Download - Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP
Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP
Mentor: Dr. Dave TilleyLibrarian: Mr. Robert Kackley
Members: Arsh Agarwal, Allie Bradford, Kerry Cheng, Ramita Dewan, Enrique Disla, Addison Goodley, Nathan
Lim, Lisa Liu, Lucas Place, Raeva Ramadorai, Jaishri Shankar, Michael Wellen, Diane Ye, Edward Yu
Research Problem Agricultural runoff, especially in the spring,
leads to high nitrate levels in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Causes harmful algal blooms◦ Result: Dead zones characterized by depletion of
oxygen and nutrients vital to aquatic wildlife Dead zone: low oxygen area of water
Research Problem – Significance of Project Affects fishing industry, seafood consumers,
environmental groups, residents of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital for maintaining biodiversity
Purpose & Thesis & Hypothesis Purpose: To design a wetland that
optimally removes nitrates from the Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding waters
Thesis: We want to investigate what combination of native plant species and organic amendments best remove nitrates from the Chesapeake Bay
Hypothesis: We expect significant differences between the varying microcosms and empty controls
One of the largest sources of pollution into the Chesapeake Bay (Glibert et al., 2001)
Eutrophication causes harmful algal blooms Constructed wetlands
◦ Can remove up to 80% of inflowing nitrates (Crumpton & Baker, 1993)
Big Picture: Chesapeake Bay◦ Choptank River-largest eastern tributary in the
bay (Staver, L., Staver, K., & Stevenson, J., 1996)◦ Tuckahoe Creek-34% of Choptank, accessibility
(USDA Agricultural Research Service [ARS], 2009)
Literature Review – Agricultural Runoff and River Selection
Collection of Samples
Criteria for plant selection◦ Non-invasive◦ Native to the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed◦ Biofuel-capable
Cattail (Typha latifolia) (Fraser, Carty, & Steer, 2004; Matheson, 2010)
Soft-stem Bulrush (Schoenoplectus validus) (Rogers, Breen, & Chick, 1991)
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) (Larson, n.d.)
Literature Review – Plant Selection
Why biofuels?◦ To accommodate changing energy and environmental needs◦ Secondary data analysis
Cross-referenced list of Chesapeake Bay native, non-invasive plants with list of biofuel-capable plants (Fedler, Hammond, Chennupati & Ranjan, 2007; Wright & Turhollow, 2010; Zhang, Shahbazi, Wang, Diallo, & Whitmore, 2010)
Why organic amendments?◦ Increase differences in nitrate removal
Three carbon-based amendments◦ Glucose (Weisner, Eriksson, Graneli, & Leonardson, 1994)◦ Sawdust (Hien, 2010)◦ Wheat straw (Ines, Soares, & Abeliovich, 1998)
Literature Review – Biofuels & Organic Amendments
Phase 1◦ Goal: Find the most effective organic amendment ◦ Use only cattail
Phase 2◦ Goal: Find the most effective combination of
plants with the amendment◦ Use cattail, soft-stem bulrush, and switchgrass
Phase 3◦ Goal: Implement a large-scale design of the most
effective plant combination◦ Time and money permitting
Project Outline
1:1 mixture of topsoil and sand
Plastic tubes inserted into ½ holes
Tubes pinched with clothespins
Cattails planted six inches apart from one another
Problems encountered
Pilot Microcosm Design
Spigot system installed as shown
Two inches of gravel, covered by polyethylene fabric.
5 inches 1:1 topsoil/sand mixture
Plants: clumps of four Water depth: 5 inches Weighed microcosms ½ Liter of topsoil from
Tuckahoe for inoculation
New Microcosm Design
New Microcosm Design
8 week adjustment period
After adjustment period, add nitrates and organic amendments via a concentrated solution
Water samples from individual tubs
An Improved Procedure
We are using 8 groups:1. No plants, no
amendments2. No plants with Glucose3. No plants with Sawdust4. No plants with Straw5. Plants, no
amendments6. Plants with Glucose7. Plants with Sawdust8. Plants with Straw
Plant Groups
Preliminary Results Average Nitrate (NO3
-) concentration of Tuckahoe River Samples:◦ Spring: 2.67 mg/L◦ Fall: 2.65 mg/L
No significant difference between the concentrations across seasons, p > .05
Pilot Data
0 1 2 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nitrate Concentration vs. Week
Week
Nitr
ate
conc
netr
atio
n (m
g/L)
SAS 9.2 Trial Run: One Factor Repeated Measure
ANOVA No significant difference across weeks Nitrate removal significantly different from 0
(no change in nitrate concentration) Phase 1: Two Factor ANOVA with One Repeat
Measure Compare different microcosm environments
and week of trial
Data Analysis
Fall 2011◦ Carry out Phase 1 testing
Four 1 week trials◦ Collect sample data and analyze◦ Use results of Phase 1 in Phase 2 next semester
Spring 2012◦ Plant fresh microcosms and allow them to acclimate to
greenhouse◦ Carry out Phase 2 testing
Six 1 week trials◦ Collect sample data and analyze◦ Tie up loose ends◦ Begin compiling thesis
Future Directions
Summer/Fall 2012◦ Finish data collection and analysis, if necessary◦ Begin to implement Phase 3 of project, if time and
funds allow for it◦ Finish first draft of thesis◦ Contact discussants for thesis conference
Spring 2013◦ Edit thesis◦ Thesis conference!◦ Make final changes to thesis after conference◦ Citation ceremony and commencement!
Future Directions (cont)
Research◦ Everyone does everything
Writing/Literature◦ Subgroups◦ Group deadline: at least 2 weeks before hard
deadline Example: Junior Colloquium presentation was due
internally 3 weeks before we had to present it!
Team Composition
LOTS of unforeseen complications!
How did we account for these issues?◦ Build our schedules to
work around the project◦ Talk about it!◦ Revisit the project timeline
and make changes CONSTANTLY
Foreseeing Problems
Completed tasks: Thesis Proposal Pilot microcosm testing New microcosm design Phase 1 acclimation
To be completed: Phase 1 testing Phase 2 acclimation and testing Thesis Conferences
Conclusions
Put the work in early Find a good mentor! Form subgroups as needed Don’t be afraid to talk to your team! Use your librarian! Focus on the big picture…
For the Freshmen!
Dr. Dave Tilley Dr. James Wallace and the Gemstone Staff Ms. Betty Morgavan and the Greenhouse
Staff Mr. Robert Kackley Dr. Bruce James Mr. Brandon Winfrey Home Depot in College Park, MD
Acknowledgements
Anderson, D., & Glibert, P., & Burkholder J. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation, 24(4), 704-726.
Crumpton, W., & Baker, J. (1993). Integrating wetlands into agricultural drainage systems: Predictions of nitrate loading and loss in wetlands receiving agricultural subsurface drainage. In: Mitchell J (Ed). Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 118-26.
Fedler, C., Hammond, R., Chennupati, P., & Ranjan, R. (2007). Biomass energy potential from recycled wastewater. Lubbock: Texas Tech University.
Fraser, L. H., Carty, S. M., & Steer, D. (2004). A test of four plant species to reduce total nitrogen and total phosphorus from soil leachate in subsurface wetland microcosms. Bioresource Technology, 94(2), 185-192.
Glibert, P., Magnien, R., Lomas, M., Alexander, J., Tan, C., Haramoto, E., et al. (2001). Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 events. Estuaries and Coasts, 24(6), 875-883. doi: 10.2307/1353178
Hien, T. (2010). Influence of different substrates in wetland soils on denitrification. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, June 2010, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11270-010-0498-6
Ines, M., Soares, M., & Abeliovich, A. (1998). Wheat straw as substrate for water denitrification. Water Research. 32(12), 3790-3794. Karrh, R., Romano, W., Raves-Golden, R., Tango, P., Garrison, S., Michael, B., Karrh, L. (2007). Maryland tributary strategy Choptank
River basin summary report for 1985-2005 Data. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Larson, R.A. (n.d.) Nitrate uptake by terrestrial and aquatic plants. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Research Development and
Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Carbondale, Illinois. Matheson, F. E., & Sukias, J. P. (2010). Nitrate removal processes in a constructed wetland treating drainage from dairy pasture.
Ecological Engineering, 36, 1260-1265. Rogers, K., Breen, P., & Chick, A. (1991). Nitrogen removal in experimental wetland treatment systems: Evidence for the role of aquatic
plants. Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 63(7), 9. Staver, L. W., Staver, K. W., & Stevenson, J. C. (1996). Nutrient inputs to the Choptank river estuary: Implications for watershed
management. Estuaries, 19(2), 342-358. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2009, June 16). Choptank River, Maryland: An ARS Benchmark
Research Watershed. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18632. Weisner, S., Eriksson, P., Granéli, W., & Leonardson, L. (1994). Influence of macrophytes on nitrate removal in wetlands. Ambio, 23(6),
363-366. Wright, L., & Turhollow, A. (2010). Switchgrass selection as a “model” bioenergy crop: A history of the process. Biomass and Bioenergy,
34(6), 851-868. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.030 Zedler, J. B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 1(2), 65-72. Zhang, B., Shahbazi, A., Wang, L., Diallo, O., & Whitmore, A. (2010). Hot-water pretreatment of cattails for extraction of cellulose.
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 1-6. doi: 10.1007/s10295-010-0847-x
References
Completed tasks: Thesis Proposal Pilot microcosm testing New microcosm design Phase 1 acclimation
To be completed: Phase 1 testing Phase 2 acclimation and testing Thesis Conferences
Will discover optimum combination of plants to reduce nitrate levels running off into Chesapeake
Questions?
Conclusions