4.5 Article

Performance of five plant species in removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from an experimental phytoremediation system in the Ningxia irrigation area

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-017-6213-y

关键词

Phytoremediation; Floating-bedpot culture; Drainagewater; Removal performance; Ningxia irrigation area

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [31170416]
  2. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences' Clean Watershed Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agricultural non-point source (ANPS) pollution is an important contributor to elevated nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in surface waters, which can cause serious environmental problems. Considerable effort has therefore gone into the development of methods that control the ANPS input of N and P to surface waters. Phytoremediation has been extensively used because it is cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and efficient. The N and P loads from agricultural drainage are a potential threat to the water quality of the Yellow River in Ningxia, China. Yet, phytoremediation has only rarely been applied within the Ningxia irrigation area. In an experimental setup, five species (Ipomoea aquatica, IA; Lactuca sativa, LS; Oryza sativa, OS; Typha latifolia, TL; Zizania latifolia, ZL) were evaluated for their ability to reduceNand P loads over 62 days and five observation periods. Total N and P concentrations, plant biomass, and nutrient content were measured. The results showed that OS, LS, and IA performed better than ZL and TL in terms of nutrients removal, biomass accumulation, and nutrients storage. The highest overall removal rates of N and P (57.7 and 57.3%, respectively) were achieved by LS treatment. In addition, plant uptake contributed significantly to nutrient removal, causing a 25.9-72.0% reduction in N removal and a 54.386.5% reduction in P removal. Thus, this study suggests that OS, LS, and IA would be more suitable than ZL and TL for controlling nutrient loads in the Ningxia irrigation area using phytoremediation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据