DOCSLIB.ORG

Morphological Study of Lemna Minuta Kunth, an Alien Species Often

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Morphological Study of Lemna Minuta Kunth, an Alien Species Often Aquatic Botany 131 (2016) 51–56 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aquatic Botany jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquabot Short communication Morphological study of Lemna minuta Kunth, an alien species often mistaken for the native L. minor L. (Araceae) ∗ Simona Ceschin , Ilaria Leacche, Stefano Pascucci, Silverio Abati Roma Tre University, Department of Science, Viale G. Marconi 446, Rome 00146, Italy a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Lemna minuta Kunth and Lemna minor L. are two small aquatic floating plants easily mistakable for similar Received 16 April 2015 morphology. The need to distinguish with certainty these two species is a relevant issue, not only from a Received in revised form 20 January 2016 floristic viewpoint, but also for establishing management plans in wetlands where L. minuta is an invasive Accepted 30 January 2016 alien species as in Europe. The vein number and frond length are considered by most authors as the main Available online 28 February 2016 morphological characters discriminating the two species. However, in this study the use of these two characters has not been effective for the determination of 43 specimens out of 248 living specimens of Keywords: Lemna collected from 15 different wetlands of the Central Italy. Statistical analyses of the dataset made it Alien species possible to better define the variability of the morphological characters of these two species and to identify Floating plant additional diagnostic characters to use for improving the morphological discrimination between them. Congeneric species Decision Tree Among these characters, width, apex and shape of the frond, were the most helpful. Decision Trees were Duckweed elaborated for differentiating L. minor from L. minuta with greater efficiency both in the laboratory and in Morphological characterization the field. The increase in percentage of correct determination of Lemna specimens through measurement and parallel utilization of the emerged morphological characters will facilitate the botanists’ activities, but also will have practical implications, such as the ability to contribute better to the decision-making system in drawing up plans for plant biodiversity protection and/or eradication of the alien species. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction five aliens: L. minuta, L. aequinoctialis Welw., L. perpusilla Torrey, L. turionifera Landolt and L. valdiviana Phil. (DAISIE 2008). Aquatic ecosystems are among the most threatened habitats The Lemna’s vegetative body (frond) is a complex of tissues worldwide (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and among with few differentiations, reduced morphological features, and the most vulnerable to biological invasions (Vitousek et al., 1997; frequently lacking of reproductive structures. This scarcity of char- Capers et al., 2007). For a better conservation of their native com- acters for distinguishing the species of Lemna, makes the taxonomic munities, it becomes necessary to correctly verify the presence of discrimination between them difficult (Landolt 1986; Donald et al., invasive alien species and then to undertake management actions 2002; Wang et al., 2010), and in particular between L. minor and L. that can limit the spread and potential impact of these species in minuta, which exhibit very similar morphological characters (Lucey the invaded ecosystem. 2003; Mifsud 2010). Thus, these two Lemna species are easily mis- One invasive plant species widespread in European standing takable between them. inland waters is Lemna minuta Kunth (Verloove 2006; Branquart In literature, for the morphological discrimination between et al. 2007; Thiébaut 2007; Celesti-Grapow et al., 2009; Lukács et al., these two species there is no complete concordance between 2014), which is among the smallest and fastest growing flower- authors due to different and sometimes conflicting set of pheno- ing plants (Landolt 1986). In Europe, the Lemna genus (duckweeds; typic characters to use (e.g., Landolt 1992; Wolff and Landolt, 1994; Araceae) is represented by three native species: Lemna minor L., the Stace 2010; Eckehart 2011). For example the number of fronds most common European duckweed, L. gibba L. and L. trisulca L., and is not considered by Stace (2010) and Wolff and Landolt (1994) as a character for discriminating L. minuta from L. minor, while other authors recognize this character as diagnostic although they disagree among themselves about the numerical range associated ∗ Corresponding author. with L. minor and L. minuta. However, most authors agree that E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Ceschin), [email protected] primarily vein number and secondarily frond length are the best (I. Leacche), [email protected] (S. Pascucci), [email protected] (S. Abati). characters for differentiating the two species (Landolt 1992; Wolff http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2016.01.005 0304-3770/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 52 S. Ceschin et al. / Aquatic Botany 131 (2016) 51–56 Table 1 and Landolt, 1994; Galán and Castroviejo 2008; Stace 2010). Par- Repartition of the Lemna specimens based on vein number and length frond. ticularly, L. minor is usually described by 3–5 veins, frond 1–8 (10) mm long, while L. minuta by 0–1 vein and frond 0.8–2.0(4.0) mm Length frond (mm) long. <2 2–3 >3 However, both characters, although necessary to distinguish L. Vein n 0–1 58 (23%) (A) 33 (13%) (B) 10 (4%) (C) minor from L. minuta, show some limits. Vein number is a character >1 11 (4%) (D) 38 (15%) (E) 98 (40%) (F) often scarcely observable either in the field or in the laboratory, even on samples treated properly (Landolt 1992); frond length U-CMAD3). To better observe some qualitative characters, such is a character partially overlapping between the two species (e.g. as vein number and aerenchyma extension, the fronds were dis- Landolt 1992; Wolff and Landolt, 1994; Stace 2010). ◦ coloured with ethanol 95 for at least 24 h following Landolt (1992) Therefore it is necessary to identify other morphological char- and subsequently observed under a stereoscope with a light source acters, which combined with those mentioned above, can better from below. distinguish L. minor from L. minuta. This need is even more relevant For the analysis of quantitative characters, digital photos were in Europe since L. minor is a native species while L. minuta is an processed with the program ImageJ vers. 1.47. The measurements invasive alien species which often shares the same habitats with L. were carried out only on the major frond, if the specimen consisted minor, threatening its presence (Landolt 1986; Iberite et al., 2011; of contiguous fronds. Mazzini et al., 2014). The present study aimed to better define the ranges of the mor- phological characters usually used for discriminating L. minor from 2.2. Statistical analysis L. minuta, and to identify additional morphological characters for better differentiating these two species. Decision Trees were devel- Firstly, the Lemna specimens were characterized on the basis oped for differentiating the two species directly in the field or in the of the vein number and frond length, the two main mor- laboratory with the minimum number of morphological characters phological characters recognized in literature as discriminating and the lowest degree of error. between the two species. In particular, the specimens were assigned to one of two Lemna species on the basis of non- overlapping ranges of these two characters to allow a certain 2. Materials and methods assignment. On these specimens certainly assigned to L. minuta or L. minor 2.1. Collection and analysis of Lemna specimens and belonging to populations sampled at different sites, the mor- phological variability was tested (inter-population variability) by A morphological comparison between L. minuta and L. minor was applying the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test (H) on the medi- carried out. This analysis is based on observations and measure- ans of the measured values for the frond length. ments of morphological characters made on 248 living specimens Subsequently, the whole dataset was processed through of Lemna collected in 2013–2014 from 15 wetlands of the Central Non-Metric Dimensional Scaling (NMDS), for evaluating the con- Italy, between May and September. tribution of each variable (character) for discriminating the two Only the vegetative characters were chosen for the investigation species. Gower index for quantitative variables and Hamming index because no specimen was observed with flowering structures or for qualitative variables were used as measures of similarity dis- fruits, as indeed happens in most of specimens occurring in Europe, tance and a biplot was obtained correlating the scores of the two especially as regards L. minuta (Landolt 1980; Bramley 1997). In first ordination axes with each morphological character (Kendall addition, the characters related to the roots (total length, root cap) concordance coefficient, ). were not considered because their correct measurement would Exclusively for quantitative characters, a Spearman correlation not have been possible in some specimens, since the roots of both was performed for identifying any redundant characters and for species are very fragile and break easily. highlighting potential differences in the morphological plastic- A total of fourteen morphological characters, including both ity of the two species. To check significant differences between qualitative (*) and quantitative ones,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparison of Swamp Forest and Phragmites Australis
    COMPARISON OF SWAMP FOREST AND PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS COMMUNITIES AT MENTOR MARSH, MENTOR, OHIO A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jenica Poznik, B. S. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Master's Examination Committee: Approved by Dr. Craig Davis, Advisor Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Jeffery Reutter School of Natural Resources ABSTRACT Two intermixed plant communities within a single wetland were studied. The plant community of Mentor Marsh changed over a period of years beginning in the late 1950’s from an ash-elm-maple swamp forest to a wetland dominated by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel. Causes cited for the dieback of the forest include salt intrusion from a salt fill near the marsh, influence of nutrient runoff from the upland community, and initially higher water levels in the marsh. The area studied contains a mixture of swamp forest and P. australis-dominated communities. Canopy cover was examined as a factor limiting the dominance of P. australis within the marsh. It was found that canopy openness below 7% posed a limitation to the dominance of P. australis where a continuous tree canopy was present. P. australis was also shown to reduce diversity at sites were it dominated, and canopy openness did not fully explain this reduction in diversity. Canopy cover, disturbance history, and other environmental factors play a role in the community composition and diversity. Possible factors to consider in restoring the marsh are discussed. KEYWORDS: Phragmites australis, invasive species, canopy cover, Mentor Marsh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project like this is only possible in a community, and more people have contributed to me than I can remember.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska
    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Genetically Modified Plants Producing Bioactive Compounds for Human Health: a Systemic Review
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE & BIOLOGY ISSN Print: 1560–8530; ISSN Online: 1814–9596 19–0925/2019/22–6–1293–1304 DOI: 10.17957/IJAB/15.1201 http://www.fspublishers.org Review Article Characterization of Genetically Modified Plants Producing Bioactive Compounds for Human Health: A Systemic Review Muhammad Aqeel1†, Ali Noman2*†, Tayyaba Sanaullah3, Zohra Kabir4, Mahmooda Buriro4, Noreen Khalid5, Waqar Islam6, Muhammad Qasim7, Muhammad Umar Khan8, Anum Fida9, Saba Fida10, Muhammad Adnan Akram1 and Sabeeh-Ur-Rasool Sabir1 1School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, P.R. China 2Department of Botany, Govt. College University Faislabad, Pakistan 3Institute of Pure and Applied Biology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan 4Department of Botany, Govt. College Women University, Sialkot, Pakistan 5Department of Agronomy, Sindh Agricultural University, Tandojam, Pakistan 6In stitute of Geography, Fujian Normal Univeristy, Fuzhou, P.R. China 7College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China 8College of Life sciences, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, P.R. China 9 Department of Pharmacy, The Islamaia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan 10Department of Food Science, Govt. College for Women University Faisalabad, Pakistan *For correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] †These authors contributed equally to this manuscript Abstract Increasing knowledge on plant biotechnology, nutrition and medicine has altered the concepts regarding food, health and agriculture. Researchers in medical biotechnology as well as plant biology are recommending the application of plant systems, their products such as phytoceuticals, foods and phytotherapy to perk up human health along with disease prevention and treatment. Plants derived pharmaceuticals offer numerous advantages over other techniques such as mammalian cell culture methods etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Systematics of Lemnaceae, the Duckweed Family
    Systematic Botany (2002), 27(2): pp. 221±240 q Copyright 2002 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists Phylogeny and Systematics of Lemnaceae, the Duckweed Family DONALD H. LES,1 DANIEL J. CRAWFORD,2,3 ELIAS LANDOLT,4 JOHN D. GABEL,1 and REBECCA T. K IMBALL2 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043; 2Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210; 3Present address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2106; 4Geobotanisches Institut ETH, ZuÈ richbergstrasse 38, CH-8044, ZuÈ rich, Switzerland Communicating Editor: Jeff H. Rettig ABSTRACT. The minute, reduced plants of family Lemnaceae have presented a formidable challenge to systematic inves- tigations. The simpli®ed morphology of duckweeds has made it particularly dif®cult to reconcile their interspeci®c relation- ships. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of all currently recognized species of Lemnaceae has been carried out using more than 4,700 characters that include data from morphology and anatomy, ¯avonoids, allozymes, and DNA sequences from chloroplast genes (rbcL, matK) and introns (trnK, rpl16). All data are reasonably congruent (I(MF) , 6%) and contributed to strong nodal support in combined analyses. Our combined data yield a single, well-resolved, maximum parsimony tree with 30/36 nodes (83%) supported by bootstrap values that exceed 90%. Subfamily Wolf®oideae is a monophyletic clade with 100% bootstrap support; however, subfamily Lemnoideae represents a paraphyletic grade comprising Landoltia, Lemna,and Spirodela. Combined data analysis con®rms the monophyly of Landoltia, Lemna, Spirodela, Wolf®a,andWolf®ella.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Has No Questions
    Valentina Carpio-Téllez Parabel Ltd. 7898 Headwaters Commerce Street Fellsmere, FL 32948 Re: GRAS Notice No. GRN 000742 Dear Ms. Carpio-Téllez: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we) completed our evaluation of GRN 000742. We received Parabel’s notice on November 8, 2017 and filed it on December 19, 2017. Parabel submitted amendments to the notice on February 19, 2018; April 16, 2018; June 12, 2018; and August 1, 2018. The amendments included revisions to the dietary exposure assessment. The subjects of the notice are duckweed powder (DWP) and degreened duckweed powder (DDWP) for use as a source of protein in food at levels ranging from 3-20%.1 The notice informs us of Parabel’s view that this use of DWP and DDWP is GRAS through scientific procedures. Our use of the terms “duckweed powder” and “degreened duckweed powder” in this letter is not our recommendation of those terms as appropriate common or usual names for declaring the substances in accordance with FDA’s labeling requirements. Under Title 21 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 101.4, each ingredient must be declared by its common or usual name. In addition, 21 CFR 102.5 outlines general principles to use when establishing common or usual names for nonstandardized foods. Issues associated with labeling and the common or usual name of a food ingredient are under the purview of the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling (ONFL) in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The Office of Food Additive Safety (OFAS) did not consult with ONFL regarding the appropriate common or usual name for “duckweed powder” and “degreened duckweed powder.” Duckweeds are aquatic plants in the Lemnoideae subfamily of the plant family Araceae.2 The notifier intends to use multiple species from the genera Landoltia, Lemna, Wolffia, and Wolfiella.3 Although the products may derive from different duckweed species, the 1 Excluding products regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Duckweed, Lemna Minor, As a Protein Feedstuff in Practical Diets for Common Carp, Cyprinus Carpio, Fry
    Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 4: 105-109 (2004) Use of Duckweed, Lemna minor, as a Protein Feedstuff in Practical Diets for Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio, Fry Erdal Yılmaz1,*, øhsan Akyurt1, Gökhan Günal1 1 Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 31034, Antakya, Hatay, Turkey. * Corresponding Author: Tel.: +90. 326 245 58 45/1315; Fax: +90. 326 245 58 17; Received 09 February 2005 E-mail: [email protected] Accepted 09 June 2005 Abstract The use of dried duckweed, Lemna minor, as a dietary protein source for Cyprinus carpio common carp fry reared in baskets was the topic of investigation in this study. Five diets with similar E:P ratios were fed to common carp fry with an average initial weight of 0.29 g for 90 days. A diet containing 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% duckweed was substituted for the commercial 32% protein control-group diet, fed in normal rations to common carp. There was no significant difference between the growth performance of fish that were fed diets containing up to 20% duckweed and fish that were fed the control diet (P>0.05), except for the group of fish on the 15% duckweed diet. Also, no significant difference was observed among treatments with respect to feed utilization (P>0.05). While carcass lipid content increased, protein content of the fish fed a diet of 15% duckweed decreased compared to other groups (P<0.05). The results showed that a diet consisting of up to 20% content could be used as a complete replacement for commercial feed in diet formulation for common carp fry.
    [Show full text]
  • A Manual for the Survey and Evaluation of the Aquatic Plant and Invertebrate Assemblages of Grazing Marsh Ditch Systems
    A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditch systems Version 6 Margaret Palmer Martin Drake Nick Stewart May 2013 Contents Page Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. A standard method for the field survey of ditch flora 5 2.1 Field survey procedure 5 2.2 Access and licenses 6 2.3 Guidance for completing the recording form 6 Field recording form for ditch vegetation survey 10 3. A standard method for the field survey of aquatic macro- invertebrates in ditches 12 3.1 Number of ditches to be surveyed 12 3.2 Timing of survey 12 3.3 Access and licences 12 3.4 Equipment 13 3.5 Sampling procedure 13 3.6 Taxonomic groups to be recorded 15 3.7 Recording in the field 17 3.8 Laboratory procedure 17 Field recording form for ditch invertebrate survey 18 4. A system for the evaluation and ranking of the aquatic plant and macro-invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditches 19 4.1 Background 19 4.2 Species check lists 19 4.3 Salinity tolerance 20 4.4 Species conservation status categories 21 4.5 The scoring system 23 4.6 Applying the scoring system 26 4.7 Testing the scoring system 28 4.8 Conclusion 30 Table 1 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic plants of ditches in England and Wales 31 Table 2 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic invertebrates of grazing marsh ditches in England and Wales 40 Table 3 Some common plants of ditch banks that indicate salinity 50 Table 4 Aquatic vascular plants used as indicators of good habitat quality 51 Table 5a Introduced aquatic vascular plants 53 Table 5a Introduced aquatic invertebrates 54 Figure 1 Map of Environment Agency regions 55 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Response of Lemna Gibba L. (Duckweed) to Copper and Nickel Phytoaccumulation Effet De L’Accumulation De Cu Et Ni Sur La Croissance De Lemna Gibba L
    NOVATECH 2010 Growth response of Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) to copper and nickel phytoaccumulation Effet de l’accumulation de Cu et Ni sur la croissance de Lemna gibba L. (lentilles d’eau) N. Khellaf, M. Zerdaoui Laboratory of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Badji Mokhtar University, P.O. Box 12, 23000 Annaba, Algeria (E-mail: [email protected] (N. Khellaf); [email protected] (M. Zerdaoui)) RÉSUMÉ Pour déterminer la tolérance et la capacité de phytoaccumulation du cuivre (Cu) et du nickel (Ni) par une espèce de lentilles d’eau, Lemna gibba L., les plantes sont exposées à différentes concentrations de Cu et Ni (0,1 à 2,0 mg/L) dans une solution de Coïc et Lesaint dilué à 1/4. Le pH est maintenu constant à 6,0 (± 0,1) et le flux de lumière est de 12 h/jour. Le cuivre et le nickel sont tolérés par L. gibba à des concentrations ≤ 0,3 mg/L et ≤ 0,5 mg/L, respectivement. Cependant, la croissance des plantes diminue de 50% (I50) quand le milieu de culture contient 0,45 mg/L de Cu ou 0,75 mg/L de Ni. La plus faible concentration causant une inhibition complète (LCI) est de 0,5 et 1,0 mg/L respectivement en présence de Cu et Ni. Les résultats de l’analyse du métal dans les tissus des plantes révèlent une grande accumulation de Cu et une faible accumulation de Ni dans les tissus végétaux (pour la concentration ne causant aucune inhibition dans la croissance). Une diminution de la concentration de métal dans l’eau est également observée.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Duckweeds
    Introduction to Duckweeds Helena Crouch & Fred Rumsey Old Lemnaceae : 4 genera (now in Araceae) Spirodela (3 spp) Spirodela polyrhiza 7-10 roots (including Landoltia) Spirodela punctata 2-5 roots Lemna (14 spp) Lemna gibba 1 root Lemna minor 1 root Lemna turionifera 1 root Lemna trisulca 1 root Lemna minuta 1 root Lemna valdiviana 1 root Lemna aequinoctialis 1 root Wolffiella (10 spp) No roots Wolffia (11 spp) Wolffia arrhiza No roots Spirodela polyrhiza (Greater Duckweed) • Large fronds • Red underside • Many roots (5+) (but they get eaten) • Turns red in autumn • Multiple veins Spirodela polyrhiza (Greater Duckweed) © BSBI 2019 Distribution in Britain & Ireland (taken from the BSBI DDb Oct 2019) Ponds Canals Rivers Ditches (Base-rich water) Tolerant of some eutrophication Wolffia arrhiza (Rootless Duckweed) • Small globose- ovoid fronds • Bright green • No roots • Reproduces by budding Wolffia arrhiza (Rootless Duckweed) © BSBI 2019 Distribution in Britain & Ireland (taken from the BSBI DDb Oct 2019) Ditches Ponds Base-rich water GB: Vulnerable England: Least Concern Wales: Least Concern GB Scarce Lemna trisulca (Ivy-leaved Duckweed) • Stalked fronds form branching chains • Submerged, just below water surface • Flowering fronds float on the water surface Photo: © J. Bruinsma Lemna trisulca (Ivy-leaved Duckweed) © BSBI 2019 Distribution in Britain & Ireland (taken from the BSBI DDb Oct 2019) Rivers Canals Streams Ditches Lakes Ponds Mesotrophic to eutrophic water The Troublesome Ones • All that is MINUTE is not minuta • Fat Duckweed is not always FAT • Common Duckweed may not be the most COMMON • RED is not always RED Duckweed Frond shape Photo: © R.V. Lansdown Lemna minor Lemna gibba Ovate, widest near middle Rounder, widest near apex Length:width ratio 1.2-2.0 Length:width ratio 1.0-1.5 Enlarged Cells Lemna minor Upper surface uniform No large air cells Lemna gibba Reticulum on upper surface Large air cells visible Swollen cells underneath Photo: © Fred Giles Red Coloration Red Duckweed L.
    [Show full text]
  • Pickerel-Weed – Arrow-Arum – Arrowhead Emergent Wetland
    Pickerel-weed – Arrow-arum – Arrowhead Emergent Wetland System: Palustrine Subsystem: Non-persistent PA Ecological Group(s): Emergent Wetland and Marsh Wetland Global Rank: GNR State Rank: S4 General Description This community type is dominated by broad-leafed, emergent vegetation; it occurs in upland depressions, borders of lakes, large slow-moving rivers, and shallow ponds. The aspect of these systems changes seasonally from nearly unvegetated substrate in winter and early spring, when plants are dormant, to dense vegetation during the height of the growing season. The most characteristic species are pickerel-weed (Pontederia cordata), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), and wapato (Sagittaria latifolia). Other species commonly present include showy bur-marigold (Bidens laevis), mannagrass (Glyceria spp.), goldenclub (Orontium aquaticum), bur-reed (Sparganium spp), arrowhead (Sagittaria rigida), soft-stem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris), false water-pepper (Persicaria hydropiperoides), water-pepper (Persicaria punctata), water smartweed (Persicaria amphibia), jewelweed (Impatiens spp.), common bladderwort (Utricularia macrorhiza), duckweed (Lemna minor), water-meal (Wolffia spp.), and broad-leaved water-plantain (Alisma subcordatum). This community is often interweaved with aquatic beds on the deep side, and shallower marsh or swamp communities on the shore side, and thus species characteristic of those communities are often present. This type is restricted to shallow (less than 2 meters at low
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Replacement of Soybean Meal with Duckweed (Lemna Minor) Meal on the Growth Performance and Feed Utilization in Nile Tilapia Fingerlings Ibrahim, W
    Journal of Animal, Poultry & Fish Production; Suez Canal University, 2017 Effect of Replacement of Soybean Meal with Duckweed (Lemna minor) Meal on the Growth Performance and Feed Utilization in Nile Tilapia Fingerlings Ibrahim, W. M.; A. E. Eid; K. Mohamed* and B. Abd-elfattah Department of Animal and Fish Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. Received: 13/8/2017 Abstract: The present study was designed to evaluate the use of Duckweed (Lemna minor) as are placement of soybean meal Protein for Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fingerlings. Duckweed was incorporated into four isonitrogenous (30% crude protein) and isocaloric diets (gross energy (448) Kcal/100g). The replacement levels were 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the soybean meal protein diet in addition to control diet. The experiment lasted for 56 days. The best final weight gain, specific growth rate, survival rate and feed utilization (FCR, FE and PER) were significantly (p<0.05) higher for group of fish fed on diet replaced with 25% Duckweed from Soybean protein diet. The highest feed conversion ratio was obtained for group of fish fed on diet replaced by 100% Duckweed. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in protein and lipid in carcass proximate composition of the fish feed on diet replacement with 25% Duckweed from Soybean meal protein diet compared to those on the experimental groups. In conclusion, the study indicates that replacement soybean meal protein with 25% duckweed was the best in terms of growth performance and feed utilization. Keywords: Duckweed (Lemna minor), replacement, growth performance, feed utilization, carcass composition Nile tilapia.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FAMILY of LEMNACEAE in VENEZUELA Acta Botanica Venezuelica, Vol
    Acta Botanica Venezuelica ISSN: 0084-5906 [email protected] Universidad Central de Venezuela Venezuela LANDOLT, Elias; VELÁSQUEZ, Justiniano; LÄMMLER, Walter; GORDON, Elizabeth THE FAMILY OF LEMNACEAE IN VENEZUELA Acta Botanica Venezuelica, vol. 38, núm. 2, 2015, pp. 113-158 Universidad Central de Venezuela Caracas, Venezuela Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=86250805002 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative ACTA BOT. VENEZ. 38 (2): 113-158. 2015 113 THE FAMILY OF LEMNACEAE IN VENEZUELA La familia Lemnaceae en Venezuela Elias LANDOLT1 († 2013), Justiniano VELÁSQUEZ2, Walter LÄMMLER3 and Elizabeth GORDON2* 1 Institut für Integrative Biologie, ETH Zürich Universitätsstr 16, CH-8092, Zürich 2 Laboratorio de Ecología de Plantas Acuáticas, Centro de Ecología y Evolución, Instituto de Zoología y Ecología Tropical, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas 1041-A, A.P. 47058, Venezuela [email protected]; [email protected] (* Autor para correspondencia) 3 Landolt Duckweed Collection, Spiegelgasse 12, CH- 8001, Zürich ABSTRACT During a trip to the northern part of Venezuela in 2005 about 70 samples of Lemnaceae have been collected. Together with the results of herbaria studies it was possible to construct distribution maps of the respective Lemnaceae species in Ve ne- zuela. Fifteen species are recognized from which four have been recorded newly: Landoltia punctata, Lemna obscura, Wolffiella neotropica, Wolffia globosa. Out of these species, W. neotropica is endemic in the northeastern part of South Ame rica.
    [Show full text]