Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T20:47:41.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal-capacity of Four Chosen Aquatic Macrophytes in Tropical Freshwater Ponds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Brahma D. Tripathi ,
Jaya Srivastava  and
Kiran Misra
Brahma D. Tripathi
Affiliation:
Director, Centre for Environmental Education, Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India
Jaya Srivastava
Affiliation:
Research Scholar, Pollution Ecology Research Laboratory, Centre for Advanced Study in Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India
Kiran Misra
Affiliation:
Research Scholar, Pollution Ecology Research Laboratory, Centre for Advanced Study in Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The nutrient removal-capacity of four chosen aquatic macrophytes was tested in both natural and laboratory conditions. Laboratory experiments were performed under controlled conditions using ‘microcosm’ methods wherein the plants were grown in three different nutrient concentrations. For field experiments, three ponds were selected that had different levels of plant nutrient concentrations and accordingly were treated as polluted, moderately polluted, and relatively unpolluted, respectively, the object being to study the nutrient removal-capacity of chosen aquatic macrophytes living in ‘natural’ conditions. For the present investigation, four common and widespread aquatic plants growing in all three ponds were chosen: Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms), Water-lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.), Round-leafed Water-fern (Salvinia rotundifolia Willd.), and Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor L.). These plants were selected also because of their frequent presence in aquatic bodies in the region and their high reproductive capacity.

From the results it is revealed that, during the summer and rainy seasons, the highest content of nitrogen was removed by the Eichhornia, followed by the Pistia > Lemna > Salvinia, while during winter the highest content of nitrogen was removed by the Eichhornia followed by the Lemna > Pistia > Salvinia. Higher phosphorus removal was found in summer than in the rainy or the winter season. Phosphorus removal by the macrophytes was in the order of the Eichhornia > Pistia > Lemna > Salvinia, during the summer and rainy seasons, whereas the highest content of phosphorus was removed by Lemna in the winter months.

The nutrient removal-capacity was rated to be highest by the Water-hyacinth, followed by the Pistia, then the Lemna, and lowest by the Salvinia. It was also evident that the nutrient removal increased with increasing nutrient concentration in the wastewater. The removal of nitrate by the selected macrophytes ranged from 42.0% to 96.2%, while phosphate removal ranged from 36.3% to 70.2%. A positive and significant correlation was obtained between the concentration of nitrate and phosphate in the waters and plant tissues that were studied, and it is thought that a useful strategy to employ might be to grow the Eichhornia and the Lemna together at least where winter temperatures were likely to be low enough to favour the Lemna at that season, though at other times it is apt to be a nuisance.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Summer 1991 , pp. 143 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Public Health Association [cited as APHA] (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 16th edn.APHA, AWWA and WPCF, Byrd Prepress, New York, NY, USA: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Aoyama, I., Hisao, N. & Ma, S.Y. (1986). Uptake of nitrogen and phosphate, and water purification capacity by, Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms). Ber. Ohara Inst. Landw. Biol., Okayama University, 19, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
Busk, T.A. de & Dierberg, Forrest E. (1989 a). Effects of nutrient availability on Water-hyacinth standing crop and detritus deposition. Hydrobiologia, 174, pp. 151–9.Google Scholar
Busk, T.A. de, Reddy, K.R., Hayes, T.D. & Schwegier, B.R. (1989 b). Performance of a pilot-scale hyacinth-based secondary treatment system. Journal WPCF, 61, pp. 1217–24.Google Scholar
Cornwell, D.A., Zottek, J. Jr, Patrinely, C.D., Furman, T. des & Kim, J.I. (1977). Nutrient removal by Water-hyacinth. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 49, pp. 57–65.Google Scholar
Engler, R.M. & Patrick, W.H. (1974). Nitrate removal from flood water overlying flooded soils and sediments. J. Environ. Qual., 3, pp. 409–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, J.R. (1984). Use of Water-hyacinth aquatic treatment systems for ammonia control and effluent polishing. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 56, pp. 219–26.Google Scholar
Jackson, M.L. (1962). Soil Chemical Analysis. Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India: pp. 183–90.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.K. & Schroeffer, C.J. (1964). Nitrogen removal by nitrification and denitrification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 36, pp. 1015–36.Google Scholar
McDonald, R.C. & Wolverton, B.C. (1980). Comparative study of wastewater lagoon with and without Water-hyacinth. Econ. Bot., 34, pp. 101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L., Bishop, E. & Fighmy, T.T. (1989). Aquatic wastewater treatment using Elodea nutalli. J. of Water Pollution Control Federation, 61, pp. 641–8.Google Scholar
Reddy, K.R. (1983). Fate of nitrogen and phosphorus in a wastewater retention reservoir containing aquatic macrophytes. J. Environ. Qual., 12, pp. 137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K.R. & Busk, W.F. de (1985). Nutrient removal potential of selected aquatic macrophytes. J. Environ. Qual., 14, pp. 459–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K.R., Campbell, K.L., Craetz, D.A. & Portier, K.M. (1982). Use of biological filters for agricultural drainage waste treatment. J. Environ. Qual., 11, pp. 591–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K.R., Sutton, D.L. & Bowes, G.E. (1983). Biomass production of fresh water aquatic plants in Florida. Proc. Soil. Crop. Sci. Soc., 42, pp. 28–40.Google Scholar
Sutton, D.L. & Ornes, W.H. (1975). Phosphorus removal from static sewage effluent using duckweed. J. Environ. Qual., 4, pp. 367–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, D.L. & Ornes, W.H. (1977). Growth of Spirodela polyrhiza in static sewage effluent. Aquatic Bot., 4, pp. 231–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripathi, B.D., Srivastava, J. & Misra, K. (1990). Impact of pollution on the elemental composition of Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) and Lemna (Lemna minor L.) in various ponds of Varanasi. Science and Culture, 55, pp. 301–8.Google Scholar
Wolverton, B.C. & McDonald, R.C. (1979). Water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) studies. Econ. Bot., 33, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuhrman, K. (1964). Nitrogen removal in sewage treatment processes. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol., 15, pp. 580–96.Google Scholar