 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Salvinia molesta (aquatic plant, herb)    |
|
|
Management Information
The optimum strategy is to prevent the introduction of Salvinia into a wetland or other water body. Legislation may restrict the import of the plant into a country. Within-country movement is more difficult to achieve and may depend on increased public awareness and education. This may be addressed by targeting stakeholders and organisations that are implicated in the spread of the weed, such as those associated with the aquarium trade.
For details on management of this species, please see management information Proliferation of aquatic weeds is often indicative of increased nutrient levels in watersheds and wetlands. This may mean several species of floating aquatic weeds may be waiting to replace Salvinia. Following Salvinia removal continuous monitoring of infestation sites to detect aquatic plant succession is necessary. Sustainable management of the whole ecosystem, decreasing the nutrient level and improving sewage drainage and effluent treatment is likely to reduce the biomass of floating plants such as S. molesta (Howard and Harley 1998; Chikwenhere and Keswani 1997; Room and Fernando 1992; McFarland et al. 2003). Risk assessments of Salvinia molesta were carried out for Australia and Hawaii using the Australian risk assessment system (Pheloung, 1995). The result was high scores of 19 and 29 respectively and a recommendation of: reject the plant for import (Australia) or species likely to be of high risk (Pacific). Salvinia was added to the EPPO Alert List in 2007 and transferred to the List of Invasive Alien Plants in 2012 (EPPO 2012).
A study was conducted in Spain aimed at identifying and ranking non-native plant species that could potentially become invasive in Spain if introduced. The Australian Weed Risk Assessment system and a Risk Assessment for Central Europe developed by Weber & Gut (2004) was used to rank a preliminary list of species. The list contained invasive plants in neighbouring countries and in other Mediterranean regions of the world but not present in Spain. The species with higher scores and therefore with the highest risk of becoming invasive in Spain if introduced, were mainly aquatic plants. Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae) obtained the highest score in both tests, S. molesta was in the top four on both the lists (Andreu & Vila 2010) This section is under revision   
Location Specific Management InformationAdelaide River
Miller & Pickering (1988) report on a successful 10-year eradication program. Herbicides used were paraquat, diquat, 2,4-D and AF 101. Nets were erected to prevent downstream movement of the weed and surveys were carried out on foot, by boat, canoe and helicopter. Small areas of salvinia were removed by hand, and overhanging vegetation along the edges of the river was burnt to expose hidden plants. The last sighting of salvinia on the river was on 14 December 1982 but regular surveys continued until 1986 to ensure that no re-infestation occurred Australia
In 1999 Salvinia was named as one of the 20 Weeds of National Significance (WONS); and a national strategic plan was developed (by the Agriculture & Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Forestry Ministers) with the aim of maintaining the health of waterways by limiting the impact and spread of Salvinia. Please follow this link for A review of the Progress against the Strategic Plan A Salvinia Control Manual that outlined all management and control options for Salvinia in Australia was developed by the State of New South Wales (NSW) in 2006 and published by the NSW Department of Primary Industries. The manual also includes case studies of management
Please follow these links for the National Strategy 2000- 2011 and 2012- 2017. For a map showing the spread of Salvinia as well as management actions in Australia please see: Salvinia: Salvinia molesta Weed Spread and Management Actions Preventative measures: Legislation in Australia prohibits the importation of all species of the genus Salvinia (under commonwealth quarantine legislation). The 2000 National strategic plan for Salvinia identified prevention strategies (including public education) as the most effective way of managing any invasive weed. The prevention of the trade of Salvinia is targeted as an area of improvement, with possible strategies including an enquiry into the effectiveness of the current legislation and an attempt to limit the demand for S. molesta by encouraging the aquatic community to use similar (but non-weedy) aquatic plant species as alternatives to Salvinia. To minimise the impact of Salvinia in areas where it is already established integrated biological control was emphasised as the best strategy. In addition, local agencies should be encouraged to close or restrict assess to infested waterways to limit spread of the weed. Biological: The first ever use of Cyrtobagous salviniae to control S. molesta occured in Lake Moondarra (northern Australia) in 1980. Within a year the 200 ha infestation had been destroyed. The average time needed to control an infestation in Australia using C. salviniae is estimated to be between 2 and 4 years (Room et al. 1981; Forno, 1985; Thomas and Room, 1986, in Room and Fernando, 1992). The biological control programme for S. molesta in Australia was undertaken simultaneously with programmes for the other aquatic invaders Eichhornia crassipes, Pistia stratiodes and Hydrilla verticillata, to avoid the increase of other invasive species as one was controlled (Mack and Lonsdale 2002) Botswana
The role of contaminated equiptment associated with water activities in encouraging the spread of Salvinia has been recognised in Botswana and strict inspection of boats and tailers has been instigated (Howard and Harley, 1998). Cyrtobagous salviniae has also been used successfully to control S. molesta in the country. Colleton County
Eradication commenced several months after the detection of Salvinia molesta. Hand removal from the pond was followed by herbicide application. Fiji
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae has been used successfully to control Salvinia molesta in Fiji (Pieterse et al, 2003). Kakadu National Park
Salvinia molesta was eradicated from a total of five creeks and river systems by the early 1980s. All existing infestations are currently under adequate control by Cyrtobagous salviniae. Monitoring of the Cyrtobagous/Salvinia system with an emphasis on integrated biological and chemical control is being undertaken at Mission Hole on the Daly River, and in Kakadu National Park (ARMCANZ, 2000). Recommended measures for longterm control of Salvinia on the Magela floodplain involve the continued use of weevils in conjunction with herbicides, restricted access, and mechanical harvesting (Finlayson 1994, Storrs & Julien 1996, in Gardner and Finlayson, 2002).Integrated management: The Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) are participating in an integrated management project to control S. molesta in the Kakadu National Park, as outlined below: Biological: Initial release of the beetle C. salviniae occured in 1983. In the Magela creek system the weed continued to spread for several years and the weevil population did not expand. It was reported that control failed (despite being successful at nearby sites), due to high temperatures, which were hypothesised to negatively impact the beetle population (Miller and Wilson, 1989, in Room and Fernando, 1992). Since then studies have futhur characterised the climatic conditions that affect the growth and establishment of C. salviniae in this region. In general conditions unfavourable to the beetles are either (i) a late wet season followed by flooding, or (ii) a poor wet season (either absent or halted). In these cases the following additional control measures are implemented. An excessive build up of secondary vegetation on Salvinia infestations (which prevent the sinking of Salvinia mats heavily infested by beetles) may also lead to the need for additional control measures.
Chemical: Herbicide is applied by hand or via boats onto vegetation (AF100 is used against loose floating mats and hexazinone is used against compact mats).
Physical: Floating ropes anchored to the bank are used to reduce the spread of the weed due to water currents. Driving airboats over mats (heavily damaged and blackened by weevils) at the end of the dry season has improved sinking.
Cultural: Access is prevented to infested areas and activities associated with boating, fishing or motor vechicles are restricted. Displays of Salvinia (immature and mature) are used to help the public and new staff identify the weed. Information displays aimed at those visiting the park are used to encourage the reporting of infestations to the appropriate authorities. The present status of the control of Salvinia was discussed in an article published in Nature in 2011- see Kakadu still battling South American invader Lake Naivasha
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae was released in May 1991 in Lake Naivasha and by mid-1995 the weed had become a rarity in most parts of the lake and fringing wetlands. Although water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) has partly invaded areas previously inhabited by salvinia, it is not as well adapted to the environment of the lake, which contains dissolved salts and is exposed to low night temperatures. Louisiana
Research reports outlining the progress of a successful five year biological control project undertaken by the Agricultural Rearch Service (United States Department of Agriculture) to control salvinia in Texas and Louisiana can be found at:
Tipping, P. 2004. Biological Control of Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) in Texas and Louisiana. U.S. Geological Survey Louisiana
Research reports outlining the progress of a successful five year biological control project undertaken by the Agricultural Rearch Service (United States Department of Agriculture) to control salvinia in Texas and Louisiana can be found at:
Tipping, P. 2004. Biological Control of Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) in Texas and Louisiana. U.S. Geological Survey Namibia
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae has been used successfully to control S. molesta in this country (Room, 1986; 1990, in Room and Fernando, 1992) New Zealand
Champion and Clayton (2000; 2001a, in Champion, Clayton and Rowe, 2002) designed an aquatic plant weed risk assessment model for New Zealand based on invasiveness level, potential distribution and potential impact; using this model S. molesta was rated 57 (or the 16th highest priority of a total of 36 species rated). The Biosecurity Act (1993) allows for the development of Pest Management Strategies (PMS) at either a central government level or a regional level. These are known as National Pest Management Strategies (NPMS) and Regional Pest Management Strategies (RPMS), respectively. Despite the apparent moderate rating of S. molesta it is among only five weeds nominated by MAF for the development of an NPMS. Two other aquatic weeds have also been targeted by MAF: water hyacinth and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). Northern Territory
In the Northern Territory Salvinia is declared a Class B (growth and spread to be controlled) and Class C (not to be introduced to the Northern Territory) weed in accordance with the NT Weeds Management Act. Papua New Guinea
The weevil C. salviniae has been used successfully to control S. molesta in Papua New Guinea; although the impact of Salvinia was catastrophic, it now only causes occasional localised problems. The average time needed to control an infestation of S. molesta using C. salviniae is estimated to be between 1 and 2 years in Papua New Guinea (Pieterse et al, 2003; Thomas and Room, 1986, in Room and Fernando, 1992). Philippines
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae has been used successfully to control S. molesta. Senegal
Integrated management: In early 2000 the IUCN held meetings with the Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary scientific committee and relevant experts (including a co-ordinator from the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam, Holland). Following the advice of these meetings the Government of Senegal put in place a crisis committee to direct the implementation of integrated control of S. molesta (IUCN, 2002). Strategies of control implemented are outlined below: Physical: Between June and July (2000) an expensive and labour intensive intervention was undertaken by the army in Senegal to remove the weed manually. Nets were often torn due to the huge biomasses involved and within two months the weeds had re-invaded the cleared waterbodies. Manual removal was mostly abandoned but proved useful for particularly sensitive areas were rapid intervention was required. Floating barriers and tight-mesh nets were also erected to prevent the spread of the weed (IUCN, 2002). S. molesta infestations in the Senegal River Delta area were cleared up within a year and a half at a cost of less than US$1000. Biological: Effective control of S. molesta was obtained by means of the weevil C. salviniae. In 2000 weevils were obtained from the Plant Protection Research Institute in Pretoria, South Africa; two groups of 300 weevils were released on infestations in the Senegal River (in a site in Mauritania in May and in a site in Senegal in June). Transportation costs were funded by the local people in Mauritania and by the IUCN in Senegal. In Senegal the weevils failed to become established (due to stong winds) but in Mauritania the weevils, which were reared in plastic containers and released at sites protected from water currents and wind, became established and began spreading. In 2001, under the project "Policy research to identify conditions for optimal functioning of the Senegal River ecosystem in Mali, Mauritania and Senegal" (co-ordinated by the Royal Tropical Institute and funded by the EU), 1200 more weevils were shipped to Senegal, reared at the biological station in the Djoudj National Park, monitored by specialists and released between April and June. Detailed monitoring of the dispersal of C. salviniae (between November and December) suggested that biological control had been effective and by April 2002 S. molesta was no longer a problem in the National Parks or in the Delta area. An FAO financed project also released S. molesta into the Senegal river in late 2001 (IUCN, 2002; Pieterse et al, 2003). South Africa
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae has been used successfully to control S. molesta (Pieterse et al, 2003). South India
In 1982 Cyrtobagous salviniae was released in Bangalore and Trichur and successfully controlled S. molesta (Singh, 1989, in Lancer et al. 2001). The average time needed to control an infestation of S. molesta using C. salviniae is estimated to be between 1 and 1.5 years in southern India (Joy et al. 1985; Jayanth, 1987, in Room and Fernando, 1992). Sri Lanka
Manual removal and herbicide treatment in the early 1950’s proved to have limited success in controlling S. molesta. Biological: An extensive biological project carried out between 1982 and 1990 resulted in an estimated 99% of the 130 treated S. molesta infestations being partially destroyed and 80% being completely destroyed. The average time needed to control infestations in Sri Lanka (using C. salviniae) was estimated to be between 1 and 2 years and a cost:benefit analysis estimated a return of 53:1 in cash and 1673:1 in labour. In late 1986 adult C. salviniae were collected from Australia and tested for host-specificity in Sri Lanka. After proving to be host-specific, they were placed in floating cages on two infestations of S. molesta. Plants were treated with fertiliser (because increased nitrogen levels stimulate C. salviniae reproduction). Between five and ten months after the intial translocation, the beetle populations had reached sufficient sizes to warrent dispersal. Beetles (in groups of 200) were translocated to nine infestation sites. The beetles were placed on weeds that were enclosed in floating bamboo frames, anchored to the ground, to allow weekly monitoring. In late 1987 further dispersal of the beetles occurred. By mid 1988 the beetles were dispersed to over 130 sites. From early 1988 the public were informed (via television, newspapers and radio) of beetle locations to encourage dispersal of beetles to infestations of S. molesta. Extensive monitoring between 1986 and 1990 revealed that of the 99 sites surveyed 77 had been completely destroyed, 21 had been partially destroyed and only one had remained unaffected by the beetles. The failure at was thought to be due to the large amount of vegetation growing on and among the weed. Beetle population growth and weed reduction generally followed a similar pattern: initial slow dispersal, followed by several months of increasing speed of dispersal and population growth and finally (over a matter of only a few days) a sudden browning and senescence of the salvinia mats. Mats would sink leaving only a few isolated small plants (interspersed among the emergent vegetation in the shallows). Nitrogen content had an impact on the time it took to control an infestation. Natural migration of the beetle was evident as the beetle was found to be present in sites where it had not been released. In fact, the beetle population in Mahawewa, which crashed temporarily (possibly due to unusually high temperatures), was naturally revived. A re-infestation of S. molesta in Thinipitiyawewa (following its eradication by beetles) was subsequently controlled by a beetle population that had become naturally re-established. Tasmania
Salvinia is a declared weed in Tasmania under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999. The importation, sale and distribution of Salvinia are prohibited in Tasmania. The legal responsibilities of landholders and other stakeholders in dealing with Salvinia are laid out in the Salvinia Weed Management Plan (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania, 2011). Tengwe Tobacco Commercial Farming area
Mechanical, physical and chemical control methods to contain salvinia in the Tengwe dams have had limited success (P.W. Dawson, pers. comm., in Chikwenhere and Keswani, 1997). Physical: In 1989 about 400 days of manual labour were utilised to clear the weed (at cost of approximately US$ 1,700). This temporarily and partially cleared waterways but reinfestation was apparent within three weeks. Due to this it was virtually impossible to achieve sustainable control by manual removal. Floating barriers were erected in both dams to improve assessibility to the water (for livestock). This cost approximately US$ 900 (including the costs of labour the burning of the cleared weed). Chemical: In 1990 a helicopter was used to aerially spray the infestations with glyphosate (at a cost of approximately US$ 6,400). This achieved satisfactory control but, again, reinfestation was apparent within three weeks. Biological: Between 1992 and 1995 the weevil C. salviniae was used to control S. molesta. The effectiveness of C. salviniae was evident within four months. Before the control program salvinia had covered 90% of the dams; after two years of control using C. salviniae more than 99% of the dams were cleared. Commercially important fish and indigenous species that had previously been lost were able to recover. Water quality increased and pesticide use decreased. The biological control details are summarised as follows:
In May 1992 a starter colony of 550 adult weevils (C. salviniae) was imported from the Department of Water Affairs of Botswana and 300 were released immediately into the two dams. The rest were cultured in ten containers (approximately 50 cm wide and 40 cm deep) and were incubated at about 26°C. The containers were replenished with water, plant nutrients and fresh S. molesta regularly. After six months (between November 1992 and February 1993) approximately 500 infested plants (containing more than 3500 weevils) were distributed between the dams. United States (USA)
Salvinia molesta is classified as a 'Noxious weed' in the USA, 'Class A Noxious' weed in Alabama and Vermont, 'Prohibited' and 'Regulated' Noxious weed in Arizona, 'Quarantine' weed in California and Oregon, 'A list (noxious weeds)' in Colorado, as 'Potentially invasive', and banned in Connecticut, 'Prohibited aquatic plant, Class 1' in Florida, 'Prohibited' in Masachusetts, 'Noxious weed' in Mississippi and Nevada, 'Class A noxious weed' in North Carolina, 'Invasive aquatic plant' and 'Plant pest' in South Carolina and 'Noxious plant' in Texas (USDA-NRCS 2012) Western Australia
Salvinia is declared P1, P2 (eradication) under the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act (1976) for the whole state. In many cases infestations are cleaned up by community groups or local government. Almost all infestations are the result of the dumping of salvinia originating from garden ponds, which suggests that management should be targeted at educating pond and aquarium owners about the risks associated with dumping salvinia into the environment. See this Factsheet Declared Plant in Western Australia- November 2012- Salvinia molesta, which includes information on its legal status in Western Australia as well as management options Zambia
The weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae has been used successfully to control S. molesta. Zimbabwe
Preventative measures: The movement of boats to and from Lake Kariba may have been responsible for the spread of salvinia into inland waterbodies in Zimbabwe. If boat movement to and from Lake Kariba continues to proceed unchecked it is thought that most water bodies will eventually be infested with the weed. Appropriate preventative strategies include restricting access to heavily infested areas, educating people who use the waterways about the importance of cleaning boats and enforcing quarantine procedures.Biological: Paulinia acuminata, an aquatic grasshopper introduced into Lake Kariba in the 1960s was believed to keep the salvinia population in check.In Zimbabwe the economic advantage of using C. salvinae was estimated at a ratio of 1:10.6 over a four year period. The first year of biological control came to approximatley US$ 500, whereas by the third year costs had been reduced to approximately US$ 90.
Management Resources/Links
2. Andreu, J. and M. Vila 2010. Risk analysis of potential invasive plants in Spain. Journal for Nature Conservation 18(1): 34-44. 3. Barreto, R.; Charudattan, R.; Pomella, A.; Hanada, R. 2000. Biological control of neotropical aquatic weeds with fungi. Crop Protection 19(8-10): 697-703 4. Batianoff, G. N. and D. W. Butler 2002. Assessment of invasive naturalized plants in south-east Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly 17(1): 27-34. 5. Berruti, A., Baker, N., Buijs, D., Colahan, B.D., Davies, C., Dellegn, Y., Eksteen, J.,
Kolberg, H., Marchant, A., Mpofu, Z., Nantongo-Kalundu, P., Nnyiti, P., Pienaar, K., Shaw, K., Tyali, T., van
Niekerk, J., Wheeler, M.J. and Evans, S.W. (eds). 2007. International Single Species Action Plan for the
Conservation of the Maccoa Duck (Oxyura maccoa). AEWA Technical Series No. 14. Bonn, Germany
Summary: Available from: http://www.unep-aewa.org/publications/technical_series/ts_14_maccoa_duck_final.pdf [Accessed June 5 2012] 6. Bowcher, A. and Lee, T. 2003. Integrated Weed Management: Salvinia (fact sheet). CRC for Australian Weed Management.
Summary: Integrating management options into a viable management plan in Kakadu National Park. 7. Brunel, S.; Schrader, G.; Brundu, G.; Fried, G., 2010. Emerging invasive alien plants for the Mediterranean Basin. Bulletin OEPP 40(2): 219-238. 11. Champion, P.D.; Clayton, J.S. 2001. Border control for potential aquatic weeds. Stage 2. Weed risk assessment. Science for Conservation 185. 30 p.
Summary: This report is the second stage in the development of a Border Control Programme for aquatic plants that have the potential to become ecological weeds in New Zealand. Importers and traders in aquatic plants were surveyed to identify the plant species known or likely to be present in New Zealand. The Aquatic Plant Weed Risk Assessment Model was used to help assess the level of risk posed by these species. The report presents evidence of the various entry pathways and considers the impact that new invasive aquatic weed species may have on vulnerable native aquatic species and communities.
Available from: http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/SFC185.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2007] 12. Chikwenhere, G.P. and Keswani, C.L. 1997. Economics of Biological Control of Kariba Weed (Salvinia molesta Mitchell) at Tengwe in North-western Zimbabwe - a Case Study, International Journal of Pest Management 43(2): 109 - 112.
Summary: A summary on the use of Cyrtobagous salviniae as a biological control agent in heavily infested lake in Zimbabwe previously used for breeding fish (with an emphasis on cost:benefit analysis). 13. Coetzee, J. A; Hill, M. P.; Byrne, M. J.; Bownes, A., 2011. A review of the biological control programmes on Eichhornia crassipes (C.Mart.) Solms (Pontederiaceae), Salvinia molesta D S Mitch. (Salviniaceae), Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae), Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. (Haloragaceae) and Azolla filiculoides Lam. (Azollaceae) in South Africa. African Entomology 19(2, Sp. Iss. SI): 451-468. 15. Cowie, I. D. and P. A. Werner, 1993. Alien plant species invasive in Kakadu National Park, tropical northern Australia. Biological Conservation 63(2): 127-135 16. Denslow, J. S. and M. T. Johnson., 2006. Biological control of tropical weeds: Research opportunities in plant-herbivore interactions. Biotropica 38(2): 139-142. 17. Diop, O. and M. P. Hill., 2009. Quantitative post-release evaluation of biological control of floating fern, Salvinia molesta DS Mitchell (Salviniaceae), with Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on the Senegal River and Senegal River Delta. African Entomology 17(1): 64-70. 18. Dongare, M., 2007. Phytoremediation potential of an aquatic fern: Salvinia molesta Mitch from Kotitirth Lake of Kolhapur city (Maharashtra). Indian Fern Journal 24(1-2): 71-76. 19. Dorahy, C. G.; Pirie, A. D.; McMaster, I.; Muirhead, L.; Pengelly, P.; Chan, K. Y.; Jackson, M.; Barchia, I. M., 2009. Environmental Risk Assessment of Compost Prepared from Salvinia, Egeria densa, and Alligator Weed. Journal of Environmental Quality 38(4): 1483-1492 20. Dye, J.M. and Heinz, K.M. Undated Biological control of Salvinia species. A&M University (Department of Entomology): Texas.
Summary: Salvinia Biocontrol poster 21. Emerine, Sherrie E.; Richardson, R. J.; True, S. L.; West, A. M.; Roten, R. L., 2010. Greenhouse Response of Six Aquatic Invasive Weeds to Imazamox. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 48: 105-111 23. Everitt, J. H.; Fletcher, R. S.; Elder, H. S.; Yang, C., 2008. Mapping giant salvinia with satellite imagery and image analysis. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment 139(1-3): 35-40. 24. Everitt, J. H.; Yang, C.; Helton, R. J.; Hartmann, L. H.; Davis, M. R., 2002. Remote sensing of giant salvinia in Texas waterways. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 40: 11-16 25. Fairchild, James F.; Allert, A. L.; Riddle, J. S.; Gladwin, D. R., 2002. Efficacy of glyphosate and five surfactants for controlling giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 40: 53-58 26. Fall, Ousmane; Fall, Ibrahima; Hori, Nobuyuki., 2004. Assessment of the abundance and distribution of the aquatic plants and their impacts in the Senegal River Delta: The case of Khouma and Djoudj streams. Weed Technology 18(Suppl. S): 1203-1209 27. Flores, D. and J. W. Carlson., 2006. Biological control of giant salvinia in East Texas waterways and the impact on dissolved oxygen levels. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 44: 115-121 28. Forno, I. W., 1987. Biological Control of the Floating Fern Salvinia molesta in Northeastern Australia Plant-Herbivore Interactions. Bulletin of Entomological Research 77(1): 9-18. 29. Giardini, M. G. M., 2004. Salvinia molesta DS Mitchell (Salviniaceae): the second record for Italy (Latium) and consideration about the control of this invasive species. Webbia 59(Part 2): 457-467 30. Giardini, M., 2003. Notes on the biology, ecology and control of Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (Salviniaceae), an invasive species new to Latium. Rivista di Idrobiologia 42(1-3): 263-282. 31. Glomski, L. A. M. and K. D. Getsinger., 2006. Carfentrazone-ethyl for control of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 44: 136-138. 32. Glomski, Lee Ann M.; Nelson, L. S.; Skogerboe, J. G., 2003. Clearigate(R) treatments for control of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 127-129. 33. Gunaratne, A. M.; Jayakody, S.; Bambaradeniya, C. N. B., 2009. Spatial distribution of aquatic birds in Anavilundawa Ramsar wetland sanctuary in Sri Lanka. Biological Invasions 11(4): 951-958. 34. Howard, G.W. and Harley, K.L.S. 1998. How do Floating Aquatic Weeds Affect Wetland Conservation and Development? How can These Effects be Minimised?, Wetlands Ecology and Management 5: 215 - 225. 35. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2002. Note on the Control of Salvinia Molesta in Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal).
Summary: Outline of the proceedings of the IUCN and associated organisations that initiated a biological control project (using Cyrtobagous salviniae) to manage salvinia in the Senegal River Delta area. 36. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4.
Summary: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on taxa that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The IUCN Red List also includes information on taxa that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild; on taxa that cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information (i.e. are Data Deficient); and on taxa that are either close to meeting the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific conservation programme (i.e. are Near Threatened).
Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ [Accessed 25 May 2011] 37. Jacobs, T. V. 1998. Systematic and conservation status of estuarine macrophytes of South Africa. Phyton 63(1-2): 267-273. 38. Jacono, C. C. 1999. Salvinia molesta (Salviniaceae), new to Texas and Louisiana. SIDA Contributions to Botany 18(3): 927-928 39. Jacono, C.C. 2003. Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell. U.S. Geological Survey. 40. Jacono, C.C. 2004. Sites Where Salvinia molesta (giant salvinia) Occurs in Cultivation May Serve as Sources For Introduction to Natural Systems. U.S. Geological Survey. 42. Jacono, Colette C.; Davern, Tracy R.; Center, Ted D., 2001. The adventive status of Salvinia minima and S. molesta in the Southern United States and the related distribution of the weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae. Castanea 66(3): 214-226. 43. Jayanth, K. P. 1987., Biological Control of the Water Fern Salvinia molesta Infesting a Lily Pond in Bangalore India by Cyrtobagous salviniae. Entomophaga 32(2): 163-166. 44. Julien, M. H., A. S. Bourne, Chan, R. R., 1987. Effects of Adult and Larval Cyrtobagous salviniae on the Floating Weed Salvinia molesta. Journal of Applied Ecology 24(3): 935-944 45. Julien, M. H.; Scott, J. K.; Orapa, W.; Paynter, Q., 2007. History, opportunities and challenges for biological control in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific islands. Crop Protection 26(3): 255-265 47. Kurugundla, C. N.; Bonyongo, M. C.; Serumola, O., 2010. Impact of deltamethrin aerial sprays on adult Cyrtobagous salviniae in Botswana. African Journal of Aquatic Science 35(3): 259-265 48. Lancer, L., Krake, K., Brabben, T., Plantey, J. and Malano, H. 2002. Aquatic Weeds and Their Management. Working Group on Development and Management of Irrigation Systems (WG-DMIS): International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. 49. Land Protection. 2004. Salvinia: Salvinia Species, (facts pest series). The State of Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 50. Lonsdale, W. M. and A. M. Lane., 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biological Conservation 69(3): 277-283. 52. Mahaulpatha, W. A. D.; Mahaulpatha, W. M. T.; Wasantha, K. A. L., 2008. Effects of water-level fluctuation and invasive water plants on pheasant-tailed jacana (Hydrophasianus chirugus) at the Annaiwilundawa Ramsar site of northwestern Sri Lanka. Wetlands Ecology & Management 16(1): 33-42. 54. McIntosh, Dennis; King, Chad; Fitzsimmons, Kevin., 2003. Tilapia for biological control of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 28-31. 55. Miller, I. L. and S. E. Pickering., 1988. Eradication of Salvinia Salvinia molesta from the Adelaide River Northern Territory Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 3(2): 69-73 56. National Pest Plant Accord, 2001. Biosecurity New Zealand.
Summary: The National Pest Plant Accord is a cooperative agreement between regional councils and government departments with biosecurity responsibilities. Under the accord, regional councils will undertake surveillance to prevent the commercial sale and/or distribution of an agreed list of pest plants.
Available from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/plants/accord.htm [Accessed 11 August 2005] 57. Nelson, Linda S. ; Skogerboe, John G.; Getsinger, Kurt D., 2001. Herbicide evaluation against giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 39: 48-53. 58. Nelson, Linda S.; Glomski, L. M.; Gladwin, D. N., 2007. Effect of glyphosate rate and spray volume on control of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 45: 58-61 59. NRM Facts Pest Series. Salvinia sp. Land Protection. Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Qld. 60. Oliver, J. D., 1993. A review of the biology of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta Mitchell). Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31(July): 227-231 61. Owens, Chetta S.; Smart, R. Michael; Honnell, David R.; Dick, Gary O., 2005. Effects of pH on growth of Salvinia molesta mitchell. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 43: 34-38. 62. Owens, Chetta S.; Smart, R. Michael; Stewart, R. Michael., 2004. Low temperature limits of giant salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42(July): 91-94. 64. Pieterse, A.H., Kettunen, M., Diouf, S., Ndao, I., Sarr, K., Tarvainen, A., Kloff, S. and Hellsten, S. 2003. Effective biological control of Salvinia molesta in the Senegal River by Means of the Weevil Cyrtobagous salviniae, Ambio 32 (7): 458 - 462. 65. Rayachhetry, M. B.; Center, T. R.; Center, T. D.; Tipping, P.; Pratt, P. D.; Van, T. K., 2002. First report of the pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani on Salvinia molesta and S. minima in Florida. Plant Disease 86(7): 813. 66. Rice, Barry. 2002. Salvinia molesta Wildland Invasive Species Team 67. Richardson, Robert J.; Roten, R. L.; West, A. M.; True, S. L.; Gardner, A. P., 2008. Response of Selected Aquatic Invasive Weeds to Flumioxazin and Carfentrazone-ethyl. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 46: 154-158. 68. Riefner, R. E., Jr. and S. Boyd., 2007. New records of wetland and riparian plants in southern California, with recommendations and additions to the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1(1): 719-740. 69. Room, P. M. and I. V. S. Fernando., 1992. Weed Invasions Countered by Biological Control Salvinia molesta and Eichhornia crassipes in Sri Lanka. Aquatic Botany 42(2): 99-108. 70. Room, P.M., 1990, Ecology & Evolution, 5:77. Doeleman, J.A., ‘Biological Control of Salvinia molesta in Sri Lanka; an assessment of costs and benefits’, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Technical Report 12.
Summary: Management information on Salvinia molesta. 72. Sengar, R. S. and K. P. Sharma., 1993. Biological control of Salvinia molesta Mitchell with Phragmites karaka (Retz.) Trin. ex Steud. Geobios 20(4): 267-268.
73. Solangaarachchi, S. M. and R. P. K. Dushyantha., 1994. Growth and branching of damaged Salvinia molesta. Journal of the National Science Council of Sri Lanka 22(3): 271-278 74. Solangaarachchi, S. M. and W. M. D. S. K. Perera., 1996. Preliminary studies on changes in distribution of aquatic macrophytes in the Lunuwila tank in 1991-1993, after introduction of Cyrtobagous salviniae to control Salvinia molesta. Journal of the National Science Council of Sri Lanka 24(2): 81-94. 75. Sullivan, P. R. and L. A. Postle., 2010. Low Temperature Reproduction of Cyrtobagous salviniae: Good News for Biological Control of Salvinia in a Temperate Climate. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 48: 92-96 76. Sullivan, Paul R.; Postle, Lesley A.; Julien, Mic., 2011. Biological control of Salvinia molesta by Cyrtobagous salviniae in temperate Australia. Biological Control 57(3): 222-228. 77. Swaziland's Alien Plants Database., Undated. Salvinia molesta
Summary: A database of Swaziland's alien plant species. 78. Swearingen, J., Reshetiloff, K., Slattery, B. and Zwicker, S. 2002. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas: Giant Salvinia - Salvinia molesta. National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Summary: Online book that includes information on origin, spread, distribution, description, methods of disposal, and look-alikes. 79. Tipping, P. W. and T. D. Center., 2003. Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) successfully overwinters in Texas and Louisiana. Florida Entomologist 86(1): 92-93. 80. Tipping, P. W. and T. D. Center., 2005. Influence of plant size and species on preference of Cyrtobagous salviniae adults from two populations. Biological Control 32(2): 263-268 81. Tipping, Philip W.; Martin, Melissa R.; Center, Ted D., 2012. Weevils Versus No Weevils: A Comparison of Salvinia minima Populations in Florida and Louisiana. Florida Entomologist 95(3): 779-782. 82. Tipping, Philip W.; Martin, Melissa R.; Center, Ted D.; Davern, Tracy M., 2008. Suppression of Salvinia molesta Mitchell in Texas and Louisiana by Cyrtobagous salviniae Calder and Sands. Aquatic Botany 88(3): 196-202 83. Tipping, Philip W.; Martin, Melissar R.; Bauer, Laurie; Pokorny, Eileen; Center, Ted D. 2010. Asymmetric impacts of two herbivore ecotypes on similar host plants. Ecological Entomology 35(4): 469-476 84. Upadhyay, R. K.Upadhyay, R. K.; Panda, S. K.Panda, S. K., 2005. Salt tolerance of two aquatic macrophytes, Pistia stratiotes and Salvinia molesta. Biologia Plantarum (Prague). 49(1). MAR 05. 157-159. 85. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2003. In May, M., Grosso, C. and Collins, J. (eds). Practical Guidebook for the Identification and Control of Invasive Aquatic and Wetland Plants in the San Francisco Bay-Delta. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Oakland (California). 86. Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., Marais, C. and Magadlela, D. 2001. The Economic Consequences of Alien Plant Invasions: Examples of Impacts and Approaches to Sustainable Management in South Africa, Environment, Development and Sustainability 3: 145 - 168.
Summary: Overview of the consequences of invasive weed species introduced into South Africa. 88. Weber, Ewald & Daniel Gut., 2004. Assessing the risk of potentially invasive plant species in central Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation 12 (2004) 171—179 89. White, S. E.; Tipping, Philip W.; Becnel, James J., 2007. First isolation of a Helicosporidium sp. (Chlorophyta : Trebouxiophyceae) from the biological control agent Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera : Curculionidae). Biological Control 40(2): 243-245. 90. Whiteman, J. B. and P. M. Room., 1991. Temperatures Lethal to Salvinia molesta Mitchell. Aquatic Botany 40(1): 27-36. 91. Wijeyaratne, M. J. S. and W. M. D. S. K. Perera., 2000. Studies on the feasibility of using indigenous fishes for controlling aquatic macrophytes in Sri Lanka. Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics 15(3): 253-260. Results Page: 1
|
|
|
|
 |
|
