ArticlePloS one2026
Carbon budget of common urban tree species in an arid city based on life cycle assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urban trees sequester and store carbon through photosynthesis, while their planting and maintenance processes consume energy and materials, resulting in the release of carbon back into the atmosphere. Therefore, a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous assessment of the net carbon sequestration capacity of landscape trees must account for both carbon uptake and emissions. In this study, three types of urban green spaces-parks, roadsides, and residential areas-were selected as research sites. Based on the life cycle assessment, biomass equation method and emission factor method, the life cycle carbon sequestration and carbon emissions of the main tree species in Shihezi City were calculated. The genotype main effect plus genotype-by-environment interaction (GGE) biplot and Pearson correlation analyses were employed to elucidate species-environment interactions across the three green space types and to identify management strategies for maximizing net carbon sequestration. The main findings were as follows: (1) The mean carbon storage per tree in parks (366.78 kgC tree-1) was significantly higher than that in roadsides (305.59 kgC tree-1) and residential green spaces (236.39 kgC tree-1), with Ulmus pumila exhibiting the highest per-tree carbon storage (595.39 kgC tree-1). (2) The order of carbon emissions in the whole life cycle is: park (461.15 kgC tree-1)> roadside (395.48 kgC tree-1)> residential area (283.65 kgC tree-1). Irrigation is the main emission source, accounting for more than 50% of the total carbon emissions in the whole life cycle. (3) Under current management practices, Ulmus pumila consistently maintained a positive life cycle carbon budget across all green space types, whereas some other large tree species showed positive carbon budgets only in specific green space types and had negative carbon budget in others. All small tree species exerted negative effects on the carbon sequestration function of urban green spaces across all three types of green space. Based on the findings of this study, strategies for low-carbon urban green space construction were proposed through enhancing carbon sequestration and reducing maintenance-related emissions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.