Aquatic macrophytes, commonly known as hydrophytes, play a crucial role in providing structural habitat that

influences fish communities. This, in turn, allows zooplankton and other macro-invertebrates to exert a top-

down control on algal growth, a process that is largely unaffected by the nutrient levels in the water body.

Nevertheless, their populations face significant threats from factors such as eutrophication, sewage discharge,

and industrial pollutants. Additionally, seasonal variations can lead to a notable decline in the diversity of these

comprising 24 species across 9 families. The study indicates that the Hydrocharitaceae family is the most

prevalent, featuring 12 species, followed by Potamogetonaceae with 3 species, Ceratophyllaceae and

Haloragaceae with 2 species each, and Characeae, Fabaceae, Nymphaeaceae, and Pontederiaceae families,

each represented by 1 species.

macrophytes, Biodiversity, Water resources.

Submerged macrophytes play a crucial role in the functioning of shallow lakes and contribute to the

maintenance of clear water conditions (Scheffer et al., 1993; Jeppesen et al., 2007). Aquatic macrophytes serve

as a refuge for small animals from predation, alter the nutrient dynamics within the ecosystem, and prevent the

regulation of phosphorus and nitrogen is critical for sustaining the biodiversity of lake ecosystems. Phosphorus

is regarded as a key factor influencing primary production in lakes, especially for phytoplankton (Kalff, 2001).

Submerged macrophytes represent a crucial functional group within lake ecosystems (Jeppesen et al., 1997).

Nevertheless, numerous submerged macrophytes in lakes have experienced a decline or have even vanished in

recent years, both in China and globally, and there remain significant challenges in restoring all submerged

macrophytes in lakes due to the ambiguous recession mechanisms (Qin et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017). A

primary factor contributing to this issue is the widespread reduction in underwater light availability, which

restricts the growth of submerged macrophytes (Chen et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2020). Furthermore, underwater

light availability is essential for influencing freshwater biodiversity in lakes dominated by submerged

macrophytes (Karlsson et al., 2009; Estlander et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2021).

lakes, submerged macrophytes have garnered increasing attention, and their restoration is a critical component

in the rehabilitation of hypertrophic urban lakes (Sondergaard et al., 2010; Dai et al., 2012; Bakker et al., 2013;

Liu et al., 2020).

The restoration of submerged macrophytes in urban lakes frequently presents challenges due to various

inherent limitations, including high nutrient loading, artificially controlled water levels, and restricted littoral

zones (Guo, 2007; Van Geest et al., 2007; Mao et al., 2020). Additionally, recurrent algal blooms can

adversely affect the survival of submerged macrophytes (Kibria et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2021), with light

deficiency being a primary factor contributing to the decline of submerged macrophytes (Schelske, 2010;

Arthaud et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016). Therefore, enhancing underwater light availability

is essential for the growth and reproduction of submerged macrophytes in urban lakes (O’Farrell et al., 2011;

changes in water quality. They play a crucial role in mineral cycling and organic components, which in turn

influences total biomass production within aquatic ecosystems. Numerous researchers have conducted studies

related to aquatic and wetland flora across various regions of India (Mirashi, 1954; Sen & Chatterjee, 1959;

Srivastva et al., 1987; Dhote & Dikxit, 2007; Chandra et al., 2008; Jadhav & Babare, 2025).

Research on aquatic macrophytes holds significant importance for limnologists, as it aids in comprehending

the dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. For fisheries personnel, these studies serve as a catalog of fish food

sources, while pollution control experts benefit from understanding their capacity to remove nutrients. The

diversity of macrophytes has been thoroughly examined by various researchers, including Chakraborty (2008),

Vardayan (2006), Devi et al. (2004), Manorama et al. (2007), and Laishram Kamla et al. (2007). Their findings

indicate that many aquatic macrophytes can become problematic when they proliferate excessively, leading to

invertebrates and fish (Meshram, 2003). The proliferation of aquatic macrophytes can lead to nuisance

conditions, categorizing them as aquatic weeds and raising concerns for water management. Conducting

surveys of aquatic macrophytes can provide a solid foundation for developing management plans. The

objective of the present study was to summarize the biodiversity of submerged aquatic macrophytes in the

studied area and categorize them, thereby providing essential baseline data on species diversity for the

conservation of water bodies in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar District.

37.55% classified as urban and the remainder as rural. It is predominantly located in the Godavari River Basin,

with portions extending towards the northwest of the Tapi River Basin.

Figure 1: Map showing the location of the Chatrapati Sambhajinagar district within the study area.

The climate of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is semi-arid, with average annual temperatures ranging from 17 to

33 °C. The rainy season spans from June to September, followed by winter from October to February, and

summer from March to May. The majority of the district's rainfall occurs during the monsoon season, with an

average annual precipitation of 710 mm. Outside of the southwest monsoon period, when humidity levels rise,

the air in the district is typically dry. The summer months are the driest, with afternoon relative humidity

generally between 20 and 25%. Wind speeds are usually light to moderate, increasing during the latter part of

principal waterway in the district. Other notable tributaries include the Sukna, Khelna, Kham, Gulathi,

Shivbhadra, and Girija rivers. Based on the drainage patterns and geomorphological features, the district has

been comprised of 52 distinct watersheds.

Aquatic macrophytes from significant waterways and water bodies within the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

district study area were systematically gathered across three distinct seasons: rainy, winter, and summer.

Seasonal surveys, which included multiple visits, were carried out to gather data on both littoral and

submerged vegetation, as detailed by Narayana and Somashekar (2002). Macrophytes were collected monthly

from June 2005 to May 2007 from shallow, littoral zones using the hand-picking method. Specimens were

thoroughly washed with water, excess moisture was absorbed with filter papers, and the specimens were stored

in polythene bags before being transported to the laboratory in an ice box. They were preserved in 10%

formalin and identified to the species level with the assistance of relevant literature from Edmondson (1959),

Pennack (1978), Tonapi (1980), and Fasset (2000). Over a four-year span, from June 2018 to 2022, these

study period, ensuring the collection of significant macrophyte species. The Aquatic Plant Sampling Protocols

were carefully followed during the sampling process. Samples were manually collected from the littoral zone

and the exposed marginal areas of the sampling sites. Since most of these species are herbaceous, they were

(2016). The collected plant specimens were identified and verified against regional floras and pertinent

literature.

This survey of aquatic plants primarily aimed to identify, document, and evaluate the abundance and

distribution of various submerged aquatic plant species within the waterways of the study area. Aquatic plants

are species that thrive in a range of saltwater and freshwater environments, including small fish tanks, home

aquariums, lakes, ponds, and oceans. These plants can grow above water, be completely submerged, or exist in

an intermediate state; the essential aspect is that they naturally thrive in wet habitats. Aquatic plants exhibit a

variety of traits that facilitate their survival in these environments (Rascio, 2002). A compilation of submerged

macrophytes identified in significant water bodies, their surrounding areas, and wetlands within the study

they are essential for capturing the solar energy that fuels all other ecosystem components. They provide

oxygen to other biota and contribute to the physical habitat (Cronk & Fennessy, 2001).

matter from both actively growing and decaying plants, leading to eutrophication in the water column

(Chambers et al., 1999). Additionally, their excessive growth can obstruct water flow, block reservoir inlets,

and disrupt recreational activities (Kenneth, 1996).

In general, the growth of macrophytes is constrained by various factors including the type of substrate, water

depth, water clarity, nutrient concentration, and different physical disturbances. The presence and quantity of

submerged macrophytes are affected by both chemical and physical factors, such as water quality, availability

of light (Dennison et al., 1993), water transparency, water depth (Canfield et al., 1985), channel slope, channel

how various environmental factors influence the habitats of submerged macrophytes for purposes such as flow

regulation, sediment transport (Jarvela, 2005), and evaluations of the ecological status of rivers (Clayton &

The presence and distribution of submerged macrophytes within river ecosystems are influenced by water

quality parameters (Nieder et al., 2004), water depth, and the velocity of water in flowing systems (Sousa,

2011). Biological elements, such as competition, herbivory, and disease, serve as significant habitat

determinants for submerged macrophytes (Lacoul & Freedman, 2006). In river ecosystems, submerged

et al., 2017). Consequently, it is essential to comprehend the submerged macrophytes that possess high

invasive potential for effective river management and conservation strategies. A limited number of studies

have forecasted the distributions of submerged macrophytes in rivers utilizing generalized additive models

(GAMs) (Ahmadi-Nedushan et al., 2006; Camporeale & Ridolfi, 2006). Furthermore, the GAMs that have

been developed have seldom been validated with independent field data (Guisan et al., 2002).

sought to evaluate vegetation in aquatic environments, which include water bodies, waterlogged regions,

wetlands, and marshes. The main aim of the survey was to identify ecological species from various families or

groups and to explore their diversity within the chosen area. Over the years, many researchers have

participated in similar studies, such as Asri and Aftekhari (1999), Raizi (1996), Ghahreman and Attar (2003),

Macrophytes are beneficial for the phytoremediation of metal-contaminated wastewaters (Shingadgaon &

Chavan, 2016; 2018; 2019). The presence and distribution of submerged macrophyte species in the study area

simpler structural complexity, as their growth predominantly occurs beneath the water's surface, rendering

substantiate this assertion. Thorough scientific investigation is essential to clarify the role of submerged

macrophytes in shaping aquatic habitats (Stahr & Kaemingk, 2017).

The Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district, situated in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra, showcases an

impressive diversity of submerged macrophytes, comprising 24 species from 9 families. The findings indicate

that the Hydrocharitaceae family is the most prevalent, containing 12 species, followed by Potamogetonaceae

while Characeae, Fabaceae, Nymphaeaceae, and Pontederiaceae families were each documented with 1 species

during the study.

The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Prof. B.L. Chavan, who serves as the Professor and

Neotropical Ecosystems (pp. 875–880).

2. Ahmadi-Nedushan, B., Van der Meer, J., & Herman, P.M.J. (2006). A generalized additive model for

the prediction of macrobenthic species distributions: A case study from the Dutch Continental Shelf.

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(1), 1–10.

3. Ali, M.M., Al-Sayed, M.N., & Hassan, S.M. (2007). The impact of aquatic macrophytes on the

distribution and abundance of macroinvertebrates in River Nile, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic

Biology & Fisheries, 11(2), 79–96.

4. Arthaud, F., Puijalon, S., & Bornette, G. (2012). Light limitation and plant strategy: The case of two

submerged macrophytes. Aquatic Botany, 96, 1–7.

5. Asri, Y., & Aftekhari, A.R. (1999). Study of aquatic plants in Anzali wetland. Iranian Journal of

8. Barko, J.W., Gunnison, D., & Carpenter, S.R. (1991). Sediment interactions with submersed

macrophyte growth and community dynamics. Aquatic Botany, 41(1-3), 41–61.

9. Blindow, I., Hargeby, A., & Hilt, S. (2014). Facilitation of clear-water conditions in shallow lakes by

macrophytes: differences between charophyte and angiosperm dominance. Hydrobiologia, 737(1), 99–

110.

10. Buchan, L.A., & Padilla, D.K. (2000). Predicting the invasion of a nonindigenous aquatic plant:

Potential for spread of Hydrilla verticillata in the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications, 10(4), 1141–

1151.

11. Camporeale, C., & Ridolfi, L. (2006). A generalized additive model for the distribution of aquatic

macrophytes in lowland rivers. Ecological Modelling, 194(4), 305–318.

of physicochemical changes in a French river polluted by a paper mill. Environmental Pollution Series

A, Ecological and Biological, 34(3), 215–233.

15. Chakraborty, D. (2008). Diversity of aquatic macrophytes of two wetland areas of North Bengal, India.

Journal of Environmental Biology, 29(5), 785–788.

16. Chambers, P.A., Prepas, E.E., Hamilton, H.R., & Bothwell, M.L. (1999). The effect of aquatic

macrophytes on nutrient concentrations in lakes: A review. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences, 56(5), 734–747.

morphological adaptations to low light affect depth distribution of two submersed macrophytes in

lakes. Scientific Reports, 6, 34028. doi: 10.1038/srep34028

19. Choudhury, M.I., Urrutia-Cordero, P., Zhang, H., Ekvall, M.K., Medeiros, L.R., & Hansson, L.A.

(2019). Charophytes collapse beyond a critical warming and brownification threshold in shallow lake

systems. Science of The Total Environment, 661, 148–154.

20. Clarke, S.J., & Wharton, G. (2001). Sediment nutrient characteristics and aquatic macrophytes in

lowland English rivers. Science of The Total Environment, 266, 103–112.

21. Clayton, J.S., & Edwards, T.L. (2006). Ecological monitoring of aquatic plants in New Zealand lakes.

aquatic macrophytes and its effects on macroinvertebrate communities. International Journal of

Research in Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, 5(2), 16–21.

25. del Pozo, R., Rodrigo, M.J., & Casas, A.M. (2011). Macrophyte assemblages as indicators of

environmental quality in Mediterranean rivers. Limnetica, 30(1), 105–118.

26. Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J., Moore, K.A., Stevenson, J.C., Carter, V., Kollar, S., ... & Wetzel, R.G.

(1993). Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic vegetation: The Chesapeake Bay example.

BioScience, 43(2), 86–94.

27. Devi, M.B., Singh, M.K., & Singh, P.K. (2004). Macrophyte diversity and community structure in

Loktak Lake, Manipur, India. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research and Management, 9(3), 209–218.

28. Dhote, S., & Dikxit, A.K. (2007). Aquatic macrophytes and their conservation in Madhya Pradesh,

32. Franklin, P.A., Dunbar, M.J., & Dawson, F.H. (2008). Classification of macrophyte assemblages in

British rivers: Relationships with environmental factors and implications for ecological status. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(7), 990–1006.

33. Ghahreman, A., & Attar, F. (2003). Flora of Iran. Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

34. Guisan, A., Lehmann, A., Ferrier, S., Austin, M., Scott, A.P., & Thuiller, W. (2002). Modelling the

distribution of plant and animal species with environmental factors using generalized additive models.

*Ec

1. crassipes and Pistia stratiotes in the Pantanal–Brazil. In Proceedings of the German-Brazilian

Workshop on Neotropical Ecosystems (pp. 875–880).