Lemna perpusilla (duckweed)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Introductions
- Habitat
- Habitat List
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Links to Websites
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportPictures
Top of pageIdentity
Top of pagePreferred 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
Top of pageL. 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
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Monocotyledonae
- Order: Arales
- Family: Araceae
- Genus: Lemna
- Species: Lemna perpusilla
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pagePlants 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
Top of pageL. 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
Top of pageL. 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
Top of pageThe 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.
Last updated: 10 Feb 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Algeria | Present | ||||||
Angola | Present | ||||||
Benin | Present | ||||||
Botswana | Present | ||||||
Burkina Faso | Present | ||||||
Burundi | Present | ||||||
Cameroon | Present | ||||||
Central African Republic | Present | ||||||
Chad | Present | ||||||
Comoros | Present | ||||||
Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Present | ||||||
Côte d'Ivoire | Present | ||||||
Egypt | Present | ||||||
Ethiopia | Present | ||||||
Gabon | Present | ||||||
Ghana | Present | ||||||
Guinea | Present | ||||||
Kenya | Present | ||||||
Madagascar | Present | ||||||
Malawi | Present | ||||||
Mali | Present | ||||||
Mauritania | Present | ||||||
Mauritius | Present | ||||||
Morocco | Present | ||||||
Namibia | Present | ||||||
Nigeria | Present | ||||||
Rwanda | Present | ||||||
São Tomé and Príncipe | Present | ||||||
Senegal | Present | ||||||
Seychelles | Present | ||||||
Sierra Leone | Present | ||||||
South Africa | Present | Invasive | |||||
Sudan | Present | ||||||
Tanzania | Present | ||||||
Togo | Present | ||||||
Uganda | Present | ||||||
Zambia | Present | ||||||
Zimbabwe | Present | ||||||
Asia |
|||||||
Afghanistan | Present | ||||||
Bangladesh | Present | ||||||
Bhutan | Present | Introduced | 1979 | ||||
Brunei | Present | ||||||
Cambodia | Present, Widespread | ||||||
China | Present | ||||||
Hong Kong | Present | ||||||
India | Present | ||||||
-Jammu and Kashmir | Present | ||||||
-Uttar Pradesh | Present | ||||||
Indonesia | Present | ||||||
Iran | Present | ||||||
Iraq | Present | ||||||
Israel | Present | ||||||
Japan | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Laos | Present | ||||||
Lebanon | Present | ||||||
Malaysia | Present | ||||||
-Peninsular Malaysia | Present | ||||||
-Sabah | Present | ||||||
-Sarawak | Present | ||||||
Myanmar | Present | ||||||
Nepal | Present | ||||||
Oman | Present | ||||||
Pakistan | Present | ||||||
Philippines | Present | ||||||
Singapore | Present | ||||||
South Korea | Present | ||||||
Sri Lanka | Present | ||||||
Taiwan | Present | ||||||
Thailand | Present | ||||||
Vietnam | Present | ||||||
Europe |
|||||||
Czechoslovakia | Present | ||||||
Finland | Present | ||||||
France | Present | Introduced | First reported: 1961 - 1964 | ||||
Germany | Present | ||||||
Italy | Present | ||||||
Poland | Present | ||||||
Russia | Present | ||||||
Spain | Present | ||||||
Sweden | Present | ||||||
United Kingdom | Present | Original citation: Hossel & Baker, 1979 | |||||
North America |
|||||||
Antigua and Barbuda | Present | ||||||
Barbados | Present | ||||||
Belize | Present | ||||||
Canada | Present | Native | |||||
Cayman Islands | Present | ||||||
Costa Rica | Present | ||||||
Cuba | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Dominican Republic | Present | ||||||
Grenada | Present | ||||||
Guadeloupe | Present | ||||||
Guatemala | Present | ||||||
Haiti | Present | ||||||
Honduras | Present | ||||||
Jamaica | Present | ||||||
Martinique | Present | ||||||
Mexico | Present | ||||||
Netherlands Antilles | Present | ||||||
Nicaragua | Present | ||||||
Panama | Present | ||||||
Puerto Rico | Present | ||||||
Trinidad and Tobago | Present | ||||||
U.S. Virgin Islands | Present | ||||||
United States | Present | ||||||
-Alabama | Present | ||||||
-Arizona | Present | ||||||
-Arkansas | Present | Native | |||||
-California | Present | ||||||
-Colorado | Present | ||||||
-Connecticut | Present | Native | |||||
-Delaware | Present | Native | |||||
-District of Columbia | Present | Native | |||||
-Florida | Present | ||||||
-Georgia | Present | Native | |||||
-Hawaii | Present | Introduced | 1895 | ||||
-Idaho | Present | Native | |||||
-Illinois | Present | ||||||
-Indiana | Absent, Formerly present | ||||||
-Iowa | Present | Native | |||||
-Kansas | Present | Native | |||||
-Kentucky | Present | Native | |||||
-Louisiana | Present | Native | |||||
-Maine | Present | Native | |||||
-Maryland | Present | Native | |||||
-Massachusetts | Present | Native | |||||
-Minnesota | Present | Native | Original citation: Clark and Thieret (1968.The duckweeds of Minnesota) | ||||
-Mississippi | Present | Native | |||||
-Missouri | Present | Native | |||||
-Montana | Present | Native | |||||
-Nebraska | Present | Native | |||||
-Nevada | Present | ||||||
-New Jersey | Present, Few occurrences | Native | |||||
-New Mexico | Present | ||||||
-New York | Present, Few occurrences | Native | |||||
-North Carolina | Present, Few occurrences | Native | |||||
-North Dakota | Present | ||||||
-Ohio | Present | Native | |||||
-Oklahoma | Present | Native | |||||
-Oregon | Present | ||||||
-Pennsylvania | Present | Native | |||||
-Rhode Island | Present | Native | |||||
-South Carolina | Present | ||||||
-South Dakota | Present | ||||||
-Tennessee | Present | Native | |||||
-Texas | Present | ||||||
-Utah | Present | ||||||
-Vermont | Present | Native | |||||
-Virginia | Present | Native | |||||
-Washington | Present | ||||||
-West Virginia | Present | Native | |||||
-Wisconsin | Present | Native | |||||
-Wyoming | Present | ||||||
Oceania |
|||||||
American Samoa | Present | ||||||
Australia | Present | ||||||
-New South Wales | Present | ||||||
-Queensland | Present | ||||||
Federated States of Micronesia | Present | ||||||
Fiji | Present | ||||||
New Caledonia | Present | ||||||
New Zealand | Present | ||||||
Northern Mariana Islands | Present | ||||||
Papua New Guinea | Present | ||||||
Tonga | Present | ||||||
South America |
|||||||
Argentina | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
Bolivia | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
Brazil | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
-Alagoas | Present | ||||||
-Bahia | Present | ||||||
-Ceara | Present | ||||||
-Minas Gerais | Present | ||||||
-Paraiba | Present | ||||||
-Pernambuco | Present | ||||||
-Piaui | Present | ||||||
-Rio de Janeiro | Present | ||||||
-Rio Grande do Norte | Present | ||||||
-Sao Paulo | Present | ||||||
-Sergipe | Present | ||||||
Chile | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
Colombia | Present | ||||||
Ecuador | Present | ||||||
Guyana | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
Peru | Present | Original citation: Fernandez et al. (1990) | |||||
Suriname | Present |
Introductions
Top of pageIntroduced to | Introduced from | Year | Reason | Introduced by | Established in wild through | References | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural reproduction | Continuous restocking | |||||||
France | Yes | No | Randall (2009) | |||||
Hawaii | No | No | Randall (2009) |
Habitat
Top of pageL. 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
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | ||||
Freshwater | ||||
Freshwater | Irrigation channels | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Natural | |
Freshwater | Lakes | Principal habitat | Natural | |
Freshwater | Reservoirs | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Natural | |
Freshwater | Rivers / streams | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Natural | |
Freshwater | Ponds | Principal habitat | Natural |
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pagePlant name | Family | Context | References |
---|---|---|---|
Oryza sativa (rice) | Poaceae | Main |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageMost 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
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
Af - Tropical rainforest climate | Tolerated | > 60mm precipitation per month | |
Am - Tropical monsoon climate | Tolerated | Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25])) | |
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate | Preferred | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
BS - Steppe climate | Preferred | > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation | |
BW - Desert climate | Tolerated | < 430mm annual precipitation | |
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year | |
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers | |
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter | Preferred | Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters) | |
Df - Continental climate, wet all year | Preferred | Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year) |
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anas | Herbivore | |||||
Aphis sambuci | Herbivore | |||||
Elophila | Herbivore | |||||
Hydrellia williamsi | Herbivore | Plants|Leaves | ||||
Lemnaphila neotropica | Herbivore | Plants|Leaves | ||||
Lemnaphila scotlandae | Herbivore | |||||
Mesovelia mulsanti | Herbivore | |||||
Neohydronomus affinis | Herbivore | |||||
Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae | Herbivore | |||||
Scirtes tibialis | Herbivore | |||||
Tanysphyrus lemnae | Herbivore | Plants|Leaves |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageIn 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
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aquaculture | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Botanical gardens and zoos | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | ||
Fisheries | Yes | Yes | Hassan and Edwards (1992) | |
Flooding and other natural disasters | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | ||
Forage | Yes | Bouda and Chien (2005) | ||
Garden waste disposal | Yes | |||
Hitchhiker | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Horticulture | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Industrial purposes | Yes | Ruenglertpanyakul et al. (2004) | ||
Interbasin transfers | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | ||
Interconnected waterways | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | ||
Internet sales | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Landscape improvement | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | ||
Nursery trade | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | ||
Ornamental purposes | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Pet trade | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aquaculture stock | Yes | Yes | Maki and Galatowitsch (2004) | |
Floating vegetation and debris | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | ||
Machinery and equipment | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | Yes | |
Ship structures above the water line | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes | ||
Water | A. Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, USA, personal communcation, 2010 | Yes |
Impact Summary
Top of pageCategory | Impact |
---|---|
Cultural/amenity | Positive and negative |
Economic/livelihood | Positive and negative |
Environment (generally) | Positive and negative |
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- 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
Top of pageAnimal 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
Top of pageL. 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
Top of pageDue 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
Top of pageAnderson 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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Keng H, 1969. Orders and Families of Malayan Seed Plants. Singapore: University of Malaya Press.
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.
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.
Peiterse AH, 1990. Biological control of aquatic weeds. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KV, eds. Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford Science Publication, 174-176.
Plas F van der, 1971. Lemnaceae. Fl .Males.ser.1:7.
Rejmankova E, 1975. Comperison of Lemna gibba and Lemna minor from the production ecological viewpoint. Aquatic Botany, 423-427.
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.
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.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Daubs EH, 1965. Monograph of Lemnaceae. In: Illinois Biological Monographs, 34
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.
Rejmankova E, 1975. Comperison of Lemna gibba and Lemna minor from the production ecological viewpoint. In: Aquatic Botany, 423-427.
Sainty GR, Jacobs SWL, 1981. Waterplants of New South Wales., New South Wales, Australia: Water Resources Commission.
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
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway | https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6 | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS) | http://griis.org/ | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Contributors
Top of page16/12/2009 Updated by:
Alison Mikulyuk, Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources, Science Operations Center, 2801 Progress Rd, Madison, WI 53716, USA
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/