COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ROOF GARDEN SUBSTRATES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PLANT GROWTH
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ROOF GARDEN SUBSTRATES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PLANT GROWTH
复制标题
不同屋顶花园基质的比较及其对植物生长的影响
DOI：
10.17660/actahortic.2004.643.41
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ioannis Chronopoulos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Nektarios;Panayiota Tsiotsiopoulou;Ioannis Chronopoulos
评价了4种基质作为屋顶花园集约化营养层，并监测了其对大灯笼生长的影响。4种基质分别为：a)砂壤土（S), b)脲醛树脂泡沫改性砂壤土（S:F- 60:40 /v）， c）泥炭和珍珠岩（S:P:Per50:30:20 /v）和d)脲醛树脂泡沫改性泥炭（P:F: 60:40 /v）。与S相比，S:F、S:P:Per和P:F的基质重量分别减少了17%、20%和56%，容重分别减少了46%、43%和95%。4种基质的pH均有相似的增加，而EC在S和S:P:Per中有所降低，而在S:F和P:F中有所增加。与S:P:Per和P:F相比，S和S:F在研究前7个月的新梢生长较好。然而，S:P:Per在研究的前七个月后表现出增长的速度，导致最终的增长速度与S和S:F相似。P:F不能支持足够的植物生长。S:F提倡更早、更多产的花期。由于自由地面空间有限，在大量建设的现代大都市中，屋顶花园为恢复和改善城市环境提供了独特的解决方案（Scrivens 1990）。一个成功的屋顶花园建筑的最重要的组成部分之一是选择合适的基材（Liesecke 1995），它将有能力支持植物生长，同时它将是轻量级的。最近，脲醛树脂泡沫已被广泛使用作为土壤改良剂绿色屋顶基质在一些国家，例如在荷兰。然而，对轻质土壤改良剂减轻基质重量和支持植物生长的能力的评价缺乏研究。本研究的目的是：a)研究土壤改良剂对植物性质和减重的影响；b)评价每种基质对植物生长的影响。材料与方法本研究于2000- 2001年在希腊雅典农业大学进行。研究的4种基质分别为：a) 100%砂壤土（S)作为对照，b)脲醛树脂泡沫改性砂壤土（S:F-60:40 v/v）， c）泥炭和珍珠岩混合砂壤土（S:P:Per50:30:20 v/v）和d)脲醛树脂泡沫改性泥炭（P:F-60:40 v/v）。本研究以100株大白菜为研究对象。这些花盆的深度为28厘米，并且是灵活的，因此一旦植物的根出现在透明的盆壁上，它们的直径就可以从20厘米增加到50厘米，从而允许根自由地侧向移动。一个不透明的塑料衬垫被放置在锅的外表面，以排除光线。叶面肥（Nutrileaf 60; Miller, Hanover， PA， USA）在研究的前2个月每周施用一次，之后每2个月施用一次，施用速率为3 g⋅L。在2001年1月、5月和9月分别施用颗粒肥（complal, 6.3N-5.2P-14.1K-1.2Mg-8S; AgrEvo Hellas s.a., Athens， GR），施量分别为22 g/罐、25 g/罐和27 g/罐。采用完全随机设计，并比较了处理方法[c] . Urban Horticulture Eds: R. Junge-Berberovic等。在概率水平P=0.05的情况下，使用Tukey的HSD。理化性质S:F、S:P:Per和P:F的饱和质量分别比S低14.8%、19.7%和55.9%（表1）。S:F和S:P:Per的减少是有限的，不能被认为是这些基质与S相比的显著优势。相反，与砂壤土相比，泥炭和尿素甲醛树脂泡沫的组合导致了显著的重量减轻，特别是在田间容量方面。在研究期间，四种底物的pH值略有增加，其模式相似（表1）。相反，EC值仅在含有树脂泡沫的基材中增加。这种增加是由于继承了树脂泡沫EC (8.5 dS⋅m)，反映了泡沫改性基质的缓慢浸出模式。在前7个月，S和S:F的茎伸长率高于P:F和S:P:Per。前7个月后，S:P:Per的茎长增加，最终长度与S相近。S:P:Per和P:F的初始芽伸长速度较慢，这是由于它们的持水能力增加，在蒸腾需求低的时期造成了植株的涝渍胁迫。P:F的茎伸长在6个采样日期后下降，这是由于P:F中EC的增加。在前三个采样日期，S和S:F的植株比P:F和S:P:Per的植株侧枝产量更高（图2）。随后，P:F侧枝数量大幅增加，这是植物对EC增加和涝渍胁迫的反应。S:F和S的花期早于S:P:Per和P:F（图3），且S:F的花数最多。6月以后S和S:F的开花速率基本一致，而S:P:Per的开花速率在8月和11月有所提高。P:F开出的花最少，大量的花在开花前就流产了。与其他基质相比，P:F基质的主茎最终直径较小，表明植物生长受到抑制。结论砂壤土(S)和S:F土是植物生长的最佳土壤。而S的容重增加。S:F处理促进了柠条的生长和开花，同时使基质重量减少了约15%。S:P:Per表现出与气候条件有关的差异反应，但导致与S和S:F相似的植物生长，而它的减重效果略好（20%）。P:F提供了一个轻量级的基质，但表现出问题的植物生长，并容易积累盐。文献引Liesecke H.J. 1995。绿化屋顶场地的规划、执行及保养指引。德国工程技术研究所（FLL）。斯克里文斯，S. 1990。城市景观和屋顶花园。p . 131 - 151。见：B.克劳斯顿（编）。植物景观设计，第2版，Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd，牛津，英国。
Four substrates were evaluated as intensive roof garden vegetative layer and their impact on Lantana camara growth was monitored. The four substrates were: a) sandy loam soil (S), b) sandy loam soil amended with urea formaldehyde resin foam (S:F-60: 40 /v), c) sandy loam soil amended with peat and perlite at (S:P:Per50:30:20 /v) and d) peat amended with urea formaldehyde resin foam (P:F at 60:40 /v). Substrate weight at field capacity was reduced by 17%, 20% and 56% and bulk density by 46%, 43% and 95%, for S:F, S:P:Per and P:F respectively compared to S. The pH increased similarly at the four substrates while EC decreased in S and S:P:Per but increased in S:F and P:F. Shoot growth was better in S and S:F during the first seven months of the study compared to S:P:Per and P:F. However, S:P:Per exhibited an increased growth rate after the first seven months of the study resulting in a final growth rate that was similar to that of S and S:F. P:F could not support sufficient plant growth. S:F promoted earlier and more prolific flowering. INTRODUCTION Roof gardens present a unique solution to restore and improve the urban environment in heavily build modern metropolitan cities due to the limited free ground space (Scrivens 1990). One of the most important constituents of a successful roof garden construction is the selection of the appropriate substrate (Liesecke 1995) that will have the capacity to support plant growth while at the same time it will be lightweight. Recently, urea-formaldehyde resin foam has been used extensively as a soil amendment green roof substrates in several countries, for example in the Netherlands. However, there is a lack of research evaluating the capacity of lightweight soil amendments to reduce substrate weight and support plant growth. The goal of the present study is: a) to investigate the effect of soil amendments on the properties and weight reduction and b) to evaluate the effect of each substrate on plant growth. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted at the Agricultural University of Athens, Greece, from 2000-01. The four substrates that were investigated were: a) 100% sandy loam soil (S), which served as the control, b) sandy loam soil amended with the urea-formaldehyde resin foam (S:F-60:40 v/v), c) sandy loam soil mixed with peat and perlite (S:P:Per50:30:20 v/v) and d) peat amended with a urea-formaldehyde resin foam (P:F-60:40 v/v). The study consisted from 100 plants of Lantana camara. The pots had a depth of 28 cm and were flexible so that their diameter could increase from 20 cm to 50 cm as soon as the plant roots appeared on the transparent pot wall in a way that permitted the free sideways movement of the roots. A non-transparent plastic liner was placed on the outer surface of the pots in order to exclude light. Foliar fertilizer (Nutrileaf 60; Miller, Hanover, PA, USA) was applied in weekly intervals during the first 2 months of the study and once every 2 months thereafter at rate of 3 g⋅L. Granular fertilizer (Complesal, 6.3N-5.2P-14.1K-1.2Mg-8S; AgrEvo Hellas S.A., Athens, GR) was also applied on January, May and September 2001 at a rate of 22 g/pot, 25 g/pot and 27 g/pot, respectively. A completely randomised design was used and treatment means were compared Proc. IC on Urban Horticulture Eds: R. Junge-Berberovic et al. Acta Hort 643, ISHS 2004 312 using Tukey’s HSD at a probability level P=0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Physical and Chemical Properties The saturated weight of S:F, S:P:Per and P:F was 14.8%, 19.7% and 55.9% less than S, respectively (Table 1). The reduction for S:F and S:P:Per was limited and could not be considered as a significant advantage of these substrates compared to S. Conversely, the combination of peat and urea formaldehyde resin foam caused a significant weight reduction compared to the sandy loam soil especially at field capacity. The pH slightly increased during the study having a similar pattern for the four substrates (Table 1). On the contrary, EC values increased only in the substrates containing the resin foam. This increase was due to the inherited resin foam EC (8.5 dS⋅m) and reflected slow leaching patterns of the foam amended substrates Shoot Length During the first 7 months S and S:F exhibited a faster shoot elongation rate compared to P:F and S:P:Per. After the first 7 months, shoot growth increased in S:P:Per and produced a final length similar to that of S. The slow initial shoot elongation rate of S:P:Per and P:F was caused by their increased water holding capacity, which caused a waterlogging stress of the plants during the period of low evapotranspiration demands. Shoot elongation in P:F was reduced after the 6 sampling date, which was attributed to EC increase observed in P:F. Lateral Shoot Number Plants in S and S:F exhibited a higher production of lateral shoots compared to P:F and S:P:Per during the first three sampling dates (Fig. 2). Subsequently, the number of lateral shoots of P:F increased substantially as a reaction of the plants to the stress caused by the increased EC and waterlogging. Flower Number Flowering in S:F and S occurred earlier than in S:P:Per and P:F (Fig.3) and S:F, produced the highest flower number. After June the rate of flower production was similar for S and S:F, while S:P:Per exhibited an increased flower production rate in August and November. P:F produced the least number of flowers, a significant number of which aborted before blooming. Main Shoot Diameter The final diameter of the main shoot in P:F substrate was smaller compared to all the other substrates indicating a reduced plant growth. CONCLUSIONS The sandy loam soil (S) and S:F provided the best plant growth. However, S had an increased bulk density. The S:F improved the growth and flowering of L. camara, while at the same time reduced the weight of the substrate by approximately 15%. The S:P:Per exhibited a differential response that was related to the climatic conditions but resulted to similar plant growth as S and S:F, while it had a slightly better weight reduction (20%). The P:F provided a lightweight substrate but exhibited problematic plant growth and it was prone to salt accumulation. Literature Cited Liesecke H.J. 1995. Guidelines for the planning, execution and upkeep of green-roof sites. Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau e.V. (FLL). Scrivens, S. 1990. Urban Landscape and Roof Gardens. p. 131-151. In: B. Clouston (ed). Landscape Design with Plants, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK.