<%BANNER%>

Nitrogen Dynamics in a Constructed Wetland Receiving Plant Nursery Runoff in Southeastern United States

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021768/00001

Material Information

Title: Nitrogen Dynamics in a Constructed Wetland Receiving Plant Nursery Runoff in Southeastern United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constructed, denitrification, nitrogen, nursery, runoff, wetlands
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Constructed wetlands are a cost effective method for on-site nutrient removal from polluted water from nonpoint sources. Nitrogen (N) concentration and denitrification potential were studied in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff over five months in southeastern US. Nursery runoff, before entering the wetland, contained an average total nitrogen concentration of 34 mg L-1. Majority of nitrogen was in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N; 30 mg L-1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N; 2 mg L-1) and organic nitrogen (2 mg L-1). Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L-1 and dissolved organic carbon was 11 mg L-1. Mean nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40% for NO3--N, 59% for NH4+-N, and 16% for TP. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of NO3--N; and directly related to temperature of the water column. The gradual increase in temperature over months might have enhanced NO3- - N removal by influencing plant growth and activity of microorganisms, which is also evidenced by the gradual decrease in the concentration of DO in the water column during the study period. The theoretical hydraulic residence time was estimated to be 3-5 days in the model. The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study exhibited nutrient gradient from the inflow to outflow indicating removal of these nutrients within the wetland. The denitrification potential of the water column was relatively low (0.01 to 0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1), and could be due to carbon limitation in the wetland water column as evident by low DOC concentration and low DOC: NO3--N ratio. The presence of few attachment sites for bacteria and lack of particulate substances to support the microbial activity possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column. The mean denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia (3 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) and Canna flaccida (4 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) over five months were statistically similar. As the combined denitrification potential of the water column (0.72 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) and the rhizosphere soil (96 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) in this study was less than the total removal (1.75 g m-2 day-1), it is likely that other NO3--N processes are contributing to the observed NO3--N removal in this constructed wetland. Plant uptake and microbial denitrification in the sediments and/or soil are considered as major NO3--N removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands. Hence, it is concluded that rhizosphere denitrification is significantly contributing to NO3- -N removal in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Sharma, Jyotsna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021768:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021768/00001

Material Information

Title: Nitrogen Dynamics in a Constructed Wetland Receiving Plant Nursery Runoff in Southeastern United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constructed, denitrification, nitrogen, nursery, runoff, wetlands
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Constructed wetlands are a cost effective method for on-site nutrient removal from polluted water from nonpoint sources. Nitrogen (N) concentration and denitrification potential were studied in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff over five months in southeastern US. Nursery runoff, before entering the wetland, contained an average total nitrogen concentration of 34 mg L-1. Majority of nitrogen was in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N; 30 mg L-1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N; 2 mg L-1) and organic nitrogen (2 mg L-1). Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L-1 and dissolved organic carbon was 11 mg L-1. Mean nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40% for NO3--N, 59% for NH4+-N, and 16% for TP. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of NO3--N; and directly related to temperature of the water column. The gradual increase in temperature over months might have enhanced NO3- - N removal by influencing plant growth and activity of microorganisms, which is also evidenced by the gradual decrease in the concentration of DO in the water column during the study period. The theoretical hydraulic residence time was estimated to be 3-5 days in the model. The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study exhibited nutrient gradient from the inflow to outflow indicating removal of these nutrients within the wetland. The denitrification potential of the water column was relatively low (0.01 to 0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1), and could be due to carbon limitation in the wetland water column as evident by low DOC concentration and low DOC: NO3--N ratio. The presence of few attachment sites for bacteria and lack of particulate substances to support the microbial activity possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column. The mean denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia (3 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) and Canna flaccida (4 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) over five months were statistically similar. As the combined denitrification potential of the water column (0.72 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) and the rhizosphere soil (96 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) in this study was less than the total removal (1.75 g m-2 day-1), it is likely that other NO3--N processes are contributing to the observed NO3--N removal in this constructed wetland. Plant uptake and microbial denitrification in the sediments and/or soil are considered as major NO3--N removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands. Hence, it is concluded that rhizosphere denitrification is significantly contributing to NO3- -N removal in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Sharma, Jyotsna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021768:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101108_AAAACN INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T01:22:18Z PACKAGE UFE0021768_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 83127 DFID F20101108_AACAZD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH govindarajan_b_Page_012.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
7e36f5898ff1f6b0ad3c2c16f66aa331
SHA-1
ff56c0b5f71f2880d64775fdf4da82e073d238db
1051982 F20101108_AACBDU govindarajan_b_Page_034.jp2
88f64535ad7445969030228e92a7bd55
0dd9a8504ea95a085c0ad6ebdb582a7b3d0b100b
337148 F20101108_AACAYO govindarajan_b_Page_088.jp2
08bd0722f7de9ab3b053716e6e061dd8
f0c6e4a776b1758ac46a2aff387911c16bae59b6
F20101108_AACBEJ govindarajan_b_Page_052.jp2
d4ba103236351860bb460403c63075a5
5ce8942b26cf68aefb78cd65742eb8caafbb6b20
88782 F20101108_AACAZE govindarajan_b_Page_014.jpg
dcb77d86dec8c807a3080b2f3e815402
cd4cee0d55239b3b026a106b58ea89d9f6e6c051
1051975 F20101108_AACBDV govindarajan_b_Page_035.jp2
8c4598d775645e977fee0ea230440d7b
0aeacc6f3c6d0e75b04666ea8f3566819f23a2d2
25271604 F20101108_AACAYP govindarajan_b_Page_059.tif
82393eccd4eeaf66104dd7080462bb74
82e95e885f92f37cc3de02689b5a82b15938a4ea
1051981 F20101108_AACBEK govindarajan_b_Page_053.jp2
198ae743766dfbfe8d4c6ed9e46ea6a9
98d93aed4c3ffd967abcdf42ae8c5244d917ee91
82275 F20101108_AACAZF govindarajan_b_Page_015.jpg
74d9e9f94d5e71e8f07b7bcc9af68c51
49fdaf4f7f30ce58fdec21a8c654abfc7f89737b
1051965 F20101108_AACBDW govindarajan_b_Page_036.jp2
48b186c28cb59bde93770b511469cc53
7780017ef8b1e37559cf9182760de4fc0fd405cc
125505 F20101108_AACAYQ UFE0021768_00001.mets FULL
da64b09a7c942fd2c398fa2fb2198005
e0f63e9033fe7ade3e557b99728388d998041c65
1051905 F20101108_AACBEL govindarajan_b_Page_054.jp2
39277dbf1a8a82e925e0514718ccc463
1a85a679008fac217ca72747a87ebb0c65f3e3fc
90280 F20101108_AACAZG govindarajan_b_Page_016.jpg
0669243d3105372aa805553d991e7d96
72cc6fef88825b49e3ae94c29d19a02325f19168
1051395 F20101108_AACBDX govindarajan_b_Page_037.jp2
f006d07e5a84b33548ef5b6893151af4
5e25b9f1915fbd71a6d7776ec2e014ae341bd94c
520762 F20101108_AACBFA govindarajan_b_Page_070.jp2
c0dd642bfdb5ad01d5c993eb989a9c52
1ea4d311a275b96a7c77b72634aef717d1a70af0
1051970 F20101108_AACBEM govindarajan_b_Page_055.jp2
6ad423fb486ae8b503d587dfe0e651ab
fc94bd51a98b5d303c29aab973fd3f60b10a9f0f
1051978 F20101108_AACBDY govindarajan_b_Page_038.jp2
643a6968a9eb8ac204b81de73b04f6c8
b33c7fe931ea5cab9e274a93e34fc7871733555b
312439 F20101108_AACBFB govindarajan_b_Page_071.jp2
372a1029fef33a6764612d2d269dd7eb
8e387e9c2f5927ad7563cccbc2952d4728fc55cb
1051957 F20101108_AACBEN govindarajan_b_Page_056.jp2
1ea5c8bb16188b62280e76b2d00e681f
87ac66d1dc543d9b1b831d904033de92b394b5e4
85580 F20101108_AACAZH govindarajan_b_Page_017.jpg
92d05584117995809f35ce852acef1f1
060fba4e7b489cf8f9cdc04c697eaa780d1874b1
1051977 F20101108_AACBDZ govindarajan_b_Page_040.jp2
bb9cad488d0b3214b390add42299a48a
0028441f6eba2c7572b82a962f4fe029666a2143
10541 F20101108_AACAYT govindarajan_b_Page_002.jpg
56ff849e348aad9dccafb51e0c747d51
718da2ad6b293fffaec2d9b66c02071a1a97cae1
313741 F20101108_AACBFC govindarajan_b_Page_072.jp2
4e95ba514eab1f24c1dbe6f24f8f9c71
6f2a849784e8c77a69ae9c5cc309855258b065b3
1051984 F20101108_AACBEO govindarajan_b_Page_057.jp2
4c2aabb22e9b098c3edf99d886246529
16ba343b38fc32f4bebc9341ab1410932fc5f23e
91535 F20101108_AACAZI govindarajan_b_Page_018.jpg
3a6a72a7244f14942583e63db7570ecd
11a11804746a657ccc11e9636cdfeca30232a3b7
12957 F20101108_AACAYU govindarajan_b_Page_003.jpg
336b527dcc1009fd18781a0eb52e4dd5
77c5b0d0411c51d38b87a8b0f61614a8cdc7aac4
332654 F20101108_AACBFD govindarajan_b_Page_073.jp2
df0808eb310d54ffd267ea6fdc8c8e3b
ff4f4a0fa570648fc7f81f269c81153344ac8aab
1051986 F20101108_AACBEP govindarajan_b_Page_058.jp2
440510b55f0d1558bc90d2ad3ffa5ca6
4715a91b59f6953c39d207ad4825a577ef8c7ab2
87812 F20101108_AACAZJ govindarajan_b_Page_019.jpg
501b452dc3e59a7040e9db6b10a422ee
f3a26575ad9c548e22f32960b3cb17724a3533ca
44726 F20101108_AACAYV govindarajan_b_Page_004.jpg
da74ffa6da620e603906a3c3d7d30644
3dc78a5c1aa7fb5bc36a5e5a4656394c65e91ebe
323780 F20101108_AACBFE govindarajan_b_Page_074.jp2
103d1a635b5c3ef103d43736d58dc8d8
00614b11ed2c80d8abb844ba379f8ee589a747f0
1051952 F20101108_AACBEQ govindarajan_b_Page_059.jp2
ff8452efc121f5724e7238907f051b35
f5186f0a3ed0fe42be97b52eb399e95fcd94bde1
84271 F20101108_AACAZK govindarajan_b_Page_020.jpg
403b6aeb502ee95b282e3b8812f79d2e
f5f7744a586afae3aca9d191614bfd304aa9b365
71312 F20101108_AACAYW govindarajan_b_Page_005.jpg
0d2096ede2112230bc1b9aaf1cf08132
99fd170f8d71c2064b3f9599ae3fa18a927eaa2f
417897 F20101108_AACBFF govindarajan_b_Page_075.jp2
a356351913f0020699b6e2b98b805adc
e8b2e8d812c53010025806428871e83ac73f0c9f
77040 F20101108_AACAZL govindarajan_b_Page_021.jpg
83714e394739a9f9de6451799559744a
2167d1db826521da01a8df1a9b00bd80b19c7a8b
58193 F20101108_AACAYX govindarajan_b_Page_006.jpg
e5f0f1d4467a053e734c44770522ab49
cab5ecd4bb175a89a1e3e90ce1f0df61bb0aac93
393012 F20101108_AACBFG govindarajan_b_Page_076.jp2
615ad3576723024852cfca3254e92f94
b5b25bba50e553b90b32d7f70cbbe11602857c6c
531156 F20101108_AACBER govindarajan_b_Page_060.jp2
f7d66eb17a6a7bb60aa57a171bb1f016
cf1ead9002fdff2e6f546e01ae0c8bf59b691660
85683 F20101108_AACAZM govindarajan_b_Page_023.jpg
2e16a1e53799f9ff8671f80cb7eac8d0
998725586f5418d56d1898330cf74a1e37c7d71f
103238 F20101108_AACAYY govindarajan_b_Page_007.jpg
e4936bf432088bb9ff43cdc6141be506
def8c8364b1911c9a88a8b87e6e5e2c44be5fb16
403026 F20101108_AACBFH govindarajan_b_Page_077.jp2
bbb5eeb02d266089a39aa5548ecbe652
ed83091534e347a664b0d77a6a9782b78ba8416e
371814 F20101108_AACBES govindarajan_b_Page_061.jp2
70a28fb0a15ded8424d978b58e49dd37
d9e21c2f13ed0dd105a86d409f1e38c21c708d29
80844 F20101108_AACAZN govindarajan_b_Page_024.jpg
668f112fbaeafb346f5da98237d494ad
ca18b4f3b123f65f7449812980514bcdf28cddc1
103247 F20101108_AACAYZ govindarajan_b_Page_008.jpg
8fab9557192fb0a42f3c68b31f8d970a
a71f8d7a2e5a6203d9160628d257c33ff3c590f5
1051966 F20101108_AACBFI govindarajan_b_Page_078.jp2
b63817bd19b335f90eb7ebdd9630000a
a242ead29d2491b71ebc4a38ee7152facad7ab50
905378 F20101108_AACBET govindarajan_b_Page_062.jp2
e3a42ba15707b05426b8a5a40bb31623
eb0ce7164da31f5d63935d034140fb4c2d587654
88459 F20101108_AACAZO govindarajan_b_Page_025.jpg
cc0efc9971866480c862420fe507cd1f
8bf1cd4ca91a21d7b45e1b033895b5416c03d747
1051956 F20101108_AACBFJ govindarajan_b_Page_080.jp2
cf1f88e6a7cd8d62d816fb9e65ff00cc
2c65e7d1218bab785222b055c144e70189c63f70
638948 F20101108_AACBEU govindarajan_b_Page_063.jp2
91146dd41e951736aed86a1958c436fd
7cea9b4188db3e3659ae57b6cb93db3165c1edc7
83157 F20101108_AACAZP govindarajan_b_Page_026.jpg
69f49292e9f2d26b874369356828bd6a
7342dac77d34939dc4598de01e8bbf682d605cb7
1051950 F20101108_AACBFK govindarajan_b_Page_081.jp2
f883574072facaa80e0911f04dc23517
dbed546aaf0171d4387ddc08ae368ee1bf05f74a
501289 F20101108_AACBEV govindarajan_b_Page_064.jp2
ee1e024a0bc149f40d2d24171266d9a3
fe26844224442cb7a227c219ec11e0d5d437bd11
87113 F20101108_AACAZQ govindarajan_b_Page_027.jpg
c6eaeb945354f9fe42944b34bce0c5db
7fb1e73f96591e59dec397f61fbe79fe30a6d5e7
1051969 F20101108_AACBFL govindarajan_b_Page_083.jp2
d7bc347bff50948e28f6ac72652d923b
7a61041e59d071a6b27e4948f792393489103f5b
451268 F20101108_AACBEW govindarajan_b_Page_065.jp2
93a810eff0ab133b97f9d4fbf1d9320a
a581057db7ecfd7c6b89c5452e66026716e2307b
94226 F20101108_AACAZR govindarajan_b_Page_028.jpg
23d8139eaf4f7cd4deed11920055bbdb
dccf965a5b63887d11e727943ab75d4248175371
F20101108_AACBGA govindarajan_b_Page_101.jp2
23c335d91ca58960e2d4ffd34f62d230
6d88c335567c6fc0f0424fd90197b7f25c1ed51d
1051961 F20101108_AACBFM govindarajan_b_Page_084.jp2
153c60305a9e34b132dbacb469cd8433
0f9ff9b00aedd6f364f068c9e193358691c8e90e
486129 F20101108_AACBEX govindarajan_b_Page_067.jp2
e700bca803a7f886b3a5f4ae7f5a2e0b
65c8a6f720b6871e5891edadc4be6a01ac6d26e3
27593 F20101108_AACAZS govindarajan_b_Page_029.jpg
b381272ea049b3807437faaff5126507
055f860e4fc59fa66af75a20449e4bffcfc7bc0f
F20101108_AACBGB govindarajan_b_Page_102.jp2
fdc80ec30341851a443049feab069aae
ac8028c6535da419c8a2fa43b9c00c9cc5829a3d
F20101108_AACBFN govindarajan_b_Page_085.jp2
a748e53bab7e8e31e83fb487768a25f3
ea30e7144d909716148a5b8bb49613c62dca3c7d
483741 F20101108_AACBEY govindarajan_b_Page_068.jp2
1df5f33047dee830ac55471409ced930
8f3148f75fba439a540c70412139837b620e9494
80967 F20101108_AACAZT govindarajan_b_Page_030.jpg
2fef967f70a8f653901dcea16567c781
071916b159037080f08bd9f24ce9991746c5520a
F20101108_AACBGC govindarajan_b_Page_103.jp2
f44f7476b84db43a15c583a04c8de8f7
e20452918001bb9ae496692a185066b881be3172
1051971 F20101108_AACBFO govindarajan_b_Page_086.jp2
bcf32b7715eeaa8ee4bee217af1a8b66
c99ea69fbb6c0de0e8148f04d685c79fb5908464
492711 F20101108_AACBEZ govindarajan_b_Page_069.jp2
6beb14e348cfe2fc39096b7ac75fc731
0cffa9ce039a068cc8158a081decd17ecad4b49b
88072 F20101108_AACAZU govindarajan_b_Page_031.jpg
c48811e6d44a53680849eba29d508792
028d96ec570ca67fffd1f01faca48a55be8fe0a3
357967 F20101108_AACBGD govindarajan_b_Page_104.jp2
07b3833a67162a5394e15f4b1c1f91e1
380d7a56ad2284d828075e77844c2bb59e2e4266
457256 F20101108_AACBFP govindarajan_b_Page_089.jp2
8f825042cdb17fb0b14c446e879126b5
996702304a52edf4e30543cf04810a465d23cab9
89081 F20101108_AACAZV govindarajan_b_Page_032.jpg
6236868714ba4c47a1b8137aca955cc3
113c8b6eb160d6817beabb16afb831070117c86e
1028237 F20101108_AACBGE govindarajan_b_Page_105.jp2
5a589a95e62ecb38f829e58b5af110ca
086b2ee29b7d2501df08758ec50ae674f8f0512a
836681 F20101108_AACBFQ govindarajan_b_Page_090.jp2
de24ea18e2994d416f1bff0409d0a015
7b642072968b26242c87b1cc8c017cf56db9caa2
79531 F20101108_AACAZW govindarajan_b_Page_033.jpg
58b5f53ea7ddaea985a07d3425dc433a
181b2b525798e3659da0fa7985f95d00134926d2
F20101108_AACBGF govindarajan_b_Page_001.tif
636a0d7ff8bbd5c16596468755d413be
bbc052ac3e62b5f277c882ec330f345022c0658f
F20101108_AACBFR govindarajan_b_Page_092.jp2
9c55714d601e16944c71a9a32aeec07d
570f7629a863787b30b40fff5687d7fcddd04960
87625 F20101108_AACAZX govindarajan_b_Page_034.jpg
3c9dc65d6bef3c0a397a1b94b4dbe74b
350a8338f4e35c9db32f5a41d72bfbc08b56088a
F20101108_AACBGG govindarajan_b_Page_002.tif
e7c8a3cab409d0ce9be1bc7d79edfb72
8a3a2d22c4964edfc6e120793fedf3302facb50b
86965 F20101108_AACAZY govindarajan_b_Page_035.jpg
bd74a55ece38ff0281b89c95a232a386
de06af9bb67672c064c4c19354f7ab214a388e18
F20101108_AACBGH govindarajan_b_Page_004.tif
c48d0fc9d142453a879cd80a2774cc90
fbf31d7756093e6ef4a7774f3f01a685f9fbc4fe
F20101108_AACBFS govindarajan_b_Page_093.jp2
6a151fcd71a3b5995e17ce05155ccd39
af7e0bf0287573191cb19e00dd19dfc97903c72e
84369 F20101108_AACAZZ govindarajan_b_Page_036.jpg
de1d51a28ba6fe3698625b1c52ffe0f0
3bada9a750f0add7c9d81a95dacc14938194d896
F20101108_AACBGI govindarajan_b_Page_005.tif
b5a99584ed1f168adee9342d6cdbd102
2fd446fd8fa3209c01e62a8660e500099507f29a
1051962 F20101108_AACBFT govindarajan_b_Page_094.jp2
6515f655e48db1e9d33a2023e221cf40
358186d29bb4ed8b240c231e539f73d39bffca7a
F20101108_AACBGJ govindarajan_b_Page_006.tif
e056a52e3983909521d36ccfcb88eccb
01840df94fca29696ea7106ac0095267e58f2aa4
112784 F20101108_AACBFU govindarajan_b_Page_095.jp2
af9c786112bb4ddbc9cb9cf42854634b
86afa2a9f4bf9cfbde0ef77474ac7822cabbaa49
F20101108_AACBGK govindarajan_b_Page_007.tif
152b2e8e6caa871a24540cf24059f1b8
60f87451257d76660c292fb7285c057edefa1839
1051980 F20101108_AACBFV govindarajan_b_Page_096.jp2
463e6d4af9c943276e7b6810dcbd341b
204b5bf8cb3024d99862c5f74803ae41bd706098
F20101108_AACBGL govindarajan_b_Page_008.tif
2a67e4ffe252ada3447b08b72dadd997
da71552401cf34af64a619518def919cf605aaa2
1051967 F20101108_AACBFW govindarajan_b_Page_097.jp2
dbc39292f42ba7de69bed0236c188172
4f0c7167a422f05c994029a5c760cda7127ea8d8
F20101108_AACBGM govindarajan_b_Page_009.tif
dc0355c666fec88445e5105f24954506
53a17df231baf28a1175a156cec5ddcda364a1ce
1051973 F20101108_AACBFX govindarajan_b_Page_098.jp2
0d4a69b7938af0bb079eba12349d10e7
68985570cd7597668ed3838237f81d10b864198f
F20101108_AACBHA govindarajan_b_Page_023.tif
7509666169fdd7bd42728ffe28d00058
6024d05e4d2a1ab8c5803ccd637c15dd26638d26
F20101108_AACBGN govindarajan_b_Page_010.tif
ea1002d788f4755ef8e339fe471c5c9f
e7462fb5db9bec2a644275ec0929c407e6d30fde
1051960 F20101108_AACBFY govindarajan_b_Page_099.jp2
cfec0e8df8768c663825a6451566ac96
173b7e8435940da70fc704e6c5a101568effc399
F20101108_AACBHB govindarajan_b_Page_024.tif
f1b1e8fd57c27bb012e0abfa1449fa76
a67193cf6f3e45eb51e0cf3ba4acca5d1db1a0c8
F20101108_AACBGO govindarajan_b_Page_011.tif
245d1eb188206d91bcaefcf92623a9d5
2c64b05d01ced915e89749e2b2c1f8c953074ecb
1051972 F20101108_AACBFZ govindarajan_b_Page_100.jp2
bd3a7c7d31f02f276625ba81fa70c6ad
0090b99e9bea59be9e82fc4fd5df98d006848e7e
F20101108_AACBHC govindarajan_b_Page_025.tif
26211e617f833262517b2c23d3eb454d
7c022b977af692726f1631ba02aff64c99919d7a
F20101108_AACBGP govindarajan_b_Page_012.tif
9a226b4d80b285428084ddb1c64d74e8
6f7a90c60c3a5765b4baea871b0186fdf64fb326
F20101108_AACBHD govindarajan_b_Page_026.tif
f4ef7ea904149b308f571271e22ac9d7
a57ebb7efc13a41dd8144e2914148e65ba1b14fc
F20101108_AACBGQ govindarajan_b_Page_013.tif
8f0986c3e66822e29a834a63ec37dff4
7054745460cb30a0896df93df71b63a917219e81
F20101108_AACBHE govindarajan_b_Page_028.tif
cdd6446f805eb023fec3e93547915df8
d5a84506df541ee03c0b926c47858f48db0e01b8
F20101108_AACBGR govindarajan_b_Page_014.tif
31ff32d97df0a3f7f4363e38098e6cde
eccab37b961ac1bc5953c296c296425321a92d6a
25265604 F20101108_AACBHF govindarajan_b_Page_029.tif
907bd718334a514270ae6f89c286b96a
d05cb9c270f2dd987c4c943045ee86f691c1df37
F20101108_AACBGS govindarajan_b_Page_015.tif
efe8dee5c47468554a08040232724c85
21d62352064da1ec53ed7aa10a46b17b28841248
F20101108_AACBHG govindarajan_b_Page_030.tif
3da960a04c2a965abe1f0927df83f643
2afd232276518999dc7ca86f60a0b69f5cb57c5d
F20101108_AACBHH govindarajan_b_Page_031.tif
219263ed752e6cc681b41e8c23c7002e
53c1a7ffca71aff7da279fe2938a83cba5e448a7
F20101108_AACBGT govindarajan_b_Page_016.tif
84b08dbc2e4b22c3686288aad573f35e
7cf939cf4cf28c17cd393f67122a94c9c140a3ce
F20101108_AACBHI govindarajan_b_Page_032.tif
0bc6f13ec735cdb7e88ba91f84d69ad5
153149af359bbceecdde477afb6a38257ff739e6
F20101108_AACBGU govindarajan_b_Page_017.tif
74c36cc333ceb1a24bbe0f0a5966fc59
e1cdabce93cfb6300a5fa038c467ec6089b16847
F20101108_AACBHJ govindarajan_b_Page_033.tif
d6e472d5472c20d13b1a7dc126dcc62b
92ee5173a0c8cd79ee2fe8640329509c14928013
F20101108_AACBGV govindarajan_b_Page_018.tif
d890f14ed36b47371a60b89eca17c1de
5ca4aea23d4ad8405d08a4e7fda25541a8a46f98
F20101108_AACBHK govindarajan_b_Page_034.tif
90b9deae1aaab0d6d411728732455846
bb4608225751b828ecce4e24ddc621fd5720c656
F20101108_AACBGW govindarajan_b_Page_019.tif
80686acb1e4a240ab9d529791c327853
f93b5d0eed9d49b9e1cde15dc3caf3d78691a8ad
F20101108_AACBHL govindarajan_b_Page_035.tif
04be2264911857837793c788fa4d9279
f593b5c58bb9938f90c4d60cffac45c91c0c0090
F20101108_AACBGX govindarajan_b_Page_020.tif
5ce21e4e011445fd8fe090c79d05e7ad
1b4c9cd93edc3fc6d595e877603d749797113e78
F20101108_AACBIA govindarajan_b_Page_050.tif
6b0c3528822189b1e0b94fef403e7b44
426718c1031eefc3af98903de6a7c86ff369a31b
F20101108_AACBHM govindarajan_b_Page_036.tif
43f14ab3e5b6794903d1deeb108ec696
ac27506f1c08d8a36d53267296d63449b1b53981
1053954 F20101108_AACBGY govindarajan_b_Page_021.tif
aa60f32429363380a1d8797f36b65703
9be800b24b34ef76af26a527943cb5126e4f3dca
F20101108_AACBIB govindarajan_b_Page_051.tif
50e2f436a78a2e71bfda927ca8ce503f
6012256c3a2e4dc7f2113a4180abea14941ef268
F20101108_AACBHN govindarajan_b_Page_037.tif
c0d562efcf1cf60a01ac7228d52bf28d
5555ebe24fd4700e264a4171f3e2ddf85b6530bf
F20101108_AACBGZ govindarajan_b_Page_022.tif
104aa9e8017d76967ed8db60a5d7a713
271f965608555c8e156f80939bb6abf561507c34
F20101108_AACBIC govindarajan_b_Page_052.tif
3008db1378f796cc8e1ae2376b3e7858
47240ff514c7c3bff6962bbe3877bfe0ec1b152d
F20101108_AACBHO govindarajan_b_Page_038.tif
edb8a31633a4535d2358e8cdab5abae9
82bb14aea349e21fc66c6352de060f7ae77a329a
F20101108_AACBID govindarajan_b_Page_054.tif
bfb96489dde462fcd229f356442de7a0
309df2b3338f00239b54435a674afa4c5f631f61
F20101108_AACBHP govindarajan_b_Page_039.tif
c97218dc30df98da94e50c3e52ee453f
d5e7585d0c582fe7f27c270d4d0dca9eb783d809
F20101108_AACBIE govindarajan_b_Page_055.tif
5138d38916b76ebd787a0cc4b7d83429
876556f0a862a04a65ef555d0c5d001dc3e6e2f8
F20101108_AACBHQ govindarajan_b_Page_040.tif
5ff3646f387fac8c8538a0426404ec04
a42382e7a3157f8167006a27386cb5011a1bc6f0
F20101108_AACBIF govindarajan_b_Page_056.tif
7bc4eeb7cad4f9851b08fff5e5adf2e8
c58db2ff9c2b3608e500f0a9cc649bc6c7cdfb7b
8423998 F20101108_AACBHR govindarajan_b_Page_041.tif
d3f533ce3a735c8de2fb05febe24caff
1f7f06073548d2771ef883e5b1af87dcd2e6064c
F20101108_AACBIG govindarajan_b_Page_057.tif
dbf08809f78caa5c932ea98450007d5a
bc41bdbfbe25ec34b0503eec3ecdc7cbbe68ce98
F20101108_AACBHS govindarajan_b_Page_042.tif
bbaca8c00170278d2d9fc39598e140de
1cac871ad0ffdfc6ed91694fb327150539cbc273
F20101108_AACBIH govindarajan_b_Page_060.tif
2baec9016fa92a9785ae78c7fa8bece2
d90bedd38c905dfd5c03f90945ba8325cf943ffd
F20101108_AACBHT govindarajan_b_Page_043.tif
937bca281d8e3594f24a2820a8735602
f76dab3f3dedc7ef062ae6c6259a765b4927ec3e
F20101108_AACBII govindarajan_b_Page_061.tif
6b9a539a8ceedc417e12a46245f009f3
238e7efdef2045c9e048d9c51e3fcdd5a9ff6627
F20101108_AACBIJ govindarajan_b_Page_062.tif
264eaad882a124a98d3fb3bb7a2b1ac1
bebef82db3837af66fde18bee4f464826b7aa6ea
F20101108_AACBHU govindarajan_b_Page_044.tif
9362cb2743dce783849f81362ec4386d
dc4828a8a68111c8c463f428610843cc9db13a46
F20101108_AACBIK govindarajan_b_Page_063.tif
e388611090e528a56e0db15d3d9cb760
644da2fd5c6583d22b03d31e7d4e9ff626019760
F20101108_AACBHV govindarajan_b_Page_045.tif
e3092b5109f6fa1b7ec86743c3f67043
4425e76d6219dba12e4d172127d6cc20a697891d
F20101108_AACBIL govindarajan_b_Page_064.tif
15dc9cf3bd1a7abf1d354ba26376d5e0
66a37b4301db7921f41b8fc5fd9631560ddea1fb
F20101108_AACBHW govindarajan_b_Page_046.tif
d50de66d60d7ec7e2ac67ae0e4d3cab9
bfc936a5169a935dbc771ae0a8ceba60e59ddef3
F20101108_AACBJA govindarajan_b_Page_079.tif
f5ced22c6711ffe09e1b2d8c5765e099
6489565f321d73c5814cda5b632c3d4f65810e23
F20101108_AACBIM govindarajan_b_Page_065.tif
9fee2849148762be249a76baee14afea
b0162e1f45e9a7cf6e0081b425f0a0021382aaa5
F20101108_AACBHX govindarajan_b_Page_047.tif
de4c3aed7956015bda4e6968701384a8
2b4207f37f7d676fbd4d4eb59c3736f347b127f2
F20101108_AACBJB govindarajan_b_Page_081.tif
c71c77cc80c7ab1d31e6459d07e4adc4
689f4dd5e65d3245cb20ed640fb3cba3fecd6d0c
F20101108_AACBIN govindarajan_b_Page_066.tif
ea9febe94b3728c6af24152386957c6e
f91ebdb2835923382bc1509e62d70837774b2167
F20101108_AACBHY govindarajan_b_Page_048.tif
394ac63df981702e2902605cc605753b
82cf3818ed5e04f2c005e55ffd0b3af9a767ee91
F20101108_AACBJC govindarajan_b_Page_082.tif
e87b9b17e56ee8aad3d335cfc12b2080
1533fb14deefaee9599ae8925e0205c277170d10
F20101108_AACBIO govindarajan_b_Page_067.tif
525e62202382a74f3e1d466786818f20
a503ba8324ce3db364e9017326a7bec17366ba0a
F20101108_AACBHZ govindarajan_b_Page_049.tif
25fed43b5d41ff33a2468d8a523c6577
9df189f2382156af804f00eecf6d8aa2541b2aa1
F20101108_AACBIP govindarajan_b_Page_068.tif
11f675f4a29258b26ef5f8308ab68af6
26ca3cfdd1048554d6d9ec32abce7d8e8fb1fe1d
F20101108_AACBJD govindarajan_b_Page_083.tif
70239458a4f789d2a723a58ba6178779
bc3370a127c54445850001da67733c1d57443e08
F20101108_AACBIQ govindarajan_b_Page_069.tif
9346b0d14b9301052efdc6a803b47d3d
7c5fe2f7a9e005892b4b601f404664de27e4c6f9
F20101108_AACBJE govindarajan_b_Page_084.tif
7cc18d6d7af1ef74f2c0aa682fe9e451
0aae6421a4819be115efa5ac0b245e2ab2f0b02a
F20101108_AACBIR govindarajan_b_Page_070.tif
9ccd2ea441fd3e98328cd86547cc10d7
a5278529a32008d4d974eddbcb4ad0e9c07f320e
F20101108_AACBJF govindarajan_b_Page_085.tif
236b9354157c205c0cdf222d22fd02c9
e9500d0988db37704a29c13c1ac2925eb99fc338
F20101108_AACBIS govindarajan_b_Page_071.tif
2f02d5146baa43823b80b5d9764b4c4f
d5e9039e5d0e40ced5c7a9172d599e6544c85619
F20101108_AACBJG govindarajan_b_Page_086.tif
d0a8e55b8ad7194a4a75874c3faf8c02
7f11c3c1b40feb2258e3fb37c45fae9989f1c9e6
F20101108_AACBIT govindarajan_b_Page_072.tif
184174890f3965b977e4f81108ebcae2
2346fbeced2c7fabf6d6a4e2b84bcadd3406f8fa
F20101108_AACBJH govindarajan_b_Page_087.tif
feeeae8c5dc3ddcd9c200f6e2c4bd289
fdb3d1b0ad0bd3063ef1d455ab6fea0abbe0a960
F20101108_AACBIU govindarajan_b_Page_073.tif
c0d28634b84ef3d13b62148abe380cb6
d1b745d9f6b0ed96aafa2823f08a1b39b5992271
F20101108_AACBJI govindarajan_b_Page_088.tif
6f60e44f65b59c2dd8726f46a5efbaa9
85308b24df1e91808dcd85425767e4204facff26
8425398 F20101108_AACBJJ govindarajan_b_Page_089.tif
a815c4b71b99d3a6deb05744e0c1948d
b84d72fdccb28fbdabd01e107522322019266be9
F20101108_AACBIV govindarajan_b_Page_074.tif
d9b9e20238e2702d4cc36002e6864e80
efc9ed72e8b889a1cdf0b6f4146076c5c02fe73e
F20101108_AACBJK govindarajan_b_Page_090.tif
da9e299f1f68c9a8fef5a1efa80f1e9f
b7f1e10fcc9221e710b1c0bd92541832517ac853
F20101108_AACBIW govindarajan_b_Page_075.tif
5f612daf5ad85c0d97412c554988bf32
2354f2590d51244c03f948f84083b5bf9562b085
F20101108_AACBJL govindarajan_b_Page_091.tif
2e866e3606d3c5e255405cf297cb683b
cb871732643008e05ff63480cdfa5c8ab2a49cc6
F20101108_AACBIX govindarajan_b_Page_076.tif
e4fbbfbf74240cc7625570ad73ac5b03
b3003129be0178ca3339b01ba34d998f267b9b9f
1122 F20101108_AACBKA govindarajan_b_Page_002.pro
4e7c0ce562e539f489b42fee536ed7c7
dd925207213aea9119b133e15cfa996d9e2b715c
F20101108_AACBJM govindarajan_b_Page_092.tif
f186b39cb041a9848e2320f655bd8838
66621cd9a2a2a19c5060025e9ffe9f31e3840ce2
F20101108_AACBIY govindarajan_b_Page_077.tif
e4db58b97ae5052b06eb1dd49bbc13b7
b8e8dec4b01d0bd9baf5038f38fe5c45acb0de1c
3232 F20101108_AACBKB govindarajan_b_Page_003.pro
9e81c7a61175a03d3bde5d4054c1ea68
af9a2684b87b88c2e1cc370ee748995ac3a66c48
F20101108_AACBJN govindarajan_b_Page_093.tif
6e2a61c2b2bd9d10b26beb1524271534
e9cff34b7f7e7508958337c662807e0cf38bf7cb
F20101108_AACBIZ govindarajan_b_Page_078.tif
558525be9049065e369ea4805313644d
fd790a5c3f08b39b7c463c9112b9664f0379fb72
58772 F20101108_AACBKC govindarajan_b_Page_005.pro
4211a47a76aaf81731434a2e06debe18
5489af5159c5366a41b2b560dda362e1c225454c
F20101108_AACBJO govindarajan_b_Page_094.tif
c2a9e75d7094becec654e5df01eb7885
f07e1f1609c18fae3f9a27ff1edd4405df87d53c
36871 F20101108_AACBKD govindarajan_b_Page_006.pro
f0a7bb209e226960a5b59deb88bae87f
75ad8f9165b3bfa601f30fa05e191f372e265c8e
F20101108_AACBJP govindarajan_b_Page_095.tif
24294cb4dd1d3573922385a061e81ebb
dd130410d9375c7bb2229e7094a2eead9da05101
71237 F20101108_AACBKE govindarajan_b_Page_007.pro
7c1db4cbace6091c981bbc7a35d2511c
16f4c327757f37863f4ab86a34f5f733976e91d1
F20101108_AACBJQ govindarajan_b_Page_096.tif
b95c7b0fbdb8f8f4c9a368484cdbd35c
2c50e600c48977d1b0e6e5cbb714ef11f22f3238
68661 F20101108_AACBKF govindarajan_b_Page_008.pro
8139bc4066536a3bad007e853ebc2055
b9c9302c01f5d03c224565751ed4f89faddd6c0f
F20101108_AACBJR govindarajan_b_Page_097.tif
345ddd42bcfa99feefb5febca521f333
4e741c93eba9ecac4d865856fd190e63a96c3e14
48738 F20101108_AACBKG govindarajan_b_Page_009.pro
b88d1ea4bbe02cf291789b4d8b8ca6f7
7a1a410012b52349bb1e828a4a2e605c43928f53
F20101108_AACBJS govindarajan_b_Page_098.tif
d90c8a90132401ea0c9da5b7dc239f65
c35e1d66ba65998de050a45eb6f55f2c916888c1
31348 F20101108_AACBKH govindarajan_b_Page_010.pro
bf8c36c2fe0ea53efb88c9c5001cd61d
2abbcc9d4f81ce55d0302494af4fc94dcbc974c7
F20101108_AACBJT govindarajan_b_Page_099.tif
eef81c510bd38c9b184cc236d0f46c13
6275cf29b424671448b576d27208512e90b0cc6e
50397 F20101108_AACBKI govindarajan_b_Page_011.pro
6398c12e2a355ca6f329dc9dbc5a4646
fe8030f03a06c29a0d643c08241841fd7db98296
F20101108_AACBJU govindarajan_b_Page_100.tif
be70d7c2c98ab970761aae87bbca3415
ce6072c6afba9756bd11add07662449a42d08b79
52473 F20101108_AACBKJ govindarajan_b_Page_012.pro
4c5cfd2ce28e80521c7aabcc2c6213fb
260e176ad555755d95321b3077c499cd210fc1de
F20101108_AACBJV govindarajan_b_Page_101.tif
b513f0764cef925cd2add329d0a94696
3d6a997ac803d3b60c41d0be648ad49c9b839bfb
56311 F20101108_AACBKK govindarajan_b_Page_013.pro
e039c867f60ba62fdac26773d27fe536
6ea4dcbd4eb37bcc85d4adfb82d442392e2c59e1
55011 F20101108_AACBKL govindarajan_b_Page_014.pro
8dda5915d5b49700af45d208b5ba9f23
ac0bf14fdd7f3960160a189bff7be568af56cf65
F20101108_AACBJW govindarajan_b_Page_102.tif
ce7844fb8e13408d7d4712e35da61b83
1a654287c2fd9d171f76edfeeea4e519fdc55301
4389 F20101108_AACBLA govindarajan_b_Page_029.pro
7f896b10d940928541828bb2088b514d
9070ff4d598f795532bd008cd423cd9136e452c2
51207 F20101108_AACBKM govindarajan_b_Page_015.pro
ffc386c88e9c06841ce07b2686c98d1d
b3d5b57b9122dbcf69dc22e22195070c6e23fc11
F20101108_AACBJX govindarajan_b_Page_103.tif
41cdd605afc3f48cb74a62406d81e890
85f84dd165d6f968fc95bb61082df94df38c8f69
50304 F20101108_AACBLB govindarajan_b_Page_030.pro
42d614615a91c77c133fd70006b57f19
062d04d78eb061f8110490a89e32d464db4a5d8e
58404 F20101108_AACBKN govindarajan_b_Page_016.pro
cea2a276823501511a2d122b281ff1cf
61978298b7fb167f7b6517e3ea81a530c42e48b3
F20101108_AACBJY govindarajan_b_Page_105.tif
0d66dc62b8a9f766cc3ecc31b99fd5d7
246cc183a8fc0b4739d4f7626ca386d329fcdfae
57121 F20101108_AACBLC govindarajan_b_Page_031.pro
5f8f34a474beca6e1ec42db4c33a70db
2aee91ae146351094e71cd5165de4cc847659534
54695 F20101108_AACBKO govindarajan_b_Page_017.pro
4bb6f4c3b6dcd4975f9ecb2ebb76e518
05062c6da626826dbdac7260725085ea26a3f15b
8834 F20101108_AACBJZ govindarajan_b_Page_001.pro
de6fc790bb12069e86319a279c6d4e9b
ab68ce811b95d150c38829e84f60864750951f3b
57804 F20101108_AACBLD govindarajan_b_Page_032.pro
a9cfc2d95d0bee18c29068b3df64e95c
227fcf4374eb82b86297499cdbda2f4ba42f336d
56633 F20101108_AACBKP govindarajan_b_Page_018.pro
d217e9b72b169c9ddb6274f496a0daa6
6f28a4c34a99bbd7f9e1bb54787f9e1b9f51b07b
50646 F20101108_AACBLE govindarajan_b_Page_033.pro
a5340ed1049ebb1796b860bf55e5344b
f0feaac2da86f1e8e2a9abb69a92e27611d8f06c
56654 F20101108_AACBKQ govindarajan_b_Page_019.pro
41c6302a7d55f483a2dbb102d399e5a2
95ebb2b48c6bb8f5c982c37cb7467dbede7aeaab
55890 F20101108_AACBLF govindarajan_b_Page_034.pro
91ed4c87661b77aa1e4d0bae100bd1cc
cbf09fad85820bafd1f3fb6d3f9cafe03b6f382b
53669 F20101108_AACBKR govindarajan_b_Page_020.pro
3d3b95072f2063193b45a44bd1abb201
9253aa7ea43a85e6c7be94a62b071266ae1fee1f
54577 F20101108_AACBLG govindarajan_b_Page_035.pro
c279177656afb371af0dd15198e3b538
c9191ffcce1c2999d9a4e60ab2e5b87e24d5f414
54193 F20101108_AACBKS govindarajan_b_Page_021.pro
b019fb3a6b2a3ef2d03901d628ff5670
fc99660228ecee5b5a11468df5908d6bf9ddccaf
52156 F20101108_AACBLH govindarajan_b_Page_036.pro
678fe75761305c492f48e744f8bf02cf
53ce18480abb6afe2476a9a42083bf2bc3c48755
56577 F20101108_AACBKT govindarajan_b_Page_022.pro
ea8e5cc5bcfd8f27a2bf27c2236fe133
c1f7dc4a7d7b26fc70b56bc30afd1b168e9d3a4a
46381 F20101108_AACBLI govindarajan_b_Page_037.pro
be58faeb74173c85e7c1d62f878df1bd
23c4d4720cf3b8d550125a0b331b2410961e7599
54427 F20101108_AACBKU govindarajan_b_Page_023.pro
9152fc7bfa71e3de93a90fe9829649a1
1756a28e8f9875bcb67a4a3d86e9c655b39a666f
52209 F20101108_AACBLJ govindarajan_b_Page_038.pro
a8f15d7cd5b2055f249cbc37f1ad651a
ee54a3259c4da4e958d4fba2e2cf57da914f7ee0
50614 F20101108_AACBKV govindarajan_b_Page_024.pro
75060db1e898ca707087ec1672a7244c
afd911546b275c3ae629cd753a5767eef4b0813c
53293 F20101108_AACBLK govindarajan_b_Page_040.pro
25867b2a85452a232806e43b805a78f4
41f3732c748edb4c2f49deb5e1b73eaa7388791b
56277 F20101108_AACBKW govindarajan_b_Page_025.pro
ecd1cdd2789903746dc4d468b372b2d6
26055ececa218086d96a9c94906397d61764d414
6558 F20101108_AACBLL govindarajan_b_Page_041.pro
4a4f35b83a55e16012a9b259c70da2ce
19f07694dba329f7f4263c4587a9e723d9a14474
2914 F20101108_AACBLM govindarajan_b_Page_042.pro
a497d9f94bd5d3a3779c37a96ccb7ec1
bbd347a61df5caa416cacb7cf29260172e745552
52641 F20101108_AACBKX govindarajan_b_Page_026.pro
94cc577ed2f4de9f44478066ddaa9851
f2f552977fa2d224d150bad91b9c1a0a05046115
54157 F20101108_AACBMA govindarajan_b_Page_056.pro
b4199de88a8bb8da8b750f29f6a9c972
82f2baadeab212e65484c4452e591758d1e5558f
7571 F20101108_AACBLN govindarajan_b_Page_043.pro
ce5bc9a26eace199897f785f51726c4b
98a4e32fd41a7d68e259f40116a9e889bae1c3a9
55409 F20101108_AACBKY govindarajan_b_Page_027.pro
155431837ba64ce814fd1d445b1e0c58
27d66fb6f91c6853d8a8f4083c25b553b8598d18
53136 F20101108_AACBMB govindarajan_b_Page_057.pro
85223ae54fb8437860cf74ec5522dfa2
ce0fd2145b59155f208b3b8d5a29307214c950f3
1772 F20101108_AACBLO govindarajan_b_Page_044.pro
67f19c76ce42667968068ee4e8a674d0
2cc4b432a73305ee579bfaf00b4f61e8090d8953
61767 F20101108_AACBKZ govindarajan_b_Page_028.pro
09ca7ce0278ddf6d10f82ae5143f81a5
981f32c6373f4a6d2f218d11db65761d5edabe0e
53502 F20101108_AACBMC govindarajan_b_Page_058.pro
9c5c4569f7d72f0ec67b4ec5307a6615
21904261c09ba5a84fafa86e4c0b66e1b676ea2b
7389 F20101108_AACBLP govindarajan_b_Page_045.pro
7ea20696f12427d0d17d10e79084b280
a2f2aa9478fb241cf4456c63925bd110416c9431
50796 F20101108_AACBMD govindarajan_b_Page_059.pro
588ddbacf6f490e4aa5406e59dfb8987
aaaaa3d67eb10bd72b66dbedc8ddb2e301179cf8
1434 F20101108_AACBLQ govindarajan_b_Page_046.pro
e3dd995112946b90b42ab4adc9261675
8e4e47456a379affa1b9b6598f0cebd2a414afc4
23301 F20101108_AACBME govindarajan_b_Page_060.pro
13d4000f4ba33478b21d83870abbda2d
b6249ced0ddf7df6a15d1a1fbc4691f3e67d10cc
1921 F20101108_AACBLR govindarajan_b_Page_047.pro
9a1e318dd3b75855d9830f4b1d98cc24
e32020ee280d6f624b8855c387b3fb4056b1d00b
16202 F20101108_AACBMF govindarajan_b_Page_061.pro
b78331b7d0086182c4fe5535b597b736
0813611b473744b45361570b3e69936f88fea894
6263 F20101108_AACBLS govindarajan_b_Page_048.pro
9062d0901490ef2ab909f3cd03f9130a
325696c572e99e85dc8dd10c42851bd0cd44790d
41551 F20101108_AACBMG govindarajan_b_Page_062.pro
f7290a021676f2cff723dd4f19ffd689
54fdbcbf61d732fde38e0e5cda8e5173041082e0
9926 F20101108_AACBLT govindarajan_b_Page_049.pro
02e1e2957808e294ad90a8b0515707a8
6eba7558b3ee5d5eb1d59f278d85c2ae1727ac4f
27770 F20101108_AACBMH govindarajan_b_Page_063.pro
11e72ee95ed79cea70f59246d26f0d8c
ecf2827f8d7b6bf62a530b8eda20c93a5a208165
5050 F20101108_AACBLU govindarajan_b_Page_050.pro
12dfedbdbae793c9f4284c1dba794088
85c64ff55fd3928b167e46eff8852af0bb8910d2
21821 F20101108_AACBMI govindarajan_b_Page_064.pro
ed6e23908e3e457325d934f674ee900f
35077eaf9e4b5017b62a15409886429400f99f44
54200 F20101108_AACBLV govindarajan_b_Page_051.pro
1c09bc8e7163fd161d34742f4dc86f50
df2880f5058aa07ef7bfe98fc9c0b7fc1df7dfec
12499 F20101108_AACBMJ govindarajan_b_Page_065.pro
5dfe049703678b9374f12d59719c474e
8b84ab73bc25a707f3e0acfaf58cd4e515924005
52501 F20101108_AACBLW govindarajan_b_Page_052.pro
69deb6327c7fdffa654e1b12750d15e0
a5ad9dd9470613de3fea86674aa17bdf4cbc9d43
9807 F20101108_AACBMK govindarajan_b_Page_066.pro
9eed5b78d995b4fbda5cd7f70c8a6c3c
fe5aa0bab0d8ae376b51998874f16be6f5263e93
52147 F20101108_AACBLX govindarajan_b_Page_053.pro
4c7a39eddc5cf64b4adaa05bf70d4dc1
0bb0551f7dfbd12d62a8ac2958c3dd26aa7ce3f7
18597 F20101108_AACBML govindarajan_b_Page_067.pro
e1c521ae6f6116bcfe568609a96292a4
3bb44bb2cc1b027782c28b355454a779b5a813c8
53500 F20101108_AACBNA govindarajan_b_Page_083.pro
8e5cc59ceef92c5b933c339454ac516e
0f31242f7150e17478e88243f8152f25ba45cd1e
20862 F20101108_AACBMM govindarajan_b_Page_068.pro
2d36899fb7ba0fe1cbf02328fe31528a
e5e0b887ab191e30801a6a63266d12829f0f1eb0
52186 F20101108_AACBLY govindarajan_b_Page_054.pro
f32e72bbbdc0fc09c9cafb503b2b9153
f6ea819703fff802cd5559431b2659d9e3d4bed7
53526 F20101108_AACBNB govindarajan_b_Page_084.pro
5006d85e10ef2e7b40471f67143ec512
2d3caee2e02fde1fdea19b12535faa42fd985c07
19174 F20101108_AACBMN govindarajan_b_Page_069.pro
3a9669a659fbf043dd4ca63656e259db
67afa30c869012c30482824c4008670861b50d17
50950 F20101108_AACBLZ govindarajan_b_Page_055.pro
4bb227cbce9235f780cd84f12ccfafb7
dc756e15d0d35fd2629a2b7367200a85cbfb1a08
56164 F20101108_AACBNC govindarajan_b_Page_085.pro
1fa4b50aa3034e1b0db66c672ec3629e
98d909b8a237a29111cc386c3b3c8bd94f2796f5
18707 F20101108_AACBMO govindarajan_b_Page_070.pro
90c310ca95456d4a79383ef5f0088eca
7a688d3f4c4fbf3379743d6c1c83e4ab52956e73
53858 F20101108_AACBND govindarajan_b_Page_086.pro
1f927409770065cad8047114c3c02473
72301cc14150ce0611cf42b3e248fffd771cb5f6
7535 F20101108_AACBMP govindarajan_b_Page_071.pro
6c2650f85a04ee47771fa74d37a5e1d9
74ba218d73008ec31ea9b5f52f27ff3817dfa8b0
15016 F20101108_AACBNE govindarajan_b_Page_088.pro
b429927f797e616868da63db45a4b17e
c68771f75225e84ac86b02a8cd646a8ceca0555e
7506 F20101108_AACBMQ govindarajan_b_Page_072.pro
d85fc1fb02884fe6516263c6401bae88
2c2b4c412d662278e5f56d501de0e077184c8190
23168 F20101108_AACBNF govindarajan_b_Page_089.pro
4b3b73cc341bed8cb69dff8494aedaf8
6b7eda53aeaf3bc54d2136cb4c847fc5f6ec1156
9176 F20101108_AACBMR govindarajan_b_Page_073.pro
9a87884095450305c7185ab074efb3b8
f73f24d3315a9c5d75060170d91fd8068cb04bd6
42456 F20101108_AACBNG govindarajan_b_Page_090.pro
9e51218363cbbe9fdd57c775db278a9c
0f13dd39ef390bea8201c80fa222128a86dc6dbd
15578 F20101108_AACBMS govindarajan_b_Page_075.pro
5787d7c78f55323bd4746aca48c4915f
966f646121abf0dde310cd719c3b6c8baa2d312d
51677 F20101108_AACBNH govindarajan_b_Page_091.pro
7cd2967292e4180836ecc3eeca49eb36
7a3eb40c9cb3b5f9ec063b40f19f097761fc4066
11096 F20101108_AACBMT govindarajan_b_Page_076.pro
640b18b8fe88085ab27783ecd757e6ee
b7d6db4e81bfba27c1918012a0611927d2679e9e
53499 F20101108_AACBNI govindarajan_b_Page_092.pro
6b40d473c6fa7fd17cee87f9af9bef46
6ac07adc2909815d9145ffe52dcb81bc97e00b17
13807 F20101108_AACBMU govindarajan_b_Page_077.pro
e5daf4ecdb5bccc16959887aecd22df2
c41917f04522f58e1f13739d4151e6b5961bfffa
57476 F20101108_AACBNJ govindarajan_b_Page_093.pro
636e55ab745985ea03dd0ccb8bd90daf
03846e7e295e33d141aa12a5399004178c60c6fa
48473 F20101108_AACBMV govindarajan_b_Page_078.pro
f673361e532fa465207155c3352bd1a8
3dfc8ce58b5d82c5fc9ee5ae773ff28dc2d34d26
53372 F20101108_AACBNK govindarajan_b_Page_094.pro
8bf1bd63cae2812ca80f9696b09809d8
6972fff2718324e293530cb382b6283680344b7b
55226 F20101108_AACBMW govindarajan_b_Page_079.pro
98e9e99967bb222a28397246294a7fd3
2e92881b190ce44350af0d1ff1232fd93ca34802
4776 F20101108_AACBNL govindarajan_b_Page_095.pro
ce524ecfab485e8c852a3dc6dc2f2e07
343111874e231d619c8255cb2d790fb647aa4e84
54964 F20101108_AACBMX govindarajan_b_Page_080.pro
14e6d2784c115af71bac82fe65001197
ee84f9c7682e9ecd24a9bace4cefb3c3349755a9
63792 F20101108_AACBNM govindarajan_b_Page_096.pro
a39e343d7fb223d414405ea7a1f4fa44
1c5e35ffcf2da73cf9328e2d98e600ed7d2e4198
54425 F20101108_AACBMY govindarajan_b_Page_081.pro
d11b53bf3956f3e30598e3b90869b9f3
85a5cb109f7270ae54c9c92c184815374920d20a
2574 F20101108_AACBOA govindarajan_b_Page_005.txt
313e8abde4e63d47d4cbe19752042d6f
16097af7da1e755a5d7f68ec1961f33efb499748
64685 F20101108_AACBNN govindarajan_b_Page_097.pro
b5e6b09686ef4b79938bf29ff37d576e
09ca6d1ab2cfe3f7805e54c2314c3d587318d7d2
1560 F20101108_AACBOB govindarajan_b_Page_006.txt
5c4f17549c3f831688c95ca8c6a914ad
423e98f72d826329073790d8466011ee0ee9b1f0
63856 F20101108_AACBNO govindarajan_b_Page_098.pro
0a0749da8552577b35d80234d1f6442c
bd68880a90042c3ed8cc5872682e8c41f2875254
55322 F20101108_AACBMZ govindarajan_b_Page_082.pro
078efe70a42fb363828cf01f7bef744f
a5cee067d60837fc4b5b2cfff26304eae9ed6af3
2937 F20101108_AACBOC govindarajan_b_Page_007.txt
0d0a873feca0fbc2367ac7f3676ad741
f85902422e6267e32cc15ed3720332879c8e9247
65533 F20101108_AACBNP govindarajan_b_Page_099.pro
e2d9794369bab08c8d7916423fabe938
872aa5eda3f15526015d68b1a8b40ccde10a976b
2867 F20101108_AACBOD govindarajan_b_Page_008.txt
54f7aa8474af2ece2f167b9683dba936
09499618dff070839c704d384f11489b8445aadd
64169 F20101108_AACBNQ govindarajan_b_Page_100.pro
fa5c88093d0ed62a08fb6039440a5046
b81806f6a2339e20814cd73f8752a8d326c0a0a1
2106 F20101108_AACBOE govindarajan_b_Page_009.txt
eacc1ff4b329ae575daeb84842ebd72e
ca6e5b7336a4e7821351835c977bcdc462ddf6d0
63072 F20101108_AACBNR govindarajan_b_Page_101.pro
cd4418ec00fb572a832abd52bb838154
4797ef25025bc7327aa7103a67266dfbeac80ded
1241 F20101108_AACBOF govindarajan_b_Page_010.txt
efeede31100551ed625366a776f295fd
780fea913607318e1c4eeb32bc5d262384adf6b2
70748 F20101108_AACBNS govindarajan_b_Page_102.pro
95890698a1b2cbae833db25213fbac39
84ec211f276fe2e77cc22fddf6c8c85e0f91fbee
2100 F20101108_AACBOG govindarajan_b_Page_011.txt
ec611ad3e88d03bf7e2bdf22e5d7fd92
45817db60c3adeb3c654ccfaa2e374ae167e7c53
58095 F20101108_AACBNT govindarajan_b_Page_103.pro
7c84943b89ceb716050ca77b98158737
117a071b8dac8fc7af4fa7ccc050413d62517173
2091 F20101108_AACBOH govindarajan_b_Page_012.txt
5f94f86aa403533889ea0136f6436179
7c57ea2b5f1a497544111295ed47f9487121cde2
15983 F20101108_AACBNU govindarajan_b_Page_104.pro
a3f547fa0125185465d149f54b97ec18
e127899765863abe9535b3a29e5bd41c6fc26696
2239 F20101108_AACBOI govindarajan_b_Page_013.txt
7c0d650a2d045804ec30e919407df05a
32ccb5ec1c249b55c27af553ba3a2f2497db1aca
45377 F20101108_AACBNV govindarajan_b_Page_105.pro
24b5eb77038a657680e70088ce441e12
7ca3b58057b2c43fd48c239dd4b3c4d8c7a876b2
2164 F20101108_AACBOJ govindarajan_b_Page_014.txt
f82858493afc2c3b565c7aa4dcf3a3be
91203a0b7779da2da9230f6ca456af9013adfa51
495 F20101108_AACBNW govindarajan_b_Page_001.txt
02d2e86bad68a4782e47b749e1ae0dcc
07b4079b42270958c25ed1b4f326141f8743a471
2019 F20101108_AACBOK govindarajan_b_Page_015.txt
7992cc3e6f890bfbf142ee2e14fed9ae
4a877c184411e5eb6b78c2ab3677de85f41c1e97
99 F20101108_AACBNX govindarajan_b_Page_002.txt
3e9acffa98ccba1b87e63f52d25a0f3f
ae869f5c17f3895e982492039a03d4ea9fb37731
2277 F20101108_AACBOL govindarajan_b_Page_016.txt
dc77e955f8b30b87817129e815afb276
7a86e5d2c82d3ccdf270cb46106fa3ea4939879b
209 F20101108_AACBNY govindarajan_b_Page_003.txt
2b740f1b1cf587597d10f4fdc7b0ec4f
c8dbfbee4b0c67962abaf5c2d7784d9e13f6ef5b
2187 F20101108_AACBPA govindarajan_b_Page_034.txt
4c365757e199aa37117d601c836b3c20
4273f32da2e1428092c0163a1228ea9ca45a0238
2230 F20101108_AACBOM govindarajan_b_Page_018.txt
020eb5f72b58cf287b78ec0a3dfef5be
4fa0356b51a9ef1f0d704e3021fbd5ca828801ad
1025 F20101108_AACBNZ govindarajan_b_Page_004.txt
9afca5857e71d14816a41a194b6b28c7
60cdaa1afe6ce03474eb7558539390bb0407d25f
2141 F20101108_AACBPB govindarajan_b_Page_035.txt
10d887e23357e713c3884a16615b9a5c
b101807ada66ca4007fe16bfb429013e4e7a416c
2222 F20101108_AACBON govindarajan_b_Page_019.txt
de321295e02066b9f8cddb48ee768918
a7686412b7ff317e991ab20b3d9f074178d13907
2084 F20101108_AACBPC govindarajan_b_Page_036.txt
d43fe7eddbf47c2a54ffcb7ef5345e7b
87d35a12c5c302d05170e890ee2b9c3c4f0252af
2140 F20101108_AACBOO govindarajan_b_Page_020.txt
b135b662e6689ae801f6d873812942e9
b1cf6b132270cad53133c51ec91d337b9cca6dcb
1876 F20101108_AACBPD govindarajan_b_Page_037.txt
ccaf2fe981133bc61809a64c4db598be
99c292505c058daa5cc1171323f98aeaaa7df2d2
2179 F20101108_AACBOP govindarajan_b_Page_021.txt
5f79df56f1d485e398d19cd8333f4d6f
df4468ab02f08122c23057e1327fff4ad3cbf105
2044 F20101108_AACBPE govindarajan_b_Page_039.txt
973e5f04a8488904f884c161c8bc5e99
0e7f0d9b01d2ec884e136fa5a4ff49a0bed2e0b0
2247 F20101108_AACBOQ govindarajan_b_Page_022.txt
297e97c40ab2a73270cfc3cb49893e62
82c3ab39e7335a203b3e86957b314915f3ea9bc3
2138 F20101108_AACBPF govindarajan_b_Page_040.txt
3ce5d4dcefe3f2ead5b121f4bc34cf23
8be0a77d4d23da3d116029e946dcbd8f16bb31bf
2144 F20101108_AACBOR govindarajan_b_Page_023.txt
b323cef7956f23c89ceb50208bc59255
3d8e9fdc7c0345e4441966595e4bd962eb7cb100
333 F20101108_AACBPG govindarajan_b_Page_041.txt
8c9cbb518071842379bb9d4d679e61dc
ddf12870b4d650eccdb0fc26d32a654e099674e6
2000 F20101108_AACBOS govindarajan_b_Page_024.txt
e388f2e33d53c7f979b761c03e19dee8
0e4c03e764d1aa83c9792cb5280139f7dd89a733
154 F20101108_AACBPH govindarajan_b_Page_042.txt
a577bb4ef066fc118f1f6705d0d2f4ea
1d44cfe88992bbd6153a56f79182998d3a4dbe27
2209 F20101108_AACBOT govindarajan_b_Page_025.txt
19c81bed75fc0435eb67eb4b771d9317
5722611e23af3ebcd4f04c4a8da1524ce43c370d
132 F20101108_AACBPI govindarajan_b_Page_044.txt
40ddb5c01ff559bddc485596d32e04bd
c2b2060d2f5484f9baa1e76126739cd5622cc7c7
2072 F20101108_AACBOU govindarajan_b_Page_026.txt
8299023885780bca539a7814157580a3
5bfca8c5d4eb5588259d96abf4ce6f515eb713d2
360 F20101108_AACBPJ govindarajan_b_Page_045.txt
f64274b9983106ea63b650849bf2bd98
16ad73ea380d3fe8b2f20ed26fe97b7ea38f8b00
2206 F20101108_AACBOV govindarajan_b_Page_027.txt
33e272a842290f2a9d0ceede970e11f8
e7741aa9eac0285c48ed3210d0e597f71fb18376
119 F20101108_AACBPK govindarajan_b_Page_046.txt
4adc687a62ef6f3d0bd12ef8be615a5f
f9cbe020f322687bd32e4358efff7844759bbba3
180 F20101108_AACBOW govindarajan_b_Page_029.txt
467fa1c6113eb2e6403a3de414ea57df
3f204f0baa50be4a95112dbb639bb427ae0f4ade
139 F20101108_AACBPL govindarajan_b_Page_047.txt
d02c6f6f0e80d93c6c1e9d64900e46da
107279eb89a2e9889660938952e09d305e98a34c
2089 F20101108_AACBOX govindarajan_b_Page_030.txt
a4eb8fb49a4971273ce27810f6a6893d
de10ebebf690b7ea3abcaea3589f9962bfea391d
1271 F20101108_AACBQA govindarajan_b_Page_063.txt
662f000f6119e3b2afe678002f436953
464ff28dc1a55ce7106f7098ffc15c49b065348c
658 F20101108_AACBPM govindarajan_b_Page_048.txt
7ec3531cfa1a743eb6ed6d5ab502ac7c
68b969a02409bbdeb84003a6a74ee8be63101ba6
2235 F20101108_AACBOY govindarajan_b_Page_031.txt
deff8df590a36242b95e5fbaf33f9c09
b1e4b782dbd6e18ffb1c80f1f012105f19157c66
560 F20101108_AACBQB govindarajan_b_Page_065.txt
cedab3a8e34d3f12796a154cf1743645
0a1cb0383da031e567affb599756e8d29bf0106d
824 F20101108_AACBPN govindarajan_b_Page_049.txt
4ecd9c13455242f6c1a16dee9d93adc9
61099c66c34dca8e8f35a325307f618c3ae00b66
2035 F20101108_AACBOZ govindarajan_b_Page_033.txt
ef43cd7bed382e97898af2c2dc7798a4
3c10776bd2269bd3f58f8d2765757dacc5bcd14c
470 F20101108_AACBQC govindarajan_b_Page_066.txt
fd89f933d79b893f2e71e875cefb69be
0ab711c46bdfd8114075a6638d94c86cfd756c9f
358 F20101108_AACBPO govindarajan_b_Page_050.txt
49d0f769d08952f19640232d4fc1d09c
e32e1b9f4f0815b171e5a576db6678e49de1193f
1294 F20101108_AACBQD govindarajan_b_Page_067.txt
3ee91b5c94b5dcc798046128ba3c5f34
729d47f0f6dd07bdc4e016663c192848fdbaffdf
F20101108_AACBPP govindarajan_b_Page_051.txt
9d9cbf72f357170e0762f0f55d385b2c
f3d60f8e2ce857e04ad4f649a7bb93c1c258953f
1362 F20101108_AACBQE govindarajan_b_Page_068.txt
b8a9e92dbc9548f76eadabf370289594
a0c638cb0e2919f4eceb1a7025f6b0d91326a3aa
2057 F20101108_AACBPQ govindarajan_b_Page_053.txt
dec165bb5c13f0ba263d5e564a8ed4be
0591e89418e0f4f96bce5a3c0748307d728afc6e
1083 F20101108_AACBQF govindarajan_b_Page_069.txt
4b5dc76ce4ac695ce8ed6ba884a32d44
4544749612f26932742376e313ebe448228acbd4
2064 F20101108_AACBPR govindarajan_b_Page_054.txt
f5c4a27dfbf936533ae1e98b7bb32487
abc44169ed9e9b4f9d7d6394ec36e883236c32bd
1219 F20101108_AACBQG govindarajan_b_Page_070.txt
e6bab2a10787134a51ead3119394ec3b
b0249686c66362f18e810c2c162a3d7e29880536
2006 F20101108_AACBPS govindarajan_b_Page_055.txt
0703f04890411315177c4242b2558aba
8a2b628a21907afd9ac300d30bf482d9b3987a11
335 F20101108_AACBQH govindarajan_b_Page_071.txt
d4c864ec94955079c564ab2eb22c8502
1e474ab4f20460431a21c27412a48da6cad360c9
2132 F20101108_AACBPT govindarajan_b_Page_056.txt
d6f3bc480de2247bcd9b4fec90af5b92
7e169c11f64fde179b3d35f6645a4d809c3a8def
380 F20101108_AACBQI govindarajan_b_Page_073.txt
738b766fdb34cd9e24a535e0db27a89c
61c8149aa2041fe0617ecf26026f9c8a2a6f5e58
2090 F20101108_AACBPU govindarajan_b_Page_057.txt
7d771d08cb1ab47435c00c9d3ec2627c
e1adb1808a397a4f89c101d02ea2a13ac077059a
354 F20101108_AACBQJ govindarajan_b_Page_074.txt
553516cab9fd4d8fc4709542c22dafb2
dad0a866b6ae5f4c7550c58d717d252b81847f17
2103 F20101108_AACBPV govindarajan_b_Page_058.txt
8d50889b19429832e9ad895579b85a4b
260e356b72536adf01c142b9ae66131a70ea6ca7
665 F20101108_AACBQK govindarajan_b_Page_075.txt
de60ee059fb3f1eefb271ba9cdf6d585
2845f331902d623415fd3f064d37072b3b366114
2007 F20101108_AACBPW govindarajan_b_Page_059.txt
3bb70362a2dd80c50bd73f88459731cc
d3f9094a34d518a4a33e3efb16d4334070f7f475
638 F20101108_AACBQL govindarajan_b_Page_076.txt
3901853b55e33cd33d97532d9a748b7f
44e61b89b8bd32810cdfb156898bfc55dd78ffc2
924 F20101108_AACBPX govindarajan_b_Page_060.txt
fb27e5346d60ae7d0bfd4972e58b63a2
774a703e80e00ff9e852896dd0e148b6ea56f09d
955 F20101108_AACBQM govindarajan_b_Page_077.txt
688008252c01df25e2b800774484c16c
92627a31c93b7b5f97698a1f27997fa5079881af
699 F20101108_AACBPY govindarajan_b_Page_061.txt
e86a44aba5d1a957238c14919c72c2c9
8e53be7ba184b6e57d71ede884224022ad09a120
2114 F20101108_AACBRA govindarajan_b_Page_092.txt
48257e1808d24444e19996b7b4b6277a
afd3411ee2321751b259b9b9fcad1fd0dec1b771
1991 F20101108_AACBQN govindarajan_b_Page_078.txt
c1654cdcaa79057cfd38144f588d6e01
57924f4a9489f206319ee5ec9611ede6d13f2cdb
1942 F20101108_AACBPZ govindarajan_b_Page_062.txt
9570db81e299ff23ef0d5da01921a6c2
1d3bf60332b873e75b88a840e6f4ce55478e5b99
2250 F20101108_AACBRB govindarajan_b_Page_093.txt
6a3e618bd706fd8ffb008d3e42f32b53
15210fbbb504a1097dc0c146ff30e9c5a64f3228
2168 F20101108_AACBQO govindarajan_b_Page_079.txt
6a19c60ab8994cc85ed1d7ae1dba04a0
d34d40b2426cc4c96909c23e3a8e4242b49e8439
2104 F20101108_AACBRC govindarajan_b_Page_094.txt
da5d154e9801a73ccdcef753f9b81fbb
65feafd1ce00fb341987ecbd2f2c57bb84a6d7c2
2158 F20101108_AACBQP govindarajan_b_Page_080.txt
991976345c7eaab230a4a4559b60e6e3
20989a71fea3c670c0b4cda10e0d17b86120cd86
192 F20101108_AACBRD govindarajan_b_Page_095.txt
e4ceb34211a4528906945772daf1b124
c3ba5394e3af171f0e3b875a0d47e22380b0e50a
2146 F20101108_AACBQQ govindarajan_b_Page_081.txt
c620493c7a456cefce80bbb7eca4ea95
453ba76d43eb6939a8cb62a6f8ed36cc5067598c
2611 F20101108_AACBRE govindarajan_b_Page_096.txt
b98b3df27cdf6845957ef2ee2d573b39
12988891a01b912cbe5a990ff274cc62c99e796b
2173 F20101108_AACBQR govindarajan_b_Page_082.txt
d8b8c278607571c52bfaf1cca30b319e
ee5fcb148710f2edb3d179d103e0e1d0bec76b78
2651 F20101108_AACBRF govindarajan_b_Page_097.txt
3f2a5a8d6caaedb2c974644a28bf7de2
10247ba0ad850ef37a2a2dbaedb55eb029af595f
2110 F20101108_AACBQS govindarajan_b_Page_083.txt
83f3745422f212e5f0a2092eeb7c3a8b
aa9db4840465f70a154bb2723e381e32f9ad8351
2622 F20101108_AACBRG govindarajan_b_Page_098.txt
70befbdd9c431b027cd03a5d6840b48c
228bbec0b5c36c6faccea96f3ef4c596078af4d7
2107 F20101108_AACBQT govindarajan_b_Page_084.txt
34e5a2898ce273b58b8aad8a6f4a3396
4c81baa0c93ab3cbea8d868054cfe032707c3b55
2670 F20101108_AACBRH govindarajan_b_Page_099.txt
9284131190545b84dc78aea70f744690
c33266ab378605d5f0ff76bac8d8d7e9cd745d4c
2205 F20101108_AACBQU govindarajan_b_Page_085.txt
743c2ed755815034c336f601ed0a3069
f5fd3ea205ccbf8aed4537d90cae0fb464d09e78
2624 F20101108_AACBRI govindarajan_b_Page_100.txt
7e64c4e2938682f0435c95dafac34afa
0ae9554bee782bfaa4a5522cfac5d5c464ac8153
2151 F20101108_AACBQV govindarajan_b_Page_087.txt
0aa966d3ad40a3bbcb3837beecb9d610
f9342560fd9de25249604fee2a63e77e05012c33
2583 F20101108_AACBRJ govindarajan_b_Page_101.txt
ceaa42e0195c50debd9db79ed2cc359f
2697689ede0f71d841863201ed1d21c99c408627
604 F20101108_AACBQW govindarajan_b_Page_088.txt
7f588cecc27df04e413591c9652ecd9a
e566148717ba49350790a0e72d1e5b747988bb1f
2883 F20101108_AACBRK govindarajan_b_Page_102.txt
791262d9351b61369ff1d1681a2dd638
ddae62d9b5b7dc78922190685c32d0421e639ba4
974 F20101108_AACBQX govindarajan_b_Page_089.txt
9af5667a71ba2911fb73e63822598304
9dd2813bdf18ff1387857d62243d5e74a129a223
2384 F20101108_AACBRL govindarajan_b_Page_103.txt
59b5bba56b04d311e9695170fe17e822
7d66d7ee4600fb7d35a76a759925036b006a7e64
1829 F20101108_AACBQY govindarajan_b_Page_090.txt
43f95d1e31cc52bbda751987478d452a
e271a25701ef440044caa87e1495ffe59de25e76
26810 F20101108_AACBSA govindarajan_b_Page_058.QC.jpg
cbae458d71ce73e7f2390207de1fb828
fea82e1be2d8ea1c047bbe2ae6a4af2221d61c13
1843 F20101108_AACBRM govindarajan_b_Page_105.txt
cb9cfb98b671aed9c123c5c2048844f4
9e8db479f86b40b24835c8cd1fb7793ac5aacb2e
7864 F20101108_AACBSB govindarajan_b_Page_102thm.jpg
c68c5a571caee07114cd6bdee6f3a1ca
6cd0a6178c678d2941fd7412323bcfac1c91dd96
2405 F20101108_AACBRN govindarajan_b_Page_001thm.jpg
f75198d6df738941945735e6aaa19882
d381494c10c970490e2bcd17968ceb63e24f9efd
2113 F20101108_AACBQZ govindarajan_b_Page_091.txt
4b0a19bfa3007c509760bffe1e75efe8
2adfc3cea318718750c8f9cc43c60156904cf380
3574 F20101108_AACBSC govindarajan_b_Page_070thm.jpg
1eec129bccc1a1ea83cf69e684b4481d
a32e7d32b67513244365462dd7ea67e21e1ff2ba
1656080 F20101108_AACBRO govindarajan_b.pdf
99c997fb10bd712fcf8d602fdb36a92a
ee26656a33892d0a8d09f34cb57965004bd0343e
7598 F20101108_AACBSD govindarajan_b_Page_101thm.jpg
6b33dc472f04a0fc05d1127c818f345c
e80ba14e7c6275dbace7dc41a85258017011a4ca
27429 F20101108_AACBRP govindarajan_b_Page_079.QC.jpg
7a0d34e7a2d2e26a1ce1571d2a258aa2
b539edc3b7ee454e55278d0263729f956394c637
9530 F20101108_AACBSE govindarajan_b_Page_041.QC.jpg
46297255198e8cf53e5de1546de41045
3dc62e37d1e0a6ca72603df14b639d5e3898ddf8
7531 F20101108_AACBRQ govindarajan_b_Page_035thm.jpg
6b742828fb8af1d0d6adec87954caba1
88cbdccf26ee2c5df542339c04e9e581c7ffddca
7255 F20101108_AACBSF govindarajan_b_Page_026thm.jpg
d78cd396feb7ce8e545561cc6d79a1f4
01993677010a03c71d1c5b8bbb51644905415a40
3242 F20101108_AACBRR govindarajan_b_Page_077thm.jpg
46cc15ac45e8b3e0750930c42aed357a
80a889380b4fe22db030ce2bd4f223e69a18ccdc
3339 F20101108_AACBSG govindarajan_b_Page_068thm.jpg
700585787229a2d899bf9928a4cb712b
67be3c713102eab85f0dc48c3ce884d70c55015d
7425 F20101108_AACBRS govindarajan_b_Page_034thm.jpg
af6990343b979113e5c2b2e101abbb2d
a1497315559a6a5b1c251431a01362aea4be818e
10961 F20101108_AACBSH govindarajan_b_Page_048.QC.jpg
a0ef5245cbdbde068f6fd469d31a4ea8
551bb0f0c84ed4a2dbc0c20e41ee60c5355b6b5e
6817 F20101108_AACBRT govindarajan_b_Page_061.QC.jpg
707b0fa0d6335f46765945180facbb34
464b76d3c6256deb061a8a82f908424213729786
9154 F20101108_AACBSI govindarajan_b_Page_066.QC.jpg
0f7e457a60d105f06bb6d6502e106775
4afd099793cab8116d15252e2704d6c1a567920f
3971 F20101108_AACBRU govindarajan_b_Page_050thm.jpg
51b3489a28949fe69b5322d09bd3743d
d7d673cbcc9f59f539fbc9b5c888fd18c8585f40
7474 F20101108_AACBSJ govindarajan_b_Page_020thm.jpg
fbd3d5b75ca70be618f7b7d6822402ad
379cdaca9e7f9a5eeb1d9bc0357d585eecbfd9ea
26534 F20101108_AACBRV govindarajan_b_Page_094.QC.jpg
703790b9e555dd6b660b3f16c901207d
15cde8c1d6675850dfb526df9ff4ff4aa0186b09
7133 F20101108_AACBSK govindarajan_b_Page_012thm.jpg
f65b74de07fa31b8e6a17f7a609c26e7
03e8cd7a879ccefcefc572d44546b2cf67da4c01
13690 F20101108_AACBRW govindarajan_b_Page_062.QC.jpg
321578e1c8ecc91583884e8cca413d69
1dc17252d50eab6daedfb62a10f373354e6c997c
3786 F20101108_AACBSL govindarajan_b_Page_064thm.jpg
f184cd15ab5df015bb37e351e834c0b9
da6549f153b02a1368f996649ac5f49fec2e1fb0
25218 F20101108_AACBRX govindarajan_b_Page_011.QC.jpg
57ca690c79168f980a2448bcceb18186
3f37cae24e67150e134d31eed979b8eac889ba7d
7288 F20101108_AACBSM govindarajan_b_Page_094thm.jpg
40e69a7ceda75d7cf903aebc7e28b14e
7bc625d17e876320c03dcf0e66b0e88f61b70505
7160 F20101108_AACBRY govindarajan_b_Page_015thm.jpg
3e974ba5978a27faaa615ee246083c11
4d6498155c6ac3ef3e57a94e4a0d5388c46be045
3520 F20101108_AACBTA govindarajan_b_Page_066thm.jpg
5b03650528214accc3d7e3f945cf7e84
140f322022f42a56f1d09d16c18b710518068e3a
5097 F20101108_AACBSN govindarajan_b_Page_005thm.jpg
a31e17f448b70e7382c3665d94ee41f7
032af42221b01f13b5f3f0711ae963da7e519d4e
7488 F20101108_AACBRZ govindarajan_b_Page_052thm.jpg
747a0ecb7dfee6e762b9eaff192ba4ba
9b86f9395f9b952ec31e28221c4eb04f6bc5cc35
7439 F20101108_AACBTB govindarajan_b_Page_092thm.jpg
5f437d9bfb34cb50dc6896cc2af5f151
9d70cbd6d724c08086ec79d87b8c9721e4882e50
26794 F20101108_AACBSO govindarajan_b_Page_020.QC.jpg
5f76749a2e22002b3a93aadd250b38ea
f6f7b6ca74397f74cae085d2385fb7102cfc51db
1571 F20101108_AACBTC govindarajan_b_Page_003thm.jpg
02bd9507bb875aa8629a1a8a3682c0c9
1c0dee3e23f4f98217f01bc2886bb04d7172297b
7293 F20101108_AACBSP govindarajan_b_Page_080thm.jpg
b2c156636cb068861d0101b3b985ab82
56ea9e33564d3929b644657eb3cfee17b98be7a1
7508 F20101108_AACBTD govindarajan_b_Page_031thm.jpg
2882b5f5ea0475d921f3456b32a66022
b2966ca2ba597cf82f1d90448853eae77e58fd38
4069 F20101108_AACBSQ govindarajan_b_Page_047thm.jpg
6deff767902f968448eb268c90691441
abc6eb81237ffe0a33fd96c69cdf49d5f43a8cb7
27973 F20101108_AACBTE govindarajan_b_Page_025.QC.jpg
a3bbbce21ca0053e1c3663b1db891c94
79f4c9dbc4a8badccd7848727413f511789735f4
7533 F20101108_AACBSR govindarajan_b_Page_056thm.jpg
9932cc93374b7affbdfee796f2851fa3
6166b7f5a01c29792ca0cfbda4e481b32ca376d8
7667 F20101108_AACBTF govindarajan_b_Page_093thm.jpg
9dc15270244d268f875700ac33d2004e
9e30935b286e87ec1d0dd1e65db973c5c088f8c1
7478 F20101108_AACBSS govindarajan_b_Page_014thm.jpg
0bf2148dd48c9b85eebc5e7db8874e50
e07c59318413ad6110d843c566b35d15d55b2105
7141 F20101108_AACBTG govindarajan_b_Page_054thm.jpg
f95d061e94bf477362f0ca54209ff3ee
bccf491477f37c3df40c1605393b37b4fe3443fd
27424 F20101108_AACBST govindarajan_b_Page_017.QC.jpg
94a15d1676d15facb8bfa6372890a513
bfb62dbb92568dcb7a96fea63611174286713770
4225 F20101108_AACBTH govindarajan_b_Page_004thm.jpg
34e97e61299c606ca9b5324f39aa76a1
a1c8098abf048cee9a7eb9901d06ad81f9ac9481
27998 F20101108_AACBSU govindarajan_b_Page_031.QC.jpg
23033c42a4cfc876db9d45593bc8ed60
8ed1e054d70791763768e01bf0b0d55088e5dd8a
11574 F20101108_AACBTI govindarajan_b_Page_050.QC.jpg
f37e62118d8dc61a6290343c5a29482e
05f384d2d61888b784edf9de5475403516bb4f72
3672 F20101108_AACBSV govindarajan_b_Page_090thm.jpg
e6a7dbe54544d66d0c077dc3a066a1e8
a59dc40dcef6bbbcb0261f102b90a51247ca5786
28144 F20101108_AACBTJ govindarajan_b_Page_101.QC.jpg
1d17fba6401cd943e3423e5be9106d4f
b73e5349be57f1b2327e5f5affffb4c6bb1fc010
28612 F20101108_AACBSW govindarajan_b_Page_016.QC.jpg
b1a4cf74b0364f6735de51917fa17e34
efca642e5972c65ec176d8b9eaf4ac9f03936037
7082 F20101108_AACBTK govindarajan_b_Page_071.QC.jpg
3ac288898350952398d3e326a2ff6ea0
68277c6b8421c4db8b1c91a24946e17ea4d52ae7
26351 F20101108_AACBSX govindarajan_b_Page_008.QC.jpg
6bd95b481cdf01edf03f8ed416b41fb4
7ce423707320dadfdadd7da297119e08fc762f1d
11034 F20101108_AACBUA govindarajan_b_Page_045.QC.jpg
98737591c380d04edba2f02b15d2926f
f69e2e901f2a6d00d5c9e12a0db90394fa5bb11c
7542 F20101108_AACBTL govindarajan_b_Page_051thm.jpg
0838859172e1387d3bfce1ab0a2dbc98
0ec1c641bd0a3d8ae03f5ae93d3d16b369907c41
28716 F20101108_AACBSY govindarajan_b_Page_032.QC.jpg
8db55d8006eb114234fdc5161a0d560f
384bbf96aaa10a4add13183f18c5d51fd49789d7
28106 F20101108_AACBTM govindarajan_b_Page_022.QC.jpg
fd3ab3d46669c2d8f442d4ae472c7146
2f9d681a959bf827d0153e489642432f2b3efc38
7193 F20101108_AACBSZ govindarajan_b_Page_074.QC.jpg
7abdab7c61710e501a7b281b13c7350d
76e24c1598f4a4c86cd2dcacaa5d84dc173f0405
27054 F20101108_AACBUB govindarajan_b_Page_057.QC.jpg
648102f588dfc763611df4ac9f8833bd
541c71b82bf38a639285f82919fcbd8f38c2f73f
7575 F20101108_AACBTN govindarajan_b_Page_085thm.jpg
68c01b90cd5bc442d8efdcd908c5b8f2
c315de76f9f0f152d9100f62dec02829561a79e0
27242 F20101108_AACBUC govindarajan_b_Page_087.QC.jpg
e14490c170f5af708da4c7160feb80b1
4cbd30be8416de3aa6a36f1548288a0bac6b51a0
7026 F20101108_AACBTO govindarajan_b_Page_033thm.jpg
0949478037e551e61d4a48af7c44bf12
7e9b73d323775f044d6843db5ed557cbf0125dfa
25233 F20101108_AACBUD govindarajan_b_Page_033.QC.jpg
38209e2e58ad5ee12c4cd0124dd30682
2686fb9dc9eecc2ff2de74cc1086edb5eb9b6187
6899 F20101108_AACBTP govindarajan_b_Page_021thm.jpg
8833820a29b4bae77f08a7ff1950a9f6
fe503f47d3c57e4ccc8cb76defd1d900285e9d9d
27510 F20101108_AACBUE govindarajan_b_Page_083.QC.jpg
196989ad5e78ec088d880258d79e8fe7
e491b6053a07dc5027de8720fc71b3eac281b475
7898 F20101108_AACBTQ govindarajan_b_Page_001.QC.jpg
7dc18f4e9958b3641d8e5df59cc12dd8
77e3da5b5b80899b61cb3a03332cd7f1b059343f
28340 F20101108_AACBUF govindarajan_b_Page_082.QC.jpg
410bcf5496b49a83ea01d7e78b2fde8c
daf2574049b84dc9577b6d698b407f4bf072bba6
2830 F20101108_AACBTR govindarajan_b_Page_041thm.jpg
2741f9ad78aee091203e3a4bc76e7d3d
f38b58775a29b7b4043b8854bc2983e5ad41a16c
7068 F20101108_AACBUG govindarajan_b_Page_055thm.jpg
af6ebfc65b326ab7c8cdef3ef39b3e45
02c6c335149ba08466e778e4a352f913cbfeb8b7
26719 F20101108_AACBTS govindarajan_b_Page_023.QC.jpg
c052646609e3f02ea68ab341622d72ca
757c3de50d7d986d407ce7ed414a32a37402d0bc
7532 F20101108_AACBUH govindarajan_b_Page_079thm.jpg
8290a05dc1b781032c120f2d4d649066
4a1f2028259d7e5b754df9b3754c15adcfd2d0a3
31272 F20101108_AACBTT govindarajan_b_Page_102.QC.jpg
91d300f84539d0406c202e222e6d3ce1
bdcf6893b431fbffed73bc424794d5367ffa4465
10765 F20101108_AACBUI govindarajan_b_Page_070.QC.jpg
1b5fcb548b08d47af17316e33ceb3205
a8ca9ce91abc2cc9850c5e22e4806c1704e1e259
24196 F20101108_AACBTU govindarajan_b_Page_037.QC.jpg
1969a96bd563fc56ddbf2264b3e1d8b9
a1328f88ecdd148cb33730b2eb2304e8e6697f53
7458 F20101108_AACBUJ govindarajan_b_Page_057thm.jpg
104fa5a46b9c48e81789045f569b0bf7
4b0b9cbdf3e9fc8d20f44b1075fee174d253a4ea
17226 F20101108_AACBTV govindarajan_b_Page_010.QC.jpg
a6b3b91bea615f2f9a23308f2b643e78
2411a3398441872a78053db5dc2f7118a5157170
27375 F20101108_AACBUK govindarajan_b_Page_052.QC.jpg
8bbb04068b10c3f39ab2a3b7beac57d8
308039b28f32f3dd4a001a0dfe120e8400da9814
9946 F20101108_AACBTW govindarajan_b_Page_063.QC.jpg
833bd6d30075a557dc69c44ca7fd2432
e173a0529f6f7b79187a4f8b5b687f76be2d68cd
13554 F20101108_AACBVA govindarajan_b_Page_004.QC.jpg
f75c61b186b9c5015ddc8a9db75f02ba
653e0a778de8c88987e11e8632bf498916a73ea0
7475 F20101108_AACBUL govindarajan_b_Page_025thm.jpg
679f7dc83c3444fbd88e1eea2b1aa2fb
57c99edd64d3d8e18a8e346a40cf2f35f51c50e2
3883 F20101108_AACBTX govindarajan_b_Page_062thm.jpg
443d0a3c651fc1e17bc1eab61245bc95
1e55e4627ad41fb44870e2f67aea823adf892498
19045 F20101108_AACBVB govindarajan_b_Page_005.QC.jpg
9b7807c913cb1fee57f5481ea19eb4bf
4623dc9cb2bbeaf62cdedc259a3ec06928cdb2c1
2647 F20101108_AACBUM govindarajan_b_Page_071thm.jpg
870429f434af693567d45235128b7012
4a1d6bb38cd711d28cdc34c017b8c25ba929ec56
7424 F20101108_AACBTY govindarajan_b_Page_040thm.jpg
1a30f9cfe117ab5de165ecca5fecc04d
c1bea53c31d9f97d63c81b4f5b712486951c1d8f
7625 F20101108_AACBUN govindarajan_b_Page_032thm.jpg
557416eba0479bf9817a3a8ad147dc0d
19b9c5b548f0def8367c44d1008df75887c308b8
7259 F20101108_AACBTZ govindarajan_b_Page_027thm.jpg
84f5d2d1723eef4210afe14c3cd5c0eb
388c0a26489194a7b5ddea92bb1d07dab28b7250
15398 F20101108_AACBVC govindarajan_b_Page_006.QC.jpg
f2a2b968c3586f1d929cedf285235960
b798946bd018216a6939c49433817b31ecc67f1d
27338 F20101108_AACBUO govindarajan_b_Page_040.QC.jpg
bfb4fe58470d2503b5498b9a60c899f9
16d369e84f0b975f2ebe2ecf02ef2e31e8a5ec17
4324 F20101108_AACBVD govindarajan_b_Page_006thm.jpg
1ecd8af889b089965628bc29acbef45e
c19a05012448160c5eea84469b95b943ef0e22aa
26174 F20101108_AACBUP govindarajan_b_Page_024.QC.jpg
12a3f6c5d9a2ab6597ffaa119c5b2e4b
1dd9ffcdf1000a45606347b58fa6bb8240658a7d
27259 F20101108_AACBVE govindarajan_b_Page_007.QC.jpg
1891b69ef4879a6b6c75c3e061f0f62d
eaf1c5c94d07becff05682a40834d26990b35429
2336 F20101108_AACBUQ govindarajan_b_Page_061thm.jpg
c7a0d164d9ec70798c8ef70e1688b95a
0ae8011891ce0a65680282f91da303355a6a3a01
6985 F20101108_AACBVF govindarajan_b_Page_007thm.jpg
ed0f7d25bba0147f1b74df554a9439eb
f90515b8f4771840fc166e625ba3c04c9877f897
29366 F20101108_AACBUR govindarajan_b_Page_018.QC.jpg
c1e9677831f707533a11d4f125fb69b9
98c483b27dabc81687ef55c08fc3c4aabb362f13
6644 F20101108_AACBVG govindarajan_b_Page_008thm.jpg
93019eaba5623d8bc3bab2764bf76217
1cfb3c3711186867154d3b17870b2c96a2312be3
26275 F20101108_AACBUS govindarajan_b_Page_038.QC.jpg
1815acb8d5d3b14a460e5e3cb25d99a3
856c4ea2bfd7e16fa91247b995fcf704cd68b37b
24710 F20101108_AACBVH govindarajan_b_Page_009.QC.jpg
9b57e114c2fa8c4edac5a396c563b35f
0e2b9c14a22acd87a4563235e37f017f7ad8d36f
26030 F20101108_AACBUT govindarajan_b_Page_091.QC.jpg
3aa5cf6b128eeb8f83bee9343f631fe7
9ca049a08a5973cd4ad4dd3a8464a2b392c34e73
4778 F20101108_AACBVI govindarajan_b_Page_010thm.jpg
d61c75fb70e86cab7861468fa8f3e09f
f95072af8871485c40991f45185ecd1f257e2e2c
7541 F20101108_AACBUU govindarajan_b_Page_098thm.jpg
d5d9d36d938c321dd79ee62236ae961e
437137d133b1d933184acc1b3a2b72e2e3455278
F20101108_AACBVJ govindarajan_b_Page_011thm.jpg
8c227fae547a05e0a2b36c2da5c677c6
0cc41f9f3fb573ff7a1f1bf352ac5cc787c33467
1822 F20101108_AACBUV govindarajan_b_Page_095thm.jpg
5eb71fb480c8ea8af151ecc21455b240
9d374ca8b943f382587d63d58e77848cd112a0b7
26268 F20101108_AACBVK govindarajan_b_Page_012.QC.jpg
ddc3ce117eb774f93c34545c97d61285
118945b20b3a5a798f684503b95036741e86de09
162654 F20101108_AACBUW UFE0021768_00001.xml
30efb14b841f61b5d43d9cdbd264ede2
7cc634025befd366ddb117b2414a306faae38614
28022 F20101108_AACBVL govindarajan_b_Page_013.QC.jpg
16016e70fea15a7c85bdb60c547e2379
71cd48bec540a7b5873d64d4e3c3db5c0a86660c
3428 F20101108_AACBUX govindarajan_b_Page_002.QC.jpg
586e3910fceec11daddbf887753ea28c
f7ce4e914afdbdedbe6762590741f31448fcd8b4
9324 F20101108_AACBWA govindarajan_b_Page_029.QC.jpg
4fa2687a9c85564aa8b08d798983ce05
c77e85ebf49660ddcf9aa23581af9a9105270846
7717 F20101108_AACBVM govindarajan_b_Page_013thm.jpg
dcc51507dab9d5fbdf291507818daaeb
4465d283f5bc03e722e207ce264a401cbdc85cc9
1369 F20101108_AACBUY govindarajan_b_Page_002thm.jpg
eb72849a9c07ece43c40da688c509801
630d372ac6eba79cc1c82fce4ac00d3e25deb1fc
3531 F20101108_AACBWB govindarajan_b_Page_029thm.jpg
6ed5d075ce8a33be71d0dca2a108a9b5
ca825b82660936ba4376a2843b25613ff28c3a77
28206 F20101108_AACBVN govindarajan_b_Page_014.QC.jpg
36218310963c64dc9c1fd74743b94cdd
04d321bf2ce8af234823260bbbaedbf8f2a931ef
4110 F20101108_AACBUZ govindarajan_b_Page_003.QC.jpg
6704eca2c641f97c7138ad7daf8ed78e
df6c4597b4ebb2fff66c916cb258f4f5520aac95
25856 F20101108_AACBWC govindarajan_b_Page_030.QC.jpg
4d81119a12859d5ea9315d4ff26e9c67
039c4d5d64694bc148ee0c825d0b450e295155f3
25819 F20101108_AACBVO govindarajan_b_Page_015.QC.jpg
d3111d35734c590f1292a29c29756acb
ed64fd6b90118f63811f054ab4d4ac738a912a42
F20101108_AACBVP govindarajan_b_Page_016thm.jpg
89f54cad9bf6e79429c821037c11e2d4
8691453dc6aa71e98269453e2e06c5353fe5a110
6876 F20101108_AACBWD govindarajan_b_Page_030thm.jpg
15575b4fe2f5d8f337bc4cf187c70db1
79a60dcbae2cba273c308ee397095ea0144b87ea
7484 F20101108_AACBVQ govindarajan_b_Page_017thm.jpg
c934c8fdcbc4b2a32cc89593bb955a1d
d6668d151c103fff224a3d0bcfbe3b2121643b19
27908 F20101108_AACBWE govindarajan_b_Page_034.QC.jpg
3a68bf36fe76cb2f1f5a2e82f9e6b420
81bf88584955f4ea5bf8397cb36ac22c31c8d75e
7680 F20101108_AACBVR govindarajan_b_Page_018thm.jpg
e9a4e1799899fb775720efac45a45f71
17b07f0ba3d40891032d072622b743258608fc10
26941 F20101108_AACBWF govindarajan_b_Page_035.QC.jpg
76bfeccb65855dc81dff1c66ada120cf
39cf19c393c1c8d1b11a46c20536730385108cdb
7528 F20101108_AACBVS govindarajan_b_Page_019thm.jpg
b8c9632a6d305aacb907b9cfd51edb99
0b0c54bc1b400bde17ff423c5fa6534553773261
26968 F20101108_AACBWG govindarajan_b_Page_036.QC.jpg
7a2bfc933e96db8071ef12078a586ae2
7106e2e085bae0b186b3ca78610fcbc52287f57a
25369 F20101108_AACBVT govindarajan_b_Page_021.QC.jpg
d9cf58950233ef609ff7711962f521fb
70c8d6e568d04b21ac409c04691c6e28ab551f8a
7344 F20101108_AACBWH govindarajan_b_Page_036thm.jpg
f88945a8a568fa84118afc5cfd565cee
b390bc6cc8100f7bf1e0fcdf3f93d1f2f613229a
7565 F20101108_AACBVU govindarajan_b_Page_022thm.jpg
fca292dc18a4385cc81925a60312c7ef
cdca0d8b38b73877be46dd3908ff749d2661f555
6757 F20101108_AACBWI govindarajan_b_Page_037thm.jpg
aa6e0a33c13e8b4250bf46019e18ea9b
9a82f50f8f378d0b4fac726dd06666d6a3b61084
7358 F20101108_AACBVV govindarajan_b_Page_023thm.jpg
61a1be0181e00bae032e8267e17c435d
256a5445b2be8f8eea022dae1bcd349a67e45046
7072 F20101108_AACBWJ govindarajan_b_Page_038thm.jpg
7ee26145c4bf33567028ac40edfa2c7c
de4271b363ae7353e232e412d9a1e914318201af
27016 F20101108_AACBWK govindarajan_b_Page_039.QC.jpg
60b033f09757126bfb76e122592ed0a3
48d22c7287a4ee45b8a0da362fdfbec849bccf5c
6970 F20101108_AACBVW govindarajan_b_Page_024thm.jpg
d646d99d6fd75f2ba02c3de775cd377b
41e8469d2af15d64f8ef761420728fe788608d1b
28044 F20101108_AACBXA govindarajan_b_Page_056.QC.jpg
24a937474f0308670119860a8468e0dd
ceedd49d96baf75f8078781bbc7994ad57864022
7412 F20101108_AACBWL govindarajan_b_Page_039thm.jpg
afacf4229a4e0e5548fc8a25573f57dd
3067f86318965abbadffe3e0199930101e115eb4
26365 F20101108_AACBVX govindarajan_b_Page_026.QC.jpg
76bc25cc761e4feddc9b1d76e3a8c813
92ebb48282f322c218004b39bb7ff6df21b54bca
7503 F20101108_AACBXB govindarajan_b_Page_058thm.jpg
c890250766d1a4a32d6dd8a41f705101
0854c36db6110b7897350a4eb555ac95818698fa
10906 F20101108_AACBWM govindarajan_b_Page_042.QC.jpg
a5576c4fd014bd835fee6237ee26cd79
0637b3c6be13973e5aeda185f86fed0d2de08830
26292 F20101108_AACBVY govindarajan_b_Page_028.QC.jpg
02b728784bbf3be915dd2e5322e0cc0f
972d0797c250959585a66b99a5e6037034094953
26400 F20101108_AACBXC govindarajan_b_Page_059.QC.jpg
70b7e1e075e54b022507c784e15ad6a1
52e4f0601e250f45db2043ffd4082be70e8521c3
3529 F20101108_AACBWN govindarajan_b_Page_042thm.jpg
606d2540a35dd602628bfc6826f200b3
3af81687be0e9a590cfb6a681f2807bf74b968dd
7336 F20101108_AACBVZ govindarajan_b_Page_028thm.jpg
29137d5f327cf1e84a7ffea2d795a7a0
d33c6b1478a28f4276e6a64be008344d8990d23e
7258 F20101108_AACBXD govindarajan_b_Page_059thm.jpg
6c271eddbb5da137cec36ef8d28f0d9e
d6c9aaca549b0a5ebe66531c1a6e4d2eb930aef1
13960 F20101108_AACBWO govindarajan_b_Page_043.QC.jpg
9cbe6b0a0238808692692f957f1563de
f9df8eb8805dd37f8c1c186fed93c34c508d6dc0
4089 F20101108_AACBWP govindarajan_b_Page_043thm.jpg
2f9a9551a1dfbf0dc0b4a9c5c3aa10de
90d66d9bbfff32be61cae4f63f8f80f4c9335d55
13328 F20101108_AACBXE govindarajan_b_Page_060.QC.jpg
55d7bfe6331f3574f6e674d1cb9e1dfb
69b0180b6407ee29135daae3d3acaf57aa046684
3837 F20101108_AACBWQ govindarajan_b_Page_044thm.jpg
00ca19addadb0b325555e4de7ca01bdb
5c7a0c04f184a23593aa6dc50388b2ebfaa19ea4
3987 F20101108_AACBXF govindarajan_b_Page_060thm.jpg
b9b184b82cea299ece269ed06c25b2ec
1b35afc3e129ace98acbebd0edc769a6e4f2ae17
3314 F20101108_AACBWR govindarajan_b_Page_045thm.jpg
339a3c8df79821acd7c106d8d4c533c0
48aeada588e6c12aa445437f7b54a6aa57087101
2946 F20101108_AACBXG govindarajan_b_Page_063thm.jpg
757bb25c21f24dbe42bf7302d3165327
0d63bd526eea153b796b7aed030726bb7752388c
10102 F20101108_AACBWS govindarajan_b_Page_046.QC.jpg
cde20fb0f709fad2eff8febffaab0955
e4b46774cb9f6bb1de35096d42128d8dd0edda52
12521 F20101108_AACBXH govindarajan_b_Page_064.QC.jpg
db2a2c6be5780756cf2516a93f43fc84
a0214ab960dee83a4cfc8849f67014fbea474747
3152 F20101108_AACBWT govindarajan_b_Page_046thm.jpg
23d053dfec5ea67f3435ebe72a54d0ae
1fe22721a8bbd9360ed181b833677f73c96e3a33
75485 F20101108_AACBAA govindarajan_b_Page_037.jpg
5b9904e1d9bd8ff91f82d09fee9f4c79
bd6b0799eddc1c4d8cf463d8f5fc63410176f191
9003 F20101108_AACBXI govindarajan_b_Page_065.QC.jpg
ebaa921a411caee3a7fd18bd45ebaccb
87b33d6b43760b6b992cd1d665e53d66e5a3256b
3648 F20101108_AACBWU govindarajan_b_Page_049thm.jpg
8a2deeb86f915a5b0cbaa68cc4fc3c63
70ab4db4d6a96a8ad5242f2b2e4a0d7e34d91cdc
84332 F20101108_AACBAB govindarajan_b_Page_038.jpg
4449a607c65f3481911933b8d08908c3
b1aa2cea92626f41b78ed3071f62220c43c155ab
3068 F20101108_AACBXJ govindarajan_b_Page_065thm.jpg
15b75687843a84870c04b6ebfa04fe2b
fafa3efdef6a980b4202a3ae38bd491ee7c3ca2a
27898 F20101108_AACBWV govindarajan_b_Page_051.QC.jpg
ad90b9812efb84e83bb710b6466f7533
fc52f827e3b47d5771dbbaabbbe2077bb17b8c91
85715 F20101108_AACBAC govindarajan_b_Page_039.jpg
22dd140017a70b24911f210198989b08
e757615b7e4ff9d87e7806e2b93b6e2bd4765f3c
9116 F20101108_AACBXK govindarajan_b_Page_067.QC.jpg
6526bec6518707b4fdb8642fce3418cd
12fef8ab1f2829f7daf66bc0142ec5d4be7ad1fd
27232 F20101108_AACBWW govindarajan_b_Page_053.QC.jpg
9854810f3ccf23a71c2270efc4128abd
e9a7ab06cb8a9f78f73236988622e2fba2bc9ada
84593 F20101108_AACBAD govindarajan_b_Page_040.jpg
54957562ec92d2ce7d2c13b7f94ac399
76e0fe80f6cc949294b415981d89aff7047f0840
3274 F20101108_AACBXL govindarajan_b_Page_067thm.jpg
82333611405db2bd56295fdaf805d00f
c28e30707838c5964c5a55d58cb47824e7c4bf17
7187 F20101108_AACBWX govindarajan_b_Page_053thm.jpg
e2dd52b43f604024d38267cb90f5f361
f26582ccc783ff40f84a45264ffbd5b8fba0562b
32299 F20101108_AACBAE govindarajan_b_Page_041.jpg
1cd024a45aee7cc4267628d31c1ed53e
28c18783f4cd872e1e53b5efe3a50d306a7330f1
27675 F20101108_AACBYA govindarajan_b_Page_080.QC.jpg
f3a8b8b634898cf09b28c9b8d3249eab
79b67895a1defbbd12a94d04c601a49873c9a772
9347 F20101108_AACBXM govindarajan_b_Page_068.QC.jpg
8eba13e6714c11fef078a304dc6a2c57
25b1d899f39da040788b8c18c5c4d31b77f86677
26720 F20101108_AACBWY govindarajan_b_Page_054.QC.jpg
9fab023e706294052d32a78848d159f5
d2307c4b9e41d3743a927ef408132405181e6a17
53315 F20101108_AACBAF govindarajan_b_Page_043.jpg
43b0e64172ec5e33601603d4888498c0
ef3da6dab885b88aafae6f1fd1f8a064da67c43f
27574 F20101108_AACBYB govindarajan_b_Page_081.QC.jpg
c01bf645c18cecebd96db2f604b5ad15
b42026f31c6e4952f7d0e2c4ec6c406c5bb52e12
9514 F20101108_AACBXN govindarajan_b_Page_069.QC.jpg
bde024f8d99779b0ced37f606f88c41a
14ed39734bc86ea956b56241cf124f28a0d35608
26288 F20101108_AACBWZ govindarajan_b_Page_055.QC.jpg
a5ad78c59e321cce6afc73a3af8042e4
91bdbbfea8615b6609bb8d2dad74f5dfc4fee7f4
52990 F20101108_AACBAG govindarajan_b_Page_044.jpg
59d148fd9b89a09435f6fefb8790d050
2d37b6304d858adf5681acb56e92c1c930c77855
F20101108_AACBYC govindarajan_b_Page_081thm.jpg
c249725d5961776ad6632e752ec534f5
fac57fd67a1fd00ae05104703028f992a0d00c35
3248 F20101108_AACBXO govindarajan_b_Page_069thm.jpg
18def90bf1ea9b415405d1003b3941dc
5494aba434d80172e013490e5e6a73ddd11a5a48
36499 F20101108_AACBAH govindarajan_b_Page_045.jpg
5a4f8eda3c58ee7a6d405e50543ad7fb
4fd08f96e5e1183f4e5e79ac870354d673991ecb
7467 F20101108_AACBYD govindarajan_b_Page_082thm.jpg
5c048f8772fdd5ffd481f0d094150989
c9f0e26e7b64c8b0065c2aa27bd8ac228aad93e0
7014 F20101108_AACBXP govindarajan_b_Page_072.QC.jpg
49ed333d58010735c2589caaabdf3cff
1f7f4ef293a5cfcd3dcb45b78c4f673d200f7681
37697 F20101108_AACBAI govindarajan_b_Page_046.jpg
e3383c35a8c4318ab804f2695ecc9394
51257d6707ade977389a543214f15bfa28b2f0c8
7338 F20101108_AACBYE govindarajan_b_Page_083thm.jpg
ef911d3e2b3556656f4357b9dddda8f9
7e0836407b726e2e9ccf59bdb1b9aae2c7f34f59
2666 F20101108_AACBXQ govindarajan_b_Page_072thm.jpg
be9eba7c01d30ce8a9de195c60dd71c2
09023b17d903c3511d975b3bb267e87ffbce1aa9
61966 F20101108_AACBAJ govindarajan_b_Page_047.jpg
a84abe2b562f2360791b3feae61b55f7
b29153fbba371f86e6eeb1ad8da1e7bb5e19e987
7513 F20101108_AACBXR govindarajan_b_Page_073.QC.jpg
d6b5c54939a24439fa73578fb38f6a94
7927434ae92f017ae7bd4f657946c166b119c4a7
34029 F20101108_AACBAK govindarajan_b_Page_048.jpg
31e3e1aa2deec7dfb06768b09ce12245
0ec1c76b7f1f5e9c6a72cb82a580498287080d6c
26537 F20101108_AACBYF govindarajan_b_Page_084.QC.jpg
a88fa133950d2646e7620634003f00dc
16b41e4b1736cdd01dd2d4fd3e056146b204c6fc
2809 F20101108_AACBXS govindarajan_b_Page_073thm.jpg
c1243313f999949a6148558077dc0597
a98ad99f123b09b40f9b7c08c77cb3c883b47e4d
34695 F20101108_AACBAL govindarajan_b_Page_049.jpg
ce8aafb38d43e5ab9ee079763a5f4520
23ddc6912db9e2155775ca887c273a7afaa6476a
7169 F20101108_AACBYG govindarajan_b_Page_084thm.jpg
29c976ba3864cdd6480d21d80b2daaa7
1d71b6a1022501fcdf3262412de054cc0ebc21b6
2951 F20101108_AACBXT govindarajan_b_Page_074thm.jpg
d7fc33e685644dd1d752cceb6fea936e
99f40bafb5a82f261e983a7e267335ad6a894753
42848 F20101108_AACBBA govindarajan_b_Page_064.jpg
695cc1aae8cc6236845db6e6adbd473a
fe81500c351348ff1d43aaac65d66bfdf1c61707
33793 F20101108_AACBAM govindarajan_b_Page_050.jpg
dc99309fed0c1b8b8be55167b7b20b41
53adccd5d5511133bc149abbcae1b215f77ad73b
27927 F20101108_AACBYH govindarajan_b_Page_085.QC.jpg
8d4d0736e3f26b61e7831e0b2ed5dd2e
c8d6f3166b7672ca942e782136c3049764c0e679
8001 F20101108_AACBXU govindarajan_b_Page_075.QC.jpg
cd286a31796a4872e0c6118cdfdc6ea4
9105e8597837901f99d0b304c757c1ece32c8a09
27450 F20101108_AACBBB govindarajan_b_Page_065.jpg
1eb7390d0eca5cb81d70c840fdfdc17e
0a09a24ecb2d5dc86c9b72a4a91ba2588c2f9d93
26357 F20101108_AACBYI govindarajan_b_Page_086.QC.jpg
2acb1f5c609bda6e97ebe39490d66165
d4bee685a87475065eb5c6d7aed9a16d05007950
F20101108_AACBXV govindarajan_b_Page_075thm.jpg
5d43d9ae17e784fcae2b082695b3a5db
323b7292cf4472bfb0fc8611eff0d69d697dd2aa
29901 F20101108_AACBBC govindarajan_b_Page_066.jpg
1bfe376362680a0b6c7fae4f5e9176de
58733a6920b2eb7e6540c099b58e986106d62e3c
88683 F20101108_AACBAN govindarajan_b_Page_051.jpg
512b1261d1dc7b3b74b2af40c74e3084
8744ffc07a4412a1f8bc10d990757e9cc9945d98
F20101108_AACBYJ govindarajan_b_Page_086thm.jpg
b5e1e45437bbab0e32225b1b3fdf5386
f0e1aa0de6a7f1f79d1a45e3233c118d8d287720
8567 F20101108_AACBXW govindarajan_b_Page_076.QC.jpg
f0973522c8a2bed04a4454f4277a18bd
2459c7b4c3a39285fb86fe6a91ed4623c3fe0a88
28727 F20101108_AACBBD govindarajan_b_Page_067.jpg
ed0cffaea85bc05e2a549c919ba52042
ed02fb059107d09ffb2f41f5d9fdad0e5d7988db
85546 F20101108_AACBAO govindarajan_b_Page_052.jpg
fce4f0e790265deb122a0c7b8a2ff459
659fe4800e043d389535bae8471d34bb40988bb9
7229 F20101108_AACBYK govindarajan_b_Page_087thm.jpg
3374d99899460a74b1e5f1c2af4de85b
52fabe6efb2798b94fe225e1d2aac21188770586
3175 F20101108_AACBXX govindarajan_b_Page_076thm.jpg
6dd7c0ed7d88b71469a6e0a1819daa48
fbf48792761c6590c2bc5b504cf2de43f78bbf2e
29338 F20101108_AACBBE govindarajan_b_Page_068.jpg
42545df1fe30f6a1b6712d354c4b8464
60775dc637e7f38f9d7cc482fab9dd4d3a100919
84653 F20101108_AACBAP govindarajan_b_Page_053.jpg
c065686d92c4d9b5fcc3974c69faf59d
ba2c84e2dd6a5271661faf77f746db8810b109b9
7333 F20101108_AACBZA govindarajan_b_Page_100thm.jpg
3fa6d910a452076a8ac9ab1f7dbe2a64
accb838729ab9c84c0ee0b6ede31dba5377d7db0
3040 F20101108_AACBYL govindarajan_b_Page_088thm.jpg
7fc40cb505c20742523546400b2ca308
c595e9ad6344c5c2e04f92544b78f65c31e8cbb5
8824 F20101108_AACBXY govindarajan_b_Page_077.QC.jpg
4c1ae68314a6137d4e9e4cad2ddfdb4b
41471dbec0dc7d1ca3e9d1b67d8f974910d3d1a5
29877 F20101108_AACBBF govindarajan_b_Page_069.jpg
195a12037faed0f75a4f304c7302053e
4141f728b9bbfd7499c5a8b7c5557b0dfda20454
83104 F20101108_AACBAQ govindarajan_b_Page_054.jpg
a44a5ff1495568fe554060f3db9cec03
7a7d81392eb0798e1a00a8ff136f2918a15f5479
26990 F20101108_AACBZB govindarajan_b_Page_103.QC.jpg
66cb3847cffce3a569b068afdda1e4a8
00b0c7568d5d31337c574302a2a446c1f46b243e
F20101108_AACBYM govindarajan_b_Page_089thm.jpg
c06e0edbbb7b22f909ae23d93034f597
7c4939cf55059385931311e2dfb9beab233fa09d
6832 F20101108_AACBXZ govindarajan_b_Page_078thm.jpg
ee7187716c5c246d1e24a7d7e4d1be0f
452955ee8bfec0f3b7c77164e01b75dfe4b3e95b
32212 F20101108_AACBBG govindarajan_b_Page_070.jpg
631df5368119939d1b0535dad139aa01
826077cb75705c571e9aa6f9daf5641c51438ba9
81204 F20101108_AACBAR govindarajan_b_Page_055.jpg
16da5034a5ff75e94bdb1dac9382860f
aa5d1a5b9e550984e5517a75973ab88ee233e0e2
2819 F20101108_AACBZC govindarajan_b_Page_104thm.jpg
e26dd1a939bc6e9312fb72958e6b272a
b1c3849534fc622e05f502fbf8617e968dbd9445
12723 F20101108_AACBYN govindarajan_b_Page_090.QC.jpg
253f1c167b85c60fe382d4d6df4ed81b
7930931022808690061aa33f24dbda82984f1558
20607 F20101108_AACBBH govindarajan_b_Page_071.jpg
b425b4135588b6f534e974e74286c623
43b3380a74d12ffa00077e7732b82a3968953a71
87164 F20101108_AACBAS govindarajan_b_Page_056.jpg
9d3727dc38c4759dc34c9338448d32ed
1c500fce53a53f919b57e5563c3e82985490854e
23287 F20101108_AACBZD govindarajan_b_Page_105.QC.jpg
6941a881563fefdc86254e58b2dc6da0
dbed951f13435bfb6ad52bfa38210c2ef4ebde46
7028 F20101108_AACBYO govindarajan_b_Page_091thm.jpg
ab6d3de4eacc3651bd8951c0c32e5e60
a5f9b7ac06ffab57fc10898c94c98bea8edcf895
20575 F20101108_AACBBI govindarajan_b_Page_072.jpg
5352fcf0caa7f0c826afc071f148c7c2
a0b5f164c10ec74e0e6909a1a09054b6eccb227f
84620 F20101108_AACBAT govindarajan_b_Page_057.jpg
5bba4b17d3d43ec1eb8af7339034486d
71bbf6c03e5e97caf0f35faa34aca3b9c2b06130
6426 F20101108_AACBZE govindarajan_b_Page_105thm.jpg
c14e2f3377fa46671e4ca8e7ab2e869a
c5ceda9c0ab7b7f60039015f411097a3d3e1d0b1
27274 F20101108_AACBYP govindarajan_b_Page_092.QC.jpg
4d58c3a257b67ef8f294f674209398f3
24f111aa3fd26c300d88056a65b5a90ae9fb6571
21229 F20101108_AACBBJ govindarajan_b_Page_073.jpg
fb0dd32a578a3c788aebd5ff3ec8ec2f
f58712e3301bacb93654c4d2470f1c508db722a2
86532 F20101108_AACBAU govindarajan_b_Page_058.jpg
d65ca66552908c12057bdddc019b19c5
7af401fc53ecc511ab60aa2aac913b2bd17429bc
28587 F20101108_AACBYQ govindarajan_b_Page_093.QC.jpg
94ecfd064a60d74c7df52a81b3e66881
a43613cc5834fc9bec4dba19c35e962294531962
21194 F20101108_AACBBK govindarajan_b_Page_074.jpg
7b63aab3a8d101780c998b93e59a2f29
08f3b748b118471156e888224053a54aaa37f4f4
80993 F20101108_AACBAV govindarajan_b_Page_059.jpg
fed9dcfcb7d14acbe1a9ac2ee76a5c7f
dc610b0c0c71cc3f2152dca72828f1f65f3341ed
5130 F20101108_AACBYR govindarajan_b_Page_095.QC.jpg
13c564828fdc10154879ce90d54d851b
77ed4a2e311c7b28d0673eb9cad0f2a35be8f053
25101 F20101108_AACBBL govindarajan_b_Page_075.jpg
16a466c10c1ffb612aeea113d7ea4a77
890d05bdd5cafc8752276c5f2b0fe1217c0a7928
42219 F20101108_AACBAW govindarajan_b_Page_060.jpg
42f2a69351de3c847a2ca1b7dd11e475
8b737b62c482678bc73527cdc1a0bc9bc8f7e08f
27652 F20101108_AACBYS govindarajan_b_Page_096.QC.jpg
ecc5e67835388a5660f37de02da8d2e5
716d08c583131578a36dc2e545e2faafe8969d87
27418 F20101108_AACBBM govindarajan_b_Page_076.jpg
45c71fc113dbe3bcb53a91adae00eca6
e0d3b55ee90e433abfd92c996abe640bc97868d7
23258 F20101108_AACBAX govindarajan_b_Page_061.jpg
6a380ff07119d9bc722117409be15c39
9e7f4979cd3a51992527f9a47691a4f472349048
7215 F20101108_AACBYT govindarajan_b_Page_096thm.jpg
47f4a3e5e99e70e755c690c3b8becfd1
e2d4cbc3038969c43854d2f99009ae9cea93509b
81971 F20101108_AACBCA govindarajan_b_Page_091.jpg
13a53e873878e8fa8f0cb2c08d3a896e
c308d41d1fd220140108cdd96419f9e9ce9fa499
25766 F20101108_AACBBN govindarajan_b_Page_077.jpg
a3fe72b73a46b54b806666ec48a4fe9f
2d8035d93655424e98f9328257e1f11d8cee8ef9
49801 F20101108_AACBAY govindarajan_b_Page_062.jpg
096e0c3cdec37f87cca69fa6394529fa
a9fe7286c559bf8bef98ea07a9d4327f7480c93e
27746 F20101108_AACBYU govindarajan_b_Page_097.QC.jpg
52d0e3acce66dc4e16ffa1d395c2e57c
ee1ee9fefde142d15184b1fcbdfcfa042cb0f16a
84930 F20101108_AACBCB govindarajan_b_Page_092.jpg
efd96a2e36f2a77a628324b7360f344d
36da69178a2c35400d40f3dde071bfbaa2f09c9b
35186 F20101108_AACBAZ govindarajan_b_Page_063.jpg
5a77144581d98f63e122ac1668a9cf84
44ffb82621320a5432cabba4641061e595f9a259
7643 F20101108_AACBYV govindarajan_b_Page_097thm.jpg
2fc3955b28b1d585678eaa9fa0be2f60
6463c6bba8e47d984fd4b5a38d3948fe72c871db
89883 F20101108_AACBCC govindarajan_b_Page_093.jpg
15715172eefc1abda0e5cde3582894b4
59196947106c38ca9737f85e80ca6fa8d390decb
80850 F20101108_AACBBO govindarajan_b_Page_078.jpg
d741cb9ac258239880576b63f178f0d2
7fa2d61ae253e1cf47d08dd4f0b1f165d4657d0e
27513 F20101108_AACBYW govindarajan_b_Page_098.QC.jpg
758e972a253beb3780db7f48191ae994
1808c08c6a9e13b5b978731bb8fefbe1e24e13ed
84464 F20101108_AACBCD govindarajan_b_Page_094.jpg
3bffd6eb48ece1e213a1d43227f39711
08bee06cc6fc295f7df5c00256dd12ad563f84ec
87661 F20101108_AACBBP govindarajan_b_Page_079.jpg
c7de45f769602a8c379fb45d86df54fd
91d49dd36fb0ac0b04027122ce496865a39b4349
28910 F20101108_AACBYX govindarajan_b_Page_099.QC.jpg
bb447cb3a369fb6ec00a3207f53f00b8
371f2d97b1daf9aed5fc76566c7f4909c4df4208
15332 F20101108_AACBCE govindarajan_b_Page_095.jpg
bfb26e7489047e1ac1da6e842feb0742
77848a87b1e3b262fff19b3b7517d3c8ac3e3c95
87189 F20101108_AACBBQ govindarajan_b_Page_080.jpg
8cdc2f9545db1cc3b0dc53c8aed382b0
71987bda4767f4e9180cb2982cccca630cbca09f
7683 F20101108_AACBYY govindarajan_b_Page_099thm.jpg
c69a2af9b7a465748cf696f82104ec2d
1e893297329bb1cc8624c122c1e47b79c1fe913b
93984 F20101108_AACBCF govindarajan_b_Page_096.jpg
983bb1fcbcf689a666cf07ae8f6299bb
26bced6dadfd66f30dcc0190165050f64a785279
8781 F20101108_AACAXA govindarajan_b_Page_074.pro
40ad4137b1b0b20dd416033661f5c1ee
802d893626f5637c8e38a63b5660d5bcb11950ee
85279 F20101108_AACBBR govindarajan_b_Page_081.jpg
b5dc1a25d6edec2257ca6907be8c2c60
448b22d4828b2c393a7052e52a63c82e615f959e
28104 F20101108_AACBYZ govindarajan_b_Page_100.QC.jpg
102b7fe98595e1a5fdd526fcef68c6bb
0bca38a6db20c1d30042b5e0e4bae2fe784c5301
105161 F20101108_AACBCG govindarajan_b_Page_097.jpg
b90933ea8026bd060635f8aa45e5b0b2
adc77af710c17c62467566f87e427b91555e08a1
54688 F20101108_AACAXB govindarajan_b_Page_087.pro
aca507d02129ce2262be8fe65d9ccb41
f96c2e990b3463dd2b87f88b32e158c1566fe7cb
87769 F20101108_AACBBS govindarajan_b_Page_082.jpg
0920b6665cab6299c7c85697118febcc
d77704cacd3c020ab2622161b9eea753e9c7f21e
95128 F20101108_AACBCH govindarajan_b_Page_098.jpg
0fb3a3d70080e595e879b20211e2b8a1
310e13752eabda36802e695c3b438593f9fafc3c
9839 F20101108_AACAXC govindarajan_b_Page_088.QC.jpg
d0b145303fa32c9945665692069b41ea
04eaf9615a1de7efc9a509e6a336f786fe87a34a
85299 F20101108_AACBBT govindarajan_b_Page_083.jpg
ccd543a6b6424334a735c43fbab7b2a1
a829fa11ca4a9df2236ae462138db8efc927cf23
100740 F20101108_AACBCI govindarajan_b_Page_099.jpg
ea94f5e15e6c2f5f111f2cf96c0cd08f
f6577199a68d08e58f03d0156355f5fbf029cd44
24663 F20101108_AACAXD govindarajan_b_Page_078.QC.jpg
295626267059ed643fc6fa7ca3198f80
426aebcaff4de2f9148fbc640dc11cfa8b9ff2b3
83449 F20101108_AACBBU govindarajan_b_Page_084.jpg
ba39f43e6dcbfa951b9bf3db0324dc94
ccc464f875ec4e71f28efda27ed574021404ef7d
102016 F20101108_AACBCJ govindarajan_b_Page_100.jpg
739dbd4db008310da61464fa651e813d
151a7e163aa63304dd79bf5fcd2baf5c37f07e98
492966 F20101108_AACAXE govindarajan_b_Page_066.jp2
6d3ee38b32e89b093c3f5ec06226d84a
49c0dbe62479ddc7f5417d862d53c75bb0de5afc
86787 F20101108_AACBBV govindarajan_b_Page_085.jpg
f4851ab1f66d2dab7e64c35bc57cdfda
7b9e18d65f7d2e0f09325479c2074c5c7df8c59d
96173 F20101108_AACBCK govindarajan_b_Page_101.jpg
768e8b9b1347d91596c21febeea5b858
827fcc974715c3293b42e9930ad2210457bade90
84971 F20101108_AACBBW govindarajan_b_Page_087.jpg
060f0c1cffcba8640c5cccfd1a6a981a
245505ddae8889fab4f09df9cf6886ce1596c117
117043 F20101108_AACBCL govindarajan_b_Page_102.jpg
ae99ccedadea815d161c00ff74093a3f
72b8dde85b5e45a4af8ad29ed9286ae767e53c50
26626 F20101108_AACAXF govindarajan_b_Page_001.jpg
68e079fb7837159c2c5ca4b667badbf1
4e16cae2fff7ec87610a3c232ac9bbdafd990aef
29654 F20101108_AACBBX govindarajan_b_Page_088.jpg
f8f55d6c301d614d7c9ba6be84fd2b01
88686bb3fff1c28c68854688fabf2a470cafe80f
1051951 F20101108_AACBDA govindarajan_b_Page_013.jp2
dcdb4ccf38e6079a841e91cbb7b488a6
d0d2d0e65f103b83cc2f1d439879150b6de40c08
93681 F20101108_AACBCM govindarajan_b_Page_103.jpg
8d19ae4f15e2dcba6575309dfacd4865
9738ae951713906caa493f6c9fcb72d2a88683cf
F20101108_AACAXG govindarajan_b_Page_058.tif
e9ad1b863a1ebe46da29d31d50c9935c
f1fc39d03f334648da8bd54ca056943709548481
23403 F20101108_AACBBY govindarajan_b_Page_089.jpg
c669719b92a2d3299d9f8a793015e07a
bed26ec971f20d6b6678ebf68acd23849f467ca0
1051979 F20101108_AACBDB govindarajan_b_Page_014.jp2
6f1437b487bbd58839446618200f7912
882548ef8d621ee1237bab6fef3bf17cd8b19650
34544 F20101108_AACBCN govindarajan_b_Page_104.jpg
836efce71c05724142b583c02ccfd6d8
613a670cd201bb563f10e649f51a9ae725bed376
921 F20101108_AACAXH govindarajan_b_Page_043.txt
994637256655ef093b4653707c0f3151
7b49ce10d1a4a632a69efeef096bb67807d0f8ac
40592 F20101108_AACBBZ govindarajan_b_Page_090.jpg
464b45dc2257ed67d45414e78663c4c6
2d1ba75857523598dbb8d1244d3890eb62feb24c
F20101108_AACAWT govindarajan_b_Page_079.jp2
ae00fdcac47da66ffa9db24973f298ab
ca10c5912284a7ac00cef337a54b4394f18326cc
1051942 F20101108_AACBDC govindarajan_b_Page_015.jp2
76e99eff58f086eb7ed1020837edfc77
96c6973b342081061570f108b6694ce9844269b1
271888 F20101108_AACBCO govindarajan_b_Page_001.jp2
e2bfb5b705124a5c4931d30d86b3447c
320c9febe7e88f5ac71548dd89b4a97c2cc46ea3
F20101108_AACAWU govindarajan_b_Page_086.txt
93bbf4b5313e9196343d9a48ab076ae2
27d55fb77b2c1d0308ae44f603bbdfc77169c8b7
1051940 F20101108_AACBDD govindarajan_b_Page_016.jp2
3be7ad42dfc2a97321f0fafe1913f9b7
38b4ebc812904928afe8c6b10e5609af4a0c3fa6
F20101108_AACAXI govindarajan_b_Page_027.tif
2e3e77504e09990f041e8273dbe02e25
70fbca6ce314436607f69997c0c184420473c8d0
2163 F20101108_AACAWV govindarajan_b_Page_017.txt
4480f1357ff4e297e634488aa1c9d8c6
04ac7421c16c8510c8012718ec74c13bc0d46440
F20101108_AACBDE govindarajan_b_Page_017.jp2
cf0a0756a742b936c3d9fbad6b362cb4
4595a76006070f68e54fc843c8e7a726900372df
33592 F20101108_AACBCP govindarajan_b_Page_002.jp2
c587b6aa91c4d09aee862fd34da8e3f1
05857f07c9c23f35d96133ba820248cae3fd6e2b
52009 F20101108_AACAXJ govindarajan_b_Page_039.pro
b9af6999fb5e83abbfad1060c346a692
cc673c6b7f4bc9069b3fce9d1032f9862f31eb09
F20101108_AACAWW govindarajan_b_Page_038.txt
e121ece2c21e16e94b97cebf4471875a
12f9604f763b654b0474f832a247c5373fa4b0ee
F20101108_AACBDF govindarajan_b_Page_018.jp2
a2a348cc42972b2d250273ac0b53c737
85c42eb239dce4c3928ba8c8e30e0092c9c7be75
73122 F20101108_AACBCQ govindarajan_b_Page_003.jp2
b5a6b00a14987840a387d75ac3ed846f
b5d1c2ef3812d9ee0e2e68091951b0dbac4ef6fb
F20101108_AACAXK govindarajan_b_Page_080.tif
418fedece3443b0978d58bca8d20744e
123f814b453230de646e8994802b45bdd7f4102a
11509 F20101108_AACAWX govindarajan_b_Page_049.QC.jpg
50e75b059c40682834c1a4a0845cbd68
44f82deb836f3ef501f206883b89b7cd4ac65b2e
1051948 F20101108_AACBDG govindarajan_b_Page_019.jp2
e37084b19099996fb2c235eab1d17e8a
adee5ee22f81383fe922d727cac1ea3395f4abc7
439 F20101108_AACAYA govindarajan_b_Page_072.txt
b93cafddf6878ae55b39f68e9fdad8cb
1640c712a34e2646cc3d6c9ae182805f1655d2cd
556600 F20101108_AACBCR govindarajan_b_Page_004.jp2
86fec108831839414d40a05555d7d9ad
2fdfb8b7946f3ce396c500b7faaf137b98cf57ae
84699 F20101108_AACAXL govindarajan_b_Page_086.jpg
ebc0ab8a64446e0b859b4f63cfbb2c48
ab9e9efc6b81b1c9b7ce9a6d74752c1daa67cd54
F20101108_AACAWY govindarajan_b_Page_053.tif
9e28604d4cee92f4e52f89ed1ca04168
9c4c87a2efb65166e9dad20208583fb82a9545b5
1051983 F20101108_AACBDH govindarajan_b_Page_020.jp2
f80abcc2123b0dfd68f7d96a83a7d3f1
737d4150bd661968f5e1a18a5fe34aa57d221b00
1051929 F20101108_AACAYB govindarajan_b_Page_087.jp2
23da265cac5eda6bef2e560899be2f90
96614f23a8e19c7141fd29bf9ae4a5c4db728e1d
F20101108_AACBCS govindarajan_b_Page_005.jp2
93b1070de22d109c272c56a7f293ff3b
0032ef0ceaac8cea04bd1269b2c0222a4a1d777d
6924 F20101108_AACAXM govindarajan_b_Page_009thm.jpg
02f8ab29daff8018501df0057afa21a9
f32d1610869912c49fc796f2a550fd2d91cfc70d
24583 F20101108_AACAWZ govindarajan_b_Page_004.pro
02efe03ddd0132abaeb932610ad544f0
dfd3a6c19fa95800d6a12c64ca0d474f2579f0d4
116091 F20101108_AACBDI govindarajan_b_Page_021.jp2
75bac0b7d8f08f671452743c8e34910d
3268a6ecf1352678880c8c1e33721ba3663804c3
672 F20101108_AACAYC govindarajan_b_Page_104.txt
0e0af8593be3ac77fc4ed7b4599e9f3d
420ecc216032198d88630e80c2b7ca11ccc3ad83
F20101108_AACBCT govindarajan_b_Page_006.jp2
b83fede3c61ea22191a992fb613911b1
c553e1ba1b26dc6f38350abc1fd625139a8127a2
1569 F20101108_AACAXN govindarajan_b_Page_064.txt
0f7215e165a7d5ed4b346fd8562c73dc
1e2133878cbe15aeddefcdb6eb2d458f5c937536
1051938 F20101108_AACBDJ govindarajan_b_Page_023.jp2
fb75d042b7946156b2df06b246ab30dd
2bd718d3544dc2255b67f8ba8559086b6270d1be
9581 F20101108_AACAYD govindarajan_b_Page_104.QC.jpg
73c4759d66152b4e34f9cb206af15301
4cbfcd1eacd3511045e7b75a0383924f6ea88a40
F20101108_AACBCU govindarajan_b_Page_007.jp2
44894e697b7cbfd655e5e0dd8c7a65f0
fa8e621ca705de2b8f7e6c9abff08871f160aeb0
F20101108_AACAXO govindarajan_b_Page_022.jp2
617bf863f4460c745a8590b6fd2e900f
03673d560375c1c73e5ba53b89aa30da70a6ea98
1051949 F20101108_AACBDK govindarajan_b_Page_024.jp2
8f4fb9511426c718419561271126ef04
fdd20988b60faa5772413185470f513fd5214cf6
3587 F20101108_AACAYE govindarajan_b_Page_048thm.jpg
949175d4b607d9a1d36b3f7569c82f73
a9bd35c46ab30db5c77b083d8fa3e76e2ff8587f
1051974 F20101108_AACBCV govindarajan_b_Page_008.jp2
96262f53b6f13fac3efdcc0d14d00d9b
3cab17311b9f9782ff17519514cd8cc425a9c31b
574599 F20101108_AACAXP govindarajan_b_Page_050.jp2
34603c62ebfd30d414207cf2264d59ea
ee298517fd2978f94763cab1c4d33b765d392204
1051857 F20101108_AACBDL govindarajan_b_Page_025.jp2
0ff166b4c6d78c2f1caba33f5e9aba62
ae0d749603f9230c18cb84e97f72991cdad823c8
87859 F20101108_AACAYF govindarajan_b_Page_013.jpg
eaf431ef177e02fd00ef319fcfe10cfa
10ac2fb483ff303f60f1a49d0f11a505c7a62458
1051902 F20101108_AACBCW govindarajan_b_Page_009.jp2
c8a96a2957686cffb31f0cd7c6896a7d
c9a8e715737540fc2b56b873e80fd52ea5e524be
2276 F20101108_AACAXQ govindarajan_b_Page_032.txt
7e4b480f38ff436d8aba906d860412e3
a30bf71b26e4b9b5b6c4c2e322372c6d7c554c93
556136 F20101108_AACBEA govindarajan_b_Page_041.jp2
7a1a6c5c64885b03335c0327a8db8088
ca9408df05b348b3b6d249bcec1c557f19b7e476
F20101108_AACBDM govindarajan_b_Page_026.jp2
42acc167b47e8e2cc00e23e9eb0c6dfd
af9a400cfa09b6e93f22a874dfd70e33a675343a
701671 F20101108_AACBCX govindarajan_b_Page_010.jp2
2546a710773fe1bb4defb780db3bdd93
3c00ed9e4b35e2a187129d390b6f4339c62b1d68
F20101108_AACAXR govindarajan_b_Page_003.tif
c9668ff878c73647ffd5351122cc98cc
6b5f547abee150e6a8dc05339aeb9433b285dfab
F20101108_AACBEB govindarajan_b_Page_042.jp2
18a9dc5d77071af36157fc3d2632908c
90239aa6f6890558c14e05c7172faa6362259a9e
F20101108_AACBDN govindarajan_b_Page_027.jp2
043a924130a1edfca83e03973c42c1b6
cc1453f76d5dc984a005bab8b077c6e3eeb55c6c
28182 F20101108_AACAYG govindarajan_b_Page_019.QC.jpg
fe9953172623d088ed9c8ca197b985b8
247bd338faf58c5ba9233f33e633ddb8ef1b3445
F20101108_AACBCY govindarajan_b_Page_011.jp2
9efb071f7c2aa109c809e1b6c80066f8
4a3ba79218992c915bca2a0f66442224a0332da7
F20101108_AACAXS govindarajan_b_Page_082.jp2
ad8a7790472475bb2becdd0528dac18d
e60ea79bfe8a7a1108c6920b97a9492fb61c17a5
1051850 F20101108_AACBEC govindarajan_b_Page_043.jp2
9268e7cfc5b98f39d0965a1b7f0158ef
0901a267d6582274b9372e427ee2adaa11f8c5ce
F20101108_AACBDO govindarajan_b_Page_028.jp2
81a996a3dd678ca496657b2a32dfbba9
de6eaaef1a58965872c509a9402554d577dbce5f
2578 F20101108_AACAYH govindarajan_b_Page_028.txt
c3c2f09e9ba97ecbaf0dd8857821a137
da8a4cc1fb731a5bef079ac00d4e956e05a09425
F20101108_AACBCZ govindarajan_b_Page_012.jp2
ab5084722724c11322819e249210f43d
e5504359b9a16ea10a6e20bed128a958abd8cd40
39372 F20101108_AACAXT govindarajan_b_Page_042.jpg
1340441bfe80f741a62a8c13e8426325
dc4b88523d35e30755cd80be71fac195aead69c9
811309 F20101108_AACBED govindarajan_b_Page_045.jp2
8136bda5f0bd34fae715c9a86f804f7a
6d1a4e581bb5c6d8961fd634ae1574bbf6a36309
565511 F20101108_AACBDP govindarajan_b_Page_029.jp2
8e9b78ecef6b377f415a6d58b510a25b
bb11b5f6ac592d25d1725094c0b63ae3dd73d9e6
F20101108_AACAYI govindarajan_b_Page_091.jp2
7f3668a15f032cbfd7a8a5f933a49355
0324087322e83405c8460443aa0738f0a989ebec
2066 F20101108_AACAXU govindarajan_b_Page_052.txt
fd03edf6d68e79e99d695910b695efd0
d051bbed61d27b623e12c37424feef23b6fb49c5
1051870 F20101108_AACBEE govindarajan_b_Page_046.jp2
0daf9324fe93c5fe5f5ba3c71e75e0da
fc8b01480db36d54c8bf06e398722436baca5f55
13427 F20101108_AACAYJ govindarajan_b_Page_044.QC.jpg
d840514aff396119d351556f5c7f454f
c044669e37e22004ea75da4b4964d4dbdf63b138
F20101108_AACAXV govindarajan_b_Page_104.tif
c662bf4a4d18a9e528ae37d21a4d3da2
b2c8e4e36b03676872ac56bd21e4fafd328c7596
1051930 F20101108_AACBEF govindarajan_b_Page_047.jp2
9b05e6257d2f2f9a89cb42470ab7238d
7ebf69dc22a0940daa940734b3014d6840d3486e
1051916 F20101108_AACBDQ govindarajan_b_Page_030.jp2
fc8f79d2d9fd322448b3d21fdf713958
dc8445c517b57979fc19dd08a74e30b532a33c45
F20101108_AACAYK govindarajan_b_Page_039.jp2
dea1f00adb5643a77519830ec0499837
4b973755e5a0bb896eb50e8a13ad0e79d384b27c
1051885 F20101108_AACAXW govindarajan_b_Page_044.jp2
580c6b2ee94bfa901e83520e443558fd
6509895cd620467c0794d161029efdf74b4b180e
81018 F20101108_AACAZA govindarajan_b_Page_009.jpg
668375cea4222493c93e5c0028466539
a0d4bb99890d105473c7045c60eb82e7400f5b36
1051877 F20101108_AACBDR govindarajan_b_Page_031.jp2
01b2af9b5505736bf50459e35b8fee3a
9b08fd257db08b037b0d6056491b88c700267427
7058 F20101108_AACAYL govindarajan_b_Page_089.QC.jpg
fce84a196079e5ed5d717c00f18c9b3a
758fc810ef19e487da6a10e4f903c8c230ff5ead
15111 F20101108_AACAXX govindarajan_b_Page_047.QC.jpg
e36643931c1adfcc3b41e9f23dd0ba24
3bac488d3aa60252881aaa5b22a76c4d09097779
564332 F20101108_AACBEG govindarajan_b_Page_048.jp2
e261e4264866f76f96ebe0fab1649605
5b72f8c4da4c49a55a9802590be57f12ee4fdf40
54153 F20101108_AACAZB govindarajan_b_Page_010.jpg
6b0a99629db03d26af488c1c10625cee
deaba8a37aac645040799faa9022148b53d28478
1051958 F20101108_AACBDS govindarajan_b_Page_032.jp2
120199acb1880186b423b79f6bb529c2
ef453181fd34c45942f9789a16fd51cf711cb385
26565 F20101108_AACAYM govindarajan_b_Page_027.QC.jpg
41cca7807e031d6929ad42ce175dc804
2f76ba9c506a6e6af7b915fbd51fce20471d9a66
74637 F20101108_AACAXY govindarajan_b_Page_105.jpg
7d61c63e68a061f0bb70bb709b853556
e587db0ab5c22739ee242838d8599516bbf1664f
592286 F20101108_AACBEH govindarajan_b_Page_049.jp2
82dd54911844f6d137a1d71aae1e3f65
b34a4fd04b830575465732da37757240ca15f207
80259 F20101108_AACAZC govindarajan_b_Page_011.jpg
149ffef7115c07a9865203964d2e16f9
4d4fba86983ccf76cbd39bca6b4fd9c1413f448e
1051934 F20101108_AACBDT govindarajan_b_Page_033.jp2
65ccddba091a108484f9f04ba3ba6774
8abc72189c306a394b2eea1749e686fad58fa257
7093 F20101108_AACAYN govindarajan_b_Page_103thm.jpg
a0c909051970523ea3e3637568d2543e
a471530edbb132c19036215bff0d03c5fffef850
89067 F20101108_AACAXZ govindarajan_b_Page_022.jpg
f123ee778e3a2980b9d8fd4992dcb33d
295279e6c45648ab12c2259c459352ba244fb72e
F20101108_AACBEI govindarajan_b_Page_051.jp2
e284700643e23200f7f3e56c713ef03a
fe85c0bfc2d91ee24f707560750cc49c1144de67







NITROGEN DYNAMICS IN A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND RECEIVING PLANT
NURSERY RUNOFF IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES





















By

BHUVANESWARI GOVINDARAJAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































O 2008 Bhuvaneswari Govindarajan

































To every individual who nurtured my intellectual curiosity
throughout my lifetime
making this milestone possible









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Jyotsna Sharma for her guidance, wisdom, and

support, as well as my committee members, Drs. K.R.Reddy, Mark W Clark, and Kanika S

Inglett for their inputs on this proj ect. Additional thanks to Dr. Jyotsna Sharma for all her time,

especially during process of writing my thesis.

I would like to thank Dr. Jim Jawitz for his valuable inputs throughout my research. I wish

to thank Dr. Wilson for the statistical inputs. I am also thankful to Dr. Dunne for his assistance

and inputs. I thank everyone in the Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory for invaluable training

and inputs during lab experiments.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their love and support. A special

thanks to my husband, Subramaniam, for his patience and sacrifices through the long years of

graduate school, and for his support and help in all the endeavors I have chosen to pursue.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES .........__.. ..... .__. ...............6....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............7.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........9


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............11.......... ......


Introducti on ................... ....... ........ ...............11.......
Water Quality in the United States ................ ...............12...............
Water Quality in Southeastern United States .............. .... ....... ...........1
Water Quality and Ornamental Plant Industry in Georgia and Florida ................. ...............14
Management Strategies to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution .......................... ..............1
Importance of Natural and Constructed Wetlands for Improving Water Quality ..................18
Nitrogen Cycling in Wetlands .............. ...............20....
Denitrification in Wetlands............... ........ ... .........2
Factors Influencing Denitrification in Wetlands .............. ...............22....
The Problem Statement ................. ...............27......._.. ....

Obj ectives and Hypotheses ........._.___..... .___ ...............28....

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ...............30....


Site Description .............. ...............30....
Field M ethods .............. ...............33....

Analytical Methods............... ...............36
Statistical Methods............... ...............40


3 RE SULT S ........._.___..... .__. ...............5 1....


4 DI SCUS SSION ........._.___..... .___ ...............78....


5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........._._.. ....__. ...............91..


LIST OF REFERENCES ........._.___..... .___ ...............96....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._.___..... .__. ...............105....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Mean load-in, load-out, removal rate (g m-2 day l) of nutrients and percentage
nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland over five months (April and
August 2007). ............ ...............61.....

3-2 Mean concentrations of nutrients (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample
collection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the
constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). ............ ...... ............... 6

3-3 Physiochemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH) as affected by
location of sample collection, depth within location, and months (April and August
2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). ........... ...................63

3-4 Denitrification potential (mg N20-N kg-l hr- ) as affected by macrophyte rhizosphere
soil in three sections (east, middle, and west) between May 2007 and August 2007 in
the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. (n =3) ................. ........... ...........64

4-1 Nitrate removal rates in constructed wetlands, under different hydraulic residence
periods, as reported by other researchers. .............. ...............89....

4-2 Denitrification potentials of different substrate reported by other researchers in
constructed wetlands. ............ ...............90.....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Diagram illustrating potential pathways for chemical transformations of nitrogen (N)
in a w etland. .............. ...............29....

2-1 Map of the state of Georgia, United States, showing county boundaries. .......................41

2-2 Runoff generated from the microirrigated nursery beds at Monrovia Nursery .................42

2-3 Runoff generated from the nursery beds drains into the flow control channel ................. .43

2-4 Runoff draining into the flow control channel ................. ...............44..............

2-5 Overview of the Constructed wetlands at Monrovia Nursery, Cairo, GA. ......................45

2-6 Inflow pipes into the study cell ................. ...............46........... ..

2-7 Outflow pipe of the study cell ................. ...............47........... ..

2-8 Location and number of water samples (indicated by stars) at inflow and outflow of
the study cell to determine the nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed
w wetlands. ............. ...............48.....

2-9 Locations of water samples (indicated by stars) in the study cell to assess the spatial
variation in the concentration of nutrients and denitrification potential of the water
column, between locations (inflow and outflow) and between depths (top and
bottom) within locations over five months. ............. ...............49.....

2-10 Illustration of the study cell showing the location and number (indicated by stars) of
monthly plant root samples to assess the denitrification potential in the rhizosphere
soil of Can2na flaccida and Typha latifolia .............. ...............50....

3-1 Mean concentration (mg L^1) of total nitrogen (TN) and composition of TN [nitrate
(NO3- N), ammonium (NH4 -N) and organic nitrogen concentration, mg L^1]
between April to August of 2007 in the water samples obtained from the flow control
channel (n=3), inlet (n=9), and outlet (n=9) pipes of a constructed wetland receiving
nursery runoff ................. ...............65......__ .....

3-2 Mean concentration (mg L^1) of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N) between April 2007 and
August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the
study cell in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. .............. ...................66

3-3 Mean concentration (mg L^1) of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+ N) between April 2007
and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9)
of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. ............ .................67










3-4 Mean concentration (mg L 1) of total nitrogen (TN) between April 2007 and August
2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study
cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff ........................... ...............68

3-5 Mean concentration (mg L 1) of total phosphorus (TP) and Dissolved organic carbon
between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9)
and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery
runoff ................. ...............69.................

3-6 Mean concentration (mg L^1) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) between April 2007
and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9)
of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff ............... ... .........._..70

3-7 Pearson' s correlation between loading and removal rate of nitrate nitrogen (g m-2
day- ) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving
nursery runoff ................. ...............71.................

3-8 Pearson's correlation between loading and removal rate of ammonium nitrogen (g m
2 day- ) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving
nursery runoff ................. ...............72.................

3-9 Pearson' s correlation between loading and removal rate of total phosphorus (g m
2day- ) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving
nursery runoff ................. ...............73.................

3-10 Theoretical hydraulic residence time (in days) as affected by hydraulic loading rate
(m3 day l) and three estimates of wetland porosity values (0.75, 0.95 and 1.0) in the
study cell of a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff ................. ................74

3-11 Mean concentrations of nitrate nitrogen (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample
collection and depth within location, between April and August 2007 in the
constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). ............ ...... ............... 7

3-12 Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample
collection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the
constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3) ................. ................. ..........76

3-13 Physiochemical parameter, pH, as affected by location of sample collection, and
months (April and August 2007) of the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff
(n=3) ................. ...............77.................









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science

NITROGEN DYNAMICS IN A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND RECEIVING PLANT
NURSERY RUNOFF IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

By

Bhuvaneswari Govindarajan

May 2008
Chair: Jyotsna Sharma
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology

Constructed wetlands are a cost effective method for on-site nutrient removal from

polluted water from nonpoint sources. Nitrogen (N) concentration and denitrification potential

were studied in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff over five months in

southeastern US. Nursery runoff, before entering the wetland, contained an average total

nitrogen concentration of 34 mg L^1. Maj ority of nitrogen was in the form of nitrate nitrogen

(NO3--N; 30 mg L^1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4 -N; 2 mg L^1) and organic nitrogen

(2 mg L^)~. Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L^1 and dissolved organic carbon was 11

mg L^1. Mean nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40% for

NO3--N, 59% for NH4 -N, and 16% for TP. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency was inversely

related to the loading rate of NO3--N; and directly related to temperature of the water column.

The gradual increase in temperature over months might have enhanced NO3- N removal by

influencing plant growth and activity of microorganisms, which is also evidenced by the gradual

decrease in the concentration of DO in the water column during the study period. The theoretical

hydraulic residence time was estimated to be 3-5 days in the model. The nutrients (N and P)

analyzed in this study exhibited nutrient gradient from the inflow to outflow indicating removal

of these nutrients within the wetland. The denitrification potential of the water column was









relatively low (0.01 to 0.03 mg N20-N L-1 hr- ), and could be due to carbon limitation in the

wetland water column as evident by low DOC concentration and low DOC: NO3--N ratio. The

presence of few attachment sites for bacteria and lack of particulate substances to support the

microbial activity possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column. The mean

denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia (3 mg N20-N kg -1 hr- ) and

Can2naflaccida (4 mg N20-N kg -1 hr- ) over five months were statistically similar. As the

combined denitrification potential of the water column (0.72 mg N20-N kg-l day- ) and the

rhizosphere soil (96 mg N20-N kgl day- ) in this study was less than the total removal (1.75 g

m-2 day )~, it is likely that other NO3--N processes are contributing to the observed NO3--N

removal in this constructed wetland. Plant uptake and microbial denitrification in the sediments

and/or soil are considered as maj or NO3--N removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands.

Hence, it is concluded that rhizosphere denitrification is significantly contributing to NO3- -N

removal in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Introduction

Globally, many aquatic ecosystems have experienced an impairment of water quality due

to excess nutrient loading from both point and nonpoint sources. Point source pollution refers to

pollutants that come from a definite, single identifiable source. Point source pollution has been

reduced effectively in recent years because point source pollutants are easy to identify, monitor,

and control as compared with nonpoint source pollutants. Due to the development of new

wastewater treatment technologies and implementation of stricter regulatory controls, point

source pollution has effectively been reduced in the United States.

Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric

deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification [United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993a]. Nonpoint source pollutants are nutrients, metals, salts,

sediments, pathogens, and toxics that come in unidentifiable runoff from agriculture, urban and

suburban stormwater, mining, and oil and gas operations [National Research Council (NRC),

1992]. It is difficult to identify, control, and regulate the nonpoint source pollution, as it comes

from vast and diverse landscapes, many diffuse sources, and varies by time of year. The ability

of these nonpoint source pollutants to reach waterbodies is enhanced by rainfall, snowmelt, and

irrigation. The nonpoint source pollutants have harmful effects on groundwater and surface

water resources, drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife (USEPA, 1994). The

maj or sources of nonpoint source pollution are identified as agriculture and urban activities,

which includes industry and transportation (Carpenter et al., 1998). The lack of effective control

measures on polluted runoff especially from agricultural farms (including plant nurseries), urban









areas and forestry operations are the primary reason for the lack of improvement in controlling

nonpoint source pollution.

Water Quality in the United States

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, nonpoint source pollution stands as the

primary cause of water quality impairment within the United States. According to the USEPA

(2002a), nonpoint source pollution is the main reason that approximately 39% of surveyed rivers,

45% of lakes and 51% of estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or

swimming. The report from National Coastal Condition (USEPA, 2002b) proj ected that the 70%

of the US estuary conditions would worsen by 2020 due to eutrophication caused by nonpoint

source pollutants. The National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program [United States

Geological Survey (USGS), 1998] of the US assessed the quality of water resources, especially

streams, river basins, groundwater, and aquifer systems in the Unites States from 1991-2001 and

reported that the contamination of streams and groundwater is widespread in agricultural and

urban areas due to nonpoint source pollutants.

States and other jurisdictions reported in the National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI,

1998) that agriculture and urban runoff are among the leading contributors to deteriorate water

quality nationwide. The most common nonpoint source pollutants causing water quality

impairment include nutrients [nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)], pesticides, chemicals, siltation

(soil particles), metals, and pathogens (bacteria and viruses). According to Faeth (2000),

agriculture is the largest source of pollution in the US degrading the quality of surface waters

such as rivers and lakes, with croplands alone accounting for nearly 40% of the N and 30% of

the P pollution. A maj or nonpoint source pollutant from these activities is an excess of nutrients,

which can occur through applications of crop fertilizers. For example, in agricultural systems,










crops only utilize 40-60% of N fertilizer applied to fields, and the remainder is incorporated into

soil organic matter, volatilized, denitrified, lost as runoff, or enters groundwater (Coffey, 1997).

Water Quality in Southeastern United States

In the Southeastern Regional Climate Assessment Report (1999), it has been reported that

in many cases, water quality indices are either below recommended levels or nearly so. The

maj or sources of nonpoint source pollution, including intense agricultural practices, urban

development, coastal processes, and mining activities, impair the quality of water in the

southeastern United States. In the southeastern region, especially in Georgia and Florida, the

natural features such as geology, climate, hydrology, and soils, significantly influence the

transport of nonpoint source pollutants from land to water. The soils of the Atlantic and Gulf

coastal plains include clays, loams, and large areas of gray, sandy soils. For example, in

loam/clay soils and sandy soils, the N export, as a percentage of fertilizer inputs, from

agricultural systems to adj acent waterbodies ranges from 10 to 40% and 25 to 80%, respectively

(Howarth et al., 1996). The transport of nutrients is also influenced by the rate, season, chemical

forms and method of application, amount and timing of rainfall after application, and vegetative

cover (Carpenter et al., 1998). In Florida, well drained sandy soils [underlain by gravel and

carbonate karstt) rocks] are susceptible to groundwater contamination due to low water holding

capacity, rapid infiltration and downward movement of water and chemicals. In contrast, the

areas with poorly drained clay soils are susceptible to runoff, which leads to stream

contamination, rather than groundwater contamination. Due to the poor draining capacity of the

clay soils, excessive irrigation or rainfall quickly drains to the adj acent streams as runoff (USGS,

1998).

The southern coastal plain of the US holds significant agricultural and hydrological

importance, with wide range of soil types and crop management systems. Land use in this region









is approximately 69% woodland, 17% cropland, 11% pastureland, and 3% urban (Berndt et al.,

1996). According to the USGS (1998) report on water quality in the Georgia-Florida coastal

plain during 1992-1996; "more than 20% of groundwater samples from the surficial aquifers in

the agricultural areas throughout the study area had nitrate nitrogen (NO3- N) concentrations

greater than the USEPA drinking water standard of 10 mg L^1." The concentrations of other

nutrients in groundwater including ammonia, orthophosphate and total phosphorus were low.

Nitrogen concentrations (as NO3- N) in streams did not exceed drinking water standards or

guidelines, but were higher in streams draining agricultural and mixed basins. Nearly 30% of the

water samples from the streams had dissolved phosphorus concentrations greater than the aquatic

criteria (0.1 mg L^1; USEPA, 1986) for total phosphorus. Nearly 80% of the streams in

agricultural areas had phosphorus concentrations greater than the USEPA standard to prevent

algal growth (USGS 1998). The study area, situated in the Georgia-Florida coastal plain,

overlies the Upper Floridan aquifer, which is the maj or source of drinking water for that area.

The unconfined Upper Floridan aquifer has karst features, which is vulnerable to groundwater

contamination, similar to that of sandy soils (USGS, 1998).

Water Quality and Ornamental Plant Industry in Georgia and Florida

Florida is one of America's leading agricultural states which produces a wide range of

commodities. The state has a humid subtropical climate with mean rainfall of up to 140 cm per

year, mean monthly temperature ranging from 4 to 33"C during a calendar year, and is prone to

hurricanes (Black, 1993). Florida has the largest total acreage of 'Aquods', (wet sandy soils with

an organic stained subsoil layer; www.nrcs.gov, November 2007), are susceptible to

groundwater contamination due to poor water holding capacity. Hence, pollution of surface and

groundwater resources resulting from agricultural runoff, urban stormwater runoff, and erosion









sedimentation is a significant problem in Florida, where approximately one-third of landforms

are wetlands, and drinking water is mostly drawn from underground aquifers which are close to

the land surface (Marella and Fanning, 1996).

The generally temperate climate in Georgia is influenced by the proximity to the Atlantic

Ocean and to the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plains, underlain by sand and limestone, occupy

over 60% of the state. Because of the sandy soil and flat topography in the coastal areas,

infiltration is a larger concern rather than runoff. Nearly one third of the state is underlain by

sandy/clay loam soils, which support variety of agricultural crops. The state typically receives

100-125 cm of rainfall every year (www.georgia. org; www. coastgis.marsci .uga. edu, October

2007).

Florida is the second leading producer of ornamental plants in the US. The greenhouse and

nursery industry comprises 50,992 hectares of production area in Florida (Hodges and Haydu,

2002). According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates, the value

of nursery and greenhouse crops in Florida was approximately $1.63 billion in 2004 (Jerardo,

2005). Georgia is among the top ten producers of floriculture crops, ranking tenth in the US.

The value of nursery and greenhouse crops in Georgia was approximately $400 million in 2006

[National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), http://www.nass.usda.gov/, accessed on

October, 2007].

While greenhouse crop production generates significant runoff, this problem is most

noticeable in the container nursery industry where large numbers of containerized plants are

grown outdoors. Generally, for production of containerized plants outdoors, plants are grown in

containers placed on gravel beds which are lined with plastic to prevent weed growth, and

irrigation is achieved through overhead sprinklers (USDA, 1998a; Lea-cox and Ross, 2001). The









ornamental nursery production requires intensive irrigation and fertilization for production of

marketable plants. While many growers use controlled release fertilizers (CRFs) incorporated

into the medium, liquid fertilizers are also applied through overhead irrigation systems at several

operations. The method of fertilizer application has been shown to influence the concentration

of nutrients in the runoff. The CRFs are observed to be suitable to minimize the concentration of

nutrients in the runoff. For example, NO3- N concentration was observed to be low (0.5 to 33

mg L^1, averaging 8 mg L^1) when CRFs were used, as compared to 0.1 to 135 mg L^1 (averaging

20 mg L^1) when a combination of CRFs and liquid fertilizers was used (Yeager et al., 1993).

The liquid fertilizers are typically used because CRFs are often more expensive and do not

provide the nutrients as readily as the liquid formulations. Nitrate fertilizers dissolve readily,

they are highly mobile in the water, hence leach readily, and are often found in the runoff water.

Compared to NO3- N, phosphorus is rapidly retained as insoluble inorganic compounds and

sorbed to soil surfaces. Overhead irrigation is the primary method of applying irrigation to

ornamental plants in small containers. The irrigation application efficiency is reported to be low,

ranging from 15% to 30% (Lu and Sibley, 2006). The overhead sprinkler irrigation of 1.8 x 105

L ha -1 yr -1 (Aldrich and Bartok, 1994) is estimated to produce 1.8 9 x 104 L ha-l yr- of

wastewater as runoff (Berghage et al., 1999) accounting for 10-50% loss as runoff of the

irrigation water. The irrigation practices lead to runoff of excessive fertilizers which find their

way into nearby water resources either through percolation in case of bare ground or through

runoff in case of plastic covered nursery beds. Due to high amount of rainfall and soil conditions

in Florida and Georgia, there is significant potential for discharge of large volume of runoff with

high nutrient concentration to nearby surface and groundwater resources. Hence runoff from

plant nursery poses a threat to water quality in Florida and Georgia. The restrictions/legi stations









such as Watershed Restoration Act and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs), imposed by the

environmental protection agencies against contamination of water resources necessitate

recycling/treatment of nursery runoff before discharging into nearby waterbodies (Headley et al.,

2001; Lea-cox et al., 2002; Huett et al., 2005).

Management Strategies to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution

The control of nonpoint source pollution centers on adoption of Best Management

Practices (BMPs) to manage land and to control the release of pollutants into the atmosphere;

further, establishment of threshold levels of contaminants (e.g., TMDLs) is also a strategy for

limiting nonpoint source pollution (Carpenter et al., 1998).

Best Management Practices can be grouped into two categories; structural and

nonstructural (Horner et al., 1994). Non structural BMPs include practices such as preservation

of natural areas and drainage systems, land use methods, and efficient use of fertilizers and

irrigation water. Structural BMPs include establishment of detention/retention and recycling

ponds, grass swales, filter strips, riparian buffer strips, floodplains, and wetlands. The

commonly used structural BMPs are retention and recycling ponds, riparian buffers strips, and

grass swales to control nonpoint source pollution from agricultural operations, including plant

nurseries. In most of these methods, the primary mechanisms to remove pollutants are to

enhance settling of the particulates and to enhance infiltration into the subsurface zones. Many

container plant nurseries, where plants are grown outdoors on gravel beds lined with plastic,

construct recycling ponds to recycle the runoff from nursery beds (Lu and Sibley, 2006). The

other commonly followed BMPs to control the runoff water from container plant nurseries are

adjusting the time and rate of fertilizer application to coincide with the crop needs, using micro-

irrigation practices to minimize runoff volume, and use of controlled release fertilizers to reduce

NO3- N leaching from containers.









A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and

still meet water quality standards, and establishes pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint

pollutant sources (www.epa.gov, October 2007). The 1999 Florida Legislature adopted

comprehensive TMDL legislation, and concluded that the development of a TMDL program will

promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of

point and nonpoint sources of pollution. "The scientifically based TMDL program was found to

be necessary to fairly and equitably allocate pollution loads to both nonpoint and point sources",

(Thomas and Joyner, 2002). In Georgia, over 850 TMDLs had been approved by the end of

2002 by Georgia Environmental Protection Division and USEPA. Most of the TMDLs in

Georgia, however, were established for fecal coliform bacteria (pathogens), metals, sediments,

and dissolved oxygen (http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PD/B242-2.pdf, October 2007).

Importance of Natural and Constructed Wetlands for Improving Water Quality

Wetlands and forested riparian buffers are most commonly utilized management strategies

for on-site nutrient removal from polluted waters generated from agricultural practices, including

plant nurseries (Franklin et al., 2000). Among these, wetlands can play an important role in

ecosystem management and can act as a sink for nutrients. Wetlands, however, often have been

destroyed for agricultural use of land and for urban development. In the United States alone,

approximately 54% of the original wetlands have been destroyed (Patrick, 1994). By the mid-

1980's, Florida had lost approximately 46% of its estimated original wetlands (Dahl, 1990).

Georgia had lost approximately 23% of its estimated original wetlands, by the mid 1980's (Dahl,

1990). However, in the past few decades, planned use of natural wetlands for treating

wastewater treatment has been seriously studied and implemented in a controlled manner

(USEPA, 1993b). Gren (1995) reported that wetland restoration is the most cost effective

method of decreasing nonpoint source pollution.









Over the recent years, it has been realized that in addition to restoring the natural wetlands,

it is useful to construct artificial wetlands for cost effective, on-site remediation of polluted water

before discharging it into the natural aquatic systems. A number of studies have provided

evidence that constructed wetland systems provide an effective means to control the nonpoint

source pollution (including nutrient contaminants), thereby improving water quality (Mitsch,

1992; Hammer, 1992; Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Hoag, 1997; Headley et al., 2001; Poe et al.,

2003; Huett et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2007). Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that

differ from natural systems but are used to treat water by mimicking the processes occurring in

natural wetlands. These are designed to provide an ideal habitat for microbial communities for

achieving nutrient transformations in the contaminated water (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

Wetland soil is highly saturated and exists in a chemically reduced state. The oxidized forms of

nutrients undergo transformations when it come in contact with saturated and reduced soil

conditions. Biological activity in the biofilms that attach to wetland soil and plants accounts for

much of the transformations of pollutants. Nitrogen transformations such as nitrification and

denitrification in the sediments were observed to occur rapidly in the aerobic/anaerobic

microsites in the wetlands (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

Constructed wetlands are increasingly being used for treating N rich wastewater (Gersberg

et al., 1983; Reddy and D'Angelo, 1994; Bachand and Horne, 2000; Headley et al., 2001; Poe et

al., 2003; Huett et al., 2005; Reinhardt et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2007). Such systems have been

subjected to wastewater discharges from municipal, industrial, agricultural and surface runoff,

irrigation return flows, urban stormwater discharges, and other sources of polluted water. The

constructed wetland systems can be broadly classified into two main categories; surface flow and

subsurface flow systems. The surface flow wetlands are designed to have a shallow (typically









less than 0.4m) layer of surface water over mineral or organic soils. The persistent emergent

vegetation such as Typha spp.L. (Cattail), Phragmites spp. Adans. (Reed), and Scirpus spp. L.

(Bulrush) are commonly used, along with floating and submerged aquatic vegetation, and shrubs

and trees. In subsurface wetlands, the basin (less than 0.6m) is filled with coarse substrate such

as gravel, and the water level is maintained below ground with water flowing through the gravel

and the roots of vegetation (DeBusk, 1999). Both surface flow and subsurface flow constructed

wetlands have been reported to remove N and P from plant nursery runoff(Taylor et al., 2006).

A surface flow wetland was reported to remove 79-99% of nitrogen from the plant nursery

runoff (Taylor et al., 2006).

Nitrogen Cycling in Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are recognized as a means to improve water quality through N

removal. The maj or contributors of organic and inorganic N to the constructed wetlands include

biological N fixation and point and nonpoint source runoff, respectively. Organic N undergoes

mineralization/decomposition and results in the release of inorganic N forms. The processes

such as biological nitrification, denitrification, and volatilization result in the production of

inorganic N forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and N2 gaS).

Most of the N transformations in the constructed wetlands are either plant or microbe

mediated. Nitrification is an aerobic process, in which oxidation of ammonium nitrogen (NH4 -

N) to nitrate nitrogen (NO3- N) is mediated by nitrifying bacteria. In contrast, denitrification

occurs in anaerobic conditions, whereby NO3- N is reduced to N2 gaS. There is growing

evidence that other microbe mediated processes such as Dissimilatory Nitrate Reduction to

Ammonium (DNRA) and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) facilitate N

transformations in wetlands (Stottmeister et al., 2003; Shipin et al., 2005; Reddy and Delaune,

2007; Burgin and Hamilton, 2007; Paredes et al., 2007).









The temporary removal of N in wetlands occurs through plant uptake and microbial

immobilization, whereas, permanent removal ofN occurs through denitrification (Fig. 1-1). In

wetlands, biological denitrification is the maj or pathway of N removal (Reddy et al., 1989;

Tanner and Kadlec, 2003; Poe et al., 2003; Toet et al., 2003; Smialek et al., 2006). At high pH

(typically higher than 8.0) volatilization of ammonia also contributes to N loss to the atmosphere

(Reddy and Patrick, 1984). Other processes such as sedimentation, adsorption, uptake by plants

and microbes lead to N storage in the wetlands (Fig. 1-1).

Denitrification in Wetlands

Denitrification is the stepwise reduction of nitrogenous oxides (NO3- and NO2-) to produce

gaseous N products (N20 and N2). These gases are released into the atmosphere, thus resulting

in a removal of N from the wetland. It is a microbe mediated process in which facultative

anaerobic bacteria (Pseudomona~s spp., Alcaligenes spp., Flavobacterium spp., Paracoccus~~PPP~~~PP~~~PP spp.,

and Bacillus spp.) use nitrate (NO3 ) aS the terminal electron acceptor during the oxidation of

carbon (C) in the absence of oxygen (Ol) (Tiedje, 1988). The low redox potential and high

carbon content in the wetlands favors the process of denitrification. Globally, N loss due to

denitrification process is estimated as 19 Tg yr- (Armentano and Verhoeven, 1990). The

equation and the chemical transformations of denitrification process are as follows

2NO3-+ 10e- + 12H' --- N2 + 6H20

Nitrate (NO3-) --+ Nitrite (NO,)-- Nitrous oxide (NO) --+ Nitrogen (N,)

The microbe mediated denitrification process was observed to be the dominant mechanism

for N removal in the constr-ucted wetlands (Xue et al., 1999; Bachand and Horne 2000). Hence

the quantification of denitrification potential is critical. The commonly used methods are mass

balance, Acetylene Inhibition Technique (AIT), 15N tracers, and Membrane Inlet Mass

Spectrometry (MIMS). Due to the differences in the methodology, the comparison of









denitrification rates between the studies is often challenging (Seitzinger, 1993). The AIT

method is one of the most commonly used techniques for measuring denitrification rates. This

technique measures the denitrification rates under ambient anaerobic conditions, in which

acetylene (C2H2) inhibits the reduction of N20 to N. The extent of denitrification is quantified

by the progressive accumulation ofN20. This is also known as Denitrification enzyme Assay

(DEA), which is an indicator of denitrifier biomass present in the samples and serves as an

integrated measure of denitrification potential.

Factors Influencing Denitrification in Wetlands

Denitrification in wetland systems is primarily controlled by organic carbon availability

(Reddy et al., 1982; Gale et al., 1993; D'Angelo and Reddy, 1999), aeration status (dissolved

oxygen levels; Tanner and Kadlec, 2003), and NO3- N concentration (Cooper and Findlater,

1990; Gale et al., 1993; Martin and Reddy, 1997). These factors are highly influenced by

temporal (diurnal and seasonal) and spatial (horizontal and vertical) variation (White and Reddy,

1999; Kadlec and Reddy, 2001). The other factors that influence denitrification rates in wetlands

are the make-up of the vegetative and microorganismal communities (Gersberg et al., 1986;

Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006; Smialek et al., 2006), depth of the water column (Sirivedhin and

Gray, 2006), hydraulic residence time, and pH of the water and soil (Reddy and Patrick, 1984).

The maj or regulator of denitrification is the oxygen status of the wetland, as this process is

facilitated by facultative anaerobic bacteria. Denitrification is observed to take place only in low

oxygen zones of the wetlands (Knowles, 1982; Knowles, 1990; Tiedje, 1988). In anoxic

conditions, denitrification is controlled by NO3- N and carbon availability.

The importance of organic carbon as an electron donor in the denitrification process is well

documented (Eriksson and Weisner, 1997; Lin et al., 2002; Bastviken et al., 2003). While

studying the relationship between denitrification rates and dissolved organic carbon (DOC),










significant positive correlation was observed by Reddy et al. (1982) and Gale et al. (1993) for a

wide range of wetlands. The positive linear relationship indicates there is direct relationship

between denitrification and DOC, i.e. denitrification increases with increasing DOC

concentrations. Hence the denitrification rate is related to the rate of mineralization of C and

level of bio-available C to the denitrifying microbes (Reddy et al., 1982; Gale et al., 1993).

Martin and Reddy (1997) suggested that denitrification rates are limited by NO3- N

concentrations rather than C availability and by diffusion rates of NO3- N from aerobic to

anaerobic phase in wetlands. Many researchers observed positive correlation between NO3- N

concentrations and denitrification rates (White and Reddy 1999; Sartoris et al., 2000; Gale et al.,

1993; Poe et al., 2003). Responses of denitrification rates to changes in NO3- N concentrations

between 0.7 10.5 mg L^1 were assessed (by NO3- N addition experiments) and observed

significant correlation between nitrate concentration and denitrification rates (Poe et al., 2003).

The nutrient gradient from the inlet to outlet points and along the soil depth in a

constructed wetland is reported to influence the denitrification rates (White and Reddy, 1999;

White and Reddy, 2003; Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006). Increased denitrification rates were

observed at the inflow of the wetlands where there was high NO3- N concentration as compared

to the outflow, where there was low NO3- N concentration. The denitrification potential

decreased exponentially with increasing distance, due to decreasing NO3- N concentration, from

inflow point to the outflow point (White and Reddy, 1999). Similar results of increased

denitrification potential near the inlets and decreased denitrification potential in the middle and

outlet of the constructed wetlands were observed by Sirivedhin and Gray (2006). The higher

denitrification potential was observed in the surface soil, between 0-15 cm, (averaging 14.1 mg









N20-N kg-l h- ) as compared to 0.51 mg N20-N kg-l h-l in the underlying soil, between 10-30

cm, of the wetlands.

The residence time of water in a wetland is critical for removal of N because it affects the

duration of the contact between polluted water and the biotic and abiotic components such as

plant roots, soil, sediments, and microbes. The longer residence time may enhance removal of N

by promoting retention and biochemical processes such as denitrifieation, sedimentation, and

plant uptake (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Kadlec and Knight (1996)

also showed that the N removal efficiency is logarithmically related to the residence time.

Temperature is a significant abiotic factor that influences microbial activities. Wood et al.

(1999) reported that the temperature influences the biological and physical activities in the

wetlands, and denitrifieation is a temperature dependent process. The rates of denitrifieation have

been shown to increase by 1.5-2 times with each increase in 100C (Reddy and Patrick, 1984).

The denitrifieation rates were higher (9.2 mg N m-2 h-1) in summer and lower (0.7 mg N m-2 h-

1) in fall in the constructed wetlands (Poe et al., 2003); and similarly Xue et al.(1999) reported

higher denitrifieation rates in summer (11.8 mg N m-2 h-1) and lower (2.0 mg N m-2 h-1) in

winter. White and Reddy (1999) reported highest (2.69 mg N20-N kg-1 h-1) activity of

denitrifying enzymes during the summer when the temperature, hydraulic loading, and nutrient

loading were highest. Spieles and Mitsch (2000) reported the optimum range of temperature for

denitrification in wetland sediments as 20 to 25 O C. Water temperatures less than 150C or greater

than 300C have been shown to limit the rate of denitrification (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). The

most effective pH for denitrification ranges from 7.0 to 8.5, with the optimum at 7.0 (Reddy et

al., 2000).









Denitrification occurs in the anoxic water column of aquatic ecosystems. Many

researchers observed lower significant denitrification potential activity in the water column as

compared to the sediments in different aquatic environments. The denitrification rates of the

water samples in the wetland receiving sewage treatment plant effluent were observed to be 0.06

- 0.96 Clg N L-1 hr- (Toet et al., 2003). Bastviken et al. (2003) obtained higher denitrification

rates (6.5-7.5 kg N ha-l day- ) in the sediment than on surface of the water column.

Aquatic plants serve as a maj or source of organic carbon to the microorganisms and

provide large surface area (commonly referred as "biofilms") for nitrifying and denitrifying

bacteria. Plants also provide oxygen, which vary from species to species, to their root zones

(Stoottmeister et al., 2003). Diffusion of oxygen to root zones is reported to influence

biogeochemical cycles within the rhizosphere. But it was shown that the amount of oxygen

being released by the plants around the roots is limited (Brix, 1994; Wood, 1995). The limited

release of oxygen around roots ensures that anaerobic conditions will predominate unless the

organic load to the wetland is low and wetland is shallow, as the amount of oxygen decreases

with increasing depth (Ayaz and Acka, 2000).The limited release of oxygen through roots,

however, also provides the required oxygen for aerobic nitrifying microbes for the oxidation of

NH4 -N to NO3--N/nitrite nitrogen (NO2--N), which in turn provides nitrate/nitrite for the

anaerobic denitrifying microbes for denitrification (Risgaard-Petersen and Jenson, 1997). The

oxygen release rates of floating and emergent aquatic plants such as Pistia stratiotes L. (water

lettuce), Eichhornia cra~ssipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth), Hydrocotyle umbellata

L.(pennywort), Pontederia spp.L. (pickerel weed), Phragmites spp. (Reed) and Typha latifolia L.

(cattail) were studied by Moorhead and Reddy (1988); the oxygen release rate in Phragmites

spp. was estimated to be from 0.02 g m-2 dayl to 12 g m-2 day- Reddy et al. (1989) studied the









effectiveness of three floating and six emergent aquatic plants in improving domestic wastewater

quality based on their oxygen release capacities. Plants such as H. umbellata transported oxygen

2.5 times more rapidly than E. cra~ssipes, which transports oxygen four times more rapidly than

P. stratiotes. Radial oxygen loss (ROL), which is influenced by the external oxygen demand,

was higher in Juncus e~ffitsus L. (common bulrush) (9.5 A 1 x 10- mol 02 h-l root- ) than in I.

inflexus L. (inland bulrush) (4.5 & 0.5 x 10-7 mol 02 h-l root- ) (Sorrell, 1999). Higher rates of

(6.8 mg N m-2 d- ) denitrification were obtained in the wetland sediments planted with Juncus

spp as compared to the unplanted plots (Smialek et al., 2006). This indicates the importance of

vegetation in the constructed wetlands to facilitate denitrification.

Besides oxygen, plant roots also exude organic compounds, which serve as a carbon source

for denitrifying microorganisms. The influence of temperature on plant metabolism in turn

affects the concentration of root exudates. The magnitude of organic compound release, which

enhances the NO3- N removal in constructed wetlands, ranged from 5-25% of the

photosynthetically fixed carbon (Platzer, 1996). Bachand and Horne (2000) observed that the

different vegetation types resulted in significantly different denitrification rates (T.1atifolia 565

mg N m-2 day- J. e~ffu~sus 261 mg N m-2 day l, and mixed vegetation 835 mg N m-2 day )~.

Productivity, physical structure, C:Nlitter ratio, and plant fiber content have been observed to

differ between plants. Hence they concluded that these factors affected the organic carbon

availability of plants, thereby resulting in different denitrification rates. In organic carbon

limited, free surface wetlands, it was recommended that a mixture of labile (submergent and

floating) and more recalcitrant (emergent and grasses) vegetation be planted to enhance

denitrification rates (Bachand and Horne, 2000).









The Problem Statement

Among the various management strategies developed to mitigate nonpoint source

pollution, constructed wetlands are considered as a cost effective method for on-site removal of

nutrients from nonpoint source pollution. The performance of the constructed wetlands varies

with site, characteristics of the wastewater, type and design of the wetland. Hence, a "systems

approach" which recognizes site specific conditions, is essential for the successful management

of the plant nursery runoff (Mitsch and Jorgensen 1989; NRCS, 2002; Dunne et al., 2005). Most

research has focused on use of constructed wetlands to treat wastewater from municipal water

source, animal waste, urban runoff, stormwater runoff, and agricultural runoff. Very few studies

have focused on the constructed wetlands treating nursery runoff (Headley et al., 2001; Lea-cox

et al., 2002; Huett et al., 2005). Constructed wetlands that receive nursery runoff show

considerable difference in water quality as compared with other wastewater sources. One of the

main differences is the low concentration of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the nursery

runoff (Huett et al., 2005), which is due to type of medium used in the containerized plants.

Nursery runoff can have seasonal and hydraulic variability based on the timing of fertilizer

application and rainfall. Due to the characteristic features of the plant nursery runoff, it is

important to understand the nutrient removal mechanisms in a constructed wetland treating

nursery runoff.

One of the methods to increase the efficiency of nutrient removal is to implement

management and design practices to increase the denitrification process in constructed wetlands.

Although denitrification is considered a maj or removal mechanism for N in constructed

wetlands, the importance of this process in wetlands receiving plant nursery runoff has not been

studied. Earlier studies (Bachand and Horne, 2000) indicated that different vegetation types

resulted in different denitrification rates in the wetlands which could be attributed to the









differences in the availability of organic carbon in the respective macrocosms. The influence of

different macrophyte rhizosphere on denitrifieation rates within the constructed wetlands

receiving plant nursery runoff is not known. The goal of this study was to assess the N dynamics

in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff for on-site N removal. To achieve this

goal, following specific obj ectives and hypotheses were addressed.

Objectives and Hypotheses

Objective 1: To determine the N and P removal efficiency of a constructed wetland
receiving plant nursery runoff

Hypothesis 1: The concentration of N and P will vary over months based on the timing
of fertilizer application at the nursery, irrigation, and rainfall. The concentration of N and
P will be higher at inflow as compared to the outflow water, due to the nutrient removal
within the constructed wetlands.

Objective 2: To theoretically model the effect of hydraulic loading rate of the runoff and
of estimated plant density on the residence time, which influences N removal in a
constructed wetland.

Hypothesis 2: The theoretical residence time will increase with increasing plant density
and decreasing loading rate.

Objective 3: To assess the concentration of nutrients (N and P) and denitrification
potential within the water column at varying depths (surface and bottom) and variation
associated with the locations across the wetland (inflow and outflow) over Hyve months in
a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff.

Hypothesis 3: The concentration of nutrients (N and P) will be higher at inflow as
compared to the outflow. The denitrifieation potential will be higher in the water
samples collected from the lower depths as compared to the surface of the water column
due to the anoxic conditions in the deeper parts of the water column.

Objective 4: To determine the denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil (soil
closely adhering to the roots) of Can2na flaccida and Typha latifolia in a constructed
wetland receiving plant nursery runoff

Hypothesis 4: The denitrification potential of the rhizosphere soil (soil closely adhering
to the roots) will vary from species to species because macrophytes can vary in their
capacity to diffuse oxygen and different carbon compounds in their root zones.









N~ugen in atmosphere [IA)


NI6


Figure 1-1. Diagram illustrating potential pathways for chemical transformations of nitrogen (N) in a wetland.


16ol 16









CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Description

The study was carried out at a constructed wetland at Monrovia Nursery, which is one of

the largest (total area over 445 hectares) commercial nurseries in the United States, located in

Cairo, Georgia. Cairo is located at 30052'40"N, 84012'32"W in Grady County, Georgia (Fig. 2-

1), adj oining Leon and Gadsden counties of Florida. The annual production of the nursery

ranges from 11 to 15 million plants (www.monrovia.com, October 2007).

Gravel beds are created outdoors on the ground and are overlaid with plastic sheets on

which plants are grown in plastic containers ranging from 5 50 L capacity. In the catchment

area for the wetlands, large (50 L) containerized ornamental trees and shrubs are grown in the

sloped nursery beds, which are lined with plastic sheets. Fertilization of the nursery plants is

done by two means; controlled release fertilizer (CRFs) mixed in the potting medium and

fertigation (liquid fertilizers applied in irrigation water). Topdressing of CRFs is also done based

on the needs of the plants. Overhead sprinkler or micro-irrigation is used approximately 3-5

times a day. While larger containers are irrigated via micro irrigation, runoff(Fig. 2-2) from

these nursery beds is still significant due to the water application rates and sloped terrain.

Runoff from the nursery beds and from stormwater is directed by lined or unlined waterways and

drained into a flow control channel (FCC) which is 500 m in length (Fig. 2-3 and 2-4). Runoff

eventually flows into a holding pond (HP) where it is held for recycling or for release into the

wetlands. The FCC controls the movement of water and allows sedimentation to occur.

Depending upon the holding capacity of the HP, the water from the FCC is either directed into

the HP or diverted offsite through the stormwater retention basin. The HP is created in such a









way that it captures half an inch of rainfall and the excess rainfall is diverted either to the

irrigation ponds for recycling or actively pumped into the wetlands.

A surface flow wetland was constructed at the nursery in 1997 to treat runoff effluents

before releasing the excess water into a natural creek adj acent to the nursery property. This

constructed wetland system is utilized to treat stormwater and runoff from three plant production

areas (catchment area) totaling 48.5 hectares. The wetland was constructed by creating pits in a

naturally depressed area of 3.8 hectares. A 12.5 cm think layer of bark chips was placed at the

bottom of the pits to support the planting and also to serve as a source of carbon for the microbial

activity in the constructed system. The wetland was constructed as several cells such as primary,

secondary, and test cells (Fig. 2-5). The primary cells were designated as 1A and 2A; the

secondary cells were designated as IB and 2B; and the test cells were designated as 3,4,5,6, and

7. For this entire study, only one primary cell (lA) was used. There exists a difference in the

size and depth of cells, and in the distribution and abundance of macrophytes between the

primary and secondary cells. The area of the primary cells 1A and 2A is 1.17 hectares and 0.57

hectares respectively. The area of the secondary cells IB and 2B is 0.69 hectares and 0.65

hectares respectively. The primary cells are 0.75 m deep and the secondary cells are 0.3m deep.

The depth at the outflow (South) side of the primary cells is comparatively higher (1.2 m) than

the inflow (North) side, which is 0.75 m deep. Each primary and secondary cell was divided into

three sections by creating two earthen berms which extend to approximately %/th of the width

(north-south) of the cells. These earthen berms were created to maintain a linear water

movement. The difference in vegetation of the primary and secondary cells is attributed to

variation in planting selection and natural growth of plants. The macrophytes originally planted

in the deeper primary cells were Can2na flaccida Salisb. (Canna Lily), Scirpus validus Vahl.










(Giant Bulrush), Pontederia cordata L. (Pickerelweed), Sagittaria latifolia Willd. (Arrowhead),

and PanicuntPPP~~~~PPP~~~PPP hentitonzon J.A Schultes. (Maiden cane). Currently the primary cells are dominated

by S. validus, Typha latifolia L. (Cattail), C. flaccida, Hydrocotyle unabellata L. (Pennywort),

Lenana minor L. (Duckweed), and Wolffia spp. Horkel ex Schleid. (Water meal). There are few

open water areas in the primary cells and several floating islands of vegetation occur near the

outflow (South) side of the cell. The macrophytes originally planted in the shallow cells were C.

flaccida, S. latifolia, P. hentitonzon, and Juncus effusus L. (Soft Rush). Currently the shallow

secondary cells are predominantly covered by T. latifolia; and the other dominant species in the

shallow cells are S. latifolia, H. unabellata, and L. minor (Duckweed).

When it is necessary to discharge water from the HP into the wetland, it is pumped through

6 cm inner diameter PVC pipes (Fig. 2-6) to the primary cells 1A and 2A, at 9 locations and 8

locations respectively. The water from each primary cell passes under a road [through 15 cm

diameter PVC pipes; Fig. 2-7] and enters the secondary cell before being released into the

grassed waterway that carries the treated water to the stilling pools. The water flow from

primary to secondary cell and from secondary cell to the grassed waterway is based on gravity,

and there is no external control to regulate the water flow. However, the water depth (and

consequently the volume) of the primary cell can be controlled by adjusting the height of the

inflow pipe of the secondary cell. The stilling pools enhance the settling of suspended sediments

before discharging the treated water into the natural creek. The amount of water to be treated is

influenced by the rate and frequency of rainfall and irrigation. Based on the amount of water

available for treatment, four different 'run-times' (number of hours per day of operation of the

pump) are utilized; 0, 12, 18, 24 hours per day. The most frequently used run-times are 18 and

24 hours per day. During very low rainfall and minimal irrigation period, the run-time of 12









hours or even 0 hours per day is used. The 12 and 18 hours per day run-times are achieved by

running the pump for 2 hours and then turning it off for the next 2 hours, or 3- hours 'on' and 1-

hour 'off' cycles, respectively, during a 24 hour period. The pump supplies water at an average

of 2,271 liters per minute, which is distributed to all 17 inflow pipes of the primary cells. Hence

the hydraulic loading rate of the wetland depends on the number of hours the pump is

operati onal .

Field Methods

Water sampling (for determining the nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed

wetlands). Water samples were collected from the study wetland cell at monthly intervals from

April 2007 to August 2007. Three replicate water samples per section of the wetland cell were

collected by taking grab samples in 125 ml plastic bottles (Fisher Scientific Co LLC, Suwannee,

GA.) at 9 inflow points (one sample from each of the 9 pipes) and 3 outflow points (three

replicate samples from each of the 3 pipes) as shown in Figure 2-8. In addition, three replicate

samples were collected at a location where the flow control channel (FCC) releases water into

the holding pond or into the stormwater retention basin. In summary, there were 9 inflow

samples, 9 outflow samples and 3 FCC samples, totaling 21 samples for the water nutrient

analysis. Samples were stored in a cooler filled with ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored

at 4"C until further processing. Water samples were analyzed for Total Kj eldal Nitrogen (TKN),

ammonium nitrogen (NH4'-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N), total phosphorus (TP), and dissolved

organic carbon (DOC).

Water sampling (for assessing the spatial effects on concentration of nutrients,

physiochemical parameters and denitrification potential of the water column). Nutrient

concentrations, physiochemical parameters, and denitrification potential were measured at select









sampling locations (Fig. 2-9). On the north side (the inflow side), one location was selected

within each of the three sections of the primary cell from where the samples were collected. This

sampling point was located approximately 3 m inward from the northern edge of the cell and

approximately 3 m inward from the eastern edge. Two sets of three replicate water samples were

collected at the surface and at 0.5 m depth of the water column at each of the three locations at

monthly intervals between April 2007 and August 2007. One set of samples (three replications)

was collected in 125 ml plastic bottles and analyzed for TKN, NH4 -N, NO3--N, TP, and DOC

and the second set of samples (three replicates) was collected in 25 ml vials (Fisher Scientific,

Pittsburgh, PA) and used to determine denitrification enzyme activity (DEA), to estimate

denitrification potential in the samples. The surface water samples were collected as 'grab'

samples in the undisturbed water column. To collect samples from the bottom of the water

column, the sampling bottle was turned upside down and forced through the water column by

hand. After reaching the bottom of the water column, the bottle was turned slowly to fill it and

then rapidly brought straight up to the surface.

On the south side (outflow side) of the study cell, sampling points were selected

approximately 2 m inward from the location of outflow pipe, to ensure minimum disturbance in

the water column. Owing to its depth, the surface and bottom of the water column samples at the

outflow side were collected by using a swing sampler. For the bottom of the water column

samples, the bottle tied to the swing sampler was sent upside down through the water column.

After reaching the bottom of the water column, the pole was turned slowly to fill the bottle and

then rapidly brought straight up to the surface. Two sets of three replicate water samples were

collected at the surface and bottom of the water column at each of the three locations at monthly

intervals between April 2007 and August 2007. One set of samples (three replications) was









collected in 125 ml plastic bottles and analyzed for TKN, NH4 -N, NO3--N, TP, and DOC and

the second set of samples (three replicates) was collected in 25 ml vials and analyzed for DEA.

If the water was too turbid, suspended particles were allowed to settle by setting aside for a few

minutes without any disturbance. Both surface and bottom of the water column samples were

filtered by cheese cloth (Hermitage Inc, Camden, SC) to remove large debris, dead leaves, twigs,

barks, and plants of Wolfia spp. In addition, three replicate water samples also were collected for

denitrification potential analysis, at the point where the flow control channel (FCC) releases

water into the holding pond or into the stormwater retention basin. There were 36 samples for

nutrient analysis and 39 samples for denitrification potential analysis in total. Samples were

stored in a cooler filled with ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored at 4 OC until further

processing.

In addition, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature were measured every month

during the study by using a handheld YSI 556 MPS (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, OH)

multi-probe system. The parameters were measured at both surface and bottom of the water

column at inflow and outflow points on the days of water sample collection.

Plant sampling (for determining the denitrification potential of macrophyte

rhizosphere soil). To assess the denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil, two

macrophytes were selected based on their abundance and distribution in the study cell, and based

on the reported contribution of these macrophytes to nutrient removal in constructed wetlands.

The plants selected for this study were T.1atifolia and C. flaccida. Roots of three plants of each

species were collected from each of the three sections at monthly intervals from plants growing

on the north (inflow) side (Fig. 2-10). The sample plants were selected from where a group of

the same species existed to avoid contamination with other species. The selected plants were









pulled out and the roots were severed and then placed in zip-lock bags, stored in a cooler filled

with ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored at 40C. There were 18 rhizosphere samples

(three replicates of each species per section) in total.

Analytical Methods

Nutrient analyses. The day after sampling, part of all the water samples collected in 125

ml bottles was filtered through Whatman 0.45Cpm filter (Pall Corporation, Ann arbor, MI) and

collected in two 25 ml vials for analysis of NH4 -N, NO3- -N, and DOC. The remaining

unfiltered part of each sample was used for analysis of TKN and TP. After filtering, all the

filtered and unfiltered water samples (except the ones collected for analyzing denitrification

potential), were acidified to a pH of 2 with one drop of ultra pure concentrated sulfuric acid

(H2SO4) foT CVery 20-25 ml of sample. The filtered and unfiltered portions of samples were

stored in a refrigerator until further analysis. Samples were analyzed for respective nutrients

within 28 days of sampling as recommended by the USEPA.

Total Kj eldal Nitrogen was measured by digesting the unfiltered, acidified samples by the

Kj eldahl procedure (Method 3 51.2, USEPA, 1983). The water samples were digested with

sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and a copper sulfate mixture (CuSO4) to convert organic forms of nitrogen

to ammonium. The digested samples were analyzed in AQ2' automated discrete analyzer (Seal

Analytical, Mequon, WI) Method no: USEPA 111 A (Method 351.2, USEPA, 1983). Nitrate

nitrogen was analyzed calorimetrically using the cadmium (Cd) reduction method on a rapid

flow analyzer (Alpkem rapid flow Analyzer 300) or in the automated AQ2+ discrete analyzer

(Method 353.2, USEPA) or AQ2 Method no: USEPA 132 A (Method 353.2, USEPA 1983).

During April, July, and August 2007 the filtered, acidified samples were analyzed for NO3--N on

a rapid flow analyzer. In the month of May and June 2007, the discrete analyzer was used to









analyze NO3--N. Ammonium nitrogen was analyzed calorimetrically in filtered, acidified

samples on AQ2' (Method no: USEPA 103 A (Method 350.1, USEPA, 1983). Total Nitrogen

(TN) was calculated by summing up the TKN (organic nitrogen and NH4 -N), and NO3- -N. To

measure TP, unfiltered, acidified samples were digested by autoclaving and analyzed further by

following the AQ2 Method no: USEPA 119 A (Method 365.2, USEPA, 1983). Dissolved

organic carbon was analyzed in filtered, acidified samples on a Shimadzu TOC 5050a (USEPA

415.1). All the analysis were performed according the Quality Assurance/Quality Control

requirements (a spike, repeat, continuing calibration standard, blank, Practical Quantitation Limit

(PQL) to be run for every 20 samples) set by the University of Florida Wetland Biogeochemistry

Lab.

Theoretical hydraulic residence time. The hydraulic residence time is a function of the

ratio of wetland volume to water inflow rate. Because the study wetlands are operated for

variable number of hours per day, the hydraulic loading rate (ratio of volumetric flow rate to

wetland surface area/volume) under two predominantly occurring conditions, 18 and 24 hours

pump operation per day, were factored into the calculations. The effect of vegetation (plant

density) was also factored into the calculations while determining the theoretical residence time.

The calculations were based on the assumption that the entire volume of water in the wetland is

involved in the flow. The theoretical residence time was calculated by using the following

formulae:

z = V/Q, in which
z = theoretical residence time in days;
V = wetland water volume in m3;
Q = water flow rate in m3/day.

The wetland volume (V) can be calculated using the formula:









V = EAh, in which
V wetland water volume in m3;
E wetland porosity in m3/ m3;
A = wetland area in m2;
h = mean water depth in m.

Wetland porosity is a fraction of total wetland volume available through which water can

flow (USEPA, 2000). It is the amount of wetland water volume not occupied by plants and

expressed as a decimal (NRCS, 2002). Therefore, wetland porosity and plant density are

inversely related; the lower the wetland porosity values, higher the plant density. As it is

difficult to accurately measure wetland porosity in the Hield, highly variable porosity values were

reported in the literature. For example, Reed et al. (1995) reported values ranging from 0.65 to

0.75 for fully vegetated wetlands, and for dense to less mature wetlands, respectively; Kadlec

and Knight (1996) reported average wetland porosity values ranging from 0.95 to 1.0.

According to USEPA (2000), it was suggested to use the wetland porosity value of 0.65 to 0.75

for fully vegetated wetlands, while considering design of constructed wetlands.

Denitrification potential (Water). Denitrifieation potential in water samples was

determined by measuring the denitrification enzyme activity (DEA) within a week of sample

collection (Tiedje, 1982; White and Reddy, 1999). Twenty ml of water sample (unfiltered) was

taken into either 120 ml or 160 ml glass serum bottle. The bottles were capped and crimped

ensuring proper seal. The bottles were purged with nitrogen gas (N2) for approximately 5

minutes to achieve anaerobic conditions. The initial pressure of less than 20 psi was maintained.

High grade acetylene (C2H2) gaS was generated by adding N2 purged water to a separate bottle

filled with Calcium Carbide (CaC2) TOcks, which was already capped, crimped and subj ected to

N2 purging to remove any oxygen. Nine ml of acetylene gas was inj ected into each sample bottle

from which 9 ml headspace was removed before adding acetylene. Samples were then kept in a









shaker for an hour to ensure even distribution of C2H2 in the water samples. Denitrification

Enzyme Assay (DEA) solution was prepared by adding nitrate (as KNO3) and carbon (as

C6H1206) at the rate of 404mg L^1 KNO3 and 720 mg- L^ C6H1206, TOSpectively, along with 250

mg- L^ chloramphenicol in distilled water. Chloramphenicol was added to inhibit the production

of new denitrifying enzymes while the activity of previously existing denitrifying enzymes are

measured. Eight ml of DEA solution was added to 20 ml sample. The 7 ml of head space of gas

was collected by using a 10 ml syringe immediately after adding DEA to the samples and after

taking the pressure readings. After that, the bottles were kept in an end-to-end shaker in a dark

room at 25oC. In the month of April 2007 the headspace gas samples were collected at 30, 60

120, 180 minutes. From May 2007 and to August 2007 the headspace gas samples were

collected every 2 hours, up to 6 hours, as there was no gas production observed until 2 hours in

the month of April. At the end of each pre-selected time period, 7 ml of gas (presumably nitrous

oxide) was extracted by using a syringe and placed in 3-4ml capped, crimped, pre-evacuated

glass serum bottles. The bottles with DEA solution and the original sample were then

immediately returned to the shaker. The 7 ml sample of gas was stored at 25oC until analyzed in

a Gas Chromatograph (GC).

The concentration of Nitrous oxide (N20) was measured on a Shimadzu GC 14A

(Shimadzu Scientific, Kyoto, Japan) by using a 63Ni electron capture detector. Column

temperature was 30oC, detector temperature was 240 oC, and inj ector temperature was 120 oC.

The carrier gas was a mix of 95% Argon (Ar) and 5% methane (CH4). The gas samples were

injected into GC and the concentration ofN20 was determined. Denitrification potential was

determined by calculating the slope of the linear curve obtained when the gas concentrations

were plotted over time.









Denitrification potential (Rhizosphere). The stored root samples were processed as

early as possible after reaching the lab. The excessive and loosely adhering soil was removed by

shaking the root system, and also by gently removing by hand. The soil very closely adhered to

the roots was defined as 'rhizosphere soil' which was removed by washing the roots with

autoclaved double distilled water. Thirty-five ml of water was used to remove the firmly

attached soil by washing with the use of pipette. Twenty ml of the obtained soil slurry was used

for the determination of denitrification potential. Ten ml of the rhizosphere solution was used to

determine the moisture content of the soil. The moisture content was determined gravimetrically

by drying 10 ml of the rhizosphere solution at 70oC for 72 hours.

The denitrification potential of the rhizosphere soil was determined as described above.

The volume of the glass serum bottle used in this experiment was 120 ml. Eight ml of DEA

solution (720 mg- L^ glucose, 404 mg- L^ KNO3, and 500 mg- L^ chloroamphenicol) was added

to 20 ml of samples. Gas samples were collected every 30, 60 120, 180 minutes. Rest of the

procedure was as described for measuring denitrification potential in water samples.

Statistical Methods

Statistical analysis of the data was performed by using SAS 9. 1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary,

NC). The dependent variables were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using the

GLM procedure along with Scheffe for all pair wise comparison, which indicate not only

whether the means are different from each other, but also which means differ from which other

means. Test of statistical significance was done at a = 0.05. The physiochemical parameters of

water viz., temperature and dissolved oxygen were correlated with denitrification potential by

using CORR procedure to determine Pearson's correlation coefficient. The concentration of

NO3--N was also correlated with denitrification potential by using the same procedure.




































Figure 2-1. Map of the state of Georgia, United States, showing county boundaries. Grady
County, in which Monrovia nursery is located, is indicated by a callout box. Source:
http ://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locne=98 October 2007.


























F~s;a~s;~i~~


Figure 2-2. Runoff generated from the microirrigated nursery beds at Monrovia Nursery





















































---
-
C II -
4 % i~
~;~ ~~-C ~"
I P-
,crr,~
~s
:~
c
:. -.I
.t;-..
~ --..i
1..r
s~--~


Figure 2-3. Runoff generated from the nursery beds drains into the flow control channel




















































43


t-ir~i~lCj~brc-~' ~t~


~-Jss~_ ~;r~c

--I
-- .---=-~-C--~p,
r~Z
~c-L,


r~---~--~-- '




--






































Figure 2-4. Runoff draining into the flow control channel





























Fiur 25.Ovrie o te ontucedweladsa Monrovi Nusry aro A A naeria img (to rih)fpato

Monovi NrlseyinldnthtramnwelnsinCioGAB)Ashmtcoeveoftecntcedelns
(bottm lef) isalso rese ted h rosidct h ieto fwte oeettruhtewtad.1 n A
andIB nd B rpreen th prmar an seonaryclsepciey






































Figure 2-6. Inflow pipes into the study cell





























,~ ~i~t~
J~ ;-~


Figure 2-7. Outflow pipe of the study cell
















storm water


ceR~ia


11m
sistle Hohi pm

+ FC amle
+Inlowsamle
+ uflwsape

Toalsmpe =2
Netscl

Fiur 2-.Lcto n ubr fwtrsmls(niatdb tr)a nlw andotlwo h td elt eemn h
nurin removal effienc oftecosrctdwtlns

















Storm twar

comna basi









statla Hohdag pend

een







Naltiescale


Figure 2-9. Locations of water samples (indicated by stars) in the study cell to assess the spatial variation in the concentration of
nutrients and denitrification potential of the water column, between locations (inflow and outflow) and between depths (top
and bottom) within locations over five months.

















Storm water
Rletention

ceHn





ceR






Naiscl

Fiur -1.Ilutrtinofte tdycelshwngte octonad ube inictd ystr) f othypln rotsmpe t sss
tede nirfcto oeta nteriopeesi fCrafacd n yh aioi









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Removal efficiency of the constructed wetlands. The concentration of nutrients

entering and leaving the constructed wetland was determined to evaluate the effectiveness of the

study cell in removing nutrient contaminants over a period of five months from April to August

2007. The plant nursery runoff contained an average total nitrogen (TN) concentration of 34 mg

L- during the study period. When assessing mean TN composition (Fig. 3-1), it was observed

that the maj ority of Nitrogen (N) entering and leaving the wetland during the study period was in

the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N; 30 mg L^1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4 -N; 2

mg L^1) and organic nitrogen (2 mg L^)~. Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L^1 and

dissolved organic carbon was 10 mg L^1. The nursery runoff entering the constructed wetland

over the study period consisted of 87% of the TN in the form of NO3--N. The mean nutrient

removal efficiency of the study cell, based on load-in and load-out rates, was observed to be 40%

for TN, 40% for NO3- N, 59% for NH4 -N, and 16% for TP (Table 3-1).

Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3--N). The concentration ofNO3--N was influenced (p<0.0001) by

an interaction among location of sample collection and month during which samples were

collected (Fig. 3-2). The inflow NO3--N concentration gradually decreased from April (47 mg L-

1) to August (13 mg L^)~; similarly the outflow concentration also gradually decreased from April

(42 mg L^1) to August (3 mg L^)~. At flow control channel (FCC), NO3--N concentration did not

show any trend over time, but the absolute values were highest in April (52 mg L^1) and lowest in

July (13 mg L^)~. The mean removal efficiency ofNO3--N in the study cell was 40%, highest in

August (77%) and lowest in April (12%). The removal efficiency was inversely related to the

loading rate of NO3--N coming into the wetland; i.e., when the loading rate of NO3--N was higher

(7 g m-2 day- ; April), the removal efficiency was lower (12%) and when the loading rate was









lower (2 g m-2 day- ; August), the removal efficiency was higher (77%). The concentration of

NO3--N at FCC significantly differed from inflow concentration during the period of study,

except for April. The mean inflow NO3--N concentration over the study period was 30 mg L^1,

which was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than the outflow concentration of NO3--N, averaging

18 mg L^1

Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4 -N). The nursery runoff that enters the constructed wetland

over the study period consisted less than 1% of the TN in the form of NH4 -N. A significant

interaction (p < 0.0001) was observed among location of sample collection and month during

which samples were collected, for the concentration of NH4 -N (Fig. 3-3). At all locations

(inflow, outflow, and FCC), the NH4 -N concentration did not show any particular trend over

months, but the mean values were always higher at inflow and lower at outflow for each month

of this study. The average removal efficiency of NH4 -N was 59% and there was no trend

observed over months. There were significant differences in the concentration of NH4 -N

between FCC and inflow concentration over months, which indicate that the NH4 -N removal in

the holding pond was noticeable. The average concentration of the NH4 -N coming into the

wetland over the study period was 2. 1 mg L^1 which was higher (p<0.0001) than the

concentration of NH4 -N leaving the system, averaging 0.9 mg L^1

Total Nitrogen (TN). The TN was computed by summing the values of Total Kj eldal

Nitrogen (TKN) and NO3--N. The trend was similar to that of NO3--N. The concentration of the

TN was influenced (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collection and month

during which samples were collected (Fig. 3-4). The inflow concentration of TN gradually

decreased from April (60 mg L^1) to August (15 mg L^)~; similarly the concentration of TN at

outflow was also gradually decreased from April (49 mg L^1) to August (4 mg L^)~. At FCC, TN









concentration was highest in April (70 mg L^1) and lowest in July (15 mg L^)~, but did not appear

to consistently increase or decrease over this period of time. Overall, the average removal

efficiency of TN was 40% which gradually increased from April 2007 (18%) to August 2007

(73%). It was observed that the removal efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of

TN into the wetland. The mean concentration of TN over Hyve months at inflow (34 mg L^1) was

significantly higher than the concentration of total nitrogen at outflow (20 mg L^1) of the study

cell.

Total Phosphorus (TP). The concentration of TP was influenced (p<0.0001) by

location of sample collection and month during which samples were collected. The

concentration of TP at all three locations (inflow, outflow, and FCC) did not follow any

particular trend between April and August 2007 (Fig 3-5). The inflow concentration of TP over

months ranged from 1.7 mg L1 (April) to 0.8 mg L1 (August); and the concentration of TP at

outflow ranged from 1.4 mg L1 (April) to 0.8 mg L1 (August). Although the interaction among

location of sample collection and month showed significant influence, most of the means were

statistically similar. The removal efficiency of TP ranged from 0-32%, which varied over

months. In July 2007, the removal efficiency was negative, which indicates that there might be

possible internal loading of phosphorus in the system. There was no significant difference in the

concentration of TP between FCC and inflow of the wetland. The mean concentration over five

months, of TP coming into the wetland was 1.3 mg L^1, which was higher (p<0.0001) than the

concentration of TP leaving the system, averaging 1.1 mg L^1

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC was influenced

(p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collection and month during which

samples were collected (Fig 3-6). The DOC concentration at inflow ranged from 10 mg L^1









(June) to 12 mg L^1 (August), and at outflow it ranged from 10 mg L^1 (July) to 11 mg L^1 (May)

Most of the means were statistically similar, although the overall model showed significant

interaction among locations and months. The Hyve month average concentrations of DOC at FCC

and inflow of the study cell were similar. The mean concentration of DOC present in the inflow

water was 1 1 mg L^1 which was higher (p<0.001) than the concentration of DOC leaving the

system, averaging 10 mg L-1 during the study period.

TN: TP ratio. The computed TN: TP ratio was affected (p<0.0001) by an interaction

among location of sample collection and months during which samples were collected. At

inflow, the ratio was highest in the month of April (36: 1) and lowest in July (17:1i). The ratio at

outflow was also highest in April (35:1), but it was lowest in August (5:1). At FCC, the ratio

ranged from 12: 1(July) to 33:1(August). The Hyve month mean TN: TP ratio, at inflow and

outflow, was 25:1 and 18:1, respectively.

DOC: NO3--N ratio. The computed DOC: NO3--N ratio was affected (p<0.0001) by an

interaction among location of sample collection and months during which samples were

collected. At both inflow and outflow, there was gradual increase in the DOC: NO3--N ratio over

Hyve months. At inflow, the ratio gradually increased from April (0.2:1) to August (0.9: 1);

similarly the ratio at outflow also gradually increased from April (0.2:1) to August (3.3:1). At

FCC, the ratio ranged from 0.3:1(April and May) to 0.8:1(July), with values not showing any

trend over the period of the study. The Hyve month mean DOC: NO3--N ratios at inflow and

outflow were 0.5:1 and 1.3:1, respectively.

Relationship between nutrient loading and removal rates. The correlation between

loading and removal rate (g m-2 day l) of NO3- N, NH4 -N and TP are presented in Figure 3-7 to

3-9. The Pearson' s correlation coefficient (r) value of 0. 19 (p<0.21) was obtained for the









relationship between loading and removal rate of NO3- N. The NH4 -N and TP exhibited a

linear relationship with Pearson' s correlation coefficient (r) value of 0.75 (p<0.0001) and 0.60

(p<0.0001), respectively.

Determination of theoretical hydraulic residence time. The effect of hydraulic

loading rate and plant density on hydraulic residence time was computed by utilizing a model

and the results are shown in Figure 3-10. The residence time was calculated for two different

loading rates with three different plant density conditions, which provide three different wetland

porosity values. Hydraulic loading rate was inversely related to residence time; i.e., when the

loading rate increased from 1300 to 1734 m3day l, the theoretical residence time decreased by a

day for all three wetland porosity values. As the wetland porosity value increased from 0.75 to

0.95, the theoretical residence time increased at least by one day in this model. There was no

difference in the residence time when the wetland porosity value increased from 0.95 to 1.0 at

both hydraulic loading rates.

Spatial effects on nutrients, physiochemical parameters and denitrification potential of the

water column:

Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3--N). The concentration of NO3--N was not influenced

(p=0.0812) by an interaction among the treatments (location, depth, and months), presented in

table 3-2. All two-way interactions, depth~month, location~month, and location~depth

significantly affected the concentration of NO3--N at a=0.05 level. The interaction among the

location of sample collection (inflow and outflow) and the months during which samples were

collected, showed that the concentration of NO3--N changed from inflow to outflow except in

April. In April, the inflow concentration (44 mg L^1) of NO3--N was similar to that at outflow

(42 mg L^)~, but it was significantly higher than other means. There was no trend observed









between April and August, both in inflow and outflow concentration of NO3--N, but the

concentration during each month was higher at inflow than at outflow. The interaction among

location of sample collection (inflow and outflow) and depth within location (surface and bottom

of the water column) showed that surface (24 mg L^1) of the water column at inflow had higher

mean concentration of NO3--N than at the lower depth (21 mg L^1) at inflow and the surface (18

mg L^1) of outflow (Fig. 3-1 1). On the outflow side, the mean concentration of NO3--N over Hyve

months was higher (18 mg L 1) at the surface than the lower depth of the water column (16 mg L-

).The Hyve month mean concentration of NO3--N was always higher at surface water column as

compared to lower depth of the water column.

Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4 -N). The mean concentration of NH4 -N was influenced

(p=0.0001) by an interaction among location, depth, and months (Table. 3-2). Most of the means

were similar, however. The distribution of NH4 -N within the wetland did not vary. The

concentration of NH4 -N was also influenced by an interaction among location~month, and by

depth~month. Although both depth~month, and location~month interactions yielded some

significant means, there was no clear trend over time observed in the concentration ofNH4 -N.

At inflow, the concentration of NH4 -N ranged from 3.1 mg L^1 (April) to 0.2 mg L^1 (May). At

outflow the NH4 -N concentration ranged from 0.1 mg L^1 (May) to 1.8 mg L^1 (June).

Total Phosphorus (TP). The concentration of TP was influenced (p=0.0009) by an

interaction among location of sample collection, depth within locations, and month (Table 3-2),

however most of the means were similar. The absolute TP concentration at inflow and outflow

was higher at lower depth of the water column than that of the surface of the water column

between April to August. In addition to three-way interaction, location of sample

collection~depth was observed to highly affect TP concentration. At the inflow, the surface (2









mg L^1) TP concentration was lower than the TP in the bottom (3 mg L^1) of the water column.

In contrast, the concentrations of TP at the two depths were similar at outflow. The other two-

way interactions between location~month, and depth month did not show any particular trend

in the concentration of TP during the period of this study.

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC was affected (p=0.0008)

by an interaction among location, depth, and month (Table 3-2). At inflow and outflow, the

surface and lower depth of the water column did not show difference in the concentration of

DOC over the Hyve months of this study. There was no trend observed for the DOC

concentrations during this study for both locations and depth within location. Of all the two-way

interactions only location* depth showed significant differences between treatment means. The

surface of the water column at inflow had higher (11 mg L^1) concentration of DOC as compared

to surface (10 mg L^1) of the water column at outflow. Similarly the DOC concentration was

higher (12 mg L^1) at inflow and lower at outflow (10 mg L 1) for bottom of the water column.

The Hyve month mean concentration of DOC was similar at two depths both at inflow and

outflow of the wetland.

DOC: NO3--N ratio. The DOC: NO3--N ratio was influenced (p=0.0009) by a three-way

interaction among location, depth, and months. At inflow, the DOC: NO3--N ratio at the lower

depth of the water column was higher as compared to the surface water column between April to

August. Similar trend of higher DOC: NO3--N ratio at the lower depth was observed at the

outflow of the study cell, except for April. However, there was no temporal pattern observed

during this period both at inflow and outflow of the study cell. All two-way interactions,

depth~month, location~month, and location~depth, significantly influenced the ratio at a=0.05

level. The mean DOC: NO3--N ratio over Hyve months at the inflow and outflow was 0.9:1 and









1.5:1, respectively. The Hyve month mean DOC: NO3--N ratio at the surface and bottom of the

water column were 1.0:1 and 1.3: 1, respectively.

Temperature. The temperature of the water column was affected (p=0.0141) by an

interaction among locations (inflow and outflow), depth within location (surface and bottom),

and months (April to August 2007). Although the overall model showed significant difference,

the mean comparisons showed similar values for the bottom and surface of the water column

temperature both at inflow and outflow during the period of this study (Table. 3-3). For bottom

of the water column on the inflow side, the effect of months on temperature was apparent as it

gradually increased from May (22 O C) to August (30 0 C). The temperature at lower depth of the

water column at outflow was also significantly affected by month of sampling. Surface water

temperature on the inflow side was lowest during May (23 O C) and highest (30 0 C) in August.

Similar trend over time was observed at the surface of the water column on the outflow side of

the study cell. There was significant difference between bottom (22 0 C) and surface (25 O C)

water column temperature at outflow during the month of May, but the temperature at surface

and lower depth of the water column was similar during other months. The Hyve month mean

temperature (averaged over surface and lower depth values) of the wetland at inflow (27 O C) was

higher than the outflow (26 O C). The Hyve month mean temperature at the surface of the water

column (averaged over inflow and outflow locations) was higher (26 O C) than the bottom (27 O C)

of the water column.

Dissolved Oxygen. The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the water column was

not affected by any interaction effect (Table 3-3) between the treatments (locations, depth and

months). The main effects of location of sample collection, depth of the water column and

months showed significant difference at a = 0.05 level (Fig. 3-12). The dissolved oxygen









concentration of the inflow (6 mg L^1) was significantly (p=0.0005) lower when compared to that

of outflow (11 mg L^)~. The DO was observed to significantly decrease from surface (11 mg L^1)

to bottom (6 mg L^1) of the water column. Although the overall analysis showed significant

difference between months, only the value for May (12 mg L^1) was significantly different from

rest of the months.

pH. The pH was not affected by interactions between locations, depth and months (Table

3-3), except for interaction among location and months (Fig. 3-13), and because of the main

effect of months. At inflow, the pH in August (4) was lower than in May (6), June (7) or July

(6). In August, the inflow pH (4) was lower than outflow pH (6). The other interactive means

were similar. When compared over months, mean pH in June was higher (7) than the values

obtained for July (6) and August (5). The mean pH of this system was 6 during the period of this

study .

Denitrification potential of water. The concentration of nitrous oxide nitrogen (N20-N)

produced per liter of water per hour (mg N20-N L-1 hr- ) was calculated and it was observed that

the N20-N production was either negligible (0.01 to 0.03 mg N20-N L-1 hr- ) or undetectable, as

was the case in most of the samples. The data, thus, are neither presented graphically, nor in a

tabular form.

Denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil. The denitrification potential

of the rhizosphere soil was influenced (p=0.0419) by an interaction among macrophyte species,

sections, and months (Table. 3-4). The significant differences for the denitrification potential

were observed between very few means, however. The rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia

produced significantly higher denitrification potential (30 mg N20-N kg-l hr- ) in the western

section of the cell during May, which was higher than the values obtained from the rest of the









means. The two-way interaction among month~section and plant~month occurred, however most

of the means were statistically similar. During May 2007, the denitrification potential of T.

latifolia was 12 mg N20-N kg-l hr- Similarly the denitrification potential in the western section

(17 mg N20-N kg-l hr- ) was found to be significantly different from rest of the treatments during

the month of May 2007. Denitrification potential was influenced (p = 0.01) by the main effect

of month; however, there was no trend between April and August 2007. The mean

denitrification potential was 8, 2, 1, 3 mg N20-N kg-l hr- during May, June, July, and August

2007, respectively. Only the denitrification potential during May differed from other months.

The five month mean denitrification potential for Can2na flaccida and Typha latifolia were 3 mg

and 4 mg N20-N kg-l hr- respectively.









Table 3-1. Mean load-in, load-out, removal rate (g m-2 day l) of nutrients and percentage nutrient removal efficiency of the
constructed wetland over five months (April and August 2007). Standard deviation values in are presented in parentheses.
Total Nitrate Ammonium Total
Nitrogen (TN) Nitrogen (NO3-) Nitrogen (NH4 ) Phosphorus (TP)

(g m-2 day- ) (g m-2 day- ) (g m-2 day- ) (g m-2 day- )


Load-in rate
Load-out rate
Removal rate

% Removal


5.07 (2.64)
3.07 (2.50)
1.99 (0.15)


4.43 (2.21)
2.68 (2.18)
1.75 (0.75)


0.32 (0.21)
0.13 (0.14)
0.19 (0.11)


0.19 (0.05)
0.16 (0.04)
0.03 (0.03)









Table 3-2. Mean concentrations of nutrients (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within location, and months
(April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff(n=18). Capital letters indicate statistical
difference between depths (top and bottom) at inlet and outlet over five months; lower-case letters indicate statistical
difference between locations (inlet and outlet) at top and bottom depths over five months; asterisks(*, **) indicate
statistical difference between locations at top and bottom for every month. Means followed by the same letter and same
number of asterisks are statistically similar.

Location Depth Month NO3--N mg L NH4--N mg L TP mg L^1 DOC mg L1
Inlet Top April 46 Aa 4.0 Aa 1.8 Aa 11 Aa *
May 42 B a 0.2 BC a 2.0 Aa 13 Ba *
June 8 D a 2.3 AB a 1.4 Aa 10 Aa *
July 15 Ca 0.2 B a 1.3 Aa 11 Aa *
Aug 11 CD a 1.3 ABC a 0.9 A a 11 A a *
Bottom April 42 Aa 2.2 AB a 2.1 A a 11 AB a *
May 36 B b 0.2 B a 2.4 A a 12 AB a *
June 7 D a 2.0 AB a 3.5 Ab 10 Ba *
July 11 C a 0.9 BC a 2.3 A a 11 AB a
Aug 7 CD b 3.6 Aa 3.0 Ab 13 A a *
Outlet Top April 43 Aa 1.0 Aa 1.6 Aa 11 Aa *
May 32 Ba ** 0.1 Aa 1.2 Aa 11 Aa *
June 4 Ca ** 1.7 Aa 0.9 Aa 9Aa *
July 7 Ca ** 0.1 Aa 1.2 Aa 9Aa *
Aug 4 Ca ** 0.1 Aa 0.7 Aa 10 Aa *
Bottom April 42 Aa 2.3 Aa 1.5 Aa ** 10 Aa *
May 26 Ba ** 0.1 Aa 1.3 Aa 11 Aa *
June 4 Ca 1.8 Aa 0.9 Aa 10 Aa *
July 5 Ca ** 0.1 Aa 1.5 Aa ** 9Aa *
Aug 3 Cb ** 0.1 Aa ** 1.0 Aa 10 Aa **





















Aug 30 Aa 6 Aa 4.4 Aa
Bottom May 22 Aa 4 Aa 6.2 Aa
June 27 Aa 5 Aa 7.2 Aa
July 27 Aa 3 Aa 5.4 Aa
Aug 30 Aa 2 Aa 3.7 Aa
Top May 25 Aa 25 Aa 5.5 Aa
June 27 Aa 15 Aa 6.5 Aa
July 27 Aa 11 Aa 5.8 Aa
Aug 29 Aa 12 Aa 6.9 Aa
Bottom May 22 Ba 15 Aa 6.4 Aa


Table 3-3. Physiochemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within
location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letters
indicate statistical difference between depths (top and bottom) at inlet and outlet over five months; lower-case letters
indicate statistical difference between locations (inlet and outlet) at top and bottom depths over five months. Means
followed by the same letter are statistically similar.


Dissolved oxygen (mg L1)
13 Aa
7 Aa
7 Aa


Location
Inlet









Outlet


Depth
Top


Month
May
June
July


pH
Aa
Aa
Aa


Temperature oC
23 Aa
28 Aa
28 Aa


June
July
Aug


25 Aa
26 Aa


10 Aa
5 Aa


6.6 Aa
5.0 Aa
6.0 Aa


Aa 4 Aa










Table 3-4. Denitrification potential (mg N20-N kg-' hr- ) as affected by macrophyte rhizosphere
soil in three sections (east, middle, and west) between May 2007 and August 2007 in
the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. (n =3). Capital letter indicates the
statistical difference between plant species within each section and month. Means
followed by the same letter are statistically similar.
Plant species Month Section Denitrification potential
mg kg-1 hr-1
Canna flaccida May East 1.9 A
Middle 2.4 A
West 4.1 A
June East 2.0 A
Middle 2.7 A
West 3.4 A
July East 1.0 A
Middle 0.5 A
West 3.1 A
August East 2.2 A
Middle 3.9 A
West 3.0 A
Typha latifolia May East 1.5 A
Middle 6.1 A
West 29.7 A
June East 2.1 A
Middle 0.2 A
West 0.1 A
July East 0.6 A
Middle 0.3 A
West 0.1 A
August East 6.1 A
Middle 0.3 A
West 2.3 A






















Org~anic N
mNH4-N

mNO3-N


~~U ~~ -~ "
ct = a,,=
"I:~C~~C~


Oufo


Flo~w Control Chlannlel


Figure 3-1. Mean concentration (mg L^1) of total nitrogen (TN) and composition of TN [nitrate (NO3~ N), ammonium (NH4 -N) and
organic nitrogen concentration, mg L- ] between April to August of 2007 in the water samples obtained from the flow
control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9), and outlet (n=9) pipes of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff.


Inflow r









60-


50_ A B

a A








0 "

x..e

Fiue3-.Mancnenrto (gL) fntrt iroe NO-N btenApi 00 n Ags 00 nth lw oto
chne n3,ilt(=)adteote n9 ftesuyceli h osrce eln eevn usr uof ro
bar iniaepu tnadero.Cptllte nictssaitcldfernebtenlctoswihnec ot Myt
Augst) loe-aeltesidct ttsia ifrnebtenm nh tec oain(C ,iltadote) en
followed by th a e etr r taitcal imlr










10

A
A
A








5 B FCC

a B A mnlakt
A
S3 C c
o\ tC B
2 -B a b
A
1~ Cc A
A C
b b

Alnil My June July Angut





Figure 3-3. Mean concentration (mg L 1) of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+ N) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control
channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. Error
bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations within each month (May to
August); lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means
followed by the same letter are statistically similar.










80
A

70


60-

C A
i~50 A b
sob

40 A EFCC
fB A
ZI B
3 0 -b c [nle
A
o\20 C A~ B
c: d~ e


to


Apdl May June July Angs
Months



Figure 3-4. Mean concentration (mg L ') of total nitrogen (TN) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel
(n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. Error bars
indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations within each month (May to
August); lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means
followed by the same letter are statistically similar.













A





B A

BB c
o C A b n~
C cd d 1ea
b outlet

dl c eB







April My June July Angut




Figure 3-5. Mean concentration (mg L 1) of total phosphorus (TP) and Dissolved organic carbon between April 2007 and August
2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving
nursery runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations
within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between months at each location
(FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.














14
A
A
abo A
B A
12 -A A A
a a b oA

10~b a


1~ laidb













Apri May Juane JuyAgust
Months



Figure 3-6. Mean concentration (mg L 1) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control
channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. Error
bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations within each month (May to
August); lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means
followed by the same letter are statistically similar.



















y= 0331x
R~ = -0.72


g
E


..


X


atra t~ea stralndin rate (g aa- ~)


Figure 3-7. Pearson' s correlation between loading and removal rate of nitrate nitrogen (g m-2 day l) between April 2007 and August
2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff









0.5 -y 0.536E

OA -~O~


03






0.0 0.2 0A 0.6 0.8

~~ Ammonlnwm noea wr~mgu leadi re (3 dJ)




Figure 3-8. Pearson's correlation between loading and removal rate of ammonium nitrogen (g m-2 day l) between April 2007 and
August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff





0.10 r


y = 0.169x
R. 0.239


8


0.05


e.oo
0.


)0 0.05 0.10


0.25 030


-0.0 5


Total Phosph~lmrmleadaraa (g m~ L)


Figure 3-9. Pearson' s correlation between loading and removal rate of total phosphorus (g m-2day l) between April 2007 and August
2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff


0.15 0.20





5 0.75:


r


1500


1754C


O


I 0.95Rnudly


1.Rundl~y


Figure 3-10. Theoretical hydraulic residence time (in days) as affected by hydraulic loading rate (m3 day l) and three estimates of
wetland porosity values (0.75, 0.95 and 1.0) in the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff












1

I~

zi


I


Top


Figure 3-11. Mean concentrations of nitrate nitrogen (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample collection and depth within location,
between April and August 2007 in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). Capital letters indicate
statistical difference between location (inlet and outlet) at top and bottom of the water column; lower-case letters indicate
statistical difference between depths (top and bottom) at inlet and outlet over five months. Means followed by the same
letter are statistically similar.


IInld
IC~tld


Bottom












18

16

14 B

12

10

S8. B C



2 -










Figure 3-12. Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg L 1) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within location, and months
(April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letters indicate statistical
difference within location, within depth, and within months. Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.









8- A
A b A A B

A


A

p4
r9,a Inkt








Marv June July Ananet
unntes



Figure 3-13. Physiochemical parameter, pH, as affected by location of sample collection, and months (April and August 2007) of the
constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations within
each month (May to August); lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between months at each location (inlet and
outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.









CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Concentration of nutrients in the inflow and outflow water. The mean concentration

(over all locations and months) of nutrients in plant nursery runoff entering the constructed

wetland were 34 mg L1 total nitrogen (TN) [30 mg L^1 nitrate nitrogen (NO3- N); 2 mg L^1

ammonium nitrogen (NH4 -N); and 2 mg L^1 organic nitrogen], 1 mg L1 total phosphorus (TP),

and 10 mg L^1 Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC, less than 20 mg L

1, is considered low as compared to other wastewater sources (Headley et al., 2001; Huett et al.,

2005; Crumpton et al., 1993). The nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was

observed to be 40% for TN, 40% for NO3- N, 59% for NH4 -N, and 16% for TP. The

constructed wetland systems in the US are reported to provide removal efficiencies of 66-95%

for TN and TP (Dortch, 1992), 30-60% for N (Hammer and Knight, 1994). Headly et al. (2001)

have reported > 84% TN and > 65% TP removal in the subsurface horizontal flow wetlands

receiving plant nursery runoff. Huett et al. (2005) obtained > 95% removal efficiency for both

TN and TP in a subsurface flow wetlands treating plant nursery runoff. Reinhardt et al. (2005)

reported 23% TP removal efficiency in constructed wetlands treating agricultural drainage water.

While comparing the results, the study cell appears to be functioning moderately efficiently in

removing TN and TP.

Mean removal efficiency for NO3- N of the constructed wetland over five months was

40%. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency of treatment wetlands in the US ranges from 30-60%

(Hammer and Knight, 1994). Poe et al. (2003) obtained 53% of NO3- N removal in a

constructed wetlands treating agricultural runoff. It is possible that a longer sampling period at

the study cell may have given different results.









The removal efficiency of the NO3--N during the study period ranged from 12 -77% over

five months, indicated the temporal variation in effectively removing NO3- N. The highest

NO3- N removal was obtained in the month of August 2007 and the lowest removal efficiency

was obtained during April. During the same period, the concentration of NO3- N entering and

leaving the wetland gradually decreased from April to August. There was an inverse relationship

between the concentration of NO3- N at inflow and the removal efficiency of the wetland, i.e.,

when the concentration of NO3- N entering the wetland was higher, the removal efficiency was

lower during April. Similar relationship was observed between loading rates and removal

efficiency of NO3- N in the constructed wetlands. Gradual increase in removal efficiency of

NO3- N from April (12%) to August (77%) was observed, as the inflow concentration gradually

decreased from 47 mg L- to 13 mg L^1. Lin et al. (2002) observed similar decrease in the

efficiency of nitrate removal but the rate of removal increased as the nitrate loading rate was

increased. Darbi et al. (2003) also reported inverse relationship between loading rate and the

removal efficiency of NO3--N. Reduction in the removal efficiency of NO3- N from 2.46 to

1.64 kg NO3 -N m-3 dayl was obtained, as the inflow NO3--N concentration increased from 175

to700 mg L^ (Park et al., 2002). Most of the studies reported high loads of NO3--N as compared

to the load in the present study. As the loading rate of NO3--N was observed to be less than 7 g

m-2 day l, this study provides a useful insight into nutrient removal at lower loading rate. Similar

results of low NO3--N loading rates were observed (<2 g m-2 day- ) by Headly et al. (2001) and

Huett et al. (2005) in subsurface flow reed beds receiving plant nursery runoff in Australia.

Although the loading rates are comparatively low, the removal rate of NO3- N (1.75 g m-2 day l)

in this study is comparable and in many cases higher as compared to the values of other studies

(Table 4.1).









The Pearson correlation coefficient value (r = 0.19) indicated a little/no association

between loading and removal rate of NO3- N. The strong positive association between loading

and removal rate of NH4 -N (r = 0.75) and a weak positive association between loading and

removal rate of TP (r = 0.6). The positive correlation coefficient indicates that the loading and

removal rate tend to increase or decrease together. Similar linear relationship of increasing

removal rate with increasing loading rate has been observed by Headley et al. (2001) for TN (r =

0.76).

Plant nursery runoff in this study consisted 87% of the TN in the form of NO3- N. The

dominance of NO3- N in runoff water entering the wetland could be attributed to the controlled

release (coated urea), and soluble nitrate fertilizers (Ammonium Nitrate) applied to nursery

plants (S. Chandler, Horticulture Manager Monrovia Nursery personal communication). It is not

uncommon to apply up to 200 mg L^1 nitrate nitrogen to ornamental crops during peak growing

season. The concentration of NO3- N (mg L^1) entering the wetland varied during the period of

study, i.e., it gradually decreased from April to August 2007. The higher concentration of NO3~ -

N during April was likely due to fertilization practices at the nursery during their peak growing

season (S. Chandler, Horticulture Manager Monrovia Nursery personal communication). In

addition, the limited rainfall (15-17 cm during April and May 2007) might have contributed to

increased concentration of nutrients in the runoff. Similarly, increased concentration of nutrients

in the nursery runoff was observed due to fertilization in subsurface horizontal flow reed beds in

subtropical region of Australia (Headley et al., 2001). During April and May there were

comparatively higher concentrations (44 mg L^1 and 36 mg L^1, respectively) of NO3- N

entering the wetland as compared to June, July and August. Higher concentration of NO3- N

during April (averaging 19 mg L^1) and May (averaging 18 mg L^1) were also obtained by Taylor









et al. (2006) during their four year (2002 2005) monitoring of influent of the constructed

wetland at Monrovia Nursery. In addition, application of fertilizers at a nearby horticultural

nursery contributed to the increase in the concentration of NO3- N (0.03 to 4.73 mg L^1) through

runoff in the tributaries of Santa Fe river watershed in north central Florida (Frisbee, 2007).

While assessing the composition of TN during the study period, it was observed that

concentration of organic N at the outflow was higher as compared to inflow of the study cell,

which might be due to internal generation of organic N in the wetland during decay of plant and

microbes. Persistence of organic N in low concentrations was always observed in the outflow

water of a constructed wetland (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Headley et al., 2001).

Water temperature in study wetland was observed to gradually increase from May to

August. The NO3--N removal efficiency was observed to gradually increase during the same

period. Nitrate nitrogen removal might have been enhanced by the increase in temperature,

which probably resulted in vigorous plant growth and activity of the microorganisms. The mean

temperature of the wetland (over all locations, depths and months) was 260 C. The favorable

range of temperature for denitrification is between 20 and 25 O C (Spieles and Mitsch, 2000),

which is close to the range of the mean temperature of the study cell. The influence of

temperature on nitrogen removal was explained by Reddy and Patrick (1984). The rates of

denitrification have been shown to increase by 1.5-2 times with each increase in 100C. Water

temperatures less than 150C or greater than 300C have been shown to limit the rate of

denitrification (Reddy and Patrick, 1984).

The gradual increase in NO3--N removal efficiency over April to August could also be

related to the growth of the plants in the wetland. The perennial plants in the wetland started

growth in April. During the vigorous growing stages (April, May, and June), plants utilize NO3 -









N and thereby may have contributed to the increased removal efficiency of the NO3- N. Studies

have shown that macrophytes in the wetlands remove substantial amount of NO3--N directly by

uptake or indirectly by providing carbon exudates from roots, which enhance microbial

transformations (Gersberg et al., 1983; Bachand and Horne, 2000).

The NH4 -N contributed only less than 1% of the TN load into the wetland. The removal

efficiency of the NH4 -N ranged from 41% (June) to 93% (August). The concentration of NH4 -

N coming into the wetland was approximately 2 mg L^1, and the outflow concentration less than

1 mg L^1. The NH4 -N removal is likely because of plant uptake or nitrification process in the

aerobic sites of the wetlands. Immobilization by plants and microbes enhances the removal of

NH4 -N. In addition, microbe mediated nitrification process, in which NH4 -N is oxidized to

NO3~ N also contributes to NH4 -N removal in the aerobic zones of wetlands (Burger and

Jackson, 2004). The volatilization ofNH4 -N to ammonia would not be a significant process for

NH4 -N removal in this wetland as the mean pH value (6.0) was lower than optimal (> 8) for this

chemical process to occur (USEPA, 1993, Sartoris et al., 2000). The pH values in this system

did not reach that optimum level during the study period. Plant growth and the size of denitrifier

population within the rhizosphere are observed to be coupled. Hence the influence of pH on

plant growth in turn affects the denitrification potential (Hall et al., 1998). However, the

influence of pH on plant growth was not studied in this system during this study.

The concentration of TP entering and leaving the wetland cell was approximately 1 mg L^1

The removal efficiency of TP ranged from 0-32%, which varied over months. The removal of

TP (which consists orthophosphate) may be attributed to biological uptake, adsorption onto

sediment, etc. The percent TP removal efficiency over months did not follow any particular

trend, however. Similar results of variable TP net removal during the growing season were









observed by Taylor et al. (2006) in the constructed wetland at Monrovia nursery. The few

negative removal efficiency values of TP indicate that there is likely internal loading of

phosphorus. Macrophytes, algae, and microorganisms utilize P as an essential nutrient and can

enhance temporary removal of TP. Long term TP removal, however, is limited to the P sorption

capacity of the sediments (Kadlec, 1999).

The concentration of DOC did not follow a particular trend over months. The distribution

of DOC seemed uniform through the wetland in the study cell. The nursery runoff had a low

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration (a characteristic of nursery runoff). The low

dissolved organic carbon (DOC < 20 mg L 1) was observed in the subsurface flow reed bed

systems receiving plant nursery and agricultural runoff(Headley et al., 2001; Huett et al., 2005;

Crumpton et al., 1993) in Australia. The DOC: NO3- N ratio was observed to be low (<3:1)

during most of the study period.

The modeled effect of hydraulic loading rate and plant density on theoretical residence

time was noticeable. When higher values of hydraulic loading rate were used in the model, the

theoretical residence time decreased by a day for this system. The model showed that increasing

the wetland porosity from 0.75 to 0.95 and/or 1.0 would increase the residence time in the study

cell by one day. Based on the model, the theoretical residence time for this system ranged from

3 to 5 days. Headley et al. (2001) reported that the maximum N removal can be achieved even at

2 day residence time in the subsurface flow reed beds. It was estimated that a nursery of 1 ha

area would require a reed bed area of 200 m2 for a 2 day hydraulic residence time.

Spatial effects on nutrients, physiochemical parameters and denitrification potential

of the water column. The higher DO level at outflow can be attributed to the higher prevalence

of open water towards the outflow side of the wetland compared to the inflow side. The depth of









the water column showed significant influence on DO level, which is expected in waterlogged

conditions. The anoxic condition of the wetland was enhanced with increasing depth of the

water column. The DO concentration gradually decreased from April to August, when the

temperature gradually increased from April to August. The reduction in concentration of DO

could be attributed to increased activity of microorganisms, which enhances N removal, with the

gradual increase in temperature.

The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study varied in their concentration at inflow and

outflow. This variation in the concentration of nutrients may be attributed to removal of

nutrients within the study wetland. Similar nutrient gradient from the inlet to outlet points was

observed in Everglades's wetlands soil (White and Reddy, 1999) and in experimental wetlands

receiving agricultural runoff (Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006). The low concentration of NO3- N at

outflow is likely due to the removal of nitrogen by various mechanisms such as plant uptake,

microbial assimilation, and denitrifieation along the flow of water from inflow. The low

concentration of NO3- N at lower depth of the water column is likely due to the removal of

NO3- N by plant uptake and denitrifieation process in the anaerobic zones of the water column.

Another possible reason might be the lack of diffusion of NO3- N to the lower depths of the

water column, which will also limit the denitrifieation activity.

Although the concentration of NH4 -N was always higher at inflow as compared to

outflow of the wetland, there was no trend observed in the spatial distribution of NH4 -N within

the wetland cell over the period of Hyve months. The lower concentration of NH4 -N at outflow

could be attributed to the removal of NH4 -N within the study cell. However, the concentration

of NH4 -N was observed to be higher in lower depth of the water column, which is likely due to

lack of nitrifieation in the anoxic zones of the water column.









Significant spatial distribution in total phosphorus concentration was observed within the

wetland. However, there were no temporal effects on TP concentration during the period of this

study. The TP was observed to be higher in the deeper water column as compared to the surface

of the water column, but only at the inflow side of the wetland. This could be due to the release

of adsorbed P from the sediments into immediate atmosphere, or due to lack of adsorption sites

near the inflow of the study cell. The sorption sites on the inflow side might have become

saturated because of the higher concentration of TP at inflow. The DOC concentration did not

show any differences in its distribution within the depth of the water column, suggesting its

uniform distribution within the wetland.

The denitrification potential of the water column in the study cell was either negligible or

undetectable. The maximum value of denitrification potential observed in the water column was

0.03 mg N20-N L-1 hr- Lower values of denitrification potential are likely due to a lack of

particulate material in the water column to support the microbial activity. Little research has

been conducted on denitrification potential of the water column in constructed wetlands, but

whenever it was included in wetland studies, the reported values were always relatively low.

Denitrification rates of the water samples in a constructed wetland receiving sewage treatment

plant effluent were observed to be between 0.06 0.96 Clg N m-2 d-l (Toet et al., 2003). The

water column of the study cell had low dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration, and this

may be limiting NO3- N removal due to non availability of energy for denitrifying microbes.

The optimum C:N (plant carbon added:NO3--N in water) ratio for the denitrification in wetlands

is reported to be 4:1 (Ingersoll and Baker, 1998) to 5:1(Baker, 1998). Only during the month of

April, the DOC: NO3- N ratio reached near 4: 1 in the wetland. The mean DOC: NO3- N ratio

was low (<1) during most of the study period. Low DOC: TN reported to limit NO3- N removal









in a subsurface flow wetland receiving plant nursery runoff (Huett et al., 2005). The absence of

attachment sites for bacteria and/or low organic carbon availability possibly resulted in low

denitrification rates in the water, as reported by Toet et al. (2003). The distribution of

denitrifying microbes was most likely regulated by the availability of organic material, with

higher denitrification rates in the sediments than on surface in the water column. The DO

concentration in the water column of the study cell ranged from 6 mg L-1 to 12 mg L^1, which

might have affected the denitrification process, as well. Poe et al. (2003) reported that the

denitrification potential was influenced by the concentration ofNO3- -N, and the rates of

denitrification were observed to increase with an increase ofNO3- N. Such trend was not

observed in this study.

Denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil. Denitrification potential of

macrophyte rhizosphere soil was influenced by months; however, there was no trend between

April and August 2007. The mean denitrification potential in the rhizosphere of the two species

combined was 7.6, 1.7, 0.9, and 3.0 mg N20-N kg-l hr- in May, June, July, and August 2007,

respectively. Only the values obtained in May significantly differed from other months.

Although there was a gradual increase in temperature of the water column from May (22"C) to

August (30"C), the rhizosphere denitrification potential did not show significant difference over

months. The mean temperature (26"C) of the wetland during the study period was close to the

optimum range, 20-25"C, for denitrification activity.

Results of this study showed that mean denitrification potential over five months for

Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia was 3 mg and 4 mg N20-N kg-l hr- respectively. Data

variability within replicates was observed for denitrification potential values in this study. The

variation in values obtained for replicates in this study might be due to the heterogeneity in the









sampling point as affected by plants and surrounding environment, water movement, etc.

Similar data variability in the denitrification rates between the replicates was observed by

Bastviken at al. (2003).

Regardless, the denitrification values obtained in this study are relatively high when

compared to several other studies (Table 4-2). Hunt et al. (2003) obtained higher denitrification

potential of 0.21 mg N kg-l hr- in Typha dominated wetland soils, as compared to 0.52 mg N kg

1 hr- in Juncus dominated wetlands used for treatment of swine wastewater. Denitrification

potential values observed in this study also lie in the range of denitrification potential (0.004 -

7.75 mg N kg-l hr- ) obtained for everglades wetland soils (White and Reddy, 1999).

Denitrification rates in soil samples from Juncus-planted wetland plots were reported to be

higher (12.3 mg N m-2 d- ) as compared to Salix plots (2.65 mg N m-2 d- ). The denitrification

rates obtained from soil samples amended with nitrate and/or glucose, indicated that the

denitrification was limited by the availability of carbon and NO3- N in the Salix plots, whereas

only by NO3- -N in the Juncus plots (Smialek et al 2006). Denitrification potential in rhizosphere

soil of Lolium perenne L.Melinda (Rye grass) was observed to be 150 900 ng N g-l hr- and

followed the pattern of plant growth, indicating that the plant growth and the size of denitrifier

population within the rhizosphere are likely correlated (Hall et al., 1998). Ottosen et al. (1999)

observed low denitrification activity in the rhizosphere of Zostera marina and Potamoge~~~~tttt~~~~tttto n

pectinatus (1.5 to 5 Cpmol N m-2 h- ) as compared to Lobelia dortmanna and Littorella uniflora

vegetated sediments (24 and 30 Cpmol N m-2 h- ).

Statistically similar denitrif ication potential in Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia in this

present study might be due to their similar effect on the rhizosphere. Other researchers have

observed differences in denitrification potential in wetland soil and sediments planted with









different taxa of plants. These differences were attributed to differences in the ability of plant

roots to diffuse oxygen into the rhizosphere, and also due to differences in leakage of available

organic carbon from plant roots.

Most of the studies on denitrification potential have used the sediments and bulk soil in the

rhizosphere of the plants as substrate. Results from this study show that denitrification rates

comparable to or higher than those reported from bulk soil of vegetated plots can be obtained in

rhizosphere soil closely adhered to the roots.











Table 4-1. Nitrate removal rates in constructed wetlands, under different hydraulic residence periods, as reported by other researchers.
System Wastewater Hydraulic residence time Nitrate removal rates
(days) (g m day ')
Flow through wetland microcosms Nitrate contaminated water 2.4 2.8-5 Ingersoll and Baker, 1998
Constructed free water surface wetlands Landfill leachates 10-12 0.63 Kozu and Lieh, 1999

Constructed wetlands Agricultural tile drainage 7 0.29-1.51 Xue et al., 1999
Constructed free water surface wetlands River flow 1-10 0.56 Bachand and Horne, 2000


Natural forested treatment wetland Municipal wastewater
Constructed wetlands Groundwater
Subsurface flow constructed wetlands Domestic effluent

Surface flow constructed wetlands Nursery runoff


Blahnik and Day, 2000
Lin et al., 2002

Bayley et al., 2003
This study


0.9 1.1
4.2
10.5
3-5











Table 4-2. Denitrification potentials of different substrate reported by other researchers in constructed wetlands. While the units of
measure are different and make direct comparisons challenging, these data are useful for making general inferences for
wetlands dominated by different plant taxa. The acronyms used are as follows: Denitrification Enzyme activity (DEA),
Acetylene Inhibition Technique (AIT), Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometry (MIMS), and N tracers (N 5).
Substrate Wastewater type DEA Range of DEA values Method Reference
(mg N m d )


Phragmites australis shoots

Elodea nuttallii shoots


Sewage treatment plant emfuent

Sewage treatment plant emfuent

Sewage treatment plant emfuent

Sewage treatment plant emfuent


AIT Toet et al., 2003

AIT Toet et al., 2003

AIT Toet et al., 2003

AIT Toet et al., 2003


Sediments


Water


Spartina spp., Cladium spp.
Juncus spp. sediment cores
Juncus spp. sediment

Everglades soils


Agricultural runoff

Agricultural runoff

Agricultural runoff


44.4 121 mg N m d

14.8 33.1 mg N m d '

0.5 25.5 mg N m d

0.4 3.9 pLg N m d

0.7 9.2 mg N m d

0.1-6.0 mg N m~2d

0.004 7.75 mg N kg' hr

2-11.8 mg N m d

150 900 ng N g' h ~


Mixed plants
sediments


Agricultural tile drainage

Wetland microcosms


MIMS Poe at al., 2003

AIT Thompson et al., 2000

AIT White and Reddy, 1999

AIT /N'5 Xue et al.,1999

AIT Hall at al., 1998

AIT This study


Lolium perene (Ryegrass)
Rhizosphere soil
Typha latifolia


2.51 mg N kg h-'

4.11 mg N kg h-'


Plant nursery runoff


Canna flaccida Plant nursery runoff


AIT This study









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Constructed wetlands are cost effective and viable method for on-site removal of nonpoint

source contaminants from water before it is released into aquatic systems. These systems are

used to treat wastewater from municipal water source, animal waste, urban runoff, stormwater

runoff, and agricultural runoff. Few studies have focused on constructed wetlands treating

nursery runoff (Headley et al., 2001; Lea-cox et al., 2002; Huett et al., 2005). In general, the

performance of constructed wetlands varies and partly depends on the source and the

characteristic features of influent wastewater (Mitsch and Jorgensen, 1989; NRCS, 2000a;

Dunne et al., 2005).

When constructed wetlands are to be used for nutrient, especially N, removal, management

strategies can be optimized by understanding the mechanisms by which N is removed within the

constructed wetlands. In view of the necessity of a 'systems approach', which recognizes the

site specific conditions, nitrogen (N) dynamics in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery

runoff was investigated to facilitate improved understanding of N transformations, factors

influencing N removal, and to optimize the performance of the system for on-site N removal.

The concentration of nutrients N and phosphorus (P) entering and leaving the constructed

wetland was monitored from April 2007 to August 2007 to determine the nutrient removal

efficiency of the study cell in the constructed wetlands receiving plant nursery runoff. The

dominant nutrient in the plant nursery runoff was N, in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N),

followed by phosphorus (P). The concentration of DOC was low (< 20 mg L^1) which is a

characteristic feature of the plant nursery runoff

It was hypothesized that the concentration of N and P would vary over months based on

the timing of the fertilizer application, irrigation, and rainfall. The higher concentration of NO3~ -









N during April and May in this study was likely due to fertilization practices at the nursery

during their peak growing season. In addition, the limited rainfall (15-17 cm during April and

May 2007) might have contributed to increased concentration of nutrients in the runoff.

The concentration of nutrients, as expected, was higher in the influent as compared to the

outflow. The mean nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40%

for NO3--N, 59% for NH4 -N, and 16% for TP. While comparing to other studies, the study cell

appears to be functioning moderately efficiently in removing N and P. The NO3--N removal

efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of NO3--N in this study. The P removal might

be due to plant, algal uptake and adsorption/precipitation reactions. The negative P removal

efficiency in July indicates that at times there may be internal loading of P in the system.

Ammonium Nitrogen removal is likely due to plant uptake or nitrification process in the aerobic

zones of the wetlands. The volatilization of NH4 -N to ammonia is probably not a significant

process for NH4 -N removal in the wetland because the observed pH in the wetland was lower

that what is reported to be optimal for this process to occur. The low DOC: NO3--N ratio in the

influent water indicates that the system might be limited by carbon availability, which could

adversely affect NO3- N removal.

Hydraulic loading rate and the plant density were observed to influence the theoretical

residence time in the model. When higher values of hydraulic loading rate were used in the

model, the theoretical residence time decreased by a day for this system. The model showed that

increasing the wetland porosity from 0.75 to 0.95 and/or 1.0 would increase the residence time in

the study cell by one day.

The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study exhibited a gradient from the inflow to

outflow due to removal of nutrients within the wetland. The low NO3--N concentration at lower










depth of the water column is likely due to utilization of NO3--N by microorganisms, during the

process of denitrification in the anoxic zones. The high NH4 -N concentration in the lower depth

of the water column is likely due to the lack of nitrification process in the anoxic lower depth of

the water column, and hence the accumulation of NH4 -N. Higher concentration of TP in the

lower depth of the water column is likely due to release of adsorbed P from the sediments, or due

to lack of adsorption sites near the inflow of the study cell. The sorption sites on the inflow side

might have become saturated because of the higher concentration of TP at inflow. Concentration

of DOC did not show any differences in distribution along the depth of the water column, and

across the locations over months, indicated uniform distribution within the wetland.

Gradual increase in the temperature of the water column from May to August 2007 might

have enhanced NO3- N removal by affecting plant growth and activity of the microorganisms.

Denitrification potential values were observed to follow the pattern of plant growth, indicating

that the plant growth and the size of denitrifier population within the rhizosphere might be

coupled. Hence, physiological parameters affecting the plant growth can also indirectly affect

denitrification. A direct relationship was observed between the NO3- N removal efficiency and

temperature of the water column during the study period. As the temperature gradually

increased from May to August, the DO level gradually decreased. This is likely due to the

enhanced activity of the microorganisms utilizing oxygen as an electron acceptor. The higher

DO level at outflow can be attributed to open water towards the deeper side of the wetland. Due

to the potential differences in the temperature over months, DO level in the water column, and

concentration ofNO3- -N at inflow and outflow, it was expected that the denitrification potential

of the water column would be different as well. However, the low (0.01-0.03 mg N20-N L-1 hr- )

or undetectable denitrification potential of the water column is possibly due to the low DOC









concentration/low DOC: NO3- -N, which limits denitrification. The presence of few attachment

sites for bacteria possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column.

Mean rhizosphere denitrification potential over five months for Can2na flaccida and Typha

latifolia was 3 mg and 4 mg N20-N kg-l hr- respectively. The mean denitrification potential of

two species was statistically similar. Regardless, the denitrification values obtained in this study

are relatively high when compared to several other study studies. Hunt et al. (2003) obtained

higher denitrification potential of 0.21 mg N kg-l hr- in Typha dominated wetland soils, as

compared to 0.52 mg N kg-l hr- in Juncus dominated wetlands used for treatment of swine

wastewater. Rhizosphere denitrif ication potential values of Canna flaccida~ and Typha latifolia in

this study were comparatively higher than the rhizosphere denitrification potential values of

other plant species Lolium perenne, Zostera marina, Potamoge~~~~tttt~~~~tttto n pectinatus, Lobelia

dortmanna and Littorella uniflora. Results from this study show that denitrification rates

comparable to or higher than those reported from bulk soil of vegetated plots can be obtained in

rhizosphere soil closely adhered to the roots.

Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency of the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery

runoff was observed be 40% over five month period, with an average removal rate of 1.75 g m-2

day- The mean loading rate of NO3- -N was 4.43 g m-2 day l. Compared to mean removal rate

of NO3- -N (1.75 g m-2 day )~, the amount of NO3- -N removed through coupled (0. 1 g N20-N kg-

Sday- ) denitrification potential [mean denitrification potential of water column (0.72 mg N20-N

kg-l day- ) plus mean rhizosphere denitrification potential (96 mg N20-N kg-l day- )] was lower.

Therefore, it is likely that the rest of NO3- -N would be removed by other pathways contributing

to removal of NO3- -N. The maj or NO3- -N removal pathways are plant and microbial









assimilation and sediment and/or soil denitrification. Rhizosphere denitrification potential in this

study was observed to significantly contribute towards NO3- -N removal.










LIST OF REFERENCES


Aldrich, R.A., and J.W. Bartok. 1994. Greenhouse engineering. Natural Resource Agriculture
and Engineering Service (NRAES) Publication No. 33, Ithaca, NY.

Armentano, T.V., and J.T.A. Verhoeven. 1990. Wetland processes: Global biogeochemical
cycles. In: Patten, B.C. (ed.) Wetlands and shallow continental water bodies. Vol. 1. SPB
Academic Publishing, The Hague.

Ayaz, S.C., and L. Acka. 2001. Treatment of wastewater by natural systems. Environmental
International 26:189-195.

Bachand, P.A.M., and A.J. Home. 2000. Denitrification in constructed free water surface
wetlands: Effects of vegetation and temperature. Ecological Engineering 14:17-32.

Baker, L.A. 1998. Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in the United States and prospects
for wetland use. Ecological Engineering 1:1-26.

Bastviken, S.K., P.G. Eriksson, I. Martins, J.M. Neto, L. Leonardson, and K. Tonderski. 2003.
Potential nitrification and denitrification on different surfaces in a constructed treatment
wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:2414-2420.

Bayley, M.L., L. Davidson, and T.R. Headley. 2003. Nitrogen removal from domestic effluent
using subsurface flow constructed wetlands: influence of depth, hydraulic residence time
and pre-nitrification. Water Science and Technology 48:175-182.

Berghage, R.D., E.P. MacNeal, E.F. Wheeler, and W.H. Zachritz. 1999. Green water treatment
for the green industries: opportunities for biofiltration of greenhouse and nursery
irrigation water and runoff with constructed wetlands. Hortscience 34:50-54.

Bemdt, M.P., E.T. Oaksford, M.R. Darst, and R.L. Marella. 1996. Environmental setting and
factors that affect water quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain: US Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations.

Black, R.J. 1993. Florida Climate Data. Florida Energy Extension Service Publication EES-5,
University of Florida, Gainesville. http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu.

Blahnik, T and J Day. 2000. The effects of varied hydraulic and nutrient loading rates in water
quality and hydrologic distributions in a natural forested treatment wetland. Wetlands
20:48-61.

Brix, H. 1997. Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Science and
Technology 35:11-17.

Burger, M., and L.E. Jackson. 2004. Plant and microbial nitrogen use and turnover: Rapid
conversion of nitrate to ammonium in soils with roots. Plant and soil 266:289-301.










Burgin, A.J., and S.K. Hamilton. 2007. Have we overemphasized the role of denitrification in
aquatic systems? A review of nitrate removal pathways. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 5:89-96.

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L.Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N. Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998.
Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological
Applications 83:559-568.

Coffey, S. 1997. Selected agricultural best management practices to control nitrogen in the
Neuse River Basin. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Technical
Bulletin 1-50.

Cooper, P.F., and B.C. Findlater. 1990. Constructed wetlands in water pollution control.
Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Crumpton, W.G., T.M. Isenhart, and S.W Fisher 1993. Controlling agricultural runoff by use of
constructed wetlands. In: Moshiri, A. (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality
Improvement. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.

D'Angelo, E.M., and K.R. Reddy. 1999. Regulators of heterotrophic microbial potentials in
wetland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:815-830.

Dahl, T.E. 1990 Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780' s to 1980' s. Report to the Congress.
United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC
USA.

Darbi, A., T. Viraraghavan, R. Butter and D. Corkal. 2003. Pilot-scale evaluation of select nitrate
removal technologies. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 38:1703-1715.

DeBusk, W.F. 1999. Functional role of wetlands in watersheds.SL 169 Florida Cooperative
Extension Service. IFAS. University of Florida. Gainesville. http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu.

Desimone, L.A., and B.L. Howes. 1996 Denitrification and nitrogen transport in a coastal aquifer
receiving wastewater discharge. Environmental Science and Technology 30: 1152-1162

Dortch, M. S. 1992. Literature analysis addresses the functional ability of the wetlands to
improve water quality. The wetlands research program bulletin. 2: 1-4 USACE
Waterways Experimental station, Vicksburg, MS.

Dunne, E.J., N. Culleton, G.O. Donovan, R. Harrington, and A.E. Olson. 2005. An integrated
constructed wetland to treat contaminants and nutrients from dairy farmyard dirty water.
Ecological Engineering 24:221-234.

Eriksson, P.G., and S.E.B. Weisner 1997. Nitrogen removal in a wastewater reservoir: The
importance of denitrification by epiphytic biofilms on submersed vegetation. Journal of
Environmental Quality 26:905-910.










Faeth, P. 2000. Fertile ground: Nutrient Trading's potential to cost effectively improve water
quality. World Resources Institute. Washington DC. USA

Franklin, E.C., J.D. Gregory, D.W. Hazel, and J.E. Parsons. 2000. Management of filter zones
for dispersion and treatment of agricultural runoff. Water Resources Institute, Raleigh,
NC, USA. 312/202.

Frisbee, A.E. 2007. Nitrate nitrogen dynamics in tributaries of the SantaFe river watershed, north
central Florida. MS Thesis University of Florida.

Gale, P.M., I. Devai, K.R. Reddy and D.A. Gratez. 1993. Denitrifieation potential of soils from
constructed and natural wetlands. Ecological Engineering 2: 119-130.

Gersberg, R. M., B. V. Elkins and C. R. Goldman. 1983. Nitrogen removal in artificial wetlands.
Water Research 17: 1009-1014.

Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyons, and C.R. Goldman. 1986. Role of aquatic plants in
wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Research 20:363-368.

Gren, I.M. 1995. The value of investing in wetlands for nitrogen abatement. European review of
Agricultural economics 22:157-172.

Hall, J.M., E. Paterson, and K. Killham. 1998 The effect of elevated CO2 COncentration and soil
pH on the relationship between plant growth and rhizosphere denitrifieation potential.
Global Change Biology 4:209-216.

Hammer, D.A. 1992. Designing constructed wetlands systems to treat agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. Ecological Engineering 1:49-82.

Hammer, D. A., and R.L. Knight. 1994. Designing constructed wetlands for nitrogen removal.
Water science and Technology 29:15-17.

Headley, T.R., D.O. Huett, and L. Davidson. 2001. The removal of nutrients from plant nursery
irrigation runoff in subsurface horizontal flow wetlands. Water Science and Technology
44:77-84.

Hoag, J.C. 1997. A Constructed wetland system for water quality improvement of nursery
irrigation wastewater. p 132-135. In: Landis, T.D., Thompson, J.R. (ed). National
Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. General Technical Report.
PNW-GTR-419. Portland. OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.

Hodges, A.W., and J.J. Haydu. 2002. Economic Impacts of the Florida Environmental
Horticulture Industry, 2000. Economic Information Report EIR-02-3, Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
http:.//hortbusine ss.ifas.ufl .edu/EIRO2-3 .pdf










Horner et al 1994 Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, H.L. Eric and H. E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of
Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, Terrence Institute.

Howarth, R. W., G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. Townsend, N.Jaworski, K. Lajtha, J. A. Downing, R.
Elmgren, N. Caraco,T. Jordan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, P. Murdoch, and
Zhu Zhao-liang. 1996. Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine inputs of N and P for the
drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natural and human influences. Biogeochemistry
35:75-139.

Huett, D.O., S.G. Morris, G. Smith, and N. Hunt. 2005. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from
plant nursery runoff in vegetated and unvegetated subsurface flow wetlands. Water
Research.39:3259-3272.

Ingersoll, T.L., and L.A. Baker. 1998. Nitrate removal in wetland microcosms. Water
research.32:677-684.

Jerardo, A. 2005. Floriculture and nursery crops situation and outlook yearbook. FLO-2005,
Economic Research Service / USDA. Washington, DC.

Kadlec, R.H. 1999. The limits of phosphorus removal in wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 7: 165-175, 1999.

Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight 1996 Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Kadlec, R.H., and K.R. Reddy. 2001. Temperature effects in treatment wetlands. Water
Environment Research 73:543-55.

Knowles, R. 1982. Denitrification. Microbiological Reviews 46:43-70.

Knowles, R. 1990. Acetylene inhibition technique: development, advantages and potential
problems. p 151-165 In Revsbech, N.P. and Sorensen, J. (eds.) Denitrifieation in Soil and
Sediment. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.

Kozu, D.D.and S.K. Lieh. 1999. Assessing denitrifieation rate limiting factors in a constructed
wetland receiving landfill leachate. Water Science and technology 40:75-82.

Kristiansen, S., and M.T. Schaanning. 2002. Denitrifieation in the water column of an
intermittently anoxic fj ord Hydrobiologia 469:77-86.

Lea-cox, J.D., and D.S. Ross. 2001. Clean water policy and the rationale for developing a water
and nutrient management planning process for container nursery and greenhouse
operations. Journal of environmental Horticulture 19: 1-8.

Lea-cox, J.D., D.S. Ross, A.G. Ristvey, and J.D. Murray. 2002. Estimating nitrogen and
phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads for container nursery and greenhouse
production systems. p 466-471.1In Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental
Regulations: Proceedings Conference Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 11-13 March, 2002.










Lin, Y.F., S.R. Jing, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Wang. 2002. Effect of macrophytes and external carbon
sources on nitrate removal from groundwater in constructed wetlands. Environmental
pollution 119:413-420.

Lu, W., and J.L. Sibley. 2006. Modeling of water requirements for container production using
overhead irrigation. p 518-520. In M. Taylor. (ed.) Water Management. Proceedings of
Research Conference, GA, 2006, Southern Nursery Association, Atlanta, GA.

Marella, R.L., and J.L. Fanning. 1996. National water quality assessment of the Georgia-Florida
Coastal Plain study unit water withdrawals and treated wastewater discharges, 1990.
US Geological Survey WRIR.

Martin, J.F., and K.R. Reddy. 1997. Interaction and spatial distribution of wetland nitrogen
processes. Ecological modeling 105:1-21.

Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural riparian
wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Ecological Engineering 1:27-47.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink 2000. Wetlands. John and Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Mitsch, W.J., and S.E. Jorgensen. 1989. Ecological engineering: An introduction to
ecotechnology. John and Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Moorhead, K.K., and K.R. Reddy. 1988. Oxygen transport through selected aquatic
macrophytes. Journal of Environmental Quality 17:138-142.

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems Washington DC;
National Academy press.

National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI). 1998. http ://www.pollutionissues. com/Na-
Ph/Nonp oi nt- Source-P olluti on. html

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002 Constructed wetlands. Environmental
Engineering National Engineering Handbook. USDA and NRCS, Washington DC.

Ottosen, L.D.M., N. Risgaard-Petersen, and L.P. Nielsen. 1999. Direct and indirect
measurements of nitrification and denitrification in the rhizosphere of aquatic
macrophytes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 19:81-91.

Paredes, D., P. Kuschk, F. Stange, R.A.Muller, and H. Koser., 2007. Model experiments on
improving nitrogen removal in laboratory scale subsurface constructed wetlands by
enhancing the anaerobic ammonia oxidation. Water Science and Technology 56:145-
150.

Park, J.H., H.S. Shin, I.S. Lee, and J.H. Bae. 2002. Denitrification of High NO3--N Containing
Wastewater Using Elemental Sulfur; Nitrogen Loading Rate and N20 Production.
Environmental Technology 23:53-65.










Patrick, W.H. Jr. 1994. From wastelands to wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:892-
896.

Platter C. 1996. Enhanced nitrogen elimination in subsurface flow artificial wetlands a multi
stage concept. International Conference of wetland systems for water pollution control.
Vienna, Austria.

Poe, A.C., M.F. Piehler, S.P. Thompson, and H.W. Paerl. 2003. Denitrification in a constructed
wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Wetlands 23:817-826.

Reddy, K. R. and E. M. D'Angelo. 1994. Soil processes regulating water quality in wetlands.p.
309-324. In: Mitsch, J.W. (ed.) Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, NY.

Reddy, K. R., and R. D. Delaune. 2007. Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and
Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl. (in press).

Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Patrick 1984. Nitrogen transformations and loss in flooded soils and
sediments. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 13:273-309.

Reddy, K.R., E.M. D'Angelo and T.A. DeBusk. 1989. Oxygen transport through aquatic
macrophytes: the role in wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Quality
19:261-267.

Reddy, K.R., P.S.C. Rao, and R.E. Jessup. 1982. The effect of carbon mineralization on
denitrification kinetics in mineral and organic soils. Soil science society of America
journal 46:62-68.

Reddy, K.R., W.H. Patrick, and C.W. Lindau. 1989. Nitrification-denitrification at the plant root
sediment interface in wetlands. Limnology and Oceanography 34: 1004-1113.

Reed, S.C., R.W. Crites and E.J. Middlebrooks, 1995 Natural Systems for Waste Management
and Treatment (2nd ed.), McGraw Hill, New York .

Reinhardt, M., B. Muller, R.Gachter, B. Wehrli. 2006. Nitrogen removal in a small constructed
wetland: An isotope mass balance approach. Environmental science and technology
40:3313-3319.

Reinhardt, M., R.Gachter, B. Wehrli, and B. Muller. 2005. Phosphorus retention in small
constructed wetlands treating agricultural drainage water. Journal of Environmental
Quality 34: 1251-1259.

Risgaard-Petersen, N., and K. Jenson. 1997. Nitrification and denitrification in the rhizosphere of
the aquatic macrophyte Lobelia dortmanna L. Limnology and Oceanography 42:529-537.

Sartoris, J.J., J.S. Thullen, L.B. Barber, D.E. Salas. 2000. Investigation of nitrogen
transformations in a southern California constructed wastewater treatment wetland.
Ecological Engineering 14:49-65.










Seitzinger, S.P. 1993. Denitrification measurements in aquatic sediments: A comparison of three
methods. Biogeochemistry 23:147-167.

Shipin, O., T. Koottatep, N.T.T. Khanh and C. Polprasert. 2005. Integrated natural treatment
systems for developing communities: low-tech N-removal through the fluctuating
microbial pathways. Water Science and Technology 51:299-306.

Sirivedhin,T., and K.A. Gray 2006. Factors affecting denitrification rates in experimental
wetlands: Field and laboratory studies. Ecological Engineering 26:167-181.

Smialek, J., V. Bouchard, B. Lippmann, M. Quigley, T. Granata, J. Martin, and L. Brown. 2006.
Effect of a woody (Salix nigra) and an herbaceous (Juncus effuses) macrophyte species
on methane dynamics and denitrification. Wetlands 26:509-517.

Sorrell, B.K. 1999. Effect of external oxygen demand on radial oxygen loss by Juncus roots in
titanium citrate solutions. Plant, Cell & Environment 22: 1587-1593.

Southeastern Regional Climate Assessment report. 1999.
http:.//weather.m sfc. nasa.gov/regi onal/water~quality. html

Spieles, D.J., and W.J. Mitsch. 2000. The effects of season and hydraulic and chemical loading
on nitrate retention in constructed wetlands: a comparison of low- and high-nutrient
riverine systems. Ecological Engineering. 14:77-91.

Stottmeister,U., A. Wiesner, P. Kuschk, U. Kappelmeyer, M. Kastner, O. Bederski, R.A. Miidler
and H. Moormann. 2003. Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands
for wastewater treatment. Biotechnology advances 22:93-117.

Tanner, C.C., and R.H. Kadlec. 2003. Oxygen flux implications of observed nitrogen removal
rates in subsurface flow wetlands. Water science and Technology 48:191-198.

Taylor M.D., S.A. White, S.L. Chandler. 2006. Nutrient mitigation for large scale nurseries. p
540-543. hz M. Taylor. (ed.) Water Management. Proceedings of Research Conference,
GA, 2006, Southern Nursery Association, Atlanta, GA.

Thomas, M.V., and D. Joyner. 2002. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental
Regulations. Proceedings Conference Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 11-13 March, 2002.

Thompson, S.P., M.F. Piehler, and W.H. Paerl. 2000. Denitrification in an estuarine headwater
creek within an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1914-1923.

Tiedje, J.M. 1982. Denitrification. P. 1011-1026 hz A.L.Page, R.H.Miller, and D.R. Keeney (ed.)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. (2nd ed). Agronomy Monograph 9. ASA and SSSA.
Madison, WI.

Tiedj e, J.M. 1988. Ecology of denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium,
p. 179-24 hz AJB Zehnder (ed.), Biology of anaerobic microorganisms. John and Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.










Toet, S., L.H.F.A. Huibers, R.S.P. Van Logtestijn, and J.T.A.Verhoeven. 2003. Denitrification in
the periphyton associated with plant shoots and in the sediment of a wetland system
supplied with sewage treatment plant effluent. Hydrobiologia 501:29-44.

Toet, S., R.S.P. Van Logtestijn, R. Kampf, M. Schreijer and J.T.A. Verhoeven. 2005. The effect
of hydraulic retention time on the removal of pollutants from sewage treatment plan
effluent in a surface-flow wetland system. Wetlands 25:375-391.

USEPA. 1983. Methods of chemical analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Monitoring
Support Lab., Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA. 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986 and update no. I and update no. 2 (May 1, 1987):
Washington, D.C., EPA-440/5-86-001

USEPA. 1993a. NPS. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters EPA 840-B-92-002.

USEPA, 1993b. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat 17 Case
Studies EPA832-R-93-005

USEPA. 1994. EPA's Polluted brochure EPA-841-F-94-005,
http://www. epa.gov/owow/np s/qa.html

USEPA. 2002a. The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act's Section 3 19 Nonpoint
Source Pollution Program http://www. epa.gov/nps/Section3 19III/intro.htm

USEPA.2002b. National Coastal Condition Report.
http://www. ep a.gov/owow/oc ean s/nc cr/i ndex. html

USGS. 1998. Water Quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain, Georgia and Florida, 1992-96
By Marian P. Berndt, Hilda H. Hatzell, Christy A. Crandall, Michael Turtora, John R.
Pittman, and Edward T. Oaksford USGS Circular 1151

USGS. 2004. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/1265/pdf/ciclal6.pdf.

White, J.R., and K.R. Reddy. 1999. Influence of nitrate and phosphorus loading on denitrifying
enzyme activity in Everglades wetland soils. Soil Science Society of America journal
63:1945-1954.

Wood, A. 1995. Constructed wetlands in water pollution control: fundamentals to their
understanding. Water Science and Technology 32:21-29.

Wood, S.L., E.F. Wheeler, R.D. Berghage, and R.E. Graves 1999. Temperature effects on
wastewater nitrate removal in laboratory scale constructed wetlands. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 42:185-190.










Xue, Y., D.A. Kovacic, M.B. David, L.E.Gentry, R.L.Mulvaney, and C.W. Lindau. 1999. In situ
measurements of denitrification in constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental
Quality 28:263-269.

Yang, Q., Z.H. Chen, J.G. Zhao, and B.H. Gu. 2007. Contaminant Removal of Domestic
Wastewater by Constructed Wetlands: Effects of Plant Species. Journal of Integrative
Plant Biology 49:437-446.

Yeager, T.H., R.D. Wright, D. Fare, C. Gilliam, J. Johnson, T. Bilderback, and R. H. Zondag.
1993. Six state survey of container nursery nitrate nitrogen runoff. Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 11:206-208.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Bhuvaneswari Govindaraj an, shortly called as Bhuvana, was born in 1976 in India. She

spent the greater portion of her life growing up in a small town, named Vandavasi, Tamilnadu,

India. Hailing from a farming family, she was fascinated by field of agriculture. She majored in

horticulture sciences and received her Bachelor' s degree in Horticulture (1994-1998) from

Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India. She completed her Master of

Science in Vegetable Crops (1999-2001), with a minor in plant breeding, from Punj ab

Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

For the next four years, she worked in several organizations, as research associate in a

private biofertilizer production unit, as a lecturer in agricultural college, as a technical consultant

for an MNC, on National Horticulture Board proj ect, and as a Development Executive for an

NGO in a watershed development proj ect. While working in an NGO, she was exposed to

problems associated with environmental degradation/pollution and inclined towards the field of

environmental science. She then decided to continue her education in the field of environmental

sciences. Upon achieving the graduate research assistantship, she came to United States, to

pursue her Masters degree in Interdisciplinary Ecology at University of Florida. Bhuvana has

had an opportunity to work on a project as well as her thesis research focusing on nutrient

removal from nonpoint source pollution using constructed wetlands.

After gaining hands on experience in the US, She wish to return to her county, India,

where her knowledge and skills will be applied towards achieving cleaner, greener, and

sustainable environment.





PAGE 1

1 NITROGEN DYNAMICS IN A CONSTR UCTED WETLAND RECEIVING PLANT NURSERY RUNOFF IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES By BHUVANESWARI GOVINDARAJAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Bhuvaneswari Govindarajan

PAGE 3

3 To every individual who nurtured my intellectual curiosity throughout my lifetime making this milestone possible

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Jyotsna Sharma for her guidance, wisdom, and support, as well as my committee members, Dr s. K.R.Reddy, Mark W Clark, and Kanika S Inglett for their inputs on this project. Additiona l thanks to Dr. Jyotsna Sharma for all her time, especially during process of writing my thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Jim Ja witz for his valuable inputs throughout my research. I wish to thank Dr. Wilson for the statistic al inputs. I am also thankful to Dr. Dunne for his assistance and inputs. I thank everyone in the Wetland Biog eochemistry Laboratory for invaluable training and inputs during lab experiments. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and fa mily for their love a nd support. A special thanks to my husband, Subramaniam, for his patie nce and sacrifices thr ough the long years of graduate school, and for his support and help in all the endeavors I have chosen to pursue.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................11Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........11Water Quality in the United States......................................................................................... 12Water Quality in Southeastern United States......................................................................... 13Water Quality and Ornamental Plant Industry in Georgia and Florida.................................. 14Management Strategies to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution............................................. 17Importance of Natural and Constructed Wetlands for Improving Water Quality.................. 18Nitrogen Cycling in Wetlands................................................................................................ 20Denitrification in Wetlands.................................................................................................... .21Factors Influencing Den itrification in Wetlands.................................................................... 22The Problem Statement...........................................................................................................27Objectives and Hypotheses.....................................................................................................282 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................................... 30Site Description......................................................................................................................30Field Methods.........................................................................................................................33Analytical Methods............................................................................................................. ....36Statistical Methods............................................................................................................ ......403 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................514 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................785 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................91LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................96BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................105

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Mean load-in, load-out, removal rate (g m-2 day-1) of nutrients and percentage nutrient removal efficiency of the constr ucted wetland over five months (April and August 2007). ...................................................................................................................613-2 Mean concentrations of nutrients (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). ..................................................... 623-3 Physiochemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland rece iving nursery runoff (n=3). ..................................633-4 Denitrification potential (mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1) as affected by macrophyte rhizosphere soil in three sections (eas t, middle, and west) between May 2007 and August 2007 in the constructed wetland receiv ing nursery runoff. (n =3).................................................. 644-1 Nitrate removal rates in constructed wetlands, under different hydraulic residence periods, as reported by other researchers........................................................................... 894-2 Denitrification potentials of different substrate reported by ot her researchers in constructed wetlands. ....................................................................................................... 90

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Diagram illustrating potential pathways for chemical transformations of nitrogen (N) in a wetland. .......................................................................................................................292-1 Map of the state of Georgia, Unite d States, showing county boundaries. ....................... 412-2 Runoff generated from the microirriga ted nursery beds at Monrovia Nursery................. 422-3 Runoff generated from the nursery beds drains into the flow control channel.................. 432-4 Runoff draining into th e flow control channel...................................................................442-5 Overview of the Constructed wetlan ds at Monrovia Nursery, Cairo, GA. ......................452-6 Inflow pipes into the study cell..........................................................................................462-7 Outflow pipe of the study cell............................................................................................472-8 Location and number of water samples (ind icated by stars) at in flow and outflow of the study cell to determine the nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetlands.............................................................................................................................482-9 Locations of water samples (indicated by stars) in the study cell to assess the spatial variation in the concentration of nutrients and denitrification potential of the water column, between locations (inflow and outflow) and between depths (top and bottom) within locations over five months........................................................................ 492-10 Illustration of the study cell showing the location and number (indicated by stars) of monthly plant root samples to assess the denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia ........................................................................503-1 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total nitrogen (TN) a nd composition of TN [nitrate (NO3 N), ammonium (NH4 +-N) and organic nitrogen concentration mg L-1] between April to August of 2007 in the wate r samples obtained from the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9), and outlet (n=9 ) pipes of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff................................................................................................................. ....653-2 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell in the constructed wetl and receiving nursery runoff......................................... 663-3 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+ N) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed we tland receiving nursery runoff. ............................... 67

PAGE 8

8 3-4 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total nitrogen (TN) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), in let (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetla nd receiving nursery runoff...................................................... 683-5 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total phosphorus (TP) a nd Dissolved organic carbon between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n =3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff..................................................................................................................................693-6 Mean concentration (mg L-1) of dissolved organic car bon (DOC) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff.................................. 703-7 Pearsons correlation between loading a nd removal rate of nitrate nitrogen (g m-2 day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff................................................................................................................. ....713-8 Pearsons correlation between loading and removal rate of ammonium nitrogen (g m2 day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff................................................................................................................. ....723-9 Pearsons correlation between loading a nd removal rate of total phosphorus (g m2day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff................................................................................................................. ....733-10 Theoretical hydraulic residence time (in days) as affected by hydr aulic loading rate (m3 day-1) and three estimates of wetland poros ity values (0.75, 0.95 and 1.0) in the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff................................... 743-11 Mean concentrations of nitrate nitrogen (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample collection and depth within location, between April and August 2007 in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). ..................................................... 753-12 Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample collection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3).......................................................... 763-13 Physiochemical parameter, pH, as aff ected by location of sample collection, and months (April and August 2007) of the constructed wetla nd receiving nursery runoff (n=3).......................................................................................................................... .........77

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science NITROGEN DYNAMICS IN A CONSTR UCTED WETLAND RECEIVING PLANT NURSERY RUNOFF IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES By Bhuvaneswari Govindarajan May 2008 Chair: Jyotsna Sharma Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Constructed wetlands are a cost effective method for on-site nutrient removal from polluted water from nonpoint sources. Nitrogen (N) concentration and de nitrification potential were studied in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff over five months in southeastern US. Nursery runoff, before ente ring the wetland, contai ned an average total nitrogen concentration of 34 mg L-1. Majority of nitrogen was in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N; 30 mg L-1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4 +-N; 2 mg L-1) and organic nitrogen (2 mg L-1). Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L-1 and dissolved organic carbon was 11 mg L-1. Mean nutrient removal efficiency of th e constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40% for NO3 --N, 59% for NH4 +-N, and 16% for TP. Nitrate nitroge n removal efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of NO3 --N; and directly related to temperature of the water column. The gradual increase in temperature over months might have enhanced NO3 N removal by influencing plant growth and activ ity of microorganisms, which is also evidenced by the gradual decrease in the concentration of DO in the wate r column during the study period. The theoretical hydraulic residence time was estimated to be 3-5 da ys in the model. Th e nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study exhibited nutrient gradient from the inflow to outflow indicating removal of these nutrients within the wetland. The denitrification potential of the water column was

PAGE 10

10 relatively low (0.01 to 0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1), and could be due to carbon limitation in the wetland water column as evident by lo w DOC concentration and low DOC: NO3 --N ratio. The presence of few attachment sites for bacteria a nd lack of particulate s ubstances to support the microbial activity possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column. The mean denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia (3 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) and Canna flaccida (4 mg N2O-N kg -1 hr-1) over five months were statistically similar. As the combined denitrification potential of the water column (0.72 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) and the rhizosphere soil (96 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) in this study was less than the total removal (1.75 g m-2 day-1), it is likely that other NO3 --N processes are contributing to the observed NO3 --N removal in this constructed wetland. Plant uptake and microbial denitrification in the sediments and/or soil are considered as major NO3 --N removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands. Hence, it is concluded that rh izosphere denitrification is significantly contributing to NO3 -N removal in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Globally, many aquatic ecosystems have experien ced an impairment of water quality due to excess nutrient loading from both point and nonpoint sources. Point source pollution refers to pollutants that come from a defi nite, single identifiable source. Point source pollution has been reduced effectively in recent years because poin t source pollutants are easy to identify, monitor, and control as compared with nonpoint source po llutants. Due to the development of new wastewater treatment technologies and implementation of strict er regulatory controls, point source pollution has effectively been reduced in the United States. Nonpoint source pollution generally results fr om land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification [United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993a]. Nonpoint s ource pollutants are nutrie nts, metals, salts, sediments, pathogens, and toxics that come in unidentifiable runoff from agriculture, urban and suburban stormwater, mining, and oil and gas operations [National Research Council (NRC), 1992]. It is difficult to identify, control, and re gulate the nonpoint sour ce pollution, as it comes from vast and diverse landscapes, many diffuse s ources, and varies by time of year. The ability of these nonpoint source pollutants to reach wate rbodies is enhanced by rainfall, snowmelt, and irrigation. The nonpoint source pollutants have harmful effects on groundwater and surface water resources, drinking water supplies, recrea tion, fisheries, and wildlife (USEPA, 1994). The major sources of nonpoint source pollution are iden tified as agriculture and urban activities, which includes industry and transportation (Carpenter et al., 1998). The lack of effective control measures on polluted runoff especially from agricultural farms (including plant nurseries), urban

PAGE 12

12 areas and forestry operations are the primary reas on for the lack of improvement in controlling nonpoint source pollution. Water Quality in the United States At the beginning of the twenty-first cent ury, nonpoint source pollu tion stands as the primary cause of water quality impairment with in the United States. According to the USEPA (2002a), nonpoint source pollution is the main reas on that approximately 39% of surveyed rivers, 45% of lakes and 51% of estuaries are not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming. The report from National Coastal Co ndition (USEPA, 2002b) projected that the 70% of the US estuary conditions would worsen by 2020 due to eutrophicat ion caused by nonpoint source pollutants. The National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program [United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998] of the US assessed the quality of water resources, especially streams, river basins, groundwater, and aquifer systems in the Unites States from 1991-2001 and reported that the contamination of streams and groundwater is widespread in agricultural and urban areas due to nonpoint source pollutants. States and other jurisdictions reported in th e National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI, 1998) that agriculture and urban runoff are among the leading contributors to deteriorate water quality nationwide. The most common nonpoint source pollutants cau sing water quality impairment include nutrients [nitrogen (N) and ph osphorus (P)], pesticides, chemicals, siltation (soil particles), metals, and pa thogens (bacteria and viruses). According to Faeth (2000), agriculture is the largest source of pollution in the US degrading the quality of surface waters such as rivers and lakes, with croplands alone accounting for nearly 40 % of the N and 30% of the P pollution. A major nonpoint so urce pollutant from these activit ies is an excess of nutrients, which can occur through applications of crop fertilizers. Fo r example, in agricultural systems,

PAGE 13

13 crops only utilize 40-60% of N fer tilizer applied to fields, and the remainder is incorporated into soil organic matter, volatilized, de nitrified, lost as runoff, or enters groundwater (Coffey, 1997). Water Quality in Southeastern United States In the Southeastern Regional Climate Assessment Report (1999), it has been reported that in many cases, water quality indices are either below recommended levels or nearly so. The major sources of nonpoint source pollution, including intense agricultural practices, urban development, coastal processes, and mining activities, impair the quality of water in the southeastern United States. In the southeastern region, especially in Georgia and Florida, the natural features such as geology, climate, hydrology, and soils, significantly influence the transport of nonpoint source pollutants from land to water. The soils of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains include clays, loams, and larg e areas of gray, sandy soils. For example, in loam/clay soils and sandy soils, the N export, as a percentage of fertilizer inputs, from agricultural systems to adjacent waterbodies rang es from 10 to 40% and 25 to 80%, respectively (Howarth et al., 1996). The transpor t of nutrients is also influenced by the rate, season, chemical forms and method of application, amount and timing of rainfall after app lication, and vegetative cover (Carpenter et al ., 1998). In Florida, well drained sandy soils [underlain by gravel and carbonate (karst) rocks] are susceptible to groundwater cont amination due to low water holding capacity, rapid infiltration and downward movement of water and chemicals. In contrast, the areas with poorly drained clay soils are susceptible to r unoff, which leads to stream contamination, rather than groundwater contamina tion. Due to the poor draining capacity of the clay soils, excessive irrigation or rainfall quickly drains to the adjacent streams as runoff (USGS, 1998). The southern coastal plain of the US holds significant agricult ural and hydrological importance, with wide range of soil types and crop management systems. Land use in this region

PAGE 14

14 is approximately 69% woodland, 17% cropland, 11% pastureland, a nd 3% urban (Berndt et al., 1996). According to the USGS (1998) report on water quality in the Ge orgia-Florida coastal plain during 1992-1996; more than 20% of groundwater samples from the surficial aquifers in the agricultural areas throughout the study area had nitrate nitrogen (NO3 N) concentrations greater than the USEPA drinki ng water standard of 10 mg L-1. The concentrations of other nutrients in groundwater includ ing ammonia, orthophosphate and total phosphorus were low. Nitrogen concentrations (as NO3 N) in streams did not exceed drinking water standards or guidelines, but were higher in streams draining ag ricultural and mixed basi ns. Nearly 30% of the water samples from the streams had dissolved phos phorus concentrations greater than the aquatic criteria (0.1 mg L-1; USEPA, 1986) for total phosphorus. Nearly 80% of the streams in agricultural areas had phosphorus concentrations greater than the USEPA st andard to prevent algal growth (USGS 1998). The study area, situated in the Georgia-Florida coastal plain, overlies the Upper Floridan aquife r, which is the major source of drinking water for that area. The unconfined Upper Floridan aquifer has karst features, which is vuln erable to groundwater contamination, similar to that of sandy soils (USGS, 1998). Water Quality and Ornamental Plant Industry in Georgia and Florida Florida is one of America's leading agricultu ral states which produces a wide range of commodities. The state has a humid subtropical c limate with mean rainfall of up to 140 cm per year, mean monthly temperat ure ranging from 4 to 33 C during a calendar year, and is prone to hurricanes (Black, 1993). Florida has the largest total acreage of Aquods, (wet sandy soils with an organic stained subsoil layer; www.nr cs.gov, November 2007), are susceptible to groundwater contamination due to poor water hold ing capacity. Hence, pollution of surface and groundwater resources resulting from agricultural runoff, urban stormwater runoff, and erosion

PAGE 15

15 sedimentation is a significant pr oblem in Florida, where approximately one-third of landforms are wetlands, and drinking water is mostly dr awn from underground aquifers which are close to the land surface (Marella and Fanning, 1996). The generally temperate climate in Georgia is influenced by the proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and to the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plains, underlain by sand and limestone, occupy over 60% of the state. Because of the sandy so il and flat topography in the coastal areas, infiltration is a larger concern ra ther than runoff. Nearly one third of the state is underlain by sandy/clay loam soils, which support variety of agricultural crops. The state typically receives 100-125 cm of rainfall every year (www.georgi a.org; www.coastgis.marsci.uga.edu, October 2007). Florida is the second leading producer of orna mental plants in the US. The greenhouse and nursery industry comprises 50,992 hectares of production area in Florida (Hodges and Haydu, 2002). According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates, the value of nursery and greenhouse crops in Florida was approximate ly $1.63 billion in 2004 (Jerardo, 2005). Georgia is among the top ten producers of floriculture cr ops, ranking tenth in the US. The value of nursery and greenhouse crops in Georgia was approximately $400 million in 2006 [National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS), http://www.nass.us da.gov/, accessed on October, 2007]. While greenhouse crop production generates sign ificant runoff, this problem is most noticeable in the container nursery industry wher e large numbers of containerized plants are grown outdoors. Generally, for prod uction of containerized plants outdoors, plants are grown in containers placed on gravel beds which are lined with plastic to prev ent weed growth, and irrigation is achieved through ove rhead sprinklers (USDA, 1998a; Lea-cox and Ross, 2001). The

PAGE 16

16 ornamental nursery production requires intensive irrigation and fertilization for production of marketable plants. While many growers use cont rolled release fertilizers (CRFs) incorporated into the medium, liquid fertilizers are also app lied through overhead irrigation systems at several operations. The method of fertiliz er application has been shown to influence the concentration of nutrients in the runoff. The CRFs are observed to be suitable to minimize the concentration of nutrients in the runoff. For example, NO3 N concentration was observed to be low (0.5 to 33 mg L-1, averaging 8 mg L-1) when CRFs were used, as compared to 0.1 to 135 mg L-1 (averaging 20 mg L-1) when a combination of CRFs and liquid fertilizers was used (Yeager et al., 1993). The liquid fertilizers are typically used because CRFs are often more expensive and do not provide the nutrients as readily as the liquid formulations. Nitr ate fertilizers dissolve readily, they are highly mobile in the water, hence leach readily, and are often f ound in the runoff water. Compared to NO3 N, phosphorus is rapidly retained as insoluble inorganic compounds and sorbed to soil surfaces. Overhead irrigation is the primary method of applying irrigation to ornamental plants in small containe rs. The irrigation application efficiency is reported to be low, ranging from 15% to 30% (Lu and Sibley, 2006). The overhead sprinkler irrigation of 1.8 x 105 L ha -1 yr -1 (Aldrich and Bartok, 1994) is estimated to produce 1.8 9 x 104 L ha-1 yr-1 of wastewater as runoff (Bergha ge et al., 1999) accounting for 10-50% loss as runoff of the irrigation water. The irrigation practices lead to runoff of excessive fertilizers which find their way into nearby water resources either through percolation in case of bare ground or through runoff in case of plastic covered nursery beds. Due to high amount of rainfall and soil conditions in Florida and Georgia, there is significant potential for discharg e of large volume of runoff with high nutrient concentration to nearby surface a nd groundwater resources. Hence runoff from plant nursery poses a threat to wa ter quality in Florida and Georgia. The restrictions/legislations

PAGE 17

17 such as Watershed Restoration Act and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs), imposed by the environmental protection agencies against c ontamination of water resources necessitate recycling/treatment of nursery r unoff before discharging into near by waterbodies (Headley et al., 2001; Lea-cox et al., 20 02; Huett et al., 2005). Management Strategies to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution The control of nonpoint sour ce pollution centers on adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage land and to control the release of pollutants into the atmosphere; further, establishment of threshold levels of contaminants (e.g., TMDLs) is also a strategy for limiting nonpoint source pollution (Carpenter et al., 1998). Best Management Practices can be groupe d into two categories; structural and nonstructural (Horner et al ., 1994). Non structural BMPs include practices such as preservation of natural areas and drainage systems, land us e methods, and efficient use of fertilizers and irrigation water. Structural BMPs include esta blishment of detention/ retention and recycling ponds, grass swales, filter stri ps, riparian buffer strips, fl oodplains, and wetlands. The commonly used structural BMPs are retention an d recycling ponds, riparian buffers strips, and grass swales to control nonpoint source pollution from agricultur al operations, including plant nurseries. In most of these methods, the prim ary mechanisms to remo ve pollutants are to enhance settling of the particulates and to enhanc e infiltration into the subsurface zones. Many container plant nurseries, where plants are grown outdoors on grav el beds lined with plastic, construct recycling ponds to recycle the runoff from nursery beds (Lu and Sibley, 2006). The other commonly followed BMPs to control the ru noff water from container plant nurseries are adjusting the time and rate of fertilizer applicat ion to coincide with the crop needs, using microirrigation practices to minimize runoff volume, and use of controlled release fertilizers to reduce NO3 N leaching from containers.

PAGE 18

18 A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and establishes pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint pollutant sources (www.epa.gov, October 2007). The 1999 Florida Legislature adopted comprehensive TMDL legislation, and concluded that the development of a TMDL program will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the c oordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The scientifically based TMDL program was found to be necessary to fairly and equitably allocate pollution loads to both nonpoint and point sources, (Thomas and Joyner, 2002). In Georgia, ove r 850 TMDLs had been approved by the end of 2002 by Georgia Environmental Protection Divisi on and USEPA. Most of the TMDLs in Georgia, however, were established for fecal co liform bacteria (pathogens), metals, sediments, and dissolved oxygen (http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1242-2.pdf, October 2007). Importance of Natural and Constructed Wetlands for Improving Water Quality Wetlands and forested riparian buffers are most commonly utilized management strategies for on-site nutrient removal from polluted waters generated from agricultural practices, including plant nurseries (Franklin et al., 2000). Among these, wetlands can play an important role in ecosystem management and can act as a sink for nutrients. Wetlands, however, often have been destroyed for agricultural use of land and for urban development. In the United States alone, approximately 54% of the origin al wetlands have been destroyed (Patrick, 1994). By the mid1980's, Florida had lost approximately 46% of its estimated original wetlands (Dahl, 1990). Georgia had lost approximately 23% of its esti mated original wetlands, by the mid 1980s (Dahl, 1990). However, in the past few decades, pl anned use of natural wetlands for treating wastewater treatment has been seriously studied and implem ented in a controlled manner (USEPA, 1993b). Gren (1995) repo rted that wetland restoration is the most cost effective method of decreasing nonpoint source pollution.

PAGE 19

19 Over the recent years, it has b een realized that in addition to restoring the natural wetlands, it is useful to construct artificial wetlands for cost effective, on-site remediation of polluted water before discharging it into the natural aquatic systems. A number of studies have provided evidence that constructed wetland systems provide an effective means to control the nonpoint source pollution (including nutrient contaminants ), thereby improving water quality (Mitsch, 1992; Hammer, 1992; Kadlec and Kn ight, 1996; Hoag, 1997; Headley et al., 2001; Poe et al., 2003; Huett et al., 2005; Yang et al ., 2007). Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that differ from natural systems but are used to tr eat water by mimicking th e processes occurring in natural wetlands. These are designed to provide an ideal habitat for microbial communities for achieving nutrient transformations in the contaminated water (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Wetland soil is highly saturated and exists in a chemically reduced state. The oxidized forms of nutrients undergo transformations when it come in contact with saturated and reduced soil conditions. Biological activity in the biofilms that attach to wetland soil and plants accounts for much of the transformations of pollutants. Nitr ogen transformations such as nitrification and denitrification in the sediments were observe d to occur rapidly in the aerobic/anaerobic microsites in the wetlands (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Constructed wetlands are increasi ngly being used for treating N rich wastewater (Gersberg et al., 1983; Reddy and DAngelo, 1994; Bachand and Horne, 2000; Headley et al., 2001; Poe et al., 2003; Huett et al., 2005; Reinhardt et al., 20 06; Yang et al., 2007). Such systems have been subjected to wastewater discharg es from municipal, industrial, agricultural and surface runoff, irrigation return flows, urban st ormwater discharges, and other sources of polluted water. The constructed wetland systems can be broadly classifi ed into two main categories; surface flow and subsurface flow systems. The surface flow we tlands are designed to have a shallow (typically

PAGE 20

20 less than 0.4m) layer of surface water over mineral or organic soils. The persistent emergent vegetation such as Typha spp.L. (Cattail), Phragmites spp. Adans. (Reed), and Scirpus spp. L. (Bulrush) are commonly used, al ong with floating and submerged aquatic vegetation, and shrubs and trees. In subsurface wetlands, the basin (less than 0.6m) is filled with coarse substrate such as gravel, and the water level is maintained below ground with water fl owing through the gravel and the roots of vegetation (DeBusk, 1999). Both surface flow and subsurface flow constructed wetlands have been reported to remove N and P from plant nursery runoff (Taylor et al., 2006). A surface flow wetland was reported to remove 79-99% of nitrogen from the plant nursery runoff (Taylor et al., 2006). Nitrogen Cycling in Wetlands Constructed wetlands are rec ognized as a means to improve water quality through N removal. The major contributors of organic an d inorganic N to the constructed wetlands include biological N fixation and point and nonpoint s ource runoff, respectively. Organic N undergoes mineralization/decomposition and results in the re lease of inorganic N forms. The processes such as biological nitrificati on, denitrification, and volatilizati on result in the production of inorganic N forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and N2 gas). Most of the N transformations in the constr ucted wetlands are eith er plant or microbe mediated. Nitrification is an aerobic process, in which oxida tion of ammonium nitrogen (NH4 +N) to nitrate nitrogen (NO3 N) is mediated by nitrifying bacteria. In contrast, denitrification occurs in anaerobic conditions, whereby NO3 N is reduced to N2 gas. There is growing evidence that other microbe mediated processe s such as Dissimilatory Nitrate Reduction to Ammonium (DNRA) and anaer obic ammonium oxidation (anammox) facilitate N transformations in wetlands (Stottmeister et al., 2003; Shipin et al., 2005; Reddy and Delaune, 2007; Burgin and Hamilton, 2007; Paredes et al., 2007).

PAGE 21

21 The temporary removal of N in wetlands occurs through plant uptake and microbial immobilization, whereas, permanent removal of N o ccurs through denitrification (Fig. 1-1). In wetlands, biological denitrificat ion is the major pathway of N removal (Reddy et al., 1989; Tanner and Kadlec, 2003; Poe et al., 2003; Toet et al., 2003; Smia lek et al., 2006). At high pH (typically higher than 8.0) volatil ization of ammonia also contribut es to N loss to the atmosphere (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). Other processes such as sedimentation, adsorption, uptake by plants and microbes lead to N storage in the wetlands (Fig. 1-1). Denitrification in Wetlands Denitrification is the stepwise reduction of nitrogenous oxides (NO3 and NO2 -) to produce gaseous N products (N2O and N2). These gases are released into the atmosphere, thus resulting in a removal of N from the wetland. It is a microbe mediated process in which facultative anaerobic bacteria ( Pseudomonas spp., Alcaligenes spp., Flavobacterium spp., Paracoccus spp., and Bacillus spp.) use nitrate (NO3 -) as the terminal electron acceptor during the oxidation of carbon (C) in the absence of oxygen (O2) (Tiedje, 1988). The low redox potential and high carbon content in the wetlands favors the process of denitrification. Gl obally, N loss due to denitrification process is estimated as 19 Tg yr-1 (Armentano and Verhoeven, 1990). The equation and the chemical transformations of denitrification pro cess are as follows 2NO3 + 10e+ 12H+ N2 + 6H2O Nitrate (NO3 -) Nitrite (NO2 -) Nitrous oxide (N2O) Nitrogen (N2) The microbe mediated denitrif ication process was observed to be the dominant mechanism for N removal in the constructed wetlands (X ue et al., 1999; Bachand and Horne 2000). Hence the quantification of de nitrification potential is critical. The commonly used methods are mass balance, Acetylene Inhi bition Technique (AIT), 15N tracers, and Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometry (MIMS). Due to the differe nces in the methodology, the comparison of

PAGE 22

22 denitrification rates between the studies is often challenging (Seitzi nger, 1993). The AIT method is one of the most commonly used technique s for measuring denitrification rates. This technique measures the denitr ification rates under ambient anaerobic conditions, in which acetylene (C2H2) inhibits the reduction of N2O to N. The extent of de nitrification is quantified by the progressive accumulation of N2O. This is also known as Denitrification enzyme Assay (DEA), which is an indicator of denitrifier biomass present in the samples and serves as an integrated measure of de nitrification potential. Factors Influencing Denitrification in Wetlands Denitrification in wetland systems is primar ily controlled by organic carbon availability (Reddy et al., 1982; Gale et al., 1993; DAnge lo and Reddy, 1999), aeration status (dissolved oxygen levels; Tanner and Kadlec, 2003), and NO3 N concentration (Cooper and Findlater, 1990; Gale et al., 1993; Martin and Reddy, 1997). These factors are highly influenced by temporal (diurnal and seasonal) and spatial (horizontal and vert ical) variation (White and Reddy, 1999; Kadlec and Reddy, 2001). The other factors that influence denitrification rates in wetlands are the make-up of the vegetative and microorganismal communities (Gersberg et al., 1986; Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006; Smialek et al., 2006), depth of the water column (Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006), hydraulic residence time, and pH of the water and soil (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). The major regulator of denitrific ation is the oxygen status of th e wetland, as this process is facilitated by facultative anaerobic bacteria. Deni trification is observed to take place only in low oxygen zones of the wetlands (Knowles, 1982; Knowles, 1990; Tiedje, 1988). In anoxic conditions, denitrificati on is controlled by NO3 N and carbon availability. The importance of organic carbon as an electr on donor in the denitrific ation process is well documented (Eriksson and Weisner, 1997; Lin et al., 2002; Bastviken et al., 2003). While studying the relationship between denitrificati on rates and dissolved organic carbon (DOC),

PAGE 23

23 significant positive correlation was observed by Re ddy et al. (1982) and Gale et al. (1993) for a wide range of wetlands. The positive linear rela tionship indicates there is direct relationship between denitrification and DOC, i.e. denitrification increases with increasing DOC concentrations. Hence the denitrif ication rate is related to the rate of mineralization of C and level of bio-available C to the denitrifying mi crobes (Reddy et al., 1982; Gale et al., 1993). Martin and Reddy (1997) suggested that denitrification rates are limited by NO3 N concentrations rather than C ava ilability and by diffusion rates of NO3 N from aerobic to anaerobic phase in wetlands. Many researchers observed positive correlation between NO3 N concentrations and denitrification rates (White and Reddy 1999; Sartoris et al., 2000; Gale et al., 1993; Poe et al., 2003). Responses of de nitrification rates to changes in NO3 N concentrations between 0.7 10.5 mg L-1 were assessed (by NO3 N addition experiments) and observed significant correlation between nitrate concentration and denitrification rates (Poe et al., 2003). The nutrient gradient from the inlet to outlet points and along the soil depth in a constructed wetland is reported to influence th e denitrification rates (White and Reddy, 1999; White and Reddy, 2003; Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006) Increased denitrif ication rates were observed at the inflow of the wetlands where there was high NO3 N concentration as compared to the outflow, where there was low NO3 N concentration. The denitrification potential decreased exponentially w ith increasing distance, due to decreasing NO3 N concentration, from inflow point to the outflow point (White and Reddy, 1999). Similar results of increased denitrification potential near th e inlets and decreased denitrifi cation potential in the middle and outlet of the constructed wetla nds were observed by Sirivedhin and Gray (2006). The higher denitrification potential was obs erved in the surface soil, between 0-15 cm, (averaging 14.1 mg

PAGE 24

24 N2O-N kg-1 h-1) as compared to 0.51 mg N2O-N kg-1 h-1 in the underlying soil, between 10-30 cm, of the wetlands. The residence time of water in a wetland is cr itical for removal of N because it affects the duration of the contact between polluted water a nd the biotic and abiotic components such as plant roots, soil, sediments, and microbes. Th e longer residence time ma y enhance removal of N by promoting retention and biochemical processes such as denitrificati on, sedimentation, and plant uptake (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Kadlec and Knight (1996) also showed that the N removal efficiency is logarithmically related to the residence time. Temperature is a significant abio tic factor that influences micr obial activities. Wood et al. (1999) reported that the temperature influences the biological and phys ical activities in the wetlands, and denitrification is a temperature dependent process. Th e rates of denitrification have been shown to increase by 1.5-2 times with each increase in 10oC (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). The denitrification rates were higher (9.2 mg N m-2 h-1) in su mmer and lower (0.7 mg N m-2 h1) in fall in the constructed wetlands (Poe et al., 2003); and similarly Xue et al.(1999) reported higher denitrification rates in summer (11.8 mg N m-2 h-1) and lower (2.0 mg N m-2 h-1) in winter. White and Reddy (1999) reported hi ghest (2.69 mg N2O-N kg-1 h-1) activity of denitrifying enzymes during the summer when the temperature, hydraulic loading, and nutrient loading were highest. Spieles and Mitsch (2000) reported the op timum range of temperature for denitrification in wetland sediments as 20 to 25 C. Water temperatures less than 15C or greater than 30C have been shown to limit the rate of denitrification (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). The most effective pH for denitrification ranges fr om 7.0 to 8.5, with the optimum at 7.0 (Reddy et al., 2000).

PAGE 25

25 Denitrification occurs in the anoxic water column of aquatic ecosystems. Many researchers observed lower significant denitrification potential activity in the water column as compared to the sediments in different aquatic environments. The denitr ification rates of the water samples in the wetland receiving sewage tr eatment plant effluent were observed to be 0.06 0.96 g N L-1 hr-1 (Toet et al., 2003). Bastviken et al. (2003) obtained higher denitrification rates (6.5-7.5 kg N ha-1 day-1) in the sediment than on su rface of the water column. Aquatic plants serve as a major source of organic carbon to the microorganisms and provide large surface area (commonly referred as biofilms) for nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. Plants also provide oxygen, which vary from species to species, to their root zones (Stoottmeister et al., 2003). Diffusion of oxygen to root zone s is reported to influence biogeochemical cycles within the rhizosphere But it was shown th at the amount of oxygen being released by the plants around the roots is limited (Brix, 1994; Wood, 1995). The limited release of oxygen around roots ensures that an aerobic conditions will predominate unless the organic load to the wetland is low and wetland is shallow, as the amount of oxygen decreases with increasing depth (Ayaz and Acka, 2000).T he limited release of oxygen through roots, however, also provides the required oxygen for aer obic nitrifying microbes for the oxidation of NH4 +-N to NO3 --N/nitrite nitrogen (NO2 --N), which in turn provides nitrate/nitrite for the anaerobic denitrifying microbes for denitrifica tion (Risgaard-Petersen and Jenson, 1997). The oxygen release rates of floating and em ergent aquatic plants such as Pistia stratiotes L. (water lettuce), Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth), Hydrocotyle umbellata L.(pennywort), Pontederia spp.L. (pickerel weed), Phragmites spp. (Reed) and Typha latifolia L. (cattail) were studied by Moorhead and Reddy (1988); the oxygen release rate in Phra gmites spp. was estimated to be from 0.02 g m-2 day-1 to 12 g m-2 day-1. Reddy et al. (1989) studied the

PAGE 26

26 effectiveness of three floating and six emergent aquatic plants in improvi ng domestic wastewater quality based on their oxygen rel ease capacities. Plants such as H. umbellata transported oxygen 2.5 times more rapidly than E. crassipes which transports oxygen four times more rapidly than P stratiotes Radial oxygen loss (ROL), which is in fluenced by the external oxygen demand, was higher in Juncus effusus L. (common bulrush) (9.5 1 10 7 mol O2 h-1 root-1) than in J. inflexus L. (inland bulrush) (4.5 0.5 10-7 mol O2 h-1 root-1) (Sorrell, 1999). Higher rates of (6.8 mg N m-2 d-1) denitrification were obtained in the wetland sediments planted with Juncus spp as compared to the unplanted plots (Smialek et al., 2006). This indi cates the importance of vegetation in the constructed wetlands to facilitate denitrification. Besides oxygen, plant roots also exude orga nic compounds, which serve as a carbon source for denitrifying microorganisms. The influence of temperature on plant metabolism in turn affects the concentration of root exudates. The magnitude of organi c compound release, which enhances the NO3 N removal in constructed wetlands, ranged from 5-25% of the photosynthetically fixed carbon (Pla tzer, 1996). Bachand and Horn e (2000) observed that the different vegetation types resulted in signi ficantly different deni trification rates ( T.latifolia 565 mg N m-2 day-1, J effusus 261 mg N m-2 day-1, and mixed vegetation 835 mg N m-2 day-1). Productivity, physical structure, C:Nlitter ratio, and plant fiber content have been observed to differ between plants. Hence they concluded th at these factors affect ed the organic carbon availability of plants, thereby resulting in different denitrific ation rates. In organic carbon limited, free surface wetlands, it was recommended that a mixture of labile (submergent and floating) and more recalcitrant (emergent a nd grasses) vegetation be planted to enhance denitrification rates (B achand and Horne, 2000).

PAGE 27

27 The Problem Statement Among the various management strategies developed to mitigate nonpoint source pollution, constructed wetlands are considered as a cost effectiv e method for on-site removal of nutrients from nonpoint source pollution. The perf ormance of the constructed wetlands varies with site, characteristics of th e wastewater, type and design of the wetland. Hence, a systems approach which recognizes site specific conditions is essential for the successful management of the plant nursery runoff (M itsch and Jorgensen 1989; NRCS, 2002; Dunne et al., 2005). Most research has focused on use of constructed wetl ands to treat wastewater from municipal water source, animal waste, urban runo ff, stormwater runoff, and agricu ltural runoff. Very few studies have focused on the constructed wetlands treatin g nursery runoff (Headley et al., 2001; Lea-cox et al., 2002; Huett et al., 2005). Constructed wetlands that receive nursery runoff show considerable difference in water quality as compar ed with other wastewater sources. One of the main differences is the low concentration of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the nursery runoff (Huett et al., 2005), which is due to type of medium used in the containerized plants. Nursery runoff can have seasonal and hydraulic variability based on the timing of fertilizer application and rainfall. Due to the characterist ic features of the plant nursery runoff, it is important to understand the nutri ent removal mechanisms in a constructed wetland treating nursery runoff. One of the methods to increase the efficien cy of nutrient removal is to implement management and design practices to increase the de nitrification process in constructed wetlands. Although denitrification is considered a major removal mechanism for N in constructed wetlands, the importance of this process in wetla nds receiving plant nursery runoff has not been studied. Earlier studies (Bacha nd and Horne, 2000) indicated th at different vegetation types resulted in different denitrification rates in the wetlands which could be attributed to the

PAGE 28

28 differences in the availability of organic carbon in the respectiv e macrocosms. The influence of different macrophyte rhizosphere on denitrification rates with in the constructed wetlands receiving plant nursery runoff is not known. The goal of this study was to assess the N dynamics in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff for onsite N removal. To achieve this goal, following specific objectives and hypotheses were addressed. Objectives and Hypotheses Objective 1: To determine the N and P removal efficiency of a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff. Hypothesis 1: The concentration of N and P will vary over months based on the timing of fertilizer application at the nursery, irrigati on, and rainfall. The concentration of N and P will be higher at inflow as compared to the outflow water, due to the nutrient removal within the constructed wetlands. Objective 2: To theoretically model the effect of hydraulic loading rate of the runoff and of estimated plant density on the residen ce time, which influences N removal in a constructed wetland. Hypothesis 2: The theoretical residence time will increase with increasing plant density and decreasing loading rate. Objective 3: To assess the concentration of nutri ents (N and P) and denitrification potential within the water column at varying depths (surface and bottom) and variation associated with the locations across the wetla nd (inflow and outflow) over five months in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff. Hypothesis 3: The concentration of nutrients (N and P) will be higher at inflow as compared to the outflow. The denitrifica tion potential will be higher in the water samples collected from the lower depths as compared to the surface of the water column due to the anoxic conditions in the d eeper parts of the water column. Objective 4: To determine the denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil (soil closely adhering to the roots) of Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia in a constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff. Hypothesis 4: The denitrification potential of th e rhizosphere soil (soil closely adhering to the roots) will vary from species to species because macrophytes can vary in their capacity to diffuse oxygen and different carbon compounds in th eir root zones.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 1-1. Diagram illustrating potentia l pathways for chemical transformati ons of nitrogen (N) in a wetland.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS Site Description The study was carried out at a constructed wetl and at Monrovia Nurs ery, which is one of the largest (total area over 445 hectares) commercial nurseries in the United States, located in Cairo, Georgia. Cairo is located at 30 40 N, 84 32 W in Grady County, Georgia (Fig. 21), adjoining Leon and Gadsden counties of Flor ida. The annual production of the nursery ranges from 11 to 15 million plants (www.monrovia.co m, October 2007). Gravel beds are created outdoors on the ground and are overlaid with plastic sheets on which plants are grown in plastic containers ranging from 5 50 L capacity. In the catchment area for the wetlands, large (50 L) containerized ornamental trees and shrubs are grown in the sloped nursery beds, which are lined with plastic sheets. Fertilization of the nursery plants is done by two means; controlled release fertilizer (CRFs) mi xed in the potting medium and fertigation (liquid fertilizers a pplied in irrigation water). Topd ressing of CRFs is also done based on the needs of the plants. Overhead sprinkler or micro-irrigation is used approximately 3-5 times a day. While larger containers are irriga ted via micro irrigation, runoff (Fig. 2-2) from these nursery beds is still significant due to the water application rates and sloped terrain. Runoff from the nursery beds and from stormwater is directed by lined or unlined waterways and drained into a flow control channel (FCC) whic h is 500 m in length (Fig. 2-3 and 2-4). Runoff eventually flows into a holding pond (HP) where it is held for recy cling or for release into the wetlands. The FCC controls the movement of water and allows sedimentation to occur. Depending upon the holding capacity of the HP, the wa ter from the FCC is e ither directed into the HP or diverted offsite through the stormwater retention basin. The HP is created in such a

PAGE 31

31 way that it captures half an inch of rainfall and the excess rainfall is diverted either to the irrigation ponds for recycling or actively pumped into the wetlands. A surface flow wetland was constructed at the nursery in 1997 to treat runoff effluents before releasing the excess water into a natural creek adjacent to the nursery property. This constructed wetland system is utilized to treat stormwater and runoff from three plant production areas (catchment area) totaling 48.5 hectares. The wetland was cons tructed by creating pits in a naturally depressed area of 3.8 hectares. A 12.5 cm think layer of bark ch ips was placed at the bottom of the pits to su pport the planting and also to serve as a source of carbon for the microbial activity in the constructed system. The wetland was constructed as several cells such as primary, secondary, and test cells (Fig. 2-5). The primary cells were designated as 1A and 2A; the secondary cells were designated as 1B and 2B; and the test cel ls were designated as 3,4,5,6, and 7. For this entire study, only one primary cell (1A) was used. There exists a difference in the size and depth of cells, and in the distribu tion and abundance of m acrophytes between the primary and secondary cells. The area of the pr imary cells 1A and 2A is 1.17 hectares and 0.57 hectares respectively. The area of the seconda ry cells 1B and 2B is 0.69 hectares and 0.65 hectares respectively. The primar y cells are 0.75 m deep and the s econdary cells are 0.3m deep. The depth at the outflow (South) side of the primary cells is co mparatively higher (1.2 m) than the inflow (North) side, which is 0.75 m deep. Each primary and secondary cell was divided into three sections by creating two earthen berms which extend to approximately th of the width (north-south) of the cells. These earthen be rms were created to maintain a linear water movement. The difference in vegetation of the primary and secondary cells is attributed to variation in planting selection a nd natural growth of plants. Th e macrophytes originally planted in the deeper primary cells were Canna flaccida Salisb. (Canna Lily), Scirpus validus Vahl.

PAGE 32

32 (Giant Bulrush), Pontederia cordata L. (Pickerelweed), Sagittaria latifolia Willd. (Arrowhead), and Panicum hemitomon J.A Schultes. (Maiden cane). Currently the primary cells are dominated by S. validus Typha latifolia L. (Cattail), C. flaccida Hydrocotyle umbellata L. (Pennywort), Lemna minor L. (Duckweed), and Wolffia spp. Horkel ex Schleid. (Water meal). There are few open water areas in the primary cells and severa l floating islands of vegetation occur near the outflow (South) side of the cell. The macrophytes originally plan ted in the shallow cells were C. flaccida S. latifolia P. hemitomon, and Juncus effusus L. (Soft Rush). Currently the shallow secondary cells are predominantly covered by T. latifolia; and the other dominant species in the shallow cells are S. latifolia H. umbellata and L. minor (Duckweed). When it is necessary to discha rge water from the HP into the wetland, it is pumped through 6 cm inner diameter PVC pipes (Fig. 2-6) to th e primary cells 1A and 2A, at 9 locations and 8 locations respectively. The water from each primary cell passes under a road [through 15 cm diameter PVC pipes; Fig. 2-7] and enters the secondary cell before being released into the grassed waterway that carries the treated wate r to the stilling pools. The water flow from primary to secondary cell and from secondary cell to the grassed waterway is based on gravity, and there is no external contro l to regulate the water flow. However, the water depth (and consequently the volume) of the primary cell can be controlled by adjusting the height of the inflow pipe of the secondary cell. The stilling pools enhance the settling of suspended sediments before discharging the treated water into the natu ral creek. The amount of water to be treated is influenced by the rate and frequency of rainfa ll and irrigation. Based on the amount of water available for treatment, four different run-tim es (number of hours per day of operation of the pump) are utilized; 0, 12, 18, 24 hours per day. The most frequently used run-times are 18 and 24 hours per day. During very low rainfall and minimal irrigation period, the run-time of 12

PAGE 33

33 hours or even 0 hours per day is used. The 12 and 18 hours per day run-times are achieved by running the pump for 2 hours and then turning it off for the next 2 hours, or 3hours on and 1hour off cycles, respectively, during a 24 hour period. The pump supplies water at an average of 2,271 liters per minute, which is distributed to all 17 inflow pipes of the primary cells. Hence the hydraulic loading rate of the wetland depends on the number of hours the pump is operational. Field Methods Water sampling (for determining the nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetlands). Water samples were collected from the st udy wetland cell at monthly intervals from April 2007 to August 2007. Three replicate water samples per section of the wetland cell were collected by taking grab samples in 125 ml plastic bottles (Fisher Scientific Co LLC, Suwannee, GA.) at 9 inflow points (one sample from each of the 9 pipes) and 3 outflow points (three replicate samples from each of the 3 pipes) as shown in Figure 2-8. In addition, three replicate samples were collected at a location where the fl ow control channel (FCC) releases water into the holding pond or into the stor mwater retention basin. In summary, there were 9 inflow samples, 9 outflow samples and 3 FCC samples, totaling 21 samples for the water nutrient analysis. Samples were stored in a cooler filled with ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored at 4C until further processing. Water samples were analyzed for Total Kjeldal Nitrogen (TKN), ammonium nitrogen (NH4 +-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N), total phosphorus (TP), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Water sampling (for assessing the spatial effects on concentration of nutrients, physiochemical parameters and denitrificat ion potential of the water column). Nutrient concentrations, physiochemical parameters, and deni trification potential were measured at select

PAGE 34

34 sampling locations (Fig. 2-9). On the north side (the inflow side), one location was selected within each of the three sections of the primary cell from where the samples were collected. This sampling point was located approximately 3 m in ward from the northern edge of the cell and approximately 3 m inward from the eastern edge. Two sets of three replicate water samples were collected at the surface and at 0.5 m depth of the water column at each of the three locations at monthly intervals between Apr il 2007 and August 2007. One set of samples (three replications) was collected in 125 ml plastic bot tles and analyzed for TKN, NH4 +-N, NO3 --N, TP, and DOC and the second set of samples (three replicates) was collected in 25 ml vials (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) and used to determine denitrif ication enzyme activity (DEA), to estimate denitrification potential in the samples. The surface water samples were collected as grab samples in the undisturbed water column. To co llect samples from the bottom of the water column, the sampling bottle was turned upside down and forced through the water column by hand. After reaching the bottom of the water colum n, the bottle was turned slowly to fill it and then rapidly brought straight up to the surface. On the south side (outflow side) of th e study cell, sampling points were selected approximately 2 m inward from the location of ou tflow pipe, to ensure minimum disturbance in the water column. Owing to its depth, the surface and bottom of the water column samples at the outflow side were collected by using a swing sa mpler. For the bottom of the water column samples, the bottle tied to the swing sample r was sent upside down th rough the water column. After reaching the bottom of the water column, th e pole was turned slowly to fill the bottle and then rapidly brought straight up to the surface. Two sets of three replicate water samples were collected at the surface and bottom of the water co lumn at each of the three locations at monthly intervals between April 2007 and August 2007. One set of samples (three replications) was

PAGE 35

35 collected in 125 ml plastic bot tles and analyzed for TKN, NH4 +-N, NO3 --N, TP, and DOC and the second set of samples (three replicates) was colle cted in 25 ml vials and analyzed for DEA. If the water was too turbid, susp ended particles were allowed to settle by setting aside for a few minutes without any disturbance. Both surface and bottom of the water column samples were filtered by cheese cloth (Hermitage Inc, Camden, SC ) to remove large debris, dead leaves, twigs, barks, and plants of Wolfia spp. In addition, three replicate wa ter samples also were collected for denitrification potential analysis at the point where the flow control channel (FCC) releases water into the holding pond or in to the stormwater retention ba sin. There were 36 samples for nutrient analysis and 39 samples for denitrificati on potential analysis in total. Samples were stored in a cooler filled w ith ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored at 4 C until further processing. In addition, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature were measured every month during the study by using a handheld YSI 556 MPS (YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs, OH) multi-probe system. The parameters were meas ured at both surface and bottom of the water column at inflow and outflow points on th e days of water sample collection. Plant sampling (for determining the denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil). To assess the denitrification potential of macrophyt e rhizosphere soil, two macrophytes were selected based on their abundan ce and distribution in th e study cell, and based on the reported contribution of these macrophytes to nutrient removal in constructed wetlands. The plants selected for this study were T.latifolia and C. flaccida. Roots of three plants of each species were collected from each of the three sections at monthly intervals from plants growing on the north (inflow) side (Fig. 2-10). The sa mple plants were selected from where a group of the same species existed to avoid contamination with other species. The selected plants were

PAGE 36

36 pulled out and the roots were severed and then placed in zip-lock bags, stored in a cooler filled with ice-packs, transported to the lab, and stored at 4 C. There were 18 rhizosphere samples (three replicates of each species per section) in total. Analytical Methods Nutrient analyses. The day after sampling, part of all the water samples collected in 125 ml bottles was filtered through Whatman 0.45 m filter (Pall Corporati on, Ann arbor, MI) and collected in two 25 ml vials for analysis of NH4 +-N, NO3 -N, and DOC. The remaining unfiltered part of each sample was used for anal ysis of TKN and TP. After filtering, all the filtered and unfiltered water samples (except the ones collected for analyzing denitrification potential), were acidified to a pH of 2 with one drop of ultra pure con centrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4) for every 20-25 ml of sample. The filtered and unfiltered portions of samples were stored in a refrigerator until further analysis. Samples were analyzed for respective nutrients within 28 days of sampling as recommended by the USEPA. Total Kjeldal Nitrogen was measured by dige sting the unfiltered, acidified samples by the Kjeldahl procedure (Method 351.2, USEPA, 1983). The water sa mples were digested with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and a copper sulfate mixture (CuSO4) to convert organic forms of nitrogen to ammonium. The digested samples were analyzed in AQ2+ automated discrete analyzer (Seal Analytical, Mequon, WI) Method no: USEPA 11 1 A (Method 351.2, USEPA, 1983). Nitrate nitrogen was analyzed calorimetrically usi ng the cadmium (Cd) reduction method on a rapid flow analyzer (Alpkem rapid flow Analyzer 300) or in the automated AQ2+ discrete analyzer (Method 353.2, USEPA) or AQ2 Method no: USEPA 132 A (Method 353.2, USEPA 1983). During April, July, and August 2007 the filtered acidified samples we re analyzed for NO3 --N on a rapid flow analyzer. In the month of May and June 2007, the discrete analyzer was used to

PAGE 37

37 analyze NO3 --N. Ammonium nitrogen was analyzed calorimetrically in filtered, acidified samples on AQ2+ (Method no: USEPA 103 A (Method 350.1, USEPA, 1983). Total Nitrogen (TN) was calculated by summing up the TKN (organic nitrogen and NH4+-N), and NO3 -N. To measure TP, unfiltered, acidified samples were digested by autoclaving and analyzed further by following the AQ2 Method no: USEPA 119 A (Method 365.2, USEPA, 1983). Dissolved organic carbon was analyzed in filtered, acidi fied samples on a Shim adzu TOC 5050a (USEPA 415.1). All the analysis were performed accord ing the Quality Assurance/Quality Control requirements (a spike, repeat, continuing calibration st andard, blank, Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) to be run for every 20 samples) set by th e University of Florida Wetland Biogeochemistry Lab. Theoretical hydraulic residence time. The hydraulic residence time is a function of the ratio of wetland volume to water inflow rate Because the study wetlands are operated for variable number of hours per day, the hydraulic loading rate (rati o of volumetric flow rate to wetland surface area/volume) under two predominantly occurring conditions, 18 and 24 hours pump operation per day, were factored into the ca lculations. The effect of vegetation (plant density) was also factored into the calculations while determining the theoretical residence time. The calculations were based on the assumption that the entire volume of water in the wetland is involved in the flow. The theoretical reside nce time was calculated by using the following formulae: = V/Q, in which = theoretical residence time in days; V = wetland water volume in m3; Q = water flow rate in m3/day. The wetland volume (V) can be ca lculated using the formula:

PAGE 38

38 V = Ah, in which V = wetland water volume in m3; = wetland porosity in m3/ m3; A = wetland area in m2; h = mean water depth in m. Wetland porosity is a fraction of total wetland volume available through which water can flow (USEPA, 2000). It is the amount of we tland water volume not occupied by plants and expressed as a decimal (NRCS, 2002). Theref ore, wetland porosity and plant density are inversely related; the lower th e wetland porosity values, higher the plant density. As it is difficult to accurately measure wetland porosity in the field, highly variable porosity values were reported in the literature. For example, Reed et al. (1995) reported values ranging from 0.65 to 0.75 for fully vegetated wetlands, and for dense to less mature wetlands, respectively; Kadlec and Knight (1996) reported average wetland porosity values ranging from 0.95 to 1.0. According to USEPA (2000), it was suggested to use the wetland porosity value of 0.65 to 0.75 for fully vegetated wetlands, while consid ering design of constructed wetlands. Denitrification potential (Water). Denitrification potential in water samples was determined by measuring the deni trification enzyme activity (DEA) within a week of sample collection (Tiedje, 1982; White and Reddy, 1999). Tw enty ml of water sample (unfiltered) was taken into either 120 ml or 160 ml glass serum bottle. The bottles were capped and crimped ensuring proper seal. The bottles were purged with nitrogen gas (N2) for approximately 5 minutes to achieve anaerobic conditions. The initia l pressure of less than 20 psi was maintained. High grade acetylene (C2H2) gas was generated by adding N2 purged water to a separate bottle filled with Calcium Carbide (CaC2) rocks, which was already ca pped, crimped and subjected to N2 purging to remove any oxygen. Nine ml of acetylene gas was injected into each sample bottle from which 9 ml headspace was removed before a dding acetylene. Samples were then kept in a

PAGE 39

39 shaker for an hour to ensure even distribution of C2H2 in the water samples. Denitrification Enzyme Assay (DEA) solution was prepared by adding nitrate (as KNO3) and carbon (as C6H12O6) at the rate of 404mg L-1 KNO3 and 720 mg L-1 C6H12O6, respectively, along with 250 mg L-1 chloramphenicol in distilled water. Chlo ramphenicol was added to inhibit the production of new denitrifying enzymes while the activity of previously ex isting denitrifying enzymes are measured. Eight ml of DEA solution was added to 20 ml sample. The 7 ml of head space of gas was collected by using a 10 ml syringe immediat ely after adding DEA to the samples and after taking the pressure readings After that, the bottles were kept in an end-to-end shaker in a dark room at 25oC. In the month of April 2007 the headspace gas samples were collected at 30, 60 120, 180 minutes. From May 2007 and to August 2007 the headspace gas samples were collected every 2 hours, up to 6 hours, as ther e was no gas production observed until 2 hours in the month of April. At the end of each pre-sele cted time period, 7 ml of gas (presumably nitrous oxide) was extracted by using a syringe and pl aced in 3-4ml capped, crimped, pre-evacuated glass serum bottles. The bottl es with DEA solution and the original sample were then immediately returned to the shaker. The 7 ml sa mple of gas was stored at 25C until analyzed in a Gas Chromatograph (GC). The concentration of Nitrous oxide (N2O) was measured on a Shimadzu GC 14A (Shimadzu Scientific, Kyoto, Japan) by using a 63Ni electron capture detector. Column temperature was 30oC, detector temperature was 240 oC, and injector temperature was 120 oC. The carrier gas was a mix of 95% Argon (Ar) and 5% methane (CH4). The gas samples were injected into GC and the concentration of N2O was determined. Denitrification potential was determined by calculating the slope of the linea r curve obtained when the gas concentrations were plotted over time.

PAGE 40

40 Denitrification potential (Rhizosphere). The stored root sample s were processed as early as possible after reaching the lab. The excessive and loosely adhering soil was removed by shaking the root system, and also by gently remo ving by hand. The soil ve ry closely adhered to the roots was defined as rhizosphere soil which was removed by washing the roots with autoclaved double distilled water. Thirty-five ml of water was used to remove the firmly attached soil by washing with the use of pipette. Twenty ml of the obtained soil slurry was used for the determination of denitrific ation potential. Ten ml of the rhizosphere solution was used to determine the moisture content of the soil. The moisture content was determined gravimetrically by drying 10 ml of the rh izosphere solution at 70oC for 72 hours. The denitrification potential of the rhizosphere soil was determin ed as described above. The volume of the glass serum bottle used in th is experiment was 120 ml. Eight ml of DEA solution (720 mg L-1 glucose, 404 mg L-1 KNO3, and 500 mg L-1 chloroamphenicol) was added to 20 ml of samples. Gas samples were collected every 30, 60 120, 180 minutes. Rest of the procedure was as described for measuring den itrification potential in water samples. Statistical Methods Statistical analysis of the data was performe d by using SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). The dependent variables were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using the GLM procedure along with Scheffe for all pair wise comparison, whic h indicate not only whether the means are different from each other, but also which means differ from which other means. Test of statistic al significance was done at = 0.05. The physiochemical parameters of water viz., temperature and dissolved oxygen were correlated with denitrification potential by using CORR procedure to determine Pearsons co rrelation coefficient. The concentration of NO3 --N was also correlated with denitrificati on potential by using the same procedure.

PAGE 41

41 Figure 2-1. Map of the state of Georgia, Un ited States, showing c ounty boundaries. Grady County, in which Monrovia nursery is locate d, is indicated by a callout box. Source: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=7968, October 2007.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2-2. Runoff generated from the microi rrigated nursery beds at Monrovia Nursery

PAGE 43

43 Figure 2-3. Runoff generated from the nursery beds drains into the flow control channel

PAGE 44

44 Figure 2-4. Runoff draining into the flow control channel

PAGE 45

45 Figure 2-5. Overview of the Constructed we tlands at Monrovia Nursery, Cairo, GA. A) An aerial image (top right) of part of Monrovia Nursery, including the treatment wetlands, in Cairo, GA. B) A schematic overview of the constructed wetlands (bottom left) is also presented. The arrows indicate the direction of water movement th rough the wetlands. 1A and 2A, and 1B and 2B represent the primary and secondary cells, respectively.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 2-6. Inflow pipes into the study cell

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2-7. Outflow pipe of the study cell

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2-8. Location and number of water samples (indicated by st ars) at inflow and outflow of the study cell to determine the nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetlands.

PAGE 49

49 Figure 2-9. Locations of water samples (indicated by stars) in the study cell to asse ss the spatial variati on in the concentration of nutrients and denitrification pot ential of the water column, between locations (inflow and outflow) and between depths (top and bottom) within locations over five months.

PAGE 50

50 Figure 2-10. Illustration of the study cell showing the location and numbe r (indicated by stars) of monthly plant root samples to assess the denitrification potential in the rhizosphere soil of Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Removal efficiency of th e constructed wetlands. The concentration of nutrients entering and leaving the constructe d wetland was determined to evaluate the effectiveness of the study cell in removing nutrient contaminants over a period of five months from April to August 2007. The plant nursery runoff contained an averag e total nitrogen (TN) concentration of 34 mg L-1during the study period. When assessing mean TN composition (Fig. 3-1), it was observed that the majority of Nitrogen (N) entering and leaving the wetland during the study period was in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N; 30 mg L-1) followed by ammonium nitrogen (NH4 +-N; 2 mg L-1) and organic nitrogen (2 mg L-1). Total phosphorus concentration was 1 mg L-1 and dissolved organic carbon was 10 mg L-1. The nursery runoff entering the constructed wetland over the study period consisted of 87 % of the TN in the form of NO3 --N. The mean nutrient removal efficiency of the study cell, based on load -in and load-out rates, was observed to be 40% for TN, 40% for NO3 N, 59% for NH4 +-N, and 16% for TP (Table 3-1). Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3 --N). The concentration of NO3 --N was influenced (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample coll ection and month during which samples were collected (Fig. 3-2). The inflow NO3 --N concentration gradually decreased from April (47 mg L1) to August (13 mg L-1); similarly the outflow concentration also gradually decreased from April (42 mg L-1) to August (3 mg L-1). At flow control channel (FCC), NO3 --N concentration did not show any trend over time, but the absolute values were highest in April (52 mg L-1) and lowest in July (13 mg L-1). The mean removal efficiency of NO3 --N in the study cell was 40%, highest in August (77%) and lowest in April (12%). The re moval efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of NO3 --N coming into the wetland; i.e ., when the loading rate of NO3 --N was higher (7 g m-2 day-1; April), the removal efficiency was lower (12%) and when the loading rate was

PAGE 52

52 lower (2 g m-2 day-1; August), the removal efficiency was higher (77%). The concentration of NO3 --N at FCC significantly differed from infl ow concentration during the period of study, except for April. The mean inflow NO3 --N concentration over the study period was 30 mg L-1, which was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than the outflow concentration of NO3 --N, averaging 18 mg L-1. Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4 +-N). The nursery runoff that ente rs the constructed wetland over the study period consisted less than 1% of the TN in the form of NH4 +-N. A significant interaction (p < 0.0001) was observed among loca tion of sample collection and month during which samples were collected, for the concentration of NH4 +-N (Fig. 3-3). At all locations (inflow, outflow, and FCC), the NH4 +-N concentration did not show any particular trend over months, but the mean values were always higher at inflow and lower at outflow for each month of this study. The average removal efficiency of NH4 +-N was 59% and there was no trend observed over months. There were significan t differences in the concentration of NH4 +-N between FCC and inflow concentration ove r months, which indicate that the NH4 +-N removal in the holding pond was noticeable. The average concentr ation of the NH4 +-N coming into the wetland over the study period was 2.1 mg L-1 which was higher (p<0.0001) than the concentration of NH4 +-N leaving the system, averaging 0.9 mg L-1. Total Nitrogen (TN). The TN was computed by summing the values of Total Kjeldal Nitrogen (TKN) and NO3 --N. The trend was similar to that of NO3 --N. The concen tration of the TN was influenced (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collection and month during which samples were collected (Fig. 3-4). The inflow concentration of TN gradually decreased from April (60 mg L-1) to August (15 mg L-1); similarly the con centration of TN at outflow was also gradually decreased from April (49 mg L-1) to August (4 mg L-1). At FCC, TN

PAGE 53

53 concentration was highest in April (70 mg L-1) and lowest in July (15 mg L-1), but did not appear to consistently increase or decrease over this period of time. Overa ll, the average removal efficiency of TN was 40% which gradually increased from April 2007 (18%) to August 2007 (73%). It was observed that the removal efficiency was inversely related to the loading rate of TN into the wetland. The mean concentration of TN over five months at inflow (34 mg L-1) was significantly higher than the concentration of total nitr ogen at outflow (20 mg L-1) of the study cell. Total Phosphorus (TP). The concentration of TP wa s influenced (p<0.0001) by location of sample collection and month during which samples were collected. The concentration of TP at all three locations (inflow, outflow, and FCC) did not follow any particular trend between April and August 2007 (Fig 3-5). The inflow concentration of TP over months ranged from 1.7 mg L-1 (April) to 0.8 mg L-1 (August); and the con centration of TP at outflow ranged from 1.4 mg L-1 (April) to 0.8 mg L-1 (August). Although the interaction among location of sample collection and month showed significant influence, most of the means were statistically similar. The removal efficiency of TP ranged from 0-32%, which varied over months. In July 2007, the removal efficiency was negative, which indicates that there might be possible internal loading of phosphorus in the sy stem. There was no significant difference in the concentration of TP between FCC and inflow of the wetland. The mean concentration over five months, of TP coming into the wetland was 1.3 mg L-1, which was higher (p<0.0001) than the concentration of TP leaving the system, averaging 1.1 mg L-1. Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC was influenced (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collection and month during which samples were collected (Fig 3-6). The DOC concentration at inflow ranged from 10 mg L-1

PAGE 54

54 (June) to 12 mg L-1 (August), and at outflow it ranged from 10 mg L-1 (July) to 11 mg L-1 (May) Most of the means were statis tically similar, alth ough the overall model showed significant interaction among locations and months. The five month average concentrations of DOC at FCC and inflow of the study cell were similar. The mean concentration of DOC present in the inflow water was 11 mg L-1 which was higher (p<0.001) than the concentration of DOC leaving the system, averaging 10 mg L-1 during the study period. TN: TP ratio. The computed TN: TP ratio was a ffected (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collection and months during which samples were collected. At inflow, the ratio was highest in the month of April (36:1) and lowest in July (17:1). The ratio at outflow was also highest in Apr il (35:1), but it was lowest in A ugust (5:1). At FCC, the ratio ranged from 12:1(July) to 33:1(August). The five month mean TN: TP ratio, at inflow and outflow, was 25:1 and 18:1, respectively. DOC: NO3 --N ratio. The computed DOC: NO3 --N ratio was affected (p<0.0001) by an interaction among location of sample collect ion and months during which samples were collected. At both inflow and outflow, there was gradual increase in the DOC: NO3 --N ratio over five months. At inflow, the ratio gradually in creased from April (0.2:1) to August (0.9:1); similarly the ratio at outflow also gradually increased from April (0.2:1) to August (3.3:1). At FCC, the ratio ranged from 0.3:1(April and May) to 0.8:1(July), with va lues not showing any trend over the period of the study. The five month mean DOC: NO3 --N ratios at inflow and outflow were 0.5:1 and 1.3:1, respectively. Relationship between nutrient loading and removal rates. The correlation between loading and removal rate (g m-2 day-1) of NO3 N, NH4 +-N and TP are presented in Figure 3-7 to 3-9. The Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) value of 0.19 (p<0.21) was obtained for the

PAGE 55

55 relationship between loadi ng and removal rate of NO3 N. The NH4 +-N and TP exhibited a linear relationship with Pearsons correla tion coefficient (r) value of 0.75 (p<0.0001) and 0.60 (p<0.0001), respectively. Determination of theoretical hydraulic residence time. The effect of hydraulic loading rate and plant density on hydraulic residence time was computed by utilizing a model and the results are shown in Figure 3-10. The re sidence time was calculated for two different loading rates with three different plant density conditions, which provide three different wetland porosity values. Hydraulic loadi ng rate was inversely related to residence time; i.e., when the loading rate increa sed from 1300 to 1734 m3day-1, the theoretical residence time decreased by a day for all three wetland porosity values. As the wetland porosity value increased from 0.75 to 0.95, the theoretical residence time increased at least by one day in this model. There was no difference in the residence time when the wetl and porosity value increased from 0.95 to 1.0 at both hydraulic loading rates. Spatial effects on nutrients, phy siochemical parameters and deni trification potential of the water column: Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3 --N). The concentration of NO3 --N was not influenced (p=0.0812) by an interaction among the treatments (l ocation, depth, and months), presented in table 3-2. All two-way interactions, de pth*month, location*mont h, and location*depth significantly affected the concentration of NO3 --N at =0.05 level. The interaction among the location of sample collection (inflow and outfl ow) and the months during which samples were collected, showed that the concentration of NO3 --N changed from inflow to outflow except in April. In April, the infl ow concentration (44 mg L-1) of NO3 --N was similar to that at outflow (42 mg L-1), but it was significantly higher than othe r means. There was no trend observed

PAGE 56

56 between April and August, both in inflow and outflow concentration of NO3 --N, but the concentration during each month was higher at in flow than at outflow. The interaction among location of sample collection (inflow and outflow ) and depth within location (surface and bottom of the water column) showed that surface (24 mg L-1) of the water column at inflow had higher mean concentration of NO3 --N than at the lower depth (21 mg L-1) at inflow and the surface (18 mg L-1) of outflow (Fig. 3-11). On the outflow side, the mean concentration of NO3 --N over five months was higher (18 mg L-1) at the surface than the lower dept h of the water column (16 mg L1). The five month mean concentration of NO3 --N was always higher at surface water column as compared to lower depth of the water column. Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4 +-N). The mean concentration of NH4 +-N was influenced (p=0.0001) by an interaction among lo cation, depth, and months (Table 3-2). Most of the means were similar, however. The distribution of NH4 +-N within the wetland did not vary. The concentration of NH4 +-N was also influenced by an interaction among location*month, and by depth*month. Although both depth*month, and lo cation*month interactions yielded some significant means, there was no clear trend ov er time observed in th e concentration of NH4 +-N. At inflow, the concentration of NH4 +-N ranged from 3.1 mg L-1 (April) to 0.2 mg L-1 (May). At outflow the NH4 +-N concentration ranged from 0.1 mg L-1 (May) to 1.8 mg L-1 (June). Total Phosphorus (TP). The concentration of TP was influenced (p=0.0009) by an interaction among location of samp le collection, depth within lo cations, and month (Table 3-2), however most of the means were similar. The ab solute TP concentration at inflow and outflow was higher at lower depth of the water column than that of the surface of the water column between April to August. In addition to three-way interaction, location of sample collection*depth was observed to highly affect TP concentration. At the inflow, the surface (2

PAGE 57

57 mg L-1) TP concentration was lower than the TP in the bottom (3 mg L-1) of the water column. In contrast, the concentrations of TP at the tw o depths were similar at outflow. The other twoway interactions between locati on*month, and depth month did not show any particular trend in the concentration of TP during the period of this study. Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC was affected (p=0.0008) by an interaction among location, depth, and month (Table 3-2). At inflow and outflow, the surface and lower depth of the water column did not show difference in the concentration of DOC over the five months of this study. There was no trend observed for the DOC concentrations during this study for both locations and depth within locati on. Of all the two-way interactions only location* depth showed significant differences between treatment means. The surface of the water column at inflow had higher (11 mg L-1) concentration of DOC as compared to surface (10 mg L-1) of the water column at outflow. Similarly the DOC concentration was higher (12 mg L-1) at inflow and lower at outflow (10 mg L-1) for bottom of the water column. The five month mean concentration of DOC wa s similar at two depths both at inflow and outflow of the wetland. DOC: NO3 --N ratio. The DOC: NO3 --N ratio was influenced (p=0.0009) by a three-way interaction among location, depth, and months. At inflow, the DOC: NO3 --N ratio at the lower depth of the water column was higher as compared to the surface water column between April to August. Similar trend of higher DOC: NO3 --N ratio at the lower depth was observed at the outflow of the study cell, except for April. Ho wever, there was no temp oral pattern observed during this period both at inflow and outflow of the study cell. All two-way interactions, depth*month, location*month, and location*depth, significantly influenced the ratio at =0.05 level. The mean DOC: NO3 --N ratio over five months at th e inflow and outflow was 0.9:1 and

PAGE 58

58 1.5:1, respectively. The fi ve month mean DOC: NO3 --N ratio at the surface and bottom of the water column were 1.0:1 and 1.3: 1, respectively. Temperature. The temperature of the water colu mn was affected (p=0.0141) by an interaction among locations (inflow and outflow), depth within location (surface and bottom), and months (April to August 2007) Although the overall model s howed significant difference, the mean comparisons showed similar values for the bottom and surface of the water column temperature both at inflow and outflow during the period of this study (Table. 3-3). For bottom of the water column on the inflow side, the effect of months on temperature was apparent as it gradually increased from May (22 C) to August (30 C). The temperature at lower depth of the water column at outflow was al so significantly affected by month of sampling. Surface water temperature on the inflow side was lowest during May (23 C) and highest (30 C) in August. Similar trend over time was observed at the surf ace of the water column on the outflow side of the study cell. There was significant difference between bottom (22 C) and surface (25 C) water column temperature at out flow during the month of May, but the temperature at surface and lower depth of the water column was simila r during other months. The five month mean temperature (averaged over surface and lower depth values) of the wetland at inflow (27 C) was higher than the outflow (26 C). The five month mean temper ature at the surface of the water column (averaged over inflow and outflow locations) was higher (26 C) than the bottom (27 C) of the water column. Dissolved Oxygen. The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the water column was not affected by any interaction e ffect (Table 3-3) between the tr eatments (locations, depth and months). The main effects of location of sample collection, depth of the water column and months showed significant difference at = 0.05 level (Fig. 3-12). The dissolved oxygen

PAGE 59

59 concentration of the inflow (6 mg L-1) was significantly (p=0.0005) lo wer when compared to that of outflow (11 mg L-1). The DO was observed to significan tly decrease from surface (11 mg L-1) to bottom (6 mg L-1) of the water column. Although the overall analysis showed significant difference between months, only the value for May (12 mg L-1) was significantly different from rest of the months. pH. The pH was not affected by interactions be tween locations, depth and months (Table 3-3), except for interaction am ong location and months (Fig. 313), and because of the main effect of months. At inflow, th e pH in August (4) was lower than in May (6), June (7) or July (6). In August, the inflow pH (4) was lower th an outflow pH (6). Th e other interactive means were similar. When compared over months, mean pH in June was higher (7) than the values obtained for July (6) and August (5). The mean pH of this system was 6 during the period of this study. Denitrification potential of water. The concentration of nitrous oxide nitrogen (N2O-N) produced per liter of water per hour (mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1) was calculated and it was observed that the N2O-N production was either neg ligible (0.01 to 0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1) or undetectable, as was the case in most of the samples. The data, thus, are neither presente d graphically, nor in a tabular form. Denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil. The denitrification potential of the rhizosphere soil was influenced (p= 0.0419) by an interaction among macrophyte species, sections, and months (Table. 3-4) The significant di fferences for the den itrification potential were observed between very few means, however. The rhizosphere soil of Typha latifolia produced significantly higher denitr ification potential (30 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1) in the western section of the cell during May, which was higher th an the values obtained from the rest of the

PAGE 60

60 means. The two-way interaction among month*sect ion and plant*month occurred, however most of the means were statistically similar. During May 2007, the denitrification potential of T. latifolia was 12 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1. Similarly the denitrification potential in the western section (17 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1) was found to be significantly different from rest of the treatments during the month of May 2007. Denitrification potential was influenced (p = 0.01) by the main effect of month; however, there was no trend between April and August 2007. The mean denitrification potential was 8, 2, 1, 3 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1, during May, June, July, and August 2007, respectively. Only the denitr ification potential during May differed from other months. The five month mean denitrification potential for Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia were 3 mg and 4 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1, respectively.

PAGE 61

61Table 3-1. Mean load-in, load-out, removal rate (g m-2 day-1) of nutrients and percentage nut rient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland over five months (April and August 2007). Standard deviation valu es in are presented in parentheses. Total Nitrate Ammonium Total Nitrogen (TN) Nitrogen (NO3 -)Nitrogen (NH4 +) Phosphorus (TP) (g m-2 day-1) (g m-2 day-1) (g m-2 day-1) (g m-2 day-1) Load-in rate 5.07 (2.64) 4.43 (2.21) 0.32 (0.21) 0.19 (0.05) Load-out rate 3.07 (2.50) 2.68 (2.18) 0.13 (0.14) 0.16 (0.04) Removal rate 1.99 (0.15) 1.75 (0.75) 0.19 (0.11) 0.03 (0.03) % Removal 40 40 59 16

PAGE 62

62Table 3-2. Mean concentra tions of nutrients (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample coll ection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery r unoff (n=18). Capital lett ers indicate statistical difference between depths (top and bottom) at inlet and outl et over five months; lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between locations (inlet and outlet) at top and bottom de pths over five months; asterisks(*, **) indicate statistical difference between locations at top and bottom for every month. Mean s followed by the same letter and same number of asterisks are statistically similar. Location Depth Month NO3 --Nmg L-1 NH4 --Nmg L-1 TP mg L-1 DOCmg L-1 Inlet Top April 46A a 4.0A a 1.8 A a 11A a May 42B a 0.2BC a 2.0 A a 13B a June 8D a 2.3AB a 1.4 A a 10A a July 15C a 0.2B a 1.3 A a 11A a Aug 11CD a 1.3ABC a 0.9 A a 11A a Bottom April 42A a 2.2AB a 2.1 A a 11AB a May 36B b 0.2B a 2.4 A a 12AB a June 7D a 2.0AB a 3.5 A b 10B a July 11C a 0.9BC a 2.3 A a 11AB a Aug 7CD b 3.6A a 3.0 A b 13A a Outlet Top April 43A a 1.0A a 1.6 A a 11A a May 32B a ** 0.1A a 1.2 A a 11A a June 4C a ** 1.7A a 0.9 A a 9A a July 7C a ** 0.1A a 1.2 A a 9A a Aug 4C a ** 0.1A a 0.7 A a 10A a Bottom April 42A a 2.3A a 1.5 A a ** 10A a May 26B a ** 0.1A a 1.3 A a 11A a June 4C a 1.8A a 0.9 A a 10A a July 5C a ** 0.1A a 1.5 A a ** 9A a Aug 3C b ** 0.1A a ** 1.0 A a 10A a **

PAGE 63

63Table 3-3. Physiochemical parameters (tem perature, dissolved oxygen, pH) as affected by location of sample collection, depth w ithin location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetla nd receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letters indicate statistical difference between depths (top and bottom) at inlet and ou tlet over five months; lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between lo cations (inlet and outlet) at top and bottom depths over five months. Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar. Location Depth Month Temperature C Dissolved oxygen (mg L-1) pH Inlet Top May 23A a 13A a 6.3A a June 28A a 7A a 7.2A a July 28A a 7A a 7.0A a Aug 30A a 6A a 4.4A a Bottom May 22A a 4A a 6.2A a June 27A a 5A a 7.2A a July 27A a 3A a 5.4A a Aug 30A a 2A a 3.7A a Outlet Top May 25A a 25A a 5.5A a June 27A a 15A a 6.5A a July 27A a 11A a 5.8A a Aug 29A a 12A a 6.9A a Bottom May 22B a 15A a 6.4A a June 25A a 10A a 6.6A a July 26A a 5A a 5.0A a Aug 28A a 4A a 6.0A a

PAGE 64

64 Table 3-4. Denitrifi cation potential (mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1) as affected by macrophyte rhizosphere soil in three sections (eas t, middle, and west) between May 2007 and August 2007 in the constructed wetland receiv ing nursery runoff. (n =3). Capital letter indicates the statistical difference between plant species within each section and month. Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar. Plant species Month Section Denitrification potential mg kg-1 hr-1 Canna flaccida May East 1.9A Middle 2.4A West 4.1A June East 2.0A Middle 2.7A West 3.4A July East 1.0A Middle 0.5A West 3.1A August East 2.2A Middle 3.9A West 3.0A Typha latifolia May East 1.5A Middle 6.1A West 29.7A June East 2.1A Middle 0.2A West 0.1A July East 0.6A Middle 0.3A West 0.1A August East 6.1A Middle 0.3A West 2.3A

PAGE 65

65 Figure 3-1. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total nitrogen (TN) and composition of TN [nitrate (NO3 N), ammonium (NH4 +-N) and organic nitrogen concentration mg L-1] between April to August of 2007 in the water samples obtained from the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9), and outlet (n=9) pi pes of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3-2. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell in th e constructed wetla nd receiving nursery runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between loca tions within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indica te statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 3-3. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of ammonium nitrogen (NH4+ N) between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed we tland receiving nurse ry runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statistical difference between loca tions within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indica te statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 68

68 Figure 3-4. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total nitrogen (TN) be tween April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetla nd receiving nursery runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicates statis tical difference between locations within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indica te statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 69

69 Figure 3-5. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of total phosphorus (TP) and Dissolved organic carbon between April 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), in let (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructe d wetland receiving nursery runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capital letter indicate s statistical difference between locations within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indi cate statistical difference be tween months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 70

70 Figure 3-6. Mean concentration (mg L-1) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) between Ap ril 2007 and August 2007 in the flow control channel (n=3), inlet (n=9) and the outlet (n=9) of the study cell of a constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff. Error bars indicate plus standard error. Capita l letter indicates statistical difference between locations within each month (May to August); lower-case letters indica te statistical difference between months at each location (FCC, inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 71

71 Figure 3-7. Pearsons correlation between loading and removal rate of nitrate nitrogen (g m-2 day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland r eceiving nursery runoff.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 3-8. Pearsons correlation between loading and removal rate of ammonium nitrogen (g m-2 day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetlan d receiving nursery runoff.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 3-9. Pearsons correlati on between loading and removal rate of total phosphorus (g m-2day-1) between April 2007 and August 2007 in a constructed wetland r eceiving nursery runoff.

PAGE 74

74 Figure 3-10. Theoretical hydraulic residence time (i n days) as affected by hydraulic loading rate (m3 day-1) and three estimates of wetland porosity values (0.75, 0.95 and 1.0) in the study cell of a constructed we tland receiving plant nursery runoff

PAGE 75

75 Figure 3-11. Mean concentrations of nitrate nitrogen (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample collection and dept h within location, between April and August 2007 in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=18). Capital letters indicate statistical difference between location (inl et and outlet) at top and bottom of the water column; lower-case letters indicate statistical difference between depths (t op and bottom) at inlet and outlet over five months. Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 76

76 Figure 3-12. Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg L-1) as affected by location of sample coll ection, depth within location, and months (April and August 2007) in the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letters i ndicate statistical difference within location, within depth, a nd within months. Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 3-13. Physiochemical parameter, pH, as affected by location of sample colle ction, and months (April and August 2007) of the constructed wetland receiving nursery runoff (n=3). Capital letter indicates statistical difference between locations within each month (May to August); lower-case lett ers indicate statistical di fference between months at each location (inlet and outlet). Means followed by the same letter are statistically similar.

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Concentration of nutrients in the inflow and outflow water. The mean concentration (over all locations and months) of nutrients in plant nursery runoff entering the constructed wetland were 34 mg L-1 total nitrogen (TN) [30 mg L-1 nitrate nitrogen (NO3 N); 2 mg L-1 ammonium nitrogen (NH4 +-N); and 2 mg L-1 organic nitrogen], 1 mg L-1 total phosphorus (TP), and 10 mg L-1 Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The concentration of DOC, less than 20 mg L1, is considered low as compared to other wastew ater sources (Headley et al., 2001; Huett et al., 2005; Crumpton et al., 1993). The nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was observed to be 40% for TN, 40% for NO3 N, 59% for NH4 +-N, and 16% for TP. The constructed wetland systems in the US are report ed to provide removal efficiencies of 66-95% for TN and TP (Dortch, 1992), 30-60% for N (Ha mmer and Knight, 1994). Headly et al. (2001) have reported > 84% TN and > 65% TP remova l in the subsurface horizontal flow wetlands receiving plant nursery runoff. Huett et al. (2005) obtained > 95% removal efficiency for both TN and TP in a subsurface flow wetlands treating plant nursery runoff. Reinhardt et al. (2005) reported 23% TP removal efficiency in constructe d wetlands treating agricultu ral drainage water. While comparing the results, the study cell appear s to be functioning moderately efficiently in removing TN and TP. Mean removal efficiency for NO3 N of the constructed wetl and over five months was 40%. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency of tr eatment wetlands in the US ranges from 30-60% (Hammer and Knight, 1994). Poe et al. (2003) obtained 53% of NO3 N removal in a constructed wetlands treating agricu ltural runoff. It is possible that a longer sampling period at the study cell may have give n different results.

PAGE 79

79 The removal efficiency of the NO3 --N during the study period ra nged from 12 -77% over five months, indicated the temporal variation in effectively removing NO3N. The highest NO3 N removal was obtained in the month of A ugust 2007 and the lowest removal efficiency was obtained during April. During the same period, the concentration of NO3 N entering and leaving the wetland gradually decrea sed from April to August. Th ere was an inverse relationship between the concentration of NO3 N at inflow and the removal efficiency of the wetland, i.e., when the concentration of NO3 N entering the wetland was higher, the removal efficiency was lower during April. Similar relationship was observed between loading rates and removal efficiency of NO3 N in the constructed wetl ands. Gradual increase in removal efficiency of NO3 N from April (12%) to Augus t (77%) was observed, as the in flow concentration gradually decreased from 47 mg L-1 to 13 mg L-1. Lin et al. (2002) observe d similar decrease in the efficiency of nitrate removal but the rate of removal increased as the nitrate loading rate was increased. Darbi et al. (2003) also reported inverse relationshi p between loading rate and the removal efficiency of NO3 --N. Reduction in the removal efficiency of NO3 N from 2.46 to 1.64 kg NO3 --N m-3 day-1 was obtained, as the inflow NO3 --N concentration increased from 175 to700 mg L-1 (Park et al., 2002). Most of th e studies reported high loads of NO3 --N as compared to the load in the present study. As the loading rate of NO3 --N was observed to be less than 7 g m-2 day-1, this study provides a useful insight into nutrient removal at lower loading rate. Similar results of low NO3 --N loading rates were observed (<2 g m-2 day-1) by Headly et al. (2001) and Huett et al. (2005) in subsurface flow reed beds receiving plant nursery runoff in Australia. Although the loading rates are comparat ively low, the removal rate of NO3 N (1.75 g m-2 day-1) in this study is comparable and in many cases high er as compared to the values of other studies (Table 4.1).

PAGE 80

80 The Pearson correlation coefficient value (r = 0.19) indicated a little/no association between loading and removal rate of NO3 N. The strong positive association between loading and removal rate of NH4 +-N (r = 0.75) and a weak positive association between loading and removal rate of TP (r = 0.6). Th e positive correlation coefficient indicates that the loading and removal rate tend to increase or decrease together. Similar linear relationship of increasing removal rate with increasing loading rate has b een observed by Headley et al. (2001) for TN (r = 0.76). Plant nursery runoff in this study consis ted 87% of the TN in the form of NO3 N. The dominance of NO3 N in runoff water entering the wetland c ould be attributed to the controlled release (coated urea), and soluble nitrate fert ilizers (Ammonium Nitrat e) applied to nursery plants (S. Chandler, Horticulture Manager Monr ovia Nursery personal comm unication). It is not uncommon to apply up to 200 mg L-1 nitrate nitrogen to ornament al crops during peak growing season. The concentration of NO3 N (mg L-1) entering the wetland vari ed during the period of study, i.e., it gradually decreased from April to August 2007. Th e higher concentration of NO3 N during April was likely due to fertilization prac tices at the nursery du ring their peak growing season (S. Chandler, Horticulture Manager M onrovia Nursery personal communication). In addition, the limited rainfall (15-17 cm during Ap ril and May 2007) might have contributed to increased concentration of nutrients in the runoff. Similarly, increased con centration of nutrients in the nursery runoff was observed due to fertilization in subsurface horizontal flow reed beds in subtropical region of Australia (Headley et al., 2001). Duri ng April and May there were comparatively higher concentrations (44 mg L-1 and 36 mg L-1, respectively) of NO3 N entering the wetland as compared to June, July and August. Higher concentration of NO3 N during April (averaging 19 mg L-1) and May (averaging 18 mg L-1) were also obtained by Taylor

PAGE 81

81 et al. (2006) during their four year (2002 2005) monitoring of influent of the constructed wetland at Monrovia Nursery. In addition, application of ferti lizers at a near by horticultural nursery contributed to the incr ease in the concentration of NO3 N (0.03 to 4.73 mg L-1) through runoff in the tributaries of Santa Fe river waters hed in north central Flor ida (Frisbee, 2007). While assessing the composition of TN dur ing the study period, it was observed that concentration of organic N at the outflow was hi gher as compared to inflow of the study cell, which might be due to internal generation of or ganic N in the wetland during decay of plant and microbes. Persistence of organic N in low conc entrations was always observed in the outflow water of a constructed wetland (Kadlec a nd Knight, 1996; Headley et al., 2001). Water temperature in study wetland was obser ved to gradually increase from May to August. The NO3--N removal efficiency was obs erved to gradually increase during the same period. Nitrate nitrogen removal might have been enhanced by the increase in temperature, which probably resulted in vigorous plant growth and act ivity of the microorganisms. The mean temperature of the wetland (over all locations, depths and months) was 26 C. The favorable range of temperature for denitrification is between 20 and 25 C (Spieles and Mitsch, 2000), which is close to the range of the mean temperature of the study ce ll. The influence of temperature on nitrogen removal was explained by Reddy and Patrick (1984). The rates of denitrification have been shown to increase by 1 .5-2 times with each in crease in 10oC. Water temperatures less than 15C or greater than 30C have been shown to limit the rate of denitrification (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). The gradual increase in NO3 --N removal efficiency over Ap ril to August could also be related to the growth of the plants in the wetlan d. The perennial plants in the wetland started growth in April. During the vigorous growing stages (April, May, and Ju ne), plants utilize NO3 --

PAGE 82

82 N and thereby may have contributed to th e increased removal efficiency of the NO3 N. Studies have shown that macrophytes in the we tlands remove substantial amount of NO3 --N directly by uptake or indirectly by provi ding carbon exudates from roots, which enhance microbial transformations (Gersberg et al., 1983; Bachand and Horne, 2000). The NH4 +-N contributed only less than 1% of the TN load into the wetland. The removal efficiency of the NH4 +-N ranged from 41% (June) to 93% (August). The concentration of NH4 +N coming into the wetland was approximately 2 mg L-1, and the outflow con centration less than 1 mg L-1. The NH4 +-N removal is likely because of plant uptake or nitrification process in the aerobic sites of the wetlands. Immobilization by plants and microbes enhances the removal of NH4 +-N. In addition, microbe mediated nitrification process, in which NH4 +-N is oxidized to NO3 N also contributes to NH4 +-N removal in the aerobic zones of wetlands (Burger and Jackson, 2004). The volatilization of NH4 +-N to ammonia would not be a significant process for NH4 +-N removal in this wetland as the mean pH value (6.0) was lower than optimal (> 8) for this chemical process to occur (USEPA, 1993, Sartoris et al., 2000). The pH values in this system did not reach that optimum level during the study period. Plant growth and the size of denitrifier population within the rhizosphere are observed to be coupled. Hence the influence of pH on plant growth in turn affects th e denitrification pote ntial (Hall et al., 1998 ). However, the influence of pH on plant growth was not st udied in this system during this study. The concentration of TP entering and leavi ng the wetland cell was approximately 1 mg L-1. The removal efficiency of TP ranged from 0-32%, which varied over months. The removal of TP (which consists orthophosphate) may be attr ibuted to biological uptake, adsorption onto sediment, etc. The percent TP removal effici ency over months did not follow any particular trend, however. Similar results of variable TP net removal during the growing season were

PAGE 83

83 observed by Taylor et al. (2006) in the constructed wetland at Monrovia nursery. The few negative removal efficiency values of TP indi cate that there is likely internal loading of phosphorus. Macrophytes, algae, and microorganism s utilize P as an essential nutrient and can enhance temporary removal of TP. Long term TP removal, however, is limited to the P sorption capacity of the sediments (Kadlec, 1999). The concentration of DOC did not follow a part icular trend over mont hs. The distribution of DOC seemed uniform through the wetland in the study cell. The nursery runoff had a low dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration (a characteristic of nursery runoff). The low dissolved organic carbon (DOC < 20 mg L-1) was observed in the subsurface flow reed bed systems receiving plant nursery and agricultural runoff (Headley et al., 20 01; Huett et al., 2005; Crumpton et al., 1993) in Australia. The DOC: NO3 N ratio was observed to be low (<3:1) during most of the study period. The modeled effect of hydraulic loading rate and plant density on theoretical residence time was noticeable. When higher values of hydraulic loading rate were us ed in the model, the theoretical residence time decreased by a day for th is system. The model showed that increasing the wetland porosity from 0.75 to 0.95 and/or 1.0 would increase the residence time in the study cell by one day. Based on the model, the theoretical residence time for this system ranged from 3 to 5 days. Headley et al. ( 2001) reported that the maximum N removal can be achieved even at 2 day residence time in the subsurface flow reed beds. It was estimated that a nursery of 1 ha area would require a re ed bed area of 200 m2 for a 2 day hydraulic residence time. Spatial effects on nutrients, physiochemical parameters and denitrification potential of the water column The higher DO level at outflow can be attributed to the higher prevalence of open water towards the outflow side of the we tland compared to the inflow side. The depth of

PAGE 84

84 the water column showed significant influence on DO level, which is expected in waterlogged conditions. The anoxic condition of the wetland was enhanced with increasing depth of the water column. The DO concentration graduall y decreased from April to August, when the temperature gradually increased from April to August. The reduction in concentration of DO could be attributed to increased activity of microorganisms, whic h enhances N removal, with the gradual increase in temperature. The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this study varied in their concentration at inflow and outflow. This variation in the concentration of nutrients may be attributed to removal of nutrients within the study wetland. Similar nutrient gradient from the inlet to outlet points was observed in Evergladess wetlands soil (White and Reddy, 1999) and in experimental wetlands receiving agricultural runoff (Sirivedhin and Gray, 2006). The low concentration of NO3 N at outflow is likely due to the removal of nitroge n by various mechanisms such as plant uptake, microbial assimilation, and denitrification along the flow of water from inflow. The low concentration of NO3 N at lower depth of the water colu mn is likely due to the removal of NO3 N by plant uptake and denitr ification process in the anaerobi c zones of the water column. Another possible reason might be the lack of diffusion of NO3 N to the lower depths of the water column, which will also limit the denitrification activity. Although the concentration of NH4 +-N was always higher at inflow as compared to outflow of the wetland, there was no trend observed in the spatia l distribution of NH4 +-N within the wetland cell over the pe riod of five months. The lower concentration of NH4 +-N at outflow could be attributed to the removal of NH4 +-N within the study cell. However, the concentration of NH4 +-N was observed to be higher in lower depth of the water column, which is likely due to lack of nitrification in the anoxi c zones of the water column.

PAGE 85

85 Significant spatial distribution in total phosphorus concentrat ion was observed within the wetland. However, there were no temporal effect s on TP concentration during the period of this study. The TP was observed to be higher in the deeper water column as compared to the surface of the water column, but only at th e inflow side of the wetland. This could be due to the release of adsorbed P from the sediments into immediate atmosphere, or due to lack of adsorption sites near the inflow of the study cell. The sorpti on sites on the inflow side might have become saturated because of the higher co ncentration of TP at inflow. The DOC concentration did not show any differences in its distribution within the depth of the water column, suggesting its uniform distribution within the wetland. The denitrification pote ntial of the water colu mn in the study cell was either negligible or undetectable. The maximum value of denitrificati on potential observed in the water column was 0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1. Lower values of denitrification pot ential are likely due to a lack of particulate material in the water column to support the microbial activity. Little research has been conducted on denitrification potential of the water column in constructed wetlands, but whenever it was included in wetland studies, the reported values were always relatively low. Denitrification rates of the water samples in a constructed wetland receiving sewage treatment plant effluent were observed to be between 0.06 0.96 g N m-2 d-1 (Toet et al., 2003). The water column of the study cell had low dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration, and this may be limiting NO3 N removal due to non availability of energy for denitrifying microbes. The optimum C:N (plant carbon added:NO3 --N in water) ratio for the denitrification in wetlands is reported to be 4:1 (Ingersol l and Baker, 1998) to 5:1(Baker, 1998). Only during the month of April, the DOC: NO3 N ratio reached near 4:1 in the wetland. The mean DOC: NO3 N ratio was low (<1) during most of the study period. Low DOC: TN reported to limit NO3 N removal

PAGE 86

86 in a subsurface flow wetland receiving plant nu rsery runoff (Huett et al., 2005). The absence of attachment sites for bacteria and/or low organic car bon availability possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the wa ter, as reported by Toet et al (2003). The distribution of denitrifying microbes was most lik ely regulated by the availabili ty of organic material, with higher denitrification rates in the sediment s than on surface in the water column. The DO concentration in the water column of the study cell ranged from 6 mg L-1 to 12 mg L-1, which might have affected the denitrification process, as well. Poe et al. (2003) reported that the denitrification potential was infl uenced by the concentration of NO3 -N, and the rates of denitrification were observed to increase with an increase of NO3 N. Such trend was not observed in this study. Denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil. Denitrification potential of macrophyte rhizosphere soil was influenced by months; however, there was no trend between April and August 2007. The mean denitrification pot ential in the rhizosphe re of the two species combined was 7.6, 1.7, 0.9, and 3.0 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1, in May, June, July, and August 2007, respectively. Only the values obtained in May significantly differed from other months. Although there was a gradual incr ease in temperature of the water column from May (22 C) to August (30 C), the rhizosphere denitrific ation potential did not show significant difference over months. The mean temperature (26 C) of the wetland during the study period was close to the optimum range, 20-25 C, for denitrification activity. Results of this study showed that mean deni trification potential over five months for Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia was 3 mg and 4 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1, respectively. Data variability within replicates was observed for denitrification potential values in this study. The variation in values obtained for replicates in this study might be due to the heterogeneity in the

PAGE 87

87 sampling point as affected by plants and surrounding environmen t, water movement, etc. Similar data variability in the denitrificati on rates between the repl icates was observed by Bastviken at al. (2003). Regardless, the denitrification values obtai ned in this study are relatively high when compared to several other studies (Table 4-2). Hunt et al. (2003) obtai ned higher denitrification potential of 0.21 mg N kg-1 hr-1 in Typha dominated wetland soils, as compared to 0.52 mg N kg1 hr-1 in Juncus dominated wetlands used for treatment of swine wastewater. Denitrification potential values observed in this study also lie in the range of denitrif ication potential (0.004 7.75 mg N kg-1 hr-1) obtained for everglades wetla nd soils (White and Reddy, 1999). Denitrification rates in soil samples from Juncus -planted wetland plots were reported to be higher (12.3 mg N m-2 d-1) as compared to Salix plots (2.65 mg N m-2 d-1). The denitrification rates obtained from soil samples amended with nitrate and/or glucose, indicated that the denitrification was limited by th e availability of carbon and NO3 N in the Salix plots, whereas only by NO3 -N in the Juncus plots (Smialek et al 2006). Denitr ification potential in rhizosphere soil of Lolium perenne L.Melinda (Rye grass) was observed to be 150 900 ng N g-1 hr-1, and followed the pattern of plant grow th, indicating that the plant grow th and the size of denitrifier population within the rhizosphere are likely correlated (Hall et al ., 1998). Ottosen et al. (1999) observed low denitrification activity in the rhizosphere of Zostera marina and Potamogeton pectinatus (1.5 to 5 mol N m-2 h-1) as compared to Lobelia dortmanna and Littorella uniflora vegetated sediments (24 and 30 mol N m-2 h-1). Statistically similar denitrification potential in Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia in this present study might be due to their similar effect on the rhizosphere. Other researchers have observed differences in denitrification potenti al in wetland soil and sediments planted with

PAGE 88

88 different taxa of plants. These differences were attributed to di fferences in the ability of plant roots to diffuse oxygen into the rhizosphere, and al so due to differences in leakage of available organic carbon from plant roots. Most of the studies on denitrific ation potential have used the sediments and bulk soil in the rhizosphere of the plants as substrate. Results from this study show th at denitrification rates comparable to or higher than those reported from bulk soil of vegetated pl ots can be obtained in rhizosphere soil closely a dhered to the roots.

PAGE 89

89Table 4-1. Nitrate removal rates in cons tructed wetlands, under different hydraulic re sidence periods, as reported by other re searchers. System Wastewater Hydraulic residence time (days) Nitrate removal rates (g m-2 day-1) Flow through wetland microcosms Constructed free water surface wetlands Constructed wetlands Constructed free water surface wetlands Nitrate contaminated water Landfill leachates Agricultural tile drainage River flow 2.4 10-12 7 1-10 2.8-5 0.63 0.291.51 0.56 Ingersoll and Baker, 1998 Kozu and Lieh, 1999 Xue et al., 1999 Bachand and Horne, 2000 Natural forested treatment wetland Constructed wetlands Municipal wastewater Groundwater 0.9 1.1 4.2 0.10 0.94 Blahnik and Day, 2000 Lin et al., 2002 Subsurface flow constructed wetlands Domestic effluent 10.5 0.61 Bayley et al., 2003 Surface flow constructed wetlands Nurs ery runoff 3-5 1.75 This study

PAGE 90

90Table 4-2. Denitrification potentials of di fferent substrate reported by other research ers in constructed wetlands. While the units of measure are different and make direct co mparisons challenging, these data are useful for maki ng general inferences for wetlands dominated by different plant taxa. The acronyms used are as follows: Denitrifica tion Enzyme activity (DEA), Acetylene Inhibition Technique (AIT), Membra ne Inlet Mass Spectrometry (MIMS), and N15 tracers (N15). Substrate Wastewater type DEA (mg N m-2 d-1) Range of DEA values Method Reference Phragmites australis shoots Sewage treatment plant effluent 44.4 121 mg N m-2 d-1 AIT Toet et al., 2003 Elodea nuttallii shoots Sewage treatment plant effluent 14.8 33.1 mg N m-2 d-1 AIT Toet et al., 2003 Sediments Sewage treatment plant effluent 0.5 25.5 mg N m-2 d-1 AIT Toet et al., 2003 Water Sewage treatment plant effluent 0.4 3.9 g N m-2 d-1 AIT Toet et al., 2003 Spartina spp., Cladium spp. Juncus spp. sediment cores Agricultural runoff 2.5 0.7 9.2 mg N m-2 d-1 MIMS Poe at al., 2003 Juncus spp. sediment Agricultural runoff 2.3 0.1-6.0 mg N m-2 d-1 AIT Thompson et al., 2000 Everglades soils Agricultural runoff 0.004 7.75 mg N kg-1 hr-1 AIT White and Reddy, 1999 Mixed plants sediments Agricultural tile drainage 2-11.8 mg N m-2 d-1 AIT /N15 Xue et al.,1999 Lolium perene (Ryegrass) Rhizosphere soil Wetland microcosms 150 900 ng N g-1 hr-1 AIT Hall at al., 1998 Typha latifolia Canna flaccida Plant nursery runoff Plant nursery runoff 2.51 mg N kg-1 hr-1 4.11 mg N kg-1 hr-1 AIT AIT This study This study

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Constructed wetlands are cost effective and viable method for on-site removal of nonpoint source contaminants from water before it is rele ased into aquatic systems. These systems are used to treat wastewater from municipal water source, animal waste, urban runoff, stormwater runoff, and agricultural runoff. Few studies have focused on constr ucted wetlands treating nursery runoff (Headley et al., 2001 ; Lea-cox et al., 2002; Huett et al., 2005). In general, the performance of constructed wetlands varies and partly depends on the source and the characteristic features of influent wastew ater (Mitsch and Jorgensen, 1989; NRCS, 2000a; Dunne et al., 2005). When constructed wetlands are to be used for nutrient, especially N, removal, management strategies can be optimized by understanding the mechanisms by which N is removed within the constructed wetlands. In view of the necessity of a systems approach, which recognizes the site specific conditions, nitrogen (N) dynamics in the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff was investigated to f acilitate improved understanding of N transformations, factors influencing N removal, and to optimize the perfor mance of the system for on-site N removal. The concentration of nutrients N and phosphorus (P) entering and leav ing the constructed wetland was monitored from April 2007 to A ugust 2007 to determine the nutrient removal efficiency of the study cell in the constructed wetlands receiving plant nursery runoff. The dominant nutrient in the plan t nursery runoff was N, in the form of nitrate nitrogen (NO3 --N), followed by phosphorus (P). The concentration of DOC was low (< 20 mg L-1) which is a characteristic feature of the plant nursery runoff. It was hypothesized that the concentration of N and P would vary over months based on the timing of the fertilizer application, irrigati on, and rainfall. The hi gher concentration of NO3

PAGE 92

92 N during April and May in this study was likely due to fertilization practices at the nursery during their peak growing seas on. In addition, the limited rain fall (15-17 cm during April and May 2007) might have contributed to increased concentration of nutrients in the runoff. The concentration of nutrients, as expected, was higher in the influent as compared to the outflow. The mean nutrient removal efficiency of the constructed wetland was 40% for TN, 40% for NO3 --N, 59% for NH4 +-N, and 16% for TP. While comparing to other studi es, the study cell appears to be functioning moderately efficiently in removing N and P. The NO3 --N removal efficiency was inversely relate d to the loading rate of NO3 --N in this study. The P removal might be due to plant, algal uptake and adsorption/precipitation reactions. The negative P removal efficiency in July indicates that at times ther e may be internal loading of P in the system. Ammonium Nitrogen removal is like ly due to plant uptake or nitrif ication process in the aerobic zones of the wetlands. The volatilization of NH4 +-N to ammonia is probably not a significant process for NH4 +-N removal in the wetland because the observed pH in the wetland was lower that what is reported to be optimal for this process to occur. The low DOC: NO3 --N ratio in the influent water indicates that the system mi ght be limited by carbon availability, which could adversely affect NO3 N removal. Hydraulic loading rate and the plant density were observed to influence the theoretical residence time in the model. When higher valu es of hydraulic loading rate were used in the model, the theoretical residence time decreased by a day for this system. The model showed that increasing the wetland porosity from 0.75 to 0.95 and/ or 1.0 would increase th e residence time in the study cell by one day. The nutrients (N and P) analyzed in this st udy exhibited a gradient from the inflow to outflow due to removal of nutrients within the wetland. The low NO3 --N concentration at lower

PAGE 93

93 depth of the water column is likely due to utilization of NO3 --N by microorganisms, during the process of denitrification in the anoxic zones. The high NH4 +-N concentration in the lower depth of the water column is likely due to the lack of nitrification process in the anoxic lower depth of the water column, and hence the accumulation of NH4 +-N. Higher concentra tion of TP in the lower depth of the water column is likely due to release of adsorbed P from the sediments, or due to lack of adsorption site s near the inflow of the study cell. The sorption sites on the inflow side might have become saturated because of the higher concentration of TP at inflow. Concentration of DOC did not show any differences in distri bution along the depth of the water column, and across the locations over mont hs, indicated uniform distri bution within the wetland. Gradual increase in the temper ature of the water column from May to August 2007 might have enhanced NO3 N removal by affecting plant growth an d activity of the microorganisms. Denitrification potential values were observed to follow the patte rn of plant growth, indicating that the plant growth and the size of denitrif ier population within the rhizosphere might be coupled. Hence, physiological parameters affecting the plant growth can al so indirectly affect denitrification. A direct relati onship was observed between the NO3 N removal efficiency and temperature of the water column during the study period. As the temperature gradually increased from May to August, the DO level gra dually decreased. This is likely due to the enhanced activity of the microorganisms utilizin g oxygen as an electron acceptor. The higher DO level at outflow can be attrib uted to open water towards the d eeper side of the wetland. Due to the potential differences in the temperature over months, DO level in the water column, and concentration of NO3 -N at inflow and outflow, it was expected that the denitrification potential of the water column would be different as well. However, the low (0.01-0.03 mg N2O-N L-1 hr-1) or undetectable denitrification potential of the wate r column is possibly due to the low DOC

PAGE 94

94 concentration/low DOC: NO3 -N, which limits denitrification. The presence of few attachment sites for bacteria possibly resulted in low denitrification rates in the water column. Mean rhizosphere denitrification potential over five months for Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia was 3 mg and 4 mg N2O-N kg-1 hr-1, respectively. The mean de nitrification potential of two species was statistically sim ilar. Regardless, the denitrifica tion values obtained in this study are relatively high when compared to several othe r study studies. Hunt et al. (2003) obtained higher denitrification po tential of 0.21 mg N kg-1 hr-1 in Typha dominated wetland soils, as compared to 0.52 mg N kg-1 hr-1 in Juncus dominated wetlands used for treatment of swine wastewater. Rhizosphere denitrif ication potential values of Canna flaccida and Typha latifolia in this study were comparatively higher than the rh izosphere denitrificati on potential values of other plant species Lolium perenne Zostera marina, Potamogeton pectinatus, Lobelia dortmanna and Littorella uniflora Results from this study show that denitrification rates comparable to or higher than those reported from bulk soil of vegetated pl ots can be obtained in rhizosphere soil closely a dhered to the roots. Nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency of the constructed wetland receiving plant nursery runoff was observed be 40% over five month pe riod, with an average re moval rate of 1.75 g m-2 day-1. The mean loading rate of NO3 -N was 4.43 g m-2 day-1. Compared to mean removal rate of NO3 -N (1.75 g m-2 day-1), the amount of NO3 -N removed through coupled (0.1 g N2O-N kg1 day-1) denitrification potential [mean denitrifica tion potential of water column (0.72 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1) plus mean rhizosphere denitr ification potential (96 mg N2O-N kg-1 day-1)] was lower. Therefore, it is likely that the rest of NO3 -N would be removed by other pathways contributing to removal of NO3 -N. The major NO3 -N removal pathways are plant and microbial

PAGE 95

95 assimilation and sediment and/or so il denitrification. Rhizosphere denitrification pot ential in this study was observed to signifi cantly contribute towards NO3 -N removal.

PAGE 96

96 LIST OF REFERENCES Aldrich, R.A., and J.W. Bartok. 1994. Greenhouse engineering. Natural Resource Agriculture and Engineering Service (NRAES) Publication No. 33, Ithaca, NY. Armentano, T.V., and J.T.A. Verhoeven. 1990. Wetland processes: Global biogeochemical cycles. In : Patten, B.C. (ed.) Wetlands and shallow continental water bodies. Vol. 1. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. Ayaz, S.C., and L. Acka. 2001. Treatment of wa stewater by natural systems. Environmental International 26:189-195. Bachand, P.A.M., and A.J. Horne. 2000. Denitr ification in construc ted free water surface wetlands: Effects of vegetation and temp erature. Ecological Engineering 14:17-32. Baker, L.A. 1998. Introduction to nonpoint source pollution in the United States and prospects for wetland use. Ecological Engineering 1:1-26. Bastviken, S.K., P.G. Eriksson, I. Martins, J. M. Neto, L. Leonardson, and K. Tonderski. 2003. Potential nitrification and denitrification on different surfaces in a constructed treatment wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 32:2414-2420. Bayley, M.L., L. Davidson, and T.R. Headley. 20 03. Nitrogen removal from domestic effluent using subsurface flow constructed wetlands: influence of depth, hydraulic residence time and pre-nitrification. Water Sc ience and Technology 48:175-182. Berghage, R.D., E.P. MacNeal, E.F. Wheeler, and W.H. Zachritz. 1999. Green water treatment for the green industries: opportunities fo r biofiltration of greenhouse and nursery irrigation water and runoff with constructed wetlands. Hortscience 34:50-54. Berndt, M.P., E.T. Oaksford, M.R. Darst, a nd R.L. Marella. 1996. Environmental setting and factors that affect water quality in the Ge orgia-Florida Coastal Plain: US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations. Black, R.J. 1993. Florida Climate Data. Florida Energy Extension Service Publication EES-5, University of Florida, Gaines ville. http://e dis.ifas.ufl.edu. Blahnik, T and J Day. 2000. The effects of varied hydraulic and nutrient loading rates in water quality and hydrologic distributions in a na tural forested treatment wetland. Wetlands 20:48-61. Brix, H. 1997. Do macrophytes play a role in co nstructed treatment wetlands? Water Science and Technology 35:11-17. Burger, M., and L.E. Jackson. 2004. Plant and mi crobial nitrogen use and turnover: Rapid conversion of nitrate to ammonium in so ils with roots. Pl ant and soil 266:289-301.

PAGE 97

97 Burgin, A.J., and S.K. Hamilton. 2007. Have we ove remphasized the role of denitrification in aquatic systems? A review of nitrate rem oval pathways. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:89-96. Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L.Correll, R. W. Howarth, A.N. Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 83:559. Coffey, S. 1997. Selected agricu ltural best management practices to control nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina State Un iversity, Raleigh, NC, USA. Technical Bulletin 1-50. Cooper, P.F., and B.C. Findlater. 1990. Constr ucted wetlands in water pollution control. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Crumpton, W.G., T.M. Isenhart, and S.W Fisher 1993. Controlling agricultural runoff by use of constructed wetlands. In : Moshiri, A. (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. DAngelo, E.M., and K.R. Reddy. 1999. Regulators of heterotrophic microbial potentials in wetland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:815-830. Dahl, T.E. 1990 Wetlands losses in the United St ates, 1780`s to 1980`s. Report to the Congress. United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC USA. Darbi, A., T. Viraraghavan, R. Butter and D. Co rkal. 2003. Pilot-scale evaluation of select nitrate removal technologies. Journal of Envir onmental Science and Health 38:1703-1715. DeBusk, W.F. 1999. Functional role of wetlands in watersheds.SL 169 Florida Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. University of Fl orida. Gainesville. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. Desimone, L.A., and B.L. Howes. 1996 Denitrification and nitrogen transport in a coastal aquifer receiving wastewater discharge. Environmental Science and Technology 30:1152-1162 Dortch, M.S. 1992. Literature analysis addresses the functional ability of the wetlands to improve water quality. The wetlands rese arch program bulletin. 2: 1-4 USACE Waterways Experimental station, Vicksburg, MS. Dunne, E.J., N. Culleton, G.O. Donovan, R. Harrington, and A.E. Olson. 2005. An integrated constructed wetland to treat contaminants and nutrients from dairy farmyard dirty water. Ecological Engineering 24:221-234. Eriksson, P.G., and S.E.B. Weis ner 1997. Nitrogen removal in a wastewater reservoir: The importance of denitrification by epiphytic bi ofilms on submersed vegetation. Journal of Environmental Quality 26:905-910.

PAGE 98

98 Faeth, P. 2000. Fertile ground: Nutrient Tradings potential to cost effectively improve water quality. World Resources In stitute. Washington DC. USA Franklin, E.C., J.D. Gregory, D.W. Hazel, and J.E. Parsons. 2000. Manage ment of filter zones for dispersion and treatment of agricultural runoff. Water Resources Institute, Raleigh, NC, USA. 312/202. Frisbee, A.E. 2007. Nitrate nitrogen dynamics in tributaries of the SantaF e river watershed, north central Florida. MS Thesis University of Florida. Gale, P.M., I. Devai, K.R. Reddy and D.A. Grat ez. 1993. Denitrification pot ential of soils from constructed and natural wetlands. Ecological Engineering 2:119-130. Gersberg, R. M., B. V. Elkins and C. R. Gold man. 1983. Nitrogen removal in artificial wetlands. Water Research 17:1009. Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyons, and C. R. Goldman. 1986. Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Research 20:363. Gren, I.M. 1995. The value of investing in wetland s for nitrogen abatement. European review of Agricultural economics 22:157-172. Hall, J.M., E. Paterson, and K. Killham. 1998 The effect of elevated CO2 concentration and soil pH on the relationship between plant growth and rhizosphere denitr ification potential. Global Change Biology 4:209-216. Hammer, D.A. 1992. Designing constructed wetlands systems to treat agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Ecological Engineering 1:49-82. Hammer, D. A., and R.L. Knight. 1994. Designing constructed wetlands for nitrogen removal. Water science and Technology 29:15-17. Headley, T.R., D.O. Huett, and L. Davidson. 2001. The removal of nutrients from plant nursery irrigation runoff in subsurface horizontal fl ow wetlands. Water Science and Technology 44:77-84. Hoag, J.C. 1997. A Constructed wetland system for water quality improvement of nursery irrigation wastewater. p 132-135. In : Landis, T.D., Thompson, J.R. (ed). National Proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nurser y Associations. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-419. Portland. OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hodges, A.W., and J.J. Haydu. 2002. Economic Impacts of the Florida Environmental Horticulture Industry, 2000. Economic Inform ation Report EIR-02-3, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://hortbusiness.ifas.ufl.edu/EIR02-3.pdf

PAGE 99

99 Horner et al 1994 Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, H.L. Eric and H. E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues, Terrence Institute. Howarth, R. W., G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. Townse nd, N.Jaworski, K. Lajtha, J. A. Downing, R. Elmgren, N. Caraco,T. Jordan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, P. Murdoch, and Zhu Zhao-liang. 1996. Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine inputs of N and P for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natu ral and human influences. Biogeochemistry 35:75. Huett, D.O., S.G. Morris, G. Smith, and N. Hunt. 2005. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from plant nursery runoff in vegetated and unve getated subsurface flow wetlands. Water Research.39:3259-3272. Ingersoll, T.L., and L.A. Baker. 1998. Nitrate removal in wetland microcosms. Water research.32: 677. Jerardo, A. 2005. Floriculture and nursery crops situation and outlook yearbook. FLO-2005, Economic Research Service / USDA. Washington, DC. Kadlec, R.H. 1999. The limits of phosphorus removal in wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:165,1999. Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight 1996 Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Kadlec, R.H., and K.R. Reddy. 2001. Temperatur e effects in treatment wetlands. Water Environment Research 73:543-55. Knowles, R. 1982. Denitrification. Microbiological Reviews 46:43-70. Knowles, R. 1990. Acetylene inhibition technique: development, advantages and potential problems. p 151-165 In Revsbech, N.P. and Sorensen, J. (e ds.) Denitrifica tion in Soil and Sediment. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA. Kozu, D.D.and S.K. Lieh. 1999. Assessing denitrification rate limiting fact ors in a constructed wetland receiving landfill leachate. Water Science and technology 40:75-82. Kristiansen, S., and M.T. Schaanning. 2002. Den itrification in the wa ter column of an intermittently anoxic fjord Hydrobiologia 469:77-86. Lea-cox, J.D., and D.S. Ross. 2001. Clean water po licy and the rationale for developing a water and nutrient management planning proce ss for container nursery and greenhouse operations. Journal of environm ental Horticulture 19:1-8. Lea-cox, J.D., D.S. Ross, A.G. Ristvey, a nd J.D. Murray. 2002. Estimating nitrogen and phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads for container nursery and greenhouse production systems. p 466-471. In Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations: Proceedings Conference Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 11-13 March, 2002.

PAGE 100

100 Lin, Y.F., S.R. Jing, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Wang. 2002. Effect of macrophytes and external carbon sources on nitrate removal from groundwater in constructed wetlands. Environmental pollution 119:413. Lu, W., and J.L. Sibley. 2006. Modeling of water requirements for container production using overhead irrigation. p 518-520. In M. Taylor. (ed.) Water Management. Proceedings of Research Conference, GA, 2006, Southern Nursery Association, Atlanta, GA. Marella, R.L., and J.L. Fanning. 1996. National wa ter quality assessment of the GeorgiaFlorida Coastal Plain study unit wate r withdrawals and treated wastewater discharges, 1990. US Geological Survey WRIR. Martin, J.F., and K.R. Reddy. 1997. Interaction and spatial distribution of wetland nitrogen processes. Ecological modeling 105:1-21. Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural riparian wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pol lution. Ecological Engineering 1:27-47. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink 2000. Wetlands John and Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Mitsch, W.J., and S.E. Jorgensen.1989. Ecol ogical engineering: An introduction to ecotechnology. John and Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Moorhead, K.K., and K.R. Reddy. 1988. Oxyge n transport through selected aquatic macrophytes. Journal of Envi ronmental Quality 17:138-142. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restora tion of aquatic ecosystems Washington DC; National Academy press. National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI). 1998. http://www.pollutionissues.com/NaPh/Nonpoint-Source-Pollution.htm l National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002 Constructed wetlands. Environmental Engineering National Engineering Handbook. USDA and NRCS, Washington DC. Ottosen, L.D.M., N. Risgaard-Petersen, and L.P. Nielsen. 1999. Di rect and indirect measurements of nitrification and denitr ification in the rhiz osphere of aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 19:81-91. Paredes, D., P. Kuschk, F. Stange, R.A.Mulle r, and H. Koser., 2007. Model experiments on improving nitrogen removal in laboratory scale subsurface constructed wetlands by enhancing the anaerobic ammonia oxida tion. Water Science and Technology 56:145 150. Park, J.H., H.S. Shin, I.S. Lee, and J.H. Bae. 2002. Denitrification of High NO3 --N Containing Wastewater Using Elemental Sulf ur; Nitrogen Loading Rate and N2O Production. Environmental Technology 23:53-65.

PAGE 101

101 Patrick, W.H. Jr. 1994. From wastelands to wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 23 : 892 896. Platzer C. 1996. Enhanced nitrogen elimination in subsurface flow artific ial wetlands a multi stage concept. International Conference of wetland systems for water pollution control. Vienna, Austria. Poe, A.C., M.F. Piehler, S.P. Thompson, and H. W. Paerl. 2003. Denitrification in a constructed wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Wetlands 23:817-826. Reddy, K. R. and E. M. DAngelo.1994. Soil processes regulating water qua lity in wetlands.p. 309-324. In : Mitsch, J.W. (ed.) Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, NY. Reddy, K. R., and R. D. Delaune. 2007. Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Science and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl. (in press). Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Patrick 1984. Nitrogen transformations and loss in flooded soils and sediments. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 13:273-309. Reddy, K.R., E.M. DAngelo and T.A. De Busk. 1989. Oxygen transport through aquatic macrophytes: the role in wastewater treat ment. Journal of Environmental Quality 19: 261. Reddy, K.R., P.S.C. Rao, and R.E. Jessup. 1982. The effect of carbon mineralization on denitrification kinetics in mineral and orga nic soils. Soil scien ce society of America journal 46:62-68. Reddy, K.R., W.H. Patrick, and C.W. Lindau. 1989. Nitrification-de nitrification at the plant root sediment interface in wetlands. Limnology and Oceanography 34:1004. Reed, S.C., R.W. Crites and E. J. Middlebrooks, 1995 Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment (2nd ed.), McGraw Hill, New York Reinhardt, M., B. Muller, R.Gachter, B. Wehr li. 2006. Nitrogen removal in a small constructed wetland: An isotope mass balance appro ach. Environmental science and technology 40:3313-3319. Reinhardt, M., R.Gachter, B. Wehrli, and B. Muller. 2005. Phosphorus retention in small constructed wetlands treating ag ricultural drainage water. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:1251. Risgaard-Petersen, N., and K. Jenson. 1997. Nitrificat ion and denitrification in the rhizosphere of the aquatic macrophyte Lobelia dortmanna L. Limnology and Oceanography 42:529-537. Sartoris, J.J., J.S. Thullen, L.B. Barber, D.E. Salas. 2000. Investigation of nitrogen transformations in a southern California constructed wastewater treatment wetland. Ecological Engineering 14:49-65.

PAGE 102

102 Seitzinger, S.P. 1993. Denitrification measurements in aquatic sediments: A comparison of three methods. Biogeochemistry 23:147-167. Shipin, O., T. Koottatep, N.T.T. Khanh and C. Polprasert. 2005. Integrated natural treatment systems for developing communities: lowtech N-removal through the fluctuating microbial pathways. Water Science and Technology 51:299. Sirivedhin,T., and K.A. Gray 2006. Factors affec ting denitrification ra tes in experimental wetlands: Field and labora tory studies. Ecological Engineering 26:167-181. Smialek, J., V. Bouchard, B. Lippmann, M. Quig ley, T. Granata, J. Martin, and L. Brown. 2006. Effect of a woody (Salix nigra ) and an herbaceous ( Juncus effuses ) macrophyte species on methane dynamics and denitrification. Wetlands 26:509. Sorrell, B.K. 1999. Effect of external oxygen demand on radial oxygen loss by Juncus roots in titanium citrate solutions. Plant, Cell & Environment 22: 1587. Southeastern Regional Climate Assessment report. 1999. http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/ regional/water_quality.htm l Spieles, D.J., and W.J. Mitsch. 2000. The effect s of season and hydraulic and chemical loading on nitrate retention in cons tructed wetlands: a comparison of lowand high-nutrient riverine systems. Ecol ogical Engineering. 14: 77. Stottmeister,U., A. Wiesner, P. Kuschk, U. Kappel meyer, M. Kstner, O. Bederski, R.A. Mller and H. Moormann. 2003. Effects of plants a nd microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnology advances 22: 93. Tanner, C.C., and R.H. Kadlec. 2003. Oxygen fl ux implications of observed nitrogen removal rates in subsurface flow wetlands. Water science and Technology 48:191-198. Taylor M.D., S.A. White, S.L. Chandler. 2006. Nutr ient mitigation for large scale nurseries. p 540-543. In M. Taylor. (ed.) Water Management. Proceedings of Research Conference, GA, 2006, Southern Nursery Association, Atlanta, GA. Thomas, M.V., and D. Joyner. 2002. Total Ma ximum Daily Load (TMDL) Environmental Regulations. Proceedings Conference Fort Worth, Texas, USA. 11-13 March, 2002. Thompson, S.P., M.F. Piehler, and W.H. Paerl. 2000. Denitrification in an estuarine headwater creek within an agricultura l watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1914-1923. Tiedje, J.M. 1982. Denitrification. P. 1011-1026 In A.L.Page, R.H.Miller, and D.R. Keeney (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. (2nd ed). Agronomy Monograph 9. ASA and SSSA. Madison, WI. Tiedje, J.M. 1988. Ecology of den itrification and dissimilatory n itrate reduction to ammonium, p.179-24 In AJB Zehnder (ed.), Biology of anaerobic microorganisms. John and Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

PAGE 103

103 Toet, S., L.H.F.A. Huibers, R.S.P. Van Logtes tijn, and J.T.A.Verhoeven. 2003. Denitrification in the periphyton associated with plant shoots and in the sediment of a wetland system supplied with sewage treatment pl ant effluent. Hydr obiologia 501:29-44. Toet, S., R.S.P. Van Logtestijn, R. Kampf, M. Schreijer and J.T.A. Verhoeven. 2005. The effect of hydraulic retention time on the removal of pollutants from sewage treatment plan effluent in a surface-flow wetland system. Wetlands 25:375391. USEPA. 1983. Methods of chemical analysis of water and wastes. Environmental Monitoring Support Lab., Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986 and update no. 1 and update no. 2 (May 1, 1987): Washington, D.C., EPA-440/5-86-001 USEPA.1993a. NPS. Guidance Specifying Manage ment Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters EPA 840-B-92-002. USEPA, 1993b. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewat er Treatment and Wildlife Habitat 17 Case Studies EPA832-R-93-005 USEPA. 1994. EPA's Polluted brochure EPA-841-F-94-005, http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html USEPA. 2002a. The Successful Im plementation of the Clean Water Act' s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program http://www.epa.gov/nps/S ection319III /intro.htm USEPA.2002b. National Coastal Condition Report. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/index.html USGS. 1998. Water Quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain, Georgia and Florida, 1992-96 By Marian P. Berndt, Hilda H. Hatzell, Chri sty A. Crandall, Michael Turtora, John R. Pittman, and Edward T. Oaksford USGS Circular 1151 USGS. 2004. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/ 2004/1265/pdf/circular1265.pdf. White, J.R., and K.R. Re ddy. 1999. Influence of nitrate and phosphorus loading on denitrifying enzyme activity in Everglades wetland soils Soil Science Society of America journal 63:1945-1954. Wood, A. 1995. Constructed wetlands in wate r pollution control: fundamentals to their understanding. Water Science and Technology 32:21-29. Wood, S.L., E.F. Wheeler, R.D. Berghage, a nd R.E. Graves 1999. Temperature effects on wastewater nitrate removal in laboratory scale constructed wetlands. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 42:185-190.

PAGE 104

104 Xue, Y., D.A. Kovacic, M.B. David, L.E.Gentry, R.L.Mulvaney, and C.W. Lindau. 1999. In situ measurements of denitrification in constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 28:263-269. Yang, Q., Z.H. Chen, J.G. Zhao, and B.H. Gu. 2007. Contaminant Removal of Domestic Wastewater by Constructed Wetlands: Effects of Plant Species. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49:437 446. Yeager, T.H., R.D. Wright, D. Fare, C. Gilliam, J. Johnson, T. Bilderback, and R. H. Zondag. 1993. Six state survey of container nurser y nitrate nitrogen runoff. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 11:206.

PAGE 105

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bhuvaneswari Govindarajan, shortly called as Bhuvana, was born in 1976 in India. She spent the greater porti on of her life growing up in a sma ll town, named Vandavasi, Tamilnadu, India. Hailing from a farming family, she was fasc inated by field of agriculture. She majored in horticulture sciences and rece ived her Bachelors degree in Horticulture (1994-1998) from Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Ta milnadu, India. She completed her Master of Science in Vegetable Crops (1999-2001), with a minor in plant breeding, from Punjab Agricultural University, L udhiana, Punjab, India. For the next four years, she worked in several organizations, as re search associate in a private biofertilizer produc tion unit, as a lecturer in agricultural college, as a technical consultant for an MNC, on National Horticulture Board pr oject, and as a Development Executive for an NGO in a watershed development project. While working in an NGO, she was exposed to problems associated with environmental degrada tion/pollution and inclined towards the field of environmental science. She then decided to cont inue her education in th e field of environmental sciences. Upon achieving the graduate research assistantship, she came to United States, to pursue her Masters degree in Inte rdisciplinary Ecology at Univers ity of Florida. Bhuvana has had an opportunity to work on a project as we ll as her thesis resear ch focusing on nutrient removal from nonpoint source polluti on using constructed wetlands. After gaining hands on experien ce in the US, She wish to re turn to her county, India, where her knowledge and skills will be applied towards achieving cleaner, greener, and sustainable environment.