The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nutrient Retention in Vegetated and Nonvegetated Bioretention Mesocosms
Abstract
Thirty well-established 240L bioretention mesocosms were used to investigate retention of dissolved nutrients by bioretention systems. Ten mesocosms were comprised of 80cm sandy loam, ten of 80cm loamy sand, and ten of pea gravel with 20cm of loamy sand. Half were vegetated with shrubs/grasses, while the other half had no vegetation (barren). In the first part of our study, the loam and sand mesocosms were dosed with synthetic storm water comprising 0.8mgL−1 total phosphorus (TP) and 4.8mgL−1 total nitrogen (TN). TP retention in the vegetated loam was 91% compared to 73% in the barren, and TN retention was 81% compared to 41% in the barren loam. TP retention was 86–88% in the sand treatments, while TN retention in the vegetated sand was 64%, compared to 30% in the barren. In the second part of our study, all 30 mesocosms were loaded weekly with 45cm of tertiary effluent with high nutrient loads (22.3myear−1 hydraulic load at a flow-weighted average of 4.5mgL−1 TP and 4.8mgL−1 TN, or 1,012kgha−1year−1 TP and 1,073kgha−1year−1 TN). After 50 weeks of loading, cumulative TP retention was 92% in the vegetated loam, 67% in the sand, and 44% in the vegetated gravel. However, TP retention by barren media was 56% in the loam, 39% in the sand, and 14% in the gravel. Cumulative TN retention was 76% in the vegetated loam, 51% in the sand, and 40% in the vegetated gravel. In contrast, maximum TN removal by barren media was 18% in the loam. The increase in TP retention by vegetated systems substantially exceeds phosphorus uptake rates for plants, suggesting that other processes are involved. The increase in TN retention by vegetated systems also exceeds nitrogen uptake rates for plants, suggesting that denitrification is involved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Water Quality Improvement through Bioretention Media: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., & Minami, C. (2006) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143005x94376 · Cited by 464
Cited by
Opportunities and challenges for managing nitrogen in urban stormwater: A review and synthesis
Collins, K. A., Lawrence, T. J., Stander, E. K., Jontos, R. J., Kaushal, S. S., Newcomer, T. A., Grimm, N. B., & Cole Ekberg, M. L. (2010) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.03.015 · Cited by 309
Meeting hydrologic and water quality goals through targeted bioretention design
Hunt, W. F., Davis, A. P., & Traver, R. G. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000504 · Cited by 272
Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater
Liu, J., Sample, D., Bell, C., & Guan, Y. (2014) · Water · doi:10.3390/w6041069 · Cited by 269
Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention
Li, H., & Davis, A. P. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000026 · Cited by 238
Urban Stormwater Treatment Using Bioretention
Trowsdale, S. A., & Simcock, R. (2011) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.11.023 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- Lucas, W. C., & Greenway, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 613-623
- ISSN
- 0733-9437 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4774
- DOI
- 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2008)134:5(613
- OpenAlex
- W2000454497
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nutrient Retention in Vegetated and Nonvegetated Bioretention Mesocosms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2008)134:5(613
- The paper
- Lucas, W. C., & Greenway, M. (2008). Nutrient Retention in Vegetated and Nonvegetated Bioretention Mesocosms. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2008)134%3A5(613
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.