Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Modeling Growth, Carbon Allocation and Nutrient Budgets of Phragmites australis in Lake Burullus, Egypt

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Phragmites australis is the major component of reed stands covering some 8200 ha along the shores of Lake Burullus (Egypt). We applied a published temperate zone reed model to assess growth and cycling of C and nutrients among the various organs of P. australis in this sub-tropical lake. We aim to quantify the role of reed stands for the C balance and nutrients cycling in the south Mediterranean wetland. Above-ground biomass was 3.5 times higher than the below-ground biomass. Root biomass represented 13% of the total below-ground, while leaves and panicles represented 16 and 3% of the above-ground biomass, respectively. Remobilization from rhizomes (15%) and reallocation from leaves (1%) were of little importance as assimilated sources. Nutrients accumulation by total above-ground biomass ranged between 2.7 to 46.8 g m−2 yr−1 for P and K, respectively. We calculated a C sequestration rate of 38.4 g C m−2 yr−1 for the dead rhizomes in the sediments. This value stresses the importance of P. australis stands for C sequestration in Lake Burullus. Further, as much as 254 t P and 5527 t N could potentially be removed annually from Lake Burullus by harvesting P. australis at maximum total above-ground biomass.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ailstock MS, Norman CM, Bushmann PJ (2001) Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restoration Ecology 9:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen S, Grimshaw HM, Parkinson JA, Quarmby C (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological materials, 4th edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaeda T, Karunaratne S (2000) Dynamic modeling of the growth of Phragmites australis: model description. Aquatic Botany 67:301–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal B, Mitsch WJ (2008) A comparison of soil carbon pools and profiles in wetlands in Costa Rica and Ohio. Ecological Engineering 34:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgham SD, Megonigal JP, Keller JK, Bliss NB, Trettin C (2006) The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brix H (1997) Do macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Science and Technology 35(5):11–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brix H, Schierup H (1989) The use of aquatic macrophytes in water pollution control. Ambio 18:100–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Brun R, Reichert P, Künsch HR (2001) Practical identifiability analysis of large environmental simulation models. Water Resources Research 37:1015–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC (2003) Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17:1111–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper PF, Findlater BC (1990) Constructed wetlands in water pollution control. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid EM (2009) Population biology and nutrient cycle of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. in Lake Burullus. Dissertation, University of Tanta, Tanta

  • El-Shinnawy I (2002) Al-Burullus wetland’s hydrological study. MedWetCoast, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo

  • Goudriaan J, van Laar HH (1994) Modelling potential crop growth processes. Textbook with exercises. Current issues in production ecology, vol. 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  • Hammer DA (1989) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial and agricultural. Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho YB (1979) Shoot development and production studies of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. in Scottish Lochs. Hydrobiologia 64:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking PJ (1989a) Seasonal dynamics of production and nutrient accumulation and cycling by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel in a nutrient-enriched swamp in Inland Australia. II. Individual shoots. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40:445–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hocking PJ (1989b) Seasonal dynamics of production and nutrient accumulation and cycling by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel in a nutrient-enriched swamp in Inland Australia. I. Whole plants. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40:421–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holm LG, Plucknett DL, Pancho JV, Herberger JP (1977) Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. (=P. communis Trin.) and Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. In: The world’s worst weeds “distribution and biology”. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu

  • Howe AJ, Rodriguez JF, Saco PM (2009) Surface evolution and carbon sequestration in disturbed and undisturbed wetland soils of the Hunter estuary, southeast Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 84:75–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karunaratne S, Asaeda T (2000) Verification of a mathematical growth model of Phragmites australis using field data from two Scottish lochs. Folia Geobotanica 35:419–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassas M (2002) Management plan for Burullus Protectorate Area. MedWetCoast, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo

  • Khalil MT, El-Dawy FA (2002) Ecological survey of Burullus Nature Protectorate: fishes and fisheries. MedWetCoast, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo

  • Květ J, Svoboda J, Fiala K (1969) Canopy development in stands of Typha latifolia L. and Phragmites communis Trin. in South Moravia. Hydrobiologia 10:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2007) Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society 363:815–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessmann JM, Brix H, Bauer V, Clevering OA, Comín F (2001) Effect of climatic gradients on the photosynthetic responses of four Phragmites australis populations. Aquatic Botany 69:109–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelssohn IA, Slocum MG (2004) Relationship between soil cellulose decomposition and oil contamination after an oil spill at Swanson Creek, Maryland. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48:359–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra S, Wassmann R, Vlek PLG (2005) An appraisal of global wetland area and its organic carbon stock. Current Science 88:25–35

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy KL, Klopatek JM, Klopatek CC (1998) The effects of litter quality and climate on decomposition along an elevation gradient. Ecological Applications 8:1061–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries Penning FWT, van Laar HH (1982) Simulation of plant growth and crop production. Simulation monographs. Pudoc, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Price WL (1979) A controlled random search procedure for global optimization. The Computer Journal 20:367–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy KR, Smith WH (1987) Aquatic plants for wastewater treatment and resource recovery. Magnolia Publishing Inc., Orlando, Fl

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth JE, Stevenson JC, Cornwell JC (2003) Increased sediment accretion rates following invasion by Phragmites australis: the role of litter. Estuaries 26:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakurai Y, Matsumoto Y, Miyairi M (1985) Growth rate and productivity of emergent plants in Lake Biwa, Lake Kasumigaura and Chikuma River. Proceedings of the annual meeting of Japanese Society of Limnology, Kantho-Koshinetsu Branch, pp 10:20–21 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaltout KH, Al-Sodany YM (2008) Vegetation analysis of Burullus Wetland: a RAMSAR site in Egypt. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16:421–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaltout KH, Al-Sodany YM, El-Sheikh MA (2004) Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. in Lake Burullus, Egypt: is it an expanding or retreating population. Proc. 3 rd International Conference on Biological Sciences (ICBS), Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta, pp 83–96

  • Shaltout KH, Khalil MT (2005) Lake Burullus: Burullus Protected Area. Publication of National Biodiversity Unit No. 13, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Cairo

  • Slak AS, Bulc TG, Vrhovsek D (2005) Comparison of nutrient cycling in a surface-flow constructed wetland and in a facultative pond treating secondary effluent. Water Science and Technology 51(12):291–298

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soetaert K, deClippele V, Herman P (2002) Femme, a flexible environment for mathematically modeling the environment. Ecological Modelling 151:177–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soetaert K, Hoffmann M, Meire P, Starink M, van Oevelen D, van Regenmortel S, Cox T (2004) Modeling growth and carbon allocation in two reed beds (Phragmites australis) in the Scheldt estuary. Aquatic Botany 79:211–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struyf E, Van Damme S, Gribsholt B, Bal K, Beauchard O, Middelburg JJ, Meire P (2007) Phragmites australis and silica cycling in tidal wetlands. Aquatic Botany 87:134–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Täckholm V (1974) Students’ flora of Egypt, 2nd edn. Cairo University Press, Cairo

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanc-Bercic O, Gaberscik A (2004) The relationship of the processes in the rhizosphere of common reed Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel to water fluctuation. International Review of Hydrobiology 89:500–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven JT, van der Toorn J (1990) Management of marshes with special reference to wastewater treatment. In: Patten BC (ed) Wetlands and shallow continental water bodies, vol I. Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 571–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaonan D, Xiaoke W, Lu F, Zhiyun O (2008) Primary evaluation of carbon sequestration potential of wetlands in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 28:463–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahran MA, Willis AJ (2009) The Vegetation of Egypt, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao HY, Leng XT, Wang SZ (2002) Distribution, accumulation of peat in the Changhaishan Mountains and climate change in Holocene. Journal of Mountain Science 20:513–518

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. F. El-Shamly, Manager of Burullus Protected Area for the facilities who offered during the field study, Profs. F.I. Zein and A.A. El-Leithi, Soil, Water and Environment Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Sakha, Egypt for their help during the water analysis, and Dr. Hans Luthardt, Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany for providing us with the solar radiation data. The Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education provided the senior author with funding for a two-year visit at Hamburg University (Hamburg, Germany) and a one-week visit to NIOO-CEME (Yerseke, The Netherlands), where part of this work was conducted.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebrahem M. Eid.

Appendix 1. List of A) Equations and B) Parameters used in the Reed Model to Simulate Growth and Carbon Distribution in a Phragmites australis Population in Lake Burullus, Egypt

Appendix 1. List of A) Equations and B) Parameters used in the Reed Model to Simulate Growth and Carbon Distribution in a Phragmites australis Population in Lake Burullus, Egypt

A)

Rates of change (mol C m−2 per day) of the state variables (mol C m−2)

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Rhizomes} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Rhizomes} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Growth–Rhizome Basal Respiration–Rhizome Mortality–Rhizome Mobilization

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Roots} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Roots} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Root Growth–Root Basal Respiration–Root Mortality

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,below - ground} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,below - ground} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Root Mortality+Rhizome Mortality–Below-ground Decay

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Leaves} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Leaves} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Leaf Growth–Leaf Basal Respiration–Leaf Mortality–Leaf Reallocation

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Stems} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Stems} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Stem Growth–Stem Basal Respiration–Stem Mortality–Stem Reallocation

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Panicles} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Panicles} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Panicle Growth–Panicle Basal Respiration–Panicle Mortality–Panicle Reallocation

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,leaves} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,leaves} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Leaf Mortality–Dead leaf Decay–Dead leaf Abscission

\( \left( {{{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,stems} \right)} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\left( {\partial \,Dead\,stems} \right)} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {\partial \,t} \right)}}} \right) \)=Stem Mortality+Panicle Mortality–Dead stem Decay

Main processes (mol C m−2 per day)a

Rhizome Mobilization=Remobilization rate20 . Rhizomes . f (T)

Organ Reallocation=Reallocation rate20 . Organ . f (T)

Glucose Production=Photosynthesis+Rhizome Mobilization+(Leaf, Panicle and Stem) Reallocation

Organ Growth=pOrgan . Glucose Production . (1–Respiration Fraction)

Organ Basal Respiration=Respiration rate20 . Organ . f (T)

Organ Mortality=Mortality rate20 . Organ . f (T)

Dead Organ Decay=Decay rate20 . Dead Organ . f (T)

Dead Leaves Abscission=Abscission rate20 . Dead Leaves . f (T)

Functionsb

\( f(T) = {\theta^{\left( {T - 20} \right)}} \)

Photosynthesis (mol C m−2 per day)=integral \( \left( {Px,t.LAI.\,\partial \,x,x = 0,x = \infty } \right) \)

\( {P_{x,t}}\left( {mol\,C\,{m^{ - 2}}\,{\hbox{leaf}}\,{\hbox{per}}\,{\hbox{day}}} \right) = {\hbox{P}}{\max_{20}}.\,f(T).\,\left( {1 - {{\exp }^{ - {1_{x,t.}}{{\rm{LUE}} \mathord{\left/{\vphantom {{\rm{LUE}} {\left( {{\rm{P}}{{\max }_{20}}.\,f\,(T)} \right)}}} \right.} {\left( {{\rm{P}}{{\max }_{20}}.\,f\,(T)} \right)}}}}} \right) \)

\( {I_{x,t}}\left( {W\,{m^{ - 2}}{\hbox{leaf}}} \right) = f\left( {{I_{0,\,\rho }}\lambda } \right) \)

LAI (m2 leaf m−2 soil)=SLAc . Leaves

Remobilization rate20 (mol C m−2 per day)=aRh . RhizomesbRh

  1. a Organ is living leaves, stems, panicles, rhizomes or roots (mol C m−2); Dead Organ is dead leaves, stems or belowground matter (mol C m−2). pOrgan is the fraction of assimilates allocated to the respective organ, explained in Fig. 1. Rate20 is the rate (per day) at 20°C, f (T) is the temperature function correcting the rates for the prevailing temperature (T, °C)
  2. bθ is the Arrhenius constant. P x, t is the instantaneous gross CO2 assimilation rate at depth x in the canopy per unit leaf surface; LAI is leaf area index. I x, t is the photosynthetically active radiation at depth x. It is calculated as a function of incident light (I0, W m−2), reflection of individual leaves (ρ) and extinction coefficient for diffuse radiation (λ) as in the model SUCROS. Pmax20 is the maximal assimilation rate per unit of leaf surface at 20°C, LUE is the initial light use efficiency. SLAc is the specific leaf area (m2 mol C−1). aRh and bRh are factors for calculating rhizome mobilization rate

B)

Parameter

Value

Initial rhizomes biomass (g DW m−2)

2024 a

Initial roots biomass (g DW m−2)

316 a

θ

1.07 b

Tcrit (oC_days)

488 d

T2 (stop rhizome remobilization) (days)

202 d

T3 (start flowering) (days)

247 d

T4 (start senescence) (days)

350 d

Max. assimilation rate (mol C (m2 leaf)−1 per day)

7.7 d

LUE (Light use efficiency) (mol C W−1 per day)

0.012 c

Specific leaf area (m2 leaf mol C−1)

0.60 a

λ (m2 leaf m−2 soil)−1

0.40 b

Ρ

0.20 b

Leaves reallocation rate (senescence) (per day)

0.001 d

Stems reallocation rate (senescence) (per day)

0.001 d

aRh

0.58 c

bRh

−0.50 c

Roots respiration rate20 (per day)

0.0018 d

Rhizomes respiration rate20 (per day)

0.002 c

Above-ground respiration rate20 (per day)

0.001 d

Roots respiration fraction (mol C mol C−1)

0.15 c

Rhizomes respiration fraction (mol C mol C−1)

0.15 c

Leaves respiration fraction (mol C mol C−1)

0.15 c

Stems respiration fraction (mol C mol C−1)

0.11 c

Panicles respiration fraction (mol C mol C−1)

0.18 c

Leaves mortality rate20 (growth phase) (per day)

0.0069 d

Stems mortality rate20 (growth phase) (per day)

0.0011 d

Leaves mortality rate20 (senescence) (per day)

0.20 c

Stems mortality rate20 (senescence) (per day)

0.20 c

Below-ground mortality rate20 (per day)

0.00015c

Abscission rate20 (per day)

0.05 c

Above-ground decay rate20 (per day)

0.0077 c

Below-ground decay rate20 (per day)

0.0020 c

ShapeBelow

0.15 c

cRoots

0.063 d

cPanicles

0.70 c

cLeaves

0.504 d

Leaf coefficient (per day)

−0.035 c

Leaves N contents (mg N g DW−1)

14.9 a

Stems N contents (mg N g DW−1)

5.8 a

Below-ground N contents (mg N g DW−1)

7.8 a

Leaves C contents (g C g DW−1)

0.43 b

Stems C contents (g C g DW−1)

0.41 b

Panicles C contents (g C g DW−1)

0.45 b

Below-ground C contents (g C g DW−1)

0.43 b

  1. T1, T2, T3, and T4 are time of phenological events; Tcrit is the critical accumulated temperature at which growth starts. ShapeBelow, cRoot, cPanicles, cLeaf and leaf coefficient relate to the partitioning functions for assimilate, as explained in Fig. 1. Other parameters are explained in Appendix 1a
  2. a Measured
  3. b Values as in Soetaert et al. (2004)
  4. c Parameters manually calibrated
  5. d Derived by automatic calibration

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eid, E.M., Shaltout, K.H., Al-Sodany, Y.M. et al. Modeling Growth, Carbon Allocation and Nutrient Budgets of Phragmites australis in Lake Burullus, Egypt. Wetlands 30, 240–251 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0023-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0023-0

Keywords

Navigation