International Journal of Biometeorology

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 197–208 | Cite as

Tree species from two contrasting habitats for use in harsh urban environments respond differently to extreme drought

  • Laura Myrtiá Faní StratópoulosEmail author
  • Chi Zhang
  • Swantje Duthweiler
  • Karl-Heinz Häberle
  • Thomas Rötzer
  • Chao Xu
  • Stephan Pauleit
Original Paper


The role of trees in city cooling has warranted much attention based on concerns over climate change and urban expansion. Simultaneously, there is an interest in introducing species from dry habitats to cope with the increasing risks of drought under climate change. The general understanding is that the evolutionary adaptation to respective resource supplies in species’ habitats affects their environmental tolerance. The physical performances of six frequently planted species, originating from two contrasting habitats, were tested in a drought experiment. We (1) investigated if species from drier habitats are more drought tolerant than species that have evolved in Central European woodlands under a temperate climate regime and (2) discussed the effect of tolerance on the cooling potential of these trees. Native species from mesic habitats maintained only 48% of their controls sap flux and of these species, Tilia cordata had the worst performance with premature leaf senescence. Species from drier habitats had less reduction in sap flux (60%) but lower stem growth, possibly favouring (fine) root development into deeper soil layers, as observed when comparing linden species. Higher stem water exploitation and stronger regulation of water use at high evaporative demand were further reaction patterns that likely helped species from dry habitats maintain good physiological functions. Therefore, even under sustained drought, we expect them to have a higher cooling capacity. As a conclusion, they should be favoured for planting in extreme urban environments. Systematic screening and testing of promising species from target habitats is recommended to diversify the choice of species.


Climate change Cooling effects Drought tolerance Sap flux density Resistance Urban trees 



We thank the heads and staff members of the municipal nursery of Munich-Laim for their support and encouragement to conduct our field study there. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to Felix Seebauer and Jonas Schweiger for their assistance in field data collection. This work was supported by the Bavarian State Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs, Science and Arts, Munich, Germany [VIII.2-F1116.WE].

Compliance with ethical standards

The experiments comply with the current laws of Germany.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Armson D (2012) The effect of trees and grass on the thermal and hydrological performance of an urban area dissertation, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Armson D, Stringer P, Ennos AR (2012) The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area. Urban For Urban Green 11:245–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BBCH (2001) Entwicklungsstadien mono- und dikotyler Pflanzen. BBCH Monografie.
  4. Chapin FS III, Autumn K, Pugnaire F (1993) Evolution of suites and traits in response to environmental stress. Am Nat 142:78–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb TJ, Cochard H, Delzon S, Bhaskar R, Bucci SJ, Field TS, Gleason SM, Hacke UG, Jacobsen AL, Lens F, Maherali H, Martínez-Vilalta J, Mayr S, Mencuccini M, Mitchell PJ, Nardini A, Pittermann J, Pratt RB, Sperry JS, Westoby M, Wright IJ, Zanne AE (2012) Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491:752–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duhme F, Pauleit S (2000) The dendrofloristic richness of SE-Europe, a phenomenal treasure for urban plantings. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft Berlin-Dahlem 370:23–29Google Scholar
  7. DWD (2018) Accessed 15 March 2018
  8. Endlicher W, Jendritzky G, Fischer J, Redlich JP (2008) Heat waves, urban climate and human health. In: Marzluff JM et al (eds) Urban ecology. Springer, Boston, pp 269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esri (2014) ArcGISGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewers BE, Oren R, Johnsen KH, Landsberg JJ (2001) Estimating maximum mean canopy stomatal conductance for use in models. Can J For Res 31:198–207. Google Scholar
  11. Fini A, Ferrini F, Frangi P, Amoroso G, Piatti R (2009) Withholding irrigation during the establishment phase affected growth and physiology of Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and linden (Tilia spp.). Arboricult Urban For 35:241–251Google Scholar
  12. GALK (2018) GALK-Straßenbaumtest 1 and 2. Accessed 01 March 2018
  13. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillner S, Vogt J, Tharang A, Dettmann S, Roloff A (2015) Role of street trees in mitigating effects of heat and drought at highly sealed urban sites. Landsc Urban Plan 143:33–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillner S, Korn S, Hofmann M, Roloff A (2017) Contrasting strategies for tree species to cope with heat and dry conditions at urban sites. Urban Ecosyst 20:853–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Granier A (1987) Evaluation of transpiration in a douglas-fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiol 3:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hiemstra JA (2011) Straßenbaumtest in den Niederlanden. Veitshöchheimer Berichte 152:37–41Google Scholar
  18. Kiermeier P (1995) Die Lebensbereiche der Gehölze eingeteilt nach dem Kennziffernsystem. PinnebergGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein T (2014) The variability of stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential across tree species indicates a continuum between isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Funct Ecol 28:1313–1320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Köhler M (2010) Cacao agroforestry under ambient and reduced throughfall – tree water use characteristics and stand water budgeting. Dissertation, University of GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunz J, Räder A, Bauhus J (2016) Effects of drought and rewetting on growth and gas exchange of minor European broadleaved tree species. Forests 7:239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larcher W (2001) Ökophysiologie der Pflanzen. Ulmer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  23. Lechowicz MJ (1984) Why do temperate deciduous trees leaf out at different times? Adaptation and ecology of forest communities. Am Nat 124:821–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LWG (2018) Forschungsprojekt Stadtgrün 2021. Neue Bäume braucht das Land. Accessed 26 April 2018
  25. McCarthy HR, Pataki DE, Jenerette GD (2011) Plant water-use efficiency as a metric of urban ecosystem services. Ecol Appl 21:3115–3127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moser A, Rahman MA, Pretzsch H, Pauleit S, Rötzer T (2017) Inter- and intraannual growth patterns of urban small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata mill.) at two public squares with contrasting microclimatic conditions. Int J Biometeorol 61:1095–1107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Niinemets Ü, Valladares F (2006) Tolerance to shade, drought, and water logging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol Monogr 76:521–547.[0521:TTSDAW]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  28. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schäfer KVR (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22:1515–1526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters EB, McFadden JP, Montgomery RA (2010) Biological and environmental controls on tree transpiration in a suburban landscape. J Geophys Res 115:G04006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahman MA, Moser A, Rötzer T, Pauleit S (2017a) Microclimatic differences and their influence on transpirational cooling of Tilia cordata in two contrasting street canyons in Munich, Germany. Agric For Meteorol 232:443–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rahman MA, Moser A, Rötzer T, Pauleit S (2017b) Within canopy temperature differences and cooling ability of Tilia cordata trees grown in urban conditions. Build Environ 114:118–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roloff A (2013) Stadt- und Straßenbäume der Zukunft – Welche Arten sind geeignet? Aktuelle Fragen der Stadtbaumplanung, -pflege und -verwendung, Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge Tharandt Beiheft 14:173–187Google Scholar
  34. Roloff A, Bärtels A (2006) Flora Der Gehölze – Bestimmung, Eigenschaften Verwendung. Ulmer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  35. Roloff A, Grundmann B, Korn S (2013) Trockenstress-Toleranz bei Stadtbäumen – Anpassungs- und Schutzstrategien/Arteneignung. In: Dujesiefken D (ed) Jahrbuch der Baumpflege, 2013. Haymarket Media, Braunschweig, pp 173–185Google Scholar
  36. Shashua-Bar L, Hoffmann ME (2000) Vegetation as a climatic component in the design of an urban street: an empirical model for predicting the cooling effect of urban green areas with trees. Energy Build 31:221–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sjöman H, Gunnarsson A, Pauleit S, von Bothmer R (2012) Selection approach of urban trees for inner-city environments: learning from nature. Arboricult Urban For 38:194–204Google Scholar
  38. Stratopoulos LMF, Duthweiler S, Häberle K-H, Pauleit S (2018) Effect of native habitat on the cooling ability of six nursery-grown tree species and cultivars for future roadside plantings. Urban For Urban Green 30:37–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISB 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape ArchitectureWeihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied SciencesFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Forest Growth and Yield ScienceTechnical University of MunichFreisingGermany
  3. 3.Chair for Ecophysiology of PlantsTechnical University of MunichFreisingGermany
  4. 4.Chair of Strategic Landscape Planning and ManagementTechnical University of MunichFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations