2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.06.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of annual harvesting on plants growth and nutrients removal in surface-flow constructed wetlands in northwestern China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
2
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The harvesting of macrophyte biomass suitably during peak growth phase is perfect to avoid nutrient and metal remobilization from belowground vegetative parts or during senescence leaching on ultimate OM mineralization [112]. Similarly, a mono annual harvesting practice improves height; shoot density and biomass of macrophytes, although leading to nominal increment for mass TN and TP removal rates [113]. The ANOVA comparing the species shows uptake preference mode for Cu, K, Na, Se and Si indicating specific role in the unlike macrophytes [114].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The harvesting of macrophyte biomass suitably during peak growth phase is perfect to avoid nutrient and metal remobilization from belowground vegetative parts or during senescence leaching on ultimate OM mineralization [112]. Similarly, a mono annual harvesting practice improves height; shoot density and biomass of macrophytes, although leading to nominal increment for mass TN and TP removal rates [113]. The ANOVA comparing the species shows uptake preference mode for Cu, K, Na, Se and Si indicating specific role in the unlike macrophytes [114].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nutrient removal rate increased by 9% only for nitrogen and 17% for phosphorus in a HSSFCW planted with Typha latifolia compared to the control CW without plants (Costa et al, 2015). In addition, Zheng et al (2015) found harvesting had minimal increase in nutrient reduction (only 5.4% increase in TN and 9% in TP removal) by comparing harvested and unharvested constructed wetlands.…”
Section: Wetlands For Nutrient Removalmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Result from duckweed-based CWs showed 22.4 g N/m 2 •yr removal and 7.4 g P/m 2 •yr removal by harvest (Adhikari et al, 2015). One study showed that increasing plant biomass will improve the redox conditions in the substrate layer and increase dissolved N and P removal by harvesting plant (Dzakpasu et al, 2015). Another study showed the proportional relationship between increased plant biomass and high P removal, and it suggested harvesting above-ground vegetation in June or September for maximum P removal in Floating treatment wetlands (Wang, Sample et al, 2015).…”
Section: Wetlands For Nutrient Removalmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Differences in the behavior of evaluated systems may be associated with the hydraulic holding time (HHT), organic load or applied nutrient load (notably nitrogen and phosphorus), characteristics of system (flow direction), and the cutoff frequency of plant shoot Zheng et al, 2015). As plants have limited nutrient absorption capacities, higher efficiencies can be obtained by applying lower loads than their removal capacity and thus a larger surface area should be available in HSSF-CWs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%