Description
A floating plant (but often treated with 'submersed aquatic vegetation').
Taxonomy
Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plantae | Magnoliophyta | Magnoliopsida | Myrtales | Trapaceae | Trapa |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1923 | Established | Expanding | Introduced | Regular Resident | Europe | Eurasia | Ornamental(Aquatic Plant) |
History of Spread
Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) has a wide native range in Europe, Asian, and Africa (Cook 1985; Swedish Natural History Museum 2001). The earliest record in North America is cited by Eaton (1947): 'There is a specimen in the herbarium of the New England Botanical Club dated August 29, 1859', from the Sudbury River, Concord MA. It was widely sold by aquarium dealers and planted in fishponds, and in 1884, it was introduced into Collins Lake, in the Hudson River basin in 1884, now abundant in Hudson River from Mohawk River to Rockland County NJ (Mills et al. 1997). Trapa natans spread to the Great Lakes (date not known), probably by a separate introduction, and has required mechanical control in Sodus Bay, Lake Ontario since the 1960's. It is now abundant in the nontidal St. Lawrence and Richelieu Rivers, in Lake Champlain (Mills et al. 1993), and the Connecticut River (Les and Mehrhof 1999).
In the Chesapeake Bay region, Trapa natans has invaded tidal fresh waters of the Potomac River and upper Chesapeake Bay tributaries.
Potomac River - Trapa natans was planted in fishponds in the Washington D.C. as early as 1878, when it was cultivated in a pond by a Department of Agriculture building (U.S. National Herbarium collections). Wild plants were first observed at the mouth of Oxon Run, in the Potomac River in 1923 (Rawls 1964, cited by Stevenson and Confer 1978). The extensive and rapid spread of this plant in the tidal Potomac created navigation problems in the 1920's-30's, with up to 4000 ha of water surface covered, prompting control efforts, including mechanical cutting and herbicides. There was a resurgence in the early 1950's, prompting renewed efforts. 'Many years of control efforts by the Corps of Engineers and expenditures in excess of $550,000 [2.8 million in 1992 dollars; converted from 1950 dollars] has resulted in virtual elimination of Water Chestnut from the Potomac. Only yearly surveillance and hand pulling of isolated plants is now required' (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). Plants are now absent or very rare in the Potomac, but seeds are still found in the sediment (Hurley 1990). There are no records from VA, except from the Potomac (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977), and this plant is not listed in the Atlas of the Virginia Flora (Harvill et al. 1992). In the summer of 2014, a patch of Water Chestnut was discovered in Pohick Bay VA, by Nancy Rybicki (US Geological Survey). The population was harvested by volunteers, organized by John Odenkirk, Virginia Division of Inland Fisheries (Mark Levandowski, personal communication; Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 2014).
Upper Bay and Tributaries - 'In 1955, large patches were found on the Bird River, a Gunpowder River tributary in the Upper Bay. A control program continued for 7 years, but infestations of up to 80 ha reappeared in the Gunpowder and Sassafras Rivers in 1964 and 1965.' After control programs, only a few isolated plants were found (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). Trapa natans was not reported in recent submerged aquatic vegetation surveys (Orth 1992) except for one 1987 aerial survey sighting in Sassafras River (Batiuk et al. 1992). However, in 1998, a dramatic resurgence occurred on the Bird and Sassafras River, where colonies covered more than 8 hectares in each river. A mechanical harvester was hired, and many volunteers recruited to remove 1,000,000 kg of plants. In 1999 and 2000, harvest efforts continued, and T. natans' coverage was greatly reduced (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2000).
History References - Batiuk et al. 1992; Eaton 1947; Harvill et al. 1992; Hurley 1990; Les and Mehrhof 1999; Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2000; Mills et al. 1993; Mills et al. 1997; Orth 1992; Stevenson and Confer 1978; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977
Invasion Comments
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
Temperature (ºC) | ||||
Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Oxygen | hypoxic | |||
pH | ||||
Salinity Range | fresh-oligo |
Age and Growth
Male | Female | |
---|---|---|
Minimum Adult Size (mm) | ||
Typical Adult Size (mm) | 1500.0 | 1500.0 |
Maximum Adult Size (mm) | 3050.0 | 3050.0 |
Maximum Longevity (yrs) | ||
Typical Longevity (yrs | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Reproduction
Start | Peak | End | |
---|---|---|---|
Reproductive Season | |||
Typical Number of Young Per Reproductive Event |
|||
Sexuality Mode(s) | |||
Mode(s) of Asexual Reproduction |
|||
Fertilization Type(s) | |||
More than One Reproduction Event per Year |
|||
Reproductive Startegy | |||
Egg/Seed Form |
Impacts
Economic Impacts in Chesapeake Bay
The impacts of Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) have fluctuated drastically with its population in tidal fresh tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. A successful eradication campaign nearly eliminated the plant from the Potomac River and upper Bay by the 1960s, but in 1998, a dramatic resurgence occurred on the Bird and Sassafras Rivers (MD), tributaries of the Upper Bay. Annual eradication campaigns since then have greatly decreased the extent of the infestation (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2000).
Aesthetic - Trapa natans made swimming unpleasant (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). This plant is probably unattractive in large quantities, and likely to cause unpleasant odors when washed ashore. The plant was regarded as ornamental in fish ponds (Mills et al. 1997), and the seeds can be roasted and eaten (Brown and Brown 1984).
Fisheries - Areas of dense growth are avoided by fishes (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977).
Boating- In the 1920s-1950s, Trapa natans interfered with navigation on the Potomac and upper Bay tributaries and required mechanical harvesting, and later, herbicide control to maintain channels. Overall costs for the 1920s-1950s control program probably exceeded $2.8 million dollars (1950 dollars, converted to 1992 dollars) (Stevenson and Confer 1978; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). The cost of the recent 1998-to present upper Bay eradication program, using mechanical harvesters and volunteers with rakes (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2000), is not known.
Health - The seeds are spiny and can cause injuries if stepped on (Hurley 1990). Dense growths were probably favorable to mosquito breeding, as was the case with Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil) (Stevenson and Confer 1978).
Habitat Change - See under 'Ecological impacts'. Trapa natans killed native submerged aquatic vegetation which were important waterfowl foods (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). Control methods-including mechanical harvesting and herbicides probably also had some adverse affects of fishes (Serafy et al. 1993) and on submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
References - Brown and Brown 1984; Mills et al. 1997; Hurley 1990; Serafy et al. 1993; Stevenson and Confer 1978; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977.
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
In areas where Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) has become abundant (Hudson River, Lake Ontario, Potomac, and others), it has required costly mechanical and chemical control programs (Mills et al. 1993; Mills et al. 1997). Effects of fisheries and waterfowl appear to be overwhelmingly negative (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). However, it is still frequently cultivated and sold as an ornamental.
References- United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
The impacts of Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) have fluctuated drastically with its population in tidal fresh tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. A successful eradication campaign nearly eliminated the plant from the Potomac River and upper Bay by the 1960s, but in 1998, a dramatic resurgence occurred on the Bird and Sassafras Rivers (MD), tributaries of the Upper Bay. Annual eradication campaigns since then have greatly decreased the extent of the infestation (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2000).
Competition - In the Potomac and some Upper Bay tributaries, Trapa natans grew so densely as to make a continuous sheet of vegetation across bodies of water, shutting out light, killing submerged aquatic vegetation (Stevenson and Confer 1978; United States Army Corps of Enginers 1977).
Habitat Change - 'It has also been found that very few fish will frequent these (Trapa natans) areas and that normal biological processes are terminated or severely reduced' (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977). Decomposition of large biomasses probably depleted oxygen concentrations.
Food/Prey - Plants and seeds are not used as wildlife food (Hurley 1990).
References - Hurley 1990; Stevenson and Confer 1978; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1977
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) probably has had impacts on introduced as well as native fishes and introduced submerged aquatic vegetation similar to those on native species (see 'Impacts on Native Residents'). Plant species especially likely to be affected would be Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil), Najas minor (Eurasian Water-Nymph), Potamogeton crispus (Curly Pondweed), and Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrilla).
References
Batiuk, Richard A.; Orth, Robert J.; Moore, Kenneth A.; Dennison, William C.; Stevenson, J. Court; Staver, Lorie W.; Carter, Virginia; Rybicki, Nancy (1992) Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation, habitat requirements and restoration targets: a technical synthesis, In: (Eds.) . , Annapolis, MD. Pp.Brown, Melvin L.; Brown, Russell G. (1984) Herbaceous Plants of Maryland, , College Park. Pp.
Carter, Virginia; Gammon, Patricia T.; Bartow, Nancy C. (1984) Submersed aquatic plants of the tidal Potomac River, Geological Survey Bulletin 1543: 1-58
Easton, Robert S.; Orth, Donald J.; Burkhead, Noel M. (1993) The first collection of rudd, Scardinius erythropthalmus, in the New River, West Virginia, Journal of Freshwater Ecology 8: 263-264
Eaton, Richard J. (1947) Lemna minor as an aggressive weed in the Sudbury River, Rhodora 49: 165-171
Groth, Anne T., Lovett-Doust, Lesley, Lovett-Doust, Jon (1996) Population density and module demography in Trapa natans(Trapaceae), an annual, clonal aquatic macrophyte, American Journal of Botany 83: 1406-1415
Harvill, A. M.; Bradley, Ted R.; Stevens, Charles E.; Wieboldt, Thomas F.; Ware, Donna M. E.; Ogle, Douglas W.; Ramsey, Gwynn W.; Fleming, Gary P. (1992) Atlas of the Virginia Flora, , Burkeville, VA. Pp.
Hotchkiss, Neil (1967) Underwater and floating-leaved plants of the United States and Canada, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publication 44: 1-124
Hurley, Linda M. (1990) Field guide to the submersed aquatic vegetation of Chesapeake Bay., , Annapolis, MD. Pp.
Les, Donald H.; Mehrhoff, Leslie J. (1999) Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in southern New England: a historical perspective., Biological Invasions 1: 281-300
Lippson, Alice J. (1973) The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural Resources, , Baltimore, MD. Pp.
Lippson, Alice J.; Haire, Michael S.; Holland, A. Frederick; Jacobs, Fred; Jensen, Jorgen; Moran-Johnson, R. Lynn; Polgar, Tibor T.; Richkus, William (1979) Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary, , Baltimore, MD. Pp.
2000 1999-2000 Water Chestnut eradication report. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/sav/water_chestnut_report.html
Mills, Edward L.; Leach, Joseph H.; Carlton, James T.; Secor, Carol L. (1993) Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions., Journal of Great Lakes Research 19: 1-54
Mills, Edward L.; Scheuerell, Mark D.; Carlton, James T.; Strayer, David (1997) Biological invasions in the Hudson River: an inventory and historical analysis., New York State Museum Circular 57: 1-51
Mitchell, Joseph C., Southwick, Ronald (1993) Notes on the spiny softshell, Apalone spinifera (Testudines: Trionychidae), in southeastern Virginia, Brimleyana 18:
Muenscher, Walter C. (1944) Aquatic plants of the United States., In: (Eds.) . , Ithaca NY. Pp.
Orth, Robert J.; Simons, Jim; Capelli, Judith; Hindman, Larry; Hodges, Stephen; Moore, Kenneth; Rybicki, Nancy (1987) Distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries- 1985, , Washington DC. Pp.
Serafy, J. E.; Harrell, R. M. (1993) Behavioral responses of fishes to increasing pH and dissolved oxygen: field and laboratory observations, Freshwater Biology 30: 53-61
Stevenson, J. Court; Confer, Nedra M. (1978) Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submersed vegetation, , Annapolis MD. Pp.
Tsuchiya, Takayoshi, Iwakuma, Toshio (1993) Growth and leaf life-span of a floating-leaved plant Trapa natans L., as influenced by nitrogen flux, Aquatic Botany 46: 317-324
United States Army Corps of Engineers (1977) Chesapeake Bay Future Conditions Report, , Baltimore. Pp.