Pathway analysis: aquatic plants imported in 10 EPPO countries
S. Brunel
EPPO ⁄ OEPP, 1 rue le Nôtre, 7515 Paris, France; e-mail: [email protected]
Pathway analyses are regarded by National Plant Protection Organizations as a very efficient way to
address the risks posed by invasive alien species. Data on import of aquatic plants was obtained from
10 EPPO countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands,
Latvia, Switzerland and Turkey) and aggregated in order to consider whether invasive or potentially
invasive alien plants could be introduced in the EPPO region through this pathway. This study highlights that this pathway mainly consists of the import of tropical plants for use in aquaria, and which
do not represent a risk due to their climatic requirements. However, a few species require thorough
attention owing to the threats they cause. Of the 247 species recorded as imported, only 10 are currently considered to be a threat, representing 4% of the total number of plants imported. These 10
invasive or potentially invasive species continue to be traded in huge quantities in spite of the fact
that Crassula helmsii and Eichhornia crassipes are recommended for regulation by EPPO, Azolla filiculoides, Egeria densa, Elodea nuttalli, Lagarosiphon major, Ludwigia grandiflora and Myriophyllum aquaticum should have their entry and spread prevented by countries and Hydrilla verticillata
and Pistia stratiotes are recorded on the EPPO Alert List. Six additional species have been identified
as representing a moderate to high potential risk: Alternanthera sessilis, Adiantum raddianum, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hygrophila polysperma, Limnophila sessiliflora and Syngonium podophyllum. These species could be subject to further investigation, possibly a pest risk analysis, to evaluate
the risk they may represent.
Introduction
In the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the European strategy on invasive alien species
(Bern Convention), the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) is developing a strategy to protect
the EPPO region against invasive alien plants. In 2002 an ad hoc
Panel on Invasive Alien Species was created to identify invasive
alien plants which may present a risk to the EPPO region, and to
propose management options.
EPPO draws up lists of pests which present an unacceptable
risk. The process used is as follows: species are first included on
the Alert List which is maintained by the EPPO Secretariat; after
selection by the relevant Panels, Pest Risk Analysis is carried out.
After approval of the results, the species is added to the EPPO
A1 list (species not present in the EPPO region) or the A2 list
(species present in the EPPO region but not widely distributed),
meaning that the species is recommended for regulation. Plants
may be considered as quarantine pests, and the same procedures
and tools (decision support scheme for quarantine pests and lists)
are used as for other pests.
The topic of invasive alien plants was first tackled by EPPO in
2002 because many species were invading certain member countries. A list of 39 Invasive Alien Plants for which EPPO ‘strongly
recommends countries endangered by these species to take measures to prevent their introduction and spread, or to manage
unwanted populations’ was drafted and published in 2004 (see
Brunel et al., 2009 for further details).
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) have a major
role in preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species,
EPPO therefore maintains its free monthly reporting service (http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_
service.htm) to assist the early warning and identification of new
invaders. The EPPO Panel on Invasive Alien Species has also
identified the need to work on pathway analyses. In this respect,
EPPO published an aggregated list of imported aquatic plants in
Orly Airport, France in April 2006 (EPPO Reporting Service
2007, 2007 ⁄ 016). The Panel on Invasive Alien Species recommended that this study should be enlarged to additional Member
countries. Data on imported aquatic plants was received from 10
EPPO member countries and aggregated. The aim of such a
study is to consider whether the import of aquatic plants represents a risk of introduction of invasive alien plants in the EPPO
region. This study will allow trends in the exporting countries to
be highlighted and to identify the most traded species. Then,
comparing the list of imported aquatic plants with the main lists
of invasive alien plants worldwide, allows identification of current and future invaders moving in trade.
Methods
Sources of Information
Copies of Phytosanitary Certificates (PCs) or data on imported
aquatic plants were received from Austria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Latvia,
201
202
S. Brunel
Switzerland and Turkey. Species names, origins of consignments,
the period covered and quantities were extracted from PCs and
are provided in Table 1. Import data were provided from Israel at
the genus level and were therefore not included in the study.
Taxonomy
While aggregating the lists of aquatic plants traded, work on the
taxonomy of species was necessary. Because many synonyms
were used instead of the currently valid names (e.g. Echinodorus
grisebachii was mentioned, whereas the recognized name for this
species is E. bleheri), each species name was checked against
taxonomic indexes. The following taxonomic indexes were used:
(1) The International Plant Names Index (IPNI).
(2) Tropicos 3W (Tropicos, 2009).
(3) The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN,
2009) was also used when the name(s) could not be found in
the 2 previously quoted indexes.
The species named in this report as a) currently considered a
threat, b) representing a moderate to high risk and c) species for
further monitoring are listed in Table 2.
The complete table of 247 imported aquatic plants with corrected scientific names is provided on the EPPO website. The
following mistakes in the taxonomy were recorded:
Incomplete species names
In the phytosanitary certificates, species were sometimes only
named with the genus and the variety name, without mentioning
the species name. For instance, Vallisneria spiralis cv. ‘Torta’
was given as ‘Vallisneria torta’.
Spelling mistakes
Several mistakes occurred in the spelling of Latin names: Cryptocoryne hodoroi stood for C. hudoroi, Echinodorus palifolius
stood for E. palaefolius, etc.
Difficult synonyms
For some species, the synonymy required deeper investigations.
For instance, Mimosa amphibium does not exist and stands for
Neptunia natans, and Selaginella braunii was given as S. vogelii
according to J van Valkenburg (pers. comm., 2009).
Hydrocharis gigantea was used for Vallisneria americana cv.
‘Rubra’, also given as V. gigantea hort; Hydrocharis rubra
replaced V. americana cv. ‘Rubra’, and Hydrocharis torta
replaced V. spiralis cv. ‘Torta’ according to I Smith (pers. comm.,
2009). Limnophila brevipes was called Ludwigia brevipes, Ophiopogon pusillus was used for O. japonicus, and Rotala boschii
was called Mayaca sellowiana (I Smith, pers. comm., 2009).
Unrecognized names
For some names provided, no recognized species could be identified.
For instance, Cabomba asiatica is quoted, but does not exist in
any flora. The genus Cabomba is endemic to the New World,
only C. caroliniana is recorded as present in Asia. Cabomba asiatica could be the incorrect name for C. caroliniana (J.M. Tison,
pers. comm., 2007). Another hypothesis is that the English name
both for C. asiatica and C. aquatica is ‘yellow cabomba’, in
opposition to the English name of C. caroliniana which is ‘green
cabomba’. Cabomba asiatica is most probably the incorrect
name for C. aquatica (I. Smith, pers. comm., 2009).
Aponogeton siamensis, Myriophyllum gigantea, Vallisneria
aquatica and Vesicularia fonttonalis are also unrecognized names
of species recorded as imported into the Netherlands.
Confusion of species and mislabelling
Salvinia molesta and some other Salvinia spp. were not recorded
in the list of imported plants but it is likely that they have been
introduced under the name Salvinia natans. Ludwigia rosefolia is
mentioned as imported from Singapore, but this may have been
due to a confusion with Alternanthera reineckii cv. ‘Roseafolia’.
The plant described as Nelumbo Lu Shan Bai Lian may be
Nelumbo nucifera cv. ‘Baiwanlian’. Hydrocotyle ranunculoides
is also suspected to be traded under the name H. leucocephala
(E. Branquart, pers. comm., 2009). Many consignments labelled
as Cabomba aquatica actually consisted of C. caroliniana (pers.
comm. J van Valkenburg).
