Accepted Manuscript

Green Roof Cooling Contributed by Plant Species with Different

Photosynthetic Strategies

JunJun Cao , Shuai Hu , Qin Dong , LiJiao Liu , ZhaoLong Wang

PII: S0378-7788(19)30049-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.046
Reference: ENB 9160

To appear in: Energy & Buildings

Received date: 4 January 2019

Revised date: 28 April 2019
Accepted date: 29 April 2019

Please cite this article as: JunJun Cao , Shuai Hu , Qin Dong , LiJiao Liu , ZhaoLong Wang , Green
Roof Cooling Contributed by Plant Species with Different Photosynthetic Strategies, Energy & Buildings
(2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.046

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
 * All plant species performed significant green roof cooling.
 * C4 and C3 plant species cooled the roof via their transpiration.
 * CAM plants cooled the roof via the canopy solar energy absorption and insulation.
 * CAM plants performed a night cooling effect.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Green Roof Cooling Contributed by Plant Species with Different

Photosynthetic Strategies

JunJun Cao, Shuai Hu, Qin Dong, LiJiao Liu, ZhaoLong Wang*

School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200240, P.

T
R. China

IP
CR
*Corresponding author: Zhaolong Wang
US
Institute: School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiaotong University
AN
Address: 800 DongChuan Road, MinHang District, Shanghai Jiaotong University,
M

Shanghai 200240, P. R. China

Tel.: +86 21 3420 5963

ED

Fax: +86 21 3420 5963

PT

E-mail address: turf@sjtu.edu.cn (ZLW)

CE
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract:

Building cooling by green roof is mainly dependent upon the plant performance,

which maybe greatly influenced by plant species with the different photosynthetic and

water use strategies. This study was conducted to investigate the different green roof

cooling effects by C3 (Poa pratensis and Festuca arundinacea), C4 (Cynodon

T
dactylon and Eremochloa ophiuroides), and CAM plant species (Sedum lineare and

IP
Callisia repens). The results showed that different plant species performed different

CR
strategies for green roof cooling. Green roof cooling with C3 and C4 plant species

US
was mainly from their transpirations and C4 plants with higher transpiration rate

performed the superior canopy cooling than C3 plants. CAM plants performed the
AN
lowest canopy cooling due to their stomata closure and lower transpiration during the
M

daytime. All green roofs performed significant cooling in soil profile. The soil cooling

by CAM green roofs could be from their canopy solar energy absorption and
ED

insulation. The significant night cooling was noticed only by the green roofs with
PT

CAM plants which could be contributed from their unique CAM energy fixation

during the nighttime. Our results indicated that the green roofs with different plant
CE

species could deliver the different range of ecological and environmental benefits.
AC

Key words: Green roof; cooling; photosynthetic pathway; transpiration; plant species.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

The urban increases of buildings, population, and anthropogenic heat emissions

become burden on the urban environment and have caused serious urban heat island

(UHI) problems [1]. Buildings which are constituted about 20–25% of the urban

surface area [2] consumed about 40% of total urban energy which are largely

T
responsible for UHI [3].

IP
Green infrastructures, the major urban nature-based facilities, are solutions using

CR
nature and ecosystem services to provide economic, social as well as environmental

US
benefits [4,5]. Increasing urban vegetation by 10% reduced the air temperature and

mean radiant temperature by up to 0.8 °C [6]. Green roofs have been widely accepted
AN
as one of the nature-based solutions to mitigate UHI and building energy consumption
M

because they do not need to use valuable and highly competitive land at ground level

[7]. Green roofs provide a number of multifunctional benefits, including UHI

ED

reduction [8,9] and building energy-saving [10,11]. Green roofs reduced

PT

approximately 80% of heat flow through the building roofs in summer [12] and

consumed less energy in the range of 2.2-16.7% than traditional roofs during summer
CE

time [3]. The cooling benefit by the green roof is a combination result from both
AC

vegetation and its growth substrate [13]. The green roof substrates provide solar

energy insulation and their thermal performances have been defined in many studies

[14-16]. However, the building cooling contributed from the green roof vegetation is

much more complex and has not been well elucidated.

C3, C4, and CAM plant species are different in their photosynthetic energy

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fixation and water transpiration strategies. Photosynthesis is a bioprocess of plants to

convert light energy into chemical energy in the form of carbohydrates [17-19]. C3

Plants are solely on C3 carbon fixation called the Calvin cycle, a subsequent sequence

of light-independent reactions, in their photosynthesis [18]. Besides the classical C3

photosynthetic pathway, C4 plants have evolved an add-on C4 carbon fixation in their

T
first step and developed a mechanism to efficiently deliver pre-collected and

IP
concentrated CO2 to the RuBisCO enzyme and achieved increased photosynthetic

CR
efficiency [20]. Unlike C4 plants, Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) plants fix

US
and store CO2 as malate in vacuoles during nighttime and then the malate is

transported to chloroplasts where it is converted back to CO2, which is then used in

AN
the Calvin cycle in the daytime [21-23].
M

All C3, C4, CAM plants are widely used in green roofs. Sedums (CAM plants)

are the most common plant species used for extensive green roofs because of their
ED

superior drought tolerance and survival capacity under the shallow growth substrates
PT

[24]. However, more and more recent studies revealed that other plant species on the

green roofs could performed better ecological benefits and building cooling [25-27].
CE

MacIvor et al. [28] found that building cooling was positively correlated to the
AC

diversity of green roof plants. Some non-succulent plants (Bergenia cordifolia and

Hedera hibernica) provided better summertime environmental cooling than sedum

plants [29]. Researches from Blanusa et al.[30] suggested that the choice of some

perennial plant species in green roofs could provide the greater eco-system service

then the sedum roofs. Festuca arundinacea and Poa pratensis are C3 and Cynodon

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dactylon and Eremochloa ophiuroides are C4 turfgrass species, which have been

increasingly used for extensive or semi-extensive green roofs [27], because they can

provide an extra leisure grassland on the roof besides their ecological benefits.

However, no study has been conducted to elucidate the different effects of C3, C4,

and CAM plant species on summer cooling of green roofs. Therefore, the objectives

T
of this study were to investigate: 1) the cooling effects of the extensive green roofs

IP
with C3, C4, and CAM plant species, and 2) the underline mechanisms involving their

CR
different photosynthetic and transpiration regulations.

2. Materials and Methods

US
AN
2.1 Setup of green roof plots
M

A total of 28 green roof plots with internal dimensions of 76 cm long × 36.5 cm

wide × 25 cm height were setup on a fully exposed rooftop of the Experimental

ED

Station at Shanghai Jiaotong University (31°12'lat., 121°38'long.). Each green roof

PT

plot was in an rectangular high density polyethylene plastic lysimeters with an

outflow opening (1 cm in diameter) which was constructed in the lowest part of the
CE

lysimeters. An extensive green roof was simulated within each lysimeter, starting with
AC

a non-rotting synthetic geotextile layer at the bottom to protect soil escape from the

outflow opening. The sand substrate of 100 kg was used for plant growth and placed

on top of the geotextile layer with 22.5 cm in height.

2.2 Experiment design

The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design with four

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

replicates for each treatment. Plant species treatments included two C4 turfgrass

species (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers cv. 'Tifdwarf' and Eremochloa ophiuroides

(Munro) Hack cv. 'Civil') , two C3 turfgrass species (Poa pratensis L. cv. 'Midnight'

and Festuca arundinacea Schreb. cv. 'Jaguar 4G'), and two CAM plant species

(Sedum lineare Thunb. and Callisia repens L.), which were most commonly used for

T
extensive green roofs, and a non-vegetation control. The experimental green roof

IP
plots was established in 2016 and maintained consistently in 2017 and 2018. All the

CR
experimental green roof plots (CAM, C3, C4) were in the same schedule of the

US
minimum maintenance, which include 2 mowings and 2 fertilizations per year: First

mowing (60 mm) was applied in the end of March to remove the dead leaves and
AN
promote spring green-up. A fertilization was followed the first mowing with 20 g m-2
M

of slow-released granular fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 16:16:16). The second mowing

(100 mm) was applied in the end of June to avoid disease problem in the rain season.
ED

The second fertilization with 10 g m-2 of slow-released granular fertilizer

PT

(N:P2O5:K2O = 16:16:16) was in the early October to promote fall growth and winter

performance.
CE

2.3 Measurements
AC

The experimental measurements were conducted under 100% plant coverage (no

visible growing media) during the summer months (1 July~30 September, 2018).

Plant biomass was measured by recording of the plant dry weight. A cylinder in 10 cm

diameter was sampled from each green roof plot in a 30-d interval. After washing off

the soil, plants were dried at 100 °C for 10 min and then oven-dried at 80 °C for 72 h

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to a constant weight, and the biomass was recorded as their dry weight.

The measurement of evapotranspiration (ET) was according to Köhler et al.[31].

The lysimeter mass was measured and recorded daily. Change in mass represents

water loss by ET for plant covered green roofs. Evaporation (E) was estimated by

non-vegetated substrate control. Plant transpiration (T) was estimated as the

T
difference between ET and E.

IP
Water use efficiency was calculated as the ratio of the net photosynthesis to the

CR
amount of water transpiration consumed during the summer months.

US
A sunny day (10 September, 2018) was selected to represent the general summer

days for the diurnal dynamics of the temperature. The canopy and soil surface
AN
temperatures were monitored continuously in 2 hours' interval for 24 hours.
M

The successive 4 sunny and hot days (8~11 August, 2018) were selected to

represent the hottest summer weather scenario for the cooling measurement in the
ED

green roof profile, namely: air temperature (1 m above the roof surface), canopy
PT

temperature, soil surface temperature, and soil temperatures (5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm

in soil depth). Canopy temperatures were measured by infrared radiation thermometer

CE

(Testo 830-s1, Germany). Soil temperatures were measured by thermometers

AC

(Shenzhen Tuo Er Wei Electronic Technology Co., Ltd, China) in the different soil

depth.

2.4 Statistical Analysis

All data are presented as means of four replicated measurements. Statistical

analysis were performed with the software SAS (version 9.1, SAS Institute Inc., Cary,

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

NC) using the general linear model (GLM) procedure. Least significance difference

(LSD) at a 0.05 probability level was used to detect the differences between treatment

means.

3. Results

T
3.1 Biomass production, transpiration, and water use efficiency

IP
During the summer months, biomass production of C4 plants (Cynodon dactylon

CR
and Eremochloa ophiuroides) reached 9.3 and 9.1 g d-1m-2 during the summer months

US
(Fig. 1A), which were significantly higher than that of CAM plants (6.9 g d-1m-2 of

Sedum lineare and 6.1 g d-1m-2 of Callisia repens), respectively. C3 plants showed the
AN
lowest biomass production, which were only 2.8 g d-1m-2 of Poa pratensis and 1.9 g

d-1m-2 of Festuca arundinacea, respectively.

M

C4 plants showed the highest transpiration (4.4 mm d-1 of Cynodon dactylon and
ED

4.6 mm d-1 of Eremochloa ophiuroides) during the summer months (Fig. 1B),
PT

followed by C3 plants (3.6 mm/d of Poa pratensis and 4.0 mm d-1 of Festuca

arundinacea). CAM plants showed the least transpiration, which were only 2.2 mm
CE

d-1 of Sedum lineare and 1.9 mm/d of Callisia repens, respectively.

AC

CAM plants showed the significant higher water use efficiency, Sedum lineare

and Callisia repens produced 3.4 and 3.2 g of plant biomass when they consumed 1

kg of water during the summer months (Fig. 1C). Water use efficiency of C4 plants

was 2.1 g kg-1 for both Cynodon dactylon and Eremochloa ophiuroides, which was

significantly lower than that of CAM plants, but significantly higher than that of C3

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

plants (0.8 g kg-1 of Poa pratensis and 1.0 g kg-1 of Festuca arundinacea).

3.2 Diurnal dynamics of canopy and soil surface temperatures

The canopy temperature changes along with the air temperature during a day

(Fig. 2). The temperature rose rapidly after 8: 00 am, reached the peak at 14:00 pm,

T
and then drop rapidly after 16:00 pm. The cooling effects were significantly different

IP
among the different types of green roof plants. The green roofs with C4 plants

CR
(Eremochloa ophiuroides and Cynodon dactylon) performed the greatest cooling

US
effects during the day time with their canopy peak temperatures of 29.0 and 29.3 ℃,

respectively. The green roofs with C3 plants (Festuca arundinacea and Poa pratensis)
AN
performed the medium cooling effects with the peak temperatures of 31.5 and 32.5℃,
M

respectively. The green roofs with CAM plants (Sedum lineare and Callisia repens)

performed the lest cooling effects with the peak temperatures of 35.2 and 37.7℃,
ED

respectively. The canopy temperatures of C4 and C3 plants were lower than the air
PT

temperature, but the canopy temperatures of CAM plants were higher than the air

temperature during the daytime.

CE

The canopy temperature remained relatively stable during the night. No

AC

significant difference was noticed among the C4, C3 green roofs, and non-vegetation

control. Only green roofs with CAM plants (Sedum lineare and Callisia repens)

performed significant cooling effects with 1.6~2.1 ℃ and 2.0~2.4 ℃ of lower canopy

temperatures than that of non-vegetation control from midnight to 6:00 am,

respectively.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Green roofs significantly reduced the fluctuations of diurnal dynamics of soil

surface temperatures (Fig. 3). The soil surface temperature of the non-vegetation

control reached 38.9 ℃ at 14:00 and dropped to 22.5 ℃ in the night. Green roofs

reduced the peak soil surface temperature to 31.4~32.9 ℃, which were 6.0~7.5 ℃

lower than the control. Green roofs with C4 plants (Eremochloa ophiuroides and

T
Cynodon dactylon) and CAM plants (Sedum lineare and Callisia repens) showed

IP
more soil surface cooling than that of C3 plants (Festuca arundinacea and Poa

CR
pratensis) between 10:00 am to 14:00 pm. Green roofs with CAM plants consistently

US
maintained the lowest soil surface temperatures during the nighttime, when compared

to C3 and C4 plants.
AN
M

3.3 Thermal behaviors in the hot summer days

Temperatures changes in soil profile were more dramatic in the hot summer days
ED

(8~10 August). The most dramatic changes occurred in the non-vegetation control
PT

(Table 1). In the early morning (6:00 am) with air temperature at 25.5℃, the soil

surface temperature was the lowest and the temperatures increase with the deeper of
CE

the soil profile, with only 1.4℃ difference between the soil surface and the deep soil
AC

(-15 cm). As the air temperature increased to 32.7℃ at 10:00 am, temperatures in soil

profile revised in their order with the highest temperature in the soil surface, which

was 4.1℃ higher than the deep soil (-15 cm). As the air temperature reached the

highest (39.2 ℃) at 14:00 pm, the soil surface temperature reached as high as 49.5℃,

which was 6.2℃ higher than the deep soil (-15 cm). As the air temperature dropped to

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

34.1 ℃ at 18:00 pm, temperatures in soil profile returned to the morning order with

the lowest on the surface which was 5.7 ℃ lower than the deeper soil profile (-15

cm).

Vegetations on green roofs significantly absorbed the heat wave and reduced the

heat diffusion into the soil profile (Table 1). The cooling effect of soil profiles was the

T
maximum at 14:00 pm as the air temperature reached the highest (39.2 ℃). The soil

IP
surface temperatures of green roofs with different plants maintained in the relatively

CR
moderate temperatures of 37.6~38.7 ℃, which were 10.8~11.9℃ cooler than the

US
non-vegetation control. Green roofs also showed the significant cooling effects in soil

temperatures, which were 6.7~7.6 ℃ of cooling in 5 cm depth, 4.9~6.1 ℃ of cooling

AN
in 10 cm depth, and 3.7~4.8 ℃ of cooling in 15 cm depth, , respectively, when
M

compared to non-vegetation control. However, no significant difference of

temperature in the soil profile was noticed among the green roofs with different plant
ED

species. Plants with the different photosynthetic pathway only resulted in the
PT

significant differences of canopy temperatures. C4 plants resulted the lowest canopy

temperatures (32.6 ℃in Eremochloa ophiuroides and 33.2 ℃in Cynodon dactylon),
CE

followed by C3 plants (34.8 ℃in Festuca arundinacea and 36.9 ℃in Poa pratensis)).
AC

CAM plants resulted the highest canopy temperatures with 40.9℃in Sedum lineare

and 44.1℃in Callisia repens, respectively.

4. Discussion

Plants play a crucial role in green roof cooling [32,33]. Succulent CAM plants

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

are the most widely used plant species for extensive green roofs. In recent years,

turfgrass species have been increasingly used for extensive or semi-extensive green

roofs [26]. Various green roof cooling effects were observed from the previous studies,

which could be resulted from the variations of canopy coverage, plant height, and leaf

area index [34,35]. This study showed that all green roofs with C3, C4, CAM plants

T
performed significant cooling effects in canopy and soil profile (Table 1, Fig. 2). Lee

IP
& Jim [36] reported that the maximum surface and air cooling of the green roof

CR
reached 19.8 ℃ and 6.21 ℃ in daytime sunny condition in Hongkong. In this study,

US
we found that C3, C4, CAM plants performed significantly different canopy cooling

effects. The maximum canopy cooling reached 16.3~16.9 ℃ for C4 plants,

AN
12.6~14.7 ℃ for C3 plants, and 5.4~8.6 ℃ for succulent CAM plants, respectively.
M

The significant difference of canopy cooling could be mainly resulted from their

different transpiration (Fig. 1B). C4 plants with the highest transpiration resulted the
ED

lowest canopy temperatures. CAM plants with the lowest transpiration and higher
PT

water use efficiency played a poor role in canopy cooling. The canopy cooling of

green roofs with different plant species was significantly correlated to their
CE

transpiration capacity, indicating that the difference of green roof cooling could be
AC

resulted from the different transpiration behaviors of C3, C4, and CAM plants.

Solar radiation incident to a green roof can be absorbed, reflected by plants, or

transmitted into the soil profile [37,38]. In this study, solar radiation increased the soil

temperature rapidly and the surface temperature reached 49.5 ℃ at 14:00 pm in

non-vegatation control. All green roofs significantly cooled the soil surface

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

temperatures by 10.8 ~11.9 ℃, when compared to the control. The difference of soil

temperatures among the different green roofs was relatively minor when compared to

canopy temperatures. All green roofs with different plant species provided excellent

cooling for soil profiles, in despite of their different transpiration and photosynthetic

energy fixations. The cooling effects of C3 and C4 plants could be mainly resulted

T
from their transpiration cooling because their canopy temperatures were 1.8~5.4 ℃

IP
lower than the soil surface temperatures. The stomata of CAM plants were closed

CR
during the day time to avoid water transpiration lose [31]. Although the solar energy

US
was accumulatively built up in plant bodies and the canopy temperatures reached as

high as 40.9~44.1 ℃ at 14:00 pm, the soil surface temperatures were still maintained
AN
37.6~38.3℃, which were no significant different from that of C3 and C4 green roofs
M

(Table 1). The soil cooling effects of CAM plants could be mainly resulted from their

canopy solar energy absorption and insulation.

ED

CAM plants open their stomata and CO2 is fixed by the enzyme
PT

phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) carboxylase and stored as malic acid during the night

time. In this study, we find CAM plants performed significant cooling effects in
CE

canopy and soil profile during the night (Figure 2), which could be benefited from
AC

their stomata opening and unique night CAM energy fixation. These results could be

helpful to understand the mechanism of green roof cooling and the simulation of the

energy balance on the green roofs [39]. Our study only defined the green roof cooling

effects contributed by CAM, C3, C4 plant species. However, building cooling could

also affected by canopy structure, and leaf area index, and foliage albedo, which

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

deserve further investigations.

5. Conclusion

All green roofs with C3, C4, CAM plant species significantly cooled the canopy

and soil temperatures. C4 plants showed the greatest canopy cooling, followed by C3

T
plants. The cooling effects of C4 and C3 green roofs could be mainly contributed

IP
from their canopy transpiration. CAM plants showed the different cooling strategy

CR
from C3 and C4 plants. CAM maintained high canopy temperatures and low soil

US
temperature during the daytime and the cooling effects could be contributed from the

canopy solar energy absorption and insulation rather than the transpiration. CAM
AN
plants also performed significant night cooling effects which could be contributed
M

from their unique CAM energy fixation during the nighttime. Our results indicated

that the green roof cooling could be improved by selecting C4 plants and a night
ED

green roof cooling could be delivered by CAM plants.

PT

Author declaration
CE

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this
publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could
have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and
AC

approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the
criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors
listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.
We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual
property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication,
including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing
we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning
intellectual property.
We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial
process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office).

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress,
submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs. We confirm that we have
provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding
Author and which has been configured to accept email from turf@sjtu.edu.cn.
Signed by all authors as follows:
J.J. Cao
S. Hu
Q. Dong
L.J. Liu
Z.L. Wang

T
IP
CR
Acknowledgement

This work was financially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of

US
China (Grant: 31872412) and the National Key Research and Development Program
AN
of China (Grant: 2018YFD0800205). The authors are indebted to Ms. Sophie Sun

from GaoJie Consulting for her great help in language checking.

M
ED

References

[1] Y. Olivo, A. Hamidi, P. Ramamurthy. Spatiotemporal variability in building energy use in

PT

New York City. Energy 141 (2017) 1393-1401. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.066

CE

[2] H. Akbari, L.S. Rose, H. Taha. Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using

high-resolution orthophotos. Landscape Urban Plan. 63(1) (2003) 1-14. DOI:

AC

10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00165-2

[3] A.B. Besir, E. Cuce. Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sust.

Energ. Rev. 82 (2018) 915-939. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.106

[4] C. Albert, J.H. Spangenberg, B. Schroter. Nature-based solutions: criteria. Nature

543(7645) (2017) 315-315. DOI:10.1038/543315b

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[5] S. Keesstra, J. Nunes, A. Novara, D. Finger, D. Avelar, Z. Kalantari, A. Cerda. The

superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem

services. Sci. Total Environ. 610 (2018) 997-1009. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077

[6] Y. Wang, U. Berardi, H. Akbari. Comparing the effects of urban heat island mitigation

strategies for Toronto, Canada. Energy Build. 114 (2016) 2-19.

T
DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.046

IP
[7] F. Bianchini, K. Hewage. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: A

CR
lifecycle approach. Build. Environ. 58 (2012) 152-162. DOI:

10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.07.005
US
[8] H.M. Imran, J. Kala, A.W.M. Ng, S. Muthukumaran. Effectiveness of green and cool roofs
AN
in mitigating urban heat island effects during a heatwave event in the city of Melbourne
M

in southeast Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 393-405.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.179
ED

[9] M. Santamouris. Cooling the cities - a review of reflective and green roof mitigation
PT

technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments. Sol.

