Salinity and Sediment Salinity and Sediment Contaminants Contaminants
and the Reflectance & Green-upand the Reflectance & Green-upof of Phragmites australisPhragmites australis
Ildiko Pechmann & Francisco ArtigasIldiko Pechmann & Francisco Artigas
New Jersey Meadowlands Commission – Meadowlands Research New Jersey Meadowlands Commission – Meadowlands Research InstituteInstitute
9th Wetlands & Watersheds Workshop9th Wetlands & Watersheds Workshop
Atlantic City, NJAtlantic City, NJ
Oct. 23-26 2006Oct. 23-26 2006
Project OverviewProject OverviewBackground:Background:
•Relationship between pigment Relationship between pigment concentration and light reflectance from concentration and light reflectance from leavesleaves•Light reflectance from leaves is modulated Light reflectance from leaves is modulated by stressor factorsby stressor factors
Hypothesis:Hypothesis:•The light reflected from plants can be The light reflected from plants can be used as a surrogate variable to used as a surrogate variable to determine salinity and metal determine salinity and metal concentration in the sediments.concentration in the sediments.
ObjectivesObjectivesOverallOverall:: - Find if metal toxicity alters or modifies - Find if metal toxicity alters or modifies
chlorophyll content in a way that plants under chlorophyll content in a way that plants under metal stress show differences in reflectancemetal stress show differences in reflectance
SpecificSpecific::- Measure salinity and metals at seven distinct - Measure salinity and metals at seven distinct
study sitesstudy sites- Measure metal uptake by leaves over the - Measure metal uptake by leaves over the growing seasongrowing season- Measure light reflectance from leaves and - Measure light reflectance from leaves and
canopies over the growing seasoncanopies over the growing season
- Find if there is a relationship between metal - Find if there is a relationship between metal content in leaves and light reflectancecontent in leaves and light reflectance
Field WorkField WorkSampling (May 2 – July 20)
– Leaf samples– Sediment samples– Leaf reflectance (field data)– Canopy reflectance (field data)
Parameters Parameters measuredmeasured
Test plant:Test plant: Phragmites australisPhragmites australis
Leaves:Leaves:
-metal concentration (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, metal concentration (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn)Zn)
-reflectancereflectanceCanopy: Canopy:
-reflectancereflectance
Sediment:Sediment:
-metal concentration (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, metal concentration (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn)Zn)
-Salinity [ppt]Salinity [ppt]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
salin
ity
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
Site
Salinity in the sediment
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Cr
[mg/
kg]
KG BA BB KP DB DACT
05/02
08/22
sites
date
Chromium
0
200
400
600
800
Cu
[mg/
kg]
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
05/02
08/22
site
date
Copper
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Pb [
mg/
kg]
KG BA BB KP DB DACT
05/02
08/22
site
date
Lead 0102030405060708090
100
Hg
[mg/
kg]
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
05/02
08/22
site
date
Mercury
Contaminants in the sediment in Contaminants in the sediment in May and AugustMay and August
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Zn
[mg/
kg]
KG BA BB KP DB DACT
05/02
08/22
site
date
Zinc
CdCd CrCr CuCu FeFe HgHg NiNi PbPb ZnZn
CdCd Correlation 1 0.869 0.387 0.085 0.816 0.833 -0.298 0.991
Sig. . 0.011 0.391 0.856 0.025 0.020 0.517 0.000
CrCr Correlation 1 0.131 -0.039 0.964 0.861 -0.369 0.880
Sig. . 0.779 0.934 0.000 0.013 0.416 0.009
CuCu Correlation 1 0.915 0.175 0.492 -0.168 0.446
Sig. . 0.004 0.707 0.262 0.718 0.316
FeFe Correlation 1 0.005 0.322 -0.171 0.162
Sig. . 0.991 0.482 0.714 0.729
HgHg Correlation 1 0.924 -0.318 0.852
Sig. . 0.003 0.487 0.015
NiNi Correlation 1 -0.332 0.889
Sig. . 0.467 0.007
PbPb Correlation 1 -0.259
Sig. . 0.575
ZnZn Correlation 1
Sig. .
Metal-metal relationship in the Metal-metal relationship in the sedimentsediment
Cr, Cd, Hg and Zn tend to coexist in the Cr, Cd, Hg and Zn tend to coexist in the sedimentsediment
Calculating Toxic UnitsCalculating Toxic Units
- Metal concentrations in sediment were - Metal concentrations in sediment were transformed in transformed in toxic units (TU)toxic units (TU) according to the according to the E-RM (Effect Range Median) values E-RM (Effect Range Median) values (Long&Morgan, 1990)(Long&Morgan, 1990)- Toxicity ranged between 0 and 80 TU depending - Toxicity ranged between 0 and 80 TU depending on how much the metal concentrations exceeded on how much the metal concentrations exceeded the E-RM criteria.the E-RM criteria.
- Summary of TUs were calculated for each - Summary of TUs were calculated for each sampling site and related to reflectance sampling site and related to reflectance parametersparameters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
toxic
ity
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
Site
Site comparison based on sediment toxicity
PeakFit v.4.12PeakFit v.4.12
Spectral data analysisSpectral data analysis
Vegetation IndicesVegetation Indices
-Greenness Ratio:-Greenness Ratio:ρGREEN ρGREEN ρREDρRED
-Red Edge -Red Edge Inflection Point Inflection Point (REIP)(REIP)
-NDVI:-NDVI:ρNIR – ρREDρNIR – ρREDρNIR + ρREDρNIR + ρRED
NDVI values for Canopies Arranged by Date
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
5/2 5/9 5/23 5/30 6/6 6/16 6/29 7/7 7/20
Date
ND
VI
KG
BA
BB
KP
DB
DA
CT
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
salin
ity
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
Site
Salinity in the sediment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
toxic
ity
KG BA BB KP DB DA CT
Site
Site comparison based on sediment toxicity
KG
BA
BB
KP
DB
DA
CT
05020509
05220531
06060616
06290707
0719
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Zn [m
g/kg]
sites
date
Zinc
KG
BA
BB
KP
DB
DA
CT
05020509
05220531
06060616
06290707
0719
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Pb [mg/kg]
sites date
Lead
KG
BA
BB
KP
DB
DA
CT
05020509
05220531
06060616
06290707
0719
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
Cu [m
g/kg]
sites date
Copper
Metal in the leavesMetal in the leaves
Leaf Red Edge Inflection Point Leaf Red Edge Inflection Point versus sediment toxicityversus sediment toxicity
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
toxicity
loca
tion
of
the
infl
ecti
on p
oint
[nm
]
leaf
Canopy Red Edge Inflection Point Canopy Red Edge Inflection Point versus metal toxicityversus metal toxicity
R = 0.62
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90toxicity
loca
tion o
f th
e i
nfl
ect
ion p
oint
[nm
]
canopy
ConclusionConclusion
• The most saline site – CT - showed a delayed green-up
• The most contaminated sites – DA; DB - showed an early flowering
• However the canopy reflectance measurements showed relationship with sediment toxicity.
• Our results indicated that there were no changes in the leaf reflectance due to the metal toxicity
Future ResearchFuture Research
•Focus on differences in light reflectance due to theFocus on differences in light reflectance due to the
plant architecture and canopy texture as they relateplant architecture and canopy texture as they relate
to bio-geological conditions in the sediment.to bio-geological conditions in the sediment.
•Continue to use remote sensors to classify stress Continue to use remote sensors to classify stress levels levels
in in Phragmites Phragmites communities.communities.
•Also use remote sensors to look at phenology (i.e. Also use remote sensors to look at phenology (i.e.
flowering and green-up timing) to identifyflowering and green-up timing) to identify
Phragmites Phragmites stands under heavy metal stressstands under heavy metal stress
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
The Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute
-Dr. Jin Young Shin
-Yefim Levinsky
-So Yeon
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
The Meadowlands Environmental Research The Meadowlands Environmental Research InstituteInstitute
-Dr. Jin Young ShinDr. Jin Young Shin
-Yefim LevinskyYefim Levinsky
-So YeonSo Yeon