Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 647–658 | Cite as

Comparative on plant stoichiometry response to agricultural non-point source pollution in different types of ecological ditches

  • Junli Wang
  • Guifa Chen
  • Guoyan Zou
  • Xiangfu Song
  • Fuxing LiuEmail author
Research Article


Long-term agricultural development has led to agricultural non-point source (NPS) pollution. Ecological ditches (eco-ditch), as specific wetland systems, can be used to manage agricultural NPS water and achieve both ecological and environmental benefits. In order to understand which type of eco-ditch systems (Es, soil eco-ditch; Ec, concrete eco-ditch; Eh, concrete eco-ditch with holes on double-sided wall) is more suitable for plant nutrient balance meanwhile reducing NPS water (total nitrogen [TN], about 10 mg/L; total phosphorus [TP], about 1 mg/L), it is essential to evaluate the plant (Vallisneria natans) stoichiometry response to water in different types of eco-ditches under static experiment. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in TP removal efficiency among three eco-ditches, yet Eh systems had the best TN removal efficiency during the earlier experimental time. Addition of agricultural NPS water had varying effects on plants living in different types of eco-ditch systems. Plant organ stoichiometry of V. natans varied in relation to eco-ditch types. Plant stoichiometry (C:N, C:P, and N:P) of V. natans in Eh systems could maintain the homeostasis of nutrients and was not greatly affected by external changing environment. V. natans in Es systems can more easily modify the nutrient contents of organs with regard to nutrient availability in the environment. Our findings provide useful plant stoichiometry information for ecologists studying other specific ecosystems.


Stoichiometry Ecological ditch Nutrients Non-point source pollution Vallisneria natans 


Funding information

The study was supported by Major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment (2017ZX07203-005) and Yangtze River Delta Technology Projects of Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission (17295810602).


  1. Aerts R, Chapin IIIF (1999) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cao T, Ni LY, Xie P, Xu J, Zhang M (2011) Effects of moderate ammonium enrichment on three submersed macrophytes under contrasting light availability. Freshw Biol 56:1620–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao YS, Sun HF, Liu YQ, Fu ZS, Chen GF, Zou GY, Zhou S (2017) Reducing N losses through surface runoff from rice-wheat rotation by improving fertilizer management. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(198):4841–4850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Díaz FJ, O’Geen AT, Dahlgren RA (2012) Agricultural pollutant removal by constructed wetlands: implications for water management and design. Agric Water Manag 104:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebeling JM, Timmons MB, Bisogni JJ (2006) Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammonia-nitrogen in aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 257:346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gal G, Imberger J, Zohary T, Antenucci JP, Anis A, Rosenberg T (2003) Simulating the thermal dynamics of Lake Kinneret. Ecol Model 162:69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gobler CJ, Burkholder JM, Davis TW, Harke MJ, Johengen T, Stow CA, Van de Waal DB (2016) The dual role of nitrogen supply in controlling the growth and toxicity of cyanobacterial blooms. Harmful Algae 54:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. González AL, Kominoski JS, Danger M, Ishida S, Iwai N, Rubach A (2010) Can ecological stoichiometry help explain patterns of biological invasions? Oikos 119:779–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hedin LO (2004) Global organization of terrestrial plant–nutrient interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:10849–10850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koler SJ, Buffam I, Seibert J, Bishop KH, Laudon H (2009) Dynamics of stream water TOC concentrations in a boreal headwater catchment: controlling factors and implications for climate scenarios. J Hydrol 373:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kroger R, Cooper CM, Moore MT (2008) A preliminary study of an alternative controlled drainage strategy in surface drainage ditches: low-grade weirs. Agric Water Manag 95:678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kroger R, Moore MT, Locke MA, Cullum RF, Steinriede RW, Testa S, Bryant CT, Cooper CM (2009) Evaluating the influence of wetland vegetation on chemical residence time in Mississippi Delta drainage ditches. Agric Water Manag 96:1175–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li SY, Li XB, Liu ZL, Wang DD, Long HL, Liang CZ, Wang W (2007) Stability and compensation of the aboveground biomass in the Leymus chinensis and stipagrandis grassland of inner Mongolia. Resour Sci 29(3):152–157 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  14. Li FJ, Dong SC, Li F (2012) A system dynamics model for analyzing the eco-agriculture system with policy recommendations. Ecol Model 227:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li YF, Wang DY, Wan S, Yang XL, Li WB, Zhao YY, Sun C (2014) Prediction of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus contents of Leymus chinensis based on soil chemical properties using artificial neural networks. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 30(3):104–111Google Scholar
  16. Li Y, Li Q, Guo D, Liang S, Wang Y (2016) Ecological stoichiometry homeostasis of Leymus chinensis in degraded grassland in western Jilin Province, NE China. Ecol Eng 90:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu F, Xiao RL, Wang Y, Li Y, Zhang SL, Luo Q, Wu JS (2013) Effect of a novel constructed drainage ditch on the phosphorus sorption capacity of ditch soils in an agricultural headwater catchment in subtropical central China. Ecol Eng 58:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mao R, Chen HM, Zhang XH, Shi FX, Song CC (2016) Effects of P addition on plant C:N:P stoichiometry in an N-limited temperate wetland of Northeast China. Sci Total Environ 559:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meers E, Tack FMG, Tolpe I, Michels E (2008) Application of a full-scale constructed wetland for tertiary treatment of piggery manure: monitoring results. Water Air Soil Pollut 193:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ptacnik R, Andersen T, Tamminen T (2010) Performance of the Redfield ratio and a family of nutrient limitation indicators as thresholds for phytoplankton N vs P limitation. Ecosystems 13:1201–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rong Q, Liu J, Cai Y, Lu Z, Zhao Z, Yue W, Xia J (2015) Leaf carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry of Tamarix chinensis Lour. in the Laizhou Bay coastal wetland, China. Ecol Eng 76:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schuler AJ, Jenkins D (2003) Enhanced biological phosphorus removal from wastewater by biomass with different phosphorus contents, part I: experimental results and comparison with metabolic models. Water Environ Res 75(6):485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shan N, Ruan XH, Xu J, Pan ZR (2014) Estimating the optimal width of buffer strip for nonpoint source pollution control in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. China Ecol Model 276:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shipley B (2006) Net assimilation rate, specific leaf area and leaf mass ratio: which is most closely correlated with relative growth rate? A meta-analysis. Funct Ecol 20(4):565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Strock JS, Dell CJ, Schmidt JP (2007) Managing natural processes in drainage ditches for nonpoint source nitrogen control. J Soil Water Conserv 62(4):188–196Google Scholar
  27. Sun PY, Li XZ, Gong XL, Liu Y, Zhang XY, Wang L (2014) Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus ecological stoichiometry of Lateolabrax macultus and Acanthogobius ommaturus in the Estuary of Yangtze River, China. Acta Ecol Sin 34:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tejada M, Gonzalez JL (2005) Effects of application of two organomineral fertilizers on nutrient leaching losses and wheat crop. Agron J 97:960–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tessier JT, Raynal DJ (2003) Use of nitrogen to phosphorus ratios in plant tissue as an indicator of nutrient limitation and nitrogen saturation. J Appl Ecol 40:523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas R, Sheard R, Moyer J (1967) Comparison of conventional and automated procedures for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium analysis of plant material using a single digestion. Agron J 59:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Townsend AR, Asner GP (2013) Multiple dimensions of resource limitation in tropical forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:4864–4865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tuszynsk A, Obarska H (2008) Dependence between quality and removal effectiveness of organic matter in hybrid constructed wetlands. Bioresour Technol 99:6010–6016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. von Oheimb G, Power SA, Falk K, Friedrich U, Mohamed A, Krug A, Boschatzke N, Härdtle W (2010) N:P ratio and the nature of nutrient limitation in Calluna-dominated heathlands. Ecosystems 13:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vrede T, Dobberfuhl DR, Kooijman S, Elser JJ (2004) Fundamental connections among organism C:N:P stoichiometry, macromolecular composition, and growth. Ecology 85:1217–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang CH, Pei YS (2013) Effects of light, microbial activity, and sediment resuspension on the phosphorus immobilization capability of drinking water treatment residuals in lake sediment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(12):8000–8009Google Scholar
  36. Wu X, Wu H, Ye J (2014) Purification effects of two eco-ditch systems on Chinese soft-shelled turtle greenhouse culture wastewater pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:5610–5618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xia C, Yu D, Wang Z, Xie D (2014) Stoichiometry patterns of leaf carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous in aquatic macrophytes in eastern China. Ecol Eng 70:406–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xin ZJ, Li XZ, Nielsen SN, Yan ZZ, Zhou YQ, Jia Y, Tang YY, Guo WY, Sun YG (2012) Effect of stubble heights and treatment duration time on the performance of water dropwort floating treatment wetlands (FTWS). Ecol Chem Eng S 19:315–330Google Scholar
  39. Xing W, Wu HP, Hao BB, Liu GH (2013) Stoichiometric characteristics and responses of submerged macrophytes to eutrophication in lakes along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Ecol Eng 54:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xing W, Liu H, Liu GH (2015) Ecological stoichiometry in aquatic ecosystems studies and applications. J Plant Sci 33(5):608–619Google Scholar
  41. Xiong YJ, Peng SZ, Luo YF, Xu JZ, Yang SH (2015) A paddy eco-ditch and wetland system to reduce non-point source pollution from rice-based production system while maintaining water use efficiency. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:4406–4417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yan ZB, Kim NY, Han TS, Fang JY, Han WX (2013) Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on leaf carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry of Arabidopsis thaliana. Chin J Plant Ecol 37:555–557Google Scholar
  43. Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhang XL, Ongley E, Zhao L (2012) Methodology for agricultural and rural NPS pollution in a typical county of the North China Plain. Environ Pollut 168:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu Q, Elser JJ, He NP, Wu HH, Chen QS, Zhang GM, Han XG (2011) Stoichiometric homeostasis of vascular plants in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Oecologia 166:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang H, Wu H, Yu Q, Wang Z, Wei C, Long M, Kattge J, Smith M, Han X (2013) Sampling date, leaf age and root size: implications for the study of plant C:N:P stoichiometry. PLoS One 8(4):e60360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junli Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guifa Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guoyan Zou
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiangfu Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fuxing Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Eco-environmental Protection Research InstituteShanghai Academy of Agricultural SciencesShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Shanghai Engineering Research Centre of Low-carbon Agriculture (SERCLA)ShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shanghai Co-Elite Agricultural Sci-Tech (Group) Co., Ltd.ShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations