Water quality parameters evaluation
Pollution by various means alters the water quality. Table 1 presents the means values of surface water quality parameters concerning water hyacinth coverage in terms of density (no of plants/1 m
2). It indicates that the surface water quality decreased across the water bodies when water hyacinth covers the water surface, the extent of decrease in water quality varied with the degree of surface cover. However, there were no significant differences between water hyacinth coverage and water quality except TSS (P<0.05) (Table 1).
Water hyacinth forms a thick mat that blocks sunlight, decreases contact with air and reduces water quality in terms of DO. Higher water hyacinth coverage decreased the DO values more than lesser coverage. This is in line with Wang
et al. (2013), who mentioned that DO of water bodies could be reached to a low level (2.3 mg/l) at full coverage of water hyacinth. Similarly, depletion in DO associated with aquatic weeds coverage was observed by several researchers
(Sengupta et al., 2010; Troutman et al., 2007; Toft et al., 2003; McVea and Boyd, 1975;
Lynch et al. 1947). Furthermore, regardless of surface cover, DO values were higher than the tolerance level (4 mg/l) for standard surface water (
SLS institute, 1985;
Rajasingham and Sivaruban, 2018). Hence, reductions of DO may vary spatially, depending on hydrology and water exchange characteristics (
Yan and Guo, 2017).
When considering the other two water quality parameters, EC and TSS, the mean values were generally lower when water hyacinth covers the water surface due to its inherent characteristics of the high absorption of nutrients and pollutants. The extent of reduction in TSS was found to be more at greater water hyacinth coverage and variation in mean values of TSS values at two sites; surface covered and uncovered was significant (p<0.05). Meanwhile, no distinct pattern for change in EC was observed with surface coverage. The observed EC values (91-1048 μS/cm) were lesser than the standard limit for surface water (1275 μS/cm) regardless of surface coverage (
Rajasingham and Sivaruban, 2018).
Meybeck and Helmer (1996) stated that conductivity might exceed 1000 μS/cm when water polluted. Hence, it was observed that the conductivity increased to 2850 mS/ cm when the growth of water hyacinth stopped
(Yan et al., 1994).
Concerning turbidity, it is ranged from 5.57-25.9, where water hyacinth covered the water surface and ranged from 3.76-28.7 NTU whereas no surface coverage is present. Like other quality parameters, water hyacinth coverage decreased the turbidity values; however, higher surface cover (dense) higher the turbidity values. The study results follow
Nguyen et al. (2015), who also noted lesser values for turbidities when water hyacinth was present.
Water hyacinth growing in acidic or alkaline water can gradually alter pH to neutral (
Yan and Guo, 2017). However, the pH values obtained in the study ranged from near neutral to slightly alkaline. Water hyacinth coverage decreased pH values. Lesser coverage allows much light to penetrate the water bodies and increase the photosynthesis of aquatic plants, increasing pH. Whatever, the observed pH values were found to be within the standard limit (6.5-8.5) for surface water (
ADB, 2010;
Rajasingham and Sivaruban, 2018). Similarly, a higher pH (7.8-8.5) was observed in the uncovered lagoon than the water hyacinth lagoon during the day due to the algal photosynthesis, while during the night, pH values descended to less than 7 (
Giraldo and Garzon, 2002).
Morphological parameter evaluation
The observed variation in water quality parameters between covered and uncovered cites in water bodies was expected to be because of morphological characters of water hyacinth. The mean values for morphological variables of water hyacinth plants across the studied water bodies are shown in Table 2. From this, it was clear that the variation in morphological variables across the water bodies is not solely dependent on plant density. In addition, other environmental factors like rainfall, temperature, light, nutrient availability that influence the growth of water hyacinth also might result in variation in these morphological variables.
Furthermore, the results of correlation analysis performed to identify the possible relationship between dependent (water quality) and independent (morphological) variables are shown in Table 3. It indicates that the morphological variables are positively highly correlated while the correlation with water quality parameters was less. The leaf length and leaf width showed a higher correlation (0.956) and these two variables showed less correlation with root length. Hence, all three variables showed a positive correlation for DO, whereas only root length showed a positive correlation for the water quality parameter, especially pH and TSS. This could be a possible reason for the higher mean values observed for water quality parameters at lesser plant density (coverage).
Nevertheless, these correlations were non-significant.
Sengupta et al. (2010) observed a positive correlation for DO and pH with morphological variables of leaf length, leaf width and root length of duckweed. On the other hand, the water quality parameters except for turbidity and DO negatively correlate with leaf width and length. Since root length is being high comparatively at higher plant dense (coverage) conditions, this could result in more lowered values of turbidity and EC.