Alternatives to Sedum on green roofs: Can broad leaf perennial plants offer better ‘cooling service’?

Green roof plants alter the microclimate of building roofs and may improve roof insulation. They act by providing cooling by shading, but also through transpiration of water through their stomata. However, leaf surfaces can become warmer when plants close the stomata and decrease water loss in response to drying substrate (typically associated with green roofs during summers), also reducing transpirational cooling. By using a range of contrasting plant types (Sedum mix – an industry green roof ‘standard’, Stachys byzantina, Bergenia cordifolia and Hedera hibernica) we tested the hypothesis that plants differ in their ‘cooling potential’. We firstly examined how leaf morphology influenced leaf temperature and how drying substrate altered that response. Secondly, we investigated the relationship between leaf surface temperatures and the air temperatures immediately above the canopies (i.e. potential to provide aerial cooling). Finally we measured how the plant type influenced the substrate temperature below the canopy (i.e. potential for building cooling). In our experiments Stachys outperformed the other species in terms of leaf surface cooling (even in drying substrate, e.g. 5 oC cooler compared with Sedum), substrate cooling beneath its canopy (up to 12 oC) and even - during short intervals over hottest still periods - the air above the canopy (up to 1 oC, when soil moisture was not limited). We suggest that the choice of plant species on green roofs should not be entirely dictated by what survives on the shallow substrates of extensive systems, but consideration should be given to supporting those species providing the greatest eco-system service potential.

Information customization and food choice

In this paper we employ a hypothetical discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine how much consumers are willing to pay to use technology to customize their food shopping. We conjecture that customized information provision can aid in the composition of a healthier shop. Our results reveal that consumers are prepared to pay relatively more for individual specic information as opposed to generic nutritional information that is typically provided on food labels. In arriving at these results we have examined various model specications including those that make use of ex-post de-brieng questions on attribute nonattendance and attribute ranking information and those that consider the time taken to complete the survey. Our main results are robust to the various model specications we examine

Relative importance of transpiration rate and leaf morphological traits for the regulation of leaf temperature

Urban greening solutions such as green roofs help improve residents’ thermal comfort and building insulation. However, not all plants provide the same level of cooling. This is partially due to differences in plant structure and function, including different mechanisms that plants employ to regulate leaf temperature. Ranking of multiple leaf/plant traits involved in the regulation of leaf temperature (and, consequently, plants’ cooling ‘service’) is not well understood. We therefore investigated the relative importance of water loss, leaf colour, thickness and extent of pubescence for the regulation of leaf temperature, in the context of species for semi-extensive green roofs. Leaf temperature were measured with an infrared imaging camera in a range of contrasting genotypes within three plant genera (Heuchera, Salvia and Sempervivum). In three glasshouse experiments (each evaluating three or four genotypes of each genera) we varied water availability to the plants and assessed how leaf temperature altered depending on water loss and specific leaf traits. Greatest reductions in leaf temperature were closely associated with higher water loss. Additionally, in non-succulents (Heuchera, Salvia), lighter leaf colour and longer hair length (on pubescent leaves) both contributed to reduced leaf temperature. However, in succulent Sempervivum, colour/pubescence made no significant contribution; leaf thickness and water loss rate were the key regulating factors. We propose that this can lead to different plant types having significantly different potentials for cooling. We suggest that maintaining transpirational water loss by sustainable irrigation and selecting urban plants with favourable morphological traits is the key to maximising thermal benefits provided by applications such as green roofs.

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.