Hall, C.R. & Ingram, D.L. 2014 Production costs of field-grown Cercis canadensis L. ‘Forest Pansy’ identified during life cycle assessment analysis HortScience 49 1 6
Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., Chapagain, A.K., Mathews, R.E. & Richter, B.D. 2012 Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability PLoS ONE 7 e32688
Ingram, D.L. 2012 Life cycle assessment of a field-grown red maple tree to estimate its carbon footprint components Intl. J. Life Cycle Assessment 17 453 462
Ingram, D.L. 2013 Life cycle assessment to study the carbon footprint of system components for Colorado blue spruce field production and landscape use J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 138 3 11
Ingram, D.L. & Hall, C.R. 2013 Carbon footprint and related production costs of system components of a field-grown Cercis canadensis L. ‘Forest Pansy’ using life cycle assessment J. Environ. Hort. 31 169 176
International Organization for Standardization 2006 Life cycle assessment, requirements and guidelines. ISO Rule 14044:2006. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
McPherson, E.G. & Simpson, J.R. 1999 Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. U.S. Dept. Agr., For. Ser. Pacific Southwest Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt. 171
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010a A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14 1259 1276
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010b The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15 1577 1600
Müller-Wenk, R. 1998 Depletion of abiotic resources weighted on base of ‘virtual’ impacts of lower grade deposits used in future. IWÖ Diskussionsbeitrag No. 57. Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St.Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Nuñez, M., Paranjpe, A., Ariño, J., Castells, X., Montero, J.I. & Rieradevall, J. 2007 Comparing the environmental impacts of greenhouse versus open-field tomato production in the Mediterranean Region Acta Hort. 801 1591 1596
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., Hoehn, R.E., Walton, J.T. & Bond, J. 2008 A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services Arboricult. Urban For. 34 347 358
Peper, P.J., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Vargas, K.E. & Xiao, Q. 2009 Lower midwest community tree guide: Benefits, costs and strategic planning. U.S. Dept. Agr., For. Ser. Pacific Southwest Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt. 219
Pfister, S., Koehler, A. & Hellweg, S. 2009 Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 4098 4104
Smakthin, V., Revenga, C. & Doll, P. 2004 Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Comprehensive Assessment Water Res. Rpt. 2. Intl. Water Management Inst., Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L. & Fixen, P.E. 2009 Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effect Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 133 247 266
U.S. Department of Energy 2014 U.S. life-cycle inventory database. 19 Aug. 2014. <https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008 Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI). 11 Sept. 2014. <http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/std/traci/traci.html>
USEtox 2013 The USEtox model. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://www.usetox.org>
Vyas, A. & Singh, M. 2011 GREET1_2011 (greenhouse gases, related emissions, and energy use in transportation). 19 Aug. 2014. <http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/VISION/>