Effects of interspecific competition on the growth of macrophytes and nutrient removal in constructed wetlands: A comparative assessment of free water surface and horizontal subsurface flow systems

Abstract

The outcome of competition between adjoining interspecific colonies of Phragmites and Typha in two large field pilot-scale free water surface (FWS) and subsurface flow (SSF) CWs is evaluated. According to findings, the effect of interspecific competition was notable for Phragmites australis, whereby it showed the highest growth performance in both FWS and SSF wetland. In a mixed-culture, P. australis demonstrates superiority in terms of competitive interactions for space between plants. Furthermore, the interspecific competition among planted species seemed to cause different ecological responses of plant species in the two CWs. For example, while relatively high density and shoot height determined the high aboveground dry weight of P. australis in the FWS wetland, this association was not evident in the SSF. Additionally, while plants nutrients uptake accounts for a higher proportion of the nitrogen removal in FWS, that in the SSF accounts for a higher proportion of the phosphorous removal.

Phragmites australis and Schoenoplectus californicus in constructed wetlands: Development and nutrient uptake

“…In turn, the P content accumulated in the plants in this study (0.08 to 0.19 g P m -2 ) was less than determined by Zheng et al (2016), who found accumulations between 1.5-3.0 g P m -2 .…”

“…Tanner (1996) found a density of 758 stems m -2 in only 90 days from the start of cultivation. Along the same line, biomass production in HSSF was 23% higher than that found by Vymazal and Köpfelová (2005) and Zheng et al (2016) in a CW with Phr production between 500-600 g DW m -2 (first year). Subsequently, stem production in winter (1281 stems m -2 ) matched that determined by Rodríguez and Brisson (2015) and Vymazal and Köpfelová (2005), who observed the development of 1366 stems m -2 in winter (first year) and biomass production between 1000 and 1600 g DW m -2 .…”

“…P assimilation in this study was less than 5% for Phr and between 4 and 9% for Sch. Coinciding, as determined by Vymazal and Kröpfelová (2011);Vohla et al (2005) and Zheng et al (2016), who delivered values assimilation by macrophytes in HSSF 2.3 -6.1% P and 3.7-6.2% of N coming into the CW.…”

A Preliminary Study on A Novel Water Treatment Pond Design Using Dredged Sediment, Shrub Willow and Recycling Hand Pumps for the Restoration of Water Pollution

“…Well-developed plants that have a high biomass, are long-standing and have abundant roots in the pond system, which can increase the efficiency of the nutrient uptake and the rhizospheric microbial function for water purification in pond systems [25]. At the end of the experiment, the shrub willow stem biomass was 65.92 ± 3.8 g/plant, accounting for approximately 90% of the total plant biomass, while the roots and the leaves accounted for less than 2% and 9%, respectively.…”

A review on the removal of conditioning chemicals from cooling tower water in constructed wetlands

“…As discussed above, the removal of CC from CTBD in CWs could optimize the efficiency of physicochemical desalination processes. Numerous studies report the removal of, example bulk organics (Konnerup, Koottatep, & Brix, 2009;Neralla, Weaver, Lesikar, & Persyn, 2000), nutrients, such as N and P (Lin, Jing, Wang, & Lee, 2002;Vymazal 2007;Zheng et al, 2016), heavy metals (Khan, Ahmad, Shah, Rehman, & Khaliq, 2009;Maine, Sune, Hadad, S anchez, & Bonetto, 2006), petrochemical constituents (Knight, Kadlec, & Ohlendorf, 1999;Toor, Franz, Fedorak, MacKinnon, & Liber, 2013), and emerging contaminants including pharmaceuticals (Hijosa-Valsero et al, 2011;Li, Zhu, Ng, & Tan, 2014;R€ uhmland, Wick, Ternes, & Barjenbruch, 2015;Zhang et al, 2012), personal care products ( Avila, Nivala et al, 2014;Matamoros & Bayona, 2006;Reyes-Contreras, Matamoros, Ruiz, Soto, & Bayona, 2011), endocrine disruptors ( Avila, Nivala et al, 2014;Avila, Bayona, Mart ın, Salas, & Garc ıa, 2015), and pesticides (Budd, O'Geen, Goh, Bondarenko, & Gan, 2009;Moore et al, 2009) in CWs. Examples of water streams treated by CWs are domestic waste water (Ye & Li, 2009;Zhao et al, 2011), industrial waste water (Chen, Kao, Yeh, Chien, & Chao, 2006;Ji et al, 2002), and surface water streams (Schulz & Peall, 2001;Zhou & Hosomi, 2008).…”