臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究自2007年12月至2010年5月期間監測嘉南藥理科技大學人工濕地的進出流水質、CO2及CH4的釋放通量、濕地植物的淨生產量及濕地底泥的碳含量，並以人工濕地單元作為生態系統進行碳通量的質量收支平衡，以進一步了解人工濕地是CO2的儲場或產生源，及估算其淨儲存或產生通量。人工濕地由兩種不同類型濕地：SSF濕地(1450 m2)及FWS濕地(2200 m2)串連組成，進流經二級處理後的校園污水，研究期間平均進流流量為316 m3/d，平均水力負荷0.087 m/d，平均水力停留時間3.14 d)。進流水SS濃度介於4~70 mg/L、BOD5濃度介於1.7~33.2 mg/L，整體人工溼地的SS及BOD5平均去除效率分別達80.5 %及76.4 %，出流水質相當穩定，95%的水樣樣本數可達到SS < 10 mg/L、100%的水樣樣本數可達到BOD5 < 10 mg/L。估計進流水的TOC濃度介於3.68~21.33 mg/L (12.41±5.54 mg/L)，人工濕地系統的平均去除效率達68.3 %，濕地系統進流水帶入的TOC通量平均為379.7 g C/m2/year、出流水帶出的TOC通量平均為56.3 g C/m2/year。
以靜置箱採氣及氣體層析法監測濕地因異營性呼吸作用產生的CO2及厭氧分解產生CH4的釋放通量，結果顯示SSF濕地的CO2釋放通量介於-182.5~777.18 mg /m2/h，FWS濕地介於12.8~402.9 mg /m2/h。SSF濕地、FWS濕地及整個SSF-FWS濕地的整年平均CO2釋放通量分別為157.77 ±152.08、147.55±103.07及153.39±132.98 mg CO2/m2/hr。SSF濕地的CH4釋放通量範圍介於-1.09~55.36 mg CH4/m2/h，FWS濕地介於-4.17~28.86 mg /m2/h。由於CH4通量的日夜間變化及有無植物存在的監測值差異頗大，因此透過α, β, γ校正值估算出實際的平均通量，SSF濕地、FWS濕地及整個SSF-FWS濕地的整年平均CH4釋放通量分別為111.14、79.70及92.19 g C/m2/year。
本研究直接測量地面上植體淨初級生產力(ANPP)進而推估濕地的淨初級生產力(NPP)，結果顯示，SSF濕地、FWS濕地及整個SSF-FWS濕地的淨初級生產量(CNPP)分為1712、1056及1317 g C/m2/year。碳通量收支計算的結果顯示，本研究濕地場址為CO2的儲場而非產生源。濕地的淨生態系統CO2交換通量(CNEE)，SSF濕地、FWS濕地及整個SSF-FWS系統分別為1336，704，1182 (g C/m2/year)。SSF濕地、FWS濕地及整個SSF-FWS系統的碳累積通量或稱碳匯通量分別為2000.1、649.8、1175.3 (g C/m2/year)，相當於每年可累積CO2質量分別為10450、8521及18971 kg CO2。經計算人工濕地溫室氣體(CH4+N2O)釋放的全球暖化潛勢(GWP，以g CO2-C equivalent/m2/year單位表示)，發現濕地單元的碳匯量明顯超過或接近溫室氣體的GWP，此意味人工濕地可能成為氣候變遷的中和者(climate-change neutral)，不會增加全球暖化的負擔。惟人工濕地所累積的碳大多是以水生植物的生質量碳存在，而非積存於濕地底泥或土壤中。而濕地植物每年均會進行定期採收，因此如何運用這些採收的水生植物生質量，避免立即形成CO2又釋放回大氣中，才能達到真正碳匯功能。

關鍵詞：人工濕地、溫室氣體、二氧化碳、甲烷、碳匯、淨初級生產量、全球暖化潛勢、廢水處理

This study monitored water quality of influent and effluent, gas emissions of CO2 and CH4, net primary production of wetland macrophytes, and carbon content of wetland soil in a constructed wetland system built in Chia Nan University of Pharmacy & Sciencae during the period December 2007 to May 2010. By considering the constructed wetland as ecosystem’s boundary, the mass flux of each flow stream in carbon budget was estimated so as to examine whether the constructed wetland is carbon sink or source, and calculate carbon sequestration flux and/or net exchange rate.
