1 / 25

Mycorrhizal Inoculated Biochar as an Active Filter of Dairy Wastewater

Mycorrhizal Inoculated Biochar as an Active Filter of Dairy Wastewater. Jacob Kelsey Master’s candidate Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and Ecological Design Rubenstein School for Environment & Natural Resources, University of Vermont. Felix Wai Phd Student

ash
Download Presentation

Mycorrhizal Inoculated Biochar as an Active Filter of Dairy Wastewater

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mycorrhizal Inoculated Biochar as an Active Filter of Dairy Wastewater Jacob Kelsey Master’s candidate Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and Ecological Design Rubenstein School for Environment & Natural Resources, University of Vermont Felix Wai Phd Student Rubenstein School for Environment & Natural Resources, University of Vermont

  2. Objectives: • To conduct a greenhouse column experiment in order to quantify the ability of biochar and mycorrhizal fungi to uptake phosphorus from a pollutant sample, representative of dairy farm wastewater. • Results will be used to discern the efficacy of biochar, compared to other alternative substrates (i.e. steel slag), for incorporation into constructed wetlands.

  3. Eutrophication and Phosphorus Pollution

  4. Eutrophication and Phosphorus Pollution

  5. Across the United States, eutrophication of freshwater value lost costs approximately $2.2 billion per year • Vermont Agency of Agriculture says 95% of small scale dairy farms (<200 cows) need to address nutrient leachate problems • Total costs for Vermont small scale dairy farmers = $30.5 million • ~$38,000/ small farm

  6. Integrated Constructed Wetlands • Cleanse and manage water flow from farmyards • Integrate the wetland infrastructure into the farm landscape, enhancing its biodiversity and beauty

  7. Integrated Constructed Wetland Benefits • Runoff and flood management • Relative low cost and simplicity of operation • Odor minimization • Aesthetically pleasing • Habitat and biodiversity enhancement

  8. Integrated Constructed Wetland Limitations • Farm constructed wetlands have a relatively large land requirement • P uptake, compared to other nutrient treatment is often below desired levels, especially in colder climates http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/upload/images/SmithfieldWetland3May2006.jpg

  9. Alternative substrates for increasing P uptake/retention in constructed wetlands • Best candidates to date are mostly industrial by products • Of 57 materials tested for P adsorption, Electric Arc Furnace Steel Slag was found to be the most effective • Vanadium and other heavy metal leaching possible http://www.uvm.edu/~cwrc/Slag%20image.JPG http://www.cascadesteel.com/Images/manufacturing_process/02a.jpg

  10. Biochar P uptake/retention • Physical-Chemical: • Extremely high surface area • Increased Cation Exchange Capacity • Increased Anion Exchange Capacity (Lehmann, et al., 2007)

  11. Biochar P uptake/retention, cont. • Biological: -Beneficial microbe refugia -Mycorrhizal Fungi proliferation -Increased mycorrhizal populations positively correlated with P uptake www.d.yimg.com/kq/groups www.d.yimg.com/kq/groups

  12. Biochar P uptake/retention, cont. www.d.yimg.com/kq/groups www.d.yimg.com/kq/groups

  13. Hypothesis: Mycorrhizal inoculated biochar mixed in a gravel substrate in a simulated planted constructed wetland will uptake more phosphorus than a control treatment of plants and gravel substrate alone.

  14. Experimental Setup & Methods

  15. Experimental Setup & Methods, cont. • Treatment # 1 (control): • Gravel substrate • 20 non-mycorrhizal plants • Treatment # 2: • Gravel substrate • 20 mycorrhizal inoculated plants • Treatment # 3: • 50/50 gravel: biochar substrate • 20 non-mycorrhizal plants • Treatment # 4: • 50/50 gravel: biochar substrate • 20 mycorrhizal inoculated plants

  16. Experimental Setup & Methods, cont.

  17. Experimental Setup & Methods, cont.

  18. Experimental Setup & Methods, cont.

  19. Experimental Setup & Methods, cont.

  20. Hypothesis Revisited P Concentration Time • # 1) control • # 2) +mycorrhizae • # 3) +biochar • # 4) +biochar +mycorrhizae

  21. Preliminary Data

  22. Phosphate Price Increase

  23. Future Research Greenhouse potted plant experiments to test nutrient saturated, microbe inoculated biochar as soil amendment

  24. Future Research Field application of biochar in an active filtering bioswale in combination with an Integrated Constructed Wetland at a small dairy farm in Vermont

  25. Acknowledgments: John Todd Paul Schaberg Brian Bibens Paul Stamets

More Related