COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE LIMNOLOGY OF KANGEMI AND

MUTHAIGA DAMS, NAIROBI, KENYA

BY

MURIUKI, AGNES MUKAMI

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL OF

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI.

MAY 2014

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Prof. K.M. Mavuti for his expertise
and tireless efforts in ensuring smooth running of the project, the laboratory technicians Mr.
Nyaga and Mr. Simiyu for accompanying me during the sampling process and their assistance in
the laboratory.

I would also like to thank the University of Nairobi for providing transport and laboratory
facility for analyzing my results, my colleagues Gedion Mwai and Erick Onyango who helped
me during the sampling process with support and company and finally, I would like to thank my
parents Jacob Muriuki and Eunice Muthoni for their assistance financially and materially.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTECTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTECTS .......................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF PLATES ...................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. viii
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background information .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of problem ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Literature review .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Study justification ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Research objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Research questions ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.7 Research hypothesis .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.8 Scope and limitations of study ......................................................................................................... 6
2. CHAPTER TWO: STUDY AREA, MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................... 7
2.1 Description of study area.................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Kangemi dam ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Muthaiga dam ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Selection of sampling stations ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Kangemi dam sampling points................................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Muthaiga dam sampling points .............................................................................................. 14
2.3 Materials and methods ................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Physico-chemical analysis........................................................................................................ 16
2.3.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1.3 Dissolved oxygen ............................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1.4 Transparency..................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.5 Total Phosphorus .............................................................................................................. 17

iii
 2.3.2 Biological ................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.2.1 Determination of Chlorophyll a ....................................................................................... 18
3.3.2.2 Determination of benthic macro-invertebrate community ........................................... 19
2.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 21
3. CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Temperature comparison ............................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Dissolved oxygen comparison ........................................................................................................ 23
3.3 Transparency comparison.............................................................................................................. 24
3.4 Phosphorus comparison ................................................................................................................. 25
3.6.1 Kangemi dam macro-benthic community ............................................................................. 26
3.6.2 Muthaiga dam macro-benthic community ............................................................................ 28
4. CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 30
4.1 Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.1 Temperature ............................................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2 Dissolved oxygen ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Transparency............................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.4 Total phosphorus (P04- P) ....................................................................................................... 32
4.1.5 Chlorophyll a ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.1.6 Macro-benthic community ...................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................. 34
4.2.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34
4.2.2 Recommendation...................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.2.1 Recommendation for further study ................................................................................. 35
4.2.2.2 Recommendations for management actions ................................................................... 35
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 38

iv
LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Kangemi dam view from the center of the dam ............................................................................. 12

Plate 2: A and B, the right side shore and left side shore respectively ....................................................... 13

PLate 3: View of Kangemi dam from the outlet during sampling ............................................................... 14

Plate 4: Sample of macro-benthic species from Muthaiga dam ................................................................. 20

Plate 5: Sample of macro-benthic species from Kangemi dam .................................................................. 20

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Kangemi dam and its environs .......................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Kangemi dam showing the sampling points. ................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Map of Muthaiga dam and its environs ....................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Muthaiga dam showing the sampling points................................................................................ 11

Figure 5: Phosphorus standard concentrations........................................................................................... 18

Figure 6: Temperature profiles of Kangemi and Muthiga dams. ................................................................ 22

Figure 7: Dissolved oxygen amounts in Kangemi and Muthaiga dams ...................................................... 23

Figure 8: Transparency levels of Kangemi and Muthaiga dams. ................................................................ 24

Figure 9: Phosphorus concentration of Kangemi and Muthaiga dams. ...................................................... 25

Figure 10: Chlorophyll concentrations in Kangemi and Muthaiga dams ................................................... 26

Figure 11: Percentage composition of benthic macro-invertebrates community in Kangemi dam ............ 27

Figure 12: Percentage composition of benthic macro-invertebrates community in Muthaiga dam ........... 29

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Standard phosphorus concentration .............................................................................................. 17

Table 2: Table showing temperature comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam .................. 22

Table 3: Table showing dissolved oxygen comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam .......... 23

Table 4: Table showing dissolved oxygen comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam .......... 24

Table 5: Table showing dissolved phosphorus comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam ... 25

Table 6: Table showing dissolved chlorophyll comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam ... 26

Table 7: The macro-benthic community of Kangemi dam during the sampling period. ............................ 26

Table 8: Kangemi dam macro-benthic community diversity indices at 95% confidence ........................... 28

Table 9: Macro-benthic community of Muthaiga dam ............................................................................... 28

Table 10: Muthaiga dam macro-benthic community diversity indices at 95% confidence ........................ 29

vii
ABSTRACT

The limnology of two fresh water reservoirs in the Northern peri urban area of Nairobi, namely
Kangemi and Muthaiga dam was studied for four months. The main aim of the study was collect
qualitative and quantitative data for determination of the limnological status of the two reservoirs
and compare them. Their limnological conditions were established by determination of the
physico-chemical status and biological conditions. This involved the caring out of measurements
in situ and laboratory analysis of water samples. Both reservoirs were found to contain high
amounts of phosphorus and are at risk of eutrophication. The amounts of phosphorus increased
during the rainy season indicating that most phosphorus input resulted from runoff. The levels of
dissolved oxygen were relatively similar. There were temperature differences mostly attributed
to the difference in the catchment areas of the reservoirs leading to Muthaiga dam being cooler
than Kangemi dam. Kangemi dam had higher chlorophyll level compared to Muthaiga dam
attributed to higher transparency in the reservoir. The transparency of Muthaiga dam was
impaired by the large amount of erosion soils from upstream of the river and was indicated by
the brown colour of water a characteristic of the reservoir throughout the sampling period. The
recommendations derived for Kangemi dam were the need to reduce the domestic effluent by
creation of a sewage system and at Muthaiga, the recommendations were on mitigation measures
to reduce erosion such as growth of cover grass along the river and better farming methods.
More studies are however needed to establish the levels of organic and inorganic pollutants in
the reservoirs.

viii
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information

Water is one of the prime elements responsible for life on earth and is unevenly distributed
leading to creation of artificial water bodies. Artificial water bodies include reservoirs, canals
and ponds. Reservoirs are vital aquatic ecosystems that serve important natural functions such as
river regulation and flood control and socio-economic functions such as drinking and municipal
water supply, industrial and cooling water supply, power generation, agricultural irrigation,
commercial and recreational fisheries, body contact recreation, boating, and other aesthetic
recreational uses, navigation and canalization in some cases. Thus reservoirs are usually found in
areas of water scarcity or excess, or where there are agricultural or technological reasons to have
a controlled water facility.

Kenya is classified as a chronically water-scarce country and has one of the worlds lowest water
replenishment rates per capita (World Bank, 2009). The annual renewable fresh water supplies
represent 647 m3 per capital which is significantly below the 1000m3 per capita (UNEP 2008).
Surface waters cover only about 2% of Kenya and supply 20.2 billion m3 of the countrys
estimated 30.7 billion m3 of renewable water per year. This has led to the construction of several
large and small reservoirs to meet the water demands of a rapidly growing human population.

The reservoirs provide a wide range of services and products, especially in the growing urban
populations but not without pollution which comes from the indiscriminate disposal of domestic,
industrial and municipal solid and liquid wastes, improper land use, poor farming practices and
environmental degradation. The current status of a dam can be assessed by studying the
limnology of the dam.

Limnology is the study of inland water bodies. It is established by studying the biological,
chemical, physical, geological and other attributes of the water body. The limnology of Kangemi
and Muthaiga dams were studied by analyzing the water quality and macro invertebrates. Water
quality is closely linked to water use and to the state of economic development. The rapid growth
of the urban population in Kenya has outpaced the ability of the government to expand sewage

1
and water infrastructure (State of Environment, SOE, 2008). This results in sewage wastes and
water disposal problem and exploitation of the current water resources.

For this reason it has become imperative to assess the limnology of the reservoirs so as to
identify the various sources of contaminants, to ascertain the contamination levels and provide
scientific basis for finding appropriate remedies to the situation and its inherent impacts on
human populations that depend on the reservoirs. It is in this light that the study of Kangemi and
Muthaiga dam was undertaken.

1.2 Statement of problem

Reservoirs range in size from small ponds to large lakes, but in relation to natural lakes the range
of reservoir types and morphological variation is generally much greater. For example, the most
regular, and the most irregular, water bodies are reservoirs. This variability in reservoirs, allied to
management intervention, ensures that their water quality and process behavior is even more
variable than may be characterised as limnologically normal. As reservoirs are so variable, it can
often be misleading to make any general statements about them without significant qualification
as to their type (UNESCO/WHO/UNEP, 1996). The study of limnology is a critical tool for
natural resource agencies in protecting the quality of water resources (EPA 841-B-98-007), the
study of limnology of the dams will thus provide information for their better management.

Over the years, the uses of Kangemi and Muthaiga dams have changed and other factors such as
increased agricultural activities, urbanization and increased industrial development have come
up. This has led to sedimentation, catchment degradation, pollution and over exploitation of
water resources. This leads to problems such as eutrophication, salinization, spread of diseases
and vectors and contaminants through the discharge of wastewaters to these water bodies.

Good planning and management of the water resources requires a good understanding of the
available water resources and the needs for water. The water resource assessment aims at
improving the knowledge of the resources and the needs for water as well as the impacts of
various forms of land use (State of Environment, SOE 2008).

2
1.3 Literature review

The first constructed dams were gravity dams, which are straight dams made of masonry (stone
brick) or concrete that resists the water load by means of weight. Around 2950-2750 B.C, the
ancient Egyptians built the first known dam to exist. The second type of dam known to have
been built was an earth dam called Nimrod's Dam in Mesopotamia around 2000 BC. Around 100
AD the Romans were the first civilization to use concrete and mortar in their gravity dams.
(Peter Davies, 1971 and Jackson, Donald C, 1997)

By 1997 there were more than 800,000 artificial lakes and reservoirs covering 500,000 km2 for
hydropower that is providing clean renewable power, irrigation, water supply, flood mitigation
and control, navigation, recreation, aquaculture and aesthetic value (ICOLD 1997). Many of
these reservoirs were built as a result of societal demand for drinking and industrial water
supplies, irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, fish production and recreation. With time,
however, most of these reservoirs have secondary functions such as navigation, sediment control,
insect and water borne disease control, industrial processing and cooling, flood protection, urban
run-off control and tourism superimposed on them. Other benefits these reservoirs could offer
include, water and biodiversity conservation, enhancement of local environments and
landscapes, provision of jobs and food security (TES Journal vol. 10, no. 1, 2011)

Efforts to monitor human effects on water bodies have ranged from 19th century physical
observations of sediment and debris movement (Caper et al. 1983) to chemical metrics. Although
there are many variables of limonological significance, water quality is the most frequently used
determinant. Variables such as water clarity, nutrient concentration, quantity of algae and the
concentration of various dissolved gases like oxygen and dissolved minerals and pH. Water
quality deterioration in dams and other reservoir is usually as a result of excessive nutrient inputs
and organic pollution causing eutrophication and heavy water contamination. (Djukic et al.,
1994; Mustapha, 2008).The assessment of water quality together with monitoring of biota can be
used to establish problems affecting water reservoirs and provide early warning systems against
degradation and establish remedial actions (Petr, 1978) and (Thornton et al., 1992). A variety of
limnological assessment has been conducted but mostly this has been mainly conducted for large
dams. Small dams have therefore been neglected despite the fact that are many small water
storage dams in tropical countries. (Hart, 1999; Nhiwatiwa and Marshall, 2007). According to

3
Kimmel et al. (1990), shallow reservoirs critically exhibit longitudinal gradients in turbidity,
nutrient concentration, mixing depth, euphotic depth, with sufficient light for photosynthesis,
flushing rates, chlorophyll concentration, plankton productivity, fish standing stocks, mac-
rophytes abundance, benthic community structure and other limnological and biological
variables. These reservoirs are classified as river-lake hybrid.

The history of water quality investigations in Kenya can be traced to the net sample collections
of Bogert (Von Daday, 1907; Ostenfeld, 1908) and (Cunnington West, 1907) from the Kenyan
side of Lake Victoria. These works form some of the earliest descriptions of tropical limnology.
In recent years, a renewed interest in reservoir limnology has been stimulated by conclusions that
reservoirs are structurally different from lakes (e.g. Thornton et al., 1982; Ryder 1978; Ryding &
Rast, 1989; Wetzel, 1990). Within the tropics, reservoirs have been shown to be comparatively
more productive and with unique water quality problems (e.g. severe deoxygenation and
eutrophication (Adeneji et al., 1981). As these water quality problems can have an impact on the
utilization of reservoir resources, a close monitoring of reservoir limnology has been
recommended (Adeneji et al., 1981).
Very limited limnological attention has been paid to Kenyas small reservoirs. Most studies have
paid attention to large reservoirs and those that have paid attention to small reservoir include
reports by Uku & Mavuti (1994) and Francis Mwaura (2002) on the plankton diversity and
biomass in a number of shallow lakes and reservoirs in the country.

1.4 Study justification

There have been numerous studies of dams in Kenya which mainly focuses on the study of large dams

such as Masinga dams and those dams which have experienced much impacts such as Nairobi dam. The

study of small reservoirs in Nairobi area which has been carried out was generalized and omitted some

small dams such as Kangemi and Muthaiga dam.

Kangemi dam which is situated in a very populated informal settlement (Kangemi slum), plays a large

part in determining the health of the people in the area. It is largely impacted due to the characteristic of

the informal settlement which in Kenya include lack of sewage system, large number of unemployed,

4
high illiterate levels and inadequate water supply. This leads to over dependence on the dam to provide

domestic water for activities such as washing and bathing, direct connection of sewage pipes to the dam

and daily overfishing to provide food and income to the residents.

Muthaiga dam on the other hand is constructed in a less populated area with security measures in place

from Muthaiga Golf Course to prevent activities such as fishing, swimming or disposal of wastes.

However the dam is largely impacted by the activities that take place along the river before it gets to the

dam. This activities include construction activities and commercial and subsistence farming activities.

This activities lead the current brown characteristic of Muthaiga dam.

The study of the two dams was thus carried out to draw attention to the problems experienced by the

reservoirs, provide detailed information of the current limnological status of the dams and recommend for

mitigation measures to ensure better quality of water in the two dam.

1.5 Research objectives

i. To determine the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of Kangemi and
Muthaiga dam.
ii. To determine the current uses, that is the products and services derived from the dams by
local people
iii. To establish the threats the dams are facing currently
1.6 Research questions
i. What is the current status of the dams chemically, biologically and physically?
ii. What are the ecosystem products and services provided by the dams?
iii. What threats are the dams experiencing?
1.7 Research hypothesis
1. Local production and activities have had no significant effect on water quality in
Kangemi and Muthaiga dams.
2. The two dams provide no significant ecosystem products and services to local people.

5
1.8 Scope and limitations of study
The problems encountered during the sampling process and program include:

1. The time allocated for the project was short and combined with course work during the
semester.
2. The school vehicle acquiring was a long process leading to the delay in the sampling
process by more than two weeks.
3. The sampling stations especially in Muthaiga dam were hard to access due to the security
measures where by, each sampling visit to the dam included being taken around by two
employees. The dam shores are steep and there was no boat available in the dam.

6
2. CHAPTER TWO: STUDY AREA, MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Description of study area
2.1.1 Introduction
Kangemi dam and Muthaiga dam are both found in Nairobi County. Nairobi is the capital of
Kenya and is located in the interior at an altitude of 1,600 meters with a subtropical highland
climate. The average annual rainfall in Nairobi is about 900m (ranging between 500mm to
1500mm). There are two rainy seasons, from March to the end of May (Long Rains"), and from
mid-October to mid-December (Short Rains"). The temperatures vary from about 17C during
July and August to 20C in March, the daily range of temperature is quite large, averaging about
10C in May and 15C in February. The differences of the dams are the catchment areas, the
water use and land use in their vicinity. These reservoirs differ significantly in their size,
physical features, chemical composition, vegetation, water uses and land uses in the vicinity.
They both lack water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) which is found in most dams.

2.1.2 Kangemi dam

Kangemi dam is located 1o 1545S and 36o 44 13 E. Its approximately 1k from Kangemi
market in Nairobi. The dam is bordered to the east by Kangemi slum, the north by the middle
class neighborhoods of Loresho the west by Kibagare and Westlands. Kangemi has both
informal and formal settlement both surrounding the dam. Kangemi slum has a population of
about 450,000 residents.
The dam was constructed during the colonial period. The source of Kangemi dam water is a
small river originating less than 1km away from the dam. The dam is found in a valley and
runoff is a major source of water too. The amount of water is thus greatly affected by the rainfall
patterns.

The locals especially those from the informal settlement directly use the water for domestic uses
such as washing and cleaning. Some of the water has been channeled out of the dam for farm
irrigation and washing vehicles. Other uses are swimming, fishing and sport fishing. The
informal settlement lack sanitation system and the domestic water is directly disposed to the
dam. On the west side of the dam the soil is completely bare and there is rill erosion taking place.

7
Research already done on the dam are to assess the organochlorine pesticides residues in water
and another on the sediments and toxicity levels of soils.

Figure 1: Map of Kangemi dam and its environs

8
 Sampling points

Figure 2: Kangemi dam showing the sampling points.

2.1.2 Muthaiga dam

The dam is located on the Nortthern peri-urban of Nairobi, off Kiambu road. It is located 1km
from Thika super highway on Kiambu road. Its boarded to the west by Muthaiga Kenya Forest
Service and to the east, north and south by Muthaiga Golf club field.

The dam was constructed in 1996 for the sole purpose of suppling water Muthaiga Golf Course
for irrigating the grass. Its also forms part of the aesthetic beauty a major feature of golf course.
The dam, unlike Kangemi dam, lacks settlements in its immediate surrounding which is mainly
covered by vegetation thus little erosion can occur around the dam. Former research on the dam
includes the microorganisms communities in the water.

9
Figure 3: Map of Muthaiga dam and its environs

10
 Sampling point

Figure 4: Muthaiga dam showing the sampling points.

2.2 Selection of sampling stations

The sampling points were selected based on the accessibility and avoiding areas of direct input

like the discharge point into the dams of the sewage. The point selected in the two dams were

five.

1. The inlet - selected to be able to access the quality of the water as it enters the dam to be able
to compare it to the other samples in the dam
2. The center - The central region shows the actually water quality of the dam.

11
3. Dam wall - This is the deepest part of the dam. It was chosen to show the effects of the depth
and the distance from the inlet
4. The shore - It was selected to be able to access the edge effects, the edges being shallower
than other parts of the dam
5. The outlet - selected to show the effects on the water quality due to the presence and the
water use of the dam. It was compared to the inlet to show the changes

2.2.1 Kangemi dam sampling points

Plate 1: Kangemi dam view from the center of the dam

1. Kangemi dam inlet

The inlet was characterized by the presence of vegetation that completely covered the inlet
making in invisible. Even with the effort of the nearby residents to burn the aquatic vegetation, it
covered a large are of the inlet. This lead to the shallow inlet as the vegetation filtered most of
the silt from the river preventing it from entering the dam. This has caused the dam to withdraw
downwards reducing its original capacity. The inlet also looks brown due to the presence of silt
deposition compared to the other parts of the dam

2. Kangemi dam center

12
It was clear with little ripples due to wind. It was deep to a point where the bottom was invisible
compared to the inlet and shows.

3. Kangemi dam wall

It was the deepest part of the dam and very few ripples caused by wind as the wind was blocked
by the wall. It had no aquatic plants as compare to the inlet. It however was characterized by
deposits of plastic materials (shoes, bottles etc.) clothing, parts of plants like leaves, stems and
roots. It also had vegetation growing on the edge and some submerged in the water.

4. Kangemi dam shore

The shores were different. The shore right side of the dam wall with the informal settlement was
characterized by large amounts of domestic wastes disposed at certain points, had sewage pipes
depositing water directly into the dam and was deep as the shallow edge was reclaimed by
deposition of sand bags and concrete walls where the some houses were constructed on.

The shore left side of the dam wall was characterized by shallow edge, this was mostly due to the
erosion activity leading to deposition of the soils on the edge of the dam. It was also had grass
growing up to the water level to the land. Most people fished on this side of the dam. There were
also people swimming and bathing all the time. It had deposits of solid wastes but less compared
to the right side.

A B
Plate 2: A and B, the right side shore and left side shore respectively

13
 5. Kangemi dam outlet
The outlet is shallow but the water is too turbid to see the bottom. One side had vegetation and
the other the informal settlement. It also has solid deposit of materials such as clothing and
plastics.

2.2.1 Muthaiga dam sampling points

PLate 3: View of Kangemi dam from the outlet during sampling

1. Kangemi dam inlet

It is characterized by vegetation in the center dividing the inlet into two. The area is shallower
than any other part of the dam. The water was brown due to the amount of silt. The area had the
largest amount of vegetation.

2. Muthaiga dam center

14
It was narrower than the other parts of dams. The water in the area was brown like that of the
inlet. It was easier to sample due to the presence of the bridge

3. Muthaiga dam wall

Its a spill over type. Its the deepest part of the dam. The water is also brown. The wall is
completely concrete with sides that grass has grown on.

4. Muthaiga dam shore

The shores are covered by grass and small plants up to the water level, with some submerged in
the water. The shores are completely undisturbed by human activities.

5. Muthaiga dam outlet

The outlet is a spill over type from dam wall.

2.3 Materials and methods

The methods used were categorized into physico-chemical and biological methods. The physico-
chemical measurements included transparency, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and
phosphates. The biological measurements included benthic organisms diversity and chlorophyll
a. The main objective was obtain data to make both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
dams conditions.

Most of the methods used were standard as explained and any deviation from standarmethods are
explained.

The two dams were sampled on three occasions as shown in the table below:

Sampling season End of the dry season Start of rains Mid rain season

Date of sampling 29th January 2014 5th February 2014 19th February 2014

15
2.3.1 Physico-chemical analysis
2.3.1.1 Temperature
Temperature measurements were made in situ using a thermometer. The readings were taken
directly from the water by lowering the thermometer into the water.

2.3.1.2 pH

The pH was measured using a pH indicator due to the lack of pH meter. This was determined in
situ by collecting water in a beaker and putting a small piece of the pH indicator in the water.
This paper was then cross read on the pH indicator colours and the indication recorded.

2.3.1.3 Dissolved oxygen

The method used was the Winkler method (1988). Water was collected into the BOD bottles
carefully to avoid bubbles by submerging the 300ml Winkler bottle in water up the elbow. While
still in the water the bottle was uncorked and turned to upright position. After filling the bottle
was removed and 2mls of MnS04 was added below the water surface in the Winkler bottle. This
was immediately followed by 2ml of Winkler reagent which had earlier been prepared also
below the water surface. The bottle was then corked and shaken well by turning the bottle upside
down up several times. This was repeated for all the sampling point in both dams. These samples
were then stored and transported to the laboratory for further analysis.

In the laboratory, the samples were shaken and 2mls of concentrated sulphuric acid added below
the water surface. They were corked to exclude air bubbles and shaken again until all the
precipitate dissolved. 50ml of the sample was pipetted into 250ml conical flask and titrated
using 0.0125N Standardized sodium thiosulphate solution until a pale straw colour was achieved.
A few drops of starch solution was added and mixed to a uniform blue colour. The titration was
continued up to a colourless end point. The results were recorded and the dissolved oxygen
concentration obtained by using the formula:

D.O mg/l = Titrant Volume (l)* Na2S2O3 (N) * 8000

Volume of sample (I) * B.O.D volume (l)(2ml MnSO4+2ml Winkler reagents) (l)
B.O.D Volume (l)

16
2.3.1.4 Transparency
A 20 cm Secchi disk was used to estimate the depth of light penetration in the water. The disk
was allowed to sink slowly in the water until it disappeared. The depth was measured using a
meter rule. This depth of disappearance was recorded. The disk was then lifted slowly and the
depth of appearance was recorded. The average of the two depths was taken to be a measure of
transparency of the water.

2.3.1.5 Total Phosphorus

Water samples were collected in plastic bottles and carried to the laboratory for analysis where
they were immediately refrigerated.

The next day the samples removed from the fridge and 50ml of each sample put in 125ml
Erlenmeyer flasks. 1 drop of phenolphthalein indicator was added and a red colour developed,
5N sulphuric acid was added until the colour disappeared. 8.0 mls of combined agent was added
into the samples. Each flask was corked and shaken vigorously. The samples were left for 10
minutes for colour to develop then absorbance was measured at 880 nm using a reagent blank to
zero the spectrophotometer. The concentration was determined by checking the absorbance
against the calibration curve. A calibrated standard curve of absorbance versus known phosphate
concentrations was drawn. This was prepared using eleven standard phosphorus concentrations
and distilled water (blank) treated with the same procedures as the samples. These 11 values
were used to plot absorbance against phosphate concentration to give a line passing through the
origin as shown below:

Table 1: Standard phosphorus concentration

Standard Final vol. in flask Absorbance values

concetrations (mg/l)
Blank 50.0ml 0
0.5 50.0ml 0.023
1.0 50.0ml 0.033
2.0 50.0ml 0.065
3.0 50.0ml 0.117
4.0 50.0ml 0.156
6.0 50.0ml 0.182

17
8.0 50.0ml 0.247
10.0 50.0ml 0.328
12.0 50.0ml 0.374
16.0 50.0ml 0.495
18.0 50.0ml 0.522

STANDARD CONCENTRATION OF PHOSPHORUS

0.6

0.5
Absorbance values

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20
Standard concetrations (mg/l)

Figure 5: Phosphorus standard concentrations.

2.3.2 Biological

Biological analysis involved the sampling of water and aquatic organisms of the dams and determining
their abundance. The following were considered:

(i) Determination of chlorophyll as a measure of phytoplankton biomass

(ii) Benthic macro-invertebrate community
(iii) Other organisms

2.3.2.1 Determination of Chlorophyll a

Water samples were collected about 0.5 meters under the water surface in 3 litres plastic bottles and
carried to back to the laboratory for filtration and analysis.

18
Using Whitman GF/c glass filter paper, the samples were filtered one at a time until no more water could
pass through. The volume of filtrate was noted. The filter papers (with algae) were carefully (using clean
forceps) placed in centrifuge tubes containing 10mls of methanol.

The tubes were then transferred to pre-heated water bath and the content was allowed to boil for 10
minutes. The samples were then left overnight in the fridge for pigment extraction by methanol. The
following day the extractions were centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3000 r.p.m. The absorbance was taken
using PERKIN ELMER 550S Digital Spectrophotometer. Absorbance readings were read at 665, 645
and 630. Chlorophyll a concentrations were calculated according to the formula Talling and Driver
(1963):

Chlorophyll a (g/l) = O.D665*13.9*Vm

L.Vf
Where,

Vm= Volume of solvent (10ml methanol)

O.D665 = absorbance at 655 nm

Vf = Volume of water filtered (ml)

L = Light path of spectrophotometer cuvette (1 cm)

3.3.2.2 Determination of benthic macro-invertebrate community

Determination of benthic macro-invertebrate community involved the use of a d-frame deep-net. The
net was used on the shores of the dams. The net was swung back and forth to disturb the
communities and trap them in the net. The content of the net was poured in a tray to observe
presence or absence of organisms. This was repeated on different parts of the dam to ensure full
capture of the macro benthos of the dam. The samples from the tray were put in plastic
containers and 5% formalin was then added for preservation. This were then transported to the
lab for further analysis.

In the lab the samples were poured each at a time in sieve of 2mm, 1mm and 0.5mm arranged in
a series. They were washed and the unwanted materials such as leaves, small stones removed.
The large organisms from 2mm and 1mm were observed, identified using a key chart, selected
out and stored in containers containing 5% formalin while the small organisms from 0.5mm were

19
observed under the microscope and identified using a key chart. They were also put in a plastic
container and preserved with 5% formalin.

Plate 4: Sample of macro-benthic species Plate 5: Sample of macro-benthic species

from Muthaiga dam from Kangemi dam

The results were then used to determine species abundance, species diversity and species

evenness. These were calculated as shown below:

(i) Species abundance = number of individuals of a species *100

Total number of species

(ii) Species diversity

Was calculated using Shannon weiner

H' = - pi ln pi

Where pi = the proportion of individuals of species i.

(iii)Evenness index

Was derived from index

J = Shannon-Wiener / log S

20
S = Total number of species

2.4 Data analysis

Graphical analyses were conducted by plotting graphs of the different parameters in the different
sampling sites. Comparison of these graphs indicated values and relationships among various
parameters of Muthaiga and Kangemi dam.
The macro invertebrate data was analyzed using Shannon Wiener and Simpsons diversity
indices index. The Simpsons index is considered a dominance index because it weights towards the
abundance of the most common species-it gives the probability of any two individuals drawn at
random from an infinitely large community belonging to the same species. The Shannon-Weaver
index H measures overall biodiversity and is affected by both number of species and their evenness.
H increases as both richness and evenness increases. High species diversity indicates a complex
community in which a high degree of specialization is possible.

21
3. CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS
3.1 Temperature comparison
Table 2: Table showing temperature comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam
SEASON BEFORE RAINS BEGIN OF RAINS MID RAIN SEAS0N
Sampling Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga
site
Inlet 22 24 23 23 22 20
Center 24 23 24 23 23 21
Dam wall 25 24 25 25 24 20
Shore 26 25 25 25 26 21
Outlet 25 22 25 21 24 21

TEMPERATURE COMPARISON
30

25

20
Temp (0C)

15

10

0
Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga
END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEAS0N

Inlet Center Dam wall Shore Outlet

Figure 6: Temperature profiles of Kangemi and Muthiga dams.

The shores of both dams had higher temperatures throughtout the sampling season as compared
to other parts of the dam except Muthaiga dam during the mid-rain season. Kangemi dam has higher
average temperature of 24.2 compared to Muthaiga dam average temperature of 22.53, however,
the temperatures of both dams dropped during the rainy season (figure 6)

22
3.2 Dissolved oxygen comparison
Table 3: Table showing dissolved oxygen comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam
SEASON BEFORE RAINS BEGIN OF RAINS MID RAIN SEAS0N
Sampling Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga
site
Inlet 4.86 4.86 4.86 4.86 4.93 4.93
Center 5.06 5.06 5.27 5.27 5.27 5.27
Dam wall 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28 6.28
Shore 7.09 7.09 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50
Outlet 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08 6.08

DISSOLVED OXYGEN COMPARISION

8

5
D.O (mg/l)

0
Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga Kangemi Muthaiga
END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

Inlet Center Dam wall Shore Outlet

Figure 7: Dissolved oxygen amounts in Kangemi and Muthaiga dams

The shores of both dams shored the highest amount of oxygen levels while the inlets indicated the lowest
amounts throughout the sampling season. The oxygen level of both dams increased with the start of the
rain season and continued to the mid rain season. In general Kangemi dam shored higher amount of
oxygen as compared Muthaiga dam (figure 7).

23
3.3 Transparency comparison
Table 4: Table showing dissolved oxygen comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi dam
BEFORE RAINS BEGIN OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON
Sampling KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
point
Inlet 40 30 39 27 41 29
Center 45 31 47 29 45 29
Dam wall 43 31 44 30 44 30
Shore 43 29 43 29 44 28
Outlet 42 29 41 28 40 29

TRANSPARENCY COMPARISON
50
45
Secchi disc transparency (cm)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

INLET CENTER DAM WALL SHORE OUTLET

Figure 8: Transparency levels of Kangemi and Muthaiga dams.

The inlet of the dams had the lowest amounts of transparency while central part of the dam indicates the
highest amount of transparency. The shores had a consistent amount of oxygen from the start of the
sampling to the end of the sampling season. Kangemi dam was however more transparent as compared to
Muthaiga dam (figure 8).

24
3.4 Phosphorus comparison
Table 5: Table showing dissolved phosphorus comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi
dam
BEFORE RAINS BEGIN OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON
Sampling KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
point
Inlet 200 1150 200 1250 200 1200
Center 50 850 200 850 300 850
Dam wall 400 800 400 700 700 850
Shore 500 800 450 850 500 850
Outlet 850 400 800 800 800 700

PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION COMPARISON

1400

1200
Phosphorus concentration (g/l)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

INLET CENTER DAM WALL SHORE OUTLET

Figure 9: Phosphorus concentration of Kangemi and Muthaiga dams.

In Muthaiga dam the inlet had the highest amount of phosphorus as compared to other parts of the dam
while the outlet had the lowest amount except during the start of the rain during the sampling period. In
Kangemi dam the outlet had the highest amount of phosphorus while the central part had the lowest level
of phosphorus during the sampling period. Muthaiga dam had higher average levels of phosphorus as
compared to Kangemi dam (figure 9).

25
3.5 Chlorophyll comparison
Table 6: Table showing dissolved chlorophyll comparison between Muthaiga dam and Kangemi
dam
BEFORE RAINS BEGIN OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON
Sampling KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
point
Inlet 68.11 4.17 53.515 4.309 47.8577 3.7947
Center 23.213 3.0997 22.24 4.309 24.0331 4.309
Dam wall 24.8254 6.394 18.626 5.556 30.58 6.177
Shore 38.7254 4.865 49.8037 5.2542 34.75 5.7407
Outlet 45.175 4.9484 36.696 4.448 38.364 4.309

CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION COMPARISON

70

60
Chlorophyll conc (g/l)

50

40

30

20

10

0
KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA KANGEMI MUTHAIGA
END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

INLET CENTER DAM WALL SHORE OUTLET

Figure 10: Chlorophyll concentrations in Kangemi and Muthaiga dams

Kangemi dam inlet had the highest amount of chloropyll concentration followed by Kangemi dam shore.
Kangemi dam had higher amount of chlorophyll concentration compared to Muthaiga dam which had
very low amount of concentration with the central region showing the highest amount compared to other
parts of the dam (figure 10).

3.6 Macro-benthic community

3.6.1 Kangemi dam macro-benthic community
Table 7: The macro-benthic community of Kangemi dam during the sampling period.
Benthic Organism END OF DRY START OF MID RAIN

26
 SEASON RAINS SEASON
Baetidae (Small minnow flies) 15 13 12
Caenidae (cain flies) 1 0 2
Chironomidae (midges) 26 18 23
Palaemonidae (freshwater prawns) 1 3 2
Belostomatidae (giant water bugs) 1 2 1
Psychodidae (moth flies) 3 2 2
Tipulidae (rane flies) 1 2 0
Hydracarina(watermite) 1 1 1
2
Tabanidae (horse flies) 4 1
Lymnaeidae (pouch snail) 3 4 3
Oligochaetes (worms) 4 2 3

The percentage abundance of the respective families of macro-benthic community of Kangemi

dam were calculated and represented in form of a pie chart (figure 11)

Percentage composition of benthic community in

Kangemi dam
Oligochaetes
Lymnaeidae
7%
5%
Tabanidae Baetidae
Hydracarina 3%
26%
2%
Tipulidae
2%
Psychodidae
5%
Belostomatidae
2% Caenidae
1%
Palaemonidae
2%

Chironomidae
45%

Figure 11: Percentage composition of benthic macro-invertebrates community in Kangemi dam

Biodiversity indices for Kangemi dam indicating the species richness (S), evenness (J),
dominance (D) and chance of occurrence were determined and presented in the table below.

27
Table 8: Kangemi dam macro-benthic community diversity indices at 95% confidence

END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

BIODIVERSITY Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
INDICES
Individuals 58 58 58 51 51 51 50 50 50
Dominance_D 0.2806 0.1956 0.3633 0.2118 0.1903 0.3733 0.2824 0.1904 0.3712
Simpson_1-D 0.7194 0.6361 0.8038 0.7882 0.6259 0.8089 0.7176 0.6256 0.8088
Shannon_H 1.666 1.352 1.93 1.867 1.324 1.933 1.658 1.33 1.922
Evenness e^H/S 0.4812 0.4441 0.7036 0.6469 0.457 0.7036 0.525 0.4612 0.7144

The Shannon Weiner index (H) was higher during the start of the start of rains as compared to
the end of dry season and the mid rain season. The evenness and dominance are also higher
during the start of the rain as compared to the other sampling times.

3.6.2 Muthaiga dam macro-benthic community

Table 9: Macro-benthic community of Muthaiga dam

Benthic Organism END OF DRY START OF MID RAIN

SEASON RAINS SEASON
Culinidae (mosquitoes pupae) 2 1 3
Platycnemidae (damsel flies) 18 14 12
Chironomidae ((midges) 16 12 7
Lestidae (damsel flies) 5 4 1
Unionidae (pearly mussels) 4 0 1
Naucoridae (creeping water bug) 1 1 0
Libellulidae (dragonflies) 3 3 3
Lymnaeidae (pouch snails) 6 7 5
Palaemonidae (freshwater prawns) 3 2 1
Ancylidae (limpets) 4 3 1
Corbiculidae (clams) 0 1 3

The percentage abundance of the respective families of macro-benthic community of Muthaiga

dam were calculated and represented in form of a pie chart (figure 12)

28
 Percentage composition of the benthic community
in muthaiga dam
Ancylidae Corbiculidae Culinidae
6% 0%
Palaemonidae 3%
5%

Lymnaeidae
10% Platycnemidae
29%
Libellulidae
5%
Naucoridae
2%

Unionidae
6%

Lestidae
8% Chironomidae
26%

Figure 12: Percentage composition of benthic macro-invertebrates community in Muthaiga dam

Biodiversity indices for Muthaiga dam indicating the species richness (S), evenness (J),
dominance (D) and chance of occurrence were determined and presented in the table below.

Table 10: Muthaiga dam macro-benthic community diversity indices at 95% confidence

END OF DRY SEASON START OF RAINS MID RAIN SEASON

BIODIVERSITY Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
INDICES
Individuals 62 62 62 48 48 48 37 37 37
Dominance_D 0.1811 0.1436 0.2565 0.1866 0.1406 0.27 0.1819 0.1366 0.2856
Simpson_1-D 0.8189 0.7435 0.8559 0.8134 0.73 0.8585 0.8181 0.7144 0.8619
Shannon_H 1.962 1.688 2.12 1.915 1.611 2.13 1.952 1.522 2.134
Evenness_e^H/S 0.7112 0.5669 0.8023 0.6785 0.5601 0.8192 0.7044 0.5796 0.8592

Shannon Weiner index (H) and evenness are higher during the end of dry season as compared to
the start of rains and mid rain season. The dominance D is higher during the start of rains as
compared to other seasons.

29
4. CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Discussion
4.1.1 Temperature
Dam water allows heat storage to take place making the temperature of the dam water often seasonally
higher than the normal temperature of the river basin this is the reason the temperature of inlet are
generally lower.

Kangemi dam has higher temperatures than Muthaiga dam because Kangemi dam has high input
of domestic water which contain higher temperature, its used for swimming and direct bathing
which helps in mixing and raising temperature but mostly because its found in an open area and
is located near the river source mouth. This is different from the Muthaiga dam with trees on the
shores that shade portions of the dam, the dam is located away from the source of the river and
passes through shaded areas especially the Karura forest hindering sunlight penetration.This
could also be attributed to difference in depth of the two dams and surface area. Kangemi dam
has an average depth of 6 meters while Muthaiga has an average depth of 7 meters. Kangemi
dam has a wider surface area as compared to Muthaiga dam. This factors affects amount of
sunlight heat absolved per unit time and its distribution in the water.

The shores of both dams have relatively higher temperatures as compared to the other parts of
the dams because of the high mixing and shallow nature thus sunlight gets to the bottom
compared to the state of the water in the dam which is partially still and depth is higher thus
sunlight heat doesnt get to the bottom directly and because of limited mixing. The shores are
also a source of temperature through off flow inputs.

The temperatures of both dams dropped during the rainy season. This could be because of the
increased flow of water leading to increased rate of input in the water. This could be also due to
the increased cloud cover this reducing the amount overall sunlight received in the river and
dam. This also reduces the air temperatures (figure 6).

4.1.2 Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is a primary and comprehensive indicator of water quality in surface water.
The decline of dissolved oxygen level has a serious implication for the health of aquatic system.
The optimum value for good water quality is 4 to 6 mg/l of DO, which ensures healthy aquatic

30
life in a water body (Santosh and Shrihari, 2008). In this research study the oxygen ranges
between 4.86mg/l and 7.5mg/l. This level thus show the water is good enough to allow fish life
and other aquatic life. The amount of oxygen could be attributed to the shallow state of the two
dams allowing frequent mixing to the bottom.

The oxygen level of the two dams increased with the start of rains, this could have resulted from
increased mixing in the dams, increase in the river input amounts of water and increase in the
quantity of oxygen in the river water. This amounts however reduced in the mid rain season to
almost the amounts at the end of the dry season. The low amount of oxygen could be attributed
to high metabolic rate of organisms (Salve and Hiware, 2006) and limited turbulence in the dams
(Mwaura, 2006).

Both dams show high levels of oxygen on the shorelines and the level decreases towards the
outlet. This can be attributed to the high amount in the rivers bringing water to the dam because
they have mixing as the waters move. This can also be attributed to temperature differences
between the river and the dam.

The shores showed the highest amount of oxygen. This could have resulted from the continuous
input through the shows as overflow, continuous mixing by wind and human activities during
extraction of water from the dams.

Apart from the shores, Kangemi dam has higher average dissolved oxygen as compared to
Muthaiga dam. This could be because of higher photosynthesis rate by algae in Kangemi dam
indicated by the higher chlorophyll a concentration as compared to Muthaiga dam.
Photosynthesis greatly influences the amount of oxygen as oxygen is released during
photosynthesis process. This could also be as a result of the amount of oxygen in the rivers input
or the amount of water from the river per unit time. It could also result from difference in the rate
of respiration which uses oxygen (figure 7).

4.1.3 Transparency
Urban watersheds produce considerable sediment loads from stormwater runoff, construction
sites and active channel enlargement. Consequently, urban lakes typically have higher turbidity
levels than their natural counterparts (Kimmel and Kroeger, 1984). This is shown by the low

31
transparency of both dam. However Kangemi dam has higher transparency as compared to
Muthaiga dam. This could be because Kangemi dam is found near the source of the river thus the
main source of suspended matter and particles are those directly disposed to the dam which is a
small amount. Muthaigas source of suspended matter and particles is from the farming activities
upstream and other extraction activities such as construction taking place around the shores of
the river before it gets to the dam. This causes the brown colour of the dam water.

The center of both dams is more transparent than other parts of the dams. This could be due to
the distance from the inlet in the case of Muthaiga dam which is the main source of suspended
materials and particles and distance from the shores in the case of Kangemi dam where the main
source of clouding are inputs from the shores activities.

The transparency of both dams reduce considerably with the beginning of the rainy season. This
could be because the increased amount of water lead to stirring of water in the dams or there was
increased erosion activities around the dam in the case of Kangemi dam and increased erosion in
the banks of the river in the case of Muthaiga dam. This increased the suspended solids and
sediments.

The amount of algae in both dams is low thus doesnt affect the transparency significantly.
Transparency however affects the algae amount and photosynthetic process thus explaining the
difference in the chlorophyll amount in the two dams (figure 8).

4.1.4 Total phosphorus (P04- P)

In most dams phosphorus functions as a growth limiting factor because it is usually in very low
concentrations. Muthaiga dam has almost twice the amount of phosphorus contained in Kangemi
dam. These nutrients come from leaching of nitro-phosphate and sulphate fertilizers from nearby
farm lands (Mustapha 2008). Other human watershed activities that contributed to the
eutrophication of the reservoir include washing and bathing with phosphate based detergents and
soaps and run-off of cow dung (Mustapha 2009)

The only source of phosphorus in Kangemi dam are mostly the domestic effluent around the dam
and small gardens around the dam.

32
The inlet of Kangemi dam has the highest amount of phosphorus as compared to other parts of
the dam indicating the highest phosphorus concentration to be from the river input. Kangemi
dam shored the highest concentrations to be at the outlet as the inputs are from the shores.

The amounts of phosphorus however are very high compared to the natural surface waters range
of 5.0 to 20.0 g/l PO4-P (Chapman and Kimstach 1992). This indicates the presence of
pollution in the water and this is as a results of human activities around the dam and along the
rivers supplying water to the dams a characteristic of urban dams (US EPA, 1980).

4.1.5 Chlorophyll a

The growth of planktonic algae in water bodies is related to the nutrients, temperature and light
(Chapman and Kimstach 1992) this leads to fluctuation of chlorophyll concentration with time.

Kangemi dam inlet has higher amount of chlorophyll as compared to the other parts of the dam.
This could be because of the plantation that reduces the speed of the water favoring the growth
of the algae. The amount of chlorophyll reduces with the beginning of the rain season. This could
be as a result of the increased speed of water and amount which could washed away the
photosynthetic algae in the spill water.

There is a large difference between the chlorophyll amount amounts in Kangemi and Muthaiga
dam. This could because of the difference in temperature amounts and transparency. Muthaiga
dam has lower temperature and lower transparency. Photosynthetic algae require light for the
process to take place thus lower light amount received leads to lower amount chlorophyll amount
in the water.

The shores of both dams have higher average chlorophyll amounts as compared to other parts of
the dam. This could be due to increased light penetration in this areas. Towards to the outlet
there is increased algae near the dam wall. This could be as a result of increased light penetration
as most sediments from the inlet and shows have settled due to reduction in speed.

33
4.1.6 Macro-benthic community

Figure 8 and figure 9 shows the relative abundance of the benthic communities of Kangemi and
Muthaiga dam. Table 2 and 3 shows the Shannon Weiner and Simpsons results.

The high abundance of Chironomid worms at Murungaru, and Rutara indicates the existence of a
good fishery potential l (King and Brazner ,1999) because chironomid worms constitute one of
the most important sources of food for insectivorous fish.

From the results Muthaiga dam has higher diversity H = 1.962 compared to H = 1.666. This
could be as result of direct human disturbance at Kangemi dam whereas there is limited access
by humans at Muthaiga dam. The comparison in species number was however impossible on the
bases that the two dams species were completely different. Muthaiga dam however contains
more sensitive species than Kangemi dam. This could be because of human disturbance and
activities at Kangemi dam which include fishing, sewage disposal and also high temperature as
compared to Muthaiga dam.

4.2 Conclusion and Recommendation

4.2.1 Conclusion

This research study was meant to study the limnological status of Kangemi and Muthaiga dam
and compare them. From the study Kangemi dam had higher temperature, oxygen and
chlorophyll. This were attributed to the open unshaded status of the dam, high mixing due to
activities in the dam and direct disposal of waste from the informal settlement around the dam as
compared to Muthaiga dam which had shading on the shores the reason for the lower
temperatures, lack of mixing activities in the dam and no direct input especially wastes to the
dam.

The study also indicated that Muthaiga dam higher amount of phosphorus as compared to
Kangemi dam. This was attributed to the agricultural activities that took place upstream of the
river supplying water to the dam. This activities also lead to the low transparency of Muthaiga
dam as compared to Kangemi and the reason for the brown characteristic colour of Muthaiga
dam.

34
The study showed no much difference in the macro-benthic community diversity of the two
dams but there was a difference in the species found. Kangemi dam contained more of the
pollutant tolerant organism such as the oligochaetes which were lacking Muthaiga dam and
midge fly which were fewer in number in Muthaiga dam. On the other had Muthaiga dam had
more of the moderately tolerant and sensitive macro-benthos such as the mussels and damsel fry
which were lacking in Kangemi dam.

4.2.2 Recommendation

4.2.2.1 Recommendation for further study

Due to the short time allocated for the study it was not possible to undertake all the limnological
characteristics of the dam. Further study on other limnological characteristics such as the fish
species, the conductivity, the alkalinity, the substrate composition and their effects on benthic
organisms and nitrate levels of both Kangemi and Muthaiga are recommended.

4.2.2.2 Recommendations for management actions

During sampling in Kangemi dam the shores were had a lot of wastes disposed such as plastic
bottles and bags, clothes and shoes. There were sewage pipes from the informal settlement
directly discharging to the dam and people washing and bathing in the dam. It is recommended
that the city council of Nairobi find ways of reducing the waste discharge to the dam such as:
Building a sewage system in the informal settlement around the dam.
Put up disposal bins in different sections of the informal settlement that should be collected
regularly.
Provision of more water to the informal settlement for bathing and washing and banning of
this activities in the dam.
Plant cover crops especially on the right hand shore to reduce erosion process occurring
that lead to silt disposal to the dam.
Educate the people around the dam on the impacts to the dam and its importance through
workshops and seminars.
During sampling in Muthaiga dam the colour of the water had a characteristic brown colour and
the research study showed high amount of phosphorus in the water. It is recommended that the
city council of Nairobi and county council of Kiambu educate the farmers upstream of Muthaiga
River on better methods of farming to reduce the erosion process and the impacts of the erosion

35
process to their farms and the river system. If the sediment build is unchecked, the whole
reservoir could be filled with sediments leading to the total loss of depth and storage capacity.

REFERENCES

APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed. American

Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

Balon, E.K. and Coche, A.G. 1974 Lake Kariba: A Man-made Tropical Ecosystem in Central

Africa.

Dycus, D.L., and D.L. Meinert. 1996. "Aquatic Ecological Determinations for TVA

Reservoirs1995. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, 1101 Market St. (CST

17-D) Chattanooga, TN. 37402

Ebel, W.J. and Koski, C.H. 1968 Physical and chemical limnology of Brownlee Reservoir, 1962-

1964. Fish. Bull. Bureau Commercial Fisheries, 67, 295-335.

EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c 1997, U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (1997 Final Report). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Fresh surface water vol.III Human-made lakes and reseivoirs: The impacts of physical

alterations. UNESCO - EOLSS

ISBN- 9966-7460-3-X State of Environment Report Kenya 2008, National Environment

Management Authority (NEMA).

ISSN 1602-2297 M. K. Mustapha, Perspectives in the Limnology of Shallow Tropical African

Reservoirs in Relation to Their Fish and Fisheries. The Journal of Transdisciplinary

Environmental Studies vol. 10, no. 1, 2011

Jackson, Donald C. 1997. Dams. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Great Britain.

Smith, Norman.1971. A History of Dams. Peter Davies. London, England

36
ICOLD, International Commission on Large Dams (1998). World Register of Dams. ICOLD,
Paris.
TALLlNG J. F. and DRIVER D. (1963). Some problems in the estimation of chlorophyll-a in

phytoplankton, pp. 142-144 In M.S. Doty, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Primary

Productivity Measurement, Marine and Freshwater, U.S. Atomic Energy. Comm., TID-7633.

UNEP, 2000.Lakes and Reseivoirs similarities, differences and importance IETC

USEPA. 1993. Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual, EPA 842B93004,

December. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 4503F, Washington, DC 20460

Santosh M. Avvannavar and Shrihari S.2008. Evaluation of water quality index for drinking

purposes for river Netravathi, Mangalore, South India. Environ Monit Assess., 143(1-3):

279-290.

Salve BS and CJ Hiware .2006. Studies on water quality of Wanparakalpa reservoir, Nagpur,

near Parli Vaijnath district Beed, Marathwada region, J Aqua Biol, 21(2): 113-117.

King R. S. & Brazner J. C. (1999) Coastal wetland insect communities along a trophic gradient
in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Wetlands 19, 42637.
Water Quality Resources Board. Water Quality Criteria, California, Publication No. 3-A, 1963.
Kimmel, B. and A. Groeger. 1984. "Factors Controlling Primary Production in Lakes and
Reservoirs." In Lake and Reservoir Management. US EPA 440-5-84-001. pp. 272-278.
Kimmel, B., Lind, O. and Paulson, L. (1990): Reservoir primary production. In: Thorthon, K.
(Ed), Reservoir Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 133-193.
Mustapha, M. K. 2008. Assessment of the water quality of Oyun Reservoir, Offa, Nigeria, using
selected physico-chemical parameters. Turk. J. Fish. And Aquat. Sci. 8:309-319.
Mustapha, M. K. 2009. Influence of watershed activities on the water quality and fish
assemblages of a tropical African reservoir. Turk. J. Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 9:1-08.
Holdren, C., W. Jones and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoir. N. Am. Lake
Manage. Soc. And Terrene Inst., in coop. with Off. Water Assess.

37
APPENDIX
Species Distribution

Kangemi dam species distribution

Species Variance Mean Chi-sq d.f. Probability Aggregation

Baetidae (Small 2.3333 13.3333 0.35 2 0.8408791 Random
minnow flies)
Caenidae (cain flies) 1 1 2 2 0.3694414 Random
Chironomidae (midges) 16.3333 22.3333 1.4627 2 0.5144478 Random
Palaemonidae 1 2 1 2 0.6124016 Random
(freshwater prawns)
Belostomatidae (giant 0.3333 1.3333 0.5 2 0.7821908 Random
water bugs)
Psychodidae (moth 0.3333 2.3333 0.2857 2 0.867442 Random
flies)
Tipulidae (rane flies) 1 1 2 2 0.3694414 Random
Hydracarina(watermite) 0 1 0 2 0 Aggregated
Tabanidae (horse flies) 2.3333 2.3333 2 2 0.3694414 Random
Lymnaeidae (pouch 0.3333 3.3333 0.2 2 0.9045255 Random
snail)
Oligochaetes (worms) 1 3 0.6667 2 0.7214913 Random

Muthaiga dam species distribution

Species Variance Mean Chi-sq d.f. Probability Aggregation
Culinidae (mosquitoes 1 2 1 2 0.6124016 Random
pupae)
Platycnemidae 9.3333 14.6667 1.2727 2 0.5343666 Random
(damsel flies)
Chironomidae 20.3333 11.6667 3.4857 2 0.1726816 Random
Lestidae (damsel flies) 4.3333 3.3333 2.6 2 0.2717555 Random
Unionidae (pearly 4.3333 1.6667 5.2 2 0.0723459 Random
mussels)
Naucoridae (creeping 0.3333 0.6667 1 2 0.6124016 Random
water bug)
Libellulidae 0 3 0 2 0 Aggregated
(dragonflies)
Lymnaeidae (pouch 1 6 0.3333 2 0.8476751 Random
snails)
Palaemonidae 1 2 1 2 0.6124016 Random
(freshwater prawns)
Ancylidae (limpets) 2.3333 2.6667 1.75 2 0.5803282 Random
Corbiculidae (clams) 2.3333 1.3333 3.5 2 0.1714256 Random
Platycnemidae 9.3333 14.6667 1.2727 2 0.5343666 Random
(damsel flies)

38
Chironomidae 20.3333 11.6667 3.4857 2 0.1726816 Random

39