Advertisement

Distribution of Phosphorus and Nitrogen in Phragmites australis Aboveground Biomass

  • Tereza Dvořáková BřezinováEmail author
  • Jan Vymazal
Chapter

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate nitrogen and phosphorus compartmentalization in the aboveground biomass of Phragmites australis and its seasonality. The study was carried out at four sites in the littoral zones of two fishponds near Prague, Czech Republic. The aboveground biomass was harvested in early July and late August and the biomass was divided into thirds and stems and leaves. Besides dry weight of the biomass, concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus were determined. The results revealed that the proportion of biomass formed by stems increases during the season. The concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus were higher in July and higher in leaves. Phosphorus standing stock is higher in stems then leaves while nitrogen standing stock is higher in leaves then in stems. The highest N and P standing stocks were found in upper leaves both in July and August.

Keywords

Standing stock Nitrogen Phosphorus Phragmites australis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by grant No. LH13004 Effect of Flooding on Sequestration of Carbon and Nutrients in Wetland Soils from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Boyd, C.E. (1970). Production, mineral accumulation and pigment concentrations in Typha latifolia and Scirpus americanus. Ecology, 51, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dykyjová, D. (1973). Content of mineral macronutrients in emergent macrophytes during their seasonal growth and decomposition. In S. Hejný (Ed.), Ecosystem study on wetland biome in Czechoslovakia (pp. 163–172). Třeboň: Czechoslovak IBP/PT-PP Report No. 3.Google Scholar
  3. Eid, E.M., Shaltout, K.H., El-Sheikh, M.A., Asaeda, T. (2012). Seasonal courses of nutrients and heavy metals in water, sediment and above- and below-ground Typha domingensis biomass in Lake Burullus (Egypt): Perspectives for phytoremediation. Flora, 207, 783–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Johnston, C.A. (1991). Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: Effects on surface water quality. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 21, 491565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Richardson, C.J., & Vymazal, J. (2001). Sampling macrophytes in wetlands. In R.B. Rader, D.P. Batzer, & S. Wissinger (Eds.), Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands (pp. 297–337). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Sommer, L.E. & Nelson, D.W. (1972). Determination of total phosphorus in soils: A rapid perchloric acid digestion procedure. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 36, 902–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tyler, G. (1971). Distribution and turnover of organic matter and minerals in a shore meadow ecosystem. Oikos, 22, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Vymazal, J. (2005). Removal of nitrogen via harvesting of emergent vegetation in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. In J. Vymazal (Ed.), Natural and constructed wetlands: Nutrients, metals and management (pp. 209–221). Leiden: Backhuys Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Applied EcologyCzech University of Life Sciences in PraguePrahaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations