DOCSLIB.ORG

Risicoanalyse Van De Uitheemse Egeria (Egeria Densa) in Nederland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Risicoanalyse Van De Uitheemse Egeria (Egeria Densa) in Nederland K 2014 Risicoanalyse van de uitheemse Egeria (Egeria densa) in Nederland K.R. Koopman, J. Matthews, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven Risicoanalyse van de uitheemse Egeria (Egeria densa) in Nederland K.R. Koopman, J. Matthews, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven 16 oktober 2014 Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Instituut voor Water en Wetland Research Afdeling Milieukunde, FLORON & Roelf Pot Onderzoek- en Adviesbureau In opdracht van Bureau Risicobeoordeling & onderzoeksprogrammering (Team Invasieve Exoten) Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) Ministerie van Economische Zaken Reeks Verslagen Milieukunde De reeks Verslagen Milieukunde wordt gepubliceerd door de afdeling Milieukunde, Instituut voor Water en Wetland Research, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 134, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Nederland (tel. secretariaat: + 32 (0)243653281). Verslagen Milieukunde 469 Titel: Risicoanalyse van de uitheemse Egeria (Egeria densa) in Nederland Auteurs: K.R. Koopman, J. Matthews, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven Omslag foto: Egeria (Egeria densa) in Hoogeveen, Nederland (Foto: J. van Valkenburg). Projectmanager: Dr. R.S.E.W. Leuven, Afdeling Millieukunde, Instituut voor Water en Wetland Research, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Nederland, e-mail: [email protected] Projectnummer: RU/FNWI/FEZ 62002158 Client: Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit, Postbus 43006, 3540 AA Utrecht Referentie cliënt: NVWA/BuRO/2014/5061 d.d. 27 mei 2014 Orders: Secretariaat van de afdeling Milieukunde, Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen en Informatica, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Nederland, e-mail: [email protected], onder vermelding Verslagen Milieukunde 469 Kernwoorden: Dispersie; ecologische effecten; invasief; invasiviteit; uitheemse soorten 2014. Afdeling Milieukunde, Instituut voor Water en Wetland Research, Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen en Informatica, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, Nederland Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar gemaakt in enige vorm van druk, fotokopie, microfilm of op welke andere wijze dan ook zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. Inhoud Samenvatting ........................................................................................................................ 3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introductie ..................................................................................................................13 1.1 Achtergrond en probleemstelling ............................................................................13 1.2 Onderzoeksdoelen .................................................................................................13 1.3 Overzicht en samenhang van het onderzoek..........................................................13 2. Methoden ...................................................................................................................15 2.1 Componenten van de risicoanalyse ........................................................................15 2.2 Kennisdocument ....................................................................................................15 2.3 Risicobeoordeling ...................................................................................................15 2.3.1 Dispersie potentieel, invasiviteit en ecologische effecten ................................15 2.3.2 Sociaal-economische effecten en gevolgen voor de volksgezondheid ............18 2.4 Kansrijke opties voor risicomanagement ................................................................18 3. Risicoanalyse ............................................................................................................19 3.1 Waarschijnlijkheid van binnenkomst .......................................................................19 3.1.1 Conclusie ........................................................................................................21 3.2 Waarschijnlijkheid van vestiging .............................................................................21 3.2.1 Verspreiding in Nederland ...............................................................................21 3.2.2 Habitat en fysiologische toleranties .................................................................23 3.2.3 Klimaat en biogeografische vergelijking...........................................................27 3.2.4 Conclusie ........................................................................................................29 3.3 Waarschijnlijkheid van verspreiding ........................................................................29 3.3.1 Conclusie ........................................................................................................30 3.4 Risicovolle gebieden in Nederland .........................................................................30 3.4.1 Conclusie ........................................................................................................31 3.5 Risicoclassificatie met het ISEIA-protocol ...............................................................31 3.5.1 Expert consensus risicoscores voor de huidige situatie in Nederland ..............31 3.5.2 Dispersie potentieel of invasiviteit....................................................................31 3.5.3 Kolonisatie van waardevolle en/of beschermde habitats .................................32 3.5.4 Negatieve effecten op inheemse soorten ........................................................32 3.5.5 Wijzigen van ecosysteemfuncties ....................................................................33 3.5.6 Soortclassificatie voor de huidige situatie ........................................................35 3.5.7 Expert consensus risicoscores voor de toekomstige situatie in Nederland ......36 1 3.5.8 Dispersie potentieel en invasiviteit in de toekomst ...........................................36 3.5.9 Kolonisatie van waardevolle en/of beschermde habitats in de toekomst..........36 3.5.10 Negatieve effecten op inheemse soorten in de toekomst ................................36 3.5.11 Wijzigen van ecosysteemfuncties in de toekomst ............................................37 3.5.12 Soortclassificatie voor de toekomstige situatie ................................................37 3.6 Sociaal-economische effecten ................................................................................38 3.7 Risico’s voor de volksgezondheid ...........................................................................39 3.8 Risicomanagement opties ......................................................................................39 3.8.1 Preventie van introductie .................................................................................39 3.8.2 Eliminatie ........................................................................................................40 3.8.3 Beheer ............................................................................................................41 4. Discussie ...................................................................................................................42 4.1 Hiaten in kennis en onzekerheden .........................................................................42 4.2 Vergelijking van beschikbare risicoclassificaties .....................................................42 4.3 Risicomanagement.................................................................................................43 5. Conclusies en aanbevelingen ....................................................................................45 6. Dankbetuigingen ........................................................................................................49 7. Referenties ................................................................................................................50 Appendix 1. Kennisdocument van Egeria densa...................................................................55 2 Samenvatting Egeria (Egeria densa Planchon, 1849) (Familie Hydrocharitaceae) is een soort van een geslacht dat inheems is in Zuid-Amerika. E. densa is een populaire koudwater aquariumplant in Nederland en wordt vaak samen met goudvissen (Carassius auratus L., 1758) of in bundels van zuurstofplanten verkocht. Sinds de eerste waarneming van E. densa in het wild nabij Dordrecht in 1944 wordt de soort in Nederland in toenemende mate aangetroffen, maar meestal op wisselende en geïsoleerde plekken. Ter ondersteuning van de besluitvorming over mogelijke maatregelen om (potentiële) ecologische en sociaal-economische effecten en gevolgen voor de volksgezondheid te voorkomen, heeft het Team Invasieve Exoten van de Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (Ministerie van Economische Zaken) opdracht gegeven om een risicoanalyse van E. densa uit te voeren. Om ondersteuning te bieden aan een risicoanalyse van E. densa in Nederland is een kennisdocument opgesteld over de verspreiding en invasiebiologie van de soort (Appendix 1). Hiervoor zijn literatuurgegevens verzameld over fysiologische toleranties, substraatvoorkeur, dispersievectoren, kolonisatie, ecologische en sociaal-economische effecten en mogelijke beheersmaatregelen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Updated Checklist of Aquatic Plants of Myanmar and Thailand
    Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1019 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1019 Taxonomic paper An updated checklist of aquatic plants of Myanmar and Thailand Yu Ito†, Anders S. Barfod‡ † University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand ‡ Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Corresponding author: Yu Ito ([email protected]) Academic editor: Quentin Groom Received: 04 Nov 2013 | Accepted: 29 Dec 2013 | Published: 06 Jan 2014 Citation: Ito Y, Barfod A (2014) An updated checklist of aquatic plants of Myanmar and Thailand. Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1019. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1019 Abstract The flora of Tropical Asia is among the richest in the world, yet the actual diversity is estimated to be much higher than previously reported. Myanmar and Thailand are adjacent countries that together occupy more than the half the area of continental Tropical Asia. This geographic area is diverse ecologically, ranging from cool-temperate to tropical climates, and includes from coast, rainforests and high mountain elevations. An updated checklist of aquatic plants, which includes 78 species in 44 genera from 24 families, are presented based on floristic works. This number includes seven species, that have never been listed in the previous floras and checklists. The species (excluding non-indigenous taxa) were categorized by five geographic groups with the exception of to reflect the rich diversity of the countries' floras. Keywords Aquatic plants, flora, Myanmar, Thailand © Ito Y, Barfod A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • Elodea Genus: Egeria Or Elodea Family: Hydrocharitaceae Order: Hydrocharitales Class: Liliopsida Phylum: Magnoliophyta Kingdom: Plantae
    Elodea Genus: Egeria or Elodea Family: Hydrocharitaceae Order: Hydrocharitales Class: Liliopsida Phylum: Magnoliophyta Kingdom: Plantae Conditions for Customer Ownership We hold permits allowing us to transport these organisms. To access permit conditions, click here. Never purchase living specimens without having a disposition strategy in place. The USDA does not require any special permits to ship and/or receive Elodea except in Puerto Rico, where shipment of aquatic plants is prohibited. However, in order to continue to protect our environment, you must house your Elodea in an aquarium. Under no circumstances should you release your Elodea into the wild. Primary Hazard Considerations Always wash your hands thoroughly before and after you handle your Elodea, or anything it has touched. Availability Elodea is available year round. Elodea should arrive with a green color, it should not be yellow or “slimy.” • Elodea canadensis—Usually bright green with three leaves that form whorls around the stem. The whorls compact as they get closer to the tip. Found completely submerged. Is generally a thinner species of Elodea. Has a degree of seasonality May–June. • Egeria densa—Usually bright green with small strap-shaped leaves with fine saw teeth. 3–6 leaves form whorls around the stem and compact as they get closer to the tip. Usually can grow to be a foot or two long. Is thicker and bushier than E. canadensis. Elodea arrives in a sealed plastic bag. Upon arrival, this should be opened and Elodea should be kept moist, or it should be placed in a habitat. For short term storage (1–2 weeks), Elodea should be placed in its bag into the refriger- ator (4 °C).
    [Show full text]
  • Patrones De Distribución De La Flora Vascular Acuática Estricta En El
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 79: 435- 448, 2008 Patrones de distribución de la fl ora vascular acuática estricta en el estado de Tamaulipas, México Distributional patterns of the strictly aquatic vascular fl ora in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico Arturo Mora-Olivo1*, José Luis Villaseñor2, Isolda Luna-Vega3 y Juan J. Morrone4 1Instituto de Ecología y Alimentos, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, 13 Blvd. Adolfo López Mateos 928, Ciudad Victoria 87040, Tamaulipas, México. 2Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Apartado postal 70-367, 04510 México, D. F., México. 3Departamento de Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México , Apartado postal 70-399, 04510 México, D.F., México. 4Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Departamento de Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado postal 70-399, 04510 México, D. F., México. *Correspondencia: [email protected] Resumen. Se analizaron los patrones de riqueza y distribución de las plantas vasculares acuáticas estrictas en el estado de Tamaulipas, México. Se registraron 93 especies, 62 de las cuales son típicas de ambientes lénticos. La subcuenca Río Tamesí fue la que registró el mayor número de especies (68, 73.1%). No se registraron especies endémicas del estado, aunque existen 2 especies restringidas al territorio mexicano (Lobelia purpusii y Oserya coulteriana). Se consideran como raras 29 especies (31.2%) por presentarse en una sola subcuenca y sólo 2 especies están distribuidas ampliamente en la mayoría de éstas (Bacopa monnieri y Echinodorus berteroi). Un análisis de parsimonia de endemismos (PAE) de las subcuencas hidrológicas del estado con base en la presencia compartida de especies reveló que las plantas acuáticas estrictas presentan un patrón de distribución anidado.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • (Egeria Densa Planch.) Invasion Reaches Southeast Europe
    BioInvasions Records (2018) Volume 7, Issue 4: 381–389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2018.7.4.05 © 2018 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2018 REABIC This paper is published under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0) Research Article The Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa Planch.) invasion reaches Southeast Europe Anja Rimac1, Igor Stanković2, Antun Alegro1,*, Sanja Gottstein3, Nikola Koletić1, Nina Vuković1, Vedran Šegota1 and Antonija Žižić-Nakić2 1Division of Botany, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Marulićev trg 20/II, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia 2Hrvatske vode, Central Water Management Laboratory, Ulica grada Vukovara 220, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia 3Division of Zoology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Author e-mails: [email protected] (AR), [email protected] (IS), [email protected] (AA), [email protected] (SG), [email protected] (VŠ), [email protected] (NK), [email protected] (AZ) *Corresponding author Received: 12 April 2018 / Accepted: 1 August 2018 / Published online: 15 October 2018 Handling editor: Carla Lambertini Abstract Egeria densa is a South American aquatic plant species considered highly invasive outside of its original range, especially in temperate and warm climates and artificially heated waters in colder regions. We report the first occurrence and the spread of E. densa in Southeast Europe, along with physicochemical and phytosociological characteristics of its habitats. Flowering male populations were observed and monitored in limnocrene springs and rivers in the Mediterranean part of Croatia from 2013 to 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant List Lomatium Mohavense Mojave Parsley 3 3 Lomatium Nevadense Nevada Parsley 3 Var
    Scientific Name Common Name Fossil Falls Alabama Hills Mazourka Canyon Div. & Oak Creeks White Mountains Fish Slough Rock Creek McGee Creek Parker Bench East Mono Basin Tioga Pass Bodie Hills Cicuta douglasii poison parsnip 3 3 3 Cymopterus cinerarius alpine cymopterus 3 Cymopterus terebinthinus var. terebinth pteryxia 3 3 petraeus Ligusticum grayi Gray’s lovage 3 Lomatium dissectum fern-leaf 3 3 3 3 var. multifidum lomatium Lomatium foeniculaceum ssp. desert biscuitroot 3 fimbriatum Plant List Lomatium mohavense Mojave parsley 3 3 Lomatium nevadense Nevada parsley 3 var. nevadense Lomatium rigidum prickly parsley 3 Taxonomy and nomenclature in this species list are based on Lomatium torreyi Sierra biscuitroot 3 western sweet- the Jepson Manual Online as of February 2011. Changes in Osmorhiza occidentalis 3 3 ADOXACEAE–ASTERACEAE cicely taxonomy and nomenclature are ongoing. Some site lists are Perideridia bolanderi Bolander’s 3 3 more complete than others; all of them should be considered a ssp. bolanderi yampah Lemmon’s work in progress. Species not native to California are designated Perideridia lemmonii 3 yampah with an asterisk (*). Please visit the Inyo National Forest and Perideridia parishii ssp. Parish’s yampah 3 3 Bureau of Land Management Bishop Resource Area websites latifolia for periodic updates. Podistera nevadensis Sierra podistera 3 Sphenosciadium ranger’s buttons 3 3 3 3 3 capitellatum APOCYNACEAE Dogbane Apocynum spreading 3 3 androsaemifolium dogbane Scientific Name Common Name Fossil Falls Alabama Hills Mazourka Canyon Div. & Oak Creeks White Mountains Fish Slough Rock Creek McGee Creek Parker Bench East Mono Basin Tioga Pass Bodie Hills Apocynum cannabinum hemp 3 3 ADOXACEAE Muskroot Humboldt Asclepias cryptoceras 3 Sambucus nigra ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Brazilian Elodea Egeria Densa
    Brazilian Elodea Egeria densa seagrant.psu.edu Photo courtesy of Richard Old, XID Services, Inc., Bugwood.org Species at a Glance Brazilian elodea, also known as Brazilian waterweed, is a leafy, submerged aquatic perennial with populations of only male plants in the United States. Because of its showy flowers and oxygen generating capabilities, it is widely used as an aquarium plant and is still sold today under its alias Anacharis. Species Description Brazilian elodea can reach lengths of greater than 3 m (10 ft) and survive either rooted or free-floating in up to 6 m (20 ft) of water. The leaves are bright to dark green, blade-shaped, with very fine teeth on the leaf margins that are only visible with magnification. Leaves are densely arranged in whorls of 4-6, although occasionally they can be found in whorls of three. Flowers are large and showy with three white Map courtesy of petals, a yellow center, and three green sepals. They emerge above or at the water’s United States Geological Survey. surface on slender stalks projecting from leaf axils near the stem tips. BRAZILIAN ELODEA Native & Introduced Ranges Egeria densa Native to Brazil and coastal regions of Argentina and Uruguay, Brazilian elodea is found to be invasive throughout the United States and at least 27 other countries. The earliest record in the United States was in 1893 when the plant was collected on Long Island, New York. In Pennsylvania, it can be found in the southeast region in Berks, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Philadelphia counties as well as in Allegheny and Bedford counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity Patterns of Pampean Stream Vegetation at Different Spatial Scales
    Aquatic Botany 126 (2015) 1–6 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aquatic Botany journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquabot Diversity patterns of Pampean stream vegetation at different spatial scales María Constanza Ranieri a, Patricia Gantes a,∗, Fernando Momo a,b a Laboratorio de Ecología, Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Nacional de Luján, INEDES – Instituto de Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentable, CC 221 6700, Luján, Buenos Aires, Argentina b Instituto de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, INEDES – Instituto de Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentable, J.M. Gutiérrez 1150, Los Polvorines, Buenos Aires, Argentina article info abstract Article history: We examined diversity patterns at different spatial scales by observing the changes in the slopes of Received 10 October 2014 Species–Area relationships (SAR) and Local–Regional (L–R) relationships. Stream vegetation was sampled Received in revised form 26 May 2015 at four scales (reach (N = 50), stream (N = 25), watershed (N = 9), and ecoregion (N = 2)) in the Pampa Region Accepted 30 May 2015 (Buenos Aires, Argentina). The slopes of the SARs fitted to the logarithmic model increased significantly Available online 4 June 2015 with scale from reach to ecoregion. For the L–R relationships, the slopes were significantly different from zero when analyzing stream richness in relation to reach richness, and undistinguishable from zero when Keywords: analyzing watershed richness in relation to stream richness. The differences found in the slopes of the Aquatic plants Species richness SAR mean that the scales proposed a priori are indeed different diversity scales. On the other hand, the Connectivity linear relationship between reach and stream richness suggests that macrophyte assemblages in streams function as metacommunities, whose dynamics could be explained by the dispersal process.
    [Show full text]
  • BRAZILIAN ELODEA (Egeria Densa) Description: Brazilian Elodea Is A
    BRAZILIAN ELODEA (Egeria densa) Description: Brazilian elodea is a member of the Hydrocharitaceae or waterweed family. Brazilian elodea is an aquatic perennial herb that can grow in depths of water up to 20 feet. Stems of the plant are slender, round, simple to frequently branched, and 10 to 16 feet in length. Once stems reach the surface of the water they form a thick mat. Leaves are arranged in whorls of 4 around the stem, but whorls of 3 to 8 are not uncommon. Leaves are oblong to linear, finely serrated, and less than 1 inch in length. Lower leaves are opposite, while upper leaves are crowded and in whorls. Stems and leaves are bright green in color. Flowers, produced on threadlike stalks that float on or rise above the water’s surface, are three-petaled and white in color. Seeds are spindle-shaped and 1/3 of an inch long. Plant Images: Brazilian elodea Leaf whorl Flower Leaves on stem Distribution and Habitat: Brazilian elodea is native to southeastern South America and has been spreading rapidly to many bodies of water throughout the United States. The plant can be found in still or flowing cool to warm fresh bodies of water. The plant prefers shallow waters that are enriched, somewhat acidic, and quiet or slow-moving. Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, ditches, pools, springs, and rivers are areas where Brazilian elodea can thrive once established. Life History/Ecology: Brazilian elodea is a submersed, freshwater aquatic perennial herb that reproduces through vegetative growth. Plants have specialized nodal regions or double nodes that occur at intervals of 6 to 12 nodes along a shoot.
    [Show full text]
  • Dense Waterweed
    June 2011 Dense Waterweed Egeria densa WHAT IS IT? A submerged, aquatic perennial herb that thrives in shallow, nutrient- rich, slow-moving or stationary water Forms dense stands of vegetation that exclude aquatic flora and fauna Native to parts of South America, it was introduced to Australia by the aquarium trade Also known as: Brazilian waterweed, elodea, anacharis, egeria Synonyms: Elodea densa, Anacharis densa, Philotria densa, E. canadensis var. gigantean Dense waterweed - Robert Videki, Doronicum Kft., Bugwood. Org WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? Can form dense stands that restrict water movement, trap sediment, and cause fluctuations in water quality Blocks light penetration in water bodies, adversely affecting aquatic wildlife Eutrophication from decomposing plants can occur in warm conditions when water levels drop Dense beds interfere with water supplies, irrigation projects, and the navigation and recreational use of waterways Infestation of dense waterweed. Leslie J. Mehrhoff, Univ. Connecticut, Bugwood.org What are State Alert Weeds? These are invasive weeds that are not known to be in South Australia, or if present, occur in low numbers in a restricted area, and are still capable of being eradicated. An Alert Weed would pose a serious threat to the State’s primary industries, natural environments or human health if it became established here. All Alert Weeds are declared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004: their transport and sale are prohibited (Sect. 175 and 177), plants must be destroyed (Sect. 182), and if found on your land their presence must be notified to NRM authorities (Sect. 180) – refer overleaf. DESCRIPTION Minutely serrated leaves occur in whorls of 3-8 on long cylindrical stems growing to 1.5 m long, which form dense submerged leaf masses.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Document for Risk Analysis of the Non-Native Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria Densa) in the Netherlands
    2014 Knowledge document for risk analysis of the non-native Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) in the Netherlands J. Matthews, K.R. Koopman, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven Knowledge document for risk analysis of the non-native Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) in the Netherlands J. Matthews, K.R. Koopman, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven 16 October 2014 Radboud University Nijmegen, Institute for Water and Wetland Research FLORON & Roelf Pot Research and Consultancy Commissioned by Office for Risk Assessment and Research (Invasive Alien Species Team) Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority Ministry of Economic Affairs Series of Reports on Environmental Science The series of reports on Environmental Science are edited and published by the Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands (tel. secretariat: + 31 (0)24 365 32 81). Reports Environmental Science 468 Title: Knowledge document for risk analysis of the non-native Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) in the Netherlands Authors: J. Matthews, K.R. Koopman, R. Beringen, B. Odé, R. Pot, G. van der Velde, J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg & R.S.E.W. Leuven Cover photo: Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) at Hoogeveen, the Netherlands (Photo: J. van Valkenburg). Project manager: Dr. R.S.E.W. Leuven, Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, the Netherlands, e-mail: [email protected] Project number: RU/FNWI/FEZ 62002158 Client: Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, P.O.
    [Show full text]