Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 February 2021 | Story Supplied | Photo Supplied
Dr João Vidal is a research fellow at the Department of Plant Sciences and the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU) at the University of the Free State (UFS).

According to United Nations data projections for 2100, sub-Saharan Africa is set to experience a demographic explosion. The most rapid population growth zones in Africa are in or around mountains and the importance of managing these mountain ecosystems sustainably in order to maintain the benefits to such a growing population is critical, says Dr João Vidal, a research fellow at the Department of Plant Sciences and the Afromontane Research Unit (ARU) at the University of the Free State (UFS). 

The link between human population growth and the demand for water will impact these mountain grasslands. All of Africa’s important rivers originate in mountainous areas. The sustainable management of African mountain landscapes is thus vital for the sustained provision of quality water in suitable quantities. “Water is already limited in some places. This year we are facing another drought in South Africa, and if it was not for the mountains, it could have been much worse. The long-term resilience of Southern Africa’s mountains and their ecosystem services should be an absolute priority for both research and conservation,” says Dr Vidal.

Human population growth has several implications

As a mountain ecologist, his recent research is centred on developing indicators for monitoring biodiversity change in Southern Africa’s mountains. This is a collaborative research project with the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON), Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, and the University of Pretoria.

Human population growth, as predicted for Southern Africa, has several implications for natural-resource management and biodiversity conservation. “Southern Africa has one of the highest proportions of grassland-dominated mountains in the world, comparable only to Central Asia,” says Dr Vidal. 

In December, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said during the launch of the 2021 Global Humanitarian Overview: “Conflict, climate change and COVID-19 have created the greatest humanitarian challenge since the Second World War. The number of people at risk of starvation has doubled. Hundreds of millions of children are out of school. Levels of extreme poverty have risen for the first time in 22 years.”

According to Dr Vidal this new scenario significantly increases the pressure on mountain environments and their biota, since people will have to find alternative ways of feeding their families, their animals, while the economy struggles to recover globally.

Through his research, Dr Vidal – together with a growing community of practices for Southern Africa’s mountains – aims to understand the socio-ecological functioning of these montane grasslands in order to encourage a science-policy-action interface for their sustainable management in a changing world. 


Alternative ways for measuring environmental change in mountains

Since much global mountain research is focused on forest-dominated mountains, Dr Vidal and his collaborators are developing specific tools to track climate change in grassy mountains.
He explains: “When you look at the available tools for tracking climate change in mountains, you have a tree line for many mountains in the world. However, with the Southern African grassy mountains, it is impossible to use such a tool. We are working on alternative ways for measuring environmental change in our mountains.

“As it gets warmer, certain communities of grasses may retract towards higher elevations because they need a certain minimum temperature to survive. The problem seems to be that current climate change is occurring at a much faster rate than most species might be able to retract. This means that higher temperatures may lead to habitat losses for temperature-vulnerable groups.

“Climate change is also making mountains increasingly vulnerable to ecological invasion by non-native species. The severe temperatures in mountains are a good barrier for many problematic lowland species. But with warmer temperatures in the mountains, these barriers are being weakened, increasing the number of potentially invasive plants in our mountains. With higher temperatures there is potential for a large guild of invasive trees to overrun grassland mountains affecting waterflow into dams and rivers. Examples are pines, willows, gums, and wattles, to name a few.

“The presence of invasive trees, especially along rivers, has long-term negative impacts on the functioning of mountain catchments. These trees destabilise riverbanks, extract large amounts of water, and cause local extinction of endemic montane biodiversity. In drier environments such as grasslands, this exacerbates the fragile water productivity,” he adds.

Global policymakers to recognise the value of grassy mountains 

It is important to draw attention to the value of natural grassy mountain systems around the world and to how threatened they are. The world’s grassy mountains need to be better studied and better placed on the global stage. This will encourage policy makers to recognise these systems and implement appropriate measures to facilitate their sustainable management. 

For the first time in 20 years, the recent International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report to the United Nations included a chapter focusing solely on mountains. “Policymakers are finally realising how disproportionately important mountain environments are and how dramatically they are affected by climate change,” says Dr Vidal. 

However, African mountains are underrepresented in research literature; it is the only continent for which there is no data included in the IPCC report. There is an urgent need to represent African mountains – especially Southern Africa’s mountains – on the global stage when it comes to climate change,” states Dr Vidal.

Dr Vidal is conducting this study in partnership with Dr Ralph Clark, Director of the ARU on the UFS Qwaqwa Campus

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept