The Effect of Colored Plastic Covers on Transpiration Rate of Water Hyacinth

Birhanu Hailu1 and Gelana Amente1*

1
College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia

Abstract
Water hyacinth (Echhornia crassipes) is one of the invasive and is considered as one of the most notorious aquatic
weeds because of its fast spread and crowded growth. Manual removal of the plant is considered to be the most
environmentally friendly way of controlling the plant but it is laborious when the plant covers large area. Field
experiment study was conducted on water hyacinth plants collected from Ziway Lake to estimate the effect of
colored plastic covers on the transpiration rates of the plant. In addition, crop factors (K c) and coefficients of
evaporation (Cp) of the covered plants were also compared with the uncovered plants. Transpiration losses were
determined from the difference in the volume of water from the pan containing the treatment and control plants and
the volume of water lost from the pan evaporation. The water losses from the pans were calculated from the
differences in the depths of water in the pans before and after the successive measurement days. For this, calibration
was done to correlate the depth of water level (in the pan) to the volume of water lost by evapotranspiration.
Besides, water loss measurements, pictures were also taken for visual observation of the plants at every level during
the experiment. Data analysis was made using Microsoft Office Excel. Comparisons were made using one-way
ANOVA followed by pair comparisons Evapotranspiration estimation for Zeway area was done using the modified
and optimized Temesgen-Melesse’s method. The result showed that the mean ET of the uncovered plant, those
covered by Black plastic (Bpc) and transparent plastic covered (Tpc) plants were 2.25L/d (7.96mm/d), 0.26L/d (0.92
mm/d) and 0.35L/d (1.24mm/d), respectively, compared to the mean daily pan evaporation of 0.88 L/d (3.11 mm/d).
The transpiration rate from the control plants was 1.37L/d (4.85 mm/d), but those covered by Tp and Bp did not
show any transpiration. Additionally, the C p calculated showed 1.09, 0.40 and 0.30 for the control, Tpc and Bpc
plants, respectively. The Kc result showed 1.42, 0.22, and 0.16 for the control, Tpc and Bpc plants, respectively.
ANOVA results of T, Cp showed significant differences between treatments and the control but no differences within
treatments. Out of the two, the transparent plastic cover showed superior performance in adversely affecting the
performance of the plant and in terms of its endurance in resisting the external environment. This study showed
promising result in killing the plant so that it would be easy to remove the plant from the water body. However, we
recommend the study to be conducted in the real environment of the plant (on lakes, or dams infested with water
hyacinth).

Keywords: - Crop coefficient (Kc), Evaporation coefficient (Cp), Evapotranspiration (ET), Plastic cover (pc),
Transpiration (T), Water hyacinth.
*Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected].
1. Introduction

Lakes and reservoirs sometimes harbor floating aquatic plants that cover the water body. When covering the water
body, the aquatic plants act as shades and reduce direct evaporation. However, they also remove substantial amount
of water from the water body in the form of transpiration. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is one of such
aquatic plants. Water hyacinth is considered as one of the most notorious aquatic weeds and is ranked among the top
ten world’s worst weeds. It is a noxious weed that has attracted worldwide attention due to its fast spread and
crowded growth, which leads to serious problems in navigation, irrigation, and power generation. It is also renowned
as a non-native, invasive and free-floating aquatic macrophyte that has abundant and uncontrolled growth in open
pond and other water bodies (Gopal, 1987). The weed has the ability to create anoxic conditions on lakes, thereby
increasing the level of toxicity and disease (Güereña et al., 2015), blocks water canals (Ndimele et al., 2011),
interferes with lake navigation (Tumbare, 2008), and enhances mosquito population (Priya and Selvan, 2017; Sindhu
et al., 2017), threats to the functioning and biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems fisheries (Attermeyer et al., 2016),
 2

interferences in irrigation systems (Opande et al., 2004), increases sedimentation (Bordoloi et al., 2015) and leads to
increased water loss through evapotranspiration (ET) relative to normal open water evaporation (Villamagna and
Murphy, 2010; Arp et al., 2017). A major lake like Lake Victoria of Kenya, which is the largest freshwater body in
the tropics, has undergone serious ecological changes including invasion by water hyacinth during the 1990s even
though the condition is currently improving.(Katerga and Sterner, 2007; Peninah et al., 2013). The weed has also
infested other lakes such as Lake Tana and Lake Zeway from the neighboring country.

The rapid increase and spread of the plant into new areas is due to its vegetative reproduction, which means a single
plant is able to grow very rapidly and cause a significant infestation. The other challenge is the fact that it can move
easily with water currents, winds or other accidental means, such as fishing nets and boats. Due to these bthe plant
invades rivers, canals, ponds, lakes, dams and other freshwater bodies. Different mechanisms such as biological,
chemical and physical methods have been tried to control the plant. The biological control makes use of insects and
fungal pathogens (DiTomaso et al., 2013). It requires high cost and has long time lag that can take 20 years or more
(McFadyen, 2000). The chemical system mostly involves growth inhibitors (DiTomaso et al., 2013). The use of
chemicals results in eutrophication and also causes dissolved oxygen depletion. In short, it causes ecological
problem besides involving high cost and being unsustainable (Labrada, 1995; Elenwo and Akankals, 2019).

