ML12170A038
ML12170A038 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Watts Bar ![]() |
Issue date: | 02/29/2008 |
From: | State of TN, Wildlife Resources Agency |
To: | Justin Poole Watts Bar Special Projects Branch |
References | |
Download: ML12170A038 (191) | |
Text
1 Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic Nuisance Species Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Management Plan Management Plan Management Plan Management Plan Developed by the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force February 2008 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Nashville, Tennessee 2 Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Acknowledgments AcknowledgmentsIn addition to the research and deliberations by the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species TaskForce to develop this plan, several members wrote specific sections the document. Their voluntary efforts were extraordinary. Special thanks to:Dennis Baxter, Tennessee Valley Authority - Problem definitions, aquatic animal descriptions, glossary Mark Fagg, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Introduction, program monitoring and
evaluations Frank Fiss, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Aquatic plant descriptions Becky Gunn, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Task Force minutes and meeting
preparations Terri Hogan, National Park Service - Aquatic plant descriptions Don Hubbs, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency-Goals and objectives, aquatic animal
descriptions Sue Lanier, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Maps, pathway descriptions, strategies
and action plans Steve Nifong, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Goals and objectives, state law
summaries Anni Self, Tennessee Department of Agriculture - Problem definitions, program monitoring
and evaluation Jeff Simmons, Tennessee Valley Authority - Aquatic animal descriptionsGreg Spradley, Tennessee Comptroller's Office - Existing authorities, program monitoring
and evaluation, executive summary David Webb, Tennessee Valley Authority - Problem definitions, aquatic plant descriptions Carl Williams, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Strategies and action plans Bobby Wilson - Introduction, pathway descriptions, executive summary David Withers, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation - Problem
definitions, pathway descriptionsSpecial thanks to Marilyn Barrett-O'Leary, Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, foradvising TANSTF throughout the development period and assisting with the final draft.
3 Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive SummaryTennessee is one of the most bio-diverse states in the nation. Currently there are 315 species of fish, 77 mammals, 56 reptiles, 70 amphibians, and 340+ birds known to inhabit or migrate through Tennessee. The number of invertebrate species, many of which are endemic to Tennessee, is equally impressive with 256 land snails, 99 aquatic snails, 120+ mussels, 77 crayfish and many insects. The state has three major river systems (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland Rivers) which contribute to 700,000 acres of impounded reservoirs and 19,000 miles of streams. Together these waters and biota support rich ecological and
economic systems for the benefit of plants, animals, and people.Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) pose serious problems to the ecology and economy in Tennessee.This management plan will guide Tennessee towards the development of coordinated actions to
respond to such problems. This document is an adaptive plan, to be updated periodically as new
techniques for prevention are identified and developed.Over a period of approximately two years, the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species TaskForce (TANSTF) examined the existing ecological health of the state's aquatic habitats, identified needs and existing tools for responding to ANS problems within the state. It ranked 22 invasive or potentially invasive plant species and 33 animal species, identifying the pathways by which each was introduced into Tennessee. Based upon all of this information, the TANSTF set
goals and objectives, and proposed strategies for action.The main focus of this ANS management plan is to prevent new introductions. Prevention requiressome regulations and a wide variety of communication and education efforts. Many, but not all, are described in this document. Prevention however, will only assist in reducing the number of new species entering Tennessee waters. Management and control of existing nuisance species must also
be undertaken to limit their negative impacts. Strategies for management and control are also
described.The goal of this plan therefore is to control existing aquatic nuisance species in Tennessee inorder to minimize the adverse impacts on native species, water quality, and economies by
preventing the introduction and spread of any invasive species and by managing the impacts of those that are already in Tennessee. To accomplish this goal, the Tennessee ANS task
force identified two major objectives:
- 1. To prevent the introduction of any nonnative invasive species in Tennessee and to prevent existing invasive species from spreading to other watersheds in Tennessee, and
- 2. To manage priority aquatic invasive species in Tennessee to minimize their impacts on native species, aquatic habitats, socio-economics and water quality.There are 26 strategies and 67 actions listed in the plan to address the objectives. Some of the first actions are anticipated to be the development of educational materials such as pamphlets, posters, 4DVDs, and an ANS web site; hiring a statewide ANS coordinator; improving enforcement andregulations that prohibit the possession, purchase, and transport of ANS in Tennessee; developing a rapid response plan to control or eradicate priority ANS populations; and developing plans and
coordinate responses with full partner participation.The TANSTF recognized that implementation of this plan has to be evaluated in order to progress towards achieving the goal, and that funding will be necessary to accomplish many of the tasks.
Evaluation will be shared by leaders in the agencies with primary jurisdiction over wildlife and resource issues related to ANS - the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. The information upon which evaluation will be based will be provided by the ANS Coordinator.
Securing and hiring a person to fill that position will be one of the first actions taken after the management plan has been approved. The funding mechanism, undoubtedly including partnerships, will be developed by the ANS Coordinator.This plan was written to meet the requirements of Section 1204 (a) of the Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Species Prevention and Control Act (NANPA) of 1990. It will be submitted by the Governor of Tennessee to the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force for approval and acceptance. It will, more importantly, provide guidance for the prevention, management and eradication of aquatic nuisance species that threaten the waters of the Volunteer State, our native
inhabitants, and their recreational, commercial, and other public uses.Approval of this plan will allow the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the lead agency in the plan development process, and its partners to apply for federal grants and other assistance to
implement the various strategies described in this document.
5 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 3I. Introduction 6 II. Problem Definition 9 III. Goals and Objectives 18 IV. ANS Authorities and Programs 19 V. Strategies and Action Items 26Implementation Table 32VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation 41 VII. Glossary 44 VIII. Literature Cited 48Appendix A:ANS of Concern in Tennessee 52Animals 52 Plants 112Appendix B:Ranking Considerations 175 Appendix C:Summary of Relevant State Laws & Rules 178 Appendix D:Summary of International Laws & TreatiesRelevant to ANS 181Appendix E:Animals & Plants Prohibited in Tennessee 186 Appendix F: Public Comment 187 Appendix G: Members of the Tennessee ANS Task Force 188 6 I. Introduction I. Introduction I. Introduction I. Introduction I. IntroductionTennessee is blessed with an abundance of waters, yet some of these waters are in trouble.
The state is one of the most biodiverse states in the nation, supported by a wide range of
aquatic habitats such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, streams and seven of the most ecologically rich river systems in North America (TWRA, CWCS, 2005, p.4). These waters,along with many others in these United States, face challenges from nuisance aquatic plants and animals. The aquatic invasive species among those nuisance plants and animals pose a threat to Tennessee's waterways and other aquatic environments, both economically and ecologically.
An aquatic invasive species is defined as a nonnative plant or animal that is likely to cause economic and/or environmental harm, and some may cause harm to human health as well.
Other terms used in place of "invasive" may include "nuisance, alien, nonindigenous, exotic, and undesirable." Examples of these in the United States include the sea lamprey in the
Great Lakes, giant salvinia in the marshes of Louisiana, and the snakehead fish in the Potomac River.
Not all nonnative plants and animals are considered invasive. In fact, some nonnative fish, such as brown trout and striped bass, are considered by some to be desirable and highly sought after in Tennessee. However, such is not the case with most nonnative species of plants and animals in our state. There are currently over 79 nonnative aquatic species of plants and animals reported in Tennessee, with the likelihood that many more species are
present but have yet to be detected or reported (USGS NAS website, 2006)
.Some of the more problematic aquatic nonnative species in Tennessee include zebra mussels,Eurasian water milfoil, and Asian carp (USGS NAS website, 2006). Although they are more of aconcern in the Great Lakes region, zebra mussels have impacted some areas of Tennessee
economically by fouling intake pipes, and ecologically by competing with the native mussels
for food and habitat. Zebra mussels are transported to other aquatic environments, often unknowingly, by boat owners through live wells, boat hulls, and boat trailers.Eurasian water milfoil provides excellent cover for many species of fish, however, its ability to grow and proliferate makes it a nuisance to boaters and dock owners, as was the case in several reservoirs along the Tennessee River a few years ago. Invasive submersed plants
such as this are often accidentally spread from one waterbody to another by clinging to
outboard motors and boat trailers.Asian carp, including the grass, silver, bighead, and black carp, cause ecological problems. Grasscarp eat native aquatic vegetation that is also needed and desired by waterfowl. Bighead and silver
carp compete directly for plankton with native fish such as paddlefish, larval sport fish and buffalo 7fish. Silver carp also pose a threat to human health due to their leaping ability, colliding into boaters,water skiers, and personal watercraft when startled. These species, already abundant in the Mississippi River, have been found in the Cumberland and Tennessee river systems as well. Similar
in appearance to our native shad species of fish, juvenile bighead and silver carp can easily be accidentally spread in bait buckets to other waterbodies by anglers. The black carp, though not yet found in Tennessee waters, has the potential to devastate the state's native mussel populations.
These large fish feed heavily on mussels and snails. Tennessee is home to over 123 species of
freshwater mussels, 46 of which are on the federal threatened and endangered species list (TWRA CWCS, 2005)
.Other nonnative, non-game species of concern include aquatic reptiles or amphibians (suchas snakes, turtles, frogs or salamanders) brought into Tennessee from other states or countries
as well as exotic snail species that are usually transported through the pet trade or aquatic
garden business and crayfish used as bait or educational tools. Many exotic gastropods (snails, slugs), crustaceans and herptafauna (reptiles and amphibians) can harbor parasites, which can potentially affect human health.
Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) have the potential to negatively impact all types of fishing and musseling. In addition, many of the most problematic nonindigenous plants and animals in Tennessee were introduced or spread through sport fishing, commercial fishing, waterborne commerce, or aquarium and water garden hobbies. It is estimated that the economic impact of sport fishing in Tennessee during 2001 was over 1.1 billion dollars (U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service, 2001). The estimated wholesale value of commercial fishing is $2.7 million (TWRA Strategic Plan, Commercial Fish, 2006) and commercial musseling is $1.5 million dollars (Hubbs, TWRA Commercial Mussel Report, 2005)
.The call to action to curb the introduction and spread of ANS was initiated in 1990 with thepassage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANCPA) that was later amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The Act calls for coordinating
action to prevent new introductions and control existing populations, and the amended version establishes regional panels to assist with coordination. Tennessee is represented and participates in the Mississippi River Basin Panel (MRBP) on Aquatic Nuisance Species. The Act also authorized
each state to develop a comprehensive management plan, which must be approved by the National ANS Task Force. Each state must identify areas and/or activities within the state for which
technical, enforcement, and/or financial assistance is needed to eliminate or reduce the environmental, public health, and safety risks associated with aquatic nuisance species. Plan
approval makes the state eligible for federal financial assistance for implementation.The recently completed Strategic Plan for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (2006-2012) identifies aquatic nuisance species as a problem in five of the 19 programs (commercial mussels, large rivers, non-game/endangered species, reservoirs, and streams).
Strategies for addressing these problems ranged from monitoring the spread of ANS to preventing their introduction. A common strategy among all five programs was the
development of a statewide aquatic nuisance species management plan.
8In February 2005, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen approved the formation of a task force todevelop a management plan for aquatic nuisance species. The Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (TANSTF), with members representing governmental as well as non-governmental interests, met for the first time on March 22, 2005. The initial task force consisted of members representing the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, the Tennessee Department of Safety, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the Tennessee Comptroller's Office, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Memphis District), the University of Tennessee Knoxville, the Tennessee Exotic Plant Pest Council, Trout Unlimited, the Tennessee Striped Bass Association, and the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership. In the process of identifying ANS problems and threats and proposing prevention and control strategies, TANSTF identified gaps in the authorities and programs associated with ANS. These gaps result from diversity of jurisdiction. No single agency or group has complete responsibility for preventing and controlling ANS within the state of Tennessee. The members of the TANSTF and their affiliations are listed in Appendix G.
The development of this plan was the result of many hours of meetings and correspondenceamong stakeholders and partners. The plan provides information on existing ANS in Tennessee and describes strategies to control them. Details in this document focus on a five-year period. As a living document, this plan will be revised periodically in response to changing ANS conditions. Because the plan was developed by many stakeholders, its
recommendations lay the groundwork for cooperative activities between governmental and nongovernmental organizations to reduce the impacts of aquatic invasive species in Tennessee. This document is designed to meet the requirements of Section 1204(a) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act (NANPA) of 1990, as reauthorized in the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996.The goal of this plan is to control existing ANS in Tennessee in order to minimize the adverseimpacts on native species, water quality, and economics by preventing the introduction and
spread of any invasive species and by managing the impacts from those that are already in Tennessee.
9 II. Problem Definition II. Problem Definition II. Problem Definition II. Problem Definition II. Problem Definition Species and Pathways Species and Pathways Species and Pathways Species and Pathways Species and PathwaysThe wildlife, natural habitats, people, and economy of the State of Tennessee are threatened byaquatic invasive plants and animals. These are nonnative and native species outside of their native range that have disrupted ecological and/or economic aquatic systems upon which Tennesseans depend. In most cases, ANS were able to disrupt these systems because of specific physiological
characteristics common in most invasive species: they produce large numbers of offspring (high fecundity), reach sexual maturity quickly, adapt easily to a wide range of environments and available
food sources, and tolerate a broad range of geophysical conditions. In addition, their natural
predators are not present to control the new population.The Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (TANSTF) has identified certain plants andanimals that threaten or have harmed some element of the state's aquatic environment, and ranked them to assist in developing prevention and control strategies for this ANS management plan (Table 1). Some of the identified animals are native to other areas of North America, while others are native to other continents. Individual descriptions of the biology, distribution and harmful impacts of each of these species can be found in Appendix A. A detailed description of the species ranking processes can be found in Appendix B.The TANSTF noted that certain pathways appear to facilitate the introduction and spread of the problem species. It developed management strategies that focus on the pathways of introduction in
relation to the specific species.
Pathways can be defined as "the means by which species are transported from one location toanother." These "means" can be natural or man-made, accidental or intentional, and include many activities, media, and occurrences. The effects of pathways on ANS distributions are shaped by Tennessee's geographical location as an interior state and its geological composition. The state's
diverse habitats occur in mountain ranges, cave networks, and bottomland hardwood forests, which are all linked, nourished, and strengthened by major and minor rivers (TWRA, CWCS, 2005 p.4)
.Preventing the introduction and spread of ANS requires strategies that consider these pathways.Are some pathways more important to ANS spread in Tennessee? The TANSTF conducted a ranking process to answer this question. Through this process, which is described in detail in Appendix B, the following pathways were identified as important for ANS management in Tennes-
see. They are described below in order of importance, according to their existing and potential impacts on the state's ecology and economy, and on the health of Tennessee's people.
Accidental Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Accidental Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Accidental Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Accidental Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Accidental Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee 10 Recreational BoatingTennessee has three major river systems (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland Rivers) which contribute to 700,000 acres of impounded reservoirs and 19,000 miles of streams.
Because they provide water to the people, animals and plants in the state to some extent, these and other Tennessee's waters should be protected from the introduction of invasive ANS. Protection is difficult because these waters are also major locations for recreational boating and associated activities, pathways for spreading ANS.
- 1. Recreational vessels In 2005, Tennessee registered over 265,000 mechanically powered vessels, ranking it 18th in the nation and 2nd highest of any non-coastal or Great Lakes state for total boats registered(TWRA Strategic Plan 2006-2012, March 2006). The recreational boating pathway has severalcomponents that make it one of the most common pathways for the spread of ANS in the State of Tennessee. These components include live wells, boat trailers, propellers, boat hulls, and bait buckets. Many invasive aquatic species, such as zebra mussel larvae, spiny water
fleas, and juvenile silver carp, may survive in the live well of a boat long enough to be
released into another body of water if it is not properly cleaned and rinsed before moving from one waterbody to another. Undesirable aquatic vegetation like hydrilla and Eurasian
watermilfoil can be snagged on a boat trailer or entangled in a boat propeller and accidentally
transported into another water body if not removed before leaving a contaminated lake or river. Zebra mussels will attach to a boat's hull if it is left in the water long enough, and they
can survive on a hull several days out of water while being transferred to another location.
- 2. Bait distribution
Because of its association with recreational boating and angling, the bait distributionpathway is an important consideration for ANS management in Tennessee. Some boating anglers using live bait can accidentally introduce an ANS such as the juvenile silver carp
mixed with other live native bait fishes when releasing leftover or unused live bait into an
aquatic system where the species does not exist. Popular live baits in striped bass tournaments are the blueback herring and alewife, two fish species identified by the TANSTF as ANS in Tennessee. In addition to recreational boating, anglers and other fishermen may
unintentionally introduce invasive species such as the rusty crayfish from their bait buckets into a lake or river without such ANS populations.
Bait dealers sometimes receive and unknowingly distribute brook stickleback minnows in shipments with live, wild-caught fathead minnows from some northern states. Brook stickleback is an ANS identified by the TANSTF.
- 3. Fishing gear 11Many Tennessee anglers travel to other parts of the country and beyond to pursue theirhobby, while other anglers come to Tennessee, most carrying their own fishing gear. Some
trout enthusiasts fish in out-of-state waters that are contaminated with invasive species such as the New Zealand mud snail, didymo, or zebra mussels. These and other highly fecund ANS are able to live for long periods out of the water. Transfer of only a small number of
animals or fragments of an invasive plant can be enough to establish new populations. Such introductions into Tennessee waters will occur if anglers fail to clean their fishing gear before
leaving a contaminated fishing location. Likewise, visitors can unknowingly bring these or other ANS into this state unless they thoroughly clean all gear, from boots to reels, before entering Tennessee.
Natural ForcesTennessee's waters are at the root of natural pathways for spreading ANS. Five majorwatersheds are part of the State of Tennessee - the Mississippi River, Tennessee River, Cumberland River, Barren River, and Conasauga River. Portions of these watersheds are interrupted by man-made locks and dams while others are connected by canals and waterways. Most of these watersheds contain some disturbed habitats that are ideal for invading species. All but the Barren
River system have documented problems with aquatic invasive species (TWRA, CWCS, 2005, pp. 130-130). Although spread of ANS through natural forces associated with these waterbodies is not preventable, it can be managed by educating the people associated with them.
- 1. Interconnected waterways Few states have the extensive network of locks and canals that operate within Tennessee.Some were constructed many years ago by agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority to allow the free movement of vessels for commerce and industry. But these same networks can block or promote the movement of fishes and floating materials. The networks remove
the physical barriers that would prevent invasive species from migrating from one waterbody to another. These same locks and canals also facilitate accidental transport of ANS on recreational boats and fishing gear, and on commercial vessels and barges. At the same time, the locks and dams can confine species to particular areas, slowing the spread of an invasive
species.2. Pond breaches
Ponds serve as drainage basins, water sources, aquaculture catchments, ornamental gardens, and fishing holes. Some are purposefully stocked; others contain species that naturally occurred in them. All are vulnerable to spreading their species during flood events. ANS, like
nonnative carp species stocked in isolated ponds, have escaped into public waterways during flood events. Exotic watergarden plants have floated into public waterways, disrupting or
even destroying existing ecosystems.3. Waterfowl 12Tennessee supports abundant and varied populations of resident and migratory waterfowl.However, waterfowl such as ducks and geese may be responsible for dispersing ANS plants.
Seeds and plant fragments may be ingested or attach to their feet and feathers. Additionally, waterfowl hunters may pick up nonnative plants or animals on their boots or gear and carry
them to new locations ( Figuerola J. et al. 2003).
Commercial and inland shippingCommercial shipping is nationally ranked as the number one pathway to spread ANS. Thisrank is based upon the huge volume of waterborne commerce and shipments of 'exotic' cargo to markets around the world, resulting in both accidental and deliberate transfer of ANS during repeated transoceanic transport. Although commercial shipping occurs in Tennessee's three major navigable waterways (Tennessee River, the Cumberland River and the Mississippi River), its cargo is primarily domestic, and the vessels move mainly between North American inland ports. Thus, the commercial shipping pathway is significant but not the number one pathway for introducing and spreading ANS in Tennessee.Discharges and hull fouling from commercial vessels, towboats and barges are the majormedia for accidental aquatic introductions through inland navigation in Tennessee. Anchors, bumpers, and ropes may also carry ANS. Zebra mussels have been dispersed throughout the Mississippi River drainage system by hitchhiking on the hulls of barges moving through these waterways. Although metal hulls and anti-fouling paints can make vessels less
susceptible to hull fouling by hitchhiking species, they are not complete deterrents. Raw
water intakes and cooling systems in commercial vessels can contain zebra mussel veligers (larvae) and other aquatic species that can be discharged into uninfested waters (Allen, 1998).Although the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) has developed guidelines to prevent
aquatic species introduction via ballast water by requiring all vessels that enter U.S. territorial waters to manage ballast water according to prescribed measures, these guidelines have little impact oncommercial shipping in Tennessee, which has no coastline. Because of its volume in Tennessee, commercial barge traffic is the primary vector of transport to large rivers, but pleasure craft will alsoExhibit 1. Major waterways in Tennessee.
13continue to provide a pathway for spreading some ANS into Tennessee's waters.
Intentional Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Intentional Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Intentional Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Intentional Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Intentional Pathways Transporting Invasive Species in Tennessee Many nonnative species cause no ecological or economic problems, and they do not threatenhuman health. Some of these are actually important to development, industry, and other human endeavors. However, sometimes these benign species become problematic after a
period of time. Knowledge of nonnative species and their interactions in various habitats can
provide information for carefully controlling such introductions and preventing such
problems. Before the intentional introduction of any nonnative species through commercial endeavors is allowed in Tennessee, a thorough review and environmental assessment of potential impacts should be conducted carefully to avoid the spread of problem species. The TANSTF has noted that ANS have been intentionally introduced through the following
pathways, and identified methods to manage these pathways to minimize accidental spread.
Live stock and commerce
- 1. Fish/plant stockings Occasionally ANS are stocked by people not knowing the serious effects that these organismsmay have on the ecology of the affected water systems. Alligator weed, a low spreading, aquatic plant with white flowers, may be planted along the shoreline of a public reservoir
near summer homes, but its invasive characteristics will help it flourish and expand along the
shoreline and into the lake to form sun-blocking, floating mats. (Invasive & Exotic species website; USDA Forest Service website, USGS 2006)
On some occasions, people unintentionally stock invasive plants and animals throughintentional actions. Aquarists not wanting to kill their overgrown aquatic pet may release it into a lake or river. In Maryland, this resulted in the release of a snakehead (Family
Channidae), a very competitive and invasive fish. Resident anglers originally from other states have stocked a fish species from a former state such as yellow perch into a lake or pond in an effort to establish a local sport fish population. Bass anglers have intentionally stocked aquatic vegetation such as hydrilla to increase the amount of cover in a water body.
These actions ultimately rendered these waterbodies less useful for angling and boating.In 1976, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency intentionally stocked alewives intoWatauga Lake in east Tennessee to provide more tolerant forage species for walleye and smallmouth bass. Although negative effects on native fish were not known at the time, reduced recruitment of subsequent walleye year classes was later attributed to the alewives(TWRA, Warm water Stocking Report, 1964-2006).2. Aquarium & water garden tradesPet and garden stores sell nonnative species. "Exotic" is profitable. These plants and animals 14 can be released intentionally or unintentionally into the natural environment, where they establish populations that compete with native species. Sometimes unwanted plants or fish
are improperly dumped into aquatic systems. Invasive plants and fish can also contaminate
local streams or ponds during flooding. Many of these unwanted species cannot overwinter in their new environment, but those that survive compete with native species, becoming ANS.3. Aquaculture industry Although many ANS have wreaked havoc on aquatic ecosystems in the U.S., some of thesesame species live in aquaculture facilities in and around Tennessee. Black carp are being utilized to control snail populations in catfish ponds in some southeastern states. They can spread into water systems through flooding or release and eventually end up in Tennessee
waters. Invasive aquatic plants such as dotted duckweed and curleyleaf pondweed may be
included accidentally with a shipment of fish from hatchery ponds and stocked into a body of water without a population of such ANS. The Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation has some jurisdiction over introductions of new species on public lands (see
Chapter IV), but unintentional movement is beyond their control. Even though possession of live silver and bighead carp is illegal in Tennessee, federalcommerce laws allow their transport by interstate highways through the state. Vehicular accidents can lead to the escape and development of an ANS population. In 1996 a transport vehicle hauling 12,000 pounds of live bighead carp from Arkansas to an Asian food market in New York overturned on Interstate Highway 81 in Virginia. The local fire rescue crew
salvaged some of the fish by placing them in a local farm pond and requested permission to
stock others in South Holston Lake (Pers. Com. Gary Martel, Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries)
.Ranking: Aquatic Plants, Animals, and Pathways Ranking: Aquatic Plants, Animals, and Pathways Ranking: Aquatic Plants, Animals, and Pathways Ranking: Aquatic Plants, Animals, and Pathways Ranking: Aquatic Plants, Animals, and PathwaysTwenty-two species of aquatic flora (21 vascular plant species and one species of algae) wereranked in order of importance by a TANSTF committee consisting of Jack Raney (University of Tennessee - retired), Anni Self (Tennessee Department of Agriculture) and David Webb (Tennessee Valley Authority). Thirty-three species of aquatic fauna (22 species of fish, five species of mollusks, and five species of crayfish) were similarly ranked by a TANSTF committee consisting of Dennis S. Baxter (Tennessee Valley Authority), Bobby Wilson and Carl E.
Willams (both Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency).
Five criteria were used:
- 1. Ecological Impacts - potential to impact aquatic ecosystems based on literature, discussions with
colleagues, field observations and personal experience;
- 2. Current Distribution and Status - documented current distribution in Tennessee (i.e., how
widespread is this species within the state);
153. Trend in Distribution and Abundance - anticipated spread of this species within the next ten years;
- 4. Management Difficulty - difficulty in controlling this species (primarily with the use of
mechanical apparatus, pesticides, molluscicides, and herbicides) including availability of
proven management techniques and a need for repetitive and ongoing treatments;
- 5. Economic Impact - ability to negatively impact the economy of Tennessee based on
historical information from within the state or the potential to negatively impact the economy of Tennessee based case histories from adjacent regions.
Each species was given a relative numerical ranking of 1, 2 or 3 for each of the five criteriawith 1 being the lowest impact and 3 being the highest impact. The committee members ranked each species independently for each criterion. A mean for the three independent
rankings was then calculated for each criterion and the five means (i.e., one for each criterion) for each species was summed to give a composite score (See Table 1). Additional information about the ranking process is provided in Appendix B.Some of the species in this table have not yet actually affected the ecology and/or economy of the state, but their impacts in neighboring states or in similar ecological and or economic systems raised awareness of the need to prevent their establishment or spread to Tennessee waters. Detailed information about these species, arranged alphabetically by animal and plant group, are provided in Appendix A. The rank for each species in Table 1 is provided therein as
well.The pathways also were ranked and composite scores also are listed in Table 1 below.
Appendix B also contains a detailed description of the pathways ranking process.
16Table 1. Species and pathways of concern for ANS management in Tennessee Plants & Animals Boating, bait, angling Commercial shipping Aquaculture & stocking Garden & pet trades Natural forces Rank Species Score Pathways 1 Hydrilla 13.67 X X X X 2 Brittle naiad 13.33 X X X X 3 Silver carp 12.33 X X X 4 Eurasian watermilfoil 12 X X X X X 5 Bighead carp 11.67 X X X 6 Western mosquitofish 11.5 X X X X 7 Purple loosestrife 11.33 X 8 Didymo 11.33 X 9 Round Goby* 11.33 X X X X X 10 Zebra mussel 11 X X X 11 New Zealand mud snail* 11 X 12 Rusty Crayfish 11 X X X 13 Redbreast Sunfish 10.5 X X X X 14 Yellow Perch 10.5 X X X 15 Common carp 10.33 X X 16 Black carp* 10 X X 17 Reed Canary grass 9.67 X X X 18 Northern Snakehead* 9.67 X X 19 Rudd* 9.5 X X 20 Alligatorweed 9.33 X X X X 21 Asian clam 9.33 X X X X X 22 Ruffe* 9.33 X 23 Watercress 9 X X 24 Blueback Herring 9 X X X 25 Virile crayfish 9 X X X X 26 Swamp eel* 9 X X 27 Brazilian elodea 8.67 X X 28 Common reed 8.67 X X 29 Alewife 8.67 X X X 30 Peppermint 8.33 X 31 Giant Salvinia 8.33 X X X X 32 Parrot's feather 8.33 X X X 33 Pale yellow iris 8 X 34 Uruguayian primrose 8 X 35 Eastern mosquitofish 8 X X X X 36 Chinese mystery snail 8 X X X X 37 Snail bullhead* 8 X X 38 Flat bullhead* 8 X X X 39 Curley-leaf pondweed 7.67 X X 40 Asian spiderwort 7.67 X 41 Spearmint 7 X X 42 Water clover 7 X X 43 Water hyacinth 6.67 X X X X X 44 White catfish 6.5 X X X 45 Grass carp 6.33 X X 17*Potential threat to Tennessee. Not yet present in state.
X= a pathway of introduction.Table 1. continued Plants & Animals Boating, bait, angling Commercial shipping Aquaculture & Stocking Garden & pet trades Natural Forces Rank Species Score Pathways 46 Water lettuce 6 X X X 47 Dotted duckweed 6 X X X X 48 Channeled apple snail* 6 X X X X 49 Margined madtom 5.5 X X 50 Cumberland crayfish 5 X 51 White river crawfish 5 X 52 Brook stickleback* 5 X X X 53 Red swamp crawfish 5 X 54 Inland silverside 5 X 55 Bigclaw crawfish 5 X 18 III. Goals & Objectives III. Goals & Objectives III. Goals & Objectives III. Goals & Objectives III. Goals & ObjectivesTo reduce or reverse problems associated with ANS, the TANSTF has set the following goal:Goal: To manage ANS in Tennessee to minimize adverse impacts on native species, waterquality, and socio-economics.Much effort is needed to accomplish this goal. The TANSTF proposes two overarching objectives to be supported by multiple strategies:
Objective 1: Prevention - To prevent the introduction of any nonnative invasive species inTennessee and to prevent existing invasive species from spreading to other watersheds in Tennessee.
Objective 2: Management - To manage priority aquatic invasive species in Tennessee in order tominimize their impacts on native species, aquatic habitats, socio-economics and water quality.The main focus of this ANS management plan is to prevent new introductions, but management and control of existing nuisance species must also be undertaken to limit their negative impacts.
Prevention however, will only assist in reducing the number of new species entering Tennessee
waters.Prevention and control need strategies that facilitate coordinated action among stakeholders andpromote public buy-in. Therefore, some of the first actions are anticipated to be the development of leadership and educational materials such as pamphlets, posters, DVDs, and an ANS web site. The TNANSTF recommends leadership of a statewide ANS coordinator and an independentANS
board or working group.
Strategies also must be designed for full partner participation to improve enforcement andregulations that prohibit the possession, purchase, and transport of ANS in Tennessee, and to develop a rapid response plan to control or eradicate priority ANS populations.The TANSTF recognizes that implementation of this plan has to be periodically evaluated in order to make progress towards achieving the goal, and that funding will be necessary to accomplish many of the tasks. Evaluation will be shared by leaders in the agencies with primary jurisdiction over wildlife and resource issues related to ANS - the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. (These jurisdictions are described in Chapter IV.) The information upon which evaluation will be based will be provided by the ANS Coordinator. A funding mechanism will
undoubtedly include partnerships. Description of these strategies as they relate to the two overarching objectives can be found in Chapter V.
19 IV. ANS Authorities and Programs IV. ANS Authorities and Programs IV. ANS Authorities and Programs IV. ANS Authorities and Programs IV. ANS Authorities and ProgramsExisting authorities, laws, and regulations in Tennessee will play a significant role initially in minimizing adverse impacts of nonindigenous aquatic species, preventing new introductions, and managing those species already designated as priority by the relevant agencies. However, Tennessee state laws relating to nonindigenous species cannot be discussed without a basic understanding of federal authorities. The policies regarding nonindigenous species are controlled and enforced by a network of regulatory agencies and organizations. An overview of state and federal legal authorities relating to ANS are included in this section of the plan. A more detailed summary of relevant state laws and rules relating to ANS is in Appendix C. A list of prohibited animals and plants in Tennessee is in Appendix E.
Division of Authorities Division of Authorities Division of Authorities Division of Authorities Division of AuthoritiesState and local efforts play a large role in controlling the spread of nonindigenous species.States have authority to decide which species can be imported and/or released within their borders. However, the United States Constitution vests the power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress. Therefore, federal law may preempt state law in some cases, but for
the most part, states retain the power to specify which species are imported and/or released.
In addition, interest generated from state and federal policy stimulates action by nongovern-mental organizations. This section of the Tennessee ANS Management Plan will describe this
somewhat flexible division.
Major Agencies With ANS Responsibilities Major Agencies With ANS Responsibilities Major Agencies With ANS Responsibilities Major Agencies With ANS Responsibilities Major Agencies With ANS ResponsibilitiesTennessee is unique in that a number of agencies have some degree of jurisdiction or control over the various waterways in the state. Several of these agencies have some level of en-forcement authority. Others manage the waterways for varying purposes (See map, Exhibit 2
below) and employ biologists to monitor and (in some cases) manage aquatic life within their
respective jurisdictions for purposes of complying with environmental and conservation-related laws and regulations. The work of Tennessee Valley Authority biologists, for ex-ample, adds a different perspective to the work done by state agencies. The major players with regard to managing aquatic resources in Tennessee include:The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) - The TWRA has the legal responsibilityto manage fish and other aquatic animals in all waters of the state, public and private. The
agency also operates a number of family fishing lakes, boat ramps, wildlife management
areas, and refuges dependent on productive water resources and healthy aquatic ecosystems(State of Tennessee, 70-1-301 & 302; Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 1660, Ch. 1-17.01).
20The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) - This agency has jurisdic-tion over designated natural resource areas (State of Tennessee, 11-14-101 &104). Primarily through theDivision of Natural Areas (Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 0400, Ch. 2-8.25), Division of State Parks(Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 0400, Ch. 2-2.13), and the Division of Water Pollution Control (Tenn.Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 1200, Ch. 4-3.01; State of Tennessee, 69-3-101 & 103), TDEC has the legal respon-sibility for protecting and maintaining native plant species, while managing exotic invasive plant
species in all waters of the state.The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) - This department may play a limited rolein enforcing animal importation laws through its Agricultural Crime Unit (http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/crimeunit/index.html). It has been used to regulate the introduction ofdomestic (food) animals for production. The Division of Regulatory Services, which regu-
lates nurseries, greenhouses, and plant dealers (State of Tennessee 43-6-101, 102 & 104; Tenn. Comp.Rules & Regs. Title 0080, Ch. 0080-6-24), may play a limited regulatory role with regard to exoticaquatic plants. Under this authority, inspection has been used primarily to prevent introduc-
tion of insect pests or plant diseases. It could be used to prevent introduction of invasive plant species as well. TDA has, in the past, also occasionally imposed regulations on the
importation of specific plants in cooperation with the USDA-Animal and Plant health Inspec-tion Service (APHIS). The action protected Tennessee from introduction of specific plant diseases or pests that had been identified and restricted by APHIS (http://Tennessee.gov/agricul-ture/suddenoak.pdf). Vigorous use of this authority might assist in preventing the introduction ofinvasive plants into Tennessee.The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - The TVA is a power corporation and a federalagency. It manages the entire Tennessee River system for power generation, flood control, navigation, water supply, recreational, and biological purposes. TVA's system of dams, locks, and reservoirs provide habitat for multitudes of aquatic species, both native and nonnative, as well as control mechanisms and potential pathways for ANS introductions (i.e., Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway). It employs biologists who monitor the agency's impact on aquatic ecosystems throughout the Tennessee Valley and work to mitigate any negative impacts while continuing to fulfill the agency's primary missions. One example of such work is a research project examining the effectiveness of strobe lights to prevent impingement of aquatic life on TVA water intakes. TVA biologists work to improve water quality by collecting and sharing data, identifying problems, and working with the Tennessee Valley's citizens to achieve
solutions. (TVA website, http://www.tva.gov/environment/water/index.htm)The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - This federal agency's engineers, scientists
and other specialists work hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental matters.
Staffs of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and other
professionals execute the corps' mission to provide engineering services to the nation, includ-
ing planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects, such as the spillway at Reelfoot Lake and levee system on the Mississippi River.
Corps biologists review permit applications for water resource projects, as well as other permits including those necessary to dredge U.S. waterways for sand and gravel. They sometimes treat waterbodies to control nonindigenous species, as it relates to navigation. The 21COE's environmental program has two major focus areas: restoration and stewardship.Efforts in both areas are guided by the Corps environmental operating principles, which help
balance economic and environmental concerns. (COE website, http://www.corpsresults.us/environ-ment/default.htm)The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - The USFWS works primarily with state wildlife agencies to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the con-tinuing benefit of the American people. The agency provides policy assistance, technical assistance, and other guidance, while also allocating excise tax revenues to the states and providing grants and other financial assistance for fish and wildlife programs throughout the nation. For example, Tennes-
see received $ 7,268,842 in federal Sport Fish Restoration funds through the USFWS for fiscal year 2006. A portion of these funds may be used for aquatic education, also, perhaps relating to preventing the spread of ANS. (USFWS website, http://federalasst.fws.gov/apport/
SFRFINALApportionment2006.pdf)Exhibit 2: Map of general areas of authority for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Tennessee's Waterways Shared Jurisdictions Among State Agencies Shared Jurisdictions Among State Agencies Shared Jurisdictions Among State Agencies Shared Jurisdictions Among State Agencies Shared Jurisdictions Among State Agencies Tennessee Animal Programs and RegulationsIn Tennessee, the aquaculture trade is regulated at both the state and federal levels, with permits required for importation. Because of permitting requirements, aquaculture is the
more regulated pathway of nonindigenous introductions when compared to the aquarium
trade (State of Tennessee, 70-2-212; 70-2-221; Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 1660, Ch. 1-15.01 & 1-26.02). The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency regulates aquarium trade on a more limited 22 scale as the law requires no permit to import fish held in aquaria. The agency lists in its rules as "Class V" wildlife (injurious to the environment) "all nonnative freshwater aquatic life" except
goldfish, triploid grass carp, all salmon species, and all species approved for fish farming. The Law
Enforcement Division of the agency enforces other rules and laws relating to aquatic life held in
aquaria. (State of Tennessee 70-4-403 et seq; Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 1660, Ch. 1-18.03)
.Currently few state regulations and programs exist concerning the regulation of nonindigenousanimals. Tennessee regulations addressing the introduction of nonindigenous species include Rule
1660-1-18-.03, which places animals in various classes, including Class V wildlife designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission (in conjunction with the Commissioner of Agriculture) as injurious to the environment. A list of those animals is in Appendix C. TWRA, under state law, has
jurisdiction over all importation of live wild animals and existing regulations governing such importa-
tion (State of Tennessee 70-4-401)
.The Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) has jurisdiction over designated natural resource areas, which include many aquatic resources potentially vulnerable to invasive species. This agency also enforces rules establishing control of and prohibiting the introduction of exotic species within these natural resource areas. Any control activities, by
rule, must be provided for in a master plan adopted for each area. Note that the rules specifi-cally state that the TWRA will be consulted in matters of management or control of wildlife
populations (Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 0400, Ch. 2-8.25). TDEC's Division of State Parks prohibits the transplanting or introduction of any live fish or eggs in to the waters of any park(Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 0400, Ch. 2-2.13) .TDEC's Division of Water Pollution Control is the primary enforcement authority for theClean Water Act in Tennessee. The act makes it unlawful to alter many characteristics of
waters of the state, including the biological characteristics, which may be applicable to the
introduction of exotic aquatic species (Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 1200, Ch. 4-3.01; State ofTennessee, 69-3-101 & 103)
.The Department of Agriculture plays a limited enforcement role through its AgriculturalCrime Unit. This unit enforces state laws, rules and regulations relating to the import of
animals into the state, but primarily deals with agricultural livestock rather than aquatic
species (Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture website, http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/crimeunit/index.html).
Tennessee Plant Programs and RegulationsTDEC's jurisdiction over natural resource areas and state parks with regard to exotic animalsalso extends to exotic plants (State of Tennessee, 11-14-101 & 104; Tenn. Comp. Rules &
Regs. Title 0400, Ch. 2-8.25). In addition, the Department of Agriculture's Division of Regulatory Services, which regulates nurseries, plays a role with regard to exotic plants. The
division inspects plant dealers in the state, which sometimes sell aquatic plants. Rules define
pest plants as injurious to agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural, or other interests of the state. The Rules include a list of designated pest plants, but it currently includes only a few
which may be considered aquatic (Tenn. Comp. Rules & Regs. Title 0800, Ch. 6-24; Tennessee Department 23of Agriculture, plant certification jurisdiction website http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/regulate/plants/
index.html). Among these are two species of concern in Tennessee, Salvinia molesta (giant salvinia) and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife). A complete list of these plants is in Appendix E.TDEC administers funds derived from the sale of the "Iris Tag," a license plate depictingTennessee's state cultivated flower. These may help in the battle against aquatic invasive
plants. Since 1993, purchases and renewals have amounted to over $1.4 million. For the first two years, TDEC earmarked receipts for purchase of equipment and maintenance of parks. In
June 1995, an amendment shifted the fund's purpose to cover the planting of native trees and shrubs for landscape maintenance. Finally, in February 1997, the Tennessee State Parks' Program Services Section was authorized to administer the fund to all Tennessee State Parks
for the task of exotic pest plant removal. It is primarily intended to encourage the use of native plants in State Parks. Although the program has focused primarily on terrestrial plants, it could provide funding and services for managing or eliminating aquatic exotic plants as
well (Tennessee State Parks Specialty Plate information described online at http://tennessee.gov/environment/
parks/specplate.shtml)
.The Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council (TN-EPPC) is a non-governmental agency with adirect interest in preventing and controlling invasive species. Since its organization, TN-
EPPC has educated stakeholders and the public by hosting statewide annual symposia, and giving presentations at similar conferences. TN-EPPC publishes a newsletter, an educational brochure, and has held numerous workshops. The organization has also published the Ten-nessee Exotic Pest Vegetation Manual and the Tennessee Invasive Exotic Pest Plant list for Tennessee, though it has no legal effect. TN-EPPC serves as a technical advisory body and has participated in cooperative efforts to reduce the use of nonnative plants in Tennessee by federal and state government agencies. TN-EPPC is also a member of the National Associa-
tion of Exotic Pest Plant Councils (Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council information online at http://www.tneppc.org)
.Current Known Gaps in Tennessee's Authorities & Programs for ANS Current Known Gaps in Tennessee's Authorities & Programs for ANS Current Known Gaps in Tennessee's Authorities & Programs for ANS Current Known Gaps in Tennessee's Authorities & Programs for ANS Current Known Gaps in Tennessee's Authorities & Programs for ANS Although these programs and associated jurisdictions are essential for the management ofANS in Tennessee, existing gaps reduce their effectiveness. A description of some of the
known gaps and impediments includes:1. A central collection point for information on ANS and methods for maintaining that information in an easily accessible format (including GIS) for those agencies and
individuals who need it;
- 2. Central repository for research on ANS including monitoring current and encourag-ing new control methods, efficacy of control methods, economic and ecological damage from introductions, and benefits of controlling ANS;
- 3. Central coordination of disjointed official efforts to manage ANS and an institu-tionalized structure to maintain cooperative efforts and information sharing;
- 4. State-wide public education and information efforts geared toward preventing uninformed
introduction of exotic invasive species to the state (through pet stores, nursery operations, 24 big box retailers, hunting and fishing regulations, boater education, bait stores, and other contacts with citizens);
- 5. Institutionalized monitoring of markets for ANS;
- 6. Institutionalized regular monitoring of the aquatic pond plant and pet trade;
- 7. Rapid response mechanisms and pre-approved permits necessary for rapid eradica-
tion;
- 8. Institutionalized mechanism for coordinating responses to new introductions and
managing existing populations; and
- 9. New regulations to prevent the commercial sale of nonnative aquatic species that
have the potential to be invasive.
Federal Regulations Federal Regulations Federal Regulations Federal Regulations Federal RegulationsThe current federal management of ANS is a patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, andprograms. At least 20 agencies are currently involved in researching and controlling nonindigenous species. Table 2 outlines the responsibilities of a number of these government
agencies and summarizes their current role in the control of introduced species. Federal laws which apply directly to the introduction of nonindigenous species include the Lacey Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act, the Federal Seed Act, the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The full
text of these laws will not be included in this report, though copies may be requested from the TWRA. The Endangered Species Act also has indirect application when an ANS is shown
to threaten or endanger the survival of a federally listed species. (See Tables 2 & 3)
Table 2. Federal Agencies Responsibilities in Transport of Live Aquatic Products (Adapted and updated from Olson and Linen 1997 and Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, September 2001.) . Restrict Movement Into U.S Restrict Interstate Movement Regulate Product Content or Labeling Plants APHIS APHIS APHIS DOD AMS AMS Customs Border Protection DEA Fish FWS FWS FWS Customs Border Protection USCG Invertebrates APHIS APHIS FWS FWS FWS ARS PHS Customs Border Protection USCG International Laws and Treaties International Laws and Treaties International Laws and Treaties International Laws and Treaties International Laws and TreatiesInternational agreements signed by the United States government are considered law at thefederal level. A small number of treaties signed by the US, as well as some international agreements under the auspices of the United Nations may affect Tennessee's strategies to prevent and control aquatic invasive species. These are summarized in Appendix D of this
plan.
25Table 3. List of abbreviations and descriptions of authority referenced in Table 2. Organization Description APHIS EXPLANATORY NOTE: Under the legislation that created the Dept. of Homeland Security, APHIS maintained responsibility for establishing the regulations that govern the importation of agricultural and forest products, and Customs Border Protection became responsible for conducting the actual inspections at ports of entry.
APHIS retained inspections authority for propagative plant material. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, has broad mandates related to the importation and interstate movement of foreign plant pests and exotic species, under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 and several related statues. The primary concern is species that pose a risk to agriculture crops and protection of natural resources and the environment. In cooperation/coordination with Customs Border Protection, restricts the movement of foreign plant pests and pathogens into the country by inspecting, prohibiting, or requiring permits for the entry of agricultural products, seeds, live plants and animals, and forest products such as lumber and wood packing material. Restricts interstate movements of agricultural plant pests and pathogens by requiring movement permits and imposing domestic quarantines and regulations when necessary. Restricts interstate transport of noxious weeds under the Federal Noxious Weed Act. AMS The Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, works closely with states in regulating interstate seed shipments. Regulations require accurate labeling and designation of "weeds" or "noxious weeds" conforming to the specific state's guidelines. ARS The Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the research branch of USDA, conducts and funds research on the prevention, control, or eradication of harmful nonnative species often in cooperation with APHIS. Projects include aquaculture techniques and disease diagnosis and control. DEA The Drug Enforcement Agency restricts imports of a few nonnative plants and fungi because they contain narcotics substances. DOD The Department of Defense has diverse activities related to nonnative species. These relate to its movements of personnel and cargo and management of land holdings. Armed forces shipments are not subject to APHIS inspections. Instead, the DOD uses military customs inspectors trained by APHIS and the Public Health Service. FWS The Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, has responsibility for regulating the importation of injurious fish and wildlife under the Lacey Act. Maintains a limited port inspection program. In 1990, FWS inspectors inspected 22 percent of the wildlife shipments at international ports of entry. Interstate movement of state-listed injurious fish and wildlife is a federal offense and therefore potentially subject to FWS enforcement. Also provides technical assistance related to natural resource issues and fish diseases to state agencies and the private sector (aquaculture in particular). Helps control the spread of fish pathogens. NOAA and NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, inspect imported shellfish to prevent the introduction of nonnative parasites and pathogens. Cooperative agreements with Chile and Australia; Venezuela has requested a similar agreement. PHS The Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, regulates entry of organisms that might carry or cause human disease. CBP Customs Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. CBP personnel inspect passengers, baggage, and cargo at U.S. ports of entry to enforce homeland security regulations and the regulations of other federal agencies. They inform interested agencies when a violation is detected and usually detain the suspected cargo for an agency search. USCG The Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, was given certain responsibilities under the Nonnative Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, relating to preventing introductions (mostly dealing with ballast water exchange).
26 V. Strategies and Action Items V. Strategies and Action Items V. Strategies and Action Items V. Strategies and Action Items V. Strategies and Action ItemsThe goal of the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, to manage ANS inTennessee to minimize adverse impacts on native species, water quality, and economics, can
be achieved through actions supporting two objectives.
Objective 1: Prevention of new ANS Objective 1: Prevention of new ANS Objective 1: Prevention of new ANS Objective 1: Prevention of new ANS Objective 1: Prevention of new ANSTo prevent the introduction of any nonnative invasive species in Tennessee and to prevent existing invasive species from spreading to other watersheds in Tennessee.
Strategy 1 Education/Public Awareness: Educate about the harmful effects of ANS and how to prevent
introductions and spread.* Strategy 1A. Promote ANS awareness within the public school system.
Actions 1A1. Develop and publish instructional materials such as workbooks, PowerPoint presenta-tions, and instructional DVD's.
1A2. Work with and encourage educational groups such as the TSTA (Tennessee Science Teachers Association) and Project CENTS (Conservation Education Now for TennesseeStudents) to promote ANS awareness. Add ANS awareness to TN Content Standards for Science Curriculum.* Strategy 1B. Create an educational campaign focusing on informing the generalpublic about ANS.
Actions1B1. Develop pamphlets, posters, and fliers for general distribution promoting ANS aware-ness, i.e., SARP.
1B2. Build and maintain an ANS Website.
1B3. Utilize mass media such as TV, e.g., TN Wildside, newspaper, magazine, and radio to promote ANS awareness.
1B4. Develop partnerships with watershed associations for education at local level.* Strategy 1C. Develop an educational program that specifically targets users mostlikely to encounter or spread ANS.
Actions1C1. Incorporate ANS prevention training in boating safety and education classes.
1C2. Continue to develop and include ANS information within the TWRA fishing regulations
guide.
1C3. Post signs at boat docks, boat ramps and kiosks utilizing resources available through programs such as "Stop Aquatic Hitchhickers" http://www.protectyourwaters.net/.
1C4. Provide organized fishing clubs with general prevention procedures recommended by 27"Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" to prevent the spread of ANS.
1C5. Utilize Habitatitude program to educate aquarium and water garden wholesalers, retail-
ers and hobbyists.* Strategy 1D. Actively promote ANS awareness within the commercial aquaticindustry.Actions1D1. Include ANS prevention in training for barge pilot licensing.
1D2. Explore methods to assure that educational material be provided to consumers of
products of the aquatic pet and water garden industries. (Might require legislation and/or
partnership.)
1D3. Work with bait industry to prevent distribution of ANS.
1D4. Develop and provide educational material such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) to the aquaculture industry through the TAA (Tennessee Aquaculture Association).
1D5. Cooperate with and provide educational material to commercial fishermen.
Strategy 2 Early Detection: Develop an early detection plan to promptly identify, eradicate, or contain pioneering ANS populations.* Strategy 2A. Develop "in house" programs that would aid in the early detection of ANS.Actions2A1. Train field personnel and resource managers to correctly identify, collect and record essential data on ANS species encountered.
2A2. Develop reporting protocol to submit ANS records to central authority (ANS Coordina-
tor).
2A3. Instruct field survey units to incorporate an "ANS Watch" during routine fish, benthic, mussel, and plant surveys.
2A4. Conduct periodic fish, benthic, crayfish, mussel, and plant surveys targeting specific
ANS likely points of introduction, e.g., trout tailwaters streams for the New Zealand mud
snail.
2A5. Utilize HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) training at state and
federal hatcheries and during stocking activities.* Strategy 2B. Foster public involvement in ANS detection.
Action2B1. Encourage and provide a method for citizens to report occurrences of ANS, e.g.,
hotline.* Strategy 2C. Monitor commercial trade and recreational use of ANS.
Actions2C1. Work with the commercial fishing industry to detect ANS occurrences through training (ANS Coordinator).
2C2. Develop plans to monitor the pet trade, bait, and water garden industries to prevent distribution of ANS (ANS Coordinator).
28 2C3. Monitor bait used for striped bass tournaments; encourage use of native species of bait.* Strategy 2D. Foster interagency cooperation in monitoring ANS.
Action 2D1. Conduct cooperative surveys with local, state, and federal agencies to detect new or expanding populations of ANS (ANS Coordinator).
Strategy 3Information Management: Coordinate the compilation and management of ANS information.* Strategy 3A. Identify ANS that pose an immediate threat to aquatic resources of the state.Actions3A1. Hire statewide ANS Coordinator.
3A2. Incorporate ANS occurrences into the Tennessee Aquatic Database System (TADS).
3A3. Maintain a priority list of ANS (ANS Coordinator).
3A4. Search existing collections and data bases for recent and historic records of ANS (ANS
Coordinator).
3A5. Coordinate and share all ANS data at the local, regional, as well as national level (ANS
Coordinator).* Strategy 3B. Create a repository and documentation process for all ANS occur-rences in Tennessee watersheds.
Action 3B1. Ensure submission of voucher specimens to appropriate institutions (museum collec-
tions and herbaria) (ANS Coordinator).* Strategy 3C. Monitor ANS vectors.
Action3C1. Maintain a list of ANS pathways (bait distribution, fish culture and distribution, water
garden and aquatic pet industries etc.) (ANS Coordinator).* Strategy 3D. Use current technology to monitor changes in ANS occurrence.
Action 3D1. Continue to develop GIS distribution analysis.* Strategy 3E. Provide comprehensive information on current ANS activities.
Action3E1. Ensure good dissemination of information by producing an ANS annual report (ANS
Coordinator).
Strategy 4 Regulation: Support existing regulations and enact new legislation to control the collection, cultivation, distribution, importation, possession, propagation, purchase, sale, transport and introduction of ANS in Tennessee.* Strategy 4A. Identify legislation that controls ANS and parties responsible for administer-29 ing such legislation.
Actions4A1. Maintain a comprehensive list of all current state and federal laws regulating ANS (ANS Coordinator).
4A2. Determine a clear line of regulatory authority for ANS groups (plants and animals).
(Also supports tasks in Objective 2, Strategy 1A)* Strategy 4B. Determine actions implemented by border states to control ANS.
Action4B1. Evaluate existing regulations of border states that share drainages with Tennessee and
coordinate actions when possible (ANS Coordinator).* Strategy 4C. Ensure that regulations are in keeping with current ANS trends and threats.Actions4C1. Continue to update the "Banned in Tennessee" species list (ANS Coordinator).
4C2. Conduct a comparative analysis study for an "Approved Species" list verses the "Banned in Tennessee" list (ANS Coordinator).
Strategy 5Research: Support research on ANS and develop a system to effectively disseminate ANS
information among managing agencies and academic institutions.* Strategy 5A. The economic impact of ANS in Tennessee is undetermined - Con-duct research to fully understand the potential impacts of ANS to Tennessee.
Actions5A1. Fund economic and ecological impacts research of ANS in Tennessee.
5A2. Evaluate the cost/benefit of control or eradication of priority ANS.* Strategy 5B. In order to control ANS in Tennessee, protocols and methods need tobe developed to effectively manage or eradicate ANS with minimum impact to native eco-
systems.Actions5B1. Fund research to develop effective methods of control or eradication of priority ANS.
5B2. Carefully evaluate potential harm to non-target species by chosen control methods (ANS Coordinator).
5B3. Fund laboratory studies to determine potential for competitive exclusion of ANS by
native species and vice-versa.
5B4. Monitor ANS research projects of other states (ANS Coordinator).
5B5. Continue to support research relating to threatened and endangered species restoration (e.g., Barrens Topminnow).
5B6. Support research to determine limiting factors for growth and survival of priority ANS.
5B7. Utilize information from the ANSTF management and control plans when available. Initially, information on Asian carp species, New Zealand mudsnail, ruffe, purple loosestrife and giant salvinia may be helpful in controlling those invasive species in Tennessee.
30 Objective 2 - Management of existing ANS Objective 2 - Management of existing ANS Objective 2 - Management of existing ANS Objective 2 - Management of existing ANS Objective 2 - Management of existing ANSTo manage priority invasive species in Tennessee in order to minimize their impact on native species, aquatic habitats, socio-economics, and water quality.
Strategy 1Rapid Response: Develop a rapid response plan to control or eradicate detected priority ANS
populations.* Strategy 1A. Assemble an interdisciplinary committee to complete the following actions.Actions 1A1. Create a permanent mechanism to apply control and eradication methods developed through research where ANS populations pose risk to ecology and economies of Tennessee (Interdisciplinary committee led by ANS Coordinator).
1A2. Identify existing agency expertise and resources that can respond to new or expanding ANS populations (Interdisciplinary committee led by ANS Coordinator).
1A3. Identify ANS impacting native rare and endangered species (Interdisciplinary commit-tee led by ANS Coordinator).
1A4. Identify actions to eradicate or control pioneering ANS populations (Interdisciplinary committee led by ANS Coordinator).
1A5. Establish rapid response mechanism and pre-approved permits necessary for rapid
eradication (e.g. herbicide or pesticide application, habitat alteration etc.) (Interdisciplinary committee led by ANS Coordinator).
Strategy 2 Enforcement* Strategy 2A. Identify all legalities and enforcement issues associated with ANS.
Actions2A1. Identify all affected law enforcement divisions, what role they will play and who will
be the contact person (Law Enforcement Divisions).
2A2. Coordinate enforcement cases between agencies (Law Enforcement Divisions).
2A3. Examine case histories of successful prosecutions in other states (Law Enforcement
Divisions).* Strategy 2B. Maintain a high level of control in regulating ANS.
Actions 2B1. Conduct surveys to track range expansion of established or naturalized populations of
priority ANS.
2B2. Enforce existing laws pertaining to ANS.
Strategy 3Intrastate/Interstate/International Cooperation: Collaborate on ANS projects with all managing
agencies and user groups at local, state, regional, and national levels.* Strategy 3A. Ensure all governing agencies are aware of jurisdictions and responsibilities 31in managing ANS.
Actions3A1. Continue a comprehensive review of each managing agency's rules and regulations to
ensure cross-compliance (ANS Coordinator).*Strategy 3B. Collaborate formally and informally with ANS leaders in neighboring states and shared watersheds.
Action3B1. Continue to participate in the Mississippi River Basin Panel on ANS, and in regional, national, and international ANS conferences and workshops.
Strategy 4National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA ) Compliance: Ensure compliance with NEPA.* Strategy 4A. Ensure that all agency responses to ANS meet requirements under NEPA.
Action4A1. Frequently review NEPA policy in order to maintain continuity and proper authority in managing ANS (ANS Coordinator).* Strategy 4B. Ensure that all consultation with governing agencies is conducted in ANS management issues and that public and private sectors are informed and allowed to
comment on proposed actions.
Actions 4B1. Develop plans and coordinate responses with full partner participation, including reviews of state and federal air, water, wetland, wildlife, and endangered species regulations.
4B2. Coordinate public input as appropriate or required by law. Prepare alternatives analysis
based on best available scientific data.
4B3. Evaluate potential for third-party water projects in Tennessee or adjoining states to impact distribution or abundance of ANS in Tennessee.
Strategy 5 Restore Native Species* Strategy 5A. Address native species impacts resulting from ANS.
Actions5A1. Support restoration of native species into areas where ANS have caused or coincided
with decline.
5A2. Establish threshold criteria for reintroduction of native species of proper genotype.
5A3. Maintain database of restoration sites and periodically survey to determine success.* Strategy 5B. Be proactive in preventing ANS from impacting Threatened or Endan-gered species or their habitat.
Actions 5B1. Periodically monitor populations of rare and endangered species currently impacted by ANS (e.g., current project to protect barrens topminnow; see Appendix A).
.
Implementation Table The following table is a summary of the stra tegies and actions. It is the recommendati on of the TANSTF that Strategy 3A1 (Hire statewide ANS Coordinator) should be one of the first actions to be funded and implemented. Howeve r, the order in which the actions of th is plan will be implemented will ultimately depend on available funding, resources, and priority circumstances as they develop.
Goal: To manage ANS in Tennessee to minimize adverse impact on native species, water quality, and socio-economics.
Objective 1: Prevention - To prevent the introduction of any nonnative invasive species in Tennessee and to prevent existing invasive species from spreading to other watersheds in Tennessee.
The following strategies and actions ar e proposed to achieve Objective 1:
Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 STRATEGY 1. EDUCATION/PUBLIC AWARENESS: Educate about the harmful effects of ANS and how to prevent introductions and spread. Strategy 1A. Promote ANS awareness within the public school system 1A1 Develop and publish instructional materials such as workbooks, PowerPoint presentations, and instructional DVDs Unfunded TWRA TSTA, TVA, TDOE 0 5k 10k 20k 20k 20k 1A2 Work with and encourage educational groups such as the TSTA (Tennessee Science Teachers Association) and Project CENTS (Conservation Education Now for Tennessee Students) to promote ANS awareness. Add ANS awareness to TN Content Standards for Science Curriculum Unfunded TWRA TDEC, TVA, TDA, TDOE 0 2k 2k 2k 2k 2k Strategy 1B. Create an educational campaign focusing on informing the general public about ANS 1B1 Develop pamphlets, posters, and fliers for general distribution promoting ANS awareness, i.e., SARP Partially Funded AGFC TWRA yes 5k 10k 20k 20k 20k 1B2 Build and maintain an ANS Website Unfunded TWRA 0 10k 5k 5k 5k 5k 1B3 Utilize mass media such as TV, e.g. , TN Wildside, newspaper, magazine, and radio Unfunded TWRA TDEC, TVA yes 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 to promote ANS awareness 1B4 Develop partnerships with watershed associations for education at local level Unfunded TVA TWRA, TDEC, TDA 0 Strategy 1C. Develop an educational program that specifically targets users most likely to encounter or spread ANS 1C1 Incorporate ANS prevention training in boating safety and education classes Unfunded TWRA TVA, Bass Pro Shops 0 1k 1k 1k 1C2 Continue to develop and include ANS information within the TWRA fishing regulations guide Funded TWRA TWRA yes Continue current efforts 1C3 Post signs at boat docks, boat ramps and kiosks utilizing resources available through programs such as "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" http://www.protectyourwaters.net/
Partially Funded USFWS USCG TWRA TDEC, TVA yes 5k 5k 1C4 Provide organized fishing clubs with general prevention procedures recommended by "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" to prevent the spread of ANS Partially Funded USFWS USCG TWRA TVA yes 1k 1k 1k 1C5 Utilize Habitatitude program to educate aquarium and water garden wholesalers, retailers and hobbyists Partially Funded USFWS TDA Habitatitude TWRA 0 2k 2k Strategy 1D. Actively promote ANS awareness within the commercial aquatic industry 1D1 Include ANS prevention in training for barge pilot licensing Unfunded USCG USACE 1D2 Explore methods to assure that educational material be provided to consumers of the aquatic pet and water garden industries N/A TDA Habitatitude TWRA 0 X X 1D3 Work with bait industry to prevent distribution of ANS TWRA Bait industry X X X 1D4 Develop and provide educational material such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) to the aquaculture industry through the TSA (Tennessee Aquaculture Association) Unfunded TDA TWRA, USFWS 0 2k 2k 2k 2k 2k 1D5 Cooperate with and provide educational material to commercial fishermen Unfunded TWRA TDA, USFWS 0 2k 2k 2k 2k 2k Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 STRATEGY 2.EARLY DETECTION: Develop an early detection plan to promptly identify, eradicate, or contain pioneering ANS populati ons. Strategy 2A. Develop "in house" programs that would aid in the early detection of ANS (Coordinate w/ Obj. 2, Strategy 1) 2A1 Train field personnel and resource managers to correctly identify, collect and record essential data on ANS species encountered Unfunded TWRA TDEC, TVA, THP, USACE,USFWS, USGS TDA, TNC 0 10k 10k 10k 10k 10k 2A2 Develop reporting protocol to submit ANS records to central authority (ANS Coordinator)
TWRA TVA, TDEC Implemented by ANS Coordinator 2A3 Instruct field survey un its to incorporate an "ANS Watch" during routine fish, benthic, mussel, and plant surveys Funded TWRA TWRA TVA, TDEC, USFWS, USGS yes Conducted by field survey units, begin FY08 w/ 2A1, 2A4 2A4 Conduct periodic fish, benthic, crayfish, mussel, and plant surveys targeting specific ANS likely points of introduction, e.g., trout tailwaters streams for the New Zealand mud snail Unfunded TWRA TVA, TDEC, USFWS, USGS yes Conducted by field survey units, begin FYO8 W/ 2A1, 2A3 2A5 Utilize HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) training at state &
federal hatcheries and during stocking activities Unfunded TWRA USFWS 0 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k Strategy 2B. Foster public involvement in ANS detection 2B1 Encourage and provide a method for citizens to report occurrences of ANS, i.e.,
hotline Partially Funded USFWS, USGS TWRA USGS, MRBP, USFWS Yes 1 1k 1k 1k 1k 1k Strategy 2C. Monitor commercial trade and recreational use of ANS 2C1 Work with the commercial fishing industry to detect ANS occurrences through training Unfunded TWRA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator 2C2 Develop plans to monitor the pet trade, bait, and water garden industries to prevent distribution of ANS Unfunded TDA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator
1 USFWS and USGS currently have in place a 24/7 real person hotline to report ANS occurrences. Although still under development, this system will be linked to a list of contacts and responders within Tennessee. (David Britton, USFWS, Pers. Comm.).
Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 2C3 Monitor bait used for striped bass tournaments; encourage use of native bait Unfunded TWRA yes 3k 3k 3k 3k 3k Strategy 2D. Foster interagency cooperation in monitoring ANS 2D1 Conduct cooperative surveys with local, state, and federal agencies to detect new or expanding populations of ANS Unfunded TWRA, ANS Coordinator TVA, TDEC 5k 5k 5k 5k 5k STRATEGY 3.INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: Coordinate the compilation and management of ANS information. Strategy 3A. Identify ANS that pose an immediate threat to aquatic resources of the state 3A1 Hire statewide ANS Coordinator Unfunded TWRA TDEC 0 88k 67k 71k 75k 80k 3A2 Incorporate ANS occurrences into the Tennessee Aquatic Database System (TADS) Funded TWRA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator 3A3 Maintain a priority list of ANS (ANS Coordinator)
TWRA yes Implemented by ANS Coordinator 3A4 Search existing collections and data bases for recent and historic records of ANS NA TDEC TWRA, TVA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator 3A5 Coordinate and share all ANS data at the local, regional, as well as national level TWRA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator Strategy 3B. Create a repository and documentation process for all ANS occurrences in Tennessee watersheds 3B1 Ensure submission of voucher specimens to appropriate institutions, i.e., museum collections and herbaria Partially Funded TDEC TWRA, TVA, USFWS yes Submitted by field survey units Strategy 3C. Monitor ANS vectors 3C1 Maintain a list of ANS pathways, e.g., bait distribution, fish culture and distribution, water garden and aquatic pet industries etc.
TWRA TDA, TDEC yes Implemented by ANS Coordinator Strategy 3D. Use current technology to monitor changes in ANS occurrence 3D1 Continue to develop GIS analysis & maps Partially Funded TWRA TVA. TDEC yes 0 2k 2k 2k 2k Strategy 3E. Provide comprehensive information on current ANS activities 3E1 Ensure good dissemination of information by producing an ANS annual report (ANS Coordinator)
TWRA 0 Implemented by ANS Coordinator STRATEGY 4.REGULATION: Support existing regulations and enact new legislation to control the collection, cultivation, distribut ion, importation, Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 possession, propagation, purchase, sale, transport, and introduction of ANS in Tennessee. Strategy 4A. Identify legislation/regs that control ANS and parties responsible for administering such legislation 4A1 Maintain a comprehensive list of all current state and federal laws regulating ANS TWRA yes 4A2 Determine a clear line of regulatory authority for ANS groups (plants and animals) See also Obj. 2, Strategy 1A TWRA TDEC, TDA, USFWS yes x Strategy 4B. Determine actions implemented by border states to control ANS 4B1 Evaluate existing ANS regulations of border states that share drainages with Tennessee and coordinate actions when possible TWRA MRBP, USGS, USFWS Implemented by ANS Coordinator Strategy 4C. Ensure that regulations are in keeping with current ANS trends/threats 4C1 Continue to update the "Banned in Tennessee" species list TWRA TDA, TDEC yes 4C2 Conduct a comparative analysis study for an "Approved Species" list verses the "Banned in Tennessee" list Funded TWRA TDA, TDEC yes STRATEGY 5.RESEARCH: Support research on ANS and develop a system to effectively disseminate resulting ANS information among ma naging agencies and academic institutions. Strategy 5A. The economic impact of ANS in Tennessee is undetermined - Conduct research to fully understand the potential impacts of ANS to Tennessee 5A1 Fund economic and ecological impacts research of ANS in Tennessee Unfunded TWRA Universities 30k 5A2 Evaluate the cost/benefit of control or eradication of priority ANS Unfunded TWRA Universities 30k Strategy 5B. In order to control ANS in Tennessee, protocols and methods need to be developed to effectively manage or eradicate ANS with minimum impact to native ecosystems 5B1 Fund research to develop effective methods of control or eradication of priority ANS Unfunded TWRA TVA, USFWS yes 30k 2 5B2 Carefully evaluate potential harm to non-target species by chosen control methods Unfunded TDEC TWRA Implemented by ANS Coordinator
2 Recommend the ANS Coordinator use funds in partnership with neighboring states or other parties seeking similar research.
Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 5B3 Fund laboratory studies to determine potential for competitive exclusion of ANS by native species and vice-versa Unfunded TWRA, TDEC Universities 10k 5B4 Monitor ANS research projects of other states Unfunded TWRA, TDEC Implemented by ANS Coordinator 5B5 Continue to support research relating to threatened and endangered species restoration Funded TWRA, USFWS, TTU, AAFB USFWS TWRA, USFWS, TTU, AAFB yes 5B6 Support research to determine limiting factors for growth and survival of priority ANS Unfunded TWRA, TDA MRBP 5B7 Utilize information from ANSTF management & control plans. TWRA
Objective 2 - Management - To manage priority aquatic invasive species in Tennessee to minimize th eir impacts on native species , aquatic habitats, socio-economics and water quality.
The following strategies and actions ar e proposed to achieve Objective 2: Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 STRATEGY 1. RAPID RESPONSE: Develop a rapid response plan to control or eradicate detected priority ANS populations. Strategy 1A. Assemble an interdisciplinary committee to complete the following actions (Coordinate with Obj. 1, Strategy 4A2.)
1A1 Create a permanent mechanism to apply control and eradication methods developed through research where ANS populations pose risk to ecology and economies of Tennessee TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS Implemented by ANS Coordinator, to begin FY08 1A2 Identify existing agency expertise and resources that can respond to new or expanding ANS populations TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS Continued by ANS Coordinator, begun with management plan 1A3 Identify ANS impacting native rare and endangered species TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS Implemented by ANS Coordinator, utilize state CWCS, to begin FY08 1A4 Identify actions to eradicate or control pioneering ANS populations TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS Implemented by ANS Coordinator, to begin FY08 1A5 Establish rapid response mechanism and pre-approved permits necessary for rapid eradication (e.g. herbicide or pesticide application, habitat alteration etc.) TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS Implemented by ANS Coordinator, to begin FY08 STRATEGY 2: ENFORCEMENT Strategy 2A. Identify all legalities and enforcement issues associated with ANS 2A1 Identify all affected law enforcement divisions, their roles with ANS and contact persons. TWRA TDEC, TDA Law Enforcement Divisions 2A2 Coordinate enforcement cases between agencies TWRA TDEC, TDA Law Enforcement Divisions 2A3 Examine case histories of successful prosecutions in other states TWRA TDEC, TDA Law Enforcement Divisions Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Strategy 2B. Maintain a high level of control in regulating ANS 2B1 Conduct surveys to track range expansion of established or naturalized populations of priority ANS Partially Funded TWRA TWRA TVA. TDEC, USFWS yes Conducted by field survey units 2B2 Enforce existing laws pertaining to ANS TWRA TDEC, TDA Law Enforcement Divisions STRATEGY 3. INTRASTATE/INTERSTATE/INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: Collaborate on ANS projects with all managing agencies and user groups at local, state, reg ional, and national levels. Strategy 3A. Ensure all governing agencies are aware of jurisdictions and responsibilities in managing ANS. 3A1 Continue a comprehensive review of each managing agencies' rules and regulations to ensure cross-compliance TWRA yes Continued by ANS Coordinator, continuing from management plan Strategy 3B. Collaborate formally & informally with ANS leaders in neighboring states and shared watersheds. 3B1 Continue to participate in MRBP and regional & national conferences TWRA STRATEGY 4.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) COMPLIANCE: Ensure NEPA Compliance Strategy 4A. Ensure that all agency responses to ANS meet requirements under NEPA 4A1 Frequently review NEPA policy in order to maintain continuity and proper authority in managing ANS TDEC Implemented by ANS Coordinator Strategy 4B. Ensure that all consultation with governing agencies is conducted in ANS management issues and that public and private sectors are informed and allowed to comment on proposed actions 4B1 Develop plans and coordinate responses with full partner participation, including reviews of state and federal air, water, wetland, wildlife, and endangered species regulations Ongoing Depends upon plan or reg TWRA TDEC, TDA, USFWS, TVA, USACE yes Implemented by ANS Coordinator 4B2 Coordinate public input as appropriate or required by law. Prepare alternatives based on best available scientific data Depends upon plan or reg TWRA TDEC, TDA, USFWS, TVA, USACE yes Implemented by ANS Coordinator with partners 4B3 Evaluate potential for third-party water projects in Tennessee or adjoining states to impact distribution or abundance of ANS in Tennessee TWRA TVA, TDEC, TDA SARP, SEAFWA, Implemented by ANS Coordinator with partners Strategies and Actions Current Status Fund Source Implementing Agency Cooperating Agency Recent Efforts Planned Efforts and Funding Number Description FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 EPA STRATEGY 5.RESTORE NATIVE SPECIES. Strategy 5A. Address native species impacts resulting from ANS 5A1 Support restoration of native species into areas where ANS have caused or coincided with decline (e.g. Barrens Topminnow)
Partially Funded 3 USFWS USFWS USFWS, GSMNP yes X X X 5A2 Establish threshold criteria for reintroduction of native species of proper genotype Unfunded TWRA, TDEC Consult with regional experts, i.e., ichthyologist and geneticist 5A3 Maintain database of restoration sites and periodically survey to determine success Partially Funded TWRA TWRA, TDEC, TVA ANS Coordinator in conjunction with field survey units Strategy 5B. Be proactive in preventing ANS from impacting Threatened or Endangered species or their habitat 5B1 Periodically monitor populations of rare and endangered species currently impacted by ANS (e.g. barrens topminnow) for early detection and rapid response Partially Funded USFWS USFWS, TWRA TTU yes Conducted by field survey units Implementation Table Abbreviations: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Science Teachers Association (TSTA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Tennessee Tech University (TTU), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC), United States Coast Guard (USCG), United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA), Mississippi River Basin Panel (MRBP), Arnold Air Force Base (AAFB), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP), Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA).
3 The USFWS is currently funding efforts to eradicate western mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) from the populations of state and federally listed barrens topminnow (Fundulus julisia) 41 VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation VI. Program Monitoring and Evaluation VI. Program Monitoring and EvaluationThe goal of the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan, to manage ANS inTennessee to minimize adverse impacts on native species, water quality, and economics, can be achieved through actions supporting two objectives. This section of the plan lays out the methods through which Tennessee will measure the success or failure of this management
plan.A word about performance measurement: Measuring performance of any program or activity can be divided into "output measures" and "outcome measures." Output measures could be
described as "counting widgets," while outcome measures examine the degree to which a program has accomplished its goal(s). Typically, "outputs" help to achieve the desired "out-
comes."In Tennessee's ANS management plan, the two Objectives can be viewed as the desiredoutcomes of this plan. These require measurement. Under each of these two objectives, multiple strategies describe the actions the task force believes will help to reach the objec-tives. These may change over the years. They can be viewed as the widgets, or outputs. It is necessary to measure delivery of the widgets to ensure that Tennessee is fully implementing
the strategies that will help achieve the objectives.
Primary Responsibility Primary Responsibility Primary Responsibility Primary Responsibility Primary Responsibility Ultimate responsibility for determining whether or not this plan has adequately achieved itsobjectives should rest with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), the lead agency in
developing and implementing the plan. Because of the distribution of authorities and jurisdictions currently established in Tennessee, this responsibility is actually shared. While the TWRA has
statutory jurisdiction over the animal portion of the plan, the Commissioner of the Department of Environment and Conservation has major responsible for water quality, and the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, addresses the plant and aquaculture issues in a limited fashion. It is likely that the lead agency, the TWRA, will establish an independent board, working group, or some
other committee structure involving these and other stakeholders to work together as partners in
ANS management.TWRA or such a body, however, will require information on which to base such evaluation of theplan. The ANS Coordinator, when that position is established, will be the most logical source of that
information. He or she should assemble and present an evaluation compiled from resulting data of
activities and monitoring conducted by program area staff in the appropriate divisions of TWRA, TDEC, and TDA. Monitoring and evaluation should be associated with all strategies implementing
this plan.
42 When to Evaluate When to Evaluate When to Evaluate When to Evaluate When to EvaluateInitially, evaluations should be submitted at the end of years 1 and 2, and should probably be limited to the "indicator actions" (described below) approach. Deeper assessments should
occur in the latter three years of the plan, when the biological and social quantitative methods
should be employed, provided baseline data and funding are available.
How to Evaluate How to Evaluate How to Evaluate How to Evaluate How to Evaluate Recognizing the potentially high cost of a thorough assessment, the TNANSTF proposes a three-fold approach to monitoring and evaluating the actions listed in this plan. The ANS coordinator in
cooperation with the TWRA will be responsible for selecting and combining these three methods
and applying them to specific goals and objectives.
- 1. Indicator actions In this approach, evaluators select a representative group of actions as indicative of manage-ment plan progress. The degree to which those "indicator actions" acquire funding and are executed in their entirety is the degree to which success is declared. Advantages of this
approach are that it is straightforward, inexpensive, and may be implemented in the early years of plan execution. The disadvantages are that it is based upon a small sample, does not address the larger issue of invasive species spread, and may not satisfy the public's right to know the "bottom line:" are we better off now than when this effort commenced?
- 2. Quantitative biological measures In this approach, field work is conducted to answer questions such as:
- Has the range of a particular species expanded?
- Have new invasive species arrived?
- Have ecological costs of the impact of certain species increased or spread?
- Biologically speaking, is this problem greater than it was five years ago?
Advantages of this approach include its scientific and quantitative nature, and it addresses fundamental questions rather than bureaucratic ones. Disadvantages include its costliness, its highly focused nature (the range of one species may be reduced while another's may ex-
pand), and the need to wait until the end of the five-year cycle for actions to take potential effect. It may also be "setting the bar too high" to expect to control or eliminate certain
species. Existing monitoring activities of stakeholder agencies may help to provide a portion of the necessary monitoring data if tasks to record ANS occurrences are added to existing
protocols.
43 3. Quantitative social measures In this approach, surveys are conducted among stakeholders to answer such questions as:
- Can you define the term "invasive species?"
- Have you seen posted signs about invasive species at boat ramps and docks?
- Do you wipe off your outboard motor and hull upon extracting it from the water?
44 VII. Glossary VII. Glossary VII. Glossary VII. Glossary VII. GlossaryTerms used in the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan.
Acclimatization - A process of adaptation of introduced species and their offspring in a new environment.
Aquatic plant - A plant that naturally grows in water, saturated soils, or seasonally saturatedsoils, including algae, submersed, floating leaved, free floating or emergent plants.
Aquatic species - All organisms living at least partially in a water environment. Usage commonly refers to aquatic plants such as water hyacinth and salvinia, fish, and inverte-
brates, but also includes mammals such as nutria. For purposes of the management plan, species that arrived through aquatic pathways (such as the Formosan termite) are considered
aquatic species.
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) - A nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested waters, or commercial, agricultural or recreational activities dependant on such waters (National Invasive Species Act of1996 P.L. 104-332)
Alien species - With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to
that ecosystem (Executive Order 13112).
Bait - Any species (fish, insect, invertebrate) sold for use as bait for recreational fishing.
Biological diversity (biodiversity) - The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species
and of ecosystems.Control [noxious weed] - To destroy the above ground growth of noxious weeds that pre-vents the maturation and spread of noxious weed propagating parts from one area to another.
Cryptogenic species - A species that is not demonstrably native or introduced.
Criteria - The principles or standards that a thing is judged by (Illustrated Oxford Dictionary 1998).Cultivar - A plant that was selected from a population of plants because it has desirable characteristics, and is cultivated and given a specific name.
45 Ecosystem - A community of plants, animals and other organisms that are linked by energy and nutrient flows and that interact with each other and with the physical environment.
Established -
The condition of growing in a particular location (not the same as naturalize).
Habitat - Area where a species has the necessary food, water, shelter, and space to live and reproduce.
Hybrid - Offspring resulting from a cross between two different species, or genetically distinct individuals within the same species, that may be naturally occurring or the result of
controlled crosses, or being genetically modified.
Indigenous species - Organisms naturally occurring in a specific geographic area or ecosys-tem. Synonym includes native species.Injurious [re: state noxious weeds] -
The negative economic, physical, aesthetic, environ-mental, and other effects an uncontrolled plant may have in completing its life cycle.Intentional introduction -
An introduction made deliberately by humans, involving the purposeful movement of a species outside of its natural range and dispersal potential. Such
introductions may be authorized or unauthorized.Introduced species - An organism that has been brought into an area where it does notnormally occur. Most introductions are caused by human activity. Introduced species often compete with and cause problems for native species. An introduced species is not necessar-ily an invasive species. Also called exotic, nonnative, or alien species.
Introduction - The intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity (Executive Order 13112).
Invasive species - A species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health. Invasive species tend to grow rapidly and spread easily, and frequently out-compete native species for space and resources. An invasive species may be introduced or may spread outside its normal range through natural processes. An alien [nonnative / exotic /
introduced] species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental
harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112).
Native species - A species naturally present and reproducing within the state or that natu-rally expands from its historic range into this state.
Naturalize - To establish a self-sustaining population of exotic species in the wild outside of its natural range.
Nonindigenous species - With respect to a particular ecosystem, any species that is not 46naturally found in that ecosystem. Species introduced or spread from one region of the U.S. to another outside their normal range are nonindigenous, as are species introduced from other coun-
tries or continents.Nonnative species / exotic species / introduced species - A species occurring outside its natural range.
Noxious species - A plant species that is undesirable because it is troublesome and difficult to control. Not to be confused with species declared noxious by law (see noxious weed).
Noxious weed - A plant defined by law as being especially undesirable, troublesome, anddifficult to control.
Noxious weed (state) - An annual, biennial, or perennial plant that the State designates to beinjurious to public health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock, or other property.
Nuisance species - A species that threatens the diversity or abundance of native species or the ecological stability of an infested area, or that threatens commercial, agricultural, aquac-
ultural or recreational activities dependent on such an area.
Parasite - An organism living in or on another organism.
Pathogen - A specific agent causing disease. May be a bacteria, virus, or fungus.
Pathway - The means by which species are transported from one location to another. (ANSTask Force, Pathway Ranking Guide, 2005).
Plant pest -
Includes, but is not limited to, an invasive species or any pest of plants, agricul-tural commodities, horticultural products, nursery stock, or noncultivated plants by organ-isms such as insects, snails, nematodes, fungi, viruses, bacterium, microorganisms, myco-plasma-like organisms, weeds, plants, and parasitic plants.Prohibited invasive species - An invasive species, plant or animal that has been designatedas a prohibited exotic species by the State.
Quarantine -
Enforced isolation or restriction of free movement of plants, plant material, animals, animal products, or any article or material in order to treat, control, or eradicate a
plant pest or animal population.
Range - The known geographical distribution of a plant or animal.
Regulated nonquarantine pest - A plant pest that has not been quarantined by state or federal agencies and whose presence in plants or articles may pose an unacceptable risk to
nursery stock, other plants, the environment, or human activities.
47Re-introduction - To establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range from which it has been extirpated.
Restricted noxious weed - Plants are designated by the State as a restricted noxious weed because the only feasible means of control is to prohibit the importation, sale, and transporta-
tion in the state.Significant damage or harm - A level of adverse impact that results in economic damage,injury, or loss that exceeds the cost of control of a plant or animal.
Species - A group of organisms that differ from all other groups of organisms and that arecapable of breeding and producing fertile offspring. This is the smallest unit of classification
for plants and animals.Terrestrial plant - A plant that can grow in soils that are seasonally saturated or drier than seasonally saturated, but not in soils that are permanently flooded.Terrestrial species - Organisms living primarily on land.Unintentional introduction - An accidental movement of a species into a new habitat outside of its native range, often as a result of a species utilizing humans or animals as
vectors for dispersal.Variety - A subdivision of a species having distinct, uniform, though often inconspicuousdifference, and typically breeding true to that difference.Watershed- The dividing ridges separating drainage basins (USGS), but in recent usage synonymous with drainage basin.
48 VIII. Literature Cited VIII. Literature Cited VIII. Literature Cited VIII. Literature Cited VIII. Literature Cited Introduction and Problem Definition Introduction and Problem Definition Introduction and Problem Definition Introduction and Problem Definition Introduction and Problem DefinitionAllen, Y. 1998. Zebra Mussels in Commercial Vessels on Inland Waterway
- s. Louisiana SeaGrant College Program, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LAFiguerola J, Green AJ and Santamaria L, 2003. Passive internal transport of aquatic organisms by waterfowl in Donana, south-west Spain.
Global Ecology and Biogeograph y 12: 427-436.Hubbs, Don. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 2005. Statewide Commercial Mussel Report. TWRA. Nashville, TN.
Invasive & Exotic Species website.
Alligatorweed. http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject/
cfm?lib=2779. Retrieved 10 December 2006.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. TWRA Strategic Plan (2006-2012), Boating (pp21-27). TWRA, Nashville, TN.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. TWRA Strategic Plan (2006-2012), CommercialFish (pp 28-40). TWRA, Nashville, TN.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. TWRA Strategic Plan (2006-2012), Large Rivers,Commercial Mussels, Non Game and Endangered Specie, Reservoirs, Streams. TWRA, Nash-
ville, TN.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2005. Tennessee's Comprehensive Wildlife Conserva-tion Strategy. TWRA, Nashville, TN.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 1964-2006, Warm water Stocking Report, Nashville, TN.U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service website Alligatorweed. http://www.invasive.org/
eastern/biocontrol/alligatorweed.html. Retrieved 10 December 2006.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation
.United States Geological Survey, 2006. Non Indigenous Aquatic Species, Tennessee. http://nas.er.usgs.gov 49 Authorities and Programs Authorities and Programs Authorities and Programs Authorities and Programs Authorities and ProgramsAgricultural Crime Unit, defined online at http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/crimeunit/index.html, accessed 11/20/2006.Froeschauer, John. Iris License Plate Fund Grows on Tennessee State Parks, Tennessee Conservationist, March-April 1999. Available online at http://tennessee.gov/environment/
tn_consv/archive/iris.htm.Glassner-Shwayder, Katherine, A Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for thePrevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species , January 1996, GreatLakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, January 1996, available online at http://www.glc.org/ans/
pdf/modelsmp.pdf, accessed 11/22/06.Olson, A. M., and E. H. Linen. 1997. Exotic Species and the Live Aquatics Trade.Proceedings of Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatics '96
- Conference and Exhibition,Seattle, Washington, October 1996. School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Working Paper No. 6.Rules of Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industries, Chapter 0080 24, Pest Plant Regulations, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.Rules of Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks, Chapter 0400-2-8,Vegetation and Wildlife Management, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.Rules of Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks, Chapter 0400-2-2, Public Use and Recreation, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Water QualityControl Board, Division of Water Pollution and Control, Chapter 1200-4-3, General Water
Quality Criteria, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.Rules of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Wildlife Resources, Chapter 1660-1-17, General Provisions for Commercial Use, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.Rules of Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Wildlife Resources, Chapter 1660-1-15, Animal Importation, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.
50Rules of Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Wildlife Resources, Chapter 1660-1-18,Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 11 - Natural Areas and Recreation, Chapter 14 - Natural Areas, Part1, §11-14-101, Preservation Act of 1971, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 43 - Agriculture and Horticulture, Chapter 6 - Pest Control, Part 1,§43-6-101, Tennessee Plant Pest Act of 1955 as amended 1997, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 69 - Waters, Waterways, Drains and Levees, Chapter 3 - WaterPollution Control, Part 1, §69-3-101, Water Quality Control Act of 1977, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 70 - Wildlife Resources, Chapter 1 - General and Administrative Provisions, Part 3, §70-1-301 and 70-1-302, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 70 - Wildlife Resources, Chapter 2 - Licenses and Permits, Part 2,§70-2-212 - Stocking of Wildlife, Inspections, Charges, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 70 - Wildlife Resources, Chapter 4 - Miscellaneous Regulations,Part 4, §70-4-401 - Exotic Animals, Prohibited Acts, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Title 70 - Wildlife Resources, Chapter 4 - Miscellaneous Regulations,Part 4, §70-4-403 - Classifications of Wildlife, Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), online at Lexus Nexus http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0, accessed 11/22/06.State of Tennessee, Nursery Stock Restrictions, New Rule, 2005-01-25, online at http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/suddenoak.pdf. accessed 3/01/07.Tennessee Department of Agriculture, plant certification jurisdiction online at http://www.tennessee.gov/agriculture/regulate/plants/index.html, accessed 11/22/06.
51Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council information online at http://www.tneppc.org, accessed 11/22/
06.Tennessee State Parks Specialty Plate information described online at http://tennessee.gov/environ-ment/parks/specplate.shtml, accessed 11/22/06.Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Quality policies and processes described online at http://www.tva.gov/environment/water/index.htm, accessed 11/20/06.US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Program online at http://www.corpsresults.us/environment/default.htm, accessed 11/20/06.US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Operating Principles online at http://www.vtn.iwr.usace.army.mil/environment/envprinciples.htm accessed 11/20/06.US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, Final Apportion-ment of Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Funds for FY 2006 online at http://federalasst.fws.gov/apport/SFRFINALApportionment2006.pdf, accessed 11/20/06.US Fish and Wildlife Service, description of federal assistance online at http://federalasst.fws.gov.
Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Pla n, September 2001, availableonline at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/nuisxsum.htm, accessed 11/20/06.
52 Appendix A. Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern in Tennessee Appendix A. Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern in Tennessee Appendix A. Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern in Tennessee Appendix A. Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern in Tennessee Appendix A. Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern in Tennessee Animals Animals Animals Animals Animals The descriptions of animal species of concern, listed below in alphabetical order by type, includeboth common and scientific names. The rank indicates the initial level of concern determined by the TNANSTF. This rank is expected to change through management. The scientific name consists of
the genus and species, and can be helpful in locating additional information in books and taxonomic
manuals, published scientific papers, and on the Internet. Each species account also includes pictures to help identify the animal. The credit below each photo identifies the photographer or
source of each picture. The Description and Biology section provides information on the physicalcharacteristics of the animal, which are helpful for identification and to understand the species' life cycle and habitat. The section entitled Distribution provides information about the animal's nativerange, how and when it was first introduced outside of its native range, and its current distribution in the United States and Tennessee.
Harmful Impacts describes potential or known problems thatthe introduced species can cause to native species, ecological systems, the economy, or directly to
humans.The primary source used to write most of the following animal descriptions is Simmons, J.W. 2007.Accounts of Resident or Potential Aquatic Nuisance Fish, Mollusks, and Crayfish in Tennessee with Notes on Biology, Distribution and Potential Impacts. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic
Monitoring and Management, Chattanooga, TN.
Sources for each species are included for the useof those managing ANS in Tennesee. The species description for the big claw crayfish was not included in the TVA report. The description was preprated by Carl E. Williams, Tennessee Widlife Resources Agency, Morristown, TN. Use the References and Additional Web Resources sections for additional information.
Animals - Vertebrates - Fishes Animals - Vertebrates - Fishes Animals - Vertebrates - Fishes Animals - Vertebrates - Fishes Animals - Vertebrates - Fishes Aelwife and Blueback Herring Alewife (Rank 29)Alosa pseudoharengus 53Blueback Herring (Rank 24)
Alosa aestivalisPhotos by Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Biology -
The alewife is a slender, laterally compressed fish that is greenish-greyfrom a dorsal view fading to silver on the sides. Eye diameter is greater than the length of the snout and the peritoneum (membrane lining the abdominal cavity) is pale to pinkish grey. The dorsal margin of the lower jaw is abruptly turned upward. This species is very similar in appearance to the blueback herring. The blueback herring has an eye diameter less than or equal to snout length andthe peritoneum is black. Blueback herring have a blue sheen dorsally compared to the grayish-green of the alewife. Both of these species are anadromous species (migrate to freshwater to spawn), native to the Atlantic Coast. When not on spawning migrations, adults of both species congregate over the Continental shelf off New England (Neves, 1981). Young alewives and
blueback herring feed primarily on diatoms and copepods and when entering saltwater consume plankton, small shrimp, and small fish. Both species can reach lengths around 14 inches and landlocked populations in Virginia live 3-4 years (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
Distribution -
The alewife is native to the Atlantic coast from South Carolina to Newfoundland.Many landlocked populations have been established. This species spread through the Great Lakes via the Welland Canal. Alewife have been introduced into Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire,New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (Fuller et al., 1999). Most introductions have been intentional for use as a forage species. In Tennessee, this species was initially stocked in Watauga and Dale Hollow reservoirs but hasspread downstream in the tailwaters (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). The illegal introduction of thisspecies in Norris Reservoir, Dale Hollow and possibly other Tennessee reservoirs is believed to be
the cause of recruitment failure in walleye, Sander vitreus
.
54 Blueback herring are native to the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida. Landlockedpopulations have been introduced in Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia (Fuller et al., 1999; TVA, unpub. data). The TVA collected the firstEast Tennessee specimens of blueback herring from Melton Hill Reservoir in the fall of 1998 and has since observed them in Tellico and Boone. Blueback herring have been suspected of causing problems with the largemouth bass fisheries in Lake Burton and Nottely Reservoir in Georgia and with the walleye fishery in Hiwassee Reservoir of North Carolina. The method
of introduction into these systems is thought to have been via anglers using live bait or
intentional stocking as a forage species.
Harmful Impacts -
Blueback herring and alewife introductions have had negative impacts onreservoir fisheries in several states. Blueback herring introduction into Lake Burton, Georgia
coincided with decreased abundance of black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus, largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides , and white bass, Morone chrysops (Rabern, 2000). Following theintroduction of alewife in several Tennessee reservoirs and the introduction of blueback herring in Hiwassee Reservoir, North Carolina, recruitment failure in walleye was documented (Schultz, 1992; Wheeler et al., 2004a). Wheeler et al. (2004b) documented high predation of fish eggs by blueback herring, predominately white bass eggs, but little evidence of larval fish predation. In contrast, alewives in Claytor Lake, Virginia ate larvae of several fishes including white and largemouth basses (Kohler and Ney, 1980). Additionally, landlocked populations of alewives
feed heavily on zooplankton and may compete with other planktivores, especially larval fishes.
Alewives and blueback herring contain thiaminase, an enzyme that destroys thiamine, a crucial enzyme for egg development and survival of many fishes. Low thiamine levels in eggs may
result from spawning females feeding extensively on alewife, which may be the cause of Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS). EMS occurs during the sac-fry stage and effects 100% of the fry from an individual female. Salmonid and walleye fisheries have suffered in the Great Lakes
from EMS and research is ongoing to determine the relationship between forage high in
thiaminase and EMS (Marcquenski and Brown, 1997).ReferencesEtnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, MarylandKohler, C.C. and J.J. Ney. 1980. Piscivory in a landlocked population of alewife, Alosapseudoharengus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:1314-1317.
55Marcquenski, S.V. and S.B. Brown. 1997. Early mortality syndrome (EMS) in salmonid fishes from the Great Lakes. In: Rolland, R.M., Gilbertson, M., Peterson, R.E., eds.
"Chemically induced alterations in functional development and reproduction of fishes."
SETAC Press. Pensacola, FL.Neves, R.J. 1981. Offshore distribution of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and bluebackherring, Alosa aestivalis, along the Atlantic Coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery
Bulletin 79:473-485.Rabern, A. 2000. Lake Burton annual report 1999. Fisheries Section, Wildlife ResourcesDivision, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle.Schultz, R.D. 1992. Walleye and clupeid interactions in Dale hollow Reservoir, Tennessee.M.S. Thesis. Tennessee Technology University, Cookeville.Wheeler, A.P., C.S. Loftis, and D.L. Yow. 2004a. Hiwassee Reservoir walleye survey, 2000-2003. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh.Wheeler, A.P., C.S. Loftis, and D.L. Yow. 2004b. Blueback herring ovivory and piscivory intributary arms of Hiwassee Reservoir, North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh.Additional Web Resources http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/alewife.shtml http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=490 http://www.in.gov/dnr/invasivespecies/ALEWIFE.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danof f-bur g/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/alewife.html Blueback herring:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=488 http://www.tnfish.or g/InvasivesExotics/BluebackHerring.htm Alewife:
56 Asian Carp- (Grass, Bighead, Silver , Black)These four species were imported into the United States for use in the aquaculture industry andescaped into the wild or have been intentionally released for use as biological control agents. Wild
populations have quickly increased their distribution and abundance, which may result in serious ecological and economic consequences. The broad range of differences in their ranks demonstrate
the variety of impacts from these related species.Grass Carp (Rank 45)Other Common name: White Amur
Ctenopharyndogon idellaPhoto by Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Ecology - Grass carp are silver to pale grey in color, have large scales, largegrooved pharyngeal teeth, and the anal fin is positioned close to the caudal fin. Adult
individuals feed primarily on aquatic vegetation where they can consume several pounds per day. Growth is rapid and individuals can reach lengths greater than 4 feet and can weigh over 50 pounds. Fecundity is high; large females can produce over a million ova. Eggs drift
before hatching and long reaches of flowing river are required for reproduction (Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
Distribution - Grass Carp are native to large rivers of eastern Asia. This species has beenintroduced throughout the United States for biological control of nuisance aquatic plants in ponds and lakes in every U.S. state except Alaska, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, and Vermont (Fuller et al., 1999). It was first imported to the United States in 1963 to aquaculture facilities in Auburn, Alabama and Stuttgart, Arkansas, for research in the control of aquatic vegetation. During the past few decades, this species has spread rapidly as a result of
widely scattered research projects, stockings by federal, state, and local government agencies, releases by individuals and private groups, escapes from farm ponds and aquaculture facilities, and
natural dispersal from introduction sites (Fuller et al., 1999).
57 Harmful Impacts -
Grass carp have been known to clean entire lakes of all aquatic plants and thenconsume organic detritus and animal material. Negative impacts on native fauna include interspecific
competition for food with invertebrates and fishes; significant changes in the composition of
macrophyte, phytoplankton, and invertebrate communities; interference with reproduction and
decreases in refugia of other fishes; enrichment and eutrophication of lakes by expelling undigested
plant material; disruption of food webs and trophic structure; and introduction of nonnative parasites and disease. It is believed that grass carp imported from China were the source of introduction of the Asian tapeworm, Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis (Fuller et al., 1999)
.References Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=514 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/documents/AsianCarp.pdfBighead Carp (Rank 5) Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (top of photo)
Silver Carp (Rank 3) Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (two fish at bottom of photo)
Photo by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
58 Description and Ecology - Silver carp have a ventral keel that extends forward past the pelvic fin base, gill rakers that form a compact mass covered by a net-like matrix, and they lack scattered dark blotches on the body (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Both the silver carp and bighead carp have small scales and an unusual eye position that is on the antroventral portion of the head. Silver carp are pelagic filter feeders with highly specialized gill rakers capable of filtering particles as small as 4 microns (Cremer and Smitherman, 1980). They primarily feed on nanno and phytoplankton and detritus in the range of 17-50 microns. This species can reach a length greater than 3 feet and can weigh up to 60 pounds (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Other aspects of its biology are similar to
bighead carp.
Bighead carp have a ventral keel which extends forward only to the base of the pelvic fins, gillrakers that are long and slender, and scattered dark blotches which often occur on the body (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). This species is also a pelagic filter feeder but their food consists of somewhat larger items such as zooplankton, clumps of algae, and insect larvae. It is capable of switching to phytoplankton and detritus if zooplankton is scarce (Cremer and Smitherman, 1980). Bighead carp can reach lengths of 3 feet and can weigh up to 90 pounds. Fecundity of both the bighead and silver carp is high. They can spawn several times a year and require stretches of free-flowing river for egg development. Eggs suspend in the current and hatch about 1 day after fertilization.Distribution - Silver Carp are native to eastern Asia in the lower Amur River and otherlowland rivers in China. In the United States, silver carp have been reported from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee (Fuller et al., 1999). Initial introductions were in Arkansas in the 1970s where it was used in municipal sewage lagoons (Robison and Buchanan, 1988). Wild
populations were probably the result of escape from aquaculture facilities or contaminated
grass carp shipments (Fuller et al., 1999).
Bighead carp are native to large rivers of eastern China. It has been documented inAlabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana-Kentucky
border (Ohio River), Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia (Fuller et al., 1999). This species was first introduced into the U.S. by an Arkansas fish farmer who wanted to use them to improve water quality in
aquaculture ponds. By the early 1980s, wild individuals were collected from the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers, which were probably the result of escapes from aquaculture facilities.
Other introductions were probably the result of contaminated grass carp shipments or illegal
stockings (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts -
Silver and bighead carp may compete for food with native planktivoresincluding paddlefish, bigmouth buffalo, gizzard shad, larval fishes of many species, and freshwater mussels (Pflieger, 1997; Laird and Page, 1996). The noise of boat motors induce silver carp to leap out of the water, which causes potential for human injury or fatality.
Commercial fishermen have abandoned fishing sites on the Missouri River due to the high numbers of Asian carp in their nets (USFWS, 2002). Asian carp currently pose the greatest immediate threat to the Great lakes. Bighead and silver carp are in the Illinois River which is connected to the Great lakes via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. If these species become 59 established in the Great Lakes, serious economic and ecological consequences could result (USFWS, 2004).References Cremer, M.C. and R.O. Smitherman. 1980. Food habits and growth of silver and bigheadcarp in cages and ponds. Aquaculture 20:57-64.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.
Laird, C.A. and L.M. Page. 1996. Non-native fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of Illinois. Natural History Survey Bulletin 35(1):1-51.Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City.Robison, H.W. and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. The fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Asian carp- An aquatic nuisance species. Region 3-Great Lakes/ Big Rivers fact sheet. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/documents/
AsianCarp.pdfU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Asian carp fact sheet. La Crosse Fishery ResourceOffice, Onalaska, Wisconsin. http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/
Asian%20Carp%20Brochure%20MICRA.pdfAdditional Web Resources http://www.glfc.or g/fishmgmt/carp.php http://massbay.mit.edu/seafood/bigheadcarp.pdf http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Carp_ID/html/hypophthalmichthys_nobilis.html http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/Asian%20Carp%20Key%20MICRA.pdf 60 Black Carp (Rank 16)Other common names: snail carp, black amur, Chinese roach
Mylopharyngodon piceus Photo by Leo Nico, U.S. Geological Survey Description and Ecology -
The black carp is a bottom-dwelling molluscivore that has beenused by U.S. fish farmers to control disease-carrying snails in aquaculture ponds. Although
their primary diet consists of mussels and snails, they will also consume freshwater shrimp, crayfish, and insects (USFWS, 2002a). This species is blackish-grey dorsally, fading to white ventrally. Fins are dark and body is elongate and laterally compressed. This species
resembles the grass carp but the gill rakers are fused and hardened for use in crushing shells of mollusks and crustaceans (USFWS, 2002b). This species can grow to lengths greater than 4 feet and can weigh more than 80 pounds (Fuller et al., 1999). This species has been
proposed as a biological control for the introduced zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, butthere is no experimental evidence that indicates black carp would be effective in controlling
zebra mussels. Black carp do not have jaw teeth and their mouths are relatively small, therefore, it is unlikely that these fish are capable of breaking apart zebra mussel rafts (Nico and Williams, 1996).
Distribution - The black carp is native to most drainages of eastern Asia. In the U.S., wildindividuals have been collected in Arkansas, Illinois , Louisiana , and Missouri (Nico andFuller, 2006). This species was first brought into the U.S. in the early 1970s as a contaminant in imported grass carp shipments that were sent to a private fish farm in Arkansas (Nico and Williams, 1996). During the 1980s black carp were imported as a food fish and as a
biological control agent to combat the spread of yellow grub, a trematode parasite in cultured catfish, in aquaculture ponds (Nico and Williams, 1996). The first known record of an
introduction of black carp into open waters occurred in Missouri in 1994 when thirty or more black carp along with several thousand bighead carp escaped into the Osage River, Missouri
River drainage, when high water flooded hatchery ponds at an aquaculture facility near Lake of the Ozarks (Nico and Williams, 1996).
61 Harmful Impacts - At all life stages, black carp will compete for food with native species. There is high potential that black carp could have serious impacts to native mussel and snail populations; many of which are threatened or endangered. Black Carp are host to many parasites, flukes, bacteria, and viral infections that are likely to infect sport, food, or rare fish species (USFWS
2002a).ReferencesFuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Nico, L.G. and J.D. Williams. 1996. Risk assessment on black carp (Pisces: Cyprinidae).Final report to the Risk Assessment and Management Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Gainesville, Florida.Nico, L.G. and Fuller, P.L. 2006. Mylopharyngodon piceus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, Florida.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Black carp invasive species program fact sheet:http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/library/fact-blackcarp.pdfU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Asian carp fact sheet. La Crosse Fishery ResourceOffice, Onalaska, Wisconsin. http://wwwaux.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/MICRA/
Asian%20Carp%20Brochure%20MICRA.pdfAdditional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=573 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/or ganizations/sfc/carpcolor2004.html 62Asian swamp eel (Rank 26)Other common names: Asian rice eel, ricefield eel, rice paddy eel
Monopterus albus Description and Biology - The Asian swamp eel has an elongated, finless, snake-like body,small eyes, and can grow up to 3 feet and weigh up to a pound. This species is among the
most highly derived of air breathing fishes. Swamp eels have highly modified gill structures that function like a lung. They stick their snouts above the water surface, take in large
amounts of air and hold it in their gill chamber for several minutes, exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen before they have to rise to take another breath. Additionally, they can respire through their skin. They can survive in swamps with anoxic conditions and can
tolerate long drought periods by living in damp areas. Under captive conditions, a swamp eel
survived out of water for seven months on a damp towel at room temperature with no food.
Swamp eels live in burrows that may extend several feet back into a bank and reside in a
cavity above the water level where they are not susceptible to predators. Most individuals
are born as females but sex reversal can occur as they age, insuring that only a few individuals are needed to colonize new areas. This species is highly mobile and can travel
considerable distances over land to find new breeding and feeding areas. Swamp eels feed on land and in the water where they are voracious predators. If a prey item is too large for its mouth, the eel will spin rapidly around the prey until it is broken into smaller pieces (Starnes
et al., 1998).
Distribution - This species is native to Asia and possibly northeastern Australia. This species wasintroduced to Oahu, Hawaii, prior to 1900 presumably by Asian immigrants as a food fish. It has
been introduced to several waterways in Florida and to three spring-fed impoundments in the Chattahoochee River drainage near Atlanta in Roswell, Georgia, probably from aquarium release (Fuller et al. 1999).
Note: The Georgia population is probably a different species in the genus Monopterus based on recent genetic analysis (Straight et al. 2005).
Harmful Impacts -
The potential for this species to have serious ecological impacts tonative fauna is large. Because populations have only been established since the 1990s, impacts are currently unknown. In its native habitats, this species feeds on fish, prawns, crayfish, snails, adult and larval insects, adult and juvenile frogs, and frog eggs (Liem, 1987).
Stomach contents of individuals from the Roswell, Georgia population were examined and were Photo by Leo Nico, U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, FL 63 comprised mostly of aquatic invertebrates, mollusks, and amphipods, but some fish were alsopresent (Freeman and Burgess, 2000). Starnes et al. (1998) noted that captive individuals would eat one minnow or night crawler after another. Straight et al. (2005) suggested that this species may
be impacting other insectivorous fish and invertebrates through competition for food resources at the Georgia locality. The Georgia population has survived air temperatures below freezing and ice
cover over the ponds, proving that they are cold tolerant and cooler temperatures may not limit their dispersal. In Florida, this species has been found in close vicinity to the Everglades National Park and has the potential to further interrupt the ecological processes of this ecosystem (USGS data).References Freeman, B.J. and T.N. Burgess. 2000. Status of the Asian rice eel, Monopterus albus , in theChattahoochee River system, Fulton County, Georgia. Final Report to U.S. National Park
Service.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Liem, K.F. 1987. Functional design of the air ventilation apparatus and overland excursionsby teleosts. Fieldiana: Zoology, 1379(37):1-29.Starnes, W.C., R.T. Bryant, and G.C. Greer. 1998. Perilous experiment: the Asian rice eel inGeorgia. Urban Wildlife (Georgia Wildlife) 7(1):60-70.Straight, C.A., T.R. Reinert, B.J. Freeman, and J. Shelton. 2005. The swamp eel, Monopterussp. cf. M. albus, in the Chattahoochee River system, Fulton County, Georgia. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.Additional Web Resources http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/Swamp_eel_F AQs/swamp_eel_faqs.html http://www.uga.edu/water/GWRC/Papers/S traightC_GWRCpaper.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danof f-bur g/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/
Monopterus_albus.html http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?SpeciesID=974 http://www.sherpaguides.com/geor gia/atlanta_urban_wildlife/rice_eel/
http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/CaseFiles/AsianSwampEel.htm 64 Brook stickleback (Rank 52)
Other common name: five-spined stickleback
Culaea inconstans Photo by Konrad Schmidt, Minnesota Division of Natural Resources Description and Biology -
The brook stickleback is mottled in color and breeding malesbecome dark with copper or orange tinges. This species reaches a maximum size of 3.5 inches, reaches sexual maturity by one year, and lives up to three years. Five dorsal spines are usually present, thus the name "stickleback". They occupy streams, swamps, and vegetated bays of larger lakes and can tolerate low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Males
construct nests composed of plant material and defend the nest, eggs, and developing young.
Diet includes small crustacea, insect larvae, snails, small annelids, water mites, and fish eggs.
(Etnier and Starnes, 1993)Northwest Territories within the Great Lakes- Mississippi River basins south to southern Ohio andNew Brunswick, and west to Manitoba and eastern British Colombia. Documented occurrences outside of its native range have been recorded from Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut,Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah (Fulleret al., 1999). Introductions have resulted from escape from hatchery facilities, contaminated sport fish stockings, and bait bucket releases. This species commonly occurs in shipments of bait
minnows from the Midwest, usually mixed with fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
Harmful Impacts - Impacts of introduction on native fauna are largely unknown. Woodling (1985) noted that this species preys on fish eggs and is aggressive.References Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Distribution - This species is native to the Atlantic and Arctic drainages from Nova Scotia to the 65Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's little fish: a guide to the minnows and lesser known fishes inthe state of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=701 Common Carp (Rank 15)
Other common names: German carp, European carp, mirror carp, leather carp, koi
Cyprinus carpio "Mirror" carp "Typical" carpPhotos by Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Description and Biology The common carp is a large high-backed minnow with a large serrated spine at the front of thedorsal and anal fins and has barbells on the upper jaw. This species is typically brassy to yellowish with yellow-orange lower fins, but several other varieties exist. Genetic mutants are frequently seen that have only a few large scales ("mirror carp") or lack scales entirely ("leather carp"). Ornamental varieties have been bred to be orange, red, black, or white (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Common carp average 1 to 2 feet in length and can weigh over 50 pounds. Carp are omnivores and
consume vascular plants, algae, invertebrates, and occasionally small fish (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Common carp are extremely fecund; large females may produce over 2 million eggs per season, depositing them on submerged vegetation (Mansueti and Hardy, 1967). This species inhabits ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and pools and backwaters of streams. It is very tolerant of turbidity, low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures, and heavily polluted water (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Carp are eaten by many people and large numbers are caught and sold annually 66by commercial fisherman (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). In other parts of the world, the carp is considered a sport fish due to its large size and aggressiveness.
Distribution - The common carp is native to Asia, was cultured in Europe in the 13 th century, and occurred throughout Eurasia by the 19 th century. The exact native range is unknown because it wasspread as early as Roman times (Courtenay et al., 1984). This species occurs in every state except
Alaska (Fuller et al., 1999).
During the late 1800s private individuals and federal and state agencies began to actively stock common carp as a food fish throughout much of the United States. Recordsfrom the early 1880s indicate that common carp stocked in farm ponds frequently escaped into open waters as a result of dam breaks or flood events (Smiley, 1886). By 1885, the U.S. Fish
Commission was actively stocking lakes and rivers throughout the country; often the fish were released from railroad tank cars at bridge crossings directly into streams (McDonald, 1887). As a
result of subsequent population growth and dispersal, common carp have spread into available
habitats throughout the United States.
Harmful Impacts -
In their review of the literature, Richardson et al. (1995) concluded thatcommon carp have had adverse effects on biological systems including destruction of vegetated
breeding habitats used by both fish and birds, and an increase in turbidity. This fish stirs up the bottom during feeding, resulting in increased siltation and turbidity which can degrade clean
substrates (needed for spawning) and smother fish eggs (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). This feeding
behavior also destroys rooted aquatic plants that provide habitat for native fish species and food for waterfowl (Dentler, 1993). Laird and Page (1996) stated that common carp may compete with
ecologically similar species such as carpsuckers and buffalo fish.
ReferencesCourtenay, W.R., Jr., D.A. Hensley, J.N. Taylor, and J.A. McCann. 1984. Distribution of exoticfishes in the continental United States. P. 41-77 in W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R Stauffer, Jr., editors.
Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Dentler, J. L. 1993. Noah's farce: The regulation and control of exotic fish and wildlife.
University of Puget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.
67Laird, C.A. and L.M. Page. 1996. Non-native fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of Illinois.
Natural History Survey Bulletin 35(1):1-51.Mansueti, A.J. and J.D. Hardy. 1967. Development of fishes of the Chesapeake Bay region.
University of Maryland Natural Resources Institute. 202p.McDonald, M. 1887. Report on distribution of fish and eggs by the U.S. Fish Commission for theseason of 1885-'86. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission 6(1886):385-394.Richardson, M. J., F. G. Whoriskey, and L. H. Roy. 1995. Turbidity generation and biological impacts of an exotic fish, Carassius auratus, introduced into shallow seasonally anoxic ponds.
Journal of Fish Biology 47:576-585.Smiley, C. W. 1886. Some results of carp culture in the United States. P. 657-890 in Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1884, Part XII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=4 http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet.php?toc_id=183 http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=60&fr=1&sts
=
68Flat Bullhead (Rank 38)
Ameiurus platycephalusPhoto by Robert E. Jenkins, Noel M. Burkhead. http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/. Used by
permission.
Description and Biology - The flat bullhead is dark dorsally, upper side is yellow-brown withmottling fading to creamy-white, and underside is white. This species has a prominent dark spot at the base of the dorsal fin. It has a flat predorsal and head profile and has a larger eye than most other bullheads. The flat bullhead can live 5-7 years and can reach a length just under one foot. It occurs in medium to large rivers, ponds, and reservoirs. Spawning occurs in June and July. This species is omnivorous but the majority of its diet is comprised of aquatic invertebrates and fish. It is
similar in appearance to the brown bullhead (A. nebulosus) and the snail bullhead (A. brunneus
).Maxillary barbels of the snail bullhead are completely black whereas the maxillary barbels of the flat bullhead are bicolor. The brown bullhead has black chin barbels, dark fins, and a dirty white to
yellow underside.
(Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994)
Distribution - The flat bullhead is native to the Atlantic Coast drainages from RoanokeRiver, Virginia, south through the Altamaha River drainage, Georgia, where it occurs both in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. This species has been collected outside of its native range in Georgia in the Chattahoochee River drainage (Couch et al., 1995), introduced into the French Broad, Little Tennessee, and Hiwassee river basins in North Carolina (Menhinick, 1991), and two individuals were collected in the upper James River in Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994).Harmful Impacts -
Impacts to native fauna in areas where this species has been introduced are unknown.
69 ReferencesCouch, C.A., J.C. DeVivo, and B.J. Freeman. 1995. What fish live in the streams ofmetropolitan Atlanta? U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment Program, Fact Sheet FS-091-95, Atlanta, Georgia.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=737 Margined Madtom (Rank 49)
Noturus insignis Photo by Robert E. Jenkins, Noel M. Burkhead. http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/. Used by permission.
Description and Biology - The margined madtom is gray to tan in color, has dark margins on the dorsal, caudal, and anal fins, and does not exhibit blotching on the body as found on many other madtom species. Chin barbels are white, snout barbels are dusky brown. Madtoms can be
distinguished from other catfish by the attached adipose fin that is continuous with the caudal fin whereas in other catfish, only a portion of the adipose fin is connected to the body. This species
occurs in large, moderate gradient streams and rivers, feeds primarily on aquatic insects, and is most active at night. The margined madtom is one of the larger madtom species; adults can reach lengths greater than 6 inches. (Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994)
70 Distribution - The margined madtom is indigenous to Atlantic slope drainages from theAltamaha in Georgia, north to at least the lower Hudson in New York and in the New River drainage (Ohio River system) in Virginia and West Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994).
This species has been introduced outside of its native range in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia,and West Virginia (Fuller et. al. 1999). Madtoms are frequently used as bait for
smallmouth bass and most introductions are believed to be a result of angler bait bucket
release.Harmful Impacts -
Although impacts to native fauna are currently unknown, the scarcity of stonecat (Noturus flavus) in the upper Holston River system may be related to the introduction ofmargined madtom in this system (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Both of these species use similar
habitats which include nesting habitats.ReferencesEtnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=748 71Redbreast Sunfish (Rank 13)
Lepomis auritusPhoto: Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Biology -
Adult redbreast sunfish have pale to bright orange coloration on the breast and belly and typically exhibit bright blue vermiculations on the cheek below the eye. Margins of the soft dorsal fin and caudal fin are usually yellow to orange. The pectoral fin is relatively short and if extended, does not reach past the eye. The black ear flap becomes long in adults and lacks a pale border. Large bluegill sunfish have similar yellow or
orange coloration on the breast but lack blue vermiculation on the cheek and have a much longer pectoral fin. Redbreast sunfish can reach lengths greater than seven inches. They occur in a variety of habitats from small creeks to large rivers and reservoirs. This species
feeds primarily on insects but a small portion of its diets consists of crustaceans and small fish (Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
Distribution - Redbreast sunfish are native to the Atlantic Slope drainages from NewBrunswick south and to the Gulf Slope drainages west to the Apalachicola River Basin. This species has been introduced or introduced outside of its native range in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia (Fuller et. al, 1999). Most introductions were intentional for sport fishing. The late 1920s and early 1930s were active periods of sunfish
stocking by the U.S. Fish Commission which may have been the initial vector for
introductions outside of the native range for this species (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
In Tennessee, this species is well established in the Conasauga River system and throughout the Tennessee River drainage. Occurrences have also been documented in the upper
Cumberland River drainage and in the Forked Deer and Big Sandy river systems in west Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes, 1993).
72 Harmful Impacts - In east Tennessee, this species is believed to have caused the decline or extirpation of many native longear sunfish populations through direct competition (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Longear sunfish populations have been completely replaced by redbreast sunfish in the Tennessee River drainage in North Carolina. Both of these species occupy a
very similar ecological niche.References Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=379Round Goby (Rank 9)
Neogobius melanostomusPhoto by David Jude, Center for Great lakes Aquatic Sciences Description and Biology -
The round goby is a bottom dwelling fish with a large head, resembling a tadpole and can grow to a size up to 10 inches.
Young round gobies are solid slate gray. Older fish are blotched with black and brown, have a greenish dorsal fin with a black spot, and have distinctive raised eyes. Round gobies look similar to sculpins, a native, bottom-dwelling fish that is mottled brown in color. Gobies are the only fish that have fused pelvic fins which form a suctorial disk that allows them to stay on the bottom in fast current (see illustration below). This is the easiest 73way to distinguish a goby from a sculpin. They have the ability to survive in poor water qualityconditions and to feed in complete darkness. Gobies have a long spawning period (April through September) and prefer rocky or gravel substrates. Females produce 300 to 5,000 eggs which are deposited in nests and are often guarded by the male. They are aggressive fish and voracious feeders, often eating the eggs and larvae of native fish. They will vigorously defend spawning sites in rocky habitats, restricting access of native species to prime spawning areas. Females mature at 1 to
2 and males at 3 to 4. (Marsden and Jude, 1995)
Distribution The round goby is native to marine and freshwater environments in Eurasia including theBlack Sea, Caspian Sea, and Seas of Azov and tributaries (Miller, 1986). Nonindigenous North American occurrences: After first being discovered in 1990 along the St. Claire River (a Canadian river north of Detroit), gobies have now been found in all of the Great Lakes and
many major tributaries within the boundaries of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, and Ontario (Fuller et al., 1999). They now have access to America's largest watershed through the Grand Calumet River (which begins
at Lake Michigan near Chicago and connects with the Mississippi River).
Round gobies were introduced into the Great Lakes via transoceanic freighter ballast water from the Black and Caspian seas and continue to spread by freighters operating in the Great
Lakes.Illustration: Marsden and Jude, 1995.
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/goby.html Harmful Impacts -
The round goby has been found to prey on darters, other small fish, and lake trout eggs and fry in laboratory experiments. Mottled sculpins (Cottus bairdi) have beenparticularly affected since the establishment of this species due to competition for habitat and food (Marsden and Jude, 1995). In Calumet Harbor, mottled sculpin recruitment failure has 74been documented since the introduction of the round goby (Janssen and Jude, 2001). Adultround gobies eat up to 78 zebra mussels a day, but i t is unlikely that gobies alone will have a detectable impact on the zebra mussel population (Fuller et al., 1999). Zebra mussels may offer an unexploited food resource that could fuel a round goby population explosion(Vanderploeg et al., 2002).
The invasion of round gobies into Lake Erie has had very real economic impacts. Ohio enacted a closed season on the smallmouth bass fishery in Lake
Erie during May and June to protect smallmouth bass recruitment. Male smallmouth bass guard nests and are effective in keeping round gobies away. When males are removed, round
gobies immediately invade and have been shown to eat up to 4,000 eggs within 15 minutes.
The months of May and June normally account for 50 percent of the total smallmouth catch
in Lake Erie so there will be a considerable loss in funds generated by recreational anglers (National Invasive Species Council, 2004).ReferencesFuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.
Janssen, J., and D. J. Jude. 2001. Recruitment failure of mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi , in theCalumet Harbor, southern Lake Michigan, induced by the newly introduced round goby, Neogobius melanostomus. Journal of Great Lakes Research 27(2):319-328.Marsden, J.E. and D.J. Jude. 1995. Round gobies invade North America. Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program and Michigan and Ohio Sea Grant College Programs Publication. http://
www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/goby.htmlMiller, P. J. 1986. Gobiidae. Pages 1019-1085 in P. J. P. Whitehead, M.L. Bauchot., J.C.Hureau, J. Nielsen, E. Tortonese, editors. Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, volume III. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.National Invasive Species Council. 2004. Weekly Notice May 27, 2004-June 3, 2004.
Vanderploeg, H. A., T. F. Nalepa, D. J. Jude, E. L. Mills, K. T. Holeck, J. R. Leibig, I. A,Grigorovich, and Henn Ojaveer. 2002. Dispersal and emerging ecological impacts of Ponto-Caspian species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 59:1209-1228.Additional Web Resources http://www.tnfish.or g/InvasivesExotics/RoundGoby_USGS.pdf http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=713 75Rudd (Rank 19)Scardinius erythrophthalmus Photo by Noel M. Burkhead, U.S. Geological Survey Description and Biology -
The rudd is a silvery/golden deep-bodied minnow with a strong downward curve in the lateral line. It has a keel present along midline of belly from anus forward to pelvic fin bases. The rudd is similar to the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas
), but the rudd has scales on the keel on midline of belly and adult individualshave bright red fins (See Pflieger, 1997 for more separating characters). Adults are
commonly 8 to 12 inches long and maximum size reported within its native range is about 16 inches and 4.4 pounds. The rudd feeds on zooplankton, aquatic insects, crustaceans, filamentous algae, aquatic plants, and occasionally on small fish and fish eggs. This species
is very fecund; a single female may produce more than 200,000 eggs. Individuals reach sexual maturity by age 2 or 3 and can live up to 17 years. (Pflieger, 1997)
Distribution - The rudd is native to Europe and central Asia and was initially introduced tothe United States as an ornamental in the early 1900s. In recent times, this species has been reared by fish farmers and sold as bait in Arkansas, Virginia, and elsewhere (Pflieger, 1997;
Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Fuller et al., 1999). Bait bucket releases are probably the primary mechanism for introductions. The rudd has been introduced in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts - The impact of introduction of this species on native fauna is largelyunknown. Burkhead and Williams (1991) were successful in breeding the rudd and golden shiner in a laboratory environment. This could have genetic integrity implications to native golden shiner populations. Additionally, the rudd competes with native fishes for
invertebrate food sources.
76 ReferencesBurkhead, N.M., and J.D. Williams. 1991. An intergeneric hybrid of a native minnow, thegolden shiner, and an exotic minnow, the rudd. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 120:781-795.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Pflieger, W.L. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.Additional Web Resources http://digital.library.okstate.edu/OAS/oas_htm_files/v70/p37nf.html http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=648 http://nematode.unl.edu/rudd.htm http://sgnis.or g/search/nnmark2.asp?IN=Keyword&PR=B&FOR=EUROPEAN_RUDDRuffe (Rank 22)Other common names: Eurasian ruffe, pope
Gymnocephalus cernuusPhoto by Konrad P. Schmidt, Minnesota Division of Natural Resources 77Illustration: Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Description and Biology - The ruffe is a perch-like fish that resembles a yellow perch with walleye markings. Its continuous dorsal fin helps distinguish this species from young walleye. Adult ruffe average five to six inches in length but they can reach lengths up to 10 inches. The ruffe can tolerate and thrive in a wide range of temperatures and habitats. This
species has high fecundity; an average female can produce 13,000 to 200,000 eggs per season, thus populations can explode quickly. Average life span of females is seven years, while males typically live three to five years. In Europe, the ruffe is found in fresh and brackish waters. In rivers, the ruffe prefers slower-moving water; in lakes, it prefers turbid areas and soft bottoms, usually without vegetation. The ruffe is a nocturnal feeder and has a well developed sensory system to detect predators and prey. In Europe, the ruffe is known to
eat fish eggs, but the majority of its diet consists of benthic aquatic invertebrates. (Minnesota
Sea Grant, 1994)
Distribution - The ruffe is native to northeastern France, England, most of Siberia, and the BalticSea and tributaries (Minnesota Sea Grant, 1994). North American nonindigenous occurrences: The ruffe was first collected in North America in 1986 from the St. Louis River at the border of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It then spread in Lake Superior and into several tributaries of the lake.
In 1994, it was found in Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin and in Michigan at the mouths of the Black and Ontonagon rivers. In 1995, it was collected in Lake Huron at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River.
This species was probably unintentionally introduced with discharged ship ballast water and may
have been spread through the Great Lakes by intra-lake shipping (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts - The ruffe has quickly become the dominant species in the St. Louis Riverestuary (McLean, 1993). Based on bottom trawl samples, ruffe make up an estimated 80% of fish abundances in the southwestern regions of Lake Superior (Leigh, 1998). The population in Duluth
Harbor was estimated at two million adult fish in 1991 and was the most abundant species of the 60 78fish species found there (Ruffe Task Force, 1992). Yellow perch (Perca flavescens
), emerald shiners (Notropis atherinoides
), and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) have all declinedsince the introduction of this fish into the Great Lakes Region (McLean, 1993). The ruffe has affected fish populations in other areas where introduced. In Scotland, native perch populations
declined, and in Russia whitefish numbers have declined because of egg predation by ruffe (McLean, 1993). Ogle et al. (1995) found that ruffe inhabiting the St. Louis estuary prey heavily on
benthic insects which suggests that ruffe compete for food with yellow perch, trout-perch, and other
native benthic-feeding fishes.
ReferencesFuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Leigh, P. 1998. Benefits and Costs of the Ruffe Control Program for the Great Lakes Fishery.
Journal of Great Lakes Research. 24(2):351-360.Mclean, M. 1993. Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) fact sheet. Minnesota Sea Grant Program, Great lakes Sea Grant Network, Duluth.Minnesota Sea Grant. 1994. Ruffe: A new threat to our fisheries. Minnesota Sea Grant,University of Minnesota, Duluth. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/ruffe.htmlOgle, D. H., B. A. Ray, and W. P. Brown. 2004. Diet of larval ruffe (Gymnocephaluscernuus) in the St. Louis River harbor, Lake Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research
30(2):287-292.Ruffe Task Force. 1992. Ruffe in the Great Lakes: a threat to North American fisheries.Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=7 http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/ruf fe.shtml http://www.anstaskforce.gov/spoc/ruf fe.php http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/EXOTICSP/ruf fe.htm 79 SilversidesInland Silverside (Rank 54)
Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside snout shape Brook Silverside (Similar species)
Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside snout shape All photos by Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Biology -
The inland silverside is a small fish with a compressed, elongate body bearing a bright silvery lateral stripe. It is similar in appearance to the brook silverside but lacks a beak- like snout and has much larger dorsolateral scales. For additional morphological differences (i.e. predorsal scale number, anal fin ray number) see Etnier and Starnes, 1993. This species occurs in brackish coastal waters and freshwater rivers and reservoirs.
It occurs in large schools and feeds near the surface. Stomach contents of specimens collected from the Mississippi River in west Tennessee contained midge larvae, mayfly larvae, and fallen terrestrial insects. Inland silversides live up to two years and reach lengths of 125 mm (about 5.5 inches) (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Females have high reproductive potential; a single large female
may produce over 150,000 eggs in 100 days which is equivalent to 6 or 8 times her body weight (Hubbs, 1976).
Distribution -
The inland silverside is native to coastal and freshwater habitats from Massachusettsto Mexico occurring inland up the Mississippi River to Illinois, in the Arkansas and Red Rivers, and in the Rio Grande (Boschung and Mayden, 2004). This species has been introduced outside of its native range in California, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas where it was intentionally stoked as forage for sport fish in most locations (Fuller et al., 1999). In Tennessee, 80this species has quickly invaded the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems. In the TennesseeRiver system, individuals were first collected in Kentucky and Pickwick reservoirs in 1993, Wilson
and Wheeler reservoirs in 1994, Guntersville reservoir in 2002, Nickajack reservoir in 2001, and Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Fort Loudon, and Tellico reservoirs in 2004 (TVA, unpubl. data). This
species was first collected in the Cumberland River from Barkley Reservoir in the early 1990s and has been collected frequently since 1999 in Barkley and Old Hickory reservoirs (TVA, unpubl.
data). This invasion may be occurring naturally from the Ohio River or this species may have entered the system through the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The second route may be unlikely since this species has not been collected very far inland in the Mobile Basin in Alabama (Boschung and Mayden, 2004).
Harmful Impacts -
Introduced populations of inland silversides in Oklahoma almostcompletely replaced brook silversides (Gomez and Lindsay, 1972; Moyle 1976). In a
California lake, inland silversides displaced several other fish species through competition
for food including the now extinct Clear Lake splittail, Pogonichthys ciscoides (Cook andMoore, 1970). The effect of the inland silverside invasion on native aquatic fauna in the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers is currently unknown. TVA samples since 2001 in
Kentucky reservoir lacked brook silversides but contained inland silversides, with the exception of 2005 samples in which inland silversides were more abundant. Similarly, higher densities of inland silversides than brook silversides were encountered in Wheeler
reservoir during 2001 and 2005, and the 2003-2004 samples yielded only inland silversides.
Since first being detected in Guntersville reservoir, inland silversides have been more
abundant in samples than brook silversides. In Barkley and Old Hickory reservoirs, densities
of inland silversides were higher than brook silversides in samples collected since 2001.
Although more time is needed to fully understand impacts to brook silverside populations (and other species whose ecological niche may overlap at some life stage) in the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, trends indicate that brook silversides are being affected by this invader.ReferencesBoschung, H.T., Jr. and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington.Cook, S. F., Jr., and R. L. Moore. 1970. Mississippi silversides, Menidia audens(Atherinidae), established in California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
99(1):70-73.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.
81Gomez, R., and H. L. Lindsay. 1972. Occurrence of Mississippi silversides, Menidia audens(Hay), in Keystone Reservoir and the Arkansas River. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of
Science 52:16-18.Hubbs, C. 1976. The diel reproductive pattern and fecundity of Menidia audens. Copeia 1976(2):386-388.Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Snail Bullhead (Rank 37)
Ameiurus brunneus Description and Biology -
The snail bullhead is mottled olive-brown to gray-brown on theback and sides with a white underside. This species has a dark spot at the base of the dorsal
fin which is less distinct and may be less frequently present than in the flat bullhead
(Ameiurus platycephalus
). Maxillary barbels are completely dark and fins are usually lighterin color than the rest of the body. The snail bullhead can attain a length of one foot and feeds
on insect larvae, snails, minnows, filamentous algae, and aquatic macrophytes. It occurs in medium to large streams and rivers where spawning is thought to occur during May and early
June. It is similar in appearance to the flat bullhead but the flat bullhead has bicolor
maxillary barbels. (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993)
Distribution - The snail bullhead is native to the Atlantic Slope from the Pee-Dee River basinbeginning in southern Virginia, south to the Altamaha River basin in Georgia and in the middle St.
Johns River drainage in Florida. It is native to the Gulf Slope in the Apalachicola River basin in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (Page and Burr, 1991). This species has been introduced outside of its native range in the Etowah River system in Georgia, in the Dan River system in Virginia and Photo: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Used with permission.
82North Carolina, and in the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee River basins in North Carolina (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts -
Impacts to native fauna are unknown in areas where this species has been introduced.References Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America northof Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Additional Web Resources http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/freshwater/ictaluridae/snailbullhead.htm http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=728Snakeheads (Rank 18)
Two distinct genera:
Channa (snakeheads of Asia, Malaysia, and Indonesia- 26 species)
Parachanna (African snakeheads- 3 species)
Photo: U.S. Geological Survey- Florida Integrated Science Center 83 Description and Biology -
Snakeheads have somewhat elongated and cylindrical bodies with aflattened head. They have large scales on top of their heads with eyes located in a dorsolateral position on the anterior part of the head. Dorsal and anal fins are elongated and the caudal fin is rounded. The mouth is terminal and large with a protruding lower jaw, which is toothed, often containing canine-like teeth. The only North American native species that snakeheads could be
confused with is the bowfin (Amia calva). The pelvic fin of the snakehead is located almost directly below the pectoral fin, whereas the pelvic fin of the bowfin is located much more posterior in the belly region. Additionally, the anal fin of the bowfin is much shorter than that of a snakehead.
Snakeheads are air breathing fishes that have the ability to travel over land to colonize new areas.
Snakeheads have very little if any tolerance for saltwater, but can tolerate a wide range of pH.
Snakeheads inhabit small to large streams, rivers, ponds, reservoirs, and lakes within their native and introduced ranges. Many species nest in dense aquatic vegetation and all species exhibit parental care. Many species can attain a size of several feet in length. Juveniles eat zooplankton, insect larvae, small crustaceans, and small fishes. Adults become voracious predators and consume fish, crustaceans, frogs, reptiles, small birds, and mammals. (Courtenay and Williams, 2004)
Distribution -
Species and species complexes of the genus Channa are native fromsoutheastern Iran and eastern Afghanistan eastward through Pakistan, India, southern Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Sumatra, Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, and China northward into Siberia. Most of these species occur in tropical to subtropical regions, although a few species can tolerate colder climates and one species can live beneath ice in the northern part of its range. The three species of Parachanna are native to Africa and occurin tropical climates (Courtenay and Williams, 2004). Five species of snakeheads (all in the
genus Channa) have been reported from open waters of the United States (California,Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin), and three became established as reproducing populations in Florida, Maryland, and Hawaii (Courtenay and Williams, 2004; TWRA news release, 2006).
Introductions are believed to have been the result of aquarium releases or intentional releases
for a sport or food fish.
Harmful Impacts -
The predatory nature of snakeheads indicates that their introduction could negatively impact populations of native fishes through direct predation, competition for food resources, and alteration of food webs. Larger species of snakeheads are considered
to be top predators in their native ranges. Snakeheads are very protective of their young, thus
enhancing survival beyond early life history stages and suggesting the possibility of eventual
dominance in suitable waters. Economic impacts to the recreational fishing industry could be substantially detrimental over time. There are no waters in the United States that, based on
temperature, would preclude some member(s) of the family Channidae from becoming established. (Courtenay and Williams, 2004) 84ReferencesCourtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.D. Williams. 2004. Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)- ABiological Synopsis and Risk Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. Snakehead fish not a threat. News Release,January 31, 2006. http://www.state.tn.us/twra/snakehead.htmlAdditional Web Resources http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Snakehead_circ_1251/html/channa_ar gus.html http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/snakehead.shtml http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=380&fr=1&sts http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=2265 MosquitofishWestern Mosquitofish (Rank 6)
Gambusia affinisEastern Mosquitofish (Rank 35)Gambusia holbrooki Photo by Noel M. Burkhead and Robert E. Jenkins. http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/. Used by permission.
85 Description and Biology -
The western and eastern mosquitofish are very similar in appearance and only differ by dorsal and anal fin ray counts and the structure of the male gonopodium (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Mosquitofish have large cycloid scales outlined with dark pigment, a silver belly, and are pale yellow over the rest of the body. The body and caudal fin are often speckled with black. The mosquitofish has an upturned mouth, allowing it to be an effective surface feeder.
Females reach lengths of 65 mm (2.5 inches) while adult males are much smaller and only attain a size of 35 mm (1.4 inches). The lifespan of the mosquitofish averages about a year. These fish are livebearers and a single female can produce 3 or 4 broods a year. Sperm is transferred by internal
fertilization from the male gonopodium where it is stored within the female and used to fertilize repeated broods. Reproductive success is generally very high due to parental care and high tolerance to elevated water temperatures, low oxygen, and poor water quality. Preferred habitat
includes shallow waters of swamps and lakes and sluggish backwaters of creeks and rivers (Etnier and Starnes, 1993). Mosquitofish feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, microcrustaceans, small
snails, and larval fish, including their own young (Barkinol, 1941).
Distribution -
The western mosquitofish was probably native to the coastal plain fromwestern Alabama northward to southern Illinois, and westward into eastern Mexico where theextent of its range is uncertain (Rauchenberger, 1989). The eastern mosquitofish is native onthe Atlantic slope from the Delaware River drainage south to the tip of Florida Peninsula and west into at least eastern Alabama (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). Exact determination of native range is difficult because these two species have been widely dispersed by humans as
a biological control agent for mosquitoes (Fuller et al., 1999). Mosquitofish have been stocked outside of their native range in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Misouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and
probably other states (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts -
Although mosquitofish prey on mosquito larvae and are widely introduced as mosquito control agents, critical reviews of the world literature on mosquito control have not supported the view that mosquitofish are very effective in reducing
mosquito populations or in reducing the incidence of mosquito borne diseases (Courtenay and Meffe, 1989; Arthington and Lloyd, 1989). Mosquitofish introductions can lead to algal
blooms when they eat the zooplankton grazers (Hurlbert et al., 1972) or cause an increase in
mosquitoes if they eat the invertebrate predators (Hoy et al., 1972). Mosquitofish are extremely aggressive and can affect native fishes through direct competition and often attack, kill, or eat other fishes. The mosquitofish is responsible for the population reduction of the threatened Railroad Valley springfish, Crenichthys baileyi , in Nevada, the local eliminationof the endangered Sonoran topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis, in Arizona, and the elimination of the least chub, Iotichthys phlegethontis , in several areas in Utah (Deacon et al.,1964; Meffe et al., 1983). The greatest threat to imperiled Barren's topminnow (Fundulus 86 julisia) populations in Tennessee is the presence or potential for colonization of mosquitofish in the few springheads where this species occurs. Goldsworthy and Bettoli (2005) stated that the primary mechanism in reproductive failure of the Barren's topminnow was mosquitofish
predation on larvae and juveniles.References Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.D. Williams. 2004. Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)- ABiological Synopsis and Risk Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1251.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2006. Snakehead fish not a threat. News Release,January 31, 2006. http://www Arthington, A.H., and L.N. Lloyd. 1989. Introduced poeciliids in Australia and New Zealand. Pages 333-348 in G.K. Meffe, and F.F. Snelson, Jr.,
editors. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Barkinol, P.G. 1941. Food habits of Gambusia affinis from Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee, withspecial reference to malarial control. Report of the Reelfoot Biological Station (Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science) 5:5-13.Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and G.K. Meffe. 1989. Small fishes in strange places: a review ofintroduced poeciliids. Pages 319-331 in G.K. Meffe, and F.F. Snelson, Jr., editors. Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Deacon, J.E., C. Hubbs, and B.J. Zahuranec. 1964. Some effects of introduced fishes on the native fish fauna of southern Nevada. Copeia 1964(2):384-388.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Goldsworthy, C. and P.W. Bettoli. 2005. The fate of stocked Barren's topminnows, Fundulusjulisia, (Fundulidae) and status of wild populations. Final report submitted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.Hurlbert, S.H., J. Zedler, and D. Fairbanks. 1972. Ecosystem alteration by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation. Science 175:639-641.Hoy, J.B., E.E. Kaufmann, and A.G. O'Berg. 1972. A large-scale field test of Gambusia affinis and Chlorpyrifos for mosquito control. Mosquito News 32(2):163-171.
87Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Meffe, G.K., D.A. Hendrickson, and W.L. Minckley. 1983. Factors resulting in decline of the endangered Sonoran topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Atheriniformes: Poeciliidae) in the United States. Biological Conservation 25(1983):135-159.Rauchenberger, M. 1989. Systematics and biogeography of the genus Gambusia(Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae). American Museum Novitates 2951:1-74.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=849 http://www.natureserve.or g/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Gambusia%20af finis http://www.discoverlifeinamerica.or g/atbi/species/animals/vertebrates/fish/Poeciliidae/
G_holbrooki.shtmlWhite Catfish (Rank 44)
Ameiurus catusPhoto by Robert E. Jenkins, Noel M. Burkhead. http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/. Used by
permission.
Description and Biology - White catfish are grey dorsally and white ventrally. They have a moderately forked tail and adults are often heavy bodied and robust. Channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus) have similar features but grow much larger. White catfish feed on fish,insects, and occasional consume plant material. This species reaches lengths of almost 2 feet and can weigh up to 10 pounds. Refer to Etnier and Starnes, 1993 and Jenkins and
Burkhead, 1994 for additional information.
88 Distribution - This species is native to the Atlantic and Gulf Slope drainages from New Yorkto the Apalachicola basin in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and the Florida panhandle. This species has been introduced outside of its native range in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington (Fuller et. al, 1999). Most introductions have been intentional for sport fishing and food. In the Tennessee River drainage, this species has been introduced into the upper
French Broad and Pigeon rivers.
Harmful Impacts - Currently, impacts of introduced populations on native catfishes andother aquatic species are unknown. This species was thought to be responsible for the
disappearance of Sacramento perch, Archoplites interruptus, in Thurston Lake, California(McCarraher and Gregory, 1970).References Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.McCarraher, D.B. and R.W. Gregory. 1970. Adaptibility and status of introductions ofSacramento perch, Archoplites interruptus, in North America. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 99:700-707.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=729 89Yellow Perch (Rank 14)Perca flavescensPhoto by Jim Negus, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Biology -
The yellow perch is a percid that is gold in color with dark,distinct vertical lateral bars. The anal fin is orange-red on the leading margin, nearly all of the pelvic fin is orange-red, and the pectoral fin is amber. Yellow perch reach lengths up to one foot and maximum life span is at least eight years. This species inhabits both cool and
warm water lakes and rivers where it is often associated with rooted vegetation in still water
areas. It can also tolerate salinity in brackish waters. Spawning occurs in late winter to early
summer (depending on water temperature) where females lay strands of eggs ranging from 2,000 to 157,600 eggs. A large portion of the adult diet consists of crayfish and small fish;
smaller individuals consume aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and fishes. (Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993)
Distribution - Yellow perch are native from the middle Mackenzie drainage in Canada southeast through the northern states east of the Rocky Mountains (lower Hudson Bay to the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence and upper Mississippi basins) and to the Atlantic Slope drainages south to South Carolina (Etnier and Starnes, 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993). This species has been introduced outside of its native range into Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming (Fuller et al., 1999). This species was introduced for food and sport fishing beginning in the late 1800's by the U.S.
Fish Commission. It is established in most areas where it has been introduced, but has been extirpated in Arkansas (Fuller et al., 1999).
Harmful Impacts - Yellow perch are known to compete for food resources with trout andlikely prey on young trout (Coots, 1966). Conversely, yellow perch have been valuable forage for walleye in Georgia reservoirs (Rabern, 1998).
90 ReferencesCoots, M. 1966. Yellow perch. Pages 426-430 in A. Calhoun, editor. Inland fisheries management. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacremento.Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.Rabern, A.D. 1998. Evaluation of walleye introductions into Lakes Burton and Seed.Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=820 Invertebrates - Mollusks Photo by Kevin Cummings, Illinois Natural History Survey Asian Clam (Rank 21)
Corbicula fluminea 91 Description and Biology - The Asian clam is a small, filter feeding bivalve that rarelyexceeds 1.5 inches in length (typically, adult individuals are about the size of a nickel). The
periostracum (outer shell surface) is light yellow in younger individuals and generally becomes dark brown to black in older individuals. The shell nacre (inside surface of the shell) is white to light purple in color. Growth periods are indicated by prominent rings of the external shell surface. There are three cardinal teeth present below the beak of each valve
and two straight lateral teeth on each side of the individual valve. Native freshwater mussels
only have one set of lateral and pseudocardinal teeth per valve. Unlike native North
American freshwater mussels, larvae of this species are free swimming and do not require a host for development (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). The Asian clam is hermaphroditic and is capable of self-fertilization. Larvae are brooded in the parent's gills and are released through the excurrent siphon into the water column as active post-larval juveniles. A single, prolific clam can release hundreds or even thousands of juveniles per day, up to 70,000 per year.
Asian clams can reach densities of 10,000 to 20,000 per square meter (Balcom, 1994). This
species occurs in substrates of silt, sand, and gravel in creeks, rivers, reservoirs, and ponds.
Distribution - The Asian clam is native to southeast China, Korea, and in the Ussuri Basin,southeastern Russia. The Asian clam was first collected in the United States along the banks of the Columbia River, Washington in 1938 (Burch, 1944). Since this first introduction, it is now found in 38 states and the District of Columbia (Foster et al., 2006). In Tennessee, the
Asian clam is found in almost every river and reservoir with the exception of a few high
gradient creeks and streams in the Blue Ridge and on the Cumberland Plateau (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). This species was thought to enter the United States as a food item used by
Chinese immigrants. Current methods of introduction include bait bucket introductions, accidental introductions associated with imported aquaculture species, and intentional
introductions by people who buy them as a food item in markets (Devick, 1991; Counts, 1986).Harmful Impacts -
The greatest ecological impact of the introduction of this species iscompetition for habitat and food with native bivalves. The Asian clam's greatest economic impact in North America has been biofouling, especially of power plant and industrial water systems, where annual U.S. costs for control, repair, or replacement were estimated in 1986
at 1 billion dollars (Isom, 1986). Juvenile clams are carried into raw water system intakes, pass traveling screens and tertiary strainers, and settle in low-flow areas. After settlement, the juvenile clams grow rapidly and foul small-diameter components, such as narrow gage
lines, heat exchange/condenser tubing, fire protection lines and course strainers. Empty clam
shells can also lodge in small-diameter components.ReferencesBalcom, N. C. 1994. Aquatic Immigrants of the Northeast, No. 4: Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea. Connecticut Sea Grant College Program.
92Burch, J. Q. 1944. Checklist of west American mollusks. Minutes, Concological Club of southern California 38:18.Counts, C. L., III. 1986. The zoogeography and history of the invasion of the United Statesby Corbicula fluminea (Bivalvia: Corbiculidae). American Malacological Bulletin, Special
Edition No. 2:7-39.Devick, W. S. 1991. Patterns of introductions of aquatic organisms to Hawaiian freshwater habitats. Pages 189-213 in New Directions in Research, Management and Conservation of Hawaiian Freshwater Stream Ecosystem. Proceedings Freshwater Stream Biology and
Fisheries Management Symposium. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of
Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, HI.Foster, A.M., P. Fuller, A. Benson, S. Constant, and D. Raikow. 2006. Corbicula fluminea.USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.Isom, B.G. 1986. Historical Review of Asiatic Clam (Corbicula) Invasion and biofouling ofwaters and industries in the Americas. American Malacological Bulletin. Special ed. No. 2.
pp. 1-5.Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=92 93Channeled Apple Snail (Rank 48)
Pomacea canaliculata Photo by Bill Frank, http://www.jaxshells.or g/sjrwmd.htm.
Used by permission.
Description and Biology - The channeled apple snail is a large, globular snail that can reachlengths greater than 3.5 inches. The shell contains 5 to 6 whorls which are separated by a
deep, indented suture. Shell color is generally brownish or greenish, often with spiral
banding patterns around the whorls, while some aquarium bred animals are bright golden yellow. The presence of the channeled apple snail in the wild is often first noted by
observation of their bright pink egg masses laid on solid surfaces up to about 20 inches above the water surface. Clutch size can be up to 1000 eggs, but averages 200-300. A new clutch can be laid every few weeks. This species is a voracious herbivore and will consume almost any plant. This species lives up to 4 years and reaches sexual maturity in 3 months to 2
years, depending on ambient temperature regime. (Cowie, 2005)
Distribution - The channeled apple snail is widely distributed in the lentic habitatsthroughout the Amazon Inferior Basin and the Plata Basin: Southeast Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay (Albrecht et al., 1996).
It has been introduced throughoutsoutheast Asia and has become a major crop pest, particularly in rice fields. Introductions in the U.S. have been detected in Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, and Indiana (Howells, 2005; Indiana DNR, 2005; USGS, 2006). It has been
introduced through aquarium releases.
Harmful Impacts - The channeled apple snail is a major crop pest in southeast Asia (primarily in rice) and Hawaii (taro), and poses a serious threat to many wetlands around the world through
potential habitat modification and competition with native species. In the Philippines, it is consideredthe number one rice pest and has caused huge economic losses. In southeast Asia, introductions of 94this species are linked with the decline of native apple snails. Rice crops in Texas and California may soon become threatened by introduced populations of this species (Cowie, 2005).ReferencesAlbrecht, E.A., N.B. Carreno, and A. Castro-Vasquez. 1996. A quantitative study ofcopulation and spawning in South American apple-snail, Pomacea canaliculata, (prosobranchia: Ampullariidae). The Veliger 39(2):142-147.
Cowie, R.H. 2005. Pomacea canaliculata (mollusc). Global invasive species database.Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). http://www.issg.org/database/species/
ecology.asp?si=135&fr=1&sts=sssHowells, R.G. 2005. Invasive applesnails in Texas: Status of these harmful snails throughspring 2005. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department fact sheet: http://www.cofc.edu/~dillonr/
2.CAS2005bHandout.pdfIndiana Division of Natural Resources. 2005. Aquatic Invasive Species: Channeled applesnail fact sheet: http://www.in.gov/dnr/invasivespecies/
CHANNELED%20APPLE%20SNAIL.pdfUnited States Geological Survey. 2006. Pomacea canaliculata. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.Additional Web Resourceshttp://www.jaxshells.org/sjrwmd2.htm http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet.php?toc_id=154 http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=980 http://www.applesnail.net/content/species/pomacea_canaliculata.htm 95 Chinese Mystery Snail (Rank 36)Cipangopaludina chinensis Other common names: Asian Mystery Snail; Chinese Mystery Snail; Chinese Apple Snail;Asian Apple Snail Photo: Martin Kohl. Used by permission Description and Biology -
The shell of the Chinese mystery snail is smooth and is a uniform light to dark olive-green, lacking color bands. Black pigmentation rims the entire lip and somewhat within the aperture. Large specimens reach 65 mm (2.5 inches) in length; their shells have 6 or 7 whorls. This species feeds on periphyton (diatoms; other algae),
phytoplankton, and detritus and is most often found in slow moving streams, ponds, or lake margins where there is some vegetation and a substrate of mud (Clench and Fuller, 1965).
Distribution - This species is native to Burma, Thailand, South Vietnam, China, Korea, andAsiatic Russia in the Amur region, Japan, the Philippines, and Java (Pace, 1973). This
species has become widespread in scattered locations, mostly ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, but sometimes also colonizing river systems, from California to British Columbia and Florida to Maine and Quebec. This snail was first found in North America in Chinese markets in San Francisco, California in 1892. By 1911, they were established in the region between San
Jose and San Francisco, and were collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by 1938.
They were found in Boston, Massachusetts in 1915 and in 1950, Florida reported finding a
population. By 1965, Chinese mystery snails were established on the west and east coasts as well as in some of the Gulf States like Texas. Lake Michigan and Lake Erie populations
were reported in 1965. Most introductions are believed to be a result of aquarium release
.(Fofonoff et al., 2003) . This invasive species has been found in Watauga Lake, located inCentennial Park, Nashville, TN.
Harmful Impacts -
This species can serve as a vector for various parasites and diseaseswhich can infect human beings (Pace, 1973). Additionally, introduced populations compete
with native snails for food and space.
96 ReferencesClench, William J., and S.L.H. Fuller. 1965. The genus Viviparus in North America, Occasional Papers on Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 2: 385-412Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, A.H. Hines, and J.T. Carlton. 2003. National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. http://invasions.si.edu/nemesis/.Pace, G.L. 1973. The freshwater snails of Taiwan (Formosa). Malacological Review Supplement1. Pages 1-117.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=1044 http://invasions.si.edu/nemesis/CH-T AX.jsp?Species_name=Cipangopaludina+chinensis http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_factsheet.php?toc_id=125 http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/fish/ais/snail.htmNew Zealand Mud Snail (Rank 11)Potamopyrgus antipodarum Photos: U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida.
Description and Biology -
The New Zealand mud snail is a very small aquatic snail that can reach lengths up to 12 mm (~0.5 inch) but most mature individuals are less than 5 mm (~0.2 inch) long.
The shell, light to dark brown in color, is elongated and coils to the right, typically forming 5-6 97 whorls. Populations consist of asexually reproducing females that clone themselves and retain theembryos inside their shell until they are mature. This reproductive strategy allows this species to rapidly colonize new areas. New Zealand mud snails can tolerate a wide range of habitats, including brackish water, and are found on various types of substrates, usually in high densities. This species
can tolerate a wide range of water temperatures, except freezing, and can survive periods of desiccation. This snail feeds on diatoms, plant and animal detritus, and attached periphyton.(Benson, 2006; Oregon Sea Grant, 2006; Montana State University, 2006)
Distribution -
This species is native to freshwater streams and lakes of New Zealand andadjacent islands. It has been introduced and naturalized in Australia and Europe. The New
Zealand mud snail was first discovered in the U.S. in the middle portion of the Snake River in Idaho in 1987 (Benson, 2006). By 1995, it was known from Idaho, Wyoming, andMontana, and by 2005, it had spread to Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Washington,and California (Montana State University, 2006). This rapid range expansion is probably the result
of snail hitchhikers attached to boots, waders, nets, etc. (Oregon Sea Grant, 2006).
Harmful Impacts -
The New Zealand mud snail is established in 10 western U.S. states including three national parks. In suitable habitats, this snail reaches densities greater than
100,000/m² and has been reported to approach densities as high as 750,000/m² in sections of rivers in Yellowstone National Park. This species has also been shown to drastically alter primary production in some streams (Montana State University, 2006). Certain types of
aquatic invertebrates (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies), which are the primary food base
for trout, appear to be declining in abundance at sites where mud snails now account for
more than 50% of the relative abundance of aquatic invertebrates. Mud snails are a poor
substitute for the traditional food base, yielding as little as 2% of their nutritional value when eaten by trout (Yellowstone National Park, 2006). This species could cause serious problems
for entire fish communities if aquatic invertebrate communities are reduced. Introductions
may also have implications to native snails through direct competition.References Yellowstone National Park, New Zealand mud snail, baseline distribution and monitoringstudy: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/fishing/mudsnail.htmOregon Sea Grant Extension, Oregon State University. 2006. New Zealand mud snails: Howto prevent the spread of New Zealand mud snails through field gear.
http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/g06006_lowres.pdfMontana State University. 2006. New Zealand mudsnails in the western USA.http://www.esg.montana.edu/aim/mollusca/nzms/Benson. Amy 2006. Potamopyrgus antipodarum. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic SpeciesDatabase, Gainesville, FL.http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=1008 98Zebra Mussel (Rank 10)Dreissena polymorpha Photos: Top left- U.S. Geological Survey; top right and bottom left- Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources; bottom right- Illinois Natural History SurveyAdditional Web Resources http://www.protectyourwaters.net/hitchhikers/mollusks_new_zealand_mudsnail.php http://cars.er.usgs.gov/mudsnail5.pdf http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=449&fr=1&sts=sss http://cars.er.usgs.gov/pics/nonindig_mud_snail/nonindig_mud_snail.html 99 Description and Biology -
The zebra mussel is a small mussel, reaching a maximum length of about40 mm (1.5 inches). Shell color can be cream colored without banding but typically patterned with irregular, usually parallel, black or brown bands. Shell nacre (inside surface) is bluish white (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). This species is capable of attaching itself to a hard surface using adhesive secretions called byssal threads, which can often be seen when the shell is removed from a surface. Eggs are fertilized after they are expelled into the water column. Females generally reproduce in their second year. Reproduction usually occurs in the spring or summer, depending on water temperature. Optimal
temperature for spawning is 14-16 oC. Over 40,000 eggs can be laid in a reproductive cycle and upto one million in a spawning season. After the eggs are fertilized, the larvae (veligers) emerge within 3
to 5 days and are free-swimming for up to a month. Downstream dispersal of larvae is facilitated by flow. Zebra mussels are filter feeders and individuals are capable of filtering about one liter of water per day, feeding primarily on algae. The life span of this species is variable, but can range from 3-9 years. (Benson and Raikow, 2006)
Distribution - Zebra mussels are native to the Black, Caspian, and Azov Seas. They were firstdiscovered in North America in 1988 in the Great Lakes. The first account of an established population came from Canadian waters of Lake St. Clair, a water body connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie. By 1990, zebra mussels had been found in all the Great Lakes. The following year, zebra mussels escaped the Great Lakes basin and found their way into the Illinois and Hudson rivers. The Illinois River was the key to their introduction into the Mississippi River drainage which covers over 1.2 million square miles. By 1992, the following rivers had established populations of zebra mussels: Arkansas, Cumberland, Hudson, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee. By 1994, the following states had reported records of zebra mussels within their borders or in water bodies adjacent to their borders: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Since 2002, this species has been found in Connecticut, Virginia, Nebraska, and South Dakota (Benson and Raikow, 2006). A release of larval mussels during the ballast exchange of a commercial cargo ship traveling from the north shore of the Black Sea to the Great Lakes has been deduced as the likely vector of introduction to North America (McMahon 1996). Its rapid dispersal throughout
the Great Lakes and major river systems was due to the passive drifting of the larval stage, and its ability to attach to boats navigating these lakes and rivers. Overland dispersal has been via
boats and boat trailers (Benson and Raikow, 2006).