Other information compiled
In addition to integrating recognized names of imported aquatic
plants with the quantities imported and the places of origin, the
following information was gathered and added to the table:
(1) Plant family.
The plant family has been retrieved from the EPPO Plant Protection Thesaurus (EPPT) available at http://eppt.eppo.org/.
(2) Intended plant use: ‘A’ means that the species is used in
aquarium, ‘O’ means that the plant is used outdoors, as a garden plant (e.g. in ponds), and ‘I’ means that the plant is used
indoors as a house plant.
All the species have been checked against the aquarists collaborative database ‘Aquabase’ (Aquabase Website, 2009; http://
www.aquabase.org/). This website indicates whether the species
is used in aquaria.
The species have also been checked against the A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants (Brickell, 1996), providing information
on the use of plants outdoors and indoors. When plants were not
recorded in these two sources of information, internet searches
were used to gather information on their use.
The use of plants is quite variable, and these categories provide
indicative information only, and it is assumed that many plants
that are only recorded for aquarium use could also be used in
ponds and gardens. For instance, Crassula helmsii was not
reported as being used outdoors while experience shows that it is
(EPPO, 2007a).
(3) Status of the species.
‘N’ means the species is native in the EPPO region, ‘E’ that it
is exotic.
(4) Area of origin of the taxon.
This information is indicative and has been assembled from
the database ‘Aquabase’, as well as from the Germplasm
Resources Information Network (GRIN). This information is
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Whole year 2007
October till November 2006
February till May 2007
Turkey – Izmir
Switzerland – Zurich Airport
Israel
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
*ISO country codes: ID, Indonesia; IL, Israel; GN, Guinea; ES, Spain, MA, Morocco; MG, Madagascar; MY, Malaysia; SG, Singapore; TH, Thailand.
Plant names were only indicated on 14 PCs, and quantities
of plants imported from TH were inconsistently indicated
The data from the Canary Isles was not interpreted
2 PCs in June, only Anubias spp. 2 GN
(Only Anubias spp.)
9 PCs
SG
2 from Canary Isles (ES) were not included in the analysis
Imports were from the European Union: Information was provided at the genus level
Netherlands in majority, Italy and the
and was not integrated
United Kingdom
TH
SG
14 SG, 1 GN
SG
19 TH, 18 ID, 4 SG, 1 MG, 1 IL
2 ID, 5 MY, 19 SG, 9 TH,
1 Canary Isles (ES)
5 MA, 26 SG, 2 TH
⁄
33 PCs
Exporting countries were not
mentioned, as requested
by importers.
Latvia – Riga Airport
January 2005 till April 2007
7 PCs
Estonia – Tallinn Airport
March 2006 till September 2007 15 PCs, 7 in 2006, 8 in 2007:
Czech Republic – Prague Airport May till July 2007
15 PCs
Germany – Berlin Flughafen Tegel January till October 2007
⁄
Hungary – Budapest Airport
Whole year 2006
43 PCs
Austria – Vienna Airport
Whole year 2006
36 PCs
April 2006
Whole year 2006
France – Orly Airport
Netherlands
Period
Country
Table 1 Information on imported aquatic plants in the countries under study
Number of consignments
Origins of consignments*
Remarks
Other airports in Germany did not provide information
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
203
sometimes difficult to trace, as the native area of some plants
may be controversial. For instance, Hydrilla verticillata is
thought to originate from Asia and Northern Australia, but has
been sometimes considered as native in some European countries, such as Poland (Mirek et al., 2002).
(5) Presence or absence in the EPPO region.
This information has been taken from the EPPO (EPPO PQR,
2007, Version 4.6) and DAISIE databases (DAISIE, 2009).
When the species occurs in the EPPO region, countries are indicated with their ISO codes. When the species is widespread, there
is no detail of the countries.
(6) Invasiveness.
Each species has been checked against the Global Compendium of Weeds (GCW) (Randall, 2002), to indicate their invasive
behaviour elsewhere in the world.
The Global Compendium of Weeds is a list of plant species
(over 28 000 names) that have been cited in specific references
(approximately 1000) as weeds. An expert has assessed the status
of the weed based on its context in each document.
The legend for abbreviation of statuses is as follows:
W, weed; NW, noxious weed; QW: quarantine weed; SW:
sleeper weed; AW, agricultural weed; EW, environmental weed;
abs, not quoted in the GCW; ‘ ⁄ ’ no sign of invasiveness.
(7) Information on the distribution and invasiveness of species
has also been checked against various databases, the main
ones being:
(a) The ‘Global Biodiversity Information Facility’ (GBIF) portal for worldwide distribution.
(b) The ‘United States Department of Agriculture Plants Database on Invasive and Noxious Weeds’.
(c) ‘Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk’ (PIER). For some
species, Risk Assessments have been performed following
the Australian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) system
(Pheloung, 2005). For each plant assessed, the WRA system generates a score, assisting policy-makers to determine if a plant can be imported. If the score is higher
than 6, the plant is rejected. If the score is lower than 1,
the plant is accepted, and in between these 2 thresholds,
the plant is placed on a list entitled ‘unable to complete
assessment’. For the species quoted in this study for
which a WRA has been conducted, the result of the
assessment is indicated.
(d) ‘Weed Australia’, providing information on Noxious Weed
Lists of Australia (Weed Australia, 2009).
Limitations of the study
This study provides accurate information on the import of aquatic
plants in some entry points in the EPPO countries, but the following limitations are to be noted.
(1) The periods of import for which the Phytosanitary Certificates have been provided vary for the different countries,
which do not allow a simple comparison from country to
country. Data provided may not be representative of the
whole country (e.g. data was provided from only one airport
in Germany). Some phytosanitary certificates were illegible
Use
E
E
A, O
E
A, O
A, O
E
E
A, O
A
E
E
A, O
A, O
E
A, O
Trop.
S-Am.
N-Am.
S-Af.
N-Am.
Australasia
S-Am.
W, NW, SW, AW, EW 28150
19030
W, AW, EW
W, SW, NW, AW, EW 51
W, QW, NW, EW, CE 425
W, SW, AW, EW
4590
75
10912
50
W, NW, AW, EW
W, SW, AW, EW
52
203
238568 884
11
14
2
28
100
28
1
W, NW, EW
W, QW, NW, SW, EW 422
W, NW, AW, EW
W, AW, EW
17
ID
FR
1691135 2548
1310
BE, Corse,
W, NW, AW, EW
10860
FR, DE, GB,
IE, IT, PT
Canary Isles W, SW, NW, AW, EW 601
Widespread
IE, LV, LT,
PL, RU
BE, CH, FR,
DE, IT, IE,
GB
Balearic Isles
BE, CH, FR
IL, IT, ES,
JO
Total
NL
W, NW, SW, AW, EW 6100
Status*
GCW
BE, DE, DK, W, NW, EW
FR, NL, GB
Widespread W, QW, NW, EW
Widespread
(b) 6 species identified in this paper to represent a moderate to high risk
Adiantum raddianum (Pteridaceae)
I, O
E
Am.
Azores,
Madeira
(PT), Canary
Isles (ES)
A, O E
Australasia
ES
Alternanthera sessilis,
A. sessilis var. rubra (= A. variegata)
(Amaranthaceae)
Gymnocoronis spilanthoides
A
E
S-Am.
abs
(Asteraceae)
A
E
Asia
abs
Hygrophila polysperma,
H. polysperma cv. ‘Rosanervis’
(Acanthaceae)
Limnophila sessiliflora
A
E
Asia
abs
(Plantaginaceae)
A, I, O E
C & S-Am. abs
Syngonium podophyllum,
S. podophyllym cv.
‘Albolineatum’, cv.
‘White Butterfly’, cv. ‘Regina red’
(Araceae)
Ludwigia grandiflora (given as
L. peruensis or L. peruviana)
(Oenotheraceae)
Myriophyllum aquaticum
(= M. proserpinacoides, M. brasiliense)
(Haloragaceae)
Pistia stratiotes (Araceae)
Egeria densa (= Elodea densa)
(Hydrocharitaceae)
Eichhornia crassipes
(also given as Eleocharis crassipes)
(Pontederiaceae)
Elodea nuttallii (Hydrocharitaceae)
Hydrilla verticillata (= H. lithuanica)
(Hydrocharitaceae)
Lagarosiphon major (= Elodea crispa)
(Hydrocharitaceae)
N-Am.,
S-Am.
Australia,
New Zealand
S & C-Am.
Status Origin
(a) 10 species currently considered to be a threat
Azolla filiculoides (= A. caroliniana)
A, O E
(Azollaceae)
Crassula helmsii (Crassulaceae)
A, O E
Species
Distribution
EPPO
Table 2 Aggregated list of aquatic plants imported in 10 EPPO countries
TH SG
50
160
685
1120 120
125
2600 5
170
450 10
650 875
7200
20610 210 26900
MA SG
CZ
GN
350
5200
500
105
135
20
20
120 100
2
2
1800 70
200
100
CH AU
TR EE LV
110 500
5
20
150
x
750 x
2200
1582
6100
Total
250
783
4889
75
3608
10908
29420
24723
10
10
274
11812
15 250 243437
20
50
5
20
51
9891
100 200 1878098
ID SG MG IS SG ID MY TH GN SG TH
122500 11000 545
150
TH
DE
(Berlin) HU
204
S. Brunel
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
E
A, I
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Australasia
Australasia
A
A
Asia
N-Am.
C & N-Am.
A
E
A, O E
A, O E
W, EW
W, AW, EW
Status*
GCW
IT, PT
BE, DE, FR,
IT
IT
ES, FR, GB,
IE, IT, NL
abs
IT
abs
abs
abs
310
635
860
120
Total
NL
9576
90
162
6
1
9
31
44
ID
FR
W, NW, AW, EW 20125 114
W, AW
W, NW, EW
W, NW, AW, EW
W, AW, EW
W, NW, AW, EW 10
W, EW
W, QW, EW
W, SW
ES (incl.
W, AW, EW
Canary Isles,
Balearic
Isles) GR,
IT, PT (incl,
Azores,
Madcira), FR
(corse)
IT (Sicilia),
W, AW
PT (Madeira)
abs
W, AW
Azores,
Madeira
abs
Distribution
EPPO
80
80
70
840 10
500
50
50
1800
150
TH SG
180 10
20
250
70
100
MA SG
CZ
80
GN
25
ID
2
134
35
50
2300 20
TH
DE
(Berlin) HU
TR
EE LV
50
30
50
160
x
10
569
150
833
1800
70
50
3524
120
Total
10
21704
10138
230
150
100 101
10
40
SG MG IS SG ID MY TH GN SG TH
CH AU
Use: ‘‘A’’ aquarium; ‘‘O’’ outdoors in gardens, ‘‘I’’ indoors as house plants. Situation in EPPO: ‘‘E’’ exotic to the EPPO region ; ‘‘N’’ native to the EPPO region. Origin: ‘‘Am.’’: Americas; ‘‘C-Am’’: Central America; ‘‘N-Am.’’:
North-America; ‘‘S-Am.’’: South-America; ‘‘Af’’: Africa; ‘‘S-Af’’: South Africa; ‘‘Trop.’’: tropical; Abs: species is absent.
Distribution EPPO: when the species occurs in the EPPO region, countries are indicated with their ISO codes. When the species is widespread, there is no further detail.
GCW status: W: weed; QW: quarantine weed; NW: noxious weed; SW: sleeper weed; AW: agricultural weed; EW: environmental weed; abs: not quoted in the GCW; ‘‘ ⁄ ’’: no sign of invasiveness.
Importing and exporting countries are indicated with their ISO country codes.
ISO codes: AU: Austria; BE: Belgium; CH: Switzerland; CZ: Czech Republic; DE: Germany; DK: Denmark; EE: Estonia; ES: Spain; FR: France; GB: Great Britain; GR: Greece; HU: Hungary; ID: Indonesia; IE: Ireland; IL: Israel; IT:
Italy; JO: Jordan; GN: Guinea; ES: Spain, LT: Lithuania; LV: Latvia; MA: Morocco; MG: Madagascar; MY: Malaysia; NL: the Netherlands; PT: Portugal; RO: Romania; RU: Russia; SG: Singapore; TH: Thailand; TR: Turkey.
A complete table of all 247 species in this study is available on the EPPO website www.eppo.org
Species: species in bold are listed as invasive or potentially invasive in the EPPO region;
Am.
A, O E
E
E
Am.
N & C-Am.
A, O E
E
A
N-Am.
S-Am.
E
A
Echinodorus berteroi
(Alismataceae)
Echinodorus cordifolius,
E. cordifolius cv.
‘Marble Queen’ (= E. radicans)
(Alismataceae)
Hydrocleys nymphoides
(Limnocharitaceae)
Hygrophila costata (= H. lacustris)
(Acanthaceae)
Marsilea crenata (Marsileaceae)
Ottelia alismoides
(Hydrocharitaceae)
Pontederia cordata
(= Hydrocharis dubia)
(Pontederiaceae)
Rotala indica (Lythraceae)
Saururus cernuus
(Saururaceae)
Sagittaria lancifolia
(= S. platyphylla hort.)
(Alismataceae)
Af. trop.
Asia,
Sri Lanka
Africa
S-Af.
A, O E
A, O E
A, O E
E
Status Origin
I, O
Use
Cyperus papyrus (Cyperaceae)
(c) species for further monitoring
Chlorophytum comosum
(= C. capense) (Anthericaceae)
Cryptocoryne beckettii
(Araceae)
Cyperus alternifolius
(Cyperaceae)
Species
Table 2 Continued
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
205
206
S. Brunel
Table 3 Total numbers of imported aquatic plants for the countries which contributed to the study, for the periods for which data was provided. The data have been
extrapolated linearily for the periods for which the data were provided to a whole year (e.g. France provided data for April 2006 (1 month), the sum of species have
therefore been multiplied by 12). Extrapolated data are rounded up to 100
Country
Period
Total number of
aquatic plants imported
Rough extrapolation of
plants imported for 1 year
Netherlands
France
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Switzerland
Austria
Turkey
Latvia
Estonia
Whole year 2006
April 2007
May–June 2007
January–October 2007
Whole year 2006
October–November 2006
Whole year 2006
Whole year 2007
January 2005–April 2007
March 2006–September 2007
4 799 292
98 966
185 015
266 440
140 936
4926
23 620
19 600
5360
2528
4 799 292
1 187 600
740 000
319 700
140 936
29 600
23 620
19 600
2300
2200
because of the poor quality of the document(s), or lists of
plant names were not provided.
