J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol.

15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Deweeding as a Lake Management Intervention– A Critical Analysis

Mohmmad Irshad Rather1*, Abdul Rehman Yousuf2 and Ummer Rashid Zargar3
1
Department of Environmental Science, University of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir
2
Formerly Expert Member, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi
3
Department of Zoology, GDC, Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir
*Corresponding authors e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Eutrophication of freshwater ecosystems, particularly lakes have manifested in numerous problems and one such
unavoidable outcome is the excessive weed growth, which has drastically altered the structure and overall functioning of
the lake ecosystems around the globe. Deweeding has come up as an important management tool to eradicate aquatic
weeds along with removal of huge nutrient loads from lake ecosystems. Deweeding has both beneficial and deleterious
impacts on the overall lake ecology that needed to be ascertained through the available literature. This huge plethora of
literature has been systematically arranged into various sections and sub-sections. In this comprehensive review, we have
tried to evaluate the efficiency and success rates of the deweeding intervention as a lake management tool and to provide
an overall picture of its impacts in light of noteworthy literature throughout the globe to come up with some general
understanding, mechanism and science behind the deweeding process.
Key words: Deweeding, Lake harvesting, Lake management, Weed growth, Eutrophication

INTRODUCTION
The visual manifestation of eutrophication in the
Lakes are subjected to both natural and cultural
lake ecosystems are the algal blooms and/or the
eutrophication throughout the globe (Pal, 2020;
abundant aquatic weed growth. As a result,
Hass et al., 2019). Natural causes include
several problems arise in the lake ecosystems
increased runoff (Tang et al., 2020),
that have ramifications on the ecology, fishing,
sedimentation (Dalu et al., 2019), input of plant
navigation, recreation and aesthetics
material (Hong, 2020), geological characteristics
(Charudattan, 2001). Alien invasive species cause
(Liu et al., 2019) which enhance the production
more damage to the native flora and fauna
levels of lake ecosystems (Schindler, 2006) and
causing irreversible changes to aquatic habitats
the process is often very slow (Calisto et al.,
(Villamagna and Murphy, 2010; Stiers et al., 2011;
2014). In addition, lake ecosystems have been
Hussner, 2014). There are numerous
influenced by a number of human induced
management initiatives to control this nuisance
factors, which includes nutrient influx from
from the lakes. These include chemical treatment
altered catchments (Rather et al., 2016; Khanday
(Netherland, 2014), shading effect (Caffrey et al.,
et al., 2017; Rashid and Aneaus, 2020), municipal
2010) or water level drawdown (De Winton et al.,
inputs (Li-Kun et al., 2017) and industries
2013). However, these controlling methods still
(Finnegan et al., 2018).
act as sources of internal nutrient loading as
aquatic weeds die and sink to the bottom of the

75
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

lake and continue to pose a threat to the al., 2013; Habib and Yousuf, 2016). Consequently,
ecosystem (Patel, 2012). So, in order to have the procedure can achieve numerous objectives
better lake management, it becomes necessary to like elimination of harmful/toxic pollutants, take
physically extract these unwanted aquatic weeds out dense weeds, capturing phosphorus, and for
through the deweeding process (Brummer et al., navigational purposes (Cooke et al., 1986).
2017). Deweeding is most frequently used to reduce the
aquatic weed nuisance around the globe and is
METHODOLOGY
most suitable for plant or macrophytes species
In order to come up with a comprehensive review that are soft enough to cut, grow in locations that
article on lake deweeding, a lot of literature are accessible to the harvester, and/or float on
survey was needed. We used Google scholar to the water surface (Cooke et al., 2016; Brummer
gather data from various journals, book chapters, et al., 2017). This management tool can be
e-books, conference papers by searching key effective when the recovery of nuisance species is
words like “Deweeding, Lake harvesting, Lake very slow or delayed and when the replacement
management, Weed-growth, Lake Maintenance, community is of less nuisance than the existing
Aquatic weeds and Nuisance aquatic one. Regarding the aquatic plant management
macrophytes”. Only those research papers which through deweeding, certain factors should be
had significant findings and opinions on aquatic taken into consideration like the rate of re-
deweeding particularly in lake ecosystems were growth, harvesting efficiency, change in
selected. Our review was hugely enriched community structure, and techniques used (Cook
through the content analysis of these voluminous et al., 2016). Keeping this in mind, we have
research articles. In this review, we have tried to divided the review into various sections:
highlight important aspects of weed harvesting
1. Efficiency: In this section, important
and associated problems and to provide a
factors which significantly influence the efficiency
management overview illustrating the
of deweeding process have been discussed.
relationships between the state of the ecosystem,
2. Re-growth: This section deals with the re-
efficacy, the management goals, and outcomes.
growth patterns of aquatic weeds and how can
We categorized our review in four broad sections
re-growth after deweeding be minimized.
and numerous sub-sections to make it more
3. Harvesting and Nutrient removal: How
reader friendly.
much deweeding is effective in the nutrient
LAKE DEWEEDING - AN OVERVIEW removal has been discussed in this section.
4. Environmental effects: Finally, some
The Deweeding method involves physical removal
broad impacts of deweeding have been
of the plant material from the water body either
extensively noted down in this section. It has
mechanically (harvesters) or manually (Gulati et

76
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

been further divided into sub-sections namely; harvested areas in six weeks (Crowell et al.,
Physical and Chemical effects, Biotic effects and 1994). Similar findings were found by Engel
Ecosystem effects. (1990) in Halverson Lake, Wisconsin. Sometimes
1. Efficiency biomass of harvested zone increased in the post-
harvesting period, as reported by Serafy et al.,
The duration, as well as efficiency of deweeding is
1994. Despite complete harvesting, some portion
determined by the initial plant biomass, re-
of macrophytes remains in the aquatic
growth patterns, type of reproduction, cutting
ecosystems as was reported by Engel (1990) who
depth, regularity, completeness, seasonal timing
observed about 30% of the total standing crop of
of cuts; and ecosystem factors like the
macrophytes still in the lake ecosystem after the
productivity patterns of the area that is being
harvesting operations. The reason being the
harvested (Cook et al., 2016). There is an
harvester has limited scope in case of plants that
agreement among various lake scientists (Nichols,
grow too shallow or too deep. There is also
1974; Wile, 1978; Mikol, 1984; Cooke et al., 1990,
sediment disturbance due to Paddlewheels
1993; Engel, 1990) that numerous harvests are
creating turbidity that hid plants below the water
needed to control the re-growth of a variety of
surface.
plants in aquatic ecosystems in the growing
season. The deweeding was efficient in reducing the dry
weight (3,600 kg) and phosphorus content (53%)
For example to control the growth of Nymphaea
of the Casey Lake. This venture was relatively
odorata in Mill Lake, British Columbia with
cheaper than watershed management but
harvesting operation, only four-week success was
costlier than in-lake alum treatment (Bartodziej et
achieved (Cooke et al., 1993). There was no
al., 2017).
difference in biomass of Eurasian watermilfoil
between harvested and un-harvested region in One important factor that reduces the efficiency
Lake Wingra, Wisconsin, six weeks after the of deweeding is its non-specificity. The harvester
harvesting (Kimbel and Carpenter, 1981). In cuts randomly submerged aquatic plants without
Saratoga Lake (New York), the biomass levels of efficient eradication of invasive alien species
Eurasian watermilfoil returned to its pre- (Hussner et al., 2017). In this process, some of the
harvesting condition only one month after indigenous and beneficial aquatic plant species
harvesting (Mikol, 1984). Similar results were also are also eradicated (Cook et al., 2016).
observed in LaDue Reservoir, Ohio after 23 days
It has been advocated that selective deweeding
(Cooke et al., 1990).
rather than random deweeding is the better
The macrophyte biomass in harvested areas of option to get better and efficient results
Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota reached un- (Chaudhary et al., 2019). Furthermore, lake

