Parrot’s feather: Biological control using herbivores

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

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 replicated, controlled, laboratory study from 1994 to 1996 in Portugal (Catarino et al. 1997) found that grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella did not reduce the biomass or cover of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum. Biomass and cover of parrot’s feather did not differ between ponds where grass carp were present (biomass: 0.09 kg/m2, cover: 5%) and ponds where carp were not present (0.09 kg/m2 and 5%, respectively). Grass carp favoured soft-tissue native plants relative to parrot’s feather. When presented only with parrot’s feather and water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes, one year old grass carp consumed parrot’s feather at a daily rate of approximately 3% of their body weight but this increased to 20% by the age of two. Trials were conducted in six 660 l plastic tanks. Five tanks were stocked with carp and one control tank had no carp. Grass carp were presented with a selection of four plants with a total fresh weight similar to the biomass of fish present in the tank. After two days, the biomass of each plant species was weighed. The number of grass carp per tank was not specified.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A field study from 1995 to 1998 in a river in South Africa (Cilliers 1999), reported reduced growth of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum following the release of a South American leaf-feeding Lysathia beetle. Three months after beetle release nearly all emergent parrot’s feather shoots had been damaged by herbivory. After three years, 30% (558 out of 1251) of parrot’s feather shoots were damaged by the Lysathia beetle. Damaged plants had lower mean shoot length (10 cm vs 19 cm) and dry weight (63 g vs 187 g/m2) compared to undamaged plants. Herbivory was reduced during winter. A total of 120 adult Lysathia beetles were released into one river site. Herbivory was quantified in ten 0.1 m2 quadrats by counting the total number of shoots and the number of shoots with feeding damage. Sampling took place at intervals of four to six weeks for three years.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, controlled study from November 1996 to February 1997 in a water channel in Argentina (Armellina et al. 1999) found that stocking with grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella reduced the biomass of aquatic plants, including parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum. After two months, dry weight of aquatic plants was lower in plots with grass carp at both low (50 g/m2) and high stocking densities (10 g/m2) than in plots without carp (320 g/m2). The experiment was performed in a medium size water channel with an aquatic plant community dominated by Potamogeton pectinatus, M. aquaticum and Chara contraria. Aquatic plant biomass was measured four times (sampling frequency not provided) in nine 30 m-long plots separated by iron barriers with plastic nets. Carp stocking density was 100 kg/ha (low density) and 200 kg/ha (high density).

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled, paired sites study from July 2005 to September 2007 in a reservoir in North Carolina, USA (Garner et al. 2013) found that high-density stocking with grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella reduced the abundance of parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum. For five out of six comparisons, the biomass of parrot’s feather was lower in areas available for grass carp (0–113 g/m2) than in areas where grass carp were excluded (0–1330 g/m2)). During the second year of the experiment no vegetation was detected in quadrats located in areas accessible to grass carp. Grass carp density was 100 fish/vegetated ha and grass carp were excluded from eight 6 m2) areas using 1.3 cm plastic mesh. Vegetation in six 6 x 1 m quadrats was sampled monthly from July to September each year.

    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 2021 cover

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, 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 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust