ISSN:
1573-515X
Keywords:
nitrogen cycling
;
marshes
;
bogs
;
fens
;
swamps
;
mires
;
sediments
;
vegetation
;
microbiology
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Chemistry and Pharmacology
,
Geosciences
Notes:
Abstract The biogeochemistry of N in freshwater wetlands is complicated by vegetation characteristics that range from annual herbs to perennial woodlands; by hydrologic characteristics that range from closed, precipitation-driven to tidal, riverine wetlands; and by the diversity of the nitrogen cycle itself. It is clear that sediments are the single largest pool of nitrogen in wetland ecosystems (100's to 1000's g N m-2) followed in rough order-of-magnitude decreases by plants and available inorganic nitrogen. Precipitation inputs (〈 1–2 g N m-2 yr-1) are well known but other atmospheric inputs, e.g. dry deposition, are essentially unknown and could be as large or larger than wet deposition. Nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) is an important supplementary input in some wetlands (〈 〈 1–3 g N m-2 yr-1) but is probably limited by the excess of fixed nitrogen usually present in wetland sediments. Plant uptake normally ranges from a few g N m-2 yr-1 to ∼ 35 g N m-2 yr-1 with extreme values of up to ∼ 100g N m-2 yr-1 Results of translocation experiments done to date may be misleading and may call for a reassessment of the magnitude of both plant uptake and leaching rates. Interactions between plant litter and decomposer microorganisms tend, over the short-term, to conserve nitrogen within the system in immobile forms. Later, decomposers release this nitrogen in forms and at rates that plants can efficiently reassimilate. The NO3 formed by nitrification (〈 0.1 to 10 g N m-2 yr-1 has several fates which may tend to either conserve nitrogen (uptake and dissimilatory reduction to ammonium) or lead to its loss (denitrification). Both nitrification and denitrification operate at rates far below their potential and under proper conditions (e.g. draining or fluctuating water levels) may accelerate. However, virtually all estimates of denitrification rates in freshwater wetlands are based on measurements of potential denitrification, not actual denitrification and, as a consequence, the importance of denitrification in these ecosystems may have been greatly over estimated. In general, larger amounts of nitrogen cycle within freshwater wetlands than flow in or out. Except for closed, ombrotrophic systems this might seem an unusual characteristic for ecosystems that are dominated by the flux of water, however, two factors limit the opportunity for N loss. At any given time the fraction of nitrogen in wetlands that could be lost by hydrologic export is probably a small fraction of the potentially mineralizable nitrogen and is certainly a negligible fraction of the total nitrogen in the system. Second, in some cases freshwater wetlands may be hydrologically isolated so that the bulk of upland water flow may pass under (in the case of floating mats) or by (in the case of riparian systems) the biotically active components of the wetland. This may explain the rather limited range of N loading rates real wetlands can accept in comparison to, for example, percolation columns or engineered marshes.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02187373
Permalink
