News Detail

Green roofs provide additional habitats

Green roofs not only have a positive impact on the urban climate but also provide a home for a wide variety of living creatures. Researchers at Eawag have now shown that these green roofs are not merely an extension of ground-level habitats, but also support other, complementary species. However, these species need to be actively assisted through appropriate measures, as living conditions for these lofty inhabitants are far from easy.

Green roofs are increasingly recognised as novel habitats and, according to a study by the aquatic research institute Eawag together with WSL, can support diverse species communities. According to the researchers, only 10% of the species found on the ground and on green roofs overlap. This means that greening façades and roofs does not simply serve to extend existing habitats but enriches biodiversity within cities with new communities.

Green roofs can become a trap

Yet there are still hurdles for the inhabitants up high. Through analysis of eDNA (more on this here), the researchers found that not only the variety of species but also the food web on roofs differs significantly from that on the ground. Species diversity is also more limited on the roofs than in habitats close to the ground. “This means that the food web on green roofs is more vulnerable to secondary extinction events,” explains Kilian Perrelet who conducted both studies as part of his PhD under the supervision of Lauren Cook and Florian Altermatt (both at Eawag) and Marco Moretti (WSL).

According to Perrelet this vulnerability to such chain reactions within the food web is because more predators are found on green roofs than organisms that feed on organic soil matter – such as earthworms or springtails. In other words, many of the inhabitants of a green roof could eventually run out of food, especially those at the top of the food web. Environmental conditions are also more challenging on green roofs; higher temperatures, scarcer water supplies, and limited organic matter inputs, like fewer plants or very mineral substrate, can cause problems. This raises the question of whether green roofs can function as sustainable habitats or whether they are, in fact, ecological traps for those species that find it difficult to move around.
 

Sustainable planning and design

Perrelet, however, is optimistic: “There are design measures for green roofs that can promote biodiversity across the vast majority of species detected.” Older roofs with deeper substrates may harbour more diverse communities, especially species forming the foundation of the food web. As a result, such roofs show greater resilience to secondary extinctions than newer green roofs with shallow substrates. In the planning phase, therefore, priority should be given to increasing the substrate depth. High vegetation cover also has a positive effect: in other words, the abundant planting of the area, ideally with substrates rich in organic matter.

Further studies will be needed to assess whether habitats above the city can be promoted through additional measures. For example, by planting a variety of trees and shrubs or incorporating water features. “Collaboration with architects and engineers is also crucial for the future of these habitats,” says Perrelet. Ideally, this would be done in the planning phase, as renovation of existing building can be very expensive. It would also be beneficial for biodiversity in cities if all these currently separate habitats could be connected, for example via terraces or ramps. As a result, green roofs would no longer be self-contained habitats at the mercy of external influences but could instead integrate naturally into a vibrant and sustainable ecosystem.
 

Green roofs differ from ground-level habitats in terms of species diversity. This can – if supported by the right measures – complement biodiversity in cities.

Blue-green infrastructure

Blue-green infrastructure (BGI) is an integrated, nature-based approach to urban planning. The concept combines the natural water cycle (water bodies, infiltration areas) with green elements such as green spaces, green roofs and trees, in order to manage water sustainably and promote biodiversity. In contrast to traditional, grey infrastructure (concrete channels and pipes), BGI utilises natural processes to absorb, store and filter rainwater. This reduces the risk of flooding, improves water quality and, at the same time, cools the city. Researchers at Eawag are conducting interdisciplinary projects to investigate how effective blue-green infrastructure can make our cities more climate-resilient and liveable.

Cover picture: Green roofs differ from ground-level habitats in terms of biodiversity. This can help to boost biodiversity in cities. (Photo: Kilian Perrelet, Eawag)
 

Original Publications

Extbase Variable Dump
array(3 items)
   publications => '36202,35084' (11 chars)
   libraryUrl => '' (0 chars)
   layout => '0' (1 chars)
Extbase Variable Dump
array(2 items)
   0 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=36202, pid=124)
      originalId => protected36202 (integer)
      authors => protected'Perrelet, K.; Cook, L. M.; Reji Chacko, M.; Altermatt,&n
         bsp;F.; Moretti, M.
' (100 chars) title => protected'Food webs on green roofs are unique but less robust than their ground‐leve
         l counterparts
' (90 chars) journal => protected'Journal of Applied Ecology' (26 chars) year => protected2026 (integer) volume => protected63 (integer) issue => protected'2' (1 chars) startpage => protected'e70306 (14 pp.)' (15 chars) otherpage => protected'' (0 chars) categories => protected'biodiversity; blue-green infrastructure; ecological networks; environmental
         DNA; herbivores; metaweb; predators; urban ecology
' (126 chars) description => protected'1. Green roofs are increasingly acknowledged as novel habitats capable of su
         staining diverse species assemblages. Due to their distinct abiotic conditio
         ns and stochastic colonization pathways, they are hypothesized to support ec
         ological communities that differ from those of ground-level habitats, yet th
         e capacity of these habitats to sustain coherent and robust food webs is har
         dly known.<br />2. Combining environmental DNA metabarcoding from soil sampl
         es with a metaweb approach, we compared the composition, structure and robus
         tness of ground-level and green roof food webs across 52 paired green roof a
         nd ground-level sites along an urban densification gradient in Zurich, Switz
         erland.<br />3. Food webs on green roofs were compositionally and structural
         ly distinct from those at ground level. These networks were denser (higher c
         onnectance), more diffuse (greater omnivory) and less structured (increased
         trophic incoherence) than ground-level webs. Together, this made the food we
         bs on green roofs more prone to secondary extinctions. These patterns were l
         argely driven by the predominance of predators and a lack of basal consumers
         , such as detritivores.<br />4. Variation in food web properties was mediate
         d by green roof design. Specifically, older roofs with deeper substrates sup
         ported sparsely connected, vertically diverse food webs that exhibited great
         er robustness to secondary extinctions than more recently built green roofs.
         <br /><em>5. Synthesis and applications</em>. Green roofs operate as distinc
         t habitats, offering novel environmental conditions, thus increasing urban h
         abitat diversity and supporting denser but less robust food webs compared wi
         th ground-level habitats. Increasing substrate depth and allowing for long-t
         erm development can promote trophic diversity and robustness, informing stra
         tegies for urban biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management.
' (1892 chars) serialnumber => protected'0021-8901' (9 chars) doi => protected'10.1111/1365-2664.70306' (23 chars) uid => protected36202 (integer) _localizedUid => protected36202 (integer)modified _languageUid => protectedNULL _versionedUid => protected36202 (integer)modified pid => protected124 (integer)
1 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=35084, pid=124) originalId => protected35084 (integer) authors => protected'Perrelet,&nbsp;K.; Moretti,&nbsp;M.; Inglard,&nbsp;O.; Altermatt,&nbsp;F.; C
         ook,&nbsp;L.&nbsp;M.
' (96 chars) title => protected'Green roofs harbor different and non-substituting invertebrate communities t
         han surrounding ground-level habitats
' (113 chars) journal => protected'Journal of Environmental Management' (35 chars) year => protected2025 (integer) volume => protected392 (integer) issue => protected'' (0 chars) startpage => protected'126630 (10 pp.)' (15 chars) otherpage => protected'' (0 chars) categories => protected'eDNA; mobility; biodiversity; complementarity; urban green spaces; blue-gree
         n infrastructure; soil
' (98 chars) description => protected'Green roofs are increasingly promoted to support urban biodiversity, potenti
         ally mitigating habitat loss from urban growth. Given their standardized des
         ign, however, green roofs are expected to differ ecologically from the groun
         d-level habitats they are intended to substitute. Yet the extent of this div
         ergence remains unclear, especially for taxa with varying dispersal abilitie
         s, including low-mobility invertebrates that are less often associated with
         green roofs. To quantify this divergence, we used environmental DNA metabarc
         oding to assess invertebrate diversity and identify environmental drivers af
         fecting species with different dispersal abilities across 52 pairs of extens
         ive green roof and ground-level sites in Zurich, Switzerland. We found that
         green roofs shared around 10 % of species with ground-level sites, regardles
         s of how spatially isolated they were. Instead, green roofs harbored unique
         communities, albeit marginally poorer in number of species. However, this pa
         ttern varied by species mobility, with soil-dwelling species forming more he
         terogeneous communities, likely due to dispersal limitations between roofs.
         Additionally, green roof design choices, including substrate type and depth,
          as well as vegetation cover, emerged as key drivers of species richness, re
         gardless of species dispersal abilities. Although green roofs do not structu
         rally or ecologically replicate the ground-level habitats they would substit
         ute, they provide complementary habitats that enhance urban biodiversity whe
         n designed with ecological considerations. While further research is require
         d to evaluate the capacity of green roofs to sustain viable populations desp
         ite their spatial isolation, this study highlights practical design interven
         tions, such as deepening the substrate, to improve their role as complementa
         ry habitats in cities.
' (1846 chars) serialnumber => protected'0301-4797' (9 chars) doi => protected'10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126630' (29 chars) uid => protected35084 (integer) _localizedUid => protected35084 (integer)modified _languageUid => protectedNULL _versionedUid => protected35084 (integer)modified pid => protected124 (integer)
Perrelet, K.; Cook, L. M.; Reji Chacko, M.; Altermatt, F.; Moretti, M. (2026) Food webs on green roofs are unique but less robust than their ground‐level counterparts, Journal of Applied Ecology, 63(2), e70306 (14 pp.), doi:10.1111/1365-2664.70306, Institutional Repository
Perrelet, K.; Moretti, M.; Inglard, O.; Altermatt, F.; Cook, L. M. (2025) Green roofs harbor different and non-substituting invertebrate communities than surrounding ground-level habitats, Journal of Environmental Management, 392, 126630 (10 pp.), doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126630, Institutional Repository