| Literature DB >> 30669358 |
Oriana Sanicola1, Terry Lucke2, Michael Stewart3, Katharina Tondera4, Christopher Walker5,6.
Abstract
Constructed Floating Wetlands (CFWs) are increasingly being used globally in freshwater environments such as urban lakes and ponds to remove pollutants from urban stormwater runoff. However, to date there has been limited research into the use and performance of these systems in saline environments. This study compared the root and shoot biomass growth and nutrient uptake of five different plant species, Chrysopogon zizanioides, Baumea juncea, Isolepis nodosa, Phragmites australis and Sarcocornia quinqueflora, in three different saltwater treatments over a 12-week period. The aim of the study was to identify which of the plant species may be most suitable for use in CFWs in saline environments. Plant nutrient uptake testing revealed that Phragmites australis had the greatest percentage increase (1473⁻2477%) of Nitrogen mass in the shoots in all treatments. Sarcocornia quinqueflora also had impressive Nitrogen mass increase in saltwater showing an increase of 966% (0.208 ± 0.134 g). This suggests that the use of Phragmites australis and Sarcocornia quinqueflora plants in CFWs installed in saline water bodies, with regular harvesting of the shoot mass, may significantly reduce Nitrogen concentrations in the water. Isolepis nodosa had the greatest percentage increase (112% or 0.018 ± 0.020 g) of Phosphorous mass in the shoots in the saltwater treatment. Baumea juncea had the greatest percentage increase (315% or 0.026 ± 0.012 g) of Phosphorous mass in the roots in the saltwater treatment. This suggests that the use of Isolepis nodosa and Baumea juncea plants in CFWs installed in saline water bodies may significantly reduce Phosphorous concentrations in the water if there was a way to harvest both the shoots above and the roots below the CFWs. The study is continuing, and it is anticipated that more information will be available on CFW plants installed in saline environments in the near future.Entities:
Keywords: constructed floating wetlands; plant biomass; stormwater pollution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30669358 PMCID: PMC6352243 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16020275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Schematic of Constructed Floating Wetland.
Figure 2Plant Salinity Evaluation Study Setup.
Figure 3Measurement of Shoots (a) and Roots (b) of Phragmites australis plants after 12 weeks.
Figure 4Average Initial and Final Shoot Biomass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment.
Initial Tubestock Shoot Mass and Final Plant Shoot Mass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment (Percentage Change in Shoot Mass Shown in Brackets).
| Plant Species | Average Shoot Mass (g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | |
|
| 4.72 ± 0.12 | 14.24 ± 1.56 (302%) | 27.81 ± 2.84 (589%) | 16.26 ± 0.59 (344%) |
|
| 6.54 ± 0.60 | 26.02 ± 2.85 (398%) | 39.96 ± 0.01 (596%) | 29.99 ± 1.40 (459%) |
|
| 6.10 ± 0.41 | 12.71 ± 0.21 (208%) | 26.08 ± 8.78 (427%) | 11.68 ± 0.26 (192%) |
|
| 4.91 ± 0.17 | 13.65 ± 3.18 (278%) | 10.55 ± 0.36 (215%) | 11.90 ± 2.13 (242%) |
|
| 5.98 ± 0.25 | 14.17 ± 2.56 (237%) | 22.94 ± 4.31 (384%) | 13.63 ± 1.87 (228%) |
Initial Tubestock Shoot Nutrient Mass and Final Shoot Nutrient Mass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment (Percentage Change in Shoot Nutrient Mass Shown in Brackets).
