Review explores the resource potential of invasive aquatic plants to support ecological restoration and economic development.
Invasive aquatic plants such as Eichhornia crassipes Mart. (water hyacinth) and Salvinia molesta D. Mitch. pose severe threats to water bodies in Kerala, ranging from small streams to large lakes. These species disrupt natural ecosystems, degrade water quality and impose significant economic costs. By forming dense surface mats, they block sunlight from reaching native aquatic vegetation, thereby inhibiting its growth. This leads to reduced biodiversity, declining water quality and serious imbalances in aquatic ecosystems, adversely affecting fish, invertebrates and other wildlife that depend on native plants for food and habitat. Furthermore, these invasive weeds interfere with recreational activities such as swimming, boating and fishing, reducing the ecological, economic and social value of water resources. Mechanical control methods are commonly employed to manage these weeds; however, they often prove ineffective due to high costs, labour intensity, environmental disturbance and rapid regrowth from plant fragments. This highlights the need for more sustainable and efficient management strategies. One promising alternative is bio-utilisation, which involves converting invasive aquatic weeds into valuable resources. Bio-utilisation not only helps control the spread of invasive species but also supports ecological restoration and economic development. Potential applications include energy production, such as biogas and biofuels; agricultural inputs, including compost, organic manure, animal feed and substrates for mushroom cultivation; phytoremediation for environmental cleanup; and the production of health-related products, such as phytochemical extracts and medicinal compounds. Integrating bio-utilisation into aquatic weed management thus offers a dual benefit: effective control of invasive species and the promotion of ecological sustainability and economic resilience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vandana et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: