Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Green roof ageing or Isolatic Technosol’s pedogenesis?

  • 407 Accesses

  • 5 Citations

Abstract

Purpose

Green roofs (GR) offer a way to improve several ecosystem services in cities. However, the performances of GR are basically considered as steady over time whereas they are living media subject to ageing that are rarely managed by their owners. This study transposes a pedological approach to evaluate changes in GR physical structure and chemical composition over time.

Materials and methods

A full-scale experimental plot with various vegetation cover was studied. A dedicated sampling strategy was implemented to monitor substrate’s evolution over 4 years. Then, physical and chemical characterisation (carbon and nitrogen contents, particle size distribution, porosity, soil water retention) was conducted and compared to results on the original substrate.

Results and discussion

The upper layer of the substrate (0 to 5 cm depth) contained a large amount of fine and short roots whereas the root density was much smaller in the lower layer of the substrate (5 to 10 cm depth). There was a global drop of the organic carbon content from 5 % in the initial substrate to 2 % in the 4-year-old substrate. On the contrary, the nitrogen concentration has increased by 0.4 % during the same period. The mesoporosity decreased drastically from 0.11 to 0.02 cm3 cm−3. On the whole substrate, the <2-mm particles fraction was smaller after 4 years (12.5 %) than in the initial substrate (18.2 %) which was especially obvious in the upper horizon (9.5 %). Additionally, the monitored properties also varied significantly as a function of soil cover (sedum, moss and bare soil). Evidences of an early pedogenesis were highlighted such as poral evolution and fine particles eluviation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the study demonstrated the effects of time, climate and vegetation on physical and chemical properties of green roof substrate. They are not only classified as Isolatic Technosols due to their composition and implementation; they also exhibit one of the major characteristic of young Technosols: a fast and intense pedogenesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Alexandri E, Jones P (2008) Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build Environ 43:480–493

  2. Bouzouidja R, Claverie R, Sere G, Lacroix D (2013) Characterization of the thermo-hydric functioning of in situ green roof. Houille Blanche 5:62–69

  3. Bouzouidja R, Séré G, Claverie R, et al (2016) Green roof ageing: quantifying the impact of substrate evolution on hydraulic performances. Submitt. Ecol. Eng

  4. Bruand A, Cousin I, Nicoullaud B et al (1996) Backscattered electron scanning images of soil porosity for analyzing soil compaction around roots. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:895–901

  5. Carter T, Jackson CR (2007) Vegetated roofs for stormwater management at multiple spatial scales. Landsc Urban Plan 80:84–94

  6. Charzyński P, Hulisz P (2013) Soils forming on the buildings in Torun. In: Charzyński P, Hulisz P, Bednarek R (eds) Technogenic soils of Poland. Polish Society of Soil Science, Toruń, pp 81–94

  7. Charzyński P, Hulisz P, Bednarek R, Piernik A, Winkler M, Chmurzyński M (2015) Edifisols—a new soil unit of technogenic soils. J Soils Sediments 15:1675–1686

  8. Chow E, Meldrum CJ, Crooks R et al (2006) An updated mutation spectrum in an Australian series of PJS patients provides further evidence for only one gene locus. Clin Genet 70:409–414

  9. De-Ville S, Menon M, Stovin V (2015) Using X-ray microtomography to identify physical changes in green roof substrates as a result of ageing. In: the annual postgraduate research student conference. Sheffield, UK, pp 8–13

  10. Emilsson T, Berndtsson JC, Mattsson JE, Rolf K (2007) Effect of using conventional and controlled release fertiliser on nutrient runoff from various vegetated roof systems. Ecol Eng 29:260–271

  11. Folk L (1951) A comparison chart for visual percentage estimation. J Sediment Petrol 21:32–33

  12. Geod’Air (2014) http://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/lessentiel/ar/227/1101/pollution-lair-oxydes-dazote.html

  13. Getter L, Rowe B, Anderson A (2007) Quantifying the effect of slope on extensive green roof stormwater retention. Ecol Eng 31:225–231

  14. Hathaway A, Hunt W, Jennings G (2008) A field study of green roof hydrologic and water quality performance. Trans ASABE 51:37–44

  15. Huot H, Simonnot M-O, Morel JL (2015) Pedogenetic trends in soils formed in technogenic parent materials. Soil Sci 180:182–192

  16. IUSS WG (2014) International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. WRBWorld Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, FAO, Rome

  17. Leguédois S, Séré G, Auclerc A et al (2016) Modelling pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma 262:199–212

  18. MacIvor JS, Lundholm J (2011) Performance evaluation of native plants suited to extensive green roof conditions in a maritime climate. Ecol Eng 37:407–417

  19. Magill AW (1989) Monitoring environmental change with color slides. Gen. Tech.Rep.PSW-117.Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture; 55 pp

  20. Mentens J, Raes D, Hermy M (2006) Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21\textsuperscriptst century? Landsc Urban Plan 77:217–226

  21. Moran, an Hunt WA, Smith J (2005) Green roof hydrologic and water quality performance from two field sites in North Carolina. Manag Watersheds Hum Nat Impacts 1–12. doi: 10.1061/40763(178)99

  22. Nicholson B (2004) CUE building. Horniman Museum: Botanical survey, London

  23. Oberndorfer E, Lundholm J, Bass B, et al (2007) Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological Structures, functions, and services. BioScience 823–833

  24. Peverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ (1999) Soil analysis: an interpretation manual. CSIRO Publishing

  25. Retzlaff W, Ebbs S, Alsup S, et al (2008) Evaluation of the thermal benefits of green roof systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Baltimore, MD, p 12

  26. Schrader S, Boening M (2006) Soil formation on green roofs and its contribution to urban biodiversity with emphasis on Collembolans. Pedobiologia 50:347–356

  27. Schwager J, Schaal L, Simonnot M-O et al (2015) Emission of trace elements and retention of Cu and Zn by mineral and organic materials used in green roofs. J Soils Sediments 15:1789–1801

  28. Séré G, Schwartz C, Ouvrard S et al (2010) Early pedogenic evolution of constructed Technosol. J Soils Sediments 10:1246–1254

  29. Tardieu F, Manichon H (1986) Caractérisation en tant que capteur d’eau de l’enracinement du maïs en parcelle cultivée. Agronomie 6:345–354

  30. Van Seters T, Rocha L, Mac Millan G (2007) Evaluation of the runoff quantity and quality performance of an extensive green roof in Toronto. Minneapolis, MN 2007

  31. Vodyanitskii YN (2015) Organic matter of urban soils. Eurasian Soil Sci 48:802–811

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Geoffroy Séré.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jean Louis Morel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bouzouidja, R., Rousseau, G., Galzin, V. et al. Green roof ageing or Isolatic Technosol’s pedogenesis?. J Soils Sediments 18, 418–425 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1513-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Green roof
  • Isolatic Technosols
  • Pedogenesis
  • Substrate
  • Temporal changes