Effects of planting patterns on the concentration and bioavailability of heavy metals in soils during wetland restoration

  • H. Su
  • P. GuoEmail author
  • Y. Zhang
  • J. Deng
  • M. Wang
  • Y. Sun
  • Y. Wu
Original Paper


To understand the effects of planting patterns on heavy metals in soils, the total concentration, bioavailability, contamination level, and ecological risk of heavy metals in soils from Jinjiang Estuary wetland were investigated. The results showed that after a wetland restoration, the concentrations of Cu were as follows: before wetland restoration > after wetland restoration > control group. The concentrations of Cr and Pb before and after the wetland restoration were all higher than those of the control group, whereas only some of the values of Zn were higher than those of the control group. Likewise, the bioavailability of Cu was roughly the same as that of the control group, those of Cr and Zn were higher than those of the control group, and that of Pb was less than that of the control group. Generally, after the wetland restoration, the bioavailabilities of Cu, Cr, and Pb decreased, but that of Zn increased. Moreover, the pollution level and ecological risk of Cu decreased, while those of Cr, Zn, and Pb increased. In addition, the comprehensive potential ecological risk of the Jinjiang Estuary wetland was moderate for Cu, Cr, Zn, and Pb before and after the wetland restoration. These results suggest that during a wetland restoration, the mixed vegetation types and planting density could influence the total concentration and bioavailability of heavy metals, affecting the pollution level and ecological risk of heavy metals to some extent. This study would be helpful in providing subsequent scientific research to restore wetlands.


Wetland Restoration Planting patterns Heavy metals Ecological risk 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 20777021), the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (No. 2017J01018), Quanzhou Project of Science and Technology (No. 2014Z110), Jinjiang Key Project of Science and Technology (No. 2013S002), and Subsidized Project for Cultivating Postgraduates’ Innovative Ability in Scientific Research of Huaqiao University (No. 1511415006).


  1. Adamo P, Iavazzo P, Albanese S, Agrelli D, Vivo BD, Lima A (2014) Bioavailability and soil-to-plant transfer factors as indicators of potentially toxic element contamination in agricultural soils. Sci Total Environ 500:11–22Google Scholar
  2. Agemian H, Chau ASY (1976) Evaluation of extraction techniques for the determination of metals in aquatic sediments. Analyst 101(1207):761–767Google Scholar
  3. An S, Li H, Guan B, Zhou C, Wang Z, Deng Z, Zhi Y, Liu Y, Xu C, Fang S (2007) China’s natural wetlands: past problems, current status, and future challenges. Ambio 36(4):335–342Google Scholar
  4. Bai J, Xiao R, Zhang K, Gao H (2012) Arsenic and heavy metal pollution in wetland soils from tidal freshwater and salt marshes before and after the flow-sediment regulation regime in the yellow river delta, china. J Hydrol 450–451(11):244–253Google Scholar
  5. Barbier EB (2013) Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: progress and challenges. Resources 2(3):213–230Google Scholar
  6. Bonanno G, Giudice RL (2010) Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecol Ind 10(3):639–645Google Scholar
  7. Bossuyt B, Honnay O (2008) Can the seed bank be used for ecological restoration? an overview of seed bank characteristics in european communities. J Veg Sci 19(6):875–884Google Scholar
  8. Brewin LE, Mehra A, Lynch PT, Farago ME (2007) Bioavailability of copper within Dolfrwynog Bog soils, North Wales, UK. Chem Speciat Bioavailab 19(4):149–162Google Scholar
  9. Callender E (2013) Heavy Metals in the environment-historical trends. Treatise Geochem 9(1):67–105Google Scholar
  10. Chowdhury R, Favas PJ, Pratas J, Jonathan MP, Ganesh PS, Sarkar SK (2015) Accumulation of trace metals by mangrove plants in Indian Sundarban Wetland: prospects for Phytoremediation. Int J Phytorem 17(9):885–894Google Scholar
  11. Drew MC, Lynch JM (1990) Root function, development, growth and mineral nutrition. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreira AC, Ganade G, Attayde JLD (2015) Restoration versus natural regeneration in a neotropical mangrove: effects on plant biomass and crab communities. Ocean Coast Manag 110:38–45Google Scholar
  13. Hakanson L (1980) An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control.a sedimentological approach. Water Res 14(8):975–1001Google Scholar
  14. Laing GD, Rinklebe J, Vandecasteele B, Meers E, Tack FMG (2009) Trace metal behaviour in estuarine and riverine floodplain soils and sediments: a review. Sci Total Environ 407(13):3972Google Scholar
  15. Li M, Yang W, Sun T, Jin Y (2016a) Potential ecological risk of heavy metal contamination in sediments and macrobenthos in coastal wetlands induced by freshwater releases: a case study in the yellow river delta, china. Mar Pollut Bull 103(1–2):227–239Google Scholar
  16. Li WC, Deng H, Wong MH (2016b) Metal solubility and speciation under the influence of waterlogged condition and the presence of wetland plants. Geoderma 270:98–108Google Scholar
  17. Liang J, Yang Z, Tang L, Zeng G, Yu M, Li X, Wu H, Qian Y, Li X, Luo Y (2017) Changes in heavy metal mobility and availability from contaminated wetland soil remediated with combined biochar-compost. Chemosphere 181:281–288Google Scholar
  18. Lin P (1999) Mangrove Ecosystem in China. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  19. Luo Y, Liang J, Zeng G, Chen M, Mo D, Li G, Zhang D (2017) Seed germination test for toxicity evaluation of compost: its roles, problems and prospects. Waste Manag 2018(71):109–114Google Scholar
  20. Mccready S, Birch GF, Long ER (2006) Metallic and organic contaminants in sediments of Sydney Harbour, Australia and vicinity—a chemical dataset for evaluating sediment quality guidelines. Environ Int 32(4):455–465Google Scholar
  21. Mentzafou A, Dimitriou E, Zogaris S (2016) Integrated ecological assessment and restoration planning in a heavily modified peri-urban Mediterranean lagoon. Environ Earth Sci 75(11):1–16Google Scholar
  22. Mitsch WJ (2005) Wetland creation, restoration, and conservation: a Wetland Invitational at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. Ecol Eng 24(4):243–251Google Scholar
  23. Müller G (1969) Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River. Geol J 2(108):108–118Google Scholar
  24. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM (2010) Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 8(3):199–216Google Scholar
  25. Naidoo G, Hiralal T, Naidoo Y (2013) Ecophysiological responses of the mangrove Avicennia marina to trace metal contamination. Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants 209(1):63–72Google Scholar
  26. Pan K, Wang WX (2012) Trace metal contamination in estuarine and coastal environments in China. Sci Total Environ 421(3):3–16Google Scholar
  27. Pérez-Sirvent C, Hernández-Pérez C, Martínez-Sánchez MJ, García-Lorenzo ML, Bech J (2016) Metal uptake by wetland plants: implications for phytoremediation and restoration. J Soils Sediments 17(5):1384–1393Google Scholar
  28. Perkins SM, Filippelli GM, Souch CJ (2000) Airborne trace metal contamination of wetland sediments at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Water Air Soil Pollut 122(1):231–260Google Scholar
  29. Perry CT, Berkeley A (2009) Intertidal substrate modification as a result of mangrove planting: impacts of introduced mangrove species on sediment microfacies characteristics. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 81(2):225–237Google Scholar
  30. Prasad MNV, Freitas HMDO (2003) Metal hyperaccumulation in plants—biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron J Biotechnol 6(3):189–198Google Scholar
  31. Qian J, Shan XQ, Wang ZJ, Tu Q (1996) Distribution and plant availability of heavy metals in different particle-size fractions of soil. Sci Total Environ 187(2):131–141Google Scholar
  32. Sakan SM, Đorđevic DS, Manojlovic DD, Predrag PS (2009) Assessment of heavy metal pollutants accumulation in the Tisza river sediments. J Environ Manag 90(11):3382–3390Google Scholar
  33. Sanaullah M, Blagodatskaya E, Chabbi A, Rumpel C, Kuzyakov Y (2011) Drought effects on microbial biomass and enzyme activities in the rhizosphere of grasses depend on plant community composition. Appl Soil Ecol 48(1):38–44Google Scholar
  34. Usman AR, Alkredaa RS, Alwabel MI (2013) Heavy metal contamination in sediments and mangroves from the coast of Red Sea: avicennia marina as potential metal bioaccumulator. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 97(5):263–270Google Scholar
  35. Vymazal J (2013) Emergent plants used in free water surface constructed wetlands: a review. Ecol Eng 61(19):582–592Google Scholar
  36. Walker DJ, Clemente R, Bernal MP (2004) Contrasting effects of manure and compost on soil pH, heavy metal availability and growth of Chenopodium album L. in a soil contaminated by pyritic mine waste. Chemosphere 57(3):215–224Google Scholar
  37. Wang J, Zhang CB, Jin ZX (2009) The distribution and phytoavailability of heavy metal fractions in rhizosphere soils of Paulowniu fortunei (seem) Hems near a Pb/Zn smelter in Guangdong, PR China. Geoderma 148(3):299–306Google Scholar
  38. Wang R, Dejiang P, Wang J, Tang A (2013) Distribution and accumulation characteristics of heavy metals in sediments in Southern Sea Area of Huludao City, China. Chin Geogr Sci 23(2):194–202Google Scholar
  39. Wu Y, Zhou G, Zhao K, Liu R, Wang Z (2015) Differential distribution of metals and enzymes in Quanzhou Bay estuarine wetland soils under three mangrove species. Soil Sediment Contam 25(1):75–88Google Scholar
  40. Xiao R, Zhang M, Yao X, Ma Z, Yu F, Bai J (2016) Heavy metal distribution in different soil aggregate size classes from restored brackish marsh, oil exploitation zone, and tidal mud flat of the Yellow River Delta. J Soils Sedim 16(3):1–10Google Scholar
  41. Yang W, Li X, Pei J, Sun T, Shao D, Bai J, Li Y (2017a) Bioavailability of trace metals in sediments of a recovering freshwater coastal wetland in China’s Yellow River Delta, and risk assessment for the macrobenthic community. Chemosphere 189:661–671Google Scholar
  42. Yang Z, Liang J, Tang L, Zeng G, Yu M, Li X, Li X, Qian Y, Wu H, Luo Y, Mo D (2017b) Sorption-desorption behaviors of heavy metals by biochar-compost amendment with different ratios in contaminated wetland soil. J Soils Sedim 2:1–10Google Scholar
  43. Ye ZH, Wong MH, Baker AJM, Willis AJ (1998) Comparison of biomass and metal uptake between two populations of phragmites Australis grown in flooded and dry conditions. Ann Bot 82(1):83–87Google Scholar
  44. Zhang G, Bai J, Rong X, Zhao Q, Jia J, Cui B, Liu X (2017) Heavy metal fractions and ecological risk assessment in sediments from urban, rural and reclamation-affected rivers of the pearl river estuary, china. Chemosphere 184:278–288Google Scholar
  45. Zhao Q, Bai J, Huang L, Gu B, Lu Q, Gao Z (2016) A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration. Ecol Ind 60:442–452Google Scholar
  46. Zhou YW, Zhao B, Peng YS, Chen GZ (2010) Influence of mangrove reforestation on heavy metal accumulation and speciation in intertidal sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 60(8):1319–1324Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Su
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Guo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Y. Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Deng
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Y. Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Y. Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, College of Chemical EngineeringHuaqiao UniversityXiamenChina
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental and Resources TechnologyHuaqiao UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations