Title: Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms

Scientific Name:

Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms

Common Names:

water hyacinth



Image via GBIF

Distribution:



Distribution map via GBIF



Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT


1. Germination requirements? Assessment not entered.

2. Establishment requirements?

3. How much disturbance is required?

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE


4. Life form?

5. Allelopathic properties?

6. Tolerates herb pressure?

7. Normal growth rate?

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?

REPRODUCTION


9. Reproductive system?

10. Number of propagules produced?

11. Propagule longevity?

12. Reproductive period?

13. Time to reproductive maturity?

DISPERSAL


14. Number of mechanisms?

15. How far do they disperse?


Impact Assessment

RECREATION


1. Restrict human access? An aquatic species, it does not restrict human access on land. Known to restrict access in waterways. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

2. Reduce tourism? “When densely established, water hyacinth makes swimming and pleasure boating impossible.” Major impact on recreation. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

3. Injurious to people? No toxic properties, however, infestations provide ideal breeding sites for mosquitoes and other animal vectors. “Decaying plants make water putrid and unfit for drinking by humans or animals.” Potentially harmful associations. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

4. Damage to cultural sites? “Floating rafts can be up to 1 metre deep and, in Florida, have become so large that wooden railway bridges are pushed over.” Potential threat to European cultural structures. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

ABIOTIC


5. Impact flow? Terrestrial species. “Water hyacinth chokes waterways reducing flow.” Minor impact on surface flow due to free-floating aquatics. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

6. Impact water quality? “Dense growth removes considerable oxygen from water which, affecting the health of fish.” Moderate effect on O2 level. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

7. Increase soil erosion? Aquatic species. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

8. Reduce biomass? Biomass significantly increased. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

9. Change fire regime? Aquatic species. (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 2001)

COMMUNITY HABITAT


10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? Aquatic species.

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? Aquatic species.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? Aquatic species.

11. Impact on structure? “Dense mats exclude other aquatic plants.” “In its native range, E. crassipes may be part of a mixed community of floating and emergent plants or grow as a monoculture.” Muyt (2001), Groves et al. (1995)

12. Effect on threatened flora? None reported.

FAUNA


13. Effect on threatened fauna? None reported.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? “Dense mats…destroy habitat for native invertebrates, fish and birds.” Habitat changed dramatically. Muyt (2001), Groves et al. (1995)

15. Benefits fauna? No known benefits.

16. Injurious to fauna? Not toxic.

PEST ANIMAL


17. Food source to pests? “Dense mats…destroy habitat for native invertebrates, fish and birds.” Habitat changed dramatically. Muyt (2001)

18. Provides harbor? No known benefits.

AGRICULTURE


19. Impact yield? “Losses are staggering, for example, in the Indian State of West Bengal, it causes an annual loss of paddy rice valued at 110 million rupees.” Serious potential to affect irrigated crops in Victoria.

20. Impact quality? Aquatic species.

21. Affect land values? In areas using irrigation, land values may be seriously affected. (See Q19 above.)

22. Change land use? See above. If water is not available for irrigation, infestations may lead to land being unusable for some agricultural activities. (See Q19 above.)

23. Increase harvest costs? Does not affect harvest costs.

24. Disease host/vector? “…water hyacinth has been reported to be an alternative host for the Asian corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis Guenee and the rice root nematode, Hirschmanniella oryzae (van Breda de Haan) Luc and Goody.”




Assessment ratings originally made by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.
The entry of this assessment was made possible through the generous support of The Weed's Network.


Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment? If so, we would value your contribution. Enter your feedback in the comment box below.



Attachments:
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG
Related Articles
Article: wra8979 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:e, :wra:imp1, :wra:imph, :wra:imp2, :wra:imp3, :wra:imp4, :wra:impml, :wra:imp5, :wra:imp6, :wra:impmh, :wra:imp7, :wra:impl, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp10a, :wra:imp10b, :wra:imp10c, :wra:imp11, :wra:imp12, :wra:impm, :wra:imp13, :wra:imp14, :wra:imp15, :wra:imp16, :wra:imp17, :wra:imp18, :wra:imp19, :wra:imp20, :wra:imp21, :wra:imp22, :wra:imp23, :wra:imp24
Date: 24 April 2023; 2:58:37 PM AEST

Author Name: David Low
Author ID: adminDavid