The physical system makes use of mechanical methods such as using machineries, confinement boom or fences and
manual removal. The choices of methods depend on the level of infestation, resources available and the use of the
waterway (NSW Department of Primary industries, 2013). When the level of infestation is very large, the control
requires harvesting equipment such as mechanical choppers and shredders. Such machineries leave behind
fragments that can re-establish. There are also possibilities of dispersing of weeds by moving water or with winds
(DiTomaso et al., 2013). Moreover, the use of aquatic machineries for large infestation is costly besides, damages
the aquatic ecosystem. Manual removal is suitable during early stages of development of the plant, when the infested
area is small and if the plants are scattered. In this case, the removed plants have to be buried or dried out to
decompose and limit the spread of seed. The manual method, though expensive and laborious is beneficial since the
water can be used immediately following the control, especially when the water bodies are used for irrigation and for
stock and human consumption. The floating boom (made from nets or rope) and containment fences are usually used
to limit the infestation area and to minimize cost and time required for physical removal, to separate area that
requires different treatment and to allow staged removal (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2013).

The hydrological impact of water hyacinth is its high transpiration rates. The increased transpiration due to the dense
mates of water hyacinth can have serious implications where water is limited for human needs, for fish, birds and
other organisms (Noble, 1991). Open water evaporation generally depends on several factors such as solar radiation
intensity, relative humidity, wind speed, etc. but on average it is 3 mm/d for most aquatic plants while ET is on
average of 7.8 mm/d (Stan et al., 2016). In the absence of vegetation, the water volume lost by evaporation is lower
than with aquatic plants’ transpiration (Angela et al., 2014). In the case of water hyacinth, water loss can reach three
times greater than the natural evaporation rate of water surface that does not have water hyacinth (Osmond and
Petroeschhevsky, 2013). Immersed and floating plants, such as cattail and water hyacinth, because of their structure
and leaf area transpire more water than the water that would evaporate from the same area of water body. Therefore
lakes filled with immersed and floating plants will lose more water to the atmosphere than lakes having fewer plants
(Maguerite and Rawlik, 1993).
Reddy and Sutton (1984) in their study of water hyacinth in Aba Samuel wetland, Ethiopia reported that under
normal condition, loosely packed water hyacinth of relatively low plant density (10 kg/m2 wet mass) can reach
maximum density of 50 Kg/m2 and can cover the water surface in a short time. Therefore increased water loss
through ET of water hyacinth and its rapid increase and spread is considered one of the most crucial problems in
water bodies. Hence, estimating water losses through ET by aquatic weeds is very important to know the impact of
the weed on the livelihood of the water body (Florentina et al., 2016).
 3

Even though the emergence of water hyacinth in Ethiopia has been over five decades, the weed has become a
menace in recent years. This seems to be due to the extensive use of fertilizers, which ultimately joins water bodies
by flood and causes eutrophication. Finding ways of water losses from water hyacinth is not only important also a
necessity to increase the existence of lakes and reservoirs. So far an attempt done to achieve this goal is by removing
the plant from the water body. Nevertheless, this is cumbersome, time consuming, and requires the use of
mechanical devices or substantial manpower. The experience on Lake Tana has shown how challenging it was to use
manpower after the plant has widely spread. Since there are also other lakes that have very large infestation of this
plant, some way of reducing the manual labor is imperative. Decreasing the transpiration rate from this plant is also
necessary. This study was aimed to achieve two things. In the first case assumption was made that the use of plastic
cover minimizes transpiration rate since the transpired water condenses on the plastic and returns to the waterbody.
The second point is putting the plant under heat stress that could possibly kill or wilt the plant. A dead plant or
wilted plant weighs less and it becomes easy to remove the dead or wilted plant from the water body very easily. No
or limited studies were done to fight water hyacinth by such method. . This study is therefore attempting to find a
way to minimize the aggressiveness of the weed by manipulating the amount of radiation and wind that gets into the
plant. The study tries to find an alternative way of addressing this problem by using physical ways (using plastic
cover) to put the plant under heat stress.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. The Study area
This research was carried out around Zeway Lake, Ethiopia. The water hyacinth used in the experiment was
collected from Zeway Lake. The geographical coordinate of the experimental site is 7.935 oN latitude, 38.928oE
longitude and its mean elevation above sea level is 1640 m. The mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures
of the area are 13.3°C and 29.4°C, respectively (Mengistu and Amente, 2019). The experiment was conducted
adjacent to the Lake that is located close to Zeway town shown in Fig. 1.
 4

Figure 1:- Map of Zeway town

2.2. Experimental Materials

The materials used in this experiment were, 12 evaporation pans with depths of 16 cm and inner diameter of 60 cm
each, twelve 60 cm x 60 cm x 10 cm wooden bases to serve as seats for the pans, digital balance used to measure the
mass of water hyacinth, thermometer to measure temperature during measurement, Styrofoam, meter stick to
measure depth of water from the top, two liter capacity plastic container, lake water, transparent plastic and black
plastic, camera to take pictures of the plants during measurement time and scissors to cut the plastics. Wire mesh and
wooden posts were used to fence the study area.

