Next Article in Journal
Charting Participatory Action and Interventionist Research Processes for Community-Based Stakeholders in Peri-Urban Contexts: The Proposed St. Cuthbert’s Community Centre, Lorne, Australia
Previous Article in Journal
Human Ecology and Its Influence in Urban Theory and Housing Policy in the United States
Previous Article in Special Issue
Designing a Model to Display the Relation between Social Vulnerability and Anthropogenic Risk of Wildfires in Galicia, Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Urban Science
Volume 3
Issue 2
10.3390/urbansci3020057
urbansci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Selecting Potential Moss Species for Green Roofs in the Mediterranean Basin

by
Ricardo Cruz de Carvalho
1,2,*,
Zulema Varela
1,3,
Teresa Afonso do Paço
4,5 and
Cristina Branquinho
1
1
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
2
MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
3
Ecology Unit, Department of Functional Biology, Facultade de Bioloxía, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
4
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, University of Lisbon, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal
5
Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF), Instituto Superior de Agronomía, University of Lisbon, Tapada de Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3(2), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020057
Submission received: 26 March 2019 / Revised: 7 May 2019 / Accepted: 23 May 2019 / Published: 26 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Sustainability: A Smart, Compact Future in Landscape Architecture)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Green roofs are important infrastructures to address the effects of climate change in urban areas. However, most studies and applications have been done in cooler and wetter regions of the northern hemisphere. Climate change will lead to more extreme weather events, such as increased drought and decreased precipitation with intense flash rain events. Increase desertification is expected especially in the Mediterranean Basin, where in summer, radiation and temperature are high and water is scarce. Therefore, while vascular plants increase water consumption in green roofs during warmer periods, mosses present themselves as potential candidates due to their poikilohydric nature, responding to the environmental availability of water, completely drying out and recovering upon rehydration. Although criteria for the selection of vascular plants adapted to the Mediterranean and suitable for green roofs have been developed, no information is available regarding the selection of mosses based on scientific criteria. Here we propose selection criteria for moss species based on ecological preferences according to Ellenberg’s values and help to define moss traits suitable for a nonirrigated, nature-based green roof that tolerates the Mediterranean climate. The main result is a table of potential candidate mosses that can be either used as standalone or in conjunction with vascular plants to decrease water usage and/or manage stormwater through an easily applicable selection methodology. For green roof practitioners, we proposed that acrocarpous mosses exhibiting turf/cushion life forms and colonist or perennial life strategies best fit the requirements for such a green infrastructure in extreme climate regions with scarce water resources.

1. Introduction

The Mediterranean climate is characterised by mild wet winters, autumns and springs with variable temperature and precipitation, and warm to hot, dry summers that are typical of semiarid climates [1]. However, nowadays, against a background of climate change with extreme temperatures (high and low) and precipitation (scarce or very intense flash rain events), drought periods occur in the whole Mediterranean Basin, not only in summer, but also in winter. The decrease in winter precipitation and the increase in air temperature have had a serious impact on the region [2], especially in cities, where urban heat islands further increase temperatures, reduce air humidity, and change local wind and precipitation patterns compared to peri-urban and rural areas [3]. Thus, there is growing interest in the development of green infrastructures mitigating climate change effects in urban areas [4].
Green roofs are plant-based spaces that mimic shallow substrate rock outcrops or meadow habitats. They are placed on a waterproof layer on top of houses, factories, offices and other buildings, and complement the ecosystem services provided by other types of green spaces in urban areas [5,6,7,8]. Moreover, at the building level, they help to improve thermal regulation by providing a shading increment and better insulation of the roof system, in addition to reducing noise pollution, increasing roof durability, hindering the spread of fires, and reducing energy consumption by mitigating heat loss from the building during winter [9,10]. Furthermore, green roofs with herbaceous and small shrubs can reflect 27% of solar radiation, absorb 60% through photosynthesis and transmit about 13% to the growing medium [11]. At the city level, the important contributions of green roofs include biodiversity conservation, improvement of urban aesthetics, increase in carbon sequestration to improve air quality, increased retention and delayed release of stormwater, and reduction of the urban heat island effect [12,13,14,15].
Given these benefits, green roofs constitute a highly valuable biological resource to be explored as a nature-based solution to mitigate the effects of climate change in urban areas. Among the plants with potential for green roof use are nonvascular plants, like mosses, as they are adapted to survive in extreme climate conditions (defined here as low and variable water availability and high radiation). Using the ISI Web of Knowledge database (February 2018) with the keywords “green roofs”, more than 1000 scientific studies of green roofs published in the last 10 years (January 2008 to December 2017) were identified; but when the search was narrowed including the keyword “moss” or “bryophyte”, only 14 studies on the use of mosses on rooftops remained, and only four of those focused on the Mediterranean. Moreover, most of the studies did not specify the species of investigated moss, referring to the plants simply as "mosses" or “bryophytes”. Mosses are poikilohydric, being able to completely desiccate under low relative humidity but quickly resuming metabolic activity upon rehydration [16]. The trade-off for the ability of moss species to survive such extreme conditions is a slow growth rate, which no doubt accounts for the lack of studies regarding their use in green infrastructures in this type of climate and thus the absence of a selection list for these plants. Yet, under controlled conditions of light, temperature and humidity, the growth rates can be increased [17].
Biological soil crusts, a complex community of soil particles, mosses, cyanobacteria, fungi and bacteria, have multifunctional roles including soil stability, the fixation of basic nutrients such as carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), CO2 flux, N mineralisation [18,19] and serving as a habitat for other organisms. In these communities, mosses can retain several times their weight in water, allowing their self-sustained growth for longer periods than it would be predicted [20].
According to [21], commercial green surfaces that include mosses such as Tortula muralis and Bryum argenteum are slowly gaining favour and the advantage of these plants as a desiccation-tolerant poikilohydric may contribute to sustainable water-use, especially in areas with Mediterranean-like climates. Moreover, they can grow directly on a flat surface, with no or very little soil content, allowing exploration of more sloped surfaces, although establishment might require some roughness. It might also allow existing sloped roofs to be retrofitted where vascular plants would normally only establish with difficulty. However, despite the many benefits of using mosses in green roofs [10,21,22], criteria for the selection of moss species suitable for green covers under this climate have yet to be elaborated.
A study of plant functional traits can facilitate the selection of the species best-adapted to the conditions of the study area besides being less time consuming. A trait-based analysis to select vegetation for Mediterranean green roofs was previously performed for vascular plants [23] and resulted in a list of species appropriate for use under these conditions. In contrast to vascular plants, for which several protocols and databases that include their traits have already been published (e.g., [24]; LEDA: [25]; BROT: [26]; TRY: [27,28]), similar information for mosses is scarce. One such study focused on mosses in Great Britain (BRYOATT: [29]) and another on those in the Azores (BryoTraits AZO: [30]). Brandão and co-workers [31] have already shown that the combined green roofs of shrubs, grasses and mosses proved to be the most effective vegetation cover to reduce water use. The presence of the moss layer under the canopy also contributes to increasing the amount of water retention [32]. Hence, the importance of selecting the moss species best suited to local conditions. In the present study we propose the development of a selection method for moss species exhibiting beneficial characteristics and relevant for the green roof industry.

2. Materials and Methods

We began our study with two moss checklists: the Mediterranean Basin moss checklist from Ros and co-workers [33], which cited 1168 species, and Hodgetts’ bryophyte checklist and country status for European countries [34], which cited 1515 species, of which 1285 are present in the Mediterranean Basin. Afterwards, we inserted each moss genus in an online database for European vegetation [35] based on Ellenberg’s ecological preference values [36]. The Ellenberg’s ecological preference values are based on an ordinal classification of plants according to the position of their realised ecological niche along an environmental gradient, allowing to generate a list of species classified with respect to light, temperature, humidity, nitrogen fertility, etc. From this list, we selected only the species whose Eilenberg values were typical for a Mediterranean climate and that can be experienced in a green roof from this area: light (8–9: light-loving and full-light plants); temperature (8–9: Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean plants); and humidity (1–3: extreme dryness to moderately dry sites) and analysed their life form, growth form and lifestyle [37,38]. We also noted confirmed moss occurrence along the countries of the Mediterranean Basin to determine the more cosmopolitan species [33,34].

3. Results and Discussion

The result was a list of the 43 most tolerant moss species (Table 1) of the extreme conditions selected, corresponding to 3% of the moss checklist within the countries of the Mediterranean Basin [33,34]. It is the first time that Ellenberg’s values of ecological preferences are used in the selection of mosses for use on green roofs in the Mediterranean and, as we can see in Table 1, these preferences reflect perfectly their functional traits, as expected, since according to the literature, life form, growth form and life strategy are related to plant strategy, climatic factors and land use [24,28,29,30,37,39]. Likewise, different life forms can be arranged in sequences reflecting water availability and light intensity in different habitats [40].
In this selection method, the predominant life forms are turfs (56%), followed by cushions (23%) and mats (21%). Our method confirms the fact that turf and cushion forms predominate in dry and xeric habitats, presenting the perfect structure for retaining water through capillarity and reducing surface area during dry-out events [41], whereas mats are more common in humid, shady areas [42]. Regarding the growth form, acrocarpous mosses are dominant (about 84%). The plants with this growth type are smaller than pleurocarpous ones and their colonies are dense, and therefore they equilibrate more slowly with the relative humidity in their surroundings. As such, they tend to be either fully hydrated and metabolically active or desiccated and metabolically inactive [43]. For this, acrocarpous mosses are commonly found in open dry sites, while their pleurocarpous counterparts are more common in moist shady locations [44]. The predominant life strategy was colonist (58%), followed by perennial (35%) in its different manifestations (66% perennial, 27% stress-tolerant perennial and 7% competitive perennial) and only 7% long-lived shuttles (Table 1). As a life strategy, colonist is very common for plants on open naked or shallow surfaces because these species produce countless small spores that easily disperse and colonise large areas after germination [45]. During reported that moss species able to tolerate environmental stress are mostly perennial species or long-lived shuttles [38].
For all the above, it makes sense that the 10 most widely distributed species in the 34 countries of Mediterranean Basin are all acrocarpous and with a tuft life form and a colonist strategy (70% respectively, Table 2): Bryum argenteum, Tortella nitida and Trichostomum crispulum (32 countries); Tortula muralis (31 countries); Didymodon fallax (30 countries); Grimmia lisae and Syntrichia laevipila (29 countries); and Ceratodon purpureus, Pleurochaete squarrosa and Tortula inermis (27 countries). However, care needs to be taken over the choice of provenance of the propagation material used, in order to minimise risk of disruption to the distribution patterns of local genetic variation within species. Compared with vascular plants, where intraspecific variation has been well-studied in many species, there have been very few investigations of bryophyte species, but the precautionary principle suggest that we assume, in the absence of contrary evidence, that bryophyte species will also be genetically variable. Nevertheless, the establishment of companies to grow these mosses from local populations has a potential for economic development, once the standard growing protocols are established, something that we are currently testing.

4. Conclusions

Even though the poikilohydric nature of mosses and their desiccation tolerance makes them suitable candidates for green roofs in Mediterranean climates, studies are still scarce [31,32]. For this reason, our approach serves as an important tool for the standardisation of this type of vegetation, confirming that functional traits are a perfect tool for the selection of mosses for future use on nonirrigated green roofs in the Mediterranean. Moreover, given the extreme climatic conditions of the Mediterranean Basin, the generated list of moss species provides a valuable resource for the green roof industry. They have the potential to be incorporated directly on top of construction materials that could be tested in the future. Observation of the urban areas shows that they can grow almost on any substrate, with some particular preferences (e.g., calcicole or calcifuge). Many rooftops can present a dark colour that absorbs solar radiation, increasing the temperature inside buildings. This could be attenuated by this green infrastructure. Some bryophytes turn its colour from green to brown, which changes its albedo to absorb more solar radiation so the temperature under the moss will increase. However, the minimum daily and range of humidity is always lower under the moss, meaning that the small amount of water that reaches the moss is well absorbed and can be released in the form of humidity during drier periods (Varela et al., unpublished results). Acrocarpic growth form, turf life form, and a colonist life strategy fit the required profile to survive in extreme climatic conditions, such as the long dryness period typical of Mediterranean climate. It would be necessary to optimise the cultivation of different species of mosses and to assure that the laboratory transplants will not dry out/die and adapt well under green roof conditions. There are already works on moss cultivation in the laboratory for ecological restoration projects, but all of them done in drylands with sandy substrate that would not suit the green roof substrate materials. Therefore, future work will address the selection of mosses from this list, testing their growth rates under controlled conditions and afterwards under green roof conditions.

Author Contributions

R.C.C. and Z.V. conceived the ideas, designed methodology and analysed the data. R.C.C. and Z.V. wrote the original draft. T.A.P. and C.B. contributed critically and edited the drafts in the process of writing the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.

Funding

This study and R. Cruz de Carvalho postdoctoral research grant were supported by the project MedMossRoofs (PTDC/ATP-ARP/5826/2014) funded by the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology), Portugal. Z. Varela was supported by a postdoctoral research grant awarded by the Autonomous Government of Galicia (Spain).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lionello, P.; Malanotte-Rizzoli, P.; Boscolo, R.; Alpert, P.; Artale, V.; Li, L.; Luterbacher, J.; May, W.; Trigo, R.; Tsimplis, M.; et al. The Mediterranean climate: An overview of the main characteristics and issues. Dev. Earth Environ. Sci. 2006, 4, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hoerling, M.; Eischeid, J.; Perlwitz, J.; Quan, Z.; Zhang, T.; Pegion, P. On the Increased Frequency of Mediterranean Drought. J. Clim. 2012, 25, 2146–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kuttler, W. The urban climate: Basic and applied aspects. In Urban Ecology; Marzluff, J.M., Shulenberger, E., Endlicher, W., Alberti, M., Bradley, G., Ryan, C., ZumBrunnen, C., Simon, U., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O.R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Oberndorfer, E.; Lundholm, J.; Bass, B.; Coffman, R.R.; Doshi, H.; Dunnett, N.; Gaffin, S.; Köhler, M.; Liu, K.K.Y.; Rowe, B. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience 2007, 57, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carter, T.; Keeler, A. Life-cycle cost–benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 87, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lundholm, J. Vegetation of Urban Hard Surfaces. In Urban Ecology—Patterns Processes, and Applications; Niemelä, J., Breuste, J.H., Elmqvist, T., Guntenspergen, G., James, P., McIntyre, N.E., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Veisten, K.; Smyrnova, Y.; Klæboe, R.; Hornikx, M.; Mosslemi, M.; Kang, J. Valuation of green walls and green roofs as soundscape measures: Including monetised amenity values together with noise-attenuation values in a cost-benefit analysis of a green wall affecting courtyards. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 3770–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Jaffal, I.; Ouldboukhitine, S.E.; Belarbi, R. A comprehensive study of the impact of green roofs on building energy performance. Renew. Energy 2012, 43, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berardi, U.; GhaffarianHoseini, A.; GhaffarianHoseini, A. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Eumorfopoulou, E.; Aravantinos, D. The contribution of a planted roof to the thermal protection of buildings in Greece. Energy Build. 1998, 27, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. VanWoert, N.D.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Rugh, C.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Xiao, L. Green Roof Stormwater Retention. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Alexandri, E.; Jones, P. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 480–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, J.; Yu, Q.; Gong, P. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 7266–7273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Loder, A. ‘There’s a meadow outside my workplace’: A phenomenological exploration of aesthetics and green roofs in Chicago and Toronto. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 126, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alpert, P.; Oliver, M.J. Drying without dying. In Desiccation and Survival in Plants: Drying without Dying; Black, M., Pritchard, H.W., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 3–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Santos, P.; Branquinho, C. Production of moss-dominated biocrusts to enhance the stability and function of the margins of artificial water bodies. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 26, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bowker, M.A.; Mau, R.L.; Maestre, F.T.; Escolar, C.; Castillo-Monroy, A.P. Functional profiles reveal unique ecological roles of various biological soil crust organisms. Funct. Ecol. 2011, 25, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Buffam, I.; Mitchell, M.E. Nutrient Cycling in Green Roof Ecosystems. In Green Roof Ecosystems; Sutton, R., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2015; Chapter 5; pp. 107–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rixen, C.; Mulder, C.P. Improved water retention links high species richness with increased productivity in arctic tundra moss communities. Oecologia 2005, 146, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Garabito, D.; Vallejo, R.; Montero, E.; Garabito, J.; Martínez-Abaigar, J. Green buildings envelopes with bryophytes. A review of the state of the art. Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Briología 2017, 48–49, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Glime, J.M. Construction. In Bryophyte Ecology; Glime, J.M., Ed.; Volume 2: Uses; Ebook Sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists: 5 November 2017; Chapter 5; Available online: http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/ (accessed on 30 April 2018).
  23. Van Mechelen, C.; Dutoit, T.; Hermy, M. Mediterranean open habitat vegetation offers great potential for extensive green roof design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 121, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Lavorel, S.; Garnier, E.; Diaz, S.; Buchmann, N.; Gurvich, D.E.; Reich, P.B.; Ter Steege, H.; Morgan, H.D.; Van Der Heijden, M.G.A.; et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2003, 51, 335–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kleyer, M.; Bekker, R.M.; Knevel, I.C.; Bakker, J.P.; Thompson, K.; Sonnenschein, M.; Poschlod, P.; Van Groenendael, J.M.; Klimeš, L.; Klimešová, J.; et al. The LEDA Traitbase: A database of life-history traits of Northwest European flora. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 1266–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paula, S.; Arianoutsou, M.; Kazanis, D.; Tavsanoglu, Ç.; Lloret, F.; Buhk, C.; Ojeda, F.; Luna, B.; Moreno, J.M.; Rodrigo, A.; et al. Fire-related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean Basin. Ecology 2009, 90, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kattge, J.; Diaz, S.; Lavorel, S.; Prentice, I.C.; Leadley, P.; Bönisch, G.; Garnier, E.; Westoby, M.; Reich, P.B.; Wright, I.J.; et al. TRY—A global database of plant traits. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2905–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pérez-Harguindeguy, N.; Diaz, S.; Gamier, E.; Lavorel, S.; Poorter, H.; Jaureguiberry, P.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Comwell, W.K.; Craine, J.M.; Gurvich, D.E.; et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2013, 61, 167–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hill, M.O.; Preston, C.D.; Bosanquet, S.D.S.; Roy, D.B. BRYOATT: Attributes of British and Irish Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Huntingdon, UK, 2007; ISBN 9781855312364. [Google Scholar]
  30. Henriques, D.S.G.; Ah-Peng, C.; Gabriel, R. Structure and Applications of BRYOTRAIT-AZO, a Trait Database for Azorean Bryophytes. Cryptogam. Bryol. 2017, 38, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brandão, C.; Cameira, M.R.; Valente, F.; Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Paço, T.A. Wet season hydrological performance of green roofs using native species under Mediterranean climate. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 102, 596–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Paço, T.A.; Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Arsénio, P.; Martins, D. Green roof design techniques to improve water use under Mediterranean conditions. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ros, R.M.; Mazimpaka, V.; Abou-Salama, U.; Aleffi, M.; Blockeel, T.L.; Brugués, M.; Cros, R.M.; Dia, M.G.; Dirkse, G.M.; Draper, I.; et al. Mosses of the Mediterranean, an Annotated Checklist. Cryptogam. Bryol. 2013, 34, 99–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hodgetts, N.G. Checklist and Country Status of European Bryophytes—Towards a New Red List for Europe; Irish Wildlife Manuals. No. 84; National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht: Ireland, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Karrer, G.; Wiedermann, R. Ökologische Zeigerwerte. Available online: http://statedv.boku.ac.at/zeigerwerte/ (accessed on 30 April 2018).
  36. Ellenberg, H.; Weber, H.E.; Düll, R.; Wirth, V.; Werner, W.; Paulissen, D. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, 2nd ed.; Goltze: Göttingen, Germany, 1992; Scripta Geobotanica 18; pp. 1–258. ISBN 9783884525180. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dierssen, K. Distribution, Ecological Amplitude and Phytosociological Characterization of European Bryophytes; Bryophytorum Bibliotheca 56; J. Cramer: Stuttgart, Germany, 2001; pp. 1–289. ISBN 978-3-443-62028-8. [Google Scholar]
  38. During, H.J. Ecological classifications of bryophytes and lichens. In Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment; Bates, J.W., Farmer, A.M., Eds.; Clarendon: Oxford, UK, 1992; pp. 1–31. ISBN 978-0198542919. [Google Scholar]
  39. Frey, W.; Frahm, J.P.; Fischer, E.; Lobin, W. The Liverworts, Mosses and Ferns of Europe; English Edition; Heidelberg, T.L., Ed.; Apollo Books: Vester Skerninge, Denmark, 2006; 527p, ISBN 978-0946589708. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bates, J.W. Is ‘life-form’ a useful concept in bryophyte ecology? Oikos 1998, 82, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zotz, G.; Schweikert, A.; Jetz, W.; Westerman, H. Water relations and carbon gain are closely related to cushion size in the moss Grimmia pulvinata. New Phytol. 2000, 148, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kürschner, H. Life strategies and adaptations in bryophytes from the Near and Middle East. Turk. J. Bot. 2004, 28, 73–84. [Google Scholar]
  43. Proctor, M.C.F.; Oliver, M.J.; Wood, A.J.; Alpert, P.; Stark, L.R.; Cleavitt, N.L.; Mishler, B.D. Desiccation tolerance in bryophytes: A review. Bryologist 2007, 110, 595–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Giordano, S.; Sorbo, S.; Adamo, P.; Adriana Basile, A.; Spagnuolo, V.; Cobianchi, R.C. Biodiversity and trace element content of epiphytic bryophytes in urban and extraurban sites of southern Italy. Plant Ecol. 2004, 170, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kürschner, H. Life strategies of Pannonian loess cliff bryophyte communities: Studies of the cryptogamic vegetation of loess cliffs, VIII. Nova Hedwig. 2002, 75, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. List of potential moss species to be used in Mediterranean green roofs according to the selection method proposed in the current work using Ellenberg’s values for light (L), temperature (T) and humidity (H) [36]. (x—no specific ecological preference). Life form (Cu, cushion; Ma, mats; Tf, tuft), growth form (Acr, acrocarpous; Pl, pleurocarpous) and lifestyle (C, colonist; CP, competitive perennial; LS, long-lived shuttle; P, perennial; STP, stress-tolerant perennial) are also noted [37,38].
Table 1. List of potential moss species to be used in Mediterranean green roofs according to the selection method proposed in the current work using Ellenberg’s values for light (L), temperature (T) and humidity (H) [36]. (x—no specific ecological preference). Life form (Cu, cushion; Ma, mats; Tf, tuft), growth form (Acr, acrocarpous; Pl, pleurocarpous) and lifestyle (C, colonist; CP, competitive perennial; LS, long-lived shuttle; P, perennial; STP, stress-tolerant perennial) are also noted [37,38].
SpeciesLTHLife FormGrowth FormLifestyle
Abietinella abietina (Hedw.) M.Fleisch8x3MaPlP
Barbula convoluta Hedw.8x3TfAcrC
Bryum argenteum Hedw.8xxTfAcrC
Bryum canariense Brid.9x2TfAcrC
Campylopus oerstedianus (Müll.Hal.) Mitt.892TfAcrP
Campylopus pilifer Brid.982CuAcrLS
Ceratodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid.8x2TfAcrC
Cheilothela chloropus (Brid.) Broth.9x2TfAcrC
Crossidium crassinerve (De Not.) Jur.982TfAcrC
Crossidium squamiferum (Viv.) Jur.981TfAcrC
Didymodon cordatus Jur.981TfAcrP
Didymodon fallax (Hedw.) R.H.Zander8x2TfAcrP
Fabronia ciliaris (Brid.) Brid.882MaPlP
Fabronia pusilla Raddi893MaPlP
Grimmia anodon Bruch & Schimp.9x1CuAcrSTP
Grimmia crinita Brid.981TfAcrC
Grimmia donniana Sm.8x2CuAcrC
Grimmia lisae De Not.891CuAcrC
Grimmia tergestina Tomm. ex Bruch & Schimp.981CuAcrC
Haplocladium virginianum (Brid.) Broth.883MaPlP
Hedwigia ciliata (Hedw.) P.Beauv.9x2MaAcrLS
Hedwigia stellata Hedenäs891MaAcrLS
Homalothecium aureum (Spruce) H.Rob.892MaPlP
Leptobarbula berica (De Not.) Schimp.882TfAcrC
Orthotrichum cupulatum Hoffm. ex Brid.981CuAcrC
Pleurochaete squarrosa (Brid.) Lindb.982TfAcrCP
Pottiopsis caespitosa (Bruch ex Brid.) Blockeel & A.J.E.Sm.882TfAcrC
Pseudoleskeella tectorum (Funck ex Brid.) Kindb. ex Broth.8x2MaPlSTP
Pterygoneurum sampaianum (Machado-Guim.) Machado-Guim.983TfAcrC
Racomitrium lanuginosum (Hedw.) Brid.9x3TfAcrSTP
Rhytidium rugosum (Hedw.) Kindb.9x3MaPlP
Schistidium confertum (Funck) Bruch & Schimp.9x1CuAcrC
Schistidium flaccidum (De Not.) Ochyra9x1CuAcrP
Syntrichia caninervis Mitt.991TfAcrC
Syntrichia laevipila Brid.882TfAcrC
Syntrichia ruralis (Hedw.) F.Weber & D.Mohr9x2TfAcrC
Tortella nitida (Lindb.) Broth.882CuAcrSTP
Tortula acaulon (With.) R.H.Zander993TfAcrC
Tortula brevissima Schiffn.982TfAcrC
Tortula inermis (Brid.) Mont.882CuAcrC
Tortula muralis Hedw.981TfAcrC
Tortula revolvens (Schimp.) G.Roth981TfAcrC
Trichostomum crispulum Bruch882TfAcrC
Table 2. Countries or regions according to Ros and co-workers [33]. The most common moss species are highlighted in grey (present in more than 27 countries [80%]). (Countries abbreviation AD: Andorra; AL: Albania; AZ: Azores; BA: Bosnia-Herzegovina; BG: Bulgaria; BL: Baleares; CN: Canary Islands; CO: Corsica; CT: Crete; CY: Cyprus; DZ: Algeria; EG: Egypt; ES: Spain; FR: France; GR: Greece; HR: Croatia; IL: Israel; IT: Italia; JO: Jordan; LB: Lebanon; LY: Libya; MA: Morocco; MD: Madeira; ME: Montenegro; MK: Macedonia; MT: Malta; PT: Portugal; RS: Serbia; SA: Sardinia; SC: Sicily; SI: Slovenia; SY: Syria; TN: Tunisia; TR: Turkey.)
Table 2. Countries or regions according to Ros and co-workers [33]. The most common moss species are highlighted in grey (present in more than 27 countries [80%]). (Countries abbreviation AD: Andorra; AL: Albania; AZ: Azores; BA: Bosnia-Herzegovina; BG: Bulgaria; BL: Baleares; CN: Canary Islands; CO: Corsica; CT: Crete; CY: Cyprus; DZ: Algeria; EG: Egypt; ES: Spain; FR: France; GR: Greece; HR: Croatia; IL: Israel; IT: Italia; JO: Jordan; LB: Lebanon; LY: Libya; MA: Morocco; MD: Madeira; ME: Montenegro; MK: Macedonia; MT: Malta; PT: Portugal; RS: Serbia; SA: Sardinia; SC: Sicily; SI: Slovenia; SY: Syria; TN: Tunisia; TR: Turkey.)
SpeciesADALAZBABGBLCNCOCTCYDZEGESFRGRHRILITJOLBLYMAMDMEMKMTPTRSSASCSISYTNTRNº
Abietinella abietina (Hedw.) M.FleischXX XX XXXX X XX X X 13
Barbula convoluta Hedw. X XXXXXXXXXXX X XX XX X 18
Bryum argenteum Hedw.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX32
Bryum canariense Brid. XX XXXXX X XXXXXX XXX X XX X X22
Campylopus oerstedianus (Müll.Hal.) Mitt. X XXX X X 6
Campylopus pilifer Brid. X XXX XXX X X X XX X13
Ceratodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid.XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX X XXXX XXXXXX X27
Cheilothela chloropus (Brid.) Broth. XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX X23
Crossidium crassinerve (De Not.) Jur. XXX XXXXXXX XXX XX XXXXXX XX23
Crossidium squamiferum (Viv.) Jur. X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXX XXXXX X 25
Didymodon cordatus Jur.X XX XXXX X X X X XXX X15
Didymodon fallax (Hedw.) R.H.ZanderXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX XX30
Fabronia ciliaris (Brid.) Brid. X XX XXX X 7
Fabronia pusilla Raddi X XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XX25
Grimmia anodon Bruch & Schimp. X X XXX XXXXX XXX X XX XXXX XX22
Grimmia crinita Brid. X XXX XXXX XXX XXXX X 16
Grimmia donniana Sm. X XX X X X X XXXXX X13
Grimmia lisae De Not.XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XX X XXXXXXXX29
Grimmia tergestina Tomm. ex Bruch & Schimp.XX XXXXXXX XXXX X X X XX XXXXX XX25
Haplocladium virginianum (Brid.) Broth. X X X 3
Hedwigia ciliata (Hedw.) P.Beauv.XX XX XX X XXXX X XXX XXXXX X21
Hedwigia stellata HedenäsX X XX X XXX X XX X X XX X16
Homalothecium aureum (Spruce) H.Rob. X XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX X XXXX XX24
Leptobarbula berica (De Not.) Schimp. X X XX XXXXXXX X XX XX X XX19
Orthotrichum cupulatum Hoffm. ex Brid. X XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX X25
Pleurochaete squarrosa (Brid.) Lindb.X XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX X27
Pottiopsis caespitosa (Bruch ex Brid.) Blockeel & A.J.E.Sm. X X X X XXXXXXX XX XXXX XX19
Pseudoleskeella tectorum (Funck ex Brid.) Kindb. ex Broth.X X XXX X X X X X10
Pterygoneurum sampaianum (Machado-Guim.) Machado-Guim. X X X 3
Racomitrium lanuginosum (Hedw.) Brid. XXX XX XXX X XX XXXXX X17
Rhytidium rugosum (Hedw.) Kindb.XX XX XXXX X XX X X X14
Schistidium confertum (Funck) Bruch & Schimp.XX XXXXX XX XXXX X X XX XXXXX X23
Schistidium flaccidum (De Not.) Ochyra X XX X XX XXX X X X XX XXX X18
Syntrichia caninervis Mitt. XXX X X 5
Syntrichia laevipila Brid.XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XX29
Syntrichia ruralis (Hedw.) F.Weber & D.MohrX XX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XX XX 22
Tortella nitida (Lindb.) Broth.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX32
Tortula acaulon (With.) R.H.Zander X XXXXXX X XXX XX XXXXXXXXXX X24
Tortula brevissima Schiffn. XX XXXX XXX XXXX X14
Tortula inermis (Brid.) Mont. X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX XXXXX X27
Tortula muralis Hedw.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX X31
Tortula revolvens (Schimp.) G.Roth X XX X X X X XXX X X XXX15
Trichostomum crispulum BruchXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX32

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Varela, Z.; do Paço, T.A.; Branquinho, C. Selecting Potential Moss Species for Green Roofs in the Mediterranean Basin. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020057

AMA Style

Cruz de Carvalho R, Varela Z, do Paço TA, Branquinho C. Selecting Potential Moss Species for Green Roofs in the Mediterranean Basin. Urban Science. 2019; 3(2):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cruz de Carvalho, Ricardo, Zulema Varela, Teresa Afonso do Paço, and Cristina Branquinho. 2019. "Selecting Potential Moss Species for Green Roofs in the Mediterranean Basin" Urban Science 3, no. 2: 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020057

APA Style

Cruz de Carvalho, R., Varela, Z., do Paço, T. A., & Branquinho, C. (2019). Selecting Potential Moss Species for Green Roofs in the Mediterranean Basin. Urban Science, 3(2), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3020057

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop