, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 141–151 | Cite as

The mobilisation of phosphorus, organic carbon and ammonium in the initial stage of fen rewetting (a case study from NE Germany)

  • Dominik Zak
  • Jörg Gelbrecht
Original Paper


Currently, more than 10,000 ha of fens have been rewetted to re-establish their function as nutrient sinks in NE Germany. However, field investigations reveal that porewater concentrations of P, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and ammonium in rewetted fens are orders of magnitude larger than under pristine conditions. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the reasons behind enhanced P, organic carbon (OC) and ammonium mobilisation due to rewetting by means of a long-term incubation experiment. Highly, moderately and slightly decomposed peat of a drained fen (polder Zarnekow) was incubated under waterlogged conditions. A time course of concentrations of P, DOC, ammonium, sulphate and other dissolved substances was investigated by means of permanently installed dialysis samplers during 54 weeks of incubation. Simultaneously, the concentrations of these dissolved substances were investigated after rewetting of the field site. Before, and at the end of the incubation study, the amounts of bicarbonate–dithionite (BD) and NaOH soluble P and OC of incubated peat samples were determined by a sequential extraction procedure. The highest mobilisation of P, OC and ammonium occurred in the highly decomposed peat. Final concentrations of P, DOC and ammonium reached about 143 μM, 46 and 1.9 mM, respectively. The initial sulphate concentrations in the rewetting experiment, as well as in the field investigations, were extremely high and ranged between 3 and 13 mM; however, a complete consumption of sulphate was only observed in highly decomposed peat. In conclusion, the reasons for enhanced P, OC and ammonium mobilisation are increased amounts of redox sensitive substances and enhanced availability of decomposable organic matter in the upper highly decomposed peat horizon. These results should be considered in future rewetting management strategies.


Fen Redox-sensitive substances Rewetting P mobilisation Ammonium Sulphate 



Timothy Jones (Bangor, UK) is gratefully acknowledged for editing the manuscript and three anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments to a previous version of the manuscript. Many thanks to all colleagues of the Central Chemical Laboratory of IGB who supported the comprehensive chemical analyses: Hans-J. Exner for the assistance of the AAS analyses, Elke Zwirnmann and Thomas Rossoll for the carbon and the sulphate measurements. Special thanks to Titus Rohde for the support at the incubation study. We offer thanks to Bernd Schütze and Antje Lüder for the technical assistance during field work and Sabine Jordan (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) for the peat characterisation and determination of the degree of peat decomposition. The study was supported by the Department of Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern as well as by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).


  1. Aldous A, McCormick P, Ferguson C, Graham S, Craft C (2005) Hydrologic Regime controls soil phosphorus fluxes in restoration and undisturbed wetlands. Restor Ecol 13(2):341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beltman B, Rouwenhorst TG, Van Kerkhoven MB, Van der Krift T, Verhoeven JTA (2000) Internal eutrophication in peat soils through competition between chloride and sulphate with phosphate for binding sites. Biogeochemistry 50:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buffle J (1988) Complexation properties of homologous comlexants and choice of measuring methods. In: Chalmers RA, Masson M (eds) Complexation reactions in aquatic systems: an analytical approach. Ellis Horwood series in analytical chemistry. Chichester, UK, pp 304–383, 692 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapin CT, Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Updegraff K (2003) Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Carbon mineralisation in response to nutrient and lime additions in peatlands. Soil Sci 168(6):409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deiana S, Gessa C, Manunza B, Rausa R, Solinas V (1995) Iron(III) reduction by natural humic acids: a potentiometric and spectroscopic study. Eur J Soil Sci 46:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman C, Ostle N, Kang H (2001) An enzymatic latch on a global carbon store. Nature 409:149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galster H (2000) Technique of measurement, electrode processes and electrode treatment. In: Schüring J, Schulz HD, Fischer WR, Böttcher WHM (eds) Redox fundamentals, processes and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–23, 248 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelbrecht J, Exner H-J, Conradt S, Rehfeld-Klein M, Sensel F (2002) Water Chemistry. In: Köhler J, Gelbrecht J, Pusch M (eds) Die Spree—Zustand, Probleme und Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten. Limnologie aktuell, Bd. 10, Schweizerbarth, Stuttgart, pp 74–85, 384 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Hesslein RH (1976) An in situ sampler for close interval porewater studies. Limnol Oceanogr 21:912–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hupfer M, Gächter R, Giovanoli R (1995) Transformation of phosphorus species in settling seston and during early sediment diagenesis. Aquat Sci 57:305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ivanoff DB, Reddy KR, Robinson S (1998) Chemical fractionation of organic phosphorus in selected histosols. Soil Sci 163:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobs PH (2002) A new rechargeable dialysis pore water sampler for monitoring sub-aqueous in-situ sediment caps. Wat Res 36:3121–3129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen MB, Hansen HCB, Nielsen NE, Magid J (1999) Phosphate leaching from intact soil column in response to reducing conditions. Water Air Soil Pollut 113:411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joosten H, Succow M (2001) Hydrogenetische Moortypen. In: Succow M, Joosten H (eds) Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, pp 234–240, 622 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalbitz K, Solinger S, Park JH, Michalzik B, Matzner E (2000) Controls on the dynamics of dissolved organic matter in soils: a review. Soil Sci 165:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamers LPM, van Roozendaal SME, Roelofs JGM (1998).Acidification of freshwater wetlands: Combined effects of non-airborne sulfur pollution and desiccation. Water Air Soil Pollut 105:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamers LPM, Falla SJ, Samborska EM, Dulken IAR, Hengstum G, Roelofs JGM (2002) Factors controlling the extent of eutrophication and toxicity in sulphate-polluted freshwater wetlands. Limnol Oceanogr 47:585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenschow U, Jeschke L, Zscheile KH, Ziese B (2003) Geologie und Landschaftsgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. In: Department of Environment of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (ed) Die Naturschutzgebiete in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Demmler Verlag GmbH, pp 8–18, 713 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenz A, Kleyn KP, Geller G (1992) Leaching of nitrogen and carbon by draining peat soils. Wasser + Boden 2:61–62Google Scholar
  20. Lijklema L (1980) Interaction of orthophosphate with iron (III) and aluminium hydroxides. Environ Sci Technol 14:537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litaor MI, Reichmann O, Auerswald K, Haim A, Shenker M (2004) The geochemistry of phosphorus in peat soils of a semiarid altered wetland. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:2078–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucassen ECHET, Smolders AJP, Van de Crommenacker J, Roelofs JGM (2004) Effects of stagnating sulphate-rich groundwater on the mobility of phosphate in freshwater wetlands: a field experiment. Arch Hydrobiol 160:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olde Venterink H, Davidsson TE, Kiehl K, Leonardson L (2002) Impact of drying and rewetting on N, P and K dynamics in a wetland soil. Plant Soil 243:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olila OG, Reddy KR, Stites DL (1997) Influence of draining on soil phosphorus forms and distribution in a constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 9:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parkhurst DL, Apello CAJ (1999) User’s guide to PHREEQC (Version 2)—a computer programm for speciation, batch reaction, one dimensional transport, and inverse agrochemicals calculations. Water-Resources Investigations Report 4259, US Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, 312 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Pfadenhauer J, Klötzli F (1996) Restoration experiments in middle European wet terrestrial ecosystems: an overview. Vegetatio 126:101–115Google Scholar
  28. Psenner R, Pucsko R, Sager M (1984) Fractionation of organic and inorganic phosphorus compounds in lake sediments. An attempt to characterize ecologically important fractions. Arch Hydrobiol/Suppl 70:111–155Google Scholar
  29. Pracht J, Boenigk J, Isenbeck-Schröter M, Keppler F, Schöler HF (2001) Abiotic Fe(III) induced mineralisation of phenolic substances. Chemosphere 44:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puustjärvi V (1970) Degree of humification. Peat Plant News 3:48–52Google Scholar
  31. Robinson JS, Johnston CT, Reddy KR (1998) Combined chemical and 31P-NMR spectroscopic analysis of phosphorus in wetland organic soils. Soil Sci 163(9):705–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rupp H, Meissner R, Leinweber P (2004) Effects of extensive land use and rewetting on diffuse phosphorus pollution in fen areas—results from a case study in the Drömling catchment, Germany. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 167:408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shenker M, Seitelbach S, Brand S, Haim A, Litaor MI (2005) Redox reactions and phosphorus release in re-flooded soils of an altered wetland. Eur J Soil Sci 56:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheffer B, Blankenburg J (1993) The determination of the bulk density of peat soils. Agribiol Res 46(1):46–53Google Scholar
  35. Schindler U, Behrendt A, Müller L (2003) Change of soil hydrological properties of fens as a result of soil development. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlichting A, Leinweber P, Meissner R, Altermann M (2002) Sequentially extracted phosphorus fractions in peat-derived soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stegmann H, Zeitz J (2001) Bodenbildende Prozesse entwässerter Moore. In: Succow M, Joosten H (eds) Landschaftsökologische Moorkunde. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, pp 47–57, 622 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. St Louis VL, Partridge AD, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM (2003) Mineralization rates of peat from eroding peat islands in reservoirs. Biogeochemistry 64(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tiemeyer B, Lennartz B, Schlichting A, Vegelin K (2005) Risk assessment of the phosphorus export from a rewetted peatland. Phys Chem Earth 30:550–560Google Scholar
  40. Turner BL, Chudek JA, Whitton BA, Baxter R (2003) Phosphorus composition of upland soils polluted by long-term atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Biogeochemistry 65:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Dijk J, Stroetenga M, Bos L, van Bodegom PM, Verhoef HA, Aerts R (2004) Restoring natural seepage conditions on former agricultural grasslands does not lead to reduction of organic matter decomposition and soil nutrient dynamics. Biogeochemistry 71:317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Worrall F, Burt T (2005) Predicting the future DOC flux from upland peatland catchments. J Hydrol 300:126–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zak D, Gelbrecht J, Steinberg CEW (2004) Phosphorus retention at the redox interface of peatlands adjacent to surface waters in northeast Germany. Biogeochemistry 70:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations