Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 63–79 | Cite as

The effect of phosphorus enrichment on the nutrient status of a northern Everglades slough

  • Susan Newman
  • Paul V. McCormick
  • Shi Li Miao
  • James A. Laing
  • W. Chad Kennedy
  • Mary B. O'Dell
Article

Abstract

The response of wetlands to elevated nutrient loads typically has been examined in the context of using wetlands for nutrient removal. However, concern over the degradation of natural wetlands following anthropogenic disturbance continues to increase. Most research has focussed on the response of emergent wetlands, with an emphasis on the role of macrophytes. In this study, 21 1.8 m2 enclosures (mesocosms) were placed in a pristine open-water (slough) wetland and subjected to 7 inorganic phosphorus (P) loads; 0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.4, and 12.8 g/m2/y. This study demonstrated that while the rate of specific P accumulation was a function of the loading rate, the duration of loading is a critical factor in the ultimate P concentration in the biota and soil. Thus, time is an important consideration when determining response to enrichment. Phosphorus added to the slough was removed rapidly by the initially abundant metaphyton (unattached floating and suspended periphyton) and epipelon (benthic periphyton), which concentrated P 10- to 50-fold above background periphyton concentrations. Metaphyton concentrated P more rapidly than epipelon; however, both assemblages stabilized P concentrations between 2.6–3.0 g/kg. Water lily responded to elevated P loads with increased leaf size and nutrient accumulation. After 2-y, water lily P concentrations in the highest loaded mesocosms were similar to those observed in periphyton. Soil and porewater nutrients were slower to respond to P enrichment. Soil P concentrations were unchanged by P enrichment except for the highest loaded mesocosms. After 1-y of P loading, mesocosms receiving 12.8 g/m2/y had soil P concentrations almost 2-fold higher than background concentrations. Porewater P concentrations also showed little change throughout the experiment, with the exception of load 12.8 g/m2/y, which increased dramatically after the 1st year. During the 2nd year, average porewater P concentrations in this highest load were over 50-fold higher than background concentrations. Nitrogen concentrations in periphyton and water lily also generally increased in response to increased P loads. The high affinity of periphyton and water lily for P, combined with their subsequent influence on N uptake, suggests that these components can play an important role in wetland nutrient cycling. The disappearance of these communities may result in a reduction in the nutrient assimilative capacity of wetlands.

Everglades Mesocosms Periphyton Phosphorus load Tissue phosphorus Water lily 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bechtel T., Hill S., Iricanin N., Jacobs K., Mo C., Mullen V. et al. 1999. Status of compliance with water quality criteria in the Everglades protection area and tributary waters. Chapter 4 Everglades Interim Report. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Belanger T.V., Scheidt D.J. and Platko J.R. 1989. Effects of nutrient enrichment on the Florida Everglades. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 5: 101–111.Google Scholar
  3. Browder J.A., Cottrell D., Brown M., Newman M., Edwards R., Yuska J. et al. 1982. Biomass and Primary Production of Microphytes and Macrophytes in Periphyton Habitats of the Southern Everglades (T-662). South Florida Research Center, Homesresponses synoptictead, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Craft C.B., Vymazal J. and Richardson C.J. 1995. Response of Everglades plant communities to nitrogen and phosphorus additions. Wetlands 15: 258–271.Google Scholar
  5. Cronk J.K. and Mitsch W.J. 1994. Periphyton productivity on artificial and natural surfaces in constructed freshwater wetlands Ecounder different hydrologic regimes. Aquatic Botany 48: 325–341.Google Scholar
  6. Davis S.M. 1994. Phosphorus inputs and vegetation sensitivity in the Everglades. In: Davis S.M. and Ogden J.C. (eds), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA, pp. 357–378.Google Scholar
  7. Davis S.M., Gunderson L.H., Park W.A., Richardson J.R. and Mattson J.E. 1994. Landscape dimension, composition, and function in a changing Everglades ecosystem. In: Davis S.M. and Ogden J.C. (eds), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, USA, pp. 419–444.Google Scholar
  8. Denny P. 1987. Mineral cycling by wetland plants-a review. Archiv ¨ fur Hydrobiologie Beiheit Ergenbissen der Limnologie 27: 1–25.Google Scholar
  9. Faulkner S.P., Patrick W.H. Jr and Gambrell R.P. 1989. Field techniques for measuring wetland soil parameters. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53: 883–890.Google Scholar
  10. Flora M.D., Walker D.R., Burgess D.R., Scheidt D.J. and Rice R.G. 1986. The response of experimental channels in Everglades National Park to increased nitrogen and phosphorus loading.Water Resources Report No. 86-6. National Park Service,Water Resources Division, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Goldsborough L.G. and Robinson G.G.C. 1985. Effect of an aquatic herbicide on sediment nutrient flux in a freshwater marsh. Hydrobiologia 122: 121–128.Google Scholar
  12. Goldsborough L.G. and Robinson G.G.C. 1996. Pattern in wetlands. In: Stevenson R.J., Bothwell M.L. and Lowe R.L. (eds), Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 77–117.Google Scholar
  13. Grimshaw H.J., Rosen M., Swift D.R., Rodberg K. and Noel J.M. 1993. Marsh phosphorus concentrations, phosphorus content and species composition of Everglades periphyton communities. ¨ Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 128: 257–276.Google Scholar
  14. Grimshaw H.J., Wetzel R.G., Brandeburg M., Segerblom M., Wenkert L.J., Marsh G.A. et al. 1997. Shading of periphyton communities by wetland emergent macrophytes: decoupling of Everalgal photosynthesis from microbial nutrient retention. Archiv ¨ fur Hydrobiologie 139: 17–27.Google Scholar
  15. Hansson L.-A. 1989. The influence of a periphytic biolayer on ¨ phosphorus exchange between substrate and water. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 115: 21–26.Google Scholar
  16. Hesslein R.H. 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval porewater studies. Limnology and Oceanography 21: 912–914.Google Scholar
  17. Howard-Williams C. and Allanson B.R. 1981. Phosphorus cycling in a dense Potamogeton pectinatus L. bed. Oecologia (Berl.) 49: 56–66.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen J.R., Rutchey K., Koch M.S. and Narumalani S. 1995.Inland wetland change detection in the Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A using a time series of normalized remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61: 199–209.Google Scholar
  19. Koerselman W. and Meuleman A.F.M. 1996. The vegetation N:P ratio: a new tool to detect the nature of nutrient limitation. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1441–1450.Google Scholar
  20. McCormick P.V. and O'Dell M.B. 1996. Quantifying periphyton Homesresponses to phosphorus in the Florida Everglades: a synoptictead, experimental approach. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 450–468.Google Scholar
  21. McCormick P.V. and Scinto L.J. 1999. Influence of phosphorus loading on wetlands periphyton assemblages: a case study from the Everglades. In: Reddy K.R., O'Connor G.A. and Schelske C.L. (eds), Phosphorus biogeochemistry in Subtropical Ecounder systems. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 301–319.Google Scholar
  22. McCormick P.V., Rawlik P.S., Lurding K., Smith E.P. and Sklar F.H. 1996. Periphyton-water quality relationships along a nutrient gradient in the northern Everglades. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 433–449.Google Scholar
  23. McCormick P.V., Shuford R.B.E. III, Backus J.G. and Kennedy W.C. 1998. Spatial and seasonal patterns of periphyton biomass and productivity in the northern Everglades, Florida, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 362: 185–208.Google Scholar
  24. McCormick P.V., Newman S., Miao S.L., Gawlik D.E., Marley D., Reddy K.R. et al. 2001a. Effects of anthropogenic phosphorus inputs on the Everglades. In: Porter J.W. and Porter K.G. (eds), The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 83–126.Google Scholar
  25. McCormick P.V., O'Dell M.B., Shuford R.B.E.I., Backus J.G. and Kennedy W.C. 2001b. Periphyton responses to experimental phosphorus enrichment in a subtropical wetland. Aquatic Botany 71: 119–139.Google Scholar
  26. Miao S.L. and Sklar F.H. 1998. Biomass and nutrient allocation of sawgrass and cattail along a nutrient gradient in the Florida Everglades. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5: 245–263.Google Scholar
  27. Newman S., Schuette J., Grace J.B., Rutchey K., Fontaine T., Reddy K.R. et al. 1998. Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany 60: 265–280.Google Scholar
  28. Newman S., Kumpf H., Laing J.A. and Kennedy W.C. 2001.Decomposition responses to phosphorus enrichment in an Everglades (USA) slough. Biogeochemistry 54: 229–250.Google Scholar
  29. Reddy K.R., Kadlec R.H., Flaig E. and Gale P.M. 1999. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 29: 1–64.Google Scholar
  30. Richardson C.J., Cooper S.R., Qian S.S., Qualls R.G., Romanowicz E.A., Stevenson R.J. et al. 1997. Effects of phosphorus and hydroperiod alterations on ecosystem structure and function in the Everglades. Duke Wetland Center Publication 97-05. Everalgal glades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District.Google Scholar
  31. Rutchey K. and Vilchek L. 1994. Development of an Everglades vegetation map using a SPOT image and the global positioning system. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60: 767–775.Google Scholar
  32. SAS Institute Inc. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  33. SAS Institute Inc. 2000. SAS/STAT User's guide, Version 8. Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Sinden-Hempstead M. and Killingbeck K.T. 1996. Influences of water depth and substrate nitrogen on leaf surface area and maximum bed extension in Nymphaea odorata. Aquatic Botany 53: 151–162.Google Scholar
  35. Swift D.R. and Nicholas R.B. 1987. Periphyton and water quality relationships in the EvergladesWater Conservation Areas 1978–1982. Technical Publication 87-2. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Tsuchiya T. 1991. Leaf life span of floating-leaved plants.Vegetatio 97: 149–160.Google Scholar
  37. Twilley R.R., Brinson M.M. and Davis G.J. 1977. Phosphorus absorption, translocation, and secretion in Nuphar luteum. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 1022–1032.Google Scholar
  38. Urban N.H., Davis S.M. and Aumen N.G. 1993. Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail densities in Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic and fire regimes.Aquatic Botany 46: 203–223.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical and Chemical Methods. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Walker W.W. 1995. Design basis of Everglades Stormwater Treament Areas. Water Research Bulletin 31: 671–685.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Newman
    • 1
  • Paul V. McCormick
    • 1
  • Shi Li Miao
    • 1
  • James A. Laing
    • 1
  • W. Chad Kennedy
    • 1
  • Mary B. O'Dell
    • 1
  1. 1.Everglades DivisionSouth Florida Water Management DistrictWest Palm BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations