Establishment of a constructed wetland in extreme dryland

  • Yoram Tencer
  • Gil Idan
  • Marjorie Strom
  • Uri Nusinow
  • Dorit Banet
  • Eli Cohen
  • Peter Schröder
  • Oren Shelef
  • Shimon Rachmilevitch
  • Ines Soares
  • Amit Gross
  • Avi Golan-GoldhirshEmail author


Background, aim, and scope

The project was set to construct an extensive wetland in the southernmost region of Israel at Kibbutz Neot Smadar (30°02′45″ N and 35°01′19″ E). The results of the first period of monitoring, summary, and perspectives are presented. The constructed wetland (CW) was built and the subsequent monitoring performed in the framework of the Southern Arava Sustainable Waste Management Plan, funded by the EU LIFE Fund. The specific aims were: (1) To end current sewage disposal and pollution of the ground, the aquifer, and the dry river bed (wadi) paths by biologically treating the sewage as part of the creation of a sustainable wetland ecosystem. (2) Serve as an example of CW in the Negev highlands and the Arava Valley climates for neighboring communities and as a test ground for plants and building methods appropriate to hyper arid climate. (3) Serve as an educational resource and tourist attraction for groups to learn about water reuse, recycling, local wildlife and migrating birds, including serving the heart of a planned Ecological–Educational Bird Park. This report is intended to allow others who are planning similar systems in hyper arid climates to learn from our experience.

Materials and methods

The project is located in an extreme arid desert with less than 40 mm of rain annually and temperature ranges of −5°C to +42°C. The site receives 165–185 m3 of municipal and agricultural wastes daily, including cowshed and goat wastes and winery outflow.


The CW establishment at Neot Smadar was completed in October 2006. For 8 months, clean water flowed through the system while the plants were taking root. In June 2007, the wetland was connected to the oxidation pond and full operation began. Because of seepage and evaporation, during the first several months, the water level was not high enough to allow free flow from one bed to the next. To bed A, the water was pumped periodically from the oxidation pond (Fig. 1) and from there flowed by gravitation through the rest of the system. The initial results of the monitoring are promising. In nearly all measurements, the system succeeded as expected to reduce levels of contaminants at least to the level acceptable for irrigating fruit trees and often to the level of unlimited irrigation. The introduction of the plants in the system and their physiological performance were evaluated and were found to correlate well to the quality of water in the various beds.


It should be said at the outset that evaluation of the performance of a CW system is a long-term process. Thus, the main aim of this report is to present the problems, difficulties, preliminary results, and concepts concerned with the first stage of establishment of CW in an extremely dry region.


The CW system was designed to dispose of municipal and agricultural wastes in a way that not merely reduces pollution, but adds to environmental quality by creating accessible parkland for local residents and tourists. Several factors affected the performance of the system at the initial stages of operation: ecological balance between microbes and plants, big seasonal variations, seepage and evaporation reduced the flow in the initial operation of the system. Despite the initial difficulties, the quality of water coming out the system is acceptable for irrigation.

Recommendations and perspectives

The CW can function well under extreme dryland conditions. The oxidation pond was the major source of evaporation and bad odors. Therefore, alternatives to the oxidation pond are needed. Cost effectiveness of the system still has to be evaluated systematically.


Constructed wetland Desert Dryland Environment Plant stress Wastewater Water quality 



This project was funded by the EU LIFE fund. The CWs 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. The Neot Smadar CW system was inaugurated on 25 October 2007 with the participation of the delegates of the COST 859 action “Phytotechnologies to Promote Sustainable Land Use And Improve Food Safety” to the workshop on “Nutrient Biofortification and Exclusion of Pollutants in Food Plants” that took place at The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Supplementary material

11356_2009_232_MOESM1_ESM.doc (58 kb)
Table S1 Methods and frequency of water quality tests (DOC 58 kb).


  1. ANZECC (1998) Australian water quality guidelines for fresh and marine waters. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (1998) Standard methods for examination of water and waste water, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Badkoubi A, Ganjidoust H, Ghaderi A, Rajabi A (1998) Performance of a subsurface constructed wetland in Iran. Water Sci Technol 38(1):345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown PH, Bellaloui N, Wimmer MA, Bassil ES, Ruiz J, Hu H, Pfeffer H, Dannel F, Römheld V (2002) Boron in plant biology. Plant Biol 4:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng S, Vidakovic-Cifrek E, Grosse W, Karrenbrock F (2002) Xenobiotics removal from polluted water by a multifunctional constructed wetland. Chemosphere 48:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies LC, Pedro IS, Ferreira RA, Freire FG, Novais JM, Martins-Dias S (2008) Constructed wetland treatment system in textile industry and sustainable development. Water Sci Technol 58(10):2017–2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Facchi A, Gandolfi C, Whelan MJ (2007) A comparison of river water quality sampling methodologies under highly variable load conditions. Chemosphere 66:746–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feigin A, Ravina I, Shalhevet J (1991) Irrigation with treated sewage effluent. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerke S, Baker LA, Xu Y (2001) Nitrogen transformations in a wetland receiving lagoon effluent: sequential model and implications for water reuse. Water Res 35:3857–3866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golan-Goldhirsh A, Barazani O, Nepovim A, Soudek P, Smrcek S, Dufkova L, Krenkova S, Yrjala K, Schröder P, Vanek T (2004) Plant response to heavy metals and organic pollutants in cell culture and at whole plant level. J Soils Sediments 4:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross A, Boyd CE (1998) Simultaneous digestion for the determination of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in fresh water ponds. J World Aquac Soc 29:300–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haberl R, Grego S, Langergraber G, Kadlec RH, Cicalini AR, Martins DS, Novais JM, Aubert S, Gerth A, Hartmut T, Hebner A (2003) Constructed wetlands for the treatment of organic pollutants. J Soils Sediments 3:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halperin R, Aloni U (2003) Standards for treated wastewater re-use in the city, for recreation and in industry. Ministry of Health, Jerusalem (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  14. Hench KR, Bissonnette GK, Sextone AJ, Coleman JG, Garbutt K, Skousen JG (2003) Fate of physical, chemical, and microbial contaminants in domestic wastewater following treatment by small constructed wetlands. Water Res 37:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inbar Y (2007) New standards for treated wastewater reuse in Israel. In: Zaidi MK (ed) Wastewater reuse—risk assessment, decision-making and environmental security. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Kadlec RH, Knight RL (1996) Treatment wetlands. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 291–296Google Scholar
  17. Kadlec RH, Knight RL, Vymazal J, Brix H, Cooper P, Haberl R (2000) Constructed wetlands for pollution control—processes, performance, design and operation. IWA Scientific and Technical Report No 8. IWA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Langergraber G, Haberl R (2001) Constructed wetlands for water treatment. Minerva Biotecnol 13:123–134Google Scholar
  19. Langergraber G, Haberl R (2004) Application of constructed wetland technology in EcoSan systems. In: IWA (ed) Proceedings of the 4th IWA World Water Congress, 19–24 September 2004, Marrakech, Morocco, CD-ROM, Paper No. 116541Google Scholar
  20. Massacci A, Pietrini F, Iannelli MA (2001) Remediation of wetlands by Phragmites australis. The biological basis. Minerva Biotecnol 13:135–140Google Scholar
  21. Metcalf & Eddi (2003) Wastwater engineering, treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Otte ML (2001) What is stress to a wetland plant? Environ Exp Bot 46:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quanrud DM, Karpiscak MM, Lansey KE, Arnold RG (2001) Behaviour of organic carbon during subsurface wetland treatment in the Sonoran Desert. Water Sci Technol 44(1):267–272Google Scholar
  24. Reid J, Hayes JE, Posti A, Stangoulis JCR, Graham RD (2004) A critical analysis of the causes of boron toxicity in plants. Plant Cell Environ 27:1405–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sathiyamoorthy P, Van Damme P, Oven M, Golan-Goldhirsh A (1997) Heavy metals in medicinal and fodder plants of the Negev. J Environ Sci Health 32A:2111–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schröder P, Collins CJ (2002) Conjugating enzymes involved in xenobiotic metabolism of organic xenobiotics in plants. Int J Phytoremediat 4:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schröder P, Gschlössl T, Grosse W (2005) Phytoremediation—Möglichkeiten zur Entfernung von Mikroschadstoffen mit Verfahren der naturnahen Wasserreinigung. In: Fränzle S, Markert B, Wünschmann S (eds) Technische Umweltchemie. Ecomed, Landsberg, pp 227–239Google Scholar
  28. Schröder P, Daubner D, Maier H, Neustifter J, Debus R (2008) Phytoremediation of organic xenobiotics—glutathione conjugation in Phragmites plants from European treatment sites. Bioresour Technol. doi: 10.1016/j.biotech.2007.12.081 Google Scholar
  29. Schwitzguébel J-P (2001) Wastewater treatment: green plants—a European approach. Proceedings Second International Conference on Wetlands and Remediation, 5–6 September, Burlington, Vermont, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwitzguébel J-P, Braillard S, Page V, Aubert S (2008) Accumulation and transformation of sulfonated aromatic compounds by higher plants—toward the phytotreatment of wastewater from dye and textile industries. In: Khan NA, Umar S, Singh S (eds) Sulfur assimilation and abiotic stress in plants, chapter 16. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–354Google Scholar
  31. Sklarz MY, Gross A, Yakirevich A, Soares MIM (2009) A recirculating vertical flow constructed wetland for the treatment of domestic wastewater. Desalination 248:296–303Google Scholar
  32. USEPA (2000) Manual: constructed wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters. EPA/625/R-99/010 September 1999. Available at
  33. USEPA (2004) Guidelines for water reuse. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA/625/R-04/108, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  34. Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 380:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoram Tencer
    • 2
  • Gil Idan
    • 2
  • Marjorie Strom
    • 3
  • Uri Nusinow
    • 4
  • Dorit Banet
    • 4
  • Eli Cohen
    • 5
  • Peter Schröder
    • 6
  • Oren Shelef
    • 1
  • Shimon Rachmilevitch
    • 1
  • Ines Soares
    • 7
  • Amit Gross
    • 7
  • Avi Golan-Goldhirsh
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Albert Katz Department of Dryland BiotechnologiesBen-Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael
  2. 2.Kibbutz Neot SmadarD.N. EilotIsrael
  3. 3.Kibbutz SamarD.N. EilotIsrael
  4. 4.Kibbutz KeturaD.N. EilotIsrael
  5. 5.Ayala Water & EcologyMoshav ZipporiIsrael
  6. 6.Department Microbe–Plant Interactions, Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenGerman Research Center for Environmental HealthNeuherbergGermany
  7. 7.Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, The Department of Environmental Hydrology and MicrobiologyBen-Gurion University of the NegevMidreshet Ben-GurionIsrael

Personalised recommendations