Junior Colloquium Presentation

shamebagBiotechnology

Feb 22, 2013 (4 years and 10 months ago)

216 views

Mentor
: Dr. Dave Tilley

Librarian
: Mr. Robert
Kackley

Members
:
Arsh

Agarwal
, Allie Bradford, Kerry Cheng,
Ramita

Dewan
, Enrique
Disla
, Addison
Goodley
,
Nathan Lim, Lisa Liu, Lucas Place,
Raeva

Ramadorai
,
Jaishri

Shankar, Michael
Wellen
, Diane Ye, Edward Yu


Agricultural runoff, especially in the spring,
leads to high nitrate levels in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed


Causes harmful algal blooms


Result: Dead zones characterized by depletion of
oxygen and nutrients vital to aquatic wildlife


Dead zone: low oxygen area of water


Affects fishing industry, seafood consumers,
environmental groups, residents of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed


Health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital for
maintaining biodiversity


Purpose
: To design a wetland that optimally
removes nitrates from the Chesapeake Bay
and its surrounding waters


Thesis
: We want to investigate what
combination of native plant species and
organic amendments best remove nitrates
from the Chesapeake Bay


Hypothesis
: We expect significant differences
between the varying

microcosms and empty
controls


One of the largest sources of pollution into
the Chesapeake Bay
(
Glibert

et al., 2001)


Eutrophication

causes harmful algal blooms


Constructed wetlands


Can remove up to 80% of inflowing nitrates
(
Crumpton

& Baker, 1993)


Big Picture: Chesapeake Bay


Choptank

River
-
largest eastern tributary in the bay
(
Staver
, L.,
Staver
, K., & Stevenson, J., 1996)


Tuckahoe Creek
-
34% of
Choptank
, accessibility
(USDA Agricultural Research Service [ARS], 2009)



Criteria for plant selection


Non
-
invasive


Native to the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed


Biofuel
-
capable


Cattail (
Typha

latifolia
)
(Fraser,
Carty, & Steer, 2004; Matheson,
2010)


Soft
-
stem Bulrush
(
Schoenoplectus

validus
)
(Rogers, Breen, & Chick, 1991)


Switchgrass

(
Panicum

virgatum
)
(Larson,
n.d
.)




Why
biofuels
?


To accommodate changing energy and environmental
needs


Secondary data analysis


Cross
-
referenced list of Chesapeake Bay native, non
-
invasive plants with list of
biofuel
-
capable plants
(
Fedler
, Hammond,
Chennupati

&
Ranjan
, 2007; Wright &
Turhollow
,
2010; Zhang,
Shahbazi
, Wang,
Diallo
, & Whitmore, 2010)


Why organic amendments?


Increase differences in nitrate removal


Three carbon
-
based amendments


Glucose
(
Weisner
, Eriksson,
Graneli
, &
Leonardson
, 1994)


Sawdust
(
Hien
, 2010)


Wheat straw
(Ines,
Soares
, &
Abeliovich
, 1998)


Phase 1


Goal: Find the most effective organic amendment


Use only cattail


Phase 2


Goal: Find the most effective combination of plants
with the amendment


Use cattail, soft
-
stem bulrush, and
switchgrass


Phase 3


Goal: Implement a large
-
scale design of the most
effective plant combination


Time and money permitting




1:1 mixture of
topsoil and sand


Plastic tubes inserted
into ½ holes


Tubes pinched with
clothespins


Cattails planted six
inches apart from
one another


Problems
encountered


Spigot system installed as
shown


Two inches of gravel,
covered by polyethylene
fabric.


5 inches 1:1 topsoil/sand
mixture


Plants: clumps of four


Water depth: 5 inches


Weighed microcosms



½ Liter of topsoil from
Tuckahoe for inoculation




8 week adjustment
period


After adjustment
period, add nitrates
and organic
amendments via a
concentrated solution


Water samples from
individual tubs



We are using 8 groups:

1.
No plants, no
amendments

2.
No plants with
Glucose

3.
No plants with
Sawdust

4.
No plants with Straw

5.
Plants, no
amendments

6.
Plants with Glucose

7.
Plants with Sawdust

8.
Plants with Straw




Average Nitrate (NO
3
-
) concentration of
Tuckahoe River Samples:


Spring: 2.67 mg/L


Fall: 2.65 mg/L



No significant difference between the
concentrations across seasons, p > .05

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
1
2
3
Nitrate concnetration (mg/L)

Week

Nitrate Concentration vs. Week


SAS 9.2


Trial Run: One Factor Repeated Measure
ANOVA


No significant difference across weeks


Nitrate removal significantly different from 0
(no change in nitrate concentration)


Phase 1: Two Factor ANOVA with One Repeat
Measure


Compare different microcosm environments
and week of trial




Fall 2011


Carry out Phase 1 testing


Four 1 week trials


Collect sample data and analyze


Use results of Phase 1 in Phase 2 next semester


Spring 2012


Plant fresh microcosms and allow them to acclimate to
greenhouse


Carry out Phase 2 testing


Six 1 week trials


Collect sample data and analyze


Tie up loose ends


Begin compiling thesis


Summer/Fall 2012


Finish data collection and analysis, if necessary


Begin to implement Phase 3 of project, if time and
funds allow for it


Finish first draft of thesis


Contact discussants for thesis conference


Spring 2013


Edit thesis


Thesis conference!


Make final changes to thesis after conference


Citation ceremony and commencement!


Research


Everyone does everything


Writing/Literature


Subgroups


Group deadline: at least 2 weeks before hard
deadline


Example: Junior Colloquium presentation was due
internally 3 weeks before we had to present it!


LOTS of unforeseen
complications!


How did we account for
these issues?


Build our schedules to work
around the project


Talk about it!


Revisit the project timeline
and make changes
CONSTANTLY



Completed tasks:


Thesis Proposal


Pilot microcosm testing


New microcosm design


Phase 1 acclimation


To be completed:


Phase 1 testing


Phase 2 acclimation and testing


Thesis


Conferences



Put the work in early


Find a good mentor!


Form subgroups as needed


Don’t be afraid to talk to your team!


Use your librarian!


Focus on the big picture…




Dr. Dave Tilley


Dr. James Wallace and the Gemstone Staff


Ms. Betty
Morgavan

and the Greenhouse Staff


Mr. Robert
Kackley



Dr. Bruce James


Mr. Brandon Winfrey


Home Depot in College Park, MD



Anderson, D., &
Glibert
, P., & Burkholder J. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and
eutrophication
: Nutrient sources, composition, and
consequences.
Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation
, 24(4), 704
-
726.



Crumpton
, W., & Baker, J. (1993). Integrating wetlands into agricultural drainage systems: Predictions of nitrate loading and loss in

wetlands receiving agricultural subsurface drainage. In: Mitchell J (Ed).
Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement
. St. Joseph, MI:
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 118
-
26.


Fedler
, C., Hammond, R.,
Chennupati
, P., &
Ranjan
, R. (2007). Biomass energy potential from recycled wastewater. Lubbock: Texas Tech
University.


Fraser, L. H., Carty, S. M., & Steer, D. (2004). A test of four plant species to reduce total nitrogen and total phosphorus f
rom

soil
leachate

in subsurface wetland microcosms.
Bioresource

Technology, 94
(2), 185
-
192.



Glibert
, P.,
Magnien
, R., Lomas, M., Alexander, J., Tan, C.,
Haramoto
, E., et al. (2001). Harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake and Coastal
Bays of Maryland, USA: Comparison of 1997, 1998, and 1999 events.
Estuaries and Coasts
, 24(6), 875
-
883.
doi
: 10.2307/1353178


Hien
, T. (2010). Influence of different substrates in wetland soils on
denitrification
.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, June 2010
, 1
-
12.
doi:10.1007/s11270
-
010
-
0498
-
6


Ines, M.,
Soares
, M., &
Abeliovich
, A. (1998). Wheat straw as substrate for water
denitrification
.
Water Research
.
32
(12), 3790
-
3794.


Karrh
, R., Romano, W., Raves
-
Golden, R., Tango, P., Garrison, S., Michael, B.,
Karrh
, L. (2007). Maryland tributary strategy
Choptank

River
basin summary report for 1985
-
2005 Data. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.


Larson, R.A. (
n.d
.) Nitrate uptake by terrestrial and aquatic plants. Unpublished manuscript, Office of Research Development and
Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana
-
Champaign, Carbondale, Illinois.


Matheson, F. E., &
Sukias
, J. P. (2010). Nitrate removal processes in a constructed wetland treating drainage from dairy pasture.
Ecological
Engineering, 36
, 1260
-
1265.


Rogers, K., Breen, P., & Chick, A. (1991). Nitrogen removal in experimental wetland treatment systems: Evidence for the role
of
aquatic
plants.
Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 63
(7), 9.


Staver
, L. W.,
Staver
, K. W., & Stevenson, J. C. (1996). Nutrient inputs to the
Choptank

river estuary: Implications for watershed
management.
Estuaries, 19
(2), 342
-
358.


United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2009, June 16).
Choptank

River, Maryland: An ARS Benchmark
Research Watershed. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18632.


Weisner
, S., Eriksson, P.,
Granéli
, W., &
Leonardson
, L. (1994). Influence of
macrophytes

on nitrate removal in wetlands.
Ambio
,
23
(6),
363
-
366.


Wright, L., &
Turhollow
, A. (2010).
Switchgrass

selection as a “model”
bioenergy

crop: A history of the process.
Biomass and
Bioenergy
,
34
(6), 851
-
868. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.030


Zedler
, J. B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale.
Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 1
(2), 65
-
72.


Zhang, B.,
Shahbazi
, A., Wang, L.,
Diallo
, O., & Whitmore, A. (2010). Hot
-
water pretreatment of cattails for extraction of cellulose.

Journal
of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
, 1
-
6.
doi
: 10.1007/s10295
-
010
-
0847
-
x


Completed tasks:


Thesis Proposal


Pilot microcosm testing


New microcosm design


Phase 1 acclimation


To be completed:


Phase 1 testing


Phase 2 acclimation and testing


Thesis


Conferences


Will discover optimum combination of plants to
reduce nitrate levels running off into Chesapeake


Questions?