2.3. Experimental Setup

In this experimental work, the experiment site was selected since all the experimental units get full sunlight
throughout the day. The site selected was free from shades and bushes. Safety of the equipment and the researchers
were also taken into consideration when selecting the site. The experimental area was cleaned to make it suitable for
the experiment. The area was fenced by mesh wire to protect the area of the experiment. Then the ground was
leveled and checked by spirit level to make sure that the water level in the pan stays horizontal. Then wooden bases
were prepared and placed on the leveled surface to avoid the inclination of the level of water in the pans. The weight
of each pan was measured and recorded prior to adding anything to the pan and each pan was labeled and its weight
was marked on the outer surface. The pans were placed on the wooden bases. To each pan equal volumes of lake
water (22 liters) were added to about three-fourth of the size of the pan.
 5

Water hyacinths were collected from the lake; their masses were measured using digital balance and equal weights
(2.5 kg on average) were carefully placed in the nine of the twelve pans without overcrowding but just enough to
cover the water surface in the pan. The treatments and control plants were prepared in three replications each thereby
making a total of nine experimental units. Three of the pans were covered with transparent plastic, another three of
them covered with black plastic, and the remaining three were left uncovered (control group). In addition, three pans
were also used to measure plain water pan evaporation of the area. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2.

Plants covered with black plastic

Plants covered with transparent plastic Uncovered (control) plants

Pans for plain water evaporation

Figure 2:- Arrangements of the experimental units

Temporary homemade rain gauge was also installed to measure the amount of rainfall just in case rainfall happens
during the test period. This was to calculate the amount of water added to each pan because of the rain.

2.4. Data Collection

The volume of water lost by ET was measured indirectly from the depth of water level drop in the pan ( Adeloye,
2019). This was because of the difficulty of getting accurate balance that is capable of measuring the mass of the pan
with plants and water, at the site. The depths of the water levels from the top of the pan were measured by placing
the meter stick horizontally on the pan and by measuring the distance from the meter stick to the water surface as
shown in Fig. 3. In order to convert the depth difference to the volume of water lost by ET calibration was done
prior to the experiment. Calibration was done by measuring the depth (d) against the volume of water (V). After
every 2 L was added, a stiff wire connected to a Styrofoam was inserted into the pan and allowed to reach the water
surface. Then the distance from the base of the Styrofoam to the horizontal meter stick was measured accurately
(shown as d1 and d2 in the figure). Every time a given volume of water was added the depth slightly reduced from d 1
to d2. The depth difference was then correlated to the volume of water added. After the water level reached the
required depth, plot of d measured (in mm) versus V (L) was done and the plot was curve fitted with the best
equation that adequately described the curve. The equation was used every time depth to volume conversion was
required. This method was used to get the amount of water lost by ET and E from each pan.
Transpiration was obtained from the difference of the mean ET of the replicated treatments/control and the mean pan
evaporation of the plain water. In this study, data was gathered for over a period of seventeen days. Measurements
were taken every third day during the first 9 days and every other day during the remaining time. The time gap
changed since there were substantial water losses by evaporation that necessitated reduction of the time gap.
 6

Figure 3:- Estimation of ET by water volume change method.

During each measurement, pictures of the plant samples were also taken and the day and sample number were
recorded. The pictures were for qualitative observations of the condition of the plants, especially the changes of
plants with black and transparent plastic covers. Secondary data that satisfy the potential evapotranspiration of the
area were obtained from Hawasa, Ethiopia meteorological station. At the end of the experiment, the weights of the
plants of each experimental unit were measured and recorded. In addition, the volume and the weight of water that
remained in the pan were also measured and recorded. The difference between the original weight of the plant and
its final weight (averaged for the three replications) were used to find the weight the plant gained/lost over the
duration of the experiment.
2.5. Mathematical Methods used for Data Analyses
In this study the treatments and the control were compared using three parameters. The first is the rate of
transpiration, which was obtained by subtracting average pan evaporation (E) from the treatment/control average
evapotranspiration (ET). The second parameter was the crop factor (C p) or evaporation coefficient. It is the ratio of
plant ET and free water (pan) evaporation.
ET
C p= .(1)
E
It is a unitless quantity so long as the same units are used in both cases. It measures how much water the plant loses
by ET compared to plain water evaporation. The third quantity is crop coefficient (Kc), which is the ratio of mean ET
(of the 17 days) of the plant to that of potential evapotranspiration (ET o) of the area. ET from a crop surface is
calculated as a function of Kc, the crop coefficient derived for a particular plant species, and ETo, a reference ET
value that characterizes the evaporative demand of the region. The Kc is the crop coefficient for a given crop and is
usually determined experimentally. Its values represent the integrated effects of changes in leaf area, plant height,
crop characteristics, irrigation method, rate of crop development, crop planting date, degree of canopy cover, canopy
resistance, soil and climate conditions, and management practices. Each crop will have a set of specific crop
coefficient and will predict different water use for different crops for different growth stages.

Factors affecting the value of the crop coefficient ( K c ) are mainly the crop characteristics, rate of crop development,
length of growing season and climatic conditions. By using the FAO Penman-Monteith definition for ET o, crop
 7

coefficients can be calculated at research sites by relating the measured crop ET with the calculated ET o (Rashed,
2014). The K c factor serves as an aggregation of the physical and physiological differences between crops and the
reference definition.
In order to calculate Kc it is necessary to convert the measured ET is in L/d to mm/d for unit compatibility.
ET
K c= (2)
ET o
For this, the liter is converted to mm/d after which the quantity is divided by the top surface area of the pan. That
means,
6
ET L × 10
ET mm = .(3)
( )
2
D
π
2
In the equation D = is the diameter of the pan, ET L= is the measured ET in liters, and ET mm= is the same ET in mm.
The diameter of the pan is 60 cm (= 600 mm) and therefore
ET L × 106 ET L × 106
ET mm = = =3.5 386 ET L (4 ).
π ( 300 )
2
282600
Thereafter it is possible to use Eq. 2 to find Kc as
ET mm 3.539 ET L 3.5 4 ET L
K c= = = .(5)
ET o 5.60 mm 5.60 mm
The next step is obtaining the potential evapotranspiration (ET o) of the area. It is evapotranspiration rate from a
reference surface, not short of water and therefore it is called the reference crop ET or reference ET. The reference
surface is a hypothetical grass reference crop with specific characteristics. The only factors affecting ET o are
climatic parameters. Consequently, ETo is a climatic parameter and can be computed from weather data. ET o
expresses the evaporating power of the atmosphere at a specific location and time of the year and does not consider
the crop characteristics and soil factors (Hou et al., 2010; Berti et al., 2014; Valipour, 2015; Zhao et al., 2015).

The energy required for ET is mainly available from direct solar radiation and to a lesser extent, the ambient
temperature of air (Allen et al., 1998). The driving force to remove water from the evaporating surface depends on
the difference between water vapor pressure of the evaporating surface and that of the surrounding atmosphere
(Bosen, 1960). Furthermore, wind speed significantly affects the movement of vapor flow in the air. Hence, solar
radiation, air temperature, air humidity and wind speed are the main meteorological parameters to consider when
assessing the ETo processes (Morton, 1994; Xu and Singh, 1998).

In order to estimate ETo, the use of the Penman equation would have been appropriate (Allen, et al., 1998).
However, since the meteorological data obtained from Hawassa lacked sunshine hour, an alternative approach of
using the modified and optimized Temesgen Melesse’s equation (Mengistu and Amente, 2020) was used. The
equation makes use of mean maximum temperature of the location, daily maximum temperatures during the study
period, latitude and altitude of the study area. The equation is of the form
nopt
T mx
ET o= (6)
48 Tmx−330
The optimized n value (nopt) and the T̅mx values of Zeway were obtained from Mengistu and Amente (2020)
calculations. The optimized n (nopt) for Ziway station made use of latitude, 7.56 oN, altitude, 1640 m, 30-year average
maximum temperature of Ziway, 26.86oC, and the result of nopt obtained is 2.494.
 8

The data obtained were organized using Microsoft Excel and analyzed in accordance with the specific parameter of
interest. Comparison of ET of the treatments and the control were made using Microsoft excel. Comparisons of
transpiration rates of the treatments and the control and C p values were made using one-way ANOVA. Comparisons
of Kc values were done graphically.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Transpiration Rates of the Treatments and the Control

3.1.1. Measured pan evaporation

Evaporation was measured using pan evaporation method with three replications. In order to find daily evaporation,
first the total evaporation from each pan over seventeen days is obtained. Next the average of the three pans was
calculated and the result was divided by seventeen to find the daily evaporation value. In order to find the volume of
water evaporated, first the depth data were converted into volume of water using the calibration equation. Table 1
shows the pan evaporation rates calculated from water level depth.

Table 1:- Pan Evaporation rates tabulated with the Mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation .
Gap (d) R1, E (L/d) R2, E(L/d) R3, E (L/d) Mean E(L/d) SD CV
3 2.38 2.63 2.29 2.43 0.18 0.07
3 1.53 1.44 1.70 1.56 0.13 0.08
3 1.87 2.12 1.95 1.98 0.13 0.07
2 2.42 2.80 2.04 2.42 0.38 0.16
2 2.17 1.91 2.17 2.08 0.15 0.07
2 2.55 2.55 2.42 2.50 0.07 0.03
2 2.04 2.29 1.53 1.95 0.39 0.20
Total evaporation over 17 days (L) 14.93
Daily mean evaporation (L) 0.88
R1, R2, and R3 represent replications, SD = standard deviation, CV = coefficient of variation. The gap indicates the number of
days between two consecutive readings.

As observed in the above table, daily mean E over the 17 days is 0.88 L/d and this when converted to mm/d using
Eq. (4) gives 3.11 mm/d. This result is close to the average evaporation of 3.0 mm d-1 (Stan et al., 2016).

3.1.2. Transpiration Values of the Control Group

The transpiration rate of the control group was calculated by subtracting the pan E value from the ET. The calculated
values along with the ratio of the transpiration to E are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Transpiration of the control group shown with the daily mean and the ratio, T/E
Gap (d) Mean control ET (L/d) Pan E (L/d) Control T (L/d) T/E
3 6.14 2.43 3.71 1.5
3 6.45 1.56 4.90 3.1
3 5.60 1.98 3.62 1.8
2 4.25 2.42 1.83 0.8
2 5.18 2.08 3.10 1.5
2 5.56 2.50 3.06 1.2
2 5.05 1.95 3.10 1.6
Total 38.24 14.93 23.31 11.55
Daily mean 2.25 0.88 1.37 0.68
T/E     1.56
 9

The transpiration rates are obtained from the difference between the ET of the control group and the pure water E
measured by pan measurement method. The daily mean transpiration of the plant is 1.37 L/d, which comes to 4.85
mm/d using the conversion Eq. (4). This value is greater than the pan E by a factor of 1.56 (= 1.37/0.88) and it
indicates that the plant transpires more water than free water evaporation. The daily mean ET of the control is 2.25 L
/d (7.96 mm d-1).
In the control group, the water hyacinth plant covers large area of the surface of the pan that limits the amount of
solar radiation that reaches the water surface below the plant. Thus the plant has a ‘shading effect’ that reduces the
amount of evaporation from the water underneath the plant. Therefore the larger fraction of the ET comes from
transpiration and this undermined the T/E value.
The daily ET from water hyacinth obtained in this study was 7.96 mm d -1. Daniel (2009) on the other hand, used the
method of leaf area index and obtained water loss of 18.57 mm and 12.33 mmd-1 during dry and wet seasons,
respectively, in his research on water surface covered by water hyacinth in Aba Samuel wetland, Ethiopia,. This
value is still higher than what was obtained in this study and the difference could be due to the methods used for the
determination of ET.

The ratio of T/E 4.7 obtained by Johansson (1977) is about three times than what we obtained (1.56). Johansson did
his test when the maximum temperature was very high (36 oC) and daytime relative humidity was lower (35%) as
compared to ours, which was 31 oC and 50%, respectively. This difference must have contributed to the differences
between his T/E value and ours. Johansson also covered the pan with plastic to reduce evaporation, but such
coverage increases transpiration because of the heat introduced due to the greenhouse effect.

3.1.4. Transpiration Rates of the Treatment Groups.

In this part the mean transpiration rates of the treatment with black plastic cover and transparent plastic cover are
shown together (Table 3).

Table 3: Transpiration rates of plants under black plastic (Bpc) and transparent plastic (Tpc) covers.
Gap (d) Bpc ET(L/d) Pan E (L/d) Bpc T (L/d) Tpc ET(L/d) Tpc T (L/d)
3 1.33 2.43 -1.10 1.61 -0.82
3 0.23 1.56 -1.33 0.51 -1.05
3 0.74 1.98 -1.24 0.54 -1.44
2 0.55 2.42 -1.87 0.89 -1.53
2 0.38 2.08 -1.70 0.68 -1.40
2 0.76 2.51 -1.75 1.06 -1.45
2 0.47 1.95 -1.48 0.68 -1.27
Total 4.46 14.93 -10.47 5.97 -8.96
Daily mean 0.26 0.88 -0.62 0.35 -0.53
T/E     -0.70   -0.60

As it has seen in Table 3, the daily transpiration rates of the plastic covered plants in both cases showed negative
results, which means there were no transpirations from the plants and in addition, the negative values indicate that
the cover has reduced the rate of evaporation. The reduction in the rate of evaporation could be seen in two ways.
The first is due to the shading effect of the plastic that reduces the inside temperature and thereby reduces the
evaporation rate (Kadlec, 1989).
The second and perhaps the more plausible argument is the return of a portion of the evaporated water back into the
pan as a result of condensation, especially when the temperature drops (during nighttime). This is particularly true in
the case of the transparent plastic cover, since in this case, the inside temperature increases during the daytime due to
greenhouse effect during which evaporation was definitely eminent. In this regard, both covers have done good jobs
of reducing the rate of ET even below the free water evaporation.
 10

Looking at the two treatments and the control together reveals how transpiration exceeds the pan evaporation for the
control plant and the nonexistence of transpiration from the plastic covered plants (Fig. 4).
Pan evap. Polynomial (Pan evap.) C. Transp.
Polynomial (C. Transp.) Bpc transp. Polynomial (Bpc transp.)
Wpc transp. Polynomial (Wpc transp.)
5.0
Volume of water evaporated/transpired (L)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Measurement number
Figure 4: Comparisons of transpiration rates of the plastic covered plants and the control plant with free water
evaporation.
As it has seen in the figure, during every measurement, the volume of water transpired by the treatment groups were
all negative. The treatments exhibited almost linear reduction in transpiration up to the fifthe measurement.
Statistical comparison among the treatments and the control is shown in Table 4.

Table 4:- One-way ANOVA to show difference between the treatments and the control.
Source df SS MS F Fc Significance
Treatment 2 102.48 51.24 157.92 3.55 S*
Error 18 5.84 0.32
Total 20 108.32
The table shows significant difference at p = 0.05 level. Fc is critical F value at 0.05 for treatment MS degree of freedom (df) of 2
and error MS df of 18.

Table 4 shows statistically significant differences at 0.05 levels. Pair comparisons show significant differences
between the control and plants with Bpc, the control and plants with Tpc, but not between Bpc and Tpc. The fact
that there is no difference between the two treatments indicates that both types of plastics could be used if the aim is
to reduce transpiration rate. However, from what was observed during the experiment, the transparent plastic is more
preferable. The reason is that the plants under the transparent plastic first wilted and finally died after a couple of
days (Fig. 5), whereas those under Bpc did not show the same result.
 11

Tpc-R2 (1 d) Bpc-R2 (1 d) C-R2 (1 d)

Tpc-R2 (7 d) Bpc-R2 (7 d) C-R2 (7 d)

Tpc-R2 (18 d) Bpc-R2 (18 d) C-R2 (18 d)

