MACROPHYTES AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND PLANTS DIVERSITY AND

DISTRIBUTION

A RESEARCH PROJECT

BY

UDOH, MERCY IME

20/SC/BY/890

DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF UYO, UYO.

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE ([Link])

DEGREE IN BOTANY AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

JULY, 2025.
 CERTIFICATION

This research project entitled “Macrophytes and associated wetland plants diversity and

distribution” was carried out by Udoh, Mercy Ime with the registration number 20/SC/BY/890

under the Supervision of Mr. Anietie G. Ezekiel of the Department of Botany and Ecological

Studies.

Udoh, Mercy Ime __________________________

(Student) Date/Signature

Mr. Anietie G. Ezekiel __________________________

(Supervisor) Date/Signature

Dr. Enoabasi Deborah Anwana. __________________________

(Head of Department) Date/Signature
 DEDICATION

This research project is dedicated to God Almighty for his gracious kindness and the gift of Holy

Spirit whom has always been my guide.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the maker of heaven and earth for his grace, mercy, favour and

strength all through my years of study.

I acknowledge my supervisor Mr. Anietie G. Ezekiel for his moral support and guide in ensuring

the success of my work. I am equally grateful to the project coordinator, Dr. Inemesit N. Bassey,

and the Head of Department Botany and Ecological Studies, Dr. Enoabasi D. Anwana for her

motherly care and advice and to all my lecturers, non-teaching staff, colleagues and everyone

who contributed to my success morally, academically and otherwise I thank you for all your love,

encouragements, contributions and support.

I am super grateful to my mum Mrs Maria Udoh, your prayers, counsel, endurance, support and

believe in education have raised this dream to a reality, I'm also thankful to my siblings, Mrs. Eno-

obong Nkanga, Mr. Mfoniso Udoh and Mr. Godwin Udoh for their unending support and always

believing in me. To my ever-loving and supportive friends Esther Nathaniel, Merit Ukwe, Silver John

and to everyone thank you for always being there through thick and thin. I am forever grateful our

paths crossed.
 ABSTRACT
This study assessed macrophytes and other associated wetland plant species diversity and distribution
in a fluvial wetland within Uyo Metropolis, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Using systematic sampling
across three sites, 67 plant species from 32 botanical families were recorded. Fabaceae (17.9 %),
Poaceae (13.4 %), Cyperaceae (7.5 %) were the most dominant. Over 50 % of the flora were herbs,
indicating a disturbed and open habitat. Conservation status showed 35 species as Not Evaluated (NE)
and 32 as Least Concern (LC) from the IUCN database highlighting data gaps for these species.
While 17 species were found across all sites, over 20 were site-restricted, suggesting localized
conditions. The findings indicate ecological deterioration with a skew towards disturbance-tolerant
species. This study underscores the urgent need for local conservation assessments and targeted
interventions to preserve the wetland biodiversity.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Title page i

Certification ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of Study 1

1.2 Statement of Problem 4

1.3 Justification of Study 4
1.4 Objectives of Study 4

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Overview of Aquatic Macrophytes and Other Plant Species in Fluvial Wetlands 6
2.2 Diversity and Distribution of Macrophytes and Other Plant Species in Fluvial
Wetland 9
2.3 Conservation Status of Plant Species in Fluvial Wetlands 9
2.4 Methodology for Assessing Macrophytes and Other Plant Species Diversity 10
2.5. Environmental Factors Influencing Diversity and Distribution of Wetland Plants 11
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
13
3.2. Vegetation Sampling 13

CHATER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results 15
4.2 Discussion 25

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDTION 27

References 30
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Species Checklist in Ekpri Nsukara Wetland within Uyo Metropolis 16

Table 4.2 Plants’ IUCN Conservation Status in a fluvial Wetland 19

Table 4.3 Species Distribution within Ekpri Nsukara Wetland 20
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of Study

Wetlands are generally defined as land areas that are saturated or covered with water

either permanently or seasonally (Cronk et al., 2016). They can be formed naturally through

rainfall and underground water sources (Butt et al., 2018). These ecosystems encompass a

range of water bodies such as ponds, marshy lands, floodplains, and lagoons. Natural

wetlands comprise rivers, lakes, streams, marshes, swamps, and bogs, while artificial ones

include ponds, irrigation canals, fish farms, and rice paddies (Sharma et al., 2021). Wetlands

are broadly categorized into five major types which includes, marine, estuarine, riverine

(fluvial), lacustrine, and palustrine wetlands. Among these, fluvial wetlands also known as

riverine wetlands occur along rivers and streams and are strongly influenced by flowing

water and periodic flooding.

Fluvial wetlands serve critical ecological roles, including sediment trapping, biodiversity

support, and water filtration (Ekpo et al., 2015; Ogbemudia et al., 2017). Wetlands are also

known as boundary ecosystems due to their natural location at the interface between land and

water. Wetlands, rather than being areas of open water, are usually characterized by saturated

soils or wet grounds (Ukpong, 2007). Wetlands are life enhancing systems of the

environment consisting of direct and indirect components (Abimbola et al., 2014), they have

diverse functions and values which significantly recognizes the uniqueness of the

environment (Nwankwoala, 2012).

Wetlands are vital and highly valuable parts of the ecosystem, providing essential

services such as habitat for both humans and animals, as well as sources of food, shelter, and

other ecological benefits. Recognized as some of the most productive ecosystems globally,
wetlands offer a wide range of multifunctional advantages. Their resources include both

consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Non-consumptive benefits that support human well-

being include nutrient cycling, retention of sediments and pollutants, flood control, and

groundwater recharge. Additionally, wetlands supply important resources such as wildlife,

fish, timber, and various non-timber products frequently utilized by nearby communities.

Significantly, when properly managed, wetland soils possess high potential for agricultural

use (Olalekan et al., 2004).

Wetlands are unique productive environments with biological supermarkets of

extensive food webs and rich biodiversity which support hydrological and chemical cycles

(Barbier et al., 1997). Wetlands form an important primary ecosystem in the world and are

often called “in series of life”. They provide habitat for thousands of species of both aquatic

and terrestrial plants and animals (USEPA, 2001). Although wetlands are best known for

being home to macrophytes such as water lilies, water hyacinth, water lettuce and duck weed,

they also provide important habitats for water fowls, fish and mammal (USEPA, 2002).

These complex biological ecosystems and environs also provide a range of socio-economical,

biological, hydrological and recreational benefits that are recognized by the society for multi-

dimensional utilities (Abua, 2007).

Interest in aquatic macrophytes and other wetland plant species in tropical regions began

to grow during the second half of the 20th century (Adigun, 2005). This attention was driven

by both the potential benefits and threats these plants might present to humans and the use of

water bodies. According to Petr (2000), aquatic macrophytes are plant species found in inland

water ecosystems and include flowering plants (angiosperms), ferns, mosses (pteridophytes),

and large algae such as stonewort. These macrophytes are a diverse group of photosynthetic

aquatic organisms that are visible to the naked eye. They are commonly found in freshwater

environments and consist of vascular plants, aquatic bryophytes, and macroalgae, which grow
either permanently or temporarily in aquatic habitats (Aloo et al., 2013; Birnin-Yauri, 2010;

Jones et al., 2010;).

These plant species form an essential component of the biological diversity in fluvial

wetlands. Their distribution and diversity are shaped by numerous environmental variables,

including light intensity, nutrient availability, water depth, flow regime, sediment

characteristics, and anthropogenic disturbances (Aloo et al., 2013; Anwana et al., 2023). As

observed by Naseer et al. (2014) and Dienye (2015), macrophytes and associated wetland

plants offer multiple ecosystem services such as water filtration, nutrient cycling, erosion

control, habitat provision for aquatic organisms, and enhancement of dissolved oxygen levels.

