Assessing the Potential Resistance of Floating Vegetation Against Different Flow Rates

Year 2022, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 275 - 298, 25.07.2022

Bayram Akyol Xuanhua Duan Nebi Yeşilekin

https://doi.org/10.31807/tjwsm.1112852

Abstract

Constructed Floating Wetlands have been rising an innovative and environmentally friendly water treatment technology for both stormwater and wastewater over the decades. For the sustainability of these systems, hydraulic components of wetlands should be carefully monitored and properly managed. With this study, the root resistance of Baumea rubiginosa and Phragmites australis grown in the drinking water and a synthetic water mix representing stormwater and domestic wastewater with low and high nutrient content against different flow rates was examined. With the nutrient uptakes from intermediate bulk container water tanks, two plant species had reached at harvest stage over the period of 35 weeks, and then they were subjected to flume test experiment. Two plant species from five different water types showed different growth levels in roots and shoots, and thanks to their stronger and denser root structures, plant species of Baumea rubiginosa and Phragmites australis in domestic wastewater with low nutrient were found more resistant to the flow by pushing water deeper and cause a higher hydraulic head loss between upstream and downstream in comparison to the rest of plant types. The relationships between three different components: Root volume, flow rate and
head loss were also analysed through correlation test in SPSS Statistics and the relationship between root volume and head loss was found positive at the higher flow rate(s). The results demonstrate that these native plant species in constructed floating wetlands could be used to reduce extreme flow rates in upstream side and provide a safe environment during extreme flood events.

Keywords

constructed floating wetlands, stormwater, domestic wastewater, root resistance, floating vegetation

References

• Awad, J., Brunetti, G., Juhasz, A., Williams, M., Navarro, D., Drigo, B., Bougoure, J., Vanderzalm, J., & Beecham, S. (2022). Application of native plants in constructed floating wetlands as a passive remediation approach for PFAS-impacted surface water. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 128326.
• Awad, J., Hewa, G., Myers, B. R., Walker, C., Lucke, T., Akyol, B., & Duan, X. (2022). Investigation of the potential of native wetland plants for removal of nutrients from synthetic stormwater and domestic wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 179, 106642.
• Ayres, J. R., Awad, J., Burger, H., Marzouk, J., & van Leeuwen, J. (2019). Investigation of the potential of buffalo and couch grasses to grow on AFIs and for removal of nutrients from paper mill wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 79(4), 779–788.
• Chance, L. M. G., & White, S. A. (2018). Aeration and plant coverage influence floating treatment wetland remediation efficacy. Ecological Engineering, 122, 62–68.
• Chang, N.-B., Crawford, A. J., Mohiuddin, G., & Kaplan, J. (2015). Low flow regime measurements with an automatic pulse tracer velocimeter (APTV) in heterogeneous aquatic environments. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 42, 98–112.
• Daly, E., Deletic, A., Hatt, B. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2012). Modelling of stormwater biofilters under random hydrologic variability: A case study of a car park at Monash University, Victoria (Australia). Hydrological Processes, 26(22), 3416–3424.
• Ge, Z., Feng, C., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2016). Seasonal applicability of three vegetation constructed floating treatment wetlands for nutrient removal and harvesting strategy in urban stormwater retention ponds. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 112, 80–87.
• Green, J. C. (2005). Modelling flow resistance in vegetated streams: Review and development of new theory. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 19(6), 1245–1259.
• Järvelä, J. (2005). Effect of submerged flexible vegetation on flow structure and resistance. Journal of Hydrology, 307(1–4), 233–241. Kadlec, R. H. (1990). Overland flow in wetlands: Vegetation resistance. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 116(5), 691–706.
• Kato, Y., Takemon, Y., & Hori, M. (2009). Invertebrate assemblages in relation to habitat types on a floating mat in Mizorogaike Pond, Kyoto, Japan. Limnology, 10(3), 167–176.
• Kumari, M., & Tripathi, B. D. (2014). Effect of aeration and mixed culture of Eichhornia crassipes and Salvinia natans on removal of wastewater pollutants. Ecological Engineering, 62, 48–53.
• Liu, C., Shan, Y., Lei, J., & Nepf, H. (2019). Floating treatment islands in series along a channel: The impact of island spacing on the velocity field and estimated mass removal. Advances in Water Resources, 129, 222–231.
• Liu, D., Ge, Y., Chang, J., Peng, C., Gu, B., Chan, G. Y., & Wu, X. (2009). Constructed wetlands in China: Recent developments and future challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(5), 261–268.
• Lucke, T., Walker, C., & Beecham, S. (2019). Experimental designs of field-based constructed floating wetland studies: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 660, 199–208.
• Nichols, P., Lucke, T., Drapper, D., & Walker, C. (2016). Performance evaluation of a floating treatment wetland in an urban catchment. Water, 8(6), 244.
• Nuruzzaman, M., Anwar, A. F., Sarukkalige, R., & Sarker, D. C. (2021). Review of hydraulics of Floating Treatment Islands retrofitted in waterbodies receiving stormwater. Science of The Total Environment, 801, 149526.
• Olguín, E. J., Sánchez-Galván, G., Melo, F. J., Hernández, V. J., & González-Portela, R. E. (2017). Long-term assessment at field scale of floating treatment wetlands for improvement of water quality and provision of ecosystem services in a eutrophic urban pond. Science of the Total Environment, 584, 561–571.
• Piercy, C. D. (2010). Hydraulic Resistance due to Emergent Wetland Vegetation [PhD Thesis]. Virginia Tech.
• Schwammberger, P. F., Lucke, T., Walker, C., & Trueman, S. J. (2019). Nutrient uptake by constructed floating wetland plants during the construction phase of an urban residential development. Science of the Total Environment, 677, 390–403.
• Sooknah, R. D., & Wilkie, A. C. (2004). Nutrient removal by floating aquatic macrophytes cultured in anaerobically digested flushed dairy manure wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 22(1), 27–42.
• Stefanakis, A. I. (2020). Constructed wetlands: Description and benefits of an eco-tech water treatment system. In Waste Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 503–525). IGI Global.
• Tanner, C. C., & Headley, T. R. (2011). Components of floating emergent macrophyte treatment wetlands influencing removal of stormwater pollutants. Ecological Engineering, 37(3), 474–486.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Measurement of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS (3. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Van de Moortel, A. M., Du Laing, G., De Pauw, N., & Tack, F. M. (2011). Distribution and mobilization of pollutants in the sediment of a constructed floating wetland used for treatment of combined sewer overflow events. Water Environment Research, 83(5), 427–439.
• Walker, C., Tondera, K., & Lucke, T. (2017). Stormwater treatment evaluation of a constructed floating wetland after two years operation in an urban catchment. Sustainability, 9(10), 1687.
• Wang, Y., Sun, B., Gao, X., & Li, N. (2019). Development and evaluation of a process-based model to assess nutrient removal in floating treatment wetlands. Science of the Total Environment, 694, 133633.
• West, P. O. (2016). Quantifying solute mixing across low velocity emergent real vegetation shear layers [PhD Thesis]. University of Warwick.
• Yang, Y.-Y., & Lusk, M. G. (2018). Nutrients in urban stormwater runoff: Current state of the science and potential mitigation options. Current Pollution Reports, 4(2), 112–127.