(2) Major importing countries such as Italy, Spain, the United
Kingdom, etc. could not contribute to this study.
(3) Data on the use of the species (for aquarium, for outdoors or
indoors), the origin of the species and the occurrence in
EPPO countries should also be taken with caution.
(4) Only imported species are captured in this analysis, while
many aquatic species are produced directly within the EPPO
countries and may be invasive. As an illustration, a Dutch
producer has Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia stratiotes in its
catalogue (Moering, 2009).
Table 4 Total number of aquatic plants exported from the countries which
contributed to the study, for the periods for which data was provided. The data
have been extrapolated in the same way as for Table 3
Exporting
country
Number of aquatic
plants exported for
different periods
Rough extrapolation of
aquatic plants imported
for one year
Singapore
Indonesia
Thailand
Guinea
Morocco
Madagascar
Israel
Total
261 260
48 787
125 829
22 600
7925
3500
1350
484 571
1 550 800
256 100
191 524
31 600
95 100
3500
1350
2 129 974
Results
The study contains 279 entries, of which 32 correspond to information at the genus level, and 247 to imported species. Those at
species level have been fully analysed.
Importers and exporters
Importers
From the data obtained, the Netherlands is the major importer, followed by France, the Czech Republic and Germany.
Amounts of plants traded have been extrapolated to a whole
year in order to allow a rough comparison in between countries in Table 3.
Trade within the EPPO region was noted, other than for
Morocco, but has not been included in Table 3:
(1) Switzerland imported aquatic plants from Canarias (ES).
(2) Israel imported aquatic plants mainly from the Netherlands,
but also from Italy and the United Kingdom.
Major exporters
The Netherlands and Germany could only provide aggregated
figures without mentioning the countries of export for
confidentiality reasons. The other countries were mainly
importing aquatic plants from countries outside the EPPO
region originating from, by order of extrapolated volume:
Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Guinea and Madagascar. EPPO countries which are not part of the European
Union such as Morocco and Israel are also exporters. Table 4
shows the number of aquatic plants traded by exporting
countries.
Some exporting countries appear to be specialized in some
plant genera:
(1) Israel only exports Nymphaea spp.
(2) Guinea only exports Anubias spp. and Crinum spp., which
are native plants from this area.
(3) Madagascar only exports Aponogeton spp., which are native
plants from this area.
Characteristics of imported aquatic species
End use of the plants
Among the 247 species for which an end use could be determined (eliminating information provided at the genus level),
about 65 % of the imported plants are used in aquaria exclusively, which represents the major end use of these imported
aquatic plants. Results are shown in Table 5.
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
Table 5 Number of plant species imported according to their end use
207
Table 6 Number of species per family imported (including data provided at
the genus level)
Use of the plant
Number
Aquarium
Aquarium and outdoors
Aquarium and indoors
Aquarium, indoors, outdoors
Outdoors
Outdoors and indoors
Indoors
Total
163
45
9
1
12
4
13
247
Most imported species
Egeria densa (EPPO List of Invasive Alien Plants, 1 878 098
plants imported) and Cabomba aquatica (the main component of
this actually consisting of C. caroliniana, J van Valkenburg, pers.
comm.) (1 344 915 plants imported) were by far the most
imported aquatic plants for aquarium use, and were mainly
imported in the Netherlands, although other countries (in order of
importance) such as France, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Austria, Latvia, Switzerland and Estonia also imported these species. The other most imported species were Cabomba caroliniana (514 450 plants imported), Hygrophila polysperma (243 437
plants imported), Vallisneria spiralis (145 036 plants imported),
Echinodorus bleheri (135 234 plants imported), Vallisneria
americana (88 367 plants imported), Najas marina (84 000
plants imported), Hygrophila difformis (66 302 plants imported)
and Anubias barteri (48 610 plants imported). Similarly, the largest importer of the above plants was the Netherlands.
All of these species, except E. densa and H. difformis, are
exclusively used for aquarium purposes. This confirms that the
predominance of plants imported for aquarium use does not only
concern the number of species, but also their volume.
Plant families
The greatest number of species imported was from the families
Araceae, Alismataceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Acanthaceae and
Lytraceae, as shown in Table 6.
Origin of plant species
On the 240 species for which an origin could be determined, only
17 ( 7%) originate from Europe, highlighting the consumer
preference for exotic plants.
It is difficult to determine the percentages of origins of the species since some plants originate from a relatively small geographical area (e.g. Cryptocoryne hudoroi originates from Borneo),
whereas others have a native distribution which covers several
continents (e.g. Bacopa monnieri is pantropical).
In general, these species originate from tropical areas, for
use in tropical aquaria. While the production of the vast majority of these imported species occurs in Asia (e.g. Singapore,
Indonesia), it appears that the origins of these species are
diverse: approximately 30% of the species are native to Asia,
30% from the Americas, and 10% from Africa (including
Madagascar). This raises questions about the genotypes used in
production.
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Families
Number of
species
Araceae
Alismataceae
Hydrocharitaceae
Acanthaceae
Lythraceae
Aponogetonaceae
Haloragaceae
Oenotheraceae
Nymphaeaceae
Plantaginaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Cyperaceae
Pontederiaceae
Apiaceae
Asparagaceae
Potamogetonaceae
Amaranthaceae
Cabombaceae
Dracaenaceae
Pteridaceae
Others
41
22
18
13
13
10
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
72
Pathway analysis: imported species that
represent a phytosanitary risk
By combining information on the behaviour of a species where it
occurs, its distribution, and its records of invasiveness, it is possible to obtain a subjective indication of the future behaviour of a
species. Such rapid assessment has to be taken with care and
carries a lot of uncertainties, and only gives suggestions of
species that could deserve further attention.
Species traded and already naturalized: current
invaders
The most effective criteria to predict the potential invasiveness of
a species is to consider its behaviour in other areas of the world,
especially those with the same climatic conditions (Reichard,
2001). In this respect, information has been aggregated in Table 2
from the Global Compendium of Weeds (GCW), providing some
clues about the behaviour of species.
The species have been ordered according to the risk they might
represent, on the basis of the information gathered. It should be
noted, that the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine
pest remains the dedicated tool to evaluate the risk that a species
may represent.
High risk species
Among naturalized species, 10 are already considered invasive or
potentially invasive within the EPPO region: Azolla filiculoides
(List of Invasive Alien Plants (IAP)), Crassula helmsii (A2 list),
Egeria densa (List of IAP), Eichhornia crassipes (A2 list),
Elodea nuttalli (List of IAP), Hydrilla verticillata (Alert List),
Lagarosiphon major (List of IAP), Ludwigia grandiflora (List of
208
S. Brunel
IAP), Myriophyllum aquaticum (List of IAP) and Pistia stratiotes
(Alert List). Datasheets for these species are available on the
EPPO website.
Cabomba caroliniana has been subject to a Pest Risk Assessment which could not conclude as to whether the species qualifies as a quarantine pest because it only had invasive behaviour
in one situation in the Netherlands, while it also escaped in
Belgium, France and Hungary where it did not spread (EPPO,
2007b). EPPO suggests that good practices should be set out for
this plant (not to be used outdoors, not to be dumped in nature
with aquarium wastes, etc.) rather than restriction of trade.
Medium risk species
Alternanthera sessilis (Amaranthaceae) is used as an aquarium
and outdoor plant. The amount of plants imported into the EPPO
region is moderate (4 889 plants imported, mainly in the
Netherlands). It is only naturalized in Spain so far. The species
originates from Asia and Australia, and has extended its range
to Southern USA, Central America and the North of South America, as well as to Africa (GBIF, 2009, Global Invasive Species
Database, 2009). Alternanthera sessilis is reported by the Global
Invasive Species Database (2009) to be a weed of sugarcane, rice,
and is associated with banana, cereal crops and disturbed wet
areas in tropical and subtropical climates. It appears to have only
a low environmental impact. Considering the distribution of this
species and the crops impacted, Macaronesia and the Mediterranean Basin would be the area the most at risk in the EPPO region.
Adiantum raddianum (Pteridaceae) is a fern which is used
indoors and outdoors and was only recorded as imported in the
Netherlands in small quantities (75 plants). Its worldwide distribution is mainly restricted to the Americas, where it originates (Global Biodiversity Information Faclity portal, 2009). In the EPPO
region, the species is considered invasive in Azores and Madeira
(PT), and is naturalized in Canary Isles (ES). It is among the top 25
of the most invasive species in Macaronesia where it competes
with native species in specific habitats such as rocky shores, coastal
water-falls, cliffs, etc. (Silva et al., 2008). It is also considered an
environmental concern in the Pacific Islands (PIER, 2009).
Low to medium risk species
Some other species might usefully be monitored, although they
are considered to pose a moderate risk:
Cyperus alternifolius (Cyperaceae) is used outdoors, but trade
is minimal (50 plants imported in Hungary). It originates from
Western tropical Africa and is present in Southern USA (considered invasive in Florida), New Zealand and Pacific Islands. The
species is already naturalized in some countries of the Mediterranean Basin: Italy, Spain (including Canary Isles and Balearic
Isles), Greece, Portugal (including Azores, Madeira) and Corsica
(FR). In Spain, the species is described as invasive by Sanz-Elorza
et al. (2005). PIER (2009) performed a Risk Assessment concluding that the risk posed by this species is high (with a score of 17).
In addition, the other traded species Cyperus papyrus is considered
a minor weed of rice (Soerjani et al., 1987).
Sagittaria lancifolia (Alismataceae) originates from Central
and South America. It is imported in moderate quantities (21 704
plants imported mainly in the Netherlands) to be used in aquaria
and outdoors. The species is a regulated noxious weed in Australia and in New Zealand where it is reported to restrict water flow
and to aggravate flooding, as well as to displace native plants in
wetlands (Global Invasive Species Database, 2009). Within the
EPPO region, it is only naturalized in Italy, where recent information suggests invasive behaviour.
Low risk species
Chlorophytum comosum (Anthericaceae) is used as a garden plant
as well as a house plant, but is only traded in very low amounts
(120 plants imported in the Netherlands). It originates from South
Africa and is naturalized in Italy, Azores and Madeira (PT).
Worldwide, it is present in Australia, in the USA (only in Florida
and Georgia), as well as in Africa and Central and South America.
This species has been the object of a Risk Assessment by Pacific
Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2009) which considers the risk
as high (with a score of 8). The University of Florida (Cooperative
Extension service, 1999) evaluated this species as a very aggressive and quickly spreading plant. In Europe, however, this species
has for many years been a very popular house plant, and may also
be grown outdoors in the south. It is available for sale, but is so easily propagated that it is just passed between friends and neighbours. It has not become invasive and there can only be a low risk
that it should in the future (I. Smith, pers. comm., 2009).
Ottelia alismoides (Hydrocharitaceae) originates from Australasia, and even if only traded in very small quantities and used for
aquarium purposes (10 plants imported in the Netherlands), it has
naturalized in Italy since 1952 (Piacco, 1952) but is not considered invasive there (G. Galasso, pers. comm., 2009). The species
is present in Southern USA (California, Louisiana, Missouri and
Texas, and has recently been found in Florida), and it is registered on the Federal List of Noxious Species as well as on the
State Noxious Weed List in several States (Alabama, California,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont) (USDA Plants Database on Invasive and Noxious Weeds,
2009; Centre for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 2009). Nevertheless, where introduced to rice fields and agricultural irrigation
ditches outside of the United States, O. alismoides is only considered to be a minor weed (Cook, 1996).
Pontederia cordata (Pontederiaceae) is native to the Americas and is used in aquaria and outdoors, but is only imported in
small quantities (150 plants imported in France and Hungary). It
is naturalized in European countries having different climates:
France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United
Kingdom. So far, the species did not exhibit an invasive behaviour in these countries, but it is prohibited in South Africa as it
was regarded as a potential invader (Henderson & Cilliers,
2002).
Rotala indica (Lythraceae) originates from Asia and 10 000
plants were imported for aquarium use in 2007, mainly in the
Netherlands and in France. The species is recorded as naturalized
in Portugal and Italy. It has a very limited distribution worldwide,
and is prohibited of entry from Northern Territory in Australia
(tropical area), but is only considered a minor weed of rice in
Indonesia (Soerjani et al., 1987).
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
Saururus cernuus (Saururaceae) is a North-American species
which is only used in aquarium and gardens. It is traded in low
volumes (230 species imported from Hungary, the Netherlands
and France). The species naturalized in Belgium, France,
Germany and Italy. Although the species has been present in Italy
since 1953 (Stucchi, 1953), it is not considered invasive there
(G. Galasso, pers. comm., 2009). In France, this species is considered as potentially invasive by the Conservatoire Botanique de
Brest (Lacroix et al., 2008) and has been mechanically removed
from Maine et Loire (North-Western France) (Delaunay, 2004).
Swatek et al. (2004) also described a small population as naturalized in Germany in 2004.
Very low risk to no risk species
Although the GCW reports an invasive behaviour for many of
these species, the majority of them have naturalized in the
EPPO region without being reported as being a threat, or only
rarely and in a few specific situations. This is the case for
Bacopa monnieri, Blyxa japonica, Ceratopteris thalictroides,
Eriocaulon sieboldianum, Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides, Hydrocotyle verticillata, Nelumbo nuciphera, Nymphaea lotus and
Sagittaria subulata. Acorus calamus has been introduced during
the middle ages, and did not exhibit any invasive potential.
Acorus gramineus, Iris japonicus and Nuphar japonica are
naturalized in the EPPO region and are not considered to represent a risk.
Species traded but not naturalized: future invaders
One hundred seventy (170) species which were imported are not
recorded to have naturalized in the EPPO region. These species
may represent a threat in the future. After reviewing the literature
for each of these species, it appears that only a few of them may
become invasive. Some of them have been the object of a risk
assessment which considers that these plants do not represent a
risk by Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2009), as it is
the case for Codiaeum variegatum (Euphorbiaceae) and
Hemigraphis alternata (Acanthaceae) (scores of -4 and -1 respectively). Eichhornia azurea (Pontederiaceae) has also been the
object of an EPPO PRA. Although this plant is listed as a noxious
weed in North America and has been recorded as a weed of rice
in French Guiana (CIRAD, 2009), impacts are not significant,
and the EPPO pest risk analysis concluded that the species does
not qualify as a quarantine pest (see ISPM no. 5 in IPPC 2007
for definitions).
The potential future invaders are listed below according to the
risk they might represent, on the basis of the information gathered.
Medium to High risk species
Hygrophila polysperma (Acanthaceae) originates from Asia. It is
imported for aquarium purposes in large quantities (243 000
plants imported into various countries such as the Netherlands,
France, Hungary, Switzerland, Austria, Estonia and Latvia). Outside its native range, the species is only reported as naturalized in
the USA. There, it is only present in Texas, Florida and Virginia,
but is listed on the Federal Noxious Weed List, as well as in
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
209
several State Noxious Weed Lists (in Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and
Vermont). The species was the object of a risk assessment by
Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2009) which considers
that the risk posed by this plant is very high (score of 20). The
Global Invasive Species Database (2009) reports that the plant is
a fast-growing and spreading invasive that can shade out other
submersed plants, clog irrigation and flood-control canals, and
interferes with navigation of the waters it invades. It is even able
to compete with the very invasive Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrocharitaceae). Considering the current distribution of this species, the
area at risk would be the Mediterranean Basin and Macaronesia.
Limnophila sessiliflora (Plantaginaceae) originates from Asia
and is imported for aquaria in moderate amounts (11 800 plants
from the Netherlands, France, Hungary and Estonia). It has only
been recorded in thermal waters in Hungary (Lukács et al.,
2008). As for Hygrophila polysperma (Acanthaceae), the species
is only present in the USA outside its native range and is listed in
both the Federal Noxious Weed List and in State Noxious Weed
lists (in Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina and Vermont). Global Invasive
Species Database (2009) states that L. sessiliflora is fast-growing
and able to shade out and to out-compete totally submersed species. This species also clogs irrigation and flood-control canals,
and is a major weed problem in paddy rice fields of India, China,
Japan and the Philippines. The areas which appears the most at
risk are Macaronesia and the Mediterranean Basin.
Syngonium podophyllum (Araceae) originates from Central
and South America and is used outdoors, indoors, and in aquaria.
Currently it is imported in very small quantities in the studied
countries (274 plants in France, the Netherlands, Hungary and
Estonia). The species is present in Australia and in Florida
(USA), and has been listed as an invasive species by the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC, 2003), where it created thick
ground cover which was largely impenetrable to other plants, and
its extensive root system rendered the plant extremely difficult to
remove (Morgan et al., Undated). The species was subject to a
risk assessment by Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)
(2009) which considers that the risk posed by this plant is high
(score of 15). Macaronesia and the Mediterranean Basin are considered to be the areas most at risk.
Gymnocoronis spilanthoides (Asteraceae) originates from
South America and is introduced through aquarium trade in small
quantities (783 plants imported in the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Austria and Estonia). It is considered invasive in all areas
where it has been introduced: Australia, New Zealand and India.
The Global Invasive Species Database (2009) reports that this
species grows very quickly, and is known to rapidly cover water
bodies with a floating mat, excluding other plants and the animals
that rely on them. The effects of flooding are exacerbated because
infestations block drainage channels. Recreational activities, irrigation and navigation may also be affected. Water quality may
decline if large amounts of G. spilanthoides die off and rot under
water. The species was the object of a risk assessment by Pacific
Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2009) which concluded that
the species represents a high risk (score of 8).
210
S. Brunel
Low risk species
Hydrocleys nymphoides (Limnocharitaceae) is imported in low
quantities (150 plants in France) for outdoors and aquaria uses. It
is native to South America and is considered invasive in New
Zealand. Although present in Australia, it is not officially listed
as a noxious weed.
Hygrophila costata (Acanthaceae) originates from the Americas and is used in aquarium and planted outdoors, but the
amounts of imported plants remain small (569 plants in the
Netherlands and in France). It has only been introduced in Australia, where it is considered a noxious weed (in New South
Wales and Queensland) (New South Wales Department of
Industries, 2009).
Cryptocoryne beckettii (Araceae) is listed as potentially invasive in Texas (USDA Plants Database on Invasive and Noxious
Weeds, 2009). Blyxa aubertii (Hydrocharitaceae) may occur in
rice fields, but is not considered to be a serious weed (Aquarium
and Pond Plants of the World, 2009). Echinodorus berteroi, Echinodorus cordifolius (Alismataceae) and Marsilea crenata (Marsileaceae) have also been considered as minor weeds in rice
(respectively Di Tomasso and Healy, 2003; Aquarium and Pond
Plants of the World, 2009; Soerjani et al., 1987).
Characteristics of invasive and potentially invasive
alien species
This study highlights that only a few species imported as aquatic
plants represent a risk. Indeed, about 90% of the species traded
do not represent a risk.
Species currently considered invasive or potentially
invasive
It can be noted that the major invasive alien plants have already
been identified as invasive by EPPO (see A1 and A2 Lists, the
List of Invasive Alien Plants, and the Alert List). Crassula helmsii
and Eichhornia crassipes have been the object of a Pest Risk
Analysis and are recommended for regulation to the 50 EPPO
member countries. Hydrilla verticillata and Pistia stratiotes are
currently on the EPPO Alert list. The other species are included
on the EPPO list of Invasive Alien Plants for which EPPO
strongly recommends countries endangered by these species to
take measures to prevent their introduction and spread, or to manage unwanted populations.
Although these 10 species are having or could have in the
future huge detrimental effects on agriculture, the environment
and economies, this study shows that many of them are still
traded in huge quantities for ornamental purposes.
All species which might represent a risk are all traded for outdoor use – except Hydrilla verticillata which is used in aquaria
and is considered potentially invasive. In fact, a species used outdoors is assumed to survive climatic conditions occurring in the
EPPO region. Using a species outdoors increases its establishment
probability as well as its transfer to unintended habitats (the probability of a species escaping from a garden is higher than from an
aquarium). This characteristic therefore appears important in
determining the success of invasion of a traded aquatic species.
Except for E. nuttalli and H. verticillata, all these invasive species are imported in significant amounts, factor which is recognized to increase the introduction pressure and the probability of
establishment and spread (Mulvaney, 2003). Hydrilla verticillata
has expressed invasive behaviour in many places where it has
been introduced (the USA, New Zealand, parts of Australia
where it is alien, etc.), but not yet in Europe although it is naturalized in Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia (see EPPO
Alert List). Only 51 individuals of these species have been
reported as imported in the Netherlands in 2007, and the reason
why it has not expressed an invasive behaviour in Europe so far
might be that it is quite new in trade in the EPPO region.
For the majority of these species, the Netherlands is the major
importer. Table 2 shows that E. crassipes is mainly imported in
Czech Republic. The reason why the plant is not imported in large
quantities into the Netherlands is because the plant is directly produced there, as production is more profitable than import. Pistia
stratiotes also appears to be mainly imported in France, and for
this plant as well, producers in the Netherlands find it more profitable to produce the plant themselves (see Moering, 2009).
A few invasive or potentially invasive aquatic species such as
H. ranunculoides (A2 List), Althernanthera philoxeroides (Alert
List) or Salvinia molesta have not been captured as imported in
the available data. This might be because such species are already
produced within EPPO countries. Such production has been
reported in the Netherlands for Eichhornia crassipes and Pistia
stratiotes.
Species that could present a risk in the future
Among the 247 species for which import data has been provided,
only 6 have been identified as representing a moderate-to-high risk
for the EPPO region in the future: Alternanthera sessilis, Adiantum
raddianum, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hygrophila polysperma, Limnophila sessiliflora and Syngonium podophyllum.
All these species – except A. sessilis and A. raddianum which
can be planted outdoors – are for aquarium use, which lowers
their chances of naturalization. This is particularly true for
H. polysperma which is not known as naturalized in the EPPO
region, although traded in huge quantities. This reduces the risk
of these species becoming invasive.
Further investigations should be carried out to determine
whether they effectively represent a risk, and which measures
should be implemented to prevent risks of invasion.
Other impacts
Eleocharis parvula, indigenous in Europe and in North America,
is recorded as imported from Singapore. This plant is rare and is
becoming extinct in Europe. In France, it was declared extinct during the last 20 years but has recently been rediscovered in the wild.
This raises the question of the origin of this species found in the
wild, and there might be a genetic pollution of the species with the
traded taxon (J.M. Tison, pers. comm., 2007). The species not
being indigenous in Asia, it would be interesting to know the origin of the plant which was used to initiate the production (coming
from Europe or from North America) and how it was multiplied.
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
Conclusions
This analysis on imported aquatic plants in some EPPO countries
highlights that this pathway mainly consists of tropical plants for
use in aquaria. Nevertheless, among the few plants used outdoors,
9 out of 51 (about 17%) are invasive or potentially invasive. Only
Hydrilla verticillata regarded as potentially invasive, is used for
aquarium purposes.
Of the 247 species imported, only 10 are currently considered
to be a threat, representing 4.2% of the total number of species
imported. These 10 invasive or potentially invasive species continue to be traded in huge quantities although they are recommended for regulation by EPPO (Crassula helmsii, Eichhornia
crassipes) or countries are encouraged to take action to prevent
their entry and spread (Azola filiculoides, Egeria densa, Elodea
nuttalli, Lagarosiphon major, Ludwigia grandiflora and Myriophyllum aquaticum).
A few additional species considered to represent a lower threat
could become invasive, although these assumptions have to be
taken with great care: Alternanthera sessilis, Adiantum raddianum, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hygrophila polysperma,
Limnophila sessiliflora and Syngonium podophyllum. These species should deserve further attention in the future to determine
whether they really represent a risk, and which measures, if any,
should be recommended. Other species should be monitored to
ensure they do not threaten managed and unmanaged ecosystems: Chlorophytum comosum, Cyperus alternifolius, Cyperus
papyrus, Pontederia cordata, Rotala indica, Syngonium podophyllum, Hydrocleys nymphoides, Hygrophila costata, Ottelia
alismoides, Sagittaria lancifolia and Saururus cernuus.
As these species often originate from tropical areas, the Mediterranean Basin and Macaronesia are the areas of the EPPO
region which have the most similar climatic conditions, and are
therefore assessed to be the most at risk.
Another major finding is that the vast majority (approximately
90%) of the species imported as aquatic plants are not considered
to represent a risk.
For species which have massive detrimental effects, such
as Eichhornia crassipes, for which management costs
reached 14 680 000 EUR for a 3 year period (2005–2008)
in the Guadiana river to manage the plant along 75 km of
river (Cifuentes et al., 2007), and could establish in the
whole Mediterranean Basin (EPPO, 2008), regulation appears
to be the most appropriate option, after a Pest Risk Analysis
is performed and approved by countries. For other species
presenting a less immediate risk, a voluntary approach
through the implementation of a Code of conduct on horticulture and invasive alien plants could be adopted, as
described by Heywood & Brunel (2009).
Acknowledgements
Mr Smith, Ms McMullen, Ms Petter, and Ms Roy, are warmly
acknowledged for their comments. The Members of the EPPO
Panel on Invasive Alien Species are acknowledged: Mr van
Valkenburg who provided an aggregated list of plants from the
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
211
Netherlands, Mrs Garkaje provided information for Latvia, Mrs
Eek for Estonia, Mr Chromy for Czech Republic, Mr Starfinger
for Germany, Dr Dancsa for Hungary, Dr Follack for Austria, Mr
Uludag for Turkey, Mr Buholzer for Switzerland, Mr Yacobyi
for Israel. Lists of species for France where gathered thanks to
Mr Gueudre from the Charles De Gaulle airport inspection services. JM Tison is also acknowledged for his help in compiling
the French data. Mr Galasso provided useful data for Italy.
Analyse de filière: plantes aquatiques
importées dans 10 pays OEPP
Les analyses de filière sont considérées par les Organisations
Nationales de Protection des Végétaux comme un moyen très
efficace pour considérer le risque que représentent les espèces
exotiques envahissantes. Des données sur l’import de plantes
aquatiques ont été obtenues de 10 pays OEPP (Allemagne,
Autriche, Estonie, France, Hongrie, Lettonie, les Pays-Bas,
République Tchèque, Suisse et Turquie) et ont été synthétisées
pour considérer si des espèces envahissantes ou potentiellement
envahissantes pourrait être introduites dans la région OEPP par
cette filière. Cette étude met en évidence le fait que cette filière
consiste principalement en l’introduction de plantes tropicales
pour aquariums qui ne représentent pas de risque, de par leurs exigences climatiques. Quelques espèces méritent cependant une
attention particulière en raison des dommages qu’elles occasionnent. En effet, sur les 247 espèces importées, seulement 10 sont
actuellement considérées comme des menaces, représentant 4%
du nombre total de plantes importées. Ces 10 espèces envahissantes ou potentiellement envahissantes continuent d’être importées
en grandes quantités bien qu’elles soient recommandées pour
réglementation par l’OEPP (Crassula helmsii, Eichhornia crassipes), que la prévention de leur entrée ou dispersion soit conseillée
aux pays OEPP (Azolla filiculoides, Egeria densa, Elodea nuttalli,
Lagarosiphon major, Ludwigia grandiflora and Myriophyllum
aquaticum), ou qu’elles soient inscrites sur la liste d’alerte de
l’OEPP (Hydrilla verticillata, Pistia stratiotes). De plus, 6 espèces ont été identifiées comme représentant un risque potentiel
moyen à fort: Alternanthera sessilis, Adiantum raddianum, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hygrophila polysperma, Limnophila
sessiliflora and Syngonium podophyllum. Ces dernières espèces
pourraient faire l’objet d’une évaluation détaillée, comme une
analyse de risque, pour déterminer le risque qu’elles pourraient
représenter.
212
S. Brunel
References
Aquabase Website (2009) La base de Donnée Collaborative en Aquariophilie.
http://www.aquabase.org/.
Aquarium and Pond Plants of the World (2009) http://keys.lucidcentral.
org/keys/aquariumplants2/Aquarium_&_Pond_Plants_of_the_World/
key/Aquarium_&_Pond_Plants/Media/Html/Fact_sheets/blyxa.html (Last
accessed on 2009-06-01).
Brickell C (1996) RHS A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants, Dorling
Kindersley Publishers, London (GB)1080 p.
Brunel S, Petter F, Fernandez-Galiano E & Smith I (2009) Approach of the
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization to the evaluation
and management of risks presented by invasive alien plants. In: Chapter 16
(Ed. Inderjit), 363 p. Management of Invasive Weeds. Springer.
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants (2009) http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu (Last
accessed on 2009-06-01).
Cifuentes N, Hurtado A & Ruiz T (2007) [Integral control of the Water Jacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes) in the Guadiana river] in Spanish. Invasiones
Biológicas, un facto de cambio global. EEI 2006 actualización de
conocimientos. 1, 266–269 GEIB Groupo Especialista en Invasiones
Biológicas. Dep.Leg LE2069-2007, Spain. León.
CIRAD (2009) Plantes des Rizie`res de Guyane http://www.plantes-rizieresguyane.cirad.fr/accueil.
Cook CDK (1996) Aquatic Plant Book. SPB Academic Publishing,
Amsterdam ⁄ New York, 228 pp.
Cooperative Extension service (1999) Ceratophyllum comosum. Fact Sheet
FPS-126.
University
of
Florida.
http://www.hort.ufl.edu/shrubs/
CHLCOMA.PDF.
Delaunay G (2004) Contributions à l’étude de la flore du Maine-et-Loire:
quelques observations récentes dans la dition et ses proches environs. Le
Monde des Plantes 483, 29–31.
Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE) (2009)
http://www.europe-aliens.org/ (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
Di Tomasso JM & Healy EA (2003) Aquatic and riparian weeds of the West.
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 442 p.
EPPO Reporting Service (2007) Pathway Analysis: Aquatic Plants Imported in
France 2007 ⁄ 016. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/2007/Rse-0701.
pdf.
EPPO (2007a) Datasheet on Crassula helmsii. Bulletin OEPP ⁄ EPPO
Bulletin 37, 225–229.
EPPO (2007b) Pest Risk Analysis Report for Cabomba caroliniana. http://
www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRAdocs_plants/0713375rev%20EPPO%20PRA%20report%20CABCA%20rev.doc
EPPO (2008) Pest Risk Analysis for Eichhornia crassipes. 57 p. http://www.
eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRAdocs_plants/08-14407%
20PRA%20record%20Eichhornia%20crassipes%20EICCR.pdf.
EPPO Plant Quarantine Data Retrieval System PQR (2007) Version 4.6. http://
www.eppo.org/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
FLEPPC (2003) Florida Exotic Pest Plant council 2003 list of invasive species.
Wildland Weeds. 6(4) Special Insert.
Global Biodiversity Information Faclity (GBIF) portal (2009) http://
www.gbif.org/ (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
Global Invasive Species Database (2009) http://www.issg.org/database/
welcome/.
Henderson L & Cilliers CJ (2002) Invasive Aquatic Plants. A Guide to the
Identification of the Most Important and Potentially Dangerous Invasive
Aquatic and Wetland Plants in South Africa. Plant Protection Research
Institute Handbook No. 16. Agricultural Research Council, South Africa.
Heywood V & Brunel S (2009) Code of conduct on horticulture and invasive
alien plants: Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and
natural habitats. Nature and environment, No. 155. Council of Europe
Publishing, 74 pp.
International Plant Names Index (IPNI) http://www.ipni.org/index.html (Last
accessed on 2009-06-01).
IPPC (2007) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5 in International
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, pp. 63–85. IPPC Secretariat, FAO,
Rome (IT). https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp.
Lacroix P, Le Bail J, Geslin J & Hunault G (2008) Liste des Plantes
Vasculaires Invasives, Potentiellement Invasives et à Surveiller en Re´gion
Pays de la Loire, 10 pp. Conservatoire Botanique National de Brest et du
Bassin parisien, Conseil régional des Pays de la Loire. http://
www.cbnbrest.fr/site/html/territoire/invasives_pdl.pdf (in French).
Lukács BA, Dorotovič Cs, H}
uvös-Récsi A, Barina Z & Matus G (2008)
Exotic aquatic macrophytes in the Pannonicum: flora and vegetation of the
Fényes-springs of Tata (Hu) and the Pece-creek of Sı̂nmartin (RO).
[Abstract in English]. Aktuális Flóra- és vegetációkutatás a Kárpátmedencében VIII. konferencia (Gödöll}
o, 2008. február 29. – március 2.)
el}
oadásainak összefoglalói (8th conference on Floristical and vegetation
research in the Carpathian basin, conference proceedings). Kitaibelia 13(1),
113. http://florakonf.szie.hu/en/Absztrakt/Florakutatas.
Mirek Z, Piekos-Mirkowa H, Zajac A & Zajac M (2002) Flowering Plants and
Pteridophytes of Poland. A Checklist. – Krytyczna Lista Roslin
Naczyniowych Polski. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Kraków. 442 p.
Moering Rbv (2009) Catalogue. http://www.moerings.nl/pagesfr/index.html.
Morgan EC, Overholt WA & Langeland KA (Undated) Wildland
Weeds: Arrowhead Vine, Syngonium Podophyllum. University of Florida,
Extension Service. ENY-715. http://www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/IN/
IN53000.pdf.
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
Pathway analysis for aquatic plants
Mulvaney M (2003) The effect of introduction pressure on the naturalization of
ornamental woody plants in South-Eastern Australia. In Weed Risk
Assessment (Groves RH, Panetta FD & Virtue JG), pp. 186–193. CSIRO
Publishing, Melbourne.
New South Wales Department of Industries (2009) Weed Alert Hygrophila
Costata.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/141672/
Hygrophila-weed-alert.pdf
Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) (2009) http://www.hear.org/Pier/
(Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
Pheloung P (2005) Use of the weed risk assessment tool in Australia’s
approach to pest risk analysis. In IPPC Secretariat – Identification of risks
and management of invasive alien species using the IPPC framework.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Invasive Alien Species and the
International Plant Protection Convention, Braunschweig, Germany, 22-26
September 2003. pp 115–116. FAO, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/
008/y5968e/y5968e00.htm
Piacco R (1952) [On the introduction of Ottelia alismoides in Italy]. Il Riso,
Milano, 1 (11), 20–21. (In Italian)
Randall RP (2002) A Global Compendium of Weeds. RG and FJ Richardson,
Melbourne, Victoria. 906 pp.
Reichard S (2001) The search for patterns that enable prediction of invasion. In
Weed Risk Assessment (Groves RH, Panetta FD & Virtue JG), pp 10–19.
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Sanz-Elorza M, Dana Sánchez ED & Sobrino Vesperinas E (Eds) (2005)
[2004 on title page]. Atlas de las Plantas Alóctonas Invasoras en España,
ª 2009 OEPP/EPPO, Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 39, 201–213
213
378 pp. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza, Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente, Madrid (SP).
Silva L, Ojeda Land E & Rodrı́guez Luengo JL (eds.) (2008) Invasive
Terrestrial Flora & Fauna of Macaronesia. TOP 100 in Azores, Madeira
and Canaries. ARENA, Ponta Delgada, pp. 546http://www.uac.pt/~lsilva/
Flora_e_Fauna.pdf
Soerjani M, Kostermans AJGH & Tjitrosoepomo G (1987) Weeds of Rice in
Indonesia. Balai Pustaka, Jakarta. 716 pp.
Stucchi C (1953) New plant in lake Varesini. Nuovo Giornale Botanico
Italiano 59, 509–511 (in Italian).
Swatek JH, Loos GH, Keil P & Haeupler H (2004) [Saururus cernuus L. in the
forest between Duisburg-Mühlheim (Ruhr area)]. Floristische Rundbriefe
38: 39–44. (in German)
Tropicos (hosted by the Missouri Botanical Garden) (2009) http://
www.tropicos.org/ (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
USDA ARS Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) (2009)
http://www.ars-grin.gov/ (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
USDA Plants Database on Invasive and Noxious Weeds (2009) http://
plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver (Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
Weed Australia (2009) National Portal. http://www.weeds.org.au/index.html
(Last accessed on 2009-06-01).
Williamson M (1996) Biological Invasions, 244 pp. Chapman and Hall,
London (GB).