4.6 Article

What's better, Ceratophyllum demersum L. or Myriophyllum verticillatum L., individual or combined?

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 397-401

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.06.009

关键词

Eutrophic water body; Submerged macrophytes; Restoration pattern; Water quality; Sediment geochemistry

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51179184]
  2. Key Project of the National Twelfth-Five Year Research Program of China [2012BAD25B05-02]
  3. Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment [2011ZX07303-001-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research interest on the critical role of macrophytes in aquatic ecosystems has been mounting in recent years. Whereas the selection of plant species and restoration pattern still need further evaluations for better understanding of their relationship with aquatic ecosystem. In this study, two popular submerged macrophytes, Ceratophyllum demersum L. and Myriophyllum verticillatum L., were chosen and manipulated growing in mimic systems. Their individual and combined planting effects on water quality and sediment biogeochemistry were assessed, and their overall performance was ranked. The results showed that water quality was significantly improved, especially more than 70% reductions in turbidity and Chlorophyll a (Chl. a) concentration (P< 0.05). No significant effect of the macrophytes was detectable on total phosphorus (TP), organic phosphorus (OP), inorganic phosphorus (IP), total nitrogen (TN) and organic matter (OM) contents in the sediments (13> 0.05). Overall, the differences among three experimental systems were slight; however, considering C. demersum having better potential in removing the nutrients from waters and other factors, such as the importance of species richness, their ranking performance is in the order of: combined plants (C. demersum and M. verticillatum) > C. demersum > M. verticillatum. (C) 2014 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