Nutrients Tracking and Removal in Constructed Wetlands Treating Catchment Runoff in Norway

Blankenberg, Anne-Grete Buseth; Paruch, Adam M.; Paruch, Lisa; Deelstra, Johannes; Haarstad, Ketil

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38927-1_2

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Constructed wetlands have been used to improve water quality delivered from cropland via two predominant pathways: surface flows (e.g., precipitation-driven runoff or irrigation tailwaters) or subsurface drainage (e.g., tile drainage). Table 1 summarizes the data compiled from 39 scholarly papers (28 surface-flow influent sources and 11 subsurface drainage influent sources), representing studies conducted on three continents (North America, Europe, Asia) and published between the years 2000 and 2019 (Bass, 2000;Beutel et al, 2014;Blankenberg et al, 2016;Borin and Tocchetto, 2007;Braskerud, 2002;Chen et al, 2015;Díaz et al, 2012;Dunne et al, 2015;Fink and Mitsch, 2004;Goddard and Elder, 1997;Gu, 2008;Han et al, 2017;Haverstock et al, 2017;Hoagland et al, 2001;Hoffmann et al, 2012;Juston and DeBusk, 2006;Kasak et al, 2018;Kim et al, 2010;Koskiaho et al, 2003;Kovacic et al, 2000Kovacic et al, , 2006Larson et al, 2000;Lavrnić et al, 2018;Lentz et al, 2014;Liikanen et al, 2004;Lu et al, 2009;Ludwig, 2010;Maniquiz et al, 2012;Maxwell et al, 2017;Miller et al, 2002;Moreno-Mateos et al, 2009;Mustafa et al, 2009;Pietro and Ivanoff, 2015;Poe et al, 2003;Rei...…”

Section: Constructed Wetlands For Croplandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement: A Synthesis on Nutrient Reduction from Agricultural Effluents

Messer¹,

Trisha²,

Moore³

et al. 2021

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Excess nutrients from agricultural settings contribute to surface water and groundwater impairment. Constructed wetlands have been widely used for water quality protection in various agricultural systems. We used a synthesis approach to document the performance of constructed wetlands for nutrient removal from a range of landscapes and geographic regions with the following objectives: (1) review the current use of constructed wetlands in agricultural applications, (2) summarize the nutrient removal efficiency of constructed wetlands, and (3) identify the geographic usage and costs associated with constructed wetlands. We reviewed over 130 publications and reports to characterize nutrient removal performance for the following types of agricultural effluents: cropland surface and subsurface drainage, and wastewater from livestock production, greenhouse, aquaculture, and hydroponic systems. Data from the reviewed studies indicate that constructed wetlands are efficient in protecting water quality in agricultural production settings. However, differences in constructed wetland characteristics reported by the studies suggest that standards are needed to ensure nutrient removal goals are met based on wetland design. Researchers should consider including basic performance parameters for constructed wetlands in published reports, including influent and effluent concentrations, hydraulic retention time, hydraulic loading rate, watershed to treatment wetland ratios, and plant species and relative cover. Future studies are needed to explore cost-benefit analyses to assess the feasibility and potential promotion of wetland incentive programs in various geographic regions and watershed nonpoint-source pollution goals for using these systems in agricultural settings. Keywords: Agricultural wastewater, Agricultural water quality, Aquaculture, Cropland runoff, Greenhouse, Hydroponic, Livestock, Review, Subsurface, Treatment wetland.

show abstract

Section: Constructed Wetlands For Croplandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement: A Synthesis on Nutrient Reduction from Agricultural Effluents

Messer¹,

Trisha²,

Moore³

et al. 2021

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…at that time (Runólfsson, 1979). Moreover, vegetated buffer zones are one of the most common measures in Norway to improve water quality in agricultural catchments (Blackenberg et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting down roots: Afforestation and bank cohesion of Icelandic Rivers

Rathburn

Eysteinsson²,

Sæmundsson

et al. 2023

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Riparian vegetation is widely recognized as a critical component of functioning fluvial systems. Human pressures on woody vegetation including riparian areas have had lasting effects, especially at high latitude. In Iceland, prior to human settlement, native downy birch woodlands covered approximately 15%–40% of the land area compared to 1%–2% today. Afforestation efforts include planting seedlings, protecting native forest remnants, and acquiring land areas as national forests. The planted and protected nature of vegetation along rivers within forests provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the various taxa within riparian zones and the channel stabilizing characteristics of the vegetation used in afforestation. We investigated bank properties, sediment textures, and root characteristics within riparian zones along four rivers in forests in Iceland. Bank sediment textures are dominantly sandy loam overlying coarser textures. Undercut banks are common because of erosion of the less cohesive subsurface layer. Quantitative root data indicate that the woody taxa have greater root densities, rooting depths, and more complex root structures than forbs or graminoids. The native downy birch has the highest root densities, with <1 mm roots most abundant. Modeling of added bank cohesion indicates that willow provides up to six times and birch up to four times more added cohesion to the coarse sediment textures comprising stream banks compared to no vegetation. We conclude that planting and protecting the native birch and willow helps to reduce bank erosion, especially where long‐term grazing exclusion can be maintained.

show abstract

“…There is a general perception that zoogenic fecal water contamination is predominantly derived from non-point/diffuse pollution sources (mainly environmental sites and rural catchments), while the contamination of anthropogenic fecal origin is predominately associated with point source pollution (mostly settlements and urbanized areas). However, urban diffuse pollution/runoff can also convey fecal contamination, whereas rural settlements also contribute to fecal point source pollution [14,50,51]. It is, therefore, essential to determine the origin(s) of fecal water contamination, zoogenic and/or anthropogenic, through proven measures (such as MST analyses).…”

Section: Lotic Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Microbial Source Tracking Using Host-Specific Genetic Markers to Identify Origins of Fecal Contamination in Different Water Environments

Paruch

2022

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fecal contamination of water constitutes a serious health risk to humans and environmental ecosystems. This is mainly due to the fact that fecal material carries a variety of enteropathogens, which can enter and circulate in water bodies through fecal pollution. In this respect, the prompt identification of the polluting source(s) is pivotal to guiding appropriate target-specific remediation actions. Notably, microbial source tracking (MST) is widely applied to determine the host origin(s) contributing to fecal water pollution through the identification of zoogenic and/or anthropogenic sources of fecal environmental DNA (eDNA). A wide array of host-associated molecular markers have been developed and exploited for polluting source attribution in various aquatic ecosystems. This review is intended to provide the most up-to-date overview of genetic marker-based MST studies carried out in different water types, such as freshwaters (including surface and groundwaters) and seawaters (from coasts, beaches, lagoons, and estuaries), as well as drinking water systems. Focusing on the latest scientific progress/achievements, this work aims to gain updated knowledge on the applicability and robustness of using MST for water quality surveillance. Moreover, it also provides a future perspective on advancing MST applications for environmental research.

show abstract

Nutrients Tracking and Removal in Constructed Wetlands Treating Catchment Runoff in Norway

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement: A Synthesis on Nutrient Reduction from Agricultural Effluents

Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement: A Synthesis on Nutrient Reduction from Agricultural Effluents

Putting down roots: Afforestation and bank cohesion of Icelandic Rivers

An Overview of Microbial Source Tracking Using Host-Specific Genetic Markers to Identify Origins of Fecal Contamination in Different Water Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About