Lemna perpusilla
(duckweed)

Pictures

Picture	Title	Caption	Copyright
Title Floating fronds Caption L. minor has green scale-like fronds. These fronds are either solitary or are connected in small groups. The frond is small and flat; with 1-3 veins, which are often indistinct, obliquely ovate-elliptic. Copyright ©Chris Parker/Bristol, UK	Floating fronds	L. minor has green scale-like fronds. These fronds are either solitary or are connected in small groups. The frond is small and flat; with 1-3 veins, which are often indistinct, obliquely ovate-elliptic.	©Chris Parker/Bristol, UK

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name

• Lemna perpusilla Torrey, 1843

Preferred Common Name

• duckweed

Other Scientific Names

• Lemna aequinoctialis Welw.
• Lemna minor L.
• Lemna paucicostata Hegelm. ex Engelm. 1867

International Common Names

• English: common duckweed; common waterlens; duckmeat; minute duckweed; tropical duckweed
• Spanish: lenteja acuatica
• French: lenticule tres petite; petite lentille d'eau
• Portuguese: lentilhas-de-agua-menores; pasta-miuda

Local Common Names

• American Samoa: fala’o’oto
• Brazil: caparosa; pesca-miuda
• Cuba: lenteja de agua
• Germany: Entenflott; Entengruetze; Kleine Wasserlinse; Weniggerippte Wasserlinse
• Indonesia/Sumatra: kiambang
• Italy: lenticchia d'acqua
• Japan: aoukikusa; koukikusa
• Laos: nae hang hern
• Malaysia: kiambang
• Netherlands: klein Kroos
• Sudan: ganggeng
• Sweden: andmat
• Thailand: nae
• Vietnam: beo tam

EPPO code

• LEMMI (Lemna minor)
• LEMPA (Lemna paucicostata)

Summary of Invasiveness

L. minor can be a commercial nuisance in waterbodies such as fish ponds in the USA and Europe. In countries of tropical Asia, L. perpusilla is a problem in the rice field agroecosystem. It is a nuisance in irrigation and drainage channels, reservoirs and recreational lakes. Several mosquito larvae, particularly those of Culex bitaeniorhynchus, C. tritaeniorhynchus and Ficalbia minima are closely associated with Lemna (Osman et al., 1994).

In enriched systems, the plant can be very productive, growing in thick mats that block light penetration to organisms living beneath the surface of the water (Ghanvzan et al., 2006).

L. perpusilla has been widely used in the treatment of wastewater and sewage effluent. It is highly adaptable to eutrophic conditions and has shown to very effectively absorb nutrients in the treatment of effluents (Ruenglertpanyakul et al., 2004) and municipal wastewater (Rattanaphan et al., 2007). This quality in turn lends it a certain suitability for use for fish food or other fodder (Hassan and Edwards, 1992).

Taxonomic Tree

• Domain: Eukaryota
•     Kingdom: Plantae
•         Phylum: Spermatophyta
•             Subphylum: Angiospermae
•                 Class: Monocotyledonae
•                     Order: Arales
•                         Family: Araceae
•                             Genus: Lemna
•                                 Species: Lemna perpusilla

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Plants of the Lemnaceae are popularly known as duckweeds. There are six genera in the family Lemnaceae: Lemna, Wolffia, Spirodela, Pseudolffia, Wolffiella and Wolffiopsis. The six genera contain about 30 species, most of which are floating, aquatic plants (van der Plas, 1971). The nine species in the genus Lemna are generally small and free-floating plants (Leach and Osborne, 1985), and include Lemna minor, Lemna perpusilla, Lemna gibba, Lemna obscura, Lemna trisulca, Lemna valdiviana, Lemna aequinoctialis, Lemna turionifera and Lemna minuta (USDA-ARS, 2009). All are floating plants, with the exception of L. trisulca, which is a submerged plant.

The taxonomy of the Lemna species found in South-East Asian countries is confused. L. perpusilla is native to the region and Pancho and Soerjani (1978) classified all the common duckweed in this area as this species. Other authors, including Holm et al. (1979) and Moody (1989), have indicated the presence of L. minor in South-East Asian countries. The two species are closely related and differ mainly in the structure of the root (for further information, see section on Similarities to Other Pests). L. minor is mainly a European species and while it has almost certainly been introduced to other parts of the world (as Noltie (1994) indicates for Bhutan) most such records are of doubtful reliability. Hence the main species in most tropical areas is probably L. perpusilla. Many sources report the distribution of L. perpusilla as occurring worldwide. As with L. minor, there are often disagreements in the literature as to the exact delineation of the plant’s native and adventive range. Due to the degree of taxonomic uncertainty in the literature, data and information on L. minor are included in this data sheet and the two are treated as an aggregate.

Description

L. minor and L. perpusilla are among the smallest of the Lemna species, reaching a diameter of only 1.5-4.0 mm (Sculthorpe, 1967). Each of the obovate or suborbicular thalli are slightly convex on both surfaces. Roots of L. minor can reach a length of up to 15 cm, whereas those of L. perpusilla can grow up to 35 cm in length (eFloras.org, 2009). Daughter thalli arise from one of two marginal pockets on opposite sides of the basal nodal region of each thallus.

Both species have green scale-like fronds. These fronds are either solitary or are connected in small groups. The frond is small and flat; with 1-3 veins, which are often indistinct, obliquely ovate-elliptic. The plant body is reduced to a small or minute oval, oblong flat or globose thallus, which is leafless, often purplish beneath. Mature fronds range in diameter from 2-5 mm, and are 0.1-2 mm thick.

L. minor and L. perpusilla are monoecious, L. minor rarely flowers, whereas L. perpusilla is frequently found with flowers. The flowers are unisexual, naked or initially enclosed by a membranous sheathing spathe. Flowers are borne in marginal clefts. The inflorescence emerges from a fissure in the stem, and may or may not be included by a spathe. It consists of one or two staminates and a single pistillate, neither has a perianth. The ovary is unicellular, with one to several ovules, erect or pendulous, and orthotropous. The fruit is a utricle, and the seed is without endosperm. Each plant produces between 3 and 7 (unwinged only in L. minor) seeds with 8-15 distinct ribs in L. minor and 35-70 indistinct ribs in L. perpusilla (eFloras.org, 2009).

Distribution

L. perpusilla is pantropical in distribution, occurring in Africa, Asia and America, and is locally naturalized in some more temperate areas, including France and Italy in southern Europe (Tutin et al., 1980). Many other records from temperate areas are subject to confusion with the temperate species L. minor and no attempt is made here to distinguish between the two. Hence, the geographical distribution indicated is for the two species combined.

L. minor has been recorded in all European countries except the Faroes, Iceland and Spitsbergen (Tutin et al., 1980).

Distribution Table

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Introductions

Habitat

L. minor is generally found in the wet ricefield agroecosystem of some Asian countries. During heavy infestation, the entire area can be covered with the weed. This phenomenon, which is also observed in small ponds, puddles, ditches and lakes, can be mistaken for an algal bloom.

L. minor is a free-floating plant and, therefore, does not survive in fast-flowing water. It is rarely found in rivers and streams, but thrives along stagnant parts of these watercourses. Stagnant and slow moving water such as ponds, reservoirs, and lakes are the most suitable habitats for this species. Massive population growth of L. minor has also been recorded in drainage and irrigation channels. L. minor only grows well in freshwater ecosystems, but is occasionally found in brackish water. The species cannot survive in sea water.

L. perpusilla has a worldwide distribution and can be found across a broad range of environmental conditions. The plant generally prefers slow-moving water and protected or sheltered habitats (McLay, 1974) and it tends to grow favourably in enriched environments (Ghavzan et al., 2006). In a study of three habitats of L. perpusilla, water temperature ranged from 15-28°C, pH ranged from 6.9-7.8, conductivity spanned 200-890 muS/cm and alkalinity 0.84-7.42 meg/L (Khondker et al., 1994). Both species are found most commonly in mesotrohpic to eutrophic environments of temperate regions with relatively mild winters (eFloras.org, 2009) and can grow from sea level to nearly 10,000 m elevation (GBIF, 2009).

Habitat List

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Growth Stages

Biology and Ecology

Most published information is on L. minor, unless otherwise indicated; it is assumed that the biology of L. perpusilla is similar.

L. perpusilla and L. minor are minute, stemless, free-floating, aquatic, perennial plants which thrive well in most wetland areas.

Plants overwintering in temperate regions by the production of buds, become water-logged and then sink below the surface into the substrate.

The plants reproduce asexually by buds, and are propagated by budding or bulbils. Daughter fronds are produced in pouches alternately on either side of the mother frond. The daughter grows out of the pouch when it reaches the size of a mature plant and can produce its own progeny while still attached. The fronds are usually separated by water movement, animal activity etc.

L. minor and L. perpusilla are monoecious, L. minor rarely and L. perpusilla frequently flowers. The flowers are unisexual, naked or initially enclosed by a membranous sheathing spathe. Flowers are borne in marginal clefts. The inflorescence emerges from a fissure in the stem, and may or may not be included by a spathe. It consists of one or two staminates and a single pistillate, neither has a perianth. The ovary is unicellular, with one to several ovules, erect or pendulous, and orthotropous. The fruit is a utricle, and the seed is without endosperm. Each plant produces 3-7 seeds. During the growing season, each seed produces a seed-bearing plant in 3 days. A water temperature of 21-23°C, and a light intensity of approximately 1600 lux at the water level are optimum conditions for reproduction of L. minor.

Nutrients, such as phosphate, can stimulate the growth of L. minor. Wind action can cause the duckweed to accumulate in mats, sometimes up to 1 m thick. Although the plant tends to prefer quiet, slow-moving, and sheltered waters (Ghavzan et al., 2006), shorelines and the shelter and structure of other plants (McLay, 1974), to open water where it is exposed to wind and wave action. The plants are not easily visible when scattered (Sainty and Jacobs, 1981), but dense growth produces a green mat which covers the surface of the water. Dense growth of L. minor is an indicator of eutrophic conditions. These plant masses may be dispersed by wave action, and new colonies of duckweed may be initiated in this way.

The biomass of duckweed communities is much lower than the biomass of littoral, emergent macrophyte communities such as Phragmites or Typha; duckweed achieves at most 1/20 to 1/10 of the biomass of Phragmites. However, in enriched conditions, L. perpusilla can form a thick mat on the water’s surface and can grow to such density as to shade out the submersed vegetation, invertebrates and phytoplankton underneath (Ghavzan et al., 2006). The growth of L. minor fronds during summer is logarithmic with time and a growth rate of 0.066 per day, equivalent to a doubling time of 4.5 days, has been recorded. The life expectancy of the fronds is 34 days, but they show signs of ageing after 24 days (Harper, 1977). The plants appear to be pollinated by insects.

Climate change may have a significant effect on L. perpusilla. Under FACE ambient CO₂ enrichment in rice paddy fields L. perpusilla was present 3-fold in August as compared to the lack of effect of CO₂ enrichment on emergent and terrestrial weeds (Koizumi et al., 2004).

L. minor can be transported by adhesion. Birds carrying Lemna tend to rise from one sheet of water and come down on another which, however far away, is likely to be similar to that from which the bird came (Good, 1974).

Climate

Natural enemies

Notes on Natural Enemies

In Europe and North America, L. minor is eaten by almost every species of duck, particularly migratory ducks. Epiphytic bacteria can also destroy the frond (Hossel and Baker, 1979). Insects associated with L. minor include Scirtes tibialis (duckweed beetle), Tanysphyrus lemnae (duckweed weevil), Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae, Aphis sembuci and Elophila (aquatic caterpillar). The aquatic bug, Trepobates pictus uses the undersurface of Lemna thalli for the attachment of its eggs (Scotland, 1940).

The diminutive spring-tail, Sminthurus aquaticus jumps about on floating mats of duckweed, which provides this species with a source of food and a place for depositing eggs. The spring-tails make many small holes in the thalli during prolific egg laying.

The bright green nymphs of the water strider, Mesovelia bisignata are common on duckweed. Adults of this species lay their eggs between the epidermal layers of the Lemna thallus (Buckingham, 1984). The pond-lily aphid, Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae is very prolific and feeds on the sap of Lemna thalli. Egg, larval and adult stages of the duckweed weevil, Tanysphyrus lemnae are commonly found on floating Lemna. The mining larvae devour the green interior of the thalli, leaving whitened plants, while the adults use their snouts to eat out sperical holes from the upper side of the Lemna. An aquatic case-making moth, Nymphula obliteralis also feeds on duckweed.

The Lemna fly, Lemnaphila scotlandae, is small (ca 1.2 mm long) and able to pass its entire life cycle on and within a single thallus. The larva bores into the centre of the thallus for food and shelter. Normally, there is only one pupa per plant (Mansor and Buckingham, 1989). Hymenopteran parasites (Opius lemnaphilae, Trichopria angustipennis and Trichopria paludis), emerge from fly puparia, leaving tell-tale holes in the empty shells.

Pathway Causes

Pathway Vectors

Impact Summary

Risk and Impact Factors

• Invasive in its native range
• Proved invasive outside its native range
• Has a broad native range
• Abundant in its native range
• Highly adaptable to different environments
• Tolerant of shade
• Fast growing
• Has high reproductive potential
• Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
• Reproduces asexually

• Damaged ecosystem services
• Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
• Modification of hydrology
• Modification of natural benthic communities
• Monoculture formation

• Competition - shading
• Rapid growth

• Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
• Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
• Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
• Difficult to identify/detect in the field

Uses List

Animal feed, fodder, forage

• Fodder/animal feed

Fuels

• Fuelwood

General

• Botanical garden/zoo
• Pet/aquarium trade

Materials

• Fertilizer

Medicinal, pharmaceutical

• Traditional/folklore

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

L. perpusilla and L. minor are closely related and widely confused, but may be distinguished by their root characteristics, the former having longer roots with a winged sheath and an acute cap, the latter having roots with a wingless sheath and an obtuse cap. The fronds of L. perpusilla are also more asymmetrical than those of L. minor. A number of related species can occur as floating weeds: Woolfia arriza has no roots; Spirodela polyrhiza has larger fronds, 4-10 mm across, and at least two roots per frond. Other Lemna species can also occur and expert help may be needed to confirm precise identity.

Prevention and Control

Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.

Control

Chemical control

Chemical control of Lemna spp. is complicated by the large number of plants which accumulate in masses on the water surface due to wind action.

Contact herbicides are used for control of duckweed, and contact between the herbicide and the weed is necessary (Langeland and Demont, 1986). Herbicides used against Lemna include endothal and diquat; these are applied directly to the duckweed plant on the water surface as a fine spray. Sprayed plants turn white within a few days. The herbicide should then be re-applied, after 7-10 days, allowing time for affected plants to decay. The number of duckweed plants on the surface of the water can be substantially reduced using this procedure. Periodic applications of aquatic herbicides keeps the number of plants at a low level. However, if repeat applications are not made, the number of duckweed plants can increase and recover the entire surface of the waterbody, necessitating further control (Murphy and Barrett, 1990).

Biological control

Insects have been successully used for the control of several species of floating aquatic weeds. There are no reports of insects being used for the biological control of duckweeds, but common duckweed is attacked by several native insects, including a leaf-mining shore fly, Lemnaphila scotlandae. The larvae of the fly kill duckweed leaves by eating their entire contents, leaving behind a transparent, hollow shell.

Others insects which can be used include Lemnaphila neotropica, Hydrellia williamsi and Tanysphyrus lemnae (Pieterse, 1990). Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) also feed on duckweed.

References

Anderson LWJ, 1990. Aquatic weed problems in North America. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KY, eds. Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science Publication.

Arber A, 1972. Water Plant, a study on aquatic angiosperms. Whedon & Wesley Ltd.

Benson L, 1965. Plant Classification. Boston, USA: DC Heath and Company.

Bouda S; Chien YewHu, 2005. Productivity comparison of two duckweed species (Lemna perpusilla and Spirodela polyrrhiza) cultured under various environment. Journal of the Fisheries Society of Taiwan, 32(2):149-157.

Buckingham GR, 1984. Biological control of weeds by insects. J.Georgia Entomological Society, 19 2nd Supplement, 63-78.

Clark HL; Thieret JW, 1968. The duckweeds of Minnesota. Michigan Botanist, 7:67-76.

Cook CDK; Gut BJ; Rix EM; Schneller J; Seitz M, 1974. Water Plants of the World: A Manual for the Identification of the Genera of Freshwater Macrophytes. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr W Junk.

Daubs EH, 1965. Monograph of Lemnaceae. Illinois Biological Monographs, 34.

Edwards DJ, 1975. Taking a bite at the waterweed problem. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, 130(1):33-36.

eFloras.org, 2013. Flora of North America. St Louis, Missouri: Missouri Botanical Garden and Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA.

Fernández OA; Sutton DL; Lallana VH; Sabbatini MR; Irigoyen JH, 1993. Aquatic weed problems and management in South and Central America. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 406-425.

GBIF, 2009. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. http://data.gbif.org/species/

Ghavzan JN; Gunale VR; Mahaja DM; Shirke DR, 2006. Effects of environemtnal factors on ecology and distribution of aquatic macrophytes. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(5):871-880.

Gleason HA; Cronquist A, 1968. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Primeton, New Jersey, USA: D. Van Nos trand Company Inc.

Good R, 1974. The Geography of The Flowering Plants. Longman Group Ltd.

Gopal B, 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in Asia. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds: the Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 318-340.

Harper JL, 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London, UK: Academic Press.

Hassan MS; Edwards P, 1992. Evaluation of duckweed (Lemna perpusilla and Spirodela polyrrhiza) as feed for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture, 104(3/4):315-326.

Henderson MR, 1954. Malayan Wild Flowers. Monocotyledons. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The Malayan Nature Society.

Hepper FN, 1966. The duckweeds of W. Africa. Nigerian Field, 31:18-21.

Hepper FN, 1968. Lemnaceae. In: Hepper FN, ed. Flora of West Tropical Africa. Vol. III. Part I. 2nd edition. London, UK: Crown Agents, 127-129.

Hiltibran RC, 1973. Duckweed Control. Illinois Natural History Survey. Report section of aquatic biology.

Holm LG; Pancho JV; Herberger JP; Plucknett DL, 1979. A geographical atlas of world weeds. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 391 pp.

Hossell JC; Baker JH, 1979. Freshwater Biology. UK.

Hylander CJ, 1964. The World of Plant Life. Canada: The Macmillan Company.

Johnson AM, 1977. The Taxonomy of The Flowering Plants. New York, USA: The Century Company.

Kaul V; Usha Bakaya, 1976. The noxious, floating, lemnid-Salvinia aquatic weed complex in Kashmir. Aquatic Weeds in S.E. Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi, 1973. W. Junk. The Hague Netherlands, 183-192

Keng H, 1969. Orders and Families of Malayan Seed Plants. Singapore: University of Malaya Press.

Khondker M; Islam A; Makhnun A, 1994. Lemna perpusilla - screening on habitat limnology. Bangladesh Journal of Botany, 23(1):99-106.

Koizumi H; Kibe T; Nakadai T; Yazaki Y; Adachi M; Inatomi M; Kondo M; Ohtsuka T, 2004. Effect of free-air CO2 enrichment on structures of weed communities and CO2 exchange at the flood-water surface in a rice paddy field. In: Global Environmental Change in the Ocean and on Land [ed. by Shiyomi, M. \Kawahata, H. \Koizumi, H. \Tsuda, A. \Awaya, Y.]. Tokyo, Japan: Terrapub, 473-485.

Langeland KA; DeMont DJ, 1986. Considerations for using herbicides for aquatic weed control in domestic water supplies of North Carolina. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Report No.227.

Lawrence GHM, 1969. Taxonomy of Vascular Plants. New York, USA: The Macmillan Company.

Leach GJ; Osborne PL, 1985. Freshwater plants of Papua New Guinea. University of Papua New Guinea, 254pp.

Lomagin AG; Ul'yanova LV, 1993. A new bioassay on water pollution using duckweed Lemna minor L. Soviet Plant Physiology, 40(2):283-284.

Lorenzi H, 1982. Weeds of Brazil, terrestrial and aquatic, parasitic, poisonous and medicinal. (Plantas daninhas de Brasil, terrestres, aquaticas, parasitas, toxicas e medicinais.) Nova Odessa, Brazil: H. Lorenzi, 425 pp.

Majid FZ; Rahima Khatun; Nilofar Akhtar; Rahman ASMA, 1992. Aquatic weeds as a source of protein in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 27(1-2):103-111.

Maki K; Galatowitsch S, 2004. Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biological Conservation, 118(3):389-396.

Mansor M; Buckingham GR, 1989. Laboratory host range studies with a leaf-mining duckweed shore fly. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 27:115-118.

McLay CL, 1974. The Distribution of Duckweed Lemna Perpusilla in a Small Southern California Lake: An Experimental Approach. Ecology, 55(2):262-276.

Missouri Botanical Garden, 2009. Tropicos database. St Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org

Moody K, 1989. Weeds reported in Rice in South and Southeast Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.

Murphy KJ, 1988. Aquatic weed problems and their management in Scottish fresh waters. Report to Nature Conservancy Council, Edinburgh. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.

