Environmental Microclimatic Evaluation under Two Tree Species of Urban Landscape in Mashhad

علوم باغبانی

Article 5, Volume 32, Issue 4, March 2019, Pages 543-553   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v32i4.66069

Authors

Zahra Karimian^* ; Ali Tehranifar; Mohammad Bannayan Aval; Majid Azizi; Fatemeh Kazemi

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

Introduction: Considering population growth and urbanization development, one of the main requirements of the urban society is to create appropriate life condition for dwellers. The microclimate is considered as one of the factors that affect the activity of people in the environment and in terms of tourist and recreational industry, it is considered as an important source of economic. Many climatic parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, radiation and wind speed can affect the quality of people's recreational activities. So far, many studies have been conducted in the world about the positive effects of vegetation specially trees in the urban landscape on the optimizing of microclimate and human thermal comfort. The cooling mechanism of trees and clouds in an area mainly by directly shading the ground surface and indirectly by supplying humidity are similar. Thus, perhaps it be possible to calculate the changes in temperature and relative humidity based on cloud categories and impute it to tree canopy and vegetation size. The purpose of the present study was to answer followed questions, 1) does the use of single tree produce a sensible difference in temperature and humidity relative to open space? 2) Does the acacia tree as an indicator for a broad-leaved species compare to the pine tree as an indicator for the needle species in terms of the microclimatic variation of around themselves act differently? 3) Do the microclimatic elements (Temperature and relative humidity) under the canopies are comparable to various cloudiness conditions?
Materials and Methods: The experiments were conducted at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The climate data under two species of false acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia) and pine trees (Pinus eldarica) and open space were received from Mashhad weather station over a period of 19 years, recorded and analyzed. In the comparison of the effects of vegetation and cloudy conditions on the temperature and relative humidity an assumption was proposed that has been mentioned in the following. The differences between the means of temperature and relative humidity obtained under SKC (Sky Clear) cloudiness conditions and in open space; under SCT (Scattered Sky) conditions and pine trees; and under BKN (Broken Sky) conditions and false acacia tree must be equal or these differences must be statistically not significant. In addition to the effect of tree canopy, the effects of days and hours on the temperature and humidity were investigated. To analysis and also mean comparison, SPSS 16 software was used.
Results and Discussion: The results showed that the temperature (decreasing) and relative humidity (increasing) were significantly different among various cloudiness conditions during 19 years. The results also indicated that between the temperatures recorded under the canopy of pine and false acacia trees, and also among of recorded relative humidity in two trees specious with corresponding outdoor spaces there were significant differences. Also, there were no significant differences among the temperature of the clear sky and the partly cloudy with that of the mostly cloudy sky. Further, clear sky and mostly cloudy sky showed significant differences in terms of relative humidity. Mostly cloudy sky and the partly cloudy sky compared with pine and false acacia trees were about 4.6 and 4.5oC cooler, respectively. The cloud covers, also could enhance the more level of relative humidity in the environment in comparison with single tree canopy, so that were caused a wetter environment equal to16.6 and 8.4 percent, respectively. The results also showed that temperature and relative humidity created by the shade from false acacia and pine trees are not comparable with the same climatic factors created by partly cloudy and mostly cloudy skies. In the present study, false acacia as a broad-leaved tree compared with pine tree and also open space could cool the environment about 0.65 degree C more that is in line with previous studies that showed the microclimatic impact of vegetation depend on crown and leaf size. Temperature and relative humidity in vegetation (trees) and cloudy condition are not comparable with microclimate and their impact on the environment is not the same. The cloud covers, also could enhance the more level of relative humidity in the environment in comparison with single tree canopy, so that were caused a wetter environment equal to16.6 and 8.4 percent, respectively.
Conclusion: This finding showed that climatic effects of cloud covers had no similarity compared with two studied trees species. It may also indicate that green space and greenery should not also be ignored in areas where cloudy skies are mostly present throughout the year.

Keywords

Cloud cover; Relative humidity; temperature; vegetation

References

1. Abbasi F., Babaian I., Habibi Nokhandan M., Golimokhtari L., and Malboosi SH. 2009. Assessment of climate change on temperature and raining in Iran on future decades with model MAGICC-SCENGEN. Physical Geography Research Quarterly, 72: 91-109. (In Persian)

2. Bauerle W.L., Bowden J.D., Geoff Wang G., and Shahba M.A. 2009. Exploring the importance of within-canopy spatial temperature variation on transpiration predictions. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60: 3665-3676.

3. Chatzidimitriou A., Chrissomallidou N., and Yannas S. 2005. Microclimate modifications of an urban street in northern Greece. Proceedings of the PLEA 2005-Passive and Low Energy Architecture, PLEA International, Beirut, Lebanon. pp. 689-694.

4. Chen Q., Liang X., Xu M., Ling T., and Wang J. 2013. Improvement of cloud radiative forcing and its impact on weather forecasts. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 7: 1-13.

5. Davoodi M., Mohammadi H., and Bay N. 2009. Analysis and prediction some Mashhad climatic elements. Nivar Science and Technology Journal, 71: 35-46. (In Persian)

6. Esmaili R., Gandomkar A., and Habibin, M. 2012. Assessment of comfortable climate in several main Iranian tourism cities using physiologic equivalence temperature index. Natural Geogeraphy Researches, 43(75): 1-18.

7. Fahmy M., Sharples S., and Yahiya M. 2010. LAI based trees selection for mid latitude urban developments: A microclimatic study in Cairo. Egypt, Building and Environment, 45: 345-357.

8. Georgi N.J., and Zafiriadis K. 2006.The impact of park trees on microclimate in urban areas. Urban Ecosystems, 9: 195-209.

9. Ghazanfari M.S., Alizadeh A., Naseri M., and Farid Hosseini A. 2010. Evaluating the Effects of UHI on Mashhad Precipitation. Journal of Water and Soil, 24(2): 359-366.

10. Gomez-Mu˜noz V.M., Porta-Gandara M.A., and Fernandez J.L. 2010. Effect of tree shades in urban planning in hot-arid climatic regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94: 149-157.

11. Groisman P.Y.A., Bradley R.S., and Sun B. 2000. The relationship of cloud cover to near-surface temperature and humidity: comparison of GCM simulations with empirical data. Journal of Climate, 13: 1858–1878.

12. Heisler G.M., and Wang Y. 2002. Applications of a human thermal comfort model, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the Urban Environment, 20-24 May, Norfolk, VA, Sponsored by the American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. USA.

13. Kuttler W., Barlag A.B., and Robmann F. 1996. Study of the thermal structure of a town in a narrow valley. Atmospheric Environment, 30(3): 365-378.

14. Lee R. 1978. Forest microclimatology, Columbia University Press, New York, 276 p.

15. Lin T., Matzarakis M., and Hwang R. 2010. Shading effect on long-term outdoor thermal comfort. Building and Environment, 45: 213-221.

16. Matzarakis A., Rutz and F., and Mayer H. 2007. Modelling radiation fluxes in simple and complex environments–Application of the RayMan model. International Journal of Biometeorology, 51: 323-334.

17. Matzarakis A., Karatarakis N. and Sarantopoulos A. 2005., Tourism climatology and tourism potential for Crete, Greece, Annalen der Meteorologie, 41(2): 616–619.

18. McWilliam V., Brown R., Eagles P., and Seasons M. 2014. Barriers to the effective planning and management of residential encroachment within urban forest edges: A Southern Ontario, Canada case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1): 48-62.

19. Mieczkowski Z. 1985. The tourism climatic index: a method of evaluating world climates for tourism. The Canadian Geographer, 29(3): 220-233.

20. Nowak D.J. 1995. Trees pollute? A TREE” explains it all. In: Kollin, C., Barratt. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forest Conference, American Forests, Washington, USA. pp. 28-30.

21. Sadeghinia A., Alijani B., and Ziaian P. 2012. Spatial-temporal analysis of the heat-island metropolis of Tehran using remote sensing and GIS. Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards, 4: 1-17.

22. Safarzadeh H., and Bahadori M.N. 2005. Passive cooling effects of courtyards, Building and Environment, 40: 89-104.

23. Scott D., McBoyle G., and Schwartzentruber, M. 2004. Climate change and the distribution of climatic resources for tourism in North America, Climate Research, 27: 105-117.

24. Shashua-Bar L., and Hoffman M.E. 2004. Quantitative evaluation of passive cooling of the UCL microclimate in hot regions in summer, case study: urban streets and courtyards with trees. Building and Environment, 39: 1087-1099.

25. Spagnolo J., and de Dear R.J. 2003. A field study of thermal comfort in outdoor and semi-outdoor environments in subtropical. Sydney Australia, Building and Environment, 38: 721-738.

26. Spangenberg J., Shinzato P., Johansson E., and Duarte D. 2008. Simulation of the influence of vegetation on microclimate and thermal comfort in the city of São Paulo. Rev SBAU Piracicaba, 3(2): 1-19.

27. Streiling S., and Matzarakis A. 2003. Influence of single and small clusters of trees on the bioclimate of a city: a case study. Journal Arboriculture, 29(6): 309-316.

28. Tompkins A.M. 2003. Impact of temperature and humidity variability on cloud cover assessed using aircraft data, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 129: 2151-2170.

29. Toy S., and Yilmaz S. 2007. International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Newzyland, pp. 1934-1939.

30. Toy S., and Yilmaz S. 2010. Thermal sensation of people performing recreational activities in shadowy environment: a case study from Turkey. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 101: 329-343.

31. Vinnikov K.Y., Grody N., Robock A., and Basist A. 2003. The relationship between cloudiness and surface temperature. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography, Long Beach, CA, 9-13 February, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. USA.

32. Walcek C.J. 1994. Cloud cover and its relationship to relative humidity during a springtime multitude cyclone. Monthly Weather Review, 122: 1021-1035.

33. Will R.E., Wilson S.M., Zou C.B., and Hennessey T.C. 2013. Increased vapor pressure deficit due to higher temperature leads to greater transpiration and faster mortality during drought for tree seedlings common to the forest-grassland ecotone. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(13): 3665-3676.

34. Yilmaz S., Toy S., Irmak M.A., and Yilmaz H. 2007. Determination of climatic differences in three different land uses in the city of Erzurum, Turkey. Building and Environment, 42(4): 1604-1613.