Hee Yee Wee 1 U083574B

Impact of Canopy Shading on Cow Grass Health and Soil Erosion

by Hee Yee Wee As part of the scheme to transform Singapore into a Garden City, efforts have been made to grow more trees along roadsides, and in urban and suburban areas (National Parks Board, 2008). While such actions are well-intentioned, improper and ill-educated planting of trees may wreak unnecessary havoc via excessive canopy shading. Excessive tree shading have adverse consequences on under-storey plants, primarily Cow Grass, as well as the underlying soil. From a biological perspective, a tree is a highly compartmented, perennial, woody, shedding plant that is usually tall, single-stemmed, and long-lived (Keslick & Son Modern Arboriculture , 2007). Due to their height, trees tend to form leaf canopy and shade the undergrowth from much of the sunlight, hence giving rise to the term canopy shading. In Singapore, where the climate is humid equatorial, the evergreen tropical trees rarely shed all or most of their leaves due to the absence of long drought. Hence there is a diminished sunlight penetration to the ground year-round. Subsequently, the lacking in sufficient light to promote vigorous growth has compromised the health of undergrowing Cow Grass (Paspalum conjugatum), which is commonly found growing in open spaces in Singapore. Cow Grass in known to have high shade tolerance where its productivity is unaffected even as sunlight intensity has been reduced by 66% (Wong, Mohd. Sharudin, & Rahim, 1985). Yet, its growth has been observed to be curtailed in some part of Singapore where overhead tree canopy is sufficient to blot out most of the sunlight during the day, as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1 Sparse grass growth under a large tree. Note the exposed ground between the grass blades. Photo is taken in the late evening where low angle of sun allows little penetration of light.

Hee Yee Wee 2 U083574B Light, along with other mineral nutrients, is required by plant photosynthesis, sustenance and growth. Signs of light deprivation in Cow Grass include low root production, elongation and thinning of leaves (Wong, Shade Tolerance of Tropical Forages: A Review, 1990). These cumulatively lead to a lower growth rate and subsequently lower grass density, which can be observed in Figure 1. The impact of canopy shading varies among different tree species due to the differences in leaf size. As leaf size becomes larger, the canopy becomes denser and less light is able to penetrate through canopy to support underlying grass growth. As such, broad-leafed rainforest trees such as Dipterocarp have stronger canopy shading effect than the small-leafed Yellow Flame (Peltophorum pterocarpum) as shown in Figure 2 and 3, hence the sparser grass cover.

Figure 2 Comparison between leaf sizes of Yellow Flame (left) and Dipterocarp (right). Note the 6 inch ruler for scaling purpose.

Figure 3 Comparison 0f grass cover 3 ft away from the tree base between Yellow Flame tree (left) and Dipterocarp tree(right). The ground under Dipterocarp tree is almost devoid of grass except for a few blades whereas only a small area of soil is exposed in the case of Yellow Flame tree. Note the 1 foot ruler for scaling.

Hee Yee Wee 3 U083574B Canopy shading is also a function of the overall morphology of the canopy i.e canopy size and shape, which may override the effect of individual leaf size. For instance, the Tembusu tree (Fagrea fragrans), despite having smaller leaves than a Macarthur Palm (Ptychosperma macarthurii) has greater canopy shading. This is due to the larger size and greater thickness of the canopy of the former preventing light from filtering through the leaves to the ground as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Comparison between Tembusu leaf (left) and Macarthur Palm frond (right). Note the 6 inch ruler for scaling purpose.

Moss

Figure 5 Comparison 0f grass cover 3 ft away from the tree base between Tembusu tree (left) and Macarthur Palm(right). Presence of moss on the ground shaded by the Tembusu tree indicates both low light and high soil moisture content. Note the 1 foot ruler for scaling.

Interestingly, canopy shading enhances the growth of some plant species at the expense of others. In Figure 5, patches of moss are found around the base of the tree where grass is absent. The Tembusu tree increases shading and lowers evapotranspiration rate. This creates a moderate-lightintensity and high humidity required by moss to thrive (Kodama & Iwatsuki, 1961). However, such may not be the case in well-drained, sandy area where soil moisture retention is poor.

Hee Yee Wee 4 U083574B Cow Grass helps reduce soil erosion through their dense network of root actions which bind the soil together and minimise erosive action of rainsplash and sheetflow. Additionally, it helps stabilise slope via transpiration of excess ground water and addition of humus to the soil, which facilitates infiltration rate. This reduces soil water pore pressure, which in turn enhances the slope strength (Huggett, 2007). Hence, the decrease in cow grass density due to canopy shading can be expected to destabilise slope and enhance erosion, as evidenced in Figure 6 and 7. Trees may contribute directly to erosion via increased rainsplash erosion through the coalescing of raindrops into larger leaf drips by large leaves (Wicks & Bathurst, 1996). In such light, the notion that tree prevents erosion ought to be re-examined.

Tree root Soil erosion

Deposit of coarse eroded material

Figure 6 Soil erosion circa 8 feet away from a tree base. Canopy shading reduces grass cover on a steep slope (38 degrees). Note that exposed tree roots are not as effective as grass in combating soil erosion.

Deposit of eroded soil near the base of a tree

Figure 7 Deposit of eroded material near the base of a tree. Note the light colour of the deposit.

Hee Yee Wee 5 U083574B Soil erosion is a critical issue in Singapore because it poses problems such as sedimentation, flooding, deterioration of soil fertility and poor water quality (Lu, Wong, & Chou, 2005). Texture of eroded soil is coarser (see Figure 8 and Table 1) as colloids, clay and silt particles tend to be washed away more easily than sand due to their small size. This result in a very light-coloured sandy soil dominated by quartz grains found at around the base of heavy-canopy trees as shown in Figure 9. Since the chemically active colloid attracts base cations essential for plant growth, the loss of colloid significantly diminishes the cation exchange capacity and fertility of the eroded soil.

Figure 8 Different soil profile (top 8 inches of the soil) for soil under Cow Grass (top left), Dipterocarp tree (top right) and Rain tree (bottom left). Note that the soil texture under the Dipterocarp tree is so sandy that it is unable to hold well in the soil auger. Soil texture varies little between soil under Cow Grass and that under Rain Tree. Note also the 6 inches pen for scaling.

Table 1 Canopy shading (of different trees) and underlying soil texture and colour. Tree Soil Texture2 Colour (Munsell) 1 Open Grassland Clay 7.5R 3/6 (dark red)3 Dipterocarp spp.1 Rain Tree1 Loamy Sand Sandy Clay Loam 2.5YR 2.5/4 (dark reddish brown)3 7.5 YR 3/4 (dark brown)4

1. Samples were taken from the top 8 inches of the soil. All soil samples are probably Ultisols of the Durian Series owing to the shale, sandstone and quartzite composition of the Rimau Facies parent material (Ives, 1977). 2. Soil texture is determined using the feel method (Chimner). 3. The Durian series soil has relatively high iron content, lending the soil its reddish colour (Ives, 1977). 4. Dark brown colour may be indication of melanisation i.e. incorporation of nutrient-rich humus into the soil.

Hee Yee Wee 6 U083574B Tree Base Large Quartz grain

Figure 9 Abundance of light-coloured coarse grain at the base of a tree trunk. Note the sparse grass cover. The long, thin blade of grass is a sign of light deprivation. The occurence of soil erosion at its base is a strong evidence of the interplay between canopy shading and sparse grass cover.

The loss of soil fertility is worrying because soil in Singapore is dominated by Oxisols and Ultisols relatively poor in plant nutrient (see Figure 10) (Lu, Wong, & Chou, 2005). This reduces the capacity of Cow Grass under the canopy shade to regenerate and flourish, resulting in a much more sparse growth and requiring more artificial fertilisation. In effect, canopy shading generates a vicious cycle of erosion and poor grass health which has resulted in unnecessary economic and social costs, as summarised in Figure 11.
Figure 10 In the humid tropics, the dominant soil forming process is ferralitization. (1) Due to high rainfall, bases, silica, organic matters and sesquioxides of irons and aluminium are intensely leached from the soil. (2) Sesquioxides may be illuviated and accumulate in the lower Bo horizon giving a dark red coloration. (3) High temperature and humidity encourages primary weathering of bedrock as well as secondary weathering of clay mineral to form deep soil profile. Intense leaching, rapid breakdown of organic matter under high temperature and rainfall, lack of weatherable minerals and low cation-exchange capacity of highly-weathered clay minerals are the reasons why tropical Ultisols and Oxisols have low fertility. Note that the nutrient rich A horizon is very thin. Source: Schaetzl, R.J. (2005). Soil: genesis and geomorphology. New York. Cambridge University Press.

Hee Yee Wee 7 U083574B

Excessive Canopy Shading

CASCADE EFFECT OF CANOPY SHADING

Low Light Level

Low Photosynthetic Level Larger leaf drips due to large leaf size

Poor Grass Growth

VICIOUS CYCLE OF GRASS AND SOIL DETERIORATION

Lower Soil Fertility Soil Erosion

IMPACT ON HUMAN AND URBAN COMPONENTS

Social and Economic Costs

Poor aesthetic appeal

Financial cost for fertilisation of grass

Financial cost to dredge canals and purify silty water

Figure 11 Diagram of co-relationship between tree canopy shading, Cow Grass health, soil erosion and the economic and social problems.

In the Singaporean context, the tree species which has dealt the least severe impact while providing the need for shade and air purification is probably the Rain Tree (Samanea saman)(see Figure 12). Studies have shown that under the crown, the cumulative above-ground biomass over the season was almost 90% above that of the open grassland (Durr & Rangel, 2002). With its high

Hee Yee Wee 8 U083574B (circa 20-25m), broad, and thin canopy as well as bi-pinnate leaf structure of small leaflets (see Figure 13) allowing more sunlight penetration from the top and sides, the understorey is better lighted leading to greater grass density. Little erosion occurs at the base of the tree (see Figure 14) and colloids and nutrients are not easily washed away (see Table 1). The large influx of dead leaflets, when decomposed, provides rich organic matter that further bolsters grass growth (Durr & Rangel, 2002) as well as increase the maturation of urban soil, which is often of subsoil origin. Since the Rain Tree belongs to the legume genera, it is self-fertilising and does not require much more than a minimum of 1000-1300mm rainfall (Durr, 2001).

Figure 12 A Rain Tree (Samanea Saman). Note the high and light canopy that allows much of the sunlight to go through (one can still see the much of the sky through the canopy of the tree).

Figure 13 The seed pod, bi-pinnate leaves and flowers of a raintree. Source: (Durr, The biology, ecology and agroforestry potential of the raintree, Samanea saman, 2001)

Hee Yee Wee 9 U083574B

Figure 14 Good grass cover around the Rain Tree reaching the base of the tree along some sides.

In sum, canopy shading is a problem with far-reaching consequences and deserves serious attention in Singapore, where almost all urban trees are deliberately planted. Better decisionmaking by the National Parks Board as to selecting the right tree for a particular location and condition, has long-term benefits in terms of easier tree management, cost saving from artificial fertilisation and erosion control and a better realisation of the ideals of a Garden City.

Bibliography
Chimner, R. A. (n.d.). Determining Soil Texture by the Feel Method. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from MichiganTech Forest Resources & Environmental Science: http://forest.mtu.edu/classes/fw4220/wetlands/SoilFeelMethod.pdf Durr, P. A. (2001). The biology, ecology and agroforestry potential of the raintree, Samanea saman. Agroforestry Systems , 51:223-237. Durr, P. A., & Rangel, J. (2002). Enhanced forage production under tropical grassland. Agroforestry Systems , Vol. 54, 99-102. Huggett, R. J. (2007). Fundamentals of Geomorphology. Routledge. Ives, D. W. (1977). Soils of the Republic of Singapore. N.Z. Soil Survey Report 36.

Hee Yee Wee 10 U083574B Keslick & Son Modern Arboriculture . (2007). Tree. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from Techno Tree Biology Dictionary: http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT2003/T/tree.html Kodama, T., & Iwatsuki, Z. (1961). Mosses in Japanese Gardens. Economic Botany , Vol.3, 264-269. Lu, X. X., Wong, P. P., & Chou, L. M. (2005). Singapore's Biophysical Environment. McGraw-Hill. National Parks Board. (2008). Our Garden City. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from National Parks: http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=66 Plant-A-Tree Programme. (2007). Retrieved March 20, 2009, from Plant-A-Tree Programme: http://www.gardencityfund.com.sg/pat/index.htm Schaetzl, R. J. (2005). Soil: genesis and Geomorphology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wicks, J. M., & Bathurst, J. C. (1996). SHESED: a physically based, distributed erosion and sedimentaryyield component for the SHE hydrological modelling system. Journal of Hydrology , Vol 175, 213-238. Wong, C. C. (1990). Shade Tolerance of Tropical Forages: A Review. Proc. of Workshop on Forages for Plantation Crops, (pp. 64-69). Bali, Indonesia. Wong, C. C., Mohd. Sharudin, M., & Rahim, H. (1985). Shade tolerance potential of some tropical forages for integration with plantations: 1. Grasses. MARDI Research Bulletin , 13, 225-247.