Murphy KJ; Barrett PRF, 1990. Chemical control of aquatic weeds. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KV, Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science Publication, 136-174.

Noltie HJ, 1994. Flora of Bhutan. Volume III. Part 1. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden.

Osman AS; Mansor M; Abu AH, 1994. A preliminary study on the distribution and association of mosquito larvae with aquatic weeds. Journal of Bioscience, 54.

Oviedo Prieto R; Herrera Oliver P; Caluff MG, et al. , 2012. National list of invasive and potentially invasive plants in the Republic of Cuba - 2011. (Lista nacional de especies de plantas invasoras y potencialmente invasoras en la República de Cuba - 2011). Bissea: Boletín sobre Conservación de Plantas del Jardín Botánico Nacional de Cuba, 6(Special Issue 1):22-96.

Pal S; Singh J, 1991. A preliminary report on the oribatid mites (Acari, Cryptostigmata) associated with some aquatic weeds in Varanasi region of Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Entomology, 9(1):47-49.

Pancho JV; Soerjani M, 1978. Aquatic weeds of Southeast Asia. A systematic account of common Southeast Asian aquatic weeds. Aquatic weeds of Southeast Asia. A systematic account of common Southeast Asian aquatic weeds., 130 pp.; [260 X 180 mm].

Peiterse AH, 1990. Biological control of aquatic weeds. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KV, eds. Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science Publication, 174-176.

PIER, 2009. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk., USA: Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html

Pieterse AH; Murphy KJ, 1990. Aquatic weeds: the ecology and management of nuisance aquatic vegetation. Aquatic weeds: the ecology and management of nuisance aquatic vegetation., 593 pp.

Plas F van der, 1971. Lemnaceae. Fl .Males.ser.1:7.

Randall RP, 2009. A Global Compendium of Weeds. A Global Compendium of Weeds. Western Australia, Australia: Department of Agriculture. http://www.hear.org/gcw/

Rattanaphan T; Yamsaengsun R; Puetpaiboon U, 2007. Study of the effectiveness of using ducweeds in an oxidation pond to treat municipal wastewater. In: Proceedings of the 44th Kasetsart University Annual Conference, Kasetsart, 30 January-2 February. 371-377.

Rejmankova E, 1975. Comperison of Lemna gibba and Lemna minor from the production ecological viewpoint. Aquatic Botany, 423-427.

Rice PM, 2009. Invaders Database System. Invaders Database System. Missoula, Montana, USA: Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/

Ruenglertpanyakul W; Attasat S; Wanichpongpan P, 2004. Nutrient removal from shrimp farm effluent by aquatic plants. Water Science and Technology [IWA International Specialised Conference on Wastewater Treatment for Nutrient Removal and Reuse, Bangkok, Thailand, 26-29 January 2004.], 50(6):321-330.

Sainty GR; Jacobs SWL, 1981. Waterplants of New South Wales. New South Wales, Australia: Water Resources Commission.

Scotland MB, 1940. Review and summary of studies of insects associated with Lemna minor. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 48:319-326.

Sculthorpe CD, 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. London, UK: Edward Arnold Publications Limited.

Stanley TD, 1979. Aquatic plants of Queensland. Part 3. The duckweeds of Queensland. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 105(6):570-572.

Toivonen H, 1985. Changes in the pleustic macrophyte flora of 54 small Finnish lakes in 30 years. Annales Botanici Fennici, 22(1):37-44.

Tutin TG; Heywood VH; Burges NA; Moore DM; Valentine DH; Walters SM; Webb DA, 1980. Flora Europaea. Volume 5. Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 452pp.

USDA-ARS, 2009. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx

USDA-NRCS, 2009. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp.

Wolek J, 1974. Critical survey of Polish floating plant communities. In German. Fragmenta Floristica Geobotanica, 20:365-379.

Wroblewski R, 1973. A fine structural investigation of chloroplasts from the root of Lemna minor. Journal of Submicroscopic Cytology, 5(2):97-105.

Distribution References

Anderson LWJ, 1990. Aquatic weed problems in North America. In: Aquatic Weeds, [ed. by Pieterse AH, Murphy KY]. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science Publication.

Bouda S, Chien YewHu, 2005. Productivity comparison of two duckweed species (Lemna perpusilla and Spirodela polyrrhiza) cultured under various environment. Journal of the Fisheries Society of Taiwan. 32 (2), 149-157.

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Daubs EH, 1965. Monograph of Lemnaceae. In: Illinois Biological Monographs, 34

Edwards D J, 1975. Taking a bite at the waterweed problem. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture. 130 (1), 33-36.

GBIF, 2009. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. In: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, http://data.gbif.org/species/

Gopal B, 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in Asia. In: Aquatic Weeds: the Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation, [ed. by Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 318-340.

Hepper FN, 1966. The duckweeds of W. Africa. In: Nigerian Field, 31 18-21.

Hepper FN, 1968. Lemnaceae. In: Flora of West Tropical Africa, III (2nd) [ed. by Hepper FN]. London, UK: Crown Agents. 127-129.

Holm L, Pancho J V, Herberger J P, Plucknett D L, 1979. A geographical atlas of world weeds. New York, Chichester (), Brisbane, Toronto, UK: John Wiley and Sons. xlix + 391 pp.

Kaul V, Usha Bakaya, 1976. The noxious, floating, lemnid-Salvinia aquatic weed complex in Kashmir. In: Aquatic Weeds in S.E. Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi, 1973. [Aquatic Weeds in S.E. Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi, 1973.], The Hague, Netherlands: W. Junk. 183-192.

Lomagin A G, Ul'yanova L V, 1993. A new bioassay on water pollution using duckweed Lemna minor L. Soviet Plant Physiology. 40 (2), 283-284.

Lorenzi H, 1982. Plantas daninhas de Brasil, terrestres, aquaticas, parasitas, toxicas e medicinais. Nova Odessa, Brazil: H. Lorenzi. 425 pp.

Majid F Z, Rahima Khatun, Nilofar Akhtar, Rahman A S M A, 1992. Aquatic weeds as a source of protein in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 27 (1-2), 103-111.

Moody K, 1989. Weeds reported in rice in South and Southeast Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 442 pp.

Oviedo Prieto R, Herrera Oliver P, Caluff M G, et al, 2012. National list of invasive and potentially invasive plants in the Republic of Cuba - 2011. (Lista nacional de especies de plantas invasoras y potencialmente invasoras en la República de Cuba - 2011). Bissea: Boletín sobre Conservación de Plantas del Jardín Botánico Nacional de Cuba. 6 (Special Issue No. 1), 22-96.

Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER), 2009. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. In: Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk, USA: HEAR, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html

Pal S, Singh J, 1991. A preliminary report on the oribatid mites (Acari, Cryptostigmata) associated with some aquatic weeds in Varanasi region of Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Entomology. 9 (1), 47-49.

Randall R P, 2009. Lemna perpusilla. In: A Global Compendium of Weeds, Western Australia, Australia: Department of Agriculture. http://www.hear.org/gcw/

Rejmankova E, 1975. Comperison of Lemna gibba and Lemna minor from the production ecological viewpoint. In: Aquatic Botany, 423-427.

Rice P M, 2009. Lemna perpusilla. In: Invaders Database System, Missoula, Montana, USA: Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/

Sainty GR, Jacobs SWL, 1981. Waterplants of New South Wales., New South Wales, Australia: Water Resources Commission.

Stanley T D, 1979. Aquatic plants of Queensland. Part 3. The duckweeds of Queensland. Queensland Agricultural Journal. 105 (6), 570-572.

Toivonen H, 1985. Changes in the pleustic macrophyte flora of 54 small Finnish lakes in 30 years. Annales Botanici Fennici. 22 (1), 37-44.

USA, Missouri Botanical Garden, 2009. Tropicos database. In: Tropicos database, St Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org

USDA-ARS, 2009. Cornus sericea. In: Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Online Database, Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl

USDA-NRCS, 2009. Cornus sericea. In: The PLANTS Database, Baton Rouge, LA, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Waterhouse D F, 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR. v + 141 pp.

Wolek J, 1974. Critical survey of Polish floating plant communities. In: Fragmenta Floristica Geobotanica, 20 365-379.

Wroblewski R, 1973. A fine structural investigation of chloroplasts from the root of Lemna minor. In: Journal of Submicroscopic Cytology, 5 (2) 97-105.

Links to Websites

Contributors

16/12/2009 Updated by:

Alison Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources, Science Operations Center, 2801 Progress Rd, Madison, WI 53716, USA

Distribution Maps