| Literature DB >> 29874802 |
Frederick Asare1, Lobina G Palamuleni2, Tabukeli Ruhiiga3.
Abstract
In the semi-arid environments of the North West province of South Africa the amount, timing, and distribution of rainfall is irregular, while water accessibility is a key factor in production. In line with this, a study was conducted to assess the impact of land use change on water quality and water depth within the sub-catchment areas of ephemeral ponds. To determine land use dynamics, 2004 and 2013 Landsat images were classified using maximum likelihood algorithm. Pond water quality was analysed for physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters using standard the American Public Health Association (APHA) methods. Multiple linear regression models were computed to determine relationships between land use changes and water quality parameters. Results revealed a reduction in grass cover, whereas built-up areas increased at the expense of bare land. All the values for the physical characteristics were higher than the recommended Department of Water Affairs (DWAF) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) limits, but chemical parameters, except cadmium, were within limits. Regression showed that bare areas have a positive effect on Escherichia coli (E. coli) in ephemeral pond water. The study highlights the suitability of pond water for irrigation to increase crop production and the effects of land use changes on ecosystems as critical for proper catchment planning, water resource management, and food security.Entities:
Keywords: crop production; irrigation; land cover change; water quality
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29874802 PMCID: PMC6025299 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of the local municipalities of the study area.
Characteristics of the selected ephemeral ponds.
| Pond | Location | Area of the Pond (ha) | Depth (m) | Altitude (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latitude | Longitude | ||||
| A | 26°32′43″ S | 25°03′01″ E | 37.8 | 1.62 | 1365 |
| B | 26°53′52″ S | 25°20′06″ E | 50.6 | 2.5 | 1387 |
| C | 26°41′6″ S | 25°24′34″ E | 17.6 | 2.3 | 1351 |
| D | 27°16′52″ S | 24°46′49″ E | 25.3 | 0.45 | 1264 |
| E | 26°32′52″ S | 24°52′28″ E | 61.2 | 2.15 | 1357 |
Figure 2Distribution of wetlands and ephemeral ponds in the study area.
Water quality parameters, measurements, and units.
| Parameter | Measuring Instrument | Unit of Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| pH | pH meter | 1–14 |
| Electrical conductivity | Conductivity meter | Ms/m |
| Cations Na+, K+, Ca++, Mg++ | Variant atomic absorption spectrometry | Mg/L |
| Heavy metal- Cd, | Variant atomic absorption spectrometry | Mg/L |
| Anions NO3−1, PO4−3, Cl− | Colorimetry | Mg/L |
| Total coliform | Membrane filtration | Colony units/100 m |
|
| Agar test | Colony unit/100 m |
Figure 3Land use map for Pond A.
Figure 4Land use maps for Pond B.
Figure 5Land use maps for Pond C.
Figure 6Land use maps for Pond D.
Figure 7Land use maps for Pond E.
Land cover change and trends 2004–2013.
| Land Use Class | Woody Plants | Grass | Fresh Water | Bare Areas | Built-Up Areas | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pond A | 2004 | Area (ha) | 122.6 | 302.8 | 47.6 | 178.2 | _ |
| 2013 | Area (ha) | 201.4 | 238.9 | 92.1 | 119.8 | _ | |
| % change | 64.0 | 21.1 | 94.2 | 32.8 | _ | ||
| Pond B | 2004 | Area (ha) | 168.9 | 337.0 | 379.2 | 107.1 | 360.5 |
| 2013 | Area (ha) | 206.1 | 399.3 | 186.1 | 235.7 | 411.2 | |
| % change | 22.0 | 18.5 | 50.9 | 120.1 | 14.1 | ||
| Pond C | 2004 | Area (ha) | 110.3 | 246.4 | 69.4 | 196.1 | _ |
| 2013 | Area (ha) | 239.5 | 313.6 | 92.4 | 17.6 | _ | |
| % change | 117.1 | 27.1 | 33.2 | 91.0 | _ | ||
| Pond D | 2004 | Area (ha) | 1155.5 | 1892.5 | 279.0 | 3153.6 | _ |
| 2013 | Area (ha) | 2223.4 | 1837.1 | 0 | 2072.5 | _ | |
| % change | 92.1 | 3.0 | 100 | 34.3 | _ | ||
| Pond E | 2004 | Area (ha) | 294.0 | 238.2 | 69.39 | 47.3 | _ |
| 2013 | Area (ha) | 146.3 | 374.9 | 130.43 | 42.1 | _ | |
| % change | 50.1 | 57.4 | 88.0 | 11.2 | _ | ||
Error matrix for classification of Pond A.
| Classification Data | Reference Data | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare Area | Grass | Water | Woody Plants | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) | |
| Bare area | 28 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 90.3 |
| Grass | 5 | 31 | 1 | 3 | 40 | 77.5 |
| Water | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 11 | 90.9 |
| Woody plants | 0 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 18 | 88.9 |
| Total | 33 | 35 | 13 | 19 | ||
| Producer’s accuracy (%) | 85.9 | 88.6 | 76.9 | 84.2 | ||
| Overall accuracy = 85.0% | ||||||
| Kappa coefficient = 78.9% | ||||||
Error matrix for classification of Pond B.
| Classification Data | Reference Data | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare Area | Grass | Water | Woody Plants | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) | |
| Bare area | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 83.3 |
| Grass | 0 | 43 | 5 | 4 | 51 | 79.6 |
| Water | 0 | 4 | 14 | 1 | 19 | 73.7 |
| Woody plants | 1 | 3 | 0 | 18 | 23 | 85.7 |
| Total | 6 | 54 | 19 | 23 | 100 | |
| Producer’s accuracy (%) | 100 | 84.3 | 73.7 | 78.3 | ||
| Overall accuracy = 80.0% | ||||||
| Kappa coefficient = 68.6% | ||||||
Error matrix for classification of Pond C.
| Classification Data | Reference Data | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare Area | Grass | Water | Woody Plants | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) | |
| Bare area | 17 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 94.4 |
| Grass | 0 | 31 | 6 | 0 | 37 | 83.8 |
| Water | 0 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 14 | 64.3 |
| Woody plants | 0 | 0 | 3 | 28 | 31 | 90.3 |
| Total | 17 | 36 | 18 | 29 | 100 | |
| Producer’s accuracy (%) | 100 | 86.1 | 50.0 | 96.6 | ||
| Overall accuracy = 83.0% | ||||||
| Kappa coefficient = 76.3% | ||||||
Error matrix for classification of Pond E.
| Classification Data | Reference Data | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare Area | Built Up Area | Grass | Water | Woody Plants | Total | User’s Accuracy (%) | |
| Bare area |
| 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 56.3 |
| Built up area | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 29 | 75.9 |
| Grass | 0 | 3 |
| 0 | 1 | 28 | 85.71 |
| Water | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 0 | 13 | 72.9 |
| Woody plants | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 92.9 |
| Total | 10 | 30 | 30 | 13 | 15 | ||
| Producer’s accuracy (%) | 90.0 | 73.3 | 80.0 | 71.4 | 81.3 | ||
| Overall accuracy = 78.0% | |||||||
| Kappa coefficient = 0.715 | |||||||
Water quality parameters.
| Sample ID | Na+ (mg/L) | K+ (mg/L) | Ca++ (mg/L) | Mg++ (mg/L) | Cd (mg/L) | SAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 37.3 ± 2.52 | 2.5 ± 1.58 | 20.3 ± 2.7 | 40.0 ± 1.0 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | |
| B | 38.0 ± 1.0 | 3.3 ± 0.98 | 20.3 ± 5.3 | 38.7 ± 1.5 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | |
| C | 45.7 ± 1.0 | 2.9 ± 0.65 | 27.7 ± 1.5 | 53.0 ± 1.4 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | |
| D | 40.0 ± 1.0 | 3.8 ± 0.30 | 29.0 ± 1.0 | 53.0 ± 1.0 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | |
| E | 39.2 ± 1.0 | 3.3 ± 0.40 | 30.3 ± 1.0 | 44.3 ± 1.5 | 0.03 ± 0.02 | |
| Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO) | 0–70 | 0–2 | 0–20 | 0–5 | Not available | 0–3 |
| Department of Water Affairs (DWAF) | 0–70 | Not available | Not available | 0–0.01 | 0–2 |
Microbiological data from water analysis.
| Sample ID |
| Total Coliform |
|---|---|---|
| A | 70 ± 68 | 997 ± 490 |
| B | 110 ± 39 | 888 ± 206 |
| C | 8 ± 8.9 | 2275 ± 250 |
| D | 0 ± 0 | 2277 ± 250 |
| E | 201 ± 46 | 2420 ± 0 |
|
| 0–1000 | 0–1,000,000 |
|
| 0–1 | Not available |
Regression models for land cover and water quality.
| Water Quality Parameter | Model Equation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nitrate (NO3−) | NO3 = −5.317 + 0.026 GRASS + 0.041 | 0.886 | 0.422 |
| Electrical conductivity (EC) | EC = 182.264 + 6.949 GRASS + 2.857 | 0.779 | 0.576 |
| Sodium (Na+) | NA = 71.408 − 0.137GRASS − 0.264 | 0.918 | 0.360 |
| Cadmium (Cd) | Cd = −0.015 + 0.00GRASS + 0.00 | 0.449 | 0.849 |
|
| 1.00 | 0.006 |