Role of Plant Health Parameters in Understanding Spatial Heterogeneity of Hydraulic Conductivity of Vegetated Soil: A Case Study of Urban Green Infrastructure Monitoring

  • Ankit Garg
  • Vinay Kumar GadiEmail author
  • Siraj Hossain
  • Abhinav
  • Ravi Karangat
  • Sreedeep Sekharan
  • Lingaraj Sahoo
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Development of green infrastructure is widely adopted as a key strategy for enhancing socio-ecological benefits in urban areas. Generally, four categories of vegetation exist in urban green infrastructure. Those are (i) vegetated soil under tree shade during entire daylight period, (ii) vegetated soil under tree shade during 3–4 h of daylight period, (iii) vegetated soil under light during entire daylight period and (iv) soil surface covered by mix grass and shredded leaves. Previous studies have shown that presence of vegetation may influence hydraulic conductivity. The main factors those govern such influence are found to be growth of vegetation, which is directly related to photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. Stomatal conductance is the measure of passage of carbon dioxide or water vapor through stomata of leaf. The objective of this study is to investigate role of plant health parameters in understanding spatial heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity in urban green infrastructure. Field monitoring of mix vegetated soil was conducted for about three months. Plant health is investigated in terms of vegetation growth and stomatal conductance. Stomatal conductance and hydraulic conductivity were measured in 150 locations in selected site once every month. Stomatal conductance was measured using an electronic sensor (leaf porometer). Mini disk infiltrometer was used to measure hydraulic conductivity. Stomatal conductance of mix grass under light for longer duration (around 8 h) was found to be higher than that under light for shorter duration (3–4 h) and shade. Hydraulic conductivity of mix grass cover under shade was found to be relatively low. As compared to stomatal conductance, preferential flow is found to be more dominant in governing the hydraulic conductivity.


Stomatal conductance Vegetation growth Hydraulic conductivity 


  1. 1.
    Leung AK, Garg A, Coo JL, Ng CWW, Hau BCH (2015) Effects of the roots of Cynodon dactylon and Schefflera heptaphylla on water infiltration rate and soil hydraulic conductivity. Hydrol Process 29(15):3342–3354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leung AK, Garg A, Ng CWW (2015) Effects of plant roots on soil-water retention and induced suction in vegetated soil. Eng Geol 193:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berretta C, Poë S, Stovin V (2014) Moisture content behaviour in extensive green roofs during dry periods: the influence of vegetation and substrate characteristics. J Hydrol 511:374–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garg A, Coo JL, Ng CWW (2015) Field study on influence of root characteristics on soil suction distribution in slopes vegetated with Cynodon dactylon and Schefflera heptaphylla. Earth Surf Proc Land 40(12):1631–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gadi VK, Tang YR, Das A, Monga C, Garg A, Berretta C, Sahoo L (2017) Spatial and temporal variation of hydraulic conductivity and vegetation growth in green infrastructures using infiltrometer and visual technique. CATENA 155:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell AR, Ellsworth TR, Meek BD (1995) Effect of root systems on preferential flow in swelling soil. Commun Soil Sci Plan 26(15–16):2655–2666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huat BB, Ali FH, Low TH (2006) Water infiltration characteristics of unsaturated soil slope and its effect on suction and stability. Geotech Geol Eng 24(5):1293–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape Urban Plan 159:62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palla A, Berretta C, Lanza LG, La Barbera P (2008) Modelling storm water control operated by green roofs at the urban catchment scale. In: 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.S.T.M. D2487-11 (2011) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purpose (Unified Soil Classification System). Annual Book of ASTM Standards (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decagon Devices (2006) Leaf porometer. Operator’s manual. Version 1.0. Decagon Devices. Inc. Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones HG (2013) Plants and microclimate: a quantitative approach to environmental plant physiology. Cambridge University Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Decagon Devices (2012) Minidisk Infiltrometer User’s Manual Version 10. Pullman, WA (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghestem M, Sidle RC, Stokes A (2011) The influence of plant root systems on subsurface flow: implications for slope stability. Bioscience 61(11):869–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang R (1997) Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disk infiltrometer. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61(4):1024–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carsel RF, Parrish RS (1988) Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention characteristics. Water Resour Res 24(5):755–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeiger E, Farquhar GD, Cowan IR (1987) Stomatal function. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gross K, Homlicher A, Weinreich A, Wagner E (1996) Effect of shade on stomatal conductance, net photosynthesis, photochemical efficiency and growth of oak saplings. Annales des sciences forestières, EDP Sci 53(2–3):279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ankit Garg
    • 1
  • Vinay Kumar Gadi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Siraj Hossain
    • 2
  • Abhinav
    • 3
  • Ravi Karangat
    • 2
  • Sreedeep Sekharan
    • 2
  • Lingaraj Sahoo
    • 2
  1. 1.Shantou UniversityGuangdongChina
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiAssamIndia
  3. 3.Indian Institute of Technology PatnaBiharIndia

Personalised recommendations