Potamogeton natans (broad-leaved pondweed)
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Potamogeton natans L. (1753)
- Preferred Common Name
- broad-leaved pondweed
- International Common Names
- Spanishespiga de aguallengua d'oca
- Frenchpotamot
- Portuguesecolher de folha larga
- Local Common Names
- Denmarksvommende vandaks
- GermanySchwimmendes Laichkraut
- Icelandblookunykra
- Italylattuga ranina
- Madagascarvalatendro
- Netherlandsdrijvend fonteinkruid
- Norwayvanleg tjonnaks
- Swedengaddnate
- USAfloatingleaf pondweed (USA)
- EPPO code
- PTMNA (Potamogeton natans)
Pictures
Distribution
Prevention and Control
Little has been published specifically on control of P. natans, and what literature is available treats this species largely as a non-nuisance species.
Cultural Control
Effective removal by mechanical harvesting (cutting and raking) can be successful in canals (Murphy et al., 1987, 1990). In North America and Western Europe, special barges are used which cut the weeds and also remove them from the water, alternatively cutting machines are mounted on boats or tractors which cut the weeds in streams and small rivers letting the cut plant material float downstream. Mechanical mowing and rolling is widely used in the control of weeds in irrigation ditches (Dunk and Tisdall, 1954; Seaman, 1958).
Chemical Control
Glyphosate and diquat have been used with success in Scotland to control P. natans (Murphy et al., 1990). In English lakes, dichlobenil provided good control of P. natans (Terry et al., 1981). Similar results have been published for French reservoirs (CTGREF, 1978). In Yugoslavia, copper ethylene diamine, terbutryne and paraquat were effective (Arsenovic et al., 1982).
Biological Control
For biological control, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) has been used successfully in Scottish channels (Murphy et al., 1990), and Polish lakes (Krzywosz et al., 1980). However, a mesocosm-scale feeding study indicated that P. natans and Myriophyllum specatum were avoided if more palatable species were available. In the latter case it was concluded that understocking would lead to dominance of the vegetation by P. natans and M. spicatum (Fowler and Robson, 1978). Of species related to P. natans, P. pectinatus, P. berchtoldii, and P. densus were more palatable to grass carp (German Plant Protection Service, 1975; Fowler, 1978).
The fish Tillapia zillii has been used to control Potamogeton species and other weeds in the western USA (Legner and Pelsue, 1983).
Effective removal by mechanical harvesting (cutting and raking) can be successful in canals (Murphy et al., 1987, 1990). In North America and Western Europe, special barges are used which cut the weeds and also remove them from the water, alternatively cutting machines are mounted on boats or tractors which cut the weeds in streams and small rivers letting the cut plant material float downstream. Mechanical mowing and rolling is widely used in the control of weeds in irrigation ditches (Dunk and Tisdall, 1954; Seaman, 1958).
Chemical Control
Glyphosate and diquat have been used with success in Scotland to control P. natans (Murphy et al., 1990). In English lakes, dichlobenil provided good control of P. natans (Terry et al., 1981). Similar results have been published for French reservoirs (CTGREF, 1978). In Yugoslavia, copper ethylene diamine, terbutryne and paraquat were effective (Arsenovic et al., 1982).
Biological Control
For biological control, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) has been used successfully in Scottish channels (Murphy et al., 1990), and Polish lakes (Krzywosz et al., 1980). However, a mesocosm-scale feeding study indicated that P. natans and Myriophyllum specatum were avoided if more palatable species were available. In the latter case it was concluded that understocking would lead to dominance of the vegetation by P. natans and M. spicatum (Fowler and Robson, 1978). Of species related to P. natans, P. pectinatus, P. berchtoldii, and P. densus were more palatable to grass carp (German Plant Protection Service, 1975; Fowler, 1978).
The fish Tillapia zillii has been used to control Potamogeton species and other weeds in the western USA (Legner and Pelsue, 1983).
Impact
Exuberant growth of submerged weeds can impact on water use in various ways. Irrigation channels may become blocked, affecting irrigated crops, such as rice in Asiatic countries and cotton in the USA. Mehta et al. (1973) reported that about 1500 ha of the Chambal irrigation system was infested with aquatic weeds, causing a reduction in the water carrying capacity by as much as 80%. Blockage of larger channels may inhibit ship movements, thus affecting trade. Submerged plants in general, have been proven to interfere with fishing operations, causing loss of revenue (Dutta and Gupta, 1976). P. distinctans has been described as interfering with normal crop growth in rice paddy fields (Takayama and Suge, 1984; Zuo et al., 1992; Park et al., 1995).P. natans is a principal aquatic weed in India, a common weed in Australia and causes problems in Brazil. P. pectinatus is a serious weed of general waterways in Australia, Egypt, UK and the USA. P. crispus is a principal weed of irrigation schemes and water bodies of Australia, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Germany, India, Sudan, UK and the USA (Holm et al., 1997).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 20 November 2019
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.