Energy 103 (2014) 682-703. DOI:10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.003

CE

[10] A. Gagliano, M. Detommaso, F. Nocera, G. Evola. A multi-criteria methodology for

AC

comparing the energy and environmental behavior of cool, green and traditional roofs.

Build. Environ. 90 (2015) 71-81. DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.043

[11] I. Ziogou, A. Michopoulos,V. Voulgari, T. Zachariadis. Energy, environmental and

economic assessment of electricity savings from the operation of green roofs in urban

office buildings of a warm Mediterranean region. J. Clean. Prod. 168 (2017) 346-356.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.217.

[12] M. Karteris, I. Theodoridou, G. Mallinis, E. Tsiros, A. Karteris. Towards a green

sustainable strategy for Mediterranean cities: Assessing the benefits of large-scale green

roofs implementation in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece, using environmental modelling,

GIS and very high spatial resolution remote sensing data. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 58

T
(2016) 510-525. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.098

IP
[13] Y. He, H. Yu, A. Ozaki, N.N. Dong, S.L. Zheng. Influence of plant and soil layer on

CR
energy balance and thermal performance of green roof system. Energy 141 (2017)

US
1285-1299. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.064

[14] G. Brunetti, M. Porti, P. Piro. Multi-level numerical and statistical analysis of the
AN
hygrothermal behavior of a non-vegetated green roof in a mediterranean climate. Appl.
M

Energy 221 (2018) 204-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.190

[15] C. Fabiani, J. Coma, A.L. Pisello G. Perez, F. Cotana, L.E. Cabeza. Thermo-acoustic
ED

performance of green roof substrates in dynamic hygrothermal conditions. Energy Build.

PT

178 (2018) 140-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.024

[16] C.L. Tan, P.Y. Tan, N.H. Wong, H. Takasuna, T. Kudo, Y. Takemasa, C.V.J. Lim, H.X.V.
CE

Chua. Impact of soil and water retention characteristics on green roof thermal
AC

performance. Energy Build. 152 (2017) 830-842. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.011

[17] W.G. Hopkins, N.P.A. Hüner. Introduction to Plant Physiology, 3rd ed; John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 2004.

[18] S. Hartzell, M.S. Bartlett, A. Porporato. Unified representation of the C3, C4, and CAM

photosynthetic pathways with the Photo3 model. Ecol. Model. 384 (2018) 173-187. DOI:

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.06.012

[19] X.Q. Liu, R.Z. Wang, Y.Z. Li. Photosynthetic pathway types in rangeland plant species

from Inner Mongolia, North China. Photosynthetica 42 (2004) 339-344. DOI:

10.1023/B:PHOT.0000046150.74045.46

[20] T. Watcharamongkol, P.A. Christin, C.P. Osborne. C-4 photosynthesis evolved in warm

T
climates but promoted migration to cooler ones. Ecol. Lett. 21 (2018) 376-383. DOI:

IP
10.1111/ele.12905

CR
[21] J.C. Cushman. Crassulacean acid metabolism: A plastic photosynthetic adaptation to arid

US
environments Plant Physiol. 127 (2001) 1439– 1448

[22] S. Shameer, K. Baghalian, C.Y.M. Cheung, R.G. Ratcliffe, L.J. Sweetlove.

AN
Computational analysis of the productivity potential of CAM. Nat. Plants 4 (2018)
M

165-171. DOI: 10.1038/s41477-08-0112-2

[23] B.N. Davies, H. Griffiths. Competing carboxylases: circadian and metabolic regulation
ED

of Rubisco in C3 and CAM Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L. Plant Cell Environ. 35

PT

(2012) 1211-1220. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2012.02483.x

[24] Y.Y. Huang, C.T. Chen, W.T. Liu. Thermal performance of extensive green roofs in a
CE

subtropical metropolitan area. Energy Build. 159 (2018) 39-53. DOI:

AC

10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.039

[25] M.V. Monteiroa, T. Blanusa, A. Verhoef, M. Richardson, P. Hadley, R.W.F. Cameron.

Functional green roofs: Importance of plant choice in maximising summertime

environmental cooling and substrate insulation potential. Energy Build. 141 (2017) 56-68.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.011

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[26] M. Eksi, D.B. Rowe, I.S. Wichman, J.A. Andresen. Effect of substrate depth, vegetation

type, and season on green roof thermal properties. Energy Build. 145 (2017) 174-187.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.017

[27] X.X. Li, J.J. Cao, P.X. Xu, L. Fei, Q. Dong, Z.L. Wang. Green roofs: Effects of plant

species used on runoff. Land Degrad. Dev. 29(2018) 3628-3638. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3102

T
[28] J.S. MacIvor, N. Sookhan, C.A. Arnillas, A. Bhatt, S. Das, S.L.E. Yasui, G. Xie, M.W.