77
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

managers should adopt a combination of manual British Columbia, unique sediment harvesting was
and mechanical harvesting depending upon the used in which the blade was replaced with the
feasibility and the objectives to be attained. horizontal cutter bar assembly at the bottom of
the front conveyor (Cooke et al., 1993).
2. Re-growth
Consequently, the knowledge of meristematic
Re-growth of macrophytes depends on the timing
tissue in the target plant species is very important
of the first harvest and more than one harvest is
in the effective management of aquatic weeds
needed for effective management (Kimbel and
(Hussner et al., 2017)
Carpenter, 1981; Engel, 1990). Aquatic weed
cutting only in summer (June and July) were not Continuous harvesting operations for more than
effective in stopping the re-growth rate and plant two years can reduce macrophyte biomass in
density in the lakes. Multiple harvests per season following years (Kimbel and Carpenter, 1981;
were most useful in reducing stem number and Painter and Waltho, 1985; Cooke et al., 1986).
height (Cooke et al., 1986). However, results are not always positive. Only 20
gm-2 reduction in biomass was observed in areas
Re-growth depends also on the habitat factors
(Lake Wingra) previously harvested as compared
and the type of cut. Howard-Williams et al. (1996)
to un-harvested areas (Kimbel and Carpenter,
found noticeably different re-growth patterns in
1981). In some situations, it is difficult to say
Lake Ohakuri and Lake Aratiatia, New Zealand, as
whether the biomass reduction was due to
the latter had high water flow as vital factor. Due
deweeding or any other mechanism played the
to this, re-growth was patchy and highly variable
role (Wile et al., 1979; Smith and Barko, 1992).
in Lake Aratiatia. Engel (1990) while working on
Aquatic macrophytes became more profusely
Lake Halverson observed that macrophytes
dense subsequent to intensive harvesting in Lake
quickly re-grew; reaching pre-deweeding biomass
Sallie, Minnesota (Neel et al., 1973). Time of the
within few weeks and even became much denser
year and harvest frequency was studied by
after deweeding despite removing 75% of the
Painter and Waltho (1985) about Eurasian
total standing crop of macrophytes.
watermilfoil in Buckhorn Lake, Ontario. They
Re-growth is very slow in very deep waters or reported that double cuts viz, June/August, or
where harvester removed the macrophytes close June/September was a suitable management
to the lake bottom (Nichols and Cottam, 1972; alternative and that milfoil biomass considerably
Cooke et al., 1986, 1990). Similar results were reduced in next season following October cut.
observed in East Twin Lake and LaDue Reservoir, Cooke et al., 1986 conducted various experiments
Ohio when milfoil was cut close to the bottom on the efficiency of weed harvesting and
sediments (Conyers and Cooke, 1982; Cooke et concluded 2 to 3 cuts including late harvest to be
al., 1990). To control Chara from Paul Lake,

78
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

very effective in curtailing the plant re-growth Larsen et al., 1979) where harvesting failed
and stem density. miserably because internal loading was not taken
into consideration. Sometimes, internal loading is
The most probable explanation for reduced
more than external loading in eutrophic lakes, so
growth after continuous harvesting is the
reducing the internal load of the lakes;
reduction in energy reserves (TNC-total
macrophyte harvesting may prove highly
nonstructural carbohydrates) (Kimbel and
beneficial. Macrophytic growth in Delevan Lake,
Carpenter, 1981). Deweeding has the greatest
Wisconsin accounted for about 1200 kg of
impact when storage organs have low TNC levels
Phosphorus (P) to the nutrient budget (Barko and
or transportation of TNC to storage organs is
James, 1998). According to Carpenter (1983), the
being carried out for next year’s growth. Kimbel
decay of macrophytes in Lake Wingra contributed
and Carpenter (1981) concluded that TNC levels
about half the internal P loading. According to
decreased after harvesting in Lake Wingra,
Asaeda et al. (2000), it was possible to reduce the
Wisconsin, but found low TNC had little influence
level of Phosphorus released by decaying
on the control of milfoil. Perkins and Systma
Potamogeton pectinatus through above-ground
(1987) reported that fall deweeding was able to
biomass harvesting during the late growing
lower carbohydrate levels in milfoil but the
season.
reserve stores were replenished in the winter
season and growth was unaffected in the Macrophyte harvesting changes the water
following year. In regions experiencing extreme chemistry, reduces the sedimentation of plant
winter delayed season harvesting may prove to biomass, and permanently extracts the nutrients
be effective. that would have otherwise recycled in the water
column (Cook et al., 2016). By removing deep-
3. Harvesting and Nutrient removal
rooted plants, harvesting can also extract
Harvesting is as one of the efficient technique of nitrogen and phosphorous from the sediments
nutrient removal from the lake ecosystem (Carpenter and Adams, 1977). By delaying (late
(Carpenter and Adams, 1978). It is highly efficient August) the harvesting of Eurasian watermilfoil,
when the nutrient loading is very low and maximum phosphorus was removed (Carpenter
removal is high. Harvesting may not yield and Adams, 1978).
immediate results in eutrophic lakes despite
As per the model predictions, harvesting has an
nutrient input is controlled. It will take numerous
important role to play in the nutrient budget of a
years to have any impact on the nutrient budget
lake ecosystem but only a few studies convey its
of the lake (Carpenter and Adams, 1977; Burton
role in minimizing the nutrients in the water
et al., 1979). There are various examples
body. Most of the studies advocate no change.
(Shagawa Lake, Minnesota; Wile et al., 1979;
But there are also some studies which reported

79
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

slight increase in the level of phosphorus and sources, and permanent nutrient removal.
algal community due to harvesting. Increased Harvesting should, therefore, be used as a
phosphorus was observed during deweeding nutrient removal technique in addition to being
operations in Long Lake (Welch et al. 1994). As the solution to aquatic weed nuisance.
per Cooke et al. (1990), a high concentration of
4. Environmental Effects:
Phosphorus, chlorophyll, cyanobacteria and
seston were associated with deweeding. Harvesting is usually confined to littoral areas in
the lake, so impacts should be localized but the
As a result of harvesting operation, there is a
impact will be profound in small shallow lakes
change in nutrient pathways which trigger the
with dense macrophytic vegetation. The
response from other communities. One such
environmental issues associated with deweeding
example was evident in Lake Sallie. On one hand,
are manifold and will have impacts on physico-
harvesting reduced the growth of macrophytes
chemical aspects of lakes, (2) impacts on biota,
but on the other hand, increased the productivity
and (3) impacts on ecosystem dynamics.
of phytoplankton (Brakke, 1974).
4.1. Physical and Chemical Effects
Harvesting can also have meager changes to the
lake ecosystem. According to Engel (1990), no Some of the prominent physico-chemical
impact was on phytoplankton in Halverson Lake. alterations due to harvesting include changes in
Similarly, there was no change in phytoplankton dissolved oxygen levels (Kundanger et al., 2003;
and nutrient concentrations in Chemung Lake Zushi and Ticku, 1991), sediment re-suspension
(Wile et al., 1979) and sediment P and N in (Kohzu et al., 2019) and Phosphorus release
Buckhorn Lake (Painter and Waltho, 1985). (Morris et al., 2003) due to sediment disturbance
According to Cooke et al. (2016), the possible or from the leakage of cut stems. Carpenter and
reason might be the reduction of buffering Gasith (1978) observed the effect on water
capacity of littoral zones by harvesters that chemistry due to harvesting in the littoral zone of
previously checked the input of nutrients into the Lake Wingra. There was no change in
pelagic zone of a water body or due to short-term conductivity, temperature, seston, organic
harvesting initiatives. carbon, or dissolved reactive phosphorus. There
was an insignificant change in the community
From the above literature, it is evident that
photosynthesis. They believed that harvesting
harvesting alone cannot solve the nutrient
had very little impact on the lake environment.
surplus problem of the lake ecosystem. There has
Madsen et al. (1988) reported that deweeding
to be an integrated lake management plan which
macrophytic beds reduced the variations in diel
will include a reduction in the allochthonous
DO without any rise in the average oxygen
nutrient input, sequestering the in-lake nutrient
concentration.

80
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

There have been speculations regarding the highly infested, harvesting can become an
impact of harvesting on the nutrient balance effective tool in integrated weed control
between sediments and water column, decrease (McGhee, 1979). While working on the efficiency
in photosynthesis, or change in DO levels (Cooke of deweeding on the ecology of Myriophullum
et al., 2016). These results cannot be considered spicatum; Painter (1988) observed an appreciable
universal as long-term monitoring data is lacking. reduction in density, shoot weight, and biomass.
Many lakes have suffered erosion in littoral areas
Deweeding in lakes can be used for removal of
which were subjected to plant removal due to
heavy metals by removing Potamogeton lucens,
harvesting (James and Barko, 1994; Howard-
Salvinia herzogii, and Eichhornia crassipes which
Williams et al., 1996). According to Welch et al.
are biosorbents for Cr(III), Ni(II), Cu(II), Zn(II),
(1994), there was an increase in total phosphorus
Cd(II), and Pb(II) (Ivoandre et al., 1999).
levels after macrophyte harvesting. The possible
Kundangar et al. (2003) reported a decrease in
explanation might be sediment re-suspension due
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus,
to wind-driven currents. Mechanical harvesting
and iron while the increase in transparency and
increases the particulate and dissolved materials
nitrate- nitrogen after macrophyte removal in Dal
in the water column and reduces their
Lake. James et al. (2004) while studying the
sedimentation rates. One of the prominent
consequences of deweeding in the lake
studies on the impact of deweeding on the
ecosystem observed changes in invertebrate
eutrophic lake was conducted by Galanti et al.
densities and species richness due to alterations
(1990). They observed a significant decrease in
in sediment characteristics and nutrient cycling.
the portion of the external annual loading which
had its origin from precipitation and run-off. Harvesting may sometimes remove above-ground
biomass without achange in nutrient level, but
The immediate effects of mechanical harvesting
the fragmentation rate seems high (David et al.,
of submerged macrophytes are suspension of
2006). According to the study of Spencer et
sediments and periphyton and exudation from
al.(2006), deweeding had limited success to
damaged tissues which potentially change the
manage water hyacinth. While on another hand,
water chemistry (Carpenter and Gasith, 1978).
Edwards and Comas (2009) concluded harvesting
There are noticeable changes in conductivity,
to be a better option than bio and chemical
dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, and nitrates
techniques. Bal and Meire (2009) reported that
immediately after deweeding as reported by
an integrated approach along with harvesting is
Zutshi and Ticku (1990) while working on the
necessary to deal with the nuisance macrophyte
impact of deweeding on the Dal lake ecosystem.
biomass.
Deweeding is not always effective for some
macrophytes like Hydrilla; however, if areas are

81
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

4.2. Biotic Effects Fishes usually removed by harvesting are very

small (2–4 cm long) and slow-moving (Booms,
The direct biotic effects of harvesting are on
1999). The only exception is the study of Engel
macrophyte density (Olsen et al., 1998),
(1990) who reported the removal of large-mouth
phytoplankton concentration (Akhurst et al.,
bass (Micropterus salmoides). Mikol (1984)
2017), and fish stocks (Ban et al., 2019). The
reported removal of 2.4–2.6% of the standing fish
removal or impact on non-target plant species is
crop in Saratoga Lake; while as Haller et al. (1980)
the major consequence of lake harvesting
reported 18% of the fish biomass and 32% of the
(Lishawa et al., 2017).
fish numbers were removed by harvesting.
Deweeding directly removes fish (Zutshi and According to Wile (1978), there was no significant
Ticku, 1990; Moss, 1990), phytophilous impact on the fish fauna in Chemung Lake.
invertebrates (Monahan and Caffrey, 1996; Habib Macrophytes act as essential substrates for
et al., 2014), zoobenthos (Spencer et al., 1998; colonization of various organisms and through
Mushtaq et al., 2013), periphytic algae (Dixon, their decay and extracellular secretion as a food
1989; Rather et al., 2015), and microbial source (Carpenter and Adams, 1977). Deweeding
community that live in or on aquatic macrophytes by removing aquatic plants from the water body
(Pandhal et al., 2018). The number of aquatic denies most organisms habitat and food source.
organisms removed is huge, but the impact varies There are large numbers of organisms including
from lake to lake. Almost 11% to 22% mammals, waterfowl, invertebrates which obtain
macroinvertebrates and 50,000 fish were their food directly from the macrophytes. Some
removed from 4 ha Halverson Lake during two of them even inhabit the macrophytic shoots and
years of deweeding operation (Engel, 1990). graze periphytic algae and detritus from the
Deweeding removed 60–85% Macro- macrophyte surface. So, these consumers are at
invertebrates and about one million were high risk due to harvesting. Due to harvesting, the
removed with a ton of Ranunculus sp. (Monahan feeding habits of Macroinvertebrates get changed
and Caffrey, 1996). About 2,220 to 7,410/ha fish (Linden and Lehtiniemi, 2005).
were removed with weed cutting in Saratoga Lake
Macrophyte removal has direct negative
(Mikol (1984) and 85 kg/ha of fish by Hydrilla
consequences on the aquatic food chain. Garner
removal (Haller et al., 1980). Unmuth et al.
et al., 1996 studied the relationships between
(1998) observed that harvesting removed 2,254
zooplankton, the growth of roach (Rutilus rutilus)
fish/ha and Cook et al.,(1993); while working on
and macrophyte cover during deweeding. They
Okanagan Lakes, reported about 50 to 100 fish
observed that macrophyte dominated area was
with each load of aquatic weeds.
abundant with fish and zooplankton
concentration as the former provided food and

82
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

protection from the high flow. There was a is the appropriate alternative (Garner et al., 1996)
considerable decline of the Cladoceran and Aldridge (2000). Modifications to
population due to washout, starvation, and fish conventional harvesting like close cutting can
predation. The growth rates of roach declined as significantly reduce the fish removal rates. One
less number of periphyton were available as a such study was done by Unmuth et al., 1998 who
food source. reported a reduction in fish removal from 2,254
fish/ha to 36 fish/ha.
Harvesting sometimes has positive aspects with
reference to the fish ecology. Lakes that have The relationship between fish and macrophyte
abundant macrophytic growth are associated cover is a parabolic one so that fish growth and
with stunted fish growth. So, removal of these foraging is optimized at intermediate macrophyte
stunted fish with aquatic weeds from the water density (Trebitz, 1995; Olson et al., 1998).
body can benefit smaller fish by making limited According to Bettoli et al., 1993, large-scale
food available to them (Unmuth and Hanson, harvesting, on one hand, impacts the fish
1999). Due to macrophyte removal in Wisconsin associated with plants but on the other hand, is
lakes, some largemouth bass and bluegills beneficial to few species. Harvesting with an
showed positive growth response (Olson et al., intermediate level of plant density is the best
1998). While working on the impact of deweeding option available.
on fish population, Bettoli et al. (1993) observed
One of the major secondary impacts of harvesting
no significant changein the abundance or
is the propagation of aquatic nuisances to other
structure except phytophilic Lepomis spp. which
areas through plant fragments and pieces (Sabol,
decreased drastically. Removal of fish means
1987). Hydrilla is found to re-grow from a single
survival of larger zooplankton, which are very
node (Langeland and Sutton, 1980). Almost 70%
essential for biomanipulation efforts.
of the biomass, 42% N, and 70% P lost in the
One aspect of harvesting that has not been water column within 14 days after harvesting
studied is the impact on spawning fish. This is indicating substantial nutrient mobilization
important as some species spawn in macrophyte through decomposition and autolysis (James,
beds and also provides them cover. Mitigating 2002). Harvesters usually lose some smaller
the impacts of harvesting is essential and fragments in the water column; even modified
recovery rates of biota should also be taken into harvesters lose around 15% of the plant
consideration. As per the findings of Monahan fragments (Engel, 1985). Agent’s like boat traffic,
and Caffrey (1996), it took ten months for the water current, and wind can spread plant
macroinvertebrate population to return to pre- fragments to less infested zones of the lake
deweeding levels. Harvesting small patches or creating a nuisance. According to Kimbel (1982),
leaving one side of the water body un-harvested natural watermilfoil fragments can survive more

83
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

in the winter than the fragments generated by dominant after harvesting Myriophyllum
harvesters, so they are less problematic with sibiricum. Similarly in Lake Ohakuri, New Zealand,
reference to aquatic plant management. Potamogeton crispus became more dominant
(Howard-Williams et al., 1996). Mushtaq et al.
While comparing harvesting zones in Lake Wingra
(2013) observed that mechanical deweeding
with un-harvested one, Nichols and Lathrop
significantly decreased the number and diversity
(1994), reported high species diversity and
of the macrozoobenthic community of Dal Lake.
richness in later. Helsel et al. (1999) found an
Working on phytophilous macroinvertebrates in
insignificant impact on the number of native
the same lake; Habib and Yousuf (2014) reported
aquatic plant species due to harvesting
a massive impact on Mollusca and Arthropoda
operations on watermilfoil. There are various
followed by Annelida.
studies that found little or no impact of
harvesting on plant biomass (Welch et al., 1994; There was an insignificant change in plant
Cooke et al., 1993). On the contrary, there was an community after deweeding (Nichols and Cottam,
increase in plant growth rates (biomass) after 1972; Johnson and Bagwell, 1979 and Welch et
harvesting projects in some studies (Crowell et al., 1994). In Chatauqua Lake, Potamogeton spp.
al., 1994; Engel, 1990; Serafy et al., 1994). were replaced by Eurasian watermilfoil after
harvesting (Nicholson, 1981). Harvesting makes it
It is usually very difficult to manage a plant
difficult for those species to re-grow which
community selectively as harvesters cut all
reproduce sexually but on the other hand, species
species in its vicinity but by altering the depth and
that grow vegetatively can grow and reproduce
cut season and by having harvesting and non-
better and may become dominant after
harvesting zones, selective harvesting can be
deweeding. This is due to large scale generation
achieved to some extent (Nichols and Mori, 1971;
of plant fragments through the cutting activity of
Unmuth et al., 1998). The impact of harvesting on
harvesters and their easy dispersal and
community structure can be manifold. That is, the
establishment of fresh stands of vegetation in the
resulting community can be (1) dominated by
new areas (Hussner et al., 2017)
species which was not present before deweeding,
(2) dominant species remains the same, or (3) 4.3. Ecosystem Effects
dominated by species which were earlier not
The broad array of impacts due to harvesting on
prominent (Wade, 1990).
lake ecosystem processes are usually not
Harvesting Potamogeton spp. in Halverson Lake immediate but take some time and consequences
pave way for Zosterella dubia to become a could be simple to complex. Therefore, it is very
dominant plant community (Engel, 1990). Engel difficult to predict the impacts with complete
(1987) observed Vallisneria americana to become

84
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

authority. Engel (1990) has given an extensive macrophytes in a lake ecosystem for maximum
review of short and long-term ecosystem impacts. nutrient uptake and removal by aquatic plants
but some of the authors have recommended 5%
Harvesting might shift the stability pattern of
and 20% to be optimum (Portielje and Van der
shallow lakes from macrophyte-dominated to
Molen, 1999; Dai et al., 2012).
algae-dominated (Scheffer et al., 1993; Moss et
al., 1998). It is very difficult to predict the level of CONCLUDING REMARKS AND A WAY FORWARD
shifts due to the disturbance (van Nes et al.,
Aquatic plant nuisances are mostly caused by
2002) and very difficult to reverse this shift
invasive, exotic species. An aquatic plant
(Scheffer, 1998). Jacoby et al. (2001) studied the
management plan based on comprehensive
shifting pattern in Long Lake. They observed low
knowledge and monitoring can pay dividends in
macrophyte, low transparency, high phosphorus,
the long run for lakes with no existing aquatic
and high algae associated with harvesting at one
weed problems. Early detection and subsequent
time and macrophyte dominated condition with
eradication will save a lot of time and money for
low phosphorus/algae with high transparency
the lake managers.
during un-harvested condition.
It would be better to go for deweeding in the
Harvesting aquatic macrophytes can have
autumn season, so that the nutrients stored in
multiple impacts on the lake ecosystem ranging
the aquatic plants are completely eliminated from
from the reduction of amenity of the lake and
the lake ecosystem or else these nutrients will
habitat disturbance (Bickel and Closs, 2009) to
again find their way in to the system after
the spread of invasive plants and impacts due to
senescence. Aquatic plant harvest appears be an
plant fragments (Dorahy et al., 2009). Moreover,
efficient tool for nutrient reduction in the lakes
the release of sediment nutrients especially
worldwide but it will have limited role in
phosphorus as well as diminished uptake of
controlling the eutrophication unless we stop the
nutrients by macrophytes might lead the lake
huge input of nutrients in the ecosystem.
ecosystem to the condition of hyper-
eutrophication (Quilliam et al., 2015). There is a A management plan removing large scale aquatic
strong competition between phytoplankton and plants from the system is bound to have
macrophytes for light and nutrients. Sometimes environmental impacts. These impacts can either
aquatic plants release allelochemicals for be beneficial or deleterious to the aquatic
competitive advantage (Mulderij et al., 2009). ecosystem. Deweeding is predominantly non-
Consequently, harvesting macrophytes in the selective and it can remove useful aquatic plants
eutrophic lake could trigger the dominance of from the system along-with small fish and
phytoplankton (Sayer et al., 2010). There is invertebrates and at the same time can remove
currently no accord regarding the coverage of huge nutrients and organic matter from the

85
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

system as well. Moreover, several impacts can be well as raw material for biogas production is a
everlasting that they are neither evaluated nor promising and sustainable venture. Deweeding
measurable in a reasonable management can be an effective nutrient management
timeframe. Deweeding done only once will not intervention for lake ecosystems but it can’t alone
solve the weed problem and re-infestation is control the problem of eutrophication.
likely to occur again once it is stopped. If the level Management of aquatic weeds should utilize a
of weed infestation has spread massively, then range of control methods besides deweeding,
comprehensive management intervention is either alone or in combination, to achieve a
needed. successful outcome for the overall lake
management.
As far as the management of the aquatic weeds is
concerned, it needs to be continuous and long- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
term and several options can be used (like
We express our gratitude to the editor and three
biomanipulation, sediment covering, biological
anonymous reviewers whose suggestions have
controls, aquatic plant community rehabilitation,
immensely improved the manuscript structure
chemical controls, and sediment removal).
and content.
Besides these options, new innovative uses of
aquatic biomass should be encouraged.
Utilization of aquatic weeds as cattle fodder as
REFERENCES
Akhurst, D. J., Jones, G. B., Clark, M., and Reichelt- Resistance of Lowland Rivers. J. Aquat. Plant
Brushett, A. 2017. Effects of fish and Manage.,47:65-68.
macrophytes on phytoplankton and Ban, S., Toda, T., Koyama, M., Ishikawa, K., Kohzu,
zooplankton community structure in a A., and Imai, A. 2019. Modern lake
subtropical freshwater reservoir. ecosystem management by sustainable
Limnologica, 62: 5-18. harvesting and effective utilization of aquatic
Aldridge, D.C. 2000. The impact of dredging and macrophytes. Limnology, 20(1): 93-100.
weed cutting on a population of fresh water Barko, J.W. and W.F. James. 1998. Effects of
mussels (Bivalva:Unionidae). Biol. Cons., 95: submerged aquatic macrophytes on nutrient
247–257. dynamics, sedimentation,and resuspension,
Asaeda, T., V.K. Trung and J. Manatunge. 2000. In: E. Jeppesen, M. Sondergaard, M.
Modeling the effects of macrophyte growth Sondergaard and K. Christoffersen(Eds.), The
and decomposition on the nutrient budget in Structuring Role of Submerged Macrophytes
shallow lakes. Aquatic Bot., 68:217–237. in Lakes. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp.197–
Bal, K.D. and Meire, P. 2009. The Influence of 214.
Macrophyte Cutting on the Hydraulic

86
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Bettoli, P.W., M.J. Maceina, R.L. Noble and R.K. Rep.,77. Inst. Environ. Stud., Univ. Wisconsin,
Betsill. 1993. Response of a reservoir fish Madison.
community to aquatic vegetation removal. Carpenter, S. R. and Adams, M. S. 1978.
North Am. J. Fish. Manage., 13: 110–124. Macrophyte control by harvesting and
Bickel, T. O., and Closs, G. P. 2009. Impact of herbicides: Implications for phosphorus
partial removal of the invasive macrophyte cycling in Lake Wingra, Wisconsin. J. Aquatic
Lagarosiphon major (Hydrocharitaceae) on Plant Manage., 16: 20–23.
invertebrates and fish. River research and Charudattan, R. 2001. Are we on top of aquatic
applications, 25(6): 734-744. weeds? Weed problems, control options,
Brakke, D.F. 1974. Weed harvest effects on algal and challenges. In British Crop Protection
nutrients and primary productivity in a Council Symposium Proceedings, 77:43-68.
culturally enrichedlake. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Choudhury, M. R., Deb, P., and Singha, H. 2019.
North Dakota, Grand Forks. Rapid sedimentation and organic matter
Brummer, V., Roth, S., Röhl, M., andHerbes, C. accumulation in the Kashmir Himalayan
2017. Nature Conservation Against All? lakes: a challenge for lake managers. Current
Aquatic Macrophyte De-Weeding–Cut or science, 117(1): 23.
Conserve? A Stakeholder Analysis. Landscape Conyers, D.L. and G.D. Cooke. 1982. A comparison
Online, 54:1-14. of the costs of harvesting and herbicides and
Caffrey, J.M., Millane, M., Evers, S., Moran, H., their effectiveness in nutrient removal and
Butler, M. 2010. A novel approach to aquatic control of macrophyte biomass. In: J. Taggart
weed control and habitat restoration using and L. Moore (Eds.), Lake Restoration,
biodegradable jute matting. Aquat. Protection and Management, Proc. Second
Invasions, 5:123–129. Annu. Conf. NALMS. Vancouver, BC. pp. 317–
Callisto, Marcos., Molozzi, Joseline and Barbosa, 321
José Lucena Etham. 2014. "Eutrophication of Cooke, G. D., Welch, E. B., Peterson, S., and
Lakes" in A. A. Ansari, S. S. Gill Nichols, S. A. 2016. Restoration and
(eds.), Eutrophication: Causes, Conse- management of lakes and reservoirs. CRC
quences and Control, Springer Science+ press.
Business Media Dordrecht. Cooke, G.D., Martin, A.B. and Carlson, R.E. 1990.
Carpenter, S.R. and Gasith, A. 1978. Mechanical The effects of harvesting on macrophyte re-
cutting of submerged macrophytes: growth andwater quality in LaDue Reservoir,
Immediate effects oflittoral water chemistry Ohio. J. Iowa Acad. Sci., 97(4): 27–32.
and metabolism. Water Res.,12: 55–57. Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson and P.R.
Carpenter, S.R. and M.S. Adams. 1977. Newroth. 1986. Lake and Reservoir
Environmental Impacts of Mechanical Restoration, 1st ed. Butterworths, Boston,
Harvesting on Submersed Vascular Plants. MA.

