Wetlands

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 979–987 | Cite as

Differential nitrogen and phosphorus retention by five wetland plant species

  • Jenny T. Kao
  • John E. Titus
  • Wei-Xing Zhu
Article

Abstract

Riparian wetlands have a demonstrated ability to filter and control nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) movement into streams and other bodies of water; few studies, however, have examined the roles that individual plant species serve in sequestering N and P pollutants. We evaluated the potential for growth and consequent N and P accumulation by five species of wetland perennials. We planted blocks consisting of 900-cm2 plots of each species at 11 sites within a riparian wetland that receives large inputs of agricultural runoff. Plant shoots and roots were collected at the time of peak standing crop to determine net accumulation of biomass, N, and P for one growing season. A portion of the plant shoots was placed in decomposition litterbags in the field to determine biomass, N, and P losses for 60, 120, and 150 days. Of the five species, but reed (Sparganium americanum) had the greatest aboveground accumulation of N and P but had the lowest belowground accumulation values. In contrast, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus) had the lowest aboveground values for N and P accumulation but had the highest belowground value for P. Soft rush (Juncus effusus) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) showed high values for both aboveground and belowground N and P accumulation, while blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) showed low values for aboveground N and P. The five species also showed wide variations in the retention of N and P in decomposing shoots.Juncus effusus had the highest percentages of N and P remaining in litter after five months (87% N and 69% P), whileP. arundinacea retained only 28% N and 18% P.Sparganium americanum had high retention rate for N in litter (74% N) but showed low P retention values (35%).Scirpus cyperinus andC. canadensis also showed high retention rates of litter N but lower values for P retention. Our study suggests that species show differential accumulation and release of N and P and may influence the overall potential of a wetland to retain agricultural nutrients.

Key Words

nitrogen phosphorus wetland perennials retention eutrophication non-point source pollution water quality reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Juncus effusus Sparganium americanum Scirpus cyperinus Calamagrostis canadensis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allen, S. E. 1989. Analysis of vegetation and other organic materials. p. 46–60.In S. E. Allen (ed.) Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials, third edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  2. Ansola, G, C. Fernandez, and E. de Luis. 1995. Removal of organic matter and nutrients from urban wastewater by using an experimental emergent aquatic macrophyte system. Ecological Engineering 5:13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. B. and J. Cairns Jr. 2001. Plant decomposition and litter accumulation in depressional wetlands: functional performance of two wetland age classes that were created via excavation. Wetlands 21:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrends, L. L., E. Bailey, M. J. Bulls, H. S. Coonrod, and F. J. Sikora. 1999. Seasonal trends in growth and biomass accumulation of selected nutrients and metals in six species of emergent aquatic macrophytes. Tennessee Valley Authority, Constructed Wetlands Research Center, Muscle Shoals, AL, USA. Y3.T25: 2B52/6Google Scholar
  5. Bernard, J. M. and T. E. Lauve. 1995. A comparison of growth and nutrient uptake inPhalaris arundinacea L. growing in a wetland and a constructed bed receiving landfill leachate. Wetlands 15: 176–182.Google Scholar
  6. Boutin, C. and P. A. Keddy. 1993. A functional classification of wetland plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapin, F. S. 1990. The ecology and economics of storage in plants. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 21:423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronk, J. K. and M. S. Fennessy. 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Crow, G. E. and C. B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic Wetland Plants of Northeastern North America: a revised and enlarged edition of Norman C. Fassett. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, C. B. and A. G. van der Valk. 1978. Litter decomposition in prairie glacial marshes. p. 99–113.In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, S. M. 1991. Growth, decomposition, and nutrient retention ofCladium jamaicense Crantz andTypha domingensis Pers. in the Florida Everglades. Aquatic Botany 40:203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery, S. L. and J. A. Perry. 1996. Decomposition rates and phosphorus concentrations of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and cattail (Typha spp.) in fourteen Minnesota wetlands. Hydrobiologia 323:129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engelhardt, K. A. M. and M. E. Ritchie. 2001. Effects of macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem functioning and services. Nature 411:687–689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Findlay, S. E. G., S. Dye, and K. A. Kuehn. 2002. Microbial growth and nitrogen retention in litter ofPhragmites australis compared toTypha angustifolia. Wetlands 22:616–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoagland, C. R., L. E. Gentry, M. B. David, and D. A. Kovacic. 2001. Plant nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation in a constructed wetland. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:527–540.Google Scholar
  17. Hobbie, S. E. 1992. Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 7:336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kadlee, R. H. 1989. Dynamics of inorganic and organic materials in wetland ecosystems. p. 459–467.In D. A. Hammer (ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Klopatek, J. M. 1978. Nutrient dynamics of freshwater riverine marshes and the role of emergent macrophytes. p. 195–216.In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Knops, J. M. H., K. L. Bradley, and D. A. Wedin. 2002. Mechanisms of plant species impacts on ecosystem nitrogen cycling. Ecology Letters 5:454–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuehn, K. A. and K. Suberkropp. 1998. Decomposition of standing litter of the freshwater emergent macrophyteJuncus effusus. Freshwater Biology 40:717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunii, H. 1993. Rhizome longevity in two floating-leaved aquatic macrophytes,Nymphaea tetragona andBrasenia schreberi. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31:94–98.Google Scholar
  23. Meyerson, L. A., R. M. Chambers, and K. A. Vogt. 1999. The effects ofPhragmites removal on nutrient pools in a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. Biological Invasions 1:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitsch, W. J., B. C. Reeder, and D. M. Kalrer. 1989. The role of wetlands in the control of nutrients with a case study of western Lake Erie. p. 129–157.In W. J. Mitsch and S. E. Jorgensen (eds.) Ecological Engineering: an Introduction to Ecotechnology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  26. McJannet, C. L., P. A. Keddy, and F. R. Pick. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus tissue concentrations in 41 wetland plants: a comparison across habitats and functional groups. Functional Ecology 9: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, J. T. and K. Lajitha. 1986. Decomposition and nutrient dynamics of litter from four species of freshwater emergent macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 131:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson, S. B. and J. M. Teal. 1996. The role of plants in ecologically engineered wastewater treatment systems. Ecological Engineering 6:137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prentki, R. T., T. D. Gustafson, and M. S. Adams. 1978. Nutrient movements in lakeshore marshes. p. 169–194.In R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Reddy, K. R. and W. F. DeBusk. 1987. Nutrient storage capabilities of aquatic and wetland plants. p. 337–357.In K. R. Reddy and W. H. Smith (eds.) Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment. Magnolia Publishing, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  31. SAS. 1992–2000. SAS User's Guide, Release 8e Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an Analysis of Global Change. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Shaver, G. R. and W. D. Billings. 1975. Root production and root turnover in a wet tundra ecosystem, Barow, Alaska. Ecology 56: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Templer, P., S. Findlay, and C. Wigand. 1998. Sediment chemistry associated with native and non-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18:70–78.Google Scholar
  35. Tilman, D. and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72:685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolverton, B. C., R. C. McDonald, and W. R. Duffer. 1983. Microorganisms and higher plants for waste water treatment. Journal of Environmental Quality 12:236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny T. Kao
    • 1
  • John E. Titus
    • 1
  • Wei-Xing Zhu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesState University of New York at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations