Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Myriophyllum heterophyllum
(broadleaf watermilfoil)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Myriophyllum heterophyllum (broadleaf watermilfoil)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 19 November 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Myriophyllum heterophyllum
  • Preferred Common Name
  • broadleaf watermilfoil
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Dicotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • M. heterophyllum is an aquatic plant native to southeast USA. It is considered invasive throughout New England and northwest USA and as an emerging invader in Europe because of its tendency for uncontrolled gro...

  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    Compendia
    CAB International
    Wallingford
    Oxfordshire
    OX10 8DE
    UK
    compend@cabi.org
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michaux, 1803

Preferred Common Name

  • broadleaf watermilfoil

International Common Names

  • English: American water-milfoil; variable watermilfoil

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Verschiedenblaettriges Tausendblatt
  • Netherlands: Ongelijkbladig vederkruid
  • USA: variable-leaf water milfoil

EPPO code

  • MYPHE (Myriophyllum heterophyllum)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

M. heterophyllum is an aquatic plant native to southeast USA. It is considered invasive throughout New England and northwest USA and as an emerging invader in Europe because of its tendency for uncontrolled growth and subsequent formation of dense mats of submergent vegetative material throughout the water column and at the water surface. These mats prevent water flow, reduce sunlight, reduce oxygen availability, and impede swimming, boating and fishing. M. heterophyllum is banned from sale in some New England states and Washington state.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Dicotyledonae
  •                     Order: Haloragidales
  •                         Family: Haloragidaceae
  •                             Genus: Myriophyllum
  •                                 Species: Myriophyllum heterophyllum

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page
Recent phylogenetic analysis identifies the species as being a member of a clade of Myriophyllum endemic to North America including: Myriophyllum pinnatum Britton, Sterns & Poggenb., Myriophyllum hippuroides Nutt. ex Torr. & A. Gray, Myriophyllum farwellii Morong, Myriophyllum humile Morong, Myriophyllum laxum Schuttl. ex Chapm., and Myriophyllum tenellum Bigelow (Moody and Les, 2010).
 
As with most milfoils, M. heterophyllum can be easily confused with other species of Myriophyllum, especially when only vegetative (non-flowering) material is available for identification: M. heterophyllum is known to hybridize with M. laxum (Moody and Les, 2002).

Common names include variable-leaf watermilfoil, two-leaf watermilfoil and broad-leaf watermilfoil. The exact origins of these names are not known, but are presumed to be North American. In the aquarium trade, M. heterophyllum may be sold as ‘myrio’, ‘foxtail’, or ‘parrotfeather’.

Description

Top of page

M. heterophyllum is an aquatic plant that has submerged vegetation with emergent flowering spikes. Plants hermaphroditic, occasionally monoecious. Stem stout, to 100 cm; internodes crowded. Submerged leaves 4- or 5-whorled or scattered, pectinate, oblong in outline, (1.5-)2-4 × 1-3 cm; segments in 5-12 pairs, filiform, 0.5-1.5 cm. Inflorescence a terminal spike of 4-whorled flowers, 5-35 cm, in monoecious plants lowermost flowers female, uppermost ones male; bracts persistent, eventually reflexed, lanceolate to oblong or obovate, 4-18 × 1-3 mm, margin sharply serrulate; bracteoles ovate, ca. 1.2 × 0.6 mm, margin serrate. Petals 1.5-3 mm. Stamens 4. Fruit 4-loculed, subglobose, 1-1.5 mm; mericarps with 2 finely tuberculate ridges abaxially, apex beaked (Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2012).

Plant Type

Top of page Aquatic
Herbaceous
Perennial
Seed propagated
Vegetatively propagated

Distribution

Top of page

The distribution of M. heterophyllum is generally known, but not documented in detail. Aiken (1981) lists its distribution in North America as ‘…Virginia to Florida, northward to Ontario and Michigan, and westward to Missouri and Texas’. The species is generally considered as native to the eastern part of the USA, except the northeastern region. It is considered non-native and invasive in New England, where it appears to have been introduced circa 1932 via escape from cultivation with subsequent spread via vegetative propagules (Les and Mehrhoff, 1999). Since its initial introduction to New England, it has spread throughout the region and is the most common invasive aquatic plant in New Hampshire (Thum and Lennon, 2009). It is not clear if M. heterophyllum was historically native to the mid-Atlantic region (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia). For example, it is treated as a non-native invasive species in New York and eastern Pennsylvania, but is considered an extremely rare native and threatened species in nearby Delaware. Part of the confusion regarding its historical status (native/non-native) in northeastern USA may result from confusion with the closely related species M. pinnatum, which is considered native along the eastern coast from Florida through eastern Massachussetts (Aiken, 1981). M. heterophyllum is also considered non-native in western USA: while it is not clear when it was first introduced here, its recent spread in the region - especially in Washington state - is causing concern among water resource managers. Two causes for concern include the possible misidentification of M. heterophyllum with the closely-related, morphologically similar, and endemic western watermilfoil, M. hippuroides, and the potential for hybridization between the two species.

In Europe, it is found in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and Spain (EPPO, 2012, 2014).

Distribution Table

Top of page

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.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

ChinaPresentIntroducedYu et al., 2002, publ. 2003; EPPO, 2014
-GuangdongPresentIntroducedFlora of China Editorial Committee, 2012; EPPO, 2014

North America

CanadaPresentEPPO, 2014
-AlbertaPresentEPPO, 2014
-British ColumbiaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014Potential for confusion with native M. hippuroides
-New BrunswickPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-OntarioPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-QuebecPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
MexicoPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
USAPresentEPPO, 2014
-AlabamaPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-ArkansasPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-CaliforniaUnconfirmed recordUSDA-NRCS, 2008No confirmed records appear to exist. Potential for confusion with native M. hippuroides
-ConnecticutPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced1932 Invasive Les and Mehrhoff, 1999; USDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-DelawarePresent, few occurrencesNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2008Considered native but very rare. Confusion with other species may complicate account of species here
-FloridaWidespreadNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014Widespread throughout state, but not necessarily abundant
-GeorgiaPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008Known from locations throughout the state, but not necessarily abundant throughout
-IllinoisPresent Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-IndianaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008Occurs commonly in northern portion of state
-IowaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-KansasPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-KentuckyPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008Very rare species of special concern
-LouisianaWidespread Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MainePresent, few occurrences Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-MarylandPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-MassachusettsPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014Prohibited plant in this state
-MichiganWidespreadNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-MinnesotaLocalisedUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-MississippiPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-MissouriPresentNativeUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-New HampshireWidespreadIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008; Thum and Lennon, 2010; EPPO, 2014
-New JerseyPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008Historical status of species uncertain and may be complicated by confusion with closely-related milfoils, especially M. pinnatum
-New YorkPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008Historical status of species uncertain and may be complicated by confusion with closely-related milfoils, especially M. pinnatum
-North CarolinaPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008Occurs along the eastern portion of the state
-North DakotaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-OhioPresent, few occurrencesNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008Considered endangered
-OklahomaLocalisedNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008Found in southeastern portion of state
-OregonPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-PennsylvaniaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008Considered native and endangered to western portion of state. Considered non-native and invasive in eastern portion of state
-Rhode IslandPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-South CarolinaWidespreadNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008Common in eastern portions of the state
-South DakotaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-TennesseePresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-TexasPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-VermontLocalisedIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014Discovered in 2008 in a single location, possibly eradicated after discovery
-VirginiaPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-WashingtonPresent, few occurrences Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008; EPPO, 2014
-West VirginiaPresentUSDA-NRCS, 2008
-WisconsinPresentNative Not invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008

Central America and Caribbean

GuatemalaPresentEPPO, 2014

Europe

AustriaPresentIntroducedDAISIE, 2009; EPPO, 2014
BelgiumPresentIntroducedDAISIE, 2009; EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014
FrancePresentIntroducedEPPO, 2011; Lebreton, 2013; EPPO, 2014EPPO Reporting Service No. 2011/180. First found in July 2011
GermanyLocalisedIntroduced Invasive Hussner, 2005; EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014First recorded in North Rhine-Westphalia in 1979. Found in eastern Germany since 1960 spreading west
GreeceAbsent, invalid recordEPPO, 2014
HungaryAbsent, unreliable recordEPPO, 2014
NetherlandsPresentIntroduced Invasive EPPO, 2011; Q-bank, 2013; EPPO, 2014
SpainPresentIntroducedCirujano et al., 1997; EPPO, 2014
SwedenAbsent, no pest recordEPPO, 2014
SwitzerlandPresentEPPO, 2014
UKEradicatedIntroducedStace, 1991; EPPO, 2014

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Although native to eastern North America, M. heterophyllum is not considered native to northeastern USA. The first recorded observation of the species in northeastern USA was from Bridgeport, CT in 1932. Les and Mehrhoff (1999) presume the original introduction can be attributed to escape from cultivation, with subsequent spread by vegetative propagules escaping cultivation. Recent genetic analyses suggest that M. heterophyllum may have been independently introduced to northeastern USA on several occasions (R Thum, Grand Valley State University, USA, personal communication, 2010).

Very little is known about the history of introduction to western USA. The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (2007) claims that only four populations of M. heterophyllum have been found in the state, all within private lakes, while the Aquatic Plant Monitoring project at the University of Washington has 5 locations listed throughout the state of Washington as having M. heterophyllum (see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/lakes/aquaticplants/). 

In Europe, M. heterophyllum was first recorded in Germany in the 1960s, but details regarding its introduction and spread are lacking (Hussner, 2005). The species is also reportedly naturalized in Spain (Cirujano et al., 1997). It was first reported from France, in a private pond in Haute-Vienne department, in 2011 (Lebreton, 2013).

M. heterophyllum has also been reported in China (Yu et al., 2002), but details regarding its history and spread are lacking.

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
China   Yu et al. (2002, publ. 2003) Possibly from USA
Connecticut USA 1932 Escape from confinement or garden escape (pathway cause) Yes Les and Mehrhoff (1999) Has spread throughout northeastern USA
Germany Circa 1960s Yes Hussner (2005) Possibly from USA
Spain   Yes Cirujano et al. (1997) Possibly from USA
Washington USA   Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (2007)

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

M. heterophyllum is a popular plant in the aquarium and water gardening trades and can readily be obtained from any number of aquatic plant vendors under a variety of names. Plants genetically confirmed as M. heterophyllum have been purchased  from a variety of vendors under a variety of common names (myrio, foxtail, and parrotfeather) and scientific names of (M. heterophyllum, M. pinnatum, M. tuberculum, M. aquaticum and M. simulans). Once escaped from an aquarium or cultivated pond, M. heterophyllum is capable of spreading through vegetative fragments. As such, it can be moved around by any number of water and animal vectors and may be commonly transported among water bodies on boats and boat trailers. Seeds may also be dispersed by animal vectors.

EPPO (2012) considers M. heterophyllum to have the potential to become invasive across Europe, 'especially in shallow lakes and channels.'

Habitat

Top of page
M. heterophyllum occurs primarily in lakes, ponds, rivers and swamps, but can also grow in a semi-terrestrial form when stranded on mudflats.

Gerber and Les (1996) found M. heterophyllum to be associated with water bodies that had higher pH and calcium levels relative to other species of milfoils in Michigan and Wisconsin. Thum and Lennon (2010) found M. heterophyllum to be associated with higher order lakes - large, low elevation lakes with relatively high pH, alkalinity and conductivity - in its introduced range in New Hampshire, USA. However, it is not clear whether these relationships hold true across different geographic areas where the species occurs, or among distinct genetic lineages of M. heterophyllum.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Littoral
Coastal areas Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Coastal areas Present, no further details Natural
Mud flats Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Mud flats Present, no further details Natural
Freshwater
 
Irrigation channels Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Irrigation channels Present, no further details Natural
Lakes Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Lakes Principal habitat Natural
Reservoirs Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Reservoirs Principal habitat Natural
Rivers / streams Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Rivers / streams Principal habitat Natural
Ponds Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Ponds Principal habitat Natural

Biology and Ecology

Top of page
Genetics
 
M. heterophyllum exhibits potentially important genetic variation as revealed by chloroplast DNA sequences and ITS DNA sequences. Moody and Les (2002) identified three different ITS lineages, and cpDNA structure across M. heterophyllum’s native range has been investigated (R Thum, Grand Valley State University, USA, personal communication, 2010). Furthermore, northeastern and western invasions are comprised of multiple cpDNA and ITS haplotypes from these different geographic origins.
 
M. heterophyllum is known to hybridize with M. laxum (Moody and Les, 2002). 
 
Reproductive Biology

Reproduction may occur through asexual vegetative propagation and also sexual reproduction (seed production). Asexual vegetative propagation is thought to be the dominant mode of reproduction in introduced populations (e.g. Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board factsheet) (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/). The emergent flowers are wind-pollinated.

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
50 25

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page
Natural Dispersal
 
Natural dispersal is through floating fragments in water.
 
Vector Transmission
 
Various animal vectors (e.g. waterfowl) may carry fruits or floating fragments.
 
Accidental Introduction
 
Accidental introduction can result from release from aquaria, escape from cultivate ponds, and accidental transport on boats or boat trailers.
 
Intentional Introduction
 
M. heterophyllum is sometimes used as an aquarium plant and as an ornamental plant in ponds (EPPO, 2012).

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
HitchhikerMay attach to boats and boat trailers Yes
Internet sales Yes Yes Kay and Hoyle, 2001; Moody et al., 2008
Pet trade Yes Yes Kay and Hoyle, 2001; Moody et al., 2008

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Floating vegetation and debrisVegetative fragments can re-root Yes
MailInternet sales Yes Yes
Pets and aquarium species Yes Yes
Ship hull fouling Yes
Ship structures above the water line Yes
Water Yes

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Positive and negative
Environment (generally) Positive and negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

In general, aquatic invasive weeds in the USA cost about $110 million annually (Pimentel et al., 2000). In the specific case of M. heterophyllum, it has been associated with up to a 40% decrease in property values in New Hampshire (Halstead et al., 2003) in addition to costs associated with control.

Environmental Impact

Top of page

M. heterophyllum is highly competitive and able to outcompete other aquatic plants. It forms dense mats of submergent vegetative material throughout the water column and at the water surface, which can prevent water flow, reduce sunlight and reduce oxygen availability. The resulting low oxygen conditions can harm or kill aquatic organisms (EPPO, 2012).

Social Impact

Top of page

M. heterophyllum forms dense stands in water bodies, which have negative effects on boating, swimming and aesthetics.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Abundant in its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Reproduces asexually
  • Has high genetic variability
Impact outcomes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Monoculture formation
  • Negatively impacts animal health
  • Negatively impacts livelihoods
  • Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
  • Negatively impacts tourism
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Transportation disruption
  • Negatively impacts animal/plant collections
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition - shading
  • Hybridization
  • Rapid growth
  • Rooting
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses List

Top of page

Environmental

  • Wildlife habitat

General

  • Pet/aquarium trade

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Morphological keys (such as Aiken, 1981) are available but rely mostly on characters of flowers and fruits, which may not be present, as M. heterophyllum rarely flowers. It can best be recognised by its dense underwater growth and undivided, serrate emergent leaves (Q-bank, 2015).

Genetic identifications using the nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS) have become common (Moody and Les, 2002; Thum et al., 2006).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

M. heterophyllum may be confused with any number of Myriophyllum species. In general, Myriophyllum are distinguished by characters of flowers and fruits, which may not be present. Vegetative material of M. heterophyllum may especially be confused with closely related species M. humile, M. farwelli, M. pinnatum, M. laxum, and M. hippuroides. However, misidentifications with more distantly related species also occur (Aiken, 1981; Thum et al., 2006), especially M. verticillatum.

Genetic identifications using the nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS) have become common (Moody and Les, 2002; Thum et al., 2006). However, further work on the reliability of these markers based on much larger sample sizes is needed.

Prevention and Control

Top of page
Prevention
 
M. heterophyllum is listed as a prohibited plant in several New England states and Washington state,  USA, in efforts to prevent its introduction via escape from the aquarium trade. 
Banned from Connecticut in 2003 (CT invasive plants council http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ctcouncil/CT_Invasive_Plant_List.htm)
Banned in Massachusetts as of January 1, 2006 (possibly earlier) (Massachusetts Dept. of Agriculture Resources http://www.mass.gov/agr/)
Banned in Maine as of September 1, 2000 (Chapter 722 H.P. 1843 – L.D. 2581 = A law in Maine designed to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic plants)
Banned in Vermont as of 2003 (Vermont Dept. of Agriculture http://www.vermontagriculture.com/)
Banned in Washington as of 2005 (Washington Administrative Code title 16, chapter 16-750)
 
In Europe it has been included on the EPPO List of Invasive Alien Plants since 2012 (http://www.eppo.int/INVASIVE_PLANTS/ias_lists.htm#IAPList).
 
Rapid response
 
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation has developed a rapid response programme (see http://www.mass.gov/dcr/).
 
Public awareness
 
Voluntary lake monitoring programmes have been established in some states to detect invasion by invasive aquatic plants (for example, in Maine: http://www.mainevolunteerlakemonitors.org/).

Eradication
 
‘Small, recently detected infestations may be successfully eradicated through careful and thorough hand-pulling or using a tarpaulin.’ However, this can cause M. heterophyllum to fragment and spread further, so care must be taken (EPPO, 2014).
 
Eradication after establishment is not likely.

Control
 
Physical/mechanical control

Measures include mechanical harvesting, hand harvesting, suction harvesting, blanketing – a large blanket is placed over the population, limiting light and stressing the plants, ‘drawdown’ – water is drawn down in a reservoir area and milfoil beds are exposed to dry substrate, heat, cold, ice, etc. (Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation http://www.mass.gov/dcr/).
 
Movement control

Movement control is through inspection of boats and boat trailers on public waterbodies, also signs posted to inform boaters of the risks of transporting milfoil. Wash stations are available at some boat launches to provide a means of ridding milfoil fragments from boats.
 
Chemical control
 
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) – A systemic herbicide that is absorbed by vegetative tissue disrupts cellular growth, ultimately killing the plant. 
 
Fluridone – A systemic herbicide that is absorbed by vegetative tissue, causing bleaching. Fluridone inhibits the synthesis of carotenoid pigments, which play a protective role in the plant. Lack of carotenoid pigments leads to slow death via reduced food production and damage by sunlight.
 
Triclopyr – A systemic herbicide that is absorbed by vegetative tissue. Triclopyr inhibits the synthesis of important plant enzymes, which causes plant death. 

Monitoring and Surveillance
 
Voluntary lake monitoring programmes have been established in some states to detect invasion by invasive aquatic plants (for example, in Maine: http://www.mainevolunteerlakemonitors.org/)
 
In general, the taxonomy and geographic distribution of M. heterophyllum is not well understood. In particular, additional taxonomic study is necessary for the development of reliable identification methods, particularly of vegetative forms. This is especially relevant where native, rare and endangered status’s overlap among species that may be confused. For example, M. pinnatum is considered historically native to northeastern USA and may currently be rare. M. heterophyllum in contrast is considered invasive, and misidentification has serious implications for control versus conservation.
 
In addition, further study of the habitat requirements and development of ecological niche models would be useful for this species. Gerber and Les (1996) found M. heterophyllum to be associated with water bodies that had higher pH and calcium levels relative to other species of milfoils in Michigan and Wisconsin. Thum and Lennon (2010) found M. heterophyllum to be associated with higher order lakes - large, low elevation lakes with relatively high pH, alkalinity and conductivity - in its introduced range in New Hampshire, USA. However, it is not clear whether these relationships hold true across different geographic areas where the species occurs, or among distinct genetic lineages of M. heterophyllum.
 
Finally, while economic and recreational impacts are clear, scientific studies documenting the impacts on biota and ecosystems are absent.

 

References

Top of page

Aiken SG, 1981. A conspectus of Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in North America. Brittonia, 33:57-69.

Cirujano S; Medina L; Stübing G; Peris JB, 1997. Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx. (Haloragaceae), naturalized in Spain. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid, 55(1):164-165.

DAISIE, 2009. Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe. http://www.europe-aliens.org

EPPO, 2007. EPPO reporting service no. 2007/085. EPPO reporting service no. 2007/085. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, unpaginated. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse-0704.pdf

EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm

EPPO, 2012. Myriophyllum heterophyllum (Haloragaceae). Invasive Alien Plants. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/INVASIVE_PLANTS/iap_list/Myriophyllum_heterophyllum.htm

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2012. Flora of China Web. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Herbaria. http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/

Gerber D; Les D, 1996. Habitat differences among seven species of Myriophyllum (Haloragacea) in Wisconsin and Michigan. Michigan Botanist, 35:75-86.

Halstead JM; Michaud J; Hallas-Burt S; Gibbs JP, 2003. Hedonic analysis of effects of a nonnative invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties. Environmental Management, 32(3):391-398.

Hussner A, 2005. Distribution of alien aquatic plants in the river Erft (North Rhine-Westphalia). (Zur Verbreitung aquatischer Neophyten in der Erft, Nordrhein-Westfalen.) Frankfurter Geobotanische Kolloquie, 19:55-58.

Kay SH; Hoyle ST, 2001. Mail order, the internet, and invasive aquatic weed. Journal Aquatic Plant Management, 39:88-91.

Lebreton A, 2013. Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michaux [Haloragaceae] in Haute-Vienne (Limousin, France), and the situation of this invasive plant in France and in Europe. (Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michaux [Haloragaceae] en Haute-Vienne (Limousin, France), et situation de cette plante invasive en France et en Europe.) Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 43(1):180-192. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2338

Les DH; Mehrhoff LJ, 1999. Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in Southern New England: a historical perspective. Biological Invasions, 1(2/3):281-300. http://www.springerlink.com/(yqxryu55evlqoi4524ps0d45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,18,19;journal,25,26;linkingpublicationresults,1:103794,1

Moody ML; Les DH, 2002. Evidence of hybridity in invasive watermilfoil (Myriophyllum) populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(23):14867-14871.

Moody ML; Les DH, 2010. Systematics of the aquatic angiosperm genus Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae). Systematic Botany, 35:1-19.

Moody ML; Les DH; Ditomaso JM, 2008. The role of plant systematics in invasive aquatic plant management. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 46:7-15.

Pimentel D; Lach L; Zuniga R; Morrison D, 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience, 50(1):53-65.

Q-bank, 2013. Comprehensive databases of quarantine plant pests and diseases. http://www.q-bank.eu/

Stace C, 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Thum RA; Lennon JT, 2010. Comparative ecological niche models predict the invasive spread of variable-leaf milfoil (Myriophyllumheterophyllum) and its potential impact on closely related native species. Biological Invasions, 12(1):133-143. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x065475764481jnh/?p=b8eb71c07ab345d1a474d1e523242c58&pi=12

Thum RA; Lennon JT; Connor J; Smagula AP, 2006. A DNA fingerprinting approach for distinguishing native and non-native milfoils. Lake and Reservoir Management, 22:1-6.

USDA-NRCS, 2008. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, 2007. Washington State noxious weed list. Washington State noxious weed list. unpaginated. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov

Yu Dan; Wang Dong; Li ZhenYu; Funston AM; 2002, publ. 2003. Taxonomic revision of the genus Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in China. Rhodora, 104(920):396-421.

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
Connecticut Invasive Plant Councilhttp://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/ctcouncil/CT_Invasive_Plant_List.htm
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gatewayhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6Data 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.
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resourceshttp://www.mass.gov/agr/
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreationhttp://www.mass.gov/dcr/
University of Washington Aquatic Plant Monitoring Projecthttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/lakes/aquaticplants/
USDA-PLANTShttp://plants.usda.gov
Vermont Department of Agriculturehttp://www.vermontagriculture.com/
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (NWCB)http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/

Organizations

Top of page

Europe: DAISIE - Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe, Web-based service, http://www.europe-aliens.org

France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO), OEPP/EPPO, 1 rue Le Notre, 75016 Paris, http://www.eppo.org/

USA: MVLMP (Maine Volunteer Lake Monitors), 24 Maple Hill Road, Auburn, ME 04210, http://www.mainevolunteerlakemonitors.org

Contributors

Top of page

01/06/09 Original text by:

Ryan Thum, Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State University, Annis Water Resources Institute, 224 Lake Michigan Center, 740 West Shoreline Drive, Muskegon, MI 49441, 616-331-3989, USA

Matthew Zuelig, Grand Valley State University, Annis Water Resources Institute, 224 Lake Michigan Center, 740 West Shoreline Drive, Muskegon, MI 49441, 616-331-3989, USA

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map