Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1159–1170 | Cite as

Evaluation of the giant reed (Arundo donax) in horizontal subsurface flow wetlands for the treatment of recirculating aquaculture system effluent

  • Shaharah Mohd Idris
  • Paul L. Jones
  • Scott A. Salzman
  • George Croatto
  • Graeme Allinson
Research Article



Two emergent macrophytes, Arundo donax and Phragmites australis, were established in experimental subsurface flow, gravel-based constructed wetlands (CWs) receiving untreated recirculating aquaculture system wastewater.

Materials and methods

The hydraulic loading rate was 3.75 cm day−1. Many of the monitored water quality parameters (biological oxygen demand [BOD], total suspended solids [TSS], total phosphorus [TP], total nitrogen [TN], total ammoniacal nitrogen [TAN], nitrate nitrogen [NO3], and Escherichia coli) were removed efficiently by the CWs, to the extent that the CW effluent was suitable for use on human food crops grown for raw produce consumption under Victorian state regulations and also suitable for reuse within aquaculture systems.

Results and discussion

The BOD, TSS, TP, TN, TAN, and E. coli removal in the A. donax and P. australis beds was 94%, 67%, 96%, 97%, 99.6%, and effectively 100% and 95%, 87%, 95%, 98%, 99.7%, and effectively 100%, respectively, with no significant difference (p > 0.007) in performance between the A. donax and P. australis CWs. In this study, as expected, the aboveground yield of A. donax top growth (stems + leaves) (15.0 ± 3.4 kg wet weight) was considerably more than the P. australis beds (7.4 ± 2.8 kg wet weight). The standing crop produced in this short (14-week) trial equates to an estimated 125 and 77 t  ha−1 year−1 biomass (dry weight) for A. donax and P. australis, respectively (assuming that plant growth is similar across a 250-day (September–April) growing season and a single-cut, annual harvest).


The similarity of the performance of the A. donax- and P. australis-planted beds indicates that either may be used in horizontal subsurface flow wetlands treating aquaculture wastewater, although the planting of A. donax provides additional opportunities for secondary income streams through utilization of the energy-rich biomass produced.


Arundo donax Phragmites australis Constructed treatment wetlands Recirculating aquaculture system Victoria, Australia 



Special thanks should be expressed to Department of Public Service, Malaysia for sponsoring a higher degree research scholarship for SMI. The research was primarily supported by the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund, managed by Sustainability Victoria, and in part by the Department of Primary Industries (project no. 06996 and 08160). The project team gives its thanks to DPI’s John Cauduro and Ron Walsh, and the staff at Deakin University and Deakin Water Quality Laboratory, who contributed to the success of this project through the provision of analytical services.


  1. Allinson G, Watt A, Gervasi D, Mitchell B (2005) Renovating a constructed wetland for industrial wastewater treatment. Water 32(3):46–51Google Scholar
  2. Angelini GL, Ceccarini L, Nassi o Di Nasso N, Bonari E (2009) Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus x giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance. Biomass Bioenerg 33:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANZECC, ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BOM (2011) Climate data on-line. Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Bureau of Meteorology. Available at Accessed September 2011
  7. Brisson J, Chazarenc F (2009) Maximizing pollutant removal in constructed wetlands: should we pay more attention to macrophyte species selection? Sci Total Environ 407:3923–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brix H (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetland? Water Sci Technol 35(5):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comeau Y, Brisson J, Réville JP, Forget C, Drioz A (2001) Phosphorus removal from trout farm effluents by constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol 44(11–12):55–60Google Scholar
  10. Cosentino SL, Copani V, D’Agosta GM, Sanzone E, Mantineo M (2006) First results on evaluation of Arundo donax L. clones collected in Southern Italy. Ind Crop Prod 23:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooker CP, Contreras OJ (2010) Bioremediation of aquaculture wastes. Curr Opin Biotech 21:313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel WW (1990) Applied nonparametric statistics, 2nd edn. PWS-Kent, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. De Iono NP, Wines LG, Jones LP, Collins OR (2006) A bioeconomic evaluation of a commercial scale recirculating finfish grow out system—an Australian perspective. Aquaculture 259:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decamp O, Warren A (1998) Bacteriovory in ciliates isolated from constructed wetlands (reed beds) used for wastewater treatment. Water Res 32:1989–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Decamp O, Warren A, Sanchez R (1999) The role of ciliated protozoa in subsurface flow wetland and their potential as bioindicators. Water Sci Technol 40(3):91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edding EH, Kamstra A, Verreth JAJ, Huisman EA, Klapwijk A (2006) Design and operation of nitrifying trickling filters in recirculating aquaculture: a review. Aquacult Eng 34:234–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EPA (1991) Guidelines for wastewater irrigation. Environment Protection Authority, Publication 168. EPA Victoria, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  18. Ewais EA (1997) Effects of cadmium, nickel and lead on growth, chlorophyll content and proteins of weeds. Biol Plantarum 39:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gadallah MAA (1994) Interactive effect of heavy metals and temperature on the growth and chlorophyll, saccharides and soluble nitrogen contents in Phaseolous vulgaris. Biol Plantarum 36:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gersberg RM, Gearhart RA, Ives M (1989a) Pathogen removal in constructed wetland. In: Hammer DA (ed) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Lewis, Chelsea, pp 431–446Google Scholar
  21. Gersberg RM, lyon SR, Brenner R, Elkins BV (1989b) Integrated wastewater treatment using artificial wetlands: a gravel marsh case study. In: Hammer DA (ed) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Lewis, Chelsea, pp 145–152Google Scholar
  22. Hagopian DS, Riley JG (1998) A closer look at the bacteriology of nitrification. Aquacult Eng 18:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatano K, Trettin CC, House CH, Wolumn AG (1993) Microbial populations and decomposition activity in three subsurface flow constructed wetlands. In: Moshiri GA (ed) Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 541–547Google Scholar
  24. Idris SM, Jones PL, Salzman SA, Allinson G (2011) Performance of the giant reed (Arundo donax) in experimental wetlands receiving variable loads of industrial stormwater. Wat Air Soil Poll. doi: 10.1007/s11270-011-0881-y
  25. IWA (2000) Constructed wetlands for pollution control. Processes, performance, design and operation. IWA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Kadlec RH (2009) Comparison of free water and horizontal subsurface treatment wetlands. Ecol Eng 35:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kadlec RH, Knight RL (1996) Treatment wetlands. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kadlec RH, Wallace SD (2009) Treatment wetlands, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. Karpiscak MM, Gerba CP, Watt PM, Foster KE, Falabi JA (1996) Multi-species plant systems for wastewater quality improvements and habitat enhancement. Water Sci Technol 33(10–11):231–236Google Scholar
  30. Lawrie R (1996) Irrigation impacts at Nowra. Water 23:32–35Google Scholar
  31. Lewis M, Jackson M (2002) Nalgrass: a nonwood fiber source suitable for existing US pulp mills. In: Janick J, Whipkey A (eds) Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS, Alexandria, pp 371–376Google Scholar
  32. Lin YF, Jing SR, Lee DY, Wang TW (2002) Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed wetlands system. Aquaculture 209:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin YF, Jing SR, Lee DY, Chang YF, Chen YM, Shih KC (2005) Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high hydraulic loading rate. Environ Pollut 134:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maltais-Landry G, Chazrenc F, Comeau Y, Troesch S, Brisson J (2007) Effects of artificial aeration, macrophyte species, and loading rate on removal efficiency in constructed wetland mesocosms treating fish farm wastewater. J Environ Eng Sci 6:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manios T, Kypriotakis Z, Manios V, Dialyna G (2002) Plant species in a two year old free water surface constructed wetland treating domestic wastewater in the island of Crete. J Environ Sci Heal A 37:1327–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manios T, Edward IS, Millner AP (2003) The effect of heavy metals accumulation on the chlorophyll concentration of Typha latifolia plants, growing in a substrate containing sewage sludge compost and watered with metaliferus water. Ecol Eng 20:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milden A, Redding T (1998) Environmental management for aquaculture. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Mungray KA, Patel K (2011) Coliforms removal in two UASB + ASP based systems. Int Biodeter Biodegr 65:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perdue RE (1958) Arundo donax—source of musical reeds and industrial cellulose. Econ Bot 12:368–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pundsack J, Axler R, Hicks R, Henneck J, Nordmann D, McCarthy B (2001) Seasonal pathogen removal by alternative on-site wastewater treatment system. Water Environ Res 73:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rawlinson P (2002) The economics efficiencies of partial and intensive recirculation aquaculture systems for Murray cod. In: Ingram BA (ed) Murray cod aquaculture: now and into the future. Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Attwood, pp 17–18Google Scholar
  42. Robinson JB (1992) Grapevine nutrition. In: Coombe BG, Dry PR (eds) Viticulture. Volume 2, practices. Winetitles, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryerson DE, Dengler NG (1994) Light induced phenotypic plasticity in plants. In: Goldman CA (ed) Tested studies for laboratory teaching. Proceedings of the 15th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE); 15:259–293Google Scholar
  44. Schulz C, Gelbrecht J, Rennert B (2003) Treatment of rainbow trout farm effluents in constructed wetland with emergent plants and subsurface horizontal water flow. Aquaculture 217:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz MF, Boyd CE (1995) Constructed wetlands for treatment of channel catfish pond effluents. Prog Fish Cult 57:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seidel K (1976) Macrophytes and water purification. In: Tourbier J, Pierson RW (eds) Biological control of water pollution. Pennsylvania University Press, Philadelphia, pp 109–122Google Scholar
  47. Sindilariu PD, Schulz C, Reiter R (2007) Treatment of flow-through trout aquaculture effluents in a constructed wetland. Aquaculture 270:92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sindilariu PD, Wolter C, Reiter R (2008) Constructed wetland as a treatment method for effluents from intensive trout farms. Aquaculture 277:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sindilariu PD, Brinker A, Reiter R (2009) Factors influencing the efficiency of constructed wetlands used for the treatment of intensive trout farm effluent. Ecol Eng 25:711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stevens D (2006) Growing crops with recycled wastewater. CSIRO, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevik TK, Geir Ausland KA, Hanssen JF (2004) Retention and removal of pathogenic bacteria in wastewater percolating through porous media: a review. Water Res 38:1355–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Terzakis S, Fountoulakis M, Georgaki I, Albantakis D, Sabathianakis I, Karathanasis D, Kalogerakis N, Manios T (2008) Constructed wetlands for highway runoff treatment in the central Mediterranean region. Chemosphere 72:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ververis C, Georghiou K, Christodoulakis N, Santas P, Santas R (2004) Fiber dimensions, lignin and cellulose content of various plant materials and their suitability for paper production. Ind Crop Prod 19:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vymazal J (2005) Removal of enteric bacteria in constructed wetland with emergent macrophytes: a review. J Environ Sci Health A 40:1355–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vymazal J, Krőpfelová L (2005) Growth of Phragmites australis and Phalaris arundinacea in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic. Ecol Eng 25:606–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vymazal J, Krőpfelová L (2009) Removal of organics in constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow: a review of the field experience. Sci Total Environ 407:3911–3922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walpole RE, Myers RH (1990) Probability and statistics for engineers and scientist, 4th edn. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaharah Mohd Idris
    • 1
  • Paul L. Jones
    • 1
  • Scott A. Salzman
    • 2
  • George Croatto
    • 3
  • Graeme Allinson
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityWarrnamboolAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information SystemsDeakin UniversityWarrnamboolAustralia
  3. 3.Future Farming Systems Research DivisionDepartment of Primary Industries VictoriaWerribeeAustralia
  4. 4.Future Farming Systems Research DivisionDepartment of Primary Industries Queenscliff CentreQueenscliffAustralia

Personalised recommendations