Abstract
Cities are considered hotspots of biodiversity due to their high number of habitats such as ruderal areas, wastelands and masonry works hosting peculiar biocoenoses. Urban biodiversity represents a challenging and paradigmatic case for contemporary ecology and nature conservation because a clear distinction between nature reserves and anthropogenic lands is becoming obsolete. In this context, extensive green roofs may represent suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds and wild plants, providing suitable conditions occur. In this paper, case studies are used to show how existing extensive green roofs can be improved in order to make them function as replacement habitat for endangered ground-nesting birds. The setup of an uneven topography, combined with hay spreading and seed sowing, significantly enhanced the reproductive performance of the northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), one of the most endangered ground-nesting birds in Switzerland.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
1.1 Extensive Green Roofs: An Unexpected Space for Wildlife
The rapid urban population growth and the consequent massive urbanisation are stressing our natural life-support system and negatively affecting global biodiversity. However, integrating conservation goals into urban planning might help to reduce this alarming trend and combat habitat loss and fragmentation (Müller and Werner 2010). Studies of species-habitat relationships of birds occurring in areas lost to urbanisation would inspire ecologically informed design. For example, Stagoll et al. (2010) showed the importance of keeping and implementing habitat structural complexity in urban and peri-urban green space (through tree regeneration, the creation of stepping-stone sites, etc.) to support woodland birds.
Green roofs can enhance urban biodiversity by providing suitable habitats for plants and animals, especially for those species which are able to cope with difficult conditions and mobile enough to reach the rooftops (Brenneisen 2003). However, the plant communities growing on green roofs are seldom planted or sown with the specific purpose of supporting biodiversity and plant assemblages and are rarely monitored to see how their composition, structure and functioning change over time (Catalano et al. 2016; Köhler 2006; Ksiazek-Mikenas et al. 2018; Thuring and Grant 2016).
In Switzerland, there are several directives and guidelines which support public administrations (cities, towns, cantons and the Confederation), planners, architects, construction engineers, landscape architects and horticulturalists, in the design and construction of biodiverse green roofs (Brenneisen 2013). Moreover, the building codes of several German-speaking cantons and municipalities explicitly require both new and retrofitted flat roofs to be green. This is for several reasons, as follows: they support and promote plant and animal diversity, reduce the effect of the urban heat island (UHI), regulate water flows, filter pollutants, save energy, represent an aesthetic improvement and increase the longevity of the waterproof layer of the roof by 40 years or more by protecting it (Berardi et al. 2014; Francis and Jensen 2017; Oberndorfer et al. 2007; Partridge and Clark 2018).
From an ecological perspective, urban green roofs can be viewed as green islands embedded in an urban matrix (Blank et al. 2017). In other words, they provide life cycle opportunities for many species and offer therefore a new chance for nature to improve biological diversity in urban areas.
Research carried out by the Research Group of Urban Ecology of the Zurich University of Applied Science (ZHAW) has focused over the last 20 years on the ecological value of green roofs using arthropods as bioindicators (Brenneisen 2003; Pétremand et al. 2018) but also on the identification of key design features which could maximise the ecological value of green roofs (MacIvor et al. 2018). These studies were the origin to what is now more widely known as biodiverse green roofs , characterised by an uneven topography, the use of different substrate types (including topsoil), the use of different mixtures of local seeds or hay spreading/transfer and the creation of additional microhabitats, e.g. deadwood piles, stony areas, sand or gravel bands (Brenneisen 2008; Catalano et al. 2018).
1.2 The Role of Vegetation Patterns on Green Roofs
The plant assemblages of extensive green roofs must be able to withstand water shortages; for this reason, plant species occurring in naturally dry biomes like ephemeral and ruderal habitats, dry grasslands and the seasonally dry margins of rivers may match the ecological conditions of most extensive green roofs (Catalano et al. 2013; Dunnett 2015; Lundholm 2006; Thuring and Grant 2016; Van Mechelen et al. 2013).
As suggested by several authors, it is possible to create a fairly diverse flora on extensive green roofs in inner cities and peri-urban zones as well as in rural areas (Lundholm et al. 2010). Plant diversity can be even higher if various microclimates (especially sunny and shady areas) are created, initial planting or seeding is enhanced and a minimal amount of irrigation and maintenance are provided during establishment (Buckland-Nicks et al. 2016; Lundholm 2015). The water retention capacity of the substrate affects the speed and the final result of roof vegetation dynamics: the higher the retention, the denser the vegetation (Nagase and Dunnett 2012). Of course, rainfall patterns must also be considered. For example, 3–5 years after planting, a roof subject to average Swiss rainfall conditions with a ≥10-cm-thick substrate is likely to support a meadow-like plant community (Nagase and Dunnett 2013). Also, the variability of substrate thickness, particle size and soil type and the percentage of organic matter may strongly influence plant diversity (Chenot et al. 2017; Dunnett et al. 2008).
1.3 The Northern Lapwing: An Emblematic Endangered Ground-Nesting Bird
Globally, more than 700 vertebrate animals are confirmed or presumed to have become extinct since 1500, and the same has happened to around 600 vascular plant species. This confirms that humans have increased the global rate of species extinction by at least tens to hundreds of times faster than before they started to impact planetary ecosystems (Díaz et al. 2019).
The northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus, Fig. 2.1) is a wader bird of the plover family. Native to temperate Eurasia, it is highly migratory over most of its range. It sometimes winters further south in northern Africa and India, whilst lowland breeders in the westernmost areas of Europe are resident (Kooiker and Buckow 1997).
V. vanellus breeds almost exclusively on crop fields and in other low-growing and/or regularly mown or grazed plant communities, such as wet meadows. The first clutch (three to four eggs, Fig. 2.2) is laid in a scrape in the ground. If the first brood is unsuccessful, the adult birds can lay up to seven replacement clutches on a new site or on the same site but several metres away from the first nest. The chicks hatch out after 26–27 days of brooding (Fig. 2.3); they leave the nest early, and after 42 days they are able to fly away. From day one, when they leave the nest, they have to find their food and water by themselves. Food mainly consists of average-sized and not too mobile arthropods, mostly spiders and insects (larvae, nymphs and adults) (https://www.vogelwarte.ch/de/voegel/voegel-der-schweiz/kiebitz, last accessed: 29.05.2020). However, these invertebrate species have been reduced by agricultural intensification (Kooiker and Buckow 1997).
The northern lapwing experienced a significant increase in numbers when it colonised central Switzerland between the 1950s and 1970s. According to the data issuing from last available census (2013–2016), 140–180 pairs of V. vanellus currently occur in Switzerland (Knaus et al. 2018).
Following IUCN criteria, V. vanellus is currently listed as a critically endangered (CR) bird species in the Swiss Red List (https://www.vogelwarte.ch/de/voegel/voegel-der-schweiz/kiebitz, last accessed: 29.05.2020), mainly because of the loss of its primary habitat, i.e. wet meadows, which were drained for agricultural purposes. This led to a rapid decline in its population, even though the species has adapted to colonise new habitats by breeding in crop fields and even on green roofs. For this reason, lapwing is a high-priority species according to several nature conservation European directives and is considered ‘vulnerable’ (BirdLife International 2015) and Spec 1, i.e. European species of global conservation concern (BirdLife International 2017), thus requiring urgent conservation measures.
Unfortunately, the intensification of agriculture and the increase of urban sprawl have led to further declines. However, following observations of northern lapwings using flat green roofs as breeding sites (Baumann 2006), there have been several initiatives in Switzerland to encourage ground-nesting birds, for instance by creating suitable replacement habitats on rooftops (Brenneisen et al. 2010).
1.4 Aims of the Research
In this work, we review and discuss the results obtained in a project that ran from 2006 to 2010, which had the aim of increasing the reproductive success (from egg-laying to fledging) of the northern lapwing on green flat roofs in the central and eastern Swiss Plateau (Baumann 2006). In particular, the project considered whether or not there was a correlation between the increase of plant species diversity, plant biomass and substrate thickness and the habitat use (behaviour) of the young and adult individuals of the northern lapwing. However, what we present is not a replicated and controlled investigation, but an observational study, like the research carried on in the UK on brown roofs (Bates et al. 2013).