The constructed wetland system consisted of two wetland units with various water flow patterns: a subsurface flow (SSF) wetland (1450 m2) and a free water surface flow (FWS) wetland (2200 m2), in series connection. It was designed to receive and purify the secondary treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant treating campus wastewater. The average influent flow was 316 m3/d, the average hydraulic loading was 0.087 m/d, and the average hydraulic retention time was 3.14 d during the period of the study. The SS and BOD5 concentrations of the influent ranged from 4 to 70 mg/L and 1.7 to 33.2 mg/L, respectively.
The efficiencies of SS and BOD5 removals were rather high, achieving 80.5 % and 76.4 %, respectively. The effluent water quality is very stable, with 95 % of water samples regarding the SS parameter were less than 10 mg/L, and 100 % of water samples in reference to BOD5 were below 10 mg/L. TOC concentration of influent was estimated between 3.68 to 21.33 mg/L (12.41±5.54 mg/L), with 68.3 % of the TOC removed by the constructed wetland system. Thus, the average annual iuput of TOC generated from influent was estimated to be 79.7 g C/m2/year, with average annual output being 56.3 g C/m2/year for the whole wetland system.
Gas emissions of CO2 and CH4 produced by heterotrophic respiration were measured by gas sampling with static chambers and gas analysis with gas chromatography. The results demonstrate that the monitored CO2 flux ranged from 182.5 to 777.18 mg /m2/h for the SSF wetland and from 12.8 to 402.9 mg /m2/h for the FWS wetland. The CO2 flux of SSF, FWS and SSF-FWS wetland were 157.77±152.08、147.55±103.07 and 153.39±132.98 mg CO2/m2/hr, respectively. Methane fluxes in the SSF and FWS wetland were in the range of 1.09 to 55.36 mg CH4/m2/hr and 4.17 to 28.86 mg CH4/m2/hr, respectively. Because a considerable difference in CH4 fluxes between day-time and night-time measurements, and between planted and unplanted area, we estimated the actual average flux by using α, β, γ correction coefficients. Consequently, the estimated average CH4 flux of the SSF, FWS and SSF-FWS wetland were 111.14, 79.70 and 92.19 g C/m2/year, respectively.
Additionally, we estimated the net primary production (NPP) by measuring the above-ground net primary production (ANPP). The results show that net primary productions of the SSF , FWS and SSF-FWS wetland were 1712, 1056 and 1317 g C/m2/year, respectively. The results of carbon budget calculation demonstrate that the constructed wetland in this study is the sink rather than source of CO2. While the net ecosystem CO2 exchange flux (CNEE) of SSF, FWS and SSF-FWS wetland were estimated to be 1336, 704 and 1182 (g C/m2/year), respectively, the carbon sequestration fluxes of the SSF , FWS and SSF-FWS wetland were 2000.1, 649.8 and 1175.3 (g C/m2/year), respectively.
This means the SSF, FWS, and SSF-FWS could accumulated approximately 10450, 8521, and 18971 kg CO2 annually. After further calculating global warming potential (GWP, in term of g CO2-C equivalent/m2/year) of greenhouse gas emissions of constructed wetlands, it is found that the mount of carbon sequestration was obviously greater than or close to the GWP of greenhouse gas emissions. This finding suggests that the constructed wetlands may act as the climate-change neutral, and won’t increase the burden of global warming. However, the CO2 sequestered by constructed wetlands was mostly converted into biomass organic carbon of macrophytes, and not into wetland’s soil. The macrophytes of wetland was harvested every year. Therefore, how to utilize these harvested macrophytes to avoid release of CO2 back into the atmosphere is essential and can really reach carbon sink.

Keywords: constructed wetlands, greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, methane, carbon sequestration, net primary production, global warming potential, wastewater treatment

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 III
誌謝 VI
目錄 VII
表目錄 X
圖目錄 XII
照片目錄 XV
第一章　前言 1
1.1　研究動機 1
1.2　研究方向與目的 3
第二章　文獻回顧 5
2.1　人工濕地技術的發展 5
2.1.1　溼地的定義 5
2.1.2　人工溼地的種類及發展沿革 6
2.2　溼地中的碳循環 7
2.3　濕地碳匯能力的調查方法 9
2.4　人工溼地二氧化碳與甲烷釋放通量之文獻報導 13
2.5　濕地的碳匯能力 17
2.5.1　濕地與全球碳收支 17
2.5.2　濕地的碳匯能力比較 18
第三章　研究設備與方法 27
3.1　研究場址 27
3.1.1　嘉南藥理科大人工溼地系統 27
3.2　濕地的碳質量平衡模式 30
3.3　採樣點及樣本採集 34
3.3.1　溫室氣體釋放通量樣本採集 34
3.3.2　水樣採集 35
3.3.3　植物體的採集 35
3.3.4　底泥樣本採集 36
3.4　分析 38
3.4.1　氣體分析 38
3.4.2　水質分析 39
3.4.3　植物體成份分析 40
3.5　溫室氣體釋放通量之估算 44
3.6　人工濕地淨生產力量測 45
3.6.1　淨生產力 45
3.6.2　水生植物地面上植體的採收 46
3.7　統計分析 47
第四章　結果與討論 50
4.1　人工溼地的水質淨化及碳傳輸通量 50
4.1.1　流量變化 50
4.1.2　懸浮固體的削減 51
4.1.3　生化需氧量的削減 51
4.1.4　總有機碳的削減 52
4.2　二氧化碳通量 63
4.2.1　二氧化碳通量的季節與日夜間變化 63
4.2.2　二氧化碳通量的空間變化 67
4.2.3　水生植物存在對二氧化碳通量的影響 67
4.2.4　濕地年平均二氧化碳通量的估算 68
4.3　甲烷通量 82
4.3.1　甲烷通量的月分、季節與日夜間變化 82
4.3.2　水生植物存在對甲烷通量的影響 85
4.3.3　甲烷通量的空間變化 86
4.3.4　濕地年平均甲烷通量的估算 86
4.4　人工濕地的淨生產力 101
4.4.1　水生植物碳含量 101
4.4.2　水生植物的淨生產量 102
4.5　人工濕地的的碳質量收支平衡 107
4.5.1　底泥碳含量變化 107
4.5.2　碳收支平衡 108
4.5.3　人工濕地碳匯通量與CH4
釋放的全球暖化潛勢的比較 110
第五章　結論與建議 116
5.1　結論 116
5.2　建議 118
第六章　參考文獻 119

1.陳易佐，2007，大型校園人工溼地實場操作模式探討，嘉南藥理科技大學環境工程與科學系碩士論文。
2.陳韋志，2004，環境因子的變化對人工溼地硝酸鹽去除功能的影響，嘉南藥理科技大學環境工程與科學系碩士論文。
3.賴建志，2008，人工溼地之甲烷及氧化亞氮釋放研究嘉南藥理科技大學環境工程與科學系碩士論文。
4.馬維君，2000，台灣地區蛋雞產業溫室氣體排放之探討，中國文化大學生物科技研究所碩士論文。
5.吳淑岱，1995，空氣與廢氣監測分析方法，中國環境科學出版社。
6.錢元皓，2003，台灣水田、旱田與濕地土壤氧化亞氮之釋放通量及其減量對策，國立台灣大學農業化學研究所碩士論文。
7.王巧萍、杜清澤，2008，木麻黃海岸林土壤碳庫存，97 年度森林碳管理研討會論文集，第31-40頁。
8.國際濕地保護公約，1971，Ramsar Convention。
9.Amthor J.S., Dale V.H., Edwards N.T., Garten C.T., Gunderson C.A., Hanson P.J., Huston M.A., King A.W., Luxmoore R.J., McLaughlin S.B., Marland G., Mulholland P.J., Norby R.J., O’Neill E.G., O’Neill R.V., Post W.M., Shriner D.S., Todd D.E., Tschaplinski T.J., Turner R.S., Tuskan G.A., Wullschleger S.D. (1998) Terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change: a research strategy. ORNL Technical Memorandum 1998/27. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
10.Anderson, C.J., Mitsch, W.J., 2006. Sediment, carbon, and nutrient accumulation at two 10-year-old created riverine marshes. Wetlands 26, 779-792.
11.Baldocchi, D., 2003. Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, present and future. Global Change Biology 9, 479-492.
12.Bonneville, M.C., Strachan, I.B., Humphreys, E.R., Roulet, N.T., 2008. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a temperate cattail marsh in relation to biophysical properties. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 148, 69-81.
13.Brevik, E.C., Homburg, J.A.A., 2004. 5000 year record of carbon sequestration from a coastal lagoon and wetland complex, Southern California, USA. Catena 57, 221–232
14.Brix, H., Sorrell, B.K., Lorenzen, B., 2001. Are Phragmites- dominated wetlands a net source or net sink of greenhouse gases? Aquatic Botany 69, 313–324.
15.Euliss, N.H. Jr., Gleason, R.A., Olness, A., McDougal, R.L., Murkin, H.R., Robarts, R.D., Bourbonniere, R.A., Warner, B.G., 2006. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Science of the Total Environment 361:179–188.
16.Gabriel, M.L., Roxane, M., Jacques, B., Florent, C., 2009. Greenhouse gas production and efficiency of planted and artificially aerated constructed wetlands. Environmental Pollution 157,748–754.
17.Gorham, E., 1991. Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecological Applications 1, 182–195.
18.Greenway, M., Woolley, A., 1999. Constructed wetlands in Queensland: Performance efficiency and nutrient bioaccumulation. Ecological Engineering 12, 39-55.
19.Greenway, M., 2005. The role of constructed wetlands in secondary effluent treatment and water reuse in subtropical and arid Australia. Ecological Engineering 25, 501-509.
20.Hadi, A., Inubushi, K., Furukawa, Y., Purnomo, E. Rasmadi, M., Tsuruta, H., 2005. Greenhouse gas emission from tropical peatlands of Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71, 73-98.
21.Hemond, H.F. (1980) Biochemistry of Thoreau’s Bog, Concord, Mass. Ecological Monographs 50, 507-526.
22.IPCC, 2001.Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, UK.
23.Inamori, R., Gui, P., Dass, P., Matsumura, M., Xu, K.Q., Kondo, T., Ebie, Y., Inamori, Y., 2007. Investigating CH4 and N2O emissions from eco-engineering wastewater treatment processes using constructed wetland microcosms. Process Biochemistry 42, 363–373.
24.Johansson, A.E., Gustavsson, A.M., Oquist, M.G., Svensson, B.H., 2004. Methane emissions from a constructed wetland treating wastewater-seasonal and spatial distribution and dependence on edaphic factors. Water Research 38, 3960-3970.
25.Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., Hedmark, A., 2010. Carbon Storage and Fluxes within Freshwater Wetlands: a Critical Review. Wetland 30, 111-124.
26.Liikanen, A., Huttunen, J.T., Karjalainen, S.M., Heikkinen, K., Vaisanen,T.S., Nykanen, H, Martikainen, P.J., 2006. Temporal and seasonal changes in greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland putifying peat mining runoff waters. Ecological Engineering 26, 241-251.
27.Malmer, N., 1975. Development of bog mires. In A.D. Hasler, ed. Coupling of Land and Water System. Ecology Studies 10. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 85-92.
28.Mander, U., Teiter, S., Augustin, J., 2005. Emission of greenhouse gases from constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Water Science and Technology 52 (10-11), 167-176.
29.Mander, U., Lõhmusa, K., Teiter, S., Nurka, K., Mauring, T., Augustin, J., 2008. Gaseous fluxes from subsurface flow constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 40, 1215-1226.
30.Mander, U., Lõhmusa, K., Teiter, S., Mauring, T., Nurka, K., Augustin, J., 2008. Gaseous fluxes in the nitrogen and carbon budgets of subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Science of the Total Environment 404, 343-353.
31.Moore, T.R., Bellamy, D.J. (1974) Peatlands. Springer-Verlag, ,
N. Y.221 pp.
32.McCarty G.W., Ritchie J.C., 2002. Impact of soil movement on carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 116:423–430.
33.Mitsch W.J., Wu, X., 1995. Wetland and global change. In Lal, R., Kimble, J., Levine, E., Stewart, B.A. eds. Advances in Soil Science, Soil Management, and Greenhouse Effect. CRC/Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
34.Mitsch, W. J., Gosselink, J. G., 1993, “Wetlands 2 ed,” Van Nostrand Reinhold, N. Y.
35.Mitsch, W. J., Gosselink, J. G., 2007,Wetlands, 4th edn. Wiley, N. Y.
36.Piceka, T., Cizkova, H., Duseka, J., 2007. Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland—Plants as important sources of carbon. Ecological Engineering 31, 98-106.
37.Roulet, N.T., 2000. Peatland, carbon storage, greenhouse gases, and Kyoto Protocol: prospects and significance for Canada. Wetlands 20, 605-615.
38.Sebacher, D.I., Harriss, R.C., Bartlett, K.B., 1985. Methane emissions to the atmosphere through aquatic plants. J. Environ. Qual. 14, 40–46.
39.Schlesinger WH (1991) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. Academic, San Diego.
40.Søvik, A. K., Kløve, B., 2007. Emission of N2O and CH4 from a.constructed wetland in southeastern Norway, Science of the Total Environ. 380, 28-37.
41.Søvik, A.K., Augustin, J., Heikkinen, K., Huttunen, J.T., Necki, J.M., Karjalainen, S.M., Kløve, B., Liikanen, A., Mander, Ü., Puustinen, M., Teiter, S., Wachniew, P., 2006. Emission of the greenhouse gases nitrous oxide and methane from constructed wetlands in Europe. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 2360–2373
42.Stadmark, J., Leonardson, L., 2005. Emissions of greenhouse gases from ponds constructed for nitrogen removal. Ecological Engineering 25, 542-551.
43.Tai, P.D., Li, P.J., Sun, T.H., He, Y.W., Zhou, Q.X., Gong, Z.G., Mizouchi, M., Inamori, Y., 2002. Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland for municipal sewage treatment. Journal of Environmental Science 14 (1), 27-33.
44.Tanner, C. C., Adams, D. D., Downes, M. T., 1997. Methane Emissions from Constructed Wetlands Treating Agricultural Wastewaters. Journal of Environmental Quality 26, 1056-1062.
45.Teiter S, Mander Ü., 2005. Emission of N2O, N2, CH4 and CO2 from constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and from riparian buffer zones. Ecological Engineering 25(5):528–41.
46.Trumbore, S.E., Bubier, J.L., Harden, J.W., Grill, P.M., 1999. Carbon cycling in boreal wetlands: A comparison of three approaches. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (D22), 27,673-27,682.
47.Trumbore, S.E., Harden, J.W., 1997. Accumulation and turnover of carbon in organic and mineral soils of the BOREAS northern study area. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 817–830.
48.Turunen, C., Tomppo, E., Tolonen, K., Reinkainen, E. 2002. Estimating carbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland: application to boreal and subarctic regions. Holocene 12, 69–80
49.Wallen, B., 1992. Methods for studying below-ground production in mire ecosystem. Suo 43, 155-162.
50.Wang, Y., Inamori, R., Kong, H., Xu, K., Inamori, Y., Kondo, T., Zhang, J., 2008. Influence of plant species and wastewater strength on constructed wetland methane emissions and associated microbial populations. Ecological Engineering 32, 22-29.
51.Westlake, D.F., 1982. The primary productivity of water plants. In: Symoens, J.J., Hooper, S.S., Compére, P. (Eds.), Studies on Aquatic Vascular Plants. Royal Botanical Society of Belgium, Brussels, pp. 165–180.
52.Whitting GJ, Chanton JP (2001) Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon sequestration. Tellus 53:521–528.
53.Worrall, F., Reed, M., Warburton, J., Burt, T., 2003. Carbon budget for British upland peat catchment. The Science of the Total Environment 312, 133-146.
54.Zhang, F.W., Liu, A.H., Li, Y.N., Zhao, L., Wang, Q.X., Du, M.Y., 2008. Co2 flux in alpine wetland ecosystem on the Qinghai Tibetan Plateau, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 28 (2), 453-462.
55.Zhu, N., An, P., Krishnakumar, B., Zhao, L., Sun, L., Mizuochi, M., Inamori, Y., Effect of plant harvest on methane emission from two constructed wetlands designed for the treatment of wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management 85, 936-943.