IP
Cadotte. Manipulating plant phylogenetic diversity for green roof ecosystem service

CR
delivery. Evol. Appl. 11 (2018) 2014-2024. DOI: 10.1111/eva.12703

US
[29] M.V. Monteiroa, T. Blanusa, A. Verhoef, M. Richardson, P. Hadley, R.W.F. Cameron.

Functional green roofs: Importance of plant choice in maximising summertime

AN
environmental cooling and substrate insulation potential. Energy Build. 141 (2017) 56-68.
M

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.02.011

[30] T. Blanusa, M.M.V. Monteiro, F. Fantozzi, E. Vysini, Y. Li, R.W.F. Cameron.

ED

Alternatives to Sedum on green roofs: Can broad leaf perennial plants offer better
PT

'cooling service'? Build. Environ. 59 (2013) 99-106. DOI:

10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.08.011
CE

[31] M. Kohler, P.H. Poll. Long-term performance of selected old Berlin greenroofs in
AC

comparison to younger extensive greenroofs in Berlin. Ecol. Eng. 36 (2010) 722-729. SI.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.12.019

[32] C.L. Tan, N.H. Wong, P.Y. Tan, S.K. Jusuf, Z.Q. Chiam. Impact of plant

evapotranspiration rate and shrub albedo on temperature reduction in the tropical outdoor

environment. Build. Environ. 94 (2015) 206-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.08.001

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[33] N. Sookhan, L. Margolis, J.S. MacIvor. Inter-annual thermoregulation of extensive green

roofs in warm and cool seasons: Plant selection matters. Ecol. Eng. 123 (2018) 10-18.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.08.016

[34] G. Xie, J.T. Lundholm, J.S. MacIvor. Phylogenetic diversity and plant trait composition

predict multiple ecosystem functions in green roofs. Sci. Total Envirn. 628-629 (2018)

T
1017-1026. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.093

IP
[35] V. Azenas, I. Janner, H. Medrano, J. Gulias. Performance evaluation of five

CR
Mediterranean species to optimize ecosystem services of green roofs under water-limited

conditions. J. Environ.

10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.021
US
Manage. 212 (2018) 236-247. DOI:
AN
[36] L.S.H. Lee, C.Y. Jim. Thermal-cooling performance of subtropical green roof with deep
M

substrate and woodland vegetation. Ecol. Eng. 119 (2018) 8-18. DOI:

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.05.014
ED

[37] M.T. Hoelscher, T. Nehls, B. Janicke, G. Wessolek. Quantifying cooling effects of facade
PT

greening: Shading, transpiration and insulation. Energy Build. 114 (2016) 283-290.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.047
CE

[38] J.S. MacIvor, L. Margolis, M. Perotto, J.A.P. Drake. Air temperature cooling by
AC

extensive green roofs in Toronto Canada. Ecol. Eng. 95 (2016) 36-42. DOI:

10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.050

[39] Sailor, DJ. A green roof model for building energy simulation programs. Energy Build.

40 (2008) 1466-1478. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.02.001

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical abstract

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
Table 1 Measured values of canopy temperatures, soil temperatures (surface, -5,-10, and -15 cm) in green roofs with different plant species in the hot summer

CR
days (8~10 August). Temp℃: temperature at ℃; Cooling = Temperaturecontrol - Temperaturegreen roofs. Uppercase letters in the control column represent the
statistically differences of temperatures among the soil profile. The lowercase letters in each line represent the significant differences of temperatures among
the green roofs with the different plant species.

Cynodon
dactylon
Temp℃ Cooling
Eremochloa
ophiuroides
Temp℃ Cooling
Poa
pratensis
Temp℃ Cooling
US
Festuca
arundinacea
Temp℃ Cooling
Sedum
lineare
Temp℃ Cooling
Callisia
repens
Temp℃ Cooling
Non-vegetation
control
Temp℃
AN
6:00 am, air temperature@25.5±0.2℃
Canopy temperature 23.7 b 2.7 23.8 b 2.6 24.0 ab 2.4 24.2 a 2.2 22.9 c 3.5 23.1 c 3.3
Soil surface temperature 27.7 a -1.3 27.8 a -1.4 27.5 a -1.1 27.6 a -1.2 27.0 b -0.6 27.1 b -0.7 26.4 Cc

Soil temperature (-5cm) 28.3 ab -1.7 28. 5 a -1.9 28.0 bc -1.4 28.0 abc -1.4 27.6 c -1.0 27.6 c -1.0 26.6 Cd

Soil temperature (-10cm) 28.7 a -1.6 28.8 a -1.7 28.3 ab -1.2 28.3 ab -1.2 28.0 b -0.9 28.1 b -1.0 27.1 Bc
M

Soil temperature (-15cm) 29.0 a -1.2 29.0 a -1.2 28.6 ab -0.8 28.5 ab -0.7 28.2 b -0.4 28.3 b -0.5 27.8 Ac

10:00 am, air temperature@ 32.7±0.2℃

Canopy temperature 30.2 c 5.6 30.5 c 4.1 31.9 b 2.7 30.6 c 4.0 30.7 c 3.9 34.6 a 0

Soil surface temperature 31.0 d 3.6 31.1 d 3.5 34.3 b 0.3 33.0 c 1.6 30.7 d 3.9 31.1 d 3.5 34.6 Aa
ED

Soil temperature (-5cm) 29.9 c 2.9 30.2 c 2.6 31.6 b 1.2 31.6 b 1.2 31.2 b 1.6 30.1 c 2.7 32.8 Ba

Soil temperature (-10cm) 29.6 c 1.4 29.6 c 1.4 30.6 b 0.4 30.7 ab 0.3 30.4 b 0.6 29.8 c 1.2 31.0 Ca

Soil temperature (-15cm) 29.5 c 1.0 29.6 c 0.9 29.9 bc 0.6 30.5 a 0 30.1 ab 0.4 29.8 bc 0.7 30.5 Da

14:00 pm, air temperature@ 39.2±0.1℃

PT

Canopy temperature 33.2 e 16.3 32.6 e 16.9 36.9 c 12.6 34.8 d 14.7 40.9 b 8.6 44.1 a 5.4
Soil surface temperature 37.7 b 11.8 38.0 b 11.5 38.7 b 10.8 38.5 b 11.0 38.3 b 11.2 37.6 b 11.9 49.5 Aa
Soil temperature (-5cm) 38.6 b 7.5 38.5 b 7.6 39.4 b 6.7 39.4 b 6.7 39.1 b 7.0 38.6 b 7.5 46.1 Ba
CE

23
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
Soil temperature (-10cm) 38.3 b 6.1 38.6 b 5.8 39.1 b 5.3 39.4 b 5.0 39.5 b 4.9 39.1 b 5.3 44.4 Ca

CR
Soil temperature (-15cm) 38.5 b 4.8 38.8 b 4.5 39.1 b 4.2 39.3 b 4.0 39.6 b 3.7 39.5 b 3.8 43.3 Da

18:00 pm, air temperature@ 34.1±0.1℃

Canopy temperature 28.7 b 5.1 28.4 c 5.4 29.3 a 4.5 28.4 bc 5.4 29.4 a 4.4 29.5 a 4.3
Soil surface temperature 34.5 a -0.7 34.8 a -1.0 34.0 b -0.2 34.0 b -0.2 34.3 a -0.5 34.6 a -0.8 33.8 Cc

Soil temperature (-5cm)

Soil temperature (-10cm)

Soil temperature (-15cm)

37.3 a

37.8 b

38.2 b
0

1.2

1.3
37.2 a

37.8 b

38.1 b
0.1

1.2

1.4
36.6 b

37.5 bc

37.8 bc
0.7

1.5

1.7 US
35.9 c

36.7 c

36.9 c
1.4

2.3

2.6
36.0 c

36.8 c

37.2 bc
1.3

2.2

2.3
36.1 c

36.9 c

37.2 c
1.2

2.1

2.3
37.3 Ba

39.0 Aa

39.5 Aa
AN
M
ED
PT
CE

24
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1 Biomass production, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency of the different plant species
during the summer months. A: Biomass production, B: Transpiration, C: Water use efficiency. Cd：
Cynodon dactylon；Eo: Eremochloa ophiuroides; Pp: Poa pratensis; Fa: Festuca
arundinacea; Sl: Sedum lineare; Cr: Callisia repens. Different lowercase letters on each column
represent the significant differences in values among plant species at LSD0.05.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2 Diurnal dynamics of canopy temperatures on green roofs with different plant species on 10
Sept., 2018.

40
Cynodon dactylon
38 Eremochloa ophiuroides
36 Poa pratensis
Festuca arundinacea
34 Sedum lineare
Callisia repens
Temperature(℃)

32 Control

T
Air temperature
30

IP
28

CR
26
24
22
20 US
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
AN
Time
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3 Diurnal dynamics of soil surface temperatures in green roofs with different plant species on 10
Sept., 2018.

40
Cynodon dactylon
38
Eremochloa ophiuroides
36 Poa pratensis
Festuca arundinacea
34
Sedum lineare
Temperature(℃)

32 Callisia repens

T
Control
30

IP
28

CR
26
24
22
20 US
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
AN
Time
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

27