87
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson and P.R. Lake Okeechobee. Final report. Mote Marine
Newroth. 1993. Restoration and Laboratory, Sarasota, FL.
nd
Management of Lakes and Reservoirs, 2 ed. Dorahy, C. G., Pirie, A. D., McMaster, I., Muirhead,
Lewis Publishers and CRC Press, Boca Raton, L.,Pengelly, P., Chan, K. Y., andBarchia, I. M.
FL. 2009. Environmental risk assessment of
Crowell, W., N. Troelstrup, L. Queen and J. Perry. compost prepared from Salvinia,
1994. Effects of harvesting on plant Egeriadensa, and Alligator Weed. Journal of
communitiesdominatedby Eurasian environmental quality, 38(4): 1483-1492.
watermilfoil in Lake Minnetonka, MN. J. Edwards, K.R. and Comas, L. 2009. Evaluation of
Aquatic Plant Manage., 32: 56–60. Mechanical Cutting to Control Littoral Purple
Dai, Y., Wu, S., Chang, J., Jia, C., Liang, W., and Loosestrife Stands. J. Aquat. Plant Manage.,
Wu, Z. 2012. Effects of Ceratophyllum 47:158-161.
demersum L. restoration on phosphorus Engel, S. 1985. Aquatic Community Interactions of
balance at water–sediment interface. Submerged Macrophytes. Tech. Bull, 156.
Ecological Engineering, 44: 128-132. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res., Madison, WI.
Dalu, T., Wasserman, R. J., Magoro, M. L., Engel, S. 1987. The impact of submerged
Froneman, P. W., and Weyl, O. L. 2019. River macrophytes on largemouth bass and
nutrient water and sediment measurements bluegills. Lake and Reservoir Management, 3:
inform on nutrient retention, with 227–234.
implications for eutrophication. Science of
Engel, S. 1990. Ecological impact of harvesting
the Total Environment, 684: 296-302.
macrophytes in Halverson Lake, Wisconsin. J.
David, N., Greenfield, B.K. and Siemering, G.S. Aquat. Plant Manage., 28:41-45.
2006. Evaluating the impact of Lake
Finnegan, W., Goggins, J., and Zhan, X. 2018.
MaidTMPlant Control. J. Aquat. Plant
Assessing the environmental impact of the
Manage., 44: 60-66.
dairy processing industry in the Republic of
De Winton, M., Jones, H., Edwards, T., Ireland. Journal of Dairy Research, 85(3):
Özkundakci, D., Wells, R., McBride, C., 396-399.
Rowe,D., Hamilton, D., Clayton, J.,
Galanti, G., Guilizzoni, P. and Libera, V. 1990.
Champion, P., Hofstra, D. 2013. Review of
Biomanipulation of Lago di Candia (Northern
Best Management Practices for Aquatic
Italy): a three-year experience of aquatic
Vegetation Control in Stormwater
macrophyte management. Hydrobiologia,
Ponds,Wetlands, and Lakes. Auckland
200-201(1): 409-417.
Council technical report, TR2013/026,
Auckland, 162 p. Garner, P., Bass, J.A.B. and Collett, G.D. 1996. The
effect of weed cutting upon the biota of a
Dixon, L. K. 1989. Evaluation and research of
large regulatedriver. Aquatic Cons. Mar.
impacts of mechanical weed harvesting in
Fresh Water Ecosyst., 6: 21–29.

88
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Gulati, R. D., Lammens, E. H., Meyer, M. L., & following mechanical harvesting in New
Van Donk, E. (Eds.). 2013. Biomanipulation Zealand hydro-lakes. Hydrobiologia, 340:
Tool for Water Management: Proceedings of 229–234.
an International Conference held in Hussner, A. 2014. Long-term macrophyte
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–11 August, mapping documents a continuously
1989 (Vol. 61). Springer Science & Business shiftfrom native to non-native aquatic plant
Media. dominance in the thermally abnormal River
Haas, M., Baumann, F., Castella, D., Haghipour, Erft (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany).
N., Reusch, A., Strasser, M., ...and Dubois, N. Limnologica, 48:39–45.
2019. Roman-driven cultural eutrophication Hussner, A., Stiers, I., Verhofstad, M. J. J. M.,
of Lake Murten, Switzerland. Earth and Bakker, E. S., Grutters, B. M. C., Haury, J., ...
Planetary Science Letters, 505:110-117. and Anderson, L. W. J. 2017. Management
Habib, S., and Yousuf, A. R. 2016. Impact of and control methods of invasive alien
different harvesting techniques on the freshwater aquatic plants: a review. Aquatic
population of macrophyte-associated- Botany, 136:112-137.
invertebrate community in an urban Ivoandre, H., Schneider and Rubio, J. 1999.
lake. J.Pollut. Eff. Cont., 4(158): 2. Sorption of Heavy Metal Ions by the Non-
Habib, S., and Yousuf, A. R. 2014. Impact of living Biomass of Freshwater Macrophytes.
mechanical deweeding on the phytophilous Environ. Sci. Technol., 33(13): 2213- 2217
macroinvertebrate comm- unity of an Jacoby, J.M., Welch, E.B. and Wertz, I. 2001.
eutrophic lake. Environmental Science and Alternate stable states in a shallow lake
Pollution Research, 21(8):5653-5659. dominated by Egeriadensa. Verh. Int. Verein.
Haller, W.T., Shireman, J.V. and DuRant,D.F. 1980. Limnol., 27: 3805–3810.
Fish harvest resulting from mechanical James, W. F., Barko, J. W. and Eakin, H. L. 2002.
control of hydrilla. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,109: Water quality impacts of mechanical
517–520. shredding of aquatic macrophytes. Journal of
Helsel, D.R., S.A. Nichols and R.W. Wakeman. Aquatic Plant Management, 40: 36-42.
1999. Impacts of aquatic plant management James, W.F. and J.W. Barko. 1994. Macrophyte
methodologies on Eurasian watermilfoil influences on sediment re-suspension and
populations in Southeastern Wisconsin. Lake export in a shallow impoundment. Lake and
and Reservoir Management, 15: 159–167. Reservoir Manage.,10: 95–102.
Hong, Z. 2020. Aquatic Plant Eutrophication and Johnson, R.E. and M.R. Bagwell. 1979. Effects of
Modern Architectural Design Based on the mechanical cutting on submersed vegetation
Overall View of the Environment. Archivos in a Louisana lake. J. Aquatic Plant Manage.,
Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, 70(1). 17: 54–57.
Howard-Williams, C., A.M. Schwarz and V. Reid.
1996. Patterns of aquatic weed re-growth

89
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Khanday, S. A., Yousuf, A. R., Reshi, Z. A., Rashid, Lishawa, S. C., Carson, B. D., Brandt, J. S., Tallant,
I., Jehangir, A., andRomshoo, S. A. 2017. J. M., Reo, N. J., Albert, D. A., ... and Clark, E.
Management of Nymphoides peltatum using 2017. Mechanical harvesting effectively
water level fluctuations in freshwater lakes controls young Typha spp. invasion and
of Kashmir Himalaya. Limnology, 18(2): 219- unmanned aerial vehicle data enhances post-
231. treatment monitoring. Frontiers in Plant
Kimbel, J.C. 1982. Factors influencing potential Science, 8:619.
intra-lake colonization by Myriophyllum Liu, X., Zhang, G., Sun, G., Wu, Y., and Chen, Y.
spicatum L. AquaticBot.,14: 295–307. 2019. Assessment of Lake water quality and
Kimbel, J.C. and S.R. Carpenter. 1981. Effects of eutrophication risk in an agricultural
mechanical harvesting on Myriophyllum irrigation area: A case study of the Chagan
spicatum L. regrowth and carbohydrate Lake in Northeast China. Water, 11(11):2380.
allocation to roots and shoots. Aquatic Bot., Madsen, J.D. 1998. Predicting invasion success of
11 (2): 121–127. Eurasian watermilfoil. J. Aquatic Plant
Kundangar, M.R.D., Sabha-ul-solim and Abubaker, Manage., 36: 28–32.
A. 2003. Deweeding practices in Dal Lake and McGehee, J. T. 1979. Mechanical hydrilla control
impact of assessment studies. Nat. env. and in Orange Lake, Florida. J. Aquat. Plant
Poll. Tech.,1(2): 95-103. Manage., 17:58-61.
Kohzu, A., Shimotori, K., and Imai, A. 2019. Effects Mikol, G.F. 1984. Effects of mechanical control of
of macrophyte harvesting on the water aquatic vegetation on biomass, regrowth
quality and bottom environment of Lake rates, and juvenilefish populations at
Biwa, Japan. Limnology, 20(1):83-92. Saratoga Lake, New York. In: Anonymous
Langeland, K.A. and D.L. Sutton. 1980. Regrowth (Ed.), Lake and Reservoir Management, Proc.
of hydrilla from axillary buds. J. Aquatic Plant Third Annu. Conf. NALMS. pp. 456–462.
Manage.,18: 27–29. Monahan, C. and J.M. Caffrey. 1996. The effect of
Li-kun, Y., Sen, P., Xin-hua, Z., and Xia, L. 2017. weed control practices on macro-
Development of a two-dimensional invertebrate communities in Irish canals.
eutrophication model in an urban lake Hydrobiologia, 304: 205–211.
(China) and the application of uncertainty Morris, K., Boon, P. I., Bailey, P. C., and Hughes, L.
analysis. Ecological Modelling, 345:63-74. 2003. Alternative stable states in the aquatic
Linden, E. and Lehtiniemi. 2005. The lethal and vegetation of shallow urban lakes. I. Effects
sub-lethal effects of aquatic macrophyte of plant harvesting and low-level nutrient
Myriophyllum spicatum on Baltic littoral enrichment. Marine and Freshwater
planktivores. Limnology and Oceanography, Research, 54(3): 185-200.
50:405-411. Moss, B. 1990. Engineering and biological
approaches to the restoration from
eutrophication of shallow lakes in which

90
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

aquatic plant communities are important Lake Wingra, Wisconsin. J. Aquatic Plant
components. In Biomanipulation tool for Manage.,32: 33–36.
water management (pp. 367-377). Springer. Nichols, S.A. and S. Mori. 1971. The littoral
Moss, B. 1998. Shallow lakes, biomani- pulation macrophyte vegetation of Lake Wingra.
and eutrophication. Scope Newsletter, 29:1– Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett., 59: 107–119.
44. Nicholson, S.A.1981. Changes in submersed
Mulderij, G., Mau, B., de Senerpont Domis, L. N., macrophytes in Chautauqua Lake, 1937–
Smolders, A. J. P., and Van Donk, E. 2009. 1975. Freshwater Biol.,11: 523–530.
Interaction between the macrophyte Olson, M.H., S.R. Carpenter, P. Cunningham, S.
Stratiotes aloides and filamentous algae: Gafny, B.R. Herwig, N.P. Nibbelink, T. Pellet,
does it indicate allelopathy? Aquatic C. Storlie, A.S. Trebitz and K.A. Wilson. 1998.
Ecology, 43(2): 305-312. Managing macrophytes to improve fish
Mushatq, B., Raina, R.,Yousuf, A. R., and growth: A multi-lake experiment. Fish.
Wanganeo, A. 2013. Impact of Mechanical Manage., 23(2): 6–12.
Deweeding on Macro-zoobenthic Painter, D.S. and J.I. Waltho. 1985. Short-term
Community of Dal lake Srinagar, Kashmir, impact of harvesting of Eurasian
India. Int. J. Environ. Bioener.,6(1): 1-12. watermilfoil. In: L.W.J. Anderson (Ed.), Proc.
Neel, J.K., S.A. Peterson and W.L. Smith. 1973. First Int. Symp. On Watermilfoil
Weed Harvest and Lake Nutrient (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Related
Dynamics.Ecol. Res. Series, USEPA-660/3-73- Haloragaceae Species. Aquatic Plant
001. Manage. Soc.,Vancouver, BC. pp. 187–201.
Netherland, M.D., 2014. Chemical control of Pal, N. 2020. Eutrophication-An Ecological
aquatic weeds. In: Gettys, L., Haller,W., Menace. Biotica Research Today, 2(7): 559-
Petty, D. (Eds.), Biological Control of Aquatic 561.
Plants. A Best Management Practices Pandhal, J., Choon, W. L., Kapoore, R. V., Russo, D.
Handbook, third ed. Aquatic Ecosystem A., Hanotu, J., Wilson, I. A., and Ferguson, A.
Restoration Foundation, USA, pp. 71–88. S. 2018. Harvesting environmental
Nichols, S.A. 1974. Mechanical and Habitat microalgal blooms for remediation and
Manipulation for Aquatic Plant Manag- resource recovery: a laboratory scale
ement. Tech. Bull.,77.Wisconsin Dept. Nat. investigation with economic and microbial
Res., Madison, WI. community impact assessment. Biology, 7(1):
Nichols, S.A. and G. Cottam. 1972. Harvesting as a 4.
control for aquatic plants. Water Res. Bull., Patel, S. 2012. Threats, management and
8: 1205–1210. envisaged utilizations of aquatic weed
Nichols, S.A. and R.C. Lathrop. 1994. Impact of Eichhornia crassipes: an overview. Reviews in
harvesting on aquatic plant communities in Environmental Science and BioTechnology,11
(3):249–259.

91
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Perkins, M.A. and M.D. Sytsma. 1987. Harvesting Sabol, B.M. 1987. Environmental effect of aquatic
and carbohydrate accumulation in Eurasian disposal of chopped hydrilla. J. Aquatic Plant
watermilfoil. J. Aquatic Plant Manage., 25: Manage., 25: 19–23.
57–62. Sayer, C. D., Davidson, T. A., and Jones, J. I. 2010.
Portielje, R., and Van der Molen, D. T. 1999. Seasonal dynamics of macrophytes and
Relationships between eutrophication phytoplankton in shallow lakes: a
variables: from nutrient loading to eutrophication-driven pathway from plants
transparency. Shallow Lakes, 98: 375- 387. to plankton? Freshwater Biology, 55(3): 500-
Quilliam, R. S., van Niekerk, M. A., Chadwick, D. 513.
R., Cross, P., Hanley, N., Jones, D. L., ... and Scheffer, M. 1998. Ecology of Shallow Lakes.
Oliver, D. M. 2015. Can macrophyte Chapman Hall, London.
harvesting from eutrophic water close the Scheffer, M., S.H. Hosper, M.L. Meijer, B. Moss
loop on nutrient loss from agricultural and E. Jeppesen. 1993. Alternative equilibria
land? Journal of environmental in shallowlakes. Trends Ecol. Evol., 8: 275–
management, 152: 210-217. 279.
Rashid, I., and Aneaus, S. 2020. Landscape Schindler, D. W. 2006. Recent advances in the
transformation of an urban wetland in understanding and management of
Kashmir Himalaya, India using high- eutrophication. Limnology and oceano-
resolution remote sensing data, geospatial graphy, 51(1):356-363.
modeling, and ground observations over the
Serafy, J.E., R.M. Harrell and L.M. Hurley. 1994.
last 5 decades (1965–2018). Environmental
Mechanical removal of Hydrilla in the
Monitoring and Assessment, 192(10):1-14.
Potomac River, Maryland: local impacts on
Rather, M. I., Rashid, I., Shahi, N., Murtaza, K. O., vegetation and associated fishes. J. Fresh
Hassan, K., Yousuf, A. R. and Shah, I. Y. 2016. Water Ecol., 9: 135–143.
Massive land system changes impact water
Smith, C.S. and J.W. Barko. 1992. Submersed
quality of the Jhelum River in Kashmir
Macrophyte Invasions and Declines. U.S.
Himalaya. Environmental monitoring and
Army Corps of Engineers, Aquatic Plant Cont.
assessment, 188(3):185.
Res. Prog. Rep.,A:92-1. U.S. Army Corps of
Rather, M.I.,Yousuf, A. R., Shahi, N., Rehman, M. Engineers, Vicksburg,MS.
and Meraj M. 2015.Consequences of Lake
Spencer, B. E., Kaiser, M. J., and Edwards, D. B.
Deweeding on Periphytic Algae: A Case Study
1998. Intertidal clam harvesting: benthic
of Dal Lake, Kashmir. Journal of Research and
community change and recovery.
Development, 15:15-26.
Aquaculture Research, 29(6):429-437.
Rather, M. I., Yousuf, A. R., Shahi, N., Mehraj, M.
Spencer, D. F., Ksander, G. G., Donovan, M. J.,
& Khanday, S. A. 2013. Understanding the
Liow, P. S., Chan, W. K., Greenfield, B. K.,
cause of fish kill in Nigeen Lake. Journal of
Shonkoff, S. B. and Andrews, S. P. 2006.
Research and Development, 13: 20-32.

92
J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. Vol. 15 (2020) ISSN 0973-7502

Evaluation of Water Hyacinth Survival and Villamagna, A.M., Murphy, B.R. 2010. Ecological
Growth in the Sacramento Delta, California, and socio-economic impacts of invasive
Following Cutting. J. Aquat. Plant Manage., water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): a
44: 50-60. review. Freshwater Biol., 55:282–298.
Stiers, I., Crohain, N., Josens, G., Triest, L. 2011. Wade, P.M. 1990. Physical control of aquatic
Impact of three aquatic invasive species on weeds. In: A. Pieterse and K. Murphy (Eds.),
native plants and macro-invertebrates in Aquatic Weeds,The Ecology and
temperate ponds. Biol. Invasions, 13:2715– Management of Nuisance Aquatic
2726. Vegetation. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
Tang, X., Li, R., Han, D., and Scholz, M. 2020. UK. pp. 93–135.
Response of eutrophication development to Welch, E.B., E.B. Kvam and R.F. Chase. 1994. The
variations in nutrients and hydrological independence of macrophyte harvesting and
regime: a case study in the Changjiang River lake phosphorus.Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol.,
(Yangtze) Basin. Water,12(6): 1634. 25: 2301–2304.
Trebitz, A. 1995. Predicting bluegill and Wile, I. 1978. Environmental effects of
largemouth bass response to harvest of mechanical harvesting. J. Aquatic Plant
aquatic vegetation. Ph.D.Thesis, University Manage., 16: 14–20.
Wisconsin, Madison. Wile, I., G. Hitchin and G. Beggs. 1979. Impact of
Unmuth, J.M.L. and M.J. Hanson. 1999. Effects of mechanical harvesting on Chemung Lake. In:
mechanical harvesting of Eurasian J. Breck,R. Prentki and O. Loucks (Eds.),
watermilfoil on largemouth bass and bluegill Aquatic Plants, Lake Management, and
populations in Fish Lake, Wisconsin. North Ecosystem Consequences of Lake Harvesting.
Am. J. Fish. Manage.,19:1089–1098. Inst. Environ. Stud., University Wisconsin,
Unmuth, J.M.L., D.J. Sloey and R.A. Lillie. 1998. An Madison. pp. 145–159.
evaluation of close-cut mechanical Zutshi, D. P. and Ticku, A. 1990. Impact of
harvesting of Eurasian watermilfoil. J. mechanical deweeding on Dal Lake
Aquatic Plant Manage. 36: 93–100. Ecosystem. Hydrobiologia, 200/201: 419-426
vanNes, E.H., M. Scheffer, M.S. van den Berg and
H. Coops. 2002. Aquatic macrophytes:
restore, eradicateor is there compromise?
Aquatic Bot.,72: 387–403.

93