DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction and Background

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction and Background 2008 STATEWIDE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL IN IDAHO 2008 Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho October 17, 2007 Prepared by the Idaho Invasive Species Council and the Idaho State Department of Agriculture Boise, ID The Idaho Invasive Species Council and the Idaho State Department of Agriculture prepared this document to provide a framework and strategy for the State of Idaho’s Eurasian watermilfoil Eradication Program. Additional copies of this publication can be found online at http://www.agri.idaho.gov/ or by contacting the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, 2270 Old Penitentiary Rd., Boise, ID 83701. 1 A Statewide Strategic Plan for Eurasian Watermilfoil in Idaho I. Introduction..................................................................................................................................4 II. Problem Statement.....................................................................................................................4 III. Goals...........................................................................................................................................5 IV. Objectives..................................................................................................................................5 V. Idaho Eurasian Watermilfoil Peer Panel Recommendations.................................................6 A. General.................................................................................................................................................. 6 B. Program organization........................................................................................................................ 7 C. Funding ................................................................................................................................................. 8 D. Regulatory and Permitting ............................................................................................................... 8 E. Research Needs .................................................................................................................................. 8 F. Agency and Public Education Needs ............................................................................................ 8 G. Proposed Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 9 VI. Idaho’s Regionalized Management Approach .......................................................................9 A. North Idaho ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1. Goal: Prevent Eurasian watermilfoil from establishing in water bodies where it does not currently occur (Prevention) ................................................................................................... 11 2. Goal: Contain Eurasian watermilfoil so that it does not spread beyond the area it currently covers within water bodies where it does occur (Containment)......................... 11 3. Goal: Eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil from water bodies where it does occur (Eradication)........................................................................................................................................ 11 4. Goal: Maximize and measure control technology effectiveness (Eradication)............. 12 B. Southwest Idaho............................................................................................................................... 12 1. Goal: Prevent Eurasian watermilfoil from establishing in water bodies where it does not currently occur (Prevention) ................................................................................................... 12 2. Goal: Contain Eurasian watermilfoil so that it does not spread beyond the area it currently covers in water bodies where does occur (Containment) .................................... 13 3. Goal: Eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil from water bodies where it does occur (Eradication)........................................................................................................................................ 13 4. Goal: Maximize and measure control technology effectiveness (Eradication)............. 13 C. East Idaho........................................................................................................................................... 13 1. Goal: Prevent Eurasian watermilfoil from establishing in Eastern Idaho (Prevention) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 VII. Eurasian Watermilfoil Technical Background ....................................................................14 A. Distribution ........................................................................................................................................ 14 B. Description......................................................................................................................................... 16 C. Habitat ................................................................................................................................................. 17 D. Reproduction..................................................................................................................................... 17 E. Growth and Development............................................................................................................... 18 F. Economic Importance...................................................................................................................... 18 G. Taxonomy........................................................................................................................................... 19 H. Proposed and Enacted Laws......................................................................................................... 19 VIII. Eurasian Watermilfoil Survey for Idaho..............................................................................20 A. ISDA Aquatic Plant Sampling Protocols .................................................................................... 21 1. Littoral Survey................................................................................................................................22 2. Point Intercept Survey ................................................................................................................. 23 IX. Eurasian Watermilfoil Management Techniques Available in Idaho .................................26 A. No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 26 B. Physical Controls ............................................................................................................................. 26 1. Water level drawdown.................................................................................................................. 26 2. Bottom barrier................................................................................................................................27 2 C. Manual Controls................................................................................................................................28 1. Hand-pulling ................................................................................................................................... 28 2. Diver Dredging............................................................................................................................... 28 3. Hand-cutting................................................................................................................................... 29 D. Mechanical ......................................................................................................................................... 30 1. Rotovation....................................................................................................................................... 30 2. Harvesting....................................................................................................................................... 31 E. Biological Controls........................................................................................................................... 31 1. Classical Biological Control....................................................................................................... 31 2. Other Biological Control Insects............................................................................................... 32 3. Grass Carp ...................................................................................................................................... 33 4. Pathogens ....................................................................................................................................... 33 F. Chemical Controls ............................................................................................................................ 33 1. 2,4-D.................................................................................................................................................. 34 2. Diquat and Endothall.................................................................................................................... 35 3. Fluridone ........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aquatic Plants of Saratoga Lake
    Saratoga Lake Aquatic Plant Survey – 2009 Prepared By Lawrence Eichler Research Scientist and Charles Boylen Associate Director Darrin Fresh Water Institute 5060 Lakeshore Drive Bolton Landing, NY 12814 (518) 644-3541 (voice) (518) 644-3640 (fax) [email protected] December 1, 2009 DFWI Technical Report 2009-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background . 1 Introduction . 1 Survey Site . 1 Methods . 3 Species List and Herbarium Specimens . 3 Point Intercept Survey . 3 Results and Discussion Saratoga Lake Survey Results . 5 Maximum Depth of Colonization . 6 Species Richness and Distribution . 7 Summary . 14 References . 19 Acknowledgements . 20 Appendix A. Saratoga Lake aquatic plant distribution maps . A-1 List of Tables Page Table 1 Aquatic plant species present in Saratoga Lake in 2009 ….………... 5 Table 2 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence …… 8 Table 3 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence in 2009 9 Table 4 Species richness for the point intercept surveys …………………… 13 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Distribution of point intercept survey points for Saratoga Lake ..…… 4 Figure 2 Depth distribution of Saratoga Lake sampling points ..……………… 7 Figure 3 Distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil in Saratoga Lake in 2009 10 Figure 4 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of all water depth 11 Figure 5 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of <6m water depth ………………………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 6 Species richness for native species in the point intercept survey ……. 13 Figure 7 A comparison of the distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) growth in Saratoga Lake in 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009…. 16 iii Report on Aquatic Vegetation of Saratoga Lake, New York Background Quantitative aquatic plant surveys were undertaken in 2009 for Saratoga Lake, New York as part of a cooperative effort between Aquatic Control Technologies (ACT) and the Darrin Fresh Water Institute, and supported by the Saratoga Lake Protection and Improvement District (SLPID).
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Profile of the North American Native Myriophyllum
    Chemical profile of the North American native Myriophyllum sibiricum compared to the invasive M. spicatum Michelle D. Marko a,b,*, Elisabeth M. Gross c, Raymond M. Newman a, Florence K. Gleason b a University of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA b University of Minnesota, Department of Plant Biology, 1445 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA c Limnological Institute, University of Konstanz, PO Box M659, 78457 Konstanz, Germany Received 7 September 2006; received in revised form 10 August 2007; accepted 27 August 2007 Available online 2 September 2007 Abstract Myriophyllum spicatum L. is a nonindigenous invasive plant in North America that can displace the closely related native Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov. We analyzed the chemical composition (including: C, N, P, polyphenols, lignin, nonpolar extractables, and sugars) of M. spicatum and M. sibiricum and determined how the chemistry of the two species varied by plant part with growing environment (lake versus tank), irradiance (full sun versus 50% shading), and season (July through September). M. spicatum had higher concentrations of carbon, polyphenols and lignin (C: 47%; polyphenols: 5.5%; lignin: 18%) than M. sibiricum (C: 42%; polyphenols: 3.7%; lignin: 9%) while M. sibiricum had a higher concentration of ash under all conditions (12% versus 8% for M. spicatum). Apical meristems of both species had the highest concentration of carbon, polyphenols, and tellimagrandin II, followed by leaves and stems. Tellimagrandin II was present in apical meristems of both M. spicatum (24.6 mg gÀ1 dm) and M. sibiricum (11.1 mg gÀ1 dm).
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Selected Invasive Non-Native Aquatic Species in Massachusetts
    A Guide to Selected Invasive Non-native Aquatic Species in Massachusetts C. Barre Hellquist Department of Biology Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts North Adams, Massachusetts 01247 James Straub Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Lakes and Ponds Program 131 Barnum Road, Bldg 3701 Devens, MA 01432 Non-native species are a problem in many Massachusetts lakes, ponds, and rivers. Once in a water body, many of these organisms can spread aggressively, out-competing and frequently eliminating native species. They reduce the health of our water bodies by disrupting natural ecosystems and altering fish and wildlife habitats. Frequently, they make swimming, boating, and fishing difficult or dangerous. Many plant species produce a dense vegetative cover on lakes, and the large amount of decomposing organic matter accelerates eutrophication in the lake system. Often, non-native aquatic species spread to new water bod- ies when they are transferred by boats, motors, bait buckets, fishing tackle and trailers. These infestations can be prevented if everyone remembers to completely clean their boats, motors, fishing equip- ment and trailers before leaving a site. Dispose of all organisms and drain water from your boat on dry land before leaving a water body. YOU CAN HELP!!! Learn how to identify these organ- isms and help prevent their spread throughout Massachusetts. For more information, or to report an infestation, please contact: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management Lakes and Ponds Program (508) 792-7716 ext 170 www.state.ma.us/dem/ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Office of Watershed Management (508) 767-2877 www.state.ma.us/dep/ Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangerd Species Program (508) 792-7270 ext.
    [Show full text]
  • (Potamogeton Crispus) in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California
    J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 59: 1–6 Molecular confirmation of hybridization with invasive curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, California AJAY R. JONES AND RYAN A. THUM* ABSTRACT populations of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is influenced by DNA substitutions in the phytoene desaturase gene (Michel Weed managers recognize that hybridization can influ- et al. 2004), which can be detected by genetic screening ence invasiveness in target weeds. As such, the identification (Benoit and Les 2013). Similarly, different genotypes of of hybridization in target weeds has become of fundamental Eurasian (Myriophyllum spicatum) and hybrid watermilfoil (M. interest. Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)isa spicatum 3 M. sibiricum) vary in their growth and response to heavily managed invasive aquatic weed in the United States. several herbicides (e.g., Glomski and Netherland 2009, The genus is known for extensive interspecific hybridiza- Berger et al. 2012, Thum et al, 2012, LaRue et al. 2013, tion, but the extent to which invasive P. crispus in the United Taylor et al. 2017, Netherland and Willey 2018), and distinct States hybridizes is unknown. In October 2018, an aquatic phenotypes of fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) differ in their vegetation survey in the California Sacramento–San Joaquin response to several herbicides (Bultemeier et al. 2009). river delta identified plants that were suspected as P. crispus Hybridization between invasive species and their native hybrids. These plants closely resembled P. crispus but relatives is one source of genetic variation that can differed in several ways, including having smaller, finer influence invasiveness (Ellstrand and Schierenbeck 2000). leaves and lacking the presence of true turions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fecundity of a Native Herbivore on Its Native and Exotic Host Plants and Relationship to Plant Chemistry
    Aquatic Invasions (2017) Volume 12, Issue 3: 355–369 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2017.12.3.09 Open Access © 2017 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2017 REABIC Special Issue: Invasive Species in Inland Waters Research Article Fecundity of a native herbivore on its native and exotic host plants and relationship to plant chemistry Michelle D. Marko1,2,* and Raymond M. Newman1 1Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA 2Biology Department, Concordia College, Moorhead, MN 56562, USA *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Received: 2 November 2016 / Accepted: 28 August 2017 / Published online: 20 September 2017 Handling editor: Liesbeth Bakker Editor’s note: This study was first presented at the special session on aquatic invasive species at the 33rd Congress of the International Society of Limnology (SIL) (31 July – 5 August 2016, Torino, Italy) (http://limnology.org/meetings/past-sil-congress/). This special session has provided a venue for the exchange of information on ecological impacts of non-native species in inland waters. Abstract The host range expansion of the specialist milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, from the native Myriophyllum sibiricum (northern watermilfoil) to invasive M. spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil) is one of the few examples of a native insect herbivore preferring, growing and surviving better on a nonindigenous host plant than it does on its native host plant. The milfoil weevil’s preference for the nonindigenous plant can be induced during juvenile development or through exposure to Eurasian watermilfoil as an adult. We evaluated how the fecundity of the milfoil weevil was affected over time by juvenile and adult exposure to the native, invasive and invasive × native hybrid milfoils and whether fecundity was correlated with host plant quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps
    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Potential for Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil by the Milfoil Weevil in Christina Lake, British Columbia
    University of Lethbridge Research Repository OPUS https://opus.uleth.ca Theses Arts and Science, Faculty of Frew, Cara Patricia 2016 Exploring the potential for control of Eurasian watermilfoil by the milfoil weevil in Christina Lake, British Columbia Department of Geography https://hdl.handle.net/10133/4773 Downloaded from OPUS, University of Lethbridge Research Repository EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL FOR CONTROL OF EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL BY THE MILFOIL WEEVIL IN CHRISTINA LAKE, BRITISH COLUMBIA CARA FREW Bachelor of Science, University of Lethbridge, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of the University of Lethbridge in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geography University of Lethbridge LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA, CANADA © Cara Frew, 2016 EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL FOR CONTROL OF EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL BY THE MILFOIL WEEVIL IN CHRISTINA LAKE, BRITISH COLUMBIA CARA FREW Date of Defence: October 12, 2016 Dr. Dan Johnson Professor Ph.D. Supervisor Dr. Craig Coburn Associate Professor Ph.D. Thesis Examination Committee Member Dr. Joseph Rasmussen Professor Ph.D. Thesis Examination Committee Member Dr. Stefan Kienzle Professor Ph.D. Chair, Thesis Examination Committee ABSTRACT Aquatic invasive plants present a growing risk to the environment and the economy. One of the most problematic invasive plants found in North American waterbodies is Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum. Eurasian watermilfoil was inadvertently introduced into Christina Lake, British Columbia, Canada, in the early 1980’s. Physical control methods have been utilized since the plant was first identified in the Lake, but regular intensive management is required to meet control objectives. Variable success has been reported in Ontario lakes and waterbodies in the United States using the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei as a biological control agent.
    [Show full text]
  • (Myriophyllum Spicatum) and Variable-Leaf Milfoil
    King County Noxious Weed Control Program BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Class B Non-Regulated Noxious Weed Control Recommended Variable-leaf Milfoil Myriophyllum heterophyllum Class A Noxious Weed Control Required Haloragaceae Legal Status in King County: Variable‐leaf milfoil is a Class A Noxious Weed according to Washington State Noxious Weed Law, RCW 17.10 (non‐native species that is harmful to environmental and economic resources and that landowners are required to eradicate). In accordance with state law, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board requires property owners to eradicate variable‐leaf milfoil from private and public lands throughout the county (eradicate means to eliminate a noxious weed within an area of infestation). Eurasian watermilfoil is a Class B Non‐Regulated Noxious Weed (non‐native species that can be designated for control based on local priorities). The State Weed Board has not designated this species for control in King County. The King County Weed Control Board recommends control of Eurasian watermilfoil where feasible, but does not require it. State quarantine laws prohibit transporting, buying, selling, or distributing plants, plant parts or seeds of these milfoils. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Impacts and History Eurasian watermilfoil is native to Eurasia but is widespread in the United States, including Washington. In King County it is present in M. spicatum, M. spicatum, numerous lakes and slow moving University of Minnesota Andrzej Martin Kasiński streams and rivers. Variable‐leaf milfoil is native to the eastern United States. It was introduced to southwestern British Columbia several decades ago and was confirmed in Thurston and Pierce Counties in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet Myriophyllum Aquaticum Parrot's Feather
    Centre for Aquatic Plant Management Information Sheet Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot’s Feather Myriophyllum aquaticum is an alien invasive species. It was first found in Britain in 1960 and is now found in about 300 sites in the UK. It is found mostly in ponds, but has also been found in reservoirs, gravel pits, streams, canals and ditches. It is most often found in eutrophic water bodies. In contrast to other members of the genus, which are native to the UK, it is able to grow as a terrestrial plant when ponds dry out and has even been found growing on the dry bank of a council tip in Cornwall. It produces emergent shoots in addition to submerged ones which give it the characteristic feathery appearance reflected in its common name. Only female plants have become established in the UK. It spreads by asexual means. Stems are brittle and the plant can propagate itself by growth of the small fragments of parent plants. Stem apices are better than other parts of the stem for regrowth, so during control, limit the number of loose stem apices produced. Unfortunately the species is widely grown in small garden ponds and sold by aquatic garden centres and nurseries. It is most likely that all the introductions have been a result of escapes or discards from these situations. Often garden centres also sell M. brasiliense, or M. propernaciodes, or M. propium all of which are highly invasive and should be avoided. They are native to lowland central South America and have become established in Europe in France and Austria to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrids of Eurasian Watermilfoil and Northern Watermilfoil Are
    1 DRAFT WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD Based on the updated Myriophyllum spicatum, Eurasian watermilfoil, written findings Proposed Class C noxious weed for 2018 Scientific Name: Myriophyllum spicatum L. x Myriophyllum sibiricum Kom. Common Name: Hybrid watermilfoil; Eurasian watermilfoil hybrid Synonyms: For hybrid: none; for Myriophyllum spicatum: none; for Myriophyllum sibiricum: Myriophyllum exalbescens Fernald; Myriophyllum spicatum L. var. exalbescens (Fernald) Jeps. Family: Haloragaceae Legal Status: Proposed Class C noxious weed; Myriophyllum spicatum Class B noxious weed Additional Listing: Myriophyllum spicatum is on the Washington State quarantine list (WAC 16- 752) Image: Hybrid watermilfoil stem, stem cross-section, and leaf, sample from Mattoon Lake in Kittitas County. Image by Jenifer Parsons, Washington State Department of Ecology. Description and Variation: Hybrids of Eurasian watermilfoil and northern watermilfoil are increasingly common in Washington State and are now being considered for listing as a Class C noxious weed. 2 These hybrid watermilfoils have intermediate characteristics, including a variable number of leaflets, usually in a range of overlap between the parent species, and some genetic strains may form turions, while others will not (R. Thum, personal communication, 2015). Hybridization occurs frequently, and therefore the hybrids have variable characteristics relative to their parents. Also, second generation hybrids have been found, where the hybrid back-crossed with one of the parents, leading to additional physical traits and potential complications where management is concerned (Zuellig and Thum 2012). Genetic analysis is required to be certain of the species when hybridization is suspected (Moody and Les 2002). Eurasian watermilfoil, northern watermilfoil, and hybrid watermilfoil, are submersed perennials with feather-like submersed leaves and flower stems with small flowers and very small leaf-like bracts that typically rise above the water surface.
    [Show full text]
  • IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results
    IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=78 Home | Early Detection | IPANE Species | Data & Maps | Volunteers | About the Project | Related Information Catalog of Species Search Results Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil :: Catalog of Species Search spiked watermilfoil ) Common Name(s) | Full Scientific Name | Family Name Common | Family Scientific Name | Images | Synonyms | Description | Similar Species | Reproductive/Dispersal Mechanisms | Distribution | History of Introduction in New England | Habitats in New England | Threats | Early Warning Notes | Management Links | Documentation Needs | Additional Information | References | Data Retrieval | Maps of New England Plant Distribution COMMON NAME Eurasian watermilfoil spiked watermilfoil FULL SCIENTIFIC NAME Myriophyllum spicatum L. FAMILY NAME COMMON Watermilfoil family FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME Haloragaceae IMAGES Incursion Incursion II Inflorescence 1 of 8 9/21/2007 3:29 PM IPANE - Catalog of Species Search Results http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=78 Habit NOMENCLATURE/SYNONYMS Synonyms: None DESCRIPTION Botanical Glossary Myriophyllum spicatum is a submerged, aquatic perennial that can have green, reddish-brown or whitish pink stems 1.8-6 m (6-20 ft.) long. The leaves are olive green in color, and less than 5 cm (2 in.) long. They are soft and feather-like in texture, and each mature submerged leaf has a central midrib with 12-20 filiform segments on each side. There are both male and female flowers on the same inflorescence. The female flowers are basal while the male flowers are located distally. The female flowers have a 4-lobed pistil and lack sepals and petals. The male flowers have 4 pink petals and 8 stamens.
    [Show full text]