| Abstrakt: |
An estimated 32,000 golf courses worldwide (approximately 25,600 km2), provide ecosystem goods and services and support an industry contributing over $124 billion globally. Golf courses can impact positively on local biodiversity however their role in the global carbon cycle is not clearly understood. To explore this relationship, the balance between plant–soil system sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions from turf management on golf courses was modelled. Input data were derived from published studies of emissions from agriculture and turfgrass management. Two UK case studies of golf course type were used, a Links course (coastal, medium intensity management, within coastal dune grasses) and a Parkland course (inland, high intensity management, within woodland).Playing surfaces of both golf courses were marginal net sources of greenhouse gas emissions due to maintenance (Links −2.2 ± 0.4 Mg CO2e ha(−1) y(−1); Parkland − 2.0 ± 0.4 Mg CO2e ha(−1) y(−1)). A significant proportion of emissions were from the use of nitrogen fertiliser, especially on tees and greens such that 3% of the golf course area contributed 16% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The area of trees on a golf course was important in determining whole-course emission balance. On the Parkland course, emissions from maintenance were offset by sequestration from turfgrass, and trees which comprised 48% of total area, resulting in a net balance of −5.4 ± 0.9 Mg CO2e ha(−1) y(−1). On the Links course, the proportion of trees was much lower (2%) and sequestration from links grassland resulted in a net balance of −1.6 ± 0.3 Mg CO2e ha(−1) y(−1). Recommendations for golf course management and design include the reduction of nitrogen fertiliser, improved operational efficiency when mowing, the inclusion of appropriate tree-planting and the scaling of component areas to maximise golf course sequestration capacity. The findings are transferrable to the management and design of urban parks and gardens, which range between fairways and greens in intensity of management. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect