12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Ecological Archives A021-034-A1

C. Fissore, L. A. Baker, S. E. Hobbie, J. Y. King, J. P. McFadden, K. C. Nelson, and I.

Jakobsdottir. 2011. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes in household ecosystems
in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota, urban region. Ecological Application
21:619–639.

Appendix A. Computations of carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) fluxes in the household flux
calculator (HFC) model.

The Household Flux Calculator computational tool

The Household Flux Calculator (HFC) is a computational tool we developed to estimate fluxes of C, N, and P
associated with human activities taking place within the household boundaries (sensu Baker et al. 2007). The
following sections describe the information required to run the HFC model and the major sets of assumptions
and computations embedded in the model. As is the HFC, this description is organized into seven components of
household activities (motor vehicle travel, air travel, home energy use, human diet, landscaping, pets, and paper
and plastic) and two sub-components (food waste and waste water) (see also Figure 2 in the text).

The HFC requires the collection of information from households on common activities through survey and direct
measurements. Before entering the HFC model, some preliminary calculations and/or transformations are applied
to obtain basic data in a format that is suitable for use in the HFC. Additional regionally specific data (e.g.,
atmospheric N and P deposition, per capita inputs of city food waste going to landfill) are also necessary, and
details concerning these and preliminary calculations are provided in the following sections. Every component of
the HFC provides estimates of inputs and outputs of elements separately, although for all components except the
landscape, inputs equal outputs.

1. Motor vehicle transportation

Information required from survey:

Make and model (including number of cylinders if possible) for each household motor vehicle
Year of purchase
Odometer reading when purchased
Current odometer reading

Additional data:

Compilation of motor vehicles’ fuel efficiency data (miles per gallon, mpg) based on EPA (2007) average of
highway and city mileage (assumed to be 50%-50%).

Preliminary calculations and transformations:

Estimation of annual distance driven by each vehicle by subtracting the odometer reading when purchased from
the current odometer reading and dividing by number of years owned.

Missing survey data:

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 1/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

If vehicle model was missing we assumed mpg corresponding to the weighted average of models for that make
for a specific year for all survey respondents (from a pool of 4430 vehicles with complete data on make and
year). If both make and model were missing but not the year, we assumed mpg to equal the weighted average
for all models from our database (4430 vehicles) for a specific year. If year of purchase was missing but not
make and model, we assumed mpg to equal the median of mpg for that specific make and model for the years
1985–2008 (Fuel economy guide). If odometer readings were missing, we assumed 20117 km/yr (nominally
12500 miles/yr) (EIA 2008).

HFC calculations:

The HFC estimates the total C emitted by household motor vehicles based on an assumed C content of 2421 g
C gallon gasoline-1 (EPA 2007).

(A.1)

Total C emissions (kg C/yr) = 2.421 × gasoline usage (A.2)

The HFC calculates N emissions by assuming that all NOx is emitted as NO2, and calculations are based on
NOx emissions of 1.39 g NOx/mile for cars and 1.82 g NOx/mile for trucks (EPA 2007). If it was not possible
to determine whether a vehicle was a car or a truck, we assigned NOx emissions values of 1.42 g NOx/mile and
1.55 g NOx/mile for vehicles built between 1923 and 1978 and between 1979 and 2008, respectively. These
values were obtained from the weighted average of NOx emissions between cars and trucks for different years
(we decided to divide vehicles into two groups due to similarity in proportion of cars and trucks for the years
1923–1978 and 1979–2008). Values are then converted into total N emissions for cars (Ncars ) or trucks
(Ntrucks ) (kg /yr) as follows:

Ncars (kg N/yr) = [miles driven/year × 1.39/1000] × (14/46) (A.3)

Ntrucks (kg N/yr) = [miles driven/year × 1.82/1000]× (14/46) (A.4)

In the case of motor vehicle travel, the HFC assumes that inputs of C and N equal outputs, and that fluxes of P
are negligible.

2. Air travel

Information required from homeowners:

Origin and destination of each trip during the previous year

Number of family members on each trip

Additional data:

Air travel C and N emissions in the HFC are based on 2004 National Transportation Statistics data from the
Bureau of Transportation, which provides information for total passenger miles and fuel consumed for both
domestic and international flights in the U.S. for the year 2003 (U.S. Department of Transportation-BTS, 2005;
Table A1). Estimates of CO2 emissions related to fuel consumption in the HFC are based on 2.53 kg CO2/L

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 2/23

 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

(namely 21.2 lb CO2/gallon) (EIA 2005), resulting in 173 g CO2/km for domestic and 154 g CO2/km for
international flights (Table A2).

TABLE A1. Summary of U.S. airline statistics for the year 2003 and calculations of fuel consumption for
domestic and international operations.

Passenger Miles Fuel Consumed (million (gallons fuel passenger-1

(millions) gallons) mile-1)
Domestic Operations 503339 12959 0.0257
International
167662 4836 0.0288
Operations

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation-BTS 2005

The HFC assumes that domestic flights use short and midrange types of aircraft, while international flights are
operated by long-range aircraft. The HFC estimates NOx emissions due to fuel combustion based on data from
Schulte and Schlager (1996) and Schulte et al. (1997) who extrapolated emission data from the comparison
among commonly used aircraft. Resulting estimates for NOx emissions during international flights are based on an
assumed 0.068 L fuel passenger-1km-1 (namely 0.029 gallons fuel passenger-1mile-1) for international flights and
0.060 L fuel passenger-1 km-1 (namely 0.026 gallons fuel passenger-1 mile-1) for domestic flights. Table A2
shows constant emission values used in the HFC for both CO2 and NOx emissions.

TABLE A2. Constant emission values used in the HFC.

CO2 emissions NOx emissions

(g CO2 passenger-1 km-1) (g NOx/kg fuel)

Domestic flights 154 8.7

International flights 173 19.6

Source: Schulte and Schlager (1996); Schulte et al. (1997).

Preliminary calculations and transformations:

The distance of each trip was calculated as the geodesic distance between the origin and destination, using
ArcGIS-ArcMAP (version 9.2.5).

Missing survey data:

If no flight was reported we assumed zero flights.

HFC Calculations:

The HFC calculates passenger CO2 and NOx emissions for each trip, and converted to C and N fluxes using the
appropriate constants from Table A2. Total household C emissions from air travel are the sum of C emissions
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 3/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

from each roundtrip. For each roundtrip CO2 emissions are calculated as:

CO2 (kg) = distance (km) × members on flight × number of trips × CO2 emissions
(A.5)
(g CO2 passenger-1 km-1)

CO2 emissions are converted into kg C by multiplying by 0.27.

For each roundtrip NOx emissions are calculated as:

NOx (kg) = fuel (kg) × NOx emissions (g/kg fuel) (A.6)

NOx emissions are converted into kg N by multiplying by 0.30. Total household N emissions from air travel are
the sum of N emissions from each roundtrip. The HFC assumes that inputs of C and N equal outputs for all air
travel, and that fluxes of P are negligible.

3. Home energy usage

Information required from survey:

Permission to access electricity and natural gas consumption (in units of kWh and Ccf, respectively) from
energy companies
Propane and oil expenditure (in U.S. dollars)
Wood usage (in cords)

Additional data:

The HFC estimates CO2, CH4, and NOx emissions from different sources of home energy use based on EIA
(2002) data (Table A3) and cost of oil and propane (cent/gallon) from EIA (2009). The HFC estimates C
emission from wood combustion based on average dry weight of 1375 kg/cord from 34 tree species commonly
used in the U.S. (De Wald et al. 2005). Carbon content in wood was assumed to be 46% mass (Reich and
Oleskyn, unpublished data). The HFC ignores N and P in wood used for energy.

TABLE A3. Summary of constants used by the HFC to estimate emissions from different home energy sources.

CO2 CH4 NOx

Electricity (kg CO2/kWh) (kg CH4/kWh) (g NOx/kWh)
0.689 0.0071 0.0112
Natural gas (kg CO2/Ccf) (kg N/therm)
5.47 0.001276
Propane (kg CO2/gal)
5.75
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 4/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Oil (kg CO2/gal)

10.17

Source: EIA 2005, 2002; EPA 1995.

Missing survey data:

Absence of oil and propane expenditure was interpreted as no use of these forms of energy.

HFC Calculations:

Since propane and oil consumption were reported in the survey as the household’s total expenditure (in U.S.
dollars), the HFC first divides yearly expenditure by the average cost per unit volume during our study year to
convert into gallons (of oil or propane) per year. All energy consumption reported by the household is then
converted to kg CO2, CH4, and NOx per year using the appropriate constants from Table A3, converted to kg
C and N, and summed to obtain total fluxes from home energy use. In the case of home energy usage, the HFC
assumes that inputs of C and N equal outputs, and that P fluxes are negligible.

4. Human Diet

Information required from survey:

Number of household members

Each household member’s age, gender, height, and weight
Type of diet (meat-based, lacto-ovo vegetarian, or vegan)
Activity level expressed as weekly hours of moderate (general cleaning, gardening, house painting,
carpentry, walking, bicycling) and vigorous activity (carrying heavy loads, running faster than 12 min/mile,
competitive soccer, etc.)
Presence/absence of garbage disposal in household

Additional data and preliminary calculations:

The HFC requires additional external information for diet-based nutrient content and conversion factors to
estimate individuals’ energy requirements. This information is provided in the section “HFC calculations” below
for clarity because it is an integral part of the HFC calculations.

Missing survey data:

If only age was missing in the survey, we assumed the mean age for all survey respondents by gender (2432 men
over 19, 2617 women over 19, 752boys, 731 girls); for missing height and weight we assumed the average of
respondents with similar gender and age (2850 men, 2875 women). For missing age, height, and weight, we
assumed energy requirements based on the average of all respondents of that gender (2850 men, 2875 women).
If the survey was missing information on garbage disposal and composting, we assumed none was present.

HFC Calculations:

The HFC includes in the component Human Diet the food that is strictly consumed for human nutrition, which
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 5/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

varies according to each individual’s energy requirements and type of diet, and food waste (which is not ingested
and used to support human nutrition), which is calculated as a fixed per-capita amount (explicit calculations in the
Food Waste subcomponent). Inputs of food waste are accounted for in the Human Diet component of the
HFC rather than accounted for independently because food waste can be seen as part of the overall amount of
food (some of which directly support human nutrition) that enters the household. Specific calculations of inputs
and outputs fluxes of elements associated with food waste are expressed explicitly in the Food Waste
subcomponent of the HFC.

The HFC calculates each household member’s energy requirements, in calories per day, using the estimated
energy requirement (EER) equations from Otten et al. (2006) based on members’ gender, height, weight, and
activity level, as shown below. These calculations require the following intermediate values to be calculated:

Basal energy expenditure (BEE, in kcal/day)

Physical activity level (PAL, unit-less)
Physical activity coefficients (PA)

TABLE A4. Equations to calculate basal energy expenditure (BEE) according to gender and age.

Basal Energy Expenditure

(kcal/day)
Male over 19 yr 293 – 3.8 × age (yr) + 456.4 × height (m) + 10.12 × weight (kg)
Female over 19 yr 247 – 2.67 × age (yr) + 401.5 × height (m) + 8.6 × weight (kg)
Male 3–18 yr 68 – 43.3 × age (yr) + 712 × height (m) + 19.2 × weight (kg)
Female 3–18 yr 189 – 17.6 × age (yr) + 625 × height (m) + 7.9 × weight (kg)

Source: Otten et al. (2006)

BEE is then used to calculate the household member’s physical activity level (PAL) based on the number of
minutes each day they engage in moderate and vigorous activities (from the survey). PAL from these activities is
added to a baseline of 1.4, corresponding to sedentary life, to compute the total daily PAL.

PAL = 1.4 + PALmoderate + PALvigorous (A.7)

(A.8)

(A.9)

The constant values of 4.8 and 9.3 were obtained from averaging metabolic equivalents (MET) values
corresponding to some common moderate and vigorous physical activities (Table A5). MET inform on the
caloric cost of a range of activities associated with different physical activity levels (PAL). The calculated PAL
values are then used to assign gender and age-related physical activity (PA) values (Table A6) which are in turn
used to calculate the household member’s estimated energy requirement (EER) (Table A7).

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 6/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

TABLE A5. MET values (unit-less) for a suite of moderate and vigorous physical activities.

Typical activity MET

Moderate general cleaning 3.0
gardening 4.0
house painting 4.5
carpentry 3.0
walking 3.8
bicycling 8.0
leisurely swimming 7.0
average 4.8
Vigorous carrying heavy loads 8.0
ditch digging 8.5
running < 12 min/mile 10.0
competitive soccer 10.0
fast bicycling 10.0
average 9.3

Source: Ainsworth et al. 2006.

TABLE A6. Physical activity (PA) coefficients relative to groups of PAL.

Sedentary Low active Active Very active

PAL = 1.0–1.40 1.41 < PAL < 1.59 1.6 < PAL < 1.89 1.9 < PAL < 2.5
Male 3–18 yr 1.00 1.13 1.26 1.42
Female 3–18 yr 1.00 1.16 1.31 1.56
Male > 19 yr 1.00 1.11 1.25 1.48
Female > 19 yr 1.00 1.12 1.27 1.45

Source: modified from Otten et al. 2006.

TABLE A7. Estimate Energy Requirement (EER) equations according to gender and age.

Estimate Energy Requirement

(kcal/day)
Male over 19 yr 662 - (9.53 × age (yr)) + PA × [15.91 × weight (kg) + 539.6 × height (m)]

7/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Female over 19 yr 354 – (6.91 × age (yr)) + PA × [9.36 × weight (kg)+ 726 × height (m)]
Male 9–18 88.5 - (61.9 × age (yr)) + PA × [26.7 × weight (kg) + 903 × height (m)] + 25
Male 3–8 88.5 - (61.9 × age (yr)) + PA × [26.7 × weight (kg) + 903 × height (m)] + 20
Female 9–18 135.3 - (30.8 × age (yr)) + PA × [10.0 × weight, kg + 934 × height (m)] + 25
Female 3–8 135.3 - (30.8 × age (yr)) + PA × [10.0 × weight, kg + 934 × height (m)] + 20
Children 1- 3 yr (89 × weight (kg) – 100) + 39
Babies under 1 (89 × weight (kg) – 100) - 21

Source: modified from Otten et al. 2006.

Element fluxes due to human nutrition depend not only on the amount of food consumed, but also the food’s
nutrient content. The HFC estimates nutrient content in food based on the reported type of diet according to
Table A8 (adapted from Messina and Messina 1996).

TABLE A8. Diet-based nutrient content and caloric and C content of protein, fat, and carbohydrates.

Type of diet Protein Fat Carbohydrates Fiber

(% of total calories) (mg kcal-1 d-1)
Meat-based 16 36 48 5.5
Vegetarian 13 33 53 13
Vegan 11 30.5 58 18
Protein Fat Carbohydrates Fiber
Calorie content (kcal/ g) 4 9 4
C content
0.5 0.765 0.425 0.485
(g C/g)

Note: carbohydrates content was calculated by difference.

Source: modified from Messina and Messina 1996, Klass 2004.

Messina and Messina (1996) report fiber input of 10–12 g/d for meat-based diet, 20–35 g/d for lacto-ovo
vegetarian diet, and 50–65 g/d for vegan diet. We used the mid-points (11, 27, and 37 g fiber/day) and the
average caloric intake reported by the U.S. Continuing Food Survey (2000 calories [i.e., 2000 kcal], average
for adult males and females), to obtain fiber intake in mg kcal-1d-1 as reported in Table A8. The HFC calculates
caloric intake from protein, fat, and carbohydrates by multiplying EER by percent protein, fat, and carbohydrates
from Table A8. These values are then converted into grams of constituents using the conversion factors from
Table A8. The HFC estimates C content in diet derived from food constituent intake by multiplying grams of
constituents by C content values from Table A8. Total daily C input as food for human nutrition is calculated as
the sum of C content in protein, fat, carbohydrates, and fiber. This daily value is then scaled to annual C intake in
kg.

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 8/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Proteins are composed of 16% N, and N intake is calculated in the HFC by multiplying protein intake (g/d) by
0.16 to obtain g N/d. Using dietary values for P intake from Ervine (2004), P consumption was calculated to be
0.3% of total food weight (protein + fat + carbohydrate content (g/d) + fiber (g/d), and scaled to kg P/yr.

The HFC partitions element outputs from human nutrition between respiration and excreta (to wastewater)
(Table A9). The proportion that is food waste (fraction of food that is not consumed for human nutrition) is
discarded to landfill or to wastewater through kitchen garbage disposal (see also section “Food Waste” below)
(Table A9). The HFC assumes that all inputs leave the household system as outputs; hence no fraction of food
intake is stored (e.g. to sustain growth in children).

TABLE A9. Partitioning of outputs of elements in food for human nutrition.

Output source Fraction of food inputs to the household

100% C in protein, fat, carbohydrates in food used for nutrition (excludes
Respiration
food waste)
Wastewater (excreta) 100% C in fiber, 100% N, P in food for nutrition (excludes food waste)
Landfill, Compost, or
Wastewater (via garbage 100% C, N, P in food waste
disposal)

5. Food Waste (subcomponent of HFC, fluxes accounted for in Human Diet component)

Information required from survey:

Number of household members

Presence/absence of garbage disposal
Composting activity

Additional data:

The Food Waste subcomponent of the HFC includes food waste that is produced in the house (residential) plus
food waste produced outside the home, such as restaurants, school cafeterias, and other food preparation or
processing facilities (industrial/commercial/institutional, ICI). The HFC uses regional data from Beck, Inc. (1999)
for the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis to estimate average per capita values of C, N, and P in both
residential and ICI food waste disposed to the landfill.

Preliminary calculations and transformations:

We assume that all ICI food waste is disposed to the landfill, but that some residential food waste is disposed to
wastewater via garbage disposal, and is not included in the available landfill values. The reported landfill values
(Beck, Inc. 1999) for residential food waste therefore represent a weighted average of food waste disposed to
the landfill by households with and without a garbage disposal. From our survey data, we found that 52% of our
households have a garbage disposal. The weighted average per-capita residential food waste disposed to the
landfill (FWlandfill) can be expressed as:

(A.10)
9/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

FWlandfill = (0.48 × FWres ) + (0.52 × (FWres – FWgd ))

where FWres is the total average per-capita residential food waste produced, and FWgd is the per-capita food
waste disposed via garbage disposal. Using values for FWlandfill and FWgd reported by Beck (1999) and
Siegrist et al. (1976), respectively, we solved for FWtot (residential and ICI) for C, N, and P, presented in
Table A10.

TABLE A10. Summary of data used to partition food waste in the HFC.

C N P
Source
(kg capita-1 yr-1)
ICI: 4.87 0.84 0.10 Beck, Inc. 1999
Residential:
FWlandfill 4.45 0.51 0.10 Beck, Inc. 1999
FWgd 2.67 0.96 0.05 Siegrist 1976
Total FWtot 11.99 2.31 0.24

HFC calculations:

The HFC calculates element input fluxes due to food waste by multiplying the number of household members by
the ICI and residential per-capita values in Table A10. The HFC then partitions the food waste outputs between
landfill, wastewater (via garbage disposal), and compost according to the survey responses. All ICI food waste
is assigned to the landfill. Residential food waste is partitioned as follows:

If a household reports that they compost food waste, all residential food waste is assigned to compost,
regardless of the presence or absence of a garbage disposal.
If a household does not compost food waste, and has a garbage disposal, some residential food waste is
assigned to wastewater (using values from Table A10) and the remainder to landfill (Table A11).
If a household does not compost food waste or have a garbage disposal, all residential food waste is
assigned to the landfill (Table A11).

Note that in the HFC, all food waste that does not go to garbage disposal or compost goes to landfill. In
actuality, some of the food waste designated for landfill could go to incinerator, if a municipality is incinerating
garbage.

TABLE A11. Estimated per capita amounts of C, N, and P in food waste being disposed to landfill used in the
HFC. Values represent the sum of both residential and ICI food waste. If respondent reported composting, no
food waste is assumed to contribute to landfill or wastewater (all is composted).

C N P
(kg capita-1 yr-1)
Garbage disposal absent 11.99 2.31 0.24

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 10/23

 Garbage disposal present 9.32 1.35 0.20

6. Wastewater (subcomponent of the HFC)

Information required from survey:

Number of household members

Presence/absence of garbage disposal
Composting activity

Additional data:

Values of C, N, P content in residential grey water (Siegrist et al. 1976)

Estimate of toilet paper C content and per capita use (Kaufman 2005)

Preliminary calculations and transformations (includes Table A12):

Estimates of C content in food fiber from Human Diet component (Section 4)

Missing survey data:

If missing information on presence/absence of garbage disposal or composting activity we assumed none was
present.

HFC calculations:

The HFC uses both survey data and literature-based per capita values to estimate household fluxes of C, N, and
P to wastewater (Table A12). Values of wastewater element fluxes are estimated in the HFC based on
homeowner claims concerning composting and presence or absence of garbage disposal, as indicated in Table
A13. Composting on site translates into no garbage disposal waste to wastewater. These values, summed with
household human excreta from Human Diet component of the HFC, represent total C, N, and P wastewater
fluxes. The HFC budgets the garbage disposal flux of the Wastewater component within the Human Diet
component (as Food Waste) and these values are included in Table A12 only for completeness.

TABLE A12. Sources of elements that contribute to household wastewater.

C N P
Source
(kg capita-1 yr-1)
Human excreta data from Human Diet component of HFC (kg/yr)
Garbage disposal 2.67 0.96 0.05
Other grey water$ 8.88 0.71 0.60

Toilet paper& 1.59

$ Fixed estimate of fluxes of elements to grey water from use of detergents, etc.
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Source: Siegrist et al. 1976

& Fixed estimate.

Source: Kaufman 2009 and internal survey of toilet paper weights (unpublished data)

TABLE A13. Per capita fixed values of C, N, and P in wastewater used in the HFC

C N P
(kg capita-1 yr-1)
No compost, with garbage disposal 13.14 1.67 0.65
No compost, no garbage disposal; or
compost, no garbage disposal; or 10.47 0.71 0.60
compost, with garbage disposal

Note: values exclude human excreta.

7. Pets

Information required from homeowners

Number of household pets (cats and dogs only)

Weight of each pet (kg)

Additional data:

Estimate of dog food nutrient content

Estimate of cat food nutrient content

Preliminary calculations and transformations(includes Table A14):

Estimate of dog metabolic requirements (NRC 1985)

Estimate of dog and cat food intake

Metabolic requirement (in kcal/d) in dogs derived from equations developed by Purina, Corp. (pers comm.)

Metabolic requirement (kcal/d) = 110 (kcal kg-1 d-1) × dog weight (kg)0.75 (A.11)

Dog food nutrient content is derived from a survey of ten major dog food brands (Baker et al. 2007), and results
are summarized in Table A16. Cat food nutrient content is from a major cat food brand (www.iams.com).

TABLE A14. Average nutrient content in dog and cat food from major commercial food brands. Carbohydrate
content was obtained by difference. No metabolic value is associated with fiber because it is not digested. Other
metabolic values are effective values, adjusted for digestion efficiency using values from NRC (1985).

Amount C content Metabolic value

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 12/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Dog food (g/g food) (g C/g food) (kcal/g)

Protein 0.23 0.5 3.5

Fat 0.12 0.765 8.5
Fiber 0.05 0.5 0.0
Carbohydrates 0.43 0.425 3.5
Total 0.414
Amount C content
Cat food
(g/g food) (g C/g food)
Protein 0.33 0.5
Fat 0.15 0.765
Fiber 0.03 0.5
Carbohydrates 0.32 0.425
Total 0.431

Source: Baker et al (2007); NRC 1985; www.iams.com

Values from Table A16 lead to an estimate of 3.33 kcal/g of dog food based on the following equation:

Energy content of dog food (kcal/g food) = [food protein content (g protein/g food) × protein metabolic
value (kcal/g protein)] + [food fat content (g fat/g food) × fat metabolic value (kcal/g fat)] + [food (A.12)
carbohydrate content (g carbohydrate/g food) × carbohydrate metabolic value (kcal/g carbohydrate)]

resulting in an estimated daily dog food consumption of:

(A.13)

Missing survey data:

If pet weight was missing, we assumed average pet weight from the entire sample of all survey respondents
(1282 dogs, 1035 cats). No answer was interpreted as absence of pets in the household.

HFC calculations:

The HFC uses values of daily food consumption (g/d) to estimate C, N, and P inputs to the households as dog
food. From Table A14, 1 g of dog food yields 0.414 g C (from protein, fat, carbohydrates, and fibers). This
value is used in the HFC to calculate daily dog food intake using eq.13, which is then scaled to obtain kg
food/yr.

C content in fiber is estimated as:

13/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Daily fiber C intake (g C/d) = daily food intake (g food/d) × fiber concentration (g fiber/g food) × fiber (A.14)
C concentration (g C/g fiber)

Distinction between non fiber-derived and fiber-derived C is used in the HFC because these two sources of C
exit the household system via different pathways (directly as respiration or indirectly through the landscape
component, respectively) as described below.

Total N input as dog food is estimated assuming 16% N content in protein as:

N (g N/d) = daily food intake (g food/d) × food protein concentration (g protein/g food) × protein N
(A.15)
concentration (g N/g food)

Total P input as dog food is estimated assuming 0.8% P total P concentration derived from a survey of ten major
dog food brands (Baker et al. 2007). Therefore dog food P input is calculated as:

P (g P/d) = daily food intake (g food/d) × food P concentration (g P/g food) (A.16)

Total C, N, and P inputs calculated as g/d are then converted into kg/yr.

Cat food intake is calculated in the HFC according to:

Cat food intake (g food/d) = (cat wt, kg) × 2.25 + 0.97 (A.17)

calculated from a major cat food brand guideline for daily cat nutrition (www.iams.com). Estimates of nutrient
content in cat food are based on reported nutrient content in cat dry food for a major commercial brand (Table
A14). Nitrogen and P inputs as cat food are calculated in the HFC similarly to what was described for dog food
above.

Outputs of elements related to pet nutrition are treated differently in the HFC for dogs and cats. The HFC makes
the following assumptions: (1) all pet-related element inputs equal outputs; (2) all N and P contained in dog urine
is deposited in the household landscape, thus representing an input to the landscape component of the HFC; and
(3) 60% of dog feces are picked up by pet owners while 40% stays on the property (Swann 1999), hence
becoming an input to the landscape component of the HFC. Based on the work of Wood et al. (2004), 15.1%
of all N, 73.5% of all P, and 100% of fiber C from dog food end up in feces, while the remaining N and P is in
urine and all non-fiber C is respired as CO2. Although some of the non-fiber C is excreted in urine, we assume
that this C is respired rapidly after excretion and do not calculate it separately nor consider it as an explicit input
to the landscape. Taken together, 40% of C from fiber, 91% of total N in food, and 56% of total P in dog food
enter and move through the household landscape component before exiting the household system. All C, N, and
P in cat food is assumed to leave the household as landfill waste (N, P, and fiber C) or as respired CO2 (non-
fiber C) without transitioning through the landscape.

8. Landscape

Information required from survey:

Leaf litter management (leaf litter left on site, removed, or a combination of both)
Irrigation practice (lawn irrigated rarely, occasionally, or regularly [i.e., weekly])
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 14/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Grass clippings management (grass clippings left in place, composted on site, or removed)
Whether household members fertilize themselves or hire a lawn care company
Number of fertilization events in previous year (0, 1–2, 3–4, or 5 or more times per growing season); we
assumed that fertilizer only included N, because of a Minnesota statewide law restricting P in lawn fertilizer

Additional data and preliminary calculations and transformations:

Size of landscape in m2 (total pervious surface, estimated as total property area minus building and
driveway area), calculated in ArcGIS using visual tracing of aerial photographs
Local data on wet and dry N and P deposition (N data from Cedar Creek NADP 2008, and P data from
Barr et al. 2004) (Table A15)
Direct on-site assessment of property tree cover (tree species identity; tree diameter at breast height,
height, canopy size, mortality, and coefficient of light exposure for each individual > 2 cm diameter at
breast height) as needed to run UFORE model (Nowak et al. 2008)
Model or allometric equations to estimate C, N, and P uptake and sequestration rates in wood and leaf
biomass. The UFORE model was used to estimate C uptake and sequestration in wood and leaf biomass;
other data on leaf and wood C:N and C:P stoichiometry and longevity were used to estimate N and P
fluxes and storage in leaf and wood biomass
Regional model output for turfgrass net primary productivity (NPP), heterotrophic respiration, and grass
clippings production (Milesi et al. 2005, personal communication) modified to account for different
fertilization and irrigation management regimes (Table A16)
Soil and turfgrass stoichiometric ratios (C:N, C:P) to calculate turfgrass and turfgrass soil N and P fluxes
and storage (Table A17)
N fertilizer application rate of the most commonly used lawn care company among the surveyed
households
Total C, N, and P entering the household as dog food (from Pets component of the HFC)

TABLE A15. Values for sum of wet and dry deposition of N and P (dry N deposition calculated by doubling wet
N deposition rates) used in the HFC.

Atmospheric deposition
Source
(kg ha-1 yr-1)
N 10.8 Cedar Creek NADP, 2008
P 0.247 Barr 1994

We calculated leaf NPP from leaf biomass from UFORE outputs by assuming that annual litterfall = leaf NPP =
leaf biomass/leaf lifespan. For evergreen species, species-specific leaf lifespan was estimated from the GlopNet
database (Wright et al. 2004), which contains extensive trait data for some of the more common species across
different ecosystems. For deciduous species, leaf lifespan was assumed equal to one. Where leaf longevity data
were not available, we used the genus mean of all species for which there were data.

For evergreens:

leaf NPP (kg C tree-1 yr-1) = leaf biomass (kg/tree) × 1/leaf longevity (month) × 12 (months/y) × 0.45 (A.18)
(kg C/kg)
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 15/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

leaf longevity is expressed in months in the GlopNet database and was divided by 12 to obtain per year NPP
values in the HFC. We assume, following Gower et al. (2001), that foliage is 45% C.

For deciduous species:

leaf NPP (kg C tree-1 yr-1) = leaf biomass (kg/tree) × 0.45 (kg C/kg) (A.19)

We estimated leaf N and P concentrations based on species-specific data in GlopNet (Wright et al. 2004).
When data were not available, we assumed N concentration as the genus mean. We accounted for nutrient
resorption to estimate nutrient concentration in senescent leaves (i.e., litter) ([nutrient]sen ) using the equations of
Kobe et al. (2005):

[nutrient]sen = A × ([nutrient]gr)B (A.20)

where [nutrient]gr is nutrient concentration in green leaves from GlopNet, and values for A and B are from Kobe
et al. (2005). Specifically, Kobe et al. (2005) estimated (with 95% confidence limits) A = 0.43 and B = 1.10 for
N and A = 0.51 and B = 1.22 for P, expressed on a mass basis. To convert values for N or P concentration
(mass basis) to kg litterfall N or P household-1 yr-1 (as input to the landscape) we multiplied N or P
concentration (mass basis) by leaf NPP (kg tree-1 yr-1) calculated for each tree as above. We then summed
across all trees in a household’s landscape to determine total N and P inputs to landscapes via litterfall on a
household basis.

We used the UFORE model to estimate UFORE’s term, “gross C sequestration in wood” (equal to net wood C
production). This value was based on tree metrics obtained from the landscape survey for each tree on the
property (Nowak et al. 2008), and wood N and P concentrations were then calculated based on N and P
concentrations in wood from Rodin and Bazilevich (1967) and wood C concentration of 46% mass (Elias and
Potvin 2003). The C, N, and P sequestered in wood for all trees on each property were summed to give
household values for the HFC. Because of lack of necessary information, the model does not estimate the
accumulation of C, N, and P taken up or sequestered in root biomass or belowground stems.

The HFC also calculates lawn NPP, heterotrophic respiration (RH), and grass clipping fluxes based on survey
information concerning irrigation, fertilization, and clipping management practices (Table A16). We used lawn
NPP, RH, and clipping C fluxes from the Biome-BGC ecosystem process model generated by Milesi et al.
(2005, pers. comm.) for Minneapolis, MN and modified as follows. Milesi et al. (2005) estimated NPP, RH,
and clippings production for unmanaged lawns (no irrigation or fertilizer inputs) and well-watered lawns that
received moderate or heavy fertilization (73 kg N ha-1 yr-1 or 146 kg N ha-1 yr-1, respectively) under conditions
where clippings were either removed or left in place. We used their model output to generate response surfaces
for turfgrass fluxes as a function of fertilization rate (separately for clippings removed or left in place). In addition,
since Milesi et al. (2005) did not model different irrigation practices for fertilized lawns, we adjusted their NPP,
RH, and clipping fluxes for fertilized lawns downward based on Ahlgren (1938) when households reported in the
survey that they “rarely/never” or “occasionally” watered. Table A16 summarizes the final suites of equations
used to estimate NPP, RH, and grass clippings based on management practices. We converted survey responses
regarding number of fertilizer applications per year to N input rates (kg N ha-1 yr-1) assuming 48.9 kg N ha-1
application event-1 (i.e., 1 pound N per 1000 square feet as recommended on retail fertilizer packages) and
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 16/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

multiplying by number of events (using the mid-point of the ranges of application event categories, or 5 for the 5
or more response

TABLE A16. Summary of equations used in the HFC to estimate turfgrass NPP, heterotrophic respiration (RH),
and clippings based on management practices. X refers to fertilizer application in kg N ha-1 yr-1.

Flux Clippings
Irrigation regime
(g C m-2 management
(from survey)
yr-1) (from survey)
rarely/never occasionally regularly
NPP = 97 + 0.9849X - NPP = 116.4 + 1.3185X NPP = 135.8 + 2.0384X
NPP left on
0.0022X2 - 0.002X2 - 0.0003X2
NPP = 97 + 0.4237X - NPP = 116.4 + 0.6238X NPP = 135.8 + 1.1342X
removed
0.00008X2 + 0.0004X2 + 0.0021X2
RH = 100 + 0.5628X - RH = 120 + 0.8005X - RH = 140 + 1.3904X +
RH left on
0.0009X2 0.0006X2 0.0007X2
RH = 100 - 0.4957X + RH = 120 - 0.520X + RH = 140 - 0.3356X +
removed
0.0032X2 0.0042X2 0.0057X2
Clippings CL = 26 + 0.3818X - CL = 31.2 + 0.4988X - CL = 36.4 + 0.7315X -
left on
(CL) 0.0009X2 0.0009X2 0.0003X2
CL = 26 + 0.2071X - CL = 31.2 + 0.2817X - CL = 36.4 + 0.4507X +
removed
0.0003X2 0.0002X2 0.0003X2

Missing survey data:

If missing information on leaf management, we assumed that leaf litter was left on site. If missing composting
information, we assumed no composting. If missing fertilizer application information, we assumed no fertilizer was
applied.

HFC calculations:

Carbon

The HFC considers total inputs of C to the landscape as the sum of C inputs from: gasoline used to power lawn
mowers as a fixed value of 1.1 kg C household-1 yr-1 (Christensen et al. 2001), 40% of dog food fiber C (data
from the Pets component of the HFC), and all C in leaf, wood, and grass NPP obtained from the combination of
field measurements, model output, and calculations described in the section above. Because Table A16 provides
values on a per area basis, these are scaled to the landscape area (property size minus buildings and driveways)
in the HFC.

Lawnmower C and dog fiber C outputs equal inputs as they are assumed to leave the household system as CO2.

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 17/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

The HFC uses information from Table A16 to estimate output fluxes of C as heterotrophic respiration (RH). The
HFC considers all C in litterfall to leave the system due to leaf litter decomposition if leaf litter is left on site or
due to export if homeowners claim to dispose of leaf litter off-site. In any case, the HFC considers all C in leaf
litter to leave the system because leaves are assumed to decompose whether they are left on site or exported off
site.

The HFC estimates the C balance in the landscape as the sum of wood C accumulation and grass NPP minus
heterotrophic respiration and grass clipping and leaves removal rates (a positive value indicates C accumulation
in soil; a negative value indicates net C losses from soil; we assume no significant C accumulation in turfgrass
biomass).

Nitrogen

The HFC uses areal values of wet and dry N deposition from Table A15 scaled to the landscape area to
estimate inputs of atmospheric N. As indicated above, the HFC uses survey information concerning the number
of fertilizer application events per year to calculate the mass of N applied on the property annually, assuming
each application occurs at the rate of 48.9 kg N ha-1 application event-1 and that the entire landscape area is
fertilized homogeneously. For those households that rely on lawn care companies to fertilize their lawns, the HFC
applies the value for the most commonly used company among the surveyed households, corresponding to 159
kg N ha-1 yr-1 (TrueGreen®, pers. comm.), scaled to the landscape area. Additional N inputs to the landscape
include dog excreta. Specifically, inputs to the landscape equal 91% of total N in dog food (see Pets component
of the HFC).

The HFC considers outputs of N from the landscape as leaf litter and grass clippings that are removed from the
property. Nitrogen in leaf litter is calculated using values for leaf NPP from the UFORE model and N content in
leaf litter from GlopNet as described previously. N losses in grass clippings are calculated from the Clippings C
flux (Table A16) multiplied by the N:C ratio of turfgrass (Table A17) when grass clippings are reported as
removed.

The difference between landscape inputs and outputs of N includes all N that accumulates in soil and wood as
well as a fraction called “undifferentiated N losses” that includes runoff, leaching, denitrification, volatilization, etc.
Accumulation of N in wood is calculated based on UFORE’s “gross C sequestration in wood” values and the
C:nutrient stoichiometry of wood (Table A17). Soil N accumulation is obtained by applying the turfgrass soil
C:N ratio (Table A17) to the difference between grass NPP and heterotrophic respiration. The “undifferentiated
N losses” value is obtained by subtracting N that accumulates in wood and soil from the difference between total
inputs and outputs of N.

Phosphorus

The HFC uses areal values of wet and dry P deposition from Table A15 scaled to the landscape size to estimate
inputs of atmospheric P. Additional P inputs to the landscape derive from dog excreta, specifically, 56% of total
P contained in dog food.

The difference between inputs and outputs of P to the landscape includes all P that accumulates in soil and wood
as well as a fraction called “undifferentiated P losses” (e.g., runoff). Accumulation of P in wood is calculated
based on stoichiometric measurements (Table A17).

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 18/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Removal of grass clippings and leaf litter constitutes an output of P from the landscape component and is
calculated in the HFC as described for N, above. Soil P accumulation is obtained by applying the turfgrass soil
C:P ratio (Table A19) to the difference between grass NPP and heterotrophic respiration. The HFC estimates
“undifferentiated P losses” by subtracting P that accumulates in wood and soil from the difference between inputs
and outputs of P.

TABLE A17. Summary of element concentrations and stoichiometric ratios for some plant tissues and soils used
in the HFC. .

C% N% P% C : N C : P
Turfgrass 44c 2.4a 0.4b 18.3 110
Turfgrass soil 12d 80e
Wood 46f 0.26g 0.03g 176.9 1533.3

Note: Species-specific tree leaf nutrient concentrations were from the Glopnet database (Wright et al. 2004) and
are not included here.

Sources:a Kopp and Guillard 2002, and McFadden, unpublished data; b Kussow 2004; c Oleskyn and Reich,
unpublished data; d Horgan et al. 2002; e Elliot 1986; f Elias and Potvin 2003; g Rodin and Bazilevich 1967.

9. Paper and Plastic

Information required from homeowners:

Number of household members

Number of daily and weekend newspaper subscriptions
Number of weekly and monthly magazine subscriptions
Percent of household paper being recycled (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)

Additional data:

Estimate of average weight of weekly and monthly magazines (Table A18)

Estimate of average weight of week day (Monday through Saturday) and Sunday newspapers (Table
A18)
Landfill and recycling data from local companies (Table A19)

TABLE A18. Summary of average weight from a survey of weekly and monthly magazines and newspapers used
in the HFC.

Weight per magazine

Type of subscription
or newspaper (g)
Week day (Monday – Saturday) newspaper 257
Sunday newspaper 1047
Weekly magazine 188
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 19/23
12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

Monthly magazine 339

Source: Internal survey by authors.

TABLE A19. Estimates of total household paper (other than magazines and newspapers) and plastic that is sent
to recycling and landfill.

Recycled Landfilled Total

(kg capita-1 yr-1)
Paper 8.5 82.7 91.2
Plastic 3.1 33.0 35.1

Note: Data refer to the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

Source: Eureka Recycling, Minneapolis, MN (pers. comm.) and Beck, Inc. 1999.

Missing survey data:

If missing number of subscriptions, we assumed this value to be zero. If missing information on recycling, we
assumed 0% recycling.

HFC calculations:

Paper

The HFC estimates total C flux from paper (kg C household-1 yr-1) as the sum of C in magazines and newspaper
(which vary among households based on survey responses), and other sources of paper (which is a fixed per
capita value). The HFC estimates the total mass of magazines and newspaper for each household by multiplying
the number of magazines and newspapers subscribed by the average mass for each category, that we determined
by weighing samples of magazines and newspapers, summarized in Table A18. The HFC estimates the
household amount of paper other than magazines and newspapers by multiplying per capita values (Table A19)
by the number of household members. Carbon content in all paper is assumed to be 43% (Tchobanoglous et al
1993, Rowen et al. 2001; Hobbie 2005) and nitrogen and phosphorus content in paper is assumed to be
negligible. The HFC considers inputs and outputs of paper to be equal.

In partitioning the outputs between recycling and landfill, the HFC assigns the per-capita landfilled value (Table
A19) to the landfill regardless of the household’s recycling practices, as not all paper is recyclable. Magazines,
newspapers, and the per-capita recycled values (Table A19) are partitioned between landfill and recycling
according to the household’s recycling practices as reported in the survey.

Plastic

The HFC uses a fixed per capita value for household plastic consumption which is the sum of plastic that goes to
landfill or is recycled (Table A19). Total C flux through the household as plastic is calculated assuming 60% C
content in plastic (Tchobanoglous, 1993); N and P in plastic are assumed to be negligible. The HFC considers

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 20/23

 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

inputs and outputs of plastic to be equal. Because our survey did not ask specifically about plastic recycling
practices, for all households we partition plastic outputs between recycling and landfill according to the values in
Table A19.

Appendix references

Ahlgren, H. L. 1938. Effect of fertilization, cutting treatments, and irrigation on yield of forage and chemical
composition of the rhizomes of Kentucky bluegrass. Agronomy Journal 30:683–691.

Ainsworth, B. E., W. L. Haskell, M. C. Whitt, M. L. Irwin, A. M. Swartz, S. J. Strath, W. L. O'Brien, D. R.

Bassett, Jr., K. H. Schmitz, P. O. Emplaincourt, D. R. Jacob, Jr., and A. S. Leon. 2000. Compendium of
physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
32:S498–S516.

Baker, L. A., P. M. Hartzheim, S. E. Hobbie, J. Y. King, and K. C. Nelson. 2007. Effect of consumption
choices on fluxes of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus through households. Urban Ecosystems 10:97–117.

Barr Engineering. 2004. Minnesota phosphorus study. Conducted for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Beck, Inc. 1999. Municipal solid waste management and its impact on resource conservation and greenhouse
gas emissions. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Christensen, A., R. Weterholm, and J. Almen. 2001. Measurements of regulated and unregulated exhaust
emissions from a lawn mower with and without an oxidizing catalyst: a comparison of two different fuels.
Environmental Science and Technology 35:2166–2170.

De Wald, S., S. Josiah, and B. Erdkamp. 2005. Heating with wood: Producing, harvesting and processing
firewood. University of Nebraska Publ. Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2002. Updated state-level greenhouse gas emission coefficients for
electricity generation. 1998–2000. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA 2005 (Energy Information Administration). Long form for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases-
instructions. Form EIA1605. Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2008. Annual energy review. Report No. DOE/EIA-0384. US
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

Elias, M., and C. Potvin. 2003. Assessing inter- and intra-specific variation in trunk carbon concentration for 32
neotropical tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 33:1039–1045.

Elliot, E. T. 1986. Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in native and cultivated soils. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 50:627–633.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories
and Emission Factors. Fifth Editions. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, vol. 1. Stationery points and
area sources. Chapter 1, External combustion sources, section 1.4

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 21/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel
Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light trucks. Environmental Protection Agency,
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f00013.htm

Ervin, R. B., C. Y. Wang, J. D. Wright, and J. Kennedy-Stephenson. 2004. Dietary Intake of Selected Minerals
for the United States Population: 1999–2000. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics no. 341. National
Center for Health Statistics: Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.

Gower, S. T., O. Krankina, R. J. Olson, M. Apps, S. Linder, and C. Wang. 2001. Net primary production and
carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 11:1395–1411.

Hobbie, S. E. 2005. Contrasting effects of substrate and fertilizer nitrogen on the early stages of litter
decomposition. Ecosystems 8:644–656.

Horgan, B. P., B. E. Branham, and R. L. Mulvaney. 2002. Mass balance of N-15 applied to Kentucky
bluegrass including direct measurement of denitrification. Crop Science 42:1595–1601.

Kaufman, L. 2009. Mr. Whipple Left It Out: Soft Is Rough on Forests. The New York Times, February 17,
2009 NY Edition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html

Klass, D. L. 2004. Biomass for renewable energy and fuels. Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier.

Kobe, R. K., C. A. Lepczyk, and M. Iyer. 2005. Resorption efficiency decreases with increasing green leaf
nutrients in a global data set. Ecology 86:2780–2792.

Kopp, K., and K. Guillard. 2002. Clipping management and nitrogen fertilization of turfgrass: growth, utilization,
and quality. Crop Science 42:1225–1231.

Kussow, W. R. 2004. Should phosphorus be banned from lawn fertilizer? Proceedings of the Wisconsin Crop
Management Conference, Dept. of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

McDonald, M. L., Q. R. Rogers, and J. M. Morris.1984 Nutrition of the domestic cat, a mammalian carnivore.
Annual Reviews of Nutrition 4:521–556.

Messina, V. K., and M. Messina. 1996. The dietician's guide to vegetarian diets: issues and applications.
Second edition. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.

Milesi, C., C. D. Elvidge, J. B. Dietz, B. T. Tuttle, R. N. Ramkrishna, and S. W. Running. 2005. Mapping and
modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management
36:426–438.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2005. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat,
Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, USA.

Nowak, D. J., D. E. Crane, J. C. Stevens, R. E. Hoehn, J. T. Walton, and J. Bond. 2008. A ground-based

www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 22/23

12/14/12 Ecological Archiv es A021-034-A1

method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:347–
358.

NRC (National Academy of Sciences). 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Dogs. Subcommittee on Dog Nutrition,
Committee on Animal Nutrition, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.

Otten, J. J., J. P. Hellwig, and L. D. Meyers. 2006. Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient
Requirements. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Rodin, L. E. and N. I. Bazilevich. 1967. Production and mineral cycling in terrestrial vegetation. Oliver and
Boyd, Edinburgh and London, UK.

Rowen, D. M., C. E. Prescott, and C. M. Preston. 2001. Decomposition and nitrogen mineralization from
biosolids and other organic materials: relationship with initial chemistry. Journal of Environmental Quality
30:1401–1410.

Schulte, P., and H. Schlager. 1996. In-flight measurements of cruise altitude nitric oxide emission indices of
commercial jet aircraft. Geophysical Research Letters 23(2):165–168.

Schulte, P., H. Schlager, H. Ziereis, U. Schumann, S.L. Baughcum, and F. Deidewig. 1997. NOx emission
indices of subsonic long-range jet aircraft at cruise altitude: In situ measurements and predictions. Journal of
Geophysical Research 102(D17):21431–21442.

Siegrist, R., M. Witt, and W. C. Boyle. 1976. Characteristics of rural household wastewater. Journal of
Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE Vol:533–537.

Swann, C. 1999. A Survey of Residential Nutrient Behaviors in the Chesapeake Bay. Widener Burrows, Inc.
Chesapeake Research Consortium. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland, USA. 112 pp.

Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2005. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). National Transportation
Statistics 2004. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 2005.

Wood, C., K. Cummins, C. Williams, and B. Wood. 2004. Impact of diet and age on element excretion from
dogs. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 35:1263–1270.

Wright, I. J., P. B. Reich, M. Westoby, et al. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–
827.

Additional websites of reference

Fuel economy guide. 2009. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Iams pet food nutrition guidelines. Iams, Inc. www.iams.com

[Back to A021-034]
www.esapubs.org/archiv e/appl/A021/034/appendix-A.htm 23/23