绿色屋顶基质及其对植物生长的潜在影响

Michael Olszewski, J. A. D’ Agostino, C.M. Vertenten
{"title":"绿色屋顶基质及其对植物生长的潜在影响","authors":"Michael Olszewski,&nbsp;J. A. D’ Agostino,&nbsp;C.M. Vertenten","doi":"10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Green roofs consist of overlapping layers that function as waterproofing, root barrier, drainage, substrate, and vegetation. Substrate components are designed to be relatively light weight, to resist degradation, and to drain rapidly. Physical characteristics must meet industry standards (FLL Guidelines, 2002) with water retention determined using 15 × 16.5 cm (diameter × height) cylinders (cyl) containing ∼1766.3 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate. However, green roofs may have a depth as shallow as 4 cm and slopes that affect water-holding properties; thus, a single protocol may be insufficient. Research on green roof physical properties of substrates is lacking. In this study, we evaluated the physical characteristics of a green roof substrate using three different containers. Also, physical characteristics were determined for a preexisting green roof. Particle size distribution was determined by screening using three air-dried 100 g samples of green roof substrate placed into the top of a sieve series with mesh diameters of 9.5, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.053 mm followed by shaking for three minutes in a Ro-Tap shaker. Physical properties were determined at 0 kPa and following applied suction pressure (6.3 kPa) using methods of Spomer (1990) and FLL (2002). To determine substrate physical properties, Buchner funnels with removable 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl or 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (diameter × height) were filled with 2835.8 cm<sup>3</sup> or 902.1 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate, respectively. Bulk density, total porosity (TP), maximum water-holding capacity (∼container capacity [CC]), aeration porosity (AP), and AP<sub>-6.3 kPa</sub> were determined. A rectangle (rec)-shaped container (∼15 × 17 × 7 cm; width × length × height) was filled with 1158.9 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate directly from an existing green roof (Temple University, Ambler, PA) or from prepared substrate and, subsequently, physical characteristics were determined at an approximate 13.5° slope. There were three replicates per treatment (container type). Prepared substrate consisted of heat-expanded clay with a composition of 40:50:10 fine grade:medium grade:compost. Temple University's green roof consisted of a mixture of more than one component and has supported healthy <i>Sedum</i>, <i>Allium</i>, and <i>Dianthus</i> genera for several years.</p><p>Substrate composition and container shape had a significant impact on physical property determinations. There were no differences for TP, CC, or AP between 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl and 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl or ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec. However, TP differed between 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (TP=38.1%) and ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec (TP=45.7%). Physical characteristics on a healthy green roof were 55.8%, 49.6%, and 6.2% for TP, CC, and AP, respectively, and within FLL standards for container capacity. Particle sizes of both prepared substrate and substrate on Temple University's green roof were within FLL standards; however, the later substrate had higher TP and CC than other treatments. Except for short durations following an irrigation event, green roof substrates may be perpetually dry or nearly so. If so, then green roof substrate CC values, and their hydraulic properties, are the key determinant for plant growth. Substrate depth determines the allowable vegetation on green roofs (FLL, 2002) and an accurate evaluation of substrate physical and/or hydraulic properties is vital. In addition to water retention characteristics further testing of substrates may include water potential monitoring using mini-tensiometers, or other moisture probes, and water release characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":100111,"journal":{"name":"Applied Turfgrass Science","volume":"10 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Green Roof Substrates and Their Potential Effects on Plant Growth\",\"authors\":\"Michael Olszewski,&nbsp;J. A. D’ Agostino,&nbsp;C.M. Vertenten\",\"doi\":\"10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Green roofs consist of overlapping layers that function as waterproofing, root barrier, drainage, substrate, and vegetation. Substrate components are designed to be relatively light weight, to resist degradation, and to drain rapidly. Physical characteristics must meet industry standards (FLL Guidelines, 2002) with water retention determined using 15 × 16.5 cm (diameter × height) cylinders (cyl) containing ∼1766.3 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate. However, green roofs may have a depth as shallow as 4 cm and slopes that affect water-holding properties; thus, a single protocol may be insufficient. Research on green roof physical properties of substrates is lacking. In this study, we evaluated the physical characteristics of a green roof substrate using three different containers. Also, physical characteristics were determined for a preexisting green roof. Particle size distribution was determined by screening using three air-dried 100 g samples of green roof substrate placed into the top of a sieve series with mesh diameters of 9.5, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.053 mm followed by shaking for three minutes in a Ro-Tap shaker. Physical properties were determined at 0 kPa and following applied suction pressure (6.3 kPa) using methods of Spomer (1990) and FLL (2002). To determine substrate physical properties, Buchner funnels with removable 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl or 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (diameter × height) were filled with 2835.8 cm<sup>3</sup> or 902.1 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate, respectively. Bulk density, total porosity (TP), maximum water-holding capacity (∼container capacity [CC]), aeration porosity (AP), and AP<sub>-6.3 kPa</sub> were determined. A rectangle (rec)-shaped container (∼15 × 17 × 7 cm; width × length × height) was filled with 1158.9 cm<sup>3</sup> of substrate directly from an existing green roof (Temple University, Ambler, PA) or from prepared substrate and, subsequently, physical characteristics were determined at an approximate 13.5° slope. There were three replicates per treatment (container type). Prepared substrate consisted of heat-expanded clay with a composition of 40:50:10 fine grade:medium grade:compost. Temple University's green roof consisted of a mixture of more than one component and has supported healthy <i>Sedum</i>, <i>Allium</i>, and <i>Dianthus</i> genera for several years.</p><p>Substrate composition and container shape had a significant impact on physical property determinations. There were no differences for TP, CC, or AP between 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl and 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl or ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec. However, TP differed between 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (TP=38.1%) and ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec (TP=45.7%). Physical characteristics on a healthy green roof were 55.8%, 49.6%, and 6.2% for TP, CC, and AP, respectively, and within FLL standards for container capacity. Particle sizes of both prepared substrate and substrate on Temple University's green roof were within FLL standards; however, the later substrate had higher TP and CC than other treatments. Except for short durations following an irrigation event, green roof substrates may be perpetually dry or nearly so. If so, then green roof substrate CC values, and their hydraulic properties, are the key determinant for plant growth. Substrate depth determines the allowable vegetation on green roofs (FLL, 2002) and an accurate evaluation of substrate physical and/or hydraulic properties is vital. In addition to water retention characteristics further testing of substrates may include water potential monitoring using mini-tensiometers, or other moisture probes, and water release characteristics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Turfgrass Science\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Turfgrass Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Turfgrass Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/ATS-2013-0022BC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

绿色屋顶由重叠的层组成,具有防水、根系屏障、排水、基材和植被的功能。基板组件的设计重量相对较轻,耐降解,并迅速排水。物理特性必须符合行业标准(FLL指南,2002),保水率使用15 × 16.5 cm(直径×高度)圆柱体(圆柱)测定,其中包含约1766.3 cm3的基材。然而,绿色屋顶的深度可能只有4厘米,斜坡会影响其保水性能;因此,单一的协议可能是不够的。对绿色屋顶基质物理性能的研究较少。在这项研究中,我们使用三种不同的容器来评估绿色屋顶基材的物理特性。此外,确定了预先存在的绿色屋顶的物理特性。通过将3个风干的100 g绿色屋顶基质样品置于筛孔直径为9.5、4.0、2.0、1.0、0.5和0.053 mm的筛孔顶部,然后在Ro-Tap振动筛中震动3分钟,来确定粒度分布。使用Spomer(1990)和FLL(2002)的方法,在0千帕和随后施加的吸入压力(6.3千帕)下测定物理性质。为了确定衬底的物理性质,Buchner漏斗具有可移动的17 × 16.5 cm-圆或13 × 6.8 cm-圆(直径×高度),分别填充2835.8 cm3或902.1 cm3的衬底。测定了容重、总孔隙度(TP)、最大持水量(~容器容量[CC])、通气性孔隙度(AP)和AP-6.3 kPa。矩形(rec)形容器(约15 × 17 × 7厘米;宽×长×高)填充了1158.9 cm3的基材,这些基材直接来自现有的绿色屋顶(坦普尔大学,Ambler, PA)或准备好的基材,随后,在大约13.5°的斜坡上确定了物理特性。每个处理(容器型)有3个重复。所制备的基质由热膨胀粘土组成,其组成比例为40:50:10,优质:中等:堆肥。天普大学的绿色屋顶由多种成分组成,多年来一直支持着景天属、葱属和石竹属的健康生长。基质组成和容器形状对物理性质的测定有显著的影响。TP、CC或AP在17 × 16.5 cm-cyl和13 × 6.8 cm-cyl或15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec之间没有差异。然而,TP在13 × 6.8 cm- cycle (TP=38.1%)和~ 15 × 17 × 7 cm- cycle (TP=45.7%)之间存在差异。健康绿色屋顶的物理特性在TP、CC和AP方面分别为55.8%、49.6%和6.2%,并且符合集装箱容量的FLL标准。制备的基质和天普大学绿色屋顶基质的粒径均在FLL标准内;而后期处理的TP和CC均高于其他处理。除了灌溉事件后的短时间外,绿色屋顶基质可能永远干燥或几乎如此。如果是这样,那么绿色屋顶基质CC值及其水力性能是植物生长的关键决定因素。基材深度决定了绿色屋顶上允许的植被(FLL, 2002),对基材物理和/或水力特性的准确评估至关重要。除了保水特性之外,基材的进一步测试可能包括使用微型张力计或其他水分探头进行水势监测,以及水释放特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Green Roof Substrates and Their Potential Effects on Plant Growth

