Skip to main content

Could lamb's ears save the planet?

Lamb's Ears
Well, no, a lamb's ears couldn't save the planet alone. But the idea is a nice tag from a press release I received recently. We're not talking gory butchered bits of animal, but a broad leafed plant, known to its fans as Stachys byzantina. You can read the press release in all its glory below, but the basic idea is that you cover the roof of a building (say) with these plants and they can reduce the surrounding air temperature by as much as 1.5 degrees. So, they suggest, if we cover all the buildings in a city, we could reduce the urban heat island effect, a powerful effect that means that temperatures in cities can far exceed those in the surrounding countryside.

With my Ecologic hat on, I love the idea, though I would like some more data. This 1.5 degree claim is relative to dry bare soil. But how would a roof of lamb's ears compare, for instance, with a roof covered in reflective foil to send back a fair amount of the sun's rays, reducing the 'storage heater' effect that is an urban heat island? I'd be interested to know.

Any road up, here's the press release for your delectation:

Research, to be presented this afternoon, 15th September, at an environmental conference in London, by Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) Scientist Dr Tijana Blanusa highlights the merits of certain plants in helping reduce the higher temperatures found in cities. One plant in particular, Lamb’s Ears (Stachys byzantina), which represents silvery and hairy leaved plants, may be very important in the future.

It is well recognised that air temperatures in urban areas are higher than in surrounding rural areas, a phenomenon called ‘urban heat island effect’. This increase in air temperatures is largely due to vegetation being replaced by dark and impervious surfaces.

A number of studies have shown the importance of roof vegetation in decreasing summer-time air temperatures and in counteracting urban heat island effects. They achieve this by cooling surrounding areas through evapo-transpiration, a plant’s equivalent to sweating.

The paper, presented at the World Green Roof Congress, has being produced in collaboration with researchers from the School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading.

Dr Blanusa looked at the three broad leafed perennial plants and a Sedum mix, the most popular plants for roof covers. The first year of her research showed that Lamb’s Ears (Stachys byzantina) significantly reduced the surrounding air temperature near the surface of the leaf during early afternoon on a hot summer day, by some 1.5 degrees for example when compared to the bare, dry soil.

“Green roofs are not just about looking good,” says Dr Blanusa. “There is much more interest recently in providing additional ecological and economic functions such as regulating internal building temperatures. But this research emphasises the potential in helping reducing air temperatures. If only every building had a green roof and a green wall.”

Earlier research in the UK, based on model predictions, has shown that increasing green space such as parks, gardens and green roofs by 10 per cent would reduce summer-time air temperatures by something like 4 degrees (i).

“With our climate getting warmer gardeners will be playing an even more important part in helping reduce the effects,” says Tijana. “Getting planting right in urban spaces, which as we all know can be very limited, is particularly important and can have a major effect in not only helping reduce urban temperatures but will also provide other environmental benefits.”

Comments

  1. I'm probably being dim, here, but 'sweating' cools the body, not the surrounding air.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Spot on, Henry - I just thought 'it's biology, so I won't understand it,' and didn't read it properly.

    I can only assume that since the urban heat island effect is basically a city acting as a storage heater by soaking up heat during the day and giving it off at night, the plants reducing the temperature of the roof reduce the resultant impact on the air during the darkened hours.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense