Salvinia molesta (Kariba weed)

Pictures

Picture	Title	Caption	Copyright
Title Leaves Caption Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); leaves short petiolate, in whorls of three, two upper and one lower; upper leaves floating. Copyright ©Colin Wilson	Leaves	Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); leaves short petiolate, in whorls of three, two upper and one lower; upper leaves floating.	©Colin Wilson
Title Foliage Caption Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); plants free floating, green, up to 30cm long, 5cm wide, mat-forming, mat to 2.5cm thick (or much thicker, depending on local conditions). Copyright ©Colin Wilson	Foliage	Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); plants free floating, green, up to 30cm long, 5cm wide, mat-forming, mat to 2.5cm thick (or much thicker, depending on local conditions).	©Colin Wilson
Title Foliage Caption Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); plants growing at 100m, Kerala, India. Copyright ©S.S. Bir	Foliage	Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); plants growing at 100m, Kerala, India.	©S.S. Bir
Title Infestation Caption Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); infestation growing in waterway south of Darwin, Australia. Copyright ©Bill Parsons	Infestation	Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); infestation growing in waterway south of Darwin, Australia.	©Bill Parsons
Title Infestation Caption Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); infestation. Thick mats of salvinia cut off light to submerged plants, depressing oxygen concentrations, increasing levels of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide in the waters beneath them. Kakadu National Park, Australian Northern Territory. Copyright ©Colin Wilson	Infestation	Salvinia molesta (kariba weed); infestation. Thick mats of salvinia cut off light to submerged plants, depressing oxygen concentrations, increasing levels of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide in the waters beneath them. Kakadu National Park, Australian Northern Territory.	©Colin Wilson
Title Adult Caption Cyrtobagous salviniae (salvinia weevil); adult on Salvinia. As a bio-control, this 4mm long weevil is highly effective in reducing giant salvinia infestations. Copyright ©Scott Bauer/USDA Agricultural Research Service/Bugwood.org - CC BY 3.0 US	Adult	Cyrtobagous salviniae (salvinia weevil); adult on Salvinia. As a bio-control, this 4mm long weevil is highly effective in reducing giant salvinia infestations.	©Scott Bauer/USDA Agricultural Research Service/Bugwood.org - CC BY 3.0 US

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name

• Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitch.

Preferred Common Name

• Kariba weed

International Common Names

• English: African pyle; aquarium water moss; aquarium watermoss; aquarium water-moss; Australian azolla; butterfly fern; cats tongue; giant azolla; giant salvinia; kariba-weed; koi kandy; salvinia; velvet weed; water fern; water spangles; watermoss
• French: fougère d’eau

Local Common Names

• Finland: rikkakellussaniainen
• Germany: Lästiger büschelfarn; Schwimmfarn
• India: African payal
• Indonesia: Kayambang
• Netherlands: drijfplantje
• South Africa: Water varing
• Thailand: Chawk hunu

Summary of Invasiveness

S. molesta is a free-floating aquatic plant native to south-eastern Brazil. It has been spread widely throughout the world during the past 50 years and is invasive in a variety of aquatic habitats, including lakes, rivers and rice paddies. Based on the environmental, economic and human health impacts, S. molesta ranks a close second behind water hyacinth on a list of the world's most noxious aquatic weeds. It has also been recently added onto the list of the world’s 100 most invasive species.

Taxonomic Tree

• Domain: Eukaryota
•     Kingdom: Plantae
•         Phylum: Pteridophyta
•             Class: Filicopsida
•                 Order: Hydropteridales
•                     Family: Salviniaceae
•                         Genus: Salvinia
•                             Species: Salvinia molesta

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell is one of four species that are members of the Salvinia auriculata complex (Mitchelll and Thomas, 1972). Other members include Salvinia auriculata Aubl., Salvinia biloba Raddi., and Salvinia herzogii de la Sota.

Originally identified as a form of S. auriculata, S. molesta was renamed based on its fruiting bodies in 1972 (Mitchell, 1972). Current confusion over probable synonyms include S. auriculata auct. non Aubl. and S. adnata Desv.

An older name, S. adnata Desv., was elevated above S. molesta by De la Sota (1995). However, as other researchers point out, this type cannot be identified using current identification techniques since it is sterile. Most researchers have continued to use the name S. molesta, as recommended by Moran and Smith (1999).

Description

Plants: perennial, heterosporous herbs, free floating, with microspores and megaspores produced on the same plant, green, up to 30 cm long, 5 cm wide, mat-forming, mat to 2.5 cm thick (or much thicker, depending on local conditions such as water current, waves, etc.); roots absent; stems irregularly branched, pubescent.

Leaves: short petiolate, in whorls of three, two upper and one lower; upper leaves floating, photosynthetic, entire, elliptic-ovate to rounded, with a distinct midvein, aerolate, 0.7-3 cm long, to 1.8 cm wide, apices rounded to emarginate, the aerolae either fairly uniform in size throughout, or inner longer than outer; papillae apex split into several hairs that form a birdcage-like structure which traps an air bubble when submerged, creating a non-wettable upper surface; leaves often folded in half under crowded growth conditions; lower leaves subsessile or petiolate, with or without sporocarps attached, 1.5-2.0 cm long, to 0.5 cm wide, the petiole to 3 cm long, submersed, non-photosynthetic, finely divided into linear segments (feathery), segments appearing as and functioning as roots.

Sporocarps (when present): pubescent, sessile to long-stalked, globose to ovoid, rounded to apiculate at apex, either clustered at apex of submersed leaf or arising alternately in two rows down the length of the submersed leaf similar in size, sessile or stalked, in clusters or rows on lower leaves, the sporocarp wall a modified indusium; microsporocarps inconspicuous, globular, with an internal short column, the columns basal, bearing many microsporangia; microspores minute; megasporocarps inconspicuous, globular, with many megasporangia.

Microsporangia: stalked, with one massula (group of microspores); massulae with 64 microspores.

Megasporangia: sessile, with one megaspore; megaspores to 2 mm long.

Plant Type

Distribution

S. molesta is native to south-eastern Brazil (Forno, 1983). It has been spread widely throughout the world during the past 50 years and can be found in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, southern USA and some Pacific islands (Thomas and Room, 1986a). 

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

Risk of Introduction

S. molesta is spread within an aquatic system by the movement of plants by wind, water currents, floods and animals. Birds, capybara, hippopotamus and waterbuffalo have all been documented to spread Salvinia between waterways (Room and Julien, 1995; Forno and Smith, 1999). Spread between aquatic systems is assumed to be mainly by humans moving plants intentionally (as ornamentals), unintentionally as a hitchhiker on boats, or in shipments of aquatic plants and fish (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Gewertz, 1983). Increased transport of commodities in international commerce will increase the movement of S. molesta around the world.

Habitat

S. molesta easily colonizes disturbed habitats including rice paddies, flood canals, artificial lakes and hydro-electric facilities (Barrett, 1989). In its native range, S. molesta occurs in artificial reservoirs, swamps, drainage channels and along river margins (Forno and Harley, 1979). It occurs most commonly in freshwater lakes, rivers, swamps, streams, ditches and water tanks (Reed, 1977; Westbrooks, 1984). It prefers stagnant or slow moving water, often in small bays and inlets of dissected shorelines and tributaries of small streams, where it is protected from wave action. It will also grow around emergent brush and trees on flooded shorelines where it is also sheltered from wave action. Though it grows as a free-floating hydrophyte, it has been observed to thrive on land in a zone of constant mist near the foot of Victoria Falls in southern Africa (Holm et al., 1977). It can also survive on mudbanks, and will tolerate some drying (Owens et al., 2004). It is quickly killed by sea water (Holm et al., 1977) but can tolerate lower concentrations of salt (Biber, 2009).

Habitat List

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Biology and Ecology

Reproductive Biology

S. molesta is a sterile pentaploid hybrid fern that forms spore sacs containing abortive spores due to anomalies during meiosis. Since the spores and megagametophytes that are produced are fairly short-lived, reproduction is exclusively vegetative (Mitchell, 1972). There is therefore speculation that all S. molesta infestations worldwide may be clones of a single genetic individual (Werner, 1988; Barrett, 1989).

Although S. molesta is sterile, it undergoes rapid vegetative reproduction by growth and fragmentation (Oliver, 1993). Mitchell (1979) reported that plant biomass can double in as little as 3-4 days in sterile culture and 8.1 days on Lake Kariba in Zimbabwe. Additional studies found doubling times of 6.2–5.3 days (dry weight) and 4.8–3.8 days (leaf area) (Sale et al., 1985). Mean relative growth rates, under a range of artificial and natural environmental conditions, may be as high as a 21.64% per day increase in leaf number and 17.16% per day increase in dry weight (Mitchell and Tur, 1975). Under favourable conditions, S. molesta can completely cover lakes and slow-moving streams and rivers with thick mats up to 1 m thick (Thomas and Room, 1986a). Live biomass ranges from 250-600 g per m² dry weight (Mitchell, 1979).

Similar surveys at Lake Naivasha, Kenya, found that some infestations of S. molesta in nutrient-rich water doubled in size in 4.5 days, with most growth occurring near papyrus stands. Older mats of S. molesta may be invaded by secondary vascular vegetation, resulting in the formation of sudd (a thick mat of plants) (Tarras-Wahlberg, 1986).

Growth Stages

Species in the S. auriculata complex progress through three phenotypes or growth stages (Ashton and Mitchell, 1989; Oliver, 1993). These major stages are controlled by age, degree of crowding, water turbulence and other abiotic factors. In addition to the three major stages, Ashton and Mitchell (1989) recognized an additional stage, which they described as a survival form, that occurs in harsh environments and grows slowly with flat, sometimes yellowish leaves.

1. Primary Phase. Leaves are small (about 10 mm in diameter) and lie flat on the water surface. This phase is observed during initial invasion and in plants recovering from damage. When the plant is introduced to a new habitat, it produces colonizing stage plants with thin stems that fragment easily and produce many new plants.

2. Secondary Growth Phase. Floating leaves grow to be about 25 mm long and wide and begin to fold upward, giving the structure a keeled shape. Leaves are cupped but do not overlap, and the lower surface is in contact with the water.

3. Tertiary Growth Phase. Leaves grow and thicken to approximately 38 mm wide and 25 mm long. The terminal bud now forms leaves which are compact, almost vertical, and acutely folded. This phase occurs when competition becomes severe at the height of the growing season. When growing conditions are ideal, the plant can reach this phase in 2-3 weeks (Sculthorpe, 1985; Holm et al., 1977). This phase has also been termed the mat stage.

Physiology and Phenology

S. molesta exhibits no lignification of tissues and therefore the plant must remain turgid for mechanical support of its organs. Air is trapped by the birdcage-like hairs that grow in close, parallel rows on the upper surface of the floating leaves, allowing S. molesta to float (Kaul, 1976).

Environmental Requirements

The growth of S. molesta is enhanced by high light intensities, relatively high water temperatures, and plenty of available nutrients (Mitchell and Tur, 1975). Water temperatures rising to 30°C, results in elevated growth rates, as does increasing the concentrations of nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus (Cary and Weerts, 1983). Thus, eutrophic habitats such as nutrient-rich springs and phosphate mine reclamation wetlands and ponds in the United States are particularly suitable for rapid colonization and growth (Oliver, 1993). Infestations of Salvinia can be killed when terminal buds are exposed to temperatures below -3°C, but the leaves can survive freezing air temperatures if they are under the water surface (Whiteman and Room, 1991).

S. molesta has a low tolerance of salinity and only produces new growth at salinity levels less than 5 ppt; levels above 11 ppt are toxic (Biber, 2008). Optimum growth occurs in nutrient-rich situations, pH 6-7.5, with water temperatures between 20 and 30°C, particularly when the nitrogen source is ammonium ions (NH4+) rather than nitrate ions (NO3-) (Cary and Weerts, 1983). Under these ideal conditions, a doubling of plant dry weight in 2.2 days has been recorded in Queensland, Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Climate

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Air Temperature

Soil Tolerances

Soil drainage

• seasonally waterlogged

Natural enemies

Means of Movement and Dispersal

S. molesta is spread within an aquatic system by the movement of plants by wind, water currents, floods and animals. Birds, capybara, hippopotamus and waterbuffalo have all been documented to spread Salvinia between waterways (Room and Julien, 1995; Forno and Smith, 1999). It is assumed to spread between aquatic systems mainly by humans moving plants intentionally (as ornamentals), unintentionally as a hitchhiker on boats, or in shipments of aquatic plants and fish (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Gewertz, 1983).

Pathway Causes

Pathway Vectors

Plant Trade

Impact Summary

Economic Impact

S. molesta is a pest of rice paddies in India, where it competes for water, nutrients and space, resulting in poor crop production (Anonymous, 1987). In studies on transplanted rice, S. molesta was found to cause a 12.5% yield loss due to reduction in panicle-bearing tillers (Azmi, 1988), although another study in Indonesia reported that a 25-100% cover of S. molesta before transplanting rice reduced infestations of whorl maggot (Hydrellia sp.). A cover of 60% applied 7 days after transplanting also suppressed brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) (Homoptera: Delphacidae) infestations. As a cover crop, S. molesta suppressed weed populations and gave a grain yield of 4.2-4.8 tons/ha, whereas plots weeded twice gave a grain yield of only 2.9 tons/ha (Bangun, 1988). Since becoming established in the Phillipines in 1979, S. molesta has become a major problem in irrigated lowland rice. Spread of S. molesta has been facilitated through its introduction into ponds as fish feed as well as into rice fields as an organic manure (mistaken for azolla) (Pablico et al., 1989).

Sudd islands (thick vegetation mats of S. molesta and other plants) can lead to the death of livestock in some areas after they have attempted to walk on them (Harper, 1986; in McFarland et al. 2004).

Environmental Impact

Thick mats of Salvinia spp. cut off light to submerged plants, often outcompeting rooted and submerged native plants and reducing vascular plant diversity (Sculthorpe, 1985). The formation of mats also lowers dissolved O2and pH, whilst simultaneously increasing CO2 and H2S, in waters beneath them (Mitchell, 1979). Benthic fauna usually decrease under well-established mats (Coates, 1982). As plants in the mat die and sink to the bottom, benthic fish can be impacted by changes in O2 concentrations and water depth as material accumulates (Sculthorpe, 1985). In India, S. molesta has invaded wetlands and reportedly replaced native flora (Gopal, 1988).

Social Impact

Infestations of S. molesta contribute to human health problems. Dense mats of S. molesta are an important plant host of Mansonia spp. mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), which have been identified as vectors of West Nile Virus, St. Louis Encephalitis, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis and rural elephantiasis (Pancho and Soerjani, 1978; Chow et al., 1955; Ramachandran, 1960; Lounibos et al., 1990). It also shelters mosquito species that are responsible for the transmission of encephalitis, malaria and dengue fever in other areas (Creagh, 1991/92). Infestations also harbour snails that transmit schistosomiasis (Holm et al., 1977).

Thick mats of S. molesta prevent the passage of boats, and even a single layer of plants is a major obstacle to canoes. As a result, infestations can severely impede transport by water as well as commercial and recreational fishing (McFarland et al., 2004). Large mats block access to drinking water by humans, domestic stock and wildlife, clog irrigation and drainage canals, and sweep fences and other light structures ahead of them during floods (Holm et al., 1977; Thomas and Room, 1986b). Entire villages that depended on aquatic transportation were abandoned along the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea when infestations of S. molesta limited access to healthcare, education and food (Gewertz, 1983).   

Extracts from S. molesta are being investigated as cytotoxic compounds against human cancer cells (Li, 2013).

Risk and Impact Factors

• Proved invasive outside its native range
• Abundant in its native range
• Fast growing
• Has high reproductive potential
• Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
• Reproduces asexually

• Altered trophic level
• Conflict
• Damaged ecosystem services
• Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
• Infrastructure damage
• Modification of hydrology
• Modification of natural benthic communities
• Modification of nutrient regime
• Modification of successional patterns
• Monoculture formation
• Negatively impacts agriculture
• Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
• Negatively impacts human health
• Negatively impacts livelihoods
• Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
• Negatively impacts tourism
• Reduced amenity values
• Reduced native biodiversity
• Threat to/ loss of native species
• Transportation disruption

• Competition - monopolizing resources
• Competition - shading
• Competition - smothering
• Rapid growth

• Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
• Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
• Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
• Difficult to identify/detect in the field
• Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Many studies have evaluated potential benefits and value of S. molesta and other aquatic weeds. S. molesta provides food for some fish and, if sparsely distributed, also provides shade and shelter. Salvinia spp. are eaten by ducks, geese, swans, pigs and sometimes by cattle, deer and upland game birds (Holm et al., 1977). Potential uses of the plant include as a compost and mulch, and as a supplement to livestock feed (Thomas and Room, 1986a; Oliver, 1993). However, it is not suitable as a sole source of fodder because of the high content of crude ash and tannins that reduce digestibility (Moozhiyil and Pallauf, 1986). S. molesta has also been investigated as a feed for tilapia (King et al, 2004), chickens (Ma’rifah et al, 2013), ducks (Sumiati and Nurhaya, 2003) and swine (Leterme et al, 2009).

S. molesta is not only efficient at removing nutrients from water but also in removing heavy metals, making it potentially useful in a variety of wastewater applications (Shimada et al., 1988). Experimentally, it concentrates phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, manganese, iron and zinc in dry tissues by about 10, 2, 1, 5, 3, and 10,000 times their respective concentrations in the water and appears to have some potential in water purification (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). S. molesta has been used in a variety of mining remediations around the world (Sukumaran, 2013; Ashraf et al, 2011; Prasad, 2010), and has also been used in treating high-nutrient swine farm runoff water (Yang and Chen, 1994).

A few studies have also investigated using S. molesta for biogas production (Thomas and Room, 1986). The potential energy of eight common aquatic weeds was determined in India by anaerobic digestion to produce methane, the energy production potential of S. molesta was approximately 108 Kcal/ha (Abbasi et al., 1990). Experimentally, S. molesta fermented aerobically at 32°C yielded 8.8 litres of biogas per kilogram of fresh weight. A 3:1 mixture of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and S. molesta increased the yield of biogas to 11.2 litres per kilogram of fresh weight (Abbasi and Nipaney, 1984).

Uses List

Animal feed, fodder, forage

• Fodder/animal feed

Environmental

• Landscape improvement

Fuels

• Biofuels

General

• Botanical garden/zoo
• Pet/aquarium trade
• Sociocultural value

Materials

• Fertilizer

Detection and Inspection

Within the S. auriculata complex, to which S. molesta belongs, all of the species are very similar in their vegetative morphology. Therefore, reproductive structures should be used for identifying species within the complex whenever possible, though plants bearing sporocarps are rarely reported in the United States (Riefner and Smith, 2009). A comparison of species within the complex is provided in the section Similarities to Other Species/Conditions.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

S. molesta is one of four species that are members of the S. auriculata complex (Mitchelll and Thomas, 1972). The other species are S. auriculata, S. biloba and S. herzogii. Members of this complex all have four hairs on the tip of each papilla that are joined to form a cage-like (or eggbeater) structure on the upper surface of mature leaves. Other species in the genus have hairs on the tip of each papilla, and each hair divides at the end into three or four free arms not joined into a cage (Riefner and Smith, 2009).

All species within the S. auriculata complex are very similar in the vegetative state. Reproductive structures should therefore be used for identifying species within the complex whenever possible. A comparison of species within the complex is provided below.

S. molesta
a. Upper leaves: with aerolae approximately equal size in outer third of leaf; those of outer one third at most twice as long as wide; those of the inner two-thirds considerably longer than wide.
b. Aerolae: 5-10 in number from margin to midrib.
c. Lower leaves: petiolate, divided distally with short branches not recurved.
d. Sporocarps: Globose to apiculate, sessile to short-stalked, stalks arranged in a racemose manner along the fertile axis.

S. auriculata
a. Upper leaves: with aerolae of approximately equal length in outer two-thirds of leaf; those of outer third at most as long as wide.
b. Aerolae: 10-26 in number from margin to midrib.
c. Lower leaves: sessile or long petiolate, divided distally with short recurved branches.
d. Sporocarps: globose, long-stalked, stalks mostly attached at the apex of submersed leaves; usually <14 in number.

S. biloba
a. Upper leaves: with aerolae of approximately equal length in outer third of leaf; the outer third at most twice as long as wide, the inner two-thirds considerably longer than wide.
b. Aerolae: 8-12 in number from margin to midrib.
c. Lower leaves: petiolate, divided distally with short branches recurved or not.
d. Sporocarps: apiculate, stalked, stalks attached along the fertile axis; often >10 in number.

S. herzogii
a. Upper leaves: with aerolae six times as long as wide.
b. Aerolae: 5-10 in number from margin to midrib.
c. Lower leaves: short petiolate, divided distally with short branches not recurved.
d. Sporocarps: ovoid, apiculate, sessile, arranged more or less compactly along the fertile axis.

S. natans and S. cucculata, which are found mostly in Asia, have hairs on the tip of each papilla, and each hair divides at the end into three or four free arms.

S. molesta and Ipomoea aquatica occur in similar habitats, but occupy very distinct ecological niches. I. aquatica has emergent shoots with submerged stoloniferous components, and S. molesta occupies the space between I. aquatica plants, sheltered by them. I. aquatica appears to be more aggressive of the two, colonizing new areas before S. molesta. The submerged components of I. aquatica show some resistance to adverse conditions, ensuring perpetuation of the species when favourable conditions return. Nitrogen and phosphorous are important growth factors in both macrophytes. I. aquatica shows a high absorption capacity for ammonium-nitrogen. Potassium and calcium are relatively high while magnesium and sodium are low in these habitats (Chin and Fong, 1978).

Prevention and Control

All imported shipments of aquatic plants, tropical fish and other similar products from infested countries should be closely examined for the presence of S. molesta. Since S. molesta reproduces vegetatively, even small undetected fragments are sufficient to permit an introduction into a new country. As with all noxious weeds, prevention is the most effective way to limit the spread of S. molesta. Production of S. molesta-free products (such as tropical fish and ornamental water plants) is the only sure way to prevent further global movement of this weed.

Chemical Control

The birdcage hairs on the upper surface of S. molesta leaves form a waterproof barrier to most herbicides. However, penetration can be enhanced by the use of a wetting agent or surfactant (Oliver, 1993). In Australia, repeated applications of paraquat in combination with a wetting agent were successful in controlling S. molesta (Miller and Pickering, 1980). Outdoor herbicide trials revealed that 8.97 kg/ha glyphosate mixed with a non-ionic surfactant controlled 99% of S. molesta 42 days post-treatment (Nelson et al., 2001). Laboratory studies also showed effective control over a broad range of application rates, including those as low as 0.45%, with mortality rates increased by the addition of surfactant (Fairchild et al., 2002).

In Malaysia, diquat was effective in controlling S. molesta (Kam-Wing and Furtado, 1977). Nelson et al. (2001) showed that 1.12 kg/ha diquat provided effective control of S. molesta and performed better than glyphosate, endothall and other combinations. However, Mitchell (1979) reported that diquat was only 1/8th as effective on S. molesta as paraquat. Complete control of S. molesta was observed 10-14 days after treatment with 2,4-D plus paraffin + calcium dodecyl benzene sulphonate using punt- or hovercraft-mounted sprayers (Julien, 1984).

In a study in New Zealand, fluridone formulations provided good control of S. molesta in outdoor tanks (Wells et al., 1986). Applications of hexazinone, ametryn and paraquat have also been effective in controlling S. molesta (Westbrooks, 1984). Terbutryn is recommended in South Africa (Vermeulen et al., 1996). In another study, foliar applications of hexazinone + surfactant resulted in complete control of S. molesta (Toth and Campion, 1979). In a greenhouse evaluation the most effective herbicide was linuron followed by diuron. Affected plants suffered localized chlorosis, necrosis, retardation of stem and leaf elongation and possibly leaf formation, and eventually died (Waithaka, 1980).

After S. molesta was found in January 1977 growing in the upper reaches of the Adelaide River, Northern Territory, Australia, a 10-year eradication program was initiated. Herbicides used to kill larger stands included paraquat, diquat, 2,4-D, and diuron + calcium dodecylbenzene sulphonate. Smaller areas of S. molesta were removed by hand and areas of overhanging vegetation along the edges of the river were burned to expose hidden plants. The last sighting of S. molesta on the river was in 1982; regular surveys were continued until 1986 to ensure that no re-infestation occurred (Miller and Pickering, 1988).

In the laboratory, detergent has been shown to damage S. molesta. In one experiment, spraying the plant with a 0.05% solution of a household detergent (linear alkyl benzene sulfonate) resulted in 85% decrease in total chlorophyll and 75% decrease in total protein within 48 hours after treatment (Chawla et al., 1989).

Physical/Mechanical Control

Manual removal of plant material as a maintenance control approach has been effective, but is very labour intensive. In India, manual removal has been used successfully to control 1,500 ha of S. molesta on a hydroelectric reservoir. In this case, it took 30 men to remove about half of the infestation over a 3-month period. Continued maintenance control required a similar operation on an annual basis (Murphy, 1988). In an infestation on the Adelaide River in the Northern Territory of Australia, the bulk of the sudd (thick mat of S. molesta and other plants) was manually removed and remaining plants along the river bank were successfully controlled with herbicides such as diquat and 2,4-D (Miller and Pickering, 1988).

Generally speaking, manual removal is only practical in the early stages of invasion (Oliver, 1993). After the plant becomes established, biomass of about 80 tons/ha and rapid regrowth make mechanical harvesting and removal impractical. According to Thomas and Room (1986a), mechanical removal is not cost-competitive with chemical control.

Floating booms and wire nets have some value in containing Salvinia spp. infestations. However, such equipment is subject to breaking under the weight of large windblown mats (Thomas, 1976).

Thomas (1990) reported the development of a simple 10 hp machine in India with a high capacity jet device that sucks, fluidizes and pumps out plant material to a desired height or location. The harvesting rate was reported to be 15 tons/hour for continuous operation, and at a lower cost than manual removal of plant material. Another mechanical harvester for S. molesta, reported by Sankaranarayanan et al. (1985), is mounted on a twin-pontooned floating platform that measures 3.6 x 1.5 m and weighs 415 kg. The harvesting capacity is 16 tons per hour and the machine can operate in water as shallow as 50 cm.

Biological Control

The salvinia weevil (Cyrtobagus salviniae) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) has been used successfully to control Salvinia spp. (Calder and Sands, 1985; Cilliers, 1991; McFarland et al., 2004). A semi-aquatic weevil native to Paraguay, Brazil, and Bolivia, C. salviniae has been released in 16 countries to control S. molesta (Wibmer and O’Brien, 1986; Julien and Griffiths, 1998; Julien et al., 2002).  C. salviniae also feeds on S. minima (common salvinia) in the USA (Tipping et al., 2010). In South Africa, Botswana, and India, where the weevil has been introduced, S. molesta was reduced to 1% of its former area (Room, 1986a; Creagh, 1991/92; Cilliers, 1991). On the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea, introductions of C. salviniae reduced a 250 km² infestation of the plant to 1.5 km² in 18 months (Thomas and Room, 1986b). In Sri Lanka, about 80% of infestations of S. molesta had been destroyed following the release of C. salviniae in 1986 (Room and Fernando, 1992). In Texas, 651,000 larvae, pupae and adult C. salviniae weevils were released at five sites with heavy S. molesta infestations, and in nine months the populations were reduced to less than 10% of their original extent (Flores and Carlson, 2006).

However, in Northern Territory, Australia, high water temperatures in water bodies have been associated with the failure of the weevil to control the plant. The effectiveness of C. salviniae in New South Wales, Australia, has also been variable, because the cooler climate of the region is not favourable for the growth of the insect (Oliver, 1993). Intermittent success in biological control of S. molesta using C. salviniae in Australia has been attributed to alternative stable states (Schooler et al., 2011; Stone, 2011).

Insect damage to S. molesta generally increases as the water temperature increases from 16 to 30°C (Forno and Bourne, 1986). Additionally, feeding and damage by C. salviniae is dependent on levels of nitrogen in the plant. In Sri Lanka, the weevil was released in several lowland areas in 1987; however, increases in weevil numbers were low due to low levels of nitrogen in the tissues of the plant until the end of a drought. After water and nitrogen levels returned to the previous levels the following year, infestations of the plant were destroyed by the weevil (Room et al., 1989).

Another potential biological control agent is an aquatic grasshopper, Paulinia acuminata (Orthoptera: Acrididae). However, adults and nymphs feed on S. molesta, water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and Azolla spp., and it is of questionable value as a biological control agent because it is not monophagic and has not been shown conclusively to control S. molesta (Sands and Kassaulke, 1986). Contradicting Sands and Kassaulke (1986), it has been suggested that P. acuminata has controlled a severe infestation of S. molesta 1973 on Lake Kariba, in central Africa (Zambia and Zimbabwe). After damming of the Zambesi River created the lake, growth of S. molesta increased rapidly and covered over 1000 km² of water at the peak infestation in 1962. By 1973, the infestation suddenly fell to 77 km² and remained at this level. It has been suggested that the introduction and release of P. acuminata to the lake from Trinidad in 1970, its subsequent establishment and high population in 1973 likely contributed to the control of S. molesta (Mitchell and Rose, 1979).

In Queensland, Australia, the pyralid moth Samea multiplicalis and C. salviniae were released at separate sites for biological control of S. molesta. Although C. salviniae removed large areas of the plant, S. multiplicalis did not reduce plant growth permanently at any site. In another study in Queensland, Australia, larval densities of Samea multiplicalis at 0.8 and 1.6 per plant caused severe damage to S. molesta. In the 15 experiments, Samea multiplicalis larvae destroyed about half the leaf area and reduced plant weight and number of ramets. However, roots and rhizomes remained undamaged, no buds were destroyed, and the plants were able to continue to grow (Julien and Bourne, 1988). In the United States, where Samea multiplicalis in native, it does not completely control but significantly impacts the closely related species S. minima in conjunction with releases of C. salviniae (Tewari and Johnson, 2011).

Of all insects released for the control of S. molesta, only C. salviniae has proven effective (Room, 1986b; Oliver, 1993; McFarland et al. 2004), and at a lower cost than chemical or mechanical control (Chikwenhere and Keswani, 1997)

Recently, the fungus Simplicillium lanosoniveum has been isolated from S. molesta specimens symptomatic for Brown Spot in Taiwan, but this agent’s potential for use as biological control is untested (Chen, 2008).

Regulatory Control

On a body of water, S. molesta can be moved by wind, currents, and ships. It is moved overland for short distances by adhering (with mud) to fur and feathers of animals, to clothing and to the sides and bottoms of boats and wheels of vehicles. Sometimes the plants are used as packing for fish and other products of fresh water lakes and streams. It has been spread around the world as a contaminant of various aquatic goods such as shipments of tropical fish and aquatic plants (Holm et al., 1977). It has also been spread maliciously to interfere with fishing (Gewertz, 1983). Increased transport of commodities in international commerce will increase the movement of S. molesta around the world. Because of the great difficulties associated with its manual, chemical and biological control, regulatory prevention remains the most effective management strategy available (McFarland et al., 2004).

S. molesta is listed as a Federal Noxious Weed in USA (Anonymous, 1981) and as a state noxious weed in Florida (Ramey, 1990) and North Carolina. It is also listed as a noxious weed in all states of Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992), Thailand (Chomchalow, 2011) and Europe (EPPO).

References

(National Institute for Environmental Studies) NIES, 2013. Salvinia molesta. Invasive Species of Japan., Japan: National Institute for Environmental Studies (online). http://www.nies.go.jp/biodiversity/invasive/DB/detail/81170e.html

Abbasi SA; Nipaney PC, 1984. Biogas production from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Mart. Solms alone and in combination with African payal (Salvinia molesta) Mitchell. Proceedings of the international conference on water hyacinth [edited by Thyagarajan, G.] Nairobi, Kenya; United Nations Environment Programme, 550-558

Abbasi SA; Nipaney PC; Schaumberg GD, 1990. Bioenergy potential of eight common aquatic weeds. Biological Wastes, 34(4):359-366; 30 ref.

Anonymous, 1981. Additions to the Federal Noxious Weed List. 7CFR Part 360. Federal Noxious Weed Act. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, Maryland, USA. Federal Register, 46:48688-48692.

Anushree Bhattacharjee, 2014. Another exotic weed invading corbett landscape. Indian Forester, 140(8):822. http://indianforester.co.in

Ashraf MA; Maah MJ; Yusoff I, 2011. Heavy metals accumulation in plants growing in ex tin mining catchment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8(2):401-416. http://www.ceers.org/ijest/subscription/ftaccess.asp

Ashton P; Mitchell D, 1989. Aquatic plants: pattern and modes of invasions, attributes of invading species and assessment of control programs. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamsson M, eds. Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective, New York, USA: Wiley and Sons, 111-154.

Azmi M, 1988. Weed competition in rice production. Proceedings of the National Seminar and Workshop on Rice Field Weed Management, 141-152

Baki B; Lim G; Sastroutmo S; Yusof O; Ridzuan I; Jullen M, 1990. Biological control of Salvinia molesta Mitchell with Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands. Malaysian experience. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Intl. Symp. Aquat. Weeds 8.

Bangun P, 1988. The role of Salvinia molesta to control weeds in lowland rice. Weedwatcher, No. 6-7:7

Barrett S, 1989. Waterweed invasions. Sci. Amer., 261(4):90-97.

Berthe A; Kone B, 2008. Wetlands and Sanitation - A View from Africa. Healthy Wetlands, Healthy People: Report of the Shaoxing City Symposium [ed. by Ounsted, M. \Madgwick, J.]. http://global.wetlands.org/Portals/0/publications/Book/WI_HEALTHY%20WETLANDS%20HEALTHY%20PEOPLE.pdf#page=43

Biber P, 2008. Determining salinity-tolerance of giant salvinia using chlorophyll fluorescence. Gulf and Carribean Research, 28:1-6.

Calder AA; Sands DPA, 1985. A new Brazilian Cyrtobagous Hustache (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) introduced into Australia to control salvinia. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 24(1):57-64; [19 fig.].

Cary PR; Weerts PGJ, 1983. Growth of Salvinia molesta as affected by water temperature and nutrition. I. Effects of nitrogen level and nitrogen compounds. Aquatic Botany, 16(2):163-172

Chawla G; Misra V; Viswanathan PN; Devi S, 1989. Toxicity of linear alkyl benzene sulphonate on some aquatic plants. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 43(1-2):41-51.

Chen RS; Huang CC; Li JC; Tsay JG, 2008. First report of Simplicillium lanosoniveum causing brown spot on Salvinia auriculata and S. molesta in Taiwan. Plant Disease, 92(11):1589. HTTP://www.apsnet.org

Chikwenhere GP; Keswani CL, 1997. Economics of biological control of Kariba weed (Salvinia molesta Mitchell) at Tengwe in north-western Zimbabwe - a case study. International Journal of Pest Management, 43(2):109-112.

Chilton E; Dugas C; Fowler L; Grodowitz M; Hyde; J; Jacono C; Nash G; Smart M; Stewart M; Tatum J, 1999. Salvinia molesta. Status Report and Action Plan, Prepared by the Salvinia task force Action Plan Subcommittee.

Chin LY; Fong FW, 1978. Preliminary studies on the productivities of the two most abundant macrophytes in Subang lake. Malaysian Agricultural Journal, 51(4):422-435.

Chomchalow N, 2011. Giant salvinia - an invasive alien aquatic plant in Thailand. AU Journal of Technology, 15(2):77-82. http://www.journal.au.edu/au_techno/2011/oct2011/journal152_article03.pdf

CHOW CY; THEVASAGAYAM ES; WAMBEEK EG, 1955. Control of Salvinia-a Host Plant of Mansonia Mosquitos. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 12(3):365-9.

Cilliers CJ, 1991. Biological control of water fern, Salvinia molesta (Salviniaceae), in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 37(1-3):219-224.

Cilliers CJ; Hill MP; Ogwang JA; Ajuonu O, 2003. Aquatic weeds in Africa and their control. In: Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J, eds. Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 161-178.

Coates D, 1982. Salvinia - possible biological effects on fish in Papua New Guinea? Aquatics, 4(3):2.

Considine M, 1984/1985. Weevils take on the water weeds. Ecos, 42:16-21.

Cook C, 1976. Salvinia in Kerala, S. India and its control. In: Varshney CK, Rzoska J, eds. Aquatic Weeds in Southeast Asia. The Hague, Netherlands: W.Junk, 241-243.

Courchamp F; Luque GM; Bellard C; Bertelsmeier C; Bonnaud E; Genovesi P; Simberloff D, 2013. Monster fern makes IUCN invader list. Nature, 498:37.

Creagh G, 1991/1992. A marauding weed in check. Ecos, 70:26-29.

de la Sota ER, 1995. New synonyms in Salvinia Seg. (Salviniaceae- Pteridophyta). (Nuevos sinonimos en Salvinia Seg (Salviniaceae- Pteridophyta).) Darwiniana, 33:309-313.

de Wet C, 1993. The control of floating water weeds in the SARCCUS region. Proc. Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe, 24-27 June 1991. Agriculture Programme Series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Mgt. Proc. Series No. 295.

Dias G, 1967. Eradication of water weed (Salvinia auriculata) in Ceylon. World Crops, 19:64-68.

Diop O; Hill MP, 2009. Quantitative post-release evaluation of biological control of floating fern, Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (Salviniaceae), with Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on the Senegal River and Senegal River Delta. African Entomology, 17(1):64-70. http://journals.sabinet.co.za/essa

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

European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), 2013. EPPO Reporting service, 2. Paris, France: EPPO, 24 pp.

Fairchild JF; Allert AL; Riddle JS; Gladwin DR, 2002. Efficacy of glyphosate and five surfactants for controlling giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 40:53-58.

Farrell T, 1978. The spread and control of Salvinia molesta in Lake Moodarra, Mount Isa, Queensland. In: Proc. 1st Conf. Counc. Austral. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Sci. Soc., 179-187.

Flores D; Carlson JW, 2006. Biological control of giant salvinia in East Texas waterways and the impact on dissolved oxygen levels. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 44:115-121.

Forno IW, 1983. Native distribution of the Salvinia auriculata complex and keys to species identification. Aquatic Botany, 17(1):71-83.

Forno IW; Bourne AS, 1986. Temperature-related effects of three insects on growth of Salvinia molesta in Brazil. Entomophaga, 31(1):19-26; [3 fig.].

Forno IW; Harley KLS, 1979. The occurrence of Salvinia molesta in Brazil. Aquatic Botany, 6(2):185-187.

Forno IW; Smith PA, 1999. Management of the alien weed, Salvinia molesta, in the wetlands of the Okavango, Botswana. In: An international perspective on wetland rehabilitation [ed. by Streever, W.]. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 159-166 pp.

Fowler SV; Holden ANG, 1994. Classical biological control for exotic invasive weeds in riparian and aquatic habitats - practice and prospects. Ecology and management of invasive riverside plants., 173-182.

Garbari F; Giovannini A; Marchetti D, 2000. Salvinia molesta D Mitchell (Salviniaceae) new for the Flora of Italy. Archivio Geobotanico, 6(1):73-78.

Garcia R, 2008. The risk of introducing exotic plants. (Du danger d'introduire des plantes exotiques.) Courrier international, 969. 57-58.

Gaudet JJ, 1976. Salvinia infestation on Lake Naivasha in East Africa (Kenya). Aquatic weeds in S.E. Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi, 1973., 193-209.

GBIF, 2010. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. GBIF. http://data.gbif.org/species/

Gewertz DB, 1983. Sepik River societies. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press, 196-217.

Giardini M, 2003. Notes on the biology, ecology and control of Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (Salviniaceae), an invasive species new to latium. (Note sulla biologia, l'ecologia e le modalita' di controllo di Salvinia Molesta D.S. Mitchell (Salviniaceae), specie infestante nuova per il lazio.) Rivista di Idrobiologia, 42(1/3):263-282.

Giardini M; Buccomino G; Buonfiglio V; Vecchio M; Vinci M, 2012. [English title not available]. (La Salvinia estocia del Pozzo del Meero.) Sant'Angelo Romano (Monti Cornicolani, Roma). Un territorio ricco di storia e di natura. Commune di Sant'Angelo Romano, Regione Lazio [ed. by Giardini, M.]. 294-301.

Gopal B, 1988. Wetlands: management and conservation in India. Wat. Qual. Bull., 13:3-6, 29.

Greathead A; deGroot P, 1993. Control of Agrica's floating water weeds. Proc. Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe, 24-27 June 1991, Agriculture Programme Series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Mgt. Proc. Series No. 295.

Gunn C; Ritchie C, 1982. Report of the Technical Committee to Evaluate Noxious Weeds. 1982. Unpublished report on taxa proposed for listing as Federal Noxious Weeds. U.S. Dep. Agric., An. Plt. Hlth. Serv., Plt. Prot. and Quar. Riverdale, MD, USA.

Hakim MA; Juraimi AS; Ismail MR; Hanafi MM; Selamat A, 2013. A survey on weed diversity in coastal rice fields of Sebarang Perak in Peninsular Malaysia. JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 23(2):534-542. http://www.thejaps.org.pk/docs/v-23-2/33.pdf

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

Holm LG; Plucknett DL; Pancho JV; Herberger JP, 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University Press of Hawaii.

Howard V, 2010. Salvinia molesta. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Gainsville FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=298

Hussner A, 2012. Alien aquatic plant species in European countries. Weed Research (Oxford), 52(4):297-306. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2012.00926.x/full

Imran M; Surayya Khatoon; Sahar Zaidi; Ali QM; Ghulam Akbar, 2013. Alien and invasive plant species of the Indus Delta. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology, 10(3):371-382. http://www.ijbbku.com

Indonesia Southeast Asian Weed Information Center, 1987. Indonesia girds to battle Salvinia molesta.. Weedwatcher, No. 2/3:1-2.

IPPC-Secretariat, 2005. Identification of risks and management of invasive alien species using the IPPC framework. Proceedings of the workshop on invasive alien species and the International Plant Protection Convention, 22-26 September 2003. xii + 301 pp.

ISSG, 2007. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database

ISSG, 2013. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/

Jayanth KP; Singh SP, 1993. Biological control of aquatic weeds. Indian Farming, 42(11):25-30.

Jenkins M; Lewis (National Capital Region Exotic Plant Management Team) M, 2012. Fact sheet. Invasive Plant Alert: Salvinia molesta. Washington DC, USA: US Department of the Interior.

Jiménez M M; Martínez G T; González A F, 2004. Introduction and quarantine in Mexico of Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) for the biological control of Salvinia molesta. (Introducción y cuarentena en México de Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) para el control biológico de Salvinia molesta.) In: Memoria XVI Congreso Latinoamericano de Malezas y XXIV Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Mexicana de la Ciencia de la Maleza, Manzanillo, Colima, México, del 10 al 12 de Noviembre de 2003 [ed. by Pedrero, G. M.\Valenzuela, J. A. D.\Díaz, G. M.\Ruiz, R. A. O.]. Wimauma, USA: Asociación Latinoamericana de Malezas, 486-488.

Julian AC, 1984. Control of water hyacinth and water lettuce by the use of new formulations and application ideas. Proceedings of the international conference on water hyacinth, 887-898; [5 tab.].

Julien MH, 1982. Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. Slough, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux., vi + 108 pp.

Julien MH; Bourne AS, 1988. Effects of leaf-feeding by larvae of the moth Samea multiplicalis Guen. (Lep., Pyralidae) on the floating weed Salvinia molesta.. Journal of Applied Entomology, 106(5):518-526.

Julien MH; Center TD; Tipping PW, 2002. Floating Fern (Salvinia). In: Biological control of invasive plants in the Eastern United States [ed. by Driesche Van , R]: USDA Forest Service, 413 p.

Kam-Wing L; Furtado J, 1977. The chemical control of Salvinia molesta Mitchell and some related toxicological studies. Hydrobiologia, 56:49-61.

Kaul RB, 1976. Anatomical observations on floating leaves. Aquatic Botany, 2:215-234.

King C; McIntosh D; Fitzsimmons K, 2004. Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) as a partial feed for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). In: New dimensions on farmed tilapia. Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, Manila, Philippines, 12-16 September, 2004 [ed. by Bolivar, R. B.\Mair, G. C.\Fitzsimmons, K.]. Corvallis, USA: AQUAFISH Collaborative Research Support Program, 750-754.

Kumar PS; Ramani SM; Singh SP, 2005. Natural suppression of the aquatic weed, Salvinia molesta S. Mitchell, by two previously unreported fungal pathogens. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 43:105-107.

Leterme P; Londoño AM; Muñoz JE; Súarez J; Bedoya CA; Souffrant WB; Buldgen A, 2009. Nutritional value of aquatic ferns (Azolla filiculoides Lam. and Salvinia molesta Mitchell) in pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 149(1/2):135-148. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03778401

Li S; Wang P; Deng G; Yuan W; Su Z, 2013. Cytotoxic compounds from invasive giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) against human tumor cells. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters.

Lounibos LP; Larson VL; Morris CD, 1990. Parity, fecundity and body size of Mansonia dyari in Florida. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 6(1):121-126.

Luque GM; Bellard C; Bertelsmeier C; Bonnaud E; Genovesi P; Simberloff D; Courchamp F, 2013. The 100th of the world's worst invasive weeds. Biologial Invasions.

Madeira PT; Tipping PW; Gandolfo DE; Center TD; Van TK; O'Brien CW, 2006. Molecular and morphological examination of Cyrtobagous sp. collected from Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Australia, and Florida. BioControl, 51(5):679-701. http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102853

Ma'rifa B; Atmomarsono U; Suthama N, 2013. Nitrogen retention and productive performance of crossbred native chicken due to feeding effect of kayambang (Salvinia molesta). International Journal of Science and Engineering, 5(1):19-24.

Marshall BE, 1993. Floating water-weeds in Zimbabwe, with special reference to the problem of water hyacinth in Lake Chivero. Control of Africa's floating water weeds. Proceedings of a workshop held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 24-27 June 1991., 23-29; [Agriculture Programme series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Management Proceedings series No. 295, also published by Biomass Users Network, Harare, Zimbabwe, and by CAB International, Ascot, UK].

McFarland Nelson DGLS; Grodowitz MJ; Smart RM; Owens CS, 2004. Salvinia molesta D. Mitchell (Giant Salvinia) in the United States: A review of species ecology and approaches to management. Final Report. Vicksburg, Mississippi: US Army Corps of Engineers - Engineer Research and Development Center, 35 pp.

Miller I; Pickering S, 1980. Salvinia, a noxious weed. Dept. Primary Produc., Div. Ag. Stock, N.T., Austrlia. Agnote Ref. No. 80/35.

Miller IL; Pickering SE, 1988. Eradication of salvinia (Salvinia molesta) from the Adelaide River, Northern Territory. Plant Protection Quarterly, 3(2):69-73.

Mitchell D, 1972. The kariba weed: Salvinia molesta. Brit. Fern Gaz., 10:251-252.

Mitchell D; Tur N, 1975. The rate of growth of Salvinia molesta (S. auriculata auct.) in laboratory and natural conditions. J. Appl. Ecol., 12:213-225.

Mitchell DS, 1979. The incidence and management of Salvinia molesta in Papua New Guinea. The incidence and management of Salvinia molesta in Papua New Guinea., 62 pp.

Mitchell DS; Rose DJW, 1979. Factors affecting fluctuations in extent of Salvinia molesta on Lake Kariba. PANS, 25(2):171-177

Mitchell DS; Thomas PA, 1972. Ecology of water weeds in the neotropics. An ecological survey of the aquatic weeds Eichhornia crassipes and Salvinia species, and their natural enemies in the neotropics. Technical papers in hydrology, No. 12. Paris, UNESCO., France 50 pp.

Moozhiyil M; Pallauf J, 1986. Chemical composition of the water fern, Salvinia molesta, and its potential as feed source for ruminants. Econ. Bot., 40:375-383.

Moran R; Smith AR, 1999. Salvinia adnata Desv. molesta D. Mitch. American Fern Journal, 89:268-269.

Mora-Olivo A; Yatskievych G, 2009. Shorter notes. American Fern Journal, 99(1):56-58. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1640/0002-8444-99.1.56

Murphy K, 1988. Aquatic weed problems and their management: a review. II. Physical control measures. Crop Protection, 7:283-302.

Nelson B, 1984. Salvinia molesta Mitchell: Does it threaten Florida? Aquatics, 6(3):6, 8.

Nelson LS; Skogerboe JG; Getsinger KD, 2001. Herbicide evaluation against giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management [40th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society, San Diego, California, USA, July 16-20, 2000.], 39:48-53.

Nguyen-van-Vuong, 1976. Salvinia spp. in Java. Weeds in Indonesia, 5(1-2):49-51.

Njuguna S; Thital G, 1993. The control of floating water weed infestations in Kenya. Proc. Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe, 24-27 June 1991. Agriculture Programme Series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Mgt. Proc. Series No. 295, 59-65.

Oliver J, 1993. A review of the biology of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta Mitchell). J. Aquat. Plant Mgt., 31:227-231.

Owens C; Smart RM; Dick GO, 2004. Regeneration of Giant Salvinia from Apical and Axillary Buds following Desiccation or Physical Damage. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 42:117-119.

Pablico PP; Estorninos LE Jr; Castin EM; Moody K, 1989. The occurrence and spread of Salvinia molesta in the Philippines. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 37(3):104-109

Pallewatta N; Reaser JK; Gutierrez AT, 2003. Invasive alien species in South-Southeast Asia: national reports and directory of resources [ed. by Pallewatta, N.\Reaser, J. K.\Gutierrez, A. T.]. Cape Town, South Africa: Global Invasive Species Programme, 111 pp. http://www.gisp.org

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].

Paradis G; Miniconi R, 2011. A new invasive aquatic species discovered in Corsica, south of the Gulf of Ajaccio: Salvinia molesta D.Mitch (Salviniaceae, Pteridophyta). (Une nouvelle espece aquatique invasive decouverte en Corse, au sud du golfe d'Ajaccio: Salvinia molesta D.Mitch (Salviniaceae, Pteridophyta).) Le Journal de Botanique de la Societe botanique de France, 54:45-48.

Parsons WT; Cuthbertson EG, 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press, 692 pp.

Peck JH, 2011. New and noteworthy additions to the Arkansas fern flora. Phytoneuron, 30:1-33.

Prasad MNV, 2010. Exploring the potential of wetland plants for cleanup of hazardous waste. Journal of Basic and Applied Biology, 4(3):18-28.

Ramachandran CP, 1960. The culture of Mansonia using an aquatic plant - Salvinia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 54:6-7.

Ramey V, 1990. Florida's Prohibited Aquatic plants. Gainesville, Florida, USA: Florida Dept. Natural Resources and Inst. Food Ag. Sci., Center for Aquatic Plants, Univ. of Florida.

Reed C, 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds. Potential Problems in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri. Handbook, No. 498.

Riefner Jr RE; Smith AR, 2009. Salvinia minima and S. oblongifolia (Salviniaceae) new to California, with notes on the S. auriculata complex. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 3(2):855-866.

Room P, 1986a. Biological control is solving the world's Salvinia molesta problems. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Intl. Symp. Aquat. Weeds, 7:271-276.

Room P, 1986b. Salvinia molesta - a floating weeds and its biological control. In: Kitching RL, ed. The Ecology of Exotic Animals and Plants. Milton, Australia: John Wiley, 165-186.

Room P, 1990. Ecology of a simple plant-herbivore system: Biological control of Salvinia. Tree, 90:74-79.

Room PH; Fernando IVS, 1992. Weed invasions countered by biological control: Salvinia molesta and Eichhornia crassipes in Sri Lanka. Aquatic Botany, 42(2):99-107.

Room PM; Gunatilaka GA; Shivanathan P; Fernando IVS, 1990. Control of Salvinia molesta in Sri Lanka by Cyrtobagous salviniae.. Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds., 285-290.

Room PM; Julien MH, 1995. Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell. In: The Biology of Australian Weeds, Volume 1 [ed. by Groves, R. H. \Shepherd, R. C. H. \Richardson, R. G.]. Melbourne, Australia: RG and FJ Richardson, 217-230.

Sabesan S; Pradeepkumar N; Panicker KN, 1990. Note on the utility of Neochetina spp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the control of water hyacinth, a host for Mansonioides breeding. Entomon, 15(3-4):285-286.

Sale PJM; Orr PT; Shell GS; Erskine DJC, 1985. Photosynthesis and growth rates in Salvinia molesta and Eichhornia crassipes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 22(1):125-137.

Sands DPA; Kassulke RC, 1986. Assessment of Paulinia acuminata (Orthoptera: Acrididae) for the biological control of Salvinia molesta in Australia. Entomophaga, 31(1):11-17.

Sankaranarayanan M; Thomas K; Hajikal M, 1985. Salvinia harvesting machine - a mechanical device to control African payal. In: Proc. of the Silver Jubilee Convention of the Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, 29-31 October, 1985, Bhopal, India, Volume 1, 72-75.

Schooler SS; Salau B; Julien MH; Ives AR, 2011. Alternative stable states explain unpredictable biological control of Salvinia molesta in Kakadu. Nature (London), 470(7332):86-89. http://www.nature.com/nature

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

Shimada N; Yajima S; Watanabe Y, 1988. Improvement of water quality using Salvinia molesta (1). Absorption of nitrogen and phosphorus by Salvinia molesta. Technical Bulletin, Faculty of Horticulture, Chiba University, No. 41:15-21

Smith P, 1993. Control of floating water weeds in Botswana. Control of Africa's floating water weeds. Proceedings of a workshop held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 24-27 June 1991., 31-39; [Agriculture Programme series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Management Proceedings series No. 295, also published by Biomass Users Network, Harare, Zimbabwe, and by CAB International, Ascot, UK].

Stone L, 2011. Theoretical ecology: Waltz of the weevil. Nature, 470:47-49.

Sukumaran D, 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from industrial effluent using constructed wetland technology. Applied Ecology and Environmental Services, 1(5):92-97.

Sumiati; Nurhaya A, 2003. Digestibility of dry matter, crude fiber, cellulose, and hemicelluloses of kayambang (Salvinia molesta) in local duck. Journal of Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture, Special Edition:204-209.

Sundaresan A; Reddy N, 1979. Salvinia molesta (Mitchell) - a serious water weed in Fiji. Fiji Agricultural Journal, 41(2):103-107.

Tarras-Wahlberg N, 1986. Observations on Salvinia and its environment at Lake Naivasha (Kenya). Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society and National Museum, 76(189):1-8.

Taylor A, 1993. Floating water weeds in East Africa, with a case study in northern Lake Victoria. Proc. Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe, 24-27 June 1991. Agriculture Programme Series No. CSC(93)AGR-18, Integrated Pest Mgt. Proc. Series No. 295, 111-123.

Tewari S; Johnson SJ, 2011. Impact of two herbivores, Samea multiplicalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), on Salvinia minima in south Louisiana. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 49:36-43.

Thomas K, 1976. Observations on the aquatic vegetation of Trivandrum, Kerala. In: Varshney CK, Rzoska J, eds. Aquatic Weeds in Southeast Asia. The Hague, Netherlands: W Junk, 99-102.

Thomas K, 1979. The extent of Salvinia infestation in Kerala (S. India): its impact and suggested methods of control. Env. Conserv., 6:63-69.

Thomas K; Room P, 1986b. Successful contorl of the floating weed Salvinia molesta in Papua New Guinea: a useful biological invasion neutralizes a disasterous one. Env. Conserv., 13:242-248.

Thomas KJ, 1990. Development of a simple machine for salvinia harvesting - a menacing aquatic weed. Proceedings of the international agricultural engineering conference and exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 3-6 December 1990., 147-151.

Thomas PA; Room PM, 1986. Taxonomy and control of Salvinia molesta.. Nature, UK, 320(6063):581-584; [3 fig.].

Tipping PW; Center TD, 2005. Influence of plant size and species on preference of Cyrtobagous salviniae adults from two populations. Biological Control, 32(2):263-268.

Tipping PW; Martin MR; Bauer L; Pokorny E; Center TD, 2010. Asymmetric impacts of two herbivore ecotypes on similar host plants. Ecological Entomology, 35(4):469-476. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/een

Toth J, Campion JG. Hexazinone for aquatic weed control. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Sydney, Australia, 1979., 245-248.

Vermeulen JB; Dreyer M; Grobler H; van Zyl K, 1996. A guide to the use of herbicides. 15th edition. National Development of Agriculture. South Africa.

Waithaka J, 1980. Studies of herbicidal control of Salvinia molesta. In: Proc. 7th East African Weed Science Conf, Kenyatta Univ. Coll., Nairobi, Kenya, 100-113.

Wee Y, 1986. Aquatic weed problem in Singapore's freshwater reservoir. Biotrop Special Publication No. 24,. Singapore: National Univ. of Singapore, Dept. Botany, 25-29.

Wells R; Coffey B; Lauren D, 1986. Evaluation of fluridone for weed control in New Zealand. J. Aquat. Plant Mgt., 24:39-42.

Werner P, 1988. Alien plants in Kakadu National Park. Southeast Asian Weed Information Center, Bogor, Indonesia. Weedwatcher, 8:12.

Wesbrooks RG, 2010. Oversight Hearing on Efforts to Control and Eradicate Giant Salvinia. Testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insualr Affairs.

Westbrook RG, 1984. Federal noxious weeds: Kariba weed. Weeds Today, 15(1):8-9.

Westbrooks R, 1989. Regulatory exclusion of Federal Noxious Weeds from the United States. Ph.D. Dissertation. Raleigh, North Carolina: Department of Botany, North Carolina State University.

Westbrooks R; deKozlowski S, 1996. Eradication of a new infestation of giant salvinia in South Carolina. Weed Science Society of America Abstracts 36:32.

Westbrooks R; Eplee R, 1989. Federal Noxious Weeds in Florida. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, 42:316-321.

Whiteman J; Room P, 1991. Temperatures lethal to Salvinia molesta Mitchell. Aquat. Bot., 40:27-35.

Whiteman J; Room P, 1991. Temperatures lethal to Salvinia molesta Mitchell. Aquatic Biology, 40:27-35.

Wibmer GJ; O'Brien CW, 1986. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato) of South America (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 39.

Wilson KA, 2002. Continued Pteridophyte invasion of Hawaii. American Fern Journal, 92(2):179-183.

Yamoah E; Gill GSC; Massey E, 2013. Eradication programme for four noxious weeds in New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection [New Zealand Plant Protection Society's Annual Conference, Napier War Memorial Conference Centre, Napier, New Zealand, 13-15 August 2013.], 66:40-44. http://www.nzpps.org/journal/66/nzpp_660400.pdf

Contributors

20/11/2013 Updated by:

Katherine Parys, United States Department of Agriculture, Southern Insect Management Research Unit, 141 Experiment Station Road, Stoneville, MS 38732, USA.

06/05/2010 Updated by:

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

Distribution Maps

You can pan and zoom the map

Save map

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/

Download KML file Download CSV file

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

OK Cancel

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

OK Cancel