Elsevier

Science of The Total Environment

Volumes 603–604, 15 December 2017, Pages 340-351
Science of The Total Environment

Drought-avoiding plants with low water use can achieve high rainfall retention without jeopardising survival on green roofs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.061Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Green roof plant selection is a trade-off between retention and drought risk.

  • Rainfall retention and drought stress were modelled over a 30-year climate scenario.

  • Low water-using, drought-avoiders achieved high retention and low drought stress.

Abstract

Green roofs are increasingly being used among the suite of tools designed to reduce the volume of surface water runoff generated by cities. Plants provide the primary mechanism for restoring the rainfall retention capacity of green roofs, but selecting plants with high water use is likely to increase drought stress. Using empirically-derived plant physiological parameters, we used a water balance model to assess the trade-off between rainfall retention and plant drought stress under a 30-year climate scenario. We compared high and low water users with either drought avoidance or drought tolerance strategies. Green roofs with low water-using, drought-avoiding species achieved high rainfall retention (66–81%) without experiencing significant drought stress. Roofs planted with other strategies showed high retention (72–90%), but they also experienced > 50 days of drought stress per year. However, not all species with the same strategy behaved similarly, therefore selecting plants based on water use and drought strategy alone does not guarantee survival in shallow substrates where drought stress can develop quickly. Despite this, it is more likely that green roofs will achieve high rainfall retention with minimal supplementary irrigation if planted with low water users with drought avoidance strategies.

Graphical abstract

Plant water use strategies were compared to assess the trade-off between hydrological performance (rainfall retention) and the number of drought stress days experienced. During a 30-year climate scenario, green roofs with low water-using, drought-avoiding plants achieved high rainfall retention with minimal drought stress. R and P values were derived from correlation analysis.

Image 1
  1. Download : Download high-res image (229KB)
  2. Download : Download full-size image

Introduction

As cities grow, the amount of impervious area generating stormwater increases. For cities with separate wastewater and drainage networks, this results in large volumes of stormwater degrading the ecological value of urban waterways (Walsh et al., 2005). For cities with combined sewer and drainage systems, there are additional health risks associated with the increased frequency of sewer overflows (Passerat et al., 2011). Consequently, water sensitive urban design technologies including swales, constructed wetlands and raingardens are often used to reduce the volume of runoff entering the drainage network. However, options for stormwater control at ground level can be constrained by high competition for space (Berndtsson, 2010). Green roofs have significant potential to contribute to overall runoff reductions, as roofs can represent up to half the effective impervious area in cities (Mentens et al., 2006).

Recent syntheses of green roof hydrological performance suggest that annual rainfall retention varies between ~ 5 and 85% (Cipolla et al., 2016, Elliott et al., 2016, Li and Babcock, 2014). Restoration of natural hydrological processes requires rainfall retention equivalent to pre-urbanisation levels (Burns et al., 2012). Typically, in natural forests and grasslands, around 60–80% of rainfall is lost to evapotranspiration (Zhang et al., 2001). Consequently, if green roofs are to be effective stormwater control measures, they should aim to achieve a similar level of rainfall retention which is at the upper end of that reported in empirical studies.

The substantial observed variation in green roof hydrological performance can in part be explained by climate, where rainfall retention is lower in cities with a high frequency of large rainfall events followed by periods of low evaporative demand (Elliott et al., 2016, Sims et al., 2016, Stovin et al., 2013, Voyde et al., 2010a). However, variation in rainfall retention can also be attributed to green roof configuration, i.e., the combination of retention layers, substrates and plants (Berndtsson, 2010, VanWoert et al., 2005a). Configuration varies by region and climatic zone, but most green roofs typically have a shallow substrate (< 100 mm) with a high hydraulic conductivity to promote drainage, as well as low organic matter content for long-term stability and to prevent the spread of fire (FLL, 2008). Consequently, these substrates have low water availability, such that in hot and dry climates green roofs need to be planted with drought-resistant species which can also survive intense heat and wind exposure (Farrell et al., 2012, Nagase and Dunnett, 2010, Rayner et al., 2016, Savi et al., 2016). Green roof water storage capacity can be manipulated by increasing the depth and water holding capacity of the substrate (Cao et al., 2014, Farrell et al., 2013a, Feitosa and Wilkinson, 2016) any by installing water-retention layers or reservoirs below the substrate (Savi et al., 2013, Simmons et al., 2008). However, these options are often limited by the weight-loading capacity of the roof, particularly in retrofit situations (Castleton et al., 2010). Plant selection is therefore a critical aspect of green roofs designed for stormwater control.

Plants have a major influence on green roof rainfall retention, as evapotranspiration is the main process which restores the storage capacity of the substrate between rain events (Berretta et al., 2014, Poë et al., 2015). Plants with high water use are more likely to create storage between rain events and therefore improve green roof hydrological performance (Poë et al., 2015, Voyde et al., 2010b). However, high water users are also more likely to be exposed to increased drought frequency, intensity and duration, given the limited amount of water stored in shallow substrates (Raimondo et al., 2015, Stovin et al., 2013). Survival during extended periods of drought has therefore been a focus of green roof plant selection in most cities and regions, resulting in a prevalence of succulent species, e.g. Sedum spp. (Rayner et al., 2016). Succulents typically survive drought through inherently low rates of water use, coupled with water storage in leaf tissues, allowing them to maintain water status during extended drought (Durhman et al., 2006, Farrell et al., 2012). The disadvantage is that these species will likely do little to replenish the rainfall storage capacity of green roofs between rain events (Nagase and Dunnett, 2012, Wolf and Lundholm, 2008). Using a habitat template approach to green roof plant selection (Lundholm, 2006), Farrell et al. (2013b) showed that some rock outcrop (shallow soil) species have a combination of seemingly conflicting strategies (high water use and drought resistance). However, it is not known whether such strategies could improve hydrological performance of green roofs without introducing substantial drought stress.

Plants resist periods without water by either avoiding or tolerating drought (Blum, 2005, Levitt, 1972). Drought avoiders, or ‘isohydric’ species, use tight stomatal regulation to rapidly decrease transpiration and therefore maintain their internal water status during drought which comes at the cost of reduced photosynthesis and carbon gain (Tardieu and Simonneau, 1998). In contrast, drought-tolerant, or ‘anisohydric’ species, allow their internal water status to decrease during drought in order to maintain photosynthesis which also increases the risk of ‘hydraulic failure’ of the water transport system (Tardieu and Simonneau, 1998). While these definitions help us to describe different drought response strategies and speculate about their behaviour under certain conditions, in reality species sit on a continuum of iso-anisohydry (Franks et al., 2007, Klein, 2014). Both avoidance and tolerance strategies exist in dry environments and across life-forms (McDowell et al., 2008). The suitability of these strategies for green roofs has received little attention (Raimondo et al., 2015).

On green roofs, drought avoidance versus tolerance is a trade-off between maintaining stomatal conductance in drying substrates to increase available storage for rainfall retention and minimising the risk of severe drought stress (MacIvor et al., 2011, Raimondo et al., 2015). In drought-prone ecosystems, a common drought resistance strategy of plants is to develop extensive root systems which access deep soil moisture (Groom, 2004, West et al., 2012). Such strategies are unlikely to work in green roof systems (Raimondo et al., 2015), where access to water is limited due to free-draining, shallow substrates which dry out rapidly after rainfall (Voyde et al., 2010b). In contrast, plants which avoid drought and maintain high water status at stomatal closure are likely to be the best survivors on green roofs (Raimondo et al., 2015); however if these plants use little water then they will not achieve adequate rainfall reduction.

To select appropriate green roof species for local conditions, we need to understand the potential trade-off between rainfall retention performance and the risk of drought stress experienced by plants. In this study, we used a water balance model based on plant physiological relationships derived from a glasshouse experiment to run a 30-year simulation to determine: (i) which plant strategies are more likely to maximise hydrological performance (rainfall retention) without jeopardising survival, (ii) which plant-based parameters are driving this trade-off and (iii) how the trade-off is affected by climatic parameters.

Section snippets

General description of water balance model

Our water balance model was coded in R, version 3.0.3 (R Core Team, 2014) and the structure follows previous green roof studies (e.g. Stovin et al., 2013, Stovin et al., 2012), according to Eq. (1):dSdt=PRETwhere the change in soil moisture stored in the substrate per unit time (dS/dt) is equal to precipitation (P; mm) minus runoff (R; mm) and evapotranspiration (ET; mm). Previous green roof modelling studies have described the behaviour of such hydrological flux models (Stovin et al., 2013).

Rainfall retention and drought stress

Our modelling indicated that green roofs planted with any plant strategy showed at least 73% rainfall retention (Table 3). All were therefore at least twice as effective compared with a non-vegetated roof with the same depth of substrate (Table 3). Roofs planted with high water users showed 9–14% more rainfall retention and generated 60–90 mm less runoff annually than with low water users. Further, roofs planted with low-water users showed at least twice as many runoff events compared with high

Assessing the trade-off between rainfall retention and plant water stress

Our study suggests that green roofs planted with high water-using species retained > 85% of annual rainfall. Such an outcome is likely to reduce runoff to near pre-development levels in many parts of the world (Burns et al., 2012). Although comparisons with other green roof studies are difficult as they differ vastly in design and intent, annual retention > 85% appears to be higher than most (see Cipolla et al., 2016, Li and Babcock, 2014, Nawaz et al., 2015). This is likely due to the

Conclusions

Our study suggests that planting species with the right combination of water use and drought response strategy can improve the hydrologic performance of green roofs without increasing the risk of plant drought stress. Essential to this is the ability of plants to maintain water status during drought which in our study was achieved by drought-avoiding geophytes, species that have below-ground stores of water and carbon which likely provide the mechanism for survival. In general, green roofs with

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mike Sammonds, Matt Burns and Nick Bond for lending their R coding expertise to help create the water balance model and to Bonnie Glaister for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Grants (LP0990704 and LP140100885), supported by the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne Water, City of Melbourne, and The Committee for Melbourne, City West Water and Nursery and Garden

References (64)

  • A. Nagase et al.

    Drought tolerance in different vegetation types for extensive green roofs: effects of watering and diversity

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2010)
  • A. Nagase et al.

    Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on extensive green roofs: effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2012)
  • R. Nawaz et al.

    Hydrological performance of a full-scale extensive green roof located in a temperate climate

    Ecol. Eng.

    (2015)
  • J. Passerat et al.

    Impact of an intense combined sewer overflow event on the microbiological water quality of the Seine River

    Water Res.

    (2011)
  • S. Poë et al.

    Parameters influencing the regeneration of a green roof's retention capacity via evapotranspiration

    J. Hydrol.

    (2015)
  • J.P. Rayner et al.

    Plant establishment on a green roof under extreme hot and dry conditions: the importance of leaf succulence in plant selection

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2016)
  • M. Razzaghmanesh et al.

    The hydrological behaviour of extensive and intensive green roofs in a dry climate

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2014)
  • T. Savi et al.

    Impact of different green roof layering on plant water status and drought survival

    Ecol. Eng.

    (2013)
  • T. Savi et al.

    Drought versus heat: what's the major constraint on Mediterranean green roof plants?

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • A.W. Sims et al.

    Retention performance of green roofs in three different climate regions

    J. Hydrol.

    (2016)
  • V. Stovin et al.

    The hydrological performance of a green roof test bed under UK climatic conditions

    J. Hydrol.

    (2012)
  • V. Stovin et al.

    A modelling study of long term green roof retention performance

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2013)
  • E. Voyde et al.

    Hydrology of an extensive living roof under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand

    J. Hydrol.

    (2010)
  • D. Wolf et al.

    Water uptake in green roof microcosms: effects of plant species and water availability

    Ecol. Eng.

    (2008)
  • R.G. Allen et al.

    Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements

  • R.D. Berghage et al.

    Quantifying Evaporation and Transpirational Water Losses From Green Roofs and Green Roof Media - Capacity for Nutralising Acid Rain

    (2007)
  • J. Czemiel Berndtsson

    Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: a review

    Ecol. Eng.

    (2010)
  • A. Blum

    Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive?

    Crop Pasture Sci.

    (2005)
  • S.J. Cooke et al.

    Ecological restoration and physiology: an overdue integration

    Bioscience

    (2008)
  • A.K. Durhman et al.

    Effect of watering regimen on chlorophyll fluorescence and growth of selected green roof plant taxa

    Hortscience

    (2006)
  • A.K. Durhman et al.

    Effect of substrate depth on initial growth, coverage, and survival of 25 succulent green roof plant taxa

    Hortscience

    (2007)
  • U. Eggli et al.

    Living under temporarily arid conditions: succulence as an adaptive strategy

    Bradleya

    (2009)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text