Next Article in Journal
Occupants’ Satisfaction of Indoor Environment Quality in Non-Linear Minimum Buildings in Winter Based on the Role of Different Kinds of Perceptions
Next Article in Special Issue
Productive and Nutritional Characteristics of Native Grasses from the Floodplain Banks Ecosystem in the Colombian Orinoquia
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Improvement of a Novel Trapezoid Air-Cooling Battery Thermal Management System for Electric Vehicles
Previous Article in Special Issue
Using the Halophyte Crithmum maritimum in Green Roofs for Sustainable Urban Horticulture: Effect of Substrate and Nutrient Content Analysis including Potentially Toxic Elements
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/su14094978
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Acclimatization of Mediterranean Native Sages (Salvia spp.) and Interspecific Hybrids in an Urban Green Roof under Regular and Reduced Irrigation

by
Maria Papafotiou
1,*,
Aikaterini N. Martini
1,
Lamprini Tassoula
1,
Eleftherios G. Stylias
2,
Anastasios Kalantzis
2 and
Eleftherios Dariotis
2
1
Laboratory of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture, Department of Crop Science, School of Plant Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
2
Kalantzis Plants, Agioi Saranta, 19007 Marathon, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 4978; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094978
Submission received: 4 March 2022 / Revised: 13 April 2022 / Accepted: 14 April 2022 / Published: 21 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Exploitation of Neglected or Underutilized Phytogenetic Resources: From Wild-Growing Native Plants to New Domesticated Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Native-to-Greece sage species, namely, Salvia fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. ringens, S. tomentosa and interspecific hybrids, were evaluated for their acclimatization in an extensive Mediterranean green roof during summer under regular and reduced irrigation (every 2–3 days with substrate moisture 16–22% v/v and 4–5 days with substrate moisture 7–11% v/v, respectively). A substrate (grape-marc compost:perlite:pumice, 3:3:4, v/v) that was 10 cm deep was used. Regardless of the irrigation frequency, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera showed the highest survival of all hybrids and species, along with satisfactory growth, while S. fruticosa showed the lowest survival. Reduced irrigation resulted in the reduction of aboveground and root biomass, with no damage to the photosynthetic apparatus. S. fruticosa showed the highest (53%) aboveground biomass reduction and S. officinalis, S. officinalis × S. ringens and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens showed the lowest (28, 23 and 3%, respectively), while S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens showed the lowest reduction in root biomass (13 and 16%, respectively). With a reservation for S. fruticosa, Greek Salvia spp. and their interspecific hybrids studied in the present work are recommended for sustainable exploitation in extensive green roofs in arid regions and generally in xeriscaping.

1. Introduction

Green roofs (GRs) are one type of green infrastructure that can be applied to city buildings and provide significant environmental, social and economical advantages to the urban environment that mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization and make cities more safe, sustainable and resilient to the climate crisis [1,2,3,4]. GRs not only contribute to biodiversity increase [5] but also constitute the missing link between the built and the natural environment, which is required for ecological living in cities. GRs are a sustainable alternative to conventional roofs that provide multiple ecosystem services, including improved stormwater management, CO2 sequestration and reduction in the urban heat island effect [6,7]. Apart from ecosystem services, GRs could increase the aesthetic value of buildings and the city overall, contribute to the socialization of the multistory building residents, support the psychosomatic health of the elderly by volunteering in GR maintenance and provide environmental education [8].
Due to their benefits, GRs gain momentum, even in the semi-arid and arid regions [9], where water availability may be a limiting factor for the expansion of green roof technology [10]. One of the most critical steps in green roof installation in these areas is the selection of drought- and heat-tolerant plant species that can thrive under extreme microclimate conditions [9]. Apart from this, however, biodiversity, including concern for pollinator reduction worldwide [11] and the preservation of the local character, must be taken into account, which are factors that can be met by the use of native plants [12,13]. The adaptation of many native Mediterranean plants to drought stress and their floristic diversity leads them to be ideal for use in extensive GRs in the Mediterranean and other areas with similar climatic conditions [3,13,14,15,16,17].
Aromatic–medicinal plants are important sources for the development of new valuable products of interest to human and animal health, while they are often used as ornamental plants as well. The Mediterranean Basin hosts a great diversity of aromatic plants with medicinal and floricultural potential, a large part of which remains neglected and underutilized despite the fact that such unique floristic elements could provide considerable and profitable value for local communities [18]. Overall, the successful implementation of sustainable exploitation of native, wild-growing and phytogenetic resources requires multidisciplinary research that covers fields and expertise ranging from artificial selection and breeding, propagation and cultivation to agronomical aspects [19].
Mediterranean sages (Salvia spp. family Lamiaceae) are drought-resistant plants that are part of the macchia shrubland; they could be ideal for use in xeriscaping, valuable as bee-friendly plants and suitable for use in extensive type urban green roofs. In order to introduce new drought-resistant species with interesting floricultural characteristics in the floriculture industry, interspecific crossbreeding was undertaken between five sage species that are native to Greece, i.e., S. fruticosa Mill., S. officinalis L., S. pomifera L. ssp. pomifera, S. tomentosa Mill. and S. ringens Sibth. & Sm. [20]. These species were chosen to incorporate a wide range of growth habits, flower color, time and duration of flowering, leaf aroma, and cold and drought resistance. From the hybrids developed, five, i.e., S. fruticosa × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. officinalis × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. tomentosa and S. pomifera ssp. Pomifera × S. ringens, were chosen for their ornamental traits. The main ornamental traits of the above Salvia spp. and the interspecific hybrids were described by Papafotiou et al. [20], except for the hybrid S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens. This hybrid differs from all the others, as it has a low height (about 30 cm) like S. ringens. Its canopy shape, leaf morphology and aroma are also like S. ringens, but its flowering stems are longer (about 90 cm), the longest of all species and hybrids, with larger and sparsely arranged light purple flowers. From the five sage species that were used in crossbreeding, only S. officinalis and S. fruticosa were tested previously for growth on extensive GRs [21,22,23,24,25]. Furthermore, the drought tolerance of S. officinalis was thoroughly investigated [22,24,26,27,28,29,30], with it being an important medicinal and aromatic crop, while drought-resistant varieties of this species were already produced to reduce the impact of drought on its productivity [31]. For four of the hybrids used in the present study, they were shown to respond better to water stress in greenhouse conditions compared to S. fruticosa [20].
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the acclimatization of the native-to-Greece Salvia spp., S. fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. tomentosa, and S. ringens, along with the interspecific hybrids S. fruticosa × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. officinalis × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. tomentosa and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens, in an urban extensive green roof. Two irrigation frequencies, one considered adequate and one deficient, were applied during the hot and dry Eastern Mediterranean summer, and the acclimatization of the five sage species and five hybrids to drought was assessed on the basis of the plant survival rate, aboveground and root biomass, leaf stomatal resistance and photosystem efficiency. Apart from S. fruticosa and S. officinalis, all other species and hybrids were tested for sustainable exploitation as green roof plants for the first time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material, Substrate and Experimental Setup

Rooted cuttings of five sage species native to Greece, i.e., Salvia fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. tomentosa and S. ringens, along with five interspecific hybrids of them, i.e., S. fruticosa × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. officinalis × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. tomentosa and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens, that were about 8 weeks old were planted on 4 April 2021 in plastic containers that were 40 cm (width) × 60 cm (length) × 22 cm (depth) in size. Each container had a green roof infrastructure fitted, i.e., moisture retention and protection of the insulation mat FLW-500, a drainage layer Diadrain-25H and a filter sheet VLF-150 (Landco Ltd., Diadem Green Roof Systems, Athens, Greece). Two plants of the same type per container with six containers per treatment were used. The containers were arranged following a completely randomized design on a second-floor flat roof (12 m approximate height) at the Agricultural University of Athens (37°59′ Ν, 23° 42′ Ε). The substrate used was grape marc compost:perlite:pumice (3:3:4, v/v) and had a 10 cm depth. This is a lightweight substrate that is adequate for extensive green roofs according to FLL guidelines for green roofs [32], which was tested in a previous study on the use of Mediterranean xerophytes in extensive green roofs [13]. The characteristics of the grape marc compost (Anagnostou- Soils, Compost & Substrates, Athens, Greece) were the following: pH in extract (1:5) 8.8, ash (550 °C) 45.5 g/100 g, EC 3050 µS/cm, total nitrogen (Ν) 2.6 g/100 g, ammoniacal nitrogen 1451 mg/Kg, C/N ratio 10.5, soluble P2O5 in inorganic acids (total) 0.9 g/100 g, Κ (total potassium) 2.1 g/100 g, Να (total sodium) 0.2 g/100 g, Ca (total calcium) 10.9 g/100 g, Mg (total magnesium) 1.1 g/100 g, Fe (DTPA extractable) 77 mg/Kg, Mn (DTPA extractable) 89 mg/Kg, Zn (DTPA extractable) 37 mg/Kg, Cu (DTPA extractable) 2.6 mg/Kg and B (DTPA extractable) 24 mg/Kg. The chemical properties of the pumice (dimensions 0–3 mm, Anagnostou- Soils, Compost & Substrates, Athens, Greece) were: SiO2 71.91%, Al2O3 12.66%, Fe2O3 1.13%, CaO 1.46%, MgO 0.32%, SO3 0.03%, K2O 4.30%, NaO 3.45% and others 0.21%. Perlite (particles diameter 1–5 mm, Perterra, NORDIA S.A., Athens, Greece) had a bulk density 80 K/m3 ± 15%, soluble Cl− < 0.01%, sulfates soluble in acids SO3 < 0.01%, total S < 0.01% and heavy metals below the limits permitted by law.
A factorial experiment with two factors, i.e., Salvia type (10 species and hybrids) and irrigation frequency (normal, sparse), was utilized. Therefore, 20 treatments were applied (10 plant types × 2 irrigation frequencies), and in each treatment, six containers were used, with two plants of the same type per container. The number of repetitions (n) is shown in each data table.

2.2. Irrigation Scheduling

For the first 10 days after planting, the plants were watered every second day for the plants to overcome transplant stress. On 14 April 2021, the plants were irrigated and then exposed to a preliminary drought experiment in order to determine the number of days that the plants could withstand without irrigation. Moisture (% v/v) of the substrate was recorded daily (three measurements from each container at 1900 to 2000 HR) using a handheld moisture meter (HH2; Delta-T devices, Cambridge, UK), with a soil moisture dielectric sensor (WET-2; Delta-T devices) inserted from the surface that measured 65 mm in depth and 45 mm in width. Most plants showed wilting symptoms 5 days after irrigation. On this day, the mean substrate moisture measured was 7–11% v/v. Therefore, this was decided to be the “sparse” irrigation frequency. The “normal” irrigation frequency was decided to be when the moisture of the substrate was 16–22% v/v and this was measured on day 3. Substrate moisture tests were carried out regularly and based on these, on 5 June 2021, the irrigation frequency was reset to every 2 days (normal) and 4 days (sparse) in order to have substrate moisture before an irrigation event similar to the previous experimental period. This irrigation schedule was kept until the end of the experiment.
Automatic drip irrigation on the substrate surface was applied before sunrise by two drippers placed at equal distances from the center of the container and the plants (dripper supply 4 L·h−1, irrigation period: 60 min, adequate to allow water to drain off the container).

2.3. Meteorological Data

The ambient average, maximum and minimum daily air temperature; daily rainfall; and average daily wind speed during the experimental period (April to September 2021) are presented in Figure 1 (http://meteosearch.meteo.gr/, 23 February 2022 date of access). Regarding insolation, the monthly total radiation from April to September varied from 0.24 (September) to 0.32–0.37 KW m−2 (June to August). These data were recorded from a meteorological cage in the proximity of the experimental roof, however small differences between these data and the actual temperature and wind speed on the roof may have been present.

2.4. Plant Growth and Physiological Parameters Evaluation

In August (21st and 22nd), the day before and one day after irrigation, the leaf stomatal resistance (Rleaf) and the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (ΦPSIIo) were recorded.
Rleaf was measured with an AP4 Porometer (Delta-T devices) in two fully developed young leaves of each plant (the average value was recorded, i.e., n = 12) from 11.00–13.00 HR, as defined by the daily fluctuation of Rleaf.
The ΦPSIIo was measured before sunrise with a Photosynthesis Yield Analyzer (MINI-PAM, Portable Fluorometer, Walz, Effeltrich, Germany). One measurement per plant was taken, as described by Tassoula et al. [13], in eight randomly selected plants of each treatment (n = 8). The intensity of the measuring light of the MINI-PAM was set once so that the chlorophyll fluorescence yield base levels (Fo) were within the limits set by the manufacturer and held constant thereafter. Maximum fluorescence yield (Fm) was recorded by applying a saturation pulse of 12,000 mmol quanta·m−2·s−1 for a 0.8 s duration and ΦPSIIo was calculated as (Fm − Fo)/Fm.
At the end of the experiment (10 September 2021), it was not possible to separate the root system of each plant in the container; therefore, in the statistical analyses, the average values of aboveground and root biomass of the two plants of each container were used. The aboveground part of each plant was collected, its fresh weight was measured, placed in an oven at 70 °C for 7 days to dry and the dry weight was measured. In addition, the root systems of the plants per container were excised from the substrate, rinsed under running tap water in a sieve and their fresh and dry weights were measured.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The significance of the results was tested using one- and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (F test, discrete variables followed the normal distribution). The treatment means were compared using Student’s t-test at p ≤ 0.05 (JMP 13.0 software, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2013).

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth and Survival

Five months (early April to early September 2021) after planting in an extensive green roof, the survival rates of Salvia spp. and their hybrids were affected by both the plant genotype and the frequency of irrigation (Figure 2). Plant losses occurred sporadically during the June–September period, with most losses in July and August (monthly data not shown), which were the hottest, driest and most windy months (Figure 1a–c). S. fruticosa presented a low survival rate (42–50%), regardless of irrigation frequency, while its hybrid with S. ringens, although under normal irrigation, also showed a low survival rate; in sparse irrigation, its survival rate was among the highest (92%). S. ringens was the species with the highest survival rate (100%) under normal irrigation, but under sparse irrigation, its survival rate was significantly reduced to 67%. However, all three S. ringens hybrids showed a high survival rate under sparse irrigation (83–100%). The hybrids S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera were the only Salvia types that showed 100% survival under sparse irrigation (Figure 2).
The experimental factors (Salvia type and irrigation frequency) significantly affected the aboveground fresh and dry weights and the root dry weight, as well as the ratio of root/aboveground dry weight of the plants (Table 1). Sparse irrigation resulted in lower aboveground and root biomasses and root/aboveground dry weight ratio compared to normal irrigation. As shown in Figure 1b, during the experimental period, there were only three rain incidents, one in April and two close to each other on 12 and 14 June; therefore, the irrigation treatments were not affected by rain incidents. Concerning plant type, the highest aboveground biomass was recorded for the S. officinalis × S. ringens hybrid with no statistical difference from S. tomentosa. The same hybrid also showed one of the highest values of root biomass, along with S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. officinalis, while the latter showed the highest of all species’ and hybrids’ root/aboveground dry weight ratio as well (Table 1, Figure 3).
Under normal irrigation, the species S. fruticosa, S. tomentosa and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and the hybrids S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. officinalis × S. ringens developed the highest aboveground biomass compared to all other species and hybrids, followed by S. ringens, S. fruticosa × S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. tomentosa (Table 2, Figure 3). As for the root biomass, this was highest in S. fruticosa, S. tomentosa and S. officinalis and the hybrids S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. officinalis × S. ringens, while S. officinalis presented the highest ratio of root/aboveground biomass of all (Table 2).
Under sparse irrigation, the hybrid S. officinalis × S. ringens presented the highest aboveground biomass of all hybrids and species and the highest root biomass, similar to S. officinalis and the hybrid S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, while S. officinalis presented the highest root/aboveground biomass ratio (Table 2, Figure 3).
Low irrigation frequency reduced both the aboveground and root system biomasses to varying degrees between species and hybrids (Figure 4). Regarding species, the highest percentage of aboveground dry matter reduction using sparse irrigation was observed in S. fruticosa and the lowest in S. officinalis; the former showed the highest aboveground biomass reduction of all species and hybrids. As for the hybrids, S. officinalis × S. ringens and S. pomifera ssp. Pomifera × S. ringens showed the lowest reduction in aboveground dry matter, especially the latter, whose aboveground biomass was almost unaffected. The highest percentage of root dry matter reduction using sparse irrigation was observed in S. fruticosa and the lowest in species S. officinalis and S. ringens and in hybrids S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens (Figure 4).
S. officinalis had the highest root/aboveground fresh and dry weight ratios under both irrigation frequencies compared to all other species and hybrids, which did not change using sparse irrigation, while S. fruticosa and S. fruticosa × S. ringens were the only ones to have a significant reduction in the root/aboveground fresh weight ratio under sparse irrigation (Table 2).

3.2. Physiological Parameters

The day before irrigation, all species and hybrids had increased Rleaf compared to Rleaf one day after irrigation, and under sparse irrigation, the Rleaf was significantly increased compared to normal irrigation in S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. ringens and in all hybrids, except S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens, indicating water stress (Figure 5).
All species and hybrids showed ΦPSIIo values above 0.8 under both irrigation frequencies, indicating normal operation of the photosynthetic apparatus (Figure 6). Before irrigation, there were no differences in ΦPSIIo values between plants under normal and sparse irrigation (Figure 6a). Interestingly, one day after an irrigation event, the plants under the sparse irrigation regime showed increased ΦPSIIo values (significant in the two-way ANOVA). S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. tomentosa and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera had higher ΦPSIIo values under sparse irrigation compared to those under normal irrigation (Figure 6b).

4. Discussion

The evaluation of native species with minimal water requirements under diverse growth conditions is considered a crucial stage in developing plants that are suitable for sustainable green roofs in semi-arid Mediterranean regions [9]. Apart from addressing the problem of limited water availability in such regions, biodiversity, including concern for pollinator reduction worldwide [11], and the preservation of the local character can be met via the use of native plants in landscaping and green roofs in particular [12,13].
Greek flora and especially macchia vegetation is rich in species with potential use as green roof plants and Salvia spp. are among them. S. officinalis and S. fruticosa were tested previously with promising results, especially S. officinalis, in terms of growth in extensive green roofs [21,22,23,24,25], while S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. ringens and S. tomentosa were exploited for the first time as landscape plants in the present study. Interspecific hybrids between these native-to-Greece Salvia spp. that were developed to serve the horticulture industry’s need for new ornamental species were shown to grow successfully under limited water supply [20] and were also tested in this work as green roof plants.
The growth and survival of all five sage species and five hybrids in an extensive green roof during the hot and dry season of the Eastern Mediterranean were affected by both the plant genotype and the frequency of irrigation. S. fruticosa showed the lowest survival rate of all sage types under both normal and sparse irrigation. This response appeared to have been inherited in the S. fruticosa × S. ringens hybrid when grown under normal irrigation but not under sparse irrigation. S. fruticosa × S. ringens resembles S. fruticosa in height and branching (tall with few lateral shoots), but it has intensely hairy segmented leaves like S. ringens [20]. Thus, leaf morphology may be one of the reasons the hybrid had a higher survival rate under reduced irrigation compared to S. fruticosa.
In general, the hybrids acclimatized more efficiently to the green roof conditions compared to their parents and the hybrids of S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, with the latter being either a seed parent to S. ringens or a pollen parent to S. officinalis, showed the highest survival of all species and hybrids at both irrigation frequencies. Regarding hybrid parents, S. officinalis is considered suitable for use in green roofs [21,22,23], as supported by the present work as well, whereas S. fruticosa showed fast water consumption and irrigation requirements of at least 50% of the daily pan evaporation [25], where this partly explained the low survival rate of this species in the present work. Furthermore, all hybrids used in the present study, especially S. officinalis × S. pomifera and S. officinalis × S. tomentosa, survived drought stress better than S. fruticosa in greenhouse conditions [20].
Significant differences were observed in the growth of Salvia hybrids in the green roof, which seemed to have been determined by the characteristics inherited from each of their parents, as described by Papafotiou et al. [20]. For instance, the hybrids S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera and S. officinalis × S. ringens produced the greatest aboveground and root biomasses of all the hybrids. The high value of their aboveground biomass seemed to have been inherited from their pollen parent, while that of the root from their seed parent S. officinalis. The vigorous canopy growth, in combination with the rich root system of these two hybrids, probably contributed to their higher survival rate. Τhis is reinforced by the fact that the root system is the main plant organ for adaptation to drought stress conditions [33,34], while large biomass allocation into the root system likely allows for the higher accumulation of reserves for sustaining post-drought recovery [29].
All species and hybrids, except for S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens, showed a reduction in aboveground plant biomass under water stress, which is an avoidance mechanism caused by a dehydration process [35], leading to water loss reduction. In several plant species, under drought conditions, the root biomass is reduced less than the aboveground biomass, resulting in a higher root/aboveground ratio [34], which optimizes water uptake [36]. In the present work, all species and hybrids, except S. officinalis, S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, showed a greater reduction in root biomass than aboveground biomass under sparse irrigation. Thus, S. officinalis, S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera were the only ones to show an increase (not statistically significant) in the root/aboveground biomass ratio, but this was not associated with a higher survival rate compared to the other species. The root system was found to play a key role in plant drought resistance in S. officinalis [30], a result that was also supported by our research since S. officinalis showed the largest root/aboveground fresh and dry matter under both normal and sparse irrigation.
Moreover, S. officinalis had the lowest reduction rate of all species in both aboveground and root dry matter under sparse irrigation. The opposite was observed in S. fruticosa and its hybrid S. fruticosa × S. ringens, whose aboveground and root dry matter, particularly that of the root, was much reduced under sparse irrigation. This led to a lower root/aboveground biomass ratio under deficit irrigation that was statistically significant in the case of fresh matter and observed only in these two plant types. However, although the S. fruticosa × S. ringens hybrid showed high plant mortality at the end of the hot and dry season under normal irrigation, similar to S. fruticosa, under sparse irrigation, in contrast to S. fruticosa, its plant mortality was among the lowest. Plant mortality in a green roof with low substrate depth (extensive type green roof) is affected by both drought and heat and is possibly affected to a larger extent by substrate temperature than drought per se [9]. The important role of temperature is further supported by a preliminary experiment (data not presented) we conducted the previous year (2020) with these five species of Salvia in the same green roof. In that year, S. fruticosa survived at much higher rates (83–91%) similar to those of the other species, probably because the maximum air temperatures in 2020 in the period June-August were 3–4 °C lower than in 2021.
Of all sages tested in the present study, S. officinalis, which is widely used worldwide as a medicinal and ornamental plant, was studied in terms of its drought resistance by many researchers [26,27,28,37]. Unlike other Mediterranean xerophytes, such as Origanum dictamnus, which are characterized by defoliation during the hot and dry season [13], which is a mechanism of adaptation to drought, sages did not show leaf loss under water stress in the present study. It was reported for several plant species that when exhibiting over 50% leaf desiccation in a green roof during drought, they were unable to survive [38]. In the present study, sage plants, regardless of genotype, that did not survive the end of summer did not show significant defoliation.
Chlorophyll a fluorescence is widely used in studying plant response and adaptation to stressful environments [39]. A slight decrease in ΦPSIIo values often accompanies mild water stress conditions, despite the significant reduction in the gas exchange parameters, while severe water stress causes pronounced effects on the ΦPSIIo parameter [40]. Rleaf values one day before irrigation were increased, indicating water stress and ΦPSIIo values were reduced, possibly due to limited CO2 supply at the carboxylation centers. However, the values of ΦPSIIo under water stress indicated that the ΦPSII photochemistry was functional. In addition, the recovery of ΦPSIIo values after irrigation at optimal levels indicated that no permanent photoinhibition had developed. This was consistent with previous findings for other Mediterranean xerophytes grown in extensive green roofs [13,41]. In the driest period (August), sage plants of all species and hybrids under both irrigation frequencies bore several light green-yellow leaves; however, the ΦPSIIo values were above 0.7, even in these leaves, indicating that there was no critical damage to the photosynthetic apparatus.
Prior to irrigation, there were no differences in ΦPSIIo values between plants under normal and sparse irrigation. However, the day after irrigation, the plants under sparse irrigation had higher ΦPSIIo values compared to those under normal irrigation. In August, after 4 months in the green roof, plants under sparse irrigation were smaller and possibly better acclimatized to green roof conditions compared to those under normal irrigation; it was argued that water stress can change the gene expression, morphology and plant physiology and improve photosynthesis [42,43].
Native-to-Greece Salvia spp. and even more so the interspecific hybrids, with a reservation for S. fruticosa, were shown to be suitable for use in extensive green roofs in the Eastern Mediterranean, even under deficit irrigation. In addition, as non-invasive species, they are recommended for sustainable exploitation in green roofs and xeriscaping in other regions with a semi-arid/arid climate as well.

5. Conclusions

The acclimatization of five native-to-Greece sage species, namely, Salvia fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. ringens and S. tomentosa, and five interspecific hybrids in a Mediterranean extensive green roof was affected by both the plant genotype and the frequency of irrigation.
The hybrids S. pomifera ssp. Pomifera × S. ringens and S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera showed the highest survival rate of all Salvia spp. and hybrids tested, along with satisfactory growth both under regular and reduced irrigation frequency.
S. fruticosa showed the lowest plant survival rate under both normal and sparse irrigation and the S. fruticosa × S. ringens hybrid showed a low survival rate under normal irrigation.
All hybrids, except S. officinalis × S. tomentosa, grew more efficiently in a green roof under water deficiency compared to their parental species.
Greek Salvia spp. and their interspecific hybrids, with a reservation for S. fruticosa, are recommended for sustainable exploitation in green roofs in regions with a Mediterranean climate and generally in xeriscaping.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; methodology, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; software, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; validation, M.P., A.N.M., L.T., E.G.S., A.K. and E.D.; formal analysis, A.N.M. and L.T.; investigation, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; resources, M.P., A.K. and E.D.; data curation, A.N.M. and L.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; writing—review and editing, M.P., A.N.M. and L.T.; visualization, A.N.M.; supervision, M.P.; project administration, M.P.; funding acquisition, M.P. and A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund of the European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH—CREATE—INNOVATE (project code: T1EDK-04923, project: SALVIA-BREED-GR).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Whittinghill, L.J.; Rowe, D.B. The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Ren. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Berardi, U.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, A.H.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, A. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energ. 2014, 115, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Caneva, G.; Kumbaric, A.; Savo, V.; Casalini, R. Ecological approach in selecting extensive green roof plants: A data-set of Mediterranean plants. Plant Biosyst. 2015, 149, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Rafiq, M. Green roof benefits, opportunities and challenges—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 757–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wooster, E.I.F.; Fleck, R.; Torpy, F.; Ramp, D.; Irga, P.J. Urban green roofs promote metropolitan biodiversity: A comparative case study. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cook, L.M.; Larsen, T.A. Towards a performance-based approach for multifunctional green roofs: An interdisciplinary review. Build. Environ. 2021, 188, 107489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Joshi, M.Y.; Teller, J. Urban Integration of Green Roofs: Current Challenges and Perspectives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kweon, B.S.; Sullivan, W.C.; Wiley, A.R. Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 832–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Savi, T.; Dal Borgo, A.; Love, V.L.; Andri, S.; Tretiach, M.; Nardini, A. Drought versus heat: What’s the major constraint on Mediterranean green roof plants? Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Koroxenidis, E.; Theodosiou, T. Comparative environmental and economic evaluation of green roofs under Mediterranean climate conditions—Extensive green roofs a potentially preferable solution. J. Clean. Product. 2021, 311, 127563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stathers, R.; Schroders, U.K. The bee and the stock market: An overview of pollinator decline and its economic and corporate significance. In The Business of Bees, 1st ed.; Atkins, J., Atkins, B., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 124–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benvenuti, S.; Bacci, D. Initial agronomic performances of Mediterranean xerophytes in simulated dry green roofs. Urban Ecosyst. 2010, 13, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tassoula, L.; Papafotiou, M.; Liakopoulos, G.; Kargas, G. Water use efficiency, growth and anatomic-physiological parameters of Mediterranean xerophytes as affected by substrate and irrigation on a green roof. Notul. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. 2021, 49, 12283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ondoño, S.; Martínez-Sánchez, J.J.; Moreno, J.L. Evaluating the growth of several Mediterranean endemic species in artificial substrates: Are these species suitable for their future use in green roofs? Ecolog. Engin. 2015, 81, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Papafotiou, M.; Pergialioti, N.; Tassoula, L.; Massas, I.; Kargas, G. Growth of native aromatic xerophytes in an extensive Mediterranean green roof as affected by substrate type and depth and irrigation frequency. HortScience 2013, 48, 1327–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azeñas, V.; Janner, I.; Medrano, H.; Gulías, J. Performance evaluation of five Mediterranean species to optimize ecosystem services of green roofs under water-limited conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 212, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. 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] [Green Version]
  18. Bourgou, S.; Ben Haj Jilani, I.; Karous, O.; Megdiche-Ksouri, W.; Ghrabi-Gammar, Z.; Libiad, M.; Khabbach, A.; El Haissoufi, M.; Lamchouri, F.; Greveniotis, V.; et al. Medicinal-Cosmetic Potential of the Local Endemic Plants of Crete (Greece), Northern Morocco and Tunisia: Priorities for Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Neglected and Underutilized Phytogenetic Resources. Biology 2021, 10, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Krigas, N.; Tsoktouridis; Anestis, I.; Khabbach, A.; Libiad, M.; Megdiche-Ksouri, W.; Ghrabi-Gammar, Z.; Lamchouri, F.; Tsiripidis, I.; Tsiafouli, M.A.; et al. Exploring the Potential of Neglected Local Endemic Plants of Three Mediterranean Regions in the Ornamental Sector: Value Chain Feasibility and Readiness Timescale for Their Sustainable Exploitation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Papafotiou, M.; Martini, A.N.; Papanikolaou, E.; Stylias, E.G.; Kalantzis, A. Hybrids Development between Greek Salvia Species and Their Drought Resistance Evaluation along with Salvia fruticosa, under Attapulgite-Amended Substrate. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Savi, T.; Andri, S.; Nardini, A. Impact of different green roof layering on plant water status and drought survival. Ecolog. Engin. 2013, 57, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Raimondo, F.; Trifilò, P.; Lo Gullo, M.A.; Andri, S.; Savi, T.; Nardini, A. Plant performance on Mediterranean green roofs: Interaction of species-specific hydraulic strategies and substrate water relations. AoB Plants 2015, 7, plv007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Papafotiou, M.; Koutri, A.; Massas, I. Heavy metal concentration in sage plants cultivated on an urban green roof or roadside location as affected by substrate type and fertilization. Acta Hort. 2017, 1189, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kemp, S.; Hadley, P.; Blanuša, T. The influence of plant type on green roof rainfall retention. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Kokkinou, I.; Ntoulas, N.; Nektarios, P.A.; Varela, D. Response of Native Aromatic and Medicinal Plant Species to Water Stress on Adaptive Green Roof Systems. HortScience 2016, 51, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Abreu, M.E.; Munné-Bosch, S. Salicylic acid may be involved in the regulation of drought-induced leaf senescence in perennials: A case study in field-grown Salvia officinalis L. plants. Environ. Exper. Bot. 2008, 64, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Munné-Bosch, S.; Mueller, M.; Schwarz, K.; Alegre, L. Diterpenes and antioxidative protection in drought-stressed Salvia officinalis plants. J. Plant Physiol. 2001, 158, 1431–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bettaieb, I.; Hamrouni-Sellami, I.; Bourgou, S.; Limam, F.; Marzouk, B. Drought effects on polyphenol composition and antioxidant activities in aerial parts of Salvia officinalis L. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2011, 33, 1103–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abate, E.; Azzarà, M.; Trifilò, P. When Water Availability Is Low, Two Mediterranean Salvia Species Rely on Root Hydraulics. Plants 2021, 10, 1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abate, E.; Nardini, A.; Petruzzellis, F.; Trifilò, P. Too dry to survive: Leaf hydraulic failure in two Salvia species can be predicted on the basis of water content. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2021, 166, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gonceariuc, M. Reducing the impact of drought on productivity by cultivating resistant varieties of medicinal and aromatic plants. Buletinul AŞM Ştiinţele Vieţii 2019, 2, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  32. FLL. Guideline for the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites, English ed.; Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau: Bonn, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  33. Abobatta, W.F. Drought adaptive mechanisms of plants—A review. Adv. Agr. Environ. Sci. 2019, 2, 42–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, G.; Zhou, X.; Nie, Y.; Bai, S.H.; Zhou, L.; Shao, J.; Cheng, W.; Wang, J.; Hu, F.; Fu, Y. Drought-induced changes in root biomass largely result from altered root morphological traits: Evidence from a synthesis of global field trials. Plant Cell Environ. 2018, 41, 2589–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Alarcón, J.J.; Morales, M.A.; Ferrández, T.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J. Effects of water and salt stresses on growth, water relations and gas exchange in Rosmarinus officinalis. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 845–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chaves, M.M.; Maroco, J.P.; Pereira, J.S. Understanding plant responses to drought—From genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Savi, T.; Marin, M.; Luglio, J.; Petruzzellis, F.; Mayr, S.; Nardini, A. Leaf hydraulic vulnerability protects stem functionality under drought stress in Salvia officinalis. Funct. Plant Biol. 2016, 43, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nagase, A.; Dunnett, N. Drought tolerance in different vegetation types for extensive green roofs: Effects of watering and diversity. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2010, 97, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Toscano, S.; Branca, F.; Romano, D.; Ferrante, A. An evaluation of different parameters to screen ornamental shrubs for salt spray tolerance. Biology 2020, 9, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Posch, S.; Bennett, L.T. Photosynthesis, photochemistry and antioxidative defence in response to two drought severities and with re-watering in Allocasuarina luehmannii. Plant Biol. 2009, 11, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akoumianaki-Ioannidou, A.; Podaropoulou, L.; Liakopoulos, G. Assessment of growth of Mentha pulegium in a green roof system through the study of PSII photochemical parameters. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lambers, H.; Chapin, F.S.; Pons, T.L. Plant Physiological Ecology, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  43. Perez-Martin, A.; Michelazzo, C.; Torres-Ruiz, J.M.; Flexas, J.; Fernández, J.E.; Sebastiani, L.; Diaz-Espejo, A. Regulation of photosynthesis and stomatal and mesophyll conductance under water stress and recovery in olive trees: Correlation with gene expression of carbonic anhydrase and aquaporins. J. Exper. Bot. 2014, 65, 3143–3156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 04978 g001 550
Figure 1. Average, maximum and minimum daily air temperature (a), daily rainfall (b) and average daily wind speed (c) during the experimental period from April to September 2021 (23 February 2022, 11:00 p.m., meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-04.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-05.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-06.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-07.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-08.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-09.txt (accessed on 23 February 2022)).
Figure 1. Average, maximum and minimum daily air temperature (a), daily rainfall (b) and average daily wind speed (c) during the experimental period from April to September 2021 (23 February 2022, 11:00 p.m., meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-04.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-05.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-06.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-07.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-08.txt; meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/athens/2021-09.txt (accessed on 23 February 2022)).
Sustainability 14 04978 g001
Sustainability 14 04978 g002 550
Figure 2. Survival (%) of Salvia species and interspecific hybrids five months after establishment in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal and sparse irrigation during the hot and dry season (n = 6). † Mean comparison with Student’s t-test at p ≤ 0.05; means followed by the same letter (a–e) were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Figure 2. Survival (%) of Salvia species and interspecific hybrids five months after establishment in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal and sparse irrigation during the hot and dry season (n = 6). † Mean comparison with Student’s t-test at p ≤ 0.05; means followed by the same letter (a–e) were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Sustainability 14 04978 g002
Sustainability 14 04978 g003 550
Figure 3. Typical aboveground growth of Salvia species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal (N) and sparse (S) irrigation frequencies.
Figure 3. Typical aboveground growth of Salvia species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal (N) and sparse (S) irrigation frequencies.
Sustainability 14 04978 g003
Sustainability 14 04978 g004 550
Figure 4. Reduction (%) in the aboveground (a) and root (b) dry weights of Salvia species and their interspecific hybrids in sparse irrigation compared to normal irrigation after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof.
Figure 4. Reduction (%) in the aboveground (a) and root (b) dry weights of Salvia species and their interspecific hybrids in sparse irrigation compared to normal irrigation after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof.
Sustainability 14 04978 g004
Sustainability 14 04978 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of Salvia type and irrigation frequency on plants’ Rleaf (s cm−1) the day before (a) and one day after (b) an irrigation event in August 2021. † Mean values (n = 12) in each figure followed by the same lowercase letter (a–j) did not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 using Student’s t-test. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Figure 5. Effect of Salvia type and irrigation frequency on plants’ Rleaf (s cm−1) the day before (a) and one day after (b) an irrigation event in August 2021. † Mean values (n = 12) in each figure followed by the same lowercase letter (a–j) did not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 using Student’s t-test. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Sustainability 14 04978 g005
Sustainability 14 04978 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of Salvia type and irrigation frequency on plants’ ΦPSIIο the day before (a) and one day after (b) an irrigation event in August 2021. † Mean values (n = 8) in each figure followed by the same lowercase letter (a–g) did not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 by Student’s t-test. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Figure 6. Effect of Salvia type and irrigation frequency on plants’ ΦPSIIο the day before (a) and one day after (b) an irrigation event in August 2021. † Mean values (n = 8) in each figure followed by the same lowercase letter (a–g) did not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 by Student’s t-test. § NS or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Sustainability 14 04978 g006
Table
Table 1. The effects of experimental factors, i.e., Salvia type (S. fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. ringens, S. tomentosa, S. fruticosa × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. officinalis × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. tomentosa, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens) and irrigation frequency (normal, sparse) on aboveground and root system growth parameters of sage species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof.
Table 1. The effects of experimental factors, i.e., Salvia type (S. fruticosa, S. officinalis, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. ringens, S. tomentosa, S. fruticosa × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera, S. officinalis × S. ringens, S. officinalis × S. tomentosa, S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens) and irrigation frequency (normal, sparse) on aboveground and root system growth parameters of sage species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof.
2-Way AnovaAboveground
d.w. (g)		Root
d.w. (g)		Root d.w./
Aboveground d.w.		Aboveground
f.w. (g)		Root
f.w. (g)		Root f.w./
Aboveground f.w.
S. fruticosa74 cd48.1 cd †0.6 cd209.0 bc188.00.8
S. officinalis60.3 e85.4 a1.4 a155.5 e268.51.7
S. pomifera ssp. pomifera87.9 b39.6 d0.4 d216.8 bcd142.50.7
S. ringens71.6 cde52.9 cd0.7 bc204.8 bcde175.80.9
S. tomentosa90.7 ab65.5 bc0.7 bc215.3 bcd216.11.0
S. fruticosa × S. ringens69.3 cde43.2 d0.6 cd167.2 de167.71.0
S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomifera86.3 b70.1 ab0.8 b222.3 ab287.81.3
S. officinalis × S. ringens103.5 a74.2 ab0.7 bc267.7 a266.61.0
S. officinalis × S. tomentosa68.8 de47.0 d0.7 bc175.2 de162.20.9
S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringens71.8 cde44.9 d0.6 cd183.4 cde150.60.8
Normal93.6 a71.4 a0.8 a239.1 a252.11.1
Sparse63.2 b42.8 b0.7 b164.3 b152.90.9
Significance §
FSalvia type********--
Firrigation********--
FSalvia type × irrigationNSNSNSNS***
† Mean comparison in columns within each factor with Student’s t-test at p ≤ 0.05; means followed by the same letter (a–e) were not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05. § NS or * or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.05 or p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Table
Table 2. Comparative evaluation of the growth of Greek sage species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal and sparse irrigation.
Table 2. Comparative evaluation of the growth of Greek sage species and interspecific hybrids after five months of growth (April–September 2021) in an urban Mediterranean green roof under normal and sparse irrigation.
Salvia SpeciesIrrigation
Frequency		Aboveground
d.w. (g)		Root
d.w. (g)		Root d.w./
Aboveground d.w.		Aboveground
f.w. (g)		Root
f.w. (g)		Root f.w./
Aboveground f.w.
S. fruticosaNormal100.8 ± 2.7 ab †74.5 ± 11.4 ab0.7 ± 0.1 bc276.9 ± 8.7 ab301.5 ± 29.8 ab1.1 ± 0.1 cd
Sparse47.3 ± 1.5 e21.8 ± 1.8 f0.5 ± 0.0 bcd141.1 ± 10.9 ef74.5 ± 5.0 f0.5 ± 0.0 f
S. officinalisNormal70.3 ± 5.9 cd95.9 ± 11.2 a1.4 ± 0.1 a174.0 ± 21.2 def294.2 ± 31.2 ab1.7 ± 0.1 a
Sparse50.4 ± 6.6 e74.9 ± 10.7 ab1.5 ± 0.1 a137.0 ± 17.4 f242.9 ± 32.5 bc1.8 ± 0.1 a
S. pomifera ssp. pomiferaNormal107.5 ± 8.5 a51.5 ± 6.5 cde0.5 ± 0.1 bcd256.9 ± 22.2 ab179.9 ± 20.3 cde0.7 ± 0.1 def
Sparse68.4 ± 4.6 cd27.7 ± 1.3 f0.4 ± 0.0 d176.6 ± 9.9 def105.1 ± 5.7 ef0.6 ± 0.0 ef
S. ringensNormal86.6 ± 6.0 bc61.6 ± 8.0 bc0.7 ± 0.1 bc244.3 ± 18.4 bc201.5 ± 23.9 cde0.8 ± 0.1 de
Sparse56.6 ± 6.0 de44.1 ± 6.3 de0.8 ± 0.0 b165.2 ± 14.4 ef148.2 ± 34.0 de0.9 ± 0.2 d
S. tomentosaNormal109.4 ± 7.7 a93.1 ± 27.7 a0.8 ± 0.2 b274.1 ± 29.5 ab295.5 ± 68.4 ab1.0 ± 0.1 cd
Sparse72.0 ± 5.9 cd38.0 ± 9.2 ef0.5 ± 0.1 bcd156.4 ± 17.3 ef136.6 ± 27.7 ef0.9 ± 0.1 d
S. fruticosa × S. ringensNormal83.2 ± 3.0 bc60.7 ± 2.9 bc0.7 ± 0.1 bc195.3 ± 0.3 de233.7 ± 5.7 bc1.2 ± 0.0 bc
Sparse55.4 ± 2.1 e25.7 ± 6.0 f0.5 ± 0.1 bcd139.1 ± 11.0 f101.7 ± 20.8 ef0.7 ± 0.1 def
S. officinalis × S. pomifera ssp. pomiferaNormal103.6 ± 7.6 ab74.8 ± 5.8 ab0.7 ± 0.0 bc262.9 ± 18.1 ab315.0 ± 19.4 ab1.2 ± 0.0 bc
Sparse69.1 ± 4.6 cd65.3 ± 7.3 bc0.9 ± 0.1 b181.8 ± 11.5 def260.6 ± 26.0 abc1.4 ± 0.1 b
S. officinalis × S. ringensNormal116.9 ± 6.5 a91.3 ± 9.5 a0.8 ± 0.1 b301.2 ± 16.4 a322.6 ± 30.4 a1.1 ± 0.1 cd
Sparse90.0 ± 2.6 b57.1 ± 3.0 bc0.6 ± 0.0 bc234.2 ± 5.8 bc210.6 ± 6.3 cd0.9 ± 0.0 d
S. officinalis × S. tomentosaNormal85.1 ± 4.4 bc61.8 ± 6.0 bc0.7 ± 0.1 bc212.2 ± 9.9 cd214.0 ± 17.1 cd1.0 ± 0.1 cd
Sparse52.5 ± 4.9 e32.2 ± 4.4 ef0.6 ± 0.1 cd138.2 ± 9.7 f110.4 ± 11.7 ef0.8 ± 0.1 de
S. pomifera ssp. pomifera × S. ringensNormal72.9 ± 6.7 cd48.9 ± 7.5 cde0.7 ± 0.1 bc193.4 ± 16.6 de162.6 ± 23.0 cde0.8 ± 0.1 de
Sparse70.8 ± 2.3 cd40.9 ± 7.6 def0.6 ± 0.1 bc173.4 ± 5.3 def138.5 ± 21.2 ef0.8 ± 0.1 de
Significance §
Fone-way ANOVA ***********
† Mean values (n = 6) (±SE) in each column followed by the same lowercase letter (a–f) did not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 using Student’s t-test. § NS or * or **, non-significant at p ≤ 0.05 or significant at p ≤ 0.05 or p ≤ 0.01, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Papafotiou, M.; Martini, A.N.; Tassoula, L.; Stylias, E.G.; Kalantzis, A.; Dariotis, E. Acclimatization of Mediterranean Native Sages (Salvia spp.) and Interspecific Hybrids in an Urban Green Roof under Regular and Reduced Irrigation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094978

AMA Style

Papafotiou M, Martini AN, Tassoula L, Stylias EG, Kalantzis A, Dariotis E. Acclimatization of Mediterranean Native Sages (Salvia spp.) and Interspecific Hybrids in an Urban Green Roof under Regular and Reduced Irrigation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):4978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094978

Chicago/Turabian Style

Papafotiou, Maria, Aikaterini N. Martini, Lamprini Tassoula, Eleftherios G. Stylias, Anastasios Kalantzis, and Eleftherios Dariotis. 2022. "Acclimatization of Mediterranean Native Sages (Salvia spp.) and Interspecific Hybrids in an Urban Green Roof under Regular and Reduced Irrigation" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 4978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094978

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop