Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:36:18.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viability of Aquatic Plant Fragments following Desiccation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew A. Barnes ,
Christopher L. Jerde ,
Doug Keller ,
W. Lindsay Chadderton ,
Jennifer G. Howeth  and
David M. Lodge
Matthew A. Barnes*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Christopher L. Jerde
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Doug Keller
Affiliation:
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, IN 46204
W. Lindsay Chadderton
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Jennifer G. Howeth
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
David M. Lodge
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Desiccation following prolonged air exposure challenges survival of aquatic plants during droughts, water drawdowns, and overland dispersal. To improve predictions of plant response to air exposure, we observed the viability of vegetative fragments of 10 aquatic plant species (Cabomba caroliniana, Ceratophyllum demersum, Elodea canadensis, Egeria densa, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Myriophyllum heterophyllum, Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton crispus, Potamogeton richardsonii, and Hydrilla verticillata) following desiccation. We recorded mass loss, desiccation rate, and plant fragment survival across a range of air exposures. Mass loss accurately predicted viability of aquatic plant fragments upon reintroduction to water. However, similar periods of air exposure differentially affected viability between species. Understanding viability following desiccation can contribute to predicting dispersal, improving eradication protocols, and disposing of aquatic plants following removal from invaded lakes or contaminated equipment.

Keywords

Brazilian egeria, Egeria densa Planch.common elodea, Elodea canadensis Michx.coontail, Ceratophyllum demersum L.curlyleaf pondweed, Potamogeton crispus L.Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum L.fanwort, Cabomba caroliniana Grayhydrilla, Hydrilla verticillata (L. f.) Royleparrotfeather, Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.Richardson's pondweed, Potamogeton richardsonii (A. Bennett) Rydb.variable-leaf watermilfoil, Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx.Dispersalinvasionmacrophytemanagementprediction
Type
Note
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 320 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Biological Sciences, Program of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

References

Literature Cited

Alpert, P. 2000. The discovery, scope, and puzzle of desiccation tolerance in plants. Plant Ecol. 151:5–17.Google Scholar
Barrat-Segretain, M. and Cellot, B. 2007. Response of invasive macrophyte species to drawdown: the case of Elodea sp. Aquat. Bot. 87:255–261.Google Scholar
Bewley, J. D. 1979. Physiological aspects of desiccation tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 30:195–238.Google Scholar
Chu, S. H., Zhang, Q. S., Liu, S. K., Tang, Y. Z., Zhang, S. B., Lu, Z. C., and Yu, Y. Q. 2012. Tolerance of Sargassum thunbergii germlings to thermal, osmotic and desiccation stress. Aquat. Bot. 96:1–6.Google Scholar
Evans, C. A., Kelting, D. L., Forrest, K. M., and Steblen, L. E. 2011. Fragment viability and root formation in Eurasian watermilfoil after desiccation. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 49:57–62.Google Scholar
Figuerola, J. and Green, A. J. 2002. How frequent is external transport of seeds and invertebrates by waterbirds? A study in Doñana, SW Spain. Arch. Hydrobiol. 155:557–565.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York Wiley Inter-Science. Pp. 160–164.Google Scholar
Hsiao, T. C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24:519–570.Google Scholar
Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2012. Global Invasive Species Database. http://issg.org/database. Accessed August 2, 2012.Google Scholar
Jerde, C. L., Barnes, M. A., DeBuysser, E. K., Noveroske, A., Chadderton, W. L., and Lodge, D. M. 2012. Eurasian watermilfoil fitness loss and invasion potential following desiccation during simulated overland transport. Aquat. Invasions 7:135–142.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. E., Ricciardi, A., and Carlton, T. J. 2001. Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecol. Appl. 11:1789–1799.Google Scholar
Johnstone, I. M., Coffey, B. T., and Howard-Williams, C. 1985. The role of recreational boat traffic in interlake dispersal of macrophytes: a New Zealand case study. J. Environ. Manag. 20:263–279.Google Scholar
Kimbel, J. C. 1982. Factors influencing potential interlake colonization by Myriophyllum spicatum L. Aquat. Bot. 14:295–307.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.F.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae), “The Perfect Aquatic Weed”. Castanea 61:293–304.Google Scholar
McAlarnen, L. A., Barnes, M. A., Jerde, C. L., and Lodge, D. M. 2013. Simulated overland transport of Eurasian watermilfoil: survival of desiccated plant fragments of different locations on the shoot and length. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. In press.Google Scholar
Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J., and Müller, M. 2011. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12:77.Google Scholar
Rothlisberger, J. D., Chadderton, W. L., McNulty, J., and Lodge, D. M. 2010. Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35:121–132.Google Scholar
Vander Zanden, M. J. and Olden, J. D. 2008. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65:1512–1522.Google Scholar
Vaschoenwinkel, B., Waterkeyn, A., Vandecaetsbeek, T., Pineau, O., Grillas, P., and Brendonck, L. 2008. Dispersal of freshwater invertebrates by large terrestrial mammals: a case study with wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean wetlands. Freshw. Biol. 53:2264–2273.Google Scholar
Westwood, C. G., Teeuw, R. M., Wade, P. M., Holmes, N.T.H., and Guyard, P. 2006. Influences of environmental conditions on macrophyte communities in drought-affected headwater streams. River Res. Appl. 22:703–726.Google Scholar
Wilson, J.R.U., Dormontt, E. E., Prentis, P. J., Lowe, A. J., and Richardson, D. M. 2009. Something in the way you move: dispersal pathways affect invasion success. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:136–144.Google Scholar