Oxidation–reduction properties of surface sediments are tightly associated with the geochemistry of substances, and reducing organic substances (ROS) from hydrophytes residues may play an important role in these processes. In this study, composition, dynamics, and properties of ROS from anaerobic decomposition of Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms, Potamogenton crispusLinn, Vallisneria natans (Lour.) Hara, Lemna trisulca Linn and Microcystis flos-aquae (Wittr) Kirch were investigated using differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). The type of hydrophytes determined both the reducibility and composition of ROS. At the peak time of ROS production, the anaerobic decomposition of M. flos-aquae produced 6 types of ROS, among which 3 belonged to strongly reducing organic substance (SROS), whereas there were only 3–4 types of ROS from the other hydrophytes, 2 of them exhibiting strong reducibility. The order of potential of hydrophytes to produce ROS was estimated to be: M. flos-aquae > E. crassipes > L. trisulca > P. crispus ≈ V. natans, based on the summation of SROS and weakly reducing organic substances (WROS). The dynamic pattern of SROS production was greatly different from WROS. The total SROS appeared periodic fluctuation with reducibility gradually weakening with incubation time, whereas the total WROS increased with incubation time. Reducibility of ROS from hydrophytes was readily affected by acid, base and ligands, suggesting that their properties were related to these aspects. In addition to the reducibility, we believe that more attention should be paid to the other behaviors of ROS in surface sediments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The supports for this work by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project 40401029), Natural Sophisticated Technology Plan of China (Project 2005AA60101005-03), and Key Technology Research and Development Program of Jiangsu, China (BE2008691) are gratefully acknowledged. Authors thank Dr. Frank Hagedorn and reviewers for constructive comments to improve this manuscript.
Andersen FØ, Jensen HS (1991) The influence of chironomids on decomposition of organic matter and nutrient exchange in a lake sediment. Verh int Ver Limnol 24:3051–3055Google Scholar
Bard AJ, Faulkner LR (1980) Electrochemical methods: fundamentals and applications. John Wiley and Sons, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
Bastviken SK, Eriksson PG, Ekstrom A, Tonderski K (2007) Seasonal denitrification potential in wetland sediments with organic matter from different plant species. Water Air Soil Pollut 183:25–35. doi:10.1007/s11270-007-9352-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esslemont G, Maher W, Ford P, Lawrence I (2007) Riparian plant material inputs to the Murray River, Australia: composition, reactivity, and role of nutrients. J Environ Qual 36:963–974. doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guppy CN, Menzies NW, Moody PW, Blamey FPC (2005) Competitive sorption reactions between phosphorus and organic matter in soil: a review. Aust J Soil Res 43:189–202. doi:10.1071/SR04049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmboe N, Kristensen E, Andersen FØ (2001) Anoxic decomposition in sediments from a tropical mangrove forest and the temperate wadden sea: implications of N and P addition experiments. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 53:125–140. doi:10.1006/ecss.2000.0794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume NP, Fleming MS, Horne AJ (2002) Denitrification potential and carbon quality of four aquatic plants in wetland microcosms. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1706–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li QM, Zhao AZ, Ji GL (2003b) Dynamics of organic reducing substances in soils under anaerobic condition. Environ Chem 22:542–547 in ChineseGoogle Scholar
Li QM, Ding Y, Zhang W, Wang XX, Ji GL, Zhou YY (2008) Sorptive interaction between goethite and strongly reducing organic substances from anaerobic decomposition of green manures. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2922–2927. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.04.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu ZG, Ding CP, Wu YX, Pan SZ, Xu RK (1997) The oxidation–reduction reaction. In: Yu TR (ed) Electrochemistry of variable charge soils. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Obarska PH, Ozimek T (2003) Comparison of usefulness of three emergent macrophytes for surface water protection against pollution and eutrophication: case study, Bielkowo, Poland. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on nutrient cycling and retention in natural and constructed wetlands Trebon, Czech Republic 26–29 Sep 2001Google Scholar
Qi WQ, Zeng SN, Wang ZG (2002) General index and inorganic contaminant. In: Wei FS (ed) The Methods for monitoring and analyzing of the water and waste water (in Chinese). Environmental Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
Royer RA, Burgos WD, Fisher AS, Unz RF, Dempsey AA (2002) Enhancement of biological reduction of hematite by electron shuttling and Fe(II) complexation. Environ Sci Technol 36:1939–1946. doi:10.1021/es011139sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott DT, McKnight D, Blunt-Harris EL, Kolesar SE, Lovley DR (1998) Quinone moieties act as electron acceptors in the reduction of humic substances by humics-reducing microorganisms. Environ Sci Technol 32:2984–2989. doi:10.1021/es980272qCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servais S, Letexier D, Favier R, Duchamp C, Desplanches D (2007) Prevention of unloading-induced atrophy by vitamin E supplementation: links between oxidative stress and soleus muscle proteolysis? Free Radic Biol Med 42:627–635. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2006.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar