Wetland management to reduce Baltic Sea eutrophication

Paludan, Claus; Alexeyev, F.E.; Drews, H.; Fleischer, Siegfried; Fuglsang, A.; Kindt, Torsten; Kowalski, P.; Moos, Melissa T.; Radlowski, A.; Stromfors, G.; Westberg, Vincent; Wolter, K.

doi:10.2166/wst.2002.0211

Cited by 30 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-Retention rate is linked to hydraulic residential time hence to wetland water storage capacity (Rodgers and Dunn 1992;Tanner et al 1995;Dierberg et al 2002). -Efficiency rate is linked to the inlet load of pollutant (Moore et al 2000(Moore et al , 2001bSchulz and Peall 2001;Paludan et al 2002).…”

Section: Main Treatment Objective and Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceContamination caused by pesticides in agriculture is a source of environmental poor water quality in some of the European Union countries. Without treatment or targeted mitigation, this pollution is diffused in the environment. Pesticides and some metabolites are of increasing concern because of their potential impacts on the environment, wildlife and human health. Within the context of the European Union (EU) water framework directive context to promote low pesticide-input farming and best management practices, the EU LIFE project ArtWET assessed the efficiency of ecological bioengineering methods using different artificial wetland (AW) prototypes throughout Europe. We optimized physical and biological processes to mitigate agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems. Mitigation solutions were implemented at full-scale demonstration and experimental sites. We tested various bioremediation methods at seven experimental sites. These sites involved (1) experimental prototypes, such as vegetated ditches, a forest microcosm and 12 wetland mesocosms, and (2) demonstration prototypes: vegetated ditches, three detention ponds enhanced with technology of constructed wetlands, an outdoor bioreactor and a biomassbed. This set up provides a variety of hydrologic conditions, with some systems permanently flooded and others temporarily flooded. It also allowed to study the processes both in field and controlled conditions. In order to compare the efficiency of the wetlands, mass balances at the inlet and outlet of the artificial wetland will be used, taking into account the partition of the studied compound in water, sediments, plants, and suspended solids. The literature background necessary to harmonize the interdisciplinary work is reviewed here and the theoretical framework regarding pesticide removal mechanisms in artificial wetland is discussed. The development and the implementation of innovative approaches concerning various water quality sampling strategies for pesticide load estimates during flood, specific biological endpoints, innovative bioprocess applied to herbicide and copper mitigation to enhance the pesticide retention time within the artificial wetland, fate and transport using a 2D mixed hybrid finite element model are introduced. These future results will be useful to optimize hydraulic functioning, e.g., pesticide resident time, and biogeochemical conditions, e.g., dissipation, inside the artificial wetlands. Hydraulic retention times are generally too low to allow an optimized adsorption on sediment and organic materials accumulated in artificial wetlands. Absorption by plants is not either effective. The control of the hydraulic design and the use of adsorbing materials can be useful to increase the pesticides residence time and the contact between pesticides and biocatalyzers. Pesticide fluxes can be reduced by 50-80% when hydraulic pathways in artificial wetlands are optimized by increasing ten times the retention time, by recirculation of w...

show abstract

Section: Main Treatment Objective and Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some areas with intense agriculture almost all wetlands disappeared within a few decades (e.g. Findlay & Houlahan, 1997; Paludan et al. , 2002; Shan, Yin & Li, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wetlands increase the retention time for nutrient rich run‐off water in the landscape, thereby decreasing the amounts of nutrients reaching lakes and, eventually, the sea (Mitsch et al. , 1995; Paludan et al. , 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or both?

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Wetland ecosystems may, besides having considerable economical value, increase landscape biodiversity and function as traps for nutrients from land to freshwater-and marine systems. As a result of these features, wetlands are nowadays often protected and restored, and many countries have even initiated wetland construction programmes. 2. In the present study, we aim at increasing the knowledge on how to improve the design of a wetland with respect to both biodiversity and nutrient retention, by analysing physical, chemical and biological features of a large set of constructed wetlands. 3. Our results show that a combination of the wetland features, namely shallow depth, large surface area and high shoreline complexity are likely to provide a high biodiversity of birds, benthic invertebrates and macrophytes and to have high nitrogen retention, whereas a small, deep wetland is likely to be more efficient in phosphorus retention, but less valuable in terms of biodiversity. 4. Hence, among the features used to design new wetlands, area, depth and shoreline complexity have fundamental, and sometimes conflicting, effects on nutrient retention and biodiversity. This means that there are, within limits, possibilities to direct the ecosystem function of a specific wetland in desired directions.

show abstract

“…-Retention rate is linked to hydraulic residential time hence to wetland water storage capacity (Rodgers and Dunn, 1992;Tanner et al, 1995;Dierberg et al, 2002). -Efficiency rate is linked to the inlet load of pollutant (Moore et al, 2000;Moore, 2001b;Schulz and Peall, 2001;Paludan et al, 2002). -Wetland efficiency is inversely linked to velocity (Tanner et al, 1995;Dierberg et al, 2002;Haarstad and Braskerud, 2005;Nahlik and Mitsch, 2006;Avsar et al, 2007).…”

Section: Main Treatment Objective and Research Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation of Agricultural Nonpoint-Source Pesticide Pollution in Artificial Wetland Ecosystems – A Review

Grégoire

Elsaesser

Huguenot

et al. 2009

Climate Change, Intercropping, Pest Control and Beneficial Microorganisms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contamination caused by pesticides in agriculture is a source of poor environmental water quality in some of the European Union countries. Without treatment or targeted mitigation, this pollution is diffused in the environment. Pesticides and their metabolites are of increasing concern because of their potential impacts on the environment, wildlife and human health. Within the context of the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive and to promote low-pesticide-input farming and best management practices, the EU LIFE project ArtWET assessed the efficiency of ecological bioengineering methods using different artificial wetland (AW) prototypes throughout Europe. We optimized physical and biological processes to mitigate agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in AW ecosystems. Mitigation solutions were implemented at full-scale demonstration and experimental sites. We tested various bioremediation methods at seven experimental sites. These sites involved (1) experimental prototypes, such as vegetated ditches, a forest microcosm and 12 wetland mesocosms, and (2) demonstration prototypes, such as vegetated ditches, three detention ponds enhanced with technology of constructed wetlands, an outdoor bioreactor and a biomassbed. This set-up provides a variety of hydrologic conditions, with some systems permanently flooded and others temporarily flooded. It also allowed to study processes both in field and controlled conditions. In order to compare the efficiency of the wetlands, mass balances at the inlet and outlet of the AW will be used, taking into account the partitioning of the studied compound in water, sediments, plants and suspended solids. The literature background necessary to harmonize the interdisciplinary work is reviewed here and the theoretical framework regarding pesticide removal mechanisms in AWs is discussed. The development and the implementation of innovative approaches concerning various water quality sampling strategies for pesticide load estimates during flood, specific biological endpoints, innovative bioprocesses applied to herbicide and copper mitigation to enhance the pesticide retention time within the AW, modelling the transport and the fate of pesticides using a 2D mixed hybrid finite element model are introduced. These future results will be useful to optimize hydraulic functioning, e.g. pesticide resident time, and biogeochemical conditions, e.g. dissipation, inside the AWs. Hydraulic retention times are generally too low to allow an optimized adsorption on sediment and organic materials accumulated in AWs. Absorption by plants is also not effective (VanBeinum et al., 2006). The control of the hydraulic design and the use of adsorbing materials can be useful to increase the pesticide's residence time and the contact between pesticides and biocatalyzers. Pesticide fluxes can be reduced by 50-80% when hydraulic pathways in AWs are optimized by increasing ten times the retention time, by recirculation of water, and by deceleration of the flow. Thus, using a bioremediat...

show abstract

Wetland management to reduce Baltic Sea eutrophication

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems

Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems

Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or both?

Mitigation of Agricultural Nonpoint-Source Pesticide Pollution in Artificial Wetland Ecosystems – A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About