Harmful Impacts -
Zebra mussels are notorious for their biofouling capabilities by colonizing water supply pipes of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, public water supply plants, and industrial facilities. The colonies constrict flow, therefore reducing the intake in heat exchangers, condensers, fire fighting equipment, and air conditioning and cooling systems. Navigational buoys have been sunk
under the weight of attached zebra mussels. Fishing gear can be fouled if left in the water for long
periods. Deterioration of dock pilings has increased when they are encrusted with zebra mussels.
Continued attachment of zebra mussel can cause corrosion of steel and concrete affecting its structural integrity. Zebra mussels can have profound effects on the ecosystems they invade. Large populations
of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes and Hudson River reduced the biomass of phytoplankton and zooplankton significantly following invasion. Reductions in zooplankton biomass may cause increased
competition, decreased survival, and decreased biomass of planktivorous and larval fish (Benson and 100ReferencesBaker, S. M., and D. J. Hornbach. 1997. Acute physiological effects of zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) infestation on two unionid mussels, Actinonaias ligmentina and Amblema plicata, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:512-519.Benson, A. and D. Raikow. 2006. Dreissena polymorpha. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic SpeciesDatabase, Gainesville, FL. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=5McMahon, R. F., 1996, The physiological ecology of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, inNorth America and Europe, American Zoologist 36:339-363.Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.Schloesser, D. W., T. F. Nalepa, and G. L. Mackie, 1996, Zebra mussel infestation of unionidbivalves (Unionidae) in North America. American zoologist 36:300-310.Additional Web Resources http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=50&fr=1&sts=sss http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/
http://www.protectyourwaters.net/hitchhikers/mollusks_zebra_mussel.php http://www.nationalatlas.gov/dynamic/dyn_zm.html#
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/zebramussel.shtmlRaikow, 2006). Other effects include the extirpation of native freshwater mussels through epizootic colonization (Schloesser et al., 1996; Baker and Hornbach, 1997). Zebra mussels restrict valveoperation, cause shell deformity, smother siphons, compete for food, impair movement and deposit
metabolic waste into mussels. Freshwater mussels have been extirpated from Lake St. Clair and have
almost disappeared in western Lake Erie.
101 Invertebrates - CrustaceansBigclaw Crayfish (Rank 55)Orconectes placidusPhoto by Keith A. Crandall.
Description and Biology -
The bigclaw crayfish is typically tan to pale green with a pair ofdark saddles on the carapace. The fingers of the chelae (claws) are long and usually exhibit orange tips bordered by a dark submarginal band. The bigclaw crayfish is commonly found beneath rocks, leaf litter, and undercut banks in the riffles and pools of small streams to large
rivers.Distribution - The bigclaw crayfish is native to portions of Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, andTennessee. In Tennessee it naturally occurs in the lower reaches of the Cumberland and Tennessee river systems as well as the Barren River system from the western edge of the
Cumberland Plateau, Nashville Basin, and Highland Rim provinces. Introduced populations
have been documented in the eastern portion of the state from the Obed River (Emory River
system in Cumberland County) and in Cove Creek (Clinch River system in Campbell County). This species is considered an aquatic invasive species in areas of Tennessee where it
has been accidentally or deliberately introduced.
Harmful Impacts -
Sometimes a species that is native to certain areas of a state becomes invasive when introduced into another area. Harmful impacts sometimes occur because the
introduced species has dominating physiological characteristics plus a lack of natural
predators to control population growth in the existing ecological systems of the new habitat.
The bigclaw crayfish is competing with and displacing native crayfish species historically known to occur within portions of the Obed River (Roger Thoma, 2005. unpubl. data). The
same impact to the native crayfish fauna within the Cove Creek drainage in Campbell County is presumed to be occurring as well. Impacts on other aquatic organisms resulting from
bigclaw crayfish introductions are currently unknown.
102 Cumberland Crayfish (Rank 50)
Cambarus (Puncticambarus) cumberlandensisPhoto: G. Whitney Stocker Description and Biology -
The Cumberland crayfish is reddish-brown dorsally with greenchelae (pinchers). Two rows of tubercles are present on the palm of the chelae which is
typical for members of the subgenus Puncticambarus. Male gonopods are sickle-shaped as they are for all members of the genus Cambarus. See Hobbs and Bouchard (1973) for species description.
Distribution -
This species is an inhabitant of streams in the Cumberland Plateau and Highland Rimphysiographic provinces of Tennessee and Kentucky. It is native to the Cumberland River system from Jellico Creek, Scott County, Tennessee downstream to and including the Roaring River, Jackson County, Tennessee; and Green River system in Adair and Metcalf counties, Kentucky. It ReferencesFetzner, J.W. Jr. (2005). The crayfish and lobster taxonomy browser: A global taxonomic resourcefor freshwater crayfish and their close relatives. Accessed 13 February 2007. http://
iz.carnegiemnh.org/crayfish/NewAstacideaHobbs, H.H., Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapods:Astacidae,Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480.Taylor, C.A., and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois natural History Survey Special Publication No. 28 viii + 219 pp.Williams, C.E., and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the Crayfishes of Tennessee. In-housereport, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville. 25 pages.
103has been introduced into the Caney Fork River system in Dekalb County, Tennessee (Hobbs, 1989).Harmful Impacts -
Impacts of introduced population to native fauna, especially othercrayfish, are currently unknown (C. Williams, TN Wildlife Resources Agency, Pers. Comm.
2006).References Hobbs, H.H., Jr., and R.W. Bouchard. 1973. A new crayfish from the Cumberland River system with notes on Cambarus carolinus (Erichson). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 86(5):41-68.Hobbs, H.H., Jr., 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:Astacidae, Cambaridae, Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
480. 235 pp.Additional Web Resources http://iz.carnegiemnh.or g/NewAstacidea/
species.asp?g=Cambarus&s=cumberlandensis&ssp
=http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=205 104Red Swamp Crawfish (Rank 53)Procambarus (Scapulicambarus) clarkiiPhoto: Teresa Worst, North Carolina Division of Water Quality Description and Biology - The red swamp crayfish is a large dark red to almost black crayfish with long slender chelae (pinchers), nearly obliterated areola (midsection of back),
and rostrum with marginal tubercles or spines. Chelae have many bright red tubercles and
carapace may have scattered cream colored tubercles. Male gonopods have four short, bladelike terminal processes that do not strongly curve laterally from the midline. Adults are typically 2.2 to 4.7 inches long (Pflieger, 1996). This species occurs in streams, ditches, swamps, and sloughs where it has been found over mud or sand in close proximity to organic debris. The red swamp crayfish occurs in burrows during the winter and may burrow during dry periods to escape desiccation (Pflieger, 1996).
Distribution -
The native range of the red swamp crayfish is along the Gulf Coastal Plainfrom Escambia County, Florida (Florida panhandle) west to northeastern Mexico, and northward along the Mississippi River to southern Illinois and Ohio (Hobbs, 1989; Pflieger, 1996). Economically, the red swamp crayfish is the most important crayfish in North
America due to its value for human consumption. Most aquaculture production is in Louisiana, but this species has been widely introduced (Pflieger, 1996). Huner (1986) listed introduced populations in Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and South Carolina. This species has also been introduced into Alaska, Maine, New York, and Virginia (Benson, 2006).
Introductions are planned or have been made in several Central and South American countries and in Africa for food (Hobbs, 1989).
Harmful Impacts -
Introduced populations of the red swamp crayfish have reduced the value of the freshwater habitats in which it occurs by consuming invertebrates and macrophytes, and 105 degrading river banks by its burrowing activity (Holdich, 1999).
In North Carolina, red swampcrayfish introductions have eliminated native crayfish species at several locations (Cooper, et al.,
1998). First records of this species in North Carolina were in the 1980s and since then populations at several sites have experienced massive explosions in numbers and biomass (Cooper, et al., 1998; Fullerton and Watson, 2001). Introductions are the result of escape from aquaculture facilities and bait bucket introductions. Probable impacts to native fauna include destruction of aquatic
vegetation, direct competition with native crayfishes, and predation on other aquatic species including aquatic and semi-aquatic snails and larval fish (Cooper, 2005).
ReferencesBenson, A. 2006. Procambarus clarkii. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.Cooper, J.E. 2005. A report on adventive crayfishes in North Carolina. Unpublished reportprepared for the Subcommittee on Exotic Species of the Non-game Advisory Committee to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.Cooper, J.E., A. L. Braswell, and C. McGrath. 1998. Noteworthy distributional records for crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 114(1):1-10.Fullerton, A. H., and B. T. Watson. 2001. New distributional records for two nonindigenous and one native crayfish in North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 117(1):66-70.Hobbs, H.H., Jr., 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae, Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480. 235 pp.Holdich, D.M. 1999. The negative effects of established crayfish populations. In Gherardi, F.
and Holdich, D.M. (eds.) Crustacean Issues 11: Crayfish in Europe as Alien Species (How to make the best of a bad situation?) A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands: 31-48.Huner, J.V. 1986. Crayfish introductions affect Louisiana industry. Crawfish Tales, 5(3):16-
18.Pflieger, W.L. 1996. The crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.
106Additional Web Resources http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Procambarus_clarkii.html http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=608&fr=&sts=sss http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=217 Note- These spots may not always be present or well developed. The claws of this species areoften grayish-green to reddish-brown in color and usually have black bands on the tips. For
additional identifying characteristics, refer to Gunderson, 1999.
Rusty crayfish inhabit lakes, ponds,and streams that contain water year-round and utilize rocks, logs, or other debris for cover. This
species inhabits both pools and fast water areas of streams and do not generally dig burrows other than small pockets under rocks and other debris. It can live 3-4 years. Rusty crayfish feed on a
variety of aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, leeches, clams, other crustaceans, detritus, fish eggs, and small fish (Gunderson, 1999).Rusty Crayfish (Rank 12)
Orconectes (Procericambarus) rusticusPhoto by Carl Williams, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Description and Biology - Rusty crayfish can be recognized by the rust or maroon-coloredsplotches that are found on both sides of the crayfish mid-section. The spots are located
between the attachment areas of the tail and pinchers (chelae) to the body (carapace).
107 Distribution - The rusty crayfish is native to the tributaries of the Ohio River in southwestern Ohio,northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana. It has been spread, primarily through bait bucket releases, as far north as Maine and Ontario, south to Tennessee, and west to New Mexico (Hobbs and Jass, 1988). Initially, the rusty crayfish was introduced to the northern part of the Great Lakes region by fishermen who used them as bait. As the population of rusty crayfish increased, they were
harvested for use as fish bait and sold to biological supply companies. This provided impetus to breeding rusty crayfish, and subsequently, releasing them, intentionally or otherwise, into non-native
waters.Harmful Impacts - T his species is particularly destructive since it feeds heavily on aquatic plants which are important habitat for other invertebrates (food for fish and waterfowl), shelter for fish, nesting substrate for fish, and aid in erosion control (Gunderson, 1999).
When introduced, n egative impacts include destruction of aquatic vegetation, directHobbs, H. H., III, and J. P. Jass. 1988. The crayfishes and shrimp of Wisconsin. Special Publications in Biology and Geology No. 5. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee. 177 pp.Hobbs, H. H., III, J. P. Jass, and J. V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductionswith particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae).
Crustaceana 56(3):299-316.Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000. Nonindigenous crayfishesthreaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-
20.competition of various kinds with native crayfishes, possible hybridization, and predation onother aquatic species (Lodge et. al, 2000; Hobbs et. al, 1989). In the Tennessee River system, introduced populations are well established in the Clinch, Holston, and Nolichucky river systems (Williams and Bivens, 2001). It has also been collected in the Little Tennessee River system in Tennessee (Tellico River) and North Carolina (tributary to Little Tennessee River arm of Fontana Reservoir) (Williams and Bivens, 2001; Cooper, 2002). In Tennessee, it is
expanding its range and may be replacing some native species, such as Orconectes forceps(Williams and Bivens, 2001).ReferencesCooper, J. E. 2002. North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae): notes on distribution, taxonomy, life history, and habitat. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 118(3):167-180.Gunderson, J. 1999. Rusty crayfish: a nasty invader. Biology, identification, and impacts.Minnesota Sea Grant Publication X34. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/rusty.html 108Additional Web Resources http://iz.carnegiemnh.or g/crayfish/NewAstacidea/
species.asp?g=Orconectes&s=rusticus&ssp
=http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=217&fr=1&sts
=http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=214Virile Crayfish (Rank 25)
Other c ommon name: northern crayfishOrconectes (Gremicambarus) virilisNOTE: Picture is of preserved specimen, body color of live individual will vary.
Photo by Jeff Simmons, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Description and Biology - The virile crayfish is large; adults range from 2 to 5 inches and malesgrow larger than females. The carapace (body) is usually reddish-brown or olive-brown in color.
The abdomen is brownish-green with two lengthwise rows of black blotches. The chelae (claws) can be green or blue and often have a conspicuous white outer margin. Typically, chelae have blackish specs and fingers can have orange or orange-red tips. The virile crayfish can be found in
rivers, streams, and ponds with abundant cover such as slab rocks, logs, or deposits of organic debris. It is typically most abundant in streams and rivers that are warm, moderately turbid, andSchwartz, F. J., R. Rubelman, and J. Allison. 1963. Ecological population expansion of the
introduced crayfish, Orconectes virilis. Ohio Journal of Science 63(6):266-273.Williams, C. E., and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency report, Nashville. 25 pp.
109without strong base flow. This species is not a burrowing species, but will dig horizontal tunnels intostream banks to mate and brood eggs. (Pflieger, 1996)
Distribution - The virile crayfish is native as far north as Hudson Bay. Southward, it occurs from New England to western Montana and through the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio river basins to Oklahoma and northern Arkansas. It has been widely introduced outside of its native range (Pflieger, 1996). Most introductions have probably been the result of baitbucket releases. In Tennessee, this species has been introduced to the Nolichucky, French Broad,and Holston river systems, as well as a tributary to Watts Bar Reservoir. It is well established in Douglas Reservoir and its tributaries. Impacts to native crayfish in these systems are currently unknown (Williams and Bivens, 2001).
Harmful impacts Negative impacts include destruction of aquatic vegetation, direct competition of various kinds withnative crayfishes, possible hybridization, and predation on other aquatic species (Cooper, 2005). In
a stream in Maryland, this species displaced two native crayfish species within one year after being
introduced (Schwartz, et al., 1963).
ReferencesCooper, J.E. 2005. A report on adventive crayfishes in North Carolina. Prepared for the subcommittee on exotic species of the Non-game Advisory Committee to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Upublished report.Pflieger, W.L. 1996. The crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation.
152 pp.Schwartz, F. J., R. Rubelman, and J. Allison. 1963. Ecological population expansion of theintroduced crayfish, Orconectes virilis. Ohio Journal of Science 63(6):266-273.Williams, C. E., and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee. TennesseeWildlife Resources Agency report, Nashville. 25 pp.Additional Web Resources http://www.issg.or g/database/species/ecology.asp?si=218&fr=1&sts=sss http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=215 http://www.usgs.gov/invasive_species/plw/crayfish.html 110White River Crawfish (Rank 51)Procambarus (Ortmannicus) acutusPhoto: J.W. Simmons, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Description and Biology - The White River crayfish ranges in color from dark red to brownand has long slender chelae (pinchers). The rostrum (portion of the carapace between the eyes) is pointed with small marginal spines or tubercles. The sides of the carapace have many small tubercles resulting in a granular texture. Male gonopods are stalk like. Adults range in size from 2.6 to 4.9 inches long. This crayfish is most often found in standing water habitats in sloughs, marshes, lakes, and streams (Pflieger, 1996).
Distribution -
This species is native to the coastal plain and piedmont from Maine toGeorgia, from the Florida panhandle to Texas, and from Minnesota to Ohio in the southern Great Lakes (Hobbs, 1989). This species has been introduced outside of its native range in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine (Benson, 2006). In North Carolina, this species has been introduced into the Watauga and Pigeon River systems within the Tennessee River basin (Cooper, 2006). This species has also been introduced into Lick Creek in the Nolichucky River system in Greene County, TN (Williams and Bivens, 2001). Mode of introductions is presumed to be from bait bucket
release.Harmful Impacts -
Impacts that introduced populations have on native fauna are currently unknown.References Benson, A. 2006. Procambarus acutus acutus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.Cooper, J.E. 2005. Hydrologic unit distributions of crayfish in North Carolina. Unpublishedreport. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh.
111Hobbs, H.H., Jr., 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae, Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480. 235 pp.Pflieger, W.L. 1996. The crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City, Missouri.Williams, C. E., and R. D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee.Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency report, Nashville. 25 pp.Additional Web Resources http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=216 http://iz.carnegiemnh.or g/NewAstacidea/species.asp?g=Procambarus&s=acutus&ssp=acutus 112 Plants Plants Plants Plants PlantsThe descriptions of plant species of concern in Tennessee are listed alphabetically below accordingto plant type. They include the common name, scientific name and the plant family. Although the
scientific name, which consists of the genus and species, is Latin in origin and difficult to pronounce, it is helpful in locating additional information in books, taxonomic manuals, published papers and on the Internet. To help identify the species, each entry also includes a digital image and a Description section to help identify the species by the morphological characteristics (e.g. shape, color, size, etc.)
of stems, leaves, flowers and other plant parts. The Habitat/Biology section provides information about where the plant grows, how it reproduces, and its impacts on the environment. Information concerning the plant's geographic origin, first introduction into the United States and current national and Tennessee distribution is found in the Distribution/Introduction section. The Pathways forSpread describes methods of introduction into Tennessee or ways by which the species could be spread in waterways and aquatic environments of this State.A majority of the plant descriptions follows Webb (2007) and included in this report areReferences for use by those managing ANS in Tennessee. Those species not described by Webb(2007) were prepared by Terri Hogan, National Park Service, Murfreesboro, TN, and include
peppermint, reed canarygrass, spearmint, and watercress. The description of the nonvascular plant (didymo) was prepared by Frank Fiss, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, TN. The
taxonomic manuals used for preparation of this document acan be found in Reference Manuals at the end of the plant descriptions.Vascular PlantsMost of the plants of concern for aquatic invasive species management in Tennessee are vascular species. Vascular plants have specialized vascular tissue (xylem and phloem) for the
transport of water and nutrients and include the ferns, gymnosperms, and flowering plants.
The TANSTF has artificially grouped the vascular species into major categories called growth forms. The growth forms are defined by whether or not the flowering and vegetative
parts of the plant grow above or below the surface of the water and whether the plant is rooted in the sediments. The major growth form groupings used in this document are submersed, emergent, and free-floating.Vascular-Submersed PlantsSubmersed plants are generally rooted in the bottom sediments of a waterbody. Their stems and most leaves occur beneath the surface of the water. The flowers and flowering stalks of
some species may extend a few centimeters above the surface of the water or may be entirely
submersed. Submersed plants grow at depths ranging from a few centimeters to a few meters (as is the case with hydrilla)
.
113 Common Name - Brazilian elodea (Rank 27)
Scientific Name -
Egeria densa L.Family - HydrocharitaceaePhoto by W. T. Haller, University ofFlorida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and
Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Egeria densa is a submersed bottom-rooted perennial with adventitious roots;stems are 1 to 3 mm thick and often branching. The leaves are generally in whorls of 4 (occasionally in whorls of 3 or 5) except at "double nodes" (where two nodes are nearly
superimposed, resulting in 2 times the number of leaves at sterile nodes) which occur at 6 to
12 nodal intervals along the stem. Bud development, lateral branching, and adventitious root
development occur in the region of double nodes. Leaves are bright green, flaccid, sessile, 1 to 3 cm long or sometimes longer, 1.5 to 4.5 mm wide with finely toothed margins. Only plants with male flowers are known from the United States. The male flowers are from upper
leaf axils and on stalks up to 8 cm long that raise the flowers slightly above the water surface.
The flowers have 3 green sepals that are 2 to 4 mm long, 3 white petals that are 8 to 10 mm long and 9 stamens. Seed are not formed in populations in the United States because of an
absence of female plants.
Habitat/Biology -
The stems of E. densa can branch profusely about 0.5 m above the bottom and form a canopy and surface mat that excludes light to other submersed plants.
Egeria densa in Lake Marion, SC, is reported to exhibit a bimodal biomass curve (Getsinger andDillon 1984) with peak biomass in July, followed by a decline during the early fall, another
but lesser biomass peak in December followed by another decline in late winter and the early spring months. Because only plants with male flowers occur in the United States, all
reproduction is vegetative from stem fragments or growth from root crowns. Fragments 7.5
mm long or longer with double nodes can produce adventitious roots and lateral branches and are able to develop into new plants. Brazilian elodea over-winters as a root crown (a portion
of stem with a double node and adventitious roots that anchors the plant on the bottom) from which
new growth originates during the late spring months (Getsinger and Dillon 1984).Photo by A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants.
Used with permission.
Egeria densa (left) compared to Hydrilla verticillata (right) 114 Although Brazilian elodea has caused major use conflicts in reservoirs along the Santee-Cooper River system (Getsinger and Dillon 1984) in South Carolina (e.g., Lake Marion where E. densa atone time colonized 8,000 ha), it has not been a major "weed" in reservoirs of the TVA system.
Egeria densa grows in ponds, reservoirs, and pools of streams.Distribution/Introduction -
Egeria densa is native to Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina inSouth America (Cook and Urmi-Konig 1984). The first known record of E. densa in theUnited States is from Long Island, New York, and dates to 1893 (Cook and Urmi-Konig
1984). Brazilian elodea naturalized in the New England states by the 1920s to 1930s and is now widespread in the United States (http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=EGDE;
Cook and Urmi-Konig 1984) from New Hampshire south to Florida and west to Nebraska and Utah. It also occurs in the far western states (California, Oregon, and Washington)
(http://www.wapms.org/plants/egeria.html).Brazilian elodea was probably introduced into the United States as an "oxygen producer" in fish bowls and in small ponds where hobbyists grew and cultured fish. It is reported to have
been commercially available as early as 1915 (Countryman 1970). Once naturalized, it spread by flow, possibly by waterfowl and by intentional plantings.
Egeria densa is also frequently used as an experimental laboratory plant and cultivation for this purpose could
have aided its spread.
Egeria densa is documented in Tennessee from eight widely scattered counties of middle andeastern Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html). The earliest collection of
E. densa in the University of Tennessee Herbarium (TENN) is from 1946 from a pond inKnox County. Although occasionally observed in a few of the large TVA reservoirs along the Tennessee River in Alabama and Tennessee , E. densa occurs only in small and widespread populations. It is more frequent in ponds, small lakes, and pools of streams but currently is not reported to have any large-scale negative impacts on recreational use in Tennessee waters
or its native biota.Pathways for Spread -
Once established in a waterbody or drainage, Brazilian elodea canspread by flow that distributes fragments and possibly by waterfowl. A likely pathway for
introduction of E. densa is in water discarded from aquariums or outflows from ornamentalponds. As is the case with most submersed plants, fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors are another method of spread; however, this is not considered a major pathway of spread for Brazilian elodea in Tennessee because the plant currently is not widespread or documented to grow in large populations in areas with high boating use.Literature Cited/References/Links Catling, P. A. and W. Wojtas. 1986. The waterweeds (Elodea and Egeria , Hydrocharitaceae) in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:1525-1541.Cook, C. D. K., and K. Urm-Konig. 1984. A revision of the genus Egeria (Hydrocharitaceae).
Aquatic Botany 19:73-96.
115Countryman, W. D. 1970. The history, spread and present distribution of some immigrant aquatic weeds in New England. Hyacinth Control Journal 8:50-52.Getsinger, K. D. and C. R. Dillon. 1984. Quiescence, growth and senescence of Egeria densa in Lake Marion. Aquatic Botany 20:329-338.Haramoto, T. and I. Ikusima. 1988. Life cycle of Egeria densa Planch., an aquatic plantnaturalized in Japan. Aquatic Botany 30:389-403.St. John, H. 1961. Monograph of the genus "
Egeria" Planchon. Darwiniana 12:293-307.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Hydrocharitaceae&GenusID=Egeria&SpeciesID=densa http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/egdepic.html http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=EGDE http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/egeria.html http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/eldde.htm http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=289&fr=1&sts=
http://www.wapms.org/plants/egeria.html http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/pmis/plants/html/egeria_d.html 116 Common Name - Curly-leaf pondweed, curly pondweed (Rank 39)
Scientific Name -
Potamogeton crispus L.Family - PotamogetonaceaePhoto by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Curly-leaved pondweed is a submersed, bottom-rooted, rhizomatous perennialwith flattened stems. Leaves are alternate, linear-oblong (2 to 10 cm long and up to about 1 cm wide), sessile, with finely toothed, wavy margins. A thin sheath (stipule) occurs above each leaf but disintegrates as plants mature. A few leaves at stem apices often thicken during
the late spring months to form vegetative reproductive structures known as turions. Flowers
are born on short stalks (peduncles) 2 to 7 cm long that originate from the axils of upper leaves. The fruits are clustered into a spike up to 2 cm long at the apical end of the peduncle.
Each fruit (achene) is about 4 to 6 mm long and has a distinct, erect beak.
Habitat/Biology -
Potamogeton crispus grows in a wide variety of habitats including streams, rivers, reservoirs, ponds and springs. Curly-leaved pondweed has been
characterized as a "cold water plant" and generally begins growth in the fall, persists during the winter months, and undergoes rapid growth in the spring when it obtains peak biomass in
advance of most other submersed plants. Biomass then declines as water temperatures increase. Vegetative buds known as turions form in late spring and persist in a dormant state
during the summer months until the cooler fall months when the turions "germinate" (i.e.,
begin growth). It appears that high spring biomass of P. crispus is from regrowth of turionsor underground vegetative structures (e.g., rhizomes) rather than seed which have not been observed to germinate (Cypert 1967; Sastroutomo 1981; Tobiessen and Snow 1984; Nichols
and Shaw 1986).Curly-leaved pondweed is widespread in the Tennessee River system, especially in coldwaterstreams and tail waters just downstream of dams. Although curly-leaved pondweed has
restricted boat travel in Reelfoot Lake during some years (Cypert 1967), the species is not reported to negatively impact recreational use in reservoirs along the Tennessee River.
Potamogeton crispus is frequent in spring outflows in the Tennessee River drainage innorthern Alabama and likely colonizes similar sites in Tennessee.
117Distribution/Introduction - Curly-leaved pondweed is native to Eurasia (Stuckey 1979) andwas first collected in the United States in the mid 1800s from Delaware and Pennsylvania.
By about 1900 curly-leaved pondweed was established from Massachusetts west to New York and south to eastern Virginia (Stuckey 1979).
Potamogeton crispus is currentlywidespread and has been documented in most states of the continental United States (Haynes and Hellquist 2000). Although the route of introduction into the United States is speculative, it seems most likely that it was introduced as an ornamental in water gardens or aquariums.
It then was presumably spread by migrating waterfowl, intentional plantings for wildlife habitat, natural flow, and possibly in water used to move hatchery stock (Tehon 1929; Stuckey 1979).Curly-leaved pondweed was collected in the Tennessee River system as early as 1943 fromGuntersville Reservoir in northeastern Alabama. The earliest known collection of P. crispusin Tennessee was in 1946 from along the Clinch River just downstream of Norris Dam (Stuckey 1979).
Potamogeton crispus is documented from 13 counties in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) with collections primarily from rivers and streams,TVA reservoirs, and Reelfoot Lake where it was observed as early as 1959 (Cypert 1967).Pathways for Spread -
Natural flows that distribute turions and vegetative fragments arelikely the major pathway for spread once curly-leaved pondweed is established. Waterfowl may also spread the curly-leaved pondweed to other waterbodies (Tehon 1929). As is the
case with most submersed plants, fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors are
another potential means of spread.Literature Cited/References/Links Cypert, E. 1967. The curly-leaved pondweed problem at Reelfoot Lake. Journal ofTennessee Academy of Science 42:10-11.Haynes, R. R. and C. B. Hellquist. 2000. 195. Potamogetonaceae Dumortier
- PondweedFamily. Pp. 47-74. In: Flora on North America North of Mexico. Volume 22. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.Henson, J. W. 1990. Aquatic and certain wetland vascular vegetation of Reelfoot Lake,1920s-1980s. III. Submersed macrophytes. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science
65:107-116.Nichols, S. A. and B. H. Shaw. 1986. Ecological life histories of the three aquatic nuisance plants, Myriophyllum spicatum , Potamogeton crispus , and Elodea canadensis.
Hydrobiologia 131:3-21.Sastroutomo, S. S. 1981. Turion formation, dormancy and germination of curly pondweed, Potamotegon crispus L. Aquatic Botany 10:161-173.
118Sculthorpe, C. D. 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Saint Martin's Press, NewYork.Stuckey, R. L. 1979. Distributional history of Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed) inNorth America. Bartonia 46:22-42.Tehon, L. R. 1929. The present range of Potamogeton crispus L. in North America.Torreya 29:42-46.Tobiessen, P. and P. D. Snow. 1984. Temperature and light effects on the growth of Potamogeton crispus in Collins Lake, New York State. Canadian Journal of Botany 62:2822-2826.Yeo, R. R. 1966. Yields of propagules of certain aquatic plants. I. Weeds 14:110-113.
http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Potamogetonaceae&GenusID=Potamogeton&SpeciesID=crispus http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/potcri.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=POCR3 http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=447&fr=1&sts=
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/plants/html/potamoge.html http://www.co.cayuga.ny.us/wqma/weedswatchout/plants/curlypondweed.htm 119 Common Name - Eurasian watermilfoil (Rank 4)Scientific Name -
Myriophyllum spicatum L.Family - Haloragaceae Photos by A. Murray and Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Eurasian watermilfoil is a submersed, bottom-rooted perennial, generally withmultiple stems that arise from root crowns. Stems are branched with the leaves typically in whorls of 4, each "feather-like", 1.5 to 4.0 cm long with 12 to 24 finely dissected segments on each side of a central axis. Male and female flowers are on an emergent spike that extends a few cm above the surface of the water. The lower flowers of the emergent spike
are pistillate, upper flowers staminate with both flowers subtended by a small bract.
Staminate flowers are small, with 4 pinkish petals and 8 yellowish stamens; pistillate flowers lack a perianth but have four pinkish stigmas. The fruit is 4-lobed, each of the four segments
having small tubercules.
Biology/Habitat -
Although Eurasian watermilfoil forms viable seed, its primary method of spread is by fragmentation. Fragments may be formed by mechanical breakage associated with boat traffic, flow, and wave action and by autofragmentation that occurs after flowering
and also near the end of the growing season. Eurasian watermilfoil may also spread a few
meters from established colonies by stolons that extend horizontally along the bottom (Smith
and Barko 1990; Madsen and Smith 1997). Eurasian watermilfoil begins its growth earlier in
the growing season than most other species of submersed macrophytes and branches near the
surface to form a dense canopy that prevents light penetration and functions to exclude other species of submersed plants (Nichols and Shaw 1986). This frequently results in monospecific colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil. In Tennessee, this species is established primarily in reservoirs of the Tennessee River system at depths up to about 12 feet. Because
Eurasian watermilfoil produced high populations of nuisance mosquitoes, adversely impacted boating and various types of water-based recreation, restricted access to ramps and other
facilities, and degraded aesthetics in areas of developed shoreline, this species was the primary focus of TVA's aquatic plant management activities during the late 1960s until the 120 mid 1980s (Bates et al. 1985) when several other species established in shallow water areas of developed shoreline.
Distribution/Introduction -
The native range of Eurasian watermilfoil includes Europe,Asia, and northern Africa (Aiken et al. 1979; Couch and Nelson 1985). Herbarium recordsindicate that Eurasian watermilfoil was introduced into the United States in the early 1940s (Couch and Nelson 1985). Eurasian watermilfoil is now widespread in the eastern UnitedStates (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/my_spica.html) from the New England states west to Minnesota and south to Florida and Texas with populations also occurring in several of the western states (Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington). This species was first introduced into the Tennessee River system about 1953 in Watts Bar Reservoir (Smith et al. 1967). In slightly more than a decade, Eurasian watermilfoil spread throughout much ofthe Tennessee River system and by the late 1960s colonized about 25,000 acres in eight reservoirs in the TVA system (Smith 1971). Eurasian watermilfoil is documented from 15 counties in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) with populations (current or historical) in Kentucky, Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun Reservoirs along the Tennessee River, Tellico Reservoir on the Little Tennessee River and from Melton Hill Reservoir on the Clinch River. Populations of Eurasian watermilfoil in
most of these reservoirs have declined significantly since the late 1970s and late 1980s.
Eurasian water-milfoil is also well established in the Holston River downstream of Cherokee Dam to near Knoxville and in a few miles of the Elk River downstream of Tim's Ford Dam.Pathways for Spread -
The primary method of spread of Eurasian watermilfoil from waterbody to waterbody is by fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors. Once
established within a waterbody or drainage, milfoil can rapidly spread by fragments that are
dispersed by flow and wave action.Literature Cited/References/Links Aiken, S. G., P. R. Newroth, and I. Wile. 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds. 34.
Myriophyllum spicatum. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59:201-215.Bates, A. L., E. R. Burns, and D. H. Webb. 1985. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) in the Tennessee Valley: An update on biology and control. Pp.104-115.
Proceedings of the 1 st International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum
)and Related Haloragaceace Species, July 23 and 24, 1985, Vancouver, British Columbia. The Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc.
Couch, R. and E. Nelson. 1985.
Myriophyllum spicatum in North America. Pp. 8-18.
Proceedings of the 1 st International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum
)and Related Haloragaceae Species, July 23 and 24, 1985, Vancouver, British Columbia. The Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc.Madsen, J. D. and D. H. Smith. 1997. Vegetative spread of Eurasian watermilfoil colonies.Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 35:63-68.
121Nichols, S. A. and B. H. Shaw. 1986. Ecological life histories of the three aquatic nuisance plants, Myriophyllum spicatum , Potamogeton crispus , and Elodea canadensis
.Hydrobiologia 131:3-21.Smith, C. S. and J. W. Barko. 1990. Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28:55-64.Smith, G. E., T. F. Hall, Jr., and R. A. Stanley. 1967. Eurasian watermilfoil in the TennesseeValley. Weeds 15: 95-98.Smith, G. E. 1971. Resume of studies and control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) in the Tennessee Valley from 1960 through 1969. Hyacinth Control Journal 9:23-25.Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities alongrivers and reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Haloragaceae&GenusID=Myriophyllum&SpeciesID=spicatumhttp://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/my_spica.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MYSP2
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/myrspi.html
http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/myrspi2.html http://www.wapms.org/plants/milfoil.html http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua004.html http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/pmis/plants/html/myrioph3.html 122 Common Name - Hydrilla (Rank 1)
Scientific Name -
Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle Family - Hydrocharitaceae Photos by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Hydrilla is a submersed, rhizomatous, bottom rooted perennial with branching stems. Small, pea-like tubers 5 to 10 mm long form at the ends of spreading stolons or
rhizomes in bottom sediments. Leaves along lower stems are opposite or in whorls of 3 with
the number of leaves in whorls typically increasing to 5 to 7 along the upper portion of stems.
Leaves are 2 to 4 mm wide and 0.6 to 2 cm long with toothed margins and small spines along
the mid vein on the underside of the leaf. Female flowers are small (4 to 8 mm wide) with 3
white sepals and 3 translucent petals that are on thin stalks from the axils of upper leaves that are near the surface of the water. Male flowers, if present, are small (2 to 3 mm wide), with 3 whitish red or brown sepals and 3 whitish or reddish petals and 3 stamens. The male flowers
are free-floating after release from a small pouch-like structure in the axils of upper leaves.
Note - Two forms of hydrilla are found in Tennessee: a dioecious form that has male and female flowers on separate plants and a monoecious form that has male and female flowers on the same plant. In the case of the dioecious form, only the female plants are known from Tennessee and thus
have no capability for forming seed as is the case with the monoecious form.
Biology/Habitat - Hydrilla spreads primarily by fragmentation and but can survive drawdowns andother adverse conditions as a tuber. Stems of hydrilla branch near the water surface and form a dense canopy that can "shade out" other species of submersed plants. As a result of light exclusion
of other species and other physiological characteristics that provide a selective advantage (Langeland 1996), hydrilla frequently forms dense, monospecific stands. Because hydrilla has a
lower light requirement than most other species of submersed plants, it grows at greater depths and has been observed to reach the surface in 15 feet of water during "good growing" years. In Guntersville Reservoir in northeastern Alabama, hydrilla has replaced Eurasian watermilfoil in many areas and continues to expand into habitat formerly colonized by Eurasian watermilfoil. In Tennessee, hydrilla is only known to grow in reservoirs and small lakes but in other regions of the 123 United States it grows in small rivers, springs, ponds, canals, and natural lakes (Langeland 1996).
Thus, hydrilla is adapted to a much wider variety of aquatic habitats than it currently grows in Tennessee.Because hydrilla can form dense surface mats, has a very high biomass, and produces largenumbers of fragments, it can negatively impact boating, various types of water-based recreation, access to ramps and other facilities, aesthetics and water quality, and clog screens at water intakes (Langeland 1996). A cyanobacterium that grows on the leaves of hydrilla also has been implicated as the cause of avian vacuolar myelinopathy (AVM), a disease that has killed waterfowl and eagles in some states of the southeastern United States (Wilde et al.2005).Distribution/Introduction - Hydrilla is widely distributed in the Old World in eastern Asia,Australia and portions of Africa and Europe and is thought to have originated in the warmer regions of Asia (Cook and Luond 1982). It was first discovered in the United States in 1960
in Florida (Haller 1976; Langeland 1990, 1996) where it was likely introduced as a result of activities associated with the aquarium industry. It is now widespread in the eastern United States from Texas to New England with populations in California and Washington (http://
nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/hy_verti.html; Madeira et al. 2000).This species was first documented in the Tennessee River system in Guntersville Reservoir innortheastern Alabama in 1982 and first collected in Tennessee in 1988 in Chickamauga Reservoir (Webb and Bates 1989). In Tennessee, hydrilla is well established in Nickajack, Pickwick, and Kentucky Reservoirs along the Tennessee River and in some watershed lakes near Reelfoot Lake in extreme northwestern Tennessee (personal communication Paul Brown, TWRA). Both the dioecious and monoecious forms of hydrilla grow in Nickajack
Reservoir while only the dioecious form has been observed in Pickwick and Kentucky
reservoirs. In the past, small populations of the dioecious form also occurred in Chickamauga Reservoir (Tennessee River), Tellico Reservoir (Little Tennessee River) and in
a small sinkhole pond connected to Melton Hill Reservoir (Clinch River), but these
populations have not been observed in recent years. Several thousand acres of the dioecious form of hydrilla occur in Guntersville Reservoir along the Tennessee River in northeastern
Alabama.Pathways for Spread -
The primary method of spread of hydrilla from one waterbody to anotheris by fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors. Once established within a waterbody, hydrilla can rapidly spread by fragments that are dispersed by flow and wave action. Hydrilla can
also be spread as an aquarium plant or as a contaminant growing with other aquatic species that are
sold as ornamentals for water gardens.
Literature Cited/References/Links 124Cook, C. D. K. and R. Luond. 1982. A revision of the genus Hydrilla (Hydrocharitaceae).
Aquatic Botany 13:485-504.Haller, W. T. 1976. Hydrilla - A new and rapidly spreading aquatic weed problem. CircularS-245. Agricultural Experiment Stations/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.Langeland, K. A. 1990. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle) - A continuing problem in Florida waters. Circular No. 884. Cooperative Extension Service/Institute of Food and
Agricultural Services, University of Florida, Gainesville.Langeland, K. A. 1996. Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle (Hydrocharitaceae), "The PerfectAquatic Weed". Castanea 61(3): 293-304.Madeira, P.T., C .C. Jacono and T. K. Van. 2000. Keeping track of hydrilla using two RAPDprocedures and the nonindigenous aquatic species information resource. Journal of Aquatic
Plant Management 38:33-40.Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities along rivers and reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.Wilde, S. B., T. M. Murphy, C. P. Hope, S. K. Habrun, J. Kempton, A. Birrenkott, F. Wiley,W. W. Bowerman, and A. J. Lewitus. 2005. Avian vacuolar mylinopathy linked to exotic aquatic plants and a novel cyanobacterial species. Journal of Environmental Toxicology
20:348-353.http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/hy_verti.html
http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/hydver2.html http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Hydrocharitaceae&GenusID=Hydrilla&SpeciesID=verticillatahttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/hydrilla.html
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/hyvepic.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=HYVE3 http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Written_findings/Hydrilla_verticillata.html http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/plants/html/hydrilla.html 125 Common Name - Spiny-leaf naiad or brittle naiad (Rank 2)
Scientific Name -
Najas minor L
.Family - Najadaceae Photo Credit: APISŽ, U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS Description -
Spiny-leaf naiad is a submersed, bottom-rooted annual, with a bushyappearance as a result of profuse branching from the upper portion of the stem. The leaves are opposite to sub-opposite, stiff and recurved in late growing season, 0.5 to 3.5 cm long and about 1 mm or less in width. Leaf margins have 7 to 15 conspicuous teeth per side and an
expanded sheath at the base of each leaf. Male flowers and female flowers are on the same
plant, both flowers inconspicuous, small, 1 or 2 in leaf axils, and lacking sepals and petals.
Male flowers have a single stamen and female flowers a single pistil and both are surrounded by a thin sheath. The fruit is greenish and slightly curved. The seeds, one per fruit, also are
slightly curved, 1.5 to 3.0 mm long with rectangular areolae in longitudinal rows.
Habitat/Biology -
Spiny-leaf naiad is an annual species that regrows from seed and is mostcommon in reservoirs and ponds. In some TVA reservoirs with prolific growth of spiny-leaf naiad, the seed bank is millions of seeds per hectare (Webb and Bates 1989). Because spiny-
leaf naiad regrows from seed, this species is adapted to colonization of drawdown zones of reservoirs that are dewatered during the winter months. The seed tolerates drying and freezing conditions that often eliminate perennial species that regrow from underground vegetative parts. Spiny-leaf naiad is reported to be tolerant of eutrophic conditions (Wentz and Stuckey 1971), which is a probable factor in its spread.Although spiny-leaf naiad often grows in monospecific stands, in the TVA reservoir system it is frequently mixed with other species such as Najas guadalupensis, Potamogeton pusillus, and Chara spp. Because spiny-leaf naiad grows in shallow water areas in dense colonies, itcan adversely impact water quality and various types of water-based recreation and access to
ramps and other facilities in areas of developed shoreline. During the late summer months, spiny-leaf naiad undergoes a natural "breakup" and stems with leaves float to the surface to
form dense, free-floating mats that frequently become covered with algae and produce a smelly odor. Spiny-leaf naiad was one of the primary species that TVA managed with 126herbicides in the 1970s through the early 1990s. Populations of spiny-leaf naiad undergo dramaticfluctuations in the TVA reservoir system (Peltier and Welch 1970) and tend to be most abundant
during years of low flow and clear water (i.e., drought years).Distribution/Introduction -
Najas minor is an Old World species (Haynes 1977) that wasfirst documented from the northeastern United States in the 1930s and may have been
introduced by shipping or possibly as an aquarium introduction (Clausen 1936). Spinyleaf naiad is widespread in the eastern United States from Illinois to New York, south to Florida and west to Arkansas (Haynes 1979, 2000). The species was first documented in the Tennessee River system in the 1940s (Merilainen 1968) from Nickajack Reservoir (then Hales Bar Reservoir) and Guntersville Reservoir in northeastern Alabama.
Najas minor iswidely distributed in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) and is documented from 17 counties. All of the main stem TVA reservoirs along the Tennessee River have or in the past have had populations of spiny-leaf naiad. Historically, the largest
populations have been in Chickamauga Reservoir which had more than 2,000 ha of spiny-
leaf naiad in the 1980s.Pathways for Spread - Once established in a waterbody, spiny-leaf can spread by seed that remain attached in the leaf axils of floating fragments. Seed in the substrate may also be carried and moved to other areas by flow and wave action. Waterfowl feeding on spiny-leaf naiad also probably carry the seed to other waterbodies (Merilainen 1968). As is the case
with most submersed plants, fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors are another
means of spread.Literature Cited/References/Links Clausen, R. T. 1936. Studies in the genus Najas in the northern United States. Rhodora 38:333-345.Haynes, R. R. 1977. The Najadaceae in the Southeastern United States. Journal of theArnold Arboretum 58:161-170.Haynes, R. R. 1979. Revision of North and Central American Najas (Najadaceae). Sida 8:34-56.Haynes, R. R. 2000. 197. Najadaceae Jussieu
- Naiad or Water-nymph Family. Pp. 77-83.In: Flora on North America North of Mexico. Volume 22. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
Merilainen, J. 1968.
Najas minor All. in North America. Rhodora 70:161-175.Peltier, W. H. and E. B. Welch. 1970. Factors affecting growth of rooted aquatic plants in areservoir. Weed Science 18:7-9.
127Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities along riversand reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.Wentz, W. A. and R. L. Stuckey. 1971. The changing distribution of the genus Najas (Najadaceae) in Ohio.
The Ohio Journal of Science 71:292-302.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Najadaceae&GenusID=Najas&SpeciesID=minorhttp://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://www.weedscience.ncsu.edu/aquaticweeds/facts/apfs006-99.pdf
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=NAMI http://www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/invader_month/Najas_minor_invader.pdf http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/plants/html/najas_mi.html 128Vascular - Emergent Plants Emergent plants are rooted in the bottom sediments. Their stems, leaves, and flowers extend wellabove the surface of the water. Emergent plants generally grow in shallow water of wetlands and
along the shoreline of streams, ponds, and reservoirs.
Common Name - Alligatorweed (Rank 20)
Scientific Name -
Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.
Family - Amaranthaceae Photo Credit: APISŽ, U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MSPhoto by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description - Alligatorweed is an herbaceous perennial with hollow, decumbent and/orupright stems that are 0.3 to 1 m tall. The stems root at the nodes and are often branched and interwoven to form mats that float on the water. Leaves are opposite, sessile or with short, winged petioles that clasp the stem. Leaf blades are linear-elliptic in shape (4 to 10 cm long and 0.5 to 2 cm wide) with entire margins. The inflorescence is head-like, with numerous, small, white flowers arranged in a spike-like head that is terminal on the stem or on an
axillary stalk that is up to about 5 cm in length. Mature seed are not reported as being formed in the Tennessee Valley and other areas of the southeastern United States.
Biology/Habitat -In areas with permanent standing water, plants root in wet or moist soilsalong shoreline areas and send out horizontal stems that float on the surface of the water.
The stems with lateral branches are often interwoven to form dense, floating mats that may
extend 50 feet or more into open water at some sites (Penfound 1940; Spencer and Coulson 1976). Alligatorweed frequently occurs in large, monospecific colonies, or in some cases
may be mixed with Uruguayan waterprimrose which has a similar growth form.
Alternanthera philoxeroides also can grow on moist soil and out-compete native wetlandspecies that are of value to waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. Alligatorweed has not been documented to produce viable seed in the United States; thus, all reproduction is by
vegetative means with each node having the potential to produce a new plant (Penfound
1940; Spencer and Coulson 1976).
129In the Tennessee Valley, alligatorweed is most common along reservoirs of the Tennessee River in inlets and in the extreme upstream portion of embayments and shoreline areas that
are protected from wave action. Rainfall events that result in higher than normal water levels and high flows have been observed to move large colonies from embayments to main
channel areas where they are dispersed downstream. Over time, alligatorweed is expected to colonize a much wider variety of aquatic, wetland, and moist soil habitats in Tennessee. In
addition to replacing native species and restricting boating and access for fishing, alligatorweed provides a good habitat for mosquito production (Penfound 1940).Populations of alligatorweed in warmer portions of the southeastern United States have beensignificantly reduced by the introduction of South American insects that feed on the leaves and stems of alligatorweed (Spencer and Coulson 1976; Buckingham 1996). These natural herbivores of alligatorweed do not over-winter in the Tennessee Valley and thus are ineffective in
controlling alligatorweed in this region of the southeastern United States.Distribution/Introduction - Alternanthera philoxeroides is native to South America andwas introduced into the United States in the 1890s probably in ballast (Zeiger 1967; Buckingham 1996). It is widespread in the southeastern United States from Virginia to Florida, west to Texas and Oklahoma and north to Kentucky and Illinois. Populations of
alligatorweed also occur in some western states such as California (http://plants.usda.gov/
java/profile?symbol=ALPH).
.
Alligatorweed was first reported from the Tennessee River system in the mid 1930s from along TVA reservoirs in northern Alabama where it possibly was introduced through shipping (Penfound 1940). The species is now common along all the TVA reservoirs in the Tennessee River in northern Alabama (Pickwick, Wilson, Wheeler, Guntersville), and has spread to several other reservoirs of the TVA system in Tennessee including Pickwick, Kentucky, Nickajack, and Chickamauga reservoirs. Alligatorweed is documented from 13 counties (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) in Tennessee most of which contain impounded waters of the Tennessee River.Pathways for Spread - While the first introductions of alligatorweed into the United Statesand possibly the Tennessee River system was by commercial shipping (Zeiger 1967;
Penfound 1940), currently the most common method of spread is by fragments and floating mats that are distributed by flow. Alligatorweed may also be spread by fragments on boat trailers and propellers of motors and as a contaminant (Wofford and Dennis 1976) in
containerized nursery stock.Literature Cited/References/Links Buckingham, G. R. 1996. Biological control of alligatorweed, Alternanthera philoxeroides
,the world's first aquatic weed success story. Castanea 61:232-243.
130Chester, E. W. 1988. Alligatorweed, Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. in Kentucky.Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 49:140-142.Penfound, W. T. 1940. The biology of Achyranthes philoxeroides (Mart.) Standley.
American Midland Naturalist 24:248-252.Robertson, K. R. 1981. The genera of Amaranthaceae in the southeastern United States.Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 62:267-314.Spencer, N. R. and J. R. Coulson. 1976. The biological control of alligatorweed,Alternanthera philoxeroides, in the United States of America. Aquatic Botany 2:177-190.Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities alongrivers and reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.Wofford, B. E., and W. M. Dennis. 1976. State records and other recent noteworthycollections of Tennessee plants. Castanea 41:119-121.Zeiger, C. F. 1967. Biological control of alligatorweed with Agasicles n. sp. in Florida.
Hyacinth Control Journal 6:31-34.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALPH http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/images.asp?plantID=1343#
http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/alrph.htm http://www.se-eppc.org/subject.cfm?sub=2779 http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo/alternanthera.htm#anchor81251 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Amaranthaceae&GenusID=Alternanthera&SpeciesID=philoxeroides 131 Common Name - Asian spiderwort, aneilema, marsh dew-wort (Rank 40)
Scientific Name -
Murdannia keisak (Hasskarl) Hand.-Mazz.
Synonym - Aneilema keisak Hasskarl Family - CommelinaceaePhoto by ©G.A. Cooper. Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution, Department of Systematic Biology-Botany.USA, NC, Raleigh, Springmoor.
Description - Murdannia keisak is an herbaceous annual with decumbent and trailing stemsthat root at the lower nodes. The leaves are alternate, linear-lanceolate, 2 to 7 cm long and
up to about 2 cm wide with leaf bases that clasp the stem. Flowers are solitary or in a few-
flowered clusters at the end of the stem or from the upper leaf axils. Each flower has 3 sepals, and 3 pinkish to purple to whitish petals up to about 8 mm long. The fruit is a capsule
with 3 locules, each with 3 to 6 seed that are 1.5 to 3 mm long. Flowering occurs in the late
summer to fall.
Habitat/Biology -
Asian spiderwort is an annual plant that frequently grows in monospecificcolonies and forms dense mats that exclude many species of native plants. In Tennessee, the species is most common along the margins of inlets and embayments of the large reservoirs along the Tennessee River where it grows rooted in moist soil near the level of full summer pool or in a few inches of water. During high rainfall events, mats may be dislodged by rapid
increases in water levels and/or moved by high flows. Several thousand seed per meter
square are produced in areas with dense growth (Dunn and Sharitz 1990); thus, the species presumably has a large seed bank that functions to maintain populations on an annual cycle.
In other areas of the Southeast (Faden 2000; http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/fsmuke.pdf), M.keisak is reported to grow in a wider variety of habitats including wet ditches and marshesand along the margins of lakes, ponds, swamps, creeks, and various aquatic and wetland habitats. It is expected to colonize similar areas in the Tennessee in the future.Distribution/Introduction - Murdannia keisak is native to eastern Asia (Dunn and Sharitz1990; Faden 2000) and likely was introduced into the United States with rice cultivation in coastal regions of the southeastern United States. The earliest known collections of M.keisak in the United States are from Louisiana in the late 1920s and from South Carolina in 1321935. Most collections of M. keisak prior to the 1950s were from coastal regions of thesoutheastern United States (Dunn and Sharitz 1990). Since that time, the species has rapidly
expanded its range and now occurs from Maryland south to Florida and west to Louisiana and north to Kentucky. Asian spiderwort is also reported from along the extreme downstream portion of the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon (Faden 2000).Asian spiderwort was first collected in Tennessee in 1976 along Watts Bar Reservoir and by the late 1970s was documented from other reservoirs (e.g., Chickamauga, Ft. Loudoun) of the Tennessee River, from Melton Hill Reservoir along the Clinch River, and from reservoirs along the Tennessee River in northern Alabama (Dennis et al. 1980; Webb and Bates 1990).Murdannia keisak is documented from 10 counties in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html), most of which border or include the Tennessee River or its major tributaries. It also occurs along smaller rivers such as the Buffalo and likely has a wider distribution in Tennessee than current collections indicate.Pathways for Spread -Once established within a waterbody, Asian spiderwort can spreadby vegetative fragments and seed that are distributed by flow. This can result in a rapid downstream spread of the species. The seeds of Murdannia keisak are reported as an important food item for waterfowl (Dunn and Sharitz 1990) which may account for its rapid
spread in the mid to late 1900s from coastal regions to the interior portions of the southeastern United States.Literature Cited/References/Links Dennis, W. M., D. H. Webb, B. E. Wofford, and R. Kral. 1980. State records and otherrecent noteworthy collections of Tennessee Plants. III. Castanea 45:237-242.Dunn, C. P. and R. R. Sharitz. 1990. History of Murdannia keisak (Commelineace) in thesoutheastern United States. Castanea 55:122-129.Faden, R. B. 2000. 207. Commelinaceae R. Brown
- Spiderwort Family. Pp. 190-192. In:Flora on North America North of Mexico. Volume 22. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.Tucker, G. C. 1989. The genera of Commelinaceae in the southeastern United States.Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 70:97-130.Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities alongrivers and reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200027382 http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Commelinaceae&GenusID=Murdannia&SpeciesID=keisak 133http://www.plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MUKEhttp://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/aneke.htm http://www.alabamaplants.com/Pinkalt/Murdannia_keisak_page.html http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/fsmuke.pdf http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200027382 Common Name - Common reed (Rank 28)
Scientific Name-Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel Synonym - Phragmites communis Trin.Family - Poaceae Photos by A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Phragmites australis is a tall (2 to 4 m in height), colonial, perennial grasswith course stems and stout, creeping rhizomes and/or stolons. The stem is leafy throughout
with leaves that are up to 6 dm long and 1 to 4 cm wide with long acuminate blades and overlapping leaf sheaths. The ligule consists of a ring of short stiff hairs. The infloresence is a terminal and much-branched, dense panicle that is tawny, to purplish to silver in color and
2 to 4 dm long. Spikelets are 3 to 7 flowered with unequal glumes and long silky hairs that
exceed the florets. Disarticulation is above the glumes and below each floret. Seeds are
produced in some populations but are reported to have low viability in many instances.
Note - A nonnative, aggressive strain of P. australis has been introduced into North America(Saltonstall 2002) and is reported to differ from the native strain of P. australis in thenortheastern United States in characters such as the color, texture, and density of the stems, density of the inflorescence, flowering time, leaf color and some other characteristics (see http://www.invasiveplants.net/phragmites/morphology.htm).
134.Biology/Habitat -
Once established, P. australis can form large colonies and grow as monospecific stands. Rhizomes that grow beneath the soil surface or stolons that creep along the soil surface result in rapid lateral expansion of colonies. The role of seed in the spread of P. australis is difficult to assess due to conflicting and variable reports relating to seed setand viability (Tucker 1990). However, it is clear that rhizome fragments and other vegetative
structures such as stolons can function to form new colonies when transported by natural events or human activities. With viable seed, the species could also be spread by birds, mammals, wind, and by flow.
Common reed grows in moist soils and areas with slight inundation such as marshes andalong the margins of lakes, ponds, streams, swamps, and in brackish marshes in coastal
regions. It grows (Batterson and Hall 1984; Marks et al. 1994) on a wide variety of substrates, tolerates both alkaline and acidic conditions, and can grow in areas with a salinity
of 15 to 20 ppt (parts per thousand). Because of the ability of common reed to sequester
nutrients and grow in saturated soils, it is frequently used in constructed wetlands to remove
nutrients and other pollutants. One of the greatest negative impacts of P. australis is the displacement of natural wetland plant community types which frequently also reduces the
biodiversity of associated animal communities.Distribution/Introduction -
Phragmites australis has a world wide distribution and isknown from every continent except Antarctica (Tucker 1990). The species is native to the United States with established populations reported from most states (http://plants.usda.gov/
java/profile?symbol=PHAU7). A non-native strain or genotype (termed haplotype M, see Saltonstall 2002) has been introduced into the United States, and at many sites in the northeastern United States has replaced natural mixed wetland communities and even the
native genotypes of P. australis. The introduced genotype is thought to be of Eurasian origin and was likely introduced during the early part of the 19th century in shipping ballast dumped at coastal ports in the northeastern United States. From the region of introduction, the non-native genotype has spread into the interior, far western regions, and a few areas of the southeastern United States. Its spread is postulated to have been aided by the
construction of railroads and highways (Saltonstall 2002).
Specimens of P. australis deposited in the herbarium of the University of Tennessee (TENN)document populations of common reed from nine counties in Tennessee (http://
tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html). Sharp et al. (1956) attribute P. communis (=P.ausrtalis) to "West Tennessee" but note the species to be "localized and rare". The earliestcollection date for any of the specimens currently at TENN is 1982, suggesting that the species has only recently become widely established in Tennessee. Several of the specimens
were collected along highways or railroad tracks and less commonly in wet areas of old
fields or beaver swamps.
Phragmites australis has also been observed growing in ash pondsat several TVA coal-fired steam plants and at a single site along Tellico Reservoir (David Webb, TVA, personal communication). At present, it is unknown as to whether populations
of P. australis in Tennessee are a native or introduced genotype.
135Pathways for Spread -
At present, the most common pathways for the establishment of P.australis in Tennessee seem to be related to human activities such as highway construction, transport of materials along railroads, and activities associated with the use of coal at power
generating facilities.
Phragmites australis is also frequently recommended for constructedwetlands which could provide an additional pathway for introduction. The species
apparently produces few viable seed; thus, the species is most likely spread from vegetative propagules (e.g., rhizomes, stolons) that can be transported by water flow or human
activities.Literature Cited/References/Links
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Population Biology 99:2445-2449.Sharp, A. J., R. E. Shanks, J. K. Underwood, and E. McGilliard. 1956. A preliminarychecklist of Monocots in Tennessee. Unpublished manuscript. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Tucker, G. C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoideae (Graminae) in the Southeastern UnitedStates. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 71:145-177.Batterson, T. R. and D. W. Hall. 1984. Common Reed. Aquatics 6:16-17, 20.
Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994.
Phragmites australis (P. communis)
- Threats,management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14:285-294.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Poaceae&GenusID=Phragmites&SpeciesID=australishttp://www.invasiveplants.net/phragmites/morphology.htm
http://herbarium.usu.edu/webmanual/info2.asp?name=Phragmites_australis&type=treatment http://www.paflora.org/Phragmites%20australis.pdf http://www.invasiveplants.net/biologicalcontrol/9CommonReed.html http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ben370.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PHAU7 http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/
imagecollection.php?Genus=Phragmites&Species=australis 136 Common Name - Dwarf water clover (Rank 42)
Scientific Name -
Marsilea minuta L.Family - MarsiliaceaePhoto by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Centerfor Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description - This non-flowering fern, dwarf water clover, has fleshy, horizontal rhizomesthat have roots at the nodes and internodes. Foliage, appearing as a "four-leaf clover" due to four leaflets that are borne at the end of an 8 to 22 cm long petiole, arises at a node. The leaves sometimes float on the water or are emergent and extend to about 15 cm above the water. The sporocarps are borne on slightly curved to upright stalks that are 6 to 11 mm long
and attached at the base and junction of the leaf petiole and rhizome. Sporocarps are about
2.5 to 5 mm long, oval to oblong, and often bean-shaped.
Note - The genus Marsilea is easily recognized by its "four-leaf clover" foliage; however,identification to the species level is often difficult without sporocarps (Jacono and Johnson
2006). It is likely that any population of Marsilea growing in aquatic and wetland habitats inTennessee is a non-native species and every effort should be made to collect voucher
specimens with detailed locality information.
Habitat/Biology - Dwarf water clover grows along the margins of ponds, ditches, streams and wetlands. It reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes and can also reproduce sexually and
form spores.
Marsilea minuta can form monospecific colonies in shallow water and in moistsoil along the margins of ponds and other moist habitats (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/
plants/docs/marsilea/marsilea.html). To date, the impact of M. minuta on native plantcommunities in the United States has not been documented, but M. minuta is a major weed inrice paddies in southeast Asia (Jacono and Johnson 2006)Distribution/Introduction -
Marsilea minuta is reported as a native plant from Africa, India, andSoutheast Asia (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?423469) and has been
introduced and is widely distributed outside of its native range (Jacono and Johnson 2006),
presumably because of its use as an ornamental in water gardens. Dwarf water clover was first
collected in the United States in Florida in 1992 and is now documented from Georgia and 137Tennessee (Jacono and Johnson 2006). At present, the only known population of M. minuta inTennessee is from Hamilton County (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) where it was first collected in 2000. The habitat is the margin of a sink-hole pond that has no outflow and that fluctuates with water levels in Chickamauga Reservoir.Pathways for Spread -
Because the water clovers are frequently promoted and sold as ornamentals for water gardens, that trade is the most likely pathway for the introduction and
spread of M. minuta in Tennessee. Once established in a waterbody or drainage, vegetative fragments and spores can be spread by flow and possibly by waterfowl.Literature Cited/References/Links Jacono, C. C. and D. M. Johnson. 2006. Water-clover ferns, Marsilea, in the southeasternUnited States. Castanea 71:1-14.Johnson, D. M. 1993. Marsileaceae Mirbel. Pp. 331-335. In: Flora of North AmericaEditorial Committee (eds.). Flora of North America North of Mexico. Volume 2.
Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York.http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/maps/minu_mutic_map_opt.jpg http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/marsilea/marsilea.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MAMI13 http://www.hear.org/pier/species/marsilea_minuta.htm http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?423469 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Pteridophytes&FamilyID=Marsileaceae&GenusID=Marsilea&SpeciesID=minuta 138 Common Name - Parrot's feather (Rank 32)
Scientific Name -
Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc.
Synonym - Myriophyllum brasiliense Camb.Family - Haloragaceae Photos by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Myriophyllum aquaticum has relatively stout, emersed and submersed stems that are simple or sparsely branched. Emersed stems can grow 0.5 m above the surface of the water. Adventitious roots form at the nodes of the underwater stems and anchor the plant to
the bottom or to exposed mud. Leaves in whorls of 4 to 6 occur along both emersed and submersed stems. Submersed leaves are 1.5 to 3 cm long with 20 to 36 narrow, linear segments per leaf. The emersed leaves are stiff, gray-green in color, feather-like, 2 to 5 cm long, with 6 to 18 divisions per leaf. Flowers (pistillate only in the United States) are borne
in the leaf axils of the emersed leaves and are small, with whitish to pinkish stigmas that
appear as a tuft in the leaf axils. Flowering occurs in the spring.
Habitat/Biology - Parrot's feather typically grows in shallow water or may be rooted in mud alongthe shoreline of lakes, ponds, small streams, swamps and other aquatic habitats. The stems are often intertwined and form a mat with the emersed stems sometimes growing up to about 0.5 m above the water surface. Since only the pistillate plants occur in the United States, seeds are not formed and all reproduction is vegetative from fragments. Plants over winter and regrow from
rhizomes attached to the mud by adventitious roots (Sutton 1985).Although widespread in Tennessee, parrot's feather is not known to cause major problems related to recreational use in contrast to other milfoils such as M. spicatum which has large-scale negative impacts to recreational use in large reservoirs.
Myriophyllum aquaticum can form monospecific stands and exclude some native species and also restrict flow in drainage
ditches and small streams.
139Distribution/Introduction - Parrot's feather is native to South America and was introduced into the United States in the late 1800s, probably as an ornamental in aquariums, water gardens, fountains and greenhouses (Nelson and Couch 1985; http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/
weeds/aqua003.html). By the 1980s it was widespread in the United States (Nelson and Couch 1985) from New York, south to Florida and west to Texas and Oklahoma and is also established in several of the western states (Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington).
Myriophyllum aquaticum is reported as growing in Tennessee in the early 1940s (Nelson andCouch 1985) and currently is documented from 17 counties across the State from eastern to western Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html). Parrot's feather is frequent in springs and outflows which are characterized by cold water with some flow. It is also found in a variety of aquatic habitats (e.g., ponds, swamps, margins of streams and small rivers). Parrot's feather is uncommon in TVA reservoirs, and when present, usually occurs in small and localized populations where springs or their outflows enter reservoirs. A remnant population of parrot's feather occurs in the tailwaters of Tellico Reservoir (Little Tennessee River) a
couple of miles downstream of Chilhowee Dam.Pathways for Spread -
Because M. aquaticum does not form seed in the United States,vegetative fragments are the method of spread. Fragments, or in some cases mats of parrot's feather, are distributed by flow.
Myriophyllum aquaticum is frequently used as an ornamental in water gardens and ornamental pools and can "escape" or be discarded into natural aquatic habitats. In rare instances, parrot's feather may be moved from one
waterbody to another as fragments on propellers or boat trailers but this is not considered a major pathway for spread in Tennessee.Literature Cited/References/Links Aiken, S. G. 1981. A conspectus of Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) in North America.
Brittonia 33:57-69.Nelson, E. N. and R. W. Couch. 1985. History of the introduction and distribution of Myriophyllum aquaticum in North America. Pp. 19-26. Proceedings of the 1 st InternationalSymposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and Related Haloragaceae Species,July 23 and 24, 1985, Vancouver, British Columbia. The Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc.Sutton, D. L. 1985. Biology and ecology of Myriophyllum aquaticum. Pp. 59-71.
Proceedings of the 1 st International Symposium on Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum
)and Related Haloragaceae Species, July 23 and 24, 1985, Vancouver, British Columbia. The Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Haloragaceae&GenusID=Myriophyllum&SpeciesID=aquaticumhttp://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/pmis/plants/html/myriophy.html 140 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/pmis/plants/html/myrioph0.htmlhttp://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MYAQ2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua003.html
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/myaqpic.html http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Myriophyllum_aquaticum.html http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=401&fr=1&sts=sss
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/myraqu2.html Common Name - Pale yellow iris (Rank 33)
Scientific Name -
Iris pseudacorus L.Family - Iridaceae Photos by Vic Ramey and A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description
- Iris pseudacorus is a rhizomatous perennial plant. Leaves are stiff and erectbasally, arching distally, and broadly ensiform arising from stout, extensively radially spreading, densely crowded rhizomes. Leaves are 4 to 8 dm long and 2 to 3 cm wide. Stems
are 0.5 to 1.2 m tall and shorter than or equaling the leaves. Flowers measure 7 to 9 cm
across. Petals are erect, 2 to 3 cm long and 4 to 5 mm wide and are bright yellow or cream
colored and linear to narrowly fiddle-shaped. Sepals are golden-yellow to cream colored and spreading. They measure 5 to 8 cm long and 3 to 5 cm wide with short broad claws which are flecked with brown. The fruit is an elongate capsule, 5 to 8.5 cm long. Valves are widely spreading at maturity. Seeds are brown, corky and angular.
141 Habitat/Biology - In the United States, this species grows in shallow water or wet soil includingswamps, wet meadows, marshes, ditches, pond banks, and along streams (Godfrey and Wooten 1979, Kral specimens collected in 1971 and 1974). It grows in both fresh and brackish water.
Other wetland communities where this species commonly occurs include meadows, fens, swamps, reed beds, saltmarshes, and in permanently wet sand dunes (Sutherland 1990). It can quickly
colonize sediments and litter around the margins of standing or sluggish, mesotrophic and eutrophic waters (Tu 2003). When used as a landscaping plant along bodies of water, it commonly spreads
along riverbanks and streambanks, lake or pond edges, or into marshlands. Plants form large clonal
populations through radial spread of rhizomes which are also drought tolerant (Sutherland 1991, Jacono 2007).
Pale yellow iris reproduces both sexually and asexually from rhizomes. Germination rates from freshly collected seed ranged from 48% in seed collected in the British Isles (Sutherland 1990) to
62% in seed collected from a swamp in north Florida (Jacono 2007). The clonal nature of this
species results in a dense rhizome mat that can prevent the germination and seedling growth of other plant species (Tu 2003) and allows it to outcompete native plants (Raven and Thomas 1970).Distribution/Introduction -
Iris pseudacorus is native to Europe and the British Isles, North Africa and the Mediterranean region (Cody 1961). It occurs in all European countries except Iceland (http://www.issg.org/database/species/distribution.asp?si=873&fr=1&sts=tss). Irispseudacorus was likely introduced to the United States in the 1800s as an ornamental plant and is still widely used in landscape plantings. It is also used for erosion control, sewage treatment, and in other constructed wetlands in North America. It is documented from 40 of the continental United States except for Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Oklahoma (http://plants.usda.gov/).
Specimens of Iris pseudacorus from 12 Tennessee counties are housed at the University ofTennessee herbarium (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular.html). Tennessee counties in the Tennessee River Basin where this species occurs include Johnson, Carter, Sullivan, Unicoi, Greene, Claiborne, Campbell, and Knox in northeastern Tennessee and Lawrence in south central Tennessee. Counties with this species in the Ohio River Basin are Fentress, Robertson, and Cheatham counties. The earliest collection date of specimens in the University of Tennessee herbarium is 1952. This specimen was collected along the Nolichucky River in Unicoi County. As five of the specimens in the herbarium were
collected in the 1950s, it seems likely that this species was established at several localities in Tennessee by that time.Pathways for Spread -
Pale yellow iris is sold as an ornamental and is widely availablecommercially. It has also been tested for removal of heavy metals (Mungar et al. 1997), removal of nutrients from urban waste water (Ansola et al. 1992), and for erosion control. In addition to being spread by humans, pale yellow iris spreads downstream through transport
of both rhizomes and seed (Sutherland 1990).
Literature Cited/References/Links 142Ansola, G., C. Fernandez, and E. de-Luis. 1992. Removal of organic matter and nutrients fromurban wastewater by using an experimental emergent aquatic macrophyte system. INTECOL's IV International Wetlands Conference, Ohio State University. Columbus, OH . September.Chester, E. W., B. E. Wofford, R. Kral, H. R. DeSelm, and A. M. Evans. 1993. Atlas ofTennessee Vascular Plants Volume 1. Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Angiosperms: Monocots.
Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay University. Clarksville, TN. 118 pp.Cody, WJ. 1961.
Iris pseudacorus L. escaped from cultivation in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist. 75:139-142.Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern UnitedStates. Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Pp. 712.
Jacono, C.C. 2007.
Iris pseudacorus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database,Gainesville, FL. <http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=1115> Revision
Date: 9/30/2001Raven, P.H. and J.H. Thomas. 1970.
Iris pseudacorus in western North America. Madrono.
20: 390-391.Sutherland, W.J. 1990. Biological flora of the British Isles, No. 169.
Iris pseudacorus
.Journal of Ecology. 78: 833-848.Sutherland, W.J. and D. Walton. 1990. The changes in morphology and demography of Iris pseudacorus L. at different heights on a saltmarsh. Functional Ecology 4(5): 655-660.Tu, M. 2003. Element Stewardship Abstract for Iris pseudacorus L., yellow flag iris, waterflag. Unpublished document. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. 11 pp.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID+Monocots&FamilyID=Iridaceae&GenusID=Iris&SpeciesID=pseudacorus http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=IRPS http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=1115 http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/irispse.rtf http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Iris_pseudacorus.html http://www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/art_pubs/docs/yellow_flag.pdf 143http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?20385http://www.invasivespecies.net/database/species/ecology.asp?si=873&fr=1&sts=sss http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/yellow-iris.pdf http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=59 http://www.se-eppc.org/eddMapS/statedist.cfm?sub=5853&id=us_tn Common Name - Peppermint (Rank 30)
Scientific Name - Mentha X piperita L. (pro sp.)
Family - Lamiaceae Photo by Robert H. Mohlenbrock @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / USDA NRCS. 1995. Northeastwetland flora: Field office guide to plant species. Northeast National Technical Center, Chester, PA.
De scription - Peppermint is an introduced, naturally occurring sterile hybrid of two nonnative Eurasian mint species, Mentha aquatica and M. spicata. It is a rhizamatous perennial with stems 3to 10 dm long. Stems may be glabrous, glandular, or with recurved hairs. Unlike Mentha spicata L., leaves of this species have definite petioles that are 5 to 8 mm long (petioles have been seen as
short as 4 mm and as long as 16 mm). Leaves are 3 to 7 cm long and often more than half as wide.
Blades are variable in shape and may be ovate, lance-ovate, lanceolate, or elliptic. They are shortly and broadly cuneate or rounded basally and acute to occasionally obtuse apically. Leaf margins are
sharply serrate, glabrous and smooth on upper surfaces, and sparsely pubescent on the veins of the
lower surfaces. The inflorescence of this species are much like those of M. spicata. Flowers are 144numerous and crowded in dense terminal spikes that are usually 2 to 7 cm in length (they have been recorded at 10 cm) and are usually over 1 cm across at anthesis. Flower spikes may be interrupted to continuous. Bracts subtending the cymes are lance-attenuate, glandular, glabrous or sometimes
with few irregularly spaced hairs on the margins. The calyx, including the lobes, commonly measures
(1.7) 3 to 4 mm long (it can be as small as 1.7 mm). The tube is narrowly campanulate, nerved but
not ribbed, with subulate lobes that are much shorter than the tube. Calyx lobe margins are ciliate.
The corolla is lavender.
Habitat/Biology -
Mentha X piperita is cultivated and sporadically naturalized throughoutmuch of North America where it is found in wet places, brooksides, meadows, margins of ponds and lakes, thickets, and ditches (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). This species of garden
mint is likely more common in the wild than spearmint (Grieve 1971) and is the one that is most frequently and abundantly naturalized in the southeastern United States (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Within the state of Tennessee, specimens of peppermint have been collected
from a boggy creek bottom, areas of wet or swampy soils, along brooks and creeks, and
within developed areas including railroad embankments and among commercial buildings.
Like Mentha spicata , peppermint is known for the ease of growing it from cuttings. Itspreads aggressively vegetatively, forming monoculture stands and crowding out native
vegetation.
This species is considered to be an invasive plant that threatens native plant communities. Itis listed as such by a number of organizations such as Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council, Delaware Natural Heritage Program, and Kentucky Exotic Pest Plant Council
.Distribution/Introduction - This species' native range is uncertain. However, it was known to the Greeks and Romans, and cultivated by the Egyptians (Grieve 1971). It is mentioned in
Icelandic pharmacopeias of the 13 th century (Grieve 1971). It came into general use inWestern Europe in approximately the middle of the 13 th century and was cultivated commercially in England by approximately 1750 (Grieve 1971). Spearmint and peppermint are among the world's most popular flavorings and are grown as crops on a large scale for leaf and oil production in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, Brazil, Paraguay, Japan, and China (Bown 2001). This species was introduced as a crop in the United States in approximately 1855 (Grieve 1971). At the present time, it is widespread in the United States being found in all states except North and South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Hawaii (http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MEPI).Peppermint is well represented in Middle and East Tennessee and is documented from one WestTennessee County, Carroll County. Gattinger (1901) notes the presence of Mentha X piperita L.outside of cultivation in Tennessee. Four Tennessee specimens at Gray and New York Botanical Gardens Herbaria were collected in 1897 and 1898. Two 1897 specimens, one at Gray Herbarium and the other at the New York Botanical Gardens, were likely collected by Gattinger while working on his 1901 flora. Ten of the University of Tennessee specimens were collected between 1934
through 1941 suggesting this species was actively collected to rebuild the herbarium after it burned and that it was relatively common in the state by that time. Currently, M. X piperita is documentedfrom 43 Tennessee counties, most of which are in middle or eastern Tennessee.
145 Pathways for Spread -
Like Mentha spicata , this species was introduced for medicinal and culinary use, and is actively spread by humans. Medicinal uses include antiseptic, digestive aid, anodyne, antispasmodic, carminative, cholagogue, diaphoretic, stomachic, tonic, and vasodilator (http://www.pfaf.org/database/). It is also used to treat fevers, headaches, and digestive disorders (http://www.pfaf.org/database/). Resent research points to antioxidant properties as well (Dorman
et al. 2003). Peppermint is also spread by flows that transport rhizomes.
Literature Cited/References/LinksBown, D. 2001. The Herb Society of America: New Encyclopedia of Herbs and their Uses.
Dorling Kindersley Limited. London. 448 p.Dorman, H.J.D., M. Kosar, K. Kahlos, Y. Holm, and R. Hiltunen. 2003. Antioxidant properties and composition of aqueous extracts from Mentha species, hybrids, varieties, and cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 51: 4563-4569.Gattinger, A. 1901. The flora of Tennessee and a philosophy of botany. Gospel Advocate PublishingCompany. 294 p.Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern UnitedStates. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Pp. 933.Grieve, M. 1971. A Modern Herbal: The Medicinal, Culinary, Cosmetic and Economic Properties,Cultivation and Folk-lore of Herbs, Grasses, Fungi, Shrubs and Trees with all their Modern Scientific Uses. Vol. II. Dover Publication, Inc. New Yourk. 902 p. (reprint of 1932 Harcourt, Brace and Company publication).
http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Lamiaceae&GenusID=Mentha&SpeciesID=x%20piperita http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MEPIhttp://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?24078 http://www.se-eppc.org/eddmaps/statedist.cfm?sub=6009&id=us_tn http://www.pfaf.org/database/
http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/global/australia/ger.html 146 Common Name - Purple loosestrife (Rank 7)
Scientific Name -
Lythrum salicaria L.Family - Lythraceae Photos by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Purple loosestrife is a stout, erect, perennial up to 2 m tall that grows from astout rootstock that has numerous, lateral roots. A few to 50 stems may grow from a single rootstock of mature plants. The stem is square; the leaves are opposite or in whorls of 3, pubescent, stalkless, heart-shaped or rounded at the base. Leaves are lanceolate to occasionally linear in shape, 2 to 10 cm long and 0.5 to 1.5 cm wide with entire margins.
Numerous, small, showy flowers, occur in clusters in the axils of leaves or bracts at the end
of stems and branches, producing an inflorescence with a spike-like appearance. Each flower has 5 or 6 petals that are reddish-purple. The fruit is a capsule, 3 to 4 mm wide, containing
numerous, tiny seeds.
Note - Lythrum virgatum L. is similar in many respects to Lythrum salicaria but differs in being glabrous throughout and having leaves that narrow at the base.
Biology/Habitat - Purple loosestrife spreads primarily by seed. A mature plant with multiple stems from a single rootstock may produce in excess of 2 million seeds per plant during a single growing season. The seed are reported to be viable for at least 3 years with a germination rate of
approximately 80 percent; thus, purple loosestrife is capable of building a large seed bank that can
persist for several years and germinate under favorable conditions or when perturbations occur in native plant communities. Once established, lateral spread from the peripheral roots of the primary
rootstock seems to be limited to about 0.5 meter (Thompson et al. 1987; http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/loosstrf/index.htm).In Tennessee, purple loosestrife grows in a wide variety of open, wetland habitats, along reservoirand stream margins, and other open, moist site areas. In several regions, such as the northeastern 147 and midwestern United States, purple loosestrife grows in monospecific stands in wetlands and frequently displaces many native plants that results in negative impacts to most species of native
wildlife (Thompson et al. 1987). Although purple loosestrife occurs in high densities in a fewlocalized areas in Tennessee, it has not yet spread and negatively impacted wetlands to the extent it
has in some other regions of the United States.Distribution/Introduction -
Purple loosestrife, a native of Eurasia, was reported in literatureas growing in the United States in the early 1800s. However, it was the mid to late 1800s
before this species was well established in wetland and waste sites in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (Stuckey 1980). It is likely that introduction of purple loosestrife into the United States occurred on multiple occasions (Stuckey 1980; Thompson
et al. 1987) by a variety of methods (ship ballast, on sheep and shipments of raw wool, intentional plantings in herbal and ornamental gardens).By the mid 1980s, purple loosestrife was established in most states of the United States north of the 35 th parallel from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts (Thompson et al. 1987). Thespecies is most abundant in states of the northeastern United States and the mid western
states in the Great Lakes region. Purple loosestrife has continued to spread since the mid
1980s and the general consensus is that with exception of Florida, there are established populations of purple loosestrife in every state of the continental United States (http://
www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lysa1.htm). The first know collection of purple loosestrife in Tennessee was in 1899 from Knox County (Stuckey 1980). Beginning in 1981 (Patrick et al.1983; Bowen 1995), several collections of purple loosestrife have been made in eight counties in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) from the margins of streams and small rivers, reservoirs, and wetland areas.Pathways for Spread - Water is the primary dispersal mechanism for seed produced by mature plants, and in some cases, for small, recently germinated seedlings. Some seed
dispersal also is likely in mud that adheres to wildlife, livestock, and the tires of vehicles and
hulls of small boats. In rarer instances, purple loosestrife may spread from broken stems and
branches that are transported by water and take root in wetlands or other habitats with moist
substrate. Because of its aesthetic qualities, purple loosestrife is planted intentionally from
seed or as containerized nursery stock.Literature Cited/References/Links Bowen, B. 1995. Purple loosestrife: An exotic invader of Tennessee's wetlands. TheTennessee Conservationist 61:28-30.Graham, S. A. 1975. Taxonomy of the Lythraceae in the southeastern United States. Sida 6:80-103.Stuckey, R. L. 1980. Distributional history of Lythrum salicaria in North America. Bartonia 47:3-20.
148Malecki, R. A., B. Blossey, S. D. Hight, D. Schroeder, L. T. Kok, and J. R. Coulson. 1993.
Biological control of purple loosestrife. Bioscience 43:680-686.Patrick, T. S., B. E. Wofford, and D. H. Webb. 1983. State records and other recentnoteworthy collections of Tennessee Plants. IV. Castanea 48:109-116.Thompson, D. Q., R. L. Stuckey, and E. B. Thompson. 1987. Spread, impacts, and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Research Report 2.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Lythraceae&GenusID=Lythrum&SpeciesID=salicariahttp://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/wetlands/htm/wl_purpleloosestrife.htm http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lysa1.htm http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/loosstrf/index.htm http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/loosestrife.htm http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html 149 Common Name - Reed canarygrass (Rank 17)
Scientific Name -
Phalaris arundinacea L.Family - Poacea Photos by Vic Ramey, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Phalaris arundinacea is a colonial cool-season perennial grass. This species spreads by rhizomes to form a thick, fibrous root mass and resulting dense tussock that measures between 1 and 2 m in diameter. Culms are stout and leafy throughout, growing from 0.8 to 1.5 (2.0) m tall. Basal leaf sheathes are glabrous. The leaf-blades are flat, 0.2 to 2 cm wide and up to 0.5 m long. Ligules are 2.5 to 6 mm in length and membranous. The
panicle is dense and cylindrical in shape, measuring 7 to 15 cm long. Panicle color ranges from light green, purplish, whitish-green to tawny brown at maturity. Glumes may be
glabrous or pubescent and measure 3 to 5 mm long. Most spikes are composed of three florets, two of which are infertile, and reduced to linear trichome covered scales that are 1.5 to 2 mm long.
Spikelets are 3.5 to 5 mm long with short, less than 1 mm long, pubescent pedicels. Paleas are 2-
nerved and whitish in color with scarious margins. Seeds are usually less than 2 mm long and circular in cross-section (Lyons 1998). This species is known for its seedheads that shatter easily, breaking up at maturity above the glumes.Reed canarygrass is highly variable morphologically. More than 10 infraspecific categories have been described based on characteristics such as the coarseness, earliness amount of branching, leaf color, size, shape and density of inflorescences (Piper 1942, Lyons 1998).
Native and introduced ecotypes do not appear to be distinguishable morphologically (Anderson, 1961).
Biology/Habitat - This species occurs within riparian and streamside corridors. It is found on streambanks, lake-shores, low woods, sloughs, and other wetland community types. Reed
canarygrass is adapted to wide extremes of soil moisture (Zeiders and Sherwood 1985) and is
likely to be a competitive dominant under a wide variety of hydrologic regimes (Kercher and 150 Zedler 2004). It is relatively drought tolerant and also succeeds well in soils disturbed by agriculture (Piper 1942).
This species reproduces both by seed and rhizomes. Seeds are produced in early summer and some germinate soon after ripening (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987, Leck 1996). Leck (1996)
found good germination in a variety of flooding regimes and that dry conditions do not appear to adversely affect germinability. This species also forms a persistent seedbank (Leck
1996). Reed canarygrass is highly productive vegetatively (Piper 1942) quickly
outcompeting other species when it is introduced to an area. Plants introduced to a site spread
rapidly through rhizome sprouts to form dense monospecific stands within one growing
season (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987, Barnes 1999). In a study conducted over two growing
seasons, this species demonstrated rapid growth in the first two years after germinations
allocating resources to rapid above ground growth in the first four months after which resource allocation was found to shift to roots (Adams and Glatowitsch 2005). This strategy
permits P. arundinacea to outcompete natives for space and light, resulting in the formation of huge colonies that can quickly dominate wetlands.There are a variety of environmental effects that result from this species' rapid and vigorousgrowth. It impedes water flow, alters soil hydrology, promotes silt deposition, and may increase soil erosion (Lyons 1998). It appears to inhibit establishment of understory trees (Fierk and Kauffman 2006) and poses a direct threat in western states to federally threatened
annual aquatic plant species Howellia aquatilis (Lesica 1997; NatureServe 2007). However,one of the most deleterious effects is that on native plant diversity within plant communities where it occurs. Reed canarygrass excludes native species due to its large size and dense
clonal growth (Barnes 1999) causing declines in wetland species within several years following its introduction (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Studies have shown a correlation
between presence and abundance of P. arundinacea and decreased understory species diversity and total species richness at sites where it occurs (Barnes 1999, Kercher et al. 2004,Fierke and Kauffman 2006, Schooler et al. 2006). According to Barnes (1999), it is likely that the aggressive behavior of reed canarygrass observed over a 15-year period along the
Chippewa River was due to the aggressive introduced ecotypes and agricultural strains
dominating within wetland plant communities (Barnes 1999).
Distribution/Introduction -
Phalaris is found on Greenland and on all continents except Antarctica (Anderson 1961). It was first cultivated in England before 1824 and was in
cultivation in Germany by about 1850 (Piper 1942). Nonnative ecotypes were introduced to the United States as a forage and hay crop in the mid-1800s (Piper 1942). Although P. arundinacea isconsidered to be native to northwestern North America, its current wide distribution within the
continent is believed to be primarily the result of introductions in agricultural areas of nonnative
ecotypes or strains that have been selected and bred for vigorous growth (Anderson 1961, Apfelbaum and Sams 1987).Reed canarygrass is documented from 18 counties in Tennessee (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/
database). They include Obion and Chester counties in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province; Stewart, Montgomery, and Robertson counties in the Western Highland Rim; Scott, Fentress, 151 Cumberland, Bledsoe, and Grundy counties in the Cumberland Plateau Physiographic Province;Johnson, Carter, and Unicoi in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province; and Knox, Sevier, Blount, and Monroe counties with major waterbodies in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province.
Gattinger (1901) remarks on the presence of ribbon grass, a horticultural variety of P. arundinacea
, in gardens, noting "the genuine Phalaris arundinacea I have never seen in Tennesseespontaneous." The earliest specimens of this species at the University of Tennessee Herbarium were collected in the mid-1960s, strongly suggesting that this species was introduced to Tennessee around that time. One recent study in a wetland in Johnson County, Tennessee, where Phalaris arundinacea covers large areas, suggests introduction for forage (Foster & Wetzel 2005).Pathways for Spread -
Phalaris arundinacea has been spread throughout the United Statesthrough its use as hay and forage (Piper 1942), gully erosion control (Baltensperger and
Kalton 1958), ditchbank and sediment stabilization (Figiel et al. 1995), and in constructed wetlands. It has also been suggested as a potential biofuel source in several states (Powlson
et al. 2005). Propagules are spread primarily through movement of soil infested withrhizomes. However, seed and rhizomes may also be transported by water through flooding and stream flow.Literature Cited/References/Links Adams, C.R. and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2005.
Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): Rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience.
12: 569-573.Anderson, D.E. 1961. Taxonomy and distribution of the genus Phalaris. Iowa State Journal of Science. 36: 1-96.
Apfelbaum, S.I. and C.E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass. Natural Areas Journal. 7: 69-72.Baltensperger, A.A. and R.R. Kalton. 1958. Variability in reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea L. I. Agronomic characteristics. Agronomy Journal. 50: 659-663.Barnes, W.J. 1999. The rapid growth of a population of reed canary grass (Phalarisarundinacea L.) and its impact on some riverbottom herbs. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 126: 133-138.Fierke, M.K. and J.B. Kauffman. 2006. Invasive species influence riparian plant diversityalong a successional gradient, Willamette River, Oregon. Natural Areas Journal. 26: 376-382.Figiel, C.R., B. Collins, and G. Wein. 1995. Variation in survival and biomass of two wetlandgrasses at different nutrient and water levels over a six week period. Bulletin of the Torrey
Botanical Club. 122: 24-29.Foster, R.D. and P.R. Wetzel. 2005. Invading monotypic stands of Phalaris arundinacea
- Atest of fire, herbicide, and woody and herbaceous native plant groups. Restoration Ecology.
13: 313-324.
152Gattinger, A. 1901. The flora of Tennessee and a philosophy of botany. Gospel Advocate PublishingCompany. 294pp.Gomm, F.B. 1979.
Accumulation of NO 3 and NH 4 in reed canarygrass. Agronomy Journal. 71:
627-630.Kercher, S.M. and J.B. Zedler. 2004. Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: A comparison ofinvasive and noninvasive species. Aquatic Botany. 80: 89-102.Kercher, S.M., Q.J. Carpenter, and J.B. Zedler. 2004. Interrelationships of hydrologic disturbance, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) and native plants in Wisconson wetmeadows. Natural Areas Journal. 24: 316-325.
Leck, M.A. 1996. Germination of macrophytes from a Delaware River tidal freshwaterwetland. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 123: 48-67.Lesica, P. 1997. Spread of Phalaris arundinacea adversely impacts the endangered plant Howellia aquatilis. Great Basin Naturalist 57: 366-368.Lyons, K.E. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Phalaris arundinacea L.Reedcanarygrass. Unpublished document. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. 14pp.NatureServe. 2007. Nature Serve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 6.1.Nature Serve, Arlington, VA. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed 6 July 2007).Piper, C.V. 1942. Forage plants and their culture. Revised edition. MacMillan Company. NewYork. 671 pp.Powlson, D.S., A.B. Riche and I. Shield. 2005. Biofuels and other approaches for decreasingfossil fuel emissions from agriculture. Annals of Applied Biology. 146:193-201.Schooler, S.S., P.B. McEvoy, and E.M. Coombs. 2006. Negative per capita effects of purple loosestrife and reed canary grass on plant diversity of wetland communities. Diversity and
Distributions. 12: 351-363.Zeiders, K.E. and R.T. Sherwood. 1985. Environmental interactions among reed canarygrassgenotypes for nutritive value, height, and disease severity. Agronomy Journal. 77: 94-98.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Poaceae&GenusID=Phalaris&SpeciesID=arundinaceahttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua011.html http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Phalaris_arundinacea.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PHAR3 153 http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/phalaru.rtfhttp://www.wapms.org/plants/reedcanary.html http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?27512 http://www.invasivespecies.net/database/species/ecology.asp?si=394&fr=1&sts=sss http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive_plants/weeds/reed-canary-grass.pdf http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=84 Common Name - Spearmint (Rank 41)
Scientific Name -
Mentha spicata L.Family - Lamiaceae #1#2Photo #1 by ©J.S. Peterson.
USDA NRCS NPDC. USA, CA, Berkeley, UC Botanical Garden. March 24, 2004.Photo #2 by Robert H. Mohlenbrock @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / USDA NRCS. 1995.
Northeast wetland flora: Field office guide to plant species. Northeast National Technical Center, Chester, PA.
Description
- Spearmint is perennial with slender subterranean rhizomes. Stems are erect, simple or variously branched. Plants are mostly 5 to 8 dm tall, essentially glabrous but may be sparsely pubescent or glandular. Although uncommon, these plants have been seen as small as 3 dm and as
tall as 12 dm. Leaves are sessile or less frequently with petioles 1 to 2 mm long. Leaves are 2 to 7
cm long by 0.7 to 2.5 cm wide. They may be lanceolate, lance-ovate, ovate or elliptic in shape, are rounded to obtuse basally, and acute to acuminate apically with serrate margins. They are glabrous
and smooth above and sparsely pubescent to hirsute on the veins beneath. The inflorescence is
branching. Flowers are crowded in slender terminal spikes that are continuous or sometimes interrupted below. They are 3 to 7 cm long (occasionally to 12 cm) and usually less than 1 cm 154 across at anthesis. Bracts subtending the cymes are lance-subulate and glandular-dotted with evenly ciliate margins. The calyx, including the lobes, is 1.5 to 3 mm long. The calyx tube is campanulate, ribbed and grooved with subulate and hispid-ciliate lobes that are about as long as the tube. The corolla measures 2 to 4 mm long and is whitish, lavender, pale violet, or pinkish in color.
Habitat/Biology -According to Godfrey and Wooten (1981), this species is cultivated andsporadically and widely naturalized in North America, occupying wet places, bogs, seepage areas, about ponds, creek banks, and in ditches. In Tennessee, Mentha spicata has beencollected from creek bottoms and edges, lake sides, low wet areas, and roadsides. This
species is known for the ease of growing it from cuttings. It spreads aggressively vegetatively, forming monoculture stands and crowding out native vegetation.
Mentha spicata is considered to be an invasive plant that threatens native plant communitiesthroughout the world. It is listed on weed lists in Australia, the United Kingdom, mainland Europe and the United States (http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/global/australia/ger.html). It is listed as an invasive plant by a number of organizations within the United States, including the Maryland Native Plant Society, New Jersey Native Plant Society, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council, and Delaware Natural Heritage
Program.Distribution/Introduction -
Mentha spicata has been in cultivation for many centuries andits nativity is uncertain. However, Grieve (1971) suggests that it is native to the
Mediterranean region and was introduced to Britain by the Romans. By the 9 th century, this species was being cultivated in Convent gardens in England (Grieve 1971). Both spearmint and peppermint are among the world's most popular flavorings and are grown as crops on a large scale for leaf and oil production in Europe, the United States, the Middle East, Brazil, Paraguay, Japan, and China (Bown 2001). Currently, spearmint is distributed throughout the globe. It probably was introduced to the United States by the mid-1700s (Grieve 1971) and is now found in every state in the United States except for South Dakota (http://
plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MESP3).
The earliest collection date found for specimens of M. spicata in Tennessee is 1934 whichpostdates the fire that destroyed the University of Tennessee Herbarium in the early 1930s.
However, Gattinger notes the presence of Mentha spicata L. outside of cultivation inTennessee in his 1901 flora. He probably collected a specimen in the course of his work
which would have been lost in the herbarium fire. Based on herbaria records, this species does not appear to be as common in Tennessee as Mentha X piperita. However, M. spicata is still widely and sporadically scattered throughout the state. It has been collected from 15 counties in Tennessee. It is found within each of the three major watersheds of Tennessee:
the Tennessee, Ohio, and Lower Mississippi.
Pathways for Spread -
This species was introduced for medicinal and culinary use. It has been used medicinally as an antiemetic, antispasmodic, stomachic, carminative, diuretic, poultice to relieve bruising, restorative, stimulant, and for cancer treatment (http://www.pfaf.org/). Research on uses of this plant continues to this day. It has been tested for its potential usefulness in relieving the 155symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (Vejdani et al. 2006) and for its antioxidant properties (Dorman et al. 2003). It is also noted for its antibacterial and antiseptic properties. Recent researchhas found mosquito repellant and mosquito reproduction retardant properties as well (Tripathi et al.2004).Mentha spicata is actively spread by humans. It also spreads widely by seed and rhizomes.
Literature Cited/References/LinksBown, D. 2001. The Herb Society of America: New Encyclopedia of Herbs and their Uses.
Dorling Kindersley Limited. London. 448 p.Dorman, H.J.D., M. Kosar, K. Kahlos, Y. Holm, and R. Hiltunen. 2003. Antioxidant properties and composition of aqueous extracts from Mentha species, hybrids, varieties, and cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 51: 4563-4569.Gattinger, A. 1901. The flora of Tennessee and a philosophy of botany. Gospel Advocate PublishingCompany. 294pp.Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern UnitedStates. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Pp. 933.Grieve, M. 1971. A Modern Herbal: The Medicinal, Culinary, Cosmetic and Economic Properties,Cultivation and Folk-lore of Herbs, Grasses, Fungi, Shrubs and Trees with all their Modern Scientific Uses. Vol. II. Dover Publication, Inc. New Yourk. 902 p. (reprint of 1932 Harcourt, Brace and Company publication).Tripathi, A.K., V. Prajapati, A. Ahmad, K.K. Aggarwal, and S.P.S. Khanuja. 2004. Piperitenoneoxide as toxic, repellent, and reproduction retardant toward malarial vector Anopheles stephensi (Diptera : Anophelinae). Journal Of Medical Entomology. 41: 691-698.Vejdani, R., H.R.M. Shalmani, M. Mir-Fattahi, F. Sajed-Nia, M. Abdollahi, M.R. Zali, A.H.M.Alizadeh, A. Bahari, and G. Amin. 2006. The efficacy of an herbal medicine, Carmint, on the relief of abdominal pain and bloating in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A pilot study. Digestive
Diseases and Sciences. 51: 1501-1507.
http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Lamiaceae&GenusID=Mentha&SpeciesID=spicata http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=MESP3 http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?24082 http://www.se-eppc.org/eddmaps/statedist.cfm?sub=6016&id=us_tnhttp://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Mentha+spicata 156http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Mentha+spicatahttp://www.hear.org/gcw/html/autogend/species/12466.HTM http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/global/australia/ger.html http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/mentha_x_piperita.htm Common Name - Uruguayian waterprimrose (Rank 34)
Scientific Name -
Ludwigia hexapetala (Hook. & Arn.) Zardini, Gu, & Raven Family - OnagraceaePhoto by A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Synonyms - Ludwigia uruguayensis (Cambess.) Hara; Ludwigia grandiflora (Michx.) Greuter & Burdet subsp. hexapetala (Hook. & Arn.) Nesom & Kartez Description
- Ludwigia hexapetala is a mat-forming, perennial that is rooted in mud or shallow water and has long, decumbent stems that float on or just below the surface of the water. Leaves of early season growth are compacted to form floating rosettes, each leaf is sub-orbicular to spatulate in shape, shiny, glabrous, and from the nodes of the horizontal
floating stem. Later season growth has upright stems (up to 1 m tall) from the nodes.
Leaves of upright stems are obviously alternate, lanceolate to oblanceolate in shape, and 3 to 6 cm long and 2 cm or so in width. The ascending stems are sparsely to densely pubescent, becoming reddish and woody with age. Flowers are solitary on stalks from the upper leaf axils and have 5 or occasionally 6, large, yellow petals that are up to 3 cm long. The fruit is a
cylindrical capsule up to about 2 cm long, containing numerous seeds.
Habitat/Biology -
Uruguayian waterprimrose is typically rooted along the shoreline and sends outhorizontal stems that branch and form mats. These mats may extend 30 feet or more from the
shoreline and completely colonize narrow pockets and sloughs.
Ludwigia hexapetala frequently 157forms monospecific colonies and in the TVA reservoirs is often mixed with alligatorweed which hasa similar growth form. During periods of high flow or wind, vegetative fragments and large mats of
L. hexapetala may be dislodged and moved to open water areas where flow and/or prevailing winds then move them to new areas.
Ludwigia hexapetala can also reproduce from seed that can be dispersed by flow and presumably by waterfowl and aquatic mammals.
Ludwigia hexapetala colonizes a variety of habitats including swamps, ditches, open waterareas of marshes, shoreline areas of lakes and ponds, and margins of streams. Dense mats of
L. hexapetala can restrict flow in streams and drainage ditches and hinder access to shoreline areas and the upstream ends of shallow sloughs.Distribution/Introduction -
Ludwigia hexapetala is native to South America including Uruguay (Zardini et al. 1991) and questionably to portions of the southeastern United States.If native to portions of the southeastern United States, the species has been introduced and has established far outside of it native range and is currently widespread from New York south to Florida, west to Oklahoma and Texas and north to Missouri and Kentucky.
Populations of L. hexapetala also are established in the western United States (http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/R5finalreport.pdf) in California, Oregon, and Washington.
The first known collection of L. hexapetala in Tennessee is from along the Cumberland Riverdrainage in 1968 (Chester and Holt 1990). The species currently is documented by voucher specimens from four counties (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html) in Tennessee, three of which are from along the Cumberland drainage (including populations along Lake Barkley and in Land Between the Lakes) in the northwestern portion of central Tennessee.
Uruguayian primrose also occurs along the Holston River where it was observed in the early 1970s and along Ft. Loudoun Reservoir (Tennessee River) where it was observed in the early 1980s (Webb and Bates 1989).
Ludwigia hexapetala is common along the Wheeler andGuntersville reservoirs in northern Alabama which could provide a propagule source for movement to downstream reservoirs such as Pickwick and Kentucky.Pathways for Spread -
The species can spread by seed, vegetative fragments and floatingmats distributed by downstream flow. It seems likely that the seed of L. hexapetala also maybe carried to other waterbodies and drainages by waterfowl. Because of its large, showy, yellow flowers, L. hexapetala is sometimes sold as an ornamental (http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/
weed_info/Ludwigia_hexapetala.html) for water gardens.
Literature Cited/References/Links Chester, E. W. and S. E. Holt. 1990. The Uruguayian water-primrose (Ludwigia uruguayensis) in Tennessee and Kentucky. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 65:9-12.Nesom, G. L. and J. T. Kartesz. 2000. Observations on the Ludwigia uruguayensis complex (Onagraceae) in the United States.
Castanea 65:123-125.
158Webb, D. H. and A. L. Bates. 1989. The aquatic vascular flora and plant communities alongrivers and reservoirs of the Tennessee River system. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 64:197-203.Zardini, E. M., H. Gu, and P. H. Raven. 1991. On the separation of two species within the Ludwigia uruguayensis complex.
Systematic Botany 16:242-244.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Onagraceae&GenusID=Ludwigia&SpeciesID=uruguayensis http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LUGRH http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Ludwigia_hexapetala.html http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/water_primrose.html http://www.weedscience.ncsu.edu/aquaticweeds/facts/apfs007-99.pdf http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Nonindigenous_Species/R5finalreport.pdf http://www.awc-america.com/plant_id_utility/plants/ludhex.html Common Name - Watercress (Rank 23)
Scientific Name -
Nasturtium officinale Ait. f.Family - Brassicaceae Synonyms -
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek#1#2Photo #1by Robert H. Mohlenbrock @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / USDA NRCS. 1995.
Northeast wetland flora: Field office guide to plant species. Northeast National Technical Center, Chester, PA.Photo #2 by Brother Alfred Brousseau. Courtesy of St. Mary's College of California. ©St. Mary's College of California.
159 Description - Watercress is a partly floating perennial plant with succulent, decumbent, much branched stems. It is stoloniferous and freely roots into the substrate at the nodes. Leaves are 2 to
15 cm long and 2 to 5 cm wide. They are alternate and compound with 3 to 12 glabrous leaflets that are variable in shape which may be ovate, elliptic, orbicular, or lanceolate. Leaflet margins may
be undulate, crenate, or entire. Petioles partially clasp the stem. The inflorescence is in compact
terminal racemes. The four petals are white, entire, and 3 to 5 mm long. The stigma is 2-lobed and
capitate. Siliques are slender and beaked measuring 1 to 2.5 cm long, the beak to 1 mm long.
Seeds are many and arranged in two rows. They are approximately 1 mm in length, lustrous, reddish brown, prominently reticulate, ovoid to obovoid in outline and flattish and lenticular in
profile.Biology/Habitat - This species is found primarily in cool, flowing waters in streams,springs, seeps, clear water of sluggish streams, and brooks. Herbarium labels from Tennessee
specimens note collections from brooks, stream banks, streams, an open creek bank, shallow water of intermittent streams, a rich sandy creek bank in woods, and low wet woods. Watercress
spreads by seed and stem fragmentation. Roots often loosen from the substrate to form large, dense floating mats of plants (Godfrey and Wooten 1981) that exclude light from other submerged plants.
This species grows both upward and outward from the roots, extending lateral branches that form dense, leafy monospecific stands which alter the function and flow in shallow streams (Howard-William et al. 1982, Jacono 2001). The effect of watercress' outward growth into the stream channel is exacerbated by the trapping of suspended materials among the roots (Howard-William et al. 1982). As a result, the stream's water level increases in the summer, leading to flooding and creating a growth promoting feedback loop by improving site conditions for watercress (Howard-William et al. 1982). Other changes in the hydrologic cycles of wetlandecosystems also occur as a result of this growth habit (Howard-William et al. 1982, Les and Mehrhoff 1999).Watercress is also very successful at sequestering nitrogen regardless of ambient nitrogenlevels (Robinson and Cumbus 1977, Howard-William et al. 1982). The lateral spread demonstrated by this species appears to be an adaptation to utilize greater volume for nutrient uptake in a stream system (Howard-William et al. 1982). Nasturtium officinale has chemical defenses to protect its nitrogen rich young leaves against herbivory (Newman et al. 1992, Newman et al. 1996). The ability to sequester nitrogen and protect nitrogen-rich leaves from herbivory as well as a very fast growth rate give this species a competitive advantage over
native species.
Distribution/Introduction -
The origin of this species is generally recognized as Eurasian. Thenative range appears to include Asia, Europe, and Africa but it is widely naturalized throughout the globe (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?25072). Watercress was established in
the US by the mid 1800s as a submersed plant in cold water streams and springs (Les and
Mehrhoff 1999). It is now widespread in the United States having been found in all of the
continental states except for North Dakota and is found in eight Canadian provinces. It is considered native to one Alaska province (http://plants.usda.gov/).
160Watercress has been in Tennessee since the late 1800s. One specimen at the University ofTennessee is dated 1896. Gattinger (1901) notes N. officianale as being found in brooks and streams in the state and sometimes in cultivation suggesting that it was fairly common in the wild by that time. Some early collections are located at the New York and Missouri Botanical Gardens are dated 1898. In the early 1930s, the University of Tennessee herbarium burned, including all specimens except those on loan. As a consequence, nearly all specimens collected in Tennessee before that time have been destroyed. There are 10 specimens of this species at the University of Tennessee herbarium that were collected in the mid-1930s suggesting that the species was relatively common and quickly collected in an effort to
rebuild the herbarium. Specimens of this species were collected during a 1956 thesis study of the vascular aquatic vegetation of the Cumberland Plateau (Robinson and Shanks 1959). As a part of that study, N. officinale was documented from the following Tennessee counties:Anderson, Blount, Grainger, Hawkins, Knox, Lawrence, Lincoln, and Roan (Robinson and Shanks 1959). Currently, the Ohio and Tennessee river watersheds are well represented within the range of watercress in Tennessee which is documented from 46 counties in the
state (http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/). Specimens have been collected from Johnson County (Chester et al. 1997) in the east to Stewart in the west (Joyner and Chester 1994) and from Pickett County in the north (Chester et al. 1997) to Lawrence County in the south (Robinsonand Shanks 1959). The species is absent west of the Tennessee River.Pathways for Spread -
Nasturtium officinale is widely used as a fresh salad green orsteamed green for its spicy, peppery flavor. It is a good source of vitamins A and C, along
with niacin, ascorbic acid, thiamine, riboflavin, and iron (Stephens 1994) and has a long history of
medicinal use for a variety of ailments. It is still grown commercially in the United States for food
and as an ornamental for water gardens. In the wild, it is spread by seed and rooting stem
fragments.Literature Cited/References/Links Chester, E.W., B.E. Wofford, and R. Kral. 1997. Atlas of Tennessee Vascular Plants, Vol. 2.Angiosperms: Dicots. Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay University, Clarksville, TN.
241pp.Gattinger, A. 1901. The flora of Tennessee and a philosophy of botany. Gospel AdvocatePublishing Company. 294pp.Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of the southeastern UnitedStates. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 933pp.Howard-Williams, H.W., J. Davies, and S. Pickmere. 1982. The dynamics of growth, theeffects of changing area and nitrate uptake by watercress Nasturtium officinale R. Br. In aNew Zealand stream. Journal of Applied Ecology 19: 589-601.Joyner, J.M. and E.W. Chester. 1994. The vascular flora of Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge,Stewart County, Tennessee. Castanea. 59 (2): 117-145.
161Jacono, C.C. 2001. Vascular plants. USGS Summary Report, Region 4. C.C. Jacono. 2007.
Iris pseudacorus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.Les, D.H. and L.J. Mehrhoff. 1999. Introduction of non-indigenous aquatic vascular plants in Southern New England: a historical perspective. Biological Invasions. 1: 281-300.Newman, R.M., Z. Hanscom, and W. C. Kerfoot. 1992. The watercress glucosinolate-myrosinasesystem. A feeding deterrent to caddisflies, snails and amphiposds. Oecologia. 92: 1-7.Newman, R. M., W. C. Kerfoot, and Z. Hanscom. 1996. Watercress allelochemical defends high-nitrogen foliage against consumption: Effects on freshwater invertebrate herbivores. Ecology. 77:
23212-2323.Robinson, F.D. and R.E. Shanks. 1959. Checklist of vascular aquatic plants of Tennessee.Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science. 34: 58-65.Robinson, L.W. and I.P. Cumbus. 1977. Determination of critical levels of nutrients in watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (L.) Hayek) grown in different solutionconcentrations of N, P, and K. Journal of Horticultural Science. 52: 383-390.Stephens, J. 1994. Watercress -
Nasturtium officinale R. Br. Circular No. HS684. FloridaCooperative Extension Service/Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, University of Florida, Gainesville.http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Dicots&FamilyID=Brassicaceae&GenusID=Rorippa&SpeciesID=nasturtium-
aquaticumhttp://cars.er.usgs.gov/Region_4_Report/html/vascular_plants.html http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=229
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=NAOF http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?25072 http://www.lib.uconn.edu/webapps/ipane/browsing.cfm?descriptionid=91 http://www.se-eppc.org/eddmaps/statedist.cfm?sub=6326&id=us_tn 162Vascular - Free-Floating Plants Free-floating plants typically are not rooted in the bottom sediments, although they are sometimes stranded on mud. They float on the surface of the water and are moved by wind and water currents. The leaves or fronds of free-floating plants may be flat and float parallel
to the surface of the water (as is the case with duckweeds) or the leaves may extend above
the water surface by as much as a meter (as is the case with water hyacinth).
Common Name - Dotted duckweed (Rank 47)
Scientific Name -
Landoltia punctata (G. Mey.) Les & D. J. Crawford Synomym - Spirodela punctata (G. Mey.) C. H. Thompson Family - LemnaceaePhotos by Vic Ramey and Ann Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants.
Used with permission.
Description -
Landoltia punctata is a free-floating aquatic plant consisting of small, flattenedfronds. The fronds are slightly egg- to kidney-shaped, 2 to 5 mm long, 1 to 3 mm wide, bright green on the upper surface and usually reddish on the lower surface. Roots are usually 2 to 5 in number, rarely 1, and located near the center of the frond and hang downward. Vegetative
reproduction is by budding of small daughter plants from lateral pouches at the base of the frond.
Flowers are very small, rarely seen from lateral pouches and only visible through a good hand lens
or dissecting scope.
Note - Landoltia punctata generally has more than one root per frond which distinguishes it from the various species of Lemna, and usually has less than 5 roots per frond which distinguish it from Spiriodela polyrhiza. Landoltia also lacks the prominent dot on the upper surface of the frond that is generally visible on S. polyrhiza (http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/
duckweed/duckpix.htm).
Habitat/Biology -
As is the case with other species of Lemnaceae, dotted duckweed can rapidly reproduce by vegetative budding (i.e., daughter plants originate from lateral pouches at the base of the frond) and carpet the entire water surface (Daubs 1965; Landolt 1986). Wind may move the plants to one side of a waterbody, resulting in a mat of plants that may be a few centimeters in 163thickness. Dotted duckweed and other species of duckweed frequently grow intermixed and are most often found in quiet or sluggish waters of swamps, sloughs, oxbow lakes, ponds, and drainage ditches. Although various species of duckweed occur in small populations in the large reservoirs along the Tennessee River, they rarely negatively impact reservoir use.Distribution/Introduction -
Landoltia punctata is native to Australia and Southeast Asia(Landolt 1986) and was possibly introduced into the United States with the stocking of ornamental fish (e.g., goldfish) or as an "escape" from an aquarium (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
taxgroup/plants/docs/la_punct.html). The first collection of L. punctata in the United Stateswas from a pond in Missouri in 1930. The species is now widely distributed from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania south to Florida and west to Texas and Oklahoma. It also occurs in Arizona, California and Oregon (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/
la_punct.html).Apparently there are no voucher specimens in the University of Tennessee herbarium or otherherbaria within the State that document the occurrence of L. punctata in Tennessee; thus, thespecies is not included in the checklist of vascular plants for Tennessee. Landolt (1986)
attributes L. punctata to Lake County which is in extreme northwestern Tennessee. LakeCounty is one of two counties that include Reelfoot Lake where large colonies of several
genera of duckweed (Spirodela, Lemna, Wolffia, Wolfiella) grow in profusion. Because dotted duckweed resembles some species of native duckweed (i.e., Spirodela polyrhiza and Lemna spp.) that are common and widespread in Tennessee, it may have been overlooked by botanical collectors.Pathways for Spread -
The most likely pathways for the introduction and spread of dotted duckweed are wholesale growers or retail stores that distribute plants for aquariums or water
gardens and in water used to transport ornamental fish. Once established within a waterbody
or drainage, L. punctata can be moved downstream by flow. Waterfowl and aquatic mammals such as beavers may also transport dotted duckweed for short distances.Literature Cited/References/Links Daubs, E. H. 1965. A monograph of Lemnaceae. Illinois Biological Monographs 34
. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Davenport, L. J. and R. R. Haynes. 1981. Aquatic and marsh plants of Alabama II.
Arecidae. Castanea 46:291-299.Landolt, E. 1986. The family of Lemnaceae - a monographic study. Volume 1.Veroffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH, Stiftung Rubel, Zurich, 71. Heft.
Les, D. H. and D. J. Crawford. 1999.
Landoltia (Lemnaceae), a new genus of duckweeds.
Novon 9:530-533.http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/la_punct.html 164http://waynesword.palomar.edu/imgsppu.htm http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/lanpun.html http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/duckpix.htm http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/duckpix-S_punctata.htm http://www.weedscience.com/Case/Case.asp?ResistID=5247
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LANDO2&format=Print&photoID=
Common Name - Giant salvinia (Rank 31)
Scientific Name -
Salvinia molesta Mitchell Family - SalviniaceaePhoto by A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Salvinia molesta is a free-floating fern that has a horizontal stem that floats justbeneath the surface of the water. Three leaves are produced at each node, two of which are
emergent and floating, and a third that is much divided and appearing as clusters of thin roots that hang in the water. Floating leaves are green, 1.5 to 3.5 cm long, and oblong to ovate in shape. The upper leaf surface has a prominent midrib and a velvety appearance due to several rows of hairs.
Each hair branches into four terminal prongs that rejoin at the tip to resemble a tiny "eggbeater".
Chains of small egg-shaped sporocarps develop on the underwater leaf.
165 Habitat/Biology -
Salvinia molesta is considered one of the world's worst weeds and typicallyinhabits slow moving streams, ditches, swamps, rice fields, ponds, lakes and reservoirs. It reproduces vegetatively by self-induced fragmentation and can rapidly cover the water surface. With
continued growth, it can form multi-layered mats that have been reported to be a meter in thickness (Oliver 1993; http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/). Mats shade out submersed plants, impede access, negatively impact fish and wildlife habitat, alter water quality, and can clog water intakes used for irrigation, drinking water supplies, and power generation (http://www.invasive.org/biocontrol/
2FloatingFern.html).
.
Distribution/Introduction - Giant salvinia is native to South America in the coastal regionof southern Brazil (Oliver 1993; http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/). Since the 1930s, it has been introduced by man's activities (i.e., as a botanical curiosity in water gardens, an aquarium
plant, and a contaminant in nursery stock) to numerous other areas including Sri Lanka, South Africa, India, Southeast Asia, the Indonesian area, New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. The first report of S. molesta growing outside of cultivationin the United States was in 1995 in South Carolina. By 2005 S. molesta was reported fromseveral states from Virginia south to Florida and west to Texas and from California and Arizona. More recently, it has been reported from other states such as Massachusetts and New York (http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/).
There are no known populations of S. molesta in Tennessee. An assessment of the potentialrange (http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/predicted_range.html) of establishment of S. molesta by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that S. molesta is likely to become aproblem species in the southeastern United States in areas of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain. If introduced, Sa lvinia molesta possibly could persist in USDA Hardiness Zone 7a,which includes some portions of Tennessee; however, it is unclear as to whether populations
will persist through the winter months, be confined to restricted microhabitats, or "reach
problem status" during years with mild winters.
Pathways for Spread -
The mostly likely pathway for the introduction of Salvinia molesta intoTennessee is by the aquarium or water garden industry as an ornamental or specimen plant or as a
contaminant in aquatic nursery stock or with fishes that are stocked for ornamental purposes.Literature Cited/References/Links
Jacono, C. C. 1999.
Salvinia molesta (Salviniaceae), new to Texas and Louisiana. Sida 18:927-928.Oliver, J. D. 1993. A review of the biology of giant salvinia (Salvania molesta Mitchell).Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 31:227-231.http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/
http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/identification.html 166 http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/sm_progression.htmlhttp://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/distribution_map.html http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/cultivation.html http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/predicted_range.html http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/salvinia.pdf http://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/s_molesta_biology.html http://cars.er.usgs.gov/posters/Nonindigenous/Status_of_Salvinia/status_of_salvinia.html http://www.invasive.org/biocontrol/2FloatingFern.html http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SALVI2
http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/salmol.html Common Name - Water hyacinth (Rank 43)
Scientific Name -
Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laub.
Family - PontederiaceaePhoto Credit: APMISŽ, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS.
Used with permission.
Description -
Eichhornia crassipes isa floating plant that is sometimes found stranded and rootedin mud. The leaves are in clusters or rosettes; each leaf with a petiole up to 30 cm long that usually 167has an inflated or bulbous base to help give the plant buoyancy. Leaf blades are ovate to broadlyelliptic, thickened, glossy green and up to about 15 cm wide. Daughter plants originate from a mother plant and are connected by a short stolon. The inflorescence is a spike up to 30 cm long, with numerous flowers, each flower with six lavender to bluish petals with the uppermost petal having a bright yellow splotch. The fruit is a three-celled capsule, each cell containing numerous
seeds.Habitat/Biology - Water hyacinth grows in a variety of habitats including canals, ditches, swamps, ponds, lakes, and sloughs and slack water along rivers. In Florida, water hyacinth is
reported to reproduce primarily by vegetative means but can also reproduce from seed that
sink to the bottom and remain dormant until exposed by periods of drought (Hoyer et al.1996). Vegetative reproduction is primarily from "daughter plants" that are connected to the
"mother plant" by horizontal stolons. Under ideal growing conditions, the number of hyacinth plants can double every two weeks. A few individuals can generate enough plants to
cover the surface of an acre in a single growing season (Penfound and Earle 1948). Because
water hyacinth in deeper water areas is not anchored to the substrate, flow and wind can move large numbers of plants and compact them into dense mats.Distribution/Introduction -
Eichhornia crassipes is native to South America and is thoughtto have been introduced into the United States in 1884 at the Cotton Exposition in New
Orleans where the plants were distributed as souvenirs (Sculthorpe 1967). Self- sustaining populations of water hyacinth occur in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains from southeastern Virginia south to Florida and west to Texas with populations also in California and Arizona (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/ei_crass.html). In some states of the more temperate portions of the United States, water hyacinth grows well during the summer months but generally does not persist through the winter (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/
plants/docs/ei_crass.html).Water hyacinth has periodically been observed during the summer months in several of thereservoirs along the Tennessee River (David Webb, TVA, personal communication) and in ponds with spring outflows and small lakes. The plants of water hyacinth in the reservoirs
likely represent intentional introductions or entered the reservoir as a result of overflows from ornamental ponds and water gardens. Water hyacinth has not been observed to over
winter in any of these reservoirs but has been observed to regrow from vegetative parts (i.e.,
stolons) in spring fed ponds and swamps in central Tennessee and northern Alabama (Troy Goldsby, Aqua Services, Inc., personal communication; David Webb, TVA, personal communication). These populations could be extirpated by a harsh winter unless they are
able to regrow from seed.
Eichhornia crassipes is reported from three counties (http://www.bio.utk.edu/herbarium/vascular/vascular.html) in Tennessee and likely will be reported
from additional counties in the near future.
Pathways for Spread -
Because of its showy flowers and waxy foliage, water hyacinth is sometimes sold at flea markets and retail outlets that supply ornamentals for water gardens.
Thus, the water garden industry is the most common pathway for the introduction of water hyacinth into Tennessee.
Eichhornia crassipes grown in private water gardens often gets into 168 waterbodies and natural wetlands as a result of intentional introductions by owners trying to reduceovercrowding or during times of outflow. Plants of water hyacinth also have been introduced into Pickwick Reservoir in northeast Mississippi by barge traffic from the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Once established within a waterbody or drainage, E. crassipes can be moveddownstream by flow.Literature Cited/References/Links Hoyer, M. V., D. E. Canfield, Jr., C. A. Horsburgh, and K. Brown. 1996. Florida FreshwaterPlants - A Handbook of Common Aquatic Plants in Florida Lakes. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida.Penfound, W. T. and T. T. Earle. 1948. The biology of water hyacinth. Ecological Monographs 18:449-472.Sculthorpe, C. D. 1967. The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Saint Martin's Press, NewYork.http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/eiccra.pdf
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=EICR http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200027394 http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/database/vascular-database.asp?CategoryID=Monocots&FamilyID=Pontederiaceae&GenusID=Eichhornia&SpeciesID=crassipes http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/eiccra2.html http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/Publications/EarlyDetection2000/
EarlyDetectionProc2000.htmhttp://salvinia.er.usgs.gov/html/predicted_range.html http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/docs/ei_crass.html http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range454/2003%20Pet%20weeds/Water_hyacinth.html http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/plants/html/eichhorn.html http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/biocontrol/html/waterhya.html 169 Common Name - Water lettuce (Rank 46)
Scientific Name -
Pistia stratiotes L.Family - Araceae Photos by A. Murray, University of Florida/IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Used with permission.
Description -
Pistia stratioites usually floats on the water's surface except when stranded onmud. Leaves are in clusters or rosettes and appear as an open head of lettuce, gray-green in color
with prominent parallel veins, obovate to spatulate in shape and up to about 15 cm long, spongy at the base and covered with a dense, soft pubescence. The roots are numerous, feather-like and hang from the base of the rosettes. Smaller daughter plants originate from and are connected to the primary rosette (mother plant) by a short stolon. Male and female flowers are on the same plant, surrounded by a sheath, inconspicuous and hidden in the leaf axils.
Habitat/Biology - Water lettuce grows in lakes, ponds, canals, ditches, and slack water along rivers and streams and can form floating mats that cover the surface of the water (Stoddard 1989; Thompson 2000). Reproduction is primarily vegetative (Dray and Center 1989: http://
aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/pisstr.pdf) from offsets (daughter plants) on short stolons that originate from a larger, primary rosette (mother plant). Dray and Center (1989) also have documented
that P. stratioites in Florida can form viable seed.Distribution/Introduction -
Pistia stratoites is widespread in tropical and subtropicalregions of the world including portions of the southeastern United States, Mexico and Central America, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia (Thompson 2000). It is unclear as to
whether P. stratiotes is native to the United States (Thompson 2000); however, it was notedin Florida in the late 1700s where it was reported by William Bartrum to exist in large colonies along the St. John's River (http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/pisstr.pdf). Water lettuce has persistent populations in much of Florida and the southern portion of Louisiana and Texas. It
is reported from several other western and eastern states but these collections probably
represent seasonal introductions and most do not persist through the winter months (Thompson 2000).Water lettuce has been observed during the summer months in several of the TVA reservoirs (e.g., Nickajack, Guntersville, Ft. Loudoun) but is not known to persist through the winter months (David Webb, TVA, personal communication). The source of the plants in the TVA reservoirs is 170presumably from water gardens or ornamental ponds. Based on the distribution of persistent populations of water lettuce in the eastern United States, it seems that the potential for water lettuce to over-winter in a vegetative state in the Tennessee Valley is unlikely and less than water hyacinth; however, if water lettuce in the Tennessee Valley were to produce seed, populations might persist
from seed germination in small areas under specialized conditions.Pathways for Spread -
The water garden industry and the use of water lettuce in water gardens and ornamental ponds is the most likely pathway for the introduction of P. stratiotesinto Tennessee.
Pistia stratoites grown in private water gardens can get into waterbodies and natural wetlands as a result of outflows or by the intentional introduction by owners trying to
reduce overcrowding. Once established within a waterbody or drainage, P. stratiotes can bemoved downstream by flow.Literature Cited/References/Links Dray, F. A., Jr. and T. D. Center. 1989. Waterlettuce seed in the U. S. Aquatics 11(4):18-21.Stoddard, A. A., III. 1989. The phytogeography and paleofloristics of Pistia stratiotes L.Aquatics 11(3):21-24.Thompson, S. A. 2000. 203. Araceae Jussieu - Arum Family. 8.
Pistia Linnaeus. Pp. 141-142. In: Flora on North America North of Mexico. Volume 22. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/pisstr2.html http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/pisstr.pdf
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/pistpic.html
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PIST2 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Pistia+stratiotes http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/invaspec/3rdlevpgs/watlet.pdf http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/conops/apc/weed_bio.html http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=125611 http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200027300 http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=10957&flora_id=1 171 Nonvascular PlantsNonvascular plants have no true roots, stems, or leaves. The lobes (rounded parts) of the
some nonvascular plants may look like leaves, but they are not true leaves because they have
no xylem or phloem. Non-vascular plants include two distantly related groups, Bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) and algae. The TANSTF has identified one alga among the
species of concern.Nonvascular - AlgaeAlgae are one of the largest groups of nonvascular plants. They can be unicellular, colonial, filamentous, or in some cases, resemble vascular plants in size and form. Algae are generally
classified into major groupings based on the type of pigment used to capture light and the
type of food reserve.
Common Name -
Didymo, Rock Snot (Rank 8)
Scientific Name -
Didymosphenia geminata Family - Gomphonemataceae Photo Credit: Photos by Tyler F. Baker, Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management,Chattanooga, TN. Used by permission Description -
Didymo is a single-celled freshwater diatom that can be identified with amicroscope by its bottle-like shape, very large size compared to other diatoms (> 100 m long and >35 m), and prominent stria (regular lines of holes) that radiate from the center ofthe cell (Kilroy 2004). Another diagnostic feature of didymo is the presence of long
branched mucilage stalks that are exuded from the smaller end of the cell (Round et al.
1721990). These stalks are known for their great length and thickness relative to the size of the cell.
The stalks allow didymo to attach to substrate or plants. Didymo cannot be observed by the naked
eye until large colonial masses are formed.
Biology/Habitat - Didymo populations grow by vegetative cell division. Each half of the cellcreates another half cell within the confines of its rigid cell walls. The slight size restriction
for each successive division results in a gradual reduction in cell size as the population
expands. Each branch in the mucilage stalk represents a point at which the cells divided.
Didymo uses sexual reproduction at some point to exchange genetic material and to restore
their maximum cell size. Little is known about generation times for diatoms, but many have
rapid (<30 h) generation times at temperatures between 12 and 20 o C (Kilroy 2004). Kilroy(2004) notes that a cell division every 30 h would be sufficient to rapidly expand the colonies to large sizes.Large colonies of didymo cover the bottom of rivers appearing like a felt carpet, tuftedmasses, or even a white strand of toilet paper. Colonies of didymo are white to brown and
not slippery to the touch, and feel like wet wool. Excessive growths (> 1 mile) of didymo are most common in sunny, open rivers with stable flows of water that are 3 to 72 inches deep with moderate to high velocity (EPA 2007).Distribution/Introduction -
Didymo is native to northern Europe and northern NorthAmerica, typically in boreal or montane regions. According to the Global Invasive Species Database (2007) didymo has been found in New Zealand, United States, Canada, Faroe Islands, Norway, Svalbard, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, France, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Iceland, Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and Pakistan.The alga is native to North America, but recently has exhibited characteristics of an invasivespecies. This has raised questions among scientists as to whether the diatoms are becoming
more tolerant of some environmental factor that used to limit their expansion, or perhaps an
environmental change has helped their spread (Spalding 2005). Excessive blooms have been reported in several western states, Arkansas, and eastern Tennessee. Many of these blooms
are located in popular trout fisheries.At present the known distribution of didymo in Tennessee is the Clinch River downstream ofNorris Dam, South Holston River below South Holston Dam, Watauga River below Wilbur
Dam, and Holston River below Cherokee Dam.Large blooms of didymo can adversely affect freshwater fish, plant and invertebrate species by reducing the number of suitable habitats and excluding the growth of other diatoms (Biosecurity NZ 2005). Direct human impacts are limited to eye irritation in swimmers (Kilroy 2004) and contamination of fishing tackle. Anglers also are concerned that it may
potentially reduce the number of fish available to catch.
173Blooms also degrade the aesthetics of rivers. As the mats peel away from the substrate they aresometimes mistaken for toilet paper, leading to concerns about possible upstream sewage discharges. A combination of poor fishing and poor aesthetics could drastically reduce the economic value of destination fisheries in Tennessee. There are also reports of didymo
blocking or fouling water intakes (Kilroy 2004).However, these impacts are new and require more study. In the four Tennessee trouttailwaters where didymo has been observed in large blooms (> 1 mile), TWRA has not
observed substantial decreases in trout populations that can be directly attributed to didymo.
Likewise TVA (Charlie Saylor, personal communication) has not observed substantial
changes in density or composition of macroinvertebrate fauna.Pathways for Spread - The presence of didymo in popular trout fisheries suggests thatanglers may be unintentional vectors for the spread of this diatom in the United States.
Specifically, didymo may be transferred on fishing tackle, boats, or boots among popular
waterbodies. Cleaning all angling equipment after each use is suggested as a method to
reduce spread.References Biosecurity New Zealand. 2005. Didymo. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. New Zealand.http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo. Accessed July 2007.Global Invasive Species Database. 2007. http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=775&fr=1&sts=sssKilroy, C. 2004. Didymosphenia geminate (Lyngbye) Schmidt: biology, distribution, effects, andpotential risks for New Zealand fresh waters. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. Christchurch, New Zealand.Round F. E., Crawford, R. D. and Mann, D. G. 1990. The Diatoms. Biology and morphology ofthe genera. Cambridge University Press.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. http://www.epa.gov/region08/water/monitoring/
didymosphenia.htmlSpaulding, S. A. 2005. Streams in western North America: environmental change or diatom gonebad. http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/crg/colloquia/2005/feb17.htmlReference Manuals for Plant DescriptionsCorrell, D. S. and M. C. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas.
174Texas Research Foundation, Renner, Texas.Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth Edition. American Book Company,New York.
Flora of North America. Electronic versions:
http://www.efloras.org/flora_page/aspx?flora_id=1 Vol. 22, many species in this plan.
http://www.efloras.org/volume_page.aspx?volume_id=1206.
Vol. 25, grasses: http://herberarium.usu.edu/webmanualHitchcock, A. S. 1951. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. Second Edition, revisedby Agnes Chase. United States Department of Agriculture - Miscellaneous Publication No.
200. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern UnitedStates and Adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern UnitedStates. Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern UnitedStates. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, A thens, GA.Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
175 Appendix B. Ranking Considerations Appendix B. Ranking Considerations Appendix B. Ranking Considerations Appendix B. Ranking Considerations Appendix B. Ranking Considerations Although the ranking factors for aquatic flora differed slightly from those for aquatic fauna, bothwere ranked as high, medium and low species for ANS concern and management on the basis of
the same five criteria.ANS-TN - Aquatic Plants Ranking Factors for each CriterionANS-TN - Aquatic Plants Ranking Factors for each CriterionANS-TN - Aquatic Plants Ranking Factors for each CriterionANS-TN - Aquatic Plants Ranking Factors for each CriterionANS-TN - Aquatic Plants Ranking Factors for each Criterion Plant rankings were based upon application of specific questions or values:1. Ecological Impacts -
Assessment of potential to have an impact on aquatic ecosystems basedon literature, discussions with colleagues, and personal field observations and experience. Some of
the species are "linked" to a specific habitat (e.g., water cress, peppermint with springs and
outflows from springs), so the assessment should relate to the primary habitat where the species is
currently established, or in some cases where it is likely to establish in the foreseeable future:
3 =High ecological impact, 2 = Intermediate ecological impact, and 1 = Low ecological impact.2. Current Distribution and Status -
The species were evaluated from an overview ofdocumented distribution in Tennessee, where 3 = Widespread, 2 = Intermediate spread, and 1= Localized. Distribution data for the various species were primarily obtained from the website of the herbarium of the University of Tennessee - http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/
vascular.html3. Trend in Distribution and Abundance - Value based on the committee's (J. Ranney, A.Self, D. Webb) estimate of change in each invasive species population over the next 10 years:
3 = Species has a high potential to expand in distribution and abundance; 2 = Species has an intermediate potential to expand in distribution and abundance; and 1= Distribution andabundance not expected to change to any large extent.
- 4. Management Difficulty - Several questions were considered in the ranking. Are multipletreatments required to control this species? Are proven management techniques available?
Can colonization sites be easily accessed for treatment? The ratings focused primarily on the
use of herbicides to manage the listed species:
3 = Repetitive and ongoing treatments are required, or technology for management has not been demonstrated in the field, or colonization sites are very difficult to access; 2 = Intermediate rank between 3 and 1; 1=Technology has been demonstrated that can manage the pest plant with a few treatments with
a high expectation of success and the colonization sites/habitat is readily accessible with
"conventional equipment."
- 5. Economic Impact -- Value based on historical information within the state and/or case histories from adjacent regions.
3=High negative economic impact, 2=Intermediate negative economic impact, and 1=Low negative economic impact.
176 ANS-TN - Aquatic Animals Ranking Factors for each Criterion ANS-TN - Aquatic Animals Ranking Factors for each Criterion ANS-TN - Aquatic Animals Ranking Factors for each Criterion ANS-TN - Aquatic Animals Ranking Factors for each Criterion ANS-TN - Aquatic Animals Ranking Factors for each Criterion Animal rankings were based upon review of available data, case histories, and scientific literature
associated with the bulleted categories below:
- 1. Ecological Impacts*Impact on ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters
- Impact on ecological community structure
- Impact on ecological community composition
- Impact on individual native plant and animal species
- Conservation significance of the threatened communities and threatened native species.2. Current Distribution and Status*Current range size in region
- Proportion of current range where species is negatively impacting biodiversity
- Proportion of region's biogeographic units invaded
- Diversity of habitats or ecological systems invaded in region.3. Trend in Distribution and Abundance*Current trend in total range within region
- Proportion of potential range currently occupied
- Long-distance dispersal potential within region
- Inherent ability to invade conservation areas or other native species habitats
- Similar habitats invaded elsewhere
- Reproductive characteristics
- 4. Management Difficulty*General management difficulty
- Minimum time commitment
- Impacts of management of native species
- Accessibility of invaded areas
- 5. Economic Impact*Commercial fishing
- Recreational boating
- Sport fish angling
- Tourism
- Pet and food industries Pathways - TN Ranking Procedure, Linking Species and Pathways Pathways - TN Ranking Procedure, Linking Species and Pathways Pathways - TN Ranking Procedure, Linking Species and Pathways Pathways - TN Ranking Procedure, Linking Species and Pathways Pathways - TN Ranking Procedure, Linking Species and PathwaysThe TANSTF listed all of the existing or potential pathways for the spread of ANS in the state.Task force members initially prioritized the pathways by placing checkmarks under all pathways that might be associated with each species. The pathways with the most checkmarks (direct score)
were considered to be the most important. These ranks were verified by developing a weighted 177 score. The direct score for each pathway was multiplied by the species score (based on the speciespriority ranking). The resulting ranks are below.
Pathway Priority Summary SheetDirect ScorePathwayW eighted Score Pathway176Natural Waterways1657.91Natural Waterways127Accidental Stocking1192.31Accidental Stocking123Canals (Waterways)1172.97Canals (Waterways)108Intentional Stocking1006.36Intentional Stocking 93Flood (Pond Breach) 873.12Flood (Pond Breach) 91Water Gardens 827.81Water Gardens 83Aquarium Pet Trade 761.73Aquarium Pet Trade 78Bait bucket 739.06Bait Bucket 78Dike Failure 727.64Dike Failure 67Live Wells 649.84Live Wells 67Waterfowl 630.54Waterfowl 57Boat Trailers 585.00Boat Trailers 52Propellers 573.68Propellers 51Hatcheries 476.3Hatcheries 50Retail Bait Distr. 449.51Retail Bait Distr.
41Aquac. Transport 411.18Aquac. Transport 41Aquac. Wholesale 387.5Pet Trade Transport 40Wholesale Bait Distr. 377.33Wholesale Bait Distr.
40Pet Trade Transport 375.79Aquac. Wholesale 37Tournament Bait Dist 341.50Tournament Bait Dist.
31Commercial Barges 311.85Commercial Barges 29Tow Boats 299.52Tow Boats 28Fishing Gear-Users 279.98Fishing Gear-Users 0Fishing Gear-Retail 0Fishing Gear-RetailWith the exception of four of the lower ranked pathways (aquaculture transportation, aquaculture wholesale, pet trade transportation, and wholesale bait distribution), the rankings by direct score were the same as the rankings by the weighted score. The 25 pathways were further
categorized into ten sub-headings listed below:1) Waterwaysa)Natural b)Canals 2) Fish/Plant Stockinga)Intentional b)Accidental
- 3) Pond Breachesa)Floods b)Dike failure4) Aquatic Pet Tradea)Aquarium b)Water garden c)Transport
- 5) Bait Distributiona)Tournament b)Bait dealers c)Bait buckets
- 6) Recreational Boatersa)Live wells b)Boat trailers c)Bait bucket d)Propellers e)Boat Hulls
- 7) Commercial Shippinga)Barges b)Tow boats8) Waterfowl9) Aquaculture Industrya)Hatcheries b)Wholesale c)Transport
- 10) Fishing Gear a) Users 178 Appendix C. Summary of Relevant State Laws and Rules Appendix C. Summary of Relevant State Laws and Rules Appendix C. Summary of Relevant State Laws and Rules Appendix C. Summary of Relevant State Laws and Rules Appendix C. Summary of Relevant State Laws and Rules The following sections of state statutes and rules are applicable to the prevention andmanagement of Aquatic Nuisance Species in Tennessee. Some of the statutes and rules apply broadly to all types of nuisance species, both terrestrial and aquatic. All are found in the Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA)*.*TCA 70-2-212. Stocking of Wildlife-Inspections-Charges.-(a) Stocking of wildlife is declared to be a prerogative of the state. All persons desiring to stock wildlife shall first obtain a permit from the executive director of Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA).-(b) The TWRA has the power to inspect all live fish entering the state, regardless of their source, and to destroy any shipment found to be diseased without incurring any liabilities for
so doing.*TCA 70-2-213. Permits for Scientific Purposes.-(a) The TWRA director has the power, at the executive director's discretion, to grant permission, under the executive director's seal, to any reliable person to take, capture and transport in Tennessee, wild birds, and nests and eggs, and wild animals and fish, when taken
for purely scientific purposes.
- TCA 70-2-221. Fish Dealers License.-(c) The TWRA is empowered to inspect any shipment of live minnows, and if found diseased, maycause the shipment to be destroyed without being liable fordamage for such
destruction.*TCA 70-4-107. Hunting and Fishing Seasons-Bag and Creel limits- Non-protected Wildlife.-(4) The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission shall annually publish a list of such wildlife as are deemed destructive and/or not to be protected by law.*TCA 70-4-113. Use of Bait, Pitfalls and Certain other Devices in Taking Birds and Animals Prohibited.
-(b) The TWRA executive director or the executive director's designees may use any
chemical, biological substance, poison or device under controlled conditions to capture or
kill any bird or animal for scientific, propagating, enforcement, humane or rescue purposes or
when it is considered necessary by the executive director to reduce or control any species that may be detrimental to human safety, health or property.*TCA 70-4-119. Taking of Aquatic Animal Life Other Than Game Fish-Possession ofCommercial Fishing Gear on Contaminated Waters-Use of Explosives, Electrical Devices or
Poisons 179-(a) The taking of fish, mussels, turtles and other aquatic animal life, other than those species designated as game fish, from the waters of this state is not permitted except in accordance
with the following provisions:-(1) Any and all varieties of fish, mussels, turtles and other aquatic life may be sold commercially, subject to limitations prescribed by the Wildlife Resources Commission.
-(c)(1) It is unlawful to use or possess dynamite, electrical devices, explosives, chemicals, lime or poison to kill or stun fish, or to attempt to do so.-(4) The TWRA executive director, or the executive director's designated agents, may use any substance or chemical or device to stun or kill fish for scientific, propagating, enforcement or rescue purposes, and may use poison in certain waters or lakes of the state
where it is necessary to remove or eradicate undesirable species of fish from the waters.*TCA 70-4-201. Possession of or Traffic in Protected Wildlife Illegal.
-(a) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, any restaurant, club, or hotel in this state to barter, sell, transfer or offer for sale, or to purchase, or offer to purchase, any of the
wildlife except as provided within this title or in rules and regulations promulgated by the
commission.*TCA 70-4-401. Prohibited Acts.-(a) It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, export, buy, sell, barter, propagate or
transfer any wildlife, whether indigenous to this state or not, except as provided by this part and rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission
pursuant to this part.*TCA 70-4-403. Classifications of Wildlife.-(2) Class II- This class includes native species, except those listed in other classes.-(5) Class IV- This class includes such species that the Commission, in conjunction with theCommissioner of Agriculture, may designate by rules and regulations as injurious to the environment.*TCA 70-4-410. Propagation of Class I or Class II Wildlife.
-(a) Before any person may engage in the business of propagating or otherwise obtaining
Class I or Class II wildlife for sale, barter or trade, whether indigenous to this state or not, such person must obtain and possess a permit for each propagating location.*TCA 70-4-412. Release of Wildlife.-It is unlawful to release any class of wildlife in Tennessee except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission.
- TCA 70-5-106. Establishment of Fish Preserves-Powers of Commission.
180-(c) The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission has the power and authority to close the waters against fishing of all kinds, and to reopen the same for fishing when it deems the water has been closed a sufficient time for restocking. Decisions are implemented by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA).*TCA70-6-101. Enforcement Authority.-(a) The officers of the TWRA or officers of any other state agency or of the federal
government who are full-time wildlife enforcement personnel designated by the executive director, shall enforce all laws now enacted or that may hereafter be enacted for the
propagation and preservation of all wildlife in this state, and shall prosecute all persons, firms, and corporations who violate any such laws.
-(b)(1) It is the duty of every person participating in the privileges of taking or possessingsuch wildlife as permitted by this title to permit the executive director or officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to ascertain whether the requirements of this title are
being faithfully complied with, including the possession of a proper license.*TCA 70-6-102. Each Unlawful Taking and Device deemed Separate Offense.-Each wild animal, wild bird, wild fowl, or fish caught, taken, killed, captured, destroyed, shipped, offered or received for shipment, transported, bought, sold, or bartered, or had in
possession, and each trap, snare, net, or other device used or attempted to be used in violation of the provisions of this title constitutes a separate offense.Proclamation 99-6, Taking, Possessing, and Selling of Mussels-Individuals must possess a license to buy or sell mussels in Tennessee. This is enforced by the TWRA. The TWRA also regulates waters from which mussels may be harvested, and
closes some waters from harvest; it specifies species that may be harvested, sizes, and seasons for harvest; it regulates mussel harvesting gear.Proclamation 06-22, Commercial Taking of Fish and Turtles (Statewide)-Allows the taking and selling of bighead, silver, grass, and common carp.Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1660-1-15, Animal Importation-Individuals must possess an importation permit. Each request to import will be considered on its own merits, taking into consideration human health and safety, competition with or effect on native species, prolific breeders, and agricultural pests.Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1660-1-18, Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife-Allows for the possession of triploid grass carp and goldfish, but lists zebra mussels, black carp, blueback herring, ruffe, bighead carp, silver carp, snakehead fish, New Zealand mud snail, round goby, rudd, and swamp eels as Class V wildlife (injurious to the environment).
Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1660-1-26, Rules and Regulations For Fish Farming, Catch-Out Operations, and Bait Dealers
-Identifies approved species for fish farming.
Appendix D. Summary of International Laws and Treati es Relevant to Aquatic Invasive Species Codex Alimentarius Commission The United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) created the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) in 1962, 1 to encourage fair international trade in food while promoting the health and economic interests of consumers.
2 In the United States, Codex activities are coordinated by the USDA, EPA, and Food and Drug Administration.
3 One of the Codex' specialized committees, the Committee on Import/Export Inspection and Certification Systems, 4 oversees matters that may invol ve aquatic invasive species by applying standards that protect consumer hea lth in the area of food safety. The standards apply to specific food commodities, pesticide and drug residues, food contaminants and additives, labeling, and food safety.
5 Introduction or transport of a species is subject to the Codex if it threatens food safety or the internati onal food trade.
Convention on Biological Diversity The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes the importance of "ecological, genetic, social, economic, scie ntific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic" values of biological dive rsity throughout the world.
6 Countries have rights over their own biological resources, but also have the responsibility of conserving them and using them in a sustainable manner.
7 A fundamental requirement for the conservation of biological diversity is in-situ conservation.
8 The CBD recognizes the need to "prevent the introduction of and control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species."
9 The CDB has a program to targ et introduction of invasive species.10 The Global Invasive Species Programme works with the CBD to provide expertise through the CBD's Subsidiary Body on Science, Technology, and Technical Assistance.
11 Although the United States has not ratified this agreement, many of the country's trading partners have.
1 See Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Codex Office, Codex Alimentarius Commission. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7867e/y7867e07.htm#bm07/. 2 See id. 3 See id. 4 See FAO/WHO Food Standards, Codex Alimentarius. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.do?lang=en. 5 See id. 6 Convention on Biodiversity, June 5, 1992, Preamble.
7 See id. 8 In situ conservation means "the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable population of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties." Id. Article
- 2. 9 Id. Article 2(h).
10 See Convention on Biodiversity, Alien Species Introduction. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/alien/default.aspx. 11 See id.
Convention on International Trade in E ndangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna The purpose of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) is to foster internat ional cooperation in orde r to protect certain species of flora and fauna from over-exploitation through international trade.
12 CITES divides species of wild flora and fauna into three appendice
- s. Trade of any species in Appendices I, II, or III is prohibited, except in accordance with provisions set forth in CITES.13 Trade of species included in Appendices I, II, and III are regulated through a system of import, export, and re-export permits.
14 Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade. Trading members of these species are the most strictly regu lated in order not to further endanger their survival.
15 For these species, trade is authorized in only "exceptional" circumstances.
16 Appendix II includes species that currently are not threatened with extinction, but would become so threatened without strict regulation.
17 Appendix II also rec ognizes that trade in other species also must be regulated in orde r to effectively protect species included in Appendix II.
18 Appendix III includes all species that any Pa rty to CITES declares to be subject to regulation within its jurisdiction to preven t or restrict explo itation, and "as needing cooperation of other parties in the control of trade."
19 Office of International Epizootics The Office of International Epizootics (OIE) is an international organization created by agreement in 1924 to guarantee the transparency of animal diseases worldwide; to collect, analyze, and disseminate veterinary scientific information; to provide expertise and promote international solidarity for the control of animal diseases; and to guarantee the sanitary safety of world trade by developing sanitary rules for international trade in animals and animal products.
20 The OIE collects and disseminates information through cooperation between member countries. Each member reports to the OIE animal diseases that it identifies within its territory.
21 The OIE thereby disseminates this information to other members so that each may act upon this information accordingly.
22 The OIE provides technical support to Member Countries that request assistance in controlling and eradicating animal
12 See Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, March 3, 1973, Preamble.
13 See id. Article II.4.
14 See id. Article III.2, III.3, and III.4. See also Article IV.2, IV.3, IV.4, and IV.5, plus Article V.2, V.3, and V.4. 15 See id. Article II.1.
16 Id. 17 See id. Article II.2(a).
18 See id. Article II.2(b).
19 See id. Article II.3.
20 See Office of International Epizootics, What is the OIE? Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm. 21 See id. 22 See id.
diseases.23 The OIE also creates "normative documents relating to rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from diseases without setting unjustified sanitary barriers."
24 Such normative documents include the International Animal Health Code 25 and Manual Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines.
26 While the OIE generally focuses on issues such as livestock diseases and developing standard s for diagnostic tests and vaccines, it recently has started to focus on diseases affecting wildlife, including aquatic species, by publishing its International Aquatic Animal Health Code.
27 International Plant Pr otection Convention The purpose of the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC) is to prevent the introduction and spread of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate control measures.
28 The IPPC was adopted in 1951 and was revised in November 1997. Under the IPPC, each contracting party agrees to cooperate with each other to prevent the introduction of plant pests and diseases and prevent their spread across national boundaries.
29 There is a structure to disseminate information on import restrictions, requirements, prohibitions, and regulations to all contracting part ies and regional plant protection organizations.
30 The IPPC makes a key contribu tion to biosecurity in reducing the risks of introduction of plant pests that may affect agriculture and the environment
.31 The US Department of Agriculture uses the guidelines provided by the IPPC for conducting risk analysis and enforcing US importation laws and regulations.
North American Free Trade Agreement The main objectives of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are to eliminate trade barriers and to promote fair competition between the Parties to the Agreement.
32 NAFTA requires that each Party to the greatest extent practicable, participate in international and North Ameri can standardizing organizations, such as the Codex, OIE, IPPC, and North American Plant Protection Organization, to promote the development and periodic review of inte rnational standards, guidelines and recommendations.
33 23 See id. 24 See id. 25 See Office of International Epizootics, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2003. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm. 26 See Office of International Epizootics, Manual Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines 2000. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm. 27 See Office of International Epizootics, International Aquatic Animal Health Code 2002. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm. 28 See International Plant Protection Convention, December 6, 1951, current text adopted in 1979, Article I.1. 29 See International Plant Protection Convention, 1997 Revision. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzI5MiY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z. 30 See id. Information Exchange. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzM2MyY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z. 31 See id. IPPC and Biosecurity. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzMzOCZjdG5faW5mb192aWV3X3NpemU9Y3RuX2luZm9fdmlld19mdWxsJjY9ZW4mMzM9KiZzaG93Q2hpbGRyZW49dHJ1ZSYzNz1rb3M~. 32 See North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 December 1992, Article 102.
33 See NAFTA Agricultural Fact Sheet, Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/sanitary.html.
Chapter 7 relates to invasive species. It allows each Party to adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of human, anim al, or plant life or health in its territory. Such measures may be more stringent than international standards, guidelines, or recommendations. Such measures should be based on research and risk assessment. However, measures should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against another Party's goods. Furthermore, in conducting risk assessments in order to determine appropriate measures of protection, one of the factors that the Parties must take into account is "the prevalence of relevant diseases or pests, including the existence of pest-free or disease-free areas or area s of low pest or disease prevalence." 34 World Trade Organization Agreement on the Ap plication of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (SPS Agreement) is a supplement to the World Trade Organization Agreement. It encourages Members to adopt measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
35 However, such measures should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate against Members that e xperience the same conditions in their territories or be disguised as a restriction on international trade.43 36 The SPS Agreement also encourages Members to use other international guidelines, such as the Codex, OIE, and IPPC44 to promote within these organizations the development and periodic review of standards, guidelines, and recommendations with respect to all aspects of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
37 The SPS Agreement Members should conduct scientific research and collect evidence in order to set appropriate levels of sanitary and phytosa nitary protection with the least impact on international trade.
38 Such evidence includes the prevalence of specific diseases or pests, existence of pest-free or disease-free areas, relevant ecological and environmental conditions, and quarantine or other treatment.
39 34 See text of treaty. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/nafta.html. 35 See Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 15 April 1994. Preamble.
36 See id. Article 5.5 37 See id. Preamble. See also Article 3.4 38 See id. Article 5.4 39 See id. Article 5.2 Literature Cited: Appendix D
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Measures, 15 April 1994. Preamble.
Convention on Biodiversity, Alien Species Introduction. Retrieved 10 October 2006 from http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cr oss-cutting/alien/default.aspx.
Convention on Biodiversit y, June 5, 1992, Preamble.
Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, March 3, 1973, Preamble.
FAO/WHO Food Standards, Codex Alimentarius. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.do?lang=en.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Codex Office, Codex Alimentarius Commission. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7867e/y7867e07.htm#bm07/.
International Plant Protection Convention, December 6, 1951, current text adopted in 1979, Article I.1.
International Plant Protection Convention, 1997 Revision. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from https://www.ippc.int/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0xMzI5MiY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9 a29z.
NAFTA Agricultural Fact Sheet, Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/sanitary.html.
North American Free Trade Agreem ent, 17 December 1992, Article 102.
Office of International Epizootics, International Aquatic Animal Health Code 2002. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm
Office of International Epizootics, Manual Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines 2000. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm.
Office of International Epizootics, Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2003. Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/en_oie.htm.
Office of International Epizootics, What is the OIE? Retrieved 19 October 2006 from http://www.oie.int/e ng/OIE/en_oie.htm.
186 Appendix E. Animals and Plants Prohibited in Tennessee Appendix E. Animals and Plants Prohibited in Tennessee Appendix E. Animals and Plants Prohibited in Tennessee Appendix E. Animals and Plants Prohibited in Tennessee Appendix E. Animals and Plants Prohibited in Tennessee Animals Animals Animals Animals AnimalsIn Tennessee, it is unlawful to possess or transport live specimens of the following animals:
Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis
)Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus
)Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis
)New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antiposdarum
)Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus
)Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus
)Ruffe (Gumnocephalus cernua
)Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
)Snakeheads (all members of the Family Channidae)Swamp eels (all members of the Family Synbranchidae
)Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha
)Plants Plants Plants Plants PlantsIn Tennessee, the following plants are considered pest plants. Effective June 28, 2007, these plants, or parts thereof that might be used for propagation are injurious to the agricultural, horticultural, silvicultural or other interests of the state.
Amur honeysuckle, shrub honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii
)Autumn olive (Elaegnus umbellata
)Bell's honeysuckle (Lonicera x bella
)Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense
)Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica
)Common privet, European privet (Ligustrum vulgare
)Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta
)Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin
)Morrows bush honeysuckle, Morrow's honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii
)Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora
)Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, Lythrum virgatum and related cultivars)
Thorny olive (Eleagnus pungens
)Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis
)Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum
)
187 Appendix F. Public CommentAppendix F. Public Comment Appendix F. Public CommentAppendix F. Public Comment Appendix F. Public CommentThe Tennessee Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan was posted on the website of theTennessee Wildlife Resources Agency on October 19, 2007 for public comment. Contact information was provided to encourage written comment until December 1, 2007. Two comments, submitted by individuals concerned about the effects of aquatic invasive plants on recreational fishing and boating, were received. These two comments reflect one of the challenges of ANS management in Tennessee: maintaining the density of aquatic vegetation at a level that can provide protective
habitat for fishes and the ecological health of the system while permitting unobstructed navigation for
boats with outboard motors. The management plan emphasizes the use of several strategies in
combination to address this and similar challenges.
Neither submitted comment recommended changes to the management plan or introduced new issues for consideration.
188Appendix G. Members of the Tennessee ANSTask ForceAppendix G. Members of the Tennessee ANSTask ForceAppendix G. Members of the Tennessee ANSTask ForceAppendix G. Members of the Tennessee ANSTask ForceAppendix G. Members of the Tennessee ANSTask ForceBobby Wilson (Task Force Chair)
Assistant Chief of Fisheries Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 40747 Nashville, TN 37204Steve Nifong Assistant Chief of Law Enforcement Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 40747 Nashville, TN 37204 Don Hubbs Malacologist Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 70 Camden, TN 38320Carl WilliamsStream Biologist Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
2807 Lake Forest Circle Talbott, TN 37877 Sue Lanier GIS Specialist Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 40747 Nashville, TN 37204 Mark Fagg Non Game Biologist Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Region 4 3030 Wildlife Way Morristown, TN 37814 189 Greg SpradleySenior Legislative Research Analyst Comptroller's Offices of Research and Education Accountability 17th Floor, James K. Polk Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243Alfred F. CofrancescoTechnical Director U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
CEERD-EM-W
3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Dennis S. Baxter Aquatic Zoologist Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 11C Knoxville, TN. 37902-1401Jeffrey W. Simmons Aquatic Zoologist Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market St., PSC 1X-CChattanooga, TN 37402 Anni SelfState Plant Pathologist Tennessee Department of Agriculture Box 40627, Melrose Station Nashville, TN 37204 Sally Palmer The Nature Conservancy 710-B N. Main Street Columbia, TN 38401 Allan FranklinTennessee Striped Bass Association 4612 Woodbridge Lane Knoxville, TN 37921David H. Webb Aquatic Plant Biologist Tennessee Valley Authority CTR 2P, P.O. Box 1010 Muscle Shoals, AL 35662 190David Withers Natural Heritage Zoologist Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Natural Heritage 7th Floor Annex 401 Church St.
Nashville, TN 37219 David Duhl Environmental Specialist Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Water Pollution Control 6th Floor Annex 401 Church St.
Nashville, TN 37219Vojin Janjic Enforcement and Compliance Manager Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Water Pollution Control, 6th Floor Annex 401 Church St.
Nashville, TN 37219Danny WardDepartment of the Army
Memphis District Corps of Engineers 167 North Main St.
Memphis, TN 38103-1894 Juni FisherTrout Unlimited
2105 Granville, Rd.
Franklin, TN 37064Jack Ranney, RetiredUniversity of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN Ralph R. Cooley State Plant Health Director U.S. Department of Agriculture
322 Knapp Blvd., Suite 101 Nashville, TN 37217 191