1 / 26

Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP

Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP. Mentor : Dr. Dave Tilley Librarian : Mr. Robert Kackley

hetal
Download Presentation

Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP

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. Junior Colloquium: Team SWAMP Mentor: Dr. Dave Tilley Librarian: Mr. Robert Kackley Members: ArshAgarwal, Allie Bradford, Kerry Cheng, RamitaDewan, Enrique Disla, Addison Goodley, Nathan Lim, Lisa Liu, Lucas Place, RaevaRamadorai, Jaishri Shankar, Michael Wellen, Diane Ye, Edward Yu

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Literature Review – Agricultural Runoff and River Selection • 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)

  6. Collection of Samples

  7. Literature Review – Plant Selection • Criteria for plant selection • Non-invasive • Native to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed • Biofuel-capable • Cattail (Typhalatifolia) (Fraser, Carty, & Steer, 2004; Matheson, 2010) • Soft-stem Bulrush (Schoenoplectusvalidus) (Rogers, Breen, & Chick, 1991) • Switchgrass (Panicumvirgatum) (Larson, n.d.)

  8. Literature Review – Biofuels & Organic Amendments • 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)

  9. Project Outline • 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

  10. Pilot Microcosm Design • 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

  11. New 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

  12. New Microcosm Design

  13. An Improved Procedure • 8 week adjustment period • After adjustment period, add nitrates and organic amendments via a concentrated solution • Water samples from individual tubs

  14. Plant Groups • We are using 8 groups: • No plants, no amendments • No plants with Glucose • No plants with Sawdust • No plants with Straw • Plants, no amendments • Plants with Glucose • Plants with Sawdust • Plants with Straw

  15. 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

  16. Pilot Data

  17. Data Analysis • 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

  18. Future Directions • 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

  19. Future Directions (cont) • 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!

  20. Team Composition • 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!

  21. Foreseeing Problems • 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

  22. Conclusions • 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

  23. For the Freshmen! • 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…

  24. Acknowledgements • 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

  25. References • 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

  26. Conclusions • 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?

More Related