Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:14:19.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Fertilization on Aquatic Plants, Water, and Bottom Sediments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. B. Ryan ,
D. N. Riemer  and
S. J. Toth
J. B. Ryan
Affiliation:
Dep. of Soils and Crops, Coll. of Agr. and Environ. Sci., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
D. N. Riemer
Affiliation:
Dep. of Soils and Crops, Coll. of Agr. and Environ. Sci., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
S. J. Toth
Affiliation:
Dep. of Soils and Crops, Coll. of Agr. and Environ. Sci., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-year field study was conducted to determine the effects of fertilization on elodea (Elodea canadensis Michx.), eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.), and heartleaf pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm.). Plants, water, and sediment were sampled and inorganic mineral contents determined. Water concentrations of NO3, NH4, P, and K increased sharply following fertilization and generally reached maximum values within 7 days after treatment. Concentrations of these nutrients decreased rapidly after reaching maximum values. In the first year, plant growth was not increased due to fertilization while in the second year only heartleaf pondweed produced significantly greater yields. Elodea and eurasian watermilfoil grew better in the control environment, presumably due to less competition from algae, whose growth was increased by the addition of fertilizer. At the end of the study the top 1.3 cm of bottom sediment had increased in cation exchange capacity (C. E. C.), organic matter, total N, and available P for all treatments while the underlying sediment remained relatively unchanged. Available P was greater in the surface of the fertilized sediment than in the surface of the control sediment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , September 1972 , pp. 482 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1968. Revision of analytical methods for atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Perkin-Elmer Corp. Norwalk, Conn. (looseleaf).Google Scholar
2. Bandel, V. A., Stottlemyer, C. K., Cotnoir, L. J., and Flannery, R. L. 1970. Uniform automated soil testing methods for Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey, p. 45–50. In Advances in Automated Analysis, Technicon International Congress 1969. Vol. II. Industrial Analysis.Google Scholar
3. Peltier, W. H. and Welch, E. B. 1970. Factors affecting growth of rooted aquatic plants in a reservoir. Weed Sci. 18:7–9.Google Scholar
4. Toth, S. J. 1968. Metallic elements in inland waterways J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 60:455–459.Google Scholar
5. Toth, S. J. and Ott, A. N. 1970. Characterization of bottom sediments: Cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cation status. Environ. Sci. Technol. 4:935–939.Google Scholar
6. Toth, S. J., Prince, A. L., Wallace, A., and Mihkelsen, D. S. 1948. Rapid quantitative determination of eight mineral elements in plant tissue by a systematic procedure involving use of a flame photometer. Soil Sci. 66:1–4.Google Scholar
7. Walkley, A. and Black, I. A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.Google Scholar