Green roofs consist of overlapping layers that function as waterproofing, root barrier, drainage, substrate, and vegetation. Substrate components are designed to be relatively light weight, to resist degradation, and to drain rapidly. Physical characteristics must meet industry standards (FLL Guidelines, 2002) with water retention determined using 15 × 16.5 cm (diameter × height) cylinders (cyl) containing ∼1766.3 cm3 of substrate. However, green roofs may have a depth as shallow as 4 cm and slopes that affect water-holding properties; thus, a single protocol may be insufficient. Research on green roof physical properties of substrates is lacking. In this study, we evaluated the physical characteristics of a green roof substrate using three different containers. Also, physical characteristics were determined for a preexisting green roof. Particle size distribution was determined by screening using three air-dried 100 g samples of green roof substrate placed into the top of a sieve series with mesh diameters of 9.5, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.053 mm followed by shaking for three minutes in a Ro-Tap shaker. Physical properties were determined at 0 kPa and following applied suction pressure (6.3 kPa) using methods of Spomer (1990) and FLL (2002). To determine substrate physical properties, Buchner funnels with removable 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl or 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (diameter × height) were filled with 2835.8 cm3 or 902.1 cm3 of substrate, respectively. Bulk density, total porosity (TP), maximum water-holding capacity (∼container capacity [CC]), aeration porosity (AP), and AP-6.3 kPa were determined. A rectangle (rec)-shaped container (∼15 × 17 × 7 cm; width × length × height) was filled with 1158.9 cm3 of substrate directly from an existing green roof (Temple University, Ambler, PA) or from prepared substrate and, subsequently, physical characteristics were determined at an approximate 13.5° slope. There were three replicates per treatment (container type). Prepared substrate consisted of heat-expanded clay with a composition of 40:50:10 fine grade:medium grade:compost. Temple University's green roof consisted of a mixture of more than one component and has supported healthy Sedum, Allium, and Dianthus genera for several years.

Substrate composition and container shape had a significant impact on physical property determinations. There were no differences for TP, CC, or AP between 17 × 16.5 cm-cyl and 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl or ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec. However, TP differed between 13 × 6.8 cm-cyl (TP=38.1%) and ∼15 × 17 × 7 cm-rec (TP=45.7%). Physical characteristics on a healthy green roof were 55.8%, 49.6%, and 6.2% for TP, CC, and AP, respectively, and within FLL standards for container capacity. Particle sizes of both prepared substrate and substrate on Temple University's green roof were within FLL standards; however, the later substrate had higher TP and CC than other treatments. Except for short durations following an irrigation event, green roof substrates may be perpetually dry or nearly so. If so, then green roof substrate CC values, and their hydraulic properties, are the key determinant for plant growth. Substrate depth determines the allowable vegetation on green roofs (FLL, 2002) and an accurate evaluation of substrate physical and/or hydraulic properties is vital. In addition to water retention characteristics further testing of substrates may include water potential monitoring using mini-tensiometers, or other moisture probes, and water release characteristics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Antimicrobial Compounds on Etiolation Caused by Xanthomonas translucens and on Turf Quality of Creeping Bentgrass Putting-Green Turf Applicator and Primo Effects on the Persistence of Painted Golf Course Water Hazard and Out-of-Bounds Lines on Bermudagrass Cultivation Effects on Organic Matter Concentration and Infiltration Rates of Two Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) Putting Greens Amicarbazone Application Timing Influences Overseeded Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) Safety and Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua L.) Control Turfgrass Winterkill Observations from the Great Lakes Region
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1