ArticlePDF Available

The invasive water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora (Michaux) Greuter & Burdet (Spermatophyta: Onagraceae) in Germany: First record and ecological risk assessment

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A population of Ludwigia grandiflora, an aquatic weed from South America, has been recorded in the North West of Germany near Leer, Lower Saxony in an old branch of the River Leda, a tributary of the River Ems. This species is new to the German flora. After an initial observation of only a few individuals in 2004, a dense growth of L. grandiflora has been observed from 2009 onwards. An ecological risk assessment, mainly based on knowledge about invasion histories in neighbouring countries, showed that this species is a threat to German biodiversity; thus, it is considered to be invasive and has been assigned to the German Black List. In accordance with nature conservation efforts, management policies are being developed by the appropriate authority to eliminate the population.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aquatic Invasions (2011) Volume 6, Issue 1: 83–89
doi: 10.3391/ai.2011.6.1.10
© 2011 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2011 REABIC
Open Access
83
Short Communication
The invasive water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora (Michaux) Greuter & Burdet
(Spermatophyta: Onagraceae) in Germany: First record and ecological risk
assessment
Stefan Nehring1* and Detlef Kolthoff2
1Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Konstantinstraße 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany
2Agency for Nature Conservation, Bergmannstraße 37, 26789 Leer, Germany
E-mail: Stefan.Nehring@bfn.de (SN), Detlef.Kolthoff@lkleer.de (DK)
*Corresponding author
Received: 29 September 2010 / Accepted: 12 December 2010 / Published online: 16 December 2010
Abstract
A population of Ludwigia grandiflora, an aquatic weed from South America, has been recorded in the North West of Germany near
Leer, Lower Saxony in an old branch of the River Leda, a tributary of the River Ems. This species is new to the German flora. After
an initial observation of only a few individuals in 2004, a dense growth of L. grandiflora has been observed from 2009 onwards. An
ecological risk assessment, mainly based on knowledge about invasion histories in neighbouring countries, showed that this species
is a threat to German biodiversity; thus, it is considered to be invasive and has been assigned to the German Black List. In
accordance with nature conservation efforts, management policies are being developed by the appropriate authority to eliminate the
population.
Key words: Ludwigia grandiflora, Spermatophyta, alien species, freshwater, Germany, risk assessment, Black List
Introduction
The water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora
(Michaux) Greuter & Burdet, native to South
America, was intentionally released in 1830 in
southern France but remained restricted to the
area from the Camargue to Aquitaine during a
long period until the middle of the twentieth
century (Dandelot 2004). However, the spread of
L. grandiflora has been substantial during the
past four decades in France, where the species is
now already present in half of the country
(Dandelot 2004), and in other European
countries (records of free-living individuals in
Belgium (Bauchau et al. 1984), Ireland (F. Lucy,
personal communication), Italy (EPPO 2004),
The Netherlands (Kleuver and Holverda 1995),
Spain (EPPO 2004a), Switzerland (Vauthy et al.
2003), and the United Kingdom (Palmer 2008)).
Dandelot et al. (2005) suggested that during the
20th century, the increased use of L. grandiflora
as an ornamental aquatic plant has accelerated its
expansion in Europe. Brunel (2009) predicted
that L. grandiflora would soon occur elsewhere
in the wild if countries do not take action to
prevent its entry and spread.
First record in Germany
Here in this record, we are the first to document
the presence of Ludwigia grandiflora in German
waters (Figure 1). On 4 August 2009, a visit to
an old branch of the River Leda (53°11.01'N and
7°38.77'E), a tributary of the River Ems located
in the North West of Germany near Leer, Lower
Saxony, revealed a dense growth of water
primrose, a new alien species to the German
flora.
This stagnant old branch is isolated from the
River Leda by a dike and filled with surface and
ground water. The branch is 510 m long and on
average 30 m wide, with a maximum depth of
about 1.0 m.
On 19 August 2010 and 11 September 2010,
the site was surveyed to estimate the extent of
the invasion. These surveys revealed a very
dense population of L. grandiflora. The
population’s density was not quantified, but
several stands of different sizes were found
S. Nehring and D. Kolthoff
84
Figure 1. The invasive water primrose Ludwigia grandiflora in an old branch of the River Leda, Germany, 11 September 2010.
A) Colonization in the central part. B) Dense stand at the southern end; insert: bright yellow flower with five petals, approx. 5 cm
in diameter. C) Scattered young plants. Perspectives of photos are marked in Figure 2 (photographs by Stefan Nehring).
(Figure 2). At the southern end of the old branch,
a dense mat covered a surface area of about 40
m². The center of the invasion was situated in the
central part of the branch; L. grandiflora
occurred in two distinct areas more or less across
the whole branch. The smaller area was about 15
m in length, and the larger area was about 90 m
in length. In both areas, the greatest
concentrations of plants were in the middle of
the branch, at which the water depth is only 0.3
m due to silting tendencies. In summer, these
zones partially dry up. Between both areas,
several single plants could be observed as
emergent or floating forms. In summary,
L. grandiflora was found to cover a surface area
of roughly 1100 m² in total, which was
equivalent to 7.2 % of the whole water surface
area. On 19 August 2010, control surveys of
several other stagnant water bodies nearby did
not yield any additional detection of water
primrose.
The old branch has been used for fishing for
many decades and several anglers noted that they
had first observed L. grandiflora in 2004. The
mechanism that introduced L. grandiflora into
this water remains unknown, but the pathway
may have been human activity. The starting
point of the invasion was at the southern end of
the old branch, where the only paved country
lane in that area ends. Thus, it is very likely that
the occurrence there could be attributed either to
a person who illegally disposed of aquatic
material from a garden pond or to an angler who
stocked fish or used fish as bait taken from a
pond in which L. grandiflora was occurring. It is
well-known that small plant fragments of water
Ludwigia grandiflora in Germany
85
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of dense
stands of the invasive water primrose
Ludwigia grandiflora in an old branch
of the River Leda, Germany, 11
September 2010. Arrows indicate
perspectives of photos in figure 1.
Digital orthophoto Surveying
administrations of federal states and
Federal Agency for Cartography and
Geodesy (http://www.bkg.bund.de).
primrose are sufficient for establishing a new
population (Dandelot 2004).
There is some taxonomic confusion in the
Ludwigia complex (Dandelot et al. 2005).
Several older European records refer to
L. uruguayensis (Camb.) Hara (e.g., Bauchau et
al. 1984; Kleuver and Holverda 1995), which is,
according to Nesom and Kartesz (2000), a
synonym of L. grandiflora. There is one native
Ludwigia species in Germany, L. palustris (L.)
Elliott, which is known as marsh-purslane; it is
very rare and very different in appearance
(Lakmann and Cordes 1996).
Ecological impacts and risk assessments
The discovery of a dense, well-established
population of Ludwigia grandiflora in German
waters is of significant concern. Invasions of
L. grandiflora have been associated with
negative effects on biodiversity and water
quality in Belgium, France and Switzerland.
Under appropriate conditions it can double in
mass in 15-20 days (Dandelot 2004). The growth
form shades out other plants and L. grandiflora
stands are typically monospecific (Dandelot
S. Nehring and D. Kolthoff
86
2004; SKEW 2009). In addition to shading,
decaying mats of Ludwigia bring about
deoxygenation of the water with potential
damage to fish stocks and to other fauna
(Lambert et al. 2010; Stiers et al. 2009). Large
plant biomass also results in an increase in
sedimentation with diverse effects on native
biocoenosis (Dandelot 2004). L. grandiflora
possesses an allelopathic activity that influences
the water quality throughout the year and
reduces the germination and survival rates of
other plant species (Dandelot et al. 2008). Whole
lake systems in France have been taken over by
Ludwigia, with a resulting loss of water for
waterfowl (Danelot 2004). This species has also
been associated with several human activity
nuisances in water bodies (Dandelot 2004).
Ecological risk assessments of L. grandiflora
have been performed in several European
countries and by the EPPO to allow the
prioritization of management measures (Table
1). However, the ecological impacts of this
species in Germany have not yet been
characterized and evaluated. In 2008, a newly
developed and tested risk assessment tool for
invasive alien species, the “German-Austrian
Black List Information System” (GABLIS), was
implemented by competent authorities in both
countries (Essl et al. 2008; Nehring et al. 2010).
It has been developed as a trans-national and
taxonomically universal risk assessment system.
This assessment is criteria based, i.e. a set of
specific criteria is used to assess the alien
species’ impact. Data used for assessment may
result from scientific reports and peer-reviewed
publications as well as from expert judgement,
and they may refer either to a reference area or
to climatically and ecologically similar areas. In
accordance with the GABLIS guidelines,
L. grandiflora is considered a threat to German
biodiversity and has been assigned to the
German Black List of invasive species (Table 2).
In GABLIS, the Black List is further separated
into three specific sub-lists (warn, action and
management lists), according to the current
distribution of the alien species and emergency
measures available. Because up until now
L. grandiflora occurs only in one locality and
since eradication measures are feasible, it
appears on the German Black List – action list
(BfN 2010). Here, immediate, intense and
sustained eradication measures make sense to
eliminate all free-living individuals in order to
avoid further spreading and to prevent loss of
biodiversity. This management approach is in
agreement with Article 40 paragraph 3 of the
new Federal Nature Conservation Act
(BNatSchG 2009, entered into force 1 March
2010), which prescribes that the competent
Federal and Länder authorities should
immediately implement suitable measures aimed
at eliminating, or preventing the spread of, newly
appearing plants and animals of invasive alien
species.
Management measures
Each invasive alien species and each site has its
own management plan based on individual
characteristics. Thiébaut (2007) summarized
various solutions that could be adapted to
individual sites of L. grandiflora colonization.
At the beginning of Ludwigia colonization,
manual removal is usually practicable. When the
plant has become well-established, mechani-
zation is necessary. Although chemical treatment
can replace or enhance manual removal
operations, it has been used only as a last resort,
where water use and environmental considera-
tions made it possible and if it is permit by the
applicable regulation. In the case of the present
invasion, management policies are being
developed by the appropriate authority to
eliminate the population. It is essential to remove
all plant material because L. grandiflora can re-
grow from small root and stem fragments and to
install a careful transport and disposal system to
prevent further spreading. After treatment,
monitoring for the early recognition of re-
emergence is essential.
The prevention of the (re)introduction of
invasive species is a key management issue. In
Europe, L. grandiflora has a high potential of
invasiveness (Brunel et al. 2010; EPPO 2004),
but it is still being sold as an ornamental plant
for garden ponds in most countries (Brunel
2009). However, for several years, the commer-
cialization of water primrose has been prohibited
in France (MEDD 2007), Portugal (MDA 1999)
and Switzerland (SBR 2008). In the Netherlands,
a new code of conduct regarding alien plants was
signed (EPPO 2010), in which the signatories
reached an agreement to stop selling six invasive
species including L. grandiflora by 1 January
2011. Regulation appears to be the most
appropriate option for preventing the detrimental
effects of invasive alien species in the long run.
Thus, the invasive L. grandiflora should be
banned from sale, especially in high-risk
countries such as Germany.
Ludwigia grandiflora in Germany
87
Table 1. Results of ecological risk assessment of Ludwigia grandiflora in Western European countries and by the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).
Country Protocol Result Reference
Belgium ISEIA vers. 2.6 High risk (black list A2) Branquart et al. 2010
Germany GABLIS Invasive (black list – action list) this study
Great Britain GB NNS risk assessment High risk NNSS 2010
Switzerland Weber and Gut High risk / invasive (black list) Weber and Gut 2004; SKEW 2010
Europe EPPO pest risk analysis Invasive (list of (potential) invasive alien
plants) EPPO (Brunel et al. 2010)
Table 2. Ecological risk assessment of Ludwigia grandiflora inclusive Black List classification for Germany (Assessment
protocol: “German-Austrian Black List Information System” (GABLIS); for further information, see Essl et al. (2008), Nehring
et al. (2010)).
a) General Information
Systematics and nomenclature Ludwigia grandiflora (Michaux) Greuter and Burdet
Spermatophyta, Onagraceae
Water primrose (EN), Großblütiges Heusenkraut (DE)
Important synonyms Jussiaea grandiflora, Ludwigia uruguayensis
Habitat Freshwater
Status established
Native region South America
Introduction deliberate
Import vectors Horticulture
First introduction unknown
In 1823, the first European import into France (Dandelot 2004); about 1888 cultivated in the Botanical Garden of Marburg,
Germany (Goebel 1889), however, no figures regarding date of first import are available.
First record 2004 (this study)
b) The Main Criteria - Risks To Biodiversity
1 Inter-specific competition yes
Strong inter-specific competition with native plants (Belgium, Stiers et al. 2009; France, Dandelot 2004; Switzerland, SKEW
2009); possesses an allelopathic activity that reduces the seedling survival of other plant species (France, Dandelot et al.
2008).
2 Predation and Herbivory not assessed
3 Hybridization unknown
Hybridization with other (native) Ludwigia species in the wild should not be excluded (Neson & Kartesz 2000) because in
laboratory conditions, hybridization between L. grandiflora and L. peploides is possible (Dandelot 2004).
4 Transfer of pathogens or organisms no
Currently, no endangerment of native species is known.
5 Negative effects on ecosystems yes
Monospecific stands can cover the whole surface of larger water bodies, altering the whole ecosystem by reducing light
transmission, water flow and oxygen content, as well as by increasing sedimentation (Belgium, Stiers et al. 2009; France,
Dandelot 2004, Lambert et al. 2010).
c) Additional Criteria
1 Current distribution small-scale
Only one free-living population in an old branch of the River Leda is known (this study).
2 Emergency measures available
Mechanical measures, chemical control, prevention of intentional release, public relations. Successful control measures e.g.
in France (Thiébaut 2007), Switzerland (SKEW 2009) and United Kingdom (NNSS 2010).
S. Nehring and D. Kolthoff
88
Table 2 (continued).
d) Biological-Ecological Criteria
1 Occurrence in natural, semi-natural or other high nature
value habitats
yes
The species is found in marshes and in shallow sites of inland waters, especially in still or slow-flowing waters (Dandelot
2004, this study).
2 Reproductive capacity high
In Europe, reproduction is mainly vegetative, and the plant can re-grow from small root and stem fragments (Dandelot 2004);
sexual reproduction is thermal limited (Ruaux et al. 2009).
3 Spread capacity high
Mainly by passive dispersal of plant fragments and seeds (Dandelot 2004, Ruaux et al. 2009).
4 Current spread history expansive
In the recent past strong expansion in Europe (Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom)
(e.g. Dandelot 2004, Denys et al. 2004, Kleuver and Holverda 1995).
5 Monopolization of resources yes
Under favourable site conditions, biomass could double in 15-20 days (Dandelot 2004, Sheppard et al. 2006).
6 Facilitation by climate change yes
Increasing temperatures will favour stock development and spreading (Hussner 2009).
e) Additional Information
1 Negative economic effects yes
Fishing, boating, tourism, water management (Dandelot 2004).
2 Positive economic effects no
3 Negative effects on human health no
4 Knowledge gaps and research needs yes
The genus Ludwigia needs a taxonomic revision.
f) Assessment Result a)
Black List – action list
a) Classification methodology
Step 1: Scaling results in section b)
At least one “yes” in b1-b5 -> Black List
Step 2: Classification result of Step 1 and scaling results in section c)
“Black List” in Step 1 and “small scale” in c1 and “available” in c2 -> Black List – action list
The European and Mediterranean Plant
Protection Organization (EPPO) has actually
finalized a pest risk analysis on this species
(Brunel et al. 2010) that could help regulating
international trade and importation of this
species in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ute Albrecht and Bettina Dibbern for
technical support. The digital orthophoto in Figure 2 was
kindly provided by the Federal Agency for Cartography and
Geodesy. We are grateful to Alain Dutartre and two
anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the
manuscript.
References
Bauchau V, Lejeune A, Bouharmont J (1984) Maintien et
expansion de Ludwigia uruguayensis (Camb.) Hara en
Brabant. Dumortiera 28: 8–9
BfN (2010) Schwarze Liste invasiver Arten Deutschlands:
Invasivitätsbewertung Ludwigia grandiflora, erstellt
07.09.2010. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, 2 pp
BNatSchG (2009) Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Rechts des
Naturschutzes und der Landschaftspflege, Bundesnatur-
schutzgesetz (adopted 29 July 2009, entered into force 1
March 2010). Bundesgesetzblatt 2009/I/51: 2542–2579
Branquart E, Stiers I, Vanderhoeven S, Van Landuyt W, Van
Rossum F, Verloove F (2010) Ludwigia grandiflora -
Water primrose. Belgian Forum on Invasive Species,
http://ias.biodiversit y.be/species/show/11 (Accessed 9
December 2010)
Ludwigia grandiflora in Germany
89
Brunel S (2009) Pathway analysis: aquatic plants imported in
10 EPPO countries. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39: 201–213
Brunel S, Branquart E, Fried G, van Valkenburg J, Brundu G,
Starfinger U, Buholzer S, Uludag A, Joseffson M, Baker
R (2010) The EPPO prioritization process for invasive
alien plants. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 40: 407–422
Dandelot S (2004) Les Ludwigia spp. invasives du Sud de la
France: Historique, Biosystématique, Biologie et
Ecologie. PhD University Aix-Marseille-III, 207 pp
Dandelot S, Verlaque R, Dutartre A, Cazaubon A (2005)
Ecological, dynamic, and taxonomic problems due to
Ludwigia (Onagraceae) in France. Hydrobiologia 551:
131–136, doi:10.1007/s10750-0 05-4455-0
Dandelot S, Robles C, Pech N, Cazaubon A, Verlaque R
(2008) Allelopathic potential of two invasive alien
Ludwigia spp. Aquatic Botany 88: 311–316,
doi:10.1016/j.aquabot .2007.12.004
Denys L, Packet J, van Landuyt W (2004) Neofyten in het
Vlaamse water: signalement van vaste waarden en
rijzende sterren. Natuur focus 3: 120–128
EPPO (2004a) Invasive plants: addition of Senecio
inaequidens and two Ludwigia species to the EPPO Alert
List. EPPO Reporting Service 2004/119
EPPO (2004b) Data sheet on Ludwigia peploides and L.
uruguayensis (=L. grandiflora). EPPO, http://www. eppo.
org/QUARANTINE/plants/Ludwigia/LUDSS. htm (Accessed 9
December 2010)
EPPO (2010) A New Code of conduct on aquatic plants in the
Netherlands. EPPO Reporting Service 2010/075
Essl F, Klingenstein F, Nehring S, Otto C, Rabitsch W, Stöhr
O (2008) Schwarze Listen invasiver Arten - ein
Instrument zur Risikobewertung für die Naturschutz-
Praxis. Natur und Landschaft 83: 418–424
Goebel K (1889) Pflanzenbiologische Schilderungen. Erster
Teil. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Marburg, 236pp
Hussner A (2009) Growth and photosynthesis of four invasive
aquatic plant species in Europe. Weed Research 49: 506–
515, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180. 2009.00721.x
Kleuver JJ, Holverda WJ (1995) Ludwigia uruguayensis
(Camb.) Hara. (Onagraceae), verwilderd. Gorteria 21:
99–100
Lakmann G, Cordes U (1996) Ludwigia palustris (L.) Elliot in
Nordrhein-Westfalen und im Raum Osnabrück.
Floristische Rundbriefe 30: 65–79
Lambert E, Dutartre A, Coudreuse J, Haury J (2010)
Relationships between the biomass production of
invasive Ludwigia species and physical properties of
habitats in France. Hydrobiologia 656: 173–186,
doi:10.1007/s10750-010- 0440-3
MEDD (2007) Arrêté du 2 mai 2007 interdisant la
commercialisation, l'utilisation et l'introduction dans le
milieu naturel de Ludwigia grandiflora et Ludwigia
peploides. Ministère de l’écologie et du développement
durable. Journal Officiel de la République Française
114: 9673
MDA (1999) Decreto-Lei 565/99: Espécies não indígenas da
flora e da fauna. Ministério do Ambiente, Diário da
República, I Série-A 295: 9100–9114
Nehring S, Essl F, Klingenstein F, Nowack C, Stöhr O,
Rabitsch W (2010) Kriteriensystem für eine Schwarze
Liste invasiver Arten. BfN-Skripten 285: 7–52
Nesom GL, Kartesz JT (2000) Observations on the Ludwigia
uruguayensis complex (Onagracea e) in the United
States. Casta nea 65: 123–125
NNSS (2010) Invasive species action plan – Water Primrose
(Ludwigia grandiflora). GB non native species
secretariat, https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnative species/
downloadDocument.cfm?id=460 (Accessed 7 September
2010)
Palmer M (2008) Plants of British standing waters: A
conservation fact file. Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough, 60 pp
Ruaux B, Greulich S, Haury J, Berton JP (2009) Sexual
reproduction of two invasive Ludwigia (Onagraceae) on
the middle Loire River, France. Aquatic Botany 90: 143–
148, doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2008.0 8.003
SBR (2008) Verordnung vom 10. September 2008 über den
Umgang mit Organismen in der Umwelt.
Schweizerischer Bundesrat SR 814.911, 58 pp
Sheppard AW, Shaw RH, Sforza R (2006) Top 20
environmental weeds for classical biological control in
Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other
barriers to adoption. Weed Research 46: 93–117,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.200 6.00497.x
SKEW (2009) Grossblütiges Heusenkraut. Schweizerische
Kommission für die Erhaltung von Wildpflanzen,
http://www.cps-skew.ch/deutsch/inva_ludw_gra_d.pdf
(Accessed 7 September 2010)
SKEW (2010) Schwarze Liste und Watch-Liste
(Beobachtungsliste). Schweizerische Kommission für die
Erhaltung von Wildpflanzen, http://www.cps-skew.ch/
deutsch/schwar ze_liste.ht m (Accessed 9 December 2010)
Stiers I, Crohain N, Josens G, Triest L (2009) Impact of
aquatic invasive species on native plant and benthic
invertebrate assemblages in Belgian ponds. Reports of
Finnish Environment Institute 15: 120–121
Thiébaut G (2007) Non-indigenous aquatic and semiaquatic
plant species in France. In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological
invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution and
threats. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 209–229, doi:10.1007/
978-1-4020-6029-8_11
Vauthey M, Jeanmonod D, Charlier P (2003) La jussie -
Ludwigia grandiflora (Michx.) Greuter & Burdet - une
nouvelle espèce pour la Suisse et un nouvel envahisseur.
Saussurea: 109–117
Weber E, Gut D (2004) Assessing the risk of potentially
invasive plant species in central Europe. Journal for
Nature Conservation 12: 171–179 doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.
04.002
... In contrast, SAV species have significant challenges to overcome in terms of CO 2 and light availability throughout the water column, both of which substantially affect photosynthetic efficiency and plant growth. Light availability within the water column is typically a major limiting factor for SAV to survive in deep or turbid environments, or where FAV mats cover the water surface (Nehring and Kolthoff 2011;Khanna et al. 2012;Santos et al. 2016). We have observed in rake surveys we conducted throughout the Delta that no SAV species are able to survive below dense FAV mats. ...
... Non-native aquatic vegetation around the globe has been shown to strongly modify habitats by changing channel bathymetry, water temperature, flow velocity, turbidity, and the availability of light and dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column (Wilcock et al. 1999;Dandelot et al. 2005;Nehring and Kolthoff 2011;Lacy et al. 2021). Through these effects, non-native aquatic vegetation has directly affected ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, sedimentation, plant community composition , and carbon storage (Cook and Urmi-König 1984;). ...
... SAV can have large effects on nutrient cycling in systems by mobilizing nutrients from sediments then releasing them into the water column when they senesce at the end of the growing season or in response to control treatments (Nichols and Shaw 1986). Studies have indicated that both SAV and FAV reduce DO in the water column (Penfound and Earle 1948;Grimaldo and Hymanson 1999;Dandelot et al. 2005;Nehring and Kolthoff 2011;Tobias et al. 2019), which can then mobilize P from the substrate, making it available for uptake, and changing nutrient cycling pathways in invaded areas (Aiken et al. 1979;Cook and Urmi-König 1984;Mazzeo et al. 2003). Dense growth of SAV produces strong diel patterns of DO with super-saturation at the end of the day and under-saturation at night (Anderson et al. 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Substantial increases in non-native aquatic vegetation have occurred in the upper San Francisco Estuary over the last 2 decades, largely from the explosive growth of a few submerged and floating aquatic plant species. Some of these species act as ecosystem engineers by creating conditions that favor their further growth and expansion as well as by modifying habitat for other organisms. Over the last decade, numerous studies have investigated patterns of expansion and turn-over of aquatic vegetation species; effects of vegetation on ecosystem health, water quality, and habitat; and effects of particular species or communities on physical processes such as carbon and sediment dynamics. Taking a synthetic approach to evaluate what has been learned over the last few years has shed light on just how significant aquatic plant species and communities are to ecosystems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Aquatic vegetation affects every aspect of the physical and biotic environment, acting as ecosystem engineers on the landscape. Furthermore, their effects are constantly changing across space and time, leaving many unanswered questions about the full effects of aquatic vegetation on Delta ecosystems and what future effects may result, as species shift in distribution and new species are introduced. Remaining knowledge gaps underlie our understanding of aquatic macrophyte effects on Delta ecosystems, including their roles and relationships with respect to nutrients and nutrient cycling, evapotranspiration and water budgets, carbon and sediment, and emerging effects on fish species and their habitats. This paper explores our current understanding of submerged and floating aquatic vegetation (SAV and FAV) ecology with respect to major aquatic plant communities, observed patterns of change, interactions between aquatic vegetation and the physical environment, and how these factors affect ecosystem services and disservices within the upper San Francisco Estuary.
... Many invasives may directly compete with other species by secreting allelopathic chemicals that reduce germination and seedling survival or by changing light accessibility [5,3,6]. Invasives may also significantly impact invertebrate distribution, diversity, and abundance; induce anoxic conditions detrimental to fish and other aquatic life [5,7]; and act as barriers to fish movement [6,4]. They also reduce open water habitats for water birds and other wildlife [4]. ...
... Over the years, remote sensing has received much attention, especially for the detection of invasive species [13,1,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Specifically, there has been an increasing interest in detecting and monitoring aquatic invasive species [10,16,17,7] due to the severe negative impacts they can have on ecosystems. One prime example of invasive aquatic species are water hyacinths and ludwigia [10,7,16,17]. ...
... Specifically, there has been an increasing interest in detecting and monitoring aquatic invasive species [10,16,17,7] due to the severe negative impacts they can have on ecosystems. One prime example of invasive aquatic species are water hyacinths and ludwigia [10,7,16,17]. Due to improvements in sensor technology and the availability of UAVs, the use of unmanned aircraft has gained a lot of attention [10,20,18,19]. The low costs of acquisition and operation, paired with the ability to be deployed almost instantly without significant planning, have made them a viable alternative compared to more expensive data like Manned Aerial Vehicles or satellites. ...
Preprint
Remote sensing is the process of detecting and monitoring the physical characteristics of an area by measuring its reflected and emitted radiation at a distance. It is being broadly used to monitor ecosystems, mainly for their preservation. Ever-growing reports of invasive species have affected the natural balance of ecosystems. Exotic invasive species have a critical impact when introduced into new ecosystems and may lead to the extinction of native species. In this study, we focus on Ludwigia peploides, considered by the European Union as an aquatic invasive species. Its presence can negatively impact the surrounding ecosystem and human activities such as agriculture, fishing, and navigation. Our goal was to develop a method to identify the presence of the species. We used images collected by a drone-mounted multispectral sensor to achieve this, creating our LudVision data set. To identify the targeted species on the collected images, we propose a new method for detecting Ludwigia p. in multispectral images. The method is based on existing state-of-the-art semantic segmentation methods modified to handle multispectral data. The proposed method achieved a producer's accuracy of 0.799 and a user's accuracy of 0.955.
... Lietuvos klimato sąlygos nepalankios šilkinėms lespedezoms natūralizuotis ir plisti. (Nehring, Kolthoff, 2011). Dabar jų aptinkama Airijoje, Belgijoje, Graikijoje, Ispanijoje, Italijoje, Jungtinėje Karalystėje, Nyderlanduose, Prancūzijoje, Vokietijoje, o Šveicarijoje ji jau išnaikinta. ...
... Sudaro labai tankius sąžalynus ir išstumia beveik visus vietinius augalus. Stambiažiedės liudvigijos reikšmingai pakeičia buveinių sąlygas, todėl pasikeičia visa vandens telkinio ekosistema ir jos biologinė įvairovė (Nehring, Kolthoff, 2011). ...
Book
Full-text available
This publication reports data on the assessment of the status of invasive and alien species in Lithuania, obtained during the period 2019–2022 within the framework of the project “Investigations of the Status of Invasive and Alien Species in Lithuania”, which was co-financed by the European Union Structural Funds according to the 5th Priority of the Operational Programme for the European Union Funds’ Investments in 2014-2020 “Environment, sustainable use of natural resources and adaptation to climate change” under the measure “Biodiversity protection” (05.5.1 APVA-V-018). The implementing authority of the project is the Environmental Projects Management Agency under the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania. The project (Contract No. 05.5.1-APVA-V-018-01-0012) was carried out by the Nature Research Centre. The book is in Lithuanian, but there is an extended summary in English at the end of the book (pages 265-295).
... Ludwigia (Onagraceae) is an aquatic plant genus native to Central and South America (Mabberley, 2017) and is now distributed not only in many other tropical countries but also in some temperate countries (Dandelot et al., 2005;Hussner, 2010;Nehring and Kolthoff, 2011). Many Ludwigia spp. ...
Article
Full-text available
We aimed to determine seed germination responses and flood tolerance of Ludwigia hyssopifolia and L. perennis that grow in rice fields in Rajgir, India. Freshly-matured seeds were incubated in 12 hr / 12 hr light / dark and complete darkness at constant 25 o C and natural daily fluctuating temperatures. Seeds exposed to different light durations were then incubated in complete darkness. Seeds exposed to different flooding durations were incubated in continuous flooded or non-flooded environments. Seeds of both species germinated within four days in light/dark but failed to germinate in complete darkness, revealing their nondormant and positive photoblastic behavior. Some seeds of both species (10-20 %) germinated in complete darkness after exposure to light for 24h. Seeds failed to produce normal seedlings in a continuously flooded environment. Seeds of the two studied species tolerate at least one week of flood. Seeds of L. perennis have a higher tolerance to flooding than those of L. hyssopifolia, which survived four weeks in a flooded environment. The two species have the same germination behaviour but differ in ability to tolerate flooding. Since seeds of both species are nondormant, positively photoblastic, and have different degrees of flood tolerance, a flooding regime of rice fields will not be sufficient to control these weeds.
... This high availability of organic carbon and TP could have resulted in a high biological oxygen demand, thus lowering the oxygen concentration in the water layer. Decaying mats of Ludwigia species have been known to cause anoxic conditions in shallow systems, with negative impact on fish and other fauna (Nehring and Kolthoff, 2011). Although Ludwigia was removed completely from our impact site, the high availability of TOC and TP remained and was possibly enhanced by sediment disturbance or phytoplankton growth. ...
Article
Full-text available
Mass development of macrophytes in freshwater ecosystems is today considered a worldwide problem and substantial resources are spent on macrophyte removal each year. By removing the dominant primary producer, however, this management practice radically changes the ecosystem overnight. Here, we studied short-term effects of the removal of a mass development of free-floating (Pontederia crassipes), submerged (Elodea nuttallii) and emergent (mix of Ludwigia grandiflora and L. peploides) macrophytes on fluxes of CH4 and CO2 in three lakes. In our field experiment, we assigned an impact site, where macrophytes were removed, and a control site where vegetation remained. Before and after removal, diffusive fluxes of CO2 and CH4 were determined in lakes dominated by P. crassipes and E. nuttallii, whereas total emission of CH4 was determined in all three case study lakes. Additionally, plant biomass, and physical and chemical parameters were measured before and after removal. While removal of emergent Ludwigia spp. showed no clear effect on total CH4 emission, removal of submerged E. nuttallii reduced both CO2 fixation and total CH4 emission. Removal of free-floating P. crassipes, on the other hand, increased CH4 fluxes and stimulated phytoplankton blooms. The lack of a universal response across our case study lakes suggests that both macrophyte life forms and environmental parameters can be important factors determining effects of removal. Additionally, indirect effects of macrophyte removal on temperature and dissolved oxygen can help to explain carbon emissions. Long-term effects should be studied to allow development of sustainable management practices.
Article
Full-text available
Biological invasions have been identified as the fifth cause of biodiversity loss, and their subsequent dispersal represents a major ecological challenge. The aquatic invasive species Ludwigia grandiflora subsp. hexapetala (Lgh) and Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis (Lpm) are largely distributed in aquatic environments in North America and in Europe. However, they also present worrying terrestrial forms that are able to colonize wet meadows. To comprehend the mechanisms of the terrestrial adaptation of Lgh and Lpm, it is necessary to develop their genomic resources, which are currently poorly documented. We performed de novo assembly of the mitogenomes of Lgh and Lpm through hybrid assemblies, combining short reads (SR) and/or long reads (LR) before annotating both mitogenomes. We successfully assembled the mitogenomes of Lgh and Lpm into two circular molecules each, resulting in a combined total length of 711,578 bp and 722,518 bp, respectively. Notably, both the Lgh and Lpm molecules contained plastome-origin sequences, comprising 7.8% of the mitochondrial genome length. Additionally, we identified recombinations that were mediated by large repeats, suggesting the presence of multiple alternative conformations. In conclusion, our study presents the first high-quality mitogenomes of Lpm and Lgh, which are the only ones in the Myrtales order found as two circular molecules.
Article
This datasheet on Ludwigia grandiflora covers Identity, Overview, Distribution, Dispersal, Hosts/Species Affected, Diagnosis, Biology & Ecology, Environmental Requirements, Natural Enemies, Impacts, Uses, Prevention/Control, Further Information.
Chapter
Full-text available
Das im ersten Teil dieses BfN-Skripts vorgestellte Konzept für eine Schwarze Liste invasiver Arten soll dem Naturschutz ein Instrument zur Bewertung gebietsfremder Arten und speziell zur Benennung naturschutzfachlich problematischer, d. h. invasiver Arten für Deutschland und für Österreich zur Hand geben. Dieses stellt ein wesentliches Element zur Vermeidung negativer ökologischer Auswirkungen durch gebietsfremde Arten dar, das aber durch zusätzliche Maßnahmen (Prävention, Früherkennung, Beseitigung, Kontrolle) zu ergänzen ist. Der gewählte Ansatz basiert auf einem klar umrissenen Kriteriensystem – somit ist die Einstufung überprüfbar und nachvollziehbar. Das Kriteriensystem ist bewusst einfach gehalten und an ähnlichen europäischen Vorbildern orientiert, um seine Praktikabilität zu gewährleisten. Die Beurteilung führt zur Einstufung in Listenkategorien, woraus sich für den Naturschutz Handlungserfordernisse und -prioritäten ableiten lassen. Das Kriterienset ist auf die Erfassung und Bewertung naturschutzfachlich negativer Auswirkungen ausgerichtet, während ökonomische und gesundheitliche Effekte benannt werden, aber nicht in den Einstufungsprozess einfließen.
Article
Full-text available
Classical biological control remains the only tool available for permanent ecological and economic management of invasive alien species that flourish through absence of their co-evolved natural enemies. As such, this approach is recognized as a key tool for alien species management by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (ESIAS). Successful classical biological control programmes abound around the world, despite disproportionate attention being given to occasional and predictable non-target impacts. Despite more than 130 case histories in Europe against insect pests, no exotic classical biological control agent has been released in the EU against an alien invasive weed. This dearth has occurred in the face of increasing numbers of exotic invasive plants being imported and taking over National Parks, forests and amenity areas in this region, as well as a global increase in the use of classical biological control around the world. This paper reviews potential European weed targets for classical biological control from ecological and socioeconomic perspectives using the criteria of historical biological control success, taxonomic isolation from European native flora, likely availability of biological control agents, invasiveness outside Europe and value to primary industry and horticulture (potential for conflicts of interest). We also review why classical biological control of European exotic plants remains untested, considering problems of funding and public perception. Finally, we consider the regulatory framework that surrounds such biological control activities within constituent countries of the EU to suggest how this approach may be adopted in the future for managing invasive exotic weeds in Europe.
Article
Full-text available
Pathway analyses are regarded by National Plant Protection Organizations as a very efficient way to address the risks posed by invasive alien species. Data on import of aquatic plants was obtained from 10 EPPO countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Latvia, Switzerland and Turkey) and aggregated in order to consider whether invasive or potentially invasive alien plants could be introduced in the EPPO region through this pathway. This study highlights that this pathway mainly consists of the import of tropical plants for use in aquaria, and which do not represent a risk due to their climatic requirements. However, a few species require thorough attention owing to the threats they cause. Of the 247 species recorded as imported, only 10 are currently considered to be a threat, representing 4% of the total number of plants imported. These 10 invasive or potentially invasive species continue to be traded in huge quantities in spite of the fact that Crassula helmsii and Eichhornia crassipes are recommended for regulation by EPPO, Azolla filiculoides, Egeria densa, Elodea nuttalli, Lagarosiphon major, Ludwigia grandiflora and Myriophyllum aquaticum should have their entry and spread prevented by countries and Hydrilla verticillata and Pistia stratiotes are recorded on the EPPO Alert List. Six additional species have been identified as representing a moderate to high potential risk: Alternanthera sessilis, Adiantum raddianum, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hygrophila polysperma, Limnophila sessiliflora and Syngonium podophyllum. These species could be subject to further investigation, possibly a pest risk analysis, to evaluate the risk they may represent.
Article
Black Lists of invasive species – risk assessment tools for practical conservation measures -------- This article provides an overviewof a criteria-based risk assessment for evaluating the threat of invasive alien species (IAS) in Germany andAustria (Black List of IAS). First, we outline the European context of risk assessment of alien species and emphasize the possibilities for application of this instrument in nature conservation. Next, we outline the main features of our Black List. The focus is on threats posed by IAS to native species. Distribution in the assessment area and the applicability of control measures serve as additional classification criteria. In agreement with other systems, we propose three list categories: A Black List including IAS which are known to cause harm to native species, and a White List which includes IAS that do not harm native species. Alien species with unclear or contradictory information on effects are placed in a Grey List. Black and Grey Lists are further differentiated according to biological and ecological criteria of the IAS.
Article
A risk assessment system was developed to assess the invasion potential of new environmental weeds in central Europe. A pre-evaluation step excludes species that are officially controlled, widespread, or intended for use in protected cultures only. Species eligible for risk assessment are classified into three categories (high risk, further observation required, low risk) by rating them according to various biogeographical and ecological aspects. The rating system was validated by testing 47 well-known invasive plant species of temperate Europe and 193 exotic plants which have failed to establish themselves in Switzerland. The overall accuracy was 65%. Accuracy of correctly predicting invasive species was 77%, while accuracy of correctly predicting non-invasive species was 62%. The proposed risk assessment protocol should be understood as a first attempt for a European country and needs modifications. These can only be achieved by applying the system in practice.
Article
Crassula helmsii, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ludwigia grandiflora and Myriophyllum aquaticum are four well known invasive aquatic plants in European waters. In this study, plant growth at different nutrient availabilities, regeneration capacity and photosynthesis were investigated. Results show high relative growth rates (RGR) of the species of up to 0.132 ± 0.008 g g−1 dry weight (dw) day−1 (H. ranunculoides) and a significant increase in RGR with increasing nutrient availability. All species show a high regeneration capacity and the ability to form new shoots from single nodes, even though it differs between the species. Ludwigia grandiflora and M. aquaticum also show regeneration from single leaves. Species differed in maximal amounts, and in temperature and light optima of net assimilation rates: H. ranunculoides leaves reach maximum photosynthetic rates of up to 3500 μmol CO2 × h−1 g−1 dw, L. grandiflora (leaves) up to 2200 μmol CO2 × h−1 g−1 dw, M. aquaticum (shoots) 400 μmol CO2 × h−1 g−1 dw and C. helmsii (shoots) up to 200 μmol CO2 × h−1 g−1 dw. Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, L. grandiflora and M. aquaticum preferred high light intensity and high temperatures, whilst C. helmsii was negatively affected by intense sunlight. Summarising, it can be assumed that at least H. ranunculoides, L. grandiflora and M. aquaticum can grow well under current and likely future central European climate conditions.
Article
Although invasive alien plants are gaining increased attention within EPPO countries, there is no existing widely agreed method to identify those alien plants that are considered invasive and represent the highest priority for pest risk analysis. In the framework of the ad hoc Panel on Invasive Alien Species, EPPO proposes a prioritization process for invasive alien plants designed (i) to produce a list of invasive alien plants that are established or could potentially establish in the EPPO region and (ii) to determine which of these have the highest priority for an EPPO pest risk analysis. The process consists of compiling available information on alien plants according to pre-determined criteria, and can be run at the EPPO region level, or at a country or local area level. These criteria examine whether the species is alien in the area under study, and whether it is established or not. The criteria used primarily rely on observations in the EPPO region but, if the species is not established, the invasive behaviour of the species in other countries should be investigated, as well as the suitability of the ecoclimatic conditions in the area under consideration. The spread potential, the potential negative impacts on native species, habitats and ecosystems, as well as on agriculture, horticulture or forestry are considered. If the species qualifies as an invasive alien plant of major concern through this first set of questions, the process then investigates the efficiency of international measures (to be justified through a pest risk analysis) to prevent the entry and spread of the species. The second set of questions are designed to determine whether the species is internationally traded or enters new countries through international pathways for which the risk of introduction is superior to natural spread, and whether the species still has a significant suitable area for further spread. If used by several EPPO countries, this prioritization process represents an opportunity to provide consistent country lists of invasive alien plant species, as well as a tool for dialogue and exchange of information.