, Volume 746, Issue 1, pp 113–121 | Cite as

Survival of invasive aquatic plants after air exposure and implications for dispersal by recreational boats

  • Lindsey BruckerhoffEmail author
  • John Havel
  • Susan Knight


Recreational boating is widely recognized as an important vector for overland transport of invasive aquatic plants. Since their dominant form of recruitment is vegetative reproduction, entangled fragments on boats and trailers can establish new populations. The effectiveness of recreational boats as transport vectors relies on the resistance of macrophytes to air exposure. During the summers of 2012 and 2013, we conducted five field experiments in northern Wisconsin to assess air tolerance of Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). We simulated conditions that these plants would experience when ensnared on boats and trailers by testing viability after drying of single stems, coiled stems, and vegetative buds (turions). Single stems of M. spicatum and P. crispus were viable for up to 18 and 12 h of air exposure, respectively. Coiling extended the viability of M. spicatum to 48 h of air exposure. Turions of P. crispus successfully sprouted after 28 days of drying. The fact that recreational boaters in the region typically visit multiple lakes within a few days suggests that most lakes are susceptible to introduction of viable plants, and so lake managers should continue to focus attention on boat cleaning.


Aquatic invasive species Desiccation Dispersal Exotic species Macrophytes 



We thank M. Lenhardt and A. Gemberling for assistance with collections and experiments, K. Morrison and T. Meinke for constructing the weather station, and A. Latzka and anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. Logistical support was provided by the UW Trout Lake research station and financial support by a grant from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (AEPP-305-11).


  1. Barnes, M. A., C. L. Jerde, D. Keller, W. L. Chadderton, J. G. Howeth & D. M. Lodge, 2013. Viability of aquatic plant fragments following desiccation. Invasive Plant Science and Management 6: 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boylen, C. W., E. W. Lawrence & J. D. Madsen, 1999. Loss of native aquatic plant species in a community dominated by Eurasian water-milfoil. Hydrobiologia 415: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter, S. R. & D. M. Lodge, 1986. Effects of submerged macrophytes on ecosystem processes. Aquatic Botany 26: 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, 2013. Invasive and exotic aquatic plants. Retrieved December 20, 2013 from [].
  5. Evans, C. A., D. L. Kelting, K. M. Forrest & L. E. Steblen, 2011. Fragment viability and rootlet formation in Eurasian watermilfoil after desiccation. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 48: 57–62.Google Scholar
  6. Havel, J. E. & J. Stelzleni-Schwent, 2000. Zooplankton community structure: the role of dispersal. Internationale Vereinigung fü rtheoretische und angewandte Limnologie 27: 3264–3268.Google Scholar
  7. Horsch, E. J. & D. J. Lewis, 2009. The effects of aquatic invasive species on property values: evidence from a quasi-experiment. Land Economics 85: 391–409.Google Scholar
  8. Jerde, C., M. A. Barnes, E. K. DeBuysser, A. Noveroske, W. L. Chadderton & D. M. Lodge, 2012. Eurasian Water-milfoil fitness loss and invasion potential following desiccation during simulated overland transport. Aquatic Invasions 7: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jian, Y., B. Li, J. Wang & J. Chen, 2003. Control of turion germination in Potamogeton crispus. Aquatic Botany 75: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, L. E. & J. T. Carlton, 1996. Post-establishment spread in large-scale invasions: dispersal mechanisms of the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha. Ecology 77: 1686–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, L. E., A. Ricciardi & J. T. Carlton, 2001. Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications 11: 1789–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnstone, L. M., R. T. Coffey & C. Howard-Williams, 1985. The role of recreational boat traffic in interlake dispersal of macrophytes: a New Zealand case study. Journal of Environmental Management 20: 263–279.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, J. C., 1992. The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Impact of Eichornia and Hydrilla in the United States 194: 106–109.Google Scholar
  14. Keast, A., 1983. The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 1289–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Madsen, J. D., L. W. Eichler & C. W. Boylen, 1988. Vegetative spread of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake George, New York. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 26: 47–50.Google Scholar
  16. Madsen, J. D., J. W. Sutherland, J. A. Bloomfield, L. W. Eichler & C. W. Boylen, 1991. The decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29: 94–99.Google Scholar
  17. McAlarnen, L. A., M. A. Barnes, C. L. Jerde & D. M. Lodge, 2012. Simulated overland transport of Eurasian watermilfoil: survival of desiccated plant fragments. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 50: 147–149.Google Scholar
  18. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga & D. Morrison, 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riis, T., T. Madsen & R. S. Sennels, 2009. Regeneration and colonization and growth rates of all fragments in four common stream plants. Aquatic Botany 90: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers, K. H. & C. M. Breen, 1980. Growth and reproduction of Potamogeton crispus in a South African lake. Ecology 68: 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rothlisberger, J. D., W. L. Chadderton, J. McNulty & D. M. Lodge, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruiz, G. M. & J. T. Carlton, 2003. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Simberloff, D., 2009. The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annual Review Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library, 2012. Invasive species. Retrieved February 5, 2013 from [].
  25. Vander Zanden, J. M. & J. D. Olden, 2008. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 1512–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2013a. Aquatic Invasive Species. Retrieved February 5, 2013 from [].
  27. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2013b. The Handbook of Wisconsin Boating Laws and Responsibilities. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  28. Woolf, T. E. & J. D. Madsen, 2003. Seasonal biomass and carbohydrate allocation patterns in southern Minnesota curlyleaf pondweed populations. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 113–118.Google Scholar
  29. Zhang, C. & K. Boyle, 2010. The effect of an aquatic invasive species (Eurasian water-milfoil) on lakefront property values. Ecological Economics 70: 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Bruckerhoff
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • John Havel
    • 1
  • Susan Knight
    • 2
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentMissouri State UniversitySpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin Trout Lake StationBoulder JunctionUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesArkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations