Next Article in Journal
Predictive Model for Water Consumption in a Copper Mineral Concentrator Plant Located in a Desert Area Using Machine Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
Microplastic Pollution in Sewage Sludge from Wastewater Treatment Plants and Estimation of Microplastic Release
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction of Total Phosphorus Concentration in Canals by GAT-Informer Model Based on Spatiotemporal Correlations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 1
10.3390/w17010014
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating the Potential Effects of Microplastics on the Growth and Functional Traits in Two Aquatic Macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis) in Mesocosm Experiments

by
Lele Liu
1,†,
Borbala Codogno
1,†,
Wei Wei
1,
Xiya Zhang
1,
Jian Gao
2,*,
Valeriia Dokuchaeva
1,3,
Luyao Ma
1,
Pan Wu
1,
Qing Yu
1,4 and
Weihua Guo
1,*
1
Qingdao Key Laboratory of Ecological Protection and Restoration, Ministry of Natural Resources Key Laboratory of Ecological Prewarning, Protection and Restoration of Bohai Sea, School of Life Sciences, Shandong University, 72 Binhai Road, Qingdao 266237, China
2
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Health Perception and Ecological Restoration of Rivers and Lakes, Ministry of Education, Hubei University of Technology, 28 Linan Road, Wuhan 430068, China
3
Department of Environmental Safety, and Product Quality Management, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Miklukho-Maklaya Str. 6, 117198 Moscow, Russia
4
Shandong Land Development Group Co., Ltd., 2688 Aotixi Road, Jinan 250014, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Water 2025, 17(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17010014
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 11 December 2024 / Accepted: 23 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microplastics Pollution in Aquatic Environments)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the last decade, microplastics (MPs) have become a significant environmental pollutant with potential negative effects on aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. This mesocosm study examined the effect of MPs on the growth and physiology of two common aquatic macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis), focusing on changes in biomass allocation and nutrient contents. We evaluated oxidative stress responses by measuring superoxide dismutase, malondialdehyde, soluble sugars, free amino acids, and glutamate synthetase activities for M. spicatum, and we assessed photosynthetic processes through metrics including Fv/Fm, electron transfer rate, and Y(II) for P. australis. Unlike most previous studies in plants, we found that the growth and all functional traits of these two plants were not significantly affected by the common MP type (polyethylene) at either low or high concentrations. Additionally, we have examined the impact of another type of MP (polystyrene) on P. australis, and no significant effect was observed. In conjunction with prior case studies, the majority of which demonstrated the toxic impacts of MPs, our research indicates that plants exhibit a species-specific response to MPs. In addition to the strong adaptation of widespread plants used in this study, the large experimental system and relative long-term treatment may also explain our negative results. Our study highlights the need to further investigate species-specific tolerances and adaptive responses to MPs to better understand their ecological impacts.

1. Introduction

Plastic waste and microplastics (MPs) have emerged as pervasive environmental pollutants, raising widespread concerns about their impact on ecosystems [1,2]. Defined as plastic particles ranging from 1 to 5000 μm, MPs can be classified into shapes such as spheres, fragments, and fibers [1]. Their presence primarily stems from the breakdown of larger plastics, known as macroplastics, through processes like mechanical abrasion and environmental oxidation [3]. These particles can further degrade into even smaller nanoplastics over time [4]. The widespread occurrence of MPs in both aquatic and terrestrial environments has heightened attention due to their potential adverse effects on various organisms [1,5].
Aquatic ecosystems, encompassing a diverse array of natural water bodies such as lakes, rivers, and oceans, as well as artificial structures like constructed wetlands, form a complex and dynamic network. These ecosystems are characterized by rich biological communities, intricate interactions among their species, and crucial abiotic elements that shape their environmental conditions. Ecologically, they are of paramount importance as they provide habitats for a wide range of species, contribute to global biodiversity, regulate water quality, and support the livelihoods of millions through fishing and tourism [6]. However, these ecosystems are increasingly threatened by microplastics, which originate from the breakdown of larger plastic debris, industrial discharges, and the direct release of microbeads from personal care products [7]. These microplastics can cause significant harm by being ingested by aquatic organisms, leading to physical and toxicological effects, disrupting the food chain, and potentially impacting human health [7,8]. Within this context, aquatic plants play a crucial role as they not only provide essential ecosystem services such as oxygen production and habitat structure but also act as a first line of defense against microplastic pollution by potentially intercepting and retaining these particles, thereby mitigating their spread and negative impacts on the aquatic environment [3,9,10,11].
The effects of MPs on aquatic plants are multifaceted, including both physical and chemical effects. On a physical level, MPs may attach to the surface of roots, hindering the plant’s absorption of water and nutrients, which is essential for the plant’s photosynthesis and overall health. The size and type of MPs and the oxygen-containing functional groups they contain play a key role in determining the severity of these physical disturbances [12]. At the chemical level, MPs can release hydrophobic organic pollutants and act as adsorbents for environmental pollutants such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, thus posing secondary risks to aquatic plants. These adsorbed contaminants may bioaccumulate in plants, exacerbating their toxic effects [3]. Furthermore, MPs can alter the biophysical properties of bottom sediment, affecting microbial activity and water retention, which in turn impacts plant communities [11,13,14]. However, little is explored regarding the effects of MPs on the aquatic macrophytes, including submerged and emergent plants.
MPs can compromise growth rates, and their negative impacts tend to increase with smaller particle sizes and higher concentrations [12,15,16,17,18]. The sharp-edged nature of some particles has been linked to decreased root cell viability [18]. MPs may also attach to and be absorbed by plant roots, subsequently inhibiting growth [10,19]. The bioaccumulation of MPs causes oxidative stress and ecotoxicity in freshwater plants like Utricularia vulgaris [20]. Accumulated reactive oxygen due to MP exposure has been shown to cause oxidative damage [16], while polystyrene MPs have notably increased peroxidase activity in soybeans [21]. In the case of Lemna minor, a common floating aquatic plant, polyethylene microbeads were found to inhibit root growth without affecting leaf growth or pigment content [18]. Similar results were noted in a riparian plant (Commelina communis), where MPs impeded root development but did not alter chlorophyll levels, and smaller MPs were observed to decrease root cell vitality [22]. High concentrations of MPs also impacted algae like Skeletonema costatum, reducing chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency, with these effects diminishing as MP concentrations decreased [23].
Widespread macrophytes serve as the cornerstone of aquatic ecosystems. Their responses can significantly influence the ecological impact of microplastics (MPs) on overall ecosystem functions, such as carbon sequestration [24]. Myriophyllum spicatum is a perennial submerged macrophyte found in aquatic ecosystems across Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa [24]. It plays a crucial role in ecological restoration, especially in eutrophic shallow lakes in China as it helps mitigate nutrient pollution impacts. Its populations are declining due to increased nitrogen and phosphorus levels in sediment [25]. Phragmites australis is a common emergent plant in wetlands globally [26,27], forming dense stands that significantly shape aquatic habitats. P. australis is extensively employed in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, including the effective removal of MPs [25]. Previous studies have provided robust evidence indicating that P. australis is capable of uptake and the accumulation of MPs within its tissues [26,27]. Therefore, these species are excellent model organisms for testing the effects of microplastic pollution in aquatic plants.
This study seeks to address this gap by assessing how MPs influence the growth and physiological performance of two common aquatic plants. Through a mesocosm experiment, we investigated the eco-physiological responses of Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis to varying concentrations of microplastics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in the Majiabaimiao ecological station (36°22′ N, 120°36′ E), Jimo, Qingdao, China. The experiment was carried out for 6 months from July to December 2023. Two concentrations of polyethylene (PE) were set for both two plants, from 0 g L−1 (the control group) and 1 g L−1 (the high-PE group) with an intermediate concentration of 0.1 g L−1 (the low-PE group), according to the contamination of MPs in China’s aquatic environment [28]. Meanwhile, one concentration of polystyrene (PS) was set for M. spicatum, specifically 1 g L−1 (the high-PS group). Five replications were conducted for each treatment.
For M. spicatum, the experiment was designed with a total of 15 experimental systems, each with a capacity of 150 L. Inside each bucket, there were 4 flowerpots, each with a volume of 3.5 L. The substrate in the flowerpots consisted of river sand and commercial soil mixed uniformly at a ratio of 1:1 (v:v), with each pot weighing 2.5 kg. Six plants of a uniform length of 25 cm were planted in each flowerpot, all at a depth of 5 cm in the substrate. Therefore, the experiment utilized 60 flowerpots (15 buckets × 4 pots) and planted a total of 360 plants (60 pots × 6 plants). These flowerpots were placed inside buckets filled with 150 L of water. M. spicatum was pre-cultivated in the mesocosms for three months. During this time, algae appeared in water buckets. The algae were removed from the buckets, and water containing the algae was replaced. Due to the underdeveloped root system of M. spicatum in the early stage, it would be influenced by the algae (which could trap air bubbles), causing it to float to the water surface. Both PE and PS were contained in bags made of fine mesh and placed underwater. This was necessary because microplastic is a hydrophobic material and remains on the surface after entering water. By the end of the experiment, there were barely any MPs left, as they had all dispersed into the water body or settled into the sediment.
For P. australis, plants were directly planted in 25 L pots with a height of 38 cm and diameter of 28 cm. The experimental substrate consisted of river sand and vermiculite mixed uniformly at a ratio of 1:1 (v:v), with each container holding 20 L of the mixed substrate and weighing approximately 17 kg. The pre-cultivation of plants started on 11 June 2023 by placing reed rhizomes in moist river sand to cultivate new buds. When the new plants grew to about 10–15 cm in height, the transplantation process commenced. The reed rhizomes were placed horizontally at a depth of 5 cm from the soil surface in the substrate. On 3 July 2023, the rhizome transplantation was completed, after which careful management and quantitative watering and fertilization were carried out.
After six months, the plant stems and roots were extracted and separated. The underground part of the plants was also removed from the substrate and washed. Each sample was placed in a plastic bag, labeled, and left in a refrigerator at 4 °C to preserve it for further sampling. In addition, water samples were taken from each barrel to analyze the water for electrical conductivity and pH. The electrical conductivity and pH of water were measured using an electrical conductivity meter (DDSJ-308A, INESA, Shanghai, China) and a pH meter (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany).

2.2. Measurements of Plant Growth and Physiological Traits

For biomass measurements, all plant samples were washed with tap water to measure the shoot and root biomass of M. spicatum and P. australis. The plants were placed in a drying chamber for 48 h at 80 °C until they reached a constant weight and weighed. After drying, the plants in each container were separated into leaves and roots to measure dry mass with an electronic balance (with an accuracy of ±0.01 g). For M. spicatum, the 5 longest stems were selected, and their length was measured using a ruler with an accuracy of 1 mm.
To prepare the samples, 0.1 g of the plant material was weighed and placed in a test tube along with two metal balls. These plant samples were then ground for 5 min at a frequency of 45 Hz until they reached a powder consistency. The nitrogen content of the plant was measured using a fully automatic Kjeldahl nitrogen analyzer (K9860, Hanon, Jinan, China). The phosphorus content in the plants was measured by using a spectrophotometer (UV-9000s, Metash, Shanghai, China).
For P. australis, the transpiration rate (E), net photosynthetic rate (A), and stomatal conductance (Gsw) were measured using the Li-6800 Portable Photosynthesis System (LI-6800, LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, NE, USA). The maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm), the actual quantum efficiency of photosynthetic system II (Y(II)), and the electron transfer rate (ETR) were measured after 30 min of dark treatment with the PAM-2500 Chlorophyll Fluorometer (PAM-2500, WALZ, Effeltrich, Germany).
For M. spicatum, the free amino acid (FAA) content was tested using the Solarbio assay kit (Solarbio assay kit, Beijing Solarbio Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) for FAA testing. The prepared samples’ absorbance value was measured in ELISA plates in a Microplate Reader at 570 nm wavelength. To assess the content of soluble sugars, a standard curve was drawn for comparison. Samples were analyzed using a spectrophotometer (Shanghai Metash Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at a wavelength of 620 nm. Glutamine synthetase activity (GS) was tested using a Solarbio assay kit for GS testing. The content of malondialdehyde (MDA) was tested using the Solarbio assay kit for MDA testing in an ELISA plate for analysis, which was in the microplate reader at 532 nm and 600 nm. The content of superoxide dismutase (SOD) was tested using a Solarbio assay kit for SOD testing in an ELISA plate for analysis in the microplate reader at 560 nm.
The effect of microplastics on plant growth and physiological parameters was analyzed using one-way ANOVA. All statistical analyses were performed with R (v4.2.2).

3. Results

One-way ANOVA analyses showed that there were no significant effects of microplastic treatments on water properties and all measured traits of either M. spicatum or P. australis (Table 1). That is to say that for both species, there were no significant differences among MP treatments in all traits, including total biomass and leaf N (Figure 1).
For M. spicatum, the water pH in the control group was 9.53 ± 0.22 (mean ± standard deviation; this notation applies to subsequent data as well) compared to 9.51 ± 0.25 in the MP groups. The electrical conductivity of the water was 563.23 ± 17.41 μS cm−1 in the control group versus 536.61 ± 113.09 μS cm−1 in the MP groups. The root-to-shoot ratio was 0.36 ± 0.28 in the control group and 0.28 ± 0.12 in the MP groups. The malondialdehyde content was 48.57 ± 19.62 U g−1 in the control group and 57.27 ± 23.39 U g−1 in the MP groups.
For P. australis, the water’s pH in the control group was 6.98 ± 0.28 (mean ± standard deviation; this notation applies to subsequent data as well) compared to 6.89 ± 0.32 in the MP groups. The electrical conductivity of the water was 820.08 ± 378.51 μS cm−1 in the control group versus 745.74 ± 281.73 μS cm−1 in the MP groups. The root-to-shoot ratio was 1.38 ± 0.21 in the control group and 1.43 ± 0.20 in the MP groups. Fv/Fm was 8.80 ± 0.02 in both control and MP groups.

4. Discussion

Given the ubiquity of MPs and their potential ecological impacts, there is a critical need to understand their effects on aquatic plants and organisms. Despite accumulating evidence, current data remains insufficient for drawing broad conclusions on the impact of MPs on aquatic vegetation. Our study suggests that M. spicatum and P. australis exhibit resilience to microplastic exposure in the range of concentrations used. This shows that MPs did not significantly affect the morphological and physiological parameters of these species at the concentrations tested. The activities of various enzymes, including SOD, MDA, SS, FAA, GS, and glutamate synthetase, remained unchanged, suggesting no oxidative stress from MP exposure. These results point to potential resilience in M. spicatum and P. australis, which is possibly driven by robust antioxidant responses and repair mechanisms, as observed in similar studies on other species like Lemna minor [10,18,21].
Previous studies have shown that the effects of MPs on plant root traits and biomass have species-specific and concentration-dependent effects. For some species, high concentrations of MPs in the environment can stimulate the growth of fine roots, which in turn has a significant impact on the overall root growth pattern and root biomass [29]. Specifically, the presence of this high concentration of MPs promoted dry biomass accumulation in the above-ground part of the plant, but at the same time, it led to a decrease in root dry biomass and root length. However, when MP concentrations were further raised to higher levels, the opposite trend was observed: Root length and root dry biomass increased significantly, while the aboveground dry biomass decreased correspondingly. In contrast, in the treatment group with low MP concentrations, compared with the control group without MPs, the root length and root stem biomass of plants decreased, while the aboveground dry biomass increased [29].
Differences in experimental conditions and species responses may explain the contrasting results with prior research. Discrepancies between this study’s findings and the earlier literature could stem from variations in experimental conditions, species-specific responses, and the characteristics of MPs. While negative effects have been reported for other species like Utricularia vulgaris and Lemna minor, M. spicatum and P. australis demonstrated tolerance and adaptive capacity [18,20]. Furthermore, the physical and chemical properties of MPs, such as size, shape, and surface texture, could also influence plant–MP interactions, contributing to the varied outcomes observed across studies.
This study used a naturalistic experimental design to better reflect real-world conditions. Despite conducting five replications, we observed results such as the biomass of M. spicatum with a notably high standard deviation. This variability is likely due to random fluctuations in biotic factors, such as algae and other periphyton, across the replications. We made considerable efforts to eliminate algae at the initial phase of the experiment, yet variability in their impact persisted across the mesocosms. Our experiment diverges from standard lab settings where controlled variables tend to intensify MP impacts. For example, lab tests indicate that MPs decrease chlorophyll and inhibit growth in L. minuta, and this is probably because natural mitigating processes are limited [11]. By simulating an ecosystem with relatively large experimental systems and more complex interactions, this study suggests that such factors may have minimized the toxicity of MPs. For instance, MPs may eventually become embedded in the sediment or within the periphyton [26], resulting in a diminished direct impact on the plants over time. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the distribution of microplastics within the environment and within the plants throughout the course of the experiment.
Long-term exposure appears to foster adaptive responses in plants exposed to MPs. The duration of our study exceeds those of experiments that test the toxicity of microplastics in conical flasks, small pots, or glass aquariums [11,23,29,30]. Long-term exposure experiments gave plants the opportunity to develop adaptive responses over time. The adaptive responses may explain the stable growth and chlorophyll concentrations observed in L. minor despite high MP concentrations [22], suggesting that similar processes could help M. spicatum and P. australis cope with MPs. In addition to microplastics, other micropollutants such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and pesticides warrant increased scrutiny for their impacts on a variety of aquatic plants and subsequent ecological processes [31].
Our study raises questions about the ecological consequences of species tolerance to microplastics. It highlights the importance of understanding adaptive responses, as some aquatic plants appear to have intrinsic capacities to mitigate MP toxicity. Beyond individual species, these findings suggest that tolerant species may dominate in environments with chronic MP exposure. This shift could influence ecosystem dynamics, including altered competition, biodiversity patterns, and the role of MP characteristics in shaping these outcomes. Future research should investigate these adaptive mechanisms across various taxa and environmental contexts to better predict and manage the ecological consequences of MP pollution [2,32].

5. Conclusions

The study reveals that MPs at concentrations of up to 1 g L−1 did not substantially impact the morphological and physiological characteristics of two widespread macrophyte species, M. spicatum and P. australis, within the expansive mesocosm. The types of MPs tested included polyethylene for both species, with the addition of polystyrene specifically for M. spicatum. This resilience may stem from the strong environmental adaptability of these widespread foundation macrophytes in aquatic ecosystems, while rare species may be more sensitive to MPs. Nonetheless, future studies should investigate the long-term impacts of microplastics on their distribution and ecotoxicological effects across diverse species, examining how different environmental factors and MP characteristics influence community responses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.L., J.G., Q.Y. and W.G.; data curation, W.W. and V.D.; formal analysis, B.C., W.W., X.Z. and Q.Y.; funding acquisition, J.G., L.M., Q.Y. and W.G.; investigation, X.Z., V.D. and P.W.; methodology, W.W., X.Z., V.D. and P.W.; project administration, J.G. and W.G.; software, L.L. and X.Z.; supervision, W.G.; validation, L.L. and X.Z.; visualization, L.L.; writing—original draft, L.L. and B.C.; writing—review and editing, L.L., B.C., W.W., X.Z., J.G., V.D., L.M., P.W., Q.Y. and W.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key Technology Research and Development Program of Shandong Province (grant number: 2021CXGC010803), Open Project Funding of Key Laboratory of Intelligent Health Perception and Ecological Restoration of Rivers and Lakes, Ministry of Education, Hubei University of Technology (grant number: HGKFYBP17), Open Project Fund of Key Laboratory of Ecological Prewarning, Protection and Restoration of Bohai Sea, Ministry of Natural Resources (grant number: 2023104), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: U22A20558), and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (grant number: ZR2021QC081).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the undergraduate students from Shandong University for their help in greenhouse experiments and trait measurements. They are Xiukun Zhang, Haolong Li, Zihao Guo, Haomei Li, Yi Zou, Yang Li, Yizhou Li, and Xinyue Li.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Qing Yu was employed by the company Shandong Land Development Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hale, R.C.; Seeley, M.E.; La Guardia, M.J.; Mai, L.; Zeng, E.Y. A Global Perspective on Microplastics. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2018JC014719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, C.; Liu, J.; Rillig, M.C.; Bank, M.S.; Fantke, P.; Zhu, D.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Jin, L.N. What Harmful Microbes Are Lurking in the World’s 7 Billion Tonnes of Plastic Waste? Nature 2024, 634, 30–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ge, J.; Li, H.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Z.; Ouyang, Z.; Guo, X. Review of the Toxic Effect of Microplastics on Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 791, 148333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shiu, R.-F.; Vazquez, C.I.; Chiang, C.-Y.; Chiu, M.-H.; Chen, C.-S.; Ni, C.-W.; Gong, G.-C.; Quigg, A.; Santschi, P.H.; Chin, W.-C. Nano- and Microplastics Trigger Secretion of Protein-Rich Extracellular Polymeric Substances from Phytoplankton. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gao, S.; Wang, S.; Li, H.; Han, S.; Wei, J.; Liu, H. Distribution and Characteristics of Microplastics in the Tidal Flats of Sanya Bay, China. J. Mar. Environ. Eng. 2023, 11, 79–89. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, J.; Soininen, J.; Heino, J. Ecological Indicators for Aquatic Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functions, Human Activities and Climate Change. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 132, 108250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ali, N.; Khan, M.H.; Ali, M.; Sidra; Ahmad, S.; Khan, A.; Nabi, G.; Ali, F.; Bououdina, M.; Kyzas, G.Z. Insight into Microplastics in the Aquatic Ecosystem: Properties, Sources, Threats and Mitigation Strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 913, 169489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rakib, M.R.J.; Sarker, A.; Ram, K.; Uddin, M.G.; Walker, T.R.; Chowdhury, T.; Uddin, J.; Khandaker, M.U.; Rahman, M.M.; Idris, A.M. Microplastic Toxicity in Aquatic Organisms and Aquatic Ecosystems: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, X.; Wang, X.; Ren, C.; Palansooriya, K.N.; Wang, Z.; Chang, S.X. Microplastic Pollution: Phytotoxicity, Environmental Risks, and Phytoremediation Strategies. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 54, 486–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dovidat, L.C.; Brinkmann, B.W.; Vijver, M.G.; Bosker, T. Plastic Particles Adsorb to the Roots of Freshwater Vascular Plant Spirodela polyrhiza but Do Not Impair Growth. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 2020, 5, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ceschin, S.; Mariani, F.; Di Lernia, D.; Venditti, I.; Pelella, E.; Iannelli, M.A. Effects of Microplastic Contamination on the Aquatic Plant Lemna Minuta (Least Duckweed). Plants 2023, 12, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bosker, T.; Bouwman, L.J.; Brun, N.R.; Behrens, P.; Vijver, M.G. Microplastics Accumulate on Pores in Seed Capsule and Delay Germination and Root Growth of the Terrestrial Vascular Plant Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 2019, 226, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ryan, P.G.; Moore, C.J.; van Franeker, J.A.; Moloney, C.L. Monitoring the Abundance of Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1999–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Gutow, L.; Thompson, R.C.; Thiel, M. Microplastics in the Marine Environment: A Review of the Methods Used for Identification and Quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3060–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Besseling, E.; Wang, B.; Lurling, M.; Koelmans, A.A. Nanoplastic Affects Growth of S. obliquus and Reproduction of D. magna. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12336–12343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhang, Z.; Cui, Q.; Li, C.; Zhu, X.; Zhao, S.; Duan, C.; Zhang, X.; Song, D.; Fang, L. A Critical Review of Microplastics in the Soil-Plant System: Distribution, Uptake, Phytotoxicity and Prevention. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sjollema, S.B.; Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.; Leslie, H.A.; Kraak, M.H.S.; Vethaak, A.D. Do Plastic Particles Affect Microalgal Photosynthesis and Growth? Aquat. Toxicol. 2016, 170, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kalcikova, G.; Gotvajn, A.Z.; Kladnik, A.; Jemec, A. Impact of Polyethylene Microbeads on the Floating Freshwater Plant Duckweed Lemna minor. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 1108–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhou, J.; Wen, Y.; Marshall, M.R.; Zhao, J.; Gui, H.; Yang, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Jones, D.L.; Zang, H. Microplastics as an Emerging Threat to Plant and Soil Health in Agroecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yu, H.; Zhang, X.; Hu, J.; Peng, J.; Qu, J. Ecotoxicity of Polystyrene Microplastics to Submerged Carnivorous Utricularia vulgaris Plants in Freshwater Ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Surgun-Acar, Y. Response of Soybean (Glycine max L.) Seedlings to Polystyrene Nanoplastics: Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular Perspectives. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 314, 1200262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rozman, U.; Kokalj, A.J.; Dolar, A.; Drobne, D.; Kalcikova, G. Long-Term Interactions between Microplastics and Floating Macrophyte Lemna minor: The Potential for Phytoremediation of Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mao, H.; Yang, H.; Xu, Z.; Peng, Q.; Yang, S.; Zhu, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, Z. Responses of Submerged Macrophytes to Different Particle Size Microplastics and Tetracycline Co-Pollutants at the Community and Population Level. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 464, 132994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Liu, L.; Du, N.; Eller, F.; Ye, S.; Li, X.; Wei, J.; Guo, Y.; Brix, H.; Guo, W. Ecological Mechanisms of Carbon Sequestration in Vegetated Coastal Wetland Ecosystem: Exploring the Roles of Biodiversity and Environmental Changes. J. Mar. Environ. Eng. 2025, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vijuksungsith, P.; Satapanajaru, T.; Muangkaew, K.; Boonprasert, R. Performance of Bioretention Systems by Umbrella Plant (Cyperus alternifolius L.) and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) for Removal of Microplastics. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2024, 35, 103734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Huang, D.; Zeng, G.; Deng, R.; Liu, R.; Zhou, Z.; Tao, J.; Xiao, R.; Pan, H. Microplastics Retention by Reeds in Freshwater Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Song, U.; Kim, J.; Rim, H. Assessing Phytotoxicity of Microplastics on Aquatic Plants Using Fluorescent Microplastics. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 74186–74195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, Z.; Gao, S.-H.; Luo, G.; Kang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Pan, Y.; Zhou, X.; Fan, L.; Liang, B.; Wang, A. The Contamination of Microplastics in China’s Aquatic Environment: Occurrence, Detection and Implications for Ecological Risk. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 296, 118737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Xu, H.; Chen, C.; Pang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, W.; Kan, H. Effects of Microplastics Concentration on Plant Root Traits and Biomass: Experiment and Meta-Analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 285, 117038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ansari, F.A.; Ratha, S.K.; Renuka, N.; Ramanna, L.; Gupta, S.K.; Rawat, I.; Bux, F. Effect of Microplastics on Growth and Biochemical Composition of Microalga Acutodesmus obliquus. Algal Res. 2021, 56, 102296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhou, Q.; Song, C.; Wang, P.; Zhao, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhan, S. Generating Dual-Active Species by Triple-Atom Sites through Peroxymonosulfate Activation for Treating Micropollutants in Complex Water. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2300085120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chen, J.; Huo, L.; Yuan, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, H.; Hui, K.; Li, Y.; Huang, Z.; Xi, B. Interactions between Microplastics and Heavy Metals in Leachate: Implications for Landfill Stabilization Process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 480, 135830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 17 00014 g001
Figure 1. The comparisons of total biomass (A,B) and leaf N (C,D) in Myriophyllum spicatum (A,C) and Phragmites australis (B,D) parameters between different microplastics treatments (PE, polyethylene; PS, polystyrene). The same letter denotes no significant differences between groups with one-way ANOVA under α = 0.05.
Figure 1. The comparisons of total biomass (A,B) and leaf N (C,D) in Myriophyllum spicatum (A,C) and Phragmites australis (B,D) parameters between different microplastics treatments (PE, polyethylene; PS, polystyrene). The same letter denotes no significant differences between groups with one-way ANOVA under α = 0.05.
Water 17 00014 g001
Table 1. The results of the one-way ANOVA of Myriophyllum spicatum (n = 5; d.f. = 3) and Phragmites australis (n = 5; d.f. = 2) under the effect of microplastics.
Table 1. The results of the one-way ANOVA of Myriophyllum spicatum (n = 5; d.f. = 3) and Phragmites australis (n = 5; d.f. = 2) under the effect of microplastics.
F
M. spicatum		P
M. spicatum		F
P. australis		P
P. australis
pH0.45010.72070.22140.8039
EC0.60370.6221.12890.3494
Stem Length0.47810.70230.95790.406
Root Biomass0.63790.60150.40050.6769
Leaf Biomass0.47020.70720.30710.7401
Stem Biomass1.00050.4180.04120.9598
Total Biomass0.35370.78710.22650.8000
Root-to-Shoot Ratio1.36000.29060.22940.7977
Leaf N0.21630.88360.04190.959
Leaf P0.73620.54560.20070.8203
Stem N0.75000.5381--
Stem P1.84240.1801--
SOD0.49150.6935--
MDA0.16960.9154--
SS0.87570.4743--
FAA0.53520.6648--
GS0.06670.9768--
Leaf Area--1.99660.1703
Specific Leaf Area--0.19890.8217
Lead Dry Matter Content--0.91270.4226
E--0.72310.5014
A--0.10930.8971
Gsw--0.87960.4353
Fv/Fm--0.06230.9398
Y(II)--0.37530.6934
ETR--0.37020.6967
Notes: Abbreviations: SOD, superoxide dismutase; MDA, malondialdehyde; SS, soluble sugars; FAA, free amino acids, GS, glutamate synthetase; E, transpiration rate; A, net photosynthetic rate; Gsw, stomatal conductance; Fv/Fm, maximum quantum yield of PSII; Y(II), actual quantum efficiency of photosynthetic system II; ETR, electron transfer rate.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, L.; Codogno, B.; Wei, W.; Zhang, X.; Gao, J.; Dokuchaeva, V.; Ma, L.; Wu, P.; Yu, Q.; Guo, W. Investigating the Potential Effects of Microplastics on the Growth and Functional Traits in Two Aquatic Macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis) in Mesocosm Experiments. Water 2025, 17, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17010014

AMA Style

Liu L, Codogno B, Wei W, Zhang X, Gao J, Dokuchaeva V, Ma L, Wu P, Yu Q, Guo W. Investigating the Potential Effects of Microplastics on the Growth and Functional Traits in Two Aquatic Macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis) in Mesocosm Experiments. Water. 2025; 17(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17010014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Lele, Borbala Codogno, Wei Wei, Xiya Zhang, Jian Gao, Valeriia Dokuchaeva, Luyao Ma, Pan Wu, Qing Yu, and Weihua Guo. 2025. "Investigating the Potential Effects of Microplastics on the Growth and Functional Traits in Two Aquatic Macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis) in Mesocosm Experiments" Water 17, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17010014

APA Style

Liu, L., Codogno, B., Wei, W., Zhang, X., Gao, J., Dokuchaeva, V., Ma, L., Wu, P., Yu, Q., & Guo, W. (2025). Investigating the Potential Effects of Microplastics on the Growth and Functional Traits in Two Aquatic Macrophytes (Myriophyllum spicatum and Phragmites australis) in Mesocosm Experiments. Water, 17(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17010014

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop