Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 1234–1242 | Cite as

Physiological parameters of plants as indicators of water quality in a constructed wetland

  • Oren Shelef
  • Avi Golan-Goldhirsh
  • Tanya Gendler
  • Shimon RachmilevitchEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Increasing demand for water has stimulated efforts to treat wastewater for reuse in agriculture. Decentralized facilities for wastewater treatment became popular as a solution to remote and small communities. These systems mimic natural wetlands, cleaning wastewater as they flow through a complex of filter media, microbial fauna, and vegetation. The function of plants in constructed wetlands (CWs) has not been fully elucidated yet.

Discussion

In the research reported here, we provide evidence for a new use of plant physiological parameters in CWs as bioindicators of water quality along the system. We measured improved plant performance downstream of the CW by means of photochemical efficiency, CO2 assimilation rate, and cell membrane stability. In addition, we found evidence for temporal improvement of plant performance, which was correlated to the establishment phase of plants in a newly operating CW. It is suggested that improved monitoring and management of CWs should take into planning consideration the promising potential of phyto-indicators.

Keywords

Constructed wetland Phyto-indicators Photochemical efficiency Plant performance Assimilation rate Cell membrane stability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Southern Arava Sustainable Waste Management Plan was funded by the EU LIFE Fund. The CW were planned and designed by Eli Cohen—Ayala Water and Ecology and Yael Ben Zvi of Ofra Aqua Plants, landscape design and construction by Kibbutz Neot Smadar. We wish to thank Kibbutz Neot Smadar and staff for the opportunity to make this research.

References

  1. Biernacki M, Doust JL (1997) Vallisneria americana (Hydrocharitaceae) as a biomonitor of aquatic ecosystems: comparison of cloned genotypes. Am J Bot 84:1743–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjorkman O, Demmig B (1987) Photon yield of O-2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77-K among vascular plants of diverse origins. Planta 170:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brix H (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Sci Technol 35:11–17Google Scholar
  4. Doley D (2010) Rapid quantitative assessment of visible injury to vegetation and visual amenity effects of fluoride air pollution. Environ Monit Assess 160:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doust JL, Schmidt M, Doust LL (1994) Biological assessment of aquatic pollution—a review, with emphasis on plants as biomonitors. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 69:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrat L, Pergent-Martini C, Romeo M (2003) Assessment of the use of biomarkers in aquatic plants for the evaluation of environmental quality: application to seagrasses. Aquat Toxicol 65:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gersberg RM, Gearheart R, Ives M (1989) Pathogen removal in constructed wetlands. In: Hammer DA (ed) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial, and agricultural. Lewis, Chelsea, pp 431–445Google Scholar
  8. Hammer DA, Bastian RK (1989) Wetland ecosystems: natural water purifiers? In: Hammer DA (ed) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial and agricultural. Lewis, Chelsea, pp 5–20Google Scholar
  9. Hodkinson ID (2005) Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as bioindicators for environmental monitoring, with particular reference to mountain ecosystems. Environmental Management 35:649–666Google Scholar
  10. Imfeld G, Braeckevelt M, Kuschk P, Richnow HH (2009) Monitoring and assessing processes of organic chemicals removal in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 74:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson GN, Young AJ, Scholes JD, Horton P (1993) The dissipation of excess excitation-energy in British plant-species. Plant Cell Environ 16:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanae S (2009) Global warming and the water crisis. J Health Sci 55:860–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimball KD, Levin SA (1985) Limitations of laboratory bioassays—the need for ecosystem-level testing. Bioscience 35:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kloepper JW, Schroth MN (1978) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on radishes. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria, Vol. 2, Station de Pathologie Vegetale et Phytobacteriologie, INRA, Angers, France, pp 879–882Google Scholar
  15. Kulikova NN, Paradina LF, Suturin AN, Kozyreva EI, Boiko SM, Tanicheva IV, Antonenko AM (2004) Phytoindication of available heavy metals in industrial and communal sewage sludge. Agrokhimiya 11:71–79Google Scholar
  16. Marquis O, Miaud C, Ficetola GF, Bocher A, Mouchet F, Guittonneau S, Devaux A (2009) Variation in genotoxic stress tolerance among frog populations exposed to UV and pollutant gradients. Aquat Toxicol 95:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence - a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany 51:659–668Google Scholar
  18. Nable RO, Banuelos GS, Paull JG (1997) Boron toxicity. Plant Soil 193:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson KL, Murray A (2008) Sanitation for unserved populations: technologies, implementation challenges, and opportunities. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:119–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papageorgiou GC, Govindjee (2004) Chlorophyll a fluorescence: a signature of photosynthesis (advances in photosynthesis and respiration). Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Raaijmakers JM, Paulitz TC, Steinberg C, Alabouvette C, Moenne-Loccoz Y (2009) The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. Plant Soil 321:341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rachmilevitch S, DaCosta M, Huang B (2006) Physiological and biochemical indicators. In: Huang B (ed) Plant-environment interactions. CRC, Florida, pp 321–355Google Scholar
  23. Rafferty SD, Blazer VS, Pinkney AE, Grazio JL, Obert EC, Boughton L (2009) A historical perspective on the “fish tumors or other deformities” beneficial use impairment at Great Lakes areas of concern. J Great Lakes Res 35:496–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH (1993) Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sage RF, Reid CD (1994) Photosynthetic response mechanisms to environmental changes. In: Wilkinson RE (ed) Plant-environment interactions. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NPBA, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I (1995) Phytoremediation—a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Biotechnology 13:468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sauer K, Camper AK, Ehrlich GD, Costerton JW, Davies DG (2002) Pseudomonas aeruginosa displays multiple phenotypes during development as a biofilm. J Bacteriol 184:1140–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seidel K (1976) Macrophytes and water purification. In: Tourbier J, Pierson RWJ (eds) Biological control of water pollution. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania, pp 109–123Google Scholar
  29. Sklarz MY, Gross A, Yakirevich A, Soares MIM (2009) A recirculating vertical flow constructed wetland for the treatment of domestic wastewater. Desalination 246:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stottmeister U, Wiessner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kastner M, Bederski O, Muller RA, Moormann H (2003) Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol Adv 22:93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tal A (2006) Seeking sustainability: Israel's evolving water management strategy. Science 313:1081–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tencer Y, Idan G, Strom M, Nusinow U, Banet D, Cohen E, Schroder P, Shelef O, Rachmilevitch S, Soares I, Gross A, Golan-Goldhirsh A (2009) Establishment of a constructed wetland in extreme dryland. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:862–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UrbancBercic O, Gaberscik A (1997) Reed stands in constructed wetlands: “edge effect” and photochemical efficiency of PS II in common reed. Water Sci Technol 35:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 380:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhou T, Paulitz TC (1993) In-Vitro and in-Vivo Effects of Pseudomonas Spp on Pythium-Aphanidermatum - Zoospore Behavior in Exudates and on the Rhizoplane of Bacteria-Treated Cucumber Roots. Phytopathology 83:872–876Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oren Shelef
    • 1
  • Avi Golan-Goldhirsh
    • 1
  • Tanya Gendler
    • 1
  • Shimon Rachmilevitch
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.French Associates Institute for Agriculture & Biotechnology of Drylands, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research (BIDR)Ben-Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael

Personalised recommendations