Skip to main content

Differences in the Effect of Coal Pile Runoff (Low pH, High Metal Concentrations) Versus Natural Carolina Bay Water (Low pH, Low Metal Concentrations) on Plant Condition and Associated Bacterial Epiphytes of Salvinia minima

Abstract

Numerous wetlands and streams have been impacted by acid mine drainage (AMD) resulting in lowered pH and increased levels of toxic heavy metals. Remediation of these contaminated sites requires knowledge on the response of microbial communities (especially epiphytic) and aquatic plants to these altered environmental conditions. We examined the effect of coal pile runoff waters as an example of AMD in contrast to natural water from Carolina Bays with low pH and levels of metals on Salvinia minima, a non-native, metal accumulating plant and associated epiphytic bacteria. Treatments included water from two Carolina Bays, one AMD basin and Hoagland’s Solution at two pH levels (natural and adjusted to 5.0–5.5). Using controlled replicated microcosms (N = 64) we determined that the combination of low pH and high metal concentrations has a significant negative impact (p < 0.05) on plant condition and epiphytes. Solution metal concentrations dropped indicating removal from solution by S. minima in all microcosms.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Baker BJ, Banfield JF (2003) Microbial communities in acid mine drainage. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44:139–152

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brofft JE, McArthur JV, Shimkets LJ (2002) Recovery of novel bacterial diversity from a forested wetland impacted by reject coal. Environ Microbiol 4:764–769

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buta E, Torok A, Csog A, Zongo B, Cantor M, Buta M, Majdik C (2014) Comparative studies of the phytoextraction capacity of five aquatic plants in heavy metal contaminated water. Not Bot Horti Agrobo 42:173–179

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins B, McArthur JV, Sharitz RR (2004) Plant effects on microbial assemblages and remediation of acidic coal pile runoff in mesocosm treatment wetlands. Ecol Eng 23:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins BS, Sharitz RR, Coughlin DP (2005) Elemental composition of native wetland plants in constructed mesocosm treatment wetlands. Bioresour Technol 96:937–948

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Curran KJ, Irvine KN, Droppo IG, Murphy TP (2000) Suspended solids, trace metal and PAH concentrations and loadings from coal pile runoff to Hamilton Harbour, Ontario. J Great Lake Res 26:18–30

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis EC, Boegly WJ (1981) A review of water-quality issues associated with coal storage. J Environ Qual 10:127–133

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DeNicola DM, Stapleton MG (2002) Impact of acid mine drainage on benthic communities in streams: the relative roles of substratum vs. aqueous effects. Environ Pollut 119:303–315

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dhir B, Srivastava S (2011) Heavy metal removal from a multi-metal solution and wastewater by Salvinia natans. Ecol Eng 37:893–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dhir B, Srivastava S (2013) Heavy metal tolerance in metal hyperaccumulator plant, Salvinia natans. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 90:720–724

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fry JC, Goulder R, Rimes CA (1985) A note on the efficiency of stomaching for the quantitative removal of epiphytic bacteria from submerged aquatic plants. J Appl Bacteriol 58:113–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garland JL, Mills AL (1994) A community-level physiological approach for studying microbial communities. In: Ritz K, Dighton J, Giller KE (eds) Beyond the biomass. British Society of Soil Science, Bedford, pp 77–83

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1950) The water culture method of growing plants without soil. Calif Agric Exp Stn Circ 347:36–39

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hobbie JE, Daley RJ, Jasper S (1977) Use of nuclepore filters for counting bacteria by flourescence microscopy. Appl Environ Microb 33:1225–1228

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ledin M, Pedersen K (1996) The environmental impact of mine wastes—roles of microorganisms and their significance in treatment of mine wastes. Earth Sci Rev 41:67–108

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McArthur JV (2001) Bacteria as biomonitors. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York, pp 249–261

    Google Scholar 

  17. Merkley M, Rader RB, McArthur JV, Eggett D (2004) Bacteria as bioindicators in wetlands: bioassessment in the Bonneville Basin of Utah, USA. Wetlands 24:600–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ornes WH, Sajwan KS, Dosskey MG, Adriano DC (1991) Bioaccumulation of selenium by floating aquatic plants. Water Air Soil Pollut 57:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Patrick FM, Loutit MW (1977) The uptake of heavy metals by epiphytic bacteria on Alisma Plantago-Aquatica. Water Res 11:699–703

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rencher AC (1995) Methods of multivariate analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schalles JF, Sharitz RR, Gibbons JW, Leversee GJ, Knox JN (1989) Carolina Bays of the Savannah River Plant. National Environmental Research Park Publication SRO-NERP-18, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Sheoran AS, Sheoran V (2006) Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wetlands: a critical review. Miner Eng 19:105–116

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tutu H, McCarthy TS, Cukrowsja E (2008) The chemical characteristics of acid mine drainage with particular reference to sources, distribution and remediation: the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa as a case study. Appl Geochem 23:3666–3694

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wetzel GR, Likens LE (1991) Limnological analysis. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided from the U.S. Department of Energy Financial Assistance Award no. DE-FC09-96SR18546 to the University of Georgia Research Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. V. McArthur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindell, A.H., Tuckfield, R.C. & McArthur, J.V. Differences in the Effect of Coal Pile Runoff (Low pH, High Metal Concentrations) Versus Natural Carolina Bay Water (Low pH, Low Metal Concentrations) on Plant Condition and Associated Bacterial Epiphytes of Salvinia minima . Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 96, 602–607 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1756-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Salvinia minima
  • Heavy metals
  • Bacteria
  • Epiphyte
  • Carolina Bays
  • Coal pile run-off