Floating pennywort: Physical removal

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

  • A study in Western Australia found that following a two-week program of physical removal of floating pennywort, the rate of growth exceeded the rate of removal.
  • A study in the UK, found that removal using a mechanical digger and monthly picking by hand greatly reduced the cover of floating pennywort but did not completely eradicate it.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study from 1991 to 1992 in a river in Western Australia (Ruiz-Avila & Klemm 1996) found that a two-week program of physical removal did not reduce floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides biomass.  Following the removal program in late 1991, by September 1992 the estimated biomass of floating pennywort in the river had increased from an initial 175 tonnes to 420 tonnes.  Control attempts in 1991 involved a two-week programme of physical removal by cutting the floating mats of floating pennywort with sickles from small boats.  The mats were then pushed by small boats to an aquatic harvester, floated to the bank and removed by a backhoe.   Follow up maintenance control was continued until January 1992, when growth rates exceeded the rate of removal.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 2005-2006 by the Broads Authority at Gillingham Marshes, Suffolk, UK (Kelly 2006) found that removal of floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides using a mechanical digger and extensive hand picking, along with monitoring, greatly reduced the cover of floating pennywort but did not completely eradicate it.  Hand-picking was undertaken at least once a month (usually every fortnight) throughout the growing season (March – September 2005-2006 ongoing). In addition, a mesh grid was added to the upstream end of the water pump at Gillingham Marshes to try to prevent floating fragments from entering and infesting the River Waveney, adjacent to the marshes.  To dispose of the pennywort, it was piled on the site and monitored for regrowth. Monthly monitoring of the pile was undertaken and if signs of growth were observed, they were sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Aldridge, D., Ockendon, N., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species. Pages 555-87 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species
Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species - Published 2017

Control of Freshwater Invasive Species Synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust