Behavior of Endemic and Non-Endemic Species in Urban Green Infrastructures: Sustainable Strategies in Quito

Abstract

The ongoing changes in natural and urban ecosystems, driven by climate change, population growth, and other anthropogenic factors, necessitate the implementation of green infrastructure, such as green roofs and walls. The functional value of these systems is demonstrated through their alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), which are directly related to the implementation and development of sustainable strategies in buildings and urban environments. By leveraging the ecosystem services they provide, green infrastructure contributes to life on land, enhancing biodiversity—especially for flora, fauna, and pollinators. Additionally, their potential for visual appeal and esthetic value, often emphasized during installation, can enrich the cultural and landscape value of urban spaces, ultimately promoting good health and well-being for urban residents. This study aims to incorporate native vegetation into the design of intensive (walls) and extensive (roofs) green infrastructure within a neotropical mountainous climate. To achieve this, an experimental module was developed, integrating native and non-native vegetation selected based on criteria such as relative growth rate (RGR), measured by species size in relation to geotextile mesh coverage and visual survival status. Additional criteria, including stress (SP), esthetic (AP), and coexistence (CP) metrics, inform design strategies aimed at enhancing biodiversity through the use of native vegetation, while maintaining the esthetic integrity of the design. While further evaluation of a broader range of vegetation is necessary to establish more comprehensive parameters, this study has yielded promising results. It demonstrates that the interaction between certain non-native species and native species can positively influence the survival of the latter, while also supporting the survival of native vegetation with significant esthetic value.

1. Introduction

Urbanization drives changes in ecosystems by altering the natural characteristics of the environment in which it develops, depleting resources due to anthropogenic influence, and progressively expanding to meet spatial demands.

According to World Bank forecasts, by 2050, around 7 out of 10 people will live in cities, leading to an exponential increase in urban development that could add around 1.2 million km² of urbanized land. This expansion is expected to significantly reduce natural green infrastructure [1,2,3].

As a result of these changes, the United Nations, in its 2030 Agenda, outlines several Sustainable Development Goals, among which Goal 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, and Goal 3, “Good Health and Well-Being”, are directly related to the implementation and development of sustainable strategies in buildings and urban environments. This can significantly impact various sustainability indicators by promoting urban resilience and sustainability, with positive effects on both “Good Health and Well-Being” and “Climate Action”. In this context, green infrastructure can play a key role if the ecosystem services it provides are properly harnessed through correct implementation.

The degradation of natural green infrastructure results in a reduction in ecosystem services such as rainwater retention, mitigation of the urban heat island effect, noise reduction, biodiversity improvements, and enhancements in quality of life. Furthermore, their esthetic value at the urban landscape level contributes positively to these last two ecosystem services. Although natural green infrastructure can provide higher-quality ecosystem services compared to semi-natural structures like green roofs and walls, the latter have proven to significantly enhance the quality of life for urban residents through their ecosystem services [2,3,4].

Semi-natural green infrastructure, such as roofs and walls, interacts directly with architectural and urban elements like buildings and public spaces. Their extensive or intensive nature influences their capacity to improve quality of life whether through esthetic enhancements or biodiversity improvements in urban living conditions [5,6,7].

The ability of intensive structures to sustain taller vegetation or plants requiring higher support is advantageous when considering ecosystem services. However, the ease of installation and maintenance associated with extensive structures provides a clear advantage for widespread implementation in urban environments, particularly in developing countries [3,8,9,10].

Moreover, all green infrastructure contributes significant esthetic value, which positively impacts quality of life by fostering a sense of ownership over space. This, in turn, generates cultural benefits by promoting positive identification with the urban landscape. Additionally, green infrastructure supports improvements in plant biodiversity when endemic species are utilized. These species, being adapted to local climatic conditions and maintaining relationships with local fauna, are particularly important for pollinators such as birds and insects. This importance becomes even more pronounced given the abrupt changes ecosystems face due to anthropogenic activities, this makes them an important strategy in climate action, one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations [4,8,10,11,12].

Various studies have evaluated the potential of mixed vegetation, combining native plants with primarily ornamental, non-native species. These studies have shown that such a mixture can support urban wildlife, such as pollinators. However, other research has prioritized endemic vegetation as it can enhance the functionality of infrastructure in ecosystem services like water collection and evidently influence the biodiversity of native plant species [2,3,13].

The use of native vegetation, in combination with certain introduced species—provided their coexistence characteristics and potential environmental risks are carefully evaluated—can function efficiently and support the survival of endemic species. However, this approach must carefully consider the potential risks of introduced species disrupting ecosystems and negatively impacting endemic biodiversity [4,11,12].

Although all the parameters mentioned have been extensively analyzed in prior studies, some of which are cited in this article, they remain critical for ongoing research and practical application in developing countries as the use of green infrastructure usually prioritizes its esthetic value, often employing vegetation that ensures this, leading to a predominance of introduced species. However, the use of endemic vegetation could replicate the natural habitats of each area, potentially enhancing biodiversity for both fauna and flora by creating corridors for species mobility without the risks associated with introduced species [14,15].

This is evident in the city of Quito, Ecuador, where green roofs and façades are emerging, primarily for esthetic purposes, with the use of ecosystem services playing a secondary role. However, the city has set strategic objectives, such as through the “Metropolitan Territorial Development Plan”, which aim to reduce environmental vulnerability to climate change. This plan seeks to respond effectively to various impacts, including biodiversity conservation and improvements in the health and well-being of its residents, among other aspects [16].

This study has focused on experimenting with varieties of native and introduced vegetation, testing their functionality as well as their optimal placement and relationships within intensive and extensive green infrastructure. The aim is to understand the behavior of these species and establish the best conditions for their use and benefit.

The study evaluates the use of native vegetation in intensive green infrastructure through the implementation of an experimental prototype. It assesses the coexistence of native and introduced plants, considering their growth rates and the stress they endure when integrated into an intensive green façade. Furthermore, their esthetic characteristics—previously highlighted as significant for their application in buildings—are also examined. The esthetic value of this type of infrastructure is particularly important in the city of Quito, where the study is conducted, often surpassing the emphasis placed on their ecosystem services. Consequently, design decisions frequently exclude native plants due to the absence of prior testing, thereby undermining their potential contribution to biodiversity. This study aims to use these parameters to guide the implementation of native vegetation in such infrastructures [11,17].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Measuring Tools

The climate measurement equipment included an Ecowitt solar anemometer with a UV sensor, an Ecowitt WH5360 digital rain gauge, an Extech PH110 pH meter, and an Ecowitt GW1000 smart weather sensor (the manufacturer of the Ecowitt instruments used in the research is based in Shenzhen, China. However, they were purchased through their distributor, Ecuador GPS, located in Quito, Ecuador), in the other hand, the software used is WSView Plus/Ecowitt, GW1100B-WIFI5CA6. These tools were employed to monitor climatic conditions during the study period, with the objective of identifying the environmental factors to which the vegetation was exposed. These data serves as a guideline for designing future projects under similar conditions.

2.2. Site Study

The area selected for the installation of the study modules is the rooftop of Block 2 at Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, which has four floors and is located in the Cotocollao sector of Quito, Ecuador (Latitude: −0.123343, Longitude: −78.482638) (Figure 1), on the eastern slope of the Sierra at an altitude of 2807 m above sea level in the Western Cordillera of the Andes. It has a tropical highland climate, with temperatures ranging from 10 °C to 27 °C, averaging 15 °C. The UV index is typically above 8, and irradiance exceeded 900 W/m² during the study. The average annual rainfall is 2877 mm, with two distinct seasons: the rainy season, (or winter), which extends from November to June, and the dry season, which lasts from June to November.

3. Experimental Configuration

A module constructed with a metal structure covered with recycled polyaluminum panels was used. Two intensive vegetated façades with felt geotextile mesh were installed, totaling 4.86 m², with 146 plants placed in the “pockets”. An extensive green roof of approximately 1 m² was installed on top, designed for depths not exceeding 15 cm, housing 25 plants (Figure 2).

The modules also feature an automated irrigation system, activated every 30 min, which waters the plants with a chemical fertilizer that serves as vital support. The system includes a diaphragm pump, sediment filter, reverse osmosis filter, irrigation and fertilization tanks, and a fertilizer injection pump.

The installation of commercial façades and green roof systems is due to the characteristics of the study, as it is part of a research project involving several studies related to the mentioned green infrastructure. Therefore, these systems are imposed as a condition for the present study.

The study period is divided into two stages: the first from May to October 2023, and the second from November 2023 to June 2024. There is a one-month interval due to research inconveniences, during which a plant change is made, as described in the corresponding section.

In the first period, the average temperature was 15 °C, with an irradiance of 958.5 W/m², a UVI of 8.8, and average rainfall of 17.5 mm per month. Data were collected using an Ecowitt solar anemometer with a UV sensor, an Ecowitt WH5360 digital rain gauge, an Extech PH110 pH meter, and an Ecowitt GW1000 smart weather sensor (the manufacturer of the Ecowitt instruments used in the research is based in Shenzhen, China. However, they were purchased through their distributor, Ecuador GPS, located in Quito, Ecuador), in the other hand, the software used is WSView Plus/Ecowitt, GW1100B-WIFI5CA6 (Figure 3).

Source: Ecowitt solar anemometer with a UV sensor, an Ecowitt WH5360 digital rain gauge, an Extech PH110 pH meter, and an Ecowitt GW1000 smart weather sensor (the manufacturer of the Ecowitt instruments used in the research is based in Shenzhen, China. However, they were purchased through their distributor, Ecuador GPS, located in Quito, Ecuador), in the other hand, the software used is WSView Plus/Ecowitt, GW1100B-WIFI5CA6.

3.1. Plant Preselection

The preselection of plants aimed to maintain a predominance of endemic vegetation, applying three evaluation criteria: plant establishment (adaptability), long-term survival capacity (perennials), and appearance measured in terms of esthetics, color, and growth rate.

The selection was made with the aim of using the maximum number of native plants without compromising the esthetics and development of the intensive vegetated system used on the façade and the extensive roof. The preselection included the plants listed in

Table 1. Traits evaluated in the preselection of plants for use in green walls and roofs.

Species	Native Yes/No	Perennial Yes/No	Zone Adaptability	Coexistence Behavior	EP
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	No	Yes	Suitable for warm climates/adaptable up to −2 °C	Can compete for space as it grows	X
Bergenia crassifolia/winter hydrangea	No	Yes	Suitable under sun/moderate climates	Can compete for space with other species
Begonia semperflorens/begonia	Yes	Yes	Suitable under sun/moderate climates	Can compete for space as it grows
Nephrolepis exaltata/native fern	Yes	Yes	Suitable for moderate climates with high humidity	Can compete for space as it grows	X
Calamagrostis effusa/pajonal	Yes	Yes	Suitable in both shade and light conditions	Low competition for space as the plant grows	X
Aerva Sanguinolenta/escancel rojo	No	Yes	Suitable in both shade and light conditions	Low competition for space as the plant grows	X
Tanacetum Balsamita/santa maría	No	Yes	Suitable for warm climates/good cold resistance	Can compete for space as it grows	X
Lycianthes lycioides/tomalón	Yes	Yes	Suitable for moderate climates, not very cold-resistant	Low competition for space as the plant grows	X
Vinca major	No	Yes	Suitable for moderate climates, not very cold-resistant	Can compete for space as it grows

, their esthetic parameters (EP), mesh coverage capacity, existence of flowers, and colors of vegetation, as described in Table 1 below, where ‘X’ signifies a positive affirmation [18].

3.2. Selected Plants

The selected plants were evaluated based on their compliance with pre-established parameters, recommendations from agronomy specialists, and a preliminary analysis conducted in plastic seedbeds to test their survival capacities under the climatic conditions of the study area (CSAE). These conditions included annual wind speeds ranging from 3.1 m/s to 29.1 m/s and solar radiation levels ranging from 77 W/m² to 958.5 W/m², both of which significantly influence plant survival.

Additionally, the esthetic value of the vegetation was assessed through factors such as foliage density, color, and flowering. Based on these criteria, the plants listed in

Table 2. Plants used in green walls and roofs.

Specie	Nativa Yes/No	Perenne Yes/No	CSAE
Green roof
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	No	Yes	X
Calamagrostis effuse/pajonal	Yes	Yes	X
Aerva Sanguinolenta/escancel rojo	No	Yes	X
Southeast Green Wall
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	No	Yes	X
Bergenia crassifolia/garden hydrangea	No	Yes
Nephrolepis exaltata/native fern	Yes	Yes	X
Lycianthes lycioides/tomalón	Yes	Yes	X
Vinca major	No	Yes
Northwest Green Wall
Bergenia crassifolia/Hortensia de Jardín	No	Yes
Asplenium monanthes/native fern	Yes	Yes	X
Calamagrostis effuse/Pajonal	Yes	Yes	X
Aerva Sanguinolenta/Escancel rojo	No	Yes	X
Vinca major	No	Yes

were selected, where ’X’ signifies a positive affirmation.

3.3. Plant Growth and Survival Results of the Esthetic-Functional Evaluation

To establish plant growth and its characteristics, a control table was created to record weekly data, providing results on their functional evaluation to determine the feasibility of using native vegetation on green roofs and façades. The standard deviation of plant appearance was evaluated based on parameters from similar studies conducted in Colombia, Italy, and other Mediterranean regions [1,19].

The following parameters were considered, and the results are summarized in

Table 3. Plant growth and survival.

Vegetated Cover
Specie	Month	Native		RGR	SP	CP	Specie	Month	Native		RGR	SP	CP
Calamagrostis effusa/pajonal	1	YES		2.66	2	2	Aerva sanguinolenta/escancel rojo	1	NO		3	2	2
	2			1.5	2	2		2			3	2	2
	3			1	2	2		3			2	2	2
	4			1	2	2		4			1	2	2
	5			1	2	2		5			1	2	2
	6			1	2	2		6			1	2	2
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	1	NO		3	2	2
	2			3	2	2
	3			2	2	2
	4			1	2	2
	5			1	2	2
	6			1	2	2
Southeast Façade							Northwest Façade
Specie	Month	Location	Native	RGR	SP	CP	Specie	Month	Location	Native	RGR	SP	CP
Lycianthes lycioides/tomalon	1	UP	YES	3	4	2	Calamagrostis effusa/pajonal	1	UP	YES	3	2	2
	2			3	4	2		2			2	2	1
	3			2	4	2		3			2	2	1.76
	4			2	3	2		4			3	2	1
	5			2	3	2		5			2	2	1.8
	6			2	2	2		6			1	2	1.8
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	1	UP	NO	3	2	2	Aerva sanguinolentaa/escantel rojo	1	UP	NO	3	1	1
	2			3	2	2		2			3	1	1
	3			3	2	2		3			1.15	1	1.65
	4			2	2	2		4			1.2	1	1.8
	5			2	2	2		5			1.1	1	1.4
	6			2	2	2		6			1.1	1	1.4
	1	DOWN		3	2	2
	2			3	2	2
	3			3	2	2
	4			2	2	2
	5			2	2	2
	6			2	2	2
Nephrolepis exaltata/fern	1	UP	YES	3	2	2	Nephrolepis exaltata/fern	1	UP	YES	3	4	2
	2			2	2	2		2			3	4	2
	3			2	2	2		3			1	2	2
	4			2	2	2		4			1	2	2
	5			3	2	2		5			1	2	2
	6			2	2	2		6			1	2	2
	1	DOWN		3	2	1.88		1	DOWN		3	4	2
	2			2	2	2		2			3	4	2
	3			2	2	2		3			1	2	2
	4			2	2	2		4			1	2	2
	5			2	2	2		5			1	2	2
	6			2	2	2		6			1	2	2
Vinca major	1	UP	NO	3	1	2	Vinca major	1	UP	NO	3	2	2
	2			3	1	2		2			2	1	1
	3			3	1	2		3			1.53	1	1
	4			3	1	2		4			1	1	1
	5			2	1	2		5			1.6	1	1
	6			2	1	2		6			1.6	1	1
	1	DOWN		3	2	2		1	DOWN		2	1	2
	2			3	1	2		2			2	1	1
	3			3	1	2		3			1.53	2	1
	4			3	1	2		4			2	2	1
	5			2	2	2		5			2	2	1
	6			2	2	2		6			2	2	1
Bergenia crassifolia/Winter hydrangea	1	UP	NO	3	2	2	Bergenia crassifolia/Hydrangea	1	UP	NO	3	2	2
	2			2	2	2		2			3	2	2
	3			3	1	2		3			1.33	2	2
	4			3	2	2		4			1.5	2	2
	5			2	1	2		5			1.5	1.5	2
	6			2	1	1		6			1.5	1	2

, divided into three periods (first and second periods lasting three months, and the last period lasting two months): the first period from late October to the end of January, the second from February to April, and the third from May to June.

3.3.1. Relative Growth Rate (RGR)

Measured based on the plant’s size relative to the coverage of the geotextile mesh and its visual survival state. Where

• Good size and foliage, covering the mesh;
• Medium size and foliage, intermediate coverage;
• Small size and foliage, not covering the mesh.

3.3.2. Stress Parameters (SP)

Factor 1. No stress, all leaves are healthy, and the root is placed in the pocket or substrate.

Factor 2. Minor stress, more than 50% of the leaves are green, and the root is placed in the pocket or substrate without protruding.

Factor 3. Moderate stress, less than 50% of the leaves are green, the root is placed in the pocket or substrate but is visible and in poor condition.

Factor 4. Severe stress, few leaves remain green, the root is placed in the pocket or substrate but is visible and in poor condition.

Factor 5. Plant damage: The plant is dead and completely dry.

3.3.3. Coexistence Parameters (CP)

Factor 1: The plant does not invade the space of another plant and positively influences the growth or survival of other plants.

Factor 2: The plant does not invade the space of another plant and does not influence the growth or survival of other plants.

Factor 3: The plant invades the space of another plant and negatively influences the growth or survival of other plants.

4. Research Limitations

The research was conducted continuously over the six months indicated in

Table 4. Details the plants that survived despite the lack of irrigation and those that were replaced.

Specie	Native Yes/No	Replaced	Replacement species	Native Yes/No
Green Roof
Calamagrostis effusa/pajonal	Yes	Yes	Blechnum brasiliense/brazilian fern	No
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	No	No
Aerva sanguinolenta/escantel rojo	No	No
Southeast Façade
Nephrolepis exaltata/native fern	Yes	Yes	Purple basil	Yes
Lycianthes lycioides/tomalón	Yes	Yes	Origanum vulgare	No
Vinca major	No	No	Aerva sanguinolenta/escancel rojo	No
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	No	No
Bergenia crassifolia/winter hydrangea	No	No
Northwest Façade
Nephrolepis exaltata/native fern	Yes	Yes	Purple basil	Yes
Calamagrostis effusa/pajonal	Yes	Yes	Blechnum brasiliense/brazilian fern	No
Aerva sanguinolentaa/escansel rojo	No	Yes	Aerva sanguinolentaa/escantel rojo	No
Vinca major	No	Yes	Aptenia cordifolia	No
Bergenia crassifolia/winter hydrangea	No	No

, with no changes made to the vegetation. During this time, only one significant issue occurred: the irrigation of the infrastructure was suspended for seven days, which required the replacement of several plants (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

To quantitatively assess the suitability of the analyzed vegetation for inclusion in the design of the green infrastructures under study, the values obtained for the vegetation over the six-month duration of each study phase were averaged. For vegetation used in both phases, the results were further averaged to establish a mean value (Figure 6).

This method provided a quantitative framework for identifying the vegetation that, based on the parameters evaluated in the study, is most likely to perform optimally under conditions similar to those observed in the analyzed infrastructures.

Regarding the vegetation used, it can be noted that, in the first stage of the study, regarding Coexistence Parameters (CP), no issues were observed. Bergenia crassifolia, also known as winter hydrangea, achieved optimal mesh coverage (RGR) with low stress parameters and positively influenced nearby vegetation by providing shade, which improved the living conditions of the Nephrolepis exaltata (native fern) surrounding it. However, in terms of stress parameters, Nephrolepis exaltata showed better performance on the northwest façade, where the RGR indicated greater size and lushness.

Calamagrostis effusa (pajonal) was placed only on the northwest façade and the extensive roof. While it did not reach the dimensions typical of ground planting, it covered the mesh and positively influenced nearby vegetation. Aerva sanguinolenta (Escancel Rojo) adapted well, covering the mesh but not reaching a significant size.

The plants that showed greater resistance and survived the seven-day irrigation suspension mentioned in the research drawbacks were Chlorophytum comosum (spider plant) on the southeast façade and Bergenia crassifolia (winter hydrangea) on both facades. These two plants are part of the non-native vegetation placed on the facade, indicating that the native vegetation tested is less resistant to water shortages.

Due to the need to replace the species listed in

Table 5. Plant growth and survival second stage.

Vegetated Cover
Specie	Month	Native		RGR	SP	CP	Specie	Month	Native		RGR	SP	CP
Blechnum Brasiliense/Brazilian fern	1	No		3	2	2	Aerva sanguinolenta/escantel rojo	1	No		2	4	2
	2			3	2	2		2			2	3	2
	3			3	2	2		3			2	3	2
	4			2	2	2		4			2	2	2
	5			1.5	1	2		5			1	1	2
	6			1	1	2		6			1	1	2
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	1	NO		2	4	2
	2			2	3	2
	3			1.8	3	2
	4			1	2	2
	5			1	1	2
	6			1	1	2
Southeast Façade							Northwest Façade
Specie	Month	Location	Native	RGR	SP	CP	Specie	Month	Location	Native	RGR	SP	CP
Origanum vulgare	1	UP	No	3	2	2	Brazilian fern Blechnum Brasiliense	1	UP	No	3	2	2
	2			3	2	2		2			3	2	2
	3			3	2	2		3			2	3	2
	4			2	2	2		4			2	2	2
	5			2	1	2		5			1	1	2
	6			2	1	2		6			1	1	2
Chlorophytum comosum/mala madre	1	UP	NO	2	4	2	Aerva sanguinolentaa/escantel rojo	1	UP	No	3	4	2
	2			2	4	2		2			3	3	2
	3			2	3	2		3			2	3	2
	4			1.5	3	2		4			2	2	2
	5			1	2	2		5			2	2	2
	6			1	1	2		6			2	2	2
	1	DOWN		2	4	2
	2			2	4	2
	3			2	3	2
	4			2	2	2
	5			1.2	1	2
	6			1.2	1	2
Purple basil	1	UP	YES	3	1	2	Purple basil	1	UP	YES	2	1	2
	2			3	2	2		2			3	2	2
	3			3	2	2		3			2	2	2
	4			3	2	2		4			1	1	2
	5			2.8	1	2		5			1	1	2
	6			2.5	1	2		6			1	1	2
Aerva sanguinolenta/escantel rojo	1	UP	NO	3	3	2	Aptenia cordifolia	1	UP	NO	3	2	2
	2			3	2	2		2			3	2	2
	3			2	2	2		3			3	1	2
	4			3	1	2		4			2	2	2
	5			2	1	2		5			2	2	2
	6			2	1	2		6			2	2	2
Bergenia crassifolia/Hortensia de invierno	1	UP	NO	2	4	2	Bergenia crassifolia/Hortensia	1	UP	NO	2	4	1
	2			2	4	2		2			2	3	1
	3			2	3	2		3			2	2	1
	4			2	3	1		4			2	1	1
	5			1	2	1		5			1	1	1
	6			1	1	1		6			1	1	1

, native wild vegetation from the Quito valleys, specifically purple basil and oregano, was tested. Both showed great potential, particularly purple basil, which achieved a RGR of 1.66 on the northwest façade, while it only reached a RGR of 1.28 on the southeast façade. This indicates that these plants could be introduced into such infrastructures, with their best performance linked to morning light exposure, marking their first use within the territory of Pichincha.

Regarding the RGR, the obtained data show that the northwest façade had a higher average growth and foliage compared to the southeast façade. The Stress Parameters (SP) were similar between the two orientations. Despite the southeast façade achieving smaller dimensions, the leaves and roots remained mostly healthy.

5. Conclusions

Conclusions and Future Studies

The study analyzes parameters such as survival, coexistence, and stress of vegetation, which allow for the assessment of the feasibility of using a combination of endemic and non-endemic species in green infrastructures. The goal is to create systems that contribute to the plant biodiversity of cities, like Quito, where there are areas lacking green spaces. However, more studies are needed to explore optimal vegetation combinations and facilitate the design of these infrastructures in new developing environments, which have been underexplored in regions where green infrastructures are relatively new.

The species selected for this study confirmed that the parameters established for different stages of development—from preselection to establishment—are effective in ensuring better adaptation This, in turn, could reduce the frequency of infrastructure maintenance related vegetation replacement, as proper coexistence and stress factors improve survival rates. Therefore, conducting such preliminary analyses before designing green infrastructure is strongly recommended as it enhances both performance and survival rates.

Green infrastructure, such as façades and roofs, whether extensive or intensive, holds significant potential for integrating native vegetation, contributing to the restoration of local biodiversity that has been displaced. Moreover, these systems foster a sense of ownership among citizens by offering esthetic value, thereby significantly enhancing the quality of life for urban residents.

This study is part of a research project aimed at individually analyzing the ecosystem services that green roofs and facades can provide, which is framed in this way due to limitations in annual financial resources. In this first stage, combinations of vegetation have been analyzed which, without disregarding their esthetic value for society, prioritize a mix of compatible native and non-native species. These combinations are designed to ensure the optimal functioning of green infrastructures, providing biodiversity services—specifically plant-based services—to the surrounding environment where they are implemented.

Further research is essential to investigate the biodiversity-related functions of green infrastructures and to expand the analysis of the ecosystem services it provides. These services not only improve urban quality of life but also offer benefits to the interior environments of buildings equipped with such systems.