Figure 5: Pictures of one of the three replications shown for the two treatments and the control. Tpc = transparent
plastic cover, Bpc = Black plastic cover, C = control (uncovered plant) and R stands for replication.
The pictures were taken every measurement day but the ones shown here are the pictures taken at the beginning (1 st
d), on the 7th (7 d), and on the last day (18 d). The plant with the transparent plastic cover (Tpc) wilted on the 12 th
day and completely died at the end of the experiment. The one with the black plastic cover (Bpc) showed wilting
only at the end of the experiment. Transparent plastic cover absorbs little but transmits 85% to 95% of the incoming
shortwave radiation. The water that condenses under the surface of clear plastic cover is also transparent to the
incoming shortwave radiation but is opaque to outgoing long wave infrared radiation. As a result, much of the heat is
retained by the clear plastic cover (Coleman, 1995). Black plastic cover is an opaque blackbody absorber and
radiator. The black cover absorbs most UV, visible, and infrared wavelengths of incoming solar radiation and re-
radiates absorbed energy in the form of thermal radiation or long wavelength infrared radiation both upward to the
atmosphere and downward to the plant. The heat absorbed by the plant can put the plant under heat stress. Despite
that, it seems that the plant under the black plastic cover managed to tolerate the heat better than the one under the
transparent plastic cover. The difference indicates that the greenhouse effect under the transparent cover is more
aggressive in putting the plant under heat stress than the thermal radiation from the black cover. The picture also
shows that the pan environment is not as suitable as the lake since even the control plant showed slight change even
if it did lack neither water nor radiation.

The second reason why the transparent plastic is preferred is because of its endurance to withstand radiation. The
black plastic deteriorated and was torn after about a week and it had to be replaced. The reason could be the high
radiation absorption rate of the black plastic or it could be due to the quality of the plastic material itself.
 12

Under the lake environment, it will be necessary to remove both the wilted and even the dried plant from the water
surface since it is unsightly and in addition because it adds organic matter into the lake that may increase
eutrophication and also nitrogen content of the lake. Reducing the levels nitrogen and phosphorous in the water will
reduce the growth of water hyacinth or any other aquatic plant (DiTomaso et al., 2013).

3.2. Calculated Evaporation Coefficients (Crop Factor, Cp)

The crop factor for the plant is the ratio of plant ET and free water evaporation (Eq. 1). Based on this equation, the
value of Cp for the normal plant (control) was found to be 2.56.
Mean ET 2.25
C p= = =2.56 .
Mean E 0.88
This value is close to the results obtained earlier by other researchers. For example, Maguerite and Rawlik (1993)
found a value ranging from 3 to 6 for water hyacinth plants. Our value is close to the low end of Maguerite and
Rawlik’s results. Johansson (1977) did a 48 h test in Tanzania and found ET equivalent of 25.6 mm d -1. He also
determined the free water evaporation of the area to be 5.476 mm d-1. This indicates his Cp value comes to 4.67. This
is also slightly higher than what is obtained in our study. The difference could be attributed to the weather condition
in which he did his experiment (maximum temperature of 36oC, minimum 20oC, and relative humidity varied
between 35% during the day and 55% at night). Daniel (2009) in his work on water hyacinth in Aba Samuel
wetland, Ethiopia found 18.57 mm and 12.33 mm of water lost per day in dry and wet seasons, respectively. The
value he obtained during dry season is higher than ours.
The value of Cp for the plant covered by black plastic is found to be 0.30.
Mean ET . Bpc 0.26
C p(Bpc )= = =0.30 .
Mean E 0.88
The value of Cp for the plant covered by transparent plastic is 0.40.
Mean ET . Tpc 0.35
C p(Tpc)= = =0.40 .
Mean E 0.88
The two values are close to each other. However, the fact that the C p values of the treatments are less than one
indicates the absence of transpiration and the reduction of free water evaporation from their respective pans. This is
understandable because of the plastic cover that increases condensation even though not all of the condensed water
returns to the pan. A portion of the water drops to the ground since the plastic cover is not covering the pans alone
but also the spaces between the pans. The summarized result is shown in Table 5.

Table 5:- Crop factor (Cp) values of the two treatments (Bpc and Tpc) and the control (C).
Measurement day Control Cp Bpc Cp Tpc Cp
3 2.52 0.55 0.66
6 4.14 0.15 0.33
9 2.82 0.37 0.27
11 1.75 0.23 0.37
13 2.49 0.18 0.33
15 2.22 0.31 0.42
17 2.55 0.24 0.35
Total 18.50 2.03 2.73
Daily mean 1.09 0.12 0.16
(Cpt/Cpc)% 11.01 14.67
Cpt represents Cp of the treatment group (Bpc Cp or Tpc Cp) and Cpc represents Cp of the control plant.
 13

As seen in Table 5, the ratios of the crop factors of the two treatments with respect to the control are nearly 11% and
15% for black plastic covered and transparent plastic covered water hyacinth plants, respectively. But in order to see
whether there is significant difference or not comparisons are made using one-way ANOVA and the result is shown
in Table 6.

Table 6:- One-way ANOVA to show differences of Cp values between the treatments and the control.
Source df SS MS F Fc Significance
Treatment 2 24.64 12.32 63.02 3.55 S*
Error 18 3.52 0.20
Total 20 28.16
The ANOVA table shows significant difference among the three at p = 0.05 level. The pair comparisons show
significant differences between the control and those plants with Bpc, the control and plants with Tpc, but not
between Bpc and Tpc. Thus, as far as statistical comparisons are concerned the two plastics work well in
significantly reducing the rates of transpiration.

4.3. Calculation of Crop Coefficient (Kc)

Crop coefficient is the ratio of plant ET and the potential ET (ET o) of the area. For unit compatibility ET conversion
from liters per day to mm/d was done using Eq. (4). Next ETo was obtained from Eq. (6) and the calculated ET o is
shown in Table 7.

Table 7:- Estimation of ET by Mengistu and Amente (2020) method.

Tmx (oC) Mean Tmx ETo (mm/d)

29.8 26.86 4.88

30.2 26.86 5.05

31.8 26.86 5.74

32.0 26.86 5.83

32.4 26.86 6.02

31.8 26.86 5.74

30.8 26.86 5.30

28.8 26.86 4.49

31.6 26.86 5.65

31.2 26.86 5.48

31.4 26.86 5.56

32.2 26.86 5.92

31.8 26.86 5.74

31.4 26.86 5.56

32.0 26.86 5.83

31.8 26.86 5.74

 14

32.8 26.86 6.20

32.4 26.86 6.02

Mean ET 5.60

SD 0.43

From the table, the mean ETo is 5.60 mm/d and the Kc calculated using Eq. (3) for the treatments and the control are
shown in Table 8.

Table 8:- Crop coefficient values of the two treatments and the control.
ET(L/d) ET (mm/d) ETo (mm) Kc

C 2.25 7.96 5.6 1.41

Bpc 0.26 0.92 5.6 0.16

TPc 0.35 1.24 5.6 0.22

The Kc values are substantially lower for the two treatments compared to the control. The control K c is by over nine
and six times greater than those of black plastic covered and transparent plastic covered plants, respectively. It
means the treatment Kc values are almost nonexistent. The very low K c values indicate the insignificance of the
treatment ET compared to the potential ET of the area. The lower values of K c in the case of plants with black plastic
cover indicate more shading (reduced solar radiation reaching the water surface underneath the plant) than those of
transparent plastic covered plants. According to Kadlec (1989), the presence of vegetation retards evaporation from
the water surface. This is understandable since the leaves of the transparent plastic covered plants showed less
shading effect since they started wilting earlier than those of black plastic covered plants. The result of ET/ET o of
1.41 obtained for the uncovered (control) plant in our case is almost identical to the value of 1.44 obtained by Van
der Weert and Kamerling (1974) in their well-controlled experiment in Surinam in 1968.

4. Conclusion and Implications

This study was conducted to compute and compare the ET and transpiration rates of water hyacinth plants collected
from Ziway Lake in which the treatment plants were covered by black and transparent plastic and the control plants
were uncovered. As observed from the results, ET of plants with black plastic cover exhibited 12% ET and the
plants with transparent plastic cover 16% of the total ET of the control groups, respectively. Both treatments did not
show any transpiration and therefore both transparent and black plastic covers work well as far as transpiration
reduction is concerned. Cp values were 11% and 15% of the normal plant for the plants with Bpc and Tpc,
respectively. Kc values of Bpc and Tpc plants were almost nonexistent (almost zero) compared to that of the normal
plant. As far as the test results are concerned, the effects of color plastic cover on the water hyacinth were more
beneficial in reducing the transpiration rates from water hyacinth plants. Transparent plastic cover is more efficient
in killing the plant. Putiing the plant under thermal stress is doing a nice job of killing or damaging the plants and
that makes removal of the plant from the water bodies easier.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there's no conflict of interest concerning to the publication of this article.

References
 15

Adeloye, A. J., Wuni, I. Y., Dau, Q. V., Soundharajan, B. S. and K. S. Kasiviswanathan, (2019). Height–Area–
Storage Functional Models for Evaporation-Loss Inclusion in Reservoir-Planning Analysis. Water, 11, 1413;
doi:10.3390/w11071413
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop
water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300(9):05109.
Angela, A., Jaime, A.T.S. and Gabor, S. (2014) Evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of common reed at the
surroundings of Lake Balaton, Hungary Aquat. Bot., 116:01-08.
Arp, R.S., Fraser, G. C., and Hill, M. (2017). Quantifying the water savings benefit of water hyacinth ( Eichhornia
crassipes) control in the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme: Vital Repository 7.0. Water S.A, 43(1): 58–66.
Attermeyer, K., Flury, S., Jayakumar, R., Fiener, P., Steger, K., Arya, V. and Premke, K. (2016). Invasive floating
macrophytes reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a small tropical lake. Scientific reports, 6:20424.
Berti, A., Tardivo, G., Chiaudani, A., Rech, F., and Borin, M. (2014). Assessing reference evapotranspiration by the
Hargreaves method in north-eastern Italy. Agricultural Water Management, 140, 20–25.
Bordoloi, S., Yamsani, S. K., Garg, A., Sreedeep, S., and Borah, S. (2015). Study on the efficacy of harmful weed
species Eichhornia crassipes for soil reinforcement. Ecological Engineering, 85:218-222.
Bosen, J. F. 1960. A formula for approximation of saturation vapor pressure over water. Monthly Weather Review,
88(8):275-276.
Coleman, E. 1995. The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques for the Home and
Market Gardener. 2nd Edition, Chelsea Green Publishing, Lebanon.
Daniel, W. 2009. Potential of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes (Mart.) solms) For the Removal of Chromium
from Waste Water in Artificial Pond System.
Daniel, W., Feleke, Z. and Seyoum, L. (2011). Potential of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) for
the removal of chromium from tannery effluent in constructed pond system. SINET, Ethiop. J. Sci., 34(1): 49–
62.
DiTomaso, J. M., G.B. Kyser et al. 2013. Weed control in natural areas in the western United States, Weed Research
Information Center, University of California. Pp. 544
Elenwo, E.I., and Akankali, J.A. (2019). Review of Conventional Methods of Water Hyacinth Controls and Option
for Niger Delta Region Nigeria. ASJ International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Reviews
(IJASRR). Vol. 4(01), 74-90
Florentina, I.S., Neculau, G., Zaharia, L., Toroimac, G.I. and Sorin, M. (2016). Study on the evaporation and
evapotranspiration measured on the Căldăruşani Lake (Romania) International Conference — Environment
at a Crossroads: SMART Approaches for a Sustainable Future.
Gopal, B. 1987. Water hyacinth, aquatic plant studies, 1.
Güereña, D., Neufeldt, H., Berazneva, J., and Duby, S. (2015).Water hyacinth control in Lake Victoria:
Transforming an ecological catastrophe into economic, social, and environmental benefits. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 3, 59-69.
Hou, X.Y., Wang, F.X., Han, J.J., Kang, S.Z., Feng, S.Y. (2010). Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under
drip irrigation in an arid region of Northwest China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 150, 115–121.
Johansson, D. 1977. The water hyacinth in the Pangani River: Tanzania - Ecology and effects on hydroelectric
power station. Great Ruaha Power Project, Tanzania.
Kadlec, R. H. 1989. Hydrologic factors in wetland water treatment. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment–Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural, 21-40.
Kateregga, E. and Sterner, T. (2007). Indicators for an invasive species: Water hyacinths in Lake Victoria.
Ecological Indicators, 7:362-370.
Lebrada, R. (1995). Status of water hyacinth in developing countries. (In: Strategies for Water hyacinth control,
Cherudattan, Labrada, Center and Begazo, eds.), FAO.
Marguerite, S.K. and Rawlik, P.S. 1993.Transpiration and Stomatal conductance of two wetland macrophytes in the
subtropical everglades. American J. of botany, 10, 1146-1154.
 16

Mcfadyen, R. E. C. (2000). Successes in Biological Control of Weeds, Proceedings of the X International

Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana, USA Neal R. Spencer [ed.]. 3-14 .
Mengistu, B. and Amente, G. (2019). Three methods of estimating the power of maximum temperature in TM-ET
estimation equation. SN Applied Sciences, 1:1403: 1461-1469.
Mengistu, B. and Amente, G. (2020). Reformulating and testing Temesgen-Melesse’s temperature-based
evapotranspiration estimation method.
Morton, F. I. (1994).Evaporation research: a critical review and its lessons for the environmental sciences. Critical
reviews in environmental science and technology, 24(3), 237-280.
Ndimele, P. E., Kumolu-Johnson, C. A., and Anetekhai, M. A. (2011). The invasive aquatic macrophyte, water
hyacinth {Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solm-Laubach: Pontedericeae}: problems and prospects. Research
Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(6): 509.
NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2013. Water hyacinth Control Modules; Control options for water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) in Australia. The State of New South Wales.
Noble, P. 1991. Physicochemical and environmental plant physiology. San Diego, CA: Academic press Inc.
Opande, G. O., Onyango, J. C., and Wagai, S. O. (2004). Lake Victoria: The water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)
[MART.] SOLMS, its socio-economic effects, control measures and resurgence in the Winam gulf.
Limnologica, 34(1-2): 105-109.
Osmond, R., and Petroeschhevsky, A. (2013). Water hyacinth Control Modules Control options for water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) in Australia. Australia: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.
Peninah, A., Ojwang, W., Omondi, R., Njiru, J.M. and Dalmas, O. (2013). A review of the impacts of invasive
aquatic weeds on the bio-diversity of some tropical water bodies with special reference to Lake Victoria
(Kenya). Biodivers. J., 4:471-482.
Priya, S. E., and Selvan, S. P. (2017). Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) – An efficient and economic adsorbent
for textile effluent treatment – A review. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 10:S3548–S3558.
Rashed, A. A. 2012. Treatment of municipal pollution through re-engineered drains: a case study, Edfina drain,
West Nile Delta. In 11th ICID, international drainage workshop (IDW), Cairo, Egypt (pp. 23-27).
Reddy, K. and Sutton, D. (1984).Water hyacinths for water quality improvement and biomass production. J
Environmental Qual. (13):1-8.
Sindhu, R., Binod, P., Pandey, A., Madhavan, A., Alphonsa, J. A., Vivek, N. and Faraco, V. 2017. Water hyacinth a
potential source for value addition: an overview. Bio-resource technology, 230: 152-162.
Stan, F.-I., Neculau, G., Zaharia, L., Ioana-Toroimac, G. and Mihalache, S. (2016). Study on the Evaporation and
Evapotranspiration Measured on the Căldăruşani Lake (Romania). Procedia Environmental Sciences, 32,
281–289.
Tumbare, M. J. (2008). Managing Lake Kariba sustainably: threats and challenges. Management of environmental
quality: An international journal.
Valipour, M. (2015). Temperature analysis of reference evapotranspiration models. Meteorological Applications,
22(3): 385–394.
Van der Weert, R. and Kamerling, G. E. (1974). Evaporation of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). J. of
hydrobiology, 22: 201-212.
Villamagna, A. M., and Murphy, B. R. (010). Ecological and socio ‐economic impacts of invasive water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes): a review. Freshwater biology, 55(2): 282-298.
Xu, C. Y. and Singh, V. P.( 1998). Dependence of evaporation on meteorological variables at different time ‐scales
and inter comparison of estimation methods. Hydrological processes 12(3): 429-442.
Zhao, J., Xu, Z. X., Zuo, D. P., & Wang, X. M. (2015). Temporal variations of reference evapotranspiration and its
sensitivity to meteorological factors in Heihe River Basin, China. Water Science and Engineering, 8(1), 1–
8.