| Literature DB >> 27064357 |
Brian D Grebliunas1, William L Perry2.
Abstract
Nutrient stoichiometry within a wetland is affected by the surrounding land use, and may play a significant role in the removal ofEntities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27064357 PMCID: PMC4801829 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1820-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1List of C:N:P amendments applied to drain tile wetland sediments and experimental outline
Fig. 2A map of the wetland sites used for sediment core collection within the Mackinaw River watershed, IL. The wetland denoted by an asterisk is the Gully wetland (40° 38′ 23″, 88° 49′ 18″) which was used for the C:N:P study. Sites incorporated into the wetland type study are denoted by circles on the watershed map as follows: surface water sites (grey) and tile water sites (black)
Fig. 3Response of denitrification to amendments of differing nutrient stoichiometry over time (5 days—light gray, 10 days—medium gray, and 20 days—dark gray). Denitrification rates measured on Day 0 were subtracted from subsequent days assayed to establish a new baseline. Graphs separated by low (a 2 mg L−1) and high (b 20 mg L−1) NO3–N availability
Fig. 4Shift in denitrification rates of tile (a) and surface water (b) sediments over time associated with different ratios of C:N. Denitrification rates from tile water sites are means of the Moga, Durbin, and Gully wetlands. Denitrification rates from the surface water sites are means of East Floodplain, Frog, and West Floodplain wetlands. Rates measured on Day 0 were subtracted from subsequent days assayed. Negative rates of denitrification represent a decrease in activity from Day 0. Treatments are denoted as follows: control (filled triangel), 2:1 (filled square), and 4:1 (filled circle). Wetland sediments from surface and tile water sites did not differ significantly in response to nutrient amendments
Results of the mixed model ANOVA showing there is no difference in denitrification between the high and low carbon treatments when tile and surface water wetlands are compared
| Source | df | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wetland type error | 1 | 0.55 | 0.5010 |
Display of parameters tested, along with Akaike Information Criterion (AICc)
| Model | AICc | Delta AICc | Exp function | wi |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DS(W) | 2378 | 4.7 | 0.0953691 | 0.0812 |
| TS(W), DS(W) | 2379 | 5.1 | 0.0780816 | 0.0665 |
| S(W) | 2389 | 15.7 | 0.0000389 | 0.0003 |
| TS(W) | 2390 | 16.7 | 0.0002364 | 0.0002 |
| Sum | 1.1740769 |
Values within the parameters including TDS(W) highlighted italics due to lowest AICc value, showing TDS(W) to be the best fit for the model. Model parameters labeled as follows: T (treatment), D (day), S (site), and W (wetland type)