2 Material and Methods
The nine green roofs included in the study were located in the suburban and industrial areas of three Swiss cantons: Bern (Schönbühl and Moosseedorf), Zug (Steinhausen, Rotkreuz and Hünenberg) and Lucerne (Emmen) (Table 2.1).
2.1 Roof Shaping and Environmental Improvements
The spatial heterogeneity of five out of the six roofs was changed by adding substrate and shaping topography (eventually creating a patchwork mosaic of open and densely vegetated areas; on all of the nine roofs, small shallow containers of water were added (Table 2.2)). The original substrate of four roofs was amended by adding a 4-cm layer of local recycled commercial substrate for extensive green roofs (blend of bark compost, crushed expanded clay and lava-pumice); on one of the other roofs, 4 cm of topsoil (and seed bank) was added from a nearby organic farm (Figs. 2.4 and 2.5).
Three methods were used to increase the species richness and the plant biomass on the roofs, as follows: laying a 2-cm-thick turf, sowing a commercial mixture of wild seeds (Swiss ecotype) for green roofs and distributing overlapping layers of fresh and/or dry hay sourced from nearby dry grasslands. These techniques were applied separately or combined (Table 2.2).
After hatching, the chicks can survive by feeding on the yolk remains just for 3–4 days after their birth; then they need to find enough water and food on the roof. Thus, in 2008, to prevent the stress due to many consecutive days without rainfall and daily temperatures above 25 °C for the nesting birds and chicks, a rainwater irrigation system and two 9 m2 shallow water containers were installed on each roof. Water availability on the roofs was increased through irrigation to reduce plant stress, to support the survival of soil arthropod fauna and to provide water for both adult and chick lapwings but also, importantly, to create the right conditions to encourage insects, specifically chironomids and other dipterans – an important food source for nidifugous chicks.
2.2 Vegetation Surveys
Before the interventions, the vegetation was surveyed in order to make a census of the lichens, mosses and vascular plants already present on each roof. Both the floristic composition and the cover of the vegetation on the roofs were regularly monitored and qualitatively assessed over 4 years (2006–2010).
2.3 Arthropod Monitoring
The arthropods occurring on two roofs were sampled with ten pitfall traps (plastic cups set into the substrate containing a solution of soap, water and salt) on each roof once the chicks were observed fledging. Sampling was undertaken in 2007 (May–June) on the roof located in Steinhausen and in 2008 (June–July) on one of the roofs located in Emmen. The traps were emptied every two weeks; then the arthropods were counted and sorted to class level, with Carabidae identified to species level (Chinery 1984).
2.4 Bird Monitoring
From 2005 to 2010, the use of the roofs by breeding birds was monitored from the end of March until mid-July. From the time of arrival of the breeding pairs, observations were made weekly for 3 h at the same time of the day with binoculars and telescopes. During the breeding period, observations were made three times per week, and when the chicks hatched, the frequency was further increased to 4 h per day at each site. Observations continued until the chicks died, disappeared or fledged. The replacement broods were assessed using the same method. Many parameters concerning bird occurrence on the roofs were regularly monitored. Foraging behaviour, movement patterns, habitat use and other behavioural activities were recorded, and the results of roof enhancements were taken into account and correlated with bird breeding performance. In order to avoid disturbing the birds, observations were mostly carried out from adjacent buildings with a good vantage point. The high fidelity of northern lapwings to their nesting sites facilitated the planning of field surveys, with a focus on the most successful roofs.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Effects of Roof Enhancements and Plant Species Transfer on Vegetation and Invertebrates
Before the interventions, the roofs supported various vegetation types, which ranged from mosses and lichens on gravel to a more or less continuous cover of mosses and Sedum spp. on very thin and purely mineral substrates, made of a mixture of lava-pumice and expanded clay with almost no water retention. The most species-rich roofs supported Dianthus carthusianorum and grasses, including Arrhenatherum elatius, Holcus lanatus and Lolium perenne.
Our results showed that by using different plant establishment methods or applying them on different parts on the same roof by shaping and varying the topography and the substrate used, a mosaic-like patchwork of vegetation was created. Moreover, the overall length of the flowering season was extended from Spring to Autumn. Since the roofs were not irrigated, plants that can withstand dry periods were favoured.
Plants were able to establish themselves from hay transfer quickly and successfully, probably because the hay mulch prevented the seeds from being blown away or drying out. Consequently, very high vegetation cover rates (90–100%) were recorded on all the studied roofs during the first 2 years after the hay was transferred onto the roof. Additionally, the hay mulch, in comparison with the other plant species transfer techniques (seeding and turfing), significantly improved the seed germination rate, the retention of both rainwater and the maintenance of humidity during the dry season.
Generally, roofs with low plant diversity host very few insects and spiders, which are usually attracted by flowers (Brenneisen 2003). In contrast, the use of hay transfer accelerated the colonisation of arthropods, which represent the main food resource for nesting birds, especially for the chicks. Hence, the increase of both plant species richness and cover facilitated the creation of a rather complex food web, improving the feeding opportunities and the survival rate of young chicks (Partridge and Clark 2018).
Considering the low number of arthropods usually found on green roofs (Schindler et al. 2011), the total amount of spider and insect species recorded after the interventions was remarkable and probably related to the vegetation improvements, which in turn induced a longer flowering season (Table. 2.3). The medium-sized (>5 mm large) arthropods probably represent the best prey for chicks because they provide a higher energy intake.
3.2 Trends of the Northern Lapwing Reproductive Performance on Green Roofs
The proxies reported in Table 2.4 provide some clues to the reproductive performance of V. vanellus on the nine green roofs monitored between 2005 and 2010. Northern lapwings preferred to lay their eggs on a nest built on low-growing plants, instead of moss, gravel or topsoil (Fig. 2.6). Thanks to the improvement of the green roofs and the sharp increase in vegetation cover, a sudden increase of chicks was recorded on many roofs (Fig. 2.7); unfortunately, most of these chicks did not survive, probably because they did not find enough food or water or simply fell off the roof. This could explain the sharp contrast between the numbers of hatchlings and fledglings on the Holz AG (240 m2) and 3M (11000 m2) roofs as well as the high number of replacement clutches. These last two cases suggest that both the roof size and the absence of a parapet to prevent chicks from falling off the roof might have compromised the final success of the intervention (in terms of the total number of fledglings).
Nevertheless, the lessons (from failures) learned from the roofs in 2005 led to technical solutions for the problems by 2009. Ultimately, the two most successful roofs, on the OBI and the ALSO II buildings, were where the first pairs began nesting in 2008, with a total of five chicks being able to fledge in 2010 (Fig. 2.7). Moreover, after the interventions, the chicks recorded on three out the nine roofs experienced an increase in terms of days survived and a decrease on four roofs and remained steady on the other two (Table 2.5).
The improvement of chick performance appears to be linked to the increase of plant species richness and the vegetation cover. Plants attracted spiders and a variety of insects, with many spending their entire life cycle (including larval stages) on the roofs, constituting the basic food resource for the young lapwings, allowing them to fledge 40 days after hatching.
4 Conclusions
Our study shows that it is currently possible and affordable to design and build a green roof of high ecological value providing several ecosystem services. Such green roofs may represent an effective ecological compensation measure, being able to host fully functioning near-natural habitats supporting a diverse flora and fauna. By using a mixture of native annual and perennial herbs, the plant species assemblages created provide an almost continuous vegetation cover and flowering activity from Spring to Autumn, thus combining desirable aesthetic results with a significant increase in animal (arthropods and birds) diversity (Fernández-Cañero and González-Redondo 2010).
In further research, the technical characteristics of the green roofs, including their size and isolation/distance from near-natural habitats (Partridge and Clark 2018), as well as the complex interactions involving the diverse living components of the ecosystems they host, should be more carefully recorded. For example, in order to better fit with the ecological purposes of the intervention, an accurate survey of the initial substrate characteristics should be done. In some cases, data-loggers should be placed on the roofs in order to quantify the daily, monthly and annual variation of several physical parameters such as soil and air humidity and temperature. Moreover, when plant species are transferred by hay and seeds onto green roofs, the local physical features such as aspect, climate (e.g. seasonal and daily thermal range, rainfall seasonality, etc.), the floristic composition of the donor grasslands/meadows, etc., should also be taken into account (Kiehl 2010).
Finally, rigorous, standardised and replicable methods should be adopted to carry out regular monitoring activities, too (Fernández-Cañero and González-Redondo 2010). Vegetation surveys should be carried out before soil and vegetation improvements and be repeated on a regular base (i.e. once a year during the first 3–5 years and every 5 years later on) on standard-sized permanent plots (geo-referenced) in order to obtain reliable and verifiable data on the ongoing trends.
Change history
13 September 2023
A correction has been published.
References
Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Mackay R (2013) Vegetation development over four years on two green roofs in the UK. Urban For Urban Green 12(1):98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.12.003
Baumann N (2006) Ground-nesting birds on green roofs in Switzerland: preliminary observations. Urban Hab 4(1):37–50
Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini AH, GhaffarianHoseini A (2014) State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl Energy 115:411–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.047
BirdLife International (2015) European red list of birds. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxemburg
BirdLife International (2017) European birds of conservation concern: populations, trends and national responsibilities. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
Blank L, Vasl A, Schindler BY, Kadas GJ, Blaustein L (2017) Horizontal and vertical island biogeography of arthropods on green roofs: a review. Urban Ecosyst 20(4):911–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0639-9
Brenneisen S (2003) Ökologisches Ausgleichspotenzial von Extensiven Dachbegrünungen. PhD Thesis, Basel University
Brenneisen S (2008) From pilot to mainstream: green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on greening rooftops for sustainable communities
Brenneisen S (2013) Begrünte Flachdächer, Norm SIA 312. Anthos 3(15):16–18
Brenneisen S, Baumann N, Tausendpfund D (2010) Ökologischer Ausgleich auf dem Dach: Vegetation und bodenbrütende Vögel. Zürcher Hoschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (ZHAW)
Buckland-Nicks M, Heim A, Lundholm J (2016) Spatial environmental heterogeneity affects plant growth and thermal performance on a green roof. Sci Total Environ 553:20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.063
Catalano C, Guarino R, Brenneisen S (2013) A plant sociological approach for extensive green roofs in Mediterranean areas. Cities alive 11th annual green roof and wall conference, San Francisco, 23-26 October, 1–10
Catalano C, Laudicina VA, Badalucco L, Guarino R (2018) Some European green roof norms and guidelines through the lens of biodiversity: Do ecoregions and plant traits also matter? Ecol Eng 115:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.01.006
Catalano C, Marcenò C, Laudicina VA, Guarino R (2016) Thirty years unmanaged green roofs: ecological research and design implications. Landsc Urban Plan 149:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.003
Chenot J, Gaget E, Moinardeau C, Jaunatre R, Buisson E, Dutoit T (2017) Substrate composition and depth affect soil moisture behavior and plant-soil relationship on Mediterranean extensive green roofs. Water 9:817. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9110817
Chinery M (1984) Insekten Mitteleuropas. Ein Taschenbuch für Zoologen und Naturfreunde, Parey
Díaz S, Settele J, Brondizio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura DO, Pfaff A et al (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366(1327):eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3100
Dunnett N (2015) Ruderal green roofs. In: Sutton RK (ed) Green roof ecosystems. Springer, pp 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14983-7_10
Dunnett N, Nagase A, Hallam A (2008) The dynamics of planted and colonising species on a green roof over six growing seasons 2001–2006: influence of substrate depth. Urban Ecosyst 11(4):373–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0042-7
Fernández-Cañero R, González-Redondo PA (2010) Green roofs as a habitat for birds: a review. J Anim Vet Adv 9(15):2041–2052. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.2041.2052
Francis LFM, Jensen MB (2017) Benefits of green roofs: a systematic review of the evidence for three ecosystem services. Urban For Urban Green 28:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.015
Kiehl K (2010) Plant species introduction in ecological restoration: possibilities and limitations. Bas Appl Ecol 11(4):281–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.02.008
Knaus P, Antoniazza S, Wechsler S, Guélat J, Kery M, Strebe IN, Sattler T (2018) Atlante degli Uccelli nidificanti in Svizzera 2013-2016. Distribuzione ed evoluzione degli effettivi degli uccelli in Svizzera e nel Liechtenstein. Stazione Ornitologica Svizzera, Sempach, 648 pp
Köhler M (2006) Long-term vegetation research on two extensive green roofs in Berlin. Urban Hab 4(1):3–26
Kooiker G, Buckow CV (1997) Der Kiebitz: Flugkünstler im offenen Land. Aula
Ksiazek-Mikenas K, Herrmann J, Menke SB, Köhler M (2018) If you build it, will they come? Plant and arthropod diversity on urban green roofs over time. Urban Nat 1:52–72
Lundholm J, MacIvor JS, MacDougall Z, Ranalli M (2010) Plant species and functional group combinations affect green roof ecosystem functions. PLoS One 5(3):e9677. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009677
Lundholm JT (2006) Green roofs and facades: a habitat template approach. Urban Hab 4(1):87–101
Lundholm JT (2015) Green roof plant species diversity improves ecosystem multifunctionality. J Appl Ecol 52:726–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12425
MacIvor JS, Starry O, Brenneisen S, Baumann N, Grant G, Kadas G, Köhler M, Lundholm JT (2018) Introduction: “Looking up” to green roofs to understand urban biodiversity – a decade on. Urban Nat 1:ii–viii
Müller N, Werner P (2010) Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the convention on biological diversity in towns and cities. In: Müller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp 3–33
Nagase A, Dunnett N (2012) Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on extensive green roofs: effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure. Landsc Urban Plan 104(3–4):356–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.001
Nagase A, Dunnett N (2013) Establishment of an annual meadow on extensive green roofs in the UK. Landsc Urban Plan 112(1):50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.007
Oberndorfer E, Lundholm J, Bass B, Coffman RR, Doshi H, Dunnett N, Gaffin S, Köhler M, Liu KK, Rowe B (2007) Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions, and services. Arch Sci Publ Res 57(10):823–833. http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/arch/1
Partridge DR, Clark JA (2018) Urban green roofs provide habitat for migrating and breeding birds and their arthropod prey. PLoS One 13(8):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202298
Pétremand G, Chittaro Y, Braaker S, Brenneisen S, Gerner M, Obrist MK, Rochefort S, Szallies A, Moretti M (2018) Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities on green roofs in Switzerland: synthesis and perspectives. Urban Ecosyst 21(1):119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0697-7
Schindler BY, Griffith AB, Jones KN (2011) Factors influencing arthropod diversity on green roofs. Cities Environ 4(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.15365/cate.4152011
Stagoll K, Manning AD, Knight E, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2010) Using bird-habitat relationships to inform urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 98(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.006
Thuring C, Grant G (2016) The biodiversity of temperate extensive green roofs – a review of research and practice. Israel J Ecol Evol 62:44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15659801.2015.1091190
Van Mechelen C, Dutoit T, Hermy M (2013) Mediterranean open habitat vegetation offers great potential for extensive green roof design. Landsc Urban Plan 121:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.010
Acknowledgements
The Open Access of this chapter was funded by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). The research project presented in this paper was partially funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN): Entwicklung eines neuen Systems von Dachbegrünungen, die die Funktion von Ersatzhabitaten für bodenbrütende Vögel erfüllen (Dachbegrünung für Vögel) [Improvement of existing green roofs to fulfil the function of substitute habitats for ground-nesting birds (green roofs for birds)], Project Number UTF 189.19.06.
Author Contributions
N.B. suggested the topic, provided the raw data and the images, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript; C.C. and S.P. carried out data interpretation, prepared the tables, revised the manuscript, and adapted the final version according to the remarks and suggestions of the reviewers. S.B. supervised the 2006–2010 project and was responsible for the original data analysis. All authors revised the final version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baumann, N., Catalano, C., Pasta, S., Brenneisen, S. (2021). Improving Extensive Green Roofs for Endangered Ground-Nesting Birds. In: Catalano, C., Andreucci, M.B., Guarino, R., Bretzel, F., Leone, M., Pasta, S. (eds) Urban Services to Ecosystems . Future City, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75929-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75929-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75928-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75929-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)