Their presence also influences phytoplankton dynamics by providing habitat for zooplankton,

thereby contributing to aquatic food web stability.

In fluvial wetlands dynamic ecosystems characterized by seasonal hydrological

fluctuations macrophytes and associated species contribute significantly to biodiversity and

productivity. However, despite their ecological importance, comprehensive studies focusing

on their species composition and spatial distribution in many tropical wetlands remain

limited. This gap is particularly evident in regions experiencing increasing anthropogenic

stress, such as those in southern Nigeria, where wetlands are often subjected to agricultural

runoff, deforestation, and urban encroachment (Ekpo et al., 2019; Parveen et al., 2020).

Understanding the diversity and ecological roles of these plants is thus fundamental to

wetland conservation and sustainable management.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Aquatic macrophytes and other wetland plant species play a critical role in

maintaining the structural and functional integrity of freshwater ecosystems, especially in

fluvial wetlands. Despite their ecological significance in providing habitat, enhancing water
quality, and supporting biodiversity, the distribution and diversity of macrophytes in many

tropical fluvial wetlands remain poorly understood. Anthropogenic pressures such as

agricultural runoff, urbanization, and seasonal changes further complicate the dynamics of

these communities. Without baseline data on the composition and distribution of macrophytes

in such ecosystems, sustainable management and conservation efforts are hindered.

1.3 Justification of Study

This study is essential for several reasons. Firstly, assessing the diversity and

distribution of macrophytes and associated plant species will provide valuable insight into the

ecological health of the fluvial wetland, which could be vulnerable to human disturbance.

Secondly, macrophytes serve as bioindicators of water quality, making their study crucial for

monitoring environmental changes. Additionally, data generated can support conservation

planning, guide restoration projects, and inform policy decisions aimed at protecting this

wetland biodiversity. This research will contribute valuable knowledge on the ecological

functioning of a tropical freshwater system, particularly under the influence of environmental

and anthropogenic factors.

1.4 Objectives of Study

The general objective of this research is to assess the diversity and distribution of

macrophytes and other plant species in a fluvial wetland. The specific objectives are to:

i. identify the species composition of macrophytes and other plant species in the

wetland.

ii. determine the abundance and distribution of the different plant species life forms
within the wetland.
iii. evaluate the conservation status of the plant species.
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Overview of Aquatic Macrophytes and Other Plant Species in Fluvial Wetlands
Fluvial wetlands are dynamic ecosystems characterized by periodic flooding,

sediment deposition, and fluctuating water levels that support a diverse assemblage of plant

life, including aquatic macrophytes and terrestrial associated plant species. Macrophytes,

which are visible aquatic plants, include emergent, submerged, and floating forms that thrive

in wet conditions, while other associated plant species such as riparian herbs, shrubs, and

small trees contribute significantly to the overall plant diversity and ecological functioning of

these wetlands. Aquatic macrophytes are functionally categorized based on their growth

habits. Emergent species like Typha latifolia and Phragmites karka root in submerged soils

but extend above water, helping stabilize shorelines and reduce erosion. Submerged

macrophytes such as Ceratophyllum demersum play vital roles in oxygenating water and

providing habitat for invertebrates, while floating species like Eichhornia crassipes and

Pistia stratiotes suppress algal blooms through shading and contribute organic matter to

nutrient cycling (Keddy, 2010; Hrivnak et al., 2006).

Beyond strictly aquatic plants, fluvial wetlands also support marginal and flood-

tolerant terrestrial species, including members of families such as Poaceae, Asteraceae,

Cyperaceae, and Fabaceae. These plants adapt to fluctuating water regimes and often

dominate the wetland edges, contributing to vegetation zonation and species stratification

across hydrological gradients (Anwana et al., 2020). According to Fagorite et al. (2019),

macrophytes and wetland plants are also instrumental in phytoremediation, capable of

absorbing pollutants including heavy metals, excess nitrates, and phosphates, thus improving

water quality. Moreover, the presence, abundance, or absence of certain species (both aquatic

and semi-aquatic) can serve as bioindicators of ecosystem health, offering insights into
pollution levels, hydrological changes, or habitat degradation. Their diversity and distribution

patterns are closely tied to environmental factors such as water depth, soil composition, light

penetration, and human disturbance (Ita, 1993; Adingupu, 2000; Hrivnak et al., 2006).

2.2 Diversity and Distribution of Macrophytes and Other Plant Species in Fluvial
Wetland
The diversity and distribution of plant species in fluvial wetlands is shaped by a complex

interplay of hydrological, climatic, geomorphological, and anthropogenic factors. Globally,

wetlands such as those in the Amazon Basin, the Mekong Delta, and the Mississippi River

Basin support high species diversity due to their dynamic floodplain systems. These regions

typically harbor species like Potamogeton sp, Myriophyllum spicatum, Ceratophyllum

demersum, and Nymphaea spp., which thrive in lentic and moderately flowing aquatic

habitats (Bornette et al., 1998; Hussner et al., 2014).

In Nigeria, the Niger-Benue floodplain, the Cross River Basin, and numerous smaller

fluvial wetlands, including those in Akwa Ibom State, have been reported to support diverse

macrophyte populations. Dominant species often include Typha domingensis, Eichhornia

crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Lemna minor (Obot et al., 2018; Nwankwo et al., 2021).

These species thrive in nutrient-rich, shallow waters and play important roles in habitat

structure and biogeochemical cycling within the wetland ecosystems. The presence of

invasive species like Eichhornia crassipes also indicates ecological stress and eutrophication,

commonly associated with anthropogenic nutrient loading (Akinsoji and Uwadiae, 2020).

Ekpo et al. (2015), in their study of the Odot Stream in the Niger Delta, reported 19

species across 15 families, with Poaceae being the most dominant. The study revealed that

Acroceras zizanoides accounted for 27.81 % of total abundance, signifying its ecological

competitiveness in disturbed wetlands. Similarly, Anyinkeng et al. (2020) in the Buea

Municipality, Cameroon, identified 83 genera and 38 families of aquatic macrophytes, with

Asteraceae and Poaceae having the highest frequency. These findings illustrate that

macrophyte diversity is not only determined by natural ecological gradients but also by

human interference. Areas with limited pollution showed higher species richness and

evenness, whereas disturbed sites recorded fewer but more dominant species. This aligns with

the idea that macrophyte diversity can reflect the ecological condition of a water body

(Hrivnak et al., 2006). The presence of certain indicator species can point to either pristine or

degraded conditions, which underscores the importance of floristic surveys in aquatic

ecosystem monitoring.

Anwana et al. (2021) highlighted the role of hydrological variables in shaping

macrophyte distribution in black water rivers. Their study revealed that seasonal fluctuations

in water level and flow significantly affected macrophyte abundance and diversity in the Qua

Iboe River system, suggesting that hydrological variability is a key determinant of aquatic

vegetation structure in fluvial systems. Furthermore, studies by Anwana et al. (2020) on

lentic wetlands within Uyo Metropolis show that anthropogenic perturbations like urban

runoff and waste discharge affect species composition and abundance. Despite these

pressures, wetlands in Uyo supported over 20 aquatic macrophyte species, with Poaceae,

Cyperaceae, and Asteraceae families being dominant.

In Siddipet District, India, Shailaja and Aruna (2023) assessed macrophyte composition

in Nagaram and Dubbak Ponds. They recorded 36 species belonging to 21 families, with

emergent macrophytes such as Ipomoea aquatica, Nelumbo nucifera, and Typha angustata

being dominant. These findings support the role of macrophytes as indicators of water quality

and ecological balance in lentic and fluvial wetlands. In contrast, sites with high nutrient

loading showed lower species richness and higher dominance by few tolerant taxa, as also

reported by Hrivnak et al. (2006).

2.3 Conservation Status of Plant Species in Fluvial Wetlands
The conservation status of plant species in fluvial wetlands is a growing concern

globally and nationally due to increasing anthropogenic pressures, habitat fragmentation, and

climate-related hydrological shifts. Fluvial wetlands serve as refugia for numerous species,

including those that are endemic, rare, or under threat from land conversion, pollution, and

invasive species (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2016). In many regions, aquatic

macrophytes and associated wetland flora face localized extinction risks due to declining

water quality, reduced water flow, and encroachment by agriculture and urban infrastructure.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, several

macrophytes, including some species of Nymphaea and Potamogeton, are categorized as near

threatened or vulnerable, depending on habitat range, ecological specificity, and observed

decline (IUCN, 2022).

In Nigeria, despite the ecological richness of fluvial wetlands such as those in Akwa

Ibom State, limited data exists on the specific conservation statuses of wetland plant species.

However, studies like that of Anwana et al. (2020) have pointed out the dominance of

disturbance-tolerant species such as Eichhornia crassipes and Panicum maximum, suggesting

that sensitive species may be declining due to urban encroachment and nutrient loading.

Similarly, the disappearance or low abundance of species such as Azolla africana and Pistia

stratiotes in highly impacted areas is indicative of potential local extinction events.

Habitat fragmentation caused by road construction, dredging, and filling reduces the

connectivity of plant populations, thereby limiting genetic exchange and seed dispersal. This

is especially critical for macrophytes with specialized dispersal mechanisms. Moreover, the

invasion of exotic species like Mimosa pigra and Chromolaena odorata alters the structure

and composition of native plant communities, often outcompeting native wetland flora

(Anyinkeng et al., 2020). Conservation efforts must prioritize habitat preservation,

hydrological restoration, and species monitoring. Community-led wetland management,

enforcement of environmental regulations, and integration of traditional knowledge can

enhance the sustainability of plant resources in these fragile ecosystems. The recognition of

certain wetland zones as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Key Biodiversity Areas

(KBAs) may also facilitate conservation funding and policy action.

2.4 Methodology for Assessing Macrophytes and Other Plant Species Diversity
Evaluating macrophyte diversity involves field sampling using quadrats or transects,

followed by species identification and enumeration. Common sampling techniques include

point intercept methods, rake sampling, and visual surveys along linear transects. Diversity

indices such as Shannon-Wiener, Simpson’s, and species richness are often employed to

quantify diversity and community evenness. For instance, in the study conducted by Thomaz

and Cunha (2010) on Brazilian floodplain lakes, the Shannon index was used to measure

diversity alongside spatial analysis of distribution patterns.

In Nigeria, Nkanta et al. (2022) used similar approaches, incorporating GIS tools and

statistical software to map species distributions in the Ikpa River floodplain. Soil nutrient

concentrations are typically assessed using methods such as Kjeldahl digestion (for total

nitrogen) and spectrophotometric analysis (for available phosphorus) (Akinsoji and Uwadiae,

2020). These methods enhance the interpretation of diversity dynamics in response to

environmental gradients. Fagorite et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive review of wetland

classification and management strategies, emphasizing the importance of continuous

ecological assessment in maintaining biodiversity. Their work underscores the need for

integrated monitoring frameworks that combine biological, hydrological, and chemical data

to guide sustainable wetland management.

The integration of bioindicators, hydrological monitoring, and biodiversity metrics is

vital for informed decision-making. Comparative studies consistently show that wetlands

with natural hydrological regimes maintain higher macrophyte diversity than those heavily
modified by agriculture or infrastructure development (Tockner and Stanford, 2002).

Therefore, adaptive monitoring and region-specific assessment approaches are crucial for

tracking ecological changes and promoting conservation in fluvial wetlands.

2.4. Environmental Factors Influencing Diversity and Distribution of Wetland Plants

The diversity and distribution of macrophytes and associated plant species in wetlands

are primarily influenced by a combination of abiotic and biotic factors. Chief among these are

hydrology, nutrient availability, sediment type, light penetration, and anthropogenic

disturbance. These variables interact to create microhabitats that either support or limit the

establishment and growth of specific plant taxa. Hydrology-specifically water depth, duration

of flooding, and flow velocity-remains the most critical determinant of species composition

in wetlands. Species like Typha domingensis and Phragmites karka tolerate permanent

inundation, while others, such as Ageratum conyzoides and Axonopus compressus, require

alternating wet and dry phases to thrive (Shailaja and Aruna, 2023; Anwana et al., 2021).

Sudden or prolonged flooding can disrupt seed germination or lead to decay in intolerant

species, reshaping the community structure.

Soil properties such as pH, organic matter content, and mineral availability play

essential roles in root development and plant nutrient uptake. For instance, acidic soils may

favour Cyperaceae and Utricularia species, while nitrogen-rich soils can promote the

dominance of fast-growing grasses like Echinocloa pyramidalis (Ekpo et al., 2015).

Similarly, substrate texture influences anchorage and rhizome proliferation, especially among

emergent and rooted submerged species. Light availability is another influential factor.

Floating macrophytes like Pistia stratiotes often outcompete submerged species by blocking

sunlight, thereby limiting photosynthetic efficiency in lower strata. This can lead to the

decline of sensitive submerged species and alter trophic interactions within the wetland

(Hrivnak et al., 2006).

 Human activities such as farming, dredging, solid waste dumping, and construction

can significantly alter plant composition through eutrophication, habitat fragmentation, and

direct physical disturbance. These impacts often favor invasive or generalist species over

specialists, reducing biodiversity (Nkanta et al., 2022). Furthermore, improper land use alters

surface runoff, sediment load, and water quality, thereby affecting seed dispersal and species

zonation. Understanding the interaction between these environmental variables is essential

for biodiversity assessments and ecosystem management. Effective conservation and

restoration strategies require tailored interventions that consider the unique ecological drivers

of each wetland system.

 CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
The study was carried out in Ikot Uku Idio within Ekpri Nsukara Offot village, Uyo

LGA, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria (5.03386°N, 7.96171°E). This area lies within the humid

tropical rainforest zone of southern Nigeria, characterized by bimodal rainfall (2,000–3,500

mm annually), warm temperatures (25–30°C), and high humidity (Ogban and Okon, 2021).

The terrain is generally flat to gently undulating, with elevations between 60–150 meters

above sea level, underlain by sandy-loam soils typical of the Benin Formation, which are

acidic and nutrient-poor (Udoumoh et al., 2018). The area hosts several seasonal wetlands

and small rivers, notably around the Ikpa River, which support aquatic macrophytes such as

Nymphaea spp., Eichhornia crassipes and Ipomoea aquatica (Anwana et al., 2021; Ekong

and Akpan, 2021; Parveen et al., 2020). Despite urban pressures like waste discharge and

farming, these wetlands remain ecologically important, supporting biodiversity and water

regulation functions (Ademola et al., 2022; Onochie and Amarie, 2023).

3.2. Vegetation Sampling

The wetland was segmented into three (3) sites: upstream, midstream and lower

stream, 100 m from each other. In each site, systematic sampling method was used to sample

the plants using a quadrant of 10 m × 10 m. In each quadrant, plant species were identified to

species leveled life-forms determined for each species encountered; also, the conservation

status of each plant species was validated using the IUCN (2022) data base. The presence and

absence of plant species within the three sites were also taken into consideration.

Macrophytes and associated wetland plant encountered were identified by a plant taxonomist

while unknown plant species specimens were collected for identification and confirmation

from voucher specimen in Botany and Ecological Studies Departmental Herbarium.

 CHATER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results

A total of 67 plant species were recorded in a fluvial wetland within Uyo Metropolis,

spanning 32 botanical families. The Fabaceae family was the most dominant with 12 species,

indicating its strong adaptability to disturbed wetland environments. It was followed by

Poaceae (9 species) and Cyperaceae (5 species). These three families collectively accounted

for about 40 % of the total species, underscoring their ecological plasticity and prevalence in

riparian and open habitats. While many families such as Lamiaceae, Myristicaceae,

Verbenaceae, Pontederiaceae, Moraceae, Apocynaceae, Connaraceae, Combretaceae,

Ceratophyllaceae, Passifloraceae, Pteridaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Cleomaceae recorded a single

species each.
 Table 4.1: Species Checklist in Ekpri Nsukara Wetland within Uyo Metropolis

No. Species Name Author Citation Family

1 Acroceras zizanoides (Kunth) Dandy Poaceae
2 Alchornea cordifolia Mü[Link]. Euphorbiaceae
3 Alstonia boonei De Wild. Apocynaceae
4 Alternanthera sessilis (L.) [Link]. ex DC. Amaranthaceae
5 Amaranthus spinosus L. Amaranthaceae
6 Anthocleista djalonensis A. Chev. Gentianaceae
7 Anthocleista vogelii Planch. Gentianaceae
8 Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. ex [Link]. Poaceae
9 Barteria nigritana Hook.f. Passifloraceae
10 Brachiaria lata (Schumach.) C. E. Hubbard Poaceae
11 Brachystegia eurycoma Harms Fabaceae
12 Calopogonium mucunoides Desv. Fabaceae
13 Ceratophyllum demersum L. Ceratophyllaceae
14 Chromolaena odorata (L.) [Link] and [Link]. Asteraceae
15 Cleome viscosa L. Cleomaceae
16 Cnestis ferruginea Vahl ex DC. Connaraceae
17 Coelocaryon preussii Warb. Myristicaceae
18 Combretum mannii Hook.f. ex Benth. Combretaceae
19 Commelina benghalensis L. Commelinaceae
20 Croton hirtus L'Hér. Euphorbiaceae
21 Cyperus difformis L. Cyperaceae
22 Cyperus iria L. Cyperaceae
23 Cyperus rotundus L. Cyperaceae
24 Cyperus surinamensis Rottb. Cyperaceae
25 Cyrtosperma senegalense (Schott) Engl. Araceae
26 Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler Poaceae
27 Echinocloa colona (L.) Link Poaceae
28 Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. (syn. Eclipta alba) Asteraceae
29 Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms Pontederiaceae
30 Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Arecaceae
31 Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Poaceae
32 Ficus sur Forssk. Moraceae
33 Gmelina arborea Roxburgh Lamiaceae
34 Ipomoea aquatica Forssk. Convolvulaceae
35 Ipomoea asarifolia (Desr.) Roem. and Schult. Convolvulaceae
36 Ipomoea involucrata P. Beauv Convulvulaceae
37 Lagenaria breviflora (Benth.) Roberty Cucurbitaceae
38 Laportea aestuans (L.) Chew Urticaceae
39 Ludwigia decurrens Walt. Onagraceae
40 Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright ex.. Sauville Fabaceae
41 Mimosa pigra L. Fabaceae
42 Mimosa pudica L. Fabaceae
43 Mitragyna ciliate Aubrév. and Pellegr. Rubiaceae
44 Mussaenda polita Hutch. Rubiaceae
45 Nauclea latifolia Sm. Rubiaceae
46 Nymphaea lotus L. Nymphaeaceae
47 Panicum maximum Jacq. Poaceae
48 Panicum repens Linn. Poaceae
49 Paspalum vaginatum Sw. Poaceae
50 Pentaclethra macrophylla Benth. Fabaceae
51 Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Poaceae
52 Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. and Thonn. Phyllanthaceae
53 Pityrogramma calomelanos (L.) Link Pteridaceae
54 Raphia hookeri G. Mann and H. Wendl. Arecaceae
55 Senna obtusifolia (L.) [Link] and Barneby Fabaceae
56 Senna siamea (Lam.) [Link] and Barneby Fabaceae
57 Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. Fabaceae
58 Setaria barbata (Lam.) Kunth Poaceae
59 Setaria megaphylla (Steud.) Dur. and Schinz Poaceae
60 Setaria verticillata (L.) [Link]. Poaceae
61 Sida acuta Burm.f. Malvaceae
62 Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Poaceae
63 Stachytarpheta cayennensis (Rich.) Vahl Verbenaceae
64 Syndrella nudiflora Gaertn. Asteraceae
65 Thelypteris dentata (Forssk.) E.P. [Link] Thelypteridaceae
66 Uapaca staudtii Pax Phyllanthaceae
67 Urena lobata L. Malvaceae
(Field work 2024)
 Species in this wetland exhibited diverse growth habits, with herbs and grasses

making up the majority, further emphasizing the disturbed nature and openness of the

wetland (Table 2). Herbs were the most prevalent, with over 15 entries, such as

Alternanthera sessilis, Amaranthus spinosus, and Cleome viscosa. Also, Grasses were

significantly represented (e.g., Panicum maximum, Digitaria ciliaris). Other growth habits

included shrubs, trees, climbers, macrophytes, sedges, and ferns. Ferns and Sedges

(represented by only 2 and 4 species each respectively). Notably, the conservation status

indicates that the plants fell within these two IUCN conservation categories: Not-evaluated

(NE) or Least-concerned (LC). Most specifically, 35 species where not evaluated while the

remaining 32 species are Least concerned (LC) as seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Plants’ IUCN Conservation Status in a fluvial Wetland
No. Species Name Growth Habits Conservation Status
1 Acroceras zizanoides Grass NE
2 Alchornea cordifolia Shrub LC
3 Alstonia boonei Tree LC
4 Alternanthera sessilis Herb LC
5 Amaranthus spinosus Herb NE
6 Anthocleista djalonensis Tree LC
7 Anthocleista vogellii Tree LC
8 Bambusa vulgaris Shrub NE
9 Barteria nigritana Tree NE
10 Brachiaria lata Grass NE
11 Brachystegia eurycoma Tree LC
12 Calopogonium mucunoides Climber NE
13 Cassia siamea Tree LC
14 Ceolocaryon preusii Tree NE
15 Ceratophyllum demersum Macrophyte LC
16 Chromolaena odorata Shrub NE
17 Cleome viscosa Herb NE
18 Cnestis ferruginea Shrub NE
19 Combretum mannii Climber NE
20 Commelina benghalensis Macrophyte LC
21 Croton hirtus Herb NE
22 Cyperus difformis Sedge LC
23 Cyperus iria Sedge LC
24 Cyperus rotundus Sedge LC
25 Cyperus surinamensis Sedge NE
26 Cyrtosperma senegalense Macrophyte LC
27 Digitaria ciliaris Grass NE
28 Echinocloa colona Grass LC
29 Eclipta prostrata Herb NE
30 Eichhornia crassipes Macrophyte NE
31 Elaeis guineensis Tree LC
32 Eleusine indica Grass LC
33 Ficus sur Tree LC
34 Gmelina arborea Tree LC
35 Ipomoea aquatica Herb LC
36 Ipomoea asarifolia Climber NE
37 Ipomoea involucrata Climber NE
38 Lagenaria breviflora Climber NE
39 Laportea aestuans Herb NE
40 Ludwigia decurrens Shrub NE
41 Mimosa diplotricha Shrub NE
42 Mimosa pigra Shrub LC
43 Mimosa pudica Shrub LC
44 Mitragyna ciliate Tree NE
45 Mussaenda polita Shrub NE
46 Nauclea latifolia Tree LC
47 Nymphaea lotus Macrophyte LC
48 Panicum maximum Grass NE
49 Panicum repens Macrophyte LC
50 Paspalum vaginatum Grass LC
51 Pentaclethra macrophylla Tree LC
52 Phragmites australis Macrophyte LC
53 Phyllanthus amarus Herb NE
54 Pityrogramma calomelanos Fern NE
55 Raphia hookeri Tree LC
56 Senna obtusifolia Herb LC
57 Sesbania sesban Herb LC
58 Setaria barbata Grass NE
59 Setaria megaphylla Grass NE
60 Setaria verticillata Macrophyte NE
61 Sida acuta Herb NE
62 Sorghum halepense Grass NE
63 Stachytarpheta cayensis Herb NE
64 Syndrella nudiflora Herb NE
65 Thelypteris dentata Fern NE
66 Uapaca staudtii Tree LC
67 Urena lobata Shrub LC
 Table 3 outlines the distribution of 67 species encountered in the study. Seventeen (17)

species were recorded in all three sites. These were: Acroceras zizanoides, Alchornea

cordifolia, Bambusa vulgaris, Brachystegia eurycoma, Calopogonium mucunoides,

Commelina benghalensis, Cyperus iria, Cyrtosperma senegalense, Echinocloa colona,

Eclipta alba, Elaeis guineensis, Eleusine indica, Ipomoea involucrata, Ludwigia decurrens,

Mimosa diplotricha, Mimosa pudica. While these other ones were local to one site:

Amaranthus spinosus, Anthocleista djalonensis, Lagenaria breviflora, Laportea aestuans,

Setaria barbata, Syndrella nudiflora, Pityrogramma calomelanos, Gmelina arborea, Senna

siamea, among others. Specifically, Site 1 had more unique macrophyte species that did not

occur in Site 2 or 3 (Ceratophyllum demersum and Nymphaea lotus). Site 2 appeared to

support a wide variety of species, but often in combination with either Site 1 or 3. Site 3 had

more species that were only found there, suggesting possible ecological niche variation or

higher isolation.
 Table 4.3: Species Distribution within Ekpri Nsukara Wetland
Species Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
1 Acroceras zizanoides + + +
2 Alchornea cordifolia + + +
3 Alstonia bonnie - + +
4 Amaranthus spinosus - - +
5 Anthocleista djalonensis - - +
6 Anthocleista vogelli - + +
7 Athenanthera sessils + - +
8 Bambusa vulgaris + + +
9 Bateria nigritana + - -
10 Brachiaria lata - + +
11 Brachystegia eurycoma + + +
12 Calapogonium muconoides + + +
13 Cassia siamea - + -
14 Ceolocaryon preusii - + -
15 Ceratophyllum demersum + - -
16 Eichhornia crassipes + - -
17 Chromolaena odorata - + -
18 Cleome viscosa - +
19 Cnestis feruginea + - -
20 Combretum manni - + -
21 Commelina benghalense + + +
22 Croton hirtus + + -
23 Cyperus difformmis + - +
24 Cyperus iria + + +
25 Cyperus rotundus + +
26 Cyperus surinamensis + + -
27 Cyrtospermum senegalense + + +
28 Digitaria ciliate - - +
29 Echinocloa colona + + +
30 Eclipta alba + + +
31 Elaeis guineensis + + +
32 Eleusine indica + + +
33 Ficus sur + - -
34 Gmelina arborea - + -
35 Ipomoea aquatica - + +
36 Ipomoea asarifolia - - +
37 Ipomoea involucrata + + +
38 Lagenaria breviflora - - +
39 Laportea aestuans - - +
40 Ludwigia decurens + + +
41 Mimosa diplotricha + + +
42 Mimosa pigra - + -
43 Mimosa pudica + + +
44 Mitragyna ciliate - + +
45 Musaenda polita + - +
46 Nauclea latifolia - + +
47 Nymphea lotus + - -
48 Panicum maximum - + +
49 Panicum repens - + +
50 Paspalum vaginatum - - +
51 Pentaclethra macrophylla + + -
52 Phragmite australis - - +
53 Phyllanthus amarus - - +
54 Pityrogramma calomelanos - - +
55 Raphia hookeri - + -
56 Senna obtusifolia - + -
57 Sesbania sesban - + -
58 Settaria barbata - - +
59 Settaria megaphylla - + +
60 Settaria verticilata - - +
61 Sida acuta - + -
62 Sorghum halapense - + +
63 Stachytarpheta cayensis - + -
64 Syndrella nudifora - - +
65 Thelypteris dentata + + -
66 Uapaca staudtii - + -
67 Urena lobata - + +
 A B

Figure 2: Some plant species encountered in the wetland a. Ipomoea aquatica; b. Ipomea
asarifolia; c. Cyperus surinamensis;
4.2 Discussion

The phytodiversity observed in this fluvial wetland within Uyo Metropolis is

indicative of an ecosystem undergoing pronounced ecological shifts, primarily driven by

sustained anthropogenic pressures (Ogbemudia et al., 2014; Rojas et al., 2019; Mohibul et

al., 2023; Ayadiuno and Ndulue, 2024). The presence of 67 plant species across thirty-two

(32) botanical families illustrates moderate species richness. This aligns with earlier findings

by Nsoh, et al. (2021), Borisade and Odiwe (2021), Slezak et al. (2022) and Alemu et al.

(2023) who observed similar diversity levels in disturbed riparian zones and similar wetlands

within and outside southern Nigeria. The dominance of Fabaceae (17.9 %), Poaceae (13.4

%), and Cyperaceae (7.5 %) is well noticed and clearly understood. This vegetation

composition is typical of disturbed wetlands or transitional ecosystems, as these families are

well known for their adaptability to varying ecological conditions, including nutrient

fluctuation and hydrological variability. This assertion aligns with the views of Singh et. al.

(2021) noting the dominance of Fabaceae, Poaceae and Cyperaceae in the unexplored Bani

Valley, Indian Himalayas.

The life form spectrum further underscores the disturbed nature of the wetland. Herbs

constituted over 50 % of the recorded species, followed by trees and shrubs. This is a

common indicator of degraded habitats where open areas created by human encroachment

facilitate the colonization of fast-growing, opportunistic herbaceous plants (Lougheed et al.

2008; Zhang et al., 2019). The relatively low occurrence of trees and aquatic macrophytes

points to possible hydrological alteration, reduced water quality, and increased human

activity, such as sand mining and waste disposal, all of which are known to impact species

composition in freshwater ecosystems (Romero et al, 2022; Mcfadden et al. 2022).

 The conservation status evaluation revealed that most species assessed were either

listed as Least Concern (LC) on the IUCN Red List database, or were Not Evaluated (NE).

Similar observations were made by earlier researchers including Okon et. al. (2022) and

Ezekiel et. al. (2023) and Bassey et al. (2024). This reflects a broader trend in biodiversity

data gaps, particularly in tropical Africa where many native species remain un-assessed or

poorly documented (IUCN, 2022). The absence of species assessments in IUCN

conservation databases does not indicate that species are secure; rather, it often reflects

neglect in conservation planning and can lead to underestimating threats to indigenous and

localized species, many of which are increasingly vulnerable to urbanization, pollution, and

hydrological changes. More validly, this ring signals for institutionalizing complementary

local and regional conservation assessments and creation of up-to-date and well managed

database in order not to obscure the vulnerability of localized or endemic species, many of

which face mounting threats from urbanization, pollution, and hydrological alterations

Concurrently, the distributional patterns further reinforce the ecological divergence

across sites. While 17 species were ubiquitous, over 20 species were site-restricted, indicating

the presence of unique microhabitats or site-specific disturbance regimes (Anwana et. al.,

2020). In this case, these restricted species, such as Lagenaria breviflora, Laportea aestuans,

and Pityrogramma calomelanos, are important for conservation as their confinement to single

sites may reflect narrow ecological amplitudes or dependence on intact habitat patches (Abbit

et. al., 2000; Butchart et. al., 2012; Campbell et. al. 2023). Furthermore, the confinement of

these species to a single site, point to localized niche requirements or differential impacts of

environmental stressors such as flooding regimes, soil type, and pollution gradients (Mbong,

et. al., 2020b; Tameirão et al., 2021). On the other hand, the prevalence of seventeen (17)

species across the three sites is indicative of high ecological plasticity (Ubom et. al., 2012;

Mbong et. al., 2023). Some of these species, including Acroceras zizanoides, Alchornea
cordifolia, and Mimosa pudica, have been listed as common flora of disturbed wetland

habitats and often serve as bioindicators of environmental resilience (Ogbemudia, et. al.,

2014; Anwana et al., 2018).

Studies across temperate and tropical forests show that fragmented landscapes and

open canopies promote the proliferation of herbaceous species, especially at forest edges,

while forest specialists and woody species decline due to habitat isolation, altered soil

conditions, and increased exposure to environmental stressors (Honnay et al., 2005). In line

with this, the dominance of herbaceous species (comprising over half of the total flora)

signals landscape fragmentation and increased canopy openness, both of which are linked to

early successional stages or disturbed environments. Fragmentation and the creation of forest

edges lead to greater light availability and altered microclimates, favouring generalist and

disturbance-tolerant herbaceous plants while reducing the abundance of forest-dependent life

forms such as trees and climbers, which are more sensitive to edge effects and anthropogenic

pressures (Brunnet, et. al., 2011). The findings suggest that while this wetland retained

notable phytodiversity, the composition is skewed toward disturbance-tolerant and invasive

species, including Mimosa pudica, Mimosa invisa, Chromolaena odorata and Eichhornia

crassipes. These species have been documented to aggressively outcompete native flora,

reduce biodiversity, and alter ecosystem services (Ehrenfeld, 2008).

A notable ecological observation is the presence of Eichhornia crassipes (water

hyacinth) in only one of the three sites. The species' presence is ecologically significant and

worrisome since it is known to create dense mats that lower oxygen levels, restrict native

aquatic plants, and change hydrological flow regimes (Gaballa et al., 2021). The presence of

Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) in only one of three sites is likely linked to specific

environmental conditions, particularly nutrient enrichment. Empirical evidence consistently

shows that E. crassipes thrives in waters with elevated nutrient levels, specifically phosphates

and nitrates, which are often the result of sewage discharge, agricultural runoff, or industrial

effluents (Zarkkami, Esfandi, and Sadeghi 2021; Gaballa et. al., 2021). Its occurrence in the

study area is a bioindicator of eutrophication, signifying a potential trophic imbalance and

elevated nutrient loading possibly arising from consistent dumping of organic solid waste and

effluent rich in phosphates and nitrates from meat processing activities and the nearby

market.

Similarly, the presence of Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail) in only one site offers

contrasting ecological implications. As a submerged, free-floating macrophyte, C. demersum

is often associated with relatively clear, calm, slow-moving and oxygen-rich waters (Xio

Jiang et al., 2013; Syed et al., 2018). Its restriction to a single site suggests local

environmental heterogeneity, possibly linked to water chemistry, flow velocity, or light

penetration. This species’ absence in the other sites may be due to uncontrolled

sedimentation, turbidity, or competition with more aggressive colonizers like E. crassipes.

 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDTION

This study assessed the macrophytes diversity and distribution across three sites in a

fluvial wetland within Uyo Metropolis. A total of 67 species were identified, belonging to 32

plant families. The most dominant family was Fabaceae, with 12 species (17.9%), followed

by Poaceae (9 species; 13.4%) and Cyperaceae (5 species; 7.5%). Life form analysis showed

a significant dominance of herbaceous species, constituting over 50% of all recorded flora,

suggesting ecological disturbance and a prevalence of pioneer colonizers. Other life forms

included shrubs (16%), trees (15%), climbers, aquatic macrophytes, sedges, and ferns. A

preliminary assessment of species conservation status using the IUCN Red List revealed that

they were classified either as Least Concern (LC) or Not Evaluated (NE), highlighting a gap

in conservation documentation for several tropical species. Species distribution analysis

showed that 17 species (25.4%) were ubiquitous across all three sites, including Acroceras

zizanoides, Alchornea cordifolia, and Bambusa vulgaris, reflecting high ecological plasticity.

In contrast, more 20 species (29.9%) were site-restricted, indicating spatial heterogeneity and

the influence of local environmental conditions. Despite considerable species diversity, the

dominance of generalist and disturbance-tolerant species, coupled with the

underrepresentation of rare or conservation-sensitive taxa, indicates that this wetland is

experiencing ecological deterioration.

Generally, the studied wetland presents a case of floristic resilience amid degradation.

While plant diversity persists, its structure is skewed toward disturbance-tolerant and invasive

species, with fewer representatives of climax or conservation-significant taxa. The co-

occurrence of E. crassipes and C. demersum in separate sites exemplifies a gradient of

ecological health, ranging from eutrophic to potentially mesotrophic systems. Based on the

current findings, it is imperative to sustain ecological integrity and targeted restoration

interventions. This includes controlling invasive species, rehabilitating buffer zones,

regulating effluent discharge, and instituting indigenous knowledge and community-based

conservation strategies. Moreover, future research should prioritize long-term monitoring,

functional trait analysis, and hydrological and geological assessments to better understand

this wetland resilience and thresholds under continued anthropogenic stress.

 REFERENCES

Abimbola, L.M., Olalekan, El Sheed M. and Damilola, O. A (2014). Wetland Resources of Nigeria:
Case Study of the Haiderija Nguru Wetlands. Poultry Fish Wild science 2: 123.

Abbitt, R., Scott, J., and Wilcove, D. (2000). The geography of vulnerability: incorporating
species geography and human development patterns into conservation
planning. Biological Conservation, 96, 169-175.
Abua, M. A. (2007). Wetland. In Bisong (Ed.), Environment, society and management in a changing
world (pp. xx–xx). Cross River State: Tabson Resources.

Ademola, A. S., Eze, A. O., & Akerele, E. O. (2022). Environmental impact of solid waste on water
quality and aquatic macrophytes in an urban wetland in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Applied
Science and Environmental Management, 26(11), 1989–1996.

Adigun, A. A. (2005). Aquatic macrophytes and their importance in tropical freshwater ecosystems.
African Journal of Aquatic Science, 30(1), 1–9.

Adingupu, M. D. (2000). Ecology of Nigerian wetlands. Port Harcourt, Nigeria: University of Port
Harcourt Press.

Akinsoji, A., & Uwadiae, U. (2020). Assessment of aquatic macrophytes as indicators of water
quality in Lekki Lagoon, Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 36(3), 193–200.

Alemu, T., Pertoldi, C., Hundera, K., and Ambelu, A. (2023). Spatial patterns of riparian
vegetation community composition and diversity along human‐ affected East African
highland streams. Ecohydrology. [Link]
Aloo, J. K., Njiru, J. M., & Kundu, R. (2013). Macrophyte diversity and distribution in selected
Kenyan wetlands. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 16(2), 159–166.

Anwana, I. A., Ekpo, A. J., & Ibanga, N. O. (2021). Influence of hydrological variables on
macrophyte distribution in black water rivers in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Water
Resource and Protection, 13(8), 653–665.

Anwana, E. D., Ita, R. E. and Mbong, E. O. (2018). The Distribution of Cyrtospermum

senegalense (Schott) Engl. in a Seasonal Wetland in Akwa Ibom State. Tropical
Freshwater Biology, 27(2): 1-11.
Anwana, E. D., Mbong, E. O. and Etim, N. (2020). Trends in Macrophyte Diversity in
Anthropogenic Perturbed Lentic Ecosystems within Uyo Metropolis. Journal of
Environmental and Waste Management, 7 (1): 339-344.

Anwana, E. D., Udoinyang E. P. and Ogbemudia, F. O. (2015). Plant Diverssity in an urban

Recreational Pond. International Journal of Innovative Agriculture and Biology, 3(2):
20 - 24
Anyinkeng, N. L., Mafeni, J. A., & Tatah, S. L. (2020). Aquatic macrophytes as indicators of
ecological quality in freshwater ecosystems of Buea Municipality, Cameroon. Journal of
Applied Biosciences, 145(1), 14878–14886.

Ayadiuno, R., and Ndulue, D. (2024). Integrating Remote Sensing and GIS-Based Map
Analysis in Determining Spread of Built-Ups and Land-Use Dynamics of Terrain of
Onitsha Metropolis, Anambra State,
Nigeria. Land. [Link]
Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M. C., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for
policy makers and planners. IUCN – The World Conservation Union.
[Link]

Bassey, M. E., Anwana E. D., Mbong, E. O. and Umoh, O. T. (2023) Diversity and
Distribution of Vascular Cryptogams in relation to Elevation Gradient in Osomba
Range of the Cross River National Park. Cross River State. World Journal of Applied
Science and Technology, 15(1): 26-32.

Bassey, M. E., Anwana, E. D., Umoh, O. T and Mbong, E. O. (2024). Pteridophytes and
Lycophytes of Osomba Hills, Cross River State National Park. Ceylon Journal of
Science, 53(2): 219 -229.

Birnin-Yauri, A. U. (2010). A handbook on common aquatic plants of the Kainji Lake Basin, Nigeria.
Rem-Thomas Prints Illorin. P 10-12.

Borisade, T., and Odiwe, A. (2021). Regeneration status of common woody species in the
riparian forests in Southwestern Nigeria. Ecological Questions, 32, 1-16.

Brunet, J., Valtinat, K., Mayr, M., Felton, A., Lindbladh, M., and Bruun, H. (2011).
Understory succession in post-agricultural oak forests: Habitat fragmentation affects
forest specialists and generalists differently. Forest Ecology and Management, 262,
1863-1871.
Butchart, S., Scharlemann, J., Evans, M., Quader, S., Aricò, S., Arinaitwe, J., Balman, M.,
Bennun, L., Bertzky, B., Besançon, C., Boucher, T., Brooks, T., Burfield, I., Burgess,
N., Chan, S., Clay, R., Crosby, M., Davidson, N., De Silva, N., Devenish, C., Dutson,
G., Fernández, D., Fishpool, L., Fitzgerald, C., Foster, M., Heath, M., Hockings, M.,
Hoffmann, M., Knox, D., Larsen, F., Lamoreux, J., Loucks, C., May, I., Millett, J.,
Molloy, D., Morling, P., Parr, M., Ricketts, T., Seddon, N., Skolnik, B., Stuart, S.,
Upgren, A., and Woodley, S. (2012). Protecting Important Sites for Biodiversity
 Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets. PLoS ONE,
7. [Link]
Butt, B., Ahmad, I., and Khan, M. A. (2018). Ecological assessment of wetlands in Punjab, Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 55(2), 459–467.

Cronk, J. K., & Fennessy, M. S. (2016). Wetland ecology: Principles and conservation (2nd ed.).
Waveland Press.

Dienye, K. E. (2015). Species diversity of macrophytes of the New Calabar River, Niger Delta,
Nigeria.: International Journel of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 3(1), 409–413.

Ehrenfeld, J. (2008). Exotic invasive species in urban wetlands: environmental correlates and
implications for wetland management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1160-1169.
Ekong, A. E., & Akpan, E. O. (2021). Floristic diversity and distribution of aquatic macrophytes in
Qua Iboe River Estuary, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Science and
Toxicology Research, 9(3), 110–118.

Ekpo, A. J., Anwana, I. A., & Etim, L. (2019). Impact of anthropogenic activities on macrophyte
diversity in selected wetlands of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Wetlands and Aquatic
Research, 11(2), 23–32.

Ekpo, I. E., Essien-Ibok, M. A., & Utibeno, E. R. (2015). Effect of environmental variables on
macrophyte species in Odot Stream, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of
Agriculture, Food and Environment, 11(2), 178–189.

Effiong, Y. I., George, U. U., Oboho,, D. E. and Mbong, E. O. (2021). Spatial and Temporal
Variation in Zooo planktons composition and Abundance in a Tropical Freshwater
Ecosystem in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. New York Science Journal, 14(4): 1-12
Ezekiel, A. G., Umoh, O. T., Mbong, E. O., Ntukidem, A U. and William, R. A. (2024)
Distribution and Conservation Status of Plants’ Species in the Botanical Garden and
Arboretum domiciled in the University of Uyo, Nigeria. Dutse Journal of ure and
Applied Science, 10(1b): 74 – 84.
Gaballah, M., Ismail, K., Aboagye, D., Ismail, M., Sobhi, M., and Stefanakis, A. (2021).
Effect of design and operational parameters on nutrients and heavy metal removal in
pilot floating treatment wetlands with Eichhornia Crassipes treating polluted lake
water. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 25664 - 25678.
Fagorite, O., Adekunle, A. A., & Okunlola, O. O. (2019). Phytoremediation potential of selected
aquatic macrophytes in crude oil polluted water. Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 12(2), 118–125.
Fagorite, O., Akinsoji, A., & Adekunle, A. A. (2022). A review of wetland classification, ecological
functions, and management strategies in Nigeria. Environmental Management and
Sustainable Development, 11(1), 1–15.

Honnay, O., Jacquemyn, H., Bossuyt, B., and Hermy, M. (2005). Forest fragmentation effects
on patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. The New
phytologist, 166 3, 723-36.
Hrivnák, R., Ot’ahel’ová, H., & Baláži, P. (2006). Diversity of aquatic macrophytes in relation to
environmental factors in the Slatina River (Slovakia). Biologia, 61, 156–168.

Hussner, A., Stöhr, C., & van de Weyer, K. (2014). Distribution and ecology of aquatic macrophytes
in the Lower Rhine, Germany. Limnologica, 42(3), 205–212.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature (2022). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species (Version 2022–2). [Link] Date accessed:

Ita, E. O. (1993). Inland fishery resources of Nigeria. In CIFA Occasional Paper No. 20 (p. 120),
FAO. [Link]

Jones, J. L., Collins, A. L, Nada, P. S. & Sear, D. A. (2010). The relationship between fire sediment
and macrophyte in Rivers. Rivers Research and Applications. 20: 111–125.

Keddy, P. A. (2010). Wetland ecology: Principles and conservation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-0521519403

Lougheed, V., McIntosh, M., Parker, C., and Stevenson, R. (2008). Wetland degradation
leads to homogenization of the biota at local and landscape scales. Freshwater
Biology, 53, 2402-2413.

Mbong, E. O., Ivon, E. A., Idio, E., Utuk, K. E., Okon, J. E. and Anwana, E. D. Correlating
habitat dynamism with foliar anatomical modulations: A study with Phymatosorus
scolopendria (Burm. F.) ching (2023). World Journal of Applied Science and
Technology 15 (1), 61-68.

Mbong, E. O., Ogbemudia F. O. and Samuel, E. I (2020b). Tree Species Diversity and
Dominance in Relation to Soil Properties in University of Uyo Arboretum.
International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, 10 (3):135 – 142.

Mbong, E. O., Osu, S. R., Uboh, D. G. and Ekpo, I. (2020a). Abundance and distribution of
Species in relation to Soil Properties in Sedge-dominated Habitats in Uyo Metropolis,
Southern Nigeria. Global Journal of Ecology, 5(1): 24 -29.

McFadden, I., Sendek, A., Brosse, M., Bach, P., Baity-Jesi, M., Bolliger, J., Bollmann, K.,
Brockerhoff, E., Donati, G., Gebert, F., Ghosh, S., Ho, H., Khaliq, I., Lever, J., Logar,
I., Moor, H., Odermatt, D., Pellissier, L., De Queiroz, L., Rixen, C., Schuwirth, N.,
Shipley, J., Twining, C., Vitasse, Y., Vorburger, C., Wong, M., Zimmermann, N.,
 Seehausen, O., Gossner, M., Matthews, B., Graham, C., Altermatt, F., and Narwani,
A. (2022). Linking human impacts to community processes in terrestrial and
freshwater ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 26, 203 - 218.

Mohibul, S., Sarif, M., Parveen, N., Khanam, N., Siddiqui, M., Naqvi, H., Nasrin, T., and
Siddiqui, L. (2023). Wetland health assessment using DPSI framework: a case study
in Kolkata Metropolitan Area. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30,
107158-107178.
Naseer, M., Khan, M. A., & Butt, B. A. (2014). Role of aquatic macrophytes in wastewater treatment
and pollution control. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 56(1), 1–10.

Nkanta, A. I., Anwana, I. A., & Ukpong, I. E. (2022). Spatial distribution and diversity of aquatic
macrophytes in Ikpa River floodplain, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Wetlands and
Aquatic Research, 14(1), 1–12.

Nsoh, C. E., Tatah, V. N., & Mofor, S. N. (2021). Species composition and diversity of aquatic
macrophytes in selected wetlands of the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Journal of Ecology
and the Natural Environment, 13(2), 48–57.

Nwankwo, D. I., Akpan, E. O., & Udoh, P. E. (2021). Diversity and distribution of aquatic
macrophytes in Calabar River, Cross River State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Botany, 34(1),
1–10.

Nwankwoala, H. O. (2012). Case studies on coastal wetlands and water resources in Nigeria.
European Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(2), 113–126.

Obot, N. B., Udoh, P. E., & Ekpo, A. J. (2018). Macrophyte diversity and distribution in lower Cross
River Basin, Nigeria. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 10(3), 77–85.

Ogban, P. I., & Okon, B. B. (2021). Rainfall pattern and agricultural implications in Akwa Ibom
State, Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 10(1), 22–30.

Ogbemudia, F. O., Anwana E. D., Onyebule, C. L., and Mbong, E. O. (2025). Epiphytic Vascular
Cryptogams as Bioindicators of Atmospheric Heavy Metals Pollution in Eket Wetllands,
Nigeria. Asian Journal of Research in Botany, 8 (1): 214 – 226.

Ogbemudia, F.O and Mbong, E.O. (2013). Studies on some Pedological indices, Nutrient flux Pattern
and Plant Distribution in Metropolitan Dumpsites in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. Indian Journal
of Phramaceutical and Biological Research, 1(2): 40 – 45.

Ogbemudia, F.O; Anwana, E.D., Mbong, E.O and Joshua, E.E. (2014). Plant Diversity Status and Soil
Physicochemistry in a Flood Plain. International Journal of Research, 1(10): 1977 – 1985.

Okon, B. B., Anwana, I. A., & Ekpo, A. J. (2022). Diversity and conservation status of wetland plant
species in some selected urban areas of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Biodiversity
and Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 1–12.
Olalekan, O. E., Oyekanmi, O. E., & Obafemi, A. O. (2004). Agricultural potentials of wetlands in
Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8(1), 1–9.

Onochie, A. C., & Amarie, T. S. (2023). Assessment of physicochemical parameters and heavy metals
in a selected urban wetland in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research, 14(1), 154–162.

Parveen, S., Ansari, A. A., & Akhtar, M. (2020). Assessment of heavy metals in aquatic macrophytes
and sediments of a tropical urban wetland. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
27(19), 23902–23912.

Petr, T. (2000). Interaction between fish and aquatic macrophytes in inland waters (FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper No. 396). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Rojas, C., Munizaga, J., Rojas, O., Martínez, C., and Pino, J. (2019). Urban development
versus wetland loss in a coastal Latin American city: Lessons for sustainable land use
planning. Land Use Policy. [Link]

Romero, F., Acuña, V., and Sabater, S. (2020). Multiple Stressors Determine Community
Structure and Estimated Function of River Biofilm Bacteria. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. [Link]
Shailaja, T., & Aruna, T. (2023). Diversity and distribution of aquatic macrophytes in selected ponds
of Siddipet District, Telangana, India. International Journal of Botany Studies, 8(1), 22–26.

Sharma, S., Phartiyal, M., Madhav, S., & Singh, R. P. (2021). Global wetlands: Categorization,
distribution and global scenario. In Wetland Conservation: Current Challenges and Future
Strategies (pp. 1–16).

Singh, S., Singh, B., Surmal, O., Bhat, M., Singh, B., and Musarella, C. (2021). Fragmented
Forest Patches in the Indian Himalayas Preserve Unique Components of Biodiversity:
Investigation of the Floristic Composition and Phytoclimate of the Unexplored Bani
Valley. Sustainability, 13, 6063. [Link]

Slezak, M., Douda, J., Šibíková, M., Jarolímek, I., Senko, D., and Hrivnák, R. (2022).
Topographic indices predict the diversity of Red List and non-native plant species in
human-altered riparian ecosystems. Ecological Indicators.
[Link]
Syed, I., Fatima, H., Mohammed, A. and Siddiqui, M. A. (2018). Ceratophyllum demersum a
Free floating Aquatic Plant: A Review Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical and
Biological Research (IJPBR), 6(2): 10 – 17.

Tameirão, L., Caminha-Paiva, D., Negreiros, D., Veloso, M., Berbara, R., Dias, L., Pierce, S.,
and Fernandes, G. (2021). Role of environmental filtering and functional traits for
species coexistence in a harsh tropical montane ecosystem. Biological Journal of The
Linnean Society. [Link]
Thomaz, S. M., & Cunha, E. R. (2010). The role of macrophytes in the dynamics of nutrients in
tropical floodplain lakes. Hydrobiologia, 650(1), 243–254.

Tockner, K., & Stanford, J. A. (2002). Riverine floodplains: Present state and future trends.
Environmental Conservation, 29(3), 308–330.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2001). Functions and values of wetlands (EPA
843-F-01-002C).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Wetlands: Protecting America's waters
(EPA 843-F-02-001). [Link]

Ubom, R. M., Ogbemudia, F. O. and Benson, K. O. (2012). Soil vegetation Relationship in

Fresh Water Swamp Forest. Scientific Journal of Biological Science, 1: 43 - 45.
Udoumoh, E. A., Okon, B. B., & Anwana, I. A. (2018). Soil physicochemical properties and plant
growth in selected wetlands of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Science
and Sustainable Development, 7(1), 45–56.

Xiong Jian, H., Jian-tuan, N L. and Bang-ding, X. (2013) The Effects of Nutrient
Concentration on Purificaion Ability and Eco-Physiology of Ceratophyllum
Demersum[J]. ACTA HYDROBIOLOGICA SINICA, 2013, 37(6)
Zarkami, R., Esfandi, J., and Sadeghi, R. (2021). Modelling Occurrence of Invasive Water
Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Wetlands. Wetlands, 41, 1-13.

Zeb, B., Mahmood, Q., Irshad, M., Zafar, H., and Wang, R. (2024). Sustainable treatment of
combined industrial wastewater: synergistic phytoremediation with Eichhornia
crassipes, Pistia stratiotes, and Arundo donax in biofilm wetlands.. International
journal of phytoremediation, 1-7 . [Link]

Zhang, D., Qi, Q., Tong, S., Wang, X., An, Y., Zhang, M., and Lu, X. (2019). Soil
Degradation Effects on Plant Diversity and Nutrient in Tussock Meadow Wetlands. Journal
of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 1-10. [Link]

Nsor, C., Mensah, J., Barnes, V., and Akomatey, P. (2021). Anthropogenic drivers of plant
species coexistence in selected riparian systems, Kumawu district, Ashanti region
(Ghana). Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 36, 323 -
344. [Link]