| Plant Species | Average Shoot Nitrogen Mass (g) | Average Shoot Phosphorus Mass (g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | |
|
| 0.022 ± 0.002 | 0.137 ± 0.045 (519%) | 0.222 ± 0.054 (905%) | 0.146 ± 0.016 (563%) | 0.007 ± 0.003 | 0.012 ± 0.007 (66%) | 0.031 ± 0.005 (341%) | 0.018 ± 0.006 (158%) |
|
| 0.083 ± 0.013 | 0.171 ± 0.043 (107%) | 0.292 ± 0.128 (253%) | 0.079 ± 0.054 (−5%) | 0.016 ± 0.007 | 0.034 ± 0.013 (112%) | 0.060 ± 0.033 (273%) | 0.039 ± 0.007 (142%) |
|
| 0.049 ± 0.008 | 0.083 ± 0.019 (71%) | 0.168 ± 0.097 (245%) | 0.079 ± 0.011 (61%) | 0.012 ± 0.002 | 0.011 ± 0.008 (-10%) | 0.062 ± 0.023 (425%) | 0.009 ± 0.006 (−20%) |
|
| 0.022 ± 0.008 | 0.229 ± 0.126 (966%) | 0.132 ± 0.024 (798%) | 0.194 ± 0.054 (513%) | 0.013 ± 0.002 | 0.022 ± 0.007 (68%) | 0.016 ± 0.004 (23%) | 0.022 ± 0.009 (68%) |
|
| 0.012 ± 0.001 | 0.185 ± 0.080 (1473%) | 0.304 ± 0.089 (1682%) | 0.210 ± 0.045 (2477%) | 0.016 ± 0.013 | 0.017 ± 0.008 (1%) | 0.040 ± 0.023 (145%) | 0.021 ± 0.006 (30%) |
Figure 5Average Initial and Final Root Biomass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment.
Initial Tubestock Root Mass and Final Plant Root Mass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment (Percentage Change in Root Mass Shown in Brackets).
| Plant Species | Average Root Mass (g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | |
|
| 5.22 ± 0.63 | 20.47 ± 3.59 (392%) | 41.82 ± 13.78 (801%) | 22.53 ± 2.65 (432%) |
|
| 8.61 ± 1.38 | 40.55 ± 11.45 (471%) | 44.78 ± 4.71 (520%) | 50.36 ± (585%) |
|
| 7.69 ± 1.63 | 22.47 ± 3.73 (292%) | 55.33 ± 2.39 (720%) | 27.72 ± 3.51 (360%) |
|
| 4.79 ± 0.21 | 12.21 ± 1.89 (255%) | 9.75 ± 0.24 (204%) | 12.92 ± 3.97 (270%) |
|
| 6.92 ± 0.66 | 15.87 ± 4.67 (229%) | 41.02 ± 6.41 (593%) | 24.86 ± 2.25 (359%) |
Initial Tubestock Root Nutrient Mass and Final Root Nutrient Mass for Each Species in Each Water Treatment (Percentage Change in Root Nutrient Mass Shown in Brackets).
| Plant Species | Average Root Nitrogen Mass (g) | Average Root Phosphorous Mass (g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | Initial | Saltwater | Freshwater | Increasing Salinity | |
|
| 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.102 ± 0.022 (282%) | 0.156 ± 0.063 (482%) | 0.188 ± 0.058 (603%) | 0.008 ± 0.006 | 0.034 ± 0.007 (315%) | 0.062 ± 0.036 (651%) | 0.029 ± 0.011 (250%) |
|
| 0.087 ± 0.015 | 0.157 ± 0.119 (81%) | 0.251 ± 0.055 (190%) | 0.250 ± 0.118 (188%) | 0.019 ± 0.008 | 0.055 ± 0.031 (189%) | 0.090 ± 0.031 (371%) | 0.055 ± 0.015 (190%) |
|
| 0.040 ± 0.023 | 0.080 ± 0.027 (102%) | 0.288 ± 0.066 (625%) | 0.086 ± 0.018 (116%) | 0.014 ± 0.005 | 0.013 ± 0.004 (−6%) | 0.060 ± 0.030 (325%) | 0.016 ± 0.003 (10%) |
|
| 0.029 ± 0.004 | 0.108 ± 0.027 (273%) | 0.107 ± 0.017 (268%) | 0.112 ± 0.037 (286%) | 0.007 ± 0.003 | 0.016 ± 0.013 (150%) | 0.020 ± 0.006 (195%) | 0.017 ± 0.014 (164%) |
|
| 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.090 ± 0.067 (1,412%) | 0.273 ± 0.087 (4,484%) | 0.187 ± 0.074 (3,050%) | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.023 ± 0.013 (304%) | 0.094 ± 0.052 (1516%) | 0.034 ± 0.010 (482%) |
Figure 6Isolepis nodosa Shoots at the End of the 12 Week Study in (a) Freshwater Treatment (b) Increasing Salinity Treatment and (c) Saltwater Treatment.
Figure 7Root Systems of (a) Baumea juncea; (b) Isolepis nodosa; (c) Chrysopogon zizanioides; (d) Sarcocornia quinqueflora and (e) Phragmites australis plants.