4.6 Article

Effects of annual harvesting on plants growth and nutrients removal in surface-flow constructed wetlands in northwestern China

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 268-275

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.06.035

关键词

Plant harvest; Biomass; Nutrients uptake; Constructed wetland; Polluted river

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50838005]
  2. National Major Project of China [2013ZX07310-001]
  3. Program for Innovative Research Team in Shaanxi [2013KCT-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The importance of harvest management for the growth and development of plants and nutrients removal in constructed wetlands (CWs) is highly controversial. This study evaluated the effects of annual harvesting on the growth and productivity of local Phragmites australis in northwestern China. Growth characteristics such as shoot density, biomass and height were studied using two pilot-scale surface-flow CWs over a two-year operation period. Plants were kept unharvested in one CW for comparative studies with the second CW, which was harvested at the end of the growing season. Each CW of 400 m(2) was operated with a hydraulic loading of 34 m(3)/d for the treatment of water from an urban river polluted with municipal and industrial wastewater. The harvested CW recorded a higher shoot density (175 shoots/m(2)), biomass (1.4 kg/m(2)) and peak height (3.4 m) than the unharvested one (130 shoots/m(2), 1.2 kg/m(2) and 3.2 m). The overall nutrients removals were also slightly higher for the harvested CW (46.0% TN and 38.1% TP) than the unharvested CW (40.6% TN and 29.1% TP). Plants harvesting in the first year improved nutrients removal by plant uptake (41.9 g N/m(2) and 3.7 g P/m(2) versus 37.3 g N/m(2) and 3.2 g P/m(2)) as well as in the substrate layer (216.9 g N/m(2) and 8.0 g P/m(2) versus 191.0 g N/m(2) and 5.7 g P/m(2)) during the second year. Nonetheless, the increase in nutrients removal by harvesting was minimal. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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